Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: a really good thought
Message-ID: <620@pucc-h>
Date: Tue, 27-Mar-84 05:14:15 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.620
Posted: Tue Mar 27 05:14:15 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 01:34:55 EST
References: <593@pucc-h>, <786@ihuxq.UUCP> <603@pucc-h>, <520@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 58

>> = Jeff Sargent
>  = Rich Rosen

> By choosing to "bond" [I would say "bind", i.e. "fetter"--jjs] oneself to
> rationalism, one attempts to ensure that one will not be ensnared by that
> which is tempting but clearly not rational.  Often, because of years of
> conditioning about the mystical and supernatural, one needs to actively
> "bond" oneself to reality and to rationalism.  (When you distinguish
> between rationality and rationalism, what is it about 'rationalism' that you
> dislike as opposed to rationality?)

Rationality, i.e. thinking logically, is a perfectly good thing.  Any
Christian who claims otherwise has missed the boat.  Rationalism, however, is
the elevation of the rational mind to the status, effectively, of God.  One
should indeed use one's rational mind in the conduct of his life.  But I think
you are the one who has been ensnared by that which is tempting but clearly
not complete or sufficient.
  
>> The Christian is the one who knows
>> that he need not fear mere physical death, and thus has a supply of
>> courage and strength (which the atheist denies himself) wherewith to face
>> death.  And I repeat what I've said before:  Christianity is not irrational
>> -- the correct word(s) might be supra-rational or trans-rational.  A
>> relationship with Christ is an excellent way to cure actual irrationality.

> Knows?  Denies?  Has?  These words make large scale assumptions about the
> nature of reality which you clearly have not shown evidence for.  Can one
> "deny" something that is only believed to exist?  Can one "have" a supply
> of anything for which one "has" no evidence of, or that may be explained
> by internal rather than external explanations?  Can one "know" the truth
> about life after death without evidence?  The fact that you do not require
> such evidence sheds light on what the notions of supra-rational and
> trans-rational really mean-------non-rational.  Care to rebut rationally??
> Logically??

I refer you to my earlier articles:  The only way you're going to get
evidence is to try it yourself.  I also would point out some verses I
quoted in a response I posted to Tim Stoehr, which show you how far above
your rationality God is.  (If you're arguing against God, you're arguing
against the One who gave you the ability to argue--sort of like sawing off
the limb you're sitting on.)

> Just a side comment:  We've often heard of religionists who claim to be
> questioning, and to whom god has given strength through prayer, etc.  Is
> the nature of that strength "God, give me the strength to not ask myself
> these questions so that I can have a closer relationship to you without
> having to answer them...."?  I.e., when forced to confront such questions,
> is the desired help sought from god supposed to be the strength to still
> believe unswervingly despite those questions?

Actually, one definition of faith is holding on to what one's mind has come
to believe, in spite of moods that may tend to alter that belief.  (Thanks to
C.S. Lewis for this one.)

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Have you hugged your junk mail today?