Rational, Arational, Irrational - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

TheDon · #16 08-10-2011, 12:01 PM

Podium vs. Lectern!!!!

elchivito · #17 08-10-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Clk Man

Come on guys, type in plain English, not all of us have PHD's from Harvard. Why all the BIG words.

Reminds me of a conversation I was having recently with a friend. He proposed that god made man special out of all the species and used language as an example. "Only humans can communicate with such depth and variety".
Science of course has shown us that many species, including bacteria, plants and of course animals communicate quite well. I sometimes wonder if the fact that we spend so much time trying to clarify and explain our communication isn't an example of how poorly evolved we really are in relation to other species.
Perhaps the ability to talk, rather than communicate, is a curse rather than a blessing.

sjh · #18 08-10-2011, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

More avoidance. As I pointed out, you were the one who began with the use of 'not rational' not me. Only later in the discussion when I began using 'irrational' did your argument switch to non-rational or arational. My use of 'irrational' was completing compatible with your initial claims.

When I use the term 'not rational' and see that you understand something different than what I am trying to say I clarify. The movement from 'not rational' to non-rational to arational was trying to find mutual acceptance and understanding.

I don't expect you to agree with me but to have a conversation we need to find agreed upon terms. This is pretty standard stuff in a discussion.

I stated my perspective that everyone one has belief systems that are not rational. You took that in a direction different than what I was trying communicate. Nothing wrong with that but it did not allow me to express my idea.

So I tried the phrase non-rational. You extrapolated that to irrational. I have two problems with that: its connotation and that one meaning of irrational is anti-rational.

Again you can do what you chose but your statements about irrationality are not the idea I am trying to express.

So I did some research and learned the terms that are used in philosophy (your field), looked at how some philosophers discuss this material and then tried to express myself with words from your discipline.

I've been trying to find a way we can get past the initial sparing and actually converse.

------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Sure emotional connotations are important in communication as was obvious in your response which amounted to 'I don't like your words so I won't continue talking to you unless you stop using them and start using my words.' ...

That is almost what occurred. Quite close. I did and do reject having a discussion (a debate would be fine but if folks can't even discuss, they sure can't debate) where my Christian beliefs are called irrational.

So, as I write above, I have offered a number of differing words. Finally I searched your discipline and found the term arational.

---------------

continued on next posting....

sjh · #19 08-10-2011, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The real key to the issue however, is your reference to the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact. This debate was partly initiated by a comment by Botnst that believing in the resurrection as a matter of faith was fine by him since this was outside the bounds of rational discussion. Your position is very different than this since you are justifying a belief in the resurrection historically.

These are the two sentences in discussion...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

Paul said, these FACTS occurred: the man lived, he died, he was resurrected, he was seen by many after the resurrection. Paul claims these are facts and that (when he wrote) there are numerous people alive who could attest to their veracity.

While I certainly and completely believe that Jesus is resurrected I was pointing out what an amazing document Paul has written.

He was writing to people in ~50 AD. He said here are statements that I, Paul am making. Now this is what is so unusual. He said, if you do not believe me go down to the port, go to the market, talk to your neighbor. You will find someone who is alive, right now who actually has seen the resurrected Christ.

I do not know of any other Holy Book where the author states, go ask your friends, you'll find 1st-hand witnesses who'll agree.

------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Of course, all of that prior paragraph would be irrelevant if you were the kind of Christian who:

1. thought that the miraculous resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact was irrelevant to their religion.

2. you could be a Christian mystic who reads the story like all other mythological story as about events that can be repeated in the human psyche but not intended to be a scientific historical description of magical events. In other words, as long as Jesus lives in you, it doesn't matter whether the resurrection is historical or not.

3. Or, you could be a kind of demythologizer like Bultmann who reads the stories of the NT in similar mythological terms but sees their relevance in existential human decisionmaking.

But from what I have read on your posts here, you don't seem to fall into either of those categories.

I would not use the terms magical or mythological.

I understand what you have said above and thank you for the content and tone.

Of course my only options aren't 1, 2 or 3.

I believe the message of Jesus, that He is the Son of God, that He came to heal humanitie's separation from God, that this was accomplished by His crucifixtion, that He conquered Satan and defeated death is a historical fact.

I also believe because of this a believer has the resurrected Jesus living in and through him. And that the believer is transformed by the presence of the indwelling Christ.

Further, that some people are concious of the indwelling presence and commune with God on an ongoing basis. This describes myself.

I'll attempt to be clear, non-evasive and available for further conversation.

Kuan · #20 08-10-2011, 06:35 PM

Modern Day Resurrection

Quote:

A 50-year-old South African man woke up inside a mortuary over the weekend and screamed to be let out - scaring away attendants who thought he was a ghost.

His family presumed he was dead when they could not wake him on Saturday night and contacted a private morgue in a rural village in the Eastern Cape.

He spent almost 24 hours inside the morgue, the region's health department spokesman told the Sapa news agency.

The two attendants later returned and called for an ambulance.

kerry · #21 08-10-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

I believe the message of Jesus, that He is the Son of God, that He came to heal humanitie's separation from God, that this was accomplished by His crucifixtion, that He conquered Satan and defeated death is a historical fact.

I don't understand that sentence. There's some kind of grammar problem. I don't see how any of those claims could count as an historical fact. Was there some kind of battle between Jesus and Satan that could be observed by historians, the encounter detailed and a victor announced? Nobody to my knowledge has ever observed such events.

kerry · #22 08-10-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

Modern Day Resurrection

I know two Christian ministers who claimed to have raised the dead.

The Swede · #23 08-10-2011, 07:16 PM

I had some gas today that would raise the dead. Jeebus farts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK_RGgEwsGY&feature=related

elchivito · #24 08-10-2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I don't understand that sentence. There's some kind of grammar problem. I don't see how any of those claims could count as an historical fact. Was there some kind of battle between Jesus and Satan that could be observed by historians, the encounter detailed and a victor announced? Nobody to my knowledge has ever observed such events.

"I believe the message of Jesus,... that He conquered Satan and defeated death is a historical fact."

It's a matter of faith. If I say I believe it's a historical fact that aliens landed in Roswell doesn't actually mean it's a historical fact, it just means I believe it is. Another example of obfuscation. "Feint and dodge".

kerry · #25 08-10-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

"I believe the message of Jesus,... that He conquered Satan and defeated death is a historical fact."

It's a matter of faith. If I say I believe it's a historical fact that aliens landed in Roswell doesn't actually mean it's a historical fact, it just means I believe it is. Another example of obfuscation. "Feint and dodge".

Ooops, looks like I need reading lessons.

I think aliens landing in Roswell has far more potential to qualify as an historical fact that Jesus conquering Satan.

Hatterasguy · #26 08-10-2011, 08:27 PM

That's my problem I don't have faith.

For example, I don't have faith that if I give the "super" of one of my uncles buildings a $20 to put in a light switch that he will do it and not run off to his crack dealer and buy a rock.

But I do have faith in the crack dealer that if I only give the guy $10 up front the dealer won't sell him a rock on credit.

Is that kind of like how it works?

chilcutt · #27 08-10-2011, 10:03 PM

If we take history in the wider sense of probability of happenings, not strictly that recorded in writing.
Because something was not recorded in writing does not necessarily mean that it absolutely did not occur if reconstructions from data via various disciplines of archeoligy or linguisticts could point to its probable occurrance.
On the other hand, history strictly in the sense of written records is not entirely faultless as written records too may be extremely bias or even wholly untrue.

The Swede · #28 08-10-2011, 10:15 PM

I have faith, but not belief.

tonkovich · #29 08-10-2011, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

If we take history in the wider sense of probability of happenings, not strictly that recorded in writing.
Because something was not recorded in writing does not necessarily mean that it absolutely did not occur if reconstructions from data via various disciplines of archeoligy or linguisticts could point to its probable occurrance.
On the other hand, history strictly in the sense of written records is not entirely faultless as written records too may be extremely bias or even wholly untrue.

if we just think for a moment, we might:

a) realize that none of us has seen anyone come back from the dead after being dead for at least two, if not three days. why would such a thing only occur once, two thousand years ago?

b) understand that people two thousand years ago weren't that bright.

c) wonder why, if these great prophets, who were in contact with the alleged "almighty", - who knew all of the past and future - never got any knowledge about science, medicine, geology, geography, the future, and whose writings also were quite limited and provincial, thereby making their alleged contact with the all knowing omniscient one severely doubtful?

d) realize that most people get indoctrinated at some point in life, either when a helpless child, or later, when in a seemingly hopeless situation, and willing to believe in just about anything. (think AA, ghost shirt society, cargo cults etc.)

sjh · #30 08-12-2011, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I don't understand that sentence. There's some kind of grammar problem. I don't see how any of those claims could count as an historical fact. Was there some kind of battle between Jesus and Satan that could be observed by historians, the encounter detailed and a victor announced? Nobody to my knowledge has ever observed such events.

Sure. Here's what I hear.

Paul said folks saw this dead man walking around Jerusalem.

Some of those people are alive today. Go talk to them.

Doesn't do you or I much good but to the guy in 53 AD to say, "this guy Paul is making some crazy things, let me go talk to some folks who where in the city and see if they saw what Paul is saying."

I'm not aware of where homer says, go to the market and talk to folks that built the trojan horse or something similar.

It's not suppose to make you or anyone else jump up and say, "shezam, now I'm saved."

it's just a pretty unique feature of those books.