Devoted Unwavering Christian

[deBew]

donkeys can talk

Do you think anyone reads this story and goes away thinking "Wow! I never knew donkeys had this innate hidden ability! This changes everything I know about donkeys."?

added:
To clarify: I don't think anyone does that. =)

[monkeymind]

deBew, I see what you are saying about kinds of atheism, but I disagree with such a broad use of the word.

Here I replaced atheist with carpenter:

Also, I suppose some types of carpentry could include: carpenters who still believe in other spirits, carpenters who only believe in matter and not in spirit, carpenters who still believe there is truth, carpenters who do not believe in any absolute truth, carpenters who are nicer people than me, carpenters who argue against religion, carpenters who mostly don't care, carpenters who focus on the survival of the species as our greatest goal, carpenters who focus on personal development...there are lots of ways to customize even after you've done away with God, and there are lots of worldviews and value systems that you can develop without 'im....so I have had lots to consider.

[monkeymind]

donkeys can talk

Do you think anyone reads this story and goes away thinking "Wow! I never knew donkeys had this innate hidden ability! This changes everything I know about donkeys."?

added:
To clarify: I don't think anyone does that. =)

You are either missing the point or building a scarecrow (I luv that new term).

I do think that people read this and go wow god made a donkey talk! Or at least that is their claim.

[deBew]

Yes, one can easily get over extended...

Ok, I have limited myself to three for now. =)

You are either missing the point or building a scarecrow (I luv that new term).

I do think that people read this and go wow god made a donkey talk! Or at least that is their claim.

Okay so I understand now. You object to a world where the usual natural patterns are ever breakable (in other words you think the Bible is unrealistic because it talks about miracles being possible). Is that correct?

[deBew]

deBew, I see what you are saying about kinds of atheism, but I disagree with such a broad use of the word.

Here I replaced atheist with carpenter:

(*snip*)

Oh yeah, and you can also put Christian in there....

Lol carpenter. That was awesome ^_^ I do tend to disagree with those rascally carpenters (except that Jesus one).

That's fair. I think I mentioned different kinds because I realized that two different atheists might still have radically different philosophies to explain the nature of life, the universe and everything -- even though they have in common a disbelief in any gods. It wouldn't be very fair if I discredited all atheists because one of them really believed in gnome physics, would it? (I read another post in another thread where someone was saying something like, "I don't appreciate it when Christians lump all atheists together like we're all the same").

That's all =)

[monkeymind]

Okay so I understand now. You object to a world where the usual natural patterns are ever breakable (in other words you think the Bible is unrealistic because it talks about miracles being possible). Is that correct?

No to the first part (Take a look at QM where stuff on a small scale behaves differently than on the larger scale).

No the bible is unrealistic because it is both internally and externally inconsistent. It is illogical in many ways (god having free will and knowing all things)  and often contrary to what we know is true (the rabbit chewing its cud).

[pianodwarf]

That's a very good idea and is likely the reason the Bible goes to such lengths to explain all the special circumstances (including omnipotent interference) that lead to a talking donkey. Does this make sense to you? It shows that the extraordinary circumstance really is extraordinary and required a The God to make it happen.

I might buy that, except for Balaam's response.  What happens in the story is, Yahweh makes the donkey ask Balaam why he's beating him, and Balaam gives some kind of explanation for his behavior (I don't recall offhand what it is, and I'm not in the mood to look it up right now).  Balaam's blithe, casual response indicates that talking donkeys are not a shock to him, which in turn suggests that they haven't been a rarity in his life.

I remember once playing a game with a friend of mine in college, where I told her that I was omniscient and dared her to prove that I wasn't.     She started by trying to test my knowledge of the sciences, and I kept managing to answer her correctly, even though she kept making the questions tougher.  She tried the same thing in other areas without success (well, she wasn't being too hard on me, of course, because we were obviously just fooling around), and finally she said, "Speak in Gaelic!"  I responded by saying, "Na laetha geal m'oige."  She was so shocked, she looked like a balloon she hadn't seen had popped in front of her face.  One would think that a talking donkey would produce a similar reaction, probably even more pronounced.  Or, if not that, Balaam would have looked around and said something like, "OK, who's the joker?"

[deBew]

No to the first part (Take a look at QM where stuff on a small scale behaves differently than on the larger scale).

No the bible is unrealistic because it is both internally and externally inconsistent. It is illogical in many ways (god having free will and knowing all things)  and often contrary to what we know is true (the rabbit chewing its cud).

Ah, okay. =)
(My but you do jump around though, are we done with the donkeys?)

For now, so as to avoid a very long checklist of talking points in my testimonial thread ^_^, I will respond to the allegations of inconsistency and illogicality with this thunderous rejoinder: "Nuh-UH!"

(Three cheers for considering facts in new light, but this statement remains perfectly true: "The reason I believe what I believe is because, from all my considerations thus far, it sounds like the most true, sensible and complete explanation of the facts. And every person really must choose to believe what is most true, sensible and complete." I'm glad we're having talks about why or why not something is most true, sensible and complete ... it's much better than having talks about what sounds nicest or coolest or safest).

[deBew]

I've always been pretty impressed by his response too, pianodwarf. Very roll-with-the-punches, that Balaam.

But you said, "Yahweh makes", which is all I was really saying either.

added:
is that real gaelic? jellus! the only word I know is "fealican"

[pianodwarf]

I've always been pretty impressed by his response too, pianodwarf. Very roll-with-the-punches, that Balaam.

But you said, "Yahweh makes", which is all I was really saying either.

Ah, OK.  But even so, that would still mean that Yahweh performing miracles must have been pretty common back then, whereas today, even most sincere Christians admit that they're exceptionally rare at best.  There must be some reason for the change.

added:
is that real gaelic? jellus! the only word I know is "fealican"

Yes, it's real Gaelic, but don't be impressed.  It's just the title of an Enya song, and I only knew it because I'm a big Enya fan.  I didn't even know at the time what it meant in English.

[deBew]

Mmm...fairly speculative but I can accept it as a possibility. =) I guess a talking donkey is less surprising when you've just been speaking direct to God himself a few verses higher. Or maybe he was just too mad to be reasonable, who knows? I'm just glad you didn't say, with arch eyebrows, "Aaaaas an ancient, he was obviously superstitious and didn't know that it donkeys usually can't talk."

[monkeymind]

Ah, okay. =)
(My but you do jump around though, are we done with the donkeys?)

Actually in my first second post I mention rabbit chewing cud, talking donkey and the thing about the sun. Just three in order to keep things more focused. There are many other things in the bible that are contrary to common knowledge and current scientific understanding. We can stay with the donkey, or not. It's not important, as long as you understand, that I do not have any reason to believe in talking donkeys or any other supernatural happening then or now.

For now, so as to avoid a very long checklist of talking points in my testimonial thread ^_^, I will respond to the allegations of inconsistency and illogicality with this thunderous rejoinder: "Nuh-UH!"

Then show me how that it is more sensible to believe god made a donkey talk or the sun stand still then the more obvious (to me) the bible is not consistent with reality.

every person really must choose to believe what is most true, sensible and complete." I'm glad we're having talks about why or why not something is most true, sensible and complete ... it's much better than having talks about what sounds nicest or coolest or safest).

Every person can believe what they want about donkeys and rabbits and the motion of the sun and earth Nuh Uh! Not here at least without being challenged to show evidence for that belief.


Edit: strikethru and added this: My first post actually was about what is sensible... all my subsequent posts are an attempt to get that question answered.

[deBew]

=) I think the important question for me to ask, with a view toward mutual understanding, is: do you think supernatural happenings are inherently illogical/unrealistic? Or that they wouldn't be too bad, except for lack of evidence?

added: also guys, just because we're talkin' about donkeys here, don't feel like you can't jump in and talk about any of the other things I said. We can work around the donkeys.

[hickdive]

bm

[Aaron123]

Yeah, I was born & raised Christian in the USA. =) Very grateful of it too, since I have had a lot more readily accessible information about Christianity than I would have in most times or places! I probably would have a different religion if I were born in South America in 600AD. Do you think you would believe the exact same things if you were born there either? If you do, then you've paid a very friendly and unverifiable compliment to the objectivity of your own mind and I hope that as a gentleman you will pay the same compliment to mine!

(All the questions about "what if I'd just never heard about it?" will blindside me sometimes and get me all somber, and set me wondering about other people who never heard about it -- naturally. Maybe I will make a topic about that someday, too).

First, thanks for answering the questions.  It's also refreshing to see someone acknowledging that they may have had a different religion in a different time and place.  Though at the same time, I'm not sure you understand the implications of this.  You said earlier that christianity was the "most sensible" choice, but have you really studied other religions and compared it to others objectively?  Being rasied christian, it's little wonder that you would default to it and think of it as the "normal choice".  But this is the same as one rasied as a hindu, or a muslim or any other religion.  They will say that their religion is the "most sensible" for the same reason that you think christianity is sensible.  This means, in that sense, that christianity is no different from all of the other religion in the world.  Do you understand that?  If anyone else from every other religion can make the same claim, why should I take your answer over theirs?

[VacuusMonastica]

Welcome to the forum, deBew.

And unless this is all a sham, you are actually very different than the ranting, cussing, accusatory religious types that usually come here.

I look forward to your posts and discussions.

[monkeymind]

=) I think the important question for me to ask, with a view toward mutual understanding, is: do you think supernatural happenings are inherently illogical/unrealistic? Or that they wouldn't be too bad, except for lack of evidence?

I think the important question for you to answer is the one you raised yourself when you posted this for why you believe:

I think it's the most sensible, complete account of reality.

Use your own examples, and we won't have to talk about donkeys or rabbits.

added: also guys, just because we're talkin' about donkeys here, don't feel like you can't jump in and talk about any of the other things I said. We can work around the donkeys.

I don't mind talking about donkeys, but I loathe talking to jackasses, so I hope this your attempt at humor and not stonewalling.

[Historicity]

I might buy that, except for Balaam's response.  What happens in the story is, Yahweh makes the donkey ask Balaam why he's beating him, and Balaam gives some kind of explanation for his behavior (I don't recall offhand what it is, and I'm not in the mood to look it up right now).  Balaam's blithe, casual response indicates that talking donkeys are not a shock to him, which in turn suggests that they haven't been a rarity in his life.

There was a TV series called Werewolf (1987) and a few of the episodes started with a voiceover of the werewolf hunter speaking in a Texas drawl:

"When I was a kid I saw Alice In Wonderland where there were talking flowers.  I tell you that if a flower talked to a man in real life he'd be terrified."

[deBew]

I don't mind talking about donkeys, but I loathe talking to jackasses, so I hope this your attempt at humor and not stonewalling.

It's just to let people know I like talking about the other parts of the testimonial concurrently. But then Aaron replied again and I'm not worried about that anymore. Not trying to avoid the sensibility and completeness. =)

I do have to disappear for a goodly portion of the day before I can post anything else though, but I'll continue to think on all you said and try to have some good examples when I come back.

[monkeymind]

It's just to let people know I like talking about the other parts of the testimonial concurrently. But then Aaron replied again and I'm not worried about that anymore. Not trying to avoid the sensibility and completeness. =)

OK.

The only thing I am interested in from your OP is the sensibility and completeness thing. The other things (overcoming your nastiness) I am not interested in.

[JeffPT]

Mmm...fairly speculative but I can accept it as a possibility. =) I guess a talking donkey is less surprising when you've just been speaking direct to God himself a few verses higher. Or maybe he was just too mad to be reasonable, who knows? I'm just glad you didn't say, with arch eyebrows, "Aaaaas an ancient, he was obviously superstitious and didn't know that it donkeys usually can't talk."

deBew,

Have you ever read another book with talking animals in it that you took to be non-fiction?  Something like "Charlotte's Web".  Have you read that?  When you first realize that the animals are talking, does your mind immediately say.... "fiction" or "non-fiction"? 

Forget for a moment that the main topic we are talking about is "the bible.  In any other book... what's more likely; someone lied about a talking donkey or it actually happened?  Be honest.  In any other book you read, a talking donkey would immediately set off that red buzzer in your mind that screams FICTION FICTION FICTION.  Once you realize that, ask yourself why you give the bible a free pass and no other books?  Couldn't it simply be that you have been indoctrinated by people close to you to believe that the bible deserves a free pass when it comes to things that don't stack well with reality?  And that those people were also indoctrinated by others who were themselves indoctrinated... etc, etc, all the way back?     

If that is the case, can you really say you are looking for truth if you treat that book entirely differently from other books?  The very minute you stop using the same examination and reasoning techniques that you would use for every other book, is the same minute you have stopped looking for the truth.   

It's not that talking Donkeys would be impossible if God were real.  Of course they could exist.  Anything could exist then.  Talking ants could be possible.  Talking trees could be possible.  It's also possible if Allah were real that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse.  It's also possible that Xenu is part of an intergalactic empire.  The question you have to ask is... given the amount of evidence we have that animals can talk (zero), or that horses can fly (zero) is it more likely that someone made it up, or that it actually happened?   We know people lie.  It happens all the time. 

In that light, do you REALLY see your stance as the most logical?  I would have to say that NOT believing in talking donkeys is far more logical and reasonable.   

There's a lot of questions in there.  Don't answer all of them.  Just think about them, get the gist of what I'm saying, then tell me what you think. 

[Anfauglir]

I'm intrigued - how would your life be different if your god HAD held your unpleasantness against you?  How do you know that he doesn't?

The main difference is that I would probably get what I deserve someday, and having a pretty realistic view of all my unpleasantness...yipes. O_O Plus I wouldn't be able to be very happily chatting with Him or reading His letters, in the meantime.

I only know He doesn't because He promised He wouldn't, in that there Bible.

So there is no discernible difference in your life NOW, in the sense of outside events acting on it/you?

Can you also please expand further on "chatting with Him"?  My understanding of the word "chat" is a verbal two(or more)-way discourse, where one directs a specific comment or question and receives a related answer or foloow-on statement in return.  Is that what you mean when you talk about "chatting" with your god?  That you receive immediate and relevant responses that are clearly articulated to you?

[deBew]

bm

Is this a poop comment?

@VacuusMonastica -- thanks! ^_^

First, thanks for answering the questions.  It's also refreshing to see someone acknowledging that they may have had a different religion in a different time and place.  Though at the same time, I'm not sure you understand the implications of this.  You said earlier that christianity was the "most sensible" choice, but have you really studied other religions and compared it to others objectively?  Being rasied christian, it's little wonder that you would default to it and think of it as the "normal choice".  But this is the same as one rasied as a hindu, or a muslim or any other religion.  They will say that their religion is the "most sensible" for the same reason that you think christianity is sensible.  This means, in that sense, that christianity is no different from all of the other religion in the world.  Do you understand that?  If anyone else from every other religion can make the same claim, why should I take your answer over theirs?

I don't think the implications are very difficult to understand. But sometimes, even being taught something from childhood doesn't make it false. There really may be a Spartacus My advice to anyone would be -- if you do take my answer, don't do it because it's mine, especially when I'm an Internet Stranger. And just because life circumstances may make you more or less inclined to accept particular beliefs (or may make it more or less likely to ever even hear of them, which is what I meant when I spoke of South America 600AD) ... I encourage you not to give up believing that some belief might actually be actual.

Incidentally, I don't think Christianity is a "normal" choice at all. I continually feel like I narrowly rolled under a collapsing door. =)

Couldn't it simply be that you have been indoctrinated by people close to you to believe that the bible deserves a free pass when it comes to things that don't stack well with reality?  And that those people were also indoctrinated by others who were themselves indoctrinated... etc, etc, all the way back?

  It could just be the arrogance of any articulate human, but I flatter myself I'm a little more resilient to brainwashing than *that*. If you will indulge me as I flatter myself, I will indulge you by asking: All the way back to what?

(Charlotte's Web will be addressed in a separate reply)

[monkeymind]

Hey deBew, you are jumping all over the place there aren't you? Charlottes Web? We are supposed to be talking about donkeys. I luv donkeys!

[Dante]

The effort is pretty much commanded. It is good and right to try to be better than you are. My best efforts have historically been pretty floundering, though. If I hadn't heard about the unconditional love and forgiveness thing, I would readily hurl myself onto self-discipline and rigorous ethics. I think I am a pretty bad case though, and would end up as just a very nice chap who still shudders to knows what he's capable of. o_O Happily now I get to do the self-discipline and rigorous ethics in celebration of having found a more satisfactory ultimate solution!

You say that if you hadn't heard about forgiveness, you would pursue self-discipline and rigorous ethics, but go on to say you already do pursue it for your deity. So, IOW, you don’t require a deity to make an honest attempt at not being unpleasant. You only require the deity to alleviate your self inflicted guilt for not achieving perfection.

Silly, methinks, but whatever gets you through the day.

Nice talking to you.

[deBew]

stuff about donkeys and spiders and how easy deBew is to brainwash

I have read Charlotte's Web. I love that book! I knew it was fiction the first time I read it, but I also read some books about Encylopedia Brown the child detective around the same time, and those books don't have any talking animals at all and yet I suspect they were also fiction. But I dunno if E. B. White ever made claims of Charlotte's Web's unassailable veracity...that would be kind of funny if he did. I hope he did, or well I would hope he did but I don't want E. B. White to be a liar, and I don't want Charlotte's Web to be true because that would be (as the werewolf says) terrifying. Or when you read Charlotte's Web, did you subsequently go to a whywontspiderstalktome.com and begin constructing arguments against? 

Come to think of it...besides the Bible I never saw a book include talking animals and still claim to be true. Have you ever found such a book?

Anyhow, to answer your gist with a quote of your own: "It's not that talking Donkeys would be impossible if God were real.  Of course they could exist.  Anything could exist then."

Protip: If you meet somebody like me who says "The Ultimate Everlasting Spirit Creator Of My Universe, Designer of Donkeys, Sovereign of Speech, High King over Humanity and Everything Else -- well, He wrote an ancient book by using a bunch of human writers, and this book tells me that one time, after a special man who verbally spoke with God but still kind of disobeyed him, was saved from a murderous angel by a donkey who could see angels...that donkey spoke." ... if you meet someone who says something like that, have the shrewdness to be honest with yourself and with that person by admitting that your eyebrows were raised by the beginning and middle of the sentence more than by the ending, and that if you had been able to sit through the beginning and the middle, the ending would probably not have pushed you over the edge.

[deBew]

You say that if you hadn't heard about forgiveness, you would pursue self-discipline and rigorous ethics, but go on to say you already do pursue it for your deity. So, IOW, you don’t require a deity to make an honest attempt at not being unpleasant. You only require the deity to alleviate your self inflicted guilt for not achieving perfection.

Rephrasing, then: "I will try to be perfect, but I will fail to even be respectable. That stinks. Happily, I'm over it because being loved and forgiven by my master is even better than I am bad."
I didn't mention all the stuff about how He has a master plan to do what I failed to do, and will make sure I don't stay so busted up, pleasantness-wise. So that's cool too. =) Actually, why didn't I mention that before? Saying "I'm scary but it's no biggie" is stupid, unless you add, "because I'ma be rescued from my ruinousness."

[pianodwarf]

Come to think of it...besides the Bible I never saw a book include talking animals and still claim to be true. Have you ever found such a book?

I think you've got the question backwards.  Rather than asking whether "Charlotte's Web" (or whatever) ever claimed to be nonfiction, you should be asking whether it ever said that it was fiction.  Fictional works almost never do; of all the hundreds, if not thousands, of works of fiction that I've ever read, I've only ever read two that explicitly referred to themselves as works of fiction.  There's no reason to think that the bible would be any different from any other fictional work in this regard.

[Aaron123]

I don't think the implications are very difficult to understand. But sometimes, even being taught something from childhood doesn't make it false. There really may be a Spartacus My advice to anyone would be -- if you do take my answer, don't do it because it's mine, especially when I'm an Internet Stranger. And just because life circumstances may make you more or less inclined to accept particular beliefs (or may make it more or less likely to ever even hear of them, which is what I meant when I spoke of South America 600AD) ... I encourage you not to give up believing that some belief might actually be actual.

Incidentally, I don't think Christianity is a "normal" choice at all. I continually feel like I narrowly rolled under a collapsing door. =)

The response you gave is all a bunch of vauge non-answers.  Going from this, it sounds like you don't really have anything to say.  So it appears pointless to continue asking this line of question.

However, I still want to know why you think christianity is the "most true, sensible and complete" religion there is.  Both I and Monkeymind are asking this, so we'd appreciate if you'd answer this.