Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Big Picture

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post
    Arguments are all worldly, and because you will die, will die with you...

    Arguments simply affirm the world in which you will die...

    The world in which we find ourselves is saturated with death...

    Reliance on this world, as you demand, can only yield death...

    It is inherently NIHILISTIC...

    It terminates in the termination of death...

    Arsenios
    Unbelievably idiotic, self-defeating stupidity!

    Are all these little pithy burps of stupidity true?

    If so, how did you come to know it?

    Who convinced you and how?

    Do NOT answer! The questions answer themselves, not that you'd have the brains enough to understand that.
    sigpic
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post
      In philosophy, one challenges on the basis of premises, and in intelligent philosophy, on the basis of the rule of fundamentality of premises, and the only means of proof is by reference to the reality which we all apprehend in various ways...

      The history of Christianity in the first few centuries was one of being ignored and being persecuted... The persecutions resulted in the martyring of Christians in a lot of pretty diabolical ways - I can describe some if you doubt me - but the very word martyr MEANS witness... The witness of the Christian Faith is not of the world we commonly apprehend, but is instead one of the world we do NOT commonly apprehend, which is apprehended by Revelation from God and the Faith which Christ Gave to His Apostles, which is the Christian Faith we see in the world to this day.

      So the fundamental premise I am challenging you on is that the "PROOF" that you are insisting upon is a worldly proof, and the reality of the Christian Faith's God is not subject to such constrictions, but is instead the creator of those constrictions... Hence, the Christian proof is ad-hominum, and it is not one that you can match, which is martyrdom itself, in the Radiance of Divine Joy...

      THIS proof, you see, you cannot match, and you flee from it, and scorn it to justify your flight, while retreating into logical worldly proofs... The Faith of Christ, you see, is SUPRA-LOGICAL, and works all manner of hidden things you cannot know which created and are sustaining the reality that you, in your fallen condition common to all mankind, are able to see. The eyes of the Faith are only secondarily physical, and are primarily noetic... The eyes you insist upon constraining us to are merely optical, you see, and noetic eyes are not so constrained...

      So for us, you are wading with the toddlers in the shallow end of the constricted pool, while the ocean cannot be seen, whose very existence toddlers deny until they are entered into it at death...

      I did not find Wittgenstein helpful at all, btw...

      Arsenios
      You are stupid!

      I never asked for proof. What I asked for was an argument!

      It's called rational discourse! Where you present ideas that form the foundation of a logical argument and that leads to a conclusion. You may make an error at any point along the way but whether you do or not, because there is more than a mere claim being made, progress can be made in the discussion.

      Naked claims are mere opinions. They cannot be refuted nor can they be established without rational discourse (i.e. without making an argument!).

      If you don't want to make an argument then you aren't interested in rational discourse. What you're interested in is bloviating, which is frankly boring and almost always a complete waste of everyone's time.
      sigpic
      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post
        God, seeing the sincerity and true heart of this good peasant, every night sent the little fox to that palm tree to comfort him and accept his sacrifice.”
        Amen.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Clete View Post
          You are stupid!

          ...I asked for... rational discourse!
          hmmmmmm...
          Whatever ELSE you do, AVOID at all costs looking into any mirror...
          Even inadvertently...
          1-800-USTUPID might avail some helps...

          Where you present ideas that form the foundation of a logical argument and that leads to a conclusion. You may make an error at any point along the way but whether you do or not, because there is more than a mere claim being made, progress can be made in the discussion.
          I challenged the premise of your premise, and you have failed to engage...

          Naked claims are mere opinions. They cannot be refuted nor can they be established without rational discourse (i.e. without making an argument!).
          I introduced a premise-essential challenge to your essential premise...

          Are you unable to respond without calling me stupid?

          If you don't want to make an argument then you aren't interested in rational discourse. What you're interested in is bloviating, which is frankly boring and almost always a complete waste of everyone's time.
          Challenging a premise with an ontological proof is VERY rational...

          Have you considered anger management classes?

          You seem to be getting awfully upset over a few words here...

          Arsenios - The Bloviatorialist
          Arsenios

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Clete View Post
            Unbelievably idiotic, self-defeating stupidity!
            Aw c'mon -

            Didja fergit y'erse'f?

            You SAID I had my choice:
            I was either to MAKE THE ARGUMENT,
            which I did,
            or
            SHUT UP,
            which I didn't...

            And having been utterly obedient to your DEMAND,
            HOW can you possibly be so vicious and mean to me???

            Calling me idiotic and stupid beyond measure?

            Have you no shame?

            Or even perhaps the slightest touch of fair-play?

            Are you really so self-involved and hard hearted?

            I mean, what I am missing from you is your over-exuberance of JOY!

            All I am finding is bitterness and outrage...

            You see, this is the ontological argument you cannot face...

            All you can do is kick against the goads...

            Words are not the reality to which they refer,
            No matter how stupid you may think me to be...
            So, somehow, you are going to have to get over it...
            Because you have not yet apprehended ontological knowing...
            You seem to think you can weave a spiderine web of thoughts with words that will hold reality...
            An' i'tain't true...
            The Germans failed, then birthed Hitler, and he killed many...
            Anger and Hate can do strange things...
            Far worse than mere name-calling...

            Are all these little pithy burps of stupidity true?
            Truer than your hatred...

            If so, how did you come to know it?
            Love and Repentance...

            Who convinced you and how?
            God by Grace...

            Do NOT answer!
            Too late!

            The questions answer themselves,
            not that you'd have the brains enough to understand that.
            Ever read Dostoyevski's "The Brothers Karamazov" and the chapter titled "The Grand Inquisitor"??
            Great argument, you may recall... Two men, the first justifying his own committing of torture and murder with the whole chapter's words to the prisoner in the cell, and the prisoner winning the argument with a kiss...

            God bless you, my Brother!

            I didn't get it either when I was your age...

            And I am worse than you...

            Arsenios
            Last edited by Arsenios; March 2nd, 2016, 10:08 AM.
            Arsenios

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
              You are stupid!
              Flattery avails little...

              I never asked for proof. What I asked for was an argument!
              Some arguments do prove, for what it might avail...

              The rest do not, true enough...

              So are you complaining that my argument is proving something?

              That you would prefer that it did not?

              It's called rational discourse!
              Calling me stupid is rational discourse?

              Have you considered dictionaries?

              Where you present ideas that form the foundation of a logical argument and that leads to a conclusion.
              That is what I did, but you did not like the ideas that I presented and called me stupid...

              You may make an error at any point along the way but whether you do or not, because there is more than a mere claim being made, progress can be made in the discussion.
              I make tons of errors...

              Naked claims are mere opinions. They cannot be refuted nor can they be established without rational discourse (i.e. without making an argument!).
              The claim was hardly naked - I affirmed your demand for rational arguments by saying that they do apply to the world in which we live and die... I then affirmed that those arguments do NOT and cannot define the Creator of this creation, any more than the laws of automotive metalurgy can define Henry Ford...

              If you don't want to make an argument then you aren't interested in rational discourse.
              I do and did...

              What you're interested in is bloviating, which is frankly boring and almost always a complete waste of everyone's time.
              Bloviating is more than a two syllable word, OK?

              And I love your use of the term "ALMOST always"...
              I sense light at the end of that tunnel...
              Hope it is not an oncoming TRAIN!

              Arsenios
              Arsenios

              Comment


              • Only morons think you have to be angry in order to call stupid people stupid.
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                  Again, I’m in no way saying that Christianity is pantheistic, just that there are various models that Christianity could fit into if you wanted one. This is actually a great point for evangelism. None of the models work but all of them have points that can help us to understand the New Testament teachings. Thought systems such as pantheism or dualism or perhaps even process theology, can act as analogies of Christian truth.

                  Panentheism?
                  Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                  As to process theology, AN Whitehead does not have exclusive rights over the use of the word ‘process’. But openness theology is fundamentally relational (which is its similarity with stoicism) and since that relation must be dynamic, it has to be concluded that openness advocates that an open world necessarily implies that the world is in process.
                  This however, has a God that is 'in process' which is why you get "Process Theology" accusation.

                  Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                  This is in direct contrast with the Calvinistic view of the world as having been already pre-fabricated by God and hence is completely closed. But to suggest that because I believe in this kind of openness, it means that I favour process theology as such, is way off the mark.
                  Well, in a world, created by God, the parameters 'must' be closed or it'd be bigger than God. Even the Open Theists tend to say God is omnicompetent. In order to be, even from that logical perspective, the system would have to be closed (completely knowable).


                  Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                  But the strong dualistic system in which Calvinism is located also has faults, the main one being that in it, God is completely ineffable. How many times have you heard a Calvinist say “But God is beyond logic!”? You can’t argue with that can you? Because the better your arguments, the more your counter party will insist. He seems to delight in that fact that it does not make sense. I despise this kind of thinking because it is anti-intellectual, but it is a natural consequence of the strong dualistic thought system. Because you can’t really know anything about God, no consistency is required in your beliefs. In this world-view, God is so different to us and his thoughts so far above ours that he is illogical whenever we are logical and logical whenever we are illogical. Everything is arbitrary and meaningless.
                  BUT can we be so logical? Is it actually left intact in man? I'd suggest, because we 'know' good and evil, that we often don't know which is which without God's guidance, and yet still wrestle to figure it out. I used to believe on a few levels that "a loving God wouldn't..." I believed, at the time, I was logical when I was not. God isn't ineffable, my and your logic is getting the accusation. I think we may debate, but only to the effect that Christ has granted us His mind over matters. Because it does, indeed, depend on the particular apprehension we have been granted by Christ, there certainly is to be a degree of frustration, no question. This, however, should be continually evaluated as the miscommunications between systematic theologies.
                  Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                  My version of openness seeks to redress this by asserting that God and his creation relate consistently with each other and openly. This makes communication between God and man possible and meaningful. It also implies that the future of that relationship is not fixed. This is a bigger issue than that of God’s relationship with man or individual people. It means that the whole system of both God and his creation can be viewed as one single coherent system. But this is only a logical issue, not a physical one. It does not mean that I am a pantheist or a panentheist. It does not mean that I think of this single system as in any sense greater than God. It does mean that there is purpose and rationality (= meaning, order, logos) to our existence whereas with the strong dualist view, there really is no purpose in the creation of the world. They say that it is for God’s greater glory that he has made everything the way it is but that always has sounded hollow to me because we can never understand or appreciate what that glory may be. It is all about God and not about us at all. If we are to be valued as human beings we don’t want to be told that we are valuable just because someone arbitrarily decides that we are. We need to understand that we are valuable in ourselves. Similarly, we need to appreciate that our relationship with God has its own benefits now and that we have a foretaste of heaven now. Within Calvinism, specifically its location in the strong dualistic thought system, what we are now will be lost completely, which devalues everything we do. An open relationship with God values us. Moreover, an open relationship between God and the created world values the world as a whole and gives rise to such beautiful things as purpose, responsibility and righteousness.
                  Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post

                  It also makes sense of the cross because the cross is the proof that God is open, that he is willing to accept the consequences of his own love for us. It is the same as ‘The word became flesh’: the proof of God’s open love became reality. It wasn't mere words, mere theory. Under Calvinism, the cross is actually unnecessary because God could have made the world any way he wanted from start to finish. He would have dictated the terms of the existence of the world. This is why the cross has always been a mystery in reformed theology. It can never overcome the fundamental barrier of its arbitrary nature.


                  Any comments appreciated.
                  Openness in interaction need not be without parameters (closed) however. In bowling, I seldom hit gutters but never skip lanes (anymore). Again, a closed system is necessary, as far as my logic demands, for God to be God. -Lon
                  My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                  Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                  Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                  Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                  No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                  Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                  ? Yep

                  Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                  ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                  Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                    Well, in a world, created by God, the parameters 'must' be closed or it'd be bigger than God. Even the Open Theists tend to say God is omnicompetent. In order to be, even from that logical perspective, the system would have to be closed (completely knowable).[/FONT]
                    Why would it have to be completely knowable?

                    BUT can we be so logical? Is it actually left intact in man? I'd suggest, because we 'know' good and evil, that we often don't know which is which without God's guidance, and yet still wrestle to figure it out. I used to believe on a few levels that "a loving God wouldn't..." I believed, at the time, I was logical when I was not. God isn't ineffable, my and your logic is getting the accusation. I think we may debate, but only to the effect that Christ has granted us His mind over matters. Because it does, indeed, depend on the particular apprehension we have been granted by Christ, there certainly is to be a degree of frustration, no question. This, however, should be continually evaluated as the miscommunications between systematic theologies.
                    I always find it amusing to watch people use logic in an attempt to undermine the veracity of logic.

                    Logic is the only tool your mind has to separate true from false, yes from no, right from wrong. It's the only tool you've got, Lon because it's the only one that exists. Even truths acquired through direct revelation from God Himself are trusted in your mind because of logic (e.g. God is true. This revelation came from God. Therefore this revelation is true.).

                    We humans can make errors in our logic but that isn't a failing in logic. In other words, errors of logic can be detected by a continued, steadfast, unyielding use of logic. The honest man is always on guard against error and in a relentless pursuit of the truth. Any attempt to undermine the veracity of logic is an attempt to clip your own wings in mid flight.

                    Resting in Him,
                    Clete
                    sigpic
                    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                    Comment


                    • Clete: Thanks for the suggestion. I tried 'reality' but people just have too many preconceptions about it. Arsenios for example still thought reality meant creation. I will try something else though.
                      Lon:
                      Openness in interaction need not be without parameters (closed)
                      Let me get this right. You are saying that if a relationship has constraints, then it is closed? That doesn't make sense to me. Let's say there are physical barriers in the gutters so your ball cannot possibly pass it (and in any case, there is a floor, which is pretty much a barrier). But you can still bowl the ball anywhere within those limits. Nothing stops you choosing your line. That is not a closed system.
                      If that's not what you mean and what you mean is fully closed, i.e. completely predictable, then this statement:
                      "The relationship between A and B is closed."
                      applies to both entities A and B, not just to entity B.
                      A system which consists solely of two objects orbiting each other according to the rules of Newtonian mechanics, is completely closed and predictable. A system consisting of three or more bodies orbiting one another in some configuration according to the rules of Newtonian mechanics is theoretically predictable and so it would still be a closed system, even if it was practically impossible to predict its state more than a few iterations forward.
                      But if you mean that God and his creation are in a relationship that is closed fully in this way, then you can't say that his creation is closed and that he himself isn't. It is the system that is either open or closed, not the members of the system.
                      In summary, I think you are labouring under a misapprehension. A closed system is one which is fully predictable because nothing extraneous to the system can affect it. A bowling ball running down an alley is not a closed system because it is affected by your choices, which are extraneous to that system.
                      If you were the bowling ball itself, you wouldn't be able to say 'I'm proud of what I am. I'm proud that I am now on my way to knocking down 10 skittles'. You have nothing whatsoever to be proud of. And if you have any feeling of self-worth at all, it can be nothing more than illusion, a mistake on your part, because your existence and your direction have nothing to do with you but only to do with the person who bowled you. You may even think that you are making the skittles fall down, and in a sense that is true. But your interpretation that it is you who are causing the skittles to fall over, is simply a misunderstanding on your part, because you are just following a direction that was allotted to you by the bowler.
                      Total Misanthropy.
                      Uncertain salvation.
                      Luck of the draw.
                      Irresistible damnation.
                      Persecution of the saints.

                      Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                      (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                      RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                      Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                      Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Why would it have to be completely knowable?
                        I've 'created.' Necessarily, I know everything about what I've made. Having done a buzzilion creations, God's knowledge would be absolute, even if He were merely omnicompetent as the OV says.

                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        I always find it amusing to watch people use logic in an attempt to undermine the veracity of logic.
                        It is a prideful thing to say, but it is mutual.

                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Logic is the only tool your mind has to separate true from false, yes from no, right from wrong.
                        Falsifiable, but it may help you to know, when I was your age, I thought so too. 1 Corinthians 14:2 and other verses were a wake-up call to me.

                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        It's the only tool you've got, Lon because it's the only one that exists.
                        Then your Spiritual toolbox is bare. For you, there is no need to read scripture because if your logic is intact, then you'd never sin because it is illogical to do so. You've said the Word is logic. I embrace that point, but being a man that needs to be 'more' like Jesus, I now know that this also means that I am to become more logical as well. When I thought my logic was a pinnacle, I was in sad arrogant shape. I've left that behind. I see a huge difference between being in Christ that doesn't jive with the world's thinking about all logic nor what they view common sense. I am more intelligent as far as test results and IQ. That doesn't make me godly. In this sense, ONLY, those who are in Christ can perceive what is real. Logic is nothing more than a proper apprehension of truth. We, as sinners, aren't apprehending, thus are illogical. As Christ's, He is molding us in His image, thus we are becoming more logical. Again, logic is nothing more than the proper apprehension of truth. His truth.

                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Even truths acquired through direct revelation from God Himself are trusted in your mind because of logic (e.g. God is true. This revelation came from God. Therefore this revelation is true.).
                        For me, only what I've received from God. I believe 2+2=4 but it is only because that truth works in God's universe that I'm able to identify it as true, and always with Him as the veracity of the math.



                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        We humans can make errors in our logic but that isn't a failing in logic.
                        I disagree. Failing to properly grasp truth is a failure in logic. It shows either a mistake, or the shortcoming of what that one can discover as true. While it is not necessarily a sin to not get math, it still affects our grades. A grade less than A is a failure at logic. It is only because we didn't fail more often than not, that we don't fail the class. Getting less than 65% is called 'failing' logic (math in this case).

                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        In other words, errors of logic can be detected by a continued, steadfast, unyielding use of logic. The honest man is always on guard against error and in a relentless pursuit of the truth. Any attempt to undermine the veracity of logic is an attempt to clip your own wings in mid flight.

                        Resting in Him,
                        Clete
                        I disagree, John 15:5
                        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                        ? Yep

                        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                          Lon: Let me get this right. You are saying that if a relationship has constraints, then it is closed?
                          Yes 'limit' means closed/stopped. Wherever the end of the rope reaches, is completely knowable. Relationship both opens up what doesn't exist, but it also closes other doors. I completely know, everything I've ever created. There can't be an accident happening to my creation. It is all my work.

                          Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                          That doesn't make sense to me. Let's say there are physical barriers in the gutters so your ball cannot possibly pass it (and in any case, there is a floor, which is pretty much a barrier). But you can still bowl the ball anywhere within those limits. Nothing stops you choosing your line. That is not a closed system.
                          Which describes God (the bowlerama that is constant) and me the bowler, with what I can and can't do. The alley isn't going to see anything different and will know before I release the ball what is going to happen next. So, again, even the Open View is logically capable and seeing that the system is fully knowable.
                          Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                          If that's not what you mean and what you mean is fully closed, i.e. completely predictable, then this statement:
                          "The relationship between A and B is closed."
                          applies to both entities A and B, not just to entity B.
                          Sure, but where that is a constrain to you and I, it is not to God. Limited example: He can be at the play AND at the game. You and I are stuck with a limitation. For us, it is closed.

                          Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                          A system which consists solely of two objects orbiting each other according to the rules of Newtonian mechanics, is completely closed and predictable. A system consisting of three or more bodies orbiting one another in some configuration according to the rules of Newtonian mechanics is theoretically predictable and so it would still be a closed system, even if it was practically impossible to predict its state more than a few iterations forward.
                          But if you mean that God and his creation are in a relationship that is closed fully in this way, then you can't say that his creation is closed and that he himself isn't. It is the system that is either open or closed, not the members of the system.
                          In summary, I think you are labouring under a misapprehension. A closed system is one which is fully predictable because nothing extraneous to the system can affect it. A bowling ball running down an alley is not a closed system because it is affected by your choices, which are extraneous to that system.
                          If you were the bowling ball itself, you wouldn't be able to say 'I'm proud of what I am. I'm proud that I am now on my way to knocking down 10 skittles'. You have nothing whatsoever to be proud of. And if you have any feeling of self-worth at all, it can be nothing more than illusion, a mistake on your part, because your existence and your direction have nothing to do with you but only to do with the person who bowled you. You may even think that you are making the skittles fall down, and in a sense that is true. But your interpretation that it is you who are causing the skittles to fall over, is simply a misunderstanding on your part, because you are just following a direction that was allotted to you by the bowler.
                          Agree. He is the bowler , we are the clay, er bowling ball.
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                            I've 'created.' Necessarily, I know everything about what I've made. Having done a buzzilion creations, God's knowledge would be absolute, even if He were merely omnicompetent as the OV says.


                            It is a prideful thing to say, but it is mutual.


                            Falsifiable, but it may help you to know, when I was your age, I thought so too. 1 Corinthians 14:2 and other verses were a wake-up call to me.


                            Then your Spiritual toolbox is bare. For you, there is no need to read scripture because if your logic is intact, then you'd never sin because it is illogical to do so. You've said the Word is logic. I embrace that point, but being a man that needs to be 'more' like Jesus, I now know that this also means that I am to become more logical as well. When I thought my logic was a pinnacle, I was in sad arrogant shape. I've left that behind. I see a huge difference between being in Christ that doesn't jive with the world's thinking about all logic nor what they view common sense. I am more intelligent as far as test results and IQ. That doesn't make me godly. In this sense, ONLY, those who are in Christ can perceive what is real. Logic is nothing more than a proper apprehension of truth. We, as sinners, aren't apprehending, thus are illogical. As Christ's, He is molding us in His image, thus we are becoming more logical. Again, logic is nothing more than the proper apprehension of truth. His truth.


                            For me, only what I've received from God. I believe 2+2=4 but it is only because that truth works in God's universe that I'm able to identify it as true, and always with Him as the veracity of the math.




                            I disagree. Failing to properly grasp truth is a failure in logic. It shows either a mistake, or the shortcoming of what that one can discover as true. While it is not necessarily a sin to not get math, it still affects our grades. A grade less than A is a failure at logic. It is only because we didn't fail more often than not, that we don't fail the class. Getting less than 65% is called 'failing' logic (math in this case).


                            I disagree, John 15:5
                            Lon,

                            Don't you get it? You don't get to disagree!

                            What process of thought did you come to that caused you to conclude that you disagree with the idea that it takes logic to detect errors in one's thought process?

                            That question answers itself, Lon! You used logic to say "I disagree." You therefore contradict yourself inside of a single sentence!

                            Further, you need to read my posts more carefully. I can't believe that you're mind doesn't work to the degree that you actually believe that, "Failing to properly grasp truth is a failure in logic."

                            It isn't a failure in logic, but rather a failure in one's use of it. And if it isn't that then perhaps there is a lack of pertinent information but in either case it is not a failure of logic itself that is to blame for a failure to grasp a truth. If it were then there would be no way to know anything.

                            Resting in Him,
                            Clete
                            sigpic
                            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              Lon,

                              Don't you get it? You don't get to disagree!
                              Yup, have been there, Clete. It is wrong-headed. I know it 'looks' right-headed but such imperializes man (me) over God. That means, whatever I 'think' is right/was right, must be correctable. Does God use logical steps? In a way, but it is more than that: We are indwelled by the living God. He begins to steer us differently. Is it logic like the world uses? Sort of, but it supercedes it. For instance, scientists 'logically' think the world is made by evolution. While I can see some elements to building blocks, we think differently about creation specifically because God steers our approach to everything. For us, 'logic' demands that we understand the universe from Colossians 1:16-20 and Genesis 1. 1 John 3:1-3 says we will be like Him, when we see Him. That means something different to my logic as it is today, and your's as well. If you are not 'always' right, you are, in fact, illogical. We are ONLY as logical as our grasp of God allows and it is limited growth. We will not be like Him (and you have said He is logic, so being like Him would mean you couldn't be infallibly logical and it is not going to happen this side of glory). We are saved by grace, through faith. He is able to keep us, not vise-versa. Truly, that is the promise Christians must rest in. I'm pretty logical, but again, we are talking about grades and nobody gets an "A" until glory 1 John 3:2,3

                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              What process of thought did you come to that caused you to conclude that you disagree with the idea that it takes logic to detect errors in one's thought process?
                              When my schizophrenic uncle, incapable of logic, asked me to pray for him. I realized that it didn't matter if I comprehend as well or better than another. It depends on Christ. He actuates all things. Grace certainly could reach my uncle. The thief on the cross simply asked Our Lord Jesus Christ to remember him in His kingdom.
                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              That question answers itself, Lon! You used logic to say "I disagree." You therefore contradict yourself inside of a single sentence!
                              I used and relied on Him. I nor you are 'capable' of verifying a truth. In the Garden, man become aware of good AND evil. Evil is illogical. We became illogical as part of the Fall. Do we likewise have a knowledge of good? Yes, even the unbeliever. Is it verifiable or perfect? That's why science only provides hypotheses. The honest logician knows he/she may not have the definitive and, as well, realizes they are too limited to be able to actuate that truth. What does that mean? It means, the best they/we can do is say "this looks right" on our own. This is why truth is relative in our culture. Only God can actualize a truth because only He is conscience of all truth. In fact, your insistence that Christ is Logic ensures that He knows all things, as Peter also said. Knowing all things, as far as I understand what is logical, means the system is closed. An Open system wouldn't be logically knowable. It provides for chaos theory to believe otherwise. That may escape you.

                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              Further, you need to read my posts more carefully. I can't believe that you're mind doesn't work to the degree that you actually believe that, "Failing to properly grasp truth is a failure in logic."
                              Well, I'd turn that around and say you need to read mine more carefully, but it is more than just that. Your brain works differently than a woman's. You'd likely suggest she isn't logical. This is true, but it is also blind to the limitation of self. It isn't exactly arrogance, but it is problematic to actually thinking logically. You are stuck in your own little world and only what you perceive as logical 'can' be logical. That means you are, in your own self-sufficiency, your own encyclopedia for logic. Once that happens, you can't be corrected because you are the standard of correct instead of God.

                              Originally posted by Clete View Post
                              It isn't a failure in logic, but rather a failure in one's use of it. And if it isn't that then perhaps there is a lack of pertinent information but in either case it is not a failure of logic itself that is to blame for a failure to grasp a truth. If it were then there would be no way to know anything.

                              Resting in Him,
                              Clete
                              I think, then, perhaps what we are really doing is disagreeing over the definition of 'logic.'

                              Logic is simply what I use to ascertain truth. While I've been confident in my ability to ascertain reality, I've realized my ONLY solid base for objectifying reality is the Lord Jesus Christ John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 My uncle, without the facilities to apprehend reality on his own, asked me to pray for him that Christ would remember him. He wasn't logical, but he was resting in a reality he desired, but could not apprehend. Rather, that which/Who is Right and True, apprehended Him.

                              Humbly, in Him -Lon
                              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                              ? Yep

                              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                              Comment


                              • Quite a long discussion - When I hear "Big Picture", I think of the final end result of heaven. It's hard to imagine but I think we catch glimpses, ever so short. We will thirst no more, hunger no more, no sadness, no sin or death. Being with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, saints and angels; and FAMILY.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X