UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 11 to Talk Back 52
What is your point?

by Maarten van den Driest

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

In an effort to cut through this long and convoluted discussion, I'd like to ask Thomas J.: "What exactly is your point?"

In your original Talk Back 52, you showed us little insight into your beliefs, which, at last count, includes a rather vague god-concept, reincarnation, pandeism and Intelligent Design.

I can handle the fundamentalist Christians, they at least base their views on Bible texts; you can point out passages and then argue over them. As a Christian, I am well-versed in religious reasoning and quite prepared to answer them. But what is it that you, Thomas J., want?

It appears that you would have the readers of this site accept the divinity of all the world through a 'God of the Gaps' argument. I could be wrong but read on. It ultimately doesn't matter what your motivations are.

I, personally, do agree with you that there are things in life that cannot be handled by science. Science, wisely, constricts itself to those subjects it can actually say anything meaningful about. However, that is no reason to immediately conclude we need a belief in God to explain entirely material things.

I have no idea how the Bible would support reincarnation. On the other hand, there is firm support for a casting out of sinners without parole, if you decide to take it all literally.

I can understand a fanatic fundamentalist wanting to convert me - is he not perfectly right in all things? - but you I cannot grasp. You give us vague, ill-defined, notions of spirituality, untrue scientific anecdotes and strained analogies. What is it that you actually want to bring to this discussion?

  1. If it is just that you want to say that there are limits to what science can talk about then that is simply true. There is no discussion needed on that subject.

  2. If you want to say that some ungraspable concepts still have reality in our universe - such as love, compassion - then I personally agree. Nothing can ever be proven here and we can simply accept that. Others need not agree at all and it is useless to demand that from them.

  3. If you mean to say that almost all faith traditions have something (or a lot) meaningful to say about these non-material matters then this is, again, simply true.

  4. However, if you demand allegiance to any specific viewpoint (usually your own) then we can also stop right here. There is no way you will ever sway anyone using only material witnesses.

Simple, isn't it? Discussion complete?