Are emotions such a bad thing?

Everyone on here treats them as such but isn't one of the ends of a perfect rationality government of the emotions?

Why do people run around trying to find paradise/perpetual happiness if emotions are a bad thing? Why do they do drugs if they don't find emotional pleasure in it?

Maaan, Splendour, your quote frustrates me. It is mighty vague. And it analyses/questions the meaning of the very thing it talks about to begin with (LOGOS)

It shouldn't frustrate you.

What does everyone spend all their time posting about on here?

They are posting mostly objective or subjective questions.

But Jesus Christ unites the subjective with the objective to generate right actions (behavior) by human beings.

Jibninjas said , suggesting that they are mutually exclusive, and it suggests to anyone reading that everything I am saying is based on confused thoughts.

At least, what he wrote in the quote above is the sort of thing I would write if I wanted to make OP look like a rambling idiot. But what he says, from my p.o.v., holds no water. It is clear that I am open to what people say and am not close minded. In fact, I have emphasized that at least twice in this thread. But then he simply states out of nowhere thta I am being emotional and irrational. What complete nonsense.

I see what you write but I don't understand it.

That which I don't understand I don't reject.

But jesus Christ tells us to not care what we think and to only care what he thinks.

Jib's usually mild mannered.

Unless he got frustrated he would never imply you're an idiot.

But that's the temperament on here. Everyone thinks "emotions" and "rational" aren't related but they are.

So both the theists and the atheists are prone to accuse the other side of irrational emoting in their thinking.

But it's impossible for humans not to be emotional. They are a part of our cognitive make-up. Without emotions your brain can't even have a memory.

He does?

He probably does.

But he does that to get people to line up on the truth. Isn't God's Truth the ultimate truth and doesn't it connect to people's inner being?

We're made in the image of God.

Substitute Jesus Christ for Heraclitus in the wikiquote below:

"For Heraclitus logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure."

In John 1:1 Jesus Christ is described as the Logos.

While the prophets were prophesying about the coming of Jesus the ancient Greeks were getting ready for him in their thinking (philosophy). Do you think it's an accident that a lot of the early Church started with the ancient Greeks? Or was God trying to line up His thinking with a group ready to handle it?

(Heraclitus lived approximately 500 years before Christ.)

You are aware that the Catholic church went to some pains to point out that the definition of logos that Christians use is totally different to the definition Heraclitus used, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus

Well doesn't God have to start some where?

Isn't man's nature just like God's? Always trying to refine things.

The Catholic Church didn't reject Heraclitus' definition they refined it.

No you are just plain wrong. Read your own links. Logos has many meanings in Greek e.g. "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word," "speech," "account," "reason" etc. This is similar to how the English word "light" has many meanings "a light dessert", "a light weight", "a flash light", " a light touch" etc.

Heraclitus used the word in the sense of "reason". The gospel of John (not the Catholic church) used the Greek word "Logos" in the sense of "word". This wasn't to reference Heraclitus, it was just because, like most of the New Testament, the Gospel of John was written in Greek.

God can merge anything He wants.

We're the ones with the overly analytical minds that break everything into small pieces then can't fit them back together again in patterns that make sense.

lol Splendour, the way you argue (not to mention what you argue) is pretty ****ed up

What type of response were you looking for?

There might be. The Muslim faith is not a monolithic block in the same way that the Christian faith is not a monolithic block. I just wanted to be clear that the particular statement is the thing where we have reached different conclusions.

The divinity of Jesus follows from experiences, but not directly. It's not as if I believe that Jesus is theologically divine because I've had some experience that tells me so.

Of course.

I think the attribution of arrogance is more a matter of characterization than reality.

On the one hand, you grant me the ability to openly admit that I'm possibly wrong in my evaluation. On the other hand, you accuse me of arrogance. I don't think your line is consistent. Your argument is close to Groggy's argument. Because there are other ideas out there, I should think that my idea is somehow wrong automatically wrong (the asymmetry argument you posited). That fact of reality does nothing to my position or theirs.

You seem to be placing excessive emphasis on the "figuring it out" part. As in somehow the belief in Christianity is primarily the result of formal argumentation and cognitive analysis. There are two sides to this. The experience AND the analysis.

In the abstract, I do not know what "Muslims" as a broad category of persons experience, and I do not know how they connect with those experiences through analysis. It's a black box. All you're showing me is a conclusion that is different from mine, and I'm confirming that it's a conclusion that's different from mine. It's like you hand me a slip of paper that says "Jesus is not the Son of God" and ask me if I agree with it. I don't know where the paper came from, and I don't know what process led to developing that conclusion.