For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[Kalam]

Cant answer for others. But I believe in miracles because I've seen them myself. I believe the Bible because God revealed to me that it was correct. If He hadn't, I don't know where Id be or what Id believe.

Okay, but don't you realize that anecdotal evidence is pretty useless in discussions such as these? This is a response I hear frequently when it comes to the supposed truth of the Bible and religious doctrine - "I just know." Do you understand why I have a hard time believing that? If I accused someone of murder, and the extent of my evidence was an unbelievable personal anecdote, I'd be laughed out of court, right? Assuming that you did have these experiences, how are you sure that they weren't your own imaginative constructs (not to sound insulting or belittling)?

The only God who has revealed Himself to me is God the Father, whose Son, Jesus Christ, suffered and atoned for the sins of the world.

This is something else that I don't understand. I get the feeling that most Christians don't understand it either. Are Jesus and the Christian God distinct, or are they part of a trinity?

Belief in the trinity is something that baffles me. It isn't anywhere in the Bible... it was a creation of the Council of Nicea in th 300's AD. The Gospels make no sense whatsoever if read from a trinitarian perspective (why does God pray to himself? etc.)

So what's the deal with that...?

 

[del]

Cant answer for others. But I believe in miracles because I've seen them myself. I believe the Bible because God revealed to me that it was correct. If He hadn't, I don't know where Id be or what Id believe.

Okay, but don't you realize that anecdotal evidence is pretty useless in discussions such as these? This is a response I hear frequently when it comes to the supposed truth of the Bible and religious doctrine - "I just know." Do you understand why I have a hard time believing that? If I accused someone of murder, and the extent of my evidence was an unbelievable personal anecdote, I'd be laughed out of court, right? Assuming that you did have these experiences, how are you sure that they weren't your own imaginative constructs (not to sound insulting or belittling)?

The only God who has revealed Himself to me is God the Father, whose Son, Jesus Christ, suffered and atoned for the sins of the world.

This is something else that I don't understand. I get the feeling that most Christians don't understand it either. Are Jesus and the Christian God distinct, or are they part of a trinity?

Belief in the trinity is something that baffles me. It isn't anywhere in the Bible... it was a creation of the Council of Nicea in th 300's AD. The Gospels make no sense whatsoever if read from a trinitarian perspective (why does God pray to himself? etc.)

So what's the deal with that...?

with respect, discussions such as these are pretty useless.

 

[Kalam]

with respect, discussions such as these are pretty useless.

Touché.

 

[del]

with respect, discussions such as these are pretty useless.

Touché.

some believe, some don't.
if you try to live a good life, i think that's all that matters.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Or perhaps His plan and intentions simply supercede your childishly simple viewpoint on the universe. Hell, the parenting skills of the average person on the street gives the lie to this nonsense, let alone the plans of God Almighty.

My kids suffer at the hands of other people sometimes. Sometimes they deserve it, and sometimes it's completely pointless. And often, I could prevent it and choose not to. Why? Well, it's not because I don't care or don't love them, nor is it because I'm too weak to stop it.

Why don't you think about it and see if you can come up with the answer?



Well, I'm sure that God will immediately sit down and rethink His ultimate plans for humanity based upon the fact that they don't come up to your personal standards.



That's the only other option if one starts from the flawed premise that you are the Oracle of All Possible Wisdom, handing down the Ultimate Truth of how the universe really works.

Otherwise, there's the third option that you just don't know what you're talking about.

O.k. Cecilie, you tell me... Western 'Civilization' is, if not the most brutal organization in the history of humanity, certainly the greediest.

Well, at least you pay lip service to the fact that we are CERTAINLY not the most brutal, or even close. I sincerely doubt you actually BELIEVE this, but I'm grateful that you're willing to pretend.

Greediest? Really? Based on what? The fact that we're the only civilization where people want power, material comforts and luxuries . . . no, wait, THAT can't be it, since those very traits are the reason most brutal regimes ARE brutal. The fact that we spend more time, money, and effort on helping less fortunate nations and societies than any other . . . Well, THAT certainly can't be it. So I have to assume your classification of Western Civ as the "greediest" is based simply on the fact that we've been more successful in acquiring wealth and luxury than anyone else. To which I say, so what? We're supposed to apologize for success?



Wow, this is just chockful of bullshit, puerile assumptions. I don't even know for sure where to start.

Are you suggesting that ONLY Western Civ, given that same knowledge, would have subsequently developed the way it did? That somehow, people in the West are essentially different in human nature from all other humans, and therefore, other people would have remained poor and downtrodden under the same circumstances, which you seem to somehow feel is morally superior to prosperity? Are you suggesting that all other people on Earth are inherently peaceful and altruistic, and that only Western Civ contains evil people who will turn anything to their own selfish ends? If so, on what do you base that assumption?

If, on the other hand, you know something about human nature and realize that the results stem more from human nature and the effect that the receipt of this knowledge and purpose had upon it, the question then becomes, why SHOULDN'T God have given His Commission to Western Civilization? Unless you can prove that some entire culture out there is made up of inherently morally superior people, it doesn't matter.

Maybe the problem here isn't that God made a grievous error in choosing the people of Western Civ. Maybe the problem here is YOU assuming that God sees Western Civ through YOUR spoiled, myopic viewpoint.



Yes, I'm quite sure that you're very sincere in your childish hatred and excoriation of Western Civilization as the source of all evil since its inception. "Planetary suffering at our hands"? Instead of coming in here and chastizing God via the message board for not appreciating the wisdom of your viewpoint, perhaps you should examine your viewpoint and then chastize whoever taught you this highly expurgated and childish rendition of history.



You just did: You aren't the smartest guy on the board. "I can only think of three reasons why the world doesn't agree with my incredible knowledge of how it should be: God is less moral than I am, God is less nice than I am, or God is weak and dumber than I am". Or maybe the reason is just that you're trying to impose your hopelessly shortsighted and Earthbound human perceptions - further flawed by an embarrassingly bad education in history - onto a universe and a God more vast than you could even begin to comprehend.

My only conclusion, for myself and no one else, is that we, as a species, are on our own and equally responsible for our history and our future as well as our present in the flesh.

Well, you're getting closer. We ARE responsible for ourselves and what happens. Anything else would make us nothing more than puppets on a stage, and what would be the point of that? Doesn't mean there's no God. Just means that if He wants us to be anything more than mindless toys, He has to allow us free will to work out our own lives, individually and collectively.

Spiritually, we can only speculate in the privacy of our own minds, sharing ideas and hoping that our neighbors will give us the same respect that we give them. Are we, as a species, ready for that kind of freedom?

-Joe

I love how you babble a bunch of nonsense for your whole post about how you don't understand why God doesn't treat us like a little girl playing with Barbie dolls, and then pop out with the concept of free will at the end like it's some profound new revelaton you, personally, have just brought to the world. This has only been standard Christian teaching for centuries. Why the hell didn't you just study up and spare us all the maundering?

Alright there Bud... back your name calling truck up a moment and respond to what I posted without thinking of it as a personal attack on you.

By "Western Civilization" I do not mean you specifically or even modern America. I mean all of it. 2,000 + years of well documented conquest by the Europeans and their descendants. From the Romans through the dark ages to Louis the fourteenth of France who owned his countrymen and gave us the concept of 'human resources' to be exploited for profit and power.

I mean the 15th and 16th century British and Dutch, who took the human resources concept, added the primitive, un-godly, but trainable heathens they found to the raw, arable and oh, so undefended land of the 'new' world and industrialized slavery. That worked out well, now didn't it. Actually, at the time it was quite profitable, but pretty short-sighted... sounds a bit like some of our more modern industrialists, eh?

Of course Western Civilization wasn't completely evil, it also gave us Mozart, World Navigation, the Scientific Method, Rock -n- Roll and Television to name five things of the top of my head. Now, I don't think anyone would want to attribute T.V. and Rock -n- Roll to God... Perhaps humanity is not all bad.

Technically, even some of the best things we enjoy in our world of 2,000 years after Christ can be traced directly to the success of some of the worst evil of the last 600 years. For example: America, in all its glory and shame.

Imagine the apartheid style mess we would have had to deal with if the natives here would have been more easily enslaved - the British agriculturists must have been pissed - fortunately the British and Dutch shipping industry found an economically viable answer: Kill the natives and import Africans.

I also fully recognize that religion certainly had its more positive influences too, but positive influences weren't exactly the theme of my thesis that the very people God gave The Great Commission to were not changed by His touch from the insecure, greedy, exploitive, power-hungry humans who were willing to grind their cousins into wealth and power than they were before Jesus lived his extraordinary life among them.

This is not to say that the civilizations in what would become the Americas or the civilizations in what would become Asia were not just as brutal, but then again, they were not given The Great Commission and asked specifically by God to mend their wicked ways, now were they?

Isn't the proof of Gods existence the change that happens to the people He touches?

I reiterate: What the fuck happened?

-Joe

 

[Kalam]

with respect, discussions such as these are pretty useless.

Touché.

some believe, some don't.
if you try to live a good life, i think that's all that matters.

I don't doubt it, but I'm interested in why others believe what they do nonetheless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It amuses me how some people on message boards seem to think that they're able to read minds. If my intention was to ridicule you and your beliefs, you'd know, because I'd call you an idiot and your beliefs ridiculous. However, I don't understand enough about your beliefs to make any judgments like that, so I'm trying to find out more about what you all believe and why you believe what you do. If you want to insult me, go ahead. If you want to have an actual discussion, I'll respond.

What amuses me is how some people on message boards think they can run their gums (figuratively speaking) without reveaing anything about who they are and what type of person. Do you really think it requires mind-reading to figure out that you're an anti-religious bigot with a big hate-on? You really think you're THAT inscrutable? Hardly.

Oh, okay. You didn't use the word "idiot". so CLEARY you weren't being offensive and insulting. Because "delusional and senseless" are just neutral, values-free, unjudgemental observations. And if you don't understand enough about my beliefs to use the word "idiot", how can you understand enough to make the judgement that I'm "delusional", anyway?

And no, you're NOT trying to find out anything about anyone's beliefs, so please disabuse yourself of the fantasy that that's what you're doing. You don't call someone's beliefs "delusional" as a preparation to serious inquiry into those beliefs. Only someone who's TRULY delusional thinks that is a successful opening line to getting someone to discuss their beliefs. More like an opening line to getting kicked inna fork.

Of COURSE I want to insuilt you, dumbass . . . because you already insulted me twice, first by calling my beliefs "delusional and nonsensical", and then by continuing this pretense that you weren't being insulting, as thnough you think anyone here besides you is stupid enough to really think you weren't being rude. And why in God's name would I want to try to have a discussion with someone who proved to me in the first post that I ever read from him that he was too crass, ill-mannered, and childish to deserve it?

Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining, and don't slap me in the face and then tell me it was a friendly handshake. If you really wanted debate, youi should have had your mother teach you better manners. You blew it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I hate to interject in the middle of a conversation but this has made me curious.

Why do you have opinions on beliefs and faiths you say you don't understand or know enough about?

I don't know much about Hinduism, so I find it difficult to have an opinion on the matter.

I guess I am finding it difficult to get where you are coming from where you provide opinions while claiming to try to learn more. Seems to be if you were trying to learn more youd be asking questions, listening to answers, and then form opinions when the questioning was complete.

It just doesnt make sense to me otherwise.

It isn't the specific religious doctrines that I'm trying to learn more about. I know enough about Christianity, the religion in which most of the believers in this thread profess faith. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind faith in certain parts of Christian doctrine as opposed to faith in something else unprovable, like the teapot I keep referencing (I'm sure that's getting annoying by now - sorry.) I understand why some people may choose to follow the philosophy of passiveness and peacefulness preached by Paul, Jesus عليه السلام, and other New Testament figures. What I don't understand is why many people have faith in things like Christ's miracles and the trinity while rejecting equally plausible things like the Greek pantheon or Russell's teapot. What makes the former examples more true or real than the latter examples?

Yes, and the best way to gt someone to explain their reasoning is to tell them they're delusional. That always spurs ME into wanting to explain myself . . . in Bizarro World, maybe.

Please don't think it's your little teapot that's annoying and deserves an apology here. It's you.

 

[tigerbob]

with respect, discussions such as these are pretty useless.

Touché.

some believe, some don't.
if you try to live a good life, i think that's all that matters.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Dr Grump]

[Cant answer for others. But I believe in miracles because I've seen them myself. I believe the Bible because God revealed to me that it was correct. If He hadn't, I don't know where Id be or what Id believe.

What miracles have you seen?

Any religion is faith. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no tangible proof in any religion that there is an omnipotent being out there.

I have no real problem with religion per se, only those that try and indicate they are somehow better than me because of their belief system. That annoys me...

 

[Newby]

Those who answered my questions without hostility seem to be saying that one doesn't choose to believe, that it either just sort of happens or you are almost chosen to believe.

Those with the least hostility in their answers also seemed to accept that perhaps they aren't the only right religion and everyone else will burn in Hell forever. They believed because they did, they didn't care if I did, they answered my questions because they wanted to talk about their beliefs, and although I started this thread to challenge people's faith by posing questions based in logic, I've actually learned to better understand why people have faith even if I don't have it myself or understand faith itself.

Those who did answer defensively or with hostility, perhaps you should consider how that represents your faith and how those who don't have faith perceive adherents of your faith and your faith itself.

I think your main problem is that you see 'logic' and 'faith' as being mutually exclusive. And it seems that you've made this judgement without educating yourself, so perhaps you aren't in an intellectually advanced enough position to even have that opinion? I say this because it is apparent from your comments that you've never read the Bible or the teachings of Jesus, yet you have already made up your mind that logic does not apply. If you read the New Testament it is basically a strategy for living your life sucessfully. Science and religion are not opposties and until you understand that then you won't move beyond where you are now at. My two cents.

 

[tigerbob]

Those who answered my questions without hostility seem to be saying that one doesn't choose to believe, that it either just sort of happens or you are almost chosen to believe.

Those with the least hostility in their answers also seemed to accept that perhaps they aren't the only right religion and everyone else will burn in Hell forever. They believed because they did, they didn't care if I did, they answered my questions because they wanted to talk about their beliefs, and although I started this thread to challenge people's faith by posing questions based in logic, I've actually learned to better understand why people have faith even if I don't have it myself or understand faith itself.

Those who did answer defensively or with hostility, perhaps you should consider how that represents your faith and how those who don't have faith perceive adherents of your faith and your faith itself.

I think your main problem is that you see 'logic' and 'faith' as being mutually exclusive. And it seems that you've made this judgement without educating yourself, so perhaps you aren't in an intellectually advanced enough position to even have that opinion? I say this because it is apparent from your comments that you've never read the Bible or the teachings of Jesus, yet you have already made up your mind that logic does not apply. If you read the New Testament it is basically a strategy for living your life sucessfully. Science and religion are not opposties and until you understand that then you won't move beyond where you are now at. My two cents.

Did you intend to be patronizing or is that just the way it came out?

 

[tigerbob]

[Cant answer for others. But I believe in miracles because I've seen them myself. I believe the Bible because God revealed to me that it was correct. If He hadn't, I don't know where Id be or what Id believe.

What miracles have you seen?

Any religion is faith. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no tangible proof in any religion that there is an omnipotent being out there.

I have no real problem with religion per se, only those that try and indicate they are somehow better than me because of their belief system. That annoys me...

I have no problem with non believers in general, only those that go out of their way to try and prove that I must be delusional or simple minded. That annoys me.

 

[Newby]

Those who answered my questions without hostility seem to be saying that one doesn't choose to believe, that it either just sort of happens or you are almost chosen to believe.

Those with the least hostility in their answers also seemed to accept that perhaps they aren't the only right religion and everyone else will burn in Hell forever. They believed because they did, they didn't care if I did, they answered my questions because they wanted to talk about their beliefs, and although I started this thread to challenge people's faith by posing questions based in logic, I've actually learned to better understand why people have faith even if I don't have it myself or understand faith itself.

Those who did answer defensively or with hostility, perhaps you should consider how that represents your faith and how those who don't have faith perceive adherents of your faith and your faith itself.

I think your main problem is that you see 'logic' and 'faith' as being mutually exclusive. And it seems that you've made this judgement without educating yourself, so perhaps you aren't in an intellectually advanced enough position to even have that opinion? I say this because it is apparent from your comments that you've never read the Bible or the teachings of Jesus, yet you have already made up your mind that logic does not apply. If you read the New Testament it is basically a strategy for living your life sucessfully. Science and religion are not opposties and until you understand that then you won't move beyond where you are now at. My two cents.

Did you intend to be patronizing or is that just the way it came out?

I didn't intend any ill will at all, it was an honest and appropriate question/observation.

I found some of his questions to be a bit on the patronizing side tho, which he had denied as well.

 

[AVG-JOE]

with respect, discussions such as these are pretty useless.

Touché.

some believe, some don't.
if you try to live a good life, i think that's all that matters.

Not according to the book of stories that most of the Christian sects profess to be divinely inspired, of that I'm sure...

According to the Christians, you must accept the fact that the best 'good life' you can live is still quite unacceptable to God and profess your faith that the payment required for your sins, death, has been paid in full by Jesus.

Nobody, not Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, Gandhi or you has led a life worthy of entrance to heaven without faith in Jesus.

The flip side is that everyone from Adolph Hitler and Wesley Alan Dodd to Genghis Khan and Caligula will join Billy, Gandhi and Mother Theresa in heaven for eternity, provided that they, in the privacy of their own wills, truly did the above.

It is a system with a certain amount of appeal, I must admit... but then I'm impressed with the concept behind Social Security, if not the execution.

I, myself am still not interested in a God who cares so little for the billions of people throughout history whose bad luck it was to be born in a time and place which denied them any access to 'The Good News', let alone to be so utterly abandoned by Him during their Earthly life.

Though I've never read the book of stories that the Muslim sects profess to be divinely inspired, I believe that theirs has a similar faith-based take also.

-Joe

 

[Newby]

[Cant answer for others. But I believe in miracles because I've seen them myself. I believe the Bible because God revealed to me that it was correct. If He hadn't, I don't know where Id be or what Id believe.

What miracles have you seen?

Any religion is faith. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no tangible proof in any religion that there is an omnipotent being out there.

I have no real problem with religion per se, only those that try and indicate they are somehow better than me because of their belief system. That annoys me...

People believe that they are 'better' than others for a million different reasons, and religion is only one of them. I've spoken to many agnostics and atheists who believe that they are superior because of what they believe/don't believe. So, it's not limited to people of faith. I would also argue that those of the Christian religion that believe they are 'better' than others because of their faith have not learned the true meaning behind the teachings of Christ then.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I think your main problem is that you see 'logic' and 'faith' as being mutually exclusive. And it seems that you've made this judgement without educating yourself, so perhaps you aren't in an intellectually advanced enough position to even have that opinion? I say this because it is apparent from your comments that you've never read the Bible or the teachings of Jesus, yet you have already made up your mind that logic does not apply. If you read the New Testament it is basically a strategy for living your life sucessfully. Science and religion are not opposties and until you understand that then you won't move beyond where you are now at. My two cents.

Nice try with the assumption, but I have read the Bible. I read it from the perspective of a non-believer which most likely really skewed my understanding. To me the Bible was a patchwork of obviously different styles. I also understand that the Bible has been rewritten, at the Council of Nicea in 200 AD) and translated into different languages a good number of times. So to my understanding, that immediately prevents it from being a perfect written version of God's word.

What this has to do with intellectual advancement...I don't know. I do, however, know that it is easier to criticize another than it is to put forth real material or a real opinion.

From my point of view, faith is anathema to logic and reasoning. In order for the Christian religion to make sense to me, I have to believe. But there isn't any real evidence that the Christian religion is right, at least, for me there isn't. And I haven't read or seen or experienced anything that would confirm the existence of truth in the Christian religion. I have, on the other hand, read, seen, and experienced many things which, logically and using reason, point in the direction that Christianity, like all religions, is an invention of humankind. In order for me to have faith, I have to deny those experiences. I have to deny logic. I'd have to suspend my capability to reason.

What incentive do I have to do that? Nothing tangible. Sure, I can think to myself that I want to avoid eternal damnation and spend my afterlife in paradise, but that isn't tangible. I've heard that called by Christians as Fire Insurance, or its what I like to call Afterlife Insurance. That isn't enough to convince me that what the Bible says is true. That is simply a desire. I want to believe that there is an afterlife, but that doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make me believe there is one. I want to believe that someday I will write a best selling novel, but that doesn't mean I'm going to. I may write a novel, but that doesn't mean it will hit the NY Times bestsellers list.

And since Science is a method of understanding the Universe and ourselves, and not a religion, which was developed by humanbeings and so, therefore, is inherently flawed, it does not pose as the end-all be-all of knowledge and understanding. It remains open-ended to allow revision. Religion, on the other hand, is faith. Blind faith that what you believe, despite there being no evidence for it, is the end-all, be-all truth of the Universe. That makes the two, not just mutually exclusive, but, really, unrelated.

Science can not prove religion, or God's existence. Faith assumes proof. Unlike you, I don't like to make assumptions because they tend to come back to bite me in the ass. Religion is ideological and dogmatic. Science is simply a method of testing the mind's capacities against observable reality. Of interpreting reality into a language which the human mind can understand. There is no ideology or dogma, although some people cling to science dogmatically.

And since religion, or its adherents, or both, have hostorically been the source of much strife and science has only been a tool to cause strife, but not its source; and since science, unlike religion, has many tangible results i.e. tv, microwaves, combustible engines, lasers, electricity, etc. etc. I feel as though I can give science more credit than I can religion. Especially when I see people speaking in tongues or snake dancing or telling me that women should wear dresses and stay at home or blow yourself up or Thou Shalt Not Kill except when its capital punishment or when that country harbors WMD's but not really, they just have oil and they're Muslims, not Christians.

To have faith would require me to erase and unlearn what I have experienced. And that is probably impossible unless, like the character who wanted to be put back into the Matrix, I could ask, though I'm not sure whom or which deity, to do just that. Would he/she/it do that? Would it be right to do that?

 

[Newby]

You have a closed mind from my perspective, and you seem to have no desire to learn anything. Quite frankly, I don't believe that you have read the Bible, or you wouldn't have made some of the comments that you have in this thread. Or you read it with the intension of not finding anything worthwhile in it.

We're not on the same page at all with the science/religion part, and you're not able to see it from another perspective at all, only the one you were taught at some point in your life. There is order to everything, that order originated from somewhere, it just didn't conveniently work out that way. When you can explain that order to the universe and understand it completely, then you might have basis in logic that there isn't any higher power. In my opinion, man is not capable of that depth of understanding, so to believe that you understand it enough to discount a higher being tells me that you think a little too highly of your own ability to comprehend.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You have a closed mind from my perspective, and you seem to have no desire to learn anything. Quite frankly, I don't believe that you have read the Bible, or you wouldn't have made some of the comments that you have in this thread. Or you read it with the intension of not finding anything worthwhile in it.

We're not on the same page at all with the science/religion part, and you're not able to see it from another perspective at all, only the one you were taught at some point in your life. There is order to everything, that order originated from somewhere, it just didn't conveniently work out that way. When you can explain that order to the universe and understand it completely, then you might have basis in logic that there isn't any higher power. In my opinion, man is not capable of that depth of understanding, so to believe that you understand it enough to discount a higher being tells me that you think a little too highly of your own ability to comprehend.

Well, people will believe what they want to believe. So you don't have to believe that I read the Bible if you don't want to. It seems apparent to me that you haven't read all of my posts in this thread.

Can you explain how science can claim that there is evidence of God? If so, then why aren't you famous?

Human beings minds require order to function, to process information and makes sense of the stimuli their senses receive. Therefore we perceive order in the chaos of the Universe. This is psychological, and perceived; we perceive order - which doesn't mean it exists. I'm not saying it doesn't, but neither am I saying it does. I've read books which claim chaos is actually order. That both proves and disproves what I'm saying.

And let me put it this way, someone can tell me that the flying spaghetti monster exists but there isn't any proof. So should I accept that or does the burden of proof rely on the messenger? Someone can publish an article that proposes the existence of the purple-bellied spider lizard, but until they furnish proof of this discovery, I won't operate or live my life as though it does. They must furnish proof. I don't have time to spend my entire life trying out different religions to see which one is the best or which one is true. For those that propose that their religion is true, that God exists, must furnish proof or be seen as irrational because faith is exactly that: irrational. It might make sense to those who have it, but to those who live their lives by logic, reason, and rational thought, faith doesn't make sense.

Unless you can somehow show that I'm wrong instead of criticizing my posts, then you can simply dismiss yourself from this discussion.

 

[Newby]

I had another question for you that's really on the personal side, so I'll understand if you don't wish to answer it. But, from what I've read in the 'gay' thread, you're a gay man? How much, do you feel, has being gay shaped your feelings about religion, especially the Christian religion? Being a gay, liberal man (which again I'm basing what I read on the other thread) I wouldn't expect you to embrace the christian religion since you would see that as somewhere you would be judged or told that what you are in essense is 'wrong'. I would also say that it would preclude you from looking at the religion as a whole without any preconceived or real biases that you may have because of that.