Comment: That's not logic.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Hi b, (see in situ)

That's not logic.

"Just because something appears to be a contradiction to us, by no means does it invalidate anything because we don't have the whole picture. "

I think you are misusing the term logic and thinking of a more general concept in its place. perhaps you mean comprehensible understanding and call it logic. Logic is much closer to math than understanding. There can be a logical proof for something that is so complicated that no one would be able to figure out the truth or falsity of its conclusion in their lifetime. The term 'invalidate' is a very specific technical term in logic, dealing with argument forms. By arguments, I don't mean peoples rants, I mean logical arguments like modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens But the term 'invalid' is often misapplied by extension and almost never means in regular conversation what it does in logic. Both valid and invalid arguments could have a true or false conclusion in logic. People tend to mix up the terms 'valid' and 'true' as well as 'valid' and 'sound'.

"Is it logical at all to human beings that the great High King would come down from His throne and give His life for the GUILTY leper condemned to death? "

That isn't really a question of logic, it's more a question of appropriateness or foreseeability of a single premis. You offer a mere premise, not an actual argument or logic. If you offered an argument like the following:

Premises:
A: God came down from his throne and gave his life for the guilty leper condemned to death
B: God is a High King
C: Sensible High kings do not come down from their thrones and give their lives for guilty lepers condemned to death

Conclusion: therefore God is not a sensible high king

That would be logic, a logical argument with a false premise and a conclusion which is not true. so it would be a valid, but unsound argument.

It is not invalid in the logical sense, but it isn't sound because the conclusion is not true due to the false premise. Logic has very specific technical meanings for certain words which is not how most people use those words in daily conversation. A premise can not be 'invalid', it can only be true or false. If we don't know enough about a subject, we might have a hard time putting the correct truth value on a premise, and that is no weakness in logic, but rather a weakness in ones use of logic.

"When you boil faith down, isn't it really the idea of believing the incomprehensible or the unexplainable or sometimes even the illogical?"

Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".. NOT the evidence of things inconsistent and not logical... Faith is a trust, and trust is earned. It's not exclusively related to the unknowable. You can have faith in something obvious like the sun rising on a morning that the Lord does not return. You can trust in something illogical, but I don't think God asks us to do that. God is truth, and logic is truth. An argument can be illogical and still have a true conclusion, but it's premises would not all be true or its logical form would not be truly valid.. and in God there is only truth. The bible says God does not lie. so I wouldn't assume God wants to offer us a lie or false or illogical information.

Logic doesn't deal with the material world, it only deals with truth values. If God wants to change the material world at times, that would only change how we might apply truth values to premises, but it would not change logic.

I think logic classes should be given at early prepubescent ages, most people don't know what logic really is, but in my view, it's more important than arithmetic.