brade wrote:Good point. This is why we should be skeptical of every instance of somebody or something reportedly saying something and another person or thing saying something in response. For example, when Jesus reportedly spoke with the Brother of Jared, for all we know (since the text doesn't explicitly state that they had a common-sense two-way, verbal conversation) Jesus could have been making farting sounds with his mouth and the Brother of Jared could have been whistling in response. The author of the event, the Brother of Jared, simply interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, it's just an interpretation of an event.
OR (and work with me here) we could use common sense!
Do people usually speak to each other, having two way conversations involving a shared language: yes! Do donkeys usually speak: no! Do donkeys usually speak to people, having two way conversations involving a shared language: no!
Simon Belmont wrote:Please point me to the passage or verse which states that they had a two way, verbal conversation. Your problem is you weren't there. I'm saying the author interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, its just an interpretation of an event.
Good point. This is why we should be skeptical of every instance of somebody or something reportedly saying something and another person or thing saying something in response. For example, when Jesus reportedly spoke with the Brother of Jared, for all we know (since the text doesn't explicitly state that they had a common-sense two-way, verbal conversation) Jesus could have been making farting sounds with his mouth and the Brother of Jared could have been whistling in response. The author of the event, the Brother of Jared, simply interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, it's just an interpretation of an event.
LOL! Excellent response to Simon! However, it just occurred to me, that since you didn't explicitly state at the beginning of your reply that your typing was meant as a response to Simon, I have no way of knowing what your intent was and must assume that it was intended as a physics paper presenting a Grand Unified Theory, to which it must be stated that it utterly fails.
Oh, and before I forget: THE PRECEDING COMMENTS ARE INTENDED AS A TWO-WAY, WRITTEN CONVERSATION BETWEEN BRADE, MYSELF, AND ANYONE ELSE WHO CHOOSES TO READ THIS.
brade wrote:Good point. This is why we should be skeptical of every instance of somebody or something reportedly saying something and another person or thing saying something in response. For example, when Jesus reportedly spoke with the Brother of Jared, for all we know (since the text doesn't explicitly state that they had a common-sense two-way, verbal conversation) Jesus could have been making farting sounds with his mouth and the Brother of Jared could have been whistling in response. The author of the event, the Brother of Jared, simply interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, it's just an interpretation of an event.
OR (and work with me here) we could use common sense!
Do people usually speak to each other, having two way conversations involving a shared language: yes! Do donkeys usually speak: no! Do donkeys usually speak to people, having two way conversations involving a shared language: no!
Just think about what you're saying for a moment.
Why should I apply this test of how things usually are to the donkey story and be skeptical that a donkey and a man had a two way conversation involving a shared language and not apply a test of how things usually are to, say, the story of the virgin birth and be skeptical that Jesus was born of a virgin?
brade wrote:Why should I apply this test of how things usually are to the donkey story and be skeptical that a donkey and a man had a two way conversation involving a shared language and not apply a test of how things usually are to, say, the story of the virgin birth and be skeptical that Jesus was born of a virgin?
The foundational claims of Christianity hold more weight than the question of in what manner a donkey communicated.
brade wrote:Why should I apply this test of how things usually are to the donkey story and be skeptical that a donkey and a man had a two way conversation involving a shared language and not apply a test of how things usually are to, say, the story of the virgin birth and be skeptical that Jesus was born of a virgin?
The foundational claims of Christianity hold more weight than the question of in what manner a donkey communicated.
I'm not sure I understand. In terms of how things usually are is there some reason I should think that virgin births caused by divine beings are less unusual than donkeys made to talk by divine beings? Why does one hold more weight than the other such that there's good reason to be skeptical of one and not the other?