ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Clete]

First you reject my claim on the basis of the manner in which I am making my argument. So I am saying that Christianity is not grounded in logic, and you are attacking that claim on the basis that I made the claim through logical argument. This is argumentum ad hominem. It's just like pointing at the leather shoes of someone who is arguing against the use of animal skins in the manufacture of clothing. You do not address the argument but the manner in which it is made.

This is not what ad hominem means SA.

Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).^Source​

I very simply have not made such an argument.

Secondly, you are setting up a straw man, for I never made the claim that logic is absent from Christianity; I was debunking rationalism of the variety handed to us by the Enlightenment.

You denied that whatever is true must be logical SA. The necessary conclusion is that the truth is sometime irrational. In making such a claim you abandon rationality (i.e. not rationalism) altogether and have no grounds upon which to deny any truth claim whatsoever. You might as well believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

Thirdly, you have dismissed all my arguments before hearing (at least in your last statement) on the basis of a previous argument I had made.

YES!!! That's because you undermine EVERY POSSSIBLE ARGUMENT by positing that the truth need not be logical. Logic is THE ONLY basis upon which rational discourse can occur, including and especially debate. If you throw out logic you cut your own legs out from under you in regards to your being able to formulate any argument or any theology for that matter. Like I said, without logic, the moon is made of green cheese and the ocean if full of red Cool-Aid.

All of these are logical fallacies.

Actually none of them were. If I may recommend, without insulting you (it truly is not my intent to insult you here), I heartily recommend reading the info available at The Logic Classroom. The information there is extremely valuable and the site is run by Christian people. Even if you never come to agree with a word I say, the information on that website will make you a much better debater, which will be good for all of us here at TOL.

Now as far as the rest of your post is concerned, you have to understand that our views of evil and good are not the same. You would give substance to a lie where I would not. You claim that lies are as ontologically grounded as the truth; I do not.

I have never made such a claim. I don't even know for sure what it means. I know that people are evil and that Satan and the demons are evil and that God and those on His side of the fight are not.

So when I state that God is the grounding for the Creation, God could not make lying out to be a good because goodness is grounded ontologically for me (not epistemically), and a lie is a corruption of the good (truth) with no substance in itself. Evil is not a reality, it is a corruption of reality. So a lie only has substance in the presence of the truth; it cannot have a substance of its own. Thus, God does not create laws of logic that govern the Creation (and set up a hierarchy of good over evil), God sustains the creation in God's very life (giving substance to that which was without substance). What is has substance because of God. And because God is the sustainer of the Creation, truth is the only thing which has substance in God's creation (for the substance of the Creation is the good, is the truth, whereas evil or a lie is the absence of goodness and truth).

I said explicitly that God did not create logic any more than He created righteousness. Aside from that, I don't really see anything here that I would have a big problem with and none of it causes any trouble for the open view whatsoever.

So get off your high horse and start listening to what I am saying.

I'm listening very closely to what you say. You are either being very sloppy with your words or you are being intentionally irrational in which case even you cannot know that what you are saying is the truth because without sound reason we have no means by which to determine the truth of anything.

You seem to have either missed or simply ignored by previous post about what I am referring to when I speak of logic and so I will repost it for you. Please read it closely, it should make it crystal clear what I am saying and what I am not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Okay, as promised in the previous post, here's a repeat of my post on logic early....

Spoken like a true modernist. My question to you is, whose logic? We assume that logic is a "neutral space" where "truth" resides. The last time I checked, for Christians truth is held in God (in fact Jesus "is the truth"). It would be very difficult to find this proposition within the scriptures: "What resides in logic = truth". Truth is not held in our ability to grasp it for the scriptures; truth within the scriptures is an ontological reality. Truth for the scriptures is not an epistemic question (how do we know what we know?); truth for the scriptures is an ontological reality (What is real?).

Logic is systematic approach to the world. The logic of the Greeks assumed an onto-theological grounding for their propositions (i.e. the unity of self, world and God in a single reality governed by the divine). In the Modern period this unity of self-world-God is fractured, in a way that elevates the self above all things, and submits the world and God to that self. Truth is no longer a reality in our world. Truth has become nothing more than a projection of the self (an existential question).

Peace,
Michael

First of all let me say thank you for having tried to unpack your previous couple of posts. I haven't read it all yet but intend to in a few minutes. For now, I wanted to quickly respond to this.

When I (we) speak of logic we are not speaking about some arbitrarily contrived system of thought. Logic is the science of NECESSARY inference. And it is a science not a religion or any sort of mere belief system. The laws of logic are not made up by man any more than the law of gravity was. Such things are not made but rather discovered and described by man.

And to answer your question directly, when we speak of logic we are speaking of that which does not in some way violate any of the three laws of logic, which are as follows...

1. The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A.
   
2. The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A.
   
3. The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.

These three laws of logic are unavoidable, irreplaceable and absolutely irrefutable because any attempt to avoid, replace or refute them makes use of them.

Where does logic come from? It comes from God. That is not to say that it was created by Him but that it is a reflection of His character. Just as God is love, God is logic. Logic cannot be rationally accounted for without presupposing the existence of a rational God. If rationality weren't part of God's character, we could not be rational. The irrational doesn't bring forth the rational. And in case this didn't convince you John says explicitly that God the Son is logic...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (NKJV)​

The Greek word translated "Word" in this passage, as I'm sure you already know, is the word "Logos" which is the Greek word for logic. Translated literally, and I think more correctly, the passage would read like this...

John1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He (Logic) was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him (Logic), and without Him (Logic) nothing was made that was made.​

Thus God the Son and Logic (in this context)^* are the same person. To deny logic is to deny Christ just as to deny logic is to deny truth. Christ - Truth - Logic they are all the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

^*I insert the caveat because many people misunderstand me to be saying that we should worship logic. I do not believe that. We shouldn't worship logic any more than we worship love or justice or any other aspect of righteousness. We worship God who is the very embodiment and source of all of these things.

 

[Delmar]

---THAT'S SPIN???? - If so, you guys do nothing but SPIN my threads. Now I know who you are, and where you stand. --- Thank you for your, SWORD WORK.
*
---------------------Paul---
*

I wouldn't bother spinning your posts. I hardly ever read them.

 

[seekinganswers]

This is not what ad hominem means SA.

Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).^Source​

I very simply have not made such an argument.

This is not full truth. Ad Hominem takes the focus away from the issues that the person is presenting and turns them towards something else about the person. So the arguments of a person who is an animal rights activist are set aside to focus on their wearing leather shoes. You ignore the issue being raised by the person (whether it is right or not) and turn to secondary issues.

In my case, you turned the focus from the discussion of the importance of logic in Christianity to a focus on my making a rational argument. Whether my argument is correct or not, you have moved away from the issue to my person. So why listen to the points I raise about rationalism being grounded in Modernist thinking and not being foundational to Christianity when you can focus on my use of a rational argument to make my point? This is the Ad Hominem, because you do not address my points but the fact that I am making a rational argument which has displaced my voice and turned it to something else. It is like pointing at the shoes of an animal right's activist and saying that we should not listen to their argument because they are wearing leather shoes. It is Ad Hominem.

You denied that whatever is true must be logical SA. The necessary conclusion is that the truth is sometime irrational. In making such a claim you abandon rationality (i.e. not rationalism) altogether and have no grounds upon which to deny any truth claim whatsoever. You might as well believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

No, I did not. I questioned your definition of logical because I see it as being grounded in the definition poured into it by the Enlightenment and I do not agree with the Modern ideology that states that there is a unified rational approach to our world. In my opinion, such a view as "whatever is true must be logical" inevitably leads us down the road of imperialism and ultimately relativity, for logic is relative (contingent upon the setting), it is not universal. The statement I would make is that whatever is true is grounded in God. Logic is an anthropologically grounded reality; it is epistemic (grounded in questions of how we know things) not ontological (grounded in questions of what is real).

YES!!! That's because you undermine EVERY POSSSIBLE ARGUMENT by positing that the truth need not be logical. Logic is THE ONLY basis upon which rational discourse can occur, including and especially debate. If you throw out logic you cut your own legs out from under you in regards to your being able to formulate any argument or any theology for that matter. Like I said, without logic, the moon is made of green cheese and the ocean if full of red Cool-Aid.

And as I said before, logic as presented in this way is grounded in the Modern project of the Enlightenment. People do not have the same rationality, nor is it possible to unify people in that rationality. As I said before the Scriptures do not speak of what is logical, they are more inclined to speak of wisdom. So the patriarchs having more than one wife is only logical within their context (logic is a contextual reality). If we were to take that same action and bring it to our own time the actions become illogical (because they are not grounded in our contingencies). Men in our context do not marry more than one woman. Yet we cannot say that the patriarchs were illogical in their action. For their own time, there is a certain wisdom to their actions.

I want to speak of a logic that is biblical. It does not consist of a set of universal principles that can be applied to each and every situation (that place is held by God, who is not a set of principles but is an entity with a will that makes God much more complex than the brand of rationalism that is espoused by our Modern world). Logic must be adaptable so that one can only be wise within the situation. Wisdom is not grounded in one's knowledge of universal principles and laws; wisdom is grounded in how one acts with one's own neighbor.

I am not arguing for relativity in this sense. I'm trying to point out the fact that our understanding of the world is always grounded in contingency. The Eskimos can look at snow and see 20 different things, while we will look at it and see one thing. The logic of our understanding of snow varies depending on our context, and the scientific approach to snow is not THE rational approach to the truth, it is one of many. This is a very incarnational understanding of reality, and maybe it is because I take Christ's example very seriously.

Actually none of them were. If I may recommend, without insulting you (it truly is not my intent to insult you here), I heartily recommend reading the info available at The Logic Classroom. The information there is extremely valuable and the site is run by Christian people. Even if you never come to agree with a word I say, the information on that website will make you a much better debater, which will be good for all of us here at TOL.

They are logical fallacies. It is just a question of whether I am applying them to the right situation. You think that I am in error; I think that I have been appropriate in my use of them.

I have never made such a claim. I don't even know for sure what it means. I know that people are evil and that Satan and the demons are evil and that God and those on His side of the fight are not.

You didn't make a claim, but it is the logical ( ) conclusion of what you are saying! When you stated that God could command a lie, you gave the lie a substance where it had not previously had substance. You defined lie in this context appart from the truth. You see for me a lie can never be understood appart from the truth. God cannot command us to lie, for a lie must first have a knowledge of the truth in order to corrupt that truth. A lie for me always means a lack of truth (so that lie only means something when there is truth). So God cannot command a lack of something, because you can only give a command out of something with substance before there can be a lacking of it. A command to lie is about as intellible as commanding light to be dark. By making such a command you change the very ontology of what you are speaking. God consists in reality, not in non-reality (whatever that would mean as such).

I said explicitly that God did not create logic any more than He created righteousness. Aside from that, I don't really see anything here that I would have a big problem with and none of it causes any trouble for the open view whatsoever.

Logic is a product of the Creation. Rationality is contingent upon the senses (by the way in which we "experience" the world). We have eyes; we have ears; we have skin; we have taste; we have smell. We are constantly approaching our environment as something that is other than us (we have to experience the world before we come to know the world; we have to experience God before we come to know God). And these are the qualities that require logic (otherwise there is no way of ordering the experiences we are receiving; we don't know whether to be aware of the seat that is pushing against our nerves as we sit on it or not). Logic comes about from contingencies (limitations).

These qualities are not something that can define God; are you going to be so crass as to asign flesh and blood to the God of Creation? Does God not know the Creation appart from experience (since the Creation is grounded in truth, that is, in God's very self)? Or does God also "experience" the world? If you are going to make this move, than you are most definitly within the realm of process theology (for our experience is what makes us mortal; it is what makes us distinct from God, and process theologians erase this distinction).

The incarnation wasn't about God experiencing the world, it was about revelation (apocalipsis Iesou Christou). God revealed the truth that had been from the beginning, so that Christ becomes the embodiment of the eternal God (so that we can know God, not by our logic, but by revelation). God must reveal Godself to us in contingency (because we do not experience the spiritual; the spiritual invades our context). God enters the scene (God's breath fills our flesh and animates it). It is not logical; it is grace (God's whim). God gives life, not because it is logical, but because that is the way it is. It is not an epistomological question; it is a question of ontology.

I'm listening very closely to what you say. You are either being very sloppy with your words or you are being intentionally irrational in which case even you cannot know that what you are saying is the truth because without sound reason we have no means by which to determine the truth of anything.

If you are confused about something, it does not help me to become more clear for you when you just generally critique my arguments by saying they are "irrational". I can't be entirely irrational because I do have a command of the English language, and I have a level of command that has gotten me to graduate school. So if you are going to critique my arguments, tell me specifics so that I can be more clear. Point the moments that lack clarity, and I can do something about it.

You seem to have either missed or simply ignored by previous post about what I am referring to when I speak of logic and so I will repost it for you. Please read it closely, it should make it crystal clear what I am saying and what I am not.

This is just insulting. Are you accusing me of not having even read your post? I gave you specific issues that we at stake in the argument (i.e. your definition of logic, the ontological results, ect.). If you don't want to hear my critiques than feel free to ignore them, but don't condescend to me.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

SA,

If you will read the post that you are clearly ignoring again and take special note of the emboldened flashing portion and then immediately afterward go back through your response, you'll see, whether you admit it or not, that I am right and that you use logic to refute logic and thereby defeat your own position.

Rational discourse with you is impossible.

Believe what you want.

:wave2:

 

[seekinganswers]

SA,

If you will read the post that you are clearly ignoring again and take special note of the emboldened flashing portion and then immediately afterward go back through your response, you'll see, whether you admit it or not, that I am right and that you use logic to refute logic and thereby defeat your own position.

Rational discourse with you is impossible.

Believe what you want.

:wave2:

You are caught up in the project of the Liberal Nation-state as proposed to us by the Enlightenment. You are grounded in Philosophy and not the scriptures.

Your straw-man arguments are getting tiresome. Not once have I tried to "refute" or "defeat" logic; I have only tried to define it through the scriptures (i.e. logic is the equivalent of wisdom). Proverbs 26:4-5 does not adhere to your three "laws of logic". You are presenting logic as a set of universal principles that are always the path to truthfulness. And you have bought into a myth that has justified the atrocities committed by the European and American nations over the last few centuries in their Imperialistic endeavors. You are trying to find the truth by your own means, and you have exchanged the truth for a lie.

Truth comes by revelation (by incarnation) not by rational ascent. God enters the scene (apocalypsis) and transforms the world in revelation. It is not logical; it is not rational. Any attempts at making the incarnation out to be a rational thing is absurd. You have removed the Spirit of God altogether, whose presence is not understood, but merely witnessed. And worst of all you have united God and the Creation in such a way that they are no longer distinct from one another. God experiences the world just as we experience the world (God is just more masterful in the art of logic).

There are three virtues of Christianity, and not one of them is logic. They are faith, hope, and love, but the greatest is love. Love is not a rational thing; one never knows what will come about because of love. It rejoices in the one that reciprocates the love, and is steadfast and patient with the one who does not. Love takes in the oppressed and marginalized of society, and is willing to become marginalized in facing the enemy. Love never fails, even in the face of a terrible defeat. Love cannot be abstracted into a set of principles; it is always incarnate, particular and embodied. Logic is the virtue of those seeking to master the Creation; love is the grounding for those who are already masters of it. Love is the command of our Lord, and love will be our foundation. God is love, not logic.

Peace,
Michael

 

[God_Is_Truth]

I have only tried to define it through the scriptures (i.e. logic is the equivalent of wisdom).

There's your problem right there. You cannot define it through scripture without already using it. The minute you try and define anything, you use logic. The second you try and explain something, you use logic. It is inescapable.

 

[Lighthouse]

There's your problem right there. You cannot define it through scripture without already using it. The minute you try and define anything, you use logic. The second you try and explain something, you use logic. It is inescapable.

seekinganswers doesn't use logic.:nono:

 

[Kloostra]

Hebrews 12: 10 - 12

Hebrews 12: 10 - 12

"Our fathers disicplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disicplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No disicpline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it."

Here is something to think about.
1)God does disicpline his people, his children!
2) Who are we to judge by what methods God should and should not discipline his people?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"Our fathers disicplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disicplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No disicpline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it."

Here is something to think about.
1)God does disicpline his people, his children!
2) Who are we to judge by what methods God should and should not discipline his people?

That is like me saying to you.... I discipline my kids when they are disobedient.

And then you assume from that statement that every bad thing that every happens to my child is part of my discipline for them. :kookoo:

You look out your window and see my child falling off his bike and think... wow... Knight's is disciplining his child again... poor kid, I wonder what he did wrong this time?

 

[sentientsynth]

"Our fathers disicplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disicplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No disicpline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it."

Hey Kloostra. I've never spoken to you before. Nice to meet ya.

I'm thankful for the discipline my father gave me. My father's discipline taught me to discipline myself, and the importance of the disciplining of my future children. I'm thankful for this.

Here is something to think about.
1)God does disicpline his people, his children!
2) Who are we to judge by what methods God should and should not discipline his people?

You're right. We aren't to judge what methods God uses to shape us. I'm reminded of the epistle of James, a book I have been enamored by for many years.

1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.

Paul reflects this same notion in Romans 5...

3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

...and again in chapter 8...

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. ... As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.


All things work together for good to those who love God. I take comfort in that thought.



SS

 

[Lighthouse]

That is like me saying to you.... I discipline my kids when they are disobedient.

And then you assume from that statement that every bad thing that every happens to my child is part of my discipline for them. :kookoo:

You look out your window and see my child falling off his bike and think... wow... Knight's is disciplining his child again... poor kid, I wonder what he did wrong this time?

Exactly!

 

[seekinganswers]

There's your problem right there. You cannot define it through scripture without already using it. The minute you try and define anything, you use logic. The second you try and explain something, you use logic. It is inescapable.

The scriptures are not affirmed through logic, they come down to us as revelation, through tradition. We don't say as Christians, "Read the Scriptures because they're logical," we say, "We read the scriptures because they define who we are as a people." The liberal attempts at submitting the scriptures to a singular "logic" (as has been demonstrated in the Historical Critical and Formal Critical approaches to them) have failed in their endeavors, which have only given rise to the plethora of critical approaches to the scriptures we have today. The scriptures do not yield the answers of their creation to us (they don't tell us who is right about their origins). We have tried to find the answers, and we have failed. I submit myself to the proclamation of the early councils of the church, which have said that the Scriptures are revelation, and those same councils have affirmed the canon as we have it today.

So don't try to submit me to your logic. It won't work. I don't read the scriptures because they fit into the overall "logic" that sits in the background of the Creation, making everything hold together (I don't even pretend to know such things, nor am I content in condensing that down to impersonal laws of governance; I look to God as the ruler of the Creaiton, who is not a set of laws). I submit to the scriptures because they came in particularity to a people, who wrote them down and thought that it was important to keep writing them down and grounding their instruction within them (by the influence of the Spirit, no doubt). And I read them now because God has "grabbed me into the Kingdom of his Son" (not because the scriptures are "perfect" by our standards or because they are infallible with regards to logic). And it was not against my will that I was grabbed, but by the "weapons of righteousness" (Paul uses this term in Romans; I equate it to the works of mercy) which are produced among his "crazy" people by the Holy Spirit (these weapons that overcome evil by the practice of righteousness). I didn't make a decision to follow Christ; I was brought along and learned to receive that calling as my own. It was personal because God came along-side me and guided me by his Spirit, and through the actions of his people around me, I received grace, not an irrestible grace, but a grace that is truly a gift, a free gift that is free to be taken or rejected. I was not "predestined" to follow God; I received grace that was predestined (that is a grace that came by the faithfulness of God to do what God says he will do). And I responded to that grace, at times by being brought along by others, and at still other times by my own will, which was in communion with God's own will.

It wasn't the later message of personal salvation espoused by my church that related me to God in the church (I had numerous "salvation" experiences at the altar through my childhood; they produced a neurosis of guilt more than they assured me of God's forgiveness of my sins). It was the gospel as witnessed in God's rectifying project in the church that brought me into God's sanctified people. God has invaded this cosmos through God's own Son, and God is bringing the cosmos through his Son into his own will. God's work doesn't require that I be a part of it, but God desires that I am, and calls me to do just that. God is rectifying the cosmos whether I am rectified with it or not, but as a member of God's cosmos (Creation) I am invited to be a part of the rectification.

Logic is the child of the Enlightenment, and it is steeped in the idolatry of men, who have exchanged the image of the immortal God with images of birds, four-footed creatures, and the like. You have exchanged the Creator for the Creation, and God has delivered you over to that as you saw fit. But God has also invaded this cosmos (this Creation) so that by his Son (who invades the cosmos; he doesn't fit into it) we might receive the light of God for our salvation.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

seekinganswers doesn't use logic.:nono:

You continue to pretend that there is one logic, and as you do, you will disobey Christ as you turn your neighbor into your enemy because of their "lack of logic." When Christ tells us to love the enemy, the idea of a singular logic for humanity went right out the window. Christ in the flesh and blood and as an incarnate God is the one who unites men, not logic. And anyone who would exchange Christ in the flesh for their own sense of order and peace will be doomed to bring chaos and destruction upon the Creation, and will make themselves enemies of the cross and of God.

Peace,
Michael

 

[God_Is_Truth]

The scriptures are not affirmed through logic, they come down to us as revelation, through tradition.

You can't affirm anything without using logic! It's utterly impossible! I can't affirm you wrote this post without using logic! Affirmation is not possible without logic.

We don't say as Christians, "Read the Scriptures because they're logical," we say, "We read the scriptures because they define who we are as a people."

To even understand that sentence requires the use of logic. To understand any word in that sentence requires the use of logic.

The liberal attempts at submitting the scriptures to a singular "logic" (as has been demonstrated in the Historical Critical and Formal Critical approaches to them) have failed in their endeavors, which have only given rise to the plethora of critical approaches to the scriptures we have today. The scriptures do not yield the answers of their creation to us (they don't tell us who is right about their origins). We have tried to find the answers, and we have failed. I submit myself to the proclamation of the early councils of the church, which have said that the Scriptures are revelation, and those same councils have affirmed the canon as we have it today.

To understand what revelation is and is not requires logic.

So don't try to submit me to your logic. It won't work.

:rotfl:

As Agent Smith said in The Matrix Reloaded "It is inevitable". You cannot escape logic!

I don't read the scriptures because they fit into the overall "logic" that sits in the background of the Creation, making everything hold together (I don't even pretend to know such things, nor am I content in condensing that down to impersonal laws of governance; I look to God as the ruler of the Creaiton, who is not a set of laws).

You read the scriptures because you logically believe they are the word of God. You cannot escape logic.

I submit to the scriptures because they came in particularity to a people, who wrote them down and thought that it was important to keep writing them down and grounding their instruction within them (by the influence of the Spirit, no doubt). And I read them now because God has "grabbed me into the Kingdom of his Son" (not because the scriptures are "perfect" by our standards or because they are infallible with regards to logic). And it was not against my will that I was grabbed, but by the "weapons of righteousness" (Paul uses this term in Romans; I equate it to the works of mercy) which are produced among his "crazy" people by the Holy Spirit (these weapons that overcome evil by the practice of righteousness). I didn't make a decision to follow Christ; I was brought along and learned to receive that calling as my own. It was personal because God came along-side me and guided me by his Spirit, and through the actions of his people around me, I received grace, not an irrestible grace, but a grace that is truly a gift, a free gift that is free to be taken or rejected. I was not "predestined" to follow God; I received grace that was predestined (that is a grace that came by the faithfulness of God to do what God says he will do). And I responded to that grace, at times by being brought along by others, and at still other times by my own will, which was in communion with God's own will.

It wasn't the later message of personal salvation espoused by my church that related me to God in the church (I had numerous "salvation" experiences at the altar through my childhood; they produced a neurosis of guilt more than they assured me of God's forgiveness of my sins). It was the gospel as witnessed in God's rectifying project in the church that brought me into God's sanctified people. God has invaded this cosmos through God's own Son, and God is bringing the cosmos through his Son into his own will. God's work doesn't require that I be a part of it, but God desires that I am, and calls me to do just that. God is rectifying the cosmos whether I am rectified with it or not, but as a member of God's cosmos (Creation) I am invited to be a part of the rectification.

None of those things could be true or have happened without logic.

Logic is the child of the Enlightenment, and it is steeped in the idolatry of men, who have exchanged the image of the immortal God with images of birds, four-footed creatures, and the like. You have exchanged the Creator for the Creation, and God has delivered you over to that as you saw fit. But God has also invaded this cosmos (this Creation) so that by his Son (who invades the cosmos; he doesn't fit into it) we might receive the light of God for our salvation.

I don't think you understand what logic is. Your critique here is about the enlightenment, not logic.

 

[seekinganswers]

You can't affirm anything without using logic! It's utterly impossible! I can't affirm you wrote this post without using logic! Affirmation is not possible without logic.



To even understand that sentence requires the use of logic. To understand any word in that sentence requires the use of logic.



To understand what revelation is and is not requires logic.



:rotfl:

As Agent Smith said in The Matrix Reloaded "It is inevitable". You cannot escape logic!



You read the scriptures because you logically believe they are the word of God. You cannot escape logic.



None of those things could be true or have happened without logic.



I don't think you understand what logic is. Your critique here is about the enlightenment, not logic.

God is truth,

You are a "resounding gong!" Your straw-man argument is more than a nussaince at this point. What you are talking about is not logic but incarnation. So to understand what I am saying you must be able to speak English and be grounded in a certain culture. My words would mean nothing to a poor farmer in China. And I don't care how many world-expert translators you get to try to convert my words into something understandable to the Chinese farmer, if you use "logic" (that stupid ideology that thinks that there is a basic commonality between human beings that makes us inherently the same) you end up coercing the other into being like you, rather than affirming the differences. I do not think the same as a person in China. Our logics are at odds, in fact.

What unites humanity is nothing inherent to us (grounded in the Creation). What unites humanity and even the entire Creation itself is God (not logic, but God the Creator who becomes incarnate in Christ, and continues to be incarnate in the ekklesia which is established by the Spirit). Now you can sit and try to find commonalities in humanity, but they will always be contrived, for you will always view the other from an otherly perspective and not in truth. The liberal endeavor to find God in the Creation (which is expressed in your understanding of logic) is always and will always be idolatry. God is not understood in the Creation; God must be revealed. And any attempts to make God understandable and like us is to engage in idolatry.

The first message of Christianity was not, "Christ died for your sins." The first message of Christianity is this, "Turn from deaf, dumb, and mute idols which are grounded in sin and lead to death, and turn to the God of Creation, the living God who leads us to abundant life, for he is life." Christ is the weapon of God by which God invades the cosmic order in order to defeat sin and death. Christ in that much is the firstfruits of what God is bringing upon the Creation, and is the exemplar of humanity, so that we should follow his example.

This is not the liberal gospel; it is the gospel of Christ that comes as a result of Christ's apocalypse of the living God (the revelation of the living God). This has not come by logic alone (or by word alone), but by power and by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit who continues to reincarnate Christ among us. The word is not equated to the Spirit. And this means that the message of the gospel, if it comes by logic alone, is a dead gospel (as the Historical-Critics taught us). We can search for the historical Jesus all we want, and our search will only manage to kill the gospel (so that it is no longer good news). To reduce God's revelation to logic is to reduce God to a part of the Creation, and it is to engage in idolatry.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

God is truth,

You are a "resounding gong!" Your straw-man argument is more than a nussaince at this point.

GiT has not engaged a straw-man argument. You do not know what you are talking about.

What you are talking about is not logic but incarnation.

No, he was talking about logic. I don't know what the crap you're talking about but GiT was definately talking about logic.

So to understand what I am saying you must be able to speak English and be grounded in a certain culture. My words would mean nothing to a poor farmer in China. And I don't care how many world-expert translators you get to try to convert my words into something understandable to the Chinese farmer, if you use "logic" (that stupid ideology that thinks that there is a basic commonality between human beings that makes us inherently the same) you end up coercing the other into being like you, rather than affirming the differences. I do not think the same as a person in China. Our logics are at odds, in fact.

And yet even a Chinaman who does not come in out of the rain gets wet. Logic is universal whether everyone uses it or not.

What unites humanity is nothing inherent to us (grounded in the Creation). What unites humanity and even the entire Creation itself is God (not logic, but God the Creator who becomes incarnate in Christ, and continues to be incarnate in the ekklesia which is established by the Spirit). Now you can sit and try to find commonalities in humanity, but they will always be contrived, for you will always view the other from an otherly perspective and not in truth.

Is not all mankind descended from Adam? Are not all men in need of the same Jesus? Are not all men mortal? Don’t we all have a mother and father? Don’t we all have both physical and emotional needs (like love for instance)?
I could go on for hours listing all the commonalities that men of all nations everywhere share in common.

The liberal endeavor to find God in the Creation (which is expressed in your understanding of logic) is always and will always be idolatry. God is not understood in the Creation; God must be revealed. And any attempts to make God understandable and like us is to engage in idolatry.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

It seems the apostle Paul disagrees with you.

The first message of Christianity was not, "Christ died for your sins." The first message of Christianity is this, "Turn from deaf, dumb, and mute idols which are grounded in sin and lead to death, and turn to the God of Creation, the living God who leads us to abundant life, for he is life." Christ is the weapon of God by which God invades the cosmic order in order to defeat sin and death. Christ in that much is the firstfruits of what God is bringing upon the Creation, and is the exemplar of humanity, so that we should follow his example.

Ooookay then! I think I'll just let this one speak for itself.

This is not the liberal gospel; it is the gospel of Christ that comes as a result of Christ's apocalypse of the living God (the revelation of the living God). This has not come by logic alone (or by word alone), but by power and by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit who continues to reincarnate Christ among us. The word is not equated to the Spirit. And this means that the message of the gospel, if it comes by logic alone, is a dead gospel (as the Historical-Critics taught us). We can search for the historical Jesus all we want, and our search will only manage to kill the gospel (so that it is no longer good news). To reduce God's revelation to logic is to reduce God to a part of the Creation, and it is to engage in idolatry.

One things for certain. You wouldn't know logic from a hole in your head. This is got to be some of the most whacked out lunatic ranting I've ever seen. Where in the world are you getting this nonsense from? :kookoo:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[God_Is_Truth]

God is truth,

You are a "resounding gong!" Your straw-man argument is more than a nussaince at this point. What you are talking about is not logic but incarnation.

Incarnation? I haven't said anything about God becoming flesh! No sir, we are indeed talking about logic.

So to understand what I am saying you must be able to speak English and be grounded in a certain culture.

To speak english and be grounded in a certain culture first requires logic! To call me a resounding gong requires logic! For me to understand what that is and that you are saying it to me requires logic! To know that "God_Is_Truth" is my screen name requires logic! It's unavoidable!

My words would mean nothing to a poor farmer in China.

Without logic they don't mean anything to anyone. They only don't mean anything to him because of the difference in language which is certainly not the same thing as logic. Language is the application and use of logic. If I haven't been told how you used the logic (how the language works) then I can't understand you. But that's because of the language, not the ability to use logic.

And I don't care how many world-expert translators you get to try to convert my words into something understandable to the Chinese farmer, if you use "logic" (that stupid ideology that thinks that there is a basic commonality between human beings that makes us inherently the same) you end up coercing the other into being like you, rather than affirming the differences. I do not think the same as a person in China. Our logics are at odds, in fact.

You don't think the same because you have access to different information (language, culture etc.). But you do both think, and that's where logic resides.

What unites humanity is nothing inherent to us (grounded in the Creation).

You mean humanity can't unite as humans? Are we not all the same type? You don't believe some humans are superior to or below others do you?

What unites humanity and even the entire Creation itself is God (not logic, but God the Creator who becomes incarnate in Christ, and continues to be incarnate in the ekklesia which is established by the Spirit).

You cannot know God without logic! That's like trying to tell a tree to move! Without the ability to move, it cannot do so. Without logic (thinking) you cannot know God.

Now you can sit and try to find commonalities in humanity, but they will always be contrived, for you will always view the other from an otherly perspective and not in truth. The liberal endeavor to find God in the Creation (which is expressed in your understanding of logic) is always and will always be idolatry. God is not understood in the Creation; God must be revealed. And any attempts to make God understandable and like us is to engage in idolatry.

You just said that we cannot understand God in any way. What in the world are you doing on a theology board? Further, God revealed himself in the creation (Romans 1).

The first message of Christianity was not, "Christ died for your sins."

:shocked:

1 Corinthians 15
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

You are right that the message Jesus preached was not "I died for your sins", but christianity wasn't what it is today at that point either.

The first message of Christianity is this, "Turn from deaf, dumb, and mute idols which are grounded in sin and lead to death, and turn to the God of Creation, the living God who leads us to abundant life, for he is life." Christ is the weapon of God by which God invades the cosmic order in order to defeat sin and death. Christ in that much is the firstfruits of what God is bringing upon the Creation, and is the exemplar of humanity, so that we should follow his example.

And you cannot know, follow, turn to, or believe in Christ without using logic.

This is not the liberal gospel; it is the gospel of Christ that comes as a result of Christ's apocalypse of the living God (the revelation of the living God). This has not come by logic alone (or by word alone), but by power and by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit who continues to reincarnate Christ among us. The word is not equated to the Spirit. And this means that the message of the gospel, if it comes by logic alone, is a dead gospel (as the Historical-Critics taught us). We can search for the historical Jesus all we want, and our search will only manage to kill the gospel (so that it is no longer good news). To reduce God's revelation to logic is to reduce God to a part of the Creation, and it is to engage in idolatry.

Peace,
Michael

No one reduced God's revelation to logic! What we have been saying all along is that to understand God's revelation (creation, Christ, miracles, gifts etc.) requires the use of logic! God gave us heads for a reason!

Matthew 22:37
And He said to him, " ' YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'

You cannot love God with your heart, soul and strength without using your mind. You can't do any of them without your mind.

 

[seekinganswers]

GiT has not engaged a straw-man argument. You do not know what you are talking about.

No, Clete, you don't know what you are talking about. A straw-man argument is to misrepresent your opponent in such way as to be able to tare it down, though you end up disproving a different position than your opponent's. I have never tried to debunk all logic, but the idea of logic as a singular and overarching reality. Logic is not universal, but is practical and particular. Logic is grounded within language (logos in the Greek meaning word), of which there are thousands. So when GiT makes the statement that I must use logic to say what I say he is speaking about logic in that particular way.

When humanity tries to approach God on its own terms; when humans try to unite themselves appart from the Creator, God has a response. He confuses us in our language, so that we can never unite ourselves (and it has been the downfall for many an Empire) (Babel has been repeated numerous times in our history). When we think too highly of our own rationality God scatters us in our thoughts.

My argument against logic is against the presentation of a logic that is hegemonic and overarching. Logic is not universal; it is embodied and particular to humans in their experience. Even Christ comes to us in particularity, not in universals.

No, he was talking about logic. I don't know what the crap you're talking about but GiT was definately talking about logic.

And he was presenting it as a universal instead of it being particular. Logic is not what unites the cosmos; logic is the way in which particular humans are embedded in the Creation.

So to understand what I am saying you must be able to speak English and be grounded in a certain culture. My words would mean nothing to a poor farmer in China. And I don't care how many world-expert translators you get to try to convert my words into something understandable to the Chinese farmer, if you use "logic" (that stupid ideology that thinks that there is a basic commonality between human beings that makes us inherently the same) you end up coercing the other into being like you, rather than affirming the differences. I do not think the same as a person in China. Our logics are at odds, in fact.

And yet even a Chinaman who does not come in out of the rain gets wet. Logic is universal whether everyone uses it or not.

Logic asks certain questions (and makes arguments accordingly). The way in which you present it makes it sound as if all humans ask or need to ask the same questions and arrive at answers according to a defined scientific approach. You have weighed logic over rhetoric. It doesn't always matter whether one gets wet in the rain. Sometimes it is much more important to ask why we are concerned with the question, and how we answer it. Logic by itself is useless without the greater rhetorical questions of context. Logic can never be divorced from rhetoric, or else we degrade into nihlism.

It is the contextual questions of rhetoric that transform logic into wisdom, and move us from the secular Enlightenment to the Scriptures. Logic is not universal in the scriptures. Logic orders our approach to the context in which we find ourselves to be able to deal with our context in wisdom. Logic is utterly useless in itself. So what if one gets wet in the rain? First one must know what rain is and what it is for rain to be wet in order for such a statement to make sense. Try to talk about rain to someone who has never seen rain. Or how about having an Eskimo explain the 20 things he sees in our singular snow to a Hawaian islander who has never even heard of snow? A statement like "water vapor that crystalizes in the clouds and falls to the earth is snow" would have no intellibility for the Hawaian Islander.

Even in Mathematics one must first define the base system in which one is working, otherwise an equation like 2+2=4 becomes unintelligible. A base 5 system would never make such a statement. We only use base ten because it is easier for us to manipulate the numbers in that system (nothing tells us that base ten is more correct than base 5; it's just easier). To a computer the statement 2+2=4 is absolutely absurd (computers run on a binary system). For a computer 2 doesn't even exist let alone 4.

Logic has no substance without a context (logic is nothing without rhetoric). That is all I have been trying to say, but you continue to think that I am against logic as a whole. I am only against the brand of logic posed by the Enlightenment, which took the search of the disillusioned philosophers of the 17th century and tried to find the answer to their questions. They stopped studying rhetoric and delved into logic whole-heartedly but in complete ignorance that led to the Imperialism of Europe and the United States throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

What unites humanity is nothing inherent to us (grounded in the Creation). What unites humanity and even the entire Creation itself is God (not logic, but God the Creator who becomes incarnate in Christ, and continues to be incarnate in the ekklesia which is established by the Spirit). Now you can sit and try to find commonalities in humanity, but they will always be contrived, for you will always view the other from an otherly perspective and not in truth.

Is not all mankind descended from Adam? Are not all men in need of the same Jesus? Are not all men mortal? Don’t we all have a mother and father? Don’t we all have both physical and emotional needs (like love for instance)?
I could go on for hours listing all the commonalities that men of all nations everywhere share in common.

And in making such statements you are entirely indebted to liberalism (to anthropology in particular). You define humanity by what you see. I define humanity in Christ. Humans do not experience the world in the same way. Your examples completely ignore the differences in order to find similarities. Sure we all eat, but we do not eat the same things, at the same times, or in the same ways. You would think that such differences don't matter, but I know very well that they do. When I go to Mexico I can't just think, "Oh I eat and they eat, so what's food is food." You do that and you end up on the toilet for your entire stay in Mexico. Muslims, Christians, and Jews trace their heritage back to Abraham, but it does not mean the same thing for them. These groups have had more strife than most others despite their united lineages. You ignore the differences to find meaningless connections. And what is worse, you will then see this supposed "likeness" and use that to mistreat and kill anyone who does not fit into that "likeness" in order to homogenize humanity. In your finding similarities between human beings you have allowed yourself to define your enemies (and have even given yourself an excuse for the way in which you will treat your enemy).

It is liberalism at its finest, and I just do not buy into it, because I have seen what liberalism has brought to our world (the supposed civility that has been the greatest barbarism our world has ever seen).

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

It seems the apostle Paul disagrees with you.

Oh, that's good. Find a passage that says what you want it to say without considering the context. Though people are without excuse in Romans, they have been handed over so that they are hopelessly lost in sin, and must be freed from the power of sin before they know God. Their actions have made them enemies of God, and so they no longer worship God as God, and exchange the image of the imortal God for images that come from the Creation. They will not be able to know God except through Christ (in the following chapters). A natural theology that can be had without Christ is utterly contemptible.

Ooookay then! I think I'll just let this one speak for itself.

And you haven't read very much of Paul. In the entire letter of the Thessalonians, the way in which Paul narrates the gospel is this (I Thess. 8-10), "The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

That is the gospel that Paul speaks in all the letter of I Thessalonians, and not once does he speak about Jesus' coming to "forgive our sins." And there are few letters that do not have this same message. You just don't know the scriptures very well.

One things for certain. You wouldn't know logic from a hole in your head. This is got to be some of the most whacked out lunatic ranting I've ever seen. Where in the world are you getting this nonsense from? :kookoo:

Said the fool whose only retort was an insult to his opponent, and the same fool who claimed he would say no more as he continued to blab away.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

GiT has not engaged a straw-man argument. You do not know what you are talking about.

No, Clete, you don't know what you are talking about. A straw-man argument is to misrepresent your opponent in such way as to be able to tare it down, though you end up disproving a different position than your opponent's. I have never tried to debunk all logic, but the idea of logic as a singular and overarching reality. Logic is not universal, but is practical and particular. Logic is grounded within language (logos in the Greek meaning word), of which there are thousands. So when GiT makes the statement that I must use logic to say what I say he is speaking about logic in that particular way.

When humanity tries to approach God on its own terms; when humans try to unite themselves appart from the Creator, God has a response. He confuses us in our language, so that we can never unite ourselves (and it has been the downfall for many an Empire) (Babel has been repeated numerous times in our history). When we think too highly of our own rationality God scatters us in our thoughts.

My argument against logic is against the presentation of a logic that is hegemonic and overarching. Logic is not universal; it is embodied and particular to humans in their experience. Even Christ comes to us in particularity, not in universals.

No, he was talking about logic. I don't know what the crap you're talking about but GiT was definately talking about logic.

And he was presenting it as a universal instead of it being particular. Logic is not what unites the cosmos; logic is the way in which particular humans are embedded in the Creation.

And yet even a Chinaman who does not come in out of the rain gets wet. Logic is universal whether everyone uses it or not.

Logic asks certain questions (and makes arguments accordingly). The way in which you present it makes it sound as if all humans ask or need to ask the same questions and arrive at answers according to a defined scientific approach. You have weighed logic over rhetoric. It doesn't always matter whether one gets wet in the rain. Sometimes it is much more important to ask why we are concerned with the question, and how we answer it. Logic by itself is useless without the greater rhetorical questions of context. Logic can never be divorced from rhetoric, or else we degrade into nihlism.

It is the contextual questions of rhetoric that transform logic into wisdom, and move us from the secular Enlightenment to the Scriptures. Logic is not universal in the scriptures. Logic orders our approach to the context in which we find ourselves to be able to deal with our context in wisdom. Logic is utterly useless in itself. So what if one gets wet in the rain? First one must know what rain is and what it is for rain to be wet in order for such a statement to make sense. Try to talk about rain to someone who has never seen rain. Or how about having an Eskimo explain the 20 things he sees in our singular snow to a Hawaian islander who has never even heard of snow? A statement like "water vapor that crystalizes in the clouds and falls to the earth is snow" would have no intellibility for the Hawaian Islander.

Even in Mathematics one must first define the base system in which one is working, otherwise an equation like 2+2=4 becomes unintelligible. A base 5 system would never make such a statement. We only use base ten because it is easier for us to manipulate the numbers in that system (nothing tells us that base ten is more correct than base 5; it's just easier). To a computer the statement 2+2=4 is absolutely absurd (computers run on a binary system). For a computer 2 doesn't even exist let alone 4.

Logic has no substance without a context (logic is nothing without rhetoric). That is all I have been trying to say, but you continue to think that I am against logic as a whole. I am only against the brand of logic posed by the Enlightenment, which took the search of the disillusioned philosophers of the 17th century and tried to find the answer to their questions. They stopped studying rhetoric and delved into logic whole-heartedly but in complete ignorance that led to the Imperialism of Europe and the United States throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

Is not all mankind descended from Adam? Are not all men in need of the same Jesus? Are not all men mortal? Don’t we all have a mother and father? Don’t we all have both physical and emotional needs (like love for instance)?
I could go on for hours listing all the commonalities that men of all nations everywhere share in common.

And in making such statements you are entirely indebted to liberalism (to anthropology in particular). You define humanity by what you see. I define humanity in Christ. Humans do not experience the world in the same way. Your examples completely ignore the differences in order to find similarities. Sure we all eat, but we do not eat the same things, at the same times, or in the same ways. You would think that such differences don't matter, but I know very well that they do. When I go to Mexico I can't just think, "Oh I eat and they eat, so what's food is food." You do that and you end up on the toilet for your entire stay in Mexico. Muslims, Christians, and Jews trace their heritage back to Abraham, but it does not mean the same thing for them. These groups have had more strife than most others despite their united lineages. You ignore the differences to find meaningless connections. And what is worse, you will then see this supposed "likeness" and use that to mistreat and kill anyone who does not fit into that "likeness" in order to homogenize humanity. In your finding similarities between human beings you have allowed yourself to define your enemies (and have even given yourself an excuse for the way in which you will treat your enemy).

It is liberalism at its finest, and I just do not buy into it, because I have seen what liberalism has brought to our world (the supposed civility that has been the greatest barbarism our world has ever seen).

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

It seems the apostle Paul disagrees with you.

Oh, that's good. Find a passage that says what you want it to say without considering the context. Though people are without excuse in Romans, they have been handed over so that they are hopelessly lost in sin, and must be freed from the power of sin before they know God. Their actions have made them enemies of God, and so they no longer worship God as God, and exchange the image of the imortal God for images that come from the Creation. They will not be able to know God except through Christ (in the following chapters). A natural theology that can be had without Christ is utterly contemptible.

Ooookay then! I think I'll just let this one speak for itself.

And you haven't read very much of Paul. In the entire letter of the Thessalonians, the way in which Paul narrates the gospel is this (I Thess. 8-10), "The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

That is the gospel that Paul speaks in all the letter of I Thessalonians, and not once does he speak about Jesus' coming to "forgive our sins." And there are few letters that do not have this same message. You just don't know the scriptures very well.

One things for certain. You wouldn't know logic from a hole in your head. This is got to be some of the most whacked out lunatic ranting I've ever seen. Where in the world are you getting this nonsense from? :kookoo:

Said the fool whose only retort was an insult to his opponent, and the same fool who claimed he would say no more as he continued to blab away.

Peace,
Michael