Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[mwc]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Adam was also not there for the "let there be light" declaration.  Does this mean he lived in a world of darkness?  Was the principle of light somehow not applicable because Adam did not hear the declaration?  Or, did it hold true simply because god declared it?  And would the same not hold true if god declared death to be "very good" along with everything else he had created?

     I was addressing this "How could Adam have perceived death as a threat, if it was something god described as "very good"?"  I understood that to mean that god made that declaration to Adam such that Adam would now know in the same way that we read those words and we know.

 

     As to the light thing, well, I know you're being facetious.  There is clearly a difference of experiencing light (if you have vision) and experiencing something that is "good" or even "very good."  The assumption here is that death is not very good in the eyes of god but still not something that a human would not want.  As I said, the life-cycle does serve a purpose.

 

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We are given to understand that what god called "good", was good; and eating the fruit of knowledge was only "bad" because god said not to.  So, if god declared all that he had made "good" and if that already included death, old age, painful childbirth, etc. then the declaration would be equivalent to the principle.  These things would be "good" whether Adam heard god say it or not.

     Old age, painful childbirth and the rest need not be included under the umbrella of death.  These are suffering.  I, personally, would say being told to work a garden (no matter how great it is or how easy the work) is a form of suffering.  My, now dead, grandfather would have found that quite the paradise (he loved it and did it nearly every day I was alive and long before that).  One man's pain and all.  

 

     If death is only introduced on that day then it defeats the purpose of the Tree of Life.  It's only purpose is a sort of McGuffin in that it only has meaning after they eat from the Tree of Knowledge but they are (almost) immediately blocked from accessing it at which time it becomes vitally important.  If they were already immortal then they could have been eating from it day and night without it doing anything at all.  It's useless and has no purpose.

 

     I suppose all we're left to imagine is that someone would eat from the Tree of Knowledge and immediately eat from the Tree of Life before god could intervene and then go have sex in the bushes.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, mwc said:

I understood that to mean that god made that declaration to Adam such that Adam would now know in the same way that we read those words and we know.

 

     As to the light thing, well, I know you're being facetious.  There is clearly a difference of experiencing light (if you have vision) and experiencing something that is "good" or even "very good."  The assumption here is that death is not very good in the eyes of god but still not something that a human would not want.  As I said, the life-cycle does serve a purpose.

I think you may have missed my point.  god declared "let there be light" and there was light.  No one heard the declaration and there was nothing else to validate the declaration.  Light simply existed because god declared it.  By the same token, if god looked on all that he had made, as he made it, prior to the Fall, and declared it "very good", then everything that existed as god created it, was very good, by simple right of his declaration.  If this included death, accidents, old age, etc., as you are arguing it did, then death, accidents, old age, etc. were very good because god declared that they were.  Just like light was simply because god declared it.

 

Given this, then, we have to somehow get from death being something that was "very good" because god declared it to be "very good" to death being something Adam would have perceived as a threat.  Somehow death became "not very good"; and that requires an explanation.

[mwc]

5 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I would really like to see a complete original narrative of creation when it was a polytheistic religion. It just seems like there is a lot missing in this story. Whatever the full original story was. Its probably lost to time unfortunately. 

     You'll never find this.  It probably never existed.  The whole thing probably came around the time of the Babylonian exile.  And the editing of the two stories together after that.

 

     However, the Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian origins are still sort of floating around in places (there may even by some Egyptian in there but the Babylonian connections are stronger).

 

     In a Babylonian(?) version man has wisdom but is not immortal.  The gods are going to address this and call him to have a meal.  He is warned, by another god, that if he eats he will be poisoned, so when the food is served he refuses to eat.  The gods are confused, since the food is actually good to eat, and they cannot get him to eat.  He leaves a mortal.

 

     This is roughly the same story as is found in Genesis but with some local changes (so to speak).  Wisdom is not compatible with immortality and it's man's guardian god that essentially makes this reality happen.  There are many more fragments that the authors may have used to form the Genesis narrative.

 

     These earlier (and contemporary) civilizations also had varying images of dragons and serpents.  The dragons looks somewhat like serpents with legs (a bit more stylized and if you've seen middle-eastern imagery you've likely seen them).  They have a god related to serpents and the good tree.  They had a word "edin"(sp?) which means plain and may well be the origins of Eden (the garden is to the east and the serpent comes from the plain).  Anyhow, that's enough trivia.

 

5 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I'm also seeing how important revelations is to the Christian narrative. A lot of things are tied back into genesis with revelations. The serpent is turned into the devil and Satan. The tree of life comes into play again. Otherwise it is only mentioned in genesis and a few times in proverbs. In revelations 22 it talks about a river of water flowing from the tree of life. And the tree of life apparently now bares 12 manner of fruit. This isn't mentioned in genesis. Revelations brings it full circle showing that when the faithful die then they have the right to the tree of life. 

 

Could it be that the early church knew there were a lot of holes to fill with their version of the story. And wrote the book of revelations to tie it all together into the old testament? 

 

Up to revelations in the new testament Jesus was the only way to get eternal life. Salvation and eternal life never had anything to do with the tree. But then in revelations it flips the script and implies just like it did in genesis. That everyone who makes it to heaven will be able to eat of the tree of life. Presumably giving them eternal life. Why doesn't Jesus ever mentions this? or Paul or Peter?

 

I really need to read Bart Ehrmans new book on revelation. Maybe that'll bring some "revelations" to light I've already mentioned it a few times but haven't bought it yet. 

 

     The Tree of Life, in Revelations, is on Earth not heaven.  And it's a nice take on how people imagined the new Paradise.  It was like the old one but improved.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think you may have missed my point.  god declared "let there be light" and there was light.  No one heard the declaration and there was nothing else to validate the declaration.  Light simply existed because god declared it.  By the same token, if god looked on all that he had made, as he made it, prior to the Fall, and declared it "very good", then everything that existed as god created it, was very good, by simple right of his declaration.  If this included death, accidents, old age, etc., as you are arguing it did, then death, accidents, old age, etc. were very good because god declared that they were.  Just like light was simply because god declared it.

     Well, by definition, this is all true.  So I'd say we're on the same page so far.

 

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Given this, then, we have to somehow get from death being something that was "very good" because god declared it to be "very good" to death being something Adam would have perceived as a threat.  Somehow death became "not very good"; and that requires an explanation.

     Well, for a god, death could be quite necessary and "very good" for reasons I have given (ie. soil, population control).

 

     To address the rest becomes a problem because there are lots of ways to do so depending on the when's, where's and who's we're discussing.

 

     What I'm saying is that at earlier stages (and even today to a large degree) the Jews do not believe in an afterlife.  So once dead you are dead.  Outside this book god is god of the living and not the dead (which is probably what gave rise to the idea of resurrection or at least helped popularize it to some).

 

     But Adam knew none of this.  He couldn't have.  So what could he have known outside of asking god what death was (and getting some answer similar to what I just said)?  That's why I mentioned the death of plants.  He saw them live.  He saw them die.  He saw them rot into the ground.  Then he didn't see them anymore.  That would be death.  That could be him if he disobeyed.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

mwc,

 

You seem to raise two main points and I'll try and address them as efficiently as I can.

 

 

1.

Adam had an obligation of care to Eve as her husband and master on earth.  Therefore, since he was commanded by god not to eat of the forbidden tree it is entirely logical that he passed that message on to her, albeit in garbled form.  My justification for making this point is to rely on my usual method - using one part of the bible to illuminate another.

 

Ephesians 5 : 22 - 33

 

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. 

24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 

26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 

27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 

28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 

29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—30 for we are members of his body. 

31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 

33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

This is confirmed by  1 Corinthians 11 : 2 & 3.

 

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

 

 

2.

There was no death of any kind in Eden until Adam and Eve sinned.  Once again, the standard Christian practice of using one part of the bible to illuminate another helps us understand this.  Romans 5 : 12 and 8 : 18 - 23 explains it.

 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 

23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

 

The WHOLE of creation is in bondage to decay, because sin and death entered through the act of one man, Adam.  This means that death affects everything - people, animals and plants.  It also means that death and decay DID NOT exist until Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

 

mwc, I agree with you that there is a paucity of information in the Eden narrative itself.  But you can illuminate your understanding of it by looking elsewhere in scripture, as I have done in this post.  Doing this obviates the need to speculate about the roles and the relationships between the players from the little written in Genesis.  All that we need to know is written elsewhere in the bible.

 

If you limit yourself only to the book of Genesis you won't gain a full picture of what actually happened in Eden.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Check out Revelation 22 : 1 - 5 and compare it to the Eden narrative, mwc.

 

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 

2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 

3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 

4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 

5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

Do you see how everything that prevailed in Eden before the Fall is restored and healed?

 

The Tree of Life is there for the healing (of death, decay and pain) of all the nations.

Adam and Eve hid themselves from seeing god's face, but now the saved can look upon god's face without fear.

The curses laid upon Adam and Eve (and since Eve was the mother of all the living, on everyone else) of death, hard toil and painful childbirth are lifted and no longer apply.

A new heaven and a new Earth are created by god, sweeping away of the old order of creation that was held in bondage to decay and death by the sin of one man, Adam.

 

Do you see how other passages in other parts of the bible can be used to understand each other?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[mwc]

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

mwc,

 

You seem to raise two main points and I'll try and address them as efficiently as I can.

 

 

1.

Adam had an obligation of care to Eve as her husband and master on earth.  Therefore, since he was commanded by god not to eat of the forbidden tree it is entirely logical that he passed that message on to her, albeit in garbled form.  My justification for making this point is to rely on my usual method - using one part of the bible to illuminate another.

     Yeah, but that lands us back at the problem we had before.  I know what the xian version of all this is.  I suppose we could argue over what they thought we should think about Genesis.  Could we do better than they've already done?  I don't know.  I know we might do differently.

 

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

mwc, I agree with you that there is a paucity of information in the Eden narrative itself.  But you can illuminate your understanding of it by looking elsewhere in scripture, as I have done in this post.  Doing this obviates the need to speculate about the roles and the relationships between the players from the little written in Genesis.  All that we need to know is written elsewhere in the bible.

 

If you limit yourself only to the book of Genesis you won't gain a full picture of what actually happened in Eden.

 

     If we're going to use neo-platonism shouldn't we just use neo-platonism?  Why limit ourselves to Paul's take?  It was pretty darn popular among early xians.

 

     I see no real problem solo scriptura when arguing with xians, if that's the sort you're dealing with, but it doesn't really offer any illumination for anyone else since scripture is just a bunch of words holding no more weight than any others.  It's nice to get out of that box.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     I was addressing this "How could Adam have perceived death as a threat, if it was something god described as "very good"?"  I understood that to mean that god made that declaration to Adam such that Adam would now know in the same way that we read those words and we know.

 

 

That's because when god declared everything to be "very good" death hadn't come into Eden, the world or the rest of creation.  It was something only god knew about and understood.  Adam wouldn't and couldn't understand what death was because the event that brought it into existence (eating the fruit) was in his future.  But no such limitation applies to god.  He knows all things; past present and future.

 

This explains why god maliciously set Adam up to fail.  His warning would have been incomprehensible and meaningless to Adam.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, mwc said:

     Yeah, but that lands us back at the problem we had before.  I know what the xian version of all this is.  I suppose we could argue over what they thought we should think about Genesis.  Could we do better than they've already done?  I don't know.  I know we might do differently.

 

     If we're going to use neo-platonism shouldn't we just use neo-platonism?  Why limit ourselves to Paul's take?  It was pretty darn popular among early xians.

 

     I see no real problem solo scriptura when arguing with xians, if that's the sort you're dealing with, but it doesn't really offer any illumination for anyone else since scripture is just a bunch of words holding no more weight than any others.  It's nice to get out of that box.

 

          mwc

 

 

I'll repeat the point that I made to you the other day, mwc.

 

I play Devil's Advocate to serve this forum, taking the standard Christian view in order to demonstrate it's faultiness and irrationality.  But for myself I have no need whatsoever to gain a deeper insight into the scriptures than that which they already give me.  They give me quite enough to demolish Christianity by logical argument.

 

But, if you want more, then I can't really help you there.  Sorry

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

45 minutes ago, mwc said:

Well, for a god, death could be quite necessary and "very good" for reasons I have given (ie. soil, population control).

So, death might be "very good" by god's standards; but "not very good" from the perspective of humans.  It works as an explanation; but I'm inclined to agree with Walt.  Other parts of the bible, and the commonly accepted christian doctrine, suggest that the earth was created "perfect" and man was made "in the image of god."  This would seem to contradict the idea that decay, death, painful childbirth for animals, and accidents were present prior to the "Fall."

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

We are given to understand that what god called "good", was good; and eating the fruit of knowledge was only "bad" because god said not to.  So, if god declared all that he had made "good" and if that already included death, old age, painful childbirth, etc. then the declaration would be equivalent to the principle.  These things would be "good" whether Adam heard god say it or not.

 

The problem of what is declared to be 'good' in Genesis is highlighted by this passage.

 

Genesis 2 : 10 - 14.

 

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 

11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 

12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 

13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.

14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

If god declared everything that he made to be ' very good' why does the text say that the gold of Havilah is 'good'?

 

Surely everything in Havilah was 'good'?

 

And everything in Cush and Ashur too?

 

?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The problem of what is declared to be 'good' in Genesis is highlighted by this passage.

 

Genesis 2 : 10 - 14.

 

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 

11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 

12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 

13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.

14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

If god declared everything that he made to be ' very good' why does the text say that the gold of Havilah is 'good'?

 

Surely everything in Havilah was 'good'?

 

And everything in Cush and Ashur too?

 

?

 

 

Not sure I'm following you, Walt.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not sure I'm following you, Walt.

 

Ok, I'll explain.

 

Genesis 1 : 31.

 

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

All that he had made would therefore include all of the places and things mentioned here.

 

 

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 

11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 

12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 

13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.

14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

Therefore, since all that god had made was very good, the four rivers and the lands of Havilah, Cush and Ashur must have been very good too.  And, by definition, anything coming from those lands must have been very good too.  The gold, aromatic resin and onyx of Havilah must therefore have been very good too.  Because god declared that all that he had made was very good.

 

That being so, why does the text declare that the gold of Havilah is 'good'?

 

Surely, it should be 'very good', just as god declared?

 

That help?

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

That help?

It helps in the sense that it gives us a window into understanding what Adam might have perceived as "good" outside of god's declarations.  Beyond that, I'm still a bit lost.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This part of the conversation has also raised another question in my mind.  god saw that everything he created was "very good."  Does this mean that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was, itself, "very good?"  Was the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, also "very good?"  Was the Knowledge of good and evil "very good?" 

 

Eve certainly saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, which would suggest that the tree and the fruit were both "very good."  But, Eve also noted that it was a tree to be desired to bring wisdom, which suggests that she believed the knowledge of good and evil was also "very good."  

 

Was Eve wrong to agree with god?  If the tree, the fruit, and the knowledge were all "very good," how was Eve's partaking in any of it, "very bad"?  Or does the bible not literally mean everything was "very good", even if it literally says everything was "very good"?

[Edgarcito]

53 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'll repeat the point that I made to you the other day, mwc.

 

I play Devil's Advocate to serve this forum, taking the standard Christian view in order to demonstrate it's faultiness and irrationality.  But for myself I have no need whatsoever to gain a deeper insight into the scriptures than that which they already give me.  They give me quite enough to demolish Christianity by logical argument.

 

But, if you want more, then I can't really help you there.  Sorry

 

 

Walter.

But God is love.

And love is often irrational and illogical.

So, is it logical to employ logic as a means to define it's faultiness?

[mwc]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Check out Revelation 22 : 1 - 5 and compare it to the Eden narrative, mwc.

 

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 

2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 

3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 

4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 

5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

Do you see how everything that prevailed in Eden before the Fall is restored and healed?

 

The Tree of Life is there for the healing (of death, decay and pain) of all the nations.

Adam and Eve hid themselves from seeing god's face, but now the saved can look upon god's face without fear.

The curses laid upon Adam and Eve (and since Eve was the mother of all the living, on everyone else) of death, hard toil and painful childbirth are lifted and no longer apply.

A new heaven and a new Earth are created by god, sweeping away of the old order of creation that was held in bondage to decay and death by the sin of one man, Adam.

 

Do you see how other passages in other parts of the bible can be used to understand each other?

     This doesn't help me understand Genesis.  This helps me understand what the author of the Revelation thought about the restoration of Paradise.

 

     I get what you're trying to say but how does that author provide us with anything more useful than if one of us simply say something off-the-cuff like 'The forbidden tree in the garden was a nut tree and it turns out Adam and Eve had a nut allergy.  This is what led to their downfall.  Nut allergies exist because of their curse.  Mercifully, after the flood many are now able to eat nuts again but not all.  This will be reversed when god returns.  All nuts will be able to be eaten without fear.'

 

     You see?  I have some sort of nut theology I am working with here.  Now it sheds new light on Genesis.  Is it really helpful?  I'm familiar with the original but I think it tells you more about the lens I'm reading it through. It's not a bad thing but it needs to be known that we're doing it.  I'll readily admit that I'm doing something similar with the speculation I'm currently engaging in with the story myself.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

[never mind]

[mwc]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's because when god declared everything to be "very good" death hadn't come into Eden, the world or the rest of creation.  It was something only god knew about and understood.  Adam wouldn't and couldn't understand what death was because the event that brought it into existence (eating the fruit) was in his future.  But no such limitation applies to god.  He knows all things; past present and future.

 

This explains why god maliciously set Adam up to fail.  His warning would have been incomprehensible and meaningless to Adam.  

     I've been down this road with the Prof.

 

     Is using death in this fashion warranted?  The bible essentially says something along the lines "on that day you will die a death dying" (I'm recalling this poorly from memory).  The point is this is a specific warning to Adam not a broad warning to the entire universe.  Essentially, the warning is not "on that day you will bring death to all creation."

 

     Next up.  Only god has the power of creation.  Death must exist.  At best we can say at that point death is unleashed but it has to exist otherwise it somehow comes to exist in that moment.  So breaking the command would need to cause that.  I suppose god could create death at that moment and that's not far fetched.

 

     In one of the Babylonian(?) versions death is sent to mankind but in the form of disease.  So they die off naturally from this.  This would mean death comes on them that day in the form of disease and so on, something that didn't exist or worked differently up until that point.

 

     So I say he could understand death, via observation, but could not comprehend the method by which he'd die if it were to actually happen to him.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'll repeat the point that I made to you the other day, mwc.

 

I play Devil's Advocate to serve this forum, taking the standard Christian view in order to demonstrate it's faultiness and irrationality.  But for myself I have no need whatsoever to gain a deeper insight into the scriptures than that which they already give me.  They give me quite enough to demolish Christianity by logical argument.

 

But, if you want more, then I can't really help you there.  Sorry

     Fortunately, I wasn't asking.

 

     It just seems rather fruitless to keep hammering the same point in thread after thread after thread.  Round and round.  Nothing is gained.  It just becomes so painful to watch a thread become another thread about the garden of eden and then back to the old A, B, C's for another 200 pages.  I'm glad death is in this world but I'd sad that it doesn't come before I get past the first few posts and prevent me from thinking that maybe something else might show up if I just go one more page.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

But God is love.

And love is often irrational and illogical.

So, is it logical to employ logic as a means to define it's faultiness?

Rephrased as a logical progression:

 

1. god is love

2. love is often irrational and illogical

3. it is therefore illogical to use logic as a means to define it's faultiness.

 

1. is a mere assertion that is not an established fact/truth/observation.  This is a very unreliable and invalid premise upon which to build a logical argument.

 

2. is a direct contradiction of 1.  2. indicates that god is often irrational and illogical; but this is in direct conflict with the commonly accepted description of god among theists and the description most widely accepted withing the christian religion.  god is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and perfect in every way.  He cannot also be irrational and illogical.

 

3. is a word-salad attempt at denigrating logic, which neither logically follows, nor is implied in any way, by 1. and 2.  It is not a sound logical conclusion and this entire argument is invalid.

 

As a matter of fact, it is logical to use logic as a means to both define, and correct, the faultiness of logic.  Just as science is a self-correcting discipline, so logic can correct itself if used properly.

 

You do not understand logic, Ed; and you do not know how it works.  Please stop embarrassing yourself with these repeated attempts to prove faith to be superior to reason.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Fortunately, I wasn't asking.

 

     It just seems rather fruitless to keep hammering the same point in thread after thread after thread.  Round and round.  Nothing is gained.  It just becomes so painful to watch a thread become another thread about the garden of eden and then back to the old A, B, C's for another 200 pages.  I'm glad death is in this world but I'd sad that it doesn't come before I get past the first few posts and prevent me from thinking that maybe something else might show up if I just go one more page.

 

          mwc

 

Then you can damn sure forget about breaking bread and potlucks....lol...as he has declared his purpose.  But at least he's consistent in not actually knowing others, you, me.  (But is with his wife.  Which is illogical).  

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Rephrased as a logical progression:

 

1. god is love

2. love is often irrational and illogical

3. it is therefore illogical to use logic as a means to define it's faultiness.

 

1. is a mere assertion that is not an established fact/truth/observation.  This is a very unreliable and invalid premise upon which to build a logical argument.

 

2. is a direct contradiction of 1.  2. indicates that god is often irrational and illogical; but this is in direct conflict with the commonly accepted description of god among theists and the description most widely accepted withing the christian religion.  god is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and perfect in every way.  He cannot also be irrational and illogical.

 

3. is a word-salad attempt at denigrating logic, which neither logically follows, nor is implied in any way, by 1. and 2.  It is not a sound logical conclusion and this entire argument is invalid.

 

As a matter of fact, it is logical to use logic as a means to both define, and correct, the faultiness of logic.  Just as science is a self-correcting discipline, so logic can correct itself if used properly.

 

You do not understand logic, Ed; and you do not know how it works.  Please stop embarrassing yourself with these repeated attempts to prove faith to be superior to reason.

 

 

That's fine, you can't identify God, yet you have an appropriate method? And you have the data?  No, wait, you don't and you don't, but your publishing your conclusions anyhow.  Got it.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Can we just not Ignore the Ed for a little while at this point? This conversation was actually interesting again until he brought it back to the same ole horse we've been beating on. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

Can we just not Ignore the Ed for a little while at this point? This conversation was actually interesting again until he brought it back to the same ole horse we've been beating on. 

What was it I told you the other day?  Seems appropriate again, huh?