You've gone from being responsive to ignoring the point and repeating yourself with ad hominem irrelevancies peppered in to boot.
Care to try again?
Our Moral God
- Thread starter Logikos
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Care to try again?
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
No. Bottom line your Interpretation of John 1:1 of Logos meaning logic is wrong.
Let everyone see again YOUR interpretation: " In the beginning was logic and logic was with God and logic was God."
Don't really think any Christian scholar or layman I know would agree with that or your thesis largely comprised of an atheist' philosphy.
Again, are you pushing 18th century Enlightenment/Reason philosphy?
Case closed on my end.
Saying it doesn't make it so. You can repeat yourself as much as you like but it won't refute a single syllable of what I've spent a good deal of time establishing as fact.
First of all, isn't "my interpretation". It isn't even an interpretation to begin with. It's a translation and a far better one that we find in our English bibles.
Well, I quoted some, so there ya go.
I think you knew that this was false when you wrote it. What is it around here that makes it so that people feel the need to lie? Who is it that you expect to convince with this nonsense?
Well, once again, you showing up to state boldly that I'm wrong doesn't do anything to refute the actual arguments I've presented and since I don't give a damn about your personal opinions, I ask again, just who is it that you're trying to convince?
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
LOL, nobody is interested in your thesis. Aunty Jane is a Jehovah Witness and Redfan just put in his two cent rebuttal in defense of the SCOTUS and their Gay Marriage ruling. YOU lost the others in your other related thread who were all in disagreement and repulsed by your arrogance. Who needs to convince anyone?
But hey, take a break, refresh yourself ... stick around and give it a go on another topic!
Saying it doesn't make it so. It has sparked a great deal of discussion on multiple Christian web forums and at more than one church over the years.
I am perfectly capable of ignoring irrelevancies without your help, thank you.
It wasn't my arrogance that caused the trouble but there's.
Needs? No one NEEDS to. Wants to is a different question. That is at least part of the motive that most anyone has for showing up on such a forum. Personally, I learned long ago that almost no one on these "Christian" web forums are at all interested in learning anything and so I stopped caring whether anyone is ever convinced. I present what I believe to be the truth for two reasons. Too expose that truth to those who might otherwise be permitted to plead ignorance and to see whether my beliefs can stand up against all comers.
On that last point, no one has come within a mile of refuting any portion of what I posted in the opening post - not one single syllable. Most don't even make any attempt to refute it nor would they know where to even begin if they were even interested in doing so.
I'm perfectly happy to continue with you unless doing so means just repeating ourselves. If you want to make some sort of an attempt to actually address the arguments I've made instead of simply declaring them to be false as though you get to decide such things then I'd happily hear (read) and respond to any actual argument you want to make! That is THE primary reason I'm here!
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
We try to teach children by repeating the same things over and over again so that they will eventually get it. But some just don't listen and become stubborn adults.
My Pastor used to stress the importance of redundancy in teaching.
>> A major component of your premise in your thesis is that in JOHN 1:1, LOGOS MEANS logic <<
This definition suffers miserably to express the full spectrum of meaning. We know God is logical, but just to imply logic or reason is the fundamental truth about God is weak. To introduce God that way is lacking spiritual depth and insight. Greek philosphy taught that reason was the fundamental reality and the Age of Enlightenment/ Reason reiterated that concept.
The first sentence of the Book of John presents JESUS AS GOD. HE IS THE WORD. The entire book elaborates on the deity of Christ. One does not grasp the book if he does not get tha point.
In essence He is the exact expression and illumination of God's divine wisdom, life, power, love and glory.
[verse 3] - He is the Creator ...
[vs. 4] Life and Light of men
[vs. 14] He became flesh and dwelt among us in the fullness of grace and truth.
The entire Bible is also referred to as the WORD. I have heard scholars claim that Jesus is on every page of the Bible.
We all agree (most of us), that we receive a moral code from God. He is righteous, good and holy. We are to be aware of what is evil too and learn to distinguish between the good and evil.
Logos is vast and deep, encompassing the truth and nature about God, it is not just his logic we are talking about.
You seem to be obsessed with the word logic to the point that you use that as your avatar and also describe God this way, which is impersonal. Besides omniscience is better partial description of His mind, but then you are leaving out omnipotence and omnipresence. Even those words are not quite enough to describe God, Who is Spirit, loving, kind, patient, good, faithful, merciful, forgiving, gracious, glorious, peaceful, joyful, just, righteous, holy, eternal and much more. We need the whole Bible to grasp who Logos is. And then someday, He will reveal the mysteries of God to us.
So you respond to an offer to continue by insulting me? So which am I, a child or a stubborn adult?
If you make arguments, I will respond in kind. If you make bald claims with no supporting argument then there is nothing to respond to except to tell you that saying something doesn't make it so.
Saying it doesn't make it so!
Saying it doesn't make it so!
Saying it doesn't make it so!
As stated, neither of these claims are true and wouldn't really be relevant if they were.
What is relevant is what John's Greek audience would have understood him to be saying in the first part of his gospel. The Greeks were very much aware that the universe made sense, that there was a logic to it and believed because of the undeniable order of the universe that it could not have happened by accident and that there was therefore a divine force that was responsible for this order. The term they used to refer to this divine force was the term "Logos" and it was specifically this concept that John was referencing. They DID NOT believe that some sort of disembodied, impersonal sort of logic was the fundamental reality, as you seem to claim.
As for "logic" as a proper English translation of the term "logos", it isn't even disputable. I quoted notable sources in my essay and you can look it up yourself without much effort. What it means in the context of John's gospel is a matter for deep discussion, prayer and meditation, none of which can be done without employing sound reason, by the way.
Precisely!
No doubt!
None of this is in dispute nor has a syllable of it has been challenged by me in anyway shape fashion or form nor is it relevant to whether "logic" or "reason" or even "divine reason" is a better translation of Logos into English than is the term "word"!
But not the Logos! You are making my argument for me!
The use of the term "word" actually has a normal and intuitive meaning in the context of referring to the bible as "the word of God", which is precisely what is absent of the use of the term "word" in John 1.
"Every page" may be an overstatement but I have no dispute with the sentiment.
This is also not in dispute and misses the point. The question is whether God Himself is moral and if so, by what standard?
I didn't say it was!
It is totally personal! There is no such thing as impersonal logic. Logic cannot occur absent a person. Logic presupposes a thinking mind.
What you might mean is that it is unemotional. If so, then I would ask whether you think that doctrine should be done dispassionately or not and to what degree you would think it wise to employ emotions that are not strictly governed by reason in any determination of one's doctrine?
All three of these doctrines are unbiblical and have the origins directly from the very Greek philosophy that you're attempting to beat me over the head with! They are literally called the "Classical attributes of God". The term "Classical" being a reference to the fact that the Omni doctrines come from Aristotle and Plato and were imported from there by Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century.
Biblically....
God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know.
God is the source of all power but delegates power to others and cannot do the rationally absurd (e.g. make perfect spheres with sharp corners).
God is everywhere He wants to be but is not required to be anywhere He does not want to be nor is He capable of being in a place that does not exist (e.g. the past or future).
Not a word of this is in dispute nor is any of it challenged by a proper translation of the word Logos into English!
Similar threads
