Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

[Richard_oti]

<snip>Just a Christian believer with the gifts of evangelism, prayer/warfare/counseling and deliverance, worship, missions, I don't seem to find much time for anything else...

How could you, sounds like a pretty full plate.

 

[bbyrd009]

What's a dialectic?

what is logic, then? You say that you don't spend much time on such things, but you have been trained to think in a way that is recognized to be at odds with the way an Asian thinks, and the authors of Torah are acknowledged to have mastered; you are using it right now. And satan is recognized to use a warped form of dialecticism, "satan's dialectic," against Eve (you), and etc.

so then a "dialectic" method of deduction is what might serve you in reading Scripture, where logical conundrums will not. The alt is to accept what some other person interprets as truth, and acknowledge an earthly intermediary between you and Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

What's a dialectic? I'm sorry I don't spend much time on such things. I am no theologian. Just a Christian believer with the gifts of evangelism, prayer/warfare/counseling and deliverance, worship, missions, I don't seem to find much time for anything else...

Angelina,

If you asked Dr Google, 'meaning of dialectic', you'd find a pretty good definition.

Oxford Dictionaries Online give the meaning as: 'The art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions' (2017. s v dialectic).

I expect that you would use dialectic reasoning plenty of times in your evangelism. If somebody were to say that to rely on the NT for any kind of Gospel is to use fairy tales. What would you say in response? I expect that you would want to discuss the truth of opinions and how you discern the truth from falsehood. That's using dialectic.

Many posters of this forum regularly use dialectic reasoning. I'm doing it now.

Oz

 

[Angelina]

what is logic, then? You say that you don't spend much time on such things, but you have been trained to think in a way that is recognized to be at odds with the way an Asian thinks, and the authors of Torah are acknowledged to have mastered; you are using it right now. And satan is recognized to use a warped form of dialecticism, "satan's dialectic," against Eve (you), and etc.

so then a "dialectic" method of deduction is what might serve you in reading Scripture, where logical conundrums will not. The alt is to accept what some other person interprets as truth, and acknowledge an earthly intermediary between you and Christ.

So it's an opinion based on our mores, culture, religion, values, upbringing? when you read scripture?

 

[bbyrd009]

So it's an opinion based on our mores, culture, religion, values, upbringing? when you read scripture?

if you would read the op, you would see that that might be one way to put it, but @ "opinion" the impression is given that the opinion need not be supported, whereas that is not really true, and we recognize the value of witnesses also. So, a better way to define it is;

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...
__________________________________________________
and we could further differentiate this from "Hegelian dialectic," which is not the same thing at all, by seeing that the Hegelian makes very different assumptions, that are propositions, forcing one back to an "A or notA" decision, warping the 3rd assumption there into one of conflict rather than cooperation, and assuming a winner and a loser.

 

[DPMartin]

ya, we are led to "Hegelian" dialectics first now, using that method of search, and Hegelian dialectics is just Logic in a dress, near as i can tell. Assumes that A or notA are the only choices, invites the conflict as the only way to get to the synthesis, wherein a "winner" and a "loser" are implied.

i would equate this to searching for a definition of Tares now; you are going to get "Weeds," even in Strong's, now.

you know, your on the mark on that, though I don't go down those roads of "isms" anymore, its been my effort to express the same as you've stated here. you can see plainly in many churches and on many sites that are noted as "Christian". they have taken the "religion" and made it in their own image of what they think God and Christianity ought to be.

the painting doesn't tell the painter what it ought to be and what the painting ought to be. the revelation of the Creator to the created is the fulfillment of the created according to the Creator.

here is one that is irrational thinking to the whole Christian community :


Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


you know there are those who criticize Christians with their pie in the sky philosophy. and they are correct because Jesus says "
behold, the kingdom of God is within you"

so the society as a whole (western culture if you will) has been taught a certain rational which is the reasoning they go by. idealisms are like theories they are the reasoning and the rational until proven wrong.

the dilution if you will in winners losers, is the competition. whereas its about the edge not the competition. when God was with Joshua or King David it wasn't about the competition was it? it was about the edge they had of God being with them. in which case it wasn't a competition.

 

[bbyrd009]

they have taken the "religion" and made it in their own image of what they think God and Christianity ought to be.

ya, we all go into the holy of holies and proclaim ourselves God, imo, and this is just another reflection of that. And we can note that when King David was anointed, he did not do this, where King Saul was concerned, even though it might have been considered within his rights as king. We--or at least i--would be killing Saul, and justifying it by the witnesses to the anointing.

 

[DPMartin]

ya, we all go into the holy of holies and proclaim ourselves God, imo, and this is just another reflection of that. And we can note that when King David was anointed, he did not do this, where King Saul was concerned, even though it might have been considered within his rights as king. We--or at least i--would be killing Saul, and justifying it by the witnesses to the anointing.

well the temptation to be thine own is overwhelming seeing we are born into it. we lead ourselves or follow according to what we see is good for ourselves. justifying our way via "isms" to ourselves and those around us, without seeking approval of the Creator and Judge.

like Saul seeking the fulfillment of his own judgment, where as David was obviously a believer that God's Judgement, is the Judgement that was good for him and the nation of Israel.

 

[bbyrd009]

justifying our way via "isms" to ourselves and those around us, without seeking approval of the Creator and Judge.

yes--can't help but see how these are manifested by "Hegelian" dialectic, not to change the subject lol

 

[DPMartin]

yes--can't help but see how these are manifested by "Hegelian" dialectic, not to change the subject lol

na, you're right, its just another way of saying the same old. nothing changes under the sun does it? especially human nature.

 

[OzSpen]

So it's an opinion based on our mores, culture, religion, values, upbringing? when you read scripture?

It's a method of investigating and discussing to try to arrive at the truth.

 

[bbyrd009]

It's a method of investigating and discussing to try to arrive at the truth.

yes, and it is done so artfully in Scripture that we do not notice, because disparate passages or concepts are often separated, even though clues are frequent, "in a little while you will see Me no more," "You will see Him come down..." etc often separated by only a paragraph or so, read one the other day about "saying," where "you will say" and "you will not say" the same thing, whatever it was, are right next to each other, stuff like that.

 

[bbyrd009]

ok i guess some examples are in order duh, an apropos one might be

1. Abraham being credited with not doubting, although his doubting is documented, and even fathered a separate race.

um, guess we should provide the Scriptures for this, i'll be back, preety sure i can quote a hundred. prolly a thousand if i was motivated.

2. "pretty soon you will see me no more."
"then, you will see me."

one of the most misunderstood imo

3. "provide for your family"
"don't work for food"

 

[Helen]

ok i guess some examples are in order duh, an apropos one might be

1. Abraham being credited with not doubting, although his doubting is documented, and even fathered a separate race.

um, guess we should provide the Scriptures for this, i'll be back, preety sure i can quote a hundred. prolly a thousand if i was motivated.

2. "pretty soon you will see me no more."
"then, you will see me."

one of the most misunderstood imo

3. "provide for your family"
"don't work for food"

I think I get the gist of the thread.
I'm reading it, but so much of it just misses me...you are much too clever...my brain is small and gets tired quickly!

 

[bbyrd009]

I think I get the gist of the thread.
I'm reading it, but so much of it just misses me...you are much too clever...my brain is small and gets tired quickly!

i guess it seems that way...but i didn't go looking for this, it came and found me! If you watched a couple rabbis debate a spiritual matter, and compared it to how we argue them, this would become clearer i guess

 

[Richard_oti]

i guess it seems that way...but i didn't go looking for this, it came and found me! If you watched a couple rabbis debate a spiritual matter, and compared it to how we argue them, this would become clearer i guess

It has been said, that in the presence of two Rabbi's, there are three opinions.

 

[bbyrd009]

It has been said, that in the presence of two Rabbi's, there are three opinions.

ha, great way to put it, ya

 

[bbyrd009]

 

[bbyrd009]

...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.

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

...and Talmudic scholars developed dialectic thinking over the next two millennia and more.

 

[bbyrd009]

It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason dialectically, 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