| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2005 02:47:58 PM |
| Object: |
Jesus The Logician |
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39
Jesus The Logician
ABSTRACT: In understanding how discipleship to Jesus Christ works, a
major issue is how he automatically present himself to our minds. It is
characteristic of most 20th century Christians that he does not
automatically come to mind as one of great intellectual power: as Lord
of universities and research institutes, of the creative disciplines
and scholarship. The Gospel accounts of how he actually worked,
however, challenge this intellectually marginal image of him and helps
us to see him at home in the best of academic and scholarly settings of
today, where many of us are called to be his apprentices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few today will have seen the words "Jesus" and "logician" put together
to form a phrase or sentence, unless it would be to deny any connection
between them at all. The phrase "Jesus the logician" is not
ungrammatical, any more than is "Jesus the carpenter." But it 'feels'
upon first encounter to be something like a category mistake or error
in logical type, such as "Purple is asleep," or "More people live in
the winter than in cities," or "Do you walk to work or carry your
lunch?"
There is in our culture an uneasy relation between Jesus and
intelligence, and I have actually heard Christians respond to my
statement that Jesus is the most intelligent man who ever lived by
saying that it is an oxymoron. Today we automatically position him away
from (or even in opposition to) the intellect and intellectual life.
Almost no one would consider him to be a thinker, addressing the same
issues as, say, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and with
the same logical method.
Now this fact has important implications for how we today view his
relationship to our world and our life--especially if our work happens
to be that of art, thought, research or scholarship. How could he fit
into such a line of work, and lead us in it, if he were logically
obtuse? How could we be his disciples at our work, take him seriously
as our teacher there, if when we enter our fields of technical or
professional competence we must leave him at the door? Obviously some
repositioning is in order, and it may be helped along simply by
observing his use of logic and his obvious powers of logical thinking
as manifested in the Gospels of the New Testament.
*
Now when we speak of "Jesus the logician" we do not, of course, mean
that he developed theories of logic, as did, for example, Aristotle and
Frege. No doubt he could have, if he is who Christians have taken him
to be. He could have provided a Begriffsschrift, or a Principia
Mathematica, or alternative axiomatizations of Modal Logic, or various
completeness or incompleteness proofs for various 'languages'. (He is,
presumably, responsible for the order that is represented through such
efforts as these.)
He could have. Just as he could have handed Peter or John the formulas
of Relativity Physics or the Plate Tectonic theory of the earth's
crust, etc. He certainly could, that is, if he is indeed the one
Christians have traditionally taken him to be. But he did not do it,
and for reasons which are bound to seem pretty obvious to anyone who
stops to think about it. But that, in any case, is not my subject here.
When I speak of "Jesus the logician" I refer to his use of logical
insights: to his mastery and employment of logical principles in his
work as a teacher and public figure.
Now it is worth noting that those who do creative work or are experts
in the field of logical theory are not necessarily more logical or more
philosophically sound than those who do not. We might hope that they
would be, but they may even be illogical in how they work out their own
logical theories. For some reason great powers in theory do not seem to
guarantee significantly greater accuracy in practice. Perhaps no person
well informed about the history of thought will be surprised at this
statement, but for most of us it needs to be emphasized. To have
understanding of developed logical theory surely could help one to
think logically, but it is not sufficient to guarantee logical thinking
and except for certain rarified cases it is not even necessary. Logical
insight rarely depends upon logical theory, though it does depend upon
logical relations. The two primary logical relations are implication
(logical entailment) and contradiction; and their role in standard
forms of argument such as the Barbara Syllogism, Disjunctive Syllogism,
Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens--and even in strategies such as reductio
ad absurdum--can be fully appreciated, for practical purposes, without
rising to the level of theoretical generalization at all.1
To be logical no doubt does require an understanding of what
implication and contradiction are, as well as the ability to recognize
their presence or absence in obvious cases. But it also requires the
will to be logical, and then certain personal qualities that make it
possible and actual: qualities such as freedom from distraction,
focussed attention on the meanings or ideas involved in talk and
thought, devotion to truth, and willingness to follow the truth
wherever it leads via logical relations. All of this in turn makes
significant demands upon moral character. Not just on points such as
resoluteness and courage, though those are required. A practicing
hypocrite, for example, will not find a friend in logic, nor will
liars, thieves, murderers and adulterers. They will be constantly alert
to appearances and inferences that may logically implicate them in
their wrong actions. Thus the literary and cinematic genre of mysteries
is unthinkable without play on logical relations.
Those devoted to defending certain pet assumptions or practices come
what may will also have to protect themselves from logic. All of this
is, I believe, commonly recognized by thoughtful people. Less well
understood is the fact that one can be logical only if one is committed
to being logical as a fundamental value. One is not logical by chance,
any more than one just happens to be moral. And, indeed, logical
consistency is a significant factor in moral character. That is part of
the reason why in an age that attacks morality, as ours does, the
logical will also be demoted or set aside--as it now is.
Not only does Jesus not concentrate on logical theory, but he also does
not spell out all the details of the logical structures he employs on
particular occasions. His use of logic is always enthymemic, as is
common to ordinary life and conversation. His points are, with respect
to logical explicitness, understated and underdeveloped. The
significance of the enthymeme is that it enlists the mind of the hearer
or hearers from the inside, in a way that full and explicit statement
of argument cannot do. Its rhetorical force is, accordingly, quite
different from that of fully explicated argumentation, which tends to
distance the hearer from the force of logic by locating it outside of
his own mind.
Jesus' aim in utilizing logic is not to win battles, but to achieve
understanding or insight in his hearers. This understanding only comes
from the inside, from the understandings one already has. It seems to
"well up from within" one. Thus he does not follow the logical method
one often sees in Plato's dialogues, or the method that characterizes
most teaching and writing today. That is, he does not try to make
everything so explicit that the conclusion is forced down the throat of
the hearer. Rather, he presents matters in such a way that those who
wish to know can find their way to, can come to, the appropriate
conclusion as something they have discovered--whether or not it is
something they particularly care for.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Yes,
and no doubt Jesus understood that. And so he typically aims at real
inward change of view that would enable his hearers to become
significantly different as people through the workings of their own
intellect. They will have, unless they are strongly resistant to the
point of blindness, the famous "eureka" experience, not the experience
of being outdone or beaten down.
*
With these points in mind, let us look at some typical scenes from the
Gospels: scenes that are of course quite familiar, but are now to be
examined for the role that distinctively logical thinking plays in
them.
(1). Consider Matthew 12:1-8. This contains a teaching about the ritual
law: specifically about the regulations of the temple and the sabbath.
Jesus and his disciples were walking through fields of grain--perhaps
wheat or barley--on the sabbath, and they were stripping the grains
from the stalks with their hands and eating them. The Pharisees accused
them of breaking the law, of being wrongdoers. Jesus, in response,
points out that there are conditions in which the ritual laws in
question do not apply.
He brings up cases of this that the Pharisees already concede. One is
the case (I Samuel 21:1-6) where David, running for his life, came to
the place of worship and sacrifice supervised by Ahimelich the priest.
He asked Ahimelich for food for himself and his companions, but the
only food available was bread consecrated in the ritual of the
offerings. This bread, as Jesus pointed out (Matthew 12:4), was
forbidden to David by law, and was to be eaten (after the ritual) by
priests alone. But Ahimelich gave it to David and his men to satisfy
their hunger. Hunger as a human need, therefore, may justify doing what
ritual law forbids.
Also, Jesus continues (second case), the priests every sabbath in their
temple service do more work than sabbath regulations allow: "On the
sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are
innocent." (Matthew 12:5) It logically follows, then, that one is not
automatically guilty of wrongdoing or disobedience when they do not
keep the ritual observances as dictated, in case there is some greater
need that must be met. This is something the Pharisees have, by
implication, already admitted by accepting the rightness in the two
cases Jesus referred to.
The still deeper issue here is the use of law to harm people, something
that is not God's intention. Any time ritual and compassion (e.g. for
hunger) come into conflict, God, who gave the law, favors compassion.
That is the kind of God he is. To think otherwise is to misunderstand
God and to cast him in a bad light. Thus Jesus quotes the prophet
Hosea: "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and
not sacrifice' , you would not have condemned the innocent." (Matthew
12:7; cp. 9:13) Thus the use of logic here is not only to correct the
judgment that the disciples (the "innocent" in this case) must be
sinning in stripping the grain and eating it. It is used to draw a
further implication about God: God is not the kind of person who
condemns those who act to meet a significant need at the expense of a
relative triviality in the law. Elsewhere he points out that the
sabbath appointed by God was made to serve man, not man to serve the
sabbath. (Mark 2:27)
Now the case of sabbath keeping--or, more precisely, of the ritual laws
developed by men for sabbath observance--is one that comes up over and
over in the Gospels, and it is always approached by Jesus in terms of
the logical inconsistency of those who claim to practice it in the
manner officially prescribed at the time. (See for example Mark 3:1-3,
Luke 13:15-17, John 9:14-16, etc.) They are forced to choose between
hypocrisy and open inconsistency, and he does sometimes use the word
"hypocrisy" of them (e.g. Luke 13:15), implying that they knew they
were being inconsistent and accepted it. In fact, the very idea of
hypocrisy implies logical inconsistency. "They say, and do not" what
their saying implies. (Matthew 23:2)
And legalism will always lead to inconsistency in life, if not
hypocrisy, for it will eventuate in giving greater importance to rules
than is compatible with the principles one espouses (to sacrifice, for
example, than to compassion, in the case at hand), and also to an
inconsistent practice of the rules themselves (e.g leading one's donkey
to water on the sabbath, but refusing to have a human being healed of
an 18-year-long affliction, as in Luke 13:15-16).
(2). Another illustrative case is found in Luke 20:27-40. Here it is
the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who are challenging Jesus. They are
famous for rejecting the resurrection (vs. 27), and accordingly they
propose a situation that, they think, is a reductio ad absurdum of
resurrection. (vss. 28-33) The law of Moses said that if a married man
died without children, the next eldest brother should make the widow
his wife, and any children they had would inherit in the line of the
older brother. In the 'thought experiment' of the Sadducees, the elder
of seven sons died without children from his wife, the next eldest
married her and also died without children from her, and the next
eldest did the same, and so on though all seven brothers. Then the wife
died (Small wonder!). The presumed absurdity in the case was that in
the resurrection she would be the wife of all of them, which was
assumed to be an impossibility in the nature of marriage.
Jesus' reply is to point out that those resurrected will not have
mortal bodies suited for sexual relations, marriage and reproduction.
They will have bodies like angels do now, bodies of undying stuff. The
idea of resurrection must not be taken crudely. Thus he undermines the
assumption of the Sadducees that any 'resurrection' must involve the
body and its life continuing exactly as it does now. So the supposed
impossibility of the woman being in conjugal relations with all seven
brothers is not required by resurrection.
Then he proceeds, once again, to develop a teaching about the nature of
God--which was always his main concern. Taking a premiss that the
Sadducees accepted, he draws the conclusion that they did not want.
That the dead are raised, he says, follows from God's self-description
to Moses at the burning bush. God described himself in that incident as
"the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Luke
20:35 ) The Sadducees accepted this. But at the time of the burning
bush incident, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been long 'dead', as Jesus
points out. But God is not the God of the dead. That is, a dead person
cannot sustain a relation of devotion and service to God, nor can God
keep covenant faith with one who no longer exists. In covenant
relationship to God one lives. (vs. 38) One cannot very well imagine
the living God communing with a dead body or a non-existent person and
keeping covenant faithfulness with them.
(Incidentally, those Christian thinkers who nowadays suggest that the
Godly do not exist or are without conscious life, at least, from the
time their body dies to the time it is resurrected, might want to
provide us with an interpretation of this passage.)
(3). Yet another illustration of Jesus' obviously self-conscious use of
logic follows upon the one just cited from Luke 20. He would
occasionally set teaching puzzles that required the use of logic on the
part of his hearers. After the discussion of the resurrection, the
Sadducees and the other groups about him no longer had the courage to
challenge his powerful thinking. (vs. 40) He then sets them a puzzle
designed to help them understand the Messiah--for which everyone was
looking.
Drawing upon what all understood to be a messianic reference, in Psalm
110, Jesus points out an apparent contradiction: The Messiah is the son
of David (admitted by all), and yet David calls the Messiah "Lord."
(Luke 20:42-43) "How," he asks, "can the Messiah be David's son if
David calls him Lord?" (vs. 44) The resolution intended by Jesus is
that they should recognize that the Messiah is not simply the son of
David, but also of One higher than David, and that he is therefore king
in a more inclusive sense than political head of the Jewish nation.
(Rev. 1:5) The promises to David therefore reach far beyond David,
incorporating him and much more. This reinterpretation of David and the
Messiah was a lesson learned and used well by the apostles and early
disciples. (See Acts 2:25-36, Hebrews 5:6, and Phil. 2:9-11)
(4). For a final illustration we turn to the use of logic in one of the
more didactic occasions recorded in the Gospels. The parables and
stories of Jesus often illustrate his use of logic, but we will look
instead at a well known passage from the Sermon on the Mount. In his
teaching about adultery and the cultivation of sexual lust, Jesus makes
the statement, "If your right eye makes you to stumble, tear it out,
and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts
of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell,"
and similarly for your right hand. (Matthew 5:29-30)
What, exactly, is Jesus doing here? One would certainly be mistaken in
thinking that he is advising anyone to actually dismember himself as a
way of escaping damnation. One must keep the context in mind. Jesus is
exhibiting the righteousness that goes beyond "the righteousness of the
scribes and pharisees." This latter was a righteousness that took as
its goal to not do anything wrong. If not doing anything wrong is the
goal, that could be achieved by dismembering yourself and making
actions impossible. What you cannot do you certainly will not do.
Remove your eye, your hand, etc., therefore, and you will roll into
heaven a mutilated stump. The price of dismemberment would be small
compared to the reward of heaven. That is the logical conclusion for
one who held the beliefs of the scribes and the pharisees. Jesus is
urging them to be consistent with their principles and do in practice
what their principles imply. He reduces their principle--that
righteousness lies in not doing anything wrong--to the absurd, in the
hope that they will forsake their principle and see and enter the
righteousness that is "beyond the righteousness of the scribes and
pharisees"--beyond, where compassion or love and not sacrifice is the
fundamental thing. Jesus, of course, knew that if you dismembered
yourself you could still have a hateful heart, toward God and toward
man. It wouldn't really help toward righteousness at all. That is the
basic thing he is teaching in this passage. Failure to appreciate the
logic makes it impossible to get his point.
*
These illustrative scenes from the Gospels will already be familiar to
any student of scripture. But, as we know, familiarity has its
disadvantages. My hope is to enable us to see Jesus in a new light: to
see him as doing intellectual work with the appropriate tools of logic,
to see him as one who is both at home in and the master of such work.
We need to understand that Jesus is a thinker, that this is not a dirty
word but an essential work, and that his other attributes do not
preclude thought, but only insure that he is certainly the greatest
thinker of the human race: "the most intelligent person who ever lived
on earth." He constantly uses the power of logical insight to enable
people to come to the truth about themselves and about God from the
inside of their own heart and mind. Quite certainly it also played a
role in his own growth in "wisdom." (Luke 2:52)
Often, it seems to me, we see and hear his deeds and words, but we
don't think of him as one who knew how to do what he did or who really
had logical insight into the things he said. We don't automatically
think of him as a very competent person. He multiplied the loaves and
fishes and walked on water, for example--but, perhaps, he didn't know
how to do it, he just used mindless incantations or prayers. Or he
taught on how to be a really good person, but he did not have moral
insight and understanding. He just mindlessly rattled off words that
were piped in to him and through him. Really?
This approach to Jesus may be because we think that knowledge is human,
while he was divine. Logic means works, while he is grace. Did we
forget something there? Possibly that he also is human? Or that grace
is not opposed to effort but to earning? But human thought is evil, we
are told. How could he think human thought, have human knowledge? So we
distance him from ourselves, perhaps intending to elevate him, and we
elevate him right out of relevance to our actual lives--especially as
they involve the use of our minds. That is why the idea of Jesus as
logical, of Jesus the logician, is shocking. And of course that extends
to Jesus the scientist, researcher, scholar, artist, literary person.
He just doesn't 'fit' in those areas. Today it is easier to think of
Jesus as a "TV evangelist" than as an author, teacher or artist in the
contemporary context. But now really!--if he were divine, would he be
dumb, logically challenged, uninformed in any area? Would he not
instead be the greatest of artists or speakers? Paul was only being
consistent when he told the Colossians "all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge are concealed in him." (2:3) Except for what?
There is in Christian educational circles today a great deal of talk
about "integration of faith and learning." Usually it leads to little
solid result. This is in part due to the fact that it is, at this point
in time, an extremely difficult intellectual task, which cannot be
accomplished by ritual language and the pooh-poohing of difficulties.
But an even deeper cause of the difficulty is the way we automatically
tend to think of Jesus himself. It is not just in what we say about
him, but in how he comes before out minds: how we automatically
position him in our world, and how in consequence we position
ourselves. We automatically think of him as having nothing essentially
to do with 'profane' knowledge, with learning and logic, and therefore
find ourselves 'on our own' in such areas.
We should, I believe, understand that Jesus would be perfectly at home
in any professional context where good work is being done today. He
would, of course, be a constant rebuke to all the proud
self-advancement and the contemptuous treatment of others that goes on
in professional circles. In this as in other respects, our professions
are aching for his presence. If we truly see him as the premier thinker
of the human race--and who else would be that?--then we are also in
position to honor him as the most knowledgeable person in our field,
whatever that may be, and to ask his cooperation and assistance with
everything we have to do.
Catherine Marshall somewhere tells of a time she was trying to create a
certain design with some drapes for her windows. She was unable to get
the proportions right to form the design she had in mind. She gave up
in exasperation and, leaving the scene, began to mull the matter over
in prayer. Soon ideas as to how the design could be achieved began to
come to her and before long she had the complete solution. She learned
that Jesus is maestro of interior decorating.
Such stories are familiar from many areas of human activity, but quite
rare in the areas of art and intellect. For lack of an appropriate
understanding of Jesus we come to do our work in intellectual,
scholarly and artistic fields on our own. We do not have confidence
(otherwise known as faith) that he can be our leader and teacher in
matters we spend most of our time working on. Thus our efforts often
fall far short of what they should accomplish, and may even have less
effect than the efforts of the Godless, because we undertake them only
with "the arm of the flesh." Our faith in Jesus Christ rises no higher
than that. We do not see him as he really is, maestro of all good
things.
*
Here I have only been suggestive of a dimension of Jesus that is
commonly overlooked. This is no thorough study of that dimension, but
it deserves such study. It is one of major importance for a healthy
faith in him. Especially today, when the authoritative institutions of
our culture, the universities and the professions, omit him as a matter
of course. Once one knows what to look for in the Gospels, however, one
will easily see the thorough, careful and creative employment of logic
throughout his teaching activity. Indeed, this employment must be
identified and appreciated if what he is saying is to be understood.
Only then can his intellectual brilliance be appreciated and he be
respected as he deserves.
An excellent way of teaching in Christian schools would therefore be to
require all students to do extensive logical analyses of Jesus'
discourses. This should go hand in with the other ways of studying his
words, including devotional practices such as memorization or lectio
divina, and the like. It would make a substantial contribution to the
integration of faith and learning.
While such a concentration on logic may sound strange today, that is
only a reflection on our current situation. It is quite at home in many
of the liveliest ages of the church.
John Wesley speaks for the broader Christian church across time and
space, I think, in his remarkable treatise, "An Address to the Clergy."
There he discusses at length the qualifications of an effective
minister for Christ. He speaks of the necessity of a good knowledge of
scripture, and then adds,
"Some knowledge of the sciences also, is, to say the least, equally
expedient. Nay, may we not say, that the knowledge of one (whether art
or science), although now quite unfashionable, is even necessary next,
and in order to, the knowledge of Scripture itself? I mean logic. For
what is this, if rightly understood, but the art of good sense? of
apprehending things clearly, judging truly, and reasoning conclusively?
What is it, viewed in another light, but the art of learning and
teaching; whether by convincing or persuading? What is there, then, in
the whole compass of science, to be desired in comparison of it?
"Is not some acquaintance with what has been termed the second part of
logic (metaphysics), if not so necessary as this, yet highly expedient
(1.) In order to clear our apprehension (without which it is impossible
either to judge correctly, or to reason closely or conclusively), by
ranging our ideas under general heads? And (2.) In order to understand
many useful writers, who can very hardly be understood without it?"2
Later in this same treatise Wesley deals with whether we are, as
ministers, what we ought to be. "Am I," he asks,
"a tolerable master of the sciences? Have I gone through the very gate
of them, logic? If not, I am not likely to go much farther when I
stumble at the threshold. Do I understand it so as to be ever the
better for it? To have it always ready for use; so as to apply every
rule of it, when occasion is, almost as naturally as I turn my hand? Do
I understand it at all? Are not even the moods and figures above my
comprehension? Do not I poorly endeavour to cover my ignorance, by
affecting to laugh at their barbarous names? Can I even reduce an
indirect mood to a direct; an hypothetic to a categorical syllogism?
Rather, have not my stupid indolence and laziness made me very ready to
believe, what the little wits and pretty gentlemen affirm, 'that logic
is good for nothing'? It is good for this at least (wherever it is
understood), to make people talk less; by showing them both what is,
and what is not, to the point; and how extremely hard it is to prove
any thing. Do I understand metaphysics; if not the depths of the
Schoolmen, the subtleties of Scotus or Aquinas, yet the first
rudiments, the general principles, of that useful science? Have I
conquered so much of it, as to clear my apprehension and range my ideas
under proper heads; so much as enables me to read with ease and
pleasure, as well as profit, Dr. Henry Moore's Works, Malebranche's
Search after Truth, and Dr. Clarke's Demonstration of the Being and
Attributes of God?"3
I suspect that such statements will be strange, shocking, even
outrageous or ridiculous to leaders of ministerial education today. But
readers of Wesley and other great ministers of the past, such as
Jonathan Edwards or Charles Finney, will easily see, if they know what
it is they are looking at, how much use those ministers made of careful
logic. Similarly for the great Puritan writers of an earlier period,
and for later effective Christians such as C. S. Lewis and Francis
Schaeffer. They all make relentless use of logic, and to great good
effect. With none of these great teachers is it a matter of trusting
logic instead of relying upon the Holy Spirit. Rather, they well knew,
it is simply a matter of meeting the conditions along with which the
Holy Spirit chooses to work. In this connection it will be illuminating
to carefully examine the logical structure and force of Peter's
discourse on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2)
*
Today, by contrast, we commonly depend upon the emotional pull of
stories and images to 'move' people. We fail to understand that, in the
very nature of the human mind, emotion does not reliably generate
belief or faith, if it generates it at all. Not even 'seeing' does,
unless you know what you are seeing. It is understanding, insight, that
generates belief. In vain do we try to change peoples' heart or
character by 'moving' them to do things in ways that bypass their
understanding.
Some months ago one who is regarded as a great teacher of homiletics
was emphasizing the importance of stories in preaching. It was on a
radio program. He remarked that a leading minister in America had told
him recently that he could preach the same series of sermons each year,
and change the illustrations, and no one would notice it. This was
supposed to point out, with some humor, the importance of stories to
preaching. What it really pointed out, however, was that the cognitive
content of the sermon was never heard--if there was any to be
heard--and does not matter.
Paying careful attention to how Jesus made use of logical thinking can
strengthen our confidence in Jesus as master of the centers of
intellect and creativity, and can encourage us to accept him as master
in all of the areas of intellectual life in which we may participate.
In those areas we can, then, be his disciples, not disciples of the
current movements and glittering personalities who happen to dominate
our field in human terms. Proper regard for him can also encourage us
to follow his example as teachers in Christian contexts. We can learn
from him to use logical reasoning at its best, as he works with us.
When we teach what he taught in the manner he taught it, we will see
his kind of result in the lives of those to whom we minister.4
NOTES
See my paper, "Degradation of Logical Form," in Axiomathes, Number 1-3,
1997, 1-22, especially pp. 3-7. Return to text.
From Selections from the Writings of the Rev. John Wesley, edited by
Herbert Welch, New York: Eaton & Mains, 1901, p. 186. Return to text.
Ibid., p. 198. Return to text.
For necessary elaboration of many themes touched upon in this paper,
see J. P. Moreland's crucial book, Love Your God with All Your Mind,
Colorado Springs: Navepress, 1997. Return to text.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
02 Nov 2005 03:43:14 PM |
|
|
He could have. Just as he could have handed Peter or John the formulas
of Relativity Physics or the Plate Tectonic theory of the earth's
crust, etc. He certainly could, that is, if he is indeed the one
Christians have traditionally taken him to be. But he did not do it,
and for reasons which are bound to seem pretty obvious to anyone who
stops to think about it. But that, in any case, is not my subject here.
When I speak of "Jesus the logician" I refer to his use of logical
insights: to his mastery and employment of logical principles in his
work as a teacher and public figure.
Are you a monophysite? What you have said amounts to one of the
heresies of the early Church. Christ is meant to be an example to us.
He gave us MORAL and SPIRITUAL teaching but not scientific. I think we
should think of this in the following way. If Christ was monophysite
then cruxifixion would not be painful and so He could never be an
example to us. We could never think of Him when we were facing
adversity.
Taling of this. He did NOT understand Plate Tectonics. To claim he did
would be be a monophysite. Christ was God but existed with "Chinese
Walls". However he did understand that misfortune (eg. the Tsunami) was
not the rsult of sin. He also went to the Cross sinless. The God of the
Old Testament was a superman who speeded up Plate Tectinics when he
wanted to let off steam.
The Christian concept is that misfortune, corporate or personal, is
something in the human condition that we have to live with. The Cross
is perhaps a symbol of us living with it. Of course we have to do
something about it. We must be compassionate while at the same time
attempting to advasnce Science. We must predict Earthquakes. We must
find out about hurricanes and how their effects can be mitigated. We
might even (eventaually) be able to prevent them coming to poulated
areas.
We must use our brains. Christ effectively says to us, you use our
brains. I cannot use them for you. This statement is also a profound
one.
In terms of its relationship with Science the truism is that Science
describes how things happen. Religion tells us why and tells us about
the meaning of our lives. Rather trite admittedly.
Islam together with Evangelical Christians have rather boxed themselves
into a corner. The Bible/Koran must be literally true or the whole
system collapses. The New Testament is not like that. Christ was
tempted to do a number of things, temptations he resisted. He did not
become a military messiah (like Mohammed). He did not dazzle us with a
series or wonders.
What is faith? I would say it was the acceptance of a spiritual
dimension in our lives, and an acceptance that what Christ stood for is
something worth having. Basically we say we like the Christian message.
It is not simply a matter of intellectual assent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 04:19:20 PM |
|
|
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote
The Christian concept is that misfortune, corporate or personal, is
something in the human condition that we have to live with. The Cross
is perhaps a symbol of us living with it.
It has been said (I think even by the Blessed Mother at Fatima) that "war is
the punishment for sin."
Mankind by embracing sin has turned away from God (sin = turning away from
God) and in so doing cut itself off from the grace of God that can (and
does) protect from misfortune.
Psalms 32:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.
While it's not P.C. to attribute any of the misfortunes that befall us to
our sinfulness, a reexamination of this concept and appropriate action
relative to it (repentance and conversion) might be in order as an avenue
out of our present distress.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
04 Nov 2005 08:59:07 AM |
|
|
It has been said (I think even by the Blessed Mother at Fatima) that "war is
the punishment for sin."
No! What we are leading on to is the definition of prophesy and
history. I will start by the grandfather paradox, you cannot kill your
grandfather, if he wasn't married to your grandmother that is
irrelevant. The vision of Fatima was a vision of what was actually
going to happen. WW2 took place because :-
1) The treaty of Versailles was far too hard on Germany.
2) There was a civil war in Russia between the Reds and the Whites. The
whites were given very limited support by the western powers.
3) France siezed the Rhineland when reparations were not forthcoming.
Part of Hitler's rise to power was the recoccupation of the Rhineland.
4) Industrialists like Professor Winniker thought they could control
Hitler. They wanted more money for them
WW2 (and also the Cold War) was the result of our folly. It was the
result, if you like, of sin but a consequence and not a divinely
inspired punishment.
The Tsunami, or rather the casualty total was the result of a lack of
preparation, but God did NOT specifically send it.
If you look into the future the consistency principle must be observed.
A variety of theories, including M theory, predict particles travelling
faster than c. Hoever Feynmann diagrams enforce coinsistency. This is a
difficult concept to get across. You see travelling FTL what is there
not what might be there.
You may well say that if we had ac
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 04:34:13 PM |
|
|
rugged individuals wrote:
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote
The Christian concept is that misfortune, corporate or personal, is
something in the human condition that we have to live with. The Cross
is perhaps a symbol of us living with it.
It has been said (I think even by the Blessed Mother at Fatima) that "war is
the punishment for sin."
Mankind by embracing sin has turned away from God (sin = turning away from
God) and in so doing cut itself off from the grace of God that can (and
does) protect from misfortune.
But Matthew 5:45 says,
"for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and on the unjust."
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 06:07:59 PM |
|
|
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> suddenly spluttered:
rugged individuals wrote:
<ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote
The Christian concept is that misfortune, corporate or personal, is
something in the human condition that we have to live with. The Cross
is perhaps a symbol of us living with it.
It has been said (I think even by the Blessed Mother at Fatima) that "war is
the punishment for sin."
Mankind by embracing sin has turned away from God (sin = turning away from
God) and in so doing cut itself off from the grace of God that can (and
does) protect from misfortune.
But Matthew 5:45 says,
"for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and on the unjust."
--Billy
Lancashire saying:
The rain it raineth on the just
and also on the unjust fella,
but least of all it raineth on
the chap who's got the big umbrella.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 09:34:56 PM |
|
|
In article <1130946194.174097.197320@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
ianparker2@gmail.com says...
He could have. Just as he could have handed Peter or John the formulas
of Relativity Physics or the Plate Tectonic theory of the earth's
crust, etc. He certainly could, that is, if he is indeed the one
Christians have traditionally taken him to be. But he did not do it,
and for reasons which are bound to seem pretty obvious to anyone who
stops to think about it. But that, in any case, is not my subject here.
When I speak of "Jesus the logician" I refer to his use of logical
insights: to his mastery and employment of logical principles in his
work as a teacher and public figure.
Are you a monophysite? What you have said amounts to one of the
heresies of the early Church. Christ is meant to be an example to us.
He gave us MORAL and SPIRITUAL teaching but not scientific. I think we
should think of this in the following way. If Christ was monophysite
then cruxifixion would not be painful and so He could never be an
example to us. We could never think of Him when we were facing
adversity.
Taling of this. He did NOT understand Plate Tectonics. To claim he did
would be be a monophysite. Christ was God but existed with "Chinese
Walls". However he did understand that misfortune (eg. the Tsunami) was
not the rsult of sin. He also went to the Cross sinless. The God of the
Old Testament was a superman who speeded up Plate Tectinics when he
wanted to let off steam.
The Christian concept is that misfortune, corporate or personal, is
something in the human condition that we have to live with. The Cross
is perhaps a symbol of us living with it. Of course we have to do
something about it. We must be compassionate while at the same time
attempting to advasnce Science. We must predict Earthquakes. We must
find out about hurricanes and how their effects can be mitigated. We
might even (eventaually) be able to prevent them coming to poulated
areas.
We must use our brains. Christ effectively says to us, you use our
brains. I cannot use them for you. This statement is also a profound
one.
In terms of its relationship with Science the truism is that Science
describes how things happen. Religion tells us why and tells us about
the meaning of our lives. Rather trite admittedly.
Islam together with Evangelical Christians have rather boxed themselves
into a corner. The Bible/Koran must be literally true or the whole
system collapses. The New Testament is not like that. Christ was
tempted to do a number of things, temptations he resisted. He did not
become a military messiah (like Mohammed). He did not dazzle us with a
series or wonders.
What is faith? I would say it was the acceptance of a spiritual
dimension in our lives, and an acceptance that what Christ stood for is
something worth having. Basically we say we like the Christian message.
It is not simply a matter of intellectual assent.
We must use our brains - in order to know what is plausible and possible,
and that which is impossible, or merely lies - distortions of the original
teachings.
I don't agree with the text given to us, that it is the original and
is accurate.
Because of the crappy messages that is preached to us by christianity today,
same for what the Jews and Muslims tell us.
They are all distorted, and not the original messages/teachings of the
prophets - yes - Jesus was just another prophet, despite what the Christians
say and claim.
See my other post - reply to another another post - about the points I
raised there. (alt.philosophy.debate)
Harvey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
02 Nov 2005 04:36:10 PM |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2005 07:43:14 -0800, wrote:
He could have. Just as he could have handed Peter or John the formulas
of Relativity Physics or the Plate Tectonic theory of the earth's
crust, etc. He certainly could, that is, if he is indeed the one
Christians have traditionally taken him to be. But he did not do it,
and for reasons which are bound to seem pretty obvious to anyone who
stops to think about it. But that, in any case, is not my subject here.
When I speak of "Jesus the logician" I refer to his use of logical
insights: to his mastery and employment of logical principles in his
work as a teacher and public figure.
Are you a monophysite? What you have said amounts to one of the
heresies of the early Church. Christ is meant to be an example to us.
He gave us MORAL and SPIRITUAL teaching but not scientific. I think we
should think of this in the following way. If Christ was monophysite
then cruxifixion would not be painful and so He could never be an
example to us. We could never think of Him when we were facing
adversity.
No. You BELIEVE that, and have neither the common sense nor courtesy
to respect the POV of the group you post to.
Taling of this. He did NOT understand Plate Tectonics. To claim he did
would be be a monophysite. Christ was God but existed with "Chinese
Walls". However he did understand that misfortune (eg. the Tsunami) was
not the rsult of sin. He also went to the Cross sinless. The God of the
Old Testament was a superman who speeded up Plate Tectinics when he
wanted to let off steam.
Mythical figures can't understand anything.
The Christian concept is that misfortune, corporate or personal, is
something in the human condition that we have to live with. The Cross
is perhaps a symbol of us living with it. Of course we have to do
something about it. We must be compassionate while at the same time
attempting to advasnce Science. We must predict Earthquakes. We must
find out about hurricanes and how their effects can be mitigated. We
might even (eventaually) be able to prevent them coming to poulated
areas.
Irrelevant outside Christianity.
We must use our brains. Christ effectively says to us, you use our
brains. I cannot use them for you. This statement is also a profound
one.
Who gives a ***** what some mythical figure says in your mythology?
In terms of its relationship with Science the truism is that Science
describes how things happen. Religion tells us why and tells us about
the meaning of our lives. Rather trite admittedly.
Only in the deluded fantasies of religionists who can't think outside
the box.
Islam together with Evangelical Christians have rather boxed themselves
into a corner. The Bible/Koran must be literally true or the whole
system collapses. The New Testament is not like that. Christ was
tempted to do a number of things, temptations he resisted. He did not
become a military messiah (like Mohammed). He did not dazzle us with a
series or wonders.
Again, who gives a ***** what somemythical supoerheto is supposed to
have done?
What is faith? I would say it was the acceptance of a spiritual
dimension in our lives, and an acceptance that what Christ stood for is
something worth having. Basically we say we like the Christian message.
It is not simply a matter of intellectual assent.
It's a ***** ecsuse to rub your beliefs in the faces of the less
ignorant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
02 Nov 2005 05:42:34 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, words of truth poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
[ snip ]
545 lines of text to make the point that Christ said some things that
made sense, so in that sense Christ was logical.
I'm certainly glad we were able to clear THAT up .......
Regards,
Josef
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Piranha tank missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 09:09:35 AM |
|
|
It started with a Jesus The Logician.
Who (other than "words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com>) would
have guessed it would end like:
how discipleship to Jesus Christ works
Matthew 16:25
"whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his
life for me will find it"
Christ, by the way, is one of Islam's prophets. Now it begins to make
sense.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 04:33:12 PM |
|
|
"Piranha tank missionaries" <yournamehere@martyrdom.com> wrote :
how discipleship to Jesus Christ works
Matthew 16:25
"whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his
life for me will find it"
Now think of the quote you cite in terms of "Love". It's a working
definition. "And the two will become one"
The identities of the separate beings blend in the unity of the new love
identity.
Now recall Jesus is God. "God is love". Jesus is "the way, the truth and the
LIFE."
So, if you fall in love with Jesus, believe in Him etc., you have a new
identity in the Lord. And in Him you have life ("He that believeth in me,
hath everlasting life.")
It IS perfectly logical, AND intellectually appealing, once you acknowledge
the whole thing.
The bitter herb on its own is unpalatable but as seasoning on the meat it is
a welcome enhancement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 06:04:57 PM |
|
|
"rugged individuals" <websterbenson@comcast.com> suddenly spluttered:
"Piranha tank missionaries" <yournamehere@martyrdom.com> wrote :
how discipleship to Jesus Christ works
Matthew 16:25
"whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his
life for me will find it"
Now think of the quote you cite in terms of "Love". It's a working
definition. "And the two will become one"
The identities of the separate beings blend in the unity of the new love
identity.
Now recall Jesus is God. "God is love". Jesus is "the way, the truth and the
LIFE."
So, if you fall in love with Jesus, believe in Him etc., you have a new
identity in the Lord. And in Him you have life ("He that believeth in me,
hath everlasting life.")
It IS perfectly logical, AND intellectually appealing, once you acknowledge
the whole thing.
The bitter herb on its own is unpalatable but as seasoning on the meat it is
a welcome enhancement.
*****. Christians may not have invented sophistry, but they sure as
hell excel in it.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
03 Nov 2005 12:42:50 PM |
|
|
"whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his
life for me will find it"
Christ, by the way, is one of Islam's prophets. Now it begins to make
sense.
Et el barco attravesta una cerradura.
You need to apply Baysian statistics to get correct meanings. Those
words were NEVER meant in that way.
Incidentally spotting this would be a great feat in AI, but probably
possible. You see the Baysian would associate Islam with suicidal
terrorism. This in fact means much more changing the objectives of your
life. It is in fact much more a Busshist statement.
If you were to get different meanings by clustering, an algorithm that
flaged this would have made immense progress.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus The Logician |
04 Nov 2005 07:15:20 PM |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2005 06:47:58 -0800, "words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com>
wrote:
ABSTRACT: In understanding how discipleship to Jesus Christ works, a
major issue is how he automatically present himself to our minds.
Well he presents himself to my mind, as a lazy, idle, shiftless, ne'er do well,
snake oil salesman.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "theBeaver" |
|
| Title: Re: What about "Jesus the microbiologist"? |
04 Nov 2005 04:05:37 AM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39
Jesus The Logician
ABSTRACT: In understanding how discipleship to Jesus Christ works, a
major issue is how he automatically present himself to our minds. It is
characteristic of most 20th century Christians that he does not
automatically come to mind as one of great intellectual power: as Lord
of universities and research institutes, of the creative disciplines
and scholarship. The Gospel accounts of how he actually worked,
however, challenge this intellectually marginal image of him and helps
us to see him at home in the best of academic and scholarly settings of
today, where many of us are called to be his apprentices.
Oh, sorry! Nothing there, I guess. Guess he never did really tell
people what they could do to avoid disease, did he? Not that it really
would have been helpful back then ... or am I confused?
So how's about "Jesus the physicist"? Or didn't he understand how the
world works? You know, if he'd given just one hint that he understood
about atoms and such, it would have been very convincing! You'd think
that, being tight with the Big Guy, that some of that might have rubbed
off? Guess we're drawing a blank there, too!
So how's about "Jesus the psychiatrist"? You know, the most screwed up
people I know, people who don't know how to raise their kids, or who
can't communicate effectively with their spouses, are Christians. Why
in heck didn't he give them some PRACTICAL advice? Guess he was too
busy refining the rules of logic?
Lemme see.... "Jesus the Logician" .... Hmmm. Never repudiated the Old
Testament, even though it gives great advice like "kill homosexuals",
"kill adulterers", "kill non-believers". Odd, but then he DID say he
came to fulfill the words of the OT, didn't he? Since it would have
been suicide to preach to Jews about how their book was all wrong, maybe
he was just too cowardly to say anything?
Lemme see ... You know, there's lots of ambiguity in the Bible (oh so
many diverse branches of that Judeo-Christian stuff), so you'd think he
would have focussed some of that powerful intellect of his on actually
resolving or preventing all these schisms? Or was he just really bad at
anticipating the future?
Lemme see ... He never did say that intelligence was a good thing, and
that critical thought was important to ethical judgment, did he? Nary a
word in the Bible about that, is there? Odd, too, that so many
religious leaders have noted that logic and religion are not compatible.
In fact, even ordinary people recognize that you need faith to believe
in God for the simple reason that not only is there absolutely no
evidence for it, but the presence of evil directly contradicts the
postulate of a good and omnipotent God. You know, it would have been
great if he'd brought his weighty logic to bear on the question of why
God allows evil, the same as if he didn't exist at all? People have had
to dance around that question, or invent lots of silly answers for
centuries to explain that one!
And isn't it odd that it's the expert logicians of the modern era who
most fervently oppose the idea of God? Why is that? Why do the people
who are most expert in using those big logical brains, like Einstein and
Russell, and Feynmann, and 93%+ of the national academy of science, and
99%+ of scientists in the physical sciences, do not believe in God?
Odd, I would say. And they will even tell you that it is LOGIC that
brought them to their positions... Really, really odd. Shouldn't they
be drawn to the raw logic coursing from the mouth of this ancient
oracle, like flies to *****? Odd, really!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What about "Jesus the microbiologist"? |
04 Nov 2005 02:10:26 PM |
|
|
Lemme see ... He never did say that intelligence was a good thing, and
that critical thought was important to ethical judgment, did he? Nary a
word in the Bible about that, is there? Odd, too, that so many
religious leaders have noted that logic and religion are not compatible.
I am not going to quote and comment on everything. We are meant to use
our brains (unless you are that intelligently designed species Fructex
Stultus [Fructex=Bush Stultus=stupis]). Science was indeed NOT a part
of the Christian message although our right (and obligation in fact) to
engage in scientific enquiry is very much a part of Christian
tradition. If Christ had any scientific knowledge beyond the first
century, we would be looking at a monophysite Christ, not a dual
Christ. Christ gave us revealed truth, not the sort of truth we ought
to be fining out for ourselves.
Religion and reason are compatible. Christ produced a revelation and a
revelation is compatible with reason but cannot be deduced in is
entirity. The leaders of the religious right F Stultus among them,
believe in the literal truth of the Bible, a claim that Christ NEVER
made. This leads to direct conflict with Science. Christ gave us a set
of principles to make ethical judgements.
As far as disagreements are concerned Christ went as far as He possibly
could. He did not, unlike Mohammed set Himself up as a secular ruler,
did not have a Sharia which was unbreakable for all time. What we have
is a vision of the nature of God and a set of ethical principles.
I feel that one other thing should be added, and that is that the
Reformation was as much about politics as religion. Frederick the Wise
wanted Luher to bless his bigamous marriage, and Henry VIII wanted his
divorce and also independence from Rome. Also the doctrine of God's
punishment (in this life) justified the wealthy in not sharing their
weath.
We have fFree Will and the effects of our free choice is not negated,
at least not immediately. If it were we would live in a boring world
where we never had to make moral choices.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: What about "Jesus the microbiologist"? |
04 Nov 2005 04:13:54 AM |
|
|
theBeaver wrote:
words of truth wrote:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39
Jesus The Logician
ABSTRACT: In understanding how discipleship to Jesus Christ works, a
major issue is how he automatically present himself to our minds. It is
characteristic of most 20th century Christians that he does not
automatically come to mind as one of great intellectual power: as Lord
of universities and research institutes, of the creative disciplines
and scholarship. The Gospel accounts of how he actually worked,
however, challenge this intellectually marginal image of him and helps
us to see him at home in the best of academic and scholarly settings of
today, where many of us are called to be his apprentices.
Oh, sorry! Nothing there, I guess. Guess he never did really tell
people what they could do to avoid disease, did he? Not that it really
would have been helpful back then ... or am I confused?
You are pretending the man talked for 3 years and all of it was
recorded in a text that can be read in a couple of hours.
But in fact, the greatest human disease the world has ever known is the
greed and cruelty of humanity.
Humanity could have defeated most of the bacterial diseases - if we'd
cared. But even small pox was kept alive because the US military labs
could not bear to exterminate something that brought so much beautiful
death and misery to humanity.
The US military preserved the smallpox culture out of professional
respect.
Tuberculosis has been given a new life by thousands of weakened
immunity AIDS patients who do not get isolated and treated properly.
New strains are developing that are resitant to all antibiotics. We
now have more cases of TB in the US than we had 50 years ago, and we
are less able to treat them.
Ask again what could be done to eliminated disease.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
