Groups > Spirituality and Consciousness

Wait, wait, wait--which is it?

What am I?

Am I an "uneducated dweeb" or am I an "intellectual"?

Boothby, that was the miracle about the rent issue. Not even my family or her family knew anything. We were knew in christianity and we wanted to handle our affairs privately between God and us. That was a great commfirmation that we were doing the right thing.

In regard to catastrophe I wont even go there. Even among christians that understand the basics of christianity you will find disagreements, imagine those that has problems figuring out if there is a God or not.

So you hadn't merntioned it to any family ort friends? NO ONE in your family mentioned it to any friends? No one mentioned it in confession (if you went to confession--not sure which version of Christianity you follow exactly..)?

There are so many ways that information can get out.

The correct answer is NO. I have been around those circles and I know many many people that experienced all kind of miracles like mine and even greater. If you really want to investigate this go to a church where they preach and believe in miracles. Be like a reporter and interview all of those that have a testimony. They are not going to lie to you. It is a normal thing in churches like that. You will be surprise! You might end up one of them.

There are plenty of intellectuals who have indeed "looked behind the curtain" and have seen something transcending a materialistic philosophy that only deals with scientifically empirical proof; and with that comment I am speaking as both a scientist and a believer. Anselm's proof of the existence of God, Thomas Aquinas' causality (which Hume argues against by denying causality, which in itself discounts even science). Great thinkers in the 20th century, Rahner, Barth, Hildebrandt, would certainly be considered intellectuals, particularly compared to the more flippant and philosophically specious attackers of religion such as Harris, Hitchins and Dawkins. Anyone taking philosopy 101 could see through their arguments and their own "curtain." Curtains are set up on both sides of the fence.

In one sense I do agree with you. A faith based upon a genie of the lamp, Santa Claus, or Peter Pan's farie wishes is most certainly a weak argument for faith. But if that's the only argument you are seeing, then I would respectfully suggest that yours is the deficiency of knowledge.

As far as the original posit in this thread: I see no disparity between the poetic, mythological, true description in the Genesis creation story which answers the question "why" and the empirical, incductive, true description of Hubble, et al. in describing the "how" of creation.

Boothby, this is for you (above). See what you can do here.

Bryan,

I do say I will look into some of the philosophers you mentioned.

Anselm's "Most Perfect Island" syllogism (I assume that is what you are referring to) is weak at best--it is one of those flimsy "curtains" to which you refer.

I, too, see no disparity between the poetic, mythological description in the Genesis creation story.

Note that I left out the word, "true." If you want to consider it "emotionally true," then I won't argue with you, since the term "emotionally true" does not mean "rationally true." Whether or not the Biblical Genesis story is "emotionally true" is a matter of personal opinion. It is not emotionally true for me.

And I would state that it is not "rationally true" for anybody, in that is does not represent any physical trueth or reality.

And I do not look at faith based simply as "genies, faeries and Santas." It's only that many of the "faiths" proclaimed ehre devolve into that category fairly quickly. I CAN (and do) recognize a faith that provides emotional solace, and so contains (if I may) an "emotional truth." But when people attempt to impose their emotional, a-rational belief systems on a larger population (one that includes ME), I must and do protest--as is my right, as is my duty.