>Doesn't that statement conflict with the following one then? My assumption in that statement is that your pink unicorn is the same as the one people use solely as a parody of the existence of an invisible God. In such an example, the unicorn is designed to not any effect or interaction with our world that we can detect in any way, which is not the God that I am referring to.
>I think the issue is faith versus what is scientifically provable with >today's technology. The thing is, that science rarely "proves" things. Much of what we today take as proven fact isn't considered so in terms of scientific theory. Let's take evolution for instance. Certainly most people take it as a fact at this point, but it's called a "theory" of evolution because it is only presumed true by the preponderance of evidence. But that doesn't make it an absolute fact. It is hubris to assume that what we can observe and define within our own abilities is thus the extent of what must therefore be true. >There are many things that we can't prove with >science, but that people have a belief in - maybe a well placed one. >Global Warming is one such example. Exactly. And just as people look at what we can see and observe and have learned and draw a conclusion that seems to meet the preponderance of scientific evidence, so many of us do when it comes to religious faith. >That's why for me spiritual study is looking at the nature of reality >and the historical and biological record of the universe rather than >anything that is studied in any mainstream Christian church. I believe it can include both. I find much in science that is so extraordinary and inexplicable and leads me to consider other possibilities but science alone would not fulfill my interest in spiritual disciplines. Studying the history of the Christian religion is IMO quite striking, I've yet to find any plausible reason for such beliefs that were in so much conflict with both Jewish and Roman/Greek ideas at the time to become so quickly wide-spread. >But this is also where Christian churches are spiritually >discriminating: in matters of individual spirituality they require you >to conform to their method of study. Not in any church I've belonged to as an adult. Perhaps you are thinking about the Catholics? >For example, are Buddhism and Christianity mutually exclusive? If so, >why? If not, why not? I personally haven't studied Buddhism closely enough to speak on this, but it definitely isn't a religion that is absolutely in conflict with Christianity so I expect there would be disagreement in this regard. --- Mary Jo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:306412 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
