Poor uneducated unintelligent aheists

[tackattack]

---

I understand critical analysis as a process that includes objectivity and reliance upon evidence .... Otherwise.. I understand non critical analysis as literary analysis where objectivity is not required and one’s subjective opinion is warranted ....

Irrespective of our disagreement on the terms.. my point is that faith by definition does not require any analysis and in my experience when analysis is attempted the goal is to rectify and/or justify one's belief.. It is a circular endeavor.. or an inductive analysis before deductive investigation...

In other words how many of the churches which you are familiar ask questions along the lines of why should the theophanies of distant tribal/desert dwellers loom heavily over my moral sensibilities.. This removes romantic and biased notions of their chosen status.. divine favor status etc.. or to seriously evaluate whether Jesus was a real person.. for instance.. Unless they are seeking ammunition to combat a disbeliever.. I have not known such thinking (similar that is..) to be prevalent among any religious group as a natural course of inquiry..

---

No, Faith doesn't necessitate analysis, nor does knowledge, belief, thousands of other things. You're biased that all theist analysis is circular, unreliable and unjustified by nature. Critical analysis is simply by definition is an appraisal based on reasoning or acting from a perception of the parts and interrelations of a subject that necessarily follow, precluded by experience.
Judging deductive reasoning as connotatively better than inductive reasoning isn't helping anyone. Just because it would be impossible to completely justify inductive reasoning, does not negate the useful practical application of it. It's a far cry from proving inductive reasoning illogical, circular or unreliable as you're half atempting.

They don't use such big words, because that would seem pompous, but we do ask why people belived, how they believed and how it applies to today. I'm not saying there are presuppositions, there are. Seperating wishful thinking and real experience is very prevelant in the congregations I've been in though. As is justification for belief and salvation. As is, also the historicity of the Bible. Apologetics, while something I cre deeply about, is actually focused on less in the general assemblies, but it does play a part in my classes respectively.

---

---

Since you claim such a strong statement. I'm a memberof a non denominational evangelical church. I'm very farmiliar with the doctine of the First Church of God (Anderson, IN) movement. Please cite proof where any cherry picking was done by me or anyone claiming either label. It's actually one of the first things I teach not to do in my adult and children classes.

Does your congregation teach parents to stone their disobedient children to death? If not you are cherry picking the Bible. Does your congregation teach parents to bear false testimony against their children? If not you are cherry picking the Bible.

Deuteronomy

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

---

Don't you see the laughability of YOUR cherry picking. You do realize that you are I hope.
Let's see if you can do this excercise.
Take your verse above and also read Jesus' take on the law (as he believed in it and followed it)
Mark 12:28-33 (New International Version)
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” 32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
and add
John 8:7 (New International Version)
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her

When you factor in the Bible in it's entirety with all of the lessons and parables you'll see that read together (not cherry picking) they paint a picture of a parent concerned for their child, wanting to punish them for their rebeluousness, but loving them and not stoning them, for the humbleness to acknowledge their own faults in parenting.

You can feel free to read at face value, but to read only one things at face value and make no attempt at reading comprehension would be like me saying that you would like us all to (and I quote) "teach parents to stone their disobedient children to death" Which is in fact what you said, but not in it's context or entirety.