Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[mwc]

45 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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?" 

     Which answer do you want?

 

     Yes, with a but?  Or no, probably also with a but?

 

     Yes, by definition the whole of creation was very good.  But let's imagine a scenario where something is good but not good for everyone at any given time (and yes, this won't be a note for note perfect analog).  I have relatives who pilot small aircraft.  To hear them tell it this is very good.  They enjoy it a lot (they are quite obsessed).  Now, should I simply hop in a plane and take off?  Would that be good in any way?  I'm told piloting is very good.  However, I would think impulse piloting may not be quite the same level of goodness.  It may even be bad.  It could even cross to evil depending on if I lie and take passengers along with me and my foolhardy attempt.

 

     Then there's no.  I think this will probably be shorter.  They're two different stories glued together so the god that thought they were very good didn't pass this along to the god in the next chapter.

 

45 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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."  

     I don't know if she agreed it was very good.  It was good for food.  Desirable for wisdom.  These aren't necessarily very good but at least good I might think.

 

45 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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"?

     She shouldn't have gotten into the pilots seat (and taken Adam with her).  It was good.  Her use of it was bad.

 

     We might speculate there would have been different consequences had only Eve eaten from the tree.  Could she have gotten cursed on her own?  What is the pain of birth to a lone woman?  Only the enmity between her and the serpent as well as death could come to her but could death exist in one place but not another?  Or would she have actually have just dropped dead as the command indicated?

 

          mwc

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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

No, Walter's purpose is not to go down those paths....he just stated so.  But I'll agree, like golfing.....a good walk spoiled.  I have other things to do, but let me leave you with the verse, paraphrasing, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...  but we are using logic to define....

[mwc]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

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.

     Dude, I was trying to help you.  I got tired of these guys beating you on the ropes endless page after endless page.  You can't win the logic argument they're making and if you bothered to read the links I dropped here I don't know how many pages back you'd see that.  The best you can do is Plantiga's Defense.  But if you enjoy this same old game I'll jump out and let them go back at it.  Trust me, I really don't need this exercise.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Ok, one of the doctrines we taught in the assembly was that sin was already in the world but that Adam and Eve weren't held accountable because they had no knowledge of it. 

 

What happens after they ate the fruit? Their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked. So being naked was a bad thing. And being naked in public would be considered a sin. Correct? 

 

We used this verse in romans 5 as part of the lesson. 

 

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 

In essence, we believed that not eating the fruit was God's very first commandment. It was the only commandment at that point because they were blameless otherwise. They were just as all the other animals. Not knowing good from evil. But when they ate the fruit they transgressed gods commandment and became accountable for the sins they were already guilty of. Because now they new good from evil. 

 

I know this isn't the traditional stance. But it is an option. Because they were naked. And when they realized they were naked they covered themselves. They new it was wrong at that point and had to rectify the situation. 

 

I'm sorry if it takes some time to reply. I'm at work. Just thought yall.might find that interesting. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Dude, I was trying to help you.  I got tired of these guys beating you on the ropes endless page after endless page.  You can't win the logic argument they're making and if you bothered to read the links I dropped here I don't know how many pages back you'd see that.  The best you can do is Plantiga's Defense.  But if you enjoy this same old game I'll jump out and let them go back at it.  Trust me, I really don't need this exercise.

 

          mwc

 

I appreciate that.  Please carry on.  

[mwc]

7 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok, one of the doctrines we taught in the assembly was that sin was already in the world but that Adam and Eve weren't held accountable because they had no knowledge of it. 

 

What happens after they ate the fruit? Their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked. So being naked was a bad thing. And being naked in public would be considered a sin. Correct? 

 

We used this verse in romans 5 as part of the lesson. 

 

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

     So far pretty traditional.

 

7 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

In essence, we believed that not eating the fruit was God's very first commandment. It was the only commandment at that point because they were blameless otherwise. They were just as all the other animals. Not knowing good from evil. But when they ate the fruit they transgressed gods commandment and became accountable for the sins they were already guilty of. Because now they new good from evil. 

 

I know this isn't the traditional stance. But it is an option. Because they were naked. And when they realized they were naked they covered themselves. They new it was wrong at that point and had to rectify the situation. 

 

I'm sorry if it takes some time to reply. I'm at work. Just thought yall.might find that interesting. 

     This is a take I haven't heard.  Very strange twist.  God was saving up them sins.  If we accept that he was setting them up to fail then this makes it so much worse.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

In essence, we believed that not eating the fruit was God's very first commandment. It was the only commandment at that point because they were blameless otherwise. They were just as all the other animals. Not knowing good from evil. But when they ate the fruit they transgressed gods commandment and became accountable for the sins they were already guilty of. Because now they new good from evil. 

 

I know this isn't the traditional stance. But it is an option.

This is what I was taught in Sunday school in the Assemblies of god.  I won't say it is exactly Assemblies doctrine, as to my knowledge there is not an official doctrine about the subject.  But, as I was taught, and as the church I went to seemed to believe, Adam and Eve were created perfect; and because they were perfect, they were able to commune with god and be in his presence.  But after they "sinned" they were no longer perfect and could not commune in the presence of god; because god's presence cannot abide in the presence of sin.  This was why The Law became necessary.  Only by strict adherence to The Law could humans be in the presence of god; and, even then, only a select few Levitical priests.  The masses were still restricted from the absolute holy of holies.  The best they could do was to make sacrifices in the tabernacle/temple, or place their "sins" onto a scapegoat.  This scenario still didn't please god, who wanted absolute communion in the presence of his people; so he sent jesus, who became the sacrificial lamb to take away the sins of all the world.

 

Seems rather convoluted for a god who is supposedly all-powerful.  Seems like he could have created a world in which death and decay did not need to exist just as easily as he could have just forgiven the "sins" of the world without bloodshed.

[Edgarcito]

@mwcI just want to add and then I'll stop.  God makes statements that don't follow logic and Walter uses logic to demonstrate how illogical a Christian's beliefs are.  I'd call this a confirmation and a pointless exercise as you say.  In other words, yes. I see that Walter, and?

 

Edit: It's just a new thought to me as we live in a world where "truth" is logical....i.e. we are created fro a logical dust.  This doesn't mean that all "truth" is logical.  I'd just always assumed.  Not sure we have a science for illogic analysis.  Abstract shit and I'm sober...who knew.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     So far pretty traditional.

 

     This is a take I haven't heard.  Very strange twist.  God was saving up them sins.  If we accept that he was setting them up to fail then this makes it so much worse.

 

          mwc

 

Ya have to think tho. If being naked was a sin. And obviously it would have been included in the evil section of the knowledge of good and evil. How did God look at everything an say it was very good?

 

Was it because of the absence of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours 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?

 

God is also the Logos, as I pointed out to you yesterday, Ed.

 

John 1 : 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What else do you think The Logos is except god's divine reason and logic distilled into an eternal Word?

 

 

Therefore, god's love is not irrational or illogical things, as you posit.  Since no house that is divided against itself can stand (see Matthew 12 : 25 & 26) scripture tells us that his love, his reason and his logic are a unified whole.  Just as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are a unified whole. 

 

So, using logic to understand god's Word, his logic and his love is entirely justified.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours 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 it seems we don't have anything more to discuss, mwc.

 

You and I had probably best agree to disagree.

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

It's just a new thought to me as we live in a world where "truth" is logical....i.e. we are created fro a logical dust.  This doesn't mean that all "truth" is logical. 

I do not live in a world where "truth" is logical, nor one in which logic leads to "truth."  I don't know anyone who lives in such a world.  I know Texas is pretty much in a world of its own; but I doubt your statements hold true in whatever world Texas is in.

 

The hard "truth" is, Ed, logic is not the absolute you're trying to make it into.  It is simply a set of rules designed to assist in reasoning.  Just as science is not an absolute, but a set of rules to assist in understanding the natural universe.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

@mwcI just want to add and then I'll stop.  God makes statements that don't follow logic and Walter uses logic to demonstrate how illogical a Christian's beliefs are.  I'd call this a confirmation and a pointless exercise as you say.  In other words, yes. I see that Walter, and?

 

Edit: It's just a new thought to me as we live in a world where "truth" is logical....i.e. we are created fro a logical dust.  This doesn't mean that all "truth" is logical.  I'd just always assumed.  Not sure we have a science for illogic analysis.  Abstract shit and I'm sober...who knew.

 

No.

 

Because scripture says that god is the Logos, by definition, everything he is, everything he does and everything he says must be logical.

 

Therefore, if you find what god says to be illogical, then the fault is yours.

 

You need to work harder at understanding what god means.

 

 

[RankStranger]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

God is also the Logos, as I pointed out to you yesterday, Ed.

 

John 1 : 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What else do you think The Logos is except god's divine reason and logic distilled into an eternal Word?

 

 

Therefore, god's love is not irrational or illogical things, as you posit.  Since no house that is divided against itself can stand (see Matthew 12 : 25 & 26) scripture tells us that his love, his reason and his logic are a unified whole.  Just as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are a unified whole. 

 

So, using logic to understand god's Word, his logic and his love is entirely justified.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree.  I don't think it's justified.

 

The Bible as we know it wasn't compiled until hundreds years after Jesus was around- much of it written and re-written long before.  These books were written in numerous times and places by numerous different authors, none of whom had any clue that their work would be compiled into a complete work and called "the word of God" by fear-driven idiots.

 

The notion that The Bible should be read literally and as a complete work is arbitrary and not justified in any way.  Unless you place your faith in a bunch of 5th Century Catholic bigwheels.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, RankStranger said:

 

I disagree.  I don't think it's justified.

 

The Bible as we know it wasn't compiled until hundreds years after Jesus was around- much of it written and re-written long before.  These books were written in numerous times and places by numerous different authors, none of whom had any clue that their work would be compiled into a complete work and called "the word of God" by fear-driven idiots.

 

The notion that The Bible should be read literally and as a complete work is arbitrary and not justified in any way.  Unless you place your faith in a bunch of 5th Century Catholic bigwheels.

 

 

 

I'm playing Devil's Advocate, RankStranger.

 

I'm not obliged to place my faith in anything religious or in any religious people.

 

And I don't.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

How many times in the old testament do we read that God is a jealous God? I think the story in Genesis goes along with that. 

 

God makes everything including the tree of life. And the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And he says all of it is good. 

 

I think the serpent was telling the truth to Eve. He told her that it was good for food and that God just didn't want them to eat of it because it would make them like God knowing good and evil. And that they wouldn't die.

 

So they eat of the tree. It didn't kill them but it did open their eyes to know good and evil. 

 

God steps in again. He finds out what happened and his jealousy kicks in. He's pissed. At this point it is up to him how he punishes them. He could have just struck them dead like he said would happen. But he doesn't. At this point he doesn't even mention death. Other than that he doesn't want them to eat of the tree of life. 

 

Genesis 3

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.

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

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

So he curses them instead of killing them. So far everything the serpent said was true. It is really hard to see the serpent as the bad guy here. He gets cursed too. And nothing he said was false. It really seems that God was pissed off and jealous because they didn't follow his command and now knew the same thing he did. He wanted to reserve that just for himself. 

 

I guess man could die of natural causes and accidents. Cain killed able in chapter 4. But barring accidents and murder you don't even see anything about illnesses. But in chapter 6 god sets a maximum life span of 120 years. 

 

Gen 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

And still even after that it seems like men keep defying that time limit. 

 

The serpent was completely honest. The tree was good for food. The tree did make them like God. The tree did not kill them. If anything God killed them by sending them out of the garden and then setting a time limit on their lives. 

 

All of this was God. 

 

He places them in the garden without any concept of good and evil. Lies to them. Tells them they will die if they eat. The serpent tells them the truth. Maybe they thought that God might not know it was good for food as well. Again. They had not concept of right and wrong. They eat and it doesn't kill them. But God in his jealous furry curses them and throws them out of the garden. Years later he sets a limit on their natural life. It wasn't the tree that brought death. It was God. And If God was all powerful could he have not taken sin away from them without bloodshed? Its been mentioned a few times on the thread. Absolutely an Omni God could. 

 

But that doesn't fit the narrative for control. So that's not how people wrote the story. If people believe something is a sin then they will govern themselves. Makes it easier on the government. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

Edgarcito,

 

Do you consider yourself to be a wise man?  That is, if you can see the wisdom of someone's advice to you, do you take it?  Or do you tend resist something for the sake of resisting?  Because there's something in you that won't let you do the wise thing and stop fighting a battle you cannot win?

 

I ask because of mwc's excellent advice to you, which you seemed to appreciate.  But will you heed it?  He advised you that you cannot win against the logical arguments that are being made in this thread.  He also advised you to heed the material that he linked to, which will also show you that you cannot win this particular battle.

 

I see that you've tried different approaches to try and outlaw the use of logical arguments in the understanding of god.  And to those I've shown you that this approach will not help you win.  That's because scripture itself declares that god is the ultimate source of ALL logic.  The Logos.  So, unless you just out-and-out deny this, you cannot win here either.

 

Jesus himself used logic to teach the Pharisees.  Here's one example.  There are others.

 

Matthew 22 :  41 - 45

 

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 

42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet.”’

45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 

46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

 

You see the logic of Jesus' argument?  If the Messiah was David's son, why would David call him 'Lord?'  It's not logical for a father to call his son 'Lord'.  A father is the Lord over his son, not the other way round.  Therefore, by a process of logic Jesus taught the Pharisees that the Messiah could not be the son of David.

 

 

Edgarcito, if you are a wise man you will heed mwc's advice and you will also heed what I've explained to you about logic in this post.  There's nothing wise in going down in flames in a battle that you could never win.  Nor is there anything admirable or noble about it either.  It's folly.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 hours ago, mwc said:

You can't win the logic argument they're making and if you bothered to read the links I dropped here I don't know how many pages back you'd see that. 

 

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

There's nothing wise in going down in flames in a battle that you could never win.  Nor is there anything admirable or noble about it either.  It's folly.

It seems to me that if faith really were an appropriate alternative to logic, it would have been demonstrated as such somewhere over the past 24 pages.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

If ya count the suffering for the sins of the world page its 48

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

It seems to me that if faith really were an appropriate alternative to logic, it would have been demonstrated as such somewhere over the past 24 pages.  

 

It's odd that Edgarcito has tried use Hebrews 11 to make his argument about faith being an appropriate alternative to logic.

 

After all, that chapter eloquently shows that faith proceeds without evidence.

 

So, he won't find any evidence there to help him.

 

 

Of course, he could always claim that he knows by faith  that faith is an appropriate alternative to logic.

 

But then that would be a circular argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Of course, he could always claim that he knows by faith  that faith is an appropriate alternative to logic.

 

From a Christians point of view it is the ultimate alternative. 

 

Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen. 

 

We have evidence that someone can see doesn't correlate with the biblical account. We have fossils, geologic research, scholarly research, archeological research, psychiatric research, (people possessed with demons just had mental illnesses), anthropology research, I don't know all the scientific disciplines but they all paint a different picture than that of the Bible. 

 

But...... faith is its own evidence. 

 

Faith is the best form of brainwashing and has proven itself for all of recorded history. 

 

Faith is horrible. With faith any form of abuse is possible. I don't think we need to delve into all of the seedy underbellies of all the churches in resent history that have made the news. I think we all saw it. But when someone has faith and that faith is strong enough. Reason goes out the window. 

 

So the very fact that Eve and Adam were punished for reasoning against faith is appropriate for the Bible. It sets the stage from the very beginning to control the minds of believers. Do what I say or suffer the consequences. Ed is a victim in that respect as most of us were. He tries to play the victim here sometimes. But he steps into this arena knowing full well none of us are going to believe again. So that's on him. 

 

Maybe one day we will say something to get through to him. But for now atleast he isn't a literal believer and can live life as he sees fit. Cursing us heretics and all that.

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I do not live in a world where "truth" is logical, nor one in which logic leads to "truth."  I don't know anyone who lives in such a world.  I know Texas is pretty much in a world of its own; but I doubt your statements hold true in whatever world Texas is in.

 

The hard "truth" is, Ed, logic is not the absolute you're trying to make it into.  It is simply a set of rules designed to assist in reasoning.  Just as science is not an absolute, but a set of rules to assist in understanding the natural universe.

I appreciate this J.  Truthfully I believe in both....that ultimately, what's the ideology, reductionism?, is absolute....that we just can't get there from here, but I do believe that's the case for our universe.  And I also believe that Christianity does a rather good job as describing our condition.  So that's where I'm at for several reasons, and likely where I will be at the end.  I dislike the perceived arrogance in Walter.  I won't ever get happy with that perception.  Like me, he can turn it on and off like a faucet....and I certainly know when it's on, even when he says it's not.  Thanks again.

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No.

 

Because scripture says that god is the Logos, by definition, everything he is, everything he does and everything he says must be logical.

 

I'm really going to need to see the evidence behind this one Walter....please elaborate.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Edgarcito,

 

Do you consider yourself to be a wise man?  That is, if you can see the wisdom of someone's advice to you, do you take it?  Or do you tend resist something for the sake of resisting?  Because there's something in you that won't let you do the wise thing and stop fighting a battle you cannot win?

 

I ask because of mwc's excellent advice to you, which you seemed to appreciate.  But will you heed it?  He advised you that you cannot win against the logical arguments that are being made in this thread.  He also advised you to heed the material that he linked to, which will also show you that you cannot win this particular battle.

 

I see that you've tried different approaches to try and outlaw the use of logical arguments in the understanding of god.  And to those I've shown you that this approach will not help you win.  That's because scripture itself declares that god is the ultimate source of ALL logic.  The Logos.  So, unless you just out-and-out deny this, you cannot win here either.

 

Jesus himself used logic to teach the Pharisees.  Here's one example.  There are others.

 

Matthew 22 :  41 - 45

 

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 

42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet.”’

45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 

46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

 

You see the logic of Jesus' argument?  If the Messiah was David's son, why would David call him 'Lord?'  It's not logical for a father to call his son 'Lord'.  A father is the Lord over his son, not the other way round.  Therefore, by a process of logic Jesus taught the Pharisees that the Messiah could not be the son of David.

 

 

Edgarcito, if you are a wise man you will heed mwc's advice and you will also heed what I've explained to you about logic in this post.  There's nothing wise in going down in flames in a battle that you could never win.  Nor is there anything admirable or noble about it either.  It's folly.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Bottom line for me Walter.  With formal logic, science, mathematics, accepted axioms, theorems, etc, or just plain reasoning, our capabilities are limited, our understandings are incomplete, and our use of these tools are largely subjective in themselves.  I find room at the peripheries for God...and mixed in the midst as well. 

 

I'm just amazed that you don't accept this position given your intellect and training.  You want to fill us in on why you don't allow for something at the edges....through the black hole so to speak?

 

I'd be honored if you would just share that answer honestly with the crowd here.  Thx. 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Edgarcito,

 

Do you consider yourself to be a wise man?  That is, if you can see the wisdom of someone's advice to you, do you take it?  Or do you tend resist something for the sake of resisting?  Because there's something in you that won't let you do the wise thing and stop fighting a battle you cannot win?

 

I ask because of mwc's excellent advice to you, which you seemed to appreciate.  But will you heed it?  He advised you that you cannot win against the logical arguments that are being made in this thread.  He also advised you to heed the material that he linked to, which will also show you that you cannot win this particular battle.

 

I see that you've tried different approaches to try and outlaw the use of logical arguments in the understanding of god.  And to those I've shown you that this approach will not help you win.  That's because scripture itself declares that god is the ultimate source of ALL logic.  The Logos.  So, unless you just out-and-out deny this, you cannot win here either.

 

Jesus himself used logic to teach the Pharisees.  Here's one example.  There are others.

 

Matthew 22 :  41 - 45

 

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 

42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet.”’

45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 

46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

 

You see the logic of Jesus' argument?  If the Messiah was David's son, why would David call him 'Lord?'  It's not logical for a father to call his son 'Lord'.  A father is the Lord over his son, not the other way round.  Therefore, by a process of logic Jesus taught the Pharisees that the Messiah could not be the son of David.

 

 

Edgarcito, if you are a wise man you will heed mwc's advice and you will also heed what I've explained to you about logic in this post.  There's nothing wise in going down in flames in a battle that you could never win.  Nor is there anything admirable or noble about it either.  It's folly.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

To add, Isaiah 55 applies to the Eve vs. God scenario....i.e. God's instruction in the Logos vs. ours.....speaking of wisdom.