I want to be convinced - an experiment

Good post, Stephen - a lot of very good points made

You don't need to resist asking. I'll be happy to elaborate. I write with people on Death Row. I have three friends on Texas Death Row. One of them is Jamie. I've been writing with him for almost five years now. We're very close friends and I dread the day that he'll be on the 'Scheduled Executions' list. Since it's off-topic, I won't tell the whole story, but I write with Death Row inmates because I am very strongly opposed to the Death Penalty and because I want to offer these men a little light in their lives. They are considered by most to be 'the scum of the earth', but they are humans just like you and me. They just made a horrible mistake at one time in their life. Please don't take my stance to mean that I disregard the victims and like to engage in 'thug hugging'. I feel for the victims, very strongly, but I think that the Death Penalty only causes more suffering and doesn't solve anything. Family members of victims often hope for 'closure'. There is none. The Death Penalty is revenge, nothing more, nothing less. If anyone is interested in knowing more about this, please don't hesitate to e-mail me.

Dear Stephen,Great post! I dont'have much time right now, but I will answer your last question: yes, I will definitely be comfortable with and accept the concept of plausibility. I do not ask for a black-and-white conclusion as I know very well that there is none.Sarde

1.6, I just noticed your message (though I must have read it already--brain damage of some sort, I'm sure). I've sort of addressed it already, but I wanted to reply directly. I don't see that a "reason" and facts or evidence have to be different. Surely every "good" reason is based on some sort of evidence. More to follow. Follows a term he used. If he's dead, it no longer applies. If he's alive and on earth, even spirutally, then one can still follow him, and the "reasons" are what we've been discussing in this thread. Not just no, but hell no. This has always sounded insane to me. I don't have a clue why anyone would do this.Y'shua said, "You will know a prophet by his fruit." He never said just believe, and I would ignore anyone who said, "Just believe, because I said so." Show me some good reason--i.e., evidence--that you're trustworthy and believable, and I will believe.Faith, I guess, can occasionally mean believing without facts, but only because evidence have already shown that the person you're believing is trustworthy. "Factual evidence" and "scientifically verifiable" are not the same thing. Court cases go on all the time, and they accept what science would call anecdotes, which science cannot accept. There are some things that are evidence--lame or not so lame--that science cannot accept, because it is not falsifiable or repeatable. If five people swear that they saw a ghost appear in their living room, science would pretty much ignore that evidence, because it has nothing to do with evidence. A judge would not ignore such evidence.If there's no evidence for a religion, one should ignore it. The fact that a religion works--that it produces what it claims it can produce, is evidence for that religion. If you are after continual peace, and Buddhism claims it can provide that, and you can look around and see that it does provide that to all or most of its followers, then you ought to become a Buddhist, at least until something better comes along.That's evidence, and there ought to be some evidence. The faith of Christ, according to the Bible, has always offered success in producing love and unity or miraculous power to a greater or lesser extent as its evidence. It never asks for a blind faith that requires no evidence. If Christianity can't produce unity and love--an unusual unity and love that is remarkable even to the world--then there are only two possibilities: one, Y'shua isn't the Christ Christianity claims he is, or two, Christianity is not the religion he started, and his followers are found elsewhere.

Great post Truthlover,
It is of course a matter of opinion as to what constitutes faith.
If your definition of faith includes words like evidence, facts, proof then thats fantastic. My defininiton remains that faith is believing in something in the absence of facts, evidence or proof. I do not see how it could be otherwise. The unity and love you sight is not evidence of anything. Chritianity is responsible for great atrocities as well. The Crusades, Inquesitions ,Salem,KKK, Charles Manson, Branch Davidians right here in good ol Waco Texas. These are just a quaint few.
"The fact that a religion works, that it produces what it claims it can produce is evidence for that religion." I never said there was no evidence for the existance of a religion called Christianity, I simply stated there is no scientific or factual evidence for the existance of God or that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Sarde in her first post said she will only be convinced by facts or convincing argumentations
to dispute her attached links, not quibbling over semantics and definitions of what faith means.. Thank you for your response I think you are a nice fellow to take you personal time out to share your knowlege of Jesus.

Dear Servant,I have read all that you have written and I thank you for your concern. I hope you will not be offended by what I am about to say... Sadly, your kind of approach is exactly what has kept me away from Christians and Christianity. You have told me nothing new. I know the Bible, I know what Jesus has said etc. That's not the point. Convincing me of Christ's message will surely not be done by telling me that message ad infinitum. In fact, it goes all wrong. Why do many people feel an aversion to Christianity and to Christians? Usually not because they hate God or hate Christ, but because some Christians undertake ceaseless attempts to force Christ down their throat. That is not the way people become convinced, that is the way people are driven away... The best way to proselytize, imho, is to set an example, to mirror Christ in one's behavior. THAT will make people wonder and it will make them want to get what you have.I am not interested in Christianity because I am unhappy. On the contrary, I lead a very happy life. I am interested in Christianity because I am interested in Truth and I think Christianity may offer Truth. It is that which I want to research. Yes, I may die tomorrow, but I cannot forcibly accept something. It takes time. I have faith in God's patience. I don't think He'll cast me into hell if I should die in the process of taking steps towards Him.Thank you for your prayers.Sarde

Thanks for the explanation. A friend of mine has already given me some insight into this as well. He said that although the other Apostles at first did not agree with Paul's teachings, they later accepted him as a true Apostle. I agree. You're doing great so far. It's just that I often don't have enough knowledge to truly understand everything you say. But many things you have said are quite helpful.

I just wanna tell you all that I went to Church last Sunday with my best friend Raymond. He converted several months ago and he's the one who got me thinking about Christianity. He goes to an Evangelical Church. I quite liked the sermon, but I wasn't too fond of the songs of praise (I found them to be too sentimental and badly translated (from English to Dutch)). They were having the Last Supper ceremony. I didn't take part, but as the bread was passed on, I suddenly realised what it would mean if I were to take it. If I were to take it, that would mean I would acknowledge Christ's sacrifice and my part in His death. It was a very frightening thought to me.
Overall, I did like the service and I might go there again this week.

Out of curiosity, what prompts you to reject atheism? Is it that you just "feel" that it is wrong? Which is fine, I was just curious.

I reject atheism because I know in my heart that there is a God. I have experienced Him. He has done things in my life. I will readily admit that many of these things could be self-suggestion, but some of them cannot be explained in that way.And anyway, using Pascal's Wager it would not be a safe bet to choose atheism.

Well, hell, with Pascal's Wager it's not safe to choose any religion. The Wager applies to all of them. How do you know you're not bound for Zoroastrian hell? But, it's cool if you're sure there's a God. I'm sure there isn't one, at least, not a benevolent, all-powerful God. And I'm not sure that a God that isn't both those two things is worth a damn.

Yes, the Wager applies to all religions. But I DO believe that all religions worship the same God (there can be only one, by definition). And I do NOT believe that all those who do not follow Christianity but some other religion are hellbound. "Seek and you shall find". I believe God keeps His promises.Have you ever read "Mere Christianity"? It explains in a very comprehensive and convincing way that God IS benevolent and all-powerful (if He exists, that is ). I never understood it myself, until I started reading that book (am in the middle of it now). This book also made me realize that probably 90% of all believers don't even understand their own religion. So people may have been giving you all the wrong explanations. If you want a really good explanation in order to understand what Christianity is really about, I would highly recommend Lewis.

Not all religions are monotheistic. What about religions that worship many gods? (Different faces of God, I suppose?) Yeah. I wasn't very impressed. I read it a while ago (and don't have my copy) so I can't really hit the specifics but in general, I found most of C.S. Lewis's reasonings fallacious - he tends to overlook obvious counters to his arguments, as well as make hidden assumptions. I used to be a Christian, in fact - I went to a church that sounds a lot like the one you've been going to. I didn't have any particular objections to their theology - in general I'm of the opinion that theology is the same as "making things up" - but the fact that God just doesn't seem to exist made it rather pointless for me to continue going.I want you to know that I'm not trying to trip you up or anything - I'm just trying to get a feel for your particular spiritual journey. Something tells me you're much more honest about your beliefs and the source of them than people like Buzsaw and his ilk. I hope you find the answers that you're looking for.

Well, if you look at Hinduism, that's exactly what it is, different faces of God. As far as I understand it (and I used to belong to Hare Krishna, a Hindu sect), Hinduism is ultimately a monotheistic religion. It just believes that God can manifest Himself in an infinite number of forms (which seems hardly strange to me, considering that God is all-powerful). I remember reading an interesting argumentation in Lewis for why there can be only one God, but I don't quite remember it. I am planning to re-read the book though, and I'll let you know when I come across it again. Atheists do not do this? The thing is, that in the end, there is no definite objective proof. Almost any argument can be refuted. I think if I keep searching long enough, I will find as much evidence 'pro' as 'con'. And then I'll have to make my own decision, which I will base on my personal experience. And my personal experience leads me to believe that there is a God. So that's where I want to go. And if God doesn't exist, what the heck, I won't have lost anything. Whenever I turn my back to religion, I feel there's something lacking (I do not become unhappy, but I feel a lack, a God-shaped hole in my heart ). I don't care if I die and find out it all turns out to be self-suggestion (but then I won't find out, will I?) so long as it makes me happy and gives me a sense of purpose and meaning. However, if someone would be able to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, I would drop my beliefs. I am more interested in truth than in happiness. And I have not thought for even one second that you were trying to trip me up. What reason for proselytization would an atheist have? I respect your choice. It was my choice at a time but it failed to give me satisfaction. I have a need to worship, a need to feel that there is something out there that is so awesome and wonderful that merely thinking of it fills me with joy. Perhaps I am just willing God into existence. [This message has been edited by Sarde, 03-09-2004]

I've been to a couple services in Holland. Really interesting for an American. There were a couple baptisms, and the pastor said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in four languages. I think the languages were English, Dutch, German, and Spanish. Apparently, they had several Spanish-speakers in the congregation.They had little radio translators you could pick up at a desk so that you could get a sermon translation in your language of choice. I didn't use one, because my German was pretty good at the time, and it helped me pick up a lot of the Dutch being preached. I was with a Surinamian lady, and she was fluent in Dutch, of course, so she made sure I at least had the gist of the sermon.It was real fun singing the songs that were in "Sranang Tonge" (sp?). "Mi wana waka foe Jesu" and "Jesu de da winiman" almost made me burst out laughing, because I'd never really experienced a mixed, pidgeon language like that before.