RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

[Guest guest]

Hi Deanna,

I'm sorry- I knew when I went back and re-read my post that it

looked as if that was all directed at you personally. That reply was

really my generalizations about the religion exchange on the list as

a whole and I should have made that clear. My original intention (in

replying initially to 's post) was simply to communicate that

belief in Christianity and God in general are legitimate and

defendable- or at the very least not to be dismissed as " crap " . In

attempting to illustrate this with a few examples I had come across

in my own reading, I found myself knee-deep in all these scientific

arguments and way out of the scope of my knowledge. Don't get me

wrong- these are interesting and worthwhile discussions but not if

the intention is talking people into or out of belief in God. That's

something each person has to work out with Him .

> >

> >

> 1. Many people believe in God and have a good knowledge of

science.

> For example, my physics professor was an ordained Methodist

minister.

> But then look at the first paragraph you wrote and compare it to

> statement 1 in the second paragraph. If you don't know about

cosmology,

> how can you argue any position on it?

I guess I was arguing very much a layperson's position- in the

simple but at the same time really complex sense of how did

something (matter, energy, the universe) come from nothing... or if

it didn't come from nothing, where did that something come from and

on and on...

>

> 2. Science has, over the centuries, relegated much of the once

assumed

> " work of God " or supernatural to very natural causes.

True, but I would make a distinction between attributing things to

the supernatural because they are truly unknowable/unanswerable as

opposed to things we just don't understand. This would be the

exception rather than the rule especially in science, of course, but

certainly appropriate in some cases.

This has often

> caused violent reactions by the Church. (Interestingly many other

> religions besides Christianity don't come into conflict with

science).

> We now know for instance that demons don't cause disease, that the

earth

> is not the center of the universe, the universe is billions of

years

> old, and so on.

The Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't make these claims.

>

> 3. Science deals in data. Philosophy deals with truth. Proving

things

> can be done in mathematics and logic, not science.

>

> >Those who hold they won't/don't believe in God until science

proves

> >it otherwise put themselves in a pretty hopeless postition

because

> >this will never happen. You can say the opposite is true for

> >believers- that they believe in God until someone proves

otherwise.

> >I think in the absence of absolute proof either way, this view is

> >just plain more believable, not to mention hopeful and

optimistic. I

> >believe the heavens *do* declare the glory of God, and that the

> >complexity of life and matter- really science itself- just

> >reverberates with intelligence. God uses science and countless

other

> >ways to reveal himself if we are willing to listen.

> >

> >

> Who says I won't or don't believe in God until science proves it?

>

> >Seriously- consider sincerely asking God to reveal himself to you

> >(or even challenge Him if that's more your style:) for this is

what

> >He promises.

> >

> >

> I have asked. Isn't it rather presumptuous of you to assume that

I

> haven't? Are you assuming that I am atheist? I am not. God has

> revealed to me very much to me. That is why I am not a Christian

anymore.

>

> Deanna

Again, my apologies. I didn't presume that of you. I should not have

made most of that post a reply to your message- it truly was a

tangent and not personally directed to you.

Sincerely,