Only a Christian can be Logical. Only a Christian has Reason. Everybody else think along fallacious deluded lines.

What is Logic and what is Reason?

Logic is derived from the Greek term Logos. That which is from the Logos is Logic. Only christians abide in the Logos and have the Logos abide in them. qed- only christians can be logical.

Is it just me or does this make sense? What is logos in the christian sense?


BTW many unbelievers have made 'logical' discoveries et al,

Well, I don't think it is true that only a Christian can be logical (barring the fact that some Christians are not logical).

One basic reason why such is the case is that the Greek term "logos" did not originate as a theological term - it did not originate with Christianity. Following on from there, we understand that "logic" was a broad discipline on its own standing apart from Christianity. We cannot therefore assume that only a Christian can be logical.

Besides, we know that many people without a religious inclination are quite logical - we should only get to meet a few of them and see the fact after listening to them.

Perhaps you might have meant it more like a poetic rhyme, but it is hard to maintain that only a Christian can be logical.

btw

The logic of this world is foolishness unto God

So worldly logic is quite different from 'supernatural logic'

Mahatma Ghandi was not a Christian.

But many Christians have A LOT to learn from him.

imhotep:

Mahatma Ghandi was not a Christian.

But many Christians have A LOT to learn from him.

Not too much seeing as he hated blacks.

savanaha:

Not too much seeing as he hated blacks.

Many members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) were professed Christians who hated blacks. Their hatred was expressed in hanging, lynching, burning, slaughtering and generally intimidating blacks.

Ghandi never did any of this.

imhotep:

Many members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) were Christians who hated blacks. Their hatred was expressed in hanging, lynching, burning, slaughtering and generally intimidating blacks.

Ghandi never did any of this.

There is not alot to learn from the Ku Klux klan nor Ghandi.

savanaha:

There is not alot to learn from the Ku Klux klan nor Ghandi.

Rather, there is more to learn from (non-Christian) Ghandi than from the (Christian) KKK.

imhotep:

Rather, there is more to learn from (non-Christian) Ghandi than from the (Christian) KKK.

I'd have to say neither.

Syrup, thanks for that breakdown.
How can one think only Christians are logical. I have seen many Illogical Christians, infact there are plenty. Most especially those twisting the Word of God to intimidate others.

Imhotep. I agree with you.

One of Ghandhi's famous quotes that I love is "An eye for an ey, makes the world go blind" funny, it ties into the Christians view of forgiveness.

~Lady~:

Syrup, thanks for that breakdown.
How can one think only Christians are logical. I have seen many Illogical Christians, infact there are plenty. Most especially those twisting the Word of God to intimidate others.

Imhotep. I agree with you.

One of Ghandhi's famous quotes that I love is "An eye for an ey, makes the world go blind" funny, it ties into the Christians view of forgiveness.

Yet you quickly forget the Christian "turn the other cheek."

Still neither, how can a man that thinks less of me just because I have more melanin have much meaningful thing to say that I cannot find in someone who does not hate anyone.

Pastor AIO-

Pastors dont sound blunt like you do! I cant imagine the meaasge you will pass if you are given a public address system.

Talk less or you just want to recourgnized in the house.

imhotep,  fyneguy,  cyrup - these guys even make more sence than you do- maturity!

Dont be personal.  What do you even understabd by logic? The originator wasent even a christian but we learn from him.

lets be reasonable.

One love- dont be offended.

Yet you quickly forget the Christian "turn the other cheek."

How is this any different from what I wrote?

Still neither, how can a man that thinks less of me just because I have more melanin have much meaningful thing to say that I cannot find in someone who does not hate anyone.

If you are Christian, get rid of your hatred for others, it is not the Christ like thing to do. The Christ like thing to do is love those who do not love you. SO yes, I like Ghandhi and I like his quote. Christians can learn from that. It ties into forgiveness.

_{Pay attention to what someone writes before you post too. Make sure if you're trying to counter, you actually counter.}

~Lady~:

How is this any different from what I wrote?

If you are Christian, get rid of your hatred for others, it is not the Christ like thing to do. The Christ like thing to do is love those who do not love you. SO yes, I like Ghandhi and I like his quote. Christians can learn from that. It ties into forgiveness.

_{Pay attention to what someone writes before you post too. Make sure if you're trying to counter, you actually counter.}

I have no hatred for Ghandi but I will not say I can learn from him, next I will learn to hate blacks and then hate myself. O.k I will pay more attention.

Hi savanaha,

savanaha:

I have no hatred for Ghandi but I will not say I can learn from him, next I will learn to hate blacks and then hate myself.

Is there nothing at all that one can appreciate from Ghandi? If no, it assumes that we know everything about the man - and we can be sure that he did not live his entire life on only the principle of "hating blacks". Not many people have the intelligence and courage he demonstrated many times - and one virtue he exhibited that has endeared him to many people is his advocacy for non-violence even in protests.

I agree that there are some things we could learn from a gentleman like that: it may not suit everyone; but there again, Ghandi did not live his life on just one principle alone (hating blacks) and therefore cannot be judged solely on that basis. What do you say?

syrup:

Hi savanaha,

Is there nothing at all that one can appreciate from Ghandi? If no, it assumes that we know everything about the man - and we can be sure that he did not live his entire life on only the principle of "hating blacks". Not many people have the intelligence and courage he demonstrated many times - and one virtue he exhibited that has endeared him to many people is his advocacy for non-violence even in protests.

I agree that there are some things we could learn from a gentleman like that: it may not suit everyone; but there again, Ghandi did not live his life on just one principle alone (hating blacks) and therefore cannot be judged solely on that basis. What do you say?

I just find it a bit hypocritical that Ghandi was trying to stand up for his people against the British colonists which were treating them as crappy as they (Brits) treated their black colonies however Ghandi thought it alright to hate blacks. Hypocrisy and double standard (basically the same thing) bothers me alot. Am not say that other people cannot see good in Ghandi I just can find another person who underwent great turmoil but sang peace and did not hate people of other races undergoing the same thing he is fighting against.

I am thinking of three people. I can learn from them.

Let's move on and enjoy a bit more about 'logos' and 'logic'. I'd first like to repost this from Wikipedia:

[list]Its semantic field extends beyond "word" to notions such as "thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic". In English, the word is the root of "logic," and of the "-ology" suffix (e.g., geology).

Heraclitus established the term in Western philosophy as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to rational discourse. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as God (theos), providing scriptural support for the Trinity. It is this sense, the Logos as Jesus Christ and God, that is most common in popular culture.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos[/list]

Like I said earlier, the term 'Logos' did not originate as a Christian or theological term - it traces its establishment in Western Philosophy back to Heraclitus (536 BC - 470 BC), and was only later adopted into Jewish philosophy by Philo.

That said, 'Logos' is one of those few words in human language that has multiplied meanings and connotations. . . which is a very interesting point. However, its derivative 'Logic' became an established discipline on its own which is well recognized in Philosophy today. We often speak of "logical conclusions" - but just what do we mean by that term? Not many who use it are aware that it carries the weight of a systematic and analytical investigation into a particular enquiry.

When next you use the term 'Logic', think a little about whether you have drawn you conclusions systematically and rationally.

@savahana,



I can understand where you're coming from - and it's difficult sometimes to reconcile two opposite values in some people. However, if we could rise above those issues that bother us in some personalities, we would be amazed to see some other things that we might not have considered - and which could serve very useful ends to inspire us.

One such quality I admire in Ghandi is his courage and advocacy of non-violence. These two qualities are highly prized today; and not many people can model them for us in our struggles.

Anyhow, . . .

savanaha:

I am thinking of three people. I can learn from them.

That's great. Can you share as well?

iku hope that doesnt mean death.

syrup:

@savahana,



I can understand where you're coming from - and it's difficult sometimes to reconcile two opposite values in some people. However, if we could rise above those issues that bother us in some personalities, we would be amazed to see some other things that we might not have considered - and which could serve very useful ends to inspire us.

One such quality I admire in Ghandi is his courage and advocacy of non-violence. These two qualities are highly prized today; and not many people can model them for us in our struggles.

Anyhow, . . .

That's great. Can you share as well?

Just as well someone might see some good qualities in Hitler.

Anyhow Jesus
Martin Luther King
Mandela

A_K_O

Thats th penalty.

The only sure thing!

savanaha:

Just as well someone might see some good qualities in Hitler.

As best suits them.

hmmm. I've sure ruffled some feathers.
Let me first restate my position. Logic is derived from the Logos! The Christian abides in the logos and the logos in him/her. It follows that the christian is logical. If the christian is not logical the fact is simple: He ain't a christain.

Now to respond to some objections.

syrup:

Let's move on and enjoy a bit more about 'logos' and 'logic'. I'd first like to repost this from Wikipedia:

[list]Its semantic field extends beyond "word" to notions such as "thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic". In English, the word is the root of "logic," and of the "-ology" suffix (e.g., geology).

Heraclitus established the term in Western philosophy as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to rational discourse. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as God (theos), providing scriptural support for the Trinity. It is this sense, the Logos as Jesus Christ and God, that is most common in popular culture.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos[/list]

Like I said earlier, the term 'Logos' did not originate as a Christian or theological term - it traces its establishment in Western Philosophy back to Heraclitus (536 BC - 470 BC), and was only later adopted into Jewish philosophy by Philo.

That said, 'Logos' is one of those few words in human language that has multiplied meanings and connotations. . . which is a very interesting point. However, its derivative 'Logic' became an established discipline on its own which is well recognized in Philosophy today. We often speak of "logical conclusions" - but just what do we mean by that term? Not many who use it are aware that it carries the weight of a systematic and analytical investigation into a particular enquiry.

When next you use the term 'Logic', think a little about whether you have drawn you conclusions systematically and rationally.

Syrup says that the term logos is a philosophical term and not a theological or christian one. Sometimes it is easy to allow arbitrary human categorisations to befuddle our thinking. If something encrouches on the territory of religion then it is a religious matter.

The first written account of Logos that we have is from heraclitus in which he says, to quote you, 'meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. '

Now if that ain't encrouching on religion's territory then I don't know. I've even heard some argue that Buddhism is not a religion. You can study buddhism all your life and never bow down to any god or even hear the mention of any god.

Heraclitus tells us that the world has a source and that this source has ordered the universe in a particular way. How is that not religious?

What more did Heraclitus have to say about the Logos? Taken from the same wikipedia source we find Whatever it was, "all things come to pass in accordance with this word"[47] and "the word is common."[48] It is "the account which governs the universe (ta hola, the whole)."[49]
Logos appears to be some sort of natural law and yet men must "follow the common (hepesthai tō ksunō)"[50] and not live having "their own judgement (phonēsis)" implying a voluntary assent, which natural law does not offer. He distinguishes between human laws and divine law (tou theiou "of God".[51]

He in other words says that all things come to pass by the authority of the Logos and that this Logos is the account which governs the universe. That might still not sound religious to you but to me it certainly infringes on the roles that I believe are God's. Not least when he then says that men must not live according to their own judgement and he makes a distinction between the divine law and the human laws. He teaches The idea that the universe changes according to a plan or logos, with[b] which the truly aware soul should cooperate[/b], is expressed in the notable but obscure DK B1 and DK B2.. In other words he says that the Logos is divine and that we are better off following the format of the Logos than our own human judgement.

Perhaps that doesn't sound religious to you in which case I won't try to convince you any further.

However if you look any where in the world you will find that every people have a belief identical with the belief in Logos. How comes? Is it not arguable that this is something that is written on all men's (and women's) hearts, since the dawn of time?

The point I was trying to make above is that if it looks like a fish, swims like a fish and smells fishy . . . .

then there is no way under God's heaven that you're gonna get me to call it a rabbit.

I want to make a distinction between Logic and Conjecture. Because Conjecture too easily passes for logic.

[center]

between

The logic of this world is foolishness unto God

So worldly logic is quite different from 'supernatural logic'

[/center]

Please Help me clap for fyneguy!

iku:

Pastor AIO-

Pastors don't sound blunt like you do! I can't imagine the meaasge you will pass if you are given a public address system.

Talk less or you just want to recourgnized in the house.

imhotep,  fyneguy,  cyrup - these guys even make more sence than you do- maturity!

Dont be personal.  What do you even understabd by logic? The originator wasent even a christian but we learn from him.

lets be reasonable.

One love- don't be offended.

No offence taken if no offence meant. Heck, even if offence was meant none is taken. Let's dump all that negative energy at the cross shall we.

olrotimi:

pastor aio is illogical himself for that thread.

Pastor AIO: Only a Christian can be Logical. Only a Christian has Reason. Everybody else think along fallacious deluded lines.

What is Logic and what is Reason?

Logic is derived from the Greek term Logos. That which is from the Logos is Logic. Only christians abide in the Logos and have the Logos abide in them. qed- only christians can be logical.

No.

Pastor AIO:

hmmm. I've sure ruffled some feathers.
Let me first restate my position. Logic is derived from the Logos! The Christian abides in the logos and the logos in him/her. It follows that the christian is logical. If the christian is not logical the fact is simple: He ain't a christain.

Once again, no.

Now to respond to some objections.
Syrup says that the term logos is a philosophical term and not a theological or christian one. Sometimes it is easy to allow arbitrary human categorisations to befuddle our thinking. If something encrouches on the territory of religion then it is a religious matter.

Not quite. Philosophy deals with matters that religions also dogmatically cling to: metaphysics. It's not encroaching, as the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The first written account of Logos that we have is from heraclitus in which he says, to quote you, 'meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. '

Now if that ain't encrouching on religion's territory then I don't know. I've even heard some argue that Buddhism is not a religion. You can study buddhism all your life and never bow down to any god or even hear the mention of any god.

Heraclitus tells us that the world has a source and that this source has ordered the universe in a particular way. How is that not religious?

It's not religious because it's not a philosophy that pertains to the worship of a particular deity. Although Heraclitus was vague about what he meant by the logos, it can be deciphered from the extracts that are available, etc, that the logos wasn't a being of substance. It was a part of Heraclitus's cosmology, and a staple element in his philosophy, but it isn't quite the same thing as the Christian conception of the word, nor the modern understanding of what logos entails.

What more did Heraclitus have to say about the Logos? Taken from the same wikipedia source we find Whatever it was, "all things come to pass in accordance with this word"[47] and "the word is common."[48] It is "the account which governs the universe (ta hola, the whole)."[49]
Logos appears to be some sort of natural law and yet men must "follow the common (hepesthai tō ksunō)"[50] and not live having "their own judgement (phonēsis)" implying a voluntary assent, which natural law does not offer. He distinguishes between human laws and divine law (tou theiou "of God".[51]

He in other words says that all things come to pass by the authority of the Logos and that this Logos is the account which governs the universe. That might still not sound religious to you but to me it certainly infringes on the roles that I believe are God's. Not least when he then says that men must not live according to their own judgement and he makes a distinction between the divine law and the human laws. He teaches The idea that the universe changes according to a plan or logos, with[b] which the truly aware soul should cooperate[/b], is expressed in the notable but obscure DK B1 and DK B2.. In other words he says that the Logos is divine and that we are better off following the format of the Logos than our own human judgement.

Perhaps that doesn't sound religious to you in which case I won't try to convince you any further.

Um, Syrup said the use of the term predates Christianity, not religious aspects as a whole. Alluding to the use of the logos in a capacity that precedes Christianity has ensured that your initial argument has been falsified. Further, that the word "logos" also precedes Heraclitus should not be overlooked.

However if you look any where in the world you will find that every people have a belief identical with the belief in Logos. How comes? Is it not arguable that this is something that is written on all men's (and women's) hearts, since the dawn of time?

No and no.

I've got an argument for you. It goes . ,

no and no and no and no again. . . .no . NO! no. nonononono.

What are the steps of reasoning, how do I arrive at my point. Well, let's not let that minor detail bother us.

no no no nno!!

'They told me to go to rehab
I said NO NO NO'

Pastor AIO:

I've got an argument for you. It goes . ,

no and no and no and no again. . . .no . NO! no. nonononono.

What are the steps of reasoning, how do I arrive at my point. Well, let's not let that minor detail bother us.

no no no nno!!

'They told me to go to rehab
I said NO NO NO'

The no suffices because I was certain the rest of the posts and the main body of my post addresses those points. For instance, the argument that got a "no" response was rebutted by arguments pointing to the incident of logos outside of and before Christianty, etc. If you want me to expand on the nos I can.