Non-believers view a rational one in light of things like this?

[muffler dragon]

Philosophies, mythologies, and traditions that do not originate from the Old or New Testaments. A better adjective than "pagan" would probably be "Gentile". I use the two words interchangeably and sometimes forget that not everyone does.

I don't know that this description would be of much assistance in this discussion as there are many "foreign" concepts in the "New" Testament that did not originate in the "Old" Testament.

 

[muffler dragon]

Yes, we remain human, and therefore must battle against the flesh; but at the same time those of us who believe salvation comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus also acknowledge that when we receive salvation our hearts are to be circumcized and we receive the Holy Spirit. This being the case, why do we retain all these faults to the degree we do? Again, I'm not saying they are going to disappear all together, that won't happen until the resurrection of the dead, but they should diminish to a much greater extent than we typically see among all Christians, regardless of denomination.

I believe that the answer is in the Scripture that you hold dear:

Romans 7
18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my (A)flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

19For (B)the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (C)I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Paul was not able to overcome the sin that his "flesh" wanted to do.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I don't know that this description would be of much assistance in this discussion as there are many "foreign" concepts in the "New" Testament that did not originate in the "Old" Testament.

To that we will simply have to disagree.

I believe that the answer is in the Scripture that you hold dear:

Romans 7
18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my (A)flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

19For (B)the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (C)I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Paul was not able to overcome the sin that his "flesh" wanted to do.

What you quote from Paul is not the end of his thought process though. In Chapter 7, he is describing the conflict between yetzer h'ra and yetzer h'tov; but in chapter 8 he speaks of the defeat of the yetzer h'ra through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

 

[muffler dragon]

To that we will simply have to disagree.

Of course.

What you quote from Paul is not the end of his thought process though. In Chapter 7, he is describing the conflict between yetzer h'ra and yetzer h'tov; but in chapter 8 he speaks of the defeat of the yetzer h'ra through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

I can understand how you would interpret or infer something like that from subsequent passages. However, for me, I never see him refuting his contention that the "sin" in his flesh goes away. Let's look at this consideration in its entirity:

Romans 7
14For we know that the Law is (Z)spiritual, but I am (AA)of flesh, (AB)sold (AC)into bondage to sin.

15For what I am doing, (AD)I do not understand; for I am not practicing (AE)what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with (AF)the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17So now, (AG)no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my (AH)flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19For (AI)the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (AJ)I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21I find then (AK)the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in (AL)the inner man,
23but I see (AM)a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the (AN)law of my mind and making me a prisoner of (AO)the law of sin which is in my members.
24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from (AP)the body of this (AQ)death? 25(AR)Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh (AS)the law of sin.

Please feel free to show me in Chapter 8 where Paul says that a person's flesh doesn't follow sin. He says that the flesh is "dead" metaphorically, but that doesn't mean that a person's body doesn't act the same as it did before. Paul supposedly had the Holy Spirit at the time of this writing and he proclaims in Chapter seven that his flesh is in bondage to sin. Now, the death of Jesus, according to Paul, provides forgivenss from that sin that the body cannot restrain itself from doing. However, I don't see anywhere that he says that one will not do what the flesh desires. Maybe it's just been too long to remember.

 

[BuckeyeInTheBoro]

Non-believers view a rational one in light of things like this?

That's an interesting phrasing. A bit of a leap akin to "Some believer's views are irrational therefore all non-believer's views are rational" isn't it? Not attacking, just pointing out what I see in the phrasing of the original question. Of course it was meant to spark discussion and seems to have been successful enough in that regard.

Anyway, "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly we (humans) do not share a vision of what comprises rational thought. That said, I've never understood this "third holiest place in Islam", "holiest place in Christianity" business and do find it terribly irrational. Of course, I also voluntarily give a portion of my earnings away, go to a building at least once a week to hear lessons derived from a book that has been around for thousands of years and have conversations in my head with a being that I have never seen, touched, or heard. I would imagine a number of you find that terribly irrational.

On the flip side, the ideas that all life "just kinda happened" or that monkeys (given enough time and just the right conditions) can turn into humans, or that all of the wonderful systems we study as nature and science came about by trial-and-error or by chance seems irrational to me too.

 

[Gatorubet]

That's an interesting phrasing. A bit of a leap akin to "Some Christian views are irrational therefore all non-Christian views are rational" isn't it? Not attacking, just pointing out what I see in the phrasing of the original question. Of course it was meant to spark discussion and seems to have been successful enough in that regard.

Not the leap I was going for Boro. But the article really struck me in a painful way. Here one of the holiest sites in Christendom is falling down, and it may do so because the several denominations entrusted to its care are so petty that they would rather fight and send each other to the hospital than unite and display what should be a Christian attitude.

Anyway, "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly we (humans) do not share a vision of what comprises rational thought. That said, I've never understood this "third holiest place in Islam", "holiest place in Christianity" business and do find it terribly irrational. Of course, I also voluntarily give a portion of my earnings away, go to a building at least once a week to hear lessons derived from a book that has been around for thousands of years and have conversations in my head with a being that I have never seen, touched, or heard. I would imagine a number of you find that terribly irrational.

Um. I'm an elder in my church and so the same things you, so I do not find that terribly irrational, no. I guess the point is that if there is no nexus between the religion and the adherents to that religion, then one would not be irrational in concluding that the religion is morally bankrupt.

I would guess you were brought up in a Christian home and had a Sunday School upbringing. I did not. I came to religion later in life. My denomination and my beliefs were not chosen by family or community, but were my own. So I tend to stand back a little when I see some of these things and think about my past, as the main thing that kept me from exploring religion more in my youth were more than a few negative interactions with self proclaimed Christians who are bona fide asshats. Now, that is not Christianity's fault, as it were, but if you are not a believer, you tend to look at the various denominations and religions in a consumer type manner. You compare and investigate. And just as if you would be more unlikely to join flavor X if all of the people belonging to flavor X had serious negative traits, the sad spectacle described in the article would likely affect many in that same way. Perhaps it was my disappointment in their actions and the reality that they are driving people away from their professed religion is the thing that darkened my tone.

On the flip side, the ideas that all life "just kinda happened" or that monkeys (given enough time and just the right conditions) can turn into humans, or that all of the wonderful systems we study as nature and science came about by trial-and-error or by chance seems irrational to me too.

Other than you describe a theory of the origin of life that evolutionists do not share (monkeys into man), there are a myriad of ways that life could have begun, all of them caused by God, and none of them be a historical account of some nude dude made out of clay. Saying the world is around 6 thousand years old, as some do, is irrational to me.

But that was not the point of my post. I guess it is my personal belief that mere faith alone is a piss poor reason to believe a religion. I mean, if the world was balanced on Kurma the turtle's back, as the Hindu Creation Myth was, and you based your faith on that, then the rest of your faith would be gone when geologists drilling to the earth's core did not strike turtle.

As the LDS Book of Mormon requires native Americans to be the lost children of Israel, the DNA proof that they are not has to have them scurrying for a major crayfishing on Holy Scripture.

Here, one of the things that non-Christians look when examining religion is the effect on your life if you adhere to the religion. I mean, we are not perfect, and all sinner, but if our joining a church led to a significant increase in wife beating and drug use and felony conviction, then it would not take a rocket scientist to see that the premise of a life changing experience in Christianity is bull. You would logically hold the priests and monks of a religion in an even higher place. So when something like what is described in the article happens, it should give pause to non-Christan's to listen to us.

I guess I see the article as a bigger tragedy than the crumbling of mortar and brick. It would seem to me that it may have turned thousands from Christianity.

 

[muffler dragon]

I would guess you were brought up in a Christian home and had a Sunday School upbringing. I did not. I came to religion later in life. My denomination and my beliefs were not chosen by family or community, but were my own. So I tend to stand back a little when I see some of these things and think about my past, as the main thing that kept me from exploring religion more in my youth were more than a few negative interactions with self proclaimed Christians who are bona fide asshats. Now, that is not Christianity's fault, as it were, but if you are not a believer, you tend to look at the various denominations and religions in a consumer type manner. You compare and investigate. And just as if you would be more unlikely to join flavor X if all of the people belonging to flavor X had serious negative traits, the sad spectacle described in the article would likely affect many in that same way. Perhaps it was my disappointment in their actions and the reality that they are driving people away from their professed religion is the thing that darkened my tone.

If I may interject...

For one who has had an inverted "direction" in life from what you describe above, it's been interesting to deal with the considerations in reverse. Needless to say, I've had to temper a lot of emotion since my departure from Christianity. Ultimately, for me, it comes down to understanding (and remembering) that we're all human beings regardless of ______ (insert trait).

But that was not the point of my post. I guess it is my personal belief that mere faith alone is a [censored] poor reason to believe a religion.

Indeed. It is my belief that G-d gave us all the gray matter above the brain stem for use; not just to fill up the potentially empty space in the noggin. :)

 

[Taosman]

This whole controversy points to the stupidity of such a non-inclusive vision of religion. Fundamentalists are tied to a narrow view that can't accept another viewpoint.
Let the whole building crumble and fall to the ground! It serves no good purpose while it stands. Only by losing what they love will they gain true compassion and respect for other religious views.

 

[muffler dragon]

This whole controversy points to the stupidity of such a non-inclusive vision of religion. Fundamentalists are tied to a narrow view that can't accept another viewpoint.
Let the whole building crumble and fall to the ground! It serves no good purpose while it stands. Only by losing what they love will they gain true compassion and respect for other religious views.

That reads like a rather empirical position for a non-adherent who disagrees with potential "fundamentalists". How is this not the complete opposite end of the pendulum? Or is that your intent? Invert the thing so that the middle is reached.

 

[Gatorubet]

That reads like a rather empirical position for a non-adherent who disagrees with potential "fundamentalists". How is this not the complete opposite end of the pendulum? Or is that your intent? Invert the thing so that the middle is reached.

That's just Taos. He'd rather sit cross legged in his white jammies burning incense and listening to Yanni than handle snakes. :tongue2:

Freedom of religion.

 

[Taosman]

That reads like a rather empirical position for a non-adherent who disagrees with potential "fundamentalists". How is this not the complete opposite end of the pendulum? Or is that your intent? Invert the thing so that the middle is reached.

Well, we do see over reactions time and again leading to a middle ground. It's a law of nature. I do believe in that middle ground although it seems on face value (to some) I don't. :tongue2:
But, isn't that what all good discussion is, an attempt to find the middle ground?

 

[muffler dragon]

Well, we do see over reactions time and again leading to a middle ground. It's a law of nature. I do believe in that middle ground although it seems on face value (to some) I don't. :tongue2:

I, too, agree that in most natural settings there is a point where a "middle ground" is established.

But, isn't that what all good discussion is, an attempt to find the middle ground?

Indeed; however, I don't see how your initial statement about the dismantling of another religion's prized emblems is a step in finding that middle ground. Just my perspective though.

 

[Flocka]

Indeed; however, I don't see how your initial statement about the dismantling of another religion's prized emblems is a step in finding that middle ground. Just my perspective though.

That was actually right of center for Taos.

 

[BuckeyeInTheBoro]

Not the leap I was going for Boro. But the article really struck me in a painful way....

Wow. That got the conversation going! I seem to have offended you and I'm sorry. Not my intent in the least. The post was not really directed at you, other than the bit about the phrasing of the question which I obviously misunderstood.

You seem to be referring to a specific view of some non-believers who think "Christians must not have anything worth having because they behave so poorly towards each other", and this belief is now made to seem more rational as this poor behavior is exhibited. I can agree with that. I've been there.

You are only somewhat correct in your guess as to my upbringing. Devout Baptist mother, DEVOUT atheist father. Dragged to Church in the morning, heard why it was stupid the rest of the day/week. Went to a Christian school and saw how hypocritical most of the staff and teachers were, saw hypocritical elders, preachers, etc. at Church. Agreed with dad. Got kicked out of the school. Left religion as soon as I could get away and vowed never to get sucked back in. My path back is probably best left for another thread, but suffice it to say God didn't give up on me even when I gave up on Him.

So this is the background I used to respond to your post. I know some people think my (our?) views are irrational. I know some of those people very well. I know some are on this board and my post was really directed at "them" whoever they might be. Indeed, I myself once made the decision that the actions of the people "in the Church" proved that they had nothing I wanted, and I thought my view was rational.

The point I was getting at earlier is that "rational" is a moving target. I thought my leaving religion behind was rational. I have since decided that it was not. Leaving that Church? OK. Denomination? Maybe. Religion? It's possible. Leaving a belief in God? No. My belief in God never should have been tied to the actions of humans. That was irrational!

 

[Gatorubet]

Wow. That got the conversation going! I seem to have offended you and I'm sorry. Not my intent in the least. The post was not really directed at you, other than the bit about the phrasing of the question which I obviously misunderstood.

Nah man! Not offended at all. You tend to cover lots of territory in your posts, and it is hard to keep up.