By contrast, I'll show you how little logic I personally know and my overly abundant need to reference and learn from many sources, all of which I have to draw from in order to gain even a smidgen of understanding about various forms of logic that exist out there in the world (since there is more than one) and about various modes of exegesis/interpretation (even of the bible---since there's also more than one) which are used and applied to the bible in multitudes of different Christian churches. Here's just a few of the sources I feel I NEED in order to responsibly read and understand the Bible:
Introducing Logic and Critical Thinking - by T. Ryan Byerly
The Power of Logic - C. Stephen Layman
A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis - Craig L. Blomberg
Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible - Richard L. Schulz
The Most Misused Verses in the Bible - Eric J. Bargerhuff
Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus - Lois Tverberg
...and 100's of others.
So what? I’m not impressed with a reference sheet. The reference sheet doesn’t tell me a plain text meaning is illogical. A reference sheet doesn’t tell me you are right. A reference sheet does not tell me I’m wrong.
And, having a background in philosophy, Christian philosophy, history, and law, I’m intimately familiar with the use of experts and scholars. But it isn’t the fact they have a label which makes them right, logical, but the strength of their reasoning and the evidence underlying and supporting their arguments and conclusions.
You have refused to address the substance of my examples, evidence, and reasoning. You interject instead with a demand for references.
I mean, am I supposed to just take your word on how to best interpret the Bible simply because...... "NotreDame says so"?
For goodness sakes man, my position isn’t because I said so! My argument makes use of examples and reasoning. You’ve not assailed the evidence, examples, or reasoning of my argument. You have persistently avoided addressing the reasoning of my argument, evidence, and examples.
It is absolutely crazy to think, by your logic, an “outside source” has to be invoked to take the plain text meaning of “And Jesus wept.” That’s the absurdity of your argument. The absurdity of your view is the plain text meaning of “And Jesus wept” cannot be accepted and why, because according to you some “outside source” has to first say we can and it’s logical to do so.
Tell me, are you not taking a plain text meaning of “And Jesus wept”?
Tell me, what “outside source” did you consult before taking the plain text meaning of my posts that allowed you to respond? Do you think I was discussing unicorns? Ponies? Fairies? No, you rightly took the plain text meaning of my posts and I’m confident you didn’t consult an “outside source” to do it. And it is the plain text meaning which has made the back and forth dialogue transpire.
I gave you a reasoned argument why plain text was rational, logical. Hence, my argument is not a “I said so,” that’s a cop out from having to address the substantive reasoning. With your philosophy background you should have no problem A) Identfiying the logic of my argument B.) the hidden assumptions, C) necessary inferences, and articulate a rebuttal critiquing the reasoning of the argument rather than copping out in addressing the resining with the asinine “said so” meme.
Oh by golly, I most definitely think you DO!!! Otherwise, it's just YOU making a claim to logic that isn't always so or isn't always evident to everyone else. I mean, am I supposed to just take your word on how to best interpret the Bible simply because...... "NotreDame says so"?
You see, if we're going to even broach the topic of "logicality" and "biblical exegesis" then yes, I'm going to admit up front that I'm definitely going to have to refer to and defer to sources outside of myself by which to do this since, (logically speaking), its obvious to me that the finer aspects of language and linguistics, logic, hermeneutics and exegesis aren't typically self-evident to anyone, which is why we have to school our children afterall --- since they don't learn even their ABC's by merely standing out in the sunshine.
Because the “sources outside of myself” make it logical? No, they rationally do not. Whether something is logical is not contingent upon “outside sources.” By doing this, you’ve invoked the genetic fallacy. I do not need to adhere to your illogical reasoning. If you want to insist an “outside source” makes something logical, then knock yourself out with that genetic fallacy reasoning. I’m not playing along.
I am not bound to follow the bad logic of “some outside source” tells us when it is logical and permissible to take a plain text meaning. You will waltz with that genetic fallacy alone.
If there's anything that is self-evident, it's the fact that reading the Bible and understanding it is not an exercise in self-evident realizations.
Who ever said it was? Your problem is reading the verse “And Jesus wept” by its plain text meaning of Jesus cried, water excreted from his eyes, isn’t an “exercise in self-evident realization.” It is a logical exercise based on the reasoning I stated in the prior post which you have chosen to ignore so far.
The plain text meaning of verses where Jesus walked on water, which is Jesus was standing on top of water and walking on top of it as one would on ground, isn’t an “an exercise in self-evident realizations.” By your logic, this plain text meaning cannot be relied upon until some “outside source” informs us it is logical to do so.
without citation to any of the books and/or references that have actually informed you in your intellectual development over the years.
That’s right. I have many books arguing and explaining why plain text meaning is a logical and rational reading, all else being equal. Why have I not cited to them? The explanation is all those great books I’ve read, continue to read, have taught me the source doesn’t make something logical or right. So what Justice Scalia defended a plain text meaning/textualism in his book,”A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.” Citing to his work for a plain text meaning of the law does nothing to say taking a plain text meaning is logical. William Lane Craig’s proclivity for plain text meaning, and his use of it, doesn’t mean plain text meaning is logical.
By your logic, it is a wonder how any of us make sense of the world and what we read without consulting an “outside source.” Your logic is a nightmare for the real world. In classrooms, colleges, courtrooms, mail, you name it, we are stymied as to the meaning of some writing until we can consult an “outside source” to tell us the plain text meaning of whatever we are reading in class, college, in courtroom, in our mail, is logical to do so.
