S
- Status
S
StevieD
Guest
I agree. You seem to want to ‘play a game’ here with the Catholics.Sorry, your entire interaction style and projected attitude is not of one who is looking to be reinforced in the faith. You are on offense and actively bucking the help people are trying to give you and are trying to talk others out of their faith. I think you are being very disingenuous and I really think you lost your faith long ago (if ever you had it) and are a confirmed atheist looking to bring others into your camp thinking there is truth in numbers.
Audios.
James
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t say that archeology can provide 100% proof that something didn’t happen (even if it didn’t). I do think that there are some cases where we do not find evidence of something, even though we would expect to (if the Bible were true). For example, given the supposed size of the Exodus, we would expect a lot more evidence than actually exists. And then there are things like the Egypt prophecies in Ezekiel 29 and 30 in which God said Nebuchadnezzar would utterly destroy Egypt and leave it devoid of life for forty years, but we have no evidence that any of that took place. And I didn’t mean to imply that you hadn’t looked at the evidence on both sides, I was just suggesting that fadingfaith should too.
I agree, which is sometimes why it’s good to read one-sided writings from both sides and make up your own mind.
Well I think that morality can make it more likely that one’s genes will be passed on. For example, if you have excess grain, and someone is starving, you’ll likely give them some. If the people in a tribe all have a conscience, they will be more likely to survive tough times. So those tribes that are genetically predisposed to have a conscience will be more successful and may eventually dominate the gene pool.
There’s a number of different ways they can be beneficial. To be successful, a society needs people to fill a number of different roles. It needs some people to take care of the kids, others to gather fruits and vegetables, and others to hunt. It’s therefore valuable to have people who are naturally nurturing, and others who are naturally aggressive. Also, it’s good to have people who behave differently. If everyone behaved the same way, then it would be easy for a crisis to wipe everyone out since everyone would react in the same way (and that way might not always be correct).
Because those tribes that did more were more likely to survive. For example, groups that settled down and planted crops could have a more reliable food supply, and save the excess for lean times. Tribes that had advanced irrigation systems were less likely to have their fields dry up, or to ever die from dehydration. Tribes that learned about the seasons, and the weather, and biology were better able to ensure that their crops would survive. So there are many powerful evolutionary reasons why humans became intelligent, settled down, and researched science.
If you ever come back to the thread, I’d be interested in whether you find my answers satisfactory.
F
fadingfaith
Guest
notice i’m not the one providing lots of material. i think the ca members are holding their own pretty well. not saying im convinced, but its giving plenty of food for thought. youd think if i had an agenda i’d have a lot more to offer than skepticism. besides, mother theresa, therese of liseiux and many others i’m sure struggled with their faith. heck, even my priest says he does
F
fadingfaith
Guest
sorry i somehow missed your post, james. i got caught up in all those links north posted earlier…[continued from above]
A few thoughts. Don’t you think if God did exist we would have a pretty sure bet in coming up with at least general concepts that held? Would you not admit that God is more likely than not benevolent, unimaginably intelligent and powerful with omniscient insight, ordered and intrinsically fair and just?
As for conflicting religions - I can empathize here since withing Christianity there are potentially 35,000 or so more “choices” on the roulette table that could be wrong or at least not optimum. Of course it could all come up double zero and we all loose if the games rigged or there is no pot. But if there was one plausible chance out of 35,000 to win an eternity of bliss and happiness and purpose and you had one chip to play and could study different claims from what the best “bets” seem to be and you had nothing to loose by at least playing wouldn’t you be inclined to place that wager rather than dropping the chip on the floor and hanging out at the bar drinking cocktails till it came time to close down the place?This is a variation on Pascal’s Wager.
Now consider that if God is benevolent and listens to us and wants us to be all we can be don’t you think he might lead us to make the right decision if we sought to get his guidance or listened for what he might be trying to tell us?
Actually from a pure odds perspective the odds compared to winning a state lotto are extraordinarily good - especially if the pot in infinite as we believe.
What if working through the challenge of knowing how to choose is all part of what God gives us to discern who is worthy of Him and really knows Him? It seems to me that a child seeks out its parent’s voice and features. Maybe this is why her permits so many choices - to prove his children?
If God is not benevolent - we are all screwed and can’t do a thing about it. Relative to eternity whatever we do here is irrelevant if God punishes everyone or cosigns us to oblivion - this is the pessimist view. But the possibility that he is benevolent supersedes all other considerations since hope and optimism is always to be preferred to despair and pessimism.
I disagree with your comment: “IF there is a designer to this universe he/it is far superior to us and we could never come close to ever knowing who or what he is”. If such a designer (Creator) exists then it is within His power to reveal whatever he wants to us and make it possible for us to comprehend to what ever degree He desires. Even if he only permits a baby step into the Divine mind it would be a universe above what we know now. That alone is compelling enough to warrant exploring options.
If Columbus stayed within the waters he had charted we never would have found the Americas. One thing is universal to the human nature - insatiable thirst for knowledge and discovering the universe and what created it that is “out there” waiting to be experienced. The pattern I see is a constant natural come-hither call. That sure sounds like God left us something in us to go discover Him. Frankly I think he is proud of His work and wants to share His excitement with us (that implies to me an elevation of nature and a relationship with the Creator as a reward). If it turns out that we are the only life in the universe then we have a moral obligation to self to go claim it all and figure out how to make it all work for us.
James
i dont know if i can tackle all of your post right now, but a few thoughts have come to mind while doing a quick read through.
theres a lot going through my mind right now (concerning all of this) so i think that rather than respond im just going to let all this information marinate in my brain for a while
thanks for your insight.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I think Pascal’s wager is a horrible argument, although I see why it is tempting to those who don’t understand it. In an earlier thread, I criticized the wager and a lot of people agreed with me and said that serious apologists do not think it is a good argument. I think it would be a mistake to put any stock in the argument.As for conflicting religions - I can empathize here since withing Christianity there are potentially 35,000 or so more “choices” on the roulette table that could be wrong or at least not optimum. Of course it could all come up double zero and we all loose if the games rigged or there is no pot. But if there was one plausible chance out of 35,000 to win an eternity of bliss and happiness and purpose and you had one chip to play and could study different claims from what the best “bets” seem to be and you had nothing to loose by at least playing wouldn’t you be inclined to place that wager rather than dropping the chip on the floor and hanging out at the bar drinking cocktails till it came time to close down the place?
One problem is that it assumes that the true god must be one of the ones humans have thought of. But if our knowledge is limited and we have no good evidence, I think it is far more likely that they’re all wrong and, if there is a God, it is not the god of any current religion. The true God could just as easily be something I just made up. And perhaps there’s a completely different god who doesn’t care if we worship him, as long as we don’t worship any false manmade god.
Also, the wager assumes that Catholicism is the best religion to place your bet on. Since that is the religion we know best, that seems sensible. But I don’t think it would be a good assumption without looking at all the arguments other religions use in support of their faiths.
Pretend some guy walked up to you on the street and said if you give $1000 per month to this one specific charity, you would receive an infinite reward. Would you do it? There’s certainly a chance that he’s correct (maybe he received a sign from God), but does it make any sense to take him up on the offer? I think before you accept something like that, you should make sure the probability that you get the payoff is more than trivially small. By the infinite reward logic, it would even be worth laying down your life for a religion that you believe is almost certainly false, just because the religion says you might get an infinite reward in exchange.
Another problem is you can’t force belief. No matter how much money I was offered, I do not think I could force myself to believe pink unicorns exist (assuming there was a machine that could determine my beliefs). And will god fall for you pretending to believe or fooling yourself into believing in him, or would he prefer that you be honest about what you believe?
Also, I do not think that a god who gives so little evidence of his own existence and sends people to hell for not believing in him could really be omnibenevolent. I just don’t think a truly omnibenevolent god would send any but the most evil and god-hating people to hell. But if this is the case, then the wager breaks down, because you’d get the same outcome either way.
So I really don’t think the wager works at all, and I don’t think you should buy into it. However, it is true that the stakes are high, so you should definitely take the time to try to determine what is true.
F
fadingfaith
Guest
i guess thats what i need to determine: have i lost something? i guess i feel like i have. yet at the same time i know i’ve gained something - i just dont know if i should attribute what has been gained to faith.
F
fadingfaith
Guest
i think you are right and i think your objections to pascals wager are actually a good case for christianity (if that makes any sense). the point is that if you are just going through the motions of being a good christian for the sake of the reward or out of fear of condemnation then you’ve missed something. this may very well be the point to my doubt (from a faith-based assessment). i have to admit that although i find no reason at all to believe in god i am more challenged in my morals without faith. without faith morality is subjective or objective. faith-less based good morals are a good test of ones motives. perhaps some faithful are more motivated by reward and fear of condemnation than actual love which is certainly more perfect. a trial of faith might reveal true motives. mother theresa once said that we can perform no great works - only small ones with great love (or something like that).
maybe im looking for excuses for my doubt, but i have to explore this from both angles. the other side of this is that scripture does seem to prompt us to do good with the promise of rewards and discourage us from evil with the promise of condemnation so it almost seems like scripture is encouraging imperfect faith.
anyone care to share their thoughts on that?
S
StevieD
Guest
"You do not offend Me by your demand for proof. I have dealt with far more belligerent souls than you. Ask Me to speak to you in your heart. I will do so. You want to know that
I exist? I will show you that I exist. Will you then follow Me? I challenge you to
make that commitment to Me. If I speak to you in your soul and you hear My voice,
will you then forsake darkness and return to My fold? You find your courage failing you, dear soul. You must be braver than this if you are going to be a servant of Christ. I am here. I am watching your every step and hearing your every word. (Extract from Vol 4 Directions for Our Times). Might be true - worth a try?
I exist? I will show you that I exist. Will you then follow Me? I challenge you to
make that commitment to Me. If I speak to you in your soul and you hear My voice,
will you then forsake darkness and return to My fold? You find your courage failing you, dear soul. You must be braver than this if you are going to be a servant of Christ. I am here. I am watching your every step and hearing your every word. (Extract from Vol 4 Directions for Our Times). Might be true - worth a try?
F
fadingfaith
Guest
im not a quitter
i certainly am not commited to religion at all right now, but i dont have enough faith in myself to say there is, without a doubt, no god.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
That is what the church is here for. Lean on the faith of your brethren to carry you through a dark period of doubt rather than get too aggressive in challenging other’s faiths. This whole scenario reminds me of what often happens in lifeguard scenarios. A person is drowning and the life guard rushes out to attempt a rescue. But as he approaches the trained lifeguard knows that the victim is in utter terror and panicking and as soon as that lifeguard gets close enough the victim is going to thrash wildly at him and grab onto him without regard to his rescuer’s safety. It is easy to put an arm around the throat and climb on top of the would be rescuer and in the flurry both get drowned. But the trained lifeguard will first toss a float as a temporary relief to settle the victim. He will then approach from an oblique angle or from behind to get a hold of the victim in such a way that he can control him without himself being hurt. Then after the risk of imminent death is subsided and the calm starts to return a slow and deliberate swim back to shore is attempted with the lifeguard controlling it while trying to keep the victim relaxed and immobilized till they get to safety.im not a quitter
I am sensing a certain “glee” in finding ways to reject the ideas and information that is being tossed out. No one here has a perfect faith - some are stronger than others. The OP has wandered into very deep waters and that many Christians never bother to risk. This is way over everyone’s heads is what I am saying. It is dangerous area and there are no perfect proofs - this is where faith must prevail or one must flail and sink - possibly bringing others with you.
Be careful is all I am saying. There are various books that are published that take a systematic approach to rebutting this area of attack on the faith. The key thing one should keep in mind here is just how many first century Christians would have let themselves be martyred for a dubious faith? What atheist would be willing to go up against being skinned alive or burned or fed to the lions to hold to his faith that there is no God?
Sure - now we can attack that and say “well no one has proved that anyone has died for their faith - that is just the Christian story.” But at some point its gets to be just pointless to debate it any further since some people prefer to doubt and be pessimistic about life and nothing will change that attitude except a radical life changing event in their life or a sudden infusion of grace that changes their outlook. Prayer is the best thing for the terminal doubters and Christians who are not very strong in their faith should discern when to walk away from this kind of debate rather than get dragged down to the depths by it…
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I think you make a good point here. There are certainly elements of an objective end focused or bracketed at two extremes by infinite reward and infinite loss.
There is an interesting tension between greed and reward on the positive side such that a wrong motive (greed or pure self interest) would certainly seem to run counter to the Christian virtues (charity, love, selflessness etc.) also seen in the Christian message. On the negative side we have pure fear and dispair - the prior ironically being an element of faith in the certainty or the possibility of infinite punishment but the latter being a byproduct of mediocre faith where one not so much doubts the existence of God but rather one doubts whether God could care at all to rescue one or where one doubts God’s powers to be capable of actually rescuing the soul so trashed through human incompetence he imagines himself irredeemable – and most worthy of eternal punishment (Judas went to “his place” here). Whew - long sentence - sorry,
But here I get a definate sense of a Divine Authorship when I read the NT gospels that gives a continuity of Divine Thought and Purpose that flows through all the authors. It’s not a contrived message of man.
As one reads the “Jesus message” there are different voices and personalities from each of the different authors - and even shifting and adapting attitudes as some authors are emerging through their own inner awareness of what is at work within them as they undergo various trials and challenges that confront eachs’ faith as if there are two voices overlayed with each other (human author and divine author); just as one might expect as a person learns how to walk with God during one’s life long sanctification. The gospels thus have to me both human and divine nuances that make it easy for the human reader to empathize with the human author and “feel” his perspective as he himself “works out his salvation with fear and trembling”. Thus, that same primal fledgling faith of the first Christians as it is being nurtured and sprouted in the gospel writers is being preserved for all time in timeless words; words infectious to the reader who dares to risk empathizing with the apostles. And this is an aspect of faith that one must consider - it’s possibly resistible but its also compelling through empathy – it wants to replicate and pass itself on to whoever will listen long enough to empathize with the apostle’s personal accounts through his eyes. Frankly, I think that faith has a certain clinging nature that is similar to how the tares reseed through contact on a host carrier - unaware that a person who might have rejected it now unwittingly still carries its essential nature to others one might encounter. Poor atheists - know for certain you are doomed to suffer a contagion now too ubiquitously present in the world to be snuffed out. Certainly we must assume that supernatural faith is at least more potent and catching than a common flu bug in that regard if faith is real…
[continued]
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
[from prior]
So, to me at least, I perceive both an inner and external structure – an inner and outer framework to scripture that is simultaneously embedded and overlayed within and outside of the various gospel accounts at a micro and macro level. It is like a tapestry that has the unique textures and life character captured within the scars and blemishes of the raw materials of its individual threads (the men’s life experiences and ancestral hopes engrained over many seasons). These are woven in and through its neighbor’s to form a substrate of common substance with durable strength - a comforter, a shroud, a tablecloth, a seamless and royal garment – living art. Follow along any single thread – each has its own cooperative thing to say and contribute to the whole cloth. Taken all together we get a larger holistic macro “Christian” image that mirrors that same micro message seen in each thread (the intelligence of recursion); a hallmark signature of common pedigree and an integrative holistic message consistent with its constitutive elements (lineage and common pedigree). I am waxing too abstract here - even for me. I find it hard to express the complex dimensionality of what I want to say here. There is remarkable and sublime intelligence in it all (the gospel message) that is clearly the cooperative work of human hands that are being inspired as if to art and guided to weave something that exceeds the combined works of each contributor; all without their conscious collaboration or full knowledge of each other’s works. What we get is something that is to the discerning eye too awesome to imagine a mere human work. The Christian tapestry is more than mere linear synergy - it is an art that exceeds the human capacity - yet here it is. And through it all there is as if golden threads from the promises of the past - the Old Testament - and as well, a feminine touch - Daughter Zion - Mary - new Eve. The ancient influence is seen even in the textures and nuances of each of the NT writers’ own hopes and dreams - these were, save Luke, afterall, mostly all Jews who’s character is of ancient shaping and annealing. God told us he would break hearts of stone and stiff necks. I’d say if the stories are true He has certainly made good there - stretching those who would get too close to Him on a cross like a weaver stretches a raw tapestry on a loom. And they are all going along with it out of fear? I think not - perhaps fear that they could not possibly go back to being mere humans again - gutting fish and paying taxes. No, this was love for something that exceeded their wildest hopes and self sacrifice disproves a motive of selfishness. Egad, I have digressed and wandered afar from what I originally wanted to say…
No - the scriptures are not encouraging imperfect faith - just God willing to show us he wil work with the raw clay of fallen human nature. But the Protestants are wrong here - its not total depravity - we may be corrupted but we are not wholely evil (or we would all be in hell). God has an investment of grace in us that He insists on getting his Vig from.
Borrowing from Jimmy Akin’s A Tiptoe Through TULIP please note that ‘Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents’ discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards.’ But scripture certainly tells us fear of God is most wise. But we can not love God without his help - we depend on Him to let us reach Him at His own nature. 'For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary" (Ott). So we certainly should be convinced by fear that we really can’t do anything supernaturally good without God’s assistance since a created creature simply can not effect the supernatural domain without having supernatural powers. Fortunately God gives us that in a substance called Grace that can take residence in humans but can be disgraced if we are careless and prove unworthy to wield it. That’s God’s part of Love - we just need to respect Him and return what He will permit us.
James
So, to me at least, I perceive both an inner and external structure – an inner and outer framework to scripture that is simultaneously embedded and overlayed within and outside of the various gospel accounts at a micro and macro level. It is like a tapestry that has the unique textures and life character captured within the scars and blemishes of the raw materials of its individual threads (the men’s life experiences and ancestral hopes engrained over many seasons). These are woven in and through its neighbor’s to form a substrate of common substance with durable strength - a comforter, a shroud, a tablecloth, a seamless and royal garment – living art. Follow along any single thread – each has its own cooperative thing to say and contribute to the whole cloth. Taken all together we get a larger holistic macro “Christian” image that mirrors that same micro message seen in each thread (the intelligence of recursion); a hallmark signature of common pedigree and an integrative holistic message consistent with its constitutive elements (lineage and common pedigree). I am waxing too abstract here - even for me. I find it hard to express the complex dimensionality of what I want to say here. There is remarkable and sublime intelligence in it all (the gospel message) that is clearly the cooperative work of human hands that are being inspired as if to art and guided to weave something that exceeds the combined works of each contributor; all without their conscious collaboration or full knowledge of each other’s works. What we get is something that is to the discerning eye too awesome to imagine a mere human work. The Christian tapestry is more than mere linear synergy - it is an art that exceeds the human capacity - yet here it is. And through it all there is as if golden threads from the promises of the past - the Old Testament - and as well, a feminine touch - Daughter Zion - Mary - new Eve. The ancient influence is seen even in the textures and nuances of each of the NT writers’ own hopes and dreams - these were, save Luke, afterall, mostly all Jews who’s character is of ancient shaping and annealing. God told us he would break hearts of stone and stiff necks. I’d say if the stories are true He has certainly made good there - stretching those who would get too close to Him on a cross like a weaver stretches a raw tapestry on a loom. And they are all going along with it out of fear? I think not - perhaps fear that they could not possibly go back to being mere humans again - gutting fish and paying taxes. No, this was love for something that exceeded their wildest hopes and self sacrifice disproves a motive of selfishness. Egad, I have digressed and wandered afar from what I originally wanted to say…
No - the scriptures are not encouraging imperfect faith - just God willing to show us he wil work with the raw clay of fallen human nature. But the Protestants are wrong here - its not total depravity - we may be corrupted but we are not wholely evil (or we would all be in hell). God has an investment of grace in us that He insists on getting his Vig from.
Borrowing from Jimmy Akin’s A Tiptoe Through TULIP please note that ‘Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents’ discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards.’ But scripture certainly tells us fear of God is most wise. But we can not love God without his help - we depend on Him to let us reach Him at His own nature. 'For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary" (Ott). So we certainly should be convinced by fear that we really can’t do anything supernaturally good without God’s assistance since a created creature simply can not effect the supernatural domain without having supernatural powers. Fortunately God gives us that in a substance called Grace that can take residence in humans but can be disgraced if we are careless and prove unworthy to wield it. That’s God’s part of Love - we just need to respect Him and return what He will permit us.
James
F
fadingfaith
Guest
no, no, no… i was one of those people who would have gladly been ripped apart for my faith in christ. and i know others who would do the same. maybe some people doubt that but i dont. is it proof? its proof that someone has faith whether or not they should have faith.
well, stupid me didnt realize i might be dragging others down. yup, its pretty stupid to come on a public forum like this and discuss your doubt and not think it will have an affect - afterall i think one of the reasons i have this doubt to begin with is precisely from reading through threads like this from other people. maybe the sense of urgency made me overlook that fact - theres no better place in the non-virtual world here to discuss this kind of thing. its hard to find the right people to talk to around here. this has always been an excellent place to bounce my thoughts off of in the past. and yes, it can be dangerous (im a prime example), but i think in the long run it is better to face these things. one way or another our faith is tested. maybe this kind of interaction simply speeds up the process.
i dont think it can be contested that the “evidence” for god can be contested. (are you following? :whacky
maybe rather than using the vague or elusive evidence for god as proof that he does not exist we should ask why would god chose to be elusive and vague? should we assume that b/c we lack “sufficient” evidence for his existence (that sufficiency itself being contestible) that this insufficiency is proof that god does not exist?its definately time for me to go to bed…
F
fadingfaith
Guest
abstract yes, but i think i comprehend (im better at deciphering abstractions than instantiations. its the artist in me…)
H
HappyRevert
Guest
fadingfaith,
I don’t know if it helps you at all, but it certainly planted a seed within me years ago. Earlier in the postings people were talking about how God is imprinted on our hearts, but others refuted that saying Christians are made, not born. I firmly believe that God is imprinted in our hearts. A priest in a homily once said (and I’ve verified as best I could, but I’m not an anthropologist) that in all cultures there is some form of religion. Spirit worship, worshipping gods, worshipping creation (like druids) etc. It is consistent throughout time (as far as they can tell) as well as cultures. All cultures have sought the why we are here question and in doing so have some form of religion. That is why God is imprinted on our hearts. In our humanity, we have to seek that outside of ourselves. That desire and drive seems to be part of us collectively as humans. The fact that we come to different answers doesn’t change the fact that the yearning is there - the desire is there - the void is within our deepest recesses.
From that stepping stone - accepting that we are somehow hardwired for religion, I walked back to my faith (not a straight line by any means, but a wandering, wavering walk).
I hope that helps.
I don’t know if it helps you at all, but it certainly planted a seed within me years ago. Earlier in the postings people were talking about how God is imprinted on our hearts, but others refuted that saying Christians are made, not born. I firmly believe that God is imprinted in our hearts. A priest in a homily once said (and I’ve verified as best I could, but I’m not an anthropologist) that in all cultures there is some form of religion. Spirit worship, worshipping gods, worshipping creation (like druids) etc. It is consistent throughout time (as far as they can tell) as well as cultures. All cultures have sought the why we are here question and in doing so have some form of religion. That is why God is imprinted on our hearts. In our humanity, we have to seek that outside of ourselves. That desire and drive seems to be part of us collectively as humans. The fact that we come to different answers doesn’t change the fact that the yearning is there - the desire is there - the void is within our deepest recesses.
From that stepping stone - accepting that we are somehow hardwired for religion, I walked back to my faith (not a straight line by any means, but a wandering, wavering walk).
I hope that helps.
H
Heliotropium
Guest
FadingFath your post claims you want faith, and yet your replys contradict that and show you do not want faith. You contradict yourself and I’m puzzeld by what you want, or what your intention really is. You are asking for Faith but also for the answers to these questions which if answered to your liking won’t require you to have faith to continue following.
F
fadingfaith
Guest
im not sure the posts claim i want faith. i do admit in one of these replies that i actually feel like im drowning and suffocating from spirituality - my spiritual life has been the focus of my life for so long now and it has been so filled with uncertainty (is this the true faith? is the the true church? am i doing things right?..) that perhaps i would prefer not to have faith. this may be the case or it may at least be how this initially started, and in the process i have actually found it seems to make more sense that god does not exist - but maybe this growing conviction is a self-deception too. so, yes, im contradicting myself b/c im not really sure what i believe or dont believe or why.
F
fadingfaith
Guest
thanks happy. it is odd that man from every generation and culture of his existence has attributed the unknown to a superior being. not sure this means man has been right, but its an interesting observation perhaps worth consideration.
H
Heliotropium
Guest
Thank you for the reply FadingFaith I appreciate the clarification. I see that you are uncertian on what to do or what to believe. I can also see that you are being fair to both sides of the spectrum and that your at a crossroades in your spiritual life. I have had these feelings to and the most I could do is share my experience and observations with you. My journey has taken me from being agnostic, to being a theist, to being athiest, and back to being a theist lol. Yes it has been a interesting journey but worth it. Well I have to go to Mass (have to travel far) but I will be back, and I will share with you my observations.
- Status