Re: Glenn's dilemma

That's an interesting description. It appeals to me. It's more technoid
oriented than the old "forest and trees" metaphor! - JimA

Don Winterstein wrote:

> [snip]
> 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 12:40:08 2004