>I don't want to beat this into the ground, but for the sake of clarity:
I don't either, but given that you say:
>1. My working definition of a contradiction is a set of statements that
>affirm both A and NOT A.
I'm not sure how can you say that:
>5. I do not believe that either paradox or contradiction indicate error,
>nor that formal logic is the only or best avenue to truth.
(a) given two statements, one affirming A and the other denying A,
at the same time and in the same sense, then one of those statements
is necessarily false. Assuming, as we must, that the author intends
to assert the truth of both, then he surely must be mistaken on one
count. This is surely an indication of error!
(b) Logic is not properly an avenue to truth, that is the function of
revelation. Logic or coherence is a test for falsehood. Two propositions
may not contradict, but both be false. They may be contrary in which
case one or both are false. Or they may be contradictories, in which
case exactly one is false. Logic won't tell _which_ is false though
so it is not properly an avenue to truth.
(c) Jesus is the Logos. If you look that up in LSJ, you will notice
that all of the definitions are related to rationality. I think the
point is that God is wholly coherent and wholly rational. His Word,
then, cannot be thought to be anything less than wholly rational,
whether we happen to understand it or not.
EIRHNH,
Jim
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
The worth and excellence of a soul is to
be measured by the object of its love.
~ Henry Scougal
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/