Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DeepIron
 In response to your post above, we all know just how infallible science is now, don't we? Man looks at God, defines his relationship and expects God to capitulate and accept. Fair enough. But when God approaches Man, the opposite doesn't hold true. God is held at arms length and exposed to Man's logic and reasoning. ...
(...)
opposite. I have a very meaningful and full life. I find confort in the knowledge that God has a plan for me, and it's spelled out very plainly. See John 3:16 for reference. |
Mind if I don't? I'm fed up with scriptures.
Even more so when I am expected to take it literally .
Quote:
Quote:
|
That must be any god's queer sense of humour - which after all eventually may prove the existence of god in fact, finally (at least when you have made a decision to believe.)
|
I think God has an even queerer sense of humor as found in atheists and agnostics who contend that their own little universe of "self" is impregnable, completely self-centered, self-supported and logical.
|
Well, believing is not knowing, and trust is not blind belief, but grows from empirical experiences of the past. anyhow, I was just unsure were to put you: to the group of reasonable rationalists admitting that there is also a spiritual dimension in existence, or to the group of those who belief something unproven and want to raise it's prestige by labelling it a reasonable method like to be found in sciences. Now that I know about you, i see that it is pointless to continue the communication, for you prefer to just believe and make yourself unavailable for any argument by that - belief beats any argument, any logic, any empirical experience, any reason anytime - while me refuses to see such a position as an equal to reason, logic, empiry, experience - even true spirituality (which has nothing to do with mysticism and literal believing).
Take care,
Sky