Re: Debate

E G M (e_g_m@yahoo.com)
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:35:13 -0800 (PST)

Dear Gary, this is a rather unfair twist of things. I agree with all
that you have stated below. My example was based on your previous
statements (which I quoted explicitly). The fact remains that Jesus
ãinvitedä empirical verification of a miraculous act, his
resurrection, such is the Grace of God. We also believe that He
resurrected because of the numerous eyewitnesses. Therefore, I see no
problem with science stepping out of its purely naturalistic
methaphysical footing.

EGM
___________________

Yes, up to a point. But Eduardo, don't forget that Jesus went on to
say, "Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are they who
have not seen, yet have believed. He didn't commend Thomas for taking
the position he did.

Compare Hebrews 11:1-3: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for,
and CERTAIN OF WHAT WE DO NOT SEE. This is what the ancients were
commended for. By faith, we understand that the universe was formed at
God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is
visible.

It will always be possible to offer alternative explanations; for if
we could "prove" God, in a scientific sense, then "believing" in him
would cease to be an act of faith, and "without faith, it is
impossible to please God..."
Gary

==

EGM
"in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut"

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com