Because I disagree.
I have a friend whose professor could logically justify infanticide. Very well. I think the professor is a nutter, but you come away realising that it's very easy to logically justify many things that we know are wrong, even if we can't logically say why they are wrong.
Logically justify infanticide? Not sure what you mean. I can't logically prove anything from scratch - I can't even prove that you exist. Here's what I CAN do. I can look at your CURRENT set of assumptions and conclusions and point out any apparent inconsistencies between the two. For example if you claim that the Father is PERFECT in love and kindness - a maximizer of them - but ascribe to Him partially unprotective behavior, it looks like a contradiction to me. Might my assessment be incorrect? Certainly. But intellectual honesty will at least admit that THERE SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM HERE. Teachers and theologians should not write and preach with the aura of, 'We KNOW what we're doing' when all the while gaping holes SEEM to exist in their logic.
When faced with a choice between two possible doctrines, neither of which is perfectly clear, we should tend to prefer the one that seems most clear and most consistent. Otherwise, if we go with the one less clear, and so on when the third and fourth proposals arrive (etc.), we are on the slippery slope to complete gibberish. For instance, in MY theology, the goodness of God is CLEAR - at least it's significantly more clear than in the mainstream view. If we opt for a view that seems LESS clear, we are probably behaving irrationally.
The problem of evil
Problem of evil - Wikipedia
is the atheist's most insurmountable objection to theism. The atheist finds it logically impossible to reconcile a world of suffering with an infinitely benevolent, infinitely self-sufficient God. Most Christian scholars have been shrugging off this objection for 2,000 years, but I'm not sure who they think they're fooling - certainly not the atheists. I can't help but wonder (aloud) how many atheists would be more soft-hearted to the gospel if the church had unfailingly cast God in the best possible light.
So logic does not always equal truth
Am I in the wrong forum? Is this the theology forum? Or the Any Bizarre Random Opinion Will Do forum? Because I seem to be receiving quite a bit of negative feedback for appealing to both scripture and reason. I'm not sure what you've posted on other threads, but I suspect that, whenever you spot someone engaging in poorly reasoned exegesis, you are quick to point it out. But suddenly I'm at fault for doing the same?
The Bible presents many doctrines that may or may not contradict, and we do have to learn to live in that, since we have to learn to live in an imperfect world.
I consider the Bible inerrant on all major doctrines. Otherwise it wouldn't be very fruitful for eternal hope. For instance I'm not going to preach the gospel like this, "Repent and be saved - or maybe not. Hard to say, since the Bible is full of contradictions." But I'm fine with the Bible being erroneous on minor issues such as the number of people who died in a battle. In my opinion Yahweh isn't terribly concerned about such trivial errors.
In a moment I'll cite more of you statements faulting me for reasoning. First, let me clarify my position.
Epistemologically, there is only one knowledge-authority, ultimately, for both doctrine and practice, namely conscience defined as a feeling of certainty about what is right and wrong. Ideally our consience would always have 100% certainty, which is the herald of infallible prophetic revelation and still foreign to my own experience. All of us should aspire to be prophets (1Cor 14:1). But here we are, as non-prophets, and thus for the moment stuck with some uncertainty. Hence we must do what is MOST certain to us, at any given moment.
So if you think that logic is my final authority, you are incorrect. I'm a Christian because the Holy Breath convicted/convinced my conscience - He gave me a feeling of certainty - that Christ is God. (Wasn't 100% certainty, but it was enough to demand repentance if I wanted to behave in good conscience).
In areas where certainty is ESPECIALLY low, as in many theological issues, my conscience has directed me to investigate Scripture. But it counsels me to do it in GOOD CONSCIENCE, not irresponsibly. In other words, my conscience doesn't tell me, "Read the Bible and draw any random irrational conclusions you like," but rather, "Try to be as reasonable and logically consistent as possible in your handling of the written Word."
So yes, I'm open to a preacher stating, "I'm sharing a doctrine with you merely because I can't seem to shake it from my conscience. I have no logic and no Scripture to support it." Fine. He's being honest about WHERE IT CAME FROM. He's not pretending to have it on solid biblical authority/evidence or even solid logic. He's not disseminating a false sense of security as to what the Bible does, or does not, actually say.
Especially when there are things you simply don't know. Since we live in a fallen world, there are things about God we'll only know in the new heavens and new earth. Because these things don't make logical sense to us now, that does not mean they aren't logical, only that we don't possess all the relevant information.
When something doesn't make sense, we need to BE HONEST ABOUT IT. My beef is mostly with church leaders who've studied enough to be aware of gaping holes - and tons of unclarities and ambiguities - in their teaching, and yet they DELIBERATELY exude, when preaching, an aura of (false) confidence.
Secondly, when our current perspective doesn't make good logical sense, it's time to be open-minded about reform. It's time to CONSIDER A NEW PERSPECTIVE.
I don't believe, theologically speaking, that a position is wrong if it cannot be reconciled logically in every way...
Again, we need to be forthcoming TO EVERYONE about the gaping holes. AND we need to consider alternative doctrines.
... In some ways, sure, but by overlaying the law of non contradiction into theology is insisting that a philosophical method proves a doctrine as true or not. I think that's a wrong way to go about forming or affirming doctrine. The Bible presents many doctrines that may or may not contradict, and we do have to learn to live in that, since we have to learn to live in an imperfect world.
There's no excuse for being theologically sloppy and irresponsible exegetes. Let's do the best we can, let's act in good conscience, which presumably means acting in accordance with some of the admonitions that I just outlined.
Because there's too much at stake. 100 billion people have lived and died since the world began. If we get it wrong - if we miss out on some or most of the grace of God due to false doctrines misguiding our walk with God, as the Galatians seem to have done, the ultimate cost might be a LOT of (needlessly) lost souls as collateral damage.
The fact that an infinite God can come to us as an ignorant babe is perhaps logically incomprehensible, yet at the same time it is not illogical or impossible.
Logically incomprehensible? Mainstream theologian rightly admit as much - but the incarnation is only incomprehensible on mainstream assumptions.
Have you read my earlier posts? I think you did. So here's how God incarnated His (physical) Son, in my view. Incredibly simple.
(1) He extracted a portion of the divine Word (a small portion of the Son) and physically scrambled it somewhat. In a material metaphysics, this has an effect similar to scrambled brains (brain damage) - it potentially renders one IGNORANT. He molded this ignorant divine Word into a fleshy-like texture (viz. "The Word became flesh" - Jn 1:14), and then merged it into an embryo in Mary's womb. Much like He merges a human soul to an embryo for normal conceptions. (Hope I'm allowed to state this opinion in the Controversial/Unorthodox forum. But I'm afraid to actually defend it, because I don't know if Staff will delete this thread again).
(2) Didn't I say that God is irreversibly holy due to His Immune System? How then did Christ experience real temptation in the wilderness? The Immune System's job is to uphold the Godhead. It isn't stupid. It CAN make an exception, as long as the threat is only to an infinitesimally small part of the Godhead and thus perfectly innocuous to the whole.
Some things appear to be better learned relationally rather than logically. It seems illogical, for example, to turn the other cheek, until you do it and you find out why it's true experientially.
If this is your form of justification for someone being a theologically irresponsible exegete - one who opts for a seemingly UNREASONABLE doctrine even when a seemingly reasonable one is proffered - I don't find it very convincing.
Thanks for increasing my vocabulary 
