On reality

[Resha Caner]

No - it is neither minimalism or flippancy.

Rather, it is the adopting of a biblical mindset where "... we see in a mirror dimly," 1 Cor 13.12; and understand that God has INTENTIONALLY left off those details.

I've even had to coach pastors on this, so bear with me. You may not intend to be condescending, but that is often how these kinds of responses appear. Using terms such as "biblical mindset" (I don't recall the Bible defining specific mindsets) gives the impression of saying, "I'm the righteous one and you just need to be quiet and get on board." If that type of response continues, it drives people like me away when, in fact, a little patience will yield a result we curious people will be satisfied with.

I have no problem admitting I needed to mature, but it took patience and time for that maturity to happen. It doesn't happen in a brief moment by commanding someone to comply with a particular dogma.

So, it comes down to: What do you want to achieve? Do you want to prove your superior knowledge, righteousness, etc., do you want to force these pesky people to comply so you're comfortable, or do you want to help this group of curious people who ask a lot of questions? If you want to help them, you have to learn to understand them, and you must then reply in a way they can accept - which may not be the types of replies suitable to yourself.

 

[Dave-W]

So, it comes down to: What do you want to achieve? Do you want to prove your superior knowledge, righteousness, etc., do you want to force these pesky people to comply so you're comfortable, or do you want to help this group of curious people who ask a lot of questions? If you want to help them, you have to learn to understand them, and you must then reply in a way they can accept - which may not be the types of replies suitable to yourself.

I am a trained engineer. I am also a musician. Both of those endeavors tend to make one analyze anything and everything. (I drive some people nuts with that) But the path God has taken me on has changed my western analytical mindset to a more eastern ancient Jewish one; at least as far as all things biblical are concerned.

I am not out to prove superiority or anything like that; just to say that I understand the bible a lot better with without all of the baggage we usually carry. I encourage others to take that same journey.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am not out to prove superiority or anything like that; just to say that I understand the bible a lot better with without all of the baggage we usually carry. I encourage others to take that same journey.

I'm an engineer as well. Thanks for the clarification and I also would encourage the journey. Further, I would agree an analytical mindset can cause a lot of problems.

My funny story regards Augustine. I was once a great admirer of his. Then I read City of God and was greatly disappointed. I considered his answers to the philosophical questions he tackled very disappointing. So, I set out to get my own answers. I found something I liked, but it was very difficult to explain to people, so I worked and worked on a clear and concise communication of the idea. When I was finally done, I realized my answer was exactly the same as Augustine's in City of God. #!#@$##@!!##

See, though, now the problem is that I'm curious where your journey took you.

 

[Dave-W]

See, though, now the problem is that I'm curious where your journey took you.

Well, it is part of the journey that led me into Messianic Judaism.

What started me on that leg of the journey was reading Abraham Joshua Heschell's book "God in Search of Man." From there I started researching "Hebrew Block Logic" also known as "Adductive Logic." It is a different logic framework that is devoid of abstraction. Everything is relational.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Search-Man-Philosophy-Judaism/dp/0374513317

 

[Resha Caner]

Interesting. But did you mean "abductive"?

 

[KWCrazy]

Reality can be defined as "The Sum total of all our perceptions." This includes sensory and extra sensory perceptions. While there is only one reality, we all have different experiences which leave us like the blind men with the elephant; each with our own truth that is vastly different from the complete picture.

An example of that would be the person who doesn't believe in anything spiritual. Not being able to see, feel, touch, hear or small any spirits and not having seen conclusive proof that they exist he might well dismiss it as a figment of others' imaginations. Then one day he sees a ghost or spirit. Suddenly that changes his opinion of reality, even though it doesn't impress his friends who have not seen what he saw.

Another example would be the person who scoffs at God until in a moment of desperation he reaches out to God to try and find peace in his life and then encounters the Holy Spirit. Now he knows that the things his parents tried to teach him were true; that Jesus is real, and that God is the Creator of all life. This changes his view of reality, but it doesn't change reality. Rejecting a portion of reality does not make you more enlightened, it makes you less so. The wise man is cautiously skeptical but doesn't flat out reject that which he cannot disprove.

 

[Dave-W]

Interesting. But did you mean "abductive"?

No. ADDUCTIVE.

http://www.thelogician.net/JUDAIC-LOGIC/Torah-Adductive-Logic-2.htm

Judaic Logic

 

[Resha Caner]

No. ADDUCTIVE.

2 Adductive Logic in Torah

Judaic Logic

OK, I'll take a look. I know what it means to adduce, but I have never heard of the term connected to a formal system of logic. I did find a few items on "block logic", but didn't see anything earth-shattering. The sources kept saying how the "western mind" finds such things odd, but of what I've read so far I didn't find any of it odd or new. Maybe I'm already there and just didn't realize it.

 

[Dave-W]

I did find a few items on "block logic", but didn't see anything earth-shattering. The sources kept saying how the "western mind" finds such things odd, but of what I've read so far I didn't find any of it odd or new. Maybe I'm already there and just didn't realize it.

Or at least on your way. I do not know what you found on block logic but these may be additional: (or not if you already found them)

BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) - Sermon Index

http://theologylog.8.forumer.com/a/hebrew-block-logic_post8.html

http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/heb_grk.pdf

 

[Resha Caner]

Or at least on your way. I do not know what you found on block logic but these may be additional: (or not if you already found them)

So far I'm not impressed, so you might have to help me along. I skimmed through the link in your other post, and it seemed a lot of qualitative hand-waving that didn't really nail down the "logical principles" claimed to exist in Deuteronomy. I was struggling to understand exactly how they were distinguishing all these categories: real prophets who make positive claims, real prophets who make negative claims that do or don't come to pass, false prophets who make positive claims that don't come to pass, false prophets that God uses to announce negative claims that come to pass ...

Let me make a few statements and then ask a question:
* I understand the Hebrews come from a different cultural context that needs to be understood when reading the Bible
* I absolutely believe the Hebrews were the bearers of truths and modes of logic that preceded other logical systems
* However, the reason for this was God, not some inherent Hebrew quality
* Since the fall of Israel, other cultures (such as the Greeks) developed their logical systems far beyond what the Hebrews ever did
* In attempts to defend Hebrew culture, the Jews felt compelled to compete with the developments of Greek and Christian culture, and even more so to mark themselves as different from those cultures. Despite the claims of your link, the result has been somewhat anachronistic and artificial.
* Despite this, going the route of the Scholastics is misguided and unnecessary.

All of that probably sounds negative and a criticism of your messianic views, and maybe it is. But you said one thing that intrigued me. So, it might be easier for you to explain what you meant rather than me digging through all that material in search of it.

You said Jewish logic doesn't require abstraction. I'm not sure that's possible, but I'm curious to know what you meant. I get that a very empirical approach is being advocated, but empiricism doesn't necessarily reject all abstraction. So, can you elaborate?

 

[Dave-W]

You said Jewish logic doesn't require abstraction. I'm not sure that's possible, but I'm curious to know what you meant. I get that a very empirical approach is being advocated, but empiricism doesn't necessarily reject all abstraction. So, can you elaborate?

OK - but let me go back to an earlier statement you made:

the reason for this was God, not some inherent Hebrew quality

I would submit that it was GOD that influenced and developed that "Hebrew quality;" Probably thru intense immersion in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I did not say that it doesn't require abstraction; rather, that it is devoid of abstraction. In God, everything is defined relationally rather than abstractly. Even the very term "God" is a relational term. So the approach to any concept or definition of term needs be looked at in relationship to everything it influences.

And that can give rise to some things that just do not fit into western Aristotelian logic. They are often called paradoxes or miracles, but fit nicely into Block logic.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would submit that it was GOD that influenced and developed that "Hebrew quality;" Probably thru intense immersion in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I'm OK with phrasing it that way, but would still maintain that means this quality/understanding can be found in places other than Jewish culture - especially in the sense that Christianity can be seen as an extension of that relationship with God as the majority of Jews fell away.

I did not say that it doesn't require abstraction; rather, that it is devoid of abstraction. In God, everything is defined relationally rather than abstractly. Even the very term "God" is a relational term. So the approach to any concept or definition of term needs be looked at in relationship to everything it influences.

I'm not sure I get the distinction you're trying to make, but I can see how defining everything relationally would avoid (or at least minimize) abstractions*. Still, I don't see how "God" is a relational term.

*I've migrated to a view that science made a mistake in basing itself on abstractions such as "energy" - an approach that then implicitly takes on Platonist features. I think it would be better to start with fundamental physical quantities such as light and motion. IOW, rather than declaring an axiom that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, declare an axiom that photons can neither be created nor destroyed.

Anyway ...

And that can give rise to some things that just do not fit into western Aristotelian logic. They are often called paradoxes or miracles, but fit nicely into Block logic.

Maybe an example would help.

 

[Dirk1540]

I don't want to say too much, because this member frequents the forum and we must respect people's privacy.

That's fine, let's just call him Skip then.

But let's just say they thought people had demons. Well when I was around them, it was like demons would work through me as well, even as a Christian.

What does that mean work through you?