RE: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

I need to reply to another thing Howard said.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Howard J. Van Till
>Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 7:02 PM

>Glenn wishes to defend the idea that his
>portrait is an exception to this judgment. I suggest that the
>"observational
>data" regarding the diversity of existing God-portraits defeats
>that theory.

Once again, Howard shows that he doesn't understand what I said, or what my
view is. I did not say my view is the except to that judgement, and this is
just more distortion of my position. Show me where I said that!

 I am saying "IF God can't communicate anything substantial about himself
to us, then Howard is correct---all we have are human constructs, human
portraits or human choices. But since I believe a religion is not worth
having if all one has is self delusion, then if a religion is true, God must
be able to communicate something about himself and the religion then is more
than a construct. I have also said that the only way one can have any hope
of determining the truth of a religion is if one can verify the peripheral
stories about it--things like the flood. And that is why I feel
observational data and a concordance to reality is so important."

Somehow Howard, you always fail to get it correct.
Received on Sun Oct 17 21:12:48 2004