Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. DaveGBx 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--Andy Schlafly 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)

To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. Eoinc 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --Matthew2208 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--Andy Schlafly 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--Matthew2208 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.

My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.

I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).

The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:

• Genesis 1, 2
• Timothy 2:4
• Revelation 21:27
• Romans 6:23
• Hebrews 9:22

What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message X to be true, then Y and Z can be deduced from that, and if Z is true, then that leads us to A, B, and eventually to C....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. Eoinc 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--TSpencer 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly animal sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter to the Hebrews). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.

An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--Andy Schlafly 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing all people of all their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? Eoinc 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eoinc, you're trying to sing a tune of one view Christianity, but it's slightly off key and even if it were on key it would be merely one view. That's fine for you to try, but you're not sticking to the Bible as the entry title pretends. The Letter to the Hebrews is exactly that: an effort to evangelize Jewish people by casting Christianity in terms of their tradition. From one level of indirection, you then jump to two more levels of indirection, and then try to find a logical problem. The trouble is, the problem is more likely to be in your extrapolation than in the Bible.

The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion.--Andy Schlafly 18:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly again with respect please try to contend with what is being said. Your comments are counter productive. As the previous commentator stated Eonic, You are merely reading one view of the Bible. Though I'm slightly fuzzy on the point your trying to make about a perfect sacrifice. Yes Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, yes Jesus forgives all sins. You are reciting something we all know. I'm assuming your point is why are we not all instantly granted salvation then?--Matthew2208 18:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Andy - I trust we can have a productive discussion without needing to assume from the outset that your point of view is right and that mine is wrong. That may turn out to be the conclusion that we reach, but it is not the place to begin.

You say that my view of Christianity is slightly off key, and that it is only one view. I'd like to clear this up first, before we talk about anything else. My understanding of Jesus's role in the New Testament is the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Like the lambs at the first Passover, whose blood stained the doorsteps of the Jews in Egypt and thereby saved them from the angel of death, or the animals of whom burnt offerings were made to atone for sins, Jesus's death and resurrection purges man of his sins and rescues him from death. This is the view I have absorbed from reading the Bible, singing hymns ("there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins / and sinners washed beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains", or salvatoris hodie sanguis praegustatur in quo Sion filie stola candidatur - today is the Saviour's blood first tasted, in which the daughters of Zion whiten their robes), reading tracts handed to me on the street and engaging the street preachers in discussion, debating with Christians on the internet, etc...

So, before I proceed any further with my argument, can you explain where my summary is off-key, or where my misunderstandings lie? I was under the impression that this was the orthodox Christian view, so it's something of a surprise to be told that it's just one view (one among how many others?). Eoinc 18:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eoinc, your entry has the wrong title if you want to debate a Christian view. Your title "Logic and The Bible" implies that you're going to actually start from the Bible, quote from it, translated it, dissect it, and so on. You're not doing that.--Andy Schlafly 18:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Can you please explain where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the concept of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, before we worry about whether I chose the right title? I'd like to stick with one point at a time. Eoinc 19:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eoinc, you're doing everything except basing your analysis on translating, analyzing and quoting the Bible. I'm going to change the title to avoid the misleading use of the Bible in it. Pick another title, such as "Logic and One View of Christianity."--Andy Schlafly 19:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eonic, maybe it would be best if you simply ignored Mr. Schlafly for now as he does not appear to be interested in debate. Though my question to you is now that you have reached your point. I must ask where does the illogical contradiction stem from?--Matthew2208 19:22, 17 December 2009 (EST)

(EC) I had been writing that I object to the renaming of the essay, on the grounds that it assumes I am wrong. My essay does not concern itself with translating the Bible, but it represents a core Biblical message in a manner which I feel was critical but accurate. Therefore, I would need to be shown otherwise before I agreed that the title needed to be changed. But now I see that Andy has changed the title anyway.

But never mind. What's done is done. Now that the title is more to your liking, Andy, can you explain where I am wrong in my above summary? Eoinc 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Matthew2208, I hoped that I had explained myself clearly on the essay page. What I'm describing is not a formal logical contradiction, but a more informal case of a logical absurdity. Eoinc 19:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)

I see now. You just appeared to be deviating from the essay in the comments. I disagree with your point since (to use a crude analogy for now) it would be sort of like a judge giving out a pardon and the only catch is that people accept it. Would it then be illogical for the judge to say that all who did not accept the pardon should then recieve the punishment?--Matthew2208 19:49, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Well, yes it would. In a courtroom, if the judge decides to pardon the defendant, but the defendant doesn't accept it (whatever that might mean, perhaps he protests the decision and maintains that he doesn't deserve to go free), it doesn't make a difference. If the court pardons you, you're pardoned whether you like it or not. The courts aren't going to punish you just because you didn't agree with the decision. The second objection is that the judge isn't simply handing out pardons, he's taking the punishment on himself, which seems like an unnecessary step. Eoinc 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)

If you're arguing that people who thumb their noses at a presiding judge are not punished, that's wrong. Similarly, people who thumb their noses at God are sent to Hell. Do you even mention Hell in your essay? Jesus spoke about Hell more often than Heaven.--Andy Schlafly 20:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A fair point. But before we go any further off track, can you please explain where I am wrong in my summary (posted at 18:46)? I'd like to get that issue resolved before trying to build on it. Eoinc 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Your summary restates a theological metaphor for Jesus as a sacrificial lamb for our sins, which is consistent with the Jewish tradition at the time of making animal sacrifices. Whether that particular metaphor should be translated the same way today, when animal sacrifices are non-existent, is an open question about which I hope you have an open mind. The Gospels themselves rarely mention "lamb", and it was a metaphor used in letters to a Jewish audience in the first century. Why you would choose this as your starting point for analyzing the logic of the Bible itself is inexplicable.--Andy Schlafly 20:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Great point, Andy, about lambs being a metaphor. But I'd say rather that it was the animal sacrifices that God set up as a metaphor for Christ, rather than the other way around. Let's not forget that it was God Who set up the animal sacrifices; it wasn't just a Jewish tradition. For whatever reason, He thought they would be a good thing to drill into people's minds over thousands of years to prepare them for Christ. (He wasn't just taking the common custom either; He started the whole idea back in Gen. 4 when He accepted Abel's animal sacrifice back before there were any false gods being worshiped.)

Back to the main question: Thank you for raising this intriguing question! Have you read St. Anselm's books On the Incarnation and Why God Became Man (part 2)? I think he has the best argument: God couldn't just act as if sin had never happened; He abhors sin and therefore refuses to ignore it.

The second issue, it seems to me, is: why require belief? Answer: God refuses to let sin into Heaven. Then why not just fix us so we don't sin, without requiring us to believe in the first place? Well, this seems to get down to the core issue of why God lets anyone sin in the first place, and why He created us with free will. I think C. S. Lewis has the best answer to that: He wants us to love Him freely, and we might as well ask why He created anything at all. --EvanW 13:55, 19 December 2009 (EST)

problems witht the use of "Logic"

I note that you are using the term "logic" in a manner that I am unused to. Now this is not necessarily wrong, but it is confusing to me.

 You say:      the above statement is logical, IF: [the following are true] x, y, and z (etc)

to my mind an argument is logical based upon the reasoning used to get from the premises to the conclusion, irrespective of whether the premises are true or not.

Thus the following argument is perfectly logical:

        All dogs have 5 legs
        Rover is a dog 

Therefore Rover has 5 legs

even though we would rightly reject the first premise.

This essay seems to be disputing the truth of the premises rather than the logic of the argument of the bible --PThomson 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. If you accept the many premises as true, then the Christian teaching (at least as I understand it) follows logically. However, the premises themselves are not immune to questioning. I agree that this is not true formal logic. As I mentioned in the opening paragraphs, I'm using "logical" in the more colloquial sense of reasonable, sensible or persuasive. Eoinc 19:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Or, to rephrase my approach in a more properly logical manner, a conclusion can be said to be true if the premises preceding it are true and if the argument is valid. The argument appears to be sound, so instead I am questioning the premises. Eoinc 20:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Fair enough. Allow me to extrapolate the argument from your essay you are using so that we can see what the premises are that you dispute.

    1 A God exists, who created the world and mankind, 
    2This God desires for mankind to dwell with Him in Heaven,
    3This God dislikes some actions taken by man, and cannot allow men who have offended Him to enter Heaven, 
    4This God requires that retribution be made for these offenses, 
    5The only acceptable form of retribution is death,
    6God refuses to forgive sins unless a blood sacrifice has been made.
    7God sent His son down as a sacrifice 
    8This sacrifice remits all past present and future sins
    9However in order to avail oneself of the sacrifice, one must have faith and belief in it 

Therefore    Forgiveness is granted to those who believe that the sacrifice took place

I think we agree that this is a logical argument. Please elaborate on which premise (1-9) you seek to deny.--PThomson 20:13, 17 December 2009 (EST)

I look forward to discussing this further, but it's now 1:30 am over here, and I need to get to bed. I'll respond tomorrow. Eoinc 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)