Blasphemous?
Out of context: Reply #264
- Started
- Last post
- 282 Responses
- gramme0
I believe science is an inadequate methodology in describing the origin of all things and that supernatural activity created life.
There. I said it. I've been saying it all along.
I think the idea of ID is compatible with modern science, at least in the areas where scientific and pseudo-scientific evidence has not yet been proven false. I admit, however, that I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, using sheer physical evidence and power of logic, that the God of the Bible made the universe we live in.
Such beliefs seem harmonious to me with all the unknowns that are outside the capabilities of science. Harmonious, but not 100% empirically provable.
I believe there are some things which simply cannot be proven in a scientific court of law. In such matters, I am armed merely with faith and philosophical logic. And in the end, philosophy can be argued but faith can only be presented as it is largely a matter of revelation beyond the scope of logic.
One thing that can be argued strongly from a philosophical standpoint: we can't all be correct. All the various faiths and deities one finds out there are so diametrically opposed to one another, so contradictory to one another, that they can't all be right.
After studying various religions out there, I have come to the conclusion that many have good things to offer, but that Christianity is best. And the holy Trinity does not brook the possibility of other gods.
Each of you should be fully orthodox in the practice of whatever you believe. You should consider it carefully, judiciously, logically. There is more at stake for each of us than many of you realize.
One of my major beefs with the postmodern spiritual climate is that so few people are willing to commit to an orthodoxy of any stripe. We live in a world of half-shadows and semi-convictions.
Makes me sad.