GOD

[indianasmith]

I hope he's not ticked - such stuff was fine on the other thread, IMO.  Just didn't belong here.

[Allhallowsday]

[RCMerchant]

I can totally get agnosticism, but atheism seems to me to be based largely on an internal compass, rather like faith itself.

Like faith, atheism can call on some evidence to support itself, true, terminally sick children being a darn fine argument against a benevolent higher power, but ultimately it comes down to a matter of personal conviction, so it is just as lacking, and, I have to add, rather pessimistic at heart. Given a choice I'd much rather say something is possible than conclude it isn't.

One day about a decade ago I was watching a show on archaeology, and the woman in charge of the excavation at a Mesoamerican site held up a stone ball and said, "We know this is proof of one-time human occupation, because nature could never produce a sphere this perfect."

It suddenly hit me that nature, given eons of time, could not make a humble sphere, something a small child could construct with clay, and yet we're supposed to fall in line to the idea that given that same amount of time nature randomly and with blind chance produced something as complex as a human being?

Almost against my stubborn will something in me clicked and I thought, "....huh...."

But to say a creator exists is not necessarily to take one more leap and say human religions necessarily get it right either.

RC, ever read a book called The Case For Christ? At the very least you might find it interesting.

Perhaps I should read it-I'm not against the idea-I'm just not for it. I just don't KNOW.
I'm a big fan of Charles Fort-he didn't beleive in anything-but he didn't disbelieve  either.
Im open to all thoughts on the matter-anything is possible,I suppose-it's a strange,fantastic universe-and there are things no one may ever understand-I know I won't. I reckon Im not a atheist-an agnostic-I suppose-I love mysteries-and ufos,God,sea monsters,anomalies-all fascinate me.
I was NOT trying to start a religious debate-I was thinking of the idea of concepts that seem impossible-but may be real-or not!

[Skull]

I hope he's not ticked - such stuff was fine on the other thread, IMO.  Just didn't belong here.

I'm not ticked. I decided to delete my posts because I could use them in the other thread ::)

[Jim H]

RC, ever read a book called The Case For Christ? At the very least you might find it interesting.

I was actually sent both Case For books after debating someone on a message board a number of years ago.  They have some interesting people in them, but the main overriding thought I had on it is how intellectually dishonest it was to frame it as a "journalist looking into these things" book, then ONLY talk to one side.  That's essentially sham journalism.  Call it what it is - Christian apologetics, pure and simple.  Strobel is clearly already convinced and presents a very poor opponent to the apologetic people.  It belies his supposed journalistic angle.

As you may guess from someone sending me those books, I'm not religious.  I'll say the books had discussions with some pretty knowledgeable and interesting people (I remember faith more than Christ, honestly), so they may be worth a look if you go in knowing there is minimal real challenge to Jesus' historicity (something, by the way, I wouldn't dispute) or faith itself.

All that said - no god for me.  That said, I don't think faith is a destructive force, but I don't think it's inherently positive either.  Just depends on how it is applied, like anything with people. 

[HappyGilmore]

Hmmm.  You could say I'm a non-practicing Catholic of the past 18 or so years.  I don't go to church, unless it's for a wedding or funeral and even then, that doesn't count. 

I agree with most findings found through science, but I think there's a ton of things I've seen/experienced that science doesn't explain. 

I can see taking comfort in believing in a God/afterlife.  If that's what gets one through a rough situation/death of a loved one, etc.

I can't say I'm an atheist, but I'm far from a believer. 

But, I respect anyone who is religious, whatever they believe in.  Unless they're particularly preachy and just comes off as hatred (I say this without attempting to start an argument, but I bring this up as I've seen some Christians be downright hateful to say, homosexuals, as 'it isn't HIS way.)  Last I read the Bible, Jesus was accepting and loving towards everyone, including thieves and hookers so, I'm sure he'd want us to treat gay people with respect and not excommunicate them.

[indianasmith]

That's a very good point, HG!  It is worth noting, though, that after forgiving the adulterous woman, Christ said "Go and sin no more," not, "Go and hook up all you want!"

That being said, if more Christians followed the example of Christ, Christianity would not have the negative reputation that it does.

[lester1/2jr]

You don't have to be religious to gather some understanding of the human race from the bible. at it's core a history of Israel: They come out of Mesopatamia and go to Canaan (King Melchizedek and the Canaanites are there already) and they go to Egypt and come back and yadda yadda. In the last chapter Jesus arrives and is kind of the Romney esque private equity guy stripping Judaism of it's weak components like why sacrifice animals to God when he made the animals? Why perform all these rituals and hyperventilate about all this stuff it doesn't serve any purpose and there are bigger to fry. Revelation ends it out by saying basically "we got this", the old systems are dead, Jesus lives.

Was Jesus God? did Jesus even exist or my favorite: does it even matter? Maybe "Jesus" was a codeword of sorts for people who hated Rome, hated the pharisees and wanted to live in a healthy positive way with dignity that other ways of life didnt afford them. We dont know. maybe Jesus was Robin Hood, a legend with political connotations maybe he was God, maybe he was a Steve Jobs type innovator. The true measure of his influence really can only be measured in the lives of his followers and those who came soon after he left the planet: 100% of whom were converts from other faiths initially and most still soon afterwards like Justin Martyr here about 100 years later

[ER]

Jesus may have been loving but Jesus condemned many things and was critical of many people. Jesus could be fire and brimstone, and in fact spoke more of Hell than anyone else recorded in the Bible, Hell being absent from Jewish teachings and rarely mentioned by, say, Paul. The idea that Jesus was easy-going and tolerated everything is contrary to the records we have of him. It's a misrepresentation.

[indianasmith]

RC, ever read a book called The Case For Christ? At the very least you might find it interesting.

I was actually sent both Case For books after debating someone on a message board a number of years ago.  They have some interesting people in them, but the main overriding thought I had on it is how intellectually dishonest it was to frame it as a "journalist looking into these things" book, then ONLY talk to one side.  That's essentially sham journalism.  Call it what it is - Christian apologetics, pure and simple.  Strobel is clearly already convinced and presents a very poor opponent to the apologetic people.  It belies his supposed journalistic angle.

As you may guess from someone sending me those books, I'm not religious.  I'll say the books had discussions with some pretty knowledgeable and interesting people (I remember faith more than Christ, honestly), so they may be worth a look if you go in knowing there is minimal real challenge to Jesus' historicity (something, by the way, I wouldn't dispute) or faith itself.

All that said - no god for me.  That said, I don't think faith is a destructive force, but I don't think it's inherently positive either.  Just depends on how it is applied, like anything with people. 

Well, in fairness, the title of the book does give away its thesis.  It's the case FOR Christ, not the case for and against.  He does assume you've heard all the naysayers.

I think Strobel has gotten better as he's gone along - while THE CASE OF CHRIST is a minor classic, his more recent THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS trumps it altogether.  One thing I do like about him is that each chapter examines the question or issue on a fairly basic level, but then he lists the books written by the scholars he's interviewed on that particular aspect of apologetics, and that way you can get a much more detailed, in-depth look at the issues.  I've actually downloaded and read two of the works cited in THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS, and was highly impressed with both.  Also, his THE CASE FOR A CREATOR is a very handy summation of all the arguments in favor of our world being a work of design rather than chance.  I think it may be my favorite out of the whole set.

[RCMerchant]

This is all very interesting-I'm not against Jesus Christ. I AM against organized relgion-I think more harm than good has come from"my god is better than yours" kinda thought. Be it Christian,Muslim,or wtf ever.

[indianasmith]

I think it falls into the old "one plane crashes, it's news, ten thousand planes land safely, it's not" category.  The good that is done by churches and synagogues all across America rarely shows up on TV at six and ten except maybe around the holidays, whereas the damage done by the nutjobs and bullies gets played on every news channel.

Just for example - a couple of weeks ago one of my church members died without any insurance.  The VA covered most of his burial expenses, but the family still needed to come up with $3000 for a coffin.  My tiny little church of 30 people, half of them little kids, raised $1100 in a single day to help that family.  Next time you hear about Westboro Baptist picketing some funeral or doing something stupid, remember there are a lot more churches like mine than there are like them.

[lester1/2jr]

Massachusetts where I live was the epicenter of the priest sexual abuse scandal. Bernard Law saw what was going on and did nothing, in fact he facilitated it by moving the guys around from parish to parish. He is still employed by the Catholic church. Many Catholics did a lot of soul searching about that but the church itself 's response left a lot to be desired. Some people value "the church" more than actual human beings.

[ER]

Massachusetts where I live was the epicenter of the priest sexual abuse scandal. Bernard Law saw what was going on and did nothing, in fact he facilitated it by moving the guys around from parish to parish. He is still employed by the Catholic church. Many Catholics did a lot of soul searching about that but the church itself 's response left a lot to be desired. Some people value "the church" more than actual human beings.

You're so right, lester, especially your last sentence. What has been revealed about the misconduct of a majority of past Catholic Bishops, their protecting the reputation of the Church by shielding a minority of despicable priests, is as criminal as it is disgusting to anyone with a shred of decency.

Anyone in the clergy alive now who undertook abuse or covered it up should face prosecution, and any now deceased who participated should be posthumously exposed as the vile collaborators they were, no matter how big their reputation or extensive their one-time power. 

For years Cardinal Bernardin, our former Archbishop, a man I grew up hearing stories about that made him sound saintly, was cheered for actually being innocent of an allegation of sexual abuse made against him, and now we learn twenty years after his death that while he may have been personally not guilty of abusing anyone, the growing evidence shows even he shielded the guilty, and it makes me sick.

The abuse of children was an institution in the Catholic Church, and all I can say is I do think FINALLY things have gotten better.

One believer carrying on shamefully does more harm to the reputation of Christianity than a thousand doubters attacking it from the outside.

[AoTFan]

To answer the original question of the thread I personally consider myself agnostic.  Years ago I would've answered "born-again Christian" how I got from there to here is a story that would take way to too long for the simple post to get into.  For the record, yeah I'd *like* to believe there's loving God out there who created us and watches over us and there's a Heaven and/or some kind of Karmic balance to the world where good is rewarded and evil punished etc but I just don't see any concrete evidence of it.  And I can NOT just shut off my brain and accept beliefs which don't correspond with the facts as I know them.

What I really find disturbing (and forgive me if I step on toes here) are all those people that say I need to believe the same thing they do or else I'm going to go to hell and burn for all eternity.  Oh, really? I mean, first up, never mind that's pretty much spiritual terrorism, but how do you know that?  The ONLY people who can truly tell us what happens when we die aren't talking.  Second, what about the millions (maybe billions) of people through time who've died without even having heard of your particular belief system?  Does God/fate/the universe or whatever send them to hell just because they were born at the wrong time? 

And finally, there is and has been THOUSANDS of religious and spiritual viewpoints and beliefs throughout time and you're gonna tell me you somehow won the spiritual lottery and found the ONLY true path?  Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Anyway, I haven't dismissed the concept completely, I'm still searching for a belief system that makes since to me.