Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

[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."

Hosea 4:12 My people consult a wooden idol, and a diviner's rod ...... My people ask their wooden idols for help. A piece of wood tells them what to do. A spirit of prostitution leads them astray.

is it possible that you are committed to...how does one put it? Forcing a flesh interpretation on a passage that intends to impart a spiritual principle? Reading water instead of wine? Seeing and not seeing? Believing what you want to believe, what makes sense to you?

 

[bbyrd009]

So where does your "dogma" that "love trumps traditional dogma" come from?

“Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” (1 Timothy 4:16, NKJV)

Seems like the Bible teaches that our doctrine/dogma really matters. Personally, I prefer the Bible to guide my "doctrine" rather than pop culture. Maybe you are the one who is more like Pavlov's dog since you are the one jumping to popular cultural sensitivities and my views run contrary to present cultural conditioning.

having been raised by cannibals, how would a cannibal condemn cannibalism? How do you have a conversation with a plantation owner on the morality of owning slaves?

 

[bbyrd009]

bbyr,

I suggest that you Google Foucault, a postmodern, post-structural, deconstructionist. Foucault was one of the leading defenders of deconstructionism. You could start HERE.

Oz

wadr i suggest that you embrace the reality that it is your model that currently runs the planet, and must be allayed with the autism, babies being born with cancer now, planetary destruction en masse, no one you know dying peacefully in their sleep any more, the shrinking of your (congregational) borders, on and on, that we of course currently seek to separate or disassociate our "Christianity" from.

If you rob a man blind and then give him a crust of bread, are you being "charitable?"

 

[bbyrd009]

So where does your "dogma" that "love trumps traditional dogma" come from?

ha you are kidding right

 

[OzSpen]

wadr i suggest that you embrace the reality that it is your model that currently runs the planet, and must be allayed with the autism, babies being born with cancer now, planetary destruction en masse, no one you know dying peacefully in their sleep any more, the shrinking of your (congregational) borders, on and on, that we of course currently seek to separate or disassociate our "Christianity" from.

If you rob a man blind and then give him a crust of bread, are you being "charitable?"

What has that to do with what I wrote? That's nothing more or less than a red herring fallacy.

 

[Wormwood]

"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."

Hosea 4:12 My people consult a wooden idol, and a diviner's rod ...... My people ask their wooden idols for help. A piece of wood tells them what to do. A spirit of prostitution leads them astray.

is it possible that you are committed to...how does one put it? Forcing a flesh interpretation on a passage that intends to impart a spiritual principle? Reading water instead of wine? Seeing and not seeing? Believing what you want to believe, what makes sense to you?

Once again, you offer no biblical passages that support your views nor expound on any text to show how the Bible supports your views. You just say that my view is "fleshly" while yours is obviously spiritual. This is a non-answer and is nothing but childish name-calling. Personally, I think your views are "fleshly" because they are clearly derived from your own gut rather from the actual Spirit-inspired Bible. I guess if it is "fleshly" to read, believe and apply the teaching of the Bible in your book, I will take that as a compliment.

 

[Wormwood]

having been raised by cannibals, how would a cannibal condemn cannibalism? How do you have a conversation with a plantation owner on the morality of owning slaves?

How can someone who thinks they know it all learn anything? Again, I'm more than willing to listen to Bible-driven explanations of your views. I am not willing to engage in meaningless babble that implies that I can't understand anything because I'm blinded by sin. Your only responses seem to be attacks at the character of those you disagree with. You can talk about "love trumping dogma" all you want, but you sure don't show much love in your conversations. Seems like a lot of hot air to me.

 

[bbyrd009]

Once again, you offer no biblical passages that support your views nor expound on any text to show how the Bible supports your views.

well that was a passage that possibly indicates the spirit in which these "sexual" references should be understood, or at least i thought.

You just say that my view is "fleshly" while yours is obviously spiritual.

ya, i didn't mean that so much as maybe "literal" v "symbolic." And again i would not deny that even the literal one has some application ok.

This is a non-answer and is nothing but childish name-calling.

yes, so then i am doing it wrong then, but that does not mean that the point is not valid, just that i am making you defensive in making my point, which i agree is ignorant. If you could possibly...um, not associate yourself with that characterization that i am making in order to make the point, that would be great? lol

Personally, I think your views are "fleshly" because they are clearly derived from your own gut rather from the actual Spirit-inspired Bible. I guess if it is "fleshly" to read, believe and apply the teaching of the Bible in your book, I will take that as a compliment.

ya "fleshly" was not a good way to put that, even if a more literal pov there does relate in that way too. Maybe "externalizing" it is what i mean, something like that? Applying a passage the way...hmm, the way a surface reading, or say a "first reading," would, um, "naturally" suggest that one interpret it?

I am just an idiot, so if you could please work around that, and by all means if what i am suggesting results in more darkness rather than more light call me on it ok, but also please contemplate how it might be possible that symbology is being used to communicate a more personal spiritual message to a reader to help them in fighting the enemy, that imo is always in the mirror.

 

[bbyrd009]

How can someone who thinks they know it all learn anything? Again, I'm more than willing to listen to Bible-driven explanations of your views. I am not willing to engage in meaningless babble that implies that I can't understand anything because I'm blinded by sin. Your only responses seem to be attacks at the character of those you disagree with. You can talk about "love trumping dogma" all you want, but you sure don't show much love in your conversations. Seems like a lot of hot air to me.

well i apologize, i shouldn't have chosen your comments specifically, but rather chose a more general example of the phenomenon, duh. The danger then is that you might not be able to relate to it at all. I struggle with this a lot; i am trying to speak to your "observer," but i am using examples that "you" give me, that of course "you" are going to associate with.

I haven't figured out yet how to communicate a pov that will stay relevant to the particular person i am responding to--even if a third party, another reader, does get it--without like launching in to a Dao story or something lol, and then i notice that even then a logical thinker will often just make the obvious inferences and assume they are being diminished in a more oblique manner.

So ya i don't mean to do that, i am blinder than you are, and likely more deceived, as simply reflecting upon the spirit of my posts v yours can attest. You have a lot of grace. I would prolly have put me on ignore by now, if i were you lol.

 

[Glen55]

Your are sown a earthly man first then the younger sibling 1Cor 15:44-45 the heavenly man born from above starts to rule over the first born of the flesh Galatians 4:20-28, the two interpretations 2Cor 3:6 are literal for the earthy man Matt 11:11 and spiritually discerned by the heavenly man Galatians 1:12, luke 17:20-21, 2Cor 5:16, Acts 17:24, 1Cor 3:16.

 

[Wormwood]

well that was a passage that possibly indicates the spirit in which these "sexual" references should be understood, or at least i thought.

Ok, well I can work with that. if you just make a quick note saying something like, "The above verse indicates the spirit I think..." that would be very helpful. Then we can discuss the verse and your ideas about it. I would appreciate that.

ya, i didn't mean that so much as maybe "literal" v "symbolic." And again i would not deny that even the literal one has some application ok.

Makes sense. You just need to understand that words have meaning, especially in a theological sense. When terms like "fleshly" are used its usually the antithesis of "spiritual." In my mind, literal and symbolic have a vastly different connotation. I apologize if I came across a little strong, but those words are often used as a bit of an insult to insinuate that someone is ungodly or carnally driven. I understand that was not your intent.

yes, so then i am doing it wrong then, but that does not mean that the point is not valid, just that i am making you defensive in making my point, which i agree is ignorant. If you could possibly...um, not associate yourself with that characterization that i am making in order to make the point, that would be great? lol

Ok, well I understand that as well. I think if you just say something like, "Some people believe..." or "often I hear people say things like..." Then I will understand you are not addressing me or my views specifically. Otherwise they can come across as personal attacks. I understand this is not what you meant. I even understand if you strongly dislike a view I hold, but maybe the above phrases will help us both to understand when you are addressing me specifically or a view held by many in general.

I am just an idiot, so if you could please work around that, and by all means if what i am suggesting results in more darkness rather than more light call me on it ok, but also please contemplate how it might be possible that symbology is being used to communicate a more personal spiritual message to a reader to help them in fighting the enemy, that imo is always in the mirror.

Well, I do not think you are an idiot. I may think you are wrong on some issues, but clearly you are a deep thinker! I appreciate very much your apology. I think it is just some miscommunication and misunderstanding. I understand that these forums are not always the easiest way to communicate. I will try to do better to think you mean the best in your posts and I appreciate you trying to provide more clarity so I can understand your intent better.

Anyway, I am not trying to ignore points you are trying to make. Sometimes I am not always real clear on if you are just reflecting on an idea or if you are asking for me to respond to a particular thought. I guess if you can break things down "Barney style" it will help me differentiate. Thanks for your post. I appreciate it and think it will help us both in the future.

 

[bbyrd009]

What has that to do with what I wrote? That's nothing more or less than a red herring fallacy.

maybe i misunderstood your deconstructionist ref then. Why do you think that concept has bearing on logical v dialectical reasoning again? ty

 

[bbyrd009]

it might be observed that logic forces one response, from a single perspective, "i do not kill because that is a sin," when dialecticism allows for many perspectives, "i do not do murder, but if one was writhing in agony and obviously going to die anyway, i might perform a mercy killing, possibly."

wherein we might see how even translations lend themselves to scribing up, based upon the scribes perspective here rather than what is intended, whatever that may be.

 

[OzSpen]

wherein we might see how even translations lend themselves to scribing up, based upon the scribes perspective here rather than what is intended, whatever that may be.

bb,

So are you fluent in the biblical languages of Hebrew and Aramaic for the OT and Greek for the NT, to be qualified to discuss what translations, translators and scribes do to translate the Bible from these original languages into English?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

maybe i misunderstood your deconstructionist ref then. Why do you think that concept has bearing on logical v dialectical reasoning again? ty

bb,

Please tell me what 'deconstructionist ref' I made, to which you refer from my post.

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

bb,

So are you fluent in the biblical languages of Hebrew and Aramaic for the OT and Greek for the NT, to be qualified to discuss what translations, translators and scribes do to translate the Bible from these original languages into English?

Oz

No, but i do have a Lex of the original, however i do not doubt that some idioms in the original go over my head. Some we are aware of, of course, but i suspect some others, "under the altar," etc, i have to absorb as i can.however, the dialecticism is apparent even in the translations, so this is essentially a different if also important subject imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

bbyr,

I suggest that you Google Foucault, a postmodern, post-structural, deconstructionist. Foucault was one of the leading defenders of deconstructionism. You could start HERE.

Oz

this one

 

[OzSpen]

No, but i do have a Lex of the original, however i do not doubt that some idioms in the original go over my head. Some we are aware of, of course, but i suspect some others, "under the altar," etc, i have to absorb as i can.however, the dialecticism is apparent even in the translations, so this is essentially a different if also important subject imo.

bb,

Hebrew and Greek lexicons do not teach grammar that would enable you to translate from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into English.

Therefore, your statement in #53 has no basis in reality for you to translate, with your statement: 'wherein we might see how even translations lend themselves to scribing up, based upon the scribes perspective here rather than what is intended, whatever that may be'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

this one

bb,

Your quote from me was only an example of one leading postmodern deconstructionist, Foucault, and his methodology.

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

bb,

Hebrew and Greek lexicons do not teach grammar that would enable you to translate from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into English.

Therefore, your statement in #53 has no basis in reality for you to translate, with your statement: 'wherein we might see how even translations lend themselves to scribing up, based upon the scribes perspective here rather than what is intended, whatever that may be'.

Oz

true, but i can access the debates of men more learned on the matter, and decide for myself.
Is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," or "not murder" iow? I'm confident that most of these are revealed, and at least debated. the basis in reality seems pretty evident to me here, unless i am deceiving myself somehow