Re: Glenn's dilemma

Glenn wrote:

"...A religion to have some validity must
have some grounding in actual fact."

Recorded history--not the presumed inerrancy of a book--provides Christianity's grounding in actual fact. At all times in that history the people of God have had very fuzzy portraits of him, but God has nevertheless succeeded in interacting with them. The sum of people's responses to those interactions constitutes the actual fact of Christianity. Some of the most important of those responses are recorded in the book.

Yes, there are misguided responses, flaky responses, and all kinds of activities that are really not responses at all. That's why it's necessary to apply a high-cut filter to see God behind it all. Scientists want the high frequencies to resolve fine details; but for spiritual phenomena the low frequency range gives a clearer image.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Glenn Morton<mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net>
  To: Either Carol or John Burgeson<mailto:burgytwo@juno.com> ; asa@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa@lists.calvin.edu>
  Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:09 PM
  Subject: RE: Glenn's dilemma

>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Either Carol or John Burgeson
>Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 6:05 PM

>
>But "objective evidence" is NOT all I have to go on. We have been over
>this before, of course.

  What I object to is a religion having any value if it claims that anything
  goes, which is what I see happening. If all we have is our man-made portrait
  of god, how can we tell that we actually have anything substantive?
  Subjective evidence can often fool one into believing falsehoods. You are
  right, we have been over this before. A religion to have some validity must
  have some grounding in actual fact.
Received on Thu Oct 21 09:09:47 2004