Cuando la lógica se convierte en locura

Cuando la ló gica se convierte en locura

Una vieja broma cuenta la historia de un profesor que, en cierta ocasió n, puso una rana sobre su escritorio, ante la vista de todos sus discí pulos. Entonces, procedió a decir a la clase: “Hoy voy a mostrarles el mé todo que utilizamos los expertos para hacer las grandes deducciones cientí ficas”. Entonces, dirigié ndose hacia la rana, procedió a gritarle diciendo, “¡ ¡ Salta!! ”; a lo cual, la rana (ya sea por el entrenamiento que habí a recibido, o ya sea por la sorpresa), respondió dando un gran salto.
Acto seguido, el profesor tomó un par de tijeras, y cortó despiadadamente las patas del pobre animal. Entonces, luego de ponerla de vuelta sobre el escritorio, volvió a gritarle, “¡ ¡ Salta!!! ”. Pero, en esta ocasió n, el triste animal no se movió ni un solo centí metro. Entonces, volteá ndose hacia sus ató nitos discí pulos, el profesor procedió a decirles con aire triunfalista: “¿ Ven lo que ha sucedido? Acabo de demostrales cientí ficamente que, si cortamos las patas de una rana, ¡ la hacemos completamente sorda! ”
¿ Que significado tiene esta “só rdida” broma? Pues significa que las cosas no son ciertas por el mero hecho de que sean ló gicas. ¿ Por que? Pues porque hay cosas que aparentan ser perfectamente ló gicas, pero en realidad son un tipo de locura. ¿ Y por que son locura? Pues simplemente porque está n desconectadas de la realidad. Y, algo muy similar, ocurre con el “Nuevo Testamento”; un libro que, aunque muy noble, a veces alega cosas que de entrada aparentan ser perfectamente ló gicas; pero que cuando se contrastan con la realidad resultan ser un tipo de locura. Un buen ejemplo de ello podrí a ser el apó stol Pablo (paz y bendició n sean con el), quien alega que nadie será justificado por obedecer los mandamientos de la Ley Divina; pues, la justificació n del hombre no viene por “obedecer” a Dios, sino por “creerle” a Dios (Romanos 2: 17-25, & 3: 19-20).
¿ Podrí a usted imaginar a algú n conductor negligente, alegando ante el Juez de su ciudad que, lo importante no es obedecer la ley de transito, sino “creer” en su redactor? ¿ Decir que lo importante no es obedecer los limites de velocidad, sino “creer” en ellos? ¿ Que dirí a usted si le escuchase alegar que, ya que nadie puede guardar perfectamente la Ley de transito, ningú n conductor es responsable de hacerlo? ¿ No pensarí a usted que tal persona esta algo desquiciada?

“ The LGBTQ lobby has all the trappings of a dangerous cult: One that brainwashes, traps, and blackmails it’s followers”

What do Reformed Samaritans mean, when they claim Christian theology is true only in an allegorical sense?

The Hebrew Scripture is clear, when it states that the God worshiped by the ancient Israeli people was no man at all (“For He is no man... ”- 1 Samuel 15: 29; “God is no man... ”- Numbers 23: 19). And it is also clear when it states that, while this God is inherently sinless ("... His work is perfect: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He" - Deut. 32: 4), it is no less true that man is inherently flawed and sinful (“For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth [only] good, and sinneth not”- Ecclesiastes 7: 20). In addition, Scripture teaches that there's no other Savior, nor annointed (Messiah) Redeemer, besides this God whose Hebrew name is " YHVH" (Adonai Yah, the God of Abraham). As is written: “I, I am י ה ו ה (Adonai Yah), and there is no Savior beside me”- Isaiah 43: 11 (Tree of Life Version Bible). Finally, Scripture states that, if there is anyone worthy of being called " the Son of God", as well as " God's own Servant", it is the community of believers represented by the ancient Israeli people. As it has been said: " And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, 'Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My Son, even My Firstborn' " - Exodus 4: 22; And also in another place, " And said unto me, Thou art My Servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified" - Isaiah 49: 3.
But if the former is true, then why do the Christian gospels ascribe all of the former titles (God, sinless man, Savior, Redeemer, Messiah, Son of God, God's Servant, etc) to the man named Jesus? Well, the answer is very simple, and is actually provided by the gospels, when they go on to say: “Jesus told the crowds all these things in parables, and he did not tell them anything without a parable”- Matthew 13: 3. In other words, since Jesus spoke only in parables, none of the claims he made were supposed to be taken in a literal sense, but rather in an allegorical fashion. Consider a first example: Jesus is quoted saying that John the Baptist is the promised Elijah that would come right before the Jewish Messiah (" And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come... " - Matthew 11: 14). But the fact is that the former cannot be literally true, as John himself openly declares that he isn't the literal Elijah (who, according to the Hebrew Bible, is a different physical person still alive somewhere in the heavens). As is written: " And they asked him [John the Baptist], What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am Not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No" - John 1: 21. Again, John states that he is not Elijah, while Jesus says that he is. Is one of them lying? No! John says he is not Elijah [in a literal sense]; while Jesus says he is Elijah [in an allegorical sense].
Consider a second example: Jesus claims to be the King of the Jews (" Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked him, saying, 'Are you the King of the Jews? '. [And] Jesus said to him, 'It is as you say' " - Matthew 27: 11. But, did Jesus really want to be the [literal] king of the Jews? Of course not! Jesus didn't want to have anything to do with human politics. How do we know it? We know it from the fact that when the Jews tried to make him their [literal] king, Jesus fled away from them (" When Jesus therefore perceived that they [THE JEWS] would come and take him by force, TO MAKE HIM KING, he departed again into a mountain himself alone" - John 6: 15). The truth is that Jesus wasn't talking about any physical kingdom somewhere in this world, but rather about an " out of this world" (non physical) kingdom. As he himself said: " Jesus answered, 'my kingdom in not from this world... my kingdom is not from here' " - John 18: 36.
Finally, consider the following: Jews expected a literal Messiah- the " branch of Jesse" (or the biological " Son of David" ) mentioned by the prophet (" There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, The Spirit of Wisdom and understanding... He shall strike the Earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked" - Isaiah 11: 1-4). But, was Jesus the literally (biological) Son Of David? of course not! Why? Two main reasons; in the first place [and according to the gospel], Jesus had no biological father, as he was [allegedly] conceived by the Holy spirit; therefore he could not have been a biological son of any of Jesse's male descendants (keep in mind that Jews traced tribal lineage by their father's genealogy). Secondly, Jesus himself rejected that the Messiah would be a literal son of David. Why? Because, according to Jesus, it would be odd for a father to call any of his offspring " Lord". As is written: “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself says by the Holy Spirit: The Lord declared to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet’... DAVID HIMSELF CALLS HIM ‘LORD’; HOW THEN CAN HE BE HIS SON? ”- Mark 12: 35-37.