Logic when reading the Bible?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, I wouldn't put it so. But I think every subject should be seen on with different eyes. I don't mind religious people, but I do mind fundamental stupid people.

Maybe you just don't like people with firm convictions.

No one has paid any attention to the fact that our minds have been damaged by sin and need to be renewed.

There is plenty in the Bible about the damage to our mind which sinning has wrought.

Our minds need healing from this damage, to understand God rightly.

" ... be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Rom. 12:2)

Sinning has taken a toll on our minds. It has taken a damaging toll even on very intelligent minds.

Sins have left a scar in the mind of the unbeliever. Heartache and sorrow call for healing of the mind.

Every one is speaking of logic needed for the Bible. But healing of the mind from the a sinful life and reasoning in the mind in order to commit sinful acts also require healing from Jesus.

Originally posted by jaywill
Sins have left a scar in the mind of the unbeliever. Heartache and sorrow call for healing of the mind.

Every one is speaking of logic needed for the Bible. But healing of the mind from the a sinful life and reasoning in the mind in order to commit sinful acts also require healing from Jesus.

If human reason is so profoundly damaged, how can you argue with any confidence about anything?

Originally posted by jaywill
Maybe you just don't like people with firm convictions.

I like people very much with strong convictions! Just not people who have strong false convictions. Like Nazis, terrorist leaders, and, yes, fundamentalists who follows people with an agenda of their own.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If human reason is so profoundly damaged, how can you argue with any confidence about anything?

==============================
If human reason is so profoundly damaged, how can you argue with any confidence about anything?
======================================

The reasoning of many people is very damaged. I didn't say that it is totally destroyed. And by taking in a little truth and following on renewing of the mind can take place. Then more truth can come.

This passage has meant a lot to me:

"But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until the full day." (Prov. 4:18)

When God's light in His word comes to your heart, though your mind is damaged, He will give you something you can handle. If you follow it more light and truth will come just like the gradual sunrise.

So we are not hopeless altogether.

When we come to the Bible we should realize that sin has taken a toll on our reasoning. Jesus said that out of us proceed evil reasonings. These have put a stain on our character, made us justify evils, and damaged out ability to understand some of the matters in the Bible.

"But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and those defile the man.

For out of the heart come evil reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnessings, blasphemies. These are the things which defile the man ..." (Matt. 15:18,19a)

Very often while we are justifying our sins we do not stop to ask ourselves "Exactly what am I reasoning here ?"

Do not think that these "evil reasonings" do not defile our character and hamper our ability to understand the word of God.

So the hymn writer of "Just As I Am" quite perceptively wrote:

"Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind;
Yes all I need, in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!"


This hymnist realized that she needed Jesus to heal her mind. This is not a matter of raising the IQ. It is a matter of clearing the moral darkness accumulated in the mind from years of "evil reasonings".

She knew she needed to come to Jesus Christ for healing.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
If human reason is so profoundly damaged, how can you argue with any confidence about anything?
======================================

The reasoning of many people is very damaged. I didn't say that it is totally destroyed. And by taking in a little truth and following on renewing of the mind can take place. t and truth will come just like the gradual sunrise.

So we are not hopeless altogether.[/b]

The reasoning of many people is very damaged. I didn't say that it is totally destroyed. And by taking in a little truth and following on renewing of the mind can take place. Then more truth can come.

But again, if the mind suffers such damages at all, how could you be sure that you possess even the slightest measure of truth? How can you distinguish God's light from another?

Well reading the Bible is good but sometimes it's good to ask somebody else, like if the Bible is being literal or just using a metaphor.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's right. If the bible as a whole is not consistent, it's not logic. You cannot ever think that one part is true when another part, equally true, is contradicting eachother. Then the belivers of the bible has turned off the logic.

Make some logic out of some of the teachings of Jesus that seem inherently contradictory

"It is more blessed to give than to recieve"

"Those that wish to be great among you must first become the least among you and serve others"

"He that seeks to save his life will lose it and the that loses his life will find it"


They seem contradictory but not illogical. I'm sure most can see though these seeming contradictions but other teachings perhaps are a little harder to understand. In short, simply because you or I cnnoat make heads or tails of something in no way means there are no heads or tails.

Well you may not understand them but I don't think they contradict each other.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
The reasoning of many people is very damaged. I didn't say that it is totally destroyed. And by taking in a little truth and following on renewing of the mind can take place. Then more truth can come.

But again, if the mind suffers such damages at all, how could you be sure that you possess even the slightest measure of truth? How can you distinguish God's light from another?[/b]

========================================
But again, if the mind suffers such damages at all, how could you be sure that you possess even the slightest measure of truth? How can you distinguish God's light from another?
===========================================

You can sense that God's love is caring for you. And you learn to trust that just the way a baby learns to trust its mother.

You know where the care and effection are coming from as His Spirit operates in your soul to heal, relieve, sooth, give peace, make right, make harmonious, and add inward joy.

You are likely to return to the Source because of the love and care you receive from Jesus.

He said the truth will make you free. Being set free, gradually, bit by bit, you learn to trust that what you are receiving from Jesus Christ is indeed the truth. He Himself IS the truth.

What an adventure it is to learn. I would never advize putting off following Jesus because you are unsure. I am still learning to trust Him. But He is unbelievably patient. And His truth has been vindicated in me many times.

I feel that one gets to trust that he is on the right track to have begun a new life by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, but you can only say that there is a contradiction given a robust logical definition. If you say logic does not apply to the Bible, you cannot say it is contradictory. You can't really say anything about it.

Again, exactly!

Take modus ponens: “If p, then q; p; therefore q”. Now, if the text(s) maintain p, but in some places assert q, and in others ~q, then a contradiction has been identified. But such can only be identified because we are able to apply the logic of modus ponens. Dismissing that logic would result in an incoherency at the get go: i.e., “If p, then q; p; therefore ~q”—for any p or q.

Accepting such incoherency would mean having no coherent means of identifying a contradiction. One would be permitted to say, for example, both that there is a God and that there is not a God (under the same definition of “God” )and believe that one is making perfect sense—and, without logic, no one would be able to naysay such a statement. All our talk would be patently meaningless.

Originally posted by vistesd
Again, exactly!

Take modus ponens: “If p, then q; p; therefore q”. Now, if the text(s) maintain p, but in some places assert q, and in others ~q, then a contradiction has been identified. But such can only be identified because we are able to apply the logic of modus ponens. Dismissing that logic would result in an incoherency at the get g ...[text shortened]... c, no one would be able to naysay such a statement. All our talk would be patently meaningless.

Re-reading though what the original poster and Jaywill have written, I think what they might mean by 'logic' is 'the faculty of human reasoning'. They are not saying that the laws of deduction and validity are in some way inapplicable to the Bible, but that the human mind cannot really penetrate the mysteries of the bible without some help from God.

Of course, if they do really believe that the Bible is somehow beyond logic, then they cannot possibly make a coherent statement about it. If they interpret a single sentence to mean Px, then it must be equally valid to say not-Px. Which we both see as silly. Sure, no contradiction would exist since no logic would be applicable to judge a contradiction. But it would just be meaningless.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Re-reading though what the original poster and Jaywill have written, I think what they might mean by 'logic' is 'the faculty of human reasoning'. They are not saying that the laws of deduction and validity are in some way inapplicable to the Bible, but that the human mind cannot really penetrate the mysteries of the bible without some help from God.

Of ...[text shortened]... nce no logic would be applicable to judge a contradiction. But it would just be meaningless.

You’re probably right.

I was recently corrected on a similar point by LemonJello: I had constructed an inference that clearly led to a reductio ad absurdum. But LJ pointed out that at least one of my premises could be challenged—with no violation of logic. Therefore, although I could say that the inference led to a clear contradiction, I could not say that it was a logically necessary contradiction.

Your posts on here have reinforced that lesson. Thank you. 🙂