Dale Thompson wrote:
So you see science and worldly evidence will remain blind to the truth because they look through carnal eyes when the things of God are spiritual.
2007-05-20 13:58:04 · 33 answers · asked by ? 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
~HiYa~ Godz!
2007-05-20 14:04:08 · update #1
(((Ramjet)))
2007-05-20 14:05:23 · update #2
(((Laptop)))...I love it when you get fired up!..lol
2007-05-20 14:07:42 · update #3
ignoramu: very true in what you are saying
2007-05-20 14:09:35 · update #4
Endora: How many voices do you have?
2007-05-20 14:14:40 · update #5
so spiritual is another name for "you can't understand".
2007-05-22 03:03:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We ALL have visual 'blind spots', and therefore I believe we also have all kinds of other 'blind spots' in our reasoning, beliefs to include a fair number of "spiritual blind spots"
What truth are those who believe in and/or use science and "worldly" (whatever that is) evidence blind to?
The "things of God" are spiritual and physical (and much more). How do I know? I only have to look around me and experience the reality that I am in.
If 'the things' of God are only 'spiritual', then why was this world, everything in it, and us created 'physically' versus spiritually only?
Are not these things manifestations and/or reflections of God? Why would God manifest and/or reflect something that God is not?
How do we know when ourselves or another are NOT seeing through their 'carnal eyes'? Because they do or don't agree with us? What if you were both wrong? Then what is the truth?
I believe that 'the truth' is, is that we are ALL blind in our own ways, and it could easily be proven in a nanosecond to just about anyone.
Regards,
2007-05-20 14:09:50 · answer #2 · answered by smithgiant 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how you define truth. If it's perception, as Thompson's is, then sure, why not? We'll be blind to his version of the truth because we refuse to believe him. If it's truth independent of human perception, then he'd be completely wrong. The truth, reality as it is and not as human chooses to interpret it, is accessible to anyone. It's not "spiritual," it's real.
The problem Thompson actually has is a failure to understand the difference between the ideal and the material. The ideal is stuff that exists only in the ideal, in the mind. It's where all "spiritual" things lay because these things have no presence in the material world. The material is stuff that exists independently of the mind. It can be experienced physically.
The word "truth" has different meanings depending on ones religion. In the Christian religion (Thompson's), the "truth" can't be experienced because the only "truth" there is would be his god. In my religion (Buddhism), the "truth" is a very simple thing. It's reality as it exists, not as I wish or expect it to exist.
Thompson means well, I'm sure, but he has blinded himself in the same way that Dark Age catholicism blinded itself by refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
2007-05-20 14:20:10 · answer #3 · answered by Muffie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
.Why are christian so against science? Really, It shows the way the world works. I know some of the big words are hard to understand but it does make sense once you study.
Basically your saying God is spiritual and can not be explained by science or people of science will remain blinded to the truth because god is spiritual. either way, Christians are not to question. That's so sad.
2007-05-20 14:07:04 · answer #4 · answered by punch 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What you are saying through this quote is that you agree with its up-side-down look at the situation.
The author, Thompson, wrote a bias statement here. His intention is to make scientists appear as if they are jaded and non-objective about their work and observations. Nothing could be farther from the truth when looking at this particular group of individuals. Objectivity, honesty and accountability are formost to the character of scientists.
I think the bias group of the authors statement is in fact quite the opposite of what he has written - it is the spiritual individual who tends to lie and mis-represent by omission what he sees or finds, and it is the spiritual individuals who are unable to remain stedfast and accountable for their opinions.
Your "Mr. Thompson" had it wrong, and apparently, so do you.
[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.
2007-05-20 14:30:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian...I disagree.
God is spirit but God also created the physical realm.
The problem is looking for God in the physical when He is spirit. The proof is all around of what He created but scientist are hoping to find answers other than God.
If God created everything on earth, this means all would be accountable to Him and His laws.
Not they wouldn't want that happen, would they?
2007-05-20 14:07:47 · answer #6 · answered by n9wff 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can measure the length of a board with a wooden ruler. You can measure electricity with a voltmeter. You would not attempt to measure electricity with the ruler, nor the length of a board with a voltmeter.
Whether or not you believe in God's existence, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you must acknowledge that if He does exist (I believe He does), since He is Spiritual you could not measure Him with earthly scientific means.
2007-05-20 14:13:21 · answer #7 · answered by teran_realtor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Strongly disagree. A man who loves science can also love God. Even today 66% of scientists are believers, and 76% of doctors. I have repeated this very often. Even historically men and women of science have shown faith in God.
2007-05-20 14:06:24 · answer #8 · answered by ignoramus_the_great 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For this to be true, it means that reality is worthless. It's not unlike a "matrix" type world where everything is programmed in, but nothing is actually reall. While I don't completely dismiss the idea, I hope it isn't true. I would very much like for reality to be substantial.
2007-05-20 14:06:57 · answer #9 · answered by A 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agree
2007-05-20 14:06:18 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Disagree. I believed with my whole heart when I started losing my faith. I wanted very badly to hold onto it.
When I thought I was being too "intellectual" I just stopped studying and turned to prayer. I knew god would know how sincere I was in trying to reclaim my faith. I did everything I could. I humbled myself before him.
And I wasn't being carnal at the time. By anyones standards.
I think thats too simplistic and it's a veiled slam at anyone who doesn't think like Dale Thomson.
(Edit) Losing my faith was worse than a death. I lost everything. Hope of seeing my neice again. My reason for living. The being that was my best friend (Christ). It is a very powerful thing to go through, especially when you are doing everything in your power to follow Christ. I wasn't carnal. I wasn't running from God. I was a virgin in Bible College and losing my faith broke my heart. To have someone smugly contend that I had a "veil around my eyes" - WTF? I couldn't have wanted faith more. I couldn't have tried harder. I wasn't proud. I begged to hold onto my faith.
For someone to smugly place me into a category of "looking through carnal eyes" - please. It's insulting at best.
2007-05-20 14:05:01 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋