Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 minutes ago, mwc said:

An impossible thing since Adam and Eve had yet to have sex in their innocent state.

While there are certainly no children mentioned in the text prior to the incident with the Tree, I do not think we can infer that no sex had been had.  The implication of god's command to "be fruitful and multiply" being that sexual reproduction was expected. 

 

That aside, the rest of your assessment is spot on.  The idea that Satan was the Serpent of Genesis seems to have been superimposed at a later date and retro-fitted to the narrative.  

[mwc]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

While there are certainly no children mentioned in the text prior to the incident with the Tree, I do not think we can infer that no sex had been had.  The implication of god's command to "be fruitful and multiply" being that sexual reproduction was expected. 

     So you're saying that Genesis supports this?  That they had sex and that Eve was also pregnant ahead of where it actually states these things?  Because this is what is needed to satisfy the conditions that the Revelation lays down.

 

     To be more explicit Revelation 12 starts with this: "12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth."  Following this is the dragon's appearance who in 4b "The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born."  Which means that the curse of pain in childbirth would have had to had happened.  But the dragon hadn't been thrown to Earth at this point in the Revelation.  Also, the woman is flees to the wilderness for her own protection and not for violating god's will with the tree.  The stories simply aren't compatible.

 

     I have no idea what was going on in this mythical garden but it seems that no one hit a home run until they ate from that tree.  So maybe they were making their way around the bases?

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 minutes ago, mwc said:

     So you're saying that Genesis supports this?  That they had sex and that Eve was also pregnant ahead of where it actually states these things?  Because this is what is needed to satisfy the conditions that the Revelation lays down.

 

     To be more explicit Revelation 12 starts with this: "12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth."  Following this is the dragon's appearance who in 4b "The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born."  Which means that the curse of pain in childbirth would have had to had happened.  But the dragon hadn't been thrown to Earth at this point in the Revelation.  Also, the woman is flees to the wilderness for her own protection and not for violating god's will with the tree.  The stories simply aren't compatible.

 

     I have no idea what was going on in this mythical garden but it seems that no one hit a home run until they ate from that tree.  So maybe they were making their way around the bases?

 

          mwc

 

 

I think walter is using the Bible as a whole. With the accepted Christian narrative of who the serpent was in the Garden.

 

But you make an excellent point. Revelations really does seem to be the only place where the devil is directly said to be the serpent. Maybe that is the reason they included revelations in the cannon. The back of the book ties in with Genesis and brings the whole Christian narrative together.

 

That is very interesting. I'll have to ponder on that little tidbit for a little while. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

22 minutes ago, mwc said:

So you're saying that Genesis supports this?  That they had sex and that Eve was also pregnant ahead of where it actually states these things?  Because this is what is needed to satisfy the conditions that the Revelation lays down.

No.  I am simply saying that the assumption, or assertion, that they did not have sex prior to eating the fruit is not supported by the text of Genesis.  Nothing more is implied, nor should be inferred, from my comment.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

     Are you sure about all this?  

 

     The only canonical biblical ties I can find to support this idea are from Revelation and they're tenuous at best.  Can anyone clearly demonstrate that "9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him" really refers to the serpent in the garden?  Especially considering that this same dragon is defined only a few lines earlier like this "3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads."  

 

     I realize this is supposed to talk about some mythical story of how Satan and the angels rebelled and were sent to earth but the story written here doesn't line up with Genesis.  Shortly after being thrown to Earth we find the dragon doing the following "13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child."  An impossible thing since Adam and Eve had yet to have sex in their innocent state.

 

     So none of this can have anything to do with Genesis.  It doesn't line up.  This dragon, serpent or Satan isn't what lies in the garden.  Odds are this is more likely a callback to Leviathan (mentioned elsewhere in the bible).  We need some other connections to replace the cunning (legged) serpent with Satan.  If we search apocryphal texts we might do better but those don't really do us much good here.

 

          mwc

 

 

Your excellent observation makes no real difference to the thrust of my argument, mwc.

 

I am simply asking Edgarcito to identify the prime mover of the events that befell Adam and Eve in Eden.

 

I can therefore change it accordingly.

 

 

We can simplify the question by 50% , Edgarcito.

 

Of the four players in the story, Adam and Eve can be eliminated.

 

That's because they were not responsible for setting up of the conditions under which they lived in Eden.

 

That leaves just the serpent and god.

 

So, which of those two forced Adam and Eve into their 'situation' in Eden?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[mwc]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I think walter is using the Bible as a whole. With the accepted Christian narrative of who the serpent was in the Garden.

 

But you make an excellent point. Revelations really does seem to be the only place where the devil is directly said to be the serpent. Maybe that is the reason they included revelations in the cannon. The back of the book ties in with Genesis and brings the whole Christian narrative together.

 

That is very interesting. I'll have to ponder on that little tidbit for a little while. 

 

     And that's what I am working toward.  Does the bible actual make this connection for us or does the connection come from elsewhere (ie. tradition) and is simply read into the bible?

 

     I'll give you an example.  We have an explicit statement, in the form of a prophecy, to the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28: "1 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:"  Within it we find the following several tidbits:  "“‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;", "¹⁴ You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones." and "17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings." 

 

     This is what people say define Satan (or in this passage Lucifer in the Latin) forgetting all about the whole passage that it specifically says it's to the King of Tyre.  Why?  The king couldn't be in the garden.  But was Satan?  We need to place him there since he's nowhere to be found in the garden.  The king couldn't be on the mount of god.  Was Satan?   Maybe, given Job, but supposedly that's after the "fall" described in this very passage.  The king couldn't be a cherub.  Was Satan?  Nowhere is that described.

 

     The thing is that all of these things are literally ascribed to the King of Tyre and are *not* ascribed to Satan.  Not here, not anywhere.  But people take them from here and ascribe them to Satan removing them from the King of Tyre.  At the very least they try to say that Satan possessed the king and so, while the passage is addressed to the king, the contents are for his possessor who is Satan.  None of this is actually present in the text.

 

     Just above all this is another prophecy, addressed to the same king, and says outright "But you are a mere mortal and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god" but we are to imagine that's to the man and not the fallen angel.

 

     As a last it we'll jump to chapter 31 where Assyria is compared to a tree in Eden: "Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon, with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;" then "⁸ The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the junipers equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches— no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. ⁹ I made it beautiful with abundant branches, the envy of all the trees of Eden in the garden of God."

 

     So it was literally a tree in the garden or this is poetic/metaphor.  And this is all written to Pharaoh to tell him that he was going to be removed like these trees.  So if we assume the first story is using parallel real stories of both Satan and the King of Tyre (both being true and parallel in all similarities) then we should also assume this is using the same parallel structure and then Assyria was a tree of Eden and Egypt is also a "tree" comparable to it.  Meaning trees in Eden weren't trees but kings and kingdoms.  So Adam and Eve partook of a "tree" (kingdom) of knowledge of good and evil (which would be akin to Assyria?).

 

     This is a lot of effort to place Satan/the devil, who is never mentioned here, in the Garden instead of seeing it as poetic/metaphoric language.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

Please read my response to you, mwc.

 

The thrust of my argument works regardless of the true identity of whoever tempted Eve.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Of some relevance here:

 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/how-the-serpent-in-the-garden-became-satan/

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     And that's what I am working toward.  Does the bible actual make this connection for us or does the connection come from elsewhere (ie. tradition) and is simply read into the bible?

 

     I'll give you an example.  We have an explicit statement, in the form of a prophecy, to the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28: "1 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:"  Within it we find the following several tidbits:  "“‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;", "¹⁴ You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones." and "17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings." 

 

     This is what people say define Satan (or in this passage Lucifer in the Latin) forgetting all about the whole passage that it specifically says it's to the King of Tyre.  Why?  The king couldn't be in the garden.  But was Satan?  We need to place him there since he's nowhere to be found in the garden.  The king couldn't be on the mount of god.  Was Satan?   Maybe, given Job, but supposedly that's after the "fall" described in this very passage.  The king couldn't be a cherub.  Was Satan?  Nowhere is that described.

 

     The thing is that all of these things are literally ascribed to the King of Tyre and are *not* ascribed to Satan.  Not here, not anywhere.  But people take them from here and ascribe them to Satan removing them from the King of Tyre.  At the very least they try to say that Satan possessed the king and so, while the passage is addressed to the king, the contents are for his possessor who is Satan.  None of this is actually present in the text.

 

     Just above all this is another prophecy, addressed to the same king, and says outright "But you are a mere mortal and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god" but we are to imagine that's to the man and not the fallen angel.

 

     As a last it we'll jump to chapter 31 where Assyria is compared to a tree in Eden: "Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon, with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;" then "⁸ The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the junipers equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches— no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. ⁹ I made it beautiful with abundant branches, the envy of all the trees of Eden in the garden of God."

 

     So it was literally a tree in the garden or this is poetic/metaphor.  And this is all written to Pharaoh to tell him that he was going to be removed like these trees.  So if we assume the first story is using parallel real stories of both Satan and the King of Tyre (both being true and parallel in all similarities) then we should also assume this is using the same parallel structure and then Assyria was a tree of Eden and Egypt is also a "tree" comparable to it.  Meaning trees in Eden weren't trees but kings and kingdoms.  So Adam and Eve partook of a "tree" (kingdom) of knowledge of good and evil (which would be akin to Assyria?).

 

     This is a lot of effort to place Satan/the devil, who is never mentioned here, in the Garden instead of seeing it as poetic/metaphoric language.

 

          mwc

 

 

I have heard both of those scriptures so many times it is not funny. I don't know if you read the post I made in general Christian theological issues or not. But I posted a lengthy post about my old churches beliefs. The founder (C. T. Pratt) went to great lengths piecing together apologetics for the various contradictions that are in the bible.

 

We believed that the devil was not a fallen angel but a spirit that certain men throughout history had. This spirit came with power. We believed that the Anti-christ would also have this power. Men mentioned in the bible had that spirit and that power such as the King of Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar, Nero, Pharoah.

 

Later in history Hitler, Napoleon, Ganghis khan.

 

You mentioned this:

 

Meaning trees in Eden weren't trees but kings and kingdoms.  So Adam and Eve partook of a "tree" (kingdom) of knowledge of good and evil (which would be akin to Assyria?).

 

That is exactly what we believed. We separated the two different creation accounts in genesis. 

 

Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

We were real big on using key words. We believed that when he created male and female and created them and blessed them. That it was plural for both sexes. We believed that he created multiple people. Blessed them, and told them to subdue the earth. 

 

Then he rested. 

 

After he rested he created Adam and Eve but gave them a commandment. Not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

 

We believed that that tree of knowledge was actually a man. As you referenced in Ezekiel. This man was a beautiful tree. God made him and placed him in the Garden. This Tree (man) was above all the other trees. 

 

17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before king

 

To us this tree was not giving a tangible fruit like an apple. This tree was teaching that men could be like God. And this tree was a leader among men and many people in the garden of God were following him and believed what he was teaching. He was teaching right from wrong and that knowing right from wrong made you equal to God. 

 

Enter the serpent. (A messenger of that tree)

 

Genesis 3

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

The commandment was not given to all of the other people in the Garden. The commandment was only given to Adam and Eve. The two people that were set aside separately from the others. But as a result of God's people (Adam and Eve at this time) not keeping God's Commandment. (Not listening to this person teaching the knowledge of good and evil) sin passed upon all men. 

 

Which explained why God asked them "who told thee that thou wast naked".

 

A man told them. Being naked was evil.

 

Yeah I know. This created a whole other set of issues with the Bible. But that is truly what we believed. And when I first heard this teaching I was absolutely amazed that C. T. Pratt had been blessed with such knowledge. 

 

I mean in reality it is just an intricately laced Christian apologetic teaching. But to me, at the time, it explained away a lot of the questions I was already having with traditional teachings in the Baptist Church. Like Cain finding a wife in Nod, Or Adam's other children having wives. I was already a preacher by this point and studying the Bible all the time. I would even take the Bible to work and read while I was running machines as much as I could. I would read on break. And I was seeing issues with traditional thought. 

 

So this very untraditional teaching converted me to their church. Its a cult. I accept that now. And I was hooked. But luckily as many different apologetics as they have. They still can't make it all make sense. I still eventually had unresolved questions about the bible obviously. I'm here after all. Lol  

 

I know this is not where you were going. And I apologize for that. But it sent me down memory lane. Your making some very good points about traditional thought. Forgive me. Please Go ahead. 

[Edgarcito]

16 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Ed, what version of the Bible is this? I noticed a drastic difference in my usual king James version and this version in verse 12. 

 

KJV

12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

 

What you posted

12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

 

I know this is weird. But this is exactly the type of verse my old church would have used to bash other versions than the KJV. This says 2 completely different things to me. In the KJV it sounds like they are being banished from the church. To be cut off from the people. In your version it sounds like Paul wishes their dicks were cut off. Thats some brutal shit right there  

 

As it relates to the subject. I don't see a correlation. I would have used this scripture to teach that we are no longer under the old law but under a new covenant with Jesus Christ. Another subject I would use this scripture in would be to prove out how the Bible says you can lose salvation and that if God Guides you, you'll live a Christ like life. I was adamantly against the once saved always saved doctrine. 

 

I also don't see how logic moves us in an errant direction. I do however see how emotion can cause us to make "bad decisions". 

 

So was it that Logic made them Err. Or was it the emotion (fear) that was induced by the logic of these false teachers that caused them to Err? 

 

Ultimately they were trying to do the right thing. But they were being confused by the Jews in the church. So Paul needed to clarify a few things. 

NIV,

 

To me, verses 1-5 argue law vs. grace.  I see this as very similar to logic vs. grace.  There's really no freedom in logic given our abilities in logic are limited.  Logically we would convict many people of many things, and "err".  Grace allows for a continued freedom for lack of that ability.  

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

NIV,

 

To me, verses 1-5 argue law vs. grace.  I see this as very similar to logic vs. grace.  There's really no freedom in logic given our abilities in logic are limited.  Logically we would convict many people of many things, and "err".  Grace allows for a continued freedom for lack of that ability.  

 

 

 

Does the drastic difference between the two versions for that one verse give you pause at all? 

 

I know it is just embedded in my mind from my own indoctrination. But it seems like most people quote from a newer version here. And honestly when I read the newer versions. Even now. I have to go read it in KJV to really understand it. Its almost like the Bible, written in modern English, becomes another language that I don't understand.

 

Then I see those drastic differences in meaning and I still just don't like it. All the churches I attended were militantly against any other version than KJV. No other bible was allowed or promoted. If you did have one in church it was heavily frowned upon. I know for a fact the gospel assembly would probably have kicked me out of the church if I had preached from a different version. 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

And that's what I am working toward.  Does the bible actual make this connection for us or does the connection come from elsewhere (ie. tradition) and is simply read into the bible?

 

Trying to get myself back on subject here. Your right. I don't think it makes the connection. With the serpent in the garden until here. I didn't realize that revelations was so key in the traditional narrative. Without it we can go in several different directions like my church did. 

 

I think in actuality the original storyline in Genesis is what we see at face value. Take everything we know about tradition away and look at the creation myth with fresh eyes. 

 

People naturally fear snakes. The serpent was just that. A serpent. A snake. And at that time the serpent had legs. This their myth to explain why snakes crawled on the ground, why women had menstrual pain, pain in child birth,  often died, why dad had to toil and farm the ground, and why it was so hard to do so. 

 

Gen 3 again

 

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

This was their way of explaining why they had all the troubles they had. Well we sinned and listened to the serpent and didn't follow God. So now we have to suffer with these issues. 

 

I wonder why they thought the knowledge of right and wrong was such a bad thing? Why would unruly innocence have been good and a moral code of conduct lead to death? 

 

Ya know as much as I believed in what I was taught in the assembly it all falls away to nothing when you read further. 

 

Gen 3:19

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

My old churches teachings can't be accurate because the Bible says Eve was the mother of ALL living. Meaning every human is a decendant of Eve and Adam. 

 

I don't remember them addressing this issue but im sure it would have been twisted like the other scriptures to mean that Jesus was a decendant of Eve and that because of that, Eve was the mother of all living. Or some such nonsense as that. There is always a loophole for everyone's interpretations to still be valid. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

47 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Does the drastic difference between the two versions for that one verse give you pause at all? 

 

I know it is just embedded in my mind from my own indoctrination. But it seems like most people quote from a newer version here. And honestly when I read the newer versions. Even now. I have to go read it in KJV to really understand it. Its almost like the Bible, written in modern English, becomes another language that I don't understand.

 

Then I see those drastic differences in meaning and I still just don't like it. All the churches I attended were militantly against any other version than KJV. No other bible was allowed or promoted. If you did have one in church it was heavily frowned upon. I know for a fact the gospel assembly would probably have kicked me out of the church if I had preached from a different version. 

 

 

I've noticed spots. No sir, not really.  I gather for a more literal reader; it might change things.  I've always been more a person that defines via Spiritual intervention.  You may call bs on that, but just being honest....is my experience.

 

Back to the other thoughts.  There is law that defines "truth" over a given interval of the components involved.  I like to think this statement applies to natural law/truth.   And then there is the law that artificially imposes acceptable limits of the natural laws/truth....morality maybe.

 

What I'm trying to convey is our application of the former, given our limits, I see as a much bigger error than practicing grace.  It's practically impossible to do justice imposing natural law upon morality....is an error to think we are capable of that and also removes freedom. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Nah, you're wrong, bro.  god originally created one hermaphroditic entity, which was Adam.  But when it was realized that Adam did not have a suitable partner (helpmate), god separated the feminine side of Adam (the metaphorical "rib") and created the female.  Laugh till the cows come home; but I actually heard a christian apologist offer this explanation with a straight face.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nah, you're wrong, bro.  god originally created one hermaphroditic entity, which was Adam.  But when it was realized that Adam did not have a suitable partner (helpmate), god separated the feminine side of Adam (the metaphorical "rib") and created the female.  Laugh till the cows come home; but I actually heard a christian apologist offer this explanation with a straight face.

 

Ya know it is funny. And I'm definitely laughing. But thats the Bible. And its things like that that have made it so confusing. To the point there are over 45,000 denominations. Hell, look at all the hair brained shit they come up with here in the lions den from time to time. 

 

Split string theory was one of my favorites lmao  

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

There is law that defines "truth" over a given interval of the components involved.  I like to think this statement applies to natural law/truth.   And then there is the law that artificially imposes acceptable limits of the natural laws/truth....morality maybe.

 

What I'm trying to convey is our application of the former, given our limits, I see as a much bigger error than practicing grace.  It's practically impossible to do justice imposing natural law upon morality....is an error to think we are capable of that and also removes freedom.

The biggest problem I see in your reasoning is your conflation of "logic" with "law".  This might be clarified, if you'd do as Walt asked and define the terms you're attempting to use.

 

"Logic gives rules to reason by; morality gives rules for action."

 

https://www.colinmcginn.net/logic-and-morality/

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The biggest problem I see in your reasoning is your conflation of "logic" with "law".  This might be clarified, if you'd do as Walt asked and define the terms you're attempting to use.

 

"Logic gives rules to reason by; morality gives rules for action."

 

https://www.colinmcginn.net/logic-and-morality/

There has to be a true logic....that is essentially law...or at least that's what we believe.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

There has to be a true logic....that is essentially law...or at least that's what we believe.

There is true logic, which is traditionally based on 3 laws: the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle (or third), and the law of identity.  The law of non-contradiction states that A is A and cannot be anything other than A (though A might equal B).  Another way of stating this is that A and not-A cannot both be true.  The law of excluded third states that either A or not-A is true (both cannot be true, though both could be false), given that there is no true third proposition between them.  The law of identity states that A is identical to A.  Another way of stating it is that every A is equal to every other A; or simply A is A.  While these three principles may inform our sense of morality and even our social ethics, possibly even to the extent of guiding legislation, logic itself is not law.  Because, again as previously stated, logic is a set of rules by which we may reason and thus come to better, more accurate conclusions; whereas morality provides rules by which to conduct our actions.  

 

What you seem to be looking for here is an objective morality; but you'd have better luck finding a unicorn/dragon hybrid living underneath a leprechaun's pot o' gold.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Let me ask you this, @Edgarcito: Do you believe that logic is an absolute?

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What you seem to be looking for here is an objective morality; but you'd have better luck finding a unicorn/dragon hybrid living underneath a leprechaun's pot o' gold.  

All I'm saying is substituting an incomplete objective understanding (law), using incomplete and even highly certain (logic) is not a decent substitute for morality.  Seems like what even Eve did...

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let me ask you this, @Edgarcito: Do you believe that logic is an absolute?

No, not at all as a human.  I do however, think it exists.

[Edgarcito]

Let me rephrase that.  I do think logic is an absolute given some capabilities we don't have and won't ever have.  But yes, I think logic could be synonymous with natural law and hence judgement of morality.  But, I hold myself in faith and grace while we wait...lol.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

All I'm saying is substituting an incomplete objective understanding (law), using incomplete and even highly certain (logic) is not a decent substitute for morality.  Seems like what even Eve did...

And your standard alternative would be using myths scribbled down by ancient goat herders and cobbled into a religion by men with vested interest in social and political agendas which are no longer relevant to modern societies?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

There has to be a true logic....that is essentially law...or at least that's what we believe.

 

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let me ask you this, @Edgarcito: Do you believe that logic is an absolute?

 

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, not at all as a human.  I do however, think it exists.

Do you see the contradiction in your reasoning now?  You initially postulated that there must be a true logic... a law.  By definition, this would be an absolute.  But when asked if logic is an absolute, you said that it is not.

 

If logic were an absolute, then you and I, following the same logical progression, would reach the same conclusion.  Do you agree?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And your standard alternative would be using myths scribbled down by ancient goat herders and cobbled into a religion by men with vested interest in social and political agendas which are no longer relevant to modern societies?  

Appears like grace is even more relevant to modern society than legislation, i.e. uncertainty and loss of freedom...