This is in response to me saying: God can't be proven through science - thats all about faith. However, an institutional religion can be proven true or false based on it's history and based upon the things said and done by the people running it. I am differentiating between a man-made institution (of religion) and faith in God. Then, he just completely convolutes it.
(oh yes, also, this is all regarding this Ensign article he asked me to read from Jan)

"The sister who wrote the article said several things that caught my attention, and I think there are things you need to focus on. She said regarding her spiritual experiences, "They expanded my perception of what is REAL, what is WORTHWHILE, and what God can do." And later she said, "Religious questions cannot be addressed satisfactorily through scholarly inquiry alone." Finally, she says this: "I have experienced firsthand the fruits of the Spirit as I have kept the commandments and served in the Church."

The point of me mentioning all of this is that if you continually look for negative things, I'm sure you will find them. If you want clarification about anything, why not pray about it? Just because SCIENCE doesn't acknowledge spiritual matters, doesn't make them NOT REAL. What is real for any of us depends upon our own efforts, both physical and otherwise."

How much drivel is this: The FIL tells me: "(YOU NEED TO) "come to rely chiefly on spiritual experiences, not intellectual deliberations, as a basis for (YOUR) testimony."

How do you tell faith from "just talking yourself into it?" Religious feelings are being studied by science right now. They have a pretty good idea what causes them. I'd love to share those details with a TBM, but I'm sure it would be futile!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2013 10:15PM by rationalguy.

Hey - that's good - I think I will be including that in my Reply email.