Applying logical thought processes to the Scriptures

ZephBonkerer said:

To add some context: I took the position on a (now closed) thread that an action may or may not be sinful depending on the context - that is, the surrounding facts and circumstances. In some Christian circles, "situation ethics" has become a dirty word because that principle has often been abused and used as a cover for what is essentially hypocrisy or moral relativism. But ethical standards by their very nature are oftentimes situational.

I believe that there is indeed an objective standard of right and wrong - one that transcends time and space. I also believe that the situation (setting, context, facts, circumstances, etc) is relevant when defining right and wrong. I see no contradiction between these principles.

Click to expand...

I have never had someone oppose my use of modus ponens, as a logical argument.

I have regularly had conversations with people who do not know what the material implication relationship (==>) means in formal logic.
And, for that reason, they do not understand logical causality.

I have regularly had anti-intellectual people who will use some of the logical 20 rules of Inference in arguments that they consider to be "good", but ALSO regularly deny that formal logic has anything to offer us. It's obvious that they have not thought about their own thought processes.

ZephBonkerer said:

My Lord! These people are showing a lack of basic critical thinking skills. Maybe that's why they seem to have a disdain for logic in general - they are unable to use it effectively.

There were times these people seemed to believe the Word of God was to be treated as being above human reason. That is how cults and charlatans discourage others from scrutinizing their actions or teachings.

Click to expand...

Appropriate exegesis of Scripture does involve critical thinking skills. When studying a passage of Scripture one must consider the following:
1. Who wrote it.
2. What was his intention.
3. Who was the intended audience.
4. How would the author's direct audience understand the reference.
5. What were the cultural norms existing at the time it was written.
6. Is the reference trans cultural, or cultural dependent.
7. Is the reference written for the readers, or directly to them.
8. How would it be applied to a modern audience.
9. How would the reference be interpreted in the light of cultural changes over time.
10. Are there comparisons or contrasts between how the ancient and modern audience would understand and apply the reference.

An example:
"Judas went out and hanged himself."
If we use the 10 point critical analysis of the sentence, what conclusions would we come to?

These are good points.

I disagree with the (9) cultural changes guideline.

I do this because many people who use this argument (to annul a command in Scripture)
1. reject the idea that God may command his people to live in a specific godly culture
2 There is no authoritative way to adjudicate who speaks for a later culture,
and who decides that that later culture is valid, or fallen.

Essentially, the cultural guideline is unfalsifiable.
All sorts of people think that their own culture trumps God's commands in Scripture.

Stephen3141 said:

These are good points.

I disagree with the (9) cultural changes guideline.

I do this because many people who use this argument (to annul a command in Scripture)
1. reject the idea that God may command his people to live in a specific godly culture
2 There is no authoritative way to adjudicate who speaks for a later culture,
and who decides that that later culture is valid, or fallen.

Essentially, the cultural guideline is unfalsifiable.
All sorts of people think that their own culture trumps God's commands in Scripture.

Click to expand...

If we hold to Bible references not being culturally dependent, then it is a sin for a man to have long hair, for women to cut their hair short, and being in church without a head covering. Also, it is a sin for a women to speak in church and to have any involvement in the Sunday service. And yet, the majority of churches have no problem with these things, and missionary organisations depend on women to do the bulk of missionary work. So if you going to apply strict transcultural principles to these matters, you would have to prohbit men having anything other than short, back and sides hair, women to have long, uncut hair, and every woman to wear a head covering in church, and sit in silence, not even to be able to teach Sunday School, and have no women on the mission field preaching and teaching the people. Also, you will have to condemn women who wear trousers and male style suits to work, and who have executive positions in the workforce.

Watchman1 said:

If we hold to Bible references not being culturally dependent, then it is a sin for a man to have long hair, for women to cut their hair short, and being in church without a head covering. Also, it is a sin for a women to speak in church and to have any involvement in the Sunday service. And yet, the majority of churches have no problem with these things, and missionary organisations depend on women to do the bulk of missionary work. So if you going to apply strict transcultural principles to these matters, you would have to prohbit men having anything other than short, back and sides hair, women to have long, uncut hair, and every woman to wear a head covering in church, and sit in silence, not even to be able to teach Sunday School, and have no women on the mission field preaching and teaching the people. Also, you will have to condemn women who wear trousers and male style suits to work, and who have executive positions in the workforce.

Click to expand...

It's more complicated, than biblical commands not being culturally dependent.

You need to more carefully define "culture".
Some cultures are compatible with Christianity, at least in some areas.
Some cultures are incompatible with Christianity, at least in some areas.
I would argue that God gave his people a divinely inspired culture, and THAT
is not to be set aside as if it were merely a worldly culture.

At its most undefined understanding, ANYTHING can be considered as part of a culture,
so those who feel free to set aside "cultural" commands, could set aside ANY
command in Scripture. This is unbiblical.

Some biblical commands (such as to dress modestly) may be quite differently UNDERSTOOD
by different worldly cultures. But some of those understandings, may not be godly.

Some biblical commands, such as to the Jews on men not wearing women's clothing,
and women not wearing men's clothing, deal more with male and female uniqueness in
clothing, and less on specifics of male and female clothing.

When Paul argues about hair length, his argument is based on a global precedent,
that is the angels covering their heads before God Almighty. This is not a
"cultural" argument. It is an argument about authority.

While most Christian groups accept the special authority of the Apostles,
some denominational theologies do not. This reduces the authority level
of the Scriptures, as taught by one of the Apostles.

These are some considerations, to keep in mind.

Stephen3141 said:

It's more complicated, than biblical commands not being culturally dependent ...

These are some considerations, to keep in mind.

Click to expand...

A similar example is when senior authorities argue from their own codependency that fathers are nasty (ignoring that mothers are too - and of course the minor detail that Jesus was not talking about them - nobody prays to their parents) therefore there is less authority in the person Who exasperatingly came up with the "daft" Lord's Prayer idea: "pray like this" was addressed not to official bosses to try to influence, but to the rest of us including lowly ministers, to apply variously.

To apply = to find meaningful. Just as we used to find the lovely people around us meaningful (when we were still allowed).

I think St Paul's situational interpretations are his already and we shouldn't add extra ones that aren't needed. Children seemed to understand all that in my young day: it's only the fundamentalists a.k.a evangelicals that took away meanings.

ZephBonkerer said:

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

Click to expand...

I think some may confuse objective morality with absolute morality. Objective morality means that there is a moral truth (the best way to behave) in that particular situation or context. So sometimes for example we may have to lie to save the Jews hiding in the attic. There is one moral way to behave as opposed to other ways to behave for that situation.

I also agree that the facts surrounding a moral are importantant as knowing and not knowing the facts make a difference. People use to use shock treatment to help the mentally ill. We now know its actually barbaric. What we know today compared to in the past has enlightened us closer to what is really the case.

In saying all that I think when it comes to morality there is an aspect that cannot be deetrmined by facts or logic. I think just like our 5 senses are the measure for empiricle science we have a moral sense when it comes to morality. So something like abortion or other moral situations we can intuitively sense when somethinmg is wrong and no amount of facts about the situation will change that.

Research shows that we may be born with this moral sense and certainly babies and infants seem to make moral judgements in their own way. Yet they probably don't understand why and certainly are not able to think rationally in the same way adults do. This makes sense because often when we sense something is wrong we don't take time out to analyse things but just react to the situation.

I think its a balance where we can recognise that both our beliefs, intuition and reasoning all have a role to plaay and one without the other cannot account for morality. Its a case of knowing when to acknowledge and use our rational thinking and moral sense. I think they are tied together and work in tandem.