Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

brakelite · May 25, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
What did you go out into the wilderness to see, bl?

bam choose in the moment imo, ok?

Don't need to go into the wilderness to witness lightening from the east to the west.

bbyrd009 · May 26, 2019

brakelite said:
Don't need to go into the wilderness to witness lightening from the east to the west.

Srsly bl? ok, ty

Wafer · May 26, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason from the Eastern dialectic, as the Jewish writers were:

"
...Dialectical reasoning is actually opposed to formal logic in many ways.

Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.

Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)...
...three principles underlie Eastern dialecticism. Notice I didn't say "propositions..." the term "proposition" has much too formal a ring for what is a generalized stance toward the world rather than a set of ironclad rules.

1. Principle of change:
Reality is a process of change.
What is currently true will shortly be false.
2. Principle of contradiction:
Contradiction is the dynamic underlying change.
Because change is constant, contradiction is constant.
3. Principle of relationships (or holism):
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Parts are meaningful only in relation to the whole...

These principles are intimately linked...
The principles also imply another important tenet of Eastern thought, which is the insistence on finding the "middle way" between extreme propositions...
...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.

"Mindware" Richard E. Nisbett, pp. 224-5

Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
~google.com (Emphasis added)

Your thesis is not supported by research, and truth does not admit such gymnastics. All you are saying is you want to twist the word of God while seeming to follow it. That is the same thing Eve did. Let's not do it again.

bbyrd009 · May 26, 2019

Wafer said:
Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
~google.com (Emphasis added)

Your thesis is not supported by research, and truth does not admit such gymnastics. All you are saying is you want to twist the word of God while seeming to follow it. That is the same thing Eve did. Let's not do it again.

This has already been gone over, twice i think. The last time should be within 20 posts of here. The logical or "satan's" dialectic is opposed to the Naive dialectic in that the first forces an either/or solution, as outlined in the copypaste in the OP?

And Eve's resolution even illustrates the difference, did Eve die? Yes and no, right? Unfortunately a Literalist is once again um left on the outside there, and becomes a hypocrite in their interpretation i guess

Wafer · May 26, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
This has already been gone over, twice i think. The last time should be within 20 posts of here. The logical or "satan's" dialectic is opposed to the Naive dialectic in that the first forces an either/or solution, as outlined in the copypaste in the OP?

And Eve's resolution even illustrates the difference, did Eve die? Yes and no, right? Unfortunately a Literalist is once again um left on the outside there, and becomes a hypocrite in their interpretation i guess

The bible makes sense. Your thesis does not make sense. That is a problem. It's not a problem for me because I don't try to follow your thesis.

bbyrd009 · May 26, 2019

amadeus said:
Very good my friend! Your conclusion made me laugh!

That is the inevitable result of a "logical" dialectic, yes. However that does not result in the Naive dialectic, which is the whole point.

bbyrd009 · May 26, 2019

Wafer said:
The bible makes sense. Your thesis does not make sense. That is a problem. It's not a problem for me because I don't try to follow your thesis.

Oh wadr it is not my thesis, and there is no debate to be had here i don't think, at least such as the one you suggest.
"The Bible makes sense" lol, yes, ty, and have a nice day ok. Bam go with that if you like, but obviously thousands of ppl come to forums to debate Scripture every day, right

Logic is certainly also employed in Scripture, the Decalogue is not debatable, etc, but to deem it a "dialectic" is really even pushing it i guess. Note how you are not allowing for any other alternative? Either/or? Go team? Hallmarks of satan's or Logical "dialectic"

amadeus · May 26, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
That is the inevitable result of a "logical" dialectic, yes. However that does not result in the Naive dialectic, which is the whole point.

My problem my friend is the meaning of the word dialectic will never stick in my mind. I have to look it up every time someone uses it before I can seriously consider any question raised on the subject... Is this mental block normal or a sign of old age?

bbyrd009 · May 26, 2019

amadeus said:
My problem my friend is the meaning of the word dialectic will never stick in my mind. I have to look it up every time someone uses it before I can seriously consider any question raised on the subject... Is this mental block normal or a sign of old age?

Ha well imo "di" is the functional part, meaning 2? So really a tech term for "dialogue" i think

bbyrd009 · May 26, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
Oh wadr it is not my thesis, and there is no debate to be had here i don't think, at least such as the one you suggest.
"The Bible makes sense" lol, yes, ty, and have a nice day ok. Bam go with that if you like.

Logic is certainly also employed in Scripture, the Decalogue is not debatable, etc, but to deem it a "dialectic" is really even pushing it i guess. Note how you are not allowing for any other alternative? Either/or? Go team? Hallmarks of satan's or Logical "dialectic"

Provide for your family
Don't work for food

Would be one example...ha, well, two examples of Logical dialectic being employed to make one example of Naive dialectic, perhaps

And these occur throughout Scripture, which is why no Absolute Truth can be derived from It i guess; or at least i have yet to hear one.

The best challenge i have heard so far imo is you reap what you sow, but then even that can be challenged by why do the evil reap where they have not sown

bbyrd009 · May 26, 2019

amadeus said:
My problem my friend is the meaning of the word dialectic will never stick in my mind. I have to look it up every time someone uses it before I can seriously consider any question raised on the subject... Is this mental block normal or a sign of old age?

I guess the reason we have to stick with "dialectic" is that it is not quite "conversation" or even "dialogue," in that a single statement proceeds from one or the other dialectic, for example

"Evil ppl (always) give good gifts to their children"
"Evil ppl may quite often give good gifts to their children"

amadeus · May 26, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
Ha well imo "di" is the functional part, meaning 2? So really a tech term for "dialogue" i think

Hey, with that I may actually retain it after this for I do know what a lector [a reader] is. Two readers come together supposedly for discussion and at times as we see on this forum strongly disagree with each other. Hmmm?

OzSpen · May 26, 2019

Wafer said:
Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
~google.com (Emphasis added)

Your thesis is not supported by research, and truth does not admit such gymnastics. All you are saying is you want to twist the word of God while seeming to follow it. That is the same thing Eve did. Let's not do it again.

Wafer,

What is your thesis of putting this verse into practice: 'But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason (the defence) for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect' (1 Peter 3:15 NIV).

Do you engage in conversation with a person, answering his/her responses or questions? Or do you say: This is what Scripture says and there is no reason for further discussion; God is right and we shouldn't question what he says?

Oz

brakelite · May 26, 2019

bbyrd009 said:
And Eve's resolution even illustrates the difference, did Eve die? Yes and no, right? Unfortunately a Literalist is once again um left on the outside there, and becomes a hypocrite in their interpretation i guess

Sure, we know Eve died, at some stage, as do we all. And while the warning was given that the day she eats, she will die, the reason she didn't die that day, can be assumed from scripture (as it interprets itself) that the Son stepped into the breach, and His promise provided time for remorse and healing. In other words, grace. Slain from the foundation of the world. The postponement of her demise wasn't a dialectic trick being played on westerner's thought processes surely...doesn't God want even us westerners to understand His word? Some things are to be taken literally surely, for without literal promises, what real hope do we really have? As Paul said to someone, if Christ be not literally raised, anyone following and believing the gospel message is more miserable than all, because they would be basing their entire lives on a false hope. Which leads into this...
... my answer

brakelite said:
Don't need to go into the wilderness to witness lightening from the east to the west.

above to your question

bbyrd009 said:
What did you go out into the wilderness to see, bl?

bam choose in the moment imo, ok?

perhaps may have been a little flippant, and I apologise for that...it wasn't from any sense of disrespect, but rather a self defense mechanism of not understanding maybe the depth of your question. I do that on occasion, avoiding too much transparency. So, my understanding of Jesus warning, don't go out into the desert to see me coming on someone else's recommendation, doesn't mean we cease from expectation of His actual coming. His own description of His coming being described in a variety of places as being literal… highly audible... bright... unexpected by the flippant (ooops)...but a coming reality nevertheless, and every eye shall see and experience it, for while His kingdom which is in us, doesn't come with observation, Jesus Himself certainly shall, as the many parables and promises depict the husband coming for His bride.

Wafer · May 26, 2019

OzSpen said:
Wafer,

What is your thesis of putting this verse into practice: 'But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason (the defence) for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect' (1 Peter 3:15 NIV).

Do you engage in conversation with a person, answering his/her responses or questions? Or do you say: This is what Scripture says and there is no reason for further discussion; God is right and we shouldn't question what he says?

Oz

Only one person has ever asked and he interrupted the answer to tell me he didn't want to hear it.

OzSpen · May 27, 2019

Wafer said:
Only one person has ever asked and he interrupted the answer to tell me he didn't want to hear it.

Wafer,

That's not an answer to the question I asked about 1 Peter 3:15, so it's a red herring fallacy.

If we are not in the public square personally or on blogs, don't expect people to ask for a defense of the hope we have in Christ. There are droves of non-Christian forums online that provide ample opportunity for you and me to defend the faith.

We don't have to passively wait for people to come along. Jesus said our mission is to 'GO...' (Matt 28:18). We don't sit and wait for them to come to us.

Oz

OzSpen · May 27, 2019

Wafer said:
Only one person has ever asked and he interrupted the answer to tell me he didn't want to hear it.

Was he the only person you have ever witnessed to who had objections to some aspect of Christianity?

OzSpen · May 27, 2019

Wafer said:
The bible makes sense. Your thesis does not make sense. That is a problem. It's not a problem for me because I don't try to follow your thesis.

To whom are you addressing this response?

Wafer · May 27, 2019

OzSpen said:
What is your thesis of putting this verse into practice: 'But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason (the defence) for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect' (1 Peter 3:15 NIV).

OzSpen said:
That's not an answer to the question I asked about 1 Peter 3:15, so it's a red herring fallacy.

You seem to have forgotten what you asked of me.

OzSpen said:
Was he the only person you have ever witnessed to who had objections to some aspect of Christianity?

I didn't say he had objections, only that he asked. And I specifically said he was the only person.

2 Timothy 1:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

I often wonder why Christians get hung up on the spirit of fear and show no sign of the other three.

bbyrd009 · May 27, 2019

amadeus said:
Hey, with that I may actually retain it after this for I do know what a lector [a reader] is. Two readers come together supposedly for discussion and at times as we see on this forum strongly disagree with each other. Hmmm?

nice, ya, be great if we could illuminate the "supossedly" part a little better. Not too many actual conversations going on here i guess, mostly ego-wars with words?

Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

brakelite

Guest

Groper

Active Member

Groper

Active Member

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Groper

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

brakelite

Guest

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Groper

Similar threads