I will take that as a concession...even though you may not mean it. I mean, after all, I am free to make your words mean whatever I want...I mean, if I am to be illogical.
This is a good illustration imo of how a logical thinker will be--not can be, will be--led into assumptions when reading Scripture that are actually intended, because the assumptions one reaches are what best reflect their "hearts." You are undoubtedly going to soon reiterate how clear the Bible is about something or other, see, when It will tell you that "he who says he knows does not yet know as he ought."
I am suggesting that something might be true (or is very likely true, has been documented to be true), and you maintain that it cannot be true, because It must mean something else. Now i have asked for you to quote one of your clear doctrines from Scripture, that we may test this, but from past experience i can tell you that this request is usually steadfastly ignored, for reasons that then become as obvious as that you were clergy, before.
So in a very real sense we lose the sense of wonder of a little child, the "boy, i don't know, maybe..." and replace it with the assurance of a fact that we so desperately often desire, and will even give our money to maintain, and it then only remains to ask you if you are the kid who thinks it is sprinkling, or the one who thinks it is raining. Which one is right? Which one is wrong?
Because quite obviously when you are physically dead, there is a sense in which you have "gone back to God," so then "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" can justifiably also be understood to be reiterating this, and the beginning of the passage even encourages this, and makes it likely that such snippets as
"desiring to put on our dwelling from heaven" and
"since, when we are clothed, we will not be found naked," and
"Indeed, we groan while we are in this tent, burdened as we are," and
"because we do not want to be unclothed but clothed" and
"So, we are always confident and know" and
"We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord"
will appeal to logic and "common sense," and not be reflected upon for their (rather obvious) contradictions to other Scripture, lots of other Scripture, that discusses what we desire, what clothing is a symbol of (and, um,, Who told you that you were naked, anyway? ), what to do with burdens, what we want, again with the confidence and knowing, and preferences. And we are only down to v8.
Logically this pov appeals to most anyone, of course, and i tell you, assure you, that dialectically you are being played, and this is even more apparent in the Lexicon, where certain words have been carefully chosen for their symbology, and appear in other places for comparison, carefully, dialectically phrased there also, so that when you find them you can reason them away as something else if you like, so that you may see and not see, and maintain your premises and your conclusions if that is what you seek and desire.
So, is this "illogical?" Yes, it is, but i have to ask when did you decide that God was logical to you? What possessed person convinced you that God was servant to your personal wishes and desires? Do you think that just because all of your peers believe what you believe, and that entire books are written confirming the things you hold to be true, that God will then honor these?
Why would you not reflect upon the reality that if this was the case, and the "clear" things that you hold to be inviolable were in fact true, then why do other believers so vehemently disagree with you, to the point that they feel compelled to separate from you and follow God as they see fit? After all they have reached their clear conclusions from reading the same Book--roughly--have they not?
Is it raining, or is it sprinkling? Because, see, logically it can only be one or the other.
See because i have to know, ok, i am just dying to know, so before we go any further please tell me if it is raining, or sprinkling. And how might i (invariably) decide whether it is you or your adversary that is the more "correct?" I will surely "convert" to the perspective that seems to be more "successful," will i not?
Of course in practice it is usually a matter of converting so that one may not starve to death, because the guy with the bread is demanding conversion for bread.
Edited by bbyrd009, 22 April 2017 - 08:26 AM.