Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

[bbyrd009]

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

 

[bbyrd009]

Logic works well for some things, but it is a recent innovation, that was i guess rising and being formalized right about Jesus' time on earth. Studies have been done that indicate Western thinkers mature into more Socratic or dialectic thinking as they age, whereas Japanese youth, for instance, typically do not begin thinking more logically. There are some profound examples in the book, but the point is that logic does not lend itself very well to holistic thinking, and it was the Chinese who first understood such things as magnetism, acoustics, and some other concepts that embody "action at a distance." While logic led Gates to state "i see a worldwide market for about 50 computers" and "500k should be enough for anyone."

Logic is a type of blindness, and you are a logical thinker. when you read the Bible, you bring this with you, but the Book was written dialectically, and so when you apply logic to such passages as
1 Thess 5:1-11 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you,
you are going to "see and not see," if the passage can be made to fulfill a predetermined conclusion, or reinforces a personal desire.

 

[bbyrd009]

a better way to put that is that right during the time the NT was being written, logical thought was emerging, and the Talmudic scholars were aware of it, but had already developed the dialectic method--to quite a high degree--and wrote the Book that way, knowing that it would be read from both standpoints. Japanese children do not begin to think more logically as they mature, but Americans invariably begin to think more dialectically as they do.

And this will reflect in your interpretation of Scripture, which has abundant clues as to Its dialectic nature, "if you say you know, you don't really know," and describing an accepted follower with the exact same words used to condemn others, those who will hear "i never knew you," and many other examples. Provide for your family. Don't work for food. On and on.

It is possible that a logical rendering of Scripture might be considered "water" to a full dialectic grasp's "distilled wine" (old wine), which is always better, "they say."

(you won't find old wine mentioned as being better without seeing "they say," or some derivative; find out why)

And understand this; it is possible to reach conclusions while you are reading water that tare you up, and cement your mind, and you can be reading water the day you die, if that is what suits you.
Learn what it means to think dialectically. Now the Snake on a Pole is gonna get broken up, k, and you might lose all of your friends. Sorry about that. But those are pretty much your choices. You are going to find out things about Word, and water carriers, and scapegoats, and who satan really is--i mean it's right there, spelled out, hidden in plain sight, right in that text you're reading logically--that if i told you right now, you wouldn't even believe me. oh and homosexuals, lol. God help us, you think the Bible is talking about gay people lol. Even when the prophets have gone a whoring. Something something two men in a bed something ya, that's all i got, bye. God loves you just like you are.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, I agree that ancient readers approached texts very different from how many read them today. However, the Bible is filled with many genres. A didactic passage (say, on two men laying together being an abomination to God and He command we not do that) is not the same as God using a metaphor about the faithlessness of his people. Any interpretive method that says a direct command in Scripture means something the opposite of what it specifically prohibits is out to lunch. Even ancient near east thinkers understood the meaning of a command. Its really not that complicated. The Bible was written to be understood. Don't get so open-minded that your brains fall out.

 

[bbyrd009]

Any interpretive method that says a direct command in Scripture means something the opposite of what it specifically prohibits is out to lunch.

hmm. Which may be why i felt compelled to allow that some valid interpretation of "Because" might exist wherein "church admin" is encompassed, even though i personally do not believe it. But as we are discussing homosexuality now, i would present to you that the same logical thinking is a betrayal here, when it is realized that we are swimming in atrazine and unfermented soy, and there is an established "conspiracy theory" afoot for population reduction; all meaning that it is at least quite possible that we make homosexuals, which i would certainly contemplate as a Scriptural manifestation ok, don't get me wrong, but we are then led to a position of oppressing gay people on moral grounds because our logical interpretation of Scripture allows for it, should our hearts be so inclined, rather than understanding that symbology is being employed to illuminate the conflicted nature of any person's heart. After all, who wants to think of themselves as a homosexual or a whoremonger, after a literal interpretation of the Bible?

So you cannot help but be led to the same conclusion as with Joe, that being ,you, assuming that you can justify a position of oppression, cloaked as righteous judgement, because the Book is after all a Manual that speaks to the dead, in this case, multiple and various passages detailing the sins of those who will never read It, strictly that they may be Identified by a True Believer, and having nothing to do with the Believer himself. That way from day 1 one may confidently ignore the lessons of Cain, because that passage is about sacrifices and murderers, and then Esau, whom God had hated, is also not applicable, because it's about people who despise their birthright, and even though we have no understanding of this, and never hear a sermon about it, and never will, that's ok because it is about people God hates anyway, not us, and it just happens to be in there in case one of those people ever walks by a Bible and It happens to be open to that page or something.

Even ancient near east thinkers understood the meaning of a command. Its really not that complicated. The Bible was written to be understood. Don't get so open-minded that your brains fall out.

But the Bible tells us that It is written so that we might see and not see, see, and while logical believers might confidently assure you that those who do not see are those who do not accept the particular interpretation that they hold, they do not realize that their interpretation reveals their hearts, but does not change the truth, whatever it is. The next step is to assure people of the condemnation of God, when God is wondering "Who told you that you were naked?"

So wadr "it's really not that complicated" from a logical thinker where Scripture is concerned is just another way to assert authority over the interpretation, while yes i guess it is possible to to render a passage spiritually moot by open-mindedness--at least so to speak, as it really emanates from a desire to justify lawlessness, at least in my experience--this has its own sign, and is revealed when an/the applicable spiritual moral can no longer be practically understood from the passage, and one's ego again becomes empowered to assume some human authority, ie i see that most Christian churches interpret Scripture logically, and i know that the authors are masters of dialectic thought, ergo i am justified in doing ____________ to these churches, because they are obviously misleading people, see?

Get so open-minded that your brains fall out, imo. Might save your life. You certainly will not forget logic--if only--and God will not abandon you if you are seeking Him. So if i may say--and please don't take this wrong, ok--you are just reasserting your authority over Scripture in suggesting that one can go too far in a dialectical direction, yet refusing to take the first step in that direction to know for sure. You are holding on to your logical conclusions, and insisting that you can, what, see through a dialectic interpretation? I suggest that this is not even possible. Dialecticism encourages open mindedness, yes, but it is not defined as open mindedness, wadr. Any dangers of "too open-minded" will also be revealed, whereas a logical pov must be abandoned in order to even enter into the conversation.

Iow Christ could not possibly have been intimating a formula for Congregations in Grace, because He referenced congregations in Law, as you say, and so then that is what the passage must mean, as that is only logical, as is the fact that God hates homosexuals. The unassailable conclusion forces the logical perspective, which reinforces the unassailable conclusion. I could spend the rest of the day, and fill the rest of this page with arguments against a literal hell in the afterlife made of fire and whatnot, that you in essence cannot even read, even though you cannot demonstrate this hell from the lexicon, the original text. But here logic fails, and it is irrelevant that no logical proof of hell exists in the Text, as long as one maintains the conclusion that they are so convinced of. That way Gehenna does not even have to be contemplated, see; if no logical doubt remains that a fiery hell indeed exists. Who am i to tell you that it does not?

So what i will say to this thinking is that if you dig a pit for others, be careful that you don't fall into it yourself, ok? Imo you suggest the possibility of being too dialectic to retain your grip on interpretation, and i hope you can see how you must do this from your perspective, because of course you must be right, and i cannot possibly be right. Hard to argue with this logic, so i will just say that i gave it my best shot, and imo it was worth a try, but it turns out that you are completely correct after all. Guess i can't win them all.

 

[Wormwood]

hmm. Which may be why i felt compelled to allow that some valid interpretation of "Because" might exist wherein "church admin" is encompassed, even though i personally do not believe it. But as we are discussing homosexuality now, i would present to you that the same logical thinking is a betrayal here, when it is realized that we are swimming in atrazine and unfermented soy, and there is an established "conspiracy theory" afoot for population reduction; all meaning that it is at least quite possible that we make homosexuals, which i would certainly contemplate as a Scriptural manifestation ok, don't get me wrong, but we are then led to a position of oppressing gay people on moral grounds because our logical interpretation of Scripture allows for it, should our hearts be so inclined, rather than understanding that symbology is being employed to illuminate the conflicted nature of any person's heart. After all, who wants to think of themselves as a homosexual or a whoremonger, after a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Well, again, looks to me like you are trying to overcomplicate things. When the Bible says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman....well, I just don't see much symbolism. Also, I think you continually overstate your case by trying to turn a simple discussion about what the Bible teaches into some kind of rant about oppression and so forth. A person can believe the Bible rejects homosexuality without "oppressing" anyone. Finally, I think 4,000 years of Jewish teaching and 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the issue make it pretty plain how these verses have been viewed throughout the ages. Seems strange to me that you think you know how ancient people would have understood the text and yet all the ancient writings we have from those very people show that homosexuality was viewed as a sin and was not part of their culture in any way. Its fine to have theories, bbyrd, but at some point you need SOMETHING valid to back those views up....a verse...as historical precedent...something.

So you cannot help but be led to the same conclusion as with Joe, that being ,you, assuming that you can justify a position of oppression, cloaked as righteous judgement, because the Book is after all a Manual that speaks to the dead, in this case, multiple and various passages detailing the sins of those who will never read It, strictly that they may be Identified by a True Believer, and having nothing to do with the Believer himself. That way from day 1 one may confidently ignore the lessons of Cain, because that passage is about sacrifices and murderers, and then Esau, whom God had hated, is also not applicable, because it's about people who despise their birthright, and even though we have no understanding of this, and never hear a sermon about it, and never will, that's ok because it is about people God hates anyway, not us, and it just happens to be in there in case one of those people ever walks by a Bible and It happens to be open to that page or something.

Again, this is a straw man. This has nothing to do with oppression or judgment. I also believe lies are sinful. Does that mean I oppress and condemn everyone I hear telling a lie? Give me a break. Personally, I think you have been duped by the prevailing trend of our culture to push agendas via harassment and manipulation by calling everyone who disagrees with their stance a bigot and a hate monger. As a result, people cave to prevailing trends not because they are right or have any rational or biblical justification, but simply because they don't want to be seen as a bigot or a homophobe. I am neither of those things. I just simply believe the Bible teaches the behavior is sinful and I won't be intimidated by unjustifiable labels to say otherwise.

But the Bible tells us that It is written so that we might see and not see, see, and while logical believers might confidently assure you that those who do not see are those who do not accept the particular interpretation that they hold, they do not realize that their interpretation reveals their hearts, but does not change the truth, whatever it is. The next step is to assure people of the condemnation of God, when God is wondering "Who told you that you were naked?"

So wadr "it's really not that complicated" from a logical thinker where Scripture is concerned is just another way to assert authority over the interpretation, while yes i guess it is possible to to render a passage spiritually moot by open-mindedness--at least so to speak, as it really emanates from a desire to justify lawlessness, at least in my experience--this has its own sign, and is revealed when an/the applicable spiritual moral can no longer be practically understood from the passage, and one's ego again becomes empowered to assume some human authority, ie i see that most Christian churches interpret Scripture logically, and i know that the authors are masters of dialectic thought, ergo i am justified in doing ____________ to these churches, because they are obviously misleading people, see?

How do you even know you understand what I am writing? Arent you asserting your authority over my words by assuming you understand what I am writing right now and therefore are only getting what you want to get out of my sentences rather than what I intend? Of course, I am being a bit sarcastic. You assume you know what I am saying based the fundamental nature of communication and you don't even think twice about it. Yet, any verse you don't like you seem to want to explain away by saying that the most natural interpretation is merely an effort by oppressive leaders who are jockeying for power and preeminence. Again, seems like you are more interested in looking for loopholes as to what a text doesn't mean that providing any valuable information about what a text does mean...and why.

you are just reasserting your authority over Scripture in suggesting that one can go too far in a dialectical direction, yet refusing to take the first step in that direction to know for sure. You are holding on to your logical conclusions, and insisting that you can, what, see through a dialectic interpretation? I suggest that this is not even possible. Dialecticism encourages open mindedness, yes, but it is not defined as open mindedness, wadr. Any dangers of "too open-minded" will also be revealed, whereas a logical pov must be abandoned in order to even enter into the conversation.

I think its comical that you are claiming that I am imposing my own authority on the text, while you are claiming the same authority to say that my claim of authority is wrong. It reminds me of the quote, "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." LOL.

The unassailable conclusion forces the logical perspective, which reinforces the unassailable conclusion. I could spend the rest of the day, and fill the rest of this page with arguments against a literal hell in the afterlife made of fire and whatnot, that you in essence cannot even read, even though you cannot demonstrate this hell from the lexicon, the original text. But here logic fails, and it is irrelevant that no logical proof of hell exists in the Text, as long as one maintains the conclusion that they are so convinced of. That way Gehenna does not even have to be contemplated, see; if no logical doubt remains that a fiery hell indeed exists. Who am i to tell you that it does not?

I just think you have a basic issue in understanding genres and how various figures of speech operate. If I say, "That woman is a perfect 10." Obviously I am not calling the woman a number. I am not saying she looks like a 1 or a 0 either. It is a figure of speech to say she is very attractive. Yet just because it is a figure of speech does not mean the women isn't real to begin with. My point is this...simply because figures of speech and metaphors are used to describe the condemnation of the wicked such as Gehenna, lake of fire, outer darkness, a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. does not mean the place is not a "literal place." It may not "literally" be fire, or dark or worms, or a smoldering dump like Gehenna.....but it is (or will be) a literal place. The point of metaphors or figures of speech is that they help to explain something that is beyond explanation. Just as one may not be able to explain all the precise literal features that make a woman incredibly beautiful and so they might use a phrase "a perfect 10" so also the suffering and misery of those who suffer under God's condemnation exceeds the bounds of human language and imagination. Yet it is still real. The words mean SOMETHING. A metaphor or figure of speech does not render a sentence meaningless. It simply expands the imagination to capture things that are perhaps a bit out of the reach of common language or experience. We see this all the time in the Scriptures. If hell is not literal, then one must conclude that heaven is not literal either because Jesus spoke a lot more about hell than he did heaven.

In sum, both heaven and hell ARE literal places. They are not fairy tales or made up notions Jesus and other people in the Bible employed to make theoretical points. Yet metaphors are used to describe them and those metaphors should likely not be understood in a concrete, ultra-literal sense.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, again, looks to me like you are trying to overcomplicate things. When the Bible says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman....well, I just don't see much symbolism.

and i certainly have no proof that you are wrong, ok, but i suggest that we have been programmed to think logically, possibly like children who have been told to "stay here for the present," and by God we are now staying here for the present, no matter what, because we want the "present." I can only suggest that other passages, "two men in a bed," and "prophets gone a-whoring" et al further develop what is meant to be a spiritual lesson, that "homosexuality"--or indulging oneself physically without regard to the spiritual consequences, perhaps--becomes a great metaphor of, the better because it works on more than one level.

And this is hardly my original idea, ok, plus i suggest that there are many passages that might guide one in this direction, babes drink "the milk of the Word," and are not ready for meat, the water, wine, distilled wine analogy, the see and not see. Logic leads one to assume firm conclusions, after an either/or selection process, developed as part of the scientific method, which does have a place, it is after all how physicists discovered that they can only put their finger on about 5% of what they know must exist physically; but see the implications of that.

"Homosexuality" might even be a reference to logical thinking, paired with an ego; we even recognize the absurdities that people can be led into via this process, we do comedy skits about it, etc. About people who, essentially, have undercomplicated things, reductio ad absurdum.

A person can believe the Bible rejects homosexuality without "oppressing" anyone.

oh please. yes, that is possible, but homosexuals did not rise up and start demanding equal treatment because they were already being treated equally, ok. And it is the Christian Right who led the way here. So now, see, we are firmly in a discussion about the flesh, which you suggest is what the Bible is talking about, and all i can suggest is that a popular societal meme is being used symbologically to illustrate a person's desire, and even need, to preserve their own ego. Fwiw you are free to go back to oppressing or looking down upon gay people, or feeling superior to them if you like, after contemplating a dialectical understanding of the texts, but you might note that even most people who would surely be labelled "heathen" agree with the pov, even if the oppression is now becoming less accepted.

So yes, a person can do that, but it is naive imo to suggest that people do do that, at least speaking generally. People interpret "abomination" as "special sin," and are usually encouraged to judgement by it, made to feel superior in not engaging in it, etc., which in a strange way mirrors exactly the pov of the homosexual engaging in it, which you may certainly deny or refuse to contemplate if you like, but why do this, if it makes you "the blind leading the blind?"

Trust me, actual homosexuals are still going to present the same way to you regardless, ok, but i suggest that it is actually naive to believe that the Bible is not presenting a parable for spiritual application, and that tares are likely just the conclusion we have accepted that the Bible must mean X and cannot mean Y, even though physicists (logical thinkers) have a famous acronym, "ATTBW," or Assumptions Tend To Be Wrong.

 

[bbyrd009]

Also, I think you continually overstate your case by trying to turn a simple discussion about what the Bible teaches into some kind of rant about oppression and so forth.

well ok, yes, guilty, i am likely overstating or hamming it up in a sense because imo logical thinking is an insidious kind of oppression, or can be. We even have idioms for this, "highly educated idiot" etc, the Sheldon Coopers or certain common MDs of the world, blithely secure in their own knowledge and completely unwilling to even entertain the possibility of a "both/and" scenario. The NT goes on, at length, about the Blind Leading the Blind, but have you ever heard a sermon on who these are? Who are they? They are always someone else, right? Because you could not possibly be a hypocrite, correct? You have even constructed logical arguments to defend this position. And don't get me wrong, ok, you seem blessed with a large helping of Grace, i am not meaning to single you out; just to state that we all deal with this, and of course no one recognizes hypocrisy in themselves, all have logical arguments constructed so that they may commend themselves to themselves, and few or none can be observed actually holding the pov of the repentant tax collector, me included. We are all the Pharisee in that scenario, oppressing ourselves unawares imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

Finally, I think 4,000 years of Jewish teaching and 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the issue make it pretty plain how these verses have been viewed throughout the ages.

"the wide path."
"the blind leading the blind."

i mean, established Christianity has quite literally dug "a pit" for others to fall into, and i submit that these are logical thinkers, and the 4000 years of Jewish teaching culminated in deportation and slavery for the Jews (in the "Promised Land") and as soon as they fell, Christianity rushed to fill the void with Peter, and it was understood by the dialectic masters who wrote the Book that logical thinking was in the ascendancy. And the clues are everywhere, when you are tuned to see them. What does one do, logically, when understanding "tares" as mind-altering false wheat leads too many to a more holistic spiritual understanding? Buy up Strong's Concordance and change the definition, of course.

And do we need to review what 2000 years of "Christian teaching" have culminated in? For that is undeniably who controls the world right now, ok? Your pastors lay hands of protection against "concentrated satanic attack" on a proud atheist who has openly and repeatedly rejected Grace, and denies the existence of God. And of course we would like to separate out the bad and only identify with the good, but this is just more hypocrisy.

So wadr, i am finding this sentence of yours to be just another logical way to dismiss what might open up one's understanding, and preserve logical conclusions that should only be beliefs at best, but have come to represent many peoples' faith. And for instance, what will a believer do when Oct 1 or Sep 24 or whenever rolls around, and their logical conclusion is destroyed? Will they change their minds then? Almost surely not; they will merely rejigger, and come up with a new and improved logic, that honors their ersatz conclusions, which cannot after all be wrong, else their faith has nothing left to hope for. Thief in the night, indeed.

And i have already suggested how the argument even fails logically, because after all 2000 years of logical commentators agree with you in your "church admin" assessment @ "Because..." therefore Christ could not possibly have been making a reference to an ancient legal principle in order to make a spiritual point, phrased in such a way that people may see and not see, this is your position, right? Because Christ was all about the administration of congregations in the flesh, just like the references to homosexuals means actual homosexuals, who of course do not read the Bible, but you never know when one might walk by One open to the right page or whatever. Lol.

Wadr it is difficult to even respond to what now comes across as a certain kind of madness, and rather than enter into a logical debate that will surely just end in an argument, it just seems better to me to allow you to justify how Scripture might then be "seen and not seen" for yourself, or even maybe to illuminate how the "milk" provided a new convert differs any from the "meat" that you surely believe you propagate--what do you believe, iow, that a new convert would not be prepared to hear? I submit that you cannot come up with a single meaningful thing. Doesn't this bother you any? But perhaps you can, and i might be wrong there.

How would approaching Scripture dialectically rather than logically--which you cannot help but do, btw--challenge your current understanding of salvation, do you think? Iow what is it you are objecting to, or struggling against here? A deeper grasp of the Book? Because surely it is obvious that if no deeper understanding is forthcoming, i will quickly be made out to be wrong; quicker than Oct 1, surely. What can it hurt to attempt to understand the Book from the pov in which It was written? Doesn't hearing come by the Word IRL in the moment, allowing one to recognize the symbology of a passage they have read as applying to the IRL situation in some way? Similar to a "veil" being lifted?

 

[bbyrd009]

Seems strange to me that you think you know how ancient people would have understood the text and yet all the ancient writings we have from those very people show that homosexuality was viewed as a sin and was not part of their culture in any way. Its fine to have theories, bbyrd, but at some point you need SOMETHING valid to back those views up....a verse...as historical precedent...something.

that is part of the beauty of the writings, imo, and i never stated nor meant that homosexuality was suddenly no longer an abomination or a sin, ok. I just merely say that logical thinking, and homosexuality, were conspicuous components of Greek society, and i suggest to you also that it should seem quite strange that the NT was written largely in Greek, a language which is recognized as lending itself to logical thinking, and that we have no original Hebrew manuscripts for the NT. I need nothing valid to back these views up, wadr, if the symbology is unassailable, and i am able to spiritually grow from the understanding. I have no desire for converts, or disciples, or acolytes to some cause. Where a dialectic understanding yields no spiritual insight, it will then shrivel up and die on its own; after all, we are talking about contemplations here, conversations one has with themselves, for the most part, that they may then apply to IRL, or not. If it does not serve you, then BAM do not do it. But if it does serve you, as i suggest it will, then you will be hard pressed to justify returning to a logical framework for interpreting Scripture, it seems to me. You will not forget how to think logically, unfortunately, while this might actually be desired.

The illustration of "little children" is especially apt here, imo. Little kids have not developed a logical framework from which to reason yet, and are willing to accept that they do not know something for sure, have not reached any or many unassailable conclusions; at least until their "pastor" (parents) tell them something, at which time it becomes the truth, and can no longer be questioned, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKdDyyanGk

 

[bbyrd009]

Again, this is a straw man. This has nothing to do with oppression or judgment. I also believe lies are sinful. Does that mean I oppress and condemn everyone I hear telling a lie? Give me a break. Personally, I think you have been duped by the prevailing trend of our culture to push agendas via harassment and manipulation by calling everyone who disagrees with their stance a bigot and a hate monger. As a result, people cave to prevailing trends not because they are right or have any rational or biblical justification, but simply because they don't want to be seen as a bigot or a homophobe. I am neither of those things.

ok well you say all this, and there might certainly be reflections of truth in it too, ok, i cannot say that there are not. But you might contemplate specifically how your "church admin" scenario suggests this "gathering," which imo becomes a "selecting," in violation of the spirit of the passage, also, imo. You are obviously not a hate-monger, and it is equally obvious that some protocol might need to be developed to deal with the Joes of the world, at least if they are accepted as part of one's "church." One answer does not fit all, at least generally speaking.

I just simply believe the Bible teaches the behavior is sinful and I won't be intimidated by unjustifiable labels to say otherwise.

but i have repeatedly allowed that the logical interpretation may certainly have validity, see, while also justifying how it might also have a deeper significance; so this sentence seems like a defense, when no offense has been suggested, if you get me. You can either reflect upon whether or not a logical pov is too simplistic, and might possibly be blinding one, or the "milk" of understanding v dialectical thinking, which the writers of Torah are acknowledged to have developed to an art, or not. After all, who condemns little children for hearing "wait here for the present" the wrong way? But this nonetheless does not suddenly mean that a present will be forthcoming, no matter how long the child waits.

 

[bbyrd009]

How do you even know you understand what I am writing? Arent you asserting your authority over my words by assuming you understand what I am writing right now and therefore are only getting what you want to get out of my sentences rather than what I intend? Of course, I am being a bit sarcastic. You assume you know what I am saying based the fundamental nature of communication and you don't even think twice about it. Yet, any verse you don't like you seem to want to explain away by saying that the most natural interpretation is merely an effort by oppressive leaders who are jockeying for power and preeminence. Again, seems like you are more interested in looking for loopholes as to what a text doesn't mean that providing any valuable information about what a text does mean...and why.

hmm well, can't think of any verses i don't like, or have even rejected a logical interpretation of, and yes we make assumptions all of the time, assumptions must be made or life, and debate, would grind to a halt in the clarifying, right. "assumptions make an ass of you and me" is cute fodder for a movie, but completely antithetical to IRL. Yet i was able to assume correctly that you were a pastor nonetheless, see. Do assumptions tend to be wrong? Yes, that is also true.

So, since i find it undeniable that "strong men" have long ago sought to take control of the reins of God, and surely we can both agree that the most natural interpretation might also be killing you--"there is a way that seems right to a man, that ends in death"--i will only say that you are completely free to ignore all that i am saying, wherein you of course get to continue "selecting" for your "gathering," as i would be incorrect to say that there are not some cases where the two might be synonymous. Imo a logical pov reduces an inspired work to a dead, one-dimensional text, but that is just imo.

I suggest that "see and not see" points to the inspired nature of the Book, and anyone reflecting upon

"'Because...' must mean church admin, only, as it descends from an ancient legal principle about witnesses, and Christ was a legal beagle, that is the first thing that comes to anyone's mind when they contemplate Christ"

can come to their own conclusions, surely.

 

[bbyrd009]

I think its comical that you are claiming that I am imposing my own authority on the text, while you are claiming the same authority to say that my claim of authority is wrong. It reminds me of the quote, "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." LOL.

well, i am def making assumptions there, and perhaps you do not mean to be dismissive as i assumed in reading your...dismissals, lol, but we lack a lot of the cues found in normal conversation here, so choice of words perhaps becomes more important; i am not reading "hmm, there might be something to be said for interpreting Scripture the way it was written," but " i think this thing that i won't bother trying may be safely dismissed, because after all 2000 years of "church fathers" have not bothered to, and i can just relegate a discussion of "wide path" and "blind leading the blind" to other concepts, meant for another thread."

of course we all want our interpretations to be authoritative, so i am trying my best to avoid entering into a logical discussion/argument here, and agree that i may be misunderstanding, yes.

 

[bbyrd009]

In sum, both heaven and hell ARE literal places. They are not fairy tales or made up notions Jesus and other people in the Bible employed to make theoretical points. Yet metaphors are used to describe them and those metaphors should likely not be understood in a concrete, ultra-literal sense.

a "place" to me assumes a physical presence, so we may be arguing at cross purposes now, i don't know, but i suggest that you cannot demonstrate your understanding of a literal "hell" without relying on several pantheist mythologies, that only begin with "Hades," a Greek mythological god of the dead, that is not even sufficient on its own, as that mythology holds no conception of fire or punishment; for that you must rely on Anglish scribes who, lacking a better reference, alluded to Norse mythology in their translations, to even justify translating "Gehenna" into "hell," when--just like Easter--we already have a perfectly understandable English translation, "Gehenna"--same as we do Passover--and i suggest that the purpose is to remove a "believer" from the here and now and get them plowing their own ground, a la Cain, absorbed with the "eternal" fate of their souls, or "tomorrow" iow, to the neglect of today, and in this manner be robbed as if by a thief in the night.

For you surely seem to evince a concrete, ultra-literal belief in hell as a literal place as you have already admitted, while i can only suggest that you have been deceived by people that you also gave money to, and this association should be understood for its implications if nothing else. For it cannot be denied that you give money to people who have signed contracts for Jesus, that add up to 666, and i have too, don't get me wrong.

If you go and ask the one who convinced you of a literal hell to explain the progression to you, i am sure that you will get no better explanation than has been given to me after revealing the Norse/Angle translation connection here, which is to say none whatsoever. If you were to approach them with these questions you would equally be dismissed, and if you persisted you would be excommunicated as a heretic.

Hell is in fact a fairy tale, whereas Gehenna is not, and you might reflect upon how it is that you now see symbolism, which i do not deny exists, ok, yes, i have no doubt that some will suffer for lack of "water" after they die, but i suggest that it is the religious who make sons most fit for hell, and arguably for Gehenna as well. Contemplate why it is that prostitutes and tax collectors may be beating them into the kingdom iow.

Of course the reply i usually get there is "well that was talking about the Jews," wherein any symbology is once again suddenly denied, as suits the individual.

 

[bbyrd009]

You are certainly free to continue reading the Book from a logical perspective, if that suits you, ignoring that you cannot reply to my earlier questions of weeks past, if you like. I do not need to be agreed with here, and i do not solicit donations of money. I might even be wrong, but you cannot find out if you do not at least contemplate a dialectical interpretation, and you cannot even do that if you do not know how, or at least recognize on some level how logical and dialectical thinking can contradict each other.

You will inevitably accept that there is an actual "date," just like you accept that there is an actual hell, because after all there it is, in writing, "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you," so therefore some literal date can logically then be assumed, right? Paul must surely have craved death, to write "absent from the body is present with the Lord," correct? Because those who are described as the Body of Christ, and who claim to have His Spirit, could not possibly be present with the Lord right now then, can they? Especially not if Jesus needs His Body back to mount the White Horse and come "save" everybody--or save them again, or whatever--oh, but then whatever will happen to those who are then "absent from the body?" Are they all going to fit on the back of that horse?

See that it cannot be made to make even logical sense which of course does not stop many people believing it, because that is what they want, and need to have be true so that they can be right. I certainly will not be disappointed if there is a rapture, ok; the question is will you be disappointed if there is not one?

 

[Wormwood]

and i certainly have no proof that you are wrong, ok

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.

oh please. yes, that is possible, but homosexuals did not rise up and start demanding equal treatment because they were already being treated equally, ok.

1. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. That is like saying everyone has the "right" to drive a car. No they don't.
2. Last I checked, homosexuals were not being prohibited from being in cohabiting relationships. The issues revolve around marriage certificates and tax benefits. It has nothing to do with "oppression." '
3. None of this has to do with my point. I don't oppress people just because I believe they may be sinning. Again, your lack of substance in your responses has resulted in you trying to make your point by attacking my motives and my character. You don't even know me. So please deal with the content of my responses rather than discrediting my comments by making it sound like I only believe the way I do because I am looking or ways to oppress or mistreat others. If you have rationale for why you think I am wrong, simply state as much. Don't attack my character or motives. I don't do this to you.

well ok, yes, guilty, i am likely overstating or hamming it up in a sense because imo logical thinking is an insidious kind of oppression, or can be.

Logic is oppressive? Are you arguing that we should be having an illogical conversation? I think you are looking for a different word...surely you aren't claiming using logic is oppressive and that our conversation should be void of it.

The NT goes on, at length, about the Blind Leading the Blind, but have you ever heard a sermon on who these are? Who are they? They are always someone else, right? Because you could not possibly be a hypocrite, correct?

The fault of the Pharisees was not that they were "religious" or "logical" but that they were arrogant, self-righteous and rejected the person and work of Jesus. A hypocrite is an actor. I don't think my faith is an act. I am not doing what I do to get applause or praise from people. Having conviction is not the same thing as being a Pharisee or a hypocrite. Paul had convictions too...and so did Jesus.

"the wide path."
"the blind leading the blind."

You are dodging the point and I am not going to let you get away with it. Your point was that our reasoning methods in the modern day cause us to misunderstand how the ancients would have understood the Bible. Yet YOUR reasoning methods are leading you to conclusions that were rejected from the very people you claim your are thinking like and that modern thinkers are not! Don't you see the irony here? You are basically saying, "The ancient communities would not have drawn the conclusions we are drawing." I say, "Um, well history disagrees with your interpretations on how ancients would have understood these texts." And you say, "Oh, well thats just because the blind lead the blind."

So basically, your point is that you know better than everyone else of what early readers understood. And when history disagrees with you, well, its just because we are looking at oppressive history. How convenient. But then again, maybe I am just trying to oppress you with logic. lol

and i suggest to you also that it should seem quite strange that the NT was written largely in Greek, a language which is recognized as lending itself to logical thinking, and that we have no original Hebrew manuscripts for the NT.

Ok, so your argument is that the fact the NT was written in the Greek language proves that the NT writers were accepting of Greek practices and lifestyles, including those they specifically condemned in those Greek texts. Am I being punked?

The illustration of "little children" is especially apt here, imo. Little kids have not developed a logical framework from which to reason yet, and are willing to accept that they do not know something for sure, have not reached any or many unassailable conclusions; at least until their "pastor" (parents) tell them something, at which time it becomes the truth, and can no longer be questioned, right?

Childlike faith and reason are not antithetical. Didn't Jesus say we should be innocent as doves and wise as serpents? I don't think Jesus' call for his disciples to be like little children mean they were to be gullible and believe everything someone tells them (in fact, he warns them about such gullibility). Childlike faith means that we trust God when we don't have all the answers. It doesn't mean that we believe things that are contradictory, untrustworthy or suspicious.

One answer does not fit all, at least generally speaking.

I agree with this. However, there are biblical principles that should guide our thinking. Otherwise, we are left to spit-balling with our own devices and whatever the prevailing trends of culture embrace. That never turned out very well for the Israelites.

After all, who condemns little children for hearing "wait here for the present" the wrong way? But this nonetheless does not suddenly mean that a present will be forthcoming, no matter how long the child waits.

Id encourage you to use biblical examples of what you mean. Again, I don't think the Bible is this vague and nebulous. I think if someone spends time really honestly looking at a text, the message is pretty clear. The problem is that many today are very eager to try to justify themselves and spend a lot of time and energy trying to prove that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. This is all a pretty recent development in Biblical scholarship and is usually driven by some cultural norm that is trying to find wider acceptance...so people try to manipulate the Bible to convolute a clear teaching.

something to be said for interpreting Scripture the way it was written," but " i think this thing that i won't bother trying may be safely dismissed, because after all 2000 years of "church fathers" have not bothered to, and i can just relegate a discussion of "wide path" and "blind leading the blind" to other concepts, meant for another thread."

my appeal to church history was not an effort to justify my views. My point was that you are claiming your way of reading the Bible was how early readers would have read it but your conclusions are light years from theirs. So obviously the is not the case.

You are certainly free to continue reading the Book from a logical perspective, if that suits you, ignoring that you cannot reply to my earlier questions of weeks past, if you like. I do not need to be agreed with here, and i do not solicit donations of money.

Well, considering Jesus is the "logos" (from whence we derive our word "logic") I think I prefer a logical perspective from an illogical one. FYI, I do not solicit donations for money either. I am not paid by offering plates or church donations...so I assure you my views have nothing to do with my own financial self-preservation.

 

[bbyrd009]

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.

 

[bbyrd009]

1. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. That is like saying everyone has the "right" to drive a car. No they don't.

k well apparently the State--to which you pledge allegiance, and give crucial credence to by participating in, voting for, and supporting with your money, and sending your sons to die for--disagrees with you, so being as how i have no dog in that hunt any way you look at it, i might just ask how you deal with this obvious dichotomy.

2. Last I checked, homosexuals were not being prohibited from being in cohabiting relationships. The issues revolve around marriage certificates and tax benefits. It has nothing to do with "oppression." '

that is your pov, but gay people tell a different story, one of being denied equal access in most every walk of life, can't go visit people in hospitals, can't inherit, can't even get a damned cake made, or a t shirt printed. So wadr i will decide what the issues are for myself, ty, and no offense meant.

3. None of this has to do with my point. I don't oppress people just because I believe they may be sinning. Again, your lack of substance in your responses has resulted in you trying to make your point by attacking my motives and my character. You don't even know me. So please deal with the content of my responses rather than discrediting my comments by making it sound like I only believe the way I do because I am looking or ways to oppress or mistreat others. If you have rationale for why you think I am wrong, simply state as much. Don't attack my character or motives. I don't do this to you.

i had to scroll back up and read what i wrote that predicated this response, that being

oh please. yes, that is possible, but homosexuals did not rise up and start demanding equal treatment because they were already being treated equally, ok.

and i am comfortable with my response there. I think you are a person of good or even great character whose motives are as manipulable as anyone else's, and have openly stated that "gather" can be defined as "select" when it suits you, regardless of whether i approve of your protocol for handling Joe or not, which btw seemed logical even to me. Or, since that might be taken wrong, i mean that once you have accepted Joe as being in your church, that is likely as valid a response as any, the emphasis being "once you have accepted that Joe is (somehow) a member of your 'church.'"

Of course you oppress people whom you think might be sinning; that is only logical. And of course you also support and vote for and pledge allegiance to people who can demonstrably be characterized as sinners, too. I do some of these things myself. We of course justify them--you mean something different by "oppression" there, possibly, than i mean, for instance--and they are maybe even quite often justifiable, so don't get me wrong.

(Ah, but i will offer a sincere apology now, as i had forgotten that you are no longer a hypocrite)

 

[bbyrd009]

Logic is oppressive? Are you arguing that we should be having an illogical conversation? I think you are looking for a different word...surely you aren't claiming using logic is oppressive and that our conversation should be void of it.

Logic descends from the Greek "logos," and you might ask why Hebrew Scholars surely devoted to the concept of Dabhar would suddenly be invoking Greek gods and concepts? "Oppressive" might or might not be the right..."word" (ha, little joke there for ya ), but then spraying your food with poison is logical, so i will let you decide. You might bear in mind that it is Talmudic scholars who are credited with raising dialectic argument to an art form, and then you might convey to me the logic of giving a guy your coat who had just stolen your shirt?

So yes, in a sense it is very oppressive, in that there is a way that seems right to a man that ends in death. Ergo, we are called to change our minds. I am almost prepared to state that dialecticism is the central them here, but i'm not quite there yet, even though it appears that many others who are considered deep thinkers have already done so.

But regardless, it is pretty obvious that the guy turning the other cheek is not acting logically; and please don't refer to that retarded article going around about how turning the other cheek is actually a metaphor for snubbing someone or whatever the conclusion is. Or by all means do, as it would not surprise me at all if that were true, but then go and find the metaphor for giving your coat to the guy who just robbed you, in that case.

 

[bbyrd009]

The fault of the Pharisees was not that they were "religious" or "logical" but that they were arrogant, self-righteous and rejected the person and work of Jesus. A hypocrite is an actor. I don't think my faith is an act. I am not doing what I do to get applause or praise from people. Having conviction is not the same thing as being a Pharisee or a hypocrite. Paul had convictions too...and so did Jesus.

to this i would say that hypocrites are portrayed here as being aware of their hypocrisy? When i'm not sure that that is generally the case. I have to admit to assuming here, and i'll have to go research to make sure that my assumption is not off, but i always understood a hypocrite to be generally oblivious of their hypocrisy? Iow imo a hypocritical statement pronounced from a position of knowing or being aware is just a lie, isn't it? Maybe i'm wrong there.