Is there such a thing as rational Christianity?

[Dr Lou Natic]

I'm a rational christian. I don't believe in god or believe jesus was anything more than a disobediant jew.
But I acknowledge that my ancestral strain is christian, and I maintain an allegiance to christianity for this reason. I believe I should really be considered a christian because the religious ideaology is only a minor insignificant part of the history of christian culture. The culture itself is what is significant, and I am a product of that culture, making the animal I am a christian.
Nobody really knew anything when christianity was established, just because the beliefs which spawned christianity are inaccurate wouldn't cause me to do something so drastic as turn my back on my people and deny the fact I'm a christian. They had it wrong, big deal, so did everyone else.
The available alternatives aren't any better.

I don't consider haitians or chinese or african americans who practice christianity to be christian. They just have some zany beliefs and go to a place called church, their ancestors didn't live through the plagues and crusades and hundred years war and iron maidens etc. They descend from kalahari bushmen and rice farmers, labelling them as "christian" just for deciding to believe in the teachings of christianity seems a little extreme to me.
Like me saying I like rap music and watermelon so I'm an african american.

Christians are a breed of homosapien, of which I'm a member, and I happen to be rational.

 

[Gustav]

crap
you just redefine to justify
as mad as ever. ja?
good going, kiddo

 

[atthisaddress]

does'nt that also mean that the Aledged rational christian, could never mention that he was a christian, for fear of showing that, irrationality to the world.

No, it doesn't mean that. It does mean that they can't automatically elevate themselves above everyone else in a judgement they are absolutely secure in, to deny value in the authentic lives of people that aren't in their denomination, or non-Christians, or even a non-believer.

Rational Christianity no longer teaches that those that are not Christian, even Atheists, are excluded from salvation. To be sure, they teach that a person has a better chance for salvation if they accept and follow the faith. However, they teach that the power of God's wisdom permeates through all existence, and this can be confirmed by the number of shared moral precepts to be found in almost all religious movements as well as noble lives lived by those with no beliefs.

Tolerence, acceptance. This is found in theology, but inspired by the results of claiming to be the exclusive path to salvation. Wars, hatred, mass murder, terror, injustice, the very things that faith should be solution to, not the cause of.

 

[atthisaddress]

I'm a rational christian. I don't believe in god or believe jesus was anything more than a disobediant jew.
But I acknowledge that my ancestral strain is christian... The culture itself is what is significant, and I am a product of that culture, making the animal I am a christian.
I don't consider haitians or chinese or african americans who practice christianity to be christian.

I'll just address one contention that you make. If you go to Africa, you find the people there are black. Not brown, not dark brown, but very different from African-Americans. The reason for that is simple. Lots of interracial breeding has gone on in North and South America. Lots of what you call "the animal I am a christian" is in not just African-Americans, but lots of people all over the world. You might also consider the opposite is equally true.

 

[Gustav]

But I acknowledge that my ancestral strain is christian, and I maintain an allegiance to christianity for this reason.

what? you deny your pagan heritage? how shortsighted of you

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm a rational christian.

 

[geeser]

No, it doesn't mean that. It does mean that they can't automatically elevate themselves above everyone else in a judgement they are absolutely secure in,

no your wrong,, whatever that wish to have a belief in is subjective but fine until that state, it as truth, so therefore thay cannot possibly mention there irrationality, if they wish to appear rational.

Rational Christianit

?

no longer teaches that those that are not Christian, even Atheists, are excluded from salvation.

you see now your preaching irrationality.

To be sure, they teach that a person has a better chance for salvation if they accept and follow the faith.

which means the aledged rational christian, show his irrationality.

However, they teach that the power of God's wisdom permeates through all existence,

which is a baseless irrational assumption. christianity therefore cannot be rational.

and this can be confirmed by the number of shared moral precepts to be found in almost all religious movements as well as noble lives lived by those with no beliefs.

well duh, of course, man has had moral precepts since the dawn of man, no deity or religion is needed, so of course these precept would be in all religions.

Tolerence, acceptance. This is found in theology,

found in man, without man there would be no theology, and without theology man would be much more appreciative of is suroundings and the people in it.
to tolerate means: to allow: people, can do and believe what that wish, but they cannot state it as truth unless it has a foundation in reality.

 

[atthisaddress]

no your wrong,, whatever that wish to have a belief in is subjective but fine until that state, it as truth, so therefore thay cannot possibly mention there irrationality, if they wish to appear rational. ? you see now your preaching irrationality.

Stating the meaning of theology of a Rational Christian is hardly preaching, it is, in the context of this thread and post, revealing their teachings and perspective, as it applies to their relationship to others, a view formed by faith that resides within their aesthetic awareness. If you read my opening post, I make clear that what I call Rational Christians don't insist that their beliefs are facts in the real world.

You continue to go on and on in the same vein - you demand to establish your contentions by the way you phrase your questions - "they cannot possible mention there irrationality" is the same style as "When did you stop beating your wife?" This is intended to be a discussion about the basic nature of belief and how it is held, and the implications of that, if any. Unless you phrase you statements and questions without the slanted perspective that all Christianity is irrational you might as well not post them if you expect an answer from me.

Mind you, I'm not stating you are absolutely wrong or right in your opinion. But in order to demonstrate it is correct, you are going to have to offer something to answer my observations and information, in the context in which it is offered.

 

[geeser]

Stating the meaning of theology of a Rational Christian is hardly preaching,

to an atheist, telling him he will be saved is irrational, as he has no belief in any theology, and most certainly not the belief he will be saved.

all I was trying to point out was, regardless as to whether you think a christian can be rational, is that as soon as a r/christian opens his mouth, and speaks of or about a cloud dancer or a savior, without no foundation of truth, he automatically becomes irrational, thus he can never be thought of as rational, to the general populus, only to other christians.

hence why I posted this.

atthisaddress: I'm sorry,you cant put rational in the same context as christian, the two are mutually exclusive,
(http://dictionary.reference.com/sea...lly exclusive) it's has to be an oxymoron.(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oxymoron) it's just like saying christian science, a complete oxymoron.
there is no rationality in believing in fantasy, therefore their cannot be any such thing as a rational christian.

I've posted the dictionary definitions, just to help you understand.
it's clear you need it.

but you still have'nt grasped it.

snake said thus.

I do not believe that any Xian is, or can ever be rational. Or at least as long as they continue to "believe".

audible also put it quite clearly

you either are a rational person or not, you cant be 99% rational.

and from

So, if christians insist that god exists (without resorting to "experimentation or reason", 1) above) and has a real, objective impact on the world, despite the fact that a rational analysis (i.e. an unemotional examination of the facts) yields no positive proof or evidence for a god, anyone must conclude that in the realm of god, based on the standing definitions of "reason" and "faith", the christian (and any theist) is wholly irrational.

End of story.

it is irrational to continue to demand that christianity could be rational, it just can never be.

 

[The Devil Inside]

well like you said, geeser...that person is rational to christians, just not to the non-christian population.
so, i guess....after a sense he is rational.

i think the spirit of the thread was more "is it possible to be a christian, and not be a raving, right wing lunatic?"
yes it is possible. i know lots of them.

 

[The Devil Inside]

sorry geeser...i didnt see the pointlessness of my post until after i reread yours
keep on truckin'!!

 

[SnakeLord]

Have you asked them about that? I suspect the reason may lie elsewhere, that they do that because of feelings - they would feel uncomfortable if they did not salute that magpie.

I actually tend to ask people whenever they do something along those lines, (touch wood, say "bless you", cross their fingers etc), none of which are actually rational when given a moments thought. I suppose there are some 'superstitions' that are slightly more rational - such as not walking under ladders. It is often true to state that when there's a ladder up, someone is up it - and generally holding something. If he drops it while you're under the ladder, you get a nasty bonk on the head.

Do they insist that this is a real property of the real world, something that could be proven by rational means, like science?

In many cases yes. I have seen people run around like lunatics trying to find some wood to touch, believing that if they don't, they will end up in the car crash they just mentioned.

Seal it off, because they know it isn't rational

See, it isn't rational

Perhaps the best definition is "human"

Or, we could just say that "humans tend to be irrational".

 

[atthisaddress]

to an atheist, telling him he will be saved is irrational, as he has no belief in any theology, and most certainly not the belief he will be saved.

You are missing the point. They aren't telling an Atheist that they will be saved, or that they must share belief or faith on that basis. They are just stating their own beliefs, which are not submitted for acceptance in the real world, by real world measurement. Faith, in order to be faith, has to be held outside of the real world.

all I was trying to point out was, regardless as to whether you think a christian can be rational, is that as soon as a r/christian opens his mouth, and speaks of or about a cloud dancer or a savior, without no foundation of truth, he automatically becomes irrational, thus he can never be thought of as rational, to the general populus, only to other christians.

You could as easily say that anyone that has told anyone else that they love them has revealed themselves to be irrational as soon as they open their mouth. Where does love exist? Where is it proven?

 

[atthisaddress]

In many cases yes.

That separates them from Rational Christians. They don't claim their beliefs can be measured or observed in the real world. To submit them to testing by the scientific method would take those beliefs out of the definition of faith.

 

[mis-t-highs]

You are missing the point. They aren't telling an Atheist that they will be saved, or that they must share belief or faith on that basis. They are just stating their own beliefs,

I believe you've missed the point, what I gather geesers point is as soon as the state anything to anyone other than another christian they cease to be rational.

which are not submitted for acceptance in the real world, by real world measurement. Faith, in order to be faith, has to be held outside of the real world.

which means they should never open their mouths.
so there can never be a rational christian, apart from what he believes himself to be as he can never express his faith (Faith, in order to be faith, has to be held outside of the real world.).

You could as easily say that anyone that has told anyone else that they love them has revealed themselves to be irrational as soon as they open their mouth.

how so, love is a chemical reaction.

Where does love exist? Where is it proven?

by these two chemicals, oxytocin, phenylethylamine.

 

[geeser]

it's become pointless misty, he just dont get it, you cant talk rationally to a believer.

 

[Mythbuster]

Where does love exist? Where is it proven?

Hah. I have the very thing, but I doubt you will do either. I hope you won't concede to carry out the latter.

http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/26_3/260305R01_15990719_Esch--Stefano_.pdf

Ahh, isn't ignorance just a bitch? I don't approve of you killing yourself over it, though. Understanding a fundamental human emotion is hardly a good reason to do that.


How ridiculous of you, though. Scientists allegedly don't have the answer (and you presume they never will, I suppose), so you in your infinite wisdom suddenly know what god is? What a joke. How did you - no - how could you even come by this information?

Explaining something by saying a god did it is to explain precisely nothing. It begs the question, and usually violates Occam's Razor. In addition, as I have clearly stated many times, assuming that god exists or is responsible for something because something is not, or inadequately explained is utterly, utterly stupid. It's so fantastically stupid that the process of thought involved is a specifically named logical fallacy - the argument from ignorance. There's no evidence for Y, so X must be true.

Yet people persist in using it; some blatantly obvious examples of which I'll comment on later. I can only infer that those of you who are doing so are stupid or ignorant, willfully or otherwise. Try laying it upon a philosophy teacher or a critical thinking teacher, theist or otherwise, and they will tell you the same - it does not follow. It's not logical. It's a non-sequitur form of 'reasoning'. Even calling it reasoning is giving it a title higher than is deserved. Google it. Look it up in an encyclopaedia. I cannot stress the need for rational, logical thought enough in this discussion.

Why? Because even if you're right, you are not proving it by using a fallacious argument, and you won't convince anyone who isn't stupid or ignorant of the logical fallacies. You are simply making yourself look like an idiot. A crap explanation isn't a substitute in lieu of a good on

 

[TruthSeeker]

I never seen so many crappy arguments before in my life.
To say that love is purely chemical is like saying that the universe is purely visible. You can't get more ignorant then that. :bugeye:

 

[Mythbuster]

I never seen so much crap arguments before in my life.
To say that love is purely chemical is like saying that the universe is purely visible. You can't get more ignorant then that. :bugeye:

It's science in the brain, not some magical fetish.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Another ignorant argument.
Did you hear what I said? To say that the universe is purely physical is very ignorant. In fact, most of the universe is not visible to the eye. There is very little of it that is actually visible. Yet, what is visible is all we can detect without the help of advanced instruments. In the same way, to argue that love is purely chemical is ignorant. The chemistry is just a small part of the whole picture.