>>I don't understand. Where were you? Obviously not in 1st century
Palestine!>>
You wrote this in response to my saying "I was there." I did not expect
you to
take my words literally! Sorry. What I meant was that I've had,
personally,
experience(s) of the God you do not know; those experiences
are as real to me as anything else in my past history. Because they
really happened, we cannot be on equal footing in this conversation --
sorry
about that.
To speak of these things I must use analogies, and analogies are never
for the purpose of proof -- but only for the purpose of illustration of a
point.
This is how we are (analogy). You and I dwell in a little village by the
forest. Life is good here, but there seems to be no purpose to it. We are
born, we live awhile, have a few laughs, die.
One day I come to you and tell you there is more to life than this. But
you have to go through the forest to find out what it is. I have done
this, and I assure you the trip (search) is worth the effort. Having had
my say, I'm at an end. I cannot drag you into the forest; I cannot show
you that a foray into it will be successful.
In our discussions, you constantly tell me I have not shown evidence and
so why should one believe? I'm unhappy at this, but, of course, "I've
been there" and such arguments are simply without worth to me.
Well -- that's one analogy. Sure -- imperfect. All analogies are
imperfect.
I wrote earlier that I can be sure my dad, deceased now 25 years, was of
a
certain character. You replied that I was talking about tangible
reality. Of course I was. That, also, was an analogy. Imperfect, in the
way you cite. It is very difficult to speak of intangible reality to one
who does not accept the concept. I try.
I asked you if you, personally, "knew" anything that cannot provide
"testable
evidence?" You answered that "No. I have opinions on such matters."
Interesting. My knowledge of God is certainly (to me) more forceful than
an opinion, as is my knowledge that my wife of 40 years really loves me.
Opinions may vary in strength, I suppose, but at some point "know" seems
to be a much more reasonable term.
>>My intellect tells me that testable evidence is primary and that logic
and reason are tools that can be used - carefully - to turn evidence
into knowledge.>>
I mentioned Pascal's position on that. My own take on it is that it is
the highest use of the reasoning facility to ascertain its own limits.
In response to the Pascal quote you said:
"If my "heart" can't explain those reasons to my "head", then, unless the
matter is trivial, my "heart" misses out!"
No, not your heart. You.
I wrote: "But some areas of knowledge carry with them a necessary
commitment to a goal, or a person, or a cause."
You replied: "I'm having a lot of difficulty accepting this claim. Do you
have any
secular (dare I say materialistic) examples that might help clarify it?"
Good question. I suppose a dedicated Marxist might be an example. Maybe
also the guys who wrote the Federalist papers 200+ years ago. Political
areas are the only ones that come to mind right now.
>>The way I see it, if "head study" doesn't provide understanding, then
either the "head's" intellectual limits have been reached, or "they are
really about" nothing significant.>>
I understand that statement. It is not new, of course; Hume said it
first.
To use the analogy above, you claim that "beyond the forest there is
nothing."
I, who have been there, disagree.
You are asserting an unprovable negative.
I am asserting a potentially provable positive.
>>I can't see how one could answer anything but an unqualified yes; since
- by most accounts - this Christ's Father deals eternally and brutally
with those less than fully committed to His Son.>>
I do not think this means you have answered an unqualified "yes" to the
question, and neither do you! You are reacting against one particular
view of "God" here, and that's OK but recognize that that particular view
may be incorrect and yet God may exist in some other way.
>>Given that there have been some fine minds working on this issue for
thousands of years, doesn't it trouble you that no reasonable answers
have been forthcoming?>>\
You spoke here of the issue that there are many different religions.
Does it trouble me? Yes. Does it have anything at all to do with
my Christianity? Of course not. My commitment is to a PERSON, not a
theology.
>>I know this looks as though I'm trivialising the issue, but really, if
reason
doesn't guard the door, almost anything can be made believable. Look how
many people believe in astrology.>>
I'd argue that this is beside the point. I don't; neither do you.
Elvis is dead and so we go from there.
>>How did you resolve it? The only way that occurs to me is by deciding
that Christianity (which brand?) was right, all the others were wrong,
and it wasn't Christianity's fault if the followers of other religions
couldn't or wouldn't accept their error! But it sounds so arbitary!>>
How did I resolve it? By asking. "Seek and you shall find." I took that
admonition seriously. I did not "believe;" I committed myself to
becoming a Christian if God would just do his part. He did. No visions.
Nothing out of the ordinary. But it did happen and I could not deny
reality.
Best...
Burgy
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]