adj4u,

What are you talking about? I was talking to you, not God.

Maybe you missed this earlier, so I'll give it again:

Reasoning: The process of searching for all evidence and creating a conclusion which best fits the evidence.

Rationalizing: The process of finding evidence to support a previously reached conclusion.

You have a conclusion and you are only interested in finding evidence to support that conclusion. When the truth is shown to you, your zeal to prove your existing conclusion drives you to ignore the truth in your constant search for any and all evidence to prop up your faulty conclusion.

Robin wrote:
“spider line
You are rationalizing again.
-----------------------------------
are you saying that god is irrational?”

Thank you Robin for pointing this out.

My main premise must indeed be that God is rational.

An irrational God would be undependable.

So this is the basis of my belief in a rational God.

God gave us rational brains, and created a universe that can be understood rationally.

I can’t believe that god is anything but rational.

This is the foundation of my faith in God.

So rationalizing God's word is precisely the goal that we should have.

is jealousy

an emotion

or a

feeling


insert head scratching emoticon here

adj4u,

What are you talking about? I was talking to you, not God.


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

i am talking about your insinuation

that you can not rationalize

if you can not rationalize something

then that something must be irrational

Spider wrote:
“Rationalizing: The process of finding evidence to support a previously reached conclusion.”

Again we find semantics to be problematic. We all give words a different meaning.

I just looked up the term “rationalize” on the web and got the following definition (which is how I have always used the word)

Web Definition of “Rationalize”:
Rationalize - To think rationally; employ logic or reason; "When one wonders why one is doing certain things, one should rationalize"

Obviously the term can also be used in the sense that you have used it as well.

But, if that’s the case, then I would deny you claim that I am “rationalizing” in your sense of the word. On the contrary I am in search of truth wherever it may lead. I have no predetermined goal. I’m trying to discover which parts of the Bible may have truth and which parts are obviously fiction.

You, on the other hand, seem to be ‘rationalizing’ by your definition of the word. That is to say that you seem to already know what God wants, and expects from us, and you are just attempting to justify that position at all cost.

This is, of course, just my perception of your position.

Abracadabra,

Your definition means the exact same thing as mine does.

==============================================================
Rationalize - To think rationally; employ logic or reason; "When one wonders why one is doing certain things, one should rationalize"
==============================================================

The conclusion is that "one is doing certain things", with that conclusion you then search for evidence to explain that behavior. This is perfectly appropriate when used after the fact, but reason always triumps over rationalization. Think of a murder investigation, where the police assume the husband killed the wife. They would only look for evidence to support that conclusion, which would result in a possibly innocent man going to jail. If the police simply looked for evidence, they would be much more likely to find the actual killer.

The Bible doesn't give conclusions, it gives evidence. Therefore, the only logical way to use the Bible is to look for all evidence on a subject and come to a conclusion, which is not what was done with this thread (outside of myself).

Of course you are rationalizing! You state in nearly every thread how horrible Christianity is and then you will grab a single event out of the Bible to prove your point. You would never look at all the evidence and if you did, you wouldn't talk about it because it would go against your standing conclusion.

I am a self-taught Christian. I disagree with some Christians on a several things. For instance, I see Christians saying that "Lucifer" is Satan, but I think the Bible never suggests that. I don't see that the Lake of Fire is the end of existance for the unsaved, most Christians do. I have, from the beginning, read the Bible as someone without any ideas of what Christianity is. Therefore, I am not rationalizing Christianity, I am reasoning. I am taking the verses I read and putting them together into a pattern which leads to a conclusion. You cherry pick scriptures to place Christianity into a negative light, simply to support your conclusion that Christianity is bad.

Spider wrote:
“The Bible doesn't give conclusions, it gives evidence.”

There is no ‘evidence’ in the Bible for anything.

Spider wrote:
” You cherry pick scriptures to place Christianity into a negative light, simply to support your conclusion that Christianity is bad.”

I can only say that your conclusions about me are misguided.

You often speak of things as though they are cut-and-dried. As though there can only be one definition for any given word, or only one interpretation for any given allegory or parable, or that “Christianity” actually represents only one possible thing.

I completely disagree with this view.

There are many different meanings for words. This is why people publish things like Thesauruses. Words can be used, and are used, differently by different people and we must be careful to take them within their context. It may also be required to ask the person what they meant by a certain word and then accept that this is “their” understanding of the word.

It’s clear that the word “Christianity” is very vague. There are many different sects and denominations of Christianity. It is a very diverse religion. Also, there are many people who abuse the religion. Such as during the Inquisition, etc. The religion has some pretty negative history associated with it. There can be no denying this.

There are also radicals and political activists who abuse Christianity and attempt to use the religion to pass judgment on the behavior and lifestyles of others.

There can be no denying that Christianity has it’s negative side.

I have commented on how radical fundamentalists abuse the religion and I will continue to support that position.

As far as studying the Bible is concerned, I believe that it should be studying using reason. And that means to view it objectively. We can’t just assume that it’s the unquestionable word of God. That would be unreasonable. If we are going to view it reasonably, we must take into consideration that it has most likely be contaminated by man.

I personally also believe that it is reasonable to use the entire universe as a “book” from God. After all, no one can deny that God is the author of the universe itself. What could be more reasonable than that?

If we can know anything with absolute certainty, we can know beyond any shadow of a doubt that God wrote the universe.

Abra wrote ... 'We need to use our intuition and allow God to inspire us from within.' -


Earlier in the discussion was this notion of feelings and emotions being different. In many cases, the words are used interchangeably but I will acknowledge that we could split hairs about precise meaning. I have no desire to do that ... I do, however, question the notion of it altogether ... bear with me as I am thinking out loud ...

My belief structure about God is such that this notion of God IS everything. One creative source from which all things flow.

If that is the case then there is no place for emotions or feelings. And this is precisely why I reject all notions of an angry and vengeful God ... which is why I do not resonate with the 'sole' Book(s) that is/are alleged to speak for Him. God has been described in human terms ... He has been 'made' in man's image and it is man who is vengeful and angry.

When you are everything then there is nothing that you are not. When there is nothing separate then there can be no experience because there is nothing to lap up against to 'have' the experience. Experience by its very nature requires separatation.

Feelings or emotions ... they have a physical requirement. Feelings relate to physical sensations of sight, sound, touch, smell, taste .... they also relate to instincts ... 'I just had a feeling about him' - in which case it is still a physical reaction in the body...

And emotions relate to 'feelings' in the body too. Visceral reactions caused by chemical events in the body ...reactions as a result of some internal or external stimulus ... event ... thought ... etc.

God does not have a body. And God is already everything. Therefore God cannot experience that which He is not ... because there is nothing that He is not. God is the creative source. Pure consciousness ... pure thought ...

Pure thought is just that ... it causes no reaction in a 'non environment'.

God's only means of 'experiencing' is through us. We are the experiencing arms of God. We are the ones having the experiences ... the emotions ... the feelings .... us .... so that God may know itself through us.

It is a beautiful symbiotic relationship of sorts ... although this notion of separate is merely an illusion for a time ... created so that we may experience.

God's gift to me is this life. My gift to God is living it.

Simplistic? Maybe. But what makes us believe that it is really any more complicated than that?

((( Sherrie )))

Thank you for your very insightful “thinking out loud”.

Sherrie wrote:
“God's gift to me is this life. My gift to God is living it.

Simplistic? Maybe. But what makes us believe that it is really any more complicated than that?”

Yes, it is very simple, and very eloquent, which is what we should expect from God.

I only wish that I had been taught this view very early in my life without the all the unnecessary clutter of personal “sin and salvation” that is so distracting and unnecessary. I was never a sinful person by nature to begin with so all the “sin and salvation” picture did for me was serve to confuse me almost to the point of wondering why I’m not compelled to sin? It made me feel left out in a way.

It’s pretty hard for a person who is not driven by a desire to sin to accept a religious view that focuses on sin and salvation as it’s major premise to the extreme point that God actually had to be nailed to a cross just because of man’s sinful nature, and then that image made into an idol to be worshiped.

There needs to be a better answer, and I’m compelled to believe that you have found it.

Spider said:

The Bible doesn't give conclusions, it gives evidence. Therefore, the only logical way to use the Bible is to look for all evidence on a subject and come to a conclusion, which is not what was done with this thread (outside of myself).

With all due respect spider, everyone here is doing just that.

Proverbs - 27:2

Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips.

Funny thing is, I am actually beginning to lose confidence in your arguement, simply because of what I see to be a completely ambigious exlanation over semantics... it is all subjective...

I accepted the explanation you gave when it concerned the definition of jealousy... there HAS been a different definition used when referring to God and only God, and this was accepted and therefore passed down the line. It is accepted as such, even now, in my Webster's dictionary...

This same source that supports one part of your explanation, however clearly disagrees with the emotion/feeling part.

Those two terms are BOTH used when DEFINING the other...

Rationalizing and reasoning are even CLOSER in definition than that...

To rationalize, one must be rational... and rational is(based on) derived from reasoning... the word "reasoning" is part of the definition...

The bottom fell out of your position when it began to be far too subjective in and of itself...

Thank you for your teaching(s) on the misinterpretation of jealousy that I have held onto for so long... that was actually quite helpful... and makes perfect sense.

And you assumed that I had not read the Old Testament in your post earlier...

I will agree with your contextual position in this particular instance... however, your general debate basis is in disagreement with my own.

Who's "side" are you on?

Whoa, I do apologize right off the bat for going after the literal translation of what I read. "Those who are saved are the "Bride of Christ". My dear spider would this not make every saved male on the planet a Gay Bride?

I know what you mean James

It took me years to get over the notion that I was an 8 year old sinner. I think that was the first time I realized the pastor was talking to 'me'. An idea that completely devastated me ... I really tried to be a good little girl. I did what I was told. Got good grades. I didn't argue ... was always polite. But somehow I had still managed to piss God off.

I remember being in a Sunday school class. I don't remember exactly how old I was ... 10 maybe ... and I was having trouble making sense of the teaching that day ... so I asked a question in my wide eyed innocence.

" OK so you said that God is in everything right?"
Yes
"everything everything?"
Yes everything everything
"and God is good..."
Yes
"so what does that leave out?"


Apparently that means that I don't have enough 'faith' and needed to leave Sunday school class ...

I had never really been in trouble before ... oh oh I REALLY WAS A SINNER AND I WAS GOING TO HELL

I was terrified. For years.


It was MAN that struck the fear of God in me ... that wasn't God.

I could have done without such teachings too James...the beauty of it now is that I no longer seek such answers outside of myself for that which lives inside of me. So I am grateful for the experiences for they brought me to this place of peace and contentment within. I am okay with that...grateful in fact.

Differentkindofwench,

Spirits have no gender. Being the Bride of Christ means that we take a supportive role in the relationship, while Jesus has the leadership role. We will not have sex or desire sex, it is a descriptive term to express the feelings and sort of relationship we will have.

creativesoul,

Words have meanings. Rationalize != Reason. They seem similar, but there is a huge difference. When you rationalize, you are starting from a conclusion, when you reason, you start with a blank slate. Emotions and feels are different. If you want to google them, you will see that. The words are often used interchangably, but they don't mean the same things.

Every definition of emotion I have been able to find uses the word 'feeling' to describe it. They are also listed as synonyms.

Feelings can also relate to the physical senses.


Seems a moot point though ... God can't experience either one without a physical form to do it in. Both have physiological effects.

So if Jesus has the leadership role and you've been saved and you do as Jesus would wish, how can you still describe yourself as a sinner?

Differentkindofwench,

==============================================================
So if Jesus has the leadership role and you've been saved and you do as Jesus would wish, how can you still describe yourself as a sinner?
==============================================================

I'm still human. Try as a do, I sometimes fail. If I was sinless, I wouldn't need Jesus or forgiveness.

The purpose of language is to be able to accurately communicate thoughts and/or ideas...

My source of defintion is a Webster's New World dictionary... Third College Edition...

I will continue to use this as a constant in this equation... it crossreferenced your intial Hebrew meaning of the word "jealous" quite well, however, your definition of rationalize and reason come from WITHIN you, sir...

Words have meaning? What exactly was the purpose of this statement Spider?

didn't i say that


sorta

Rationalize - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=rationalizations
=============================================================
1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a: to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
=============================================================

Reason - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reason
=============================================================
the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways
=============================================================

They are diffent things.

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/rationalizing.html
=============================================================
"Rationalizing is a dishonest substitute for reasoning whereby we set out 'to defend our ideas rather than to find out the truth of the matters concerned.'... You are reasoning if the belief follows the evidence--that is, if you examine the evidence first and then make up your mind. You are rationalizing if the evidence follows your belief - if you'll first decide what you'll believe and then select and interpret evidence to justify it."
=============================================================

I offered definitions that I felt would be the most clear about the subject, but be my guest to research the subject yourself.

"If I was sinless, I wouldn't need Jesus or forgiveness."

That is the saddest metaphoric brick wall/catch 22 I've ever read....