Questioning Deism

[HappyFlappyTheist]

Might as well revitalize this conversation.

Really, if you don't see any problems with life arising and think it's all naturally explained, then well...
I'm not sure what I can do to change that. But, I'll say that such is not really view amongst individual scientists in their practice.
Your words here, and this whole discussion, just bring to my mind something the Agnostic Paul Davies wrote.

Please correct my flawed interpretation of the logic that I'm getting from you (no mocking tone, I just sound mean).
"We have only a partial understanding of how exactly life arose, therefore it is erroneous to state life can be naturally explained."
-Basically (and I mean basically)? Or did I completely bastardize your view?

[Kurieuo]

Might as well revitalize this conversation.

Really, if you don't see any problems with life arising and think it's all naturally explained, then well...
I'm not sure what I can do to change that. But, I'll say that such is not really view amongst individual scientists in their practice.
Your words here, and this whole discussion, just bring to my mind something the Agnostic Paul Davies wrote.

Please correct my flawed interpretation of the logic that I'm getting from you (no mocking tone, I just sound mean).
"We have only a partial understanding of how exactly life arose, therefore it is erroneous to state life can be naturally explained."
-Basically (and I mean basically)? Or did I completely bastardize your view?

I'm confused about what you're asking?

[HappyFlappyTheist]

Your agnostic scientist didn't come close to saying "life could not arise naturally," it was more along the lines of "we're missing something important." Sure sure, fine fine, this is all well and good but it doesn't take away from my previous posts stating known basic essentials for life / possibility of.

Also, theism "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." Pretty hard to do without religion or "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or god." There is no "i'm not like religious, i'm like relational," there's only those too ashamed of their religion to claim to be religious.

I do not see a poster child genetic fallacy. If we're referring to my "4200 religions" quote, that's not why I'm a deist, that's one of the difficulties I'd have to overcome if I became a theist (thus the "large leap" in my previous post).

[Kurieuo]

Hopefully it doesn't seem like I'm be purposefully thick in the head here, but I'm still not sure.
I'll see though, if I can respond from what I think you're getting at.

Paul Davies is a fairly popular Agnostic philosopher and writer.
I'd be happy to lend you an electronic copy of his book if you like?
If you have not read his book, then it seems silly to debate what he believes.
I did quote him at length to try and provide an honest insight into his beliefs.
I'm not one to distort words to try win a debate, so am a little offended if you think such.
Some chop and change and make him sound almost Theistic, but reading his book you know he's not.

As for which religion, that's a separate question.

Where there is the genuine product, there are always imitations.
Can you KNOW the genuine product I believe is one of your questions?
This is an area to do with epistemology, rationally justified belief and knowledge
-- and my belief is that we can know, and without needing to even see all the 4199 counterfeits.

For example, recently I had the purchase PS3 controllers to replace our broken ones.
There are imitations that look like Sony's genuine controllers and after getting several fakes I wanted the genuine one.
They last a heck of a lot longer, especially when you have four kids who throw them on the floor, stand on them and throw them around.

So I researched how to tell a genuine from a fake and proceeded to get a good deal online for a genuine one.
Now there was some initial faith I placed in sellers who claimed to be selling a genuine PS3 Sony controller.
I asked some questions, and they confirmed they purchased it from a store or that it came with their PS3 console.
Being told it wasn't ordered online or from China, Hong Kong or the like was a good sign of the genuine product.

When I received it, I examined and performed some tests that I know perhaps 99.95% of fake controllers will fail.
It passed these tests. I'm very certain that this is the genuine product.
Sure enough, after using it, the wifi responsiveness is instant, buttons all work and absolute performing flawlessly.
I KNOW that I have a genuine PS3 Sony controller. Woohoo! And at a good price too. The guy even delivered it to my house.

Now the one thing I did not need to do to know I have the genuine product was to examine 4199 of the fakes out there.
Right? I could be assured in my knowledge that this was the genuine product, because it stacked up in its own right.
Now there are very many religions for sure, BUT I believe the genuine product can be known and Christ is it.

FINALLY,
You don't need to be decided on any religion to acknowledge God created.
You don't need to be decided on any religion to believe God appears to have been personally involved.
These are additional questions on top of straight Theistic belief alone.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

Hopefully it doesn't seem like I'm be purposefully thick in the head here, but I'm still not sure.
I'll see though, if I can respond from what I think you're getting at.

Paul Davies is a fairly popular Agnostic philosopher and writer.
I'd be happy to lend you an electronic copy of his book if you like?
If you have not read his book, then it seems silly to debate what he believes.
I did quote him at length to try and provide an honest insight into his beliefs.
I'm not one to distort words to try win a debate, so am a little offended if you think such.
Some chop and change and make him sound almost Theistic, but reading his book you know he's not.

I do have a kindle, and I would love that. I'm currently reading a cute fairy tale called the Book of Mormon upon request at the moment, but after such I will without a doubt let you know.

"I'm not one to distort words to try win a debate, so am a little offended if you think such."
#1- I don't like to think we're having a debate, sounds too serious. I like to think of it as a rational conversation. Also, regardless of what anybody on this forum thinks, my intentions, that I know in my heart to be the truth , are to learn more about christianity and possibly convert . I only act like a difficult stubborn child to get the answer I'm searching for ( might not make sense to you, I can't word it right, I'm terrible at wording my inward beliefs, ask jac). To clarify, I do view mainstream ---not 'jesuscametoamericaandcursedredandblackpeopleanintiy---Christianity as the most rational and supported religion.
#2- Love your analogy, makes sense.
#3- You stated I was committing a genetic fallacy, I contend I did not. I stated (perhaps unclearly) that it is a large jump from deism to theism, and that if I did make that jump, the 4200 theism's make it difficult to choose which is correct. The 4200 do not directly inhibit me from making said "leap."
#4- You stated that the majority of scientist do not agree that life can be explained naturally ( I don't mean to misquote if I am, forgive me). I dissent from this in that while we cannot fully explain, in depth, and exactly how life was formed, we can hypothesize based upon known factors and 'ingredients' what is need for life to form. This is to say, we can understand what conditions are needed for ingredients of life to form, but ( at least little ol' me doesn't understand from my education) we cannot exactly understand how, or why they form in a specific way to directly cause life.
#4 is not a topic I've decided to base my beliefs on. I truly believe now that Christian theism can be compatible with my scientific beliefs (well done? , probably well done to Father George Coyne really) . This is to say that God set the laws of our wondiferous (watch south park?) universe in motion with the primary intention of us coming to being (fr coyne doesn't hold this, I do). Challenging this won't exactly help you to convert me if that's your goal, nor would it be particularly interesting conversation as I'd be defending a God/Theology I don't fully believe in at this time.
#5 I don't know if this is the correct thread (seeing as you're "questioning deism"), but I'm far for interested in the historical aspects of Christianity. You and jac, together with outside reading (sometimes suggested) have convinced me that Christianity is the most historically accurate theistic option, and thus deserves the 'honor' of my targeted attention. The leap from deism to theism is not a large one if a theistic option overcomes my cultural objections to it. <---to clarify read next sentence.
I no longer hold all 4200 are the same, Christianity has explanations and evidence supporting it not found in '4199' others. If all 4200 were the same it's a large, nigh impossible leap which was what I was stressing previously.

I've dedicated about an hour to this and I have a chem lab and a math assignment due tomorrow. So this must be it, otherwise I'd write more.
I wrote this rushed, forgive my egregious butchering of the English language.

[Storyteller]

Happy

I think that is a wonderful post. It`s truly moving to see you in your discoveries.

I really hope you do make that leap and convert and I know exactly what you mean when you say you struggle to explain your inward belief. I don`t think you`re doing a bad job at all.

[Kurieuo]

I do have a kindle, and I would love that. I'm currently reading a cute fairy tale called the Book of Mormon upon request at the moment, but after such I will without a doubt let you know.

Oh, drop that book now.
You and I both now you need not read it to see a counterfeit.
Why waste your time when there's so much better stuff to read.
Davies book will contain much more content. I'll PM you.

BUT, actually one I always recommend to true seekers or new Christians is William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith.
However, I'm really not sure if you're ready for a book like that yet. Since it is written for a Christian audience.

"I'm not one to distort words to try win a debate, so am a little offended if you think such."
#1- I don't like to think we're having a debate, sounds too serious. I like to think of it as a rational conversation. Also, regardless of what anybody on this forum thinks, my intentions, that I know in my heart to be the truth , are to learn more about christianity and possibly convert . I only act like a difficult stubborn child to get the answer I'm searching for ( might not make sense to you, I can't word it right, I'm terrible at wording my inward beliefs, ask jac). To clarify, I do view mainstream ---not 'jesuscametoamericaandcursedredandblackpeopleanintiy---Christianity as the most rational and supported religion.

Well you go away for a few weeks, come back and say your considering Christianity?
Yes, I'm surprised, but you were here for a reason so not entirely.

Just like 1over137 before you (now Christian), Proinsias who might be there in 2-3 years, Audie who'll perhaps be 10 or so years, and Kenny maybe on his death bed. But, now I've probably just thrown a spanner in the works, and they'll persist all the more against the inevitable.

It's strange you know. I've seen "Christians" and their questions shows them going the opposite way.
Some end up becoming Atheist and the like and disavowing Christ. I knew the moment they arrived that would happen.

Others come here, non-Christians, and I always intrigued to try and gauge the direction they're going in. Some are stubborn as, but then give way here and there.
This to me shows that God is drawing such a person to himself, and their hearts however hard, are actually resonating positively.
Eventually, I'd like to think and pray, the scales will fall off and it'll all become clear.

I've probably just put my foot in it, but not even I can destroy the work of the Holy Spirit as I see it.

#2- Love your analogy, makes sense.

Thanks. Got to have my Playstation. More to distract my kids or I'll crack.

#3- You stated I was committing a genetic fallacy, I contend I did not. I stated (perhaps unclearly) that it is a large jump from deism to theism, and that if I did make that jump, the 4200 theism's make it difficult to choose which is correct. The 4200 do not directly inhibit me from making said "leap."

Hmm, I forget now what I said. Oh...
It's just that you seem to see Theism as necessarily needing to attach to a religion. I don't.
Theism is just belief in a personal God. Religion, is like well which one seems the most consistent with that personal God I believe exists.

BUT, it seems you are more seriously exploring "Theistic" religions.
So I can see what you mean by your "Deism" which really I'd think is closer to "Theism".
However, until you see some legitimacy to any Theistic religion, well you'll just call yourself Deist.
Something like that. Kind of makes sense I suppose from the way you're approaching the matter. (or at least the way I see you approaching the matter)

Maybe I'm wrong, but just ignore that I said genetic fallacy. I withdraw it.

#4- You stated that the majority of scientist do not agree that life can be explained naturally ( I don't mean to misquote if I am, forgive me). I dissent from this in that while we cannot fully explain, in depth, and exactly how life was formed, we can hypothesize based upon known factors and 'ingredients' what is need for life to form. This is to say, we can understand what conditions are needed for ingredients of life to form, but ( at least little ol' me doesn't understand from my education) we cannot exactly understand how, or why they form in a specific way to directly cause life.

I'm not sure I said or intended that (in bold above), because people believe all sorts of things, are inconsistent and the like.
Someone might see natural problems, but still choose to put their faith in something less than God, such as an Aristotelian philosophy like Thomas Nagel seems to embrace which makes nature out to be more than what is physical.
However, let's just say there are massive problems for belief in a solely physical origin of life.
It's not just limited to life's origin either, but things like consciousness and the like.

#4 is not a topic I've decided to base my beliefs on. I truly believe now that Christian theism can be compatible with my scientific beliefs (well done? , probably well done to Father George Coyne really) . This is to say that God set the laws of our wondiferous (watch south park?) universe in motion with the primary intention of us coming to being (fr coyne doesn't hold this, I do). Challenging this won't exactly help you to convert me if that's your goal, nor would it be particularly interesting conversation as I'd be defending a God/Theology I don't fully believe in at this time.

Never heard of Coyne, but I'll look him up. And yes I watched Southpark.
There was a Mormon episode.
My wife was telling me about today.
I want to watch it now. Maybe you should too if you haven't. Sounds very educational.

#5 I don't know if this is the correct thread (seeing as you're "questioning deism"), but I'm far for interested in the historical aspects of Christianity. You and jac, together with outside reading (sometimes suggested) have convinced me that Christianity is the most historically accurate theistic option, and thus deserves the 'honor' of my targeted attention. The leap from deism to theism is not a large one if a theistic option overcomes my cultural objections to it. <---to clarify read next sentence.
I no longer hold all 4200 are the same, Christianity has explanations and evidence supporting it not found in '4199' others. If all 4200 were the same it's a large, nigh impossible leap which was what I was stressing previously.

That's great to hear.
It makes me overjoyed to see someone approaching the truth.
I pray you'll get to see what Jac sees, what I see, what Storyteller sees, what 1over137 saw and many others here.

When you do you'll have fun reading over your old posts.
Must be such a novelty to be able to read old posts for those who were non-Christian and then became Christian.

I've dedicated about an hour to this and I have a chem lab and a math assignment due tomorrow. So this must be it, otherwise I'd write more.
I wrote this rushed, forgive my egregious butchering of the English language.

No worries. Good luck with your studies.
I feel privileged that you have taken the time to have these exchanges with me.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

I wouldn't be worried about me reading the book of mormon. I view mormonism on par with scientology and so long as every mormon keeps dodging basic questions ,along with telling me to get baptized, I probably won't stop viewing at such. How do they view there methods of debate productive? It's such a turn off to anybody with a logically thinking brain, it's blatantly obvious how they were trained.

"Where are these massive cities made of stone the size of NYC, along with the post-columbian cattle, weaponry (not even post columbian did they come over here -I.E catapult-, instruments - I.E the trumpet analogy Christ uses when he comes in a row boat over to america-? Why did christ use geographical examples, the same he used in Israel, when he was in america? How did that make sense to the americans?

Mormon Elder fellow- "Well, all I can tell you is that if you read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart. I want you to put those questions on a shelf, don't get rid of them, but put them on a shelf until after you are baptized."

I'm being dead honest, this is a near exact quote from my conversation. How do they view this as effective? If somebody (the majority) had used this same debating strategy on these forums I would've called you primitive morons and left. They're obviously trained to avoid these questions and revert back to their safety net.

Book of Abraham -------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Black people cursed -------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Indians (NA) red because of curse-------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Massive stone cities not even close to found-------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
et cetera et cetera, you get the point; and I'm going to pop them in the chin next time they call me a doubting Thomas. Deist don't have morals.


If my questions were answered in such a way.

Proof of Christ's resurrection-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Proof of Sodom and Gomorrah-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Proof of Christ even existing-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Need for a theistic god-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Why is the sky blue-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart

I'm not sure if this is a christian concept, but I need, the definition of faith, TRUST in what I believe. It's hard to have TRUST when there's no logical reason for it.
They don't seem to understand this and just call me doubting Thomas, which again means nothing to me as I'm not even a christian/theist yet. Did't Thomas have a plenty of reason to believe but he didn't? I don't know, why the hell am I doubting Thomas jac/Kuero [sic] ? I'm sure i'm some sort, regardless it's annoying. Seriously, somebody explain Thomas to me.

ahh calm down ryan......calm down, the mormons are gone.

[Byblos]

If I may interject here, HFD, and offer some advice, I think you're leaping far too much in your quest, attempting to go from deism to Christianity (although if you could that would be wonderful). Christianity is an article of faith, i.e. requires revelation. Theism, on the other hand, is an article of reason. From reason alone we can know God exists (in fact He IS existence itself). From reason alone we can know there is one and only one God. From reason alone we can arrive at certain attributes about God such as His eternality, unchangeability, aseity, omniscience, omnibenevolance, etc, and how these attributes are identical (from divine simplicity).

I would highly recommend a book by Edward Feser called The Last Superstition. If you read nothing else, read this. If you find it too expensive I have a copy I can send you if you promise to send it back when done.

Just my 2 cents.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

If I may interject here, HFD, and offer some advice, I think you're leaping far too much in your quest, attempting to go from deism to Christianity (although if you could that would be wonderful). Christianity is an article of faith, i.e. requires revelation. Theism, on the other hand, is an article of reason.

I dissent, in that if I did acknowledge theism to be true I would inadvertently acknowledge Christianity. Obviously I do neither. If I made the "leap" from deism to theism, it would be right into a pew. Obviously, that wouldn't make me a christian, but I would acknowledge the truths of christianity with "revelation" later I suppose.(whomever seeks shall find right?)
I suppose I 'kind of' understand your point, theism=pure rationality christianity= rationality + revelation? Either way, my point is I cannot accept 1 without the other.

[Byblos]

If I may interject here, HFD, and offer some advice, I think you're leaping far too much in your quest, attempting to go from deism to Christianity (although if you could that would be wonderful). Christianity is an article of faith, i.e. requires revelation. Theism, on the other hand, is an article of reason.

I dissent, in that if I did acknowledge theism to be true I would inadvertently acknowledge Christianity. Obviously I do neither. If I made the "leap" from deism to theism, it would be right into a pew. Obviously, that wouldn't make me a christian, but I would acknowledge the truths of christianity with "revelation" later I suppose.(whomever seeks shall find right?)
I suppose I 'kind of' understand your point, theism=pure rationality christianity= rationality + revelation? Either way, my point is I cannot accept 1 without the other.

Then you're way ahead of where I thought you were.

My offer still stands re the book.

[Kurieuo]

I wouldn't be worried about me reading the book of mormon. I view mormonism on par with scientology and so long as every mormon keeps dodging basic questions ,along with telling me to get baptized, I probably won't stop viewing at such. How do they view there methods of debate productive? It's such a turn off to anybody with a logically thinking brain, it's blatantly obvious how they were trained.

"Where are these massive cities made of stone the size of NYC, along with the post-columbian cattle, weaponry (not even post columbian did they come over here -I.E catapult-, instruments - I.E the trumpet analogy Christ uses when he comes in a row boat over to america-? Why did christ use geographical examples, the same he used in Israel, when he was in america? How did that make sense to the americans?

Mormon Elder fellow- "Well, all I can tell you is that if you read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart. I want you to put those questions on a shelf, don't get rid of them, but put them on a shelf until after you are baptized."

There was a woman who recently knocked on our door, and my wife answered and they began talking.
The women started out with beliefs and asking what church my wife attends, and then proceeded to show in Scripture Mother God.
Well, God doesn't really have any sex, but my wife was intrigued. And then she left arranging a future day to come back around.

Then my wife spoke to me about what she said, and I told her, while God doesn't have a sex it sounds like a cult. Look it up online.
It ended up being some Korean cult and they actually believe there's this Mother God, like Jesus is God, this woman is God.
I'm recalling what my wife told me, but they said things like people in Jesus' day didn't recognise He was God, you don't want to be like them?

The thing is, while Jesus never denied such claims, neither did He go advertising it and tell people to worship and bow down to Him.
While Jesus is God taking on human form, we believe, it was never about Him but "His work" to be done. There is need for only one who can intercede on behalf of us between God, and since Jesus can do it forever then why another? (Hebrews 7:24-25) Theologically, it doesn't make sense for there to be another.

So I went over some passages with my wife, because the woman didn't want me sitting in on their meeting.
Then the day arrived, and the woman visited with someone else. They went through a lot of Scripture, a lot about how churches are all wrong today, the need for baptism. My wife pointed out several issues, especially surrounding this Mother God and I think she called it silly.

Then they said how unless she's baptised (my wife) there's no reason to go further.
The exact same thing those Mormons were saying to you.
My wife needs to be baptised and then she'll see the truth. She'll know in her heart it is true.
They ended up walking away leaving their number saying they won't be returning again unless she is baptised.

You know, I wonder what such people think of verses in Scripture like, "test everything, hold onto the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Or not to believe every spirit but to test the spirits to see that they're from God. (1 John 4:1) What exactly does "test" mean. There was a thread somewhere here quite a while ago to do with all the Scripture that supports a rationally based faith. That is, we have faith in something because of reason. That is actually what we see in Scripture as "faith" -- an evidence-based and faith that is developed after testing.

Not some "blind" heart-felt faith. Even when Jesus appeared after the resurrection, to the apostles and many others, Thomas would not believe so what did Jesus do? Showed Thomas his hands. What did Jesus do while alive? Performed many miracles and helped those in need. Jesus' whole ministry appears to be full of evidence, for those who lived then, and He never used such to gain power and wealth. He did heavily imply and accept claims of divinity, sometimes rather obviously, but never was it pushed for self gain. If anything, he used it to antagonise the religious leaders of the day and it helped seal His death.

I'm not sure if you've reflected much on the issue CS Lewis poses to everyone concerning Christ. In his book Mere Christianity, he writes:

• “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

History is a messy practice. Sometimes earlier times in my life even, I question, did that really happen? I know it is so, because I remember it was so. BUT, you know our earlier days can be so far from that it just seems surreal. So then, when we turn to matters of the past, did people really live before us for 1000s of years and the like. Of course, it makes sense and the like -- but it's just so strange to think so many people lived before me and for so long, and here I am right now. You know? But, historically speaking, Jesus' life is well supported as a worker of "miracles" both in Scripture and outside, as much as and more than most other historical facts we accept.

I don't know how I got in this vein, my writing just goes where my mind leads. Sorry, if I'm all over.
BUT, really I see that you seem to believe God exists and now for Theism to be grounded it needs to be tied down somewhere.
As a Christian, obviously I believe Theism is tied down to Christ. Since you're open to God, and even a personal God, then really this in your next step I suppose to examine.
NOT, to just accept based upon your heart without reason, but to explore. William Lane Craig and Gary Habermaus (watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M) are two I'd offer from "our" side in your rational consideration.

I'm being dead honest, this is a near exact quote from my conversation. How do they view this as effective? If somebody (the majority) had used this same debating strategy on these forums I would've called you primitive morons and left. They're obviously trained to avoid these questions and revert back to their safety net.

Book of Abraham -------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Black people cursed -------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Indians (NA) red because of curse-------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Massive stone cities not even close to found-------> read the book of mormon and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
et cetera et cetera, you get the point; and I'm going to pop them in the chin next time they call me a doubting Thomas. Deist don't have morals.

Yes, sounds exactly like that Korean Mother God cult who came around.
Maybe they saw Mormon tactics to be quite effective on people.
They would not accept any Scripture or like my wife mentioned, UNTIL she was baptised.
Only then would she see the truth. There was nothing wrong with a doubting Thomas. He was still chosen as an Apostle right?
God, if God exists, gave us both a heart and mind after all right?

If my questions were answered in such a way.

Proof of Christ's resurrection-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Proof of Sodom and Gomorrah-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Proof of Christ even existing-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Need for a theistic god-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart
Why is the sky blue-------> read the book of bible and honesty pray about you will see the truth in your heart

I'm not sure if this is a christian concept, but I need, the definition of faith, TRUST in what I believe. It's hard to have TRUST when there's no logical reason for it.
They don't seem to understand this and just call me doubting Thomas, which again means nothing to me as I'm not even a christian/theist yet. Did't Thomas have a plenty of reason to believe but he didn't? I don't know, why the hell am I doubting Thomas jac/Kuero [sic] ? I'm sure i'm some sort, regardless it's annoying. Seriously, somebody explain Thomas to me.

We're all "doubting Thomas'" here on this board.
Somehow we ended up together, but I think it makes this place good, different.
Ever visited Rapture Ready? Well, the people here lets say are qualitatively different.
Each to their own I suppose. Listen to your heart.

ahh calm down ryan......calm down, the mormons are gone.

Yes, I was quite relieved when that cultish woman was gone too.
Had to clean up some beliefs here and there that my wife was uncertain about.
Made me sick that anything they said seeped into my wife.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

"rapture ready" vs "godandscience"

Which sounds more sane?

[Kurieuo]

Don't the insane think themselves sane?

[HappyFlappyTheist]

Don't the insane think themselves sane?

I frequently stop and tell myself "I must be insane," so it's a possibility that they don't.