Must religion be logical?

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Do you get your jollies trying to poke holes in the Bible or what?All of these good things you quote from the Bible, as evidence for your interpretation, are called such by God before the fall of man.You don't have to go far in Genesis to see what else the Bible you quoted has to say...Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.Romans 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

I haven't poked any holes in the Bible. I've quoted the Bible to show that you are wrong. You haven't addressed the point of my post at all.Here's what I quoted:

quote:

---

scottness writes:
He is God. He is good, and evil is evil. That is either true, or it isn’t. But we can’t have it both ways because in the very beginning God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1: 3-4)

---

I pointed out that your Genesis 1 quote has nothing to do with good versus evil - everything was good. Therefore, your statement that God is good and evil is evil does not follow from your own quote. Non sequitur.Once again, you demonstrate that your religion is illogical.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Oh........ now I see what you're trying to say. You little devil you!What's the matter with you?He did not say that the darkness was good, He said that the light was good.Big difference!

You should really stop trying to look at things as right and wrong or black and white.

Still not paying attention? Tsk tsk.

quote:

---

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

---

Everything that He made was good - the darkness and the light.
There simply is no good/evil dichotomy in Genesis 1. No "trying" necessary. Your posts speak for themselves.
(Though it is a little embarassing to be seen picking on the poster-boy for illogic.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo, you've done a goodjob in terms of devil's advocate (no pun intended). But let's slow down if logic is really to be preserved. We may not resove this, but it's deeper than you think.Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. Ok...Did God create the darkness?Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.Ok...Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.Since God Himself forms the light is the light, I wonder how deep this rabbit hole goes...Does God's existence create the darkness by simple contrast and thereby make darkness good?Paul indicates this same line of questioning in Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8 Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved. 9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." 13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."Paul says more on the subject of the Law in Romans 7.Romans 7:13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.In other words, is it good to point out darkness (evil) for what it is? That way it can be good/light to God, even though it is evil/darkness.Does darkness illuminate light?Don't know how many can follow that in such deep terms, but for those that can, it is not so easy to say what you're saying Ringo. Personally, I have never thought it through this much and realize that faith is still at work where I thought there was solid ground. You've moved me. But the fact is, God's properties are very difficult to pin down. Just ask any theoretical physicist. So your position is also faith based.Ultimately and inevitably, all of our answers become metaphysical. but if you noticed I'm not laughing anymore. You have my respect.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

Irrelevant.You used a quote from Genesis 1 to "conclude" that God is good and evil is evil. I pointed out that that conclusion does not follow in any way, from your quote in Genesis 1.Now you're backtracking and trying to bring in quotes from all over creation to show that your conclusion is correct.But I'm not questioning your conclusion. I'm questioning your logic in reaching that conclusion. Based on your original logic from Genesis 1 alone, your conclusion does not follow. I haven't taken any position. I'm not necessarily even trying to show the flaws in your position. I'm trying to show the flaws in your route to that position.If you skip steps, if you take shortcuts, if The Answer^TM is your goal, you can miss a lot along the way.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You have not shown that. You did show however, that I made a shortcut that I did not see. But in the process of filling in those gaps, I am even more secure of the coherence of my position than before. Thanks!It's this simple really...From God's point of view, all things in creation are good (even evil) because He is God and can handle the knowledge of good and evil. But we are not God, and cannot handle the knowledge of good and evil.

You went from A to C without passing through B. That shortcut is a flaw in logic.I repeat: Based on your original logic from Genesis 1 alone, your conclusion does not follow. That's a shame. The point is not to prop up your position - it's to improve your methodology.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Apparently I am not as 'deep' as some of you, but where is the whole idea of God creating darkness coming from?

From the Off-Topic Sea.The subject is the logic, not the subject of the logic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The point is not to prop up your position - it's to improve your methodology.Yes, and I thank you for helping.

Jung's model of the human psyche may be of some help to us here.Jung suggested that we gain knowledge through four psychological functions. Proceeding from the most conscious to the least conscious, the functions are:

1. reason
2. sensation
3. emotion
4. intuition

He said we all have one function we favor and one that tends to be our weakest. Even so, the mind seeks balance. The mind is healthiest when it runs on all four cyclinders in as balanced a fashion as possible. This gives us access to the maximum amount of new information and enables the maximum amount of learning to take place.We become most prone to psychological disorders, Jung said, when we skew too much toward one function. Neglected functions have a way of making their demands felt if we do this. If we do not pay attention to the functions we neglect, they will pay attention to us--in the form of obsessions, neuroses, recurring nightmares, psychoses.A major world religion becomes a major world religion by appealing to all four ways of knowing. This allows it to be of the most benefit to its adherents and attracts the broadest range of human personalities. This mix in turn helps keep the religion balanced. Groups can become skewed, and thus sick, as well. A broad mix of personality strengths helps prevent this.This model suggests that reason is important, but so are other things. Reason should certainly not be violated by a belief system. But not all aspects of the religion are obliged to prove their worth through reason.In traditional liturgical Christianity, for example, we can identify elements that appeal mainly to rational thought (creed, sermon, catechism), sensation (incense, music, art), emotion (stories, music) and intuition (meditation, silence, mysticism of all kinds). We can identify a similar range of elements for any other major religion: Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Shinto. To enter a temple is to enter a place where one is surrounded by symbols that, in combination, engage our attention on every level.Perhaps this is why paradoxes are such a regular feature of religious teachings. Become strong by becoming weak, become wise by becoming a know-nothing, action through non-action, one deity in three persons. Logically, such statements are self-contradictions. For that very reason, though, they get our attention. They invited us to reflect on how the apparent contradictions can possibly be reconciled. As we reflect, a greater and more comprehensive range of our faculties becomes engaged. It's an integrating process.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Jung believed a lot o' wacky stuff.It makes for fun, interesting philosophy, but there ain't nothing scientifical 'bout it.Just sayin'.

I see logic has left the building.
Let me try to bring it back.A world and religion must have logic.All that we know follows a logic trail to a root or beginning somewhere.
Humans are very good at furthering science, art, humanities and whatever else we chose to advance.the concept of God was born in divers countries and nations all over the earth at various times with these places having no knowledge of each other. This indicates intelligent intervention.Thus the search was born.
Prophets and shaman witch doctors and soothsayers did the rest.For logic in their tale we have used old manuscripts printed hundreds of years after the death of all the living sources of information for these books. Some errors were evidently made but we still gleam much from these early writings.Even if we work backwards today, we still find the logic trail for Biblical writings.
I assert that all the systems around us are logical and indeed Perfect. Coming from a Perfect God.
The world is doing very well. Certainly we can improve but all in all, the level of good is well up on evil. We are still going out and reproducing, filling the earth, doing exactly what God want's us to do.From Genesis on up to Revelation the logic trail is visible.
From our glorious flight from the garden of ignorance to the great world of knowledge. To the time of the end when we recognize the need for world government and world religion and world peace.Logic dictates that if the systems around us are Perfect, and they are, then it can be said that they came from Perfection because only Perfection can create Perfection. It must need follow then that there was a first Perfection and we humans have placed a name to this first Perfection and called it God.
We invented the word God not God Himself. We discovered Him.Here is your irrefutable logic trail.The only question left to answer is do we see the Perfections in the systems we see around us. Those who have eyes see.Regards
DL