- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Communicating? or Just “fussin?”
We who enter this forum have an obligation to communicate, not just “be heard!” To post without rancor is not easy, especially when one perceives a wound from an adversary.
“Strike, quickly and often,” is our first reaction to what we consider unjustified rhetoric. Mea Culpa. Which leads me to the first point in my essay.Why Do People Debate?
1. Some have a desire to “share” a concept which is too profound to keep to one's self. Some have an “agenda” which needs vented. Some have an “ego” which needs stroked. Many are the reasons for entering the arena of “argument.”Understanding terminology
“Arguing A Position.”
2. To argue a point of logic, is not the same as “arguing” a position. Many are the “positions” offered in debate, which are as remote from logic, as is the moon, from green cheese. One should state a simple premise, which can be sustained by supporting arguments. When one offers an argument to sustain a premise, it should be offered as a logical arrangement of thoughts based upon sound principles of debate, and understood within basic parameters related to all the areas of intercommunication involved.Intercommunication: Parameters And Arenas
I am dealing with the “Image of God.”
3. The point at which I abandon this “Major” consideration, is the point at which the debate breaks down into “just fussin'.”“Logic” is a discipline:
4. There are rules to the discipline of “logic.” Many folks think that if they understand the argument, it is logical; if they don't, it ain't. A good foundation course in logic, would go a long way toward eliminating much of the discordance, and would promote concordance, in discussion of issues..5. Agreement as to the “meaning” of terms: (the words used in the course of the communication). We think we understand that one and one is two. Then someone asks, “What do you mean by “and,” which may severely alter the understanding.
One and one equals two (addition); one and one is eleven (placed side by side); one and one is a pair (unmatched socks); several are the possiblilities to the understanding of what is meant by “one and one.”
Agreement as to Authorities:
6. What constitutes “an authority,” that to which appeal may be made, in an effort to resolve “impasse et discourse.” Many are the arguments (read “fusses”) over the concept “my authority is greater than your authority.” “Greater” How? More education? More experience? More first-hand involvement? More Popular?An understanding as to what is agreed upon as to authority, is essential to good debate. For me to insist upon a favorite professor's way of putting a phrase, does nothing for the man whose authority rests in a Pope. In like manner, the Pope holds no sway over those whose “Authorities” abide elsewhere.
7. Authority; what does it “mean”? “Authority” should be understood to be that ultimate source/resource to which one can appeal, as to the “meaning,” as to the “relationship;” as to the “presentation,” and etc., of the thing in dispute.
8. If I say “did you understand what the president said about the economy”? You Would not expect me to present the interpretation of one who disagreed with his policies on economics. Would there not be a clash as to the understanding of the terminology involved?
9. It is improbable that one could correctly represent the views of one with whom he disagrees, about anything. Shades of meaning, nuances, even “body language,” play a part in communication, which is lost in a third party presentation. If I attempt to tell you what I believe, through a third party, even one with whom I agree; one who has a close rapport with me; much is lost in the shades of meaning, the nuances and the body language, if the third party fails to “display” my message, but relies solely upon verbage.
And what then of my attempts to convey a message which was presented over two thousand years ago? Does not the passage of time, itself, give us reason for pause, to reflect upon our wonder, our position of “enquiry,” as opposed to being a true “second party” to the conversation?
10. So, to tell you what someone “meant” by what he said, I must turn to some agreed upon “authority,” to resolve the issue at hand. The best “authority” to which I can appeal, is the very words themselves, the record of precisely what was “said.” For therein lies the “meaning” inherent within the framework of the message. There can be no “meaning” ascribed to the message, which is not found within the parameters of the meanings of the words employed.
The Basic Building Blocks Of Communication:
11.The words used to express a communication, are proferred by many, to be the “basis” of communication. I disagree. (Surprise! Surprise!) I believe “thought” is the basis of communication. We select “alternate” words to better express our thoughts. We do not modify our thoughts just because of some precluded inventory of words alloted for our use. Peter gives an example of this in Acts 2:40 “with many other words did he testify and exhort saying…”12. Two thoughts, forming a “concept,” are brought together in a coherent, logical manner, and conveyed to another individual. If the concept is to be understood by a second party, anything closely resembling the “intent” of the message of the first party, “agreement” must prevail as to the “meaning” inherent within the “words” selected to serve as the “conveyances” of the communication.
13. The “verb” was the first part of speech developed in the languages of men. The concept of “subject,” followed soon after. If you just holler “jump,” everybody jumps. If you holler “John! Jump!” everybody looks for John, to see if he made it. The original purpose for the development of
the “subject” was as a “pointer.” The purposes of the pointer are twofold; To “include,” and to “exclude.”14. Modification and expansion of themes became soon popular, as grunts and rude noises fell into disuse as favored means of communication, (though there are certain exceptions; “football season” comes to mind).
This “modification” came in the concept of Adjectives, Adverbs, and various and sundry devices of grammar which serve to modify. “Expansion” came in the form of clauses, and conjunction. Then there always remains the secondary considerations of body language, nuance, inuendo, inference, and suggestion, sometimes almost a second language.
15. Once the “meaning” of a word is determined, it can be applied to thought. The thought can be related to another person, by use of that word which has been agreed upon to convey that narrow a concept; the thought. So that, for all intents and purposes, the word and the thought become almost interchangeable.
16. Once “thought” was expanded to “concept,” the way was clear to go to the next logical step in language;the “context.” The context modifies, or narrows, the concept. “Go next door” may be modified by a context which includes …”to Mary's cookout,” which provides much rich background to which “next door” is under consideration. And if there are, by chance, more than one “next door to Mary's cookout,” available for consideration, one need simply ask, “Which one?”
17. From thought, to understanding symbols which represent the thought, to forming intelligible context, to sophisticated discourse, is a long and eventful journey. Yet man still struggles, as far too many of society's members fail to grasp the simple, in an effort to convey the complex. And they fail to grasp the complex, in an effort to convey the simple.
Sometimes it is best to use small words to invoke understanding within a community. Other settings require other means. For instance, try to get a Kindergarten class to understand airplane lift. It can be done. But don't waste the Aerodynamic Engineer's time with the same explanation.
18. A “consensus” is a “symbol” sometimes mis
taken for
“everyone knows;” but it is not a dirty word. Concensus actually relates to the “consent” of the persons involved, to an understanding common to the group. There are many situations which call for an “everyone knows” solution. But the same solution may well be lost under other conditions.19. While “everyone knows” may, under certain narrow circumstances, be fact, it never constitutes authority; Because “everyone knows” has no root “meaning,” and no context for perception. If a thing is true, it is true for empirical reasons, or any one of many reasons, but the fact of common knowledge cannot effect the truth about anything. It can effect the “perception,” but that is not the same thing.
“Holy Men Of Old Were Inspired Of God.”
20. We mostly agree with the statement in one form or another, but diversity of agreement is no agreement at all. In order to facilitate any perception of a binding agreement as to the meaning of symbols in combination, we must have a standard upon which we base this meaning, and this perception of agreement.
21. One may point to some object and grunt unintelligibly, satisfied that he has imparted his “meaning” to another who is within the immediate sphere of his influence. The other might reply with a high-pitched squeal, in agreement. They may even “agree” as to the cause of their understanding, but will a third party “understand” either of the first two? Grunts and squeals, while appropriate in some contexts, do not comprise the basis of “understanding” within a broader and more sophisticated community.
22. Whenever a people gather, and attempt to communicate, one to another, they exercise caution, erudition, and a certain sophistication of thought, as they attempt to apply “meaning” to the symbols of speech in combination. If I were to walk into a market-place and say “I want to purchase that” while pointing to an ornate container in line with my pointing digit, does the merchant think that I am selling him some object which is lined up in the reverse direction to my pointing finger? Is it somehow “unreasonable” for him to count the fingers, and conclude that there more fingers pointing “away” from the object of my choice, and therefore I must want the object to which most of the fingers point?
23. We must agree as to the “meaning” inherent within the “symbolism” of the “body language” which includes the pointing finger, before we can have anything as sophisticated as a commercial relationship such as buying and selling of commodities in an open market.
24. Grunts, whistles, squeals, gestures; even silence has a place in communication, but only in relationship to an agreed-upon standard, as it relates to symbols of speech or communication.
25. The symbols of speech are not the same as the symbols of writing; yet both are utilized in the implementation of communicating “meaning” between sophisticated peoples interested in understanding, beyond whistles and grunts.
26. If one man says “merci bouceau” while another says “if you please”, each can be understood by the other, but only if there is a standard which relates to both. That standard is known by all, not by name, but by its rules. These rules pertain not to the translation necessary to understanding, but to the rules of interpretation thereof.
27. Without rules of interpretation as pertains to “symbols of communication”, I might point to myself, give voice to the symbol “I”, and think that I have imparted basic “meaning” to the symbol inherent within the parameters of the utterance.
But when the Frenchman, in agreement, utters “oui”, the untrained ear hears “we,” and thinks he can now translate french because he understands” that the first person singular
“I” in English, is equivalent to the third person plural “we” in French. What is lacking in this exchange, is that there was no effort made to determine the truth or veracity of the thing assumed, because it was labeled “understands”.28. “Acquiescence” is not “understanding”. Sometimes, one will “give up” trying to understand because it just isn't worth the hassle. It is so much easier to agree, and let the problems, which arise from mis-statement, sort themselves out later. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that all birds are blue; and further stipulate that only birds are blue. Upon seeing a blue object, one may assume that what he is seeing is a bird, Except for one thing; “for the sake of the argument” is not the same as “truth”. There are many such instances of mis-communication “for the sake of” some inferred “argument”.
29. Also, many arguments are “inferred” which were never
“implied” in the first place. The writer or speaker may imply whatever; the reader or listener may infer therefrom. But who listens? Really listens? Who reads with a sense of urgency, as regards understanding what it was the author wanted to communicate? If a book is perceived as “hard to understand,” we simply discard it and move on to another, simpler in understanding, or more entertaining in content.30. “Holy Men Of Old Were Inspired Of God.” I may simply state the proposition; I may define it; I may even pen a mountainous volume proving it. But if no one else agrees upon the terms, or “parameters” of my definition, have I “proved” my definition to be true, or of any value whatsoever?
There must be a standard of interpretation by which we can agree as to “meaning” inherent within the parameters of definition, or we will never find common ground in our effort to communicate. And I suppose there are even some who would prefer to call the agreed-upon standard by some other name. I imagine that the number of terms of disagreement could easily surpass the number of terms of agreement by far.
31. Men argue about every aspect of “inspiration”, but not from the same standard of interpretation. I perceive one of the first “rules” of understanding to be, “not everyone will agree.” Dissent is not necessarily wrong, it is just “disagreeable”, but tolerable, if handled correctly; and if the parameters of disagreement are as understood as the parameters of agreement; And if all concerned will adhere to the principles inherent within the parameters of the definition of the understood “disagreement”. Otherwise, the discussion becomes one of “I said..; you said..; that's not what I meant; I thought that what you meant was…; I understood you to say…” etc. ad-nauseum.
32. Without getting into the merits of various “theories” of inspiration, I offer a point of logic which I believe is of primary consideration when dealing with so important a concept. It is not reasonable to attribute to God, those parameters and factors which are strictly human by nature.
I do not believe that God told the Holy Men of old to “put it into your own words, wordforms, style, etc., but remember that the spiritual lives of all men rest upon your abilities to communicate exactly what I mean by what I say. They will be accountable for your errors, slips, and mis-constructs of language, your missed jots, your misapplied tittles.”
33. When we say that a word “means” what another word says or “means”, how is “means” defined with relation to the context? Do we imply equivalence? Identical? Equal? Synonymous? And what then of a “translation”? Can we say that a word in one language which most nearly corresponds to the understood “meaning” of a word in another language “means” the same? Or does it simply most nearly approximate its “meaning”? And what then of the difference between `archaic' and `contemporary' “meaning”? At what point does the archaic “meaning” lose validity, and contemporary vernacular “meaning” take over?
34. In the New Testament “Psallo” [Strong's number 46] is translated “sing”; In King David's day it meant “to pluck a stringed instrument” (as accompaniment); but originally it meant “to pluck the eyebrows”. So, what is the “meaning” of “Psallo”? Thus, we come to understand that “understanding” what a word “means”, in itself, has a bro
ad spectrum of application.35. Compound-Word Forms: When a word is combined with another it becomes a “compound” word and must be understood in its new, altered form. And it must be understood within the parameters of the context. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the new compound form includes all that is inherent in the two original words. Jehovah-Jireh is compounded from two words; Jehovah, “meaning” the name of God, and Jireh, “meaning” provider. In compound the word could “mean” Jehovah will provide. And Jehovah-nissi “means” Jehovah my banner; Jehovah- shalom “means” Jehovah is Peace. There is no “meaning” other than that which is inherent within the root-words, and which the context supplies.
36. Sermons abound with reference to these compound-words as “names of God”, but of one thing we are certain; they are not “names of God.” A cursory contextual examination shows them to be names of “places,” or memorials to events.
Jehovah-Jireh is the name Abraham gave to the “place” where he was commanded to sacrifice his son, Isaac.(Gen 22:14)
Jehovah-nissi is the name Moses gave to the “altar” he built at Rephidim.(Ex 17:15)
And Jehovah-shalom is the name given to an “altar” Gideon erected in Ophrah. (Jdg 6:23). To include these compound-word-forms in any list of “names of God” is to show disregard for the “meaning” of “words-in-compound, And contextual considerations as regards exegesis, hermeneutics, and interpretation of scripture.
37. The “Perception” of “Scholarship” And Truth: In order to earn a Doctor's Degree, it becomes necessary to research and quote “X” number of “Authoritative Sources”, sometimes called simply, “Authorities”. When sufficient accumulation compounds, one has “proved” his thesis, and becomes, in turn, an “Authority”. That's fine for Scholarship, Degrees, and all that goes with it. But two things must be remembered: Degrees don't make the holder thereof smart, and it has nothing to do with understanding God's Word, not God's will, nor truth.
38. Presupposition, Or Preconditioning? …..Which Is It? What becomes viewed as “Presuppositions” are in fact the result of “Preconditioning”. Which of us today has done original research with “Original Documents” to determine for ourselves which books belong in the Bible, the official “canon” of Scripture. Few, to None.
It may be that upon occasion one will attempt the study, only to concur with the findings of those who predate them. With this I do not find fault. Nor do I accept it as an element of “truth.” While it may properly be regarded as “Probable”, and if I don't have the time nor background, nor ability to search it for myself, I continue regarding their work as “probably” sound. But if I have reason to re-evaluate the concept, I shall not hesitate solely upon the basis of “everybody knows…”.
39. We are “Preconditioned” to believe about 90% of our prevalent doctrines. Arguments by theologians and commentators abound, taking almost every point of view about almost every conceivable doctrine. Most of us defend the doctrine handed down by our parents. Because we are “Preconditioned” by affection, by tradition, by disposition, by training, by every trait of man.
And schools do not help the situation. Error is compounded when a professor is wrong, but insists that his students learn it “his way” in order to get a grade, or to further one's career, or to advance ones academic pursuits. And study from Scripture goes wanting. Many will study books “about” the scriptures but won't study the Scriptures because they feel somehow “inadequate”. If one is “Inadequate” to study Scripture, how does he become “adequate” to reach conclusions based upon some other inadequate “human” consideration?
40. To properly evaluate scripture, with a view to “interpretation,” one must start with the basic “meaning” within the words used; proceed to their inter-relationship with each other, within the limits of the sentence. Then the sentence is considered in view of its “basic meaning” by virtue of the words contained therein. After which they are understood in relation to other sentences proximately posited; and the context begins to emerge. The context determines the “meaning” ONLY in the event a word is “ambiguous” in meaning.
41. If the meaning of a word in a sentence has two possible “meanings,” then, and ONLY then does the context come into play as a determiner of “meaning” of the word involved. Otherwise, the word-meaning will rule the context.
42. If we return to the first order of debate, “I am dealing with the image of God,” I probably will not resort to chicanery, nor foul language, nor subterfuge in dealing with those with whom I disagree. My argument should be in rebuttal to the argument of my opponent. And his argument should be in rebuttal to my argument. “Argument” should remain in the realm of logic, whence it originated.
43. Personalities tend to get defensive, when challenged. Fear is usually the first reason. Fear of rejection; fear of mis-speaking a position; fear of failing to adequately develope a rebuttal; fear of doubt. And when we feel inadequate to the challenge, we tend to change the focus of attack to the personality which we perceive has placed us in such an untennable position. This is a normal reaction.
44. We, however, are not in a “normal” arena. We speak as Christians. We are read as Christians. We are accepted or rejected as Christians. There is a world of readers out there who stand ready to judge your ability to “handle aright the word of truth.” We must not resort to the world of “normalcy” in our dealing with each other. We must see, at all times, the image of God.
45. Paul never wrote a letter to non-Christians. He said, “Ye are our epistle.” When Paul wanted to impress non-Christians with the teachings of Christ, he sent them a Christian; “read him,” being the lesson. And that is exactly how we should be representing ourselves in this forum.
46. To “argue a point” or “justify a position” is not our goal. Our goal is twofold. To teach, and to learn. Much of the time, we tend to lose sight of the second part of that goal. Our lesson is so obvious to “self,” we fail to see why it is not equally as obvious to all who read it.
47. Acknowledgment is fully half of communication. One can talk all day, and if no one listens, there is no communication. As well, one can listen all day, and if one never acknowledges what is said, it has not been communicated. Have you ever tried to “talk sense” to someone, and get “silence” as your response? There is no communication going on, just “getting it said.”
48. Acknowledgment is not agreement. It simply communicates, “I hear you, and consider what you have said.” Much disagreement would disappear, if people would practice acknowledgment of an adversary's point of communication. Many times, it is just another way of saying the same thing.
49. Restating a position can be a great tool for clarification. Much unwarranted hostility comes from being “tied” to one way of stating a thing.
The tendency is to begin to treat one's own statement as “written in stone.” We sometimes perceive agreement as weakness. A simple restating of the proposition may well lead to peace. (As well as to understanding).
50. When we go outside the bible to explain bible concepts, we must be sure we do not violate the “spirit” of the message by inventing words having a different conclusion than that which we are attempting to explain. (omo-ousian, for example)
51. Just as we depend totally upon the mercy of God, so we must be ready to extend mercy to those over whom we perceive a “victory.” It is not our place to declare such “victory,” as the victory was Jesus Christ's in the beginning, and only ours as we carry the fight into the arena. Our ego must not prevail, for if we perceive a victory, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Peace!
Paladin……….Well said, i agree with what you have written, especially Number 39. Most are preconditioned by past associations and teachings. Good Post> imo
peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
Hi P,
Is all this intellectual stuff of any value?
Are we not defending and promoting and sharing the seeds of God's word?
This window on the world shows that the message of God through His servants still remains anathema to most men.Hi P,
Seeds cast on land choked with weeds and thistles cannot grow and produce a crop.
The land must be good soil and cleared in repentance and baptism.
Then the watering of God's Spirit can be effective.But do not expect a 1% take on this land or expect much growth as tradition and godlessness abound. Nonetheless the opportunities are given and we cheerfully work leaving the crop to God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 09 2009,13:48) Hi P,
Is all this intellectual stuff of any value?
Are we not defending and promoting and sharing the seeds of God's word?
This window on the world shows that the message of God through His servants still remains anathema to most men.
Hello Nick.You ask if this “stuff” is of any value. I intend to offer a thread of premises following the pattern laid down in this OP.
I may have to struggle with my demons, for the clay is tainted, but I will also struggle to retain that Holy Spirit that moves me to write things I did not know before beginning to write on these pages. I will attempt to honestly be “led by the Spirit” and to God be the glory. Pray with me that this does not fall to the clay.
It is my intent to begin with certain numbered paragraphs in the OP and present logical arguments following the premise of the paragraph, and see what developes.
Paragraph two;
When one offers an argument to sustain a premise, it should be offered as a logical arrangement of thoughts based upon sound principles of debate, and understood within basic parameters related to all the areas of intercommunication involved.
Argument was given in another thread, that the Hebrew plural noun ONLY carries the plural meaning IF it is followed by a plural verb. This has not been refuted, just fussed at.
On another post, argument was offered that all one has to do to verify the truth of the Hebrew plural noun/singular verb premise, is check it against the Septuagint Greek Testament.
This has not been refuted. Whenever Hebrew plural nouns are followed by singular verbs, the Septuagint has a singular noun; i.e, Hebrew Elohim, followed by singular verb, has Greek singular noun Theos; whereas, if the Hebrew plural noun is followed by a plural verb, the Septuagint has the Plural Greek noun theoi.I could offer references throughout the scriptures demonstrating this, but I am too often told my posts are too long, so based on that advice, I will let the reader do their own homework to verify what I offer only as a clue to understanding the scriptures. What the readers do with it is on their conscience.
For two thousand years, the Septuagint has been accepted among men as “just a bad translation of the Hebrew into the Greek.” The fact is, it is not a translation at all. It is a separate revelation from God, for the purpose of bringing the Gentile nations into the fold of God's sheep, but it was kept in safekeeping by Hebrew hands, till the fulness of the Gentiles was come. “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” [Rom 3:1-2]
God presented enough of the gospel story to lead the Jews to Christ, but told the rest of the story in accord with prophecy; “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. 14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. 15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” [Isa 28:9-16]
God promised to teach his people with “another tongue,” and this he indeed did through the Septuagint. This is brought out by Paul “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
All the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint as the primary source whence their quotations were drawn. When Jesus quoted from the old testament it was mostly from the Septuagint, though it must be aknowledged, when the Hebrew said what he needed to make his point, he did not hesitate to use it. He would take a verse or a phrase, or a word, from one source, and mix and mingle it with another part from another source, hesitating not one whit over whether it was Hebrew or Greek source material.
The reason was twofold; 1) to being the Jews to Christ; and 2) to hidw what God was planning from the eyes and ears of man, so that Satan would not learn of God's plan for the salvation of men, and fail to slay the son of God, “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”God published a story for hi schildren, in two languages for a reason, that did NOT go ignored. When the Jews were converted to Christ, they published the word to the whole world, and converted the Gentile nations, just as was designed by God in the old covenant.
One God, who shared HIS spirit with his people; and who begat a son raised from among men, who died and was raised from the dead, to begin a new type of creature, the deadborn (firstborn from the dead).
God published a mystery that was preached by Paul to the whole world, the logos of God, a concept of “It is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me,” Christ becoming flesh in me, and in you, so that Christ, upon handing the kingdom to the Father when the last enemy is destroyed, God will be all in all.
This is logically correct, scripturally correct; grammatically correct, and inspired of God.
To successfully refute it one must show it is grammatically incorrect, scripturaly faulted, illogical, or doctrines of men; i.e., not taught in scripture.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2009,10:46) Hi P,
So actually for you logic rules?
No. For me, using the rules of logic work if one is consistent.There is no point in establishing a major premise and a minor premise, then stating a conclusion if the opponent has no idea about logic in argument.
Logic works in a logical argument.
Grammar works in a grammarical argument.
Scripture works in a scriptural argument.
I think an argument , to be well rounded, approaches perfection if one is able to include elements of all skills available.
But to present a well laid out argument from ANY perspective, only to be responded to wtih “yabut, whatabout John 1:1” well… it kinda takes the argue our of argument. it become simply a swap of doctrine, which is useless.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2009,21:53) Hi OP,
Logic is of blind Man.
Thy Word is truth.
That's an issue for another thread, which I may start at a later time.NH………To think logic is not used by GOD and is not part of His word is foolish to say the least. It would be like saying what ever you say makes no sense, where did you ever come up with such foolishness brother. God said come Lets (REASON TOGETHER) go find out what that means. To say logic is of (blind) man is like saying Logic has no place in our understanding even God's Logic. Pure foolishness IMO.
peace and love……………………….gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 11 2009,09:49) G,
God does try to reach men through reason but He would ask that we learn from His scriptures.
When we are at our most rational, we are at our most spiritual.We develope the word “logic” from the Greek “logikos” which MEANS rational, spiritual.
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the logikos, that ye may grow thereby:
The sincere milk of the logical, the beginning or foundation of the rational, is what should appeal to the Christian.
On another board, I participated in a discussion of “Is belief in God logical?” I find it is much more logical than a disbelief in God.
Another form of the same word tells us that to obey the most basic of God's laws to Christians is also the most reasonable, or appeals to our logical need.
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your logikeen service.
logikos adj acc neut sing
[UBS] logikos rational, spiritual
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 11 2009,10:40) Hi P,
So you are by preference a Philosopher?
Scripture gives such an approach short shrift.
Wrong my friend! It gives short shrift to “philosophies of men,” and “vain deceits.”Philosophy is simply a love of wisdom in certain things. We are to cultivate wisdom in spiritual things, and not in worldly considerations. There are two kinds of philosophy; one that is of men, and one that is of God. We are to love the one, and avoid the other.
Exodus 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
I Kings 3:5 In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee. 6 And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. 7 And now, O LORD my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in. 8 And thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. 9 Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people? 10 And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing. 11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;
12 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. 13 And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days.
1 Kings 3:28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.
1 Kings 4:29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.
Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!
Christians are warned to follow the one, but not the other.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.5385 philosophia {fil-os-of-ee'-ah}
Meaning: 1) love of wisdom 1a) used either of zeal for or skill in any art or science, any branch of knowledge. Used once in the NT of the theology, or rather theosophy, of certain Jewish Christian ascetics, which busied itself with refined and speculative enquiries into the nature and classes of angels, into the ritual of the Mosaic law and the regulations of Jewish tradition respecting practical life.Hi P,
So we are to be transformed by renewal of our minds, we are to attain to the mind of Christ.
None of this comes by carnal musings but we feeding on the flesh of the son of God, the Word.Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 11 2009,11:49) Hi P,
So we are to be transformed by renewal of our minds, we are to attain to the mind of Christ.
None of this comes by carnal musings but we feeding on the flesh of the son of God, the Word.
Now we are in agreement.When God says to us”Come, let us reason together” what do you understand that exercise of “reasoning” to be?
Hi P,
If you wish to compare the shallow wisdom of men with that of God try 1 Cor 2.
Only the Spirit of God can show us the kingdom and the far deeper ways of God.The Scriptures are the wisdom of God.[lk11.48]
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 12 2009,06:11) Hi P,
If you wish to compare the shallow wisdom of men with that of God try 1 Cor 2.
Only the Spirit of God can show us the kingdom and the far deeper ways of God.The Scriptures are the wisdom of God.[lk11.48]
I have never wished to compare the shallow wisdom of men with the wisdonm of God. It is only in response to your questons I have even attempted to show you that God requires us to persue wisdom, but NOT the wisdom of men.NH………the (word) wisdom rather shallow or Deep is still wisdom. Logic is as great a part of GOD Wisdom as anything else is. God's Logic is sound and His words make sense , it man lack of Knowledge and understanding, thats the problem. God plainly said come lets reason together, reason is a logic process. To equate Logic of GOD'S word as of the world is foolishness. Wisdom of God, employs Godly logic and is sound and gives meaning to his words, if you can't understand what God's words mean you lack both wisdom and logic. IMO
peace and love…………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
