A Meditation on Jesus

i've not read the entire thread here just the last three comments by sheebs and vicky and i just wanted to reply to those as they relate to a conversation i was having with a friend recently.. we were talking about my faith as a christian.. and i said to him that i felt that i didnt need any proof because that was part of faith by definition (as you said) .. and he (an atheist) criticised me for that.. saying that i didn't think for myself and simply accepted what was spoon fed to me... which is not the case.. i grew up in an international community and had the opportunity to learn about a lot of different faiths.. and currently live in Egypt where i am obviously part of a minority. and so i have had the chance to learn about other religions and ways of life and have found that i am comfortable with the religion i was born into.. christianity in theory is "about love and acceptance" and not judgement... it is a shame that people misinterpret religion and use it for their own gain (something that i see everyday living in the middle east).. so i do agree that not all christians (or religious people of any faith) go by their values.. BUT i think that christians are criticised just as much as atheists are... i am challenged as a christian just as much.. i dont think either atheists or christians can say that they suffer more than any other particular group or any other religion in that respect.. we are all faced with these kinds of accusations regardless.. christianity (or any other religion) is not a 'label' as you put it.. its something that you either choose to believe in or not.. and i really dont think it's fair to generalise in that way because you simply choose to lump all christians into this group of "judgemental" and "arrogant" people.. when there are atheists who are exactly the same.. judging christians for their faith.... and as a christian i have been insulted and even spat at in the street for wearing a cross here in egypt.. so to find people making these broad statements is really disappointing.. the point i am trying to make is that regardless.. just as much as atheists feel they are criticised or attacked.. i can relate to exactly the same feeling as a christian.

I know the feeling Sheebs... I hesitate to name myself an atheist for much the same reasons. But at the end of the day I am what I am ( not therefore;) I wouldn't hesitate to put my child in a Christian orientated school however. I was brought up Catholic and have many of the moral values of that religion which suits me fine. Christainity is an excellent building block for moral education regardless of later decisions about individual beliefs. In response to Nancy, I have to say that that's a fair point. I was speaking from my experiences, not in general, and of course I come from a very Christian family and background so, naturally, my beliefs are challenged. I wasn't trying to imply that there is an 'easy' route either way, although, for myself, it would have been easier if I'd stayed Catholic. MMmm I'm having fun with these discussions.

Happy clappy, bible punching space cadets are defenitely not my scene but regardless of this I think the meditation was well written.

In brief response to writersblock's statement... **Well you can believe in Jesus, and why shouldn't you after all? It's like claiming you believe in the sea or dirt or whatever, he was an historically documented figure, so there's really no debate about that.** Could you please provide more information on the documents you refer to? And where's Mark YB?? I've been checking this thread every five seconds for two whole months... and STILL no response! :-)

Yes, I read it too, a fine religious piece of writing, I'm an Orthodox and I've never been an atheist, I often wondered though how does it feel to be "in the existential tradition" of being atheistic, so I decided to write about that... Yes maybe you are right when you say: "A person exists, but in order to create his essence, he needs God." but could it be the same thing for God and His creation? But let's talk more about this Meditation on Jesus! We read in this spiritual article: "I have this waking fantasy. I am about to meet Jesus," I have imagined the same thing too, well not exactly the same, has anybody else imagined that he/she meets Jesus!? "His gaze never leaves our eyes for all eternity" I thought of the same thing when I "visited" Jesus in a waking fantasy!!

That's the German philosophical line of thinking... Hegel, namely. That the corrupt potentiality of nature moves toward the actuality of God. Hence, the creator and created meet, and heaven is brought down to earth. Some Communists believe that also. Communists in America seem to think that everything is permissible in the war against the evil capitalistic world. Essence in terms of nature would preclude choice though. Only Humans can create choice. Even for nature, we create choice through the choices we make. Endangered species, for instance, are created by our environmental choices. As for Christ... I can't say that I believe that he was such a pacifist. He did everything except for killing the Romans and the rabbis that the Romans had put in power. He was basically saying that most rich, wealthy people are evil. Powerful people are evil. What is good is letting go of your choice and being reunited with God which I find to be a rather contradictory task. God gives us choice and then takes it away so that he can dominate over us?

It's in the gospels where Jesus disqualifies Himself from being just a teacher but equates Himself with God.On numerous occasions he was nearly stoned for blashemy for such phrases as "Before Moses I Am" `I Am` denoting God. There is a well known arguement in basic Christian apologetics where it's suggested that either Jesus was mad, a liar, or who He says He was. There is then the assertion that no one, even an atheist would suggest that the words of Jesus are that of a madman or a liar therefore... Emotional experiences can only be subjective and even though I would call myself an Evangelical Christian in my view of the Bible, in that I believe in what it asserts. I also strongly believe in a Spiritual realm that is higher than our finite minds and can directly effect the natural realm. In my own experience this has meant revelation throughout my Christian walk that has changed my heart and mind from the inside out. This has meant me realising that what I think and feel about something is not as important or relevant as what God says about me by His word and Spirit. It's about different paradigms and is the most contentious and difficult ares for discussion as it can always be botton-lined as subjective emotional ramblings! In the end the Word of God has to be my plumbline, realised by the Holy Spirit.

That argument disregards a basic starting-point that there may have been no such person. If you take Hume's view on miracles and unlikely events generally, one should always weigh up what is more plausible - that the son of God came down to earth and divided some fish and bread between five thousand people, or that the four people who said he did were making it up... Even if one accepts that there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God, it would be far more likely that he was mad (it is a fairly common delusion) or a liar. So, I for one, would say that presuming that Jesus is not a fictional character, that it is more likely that he was not the son of God - which wouldn't stop him being a pretty amazing person. I discount the miracles, but the teachings were massively progressive and enduring, even if all he did was talk. I suppose what I am trying to say is back to Kierkegaard - whether you believe in God or not is a matter of personal faith, and up to the individual. It is not something you can prove or disprove with argument - Mark's faith is a matter for him and to be honest it is something that I envy him for. I have no argument with belief in God - I have argument with fallacious Proofs of God. (which is not to say that they are not interesting, just that they don't actually prove anything of the sort - and a line of thought that got me into a great deal of trouble in RE at school)

I happened across this last night - "The Myth of the Historical Jesus" and "The Lack of Historical Evidence for Jesus" Long, but worth it.

Before I became Christian I just assumed He was a mythical character, He was so irrelevant to my life. I was into eastern religions especially those that espoused a universality of religion. The idea of born again Christians was too wrapped up in bigotted Bible belt right wing Americans. After a particularly powerful conversion experience that stopped me in my tracks. My heart and mind was changed. What has convinced me of the reality of Jesus and that also means the reality of His ressurection is the relationship I've felt I've had with him for 13 years. Also seeing so many lives transformed from living Hells to lives filled with hope. More incredibly and also a phenomenon that the West hasn't really begun to comprehend is the incredible spiritual revivals happening in China, Africa , South America, Argentina, South Korea. Where literally hundreds of thousands of people are turning to a very New Testament ideal of Christianity, a christianity that has spiritual power not unlike the Wesleyan revival in 18th Century England. In my 13 years I've seen too many miracles to deny the power of the risen Christ. The most incredible miracle, the most life changing for me has been seeing the reality of my heart. It's deceitfulness. There is a bible verse in Jeremiah 19 where the Prophet says "The heart is deceitful above all things, who can understand it?" I know the truth of that also in the Psalms "The foolish man says there is no God" The translation of foolish is aligned with the concept of immorality. Why that was true to me was that when I met with God in apowerful way I realised that it was not that I hadn't believed, no matter how unconsciously. It was that I wasn't prepared to live a life I knew I should be leading. One of more selflessness, truth, integrity and love. Ouch!

Oh and the actual spiritual experience of feeling forgiven was the most incredible lifechanging moment; considering I didn't even realise I needed to be. I was so ignorant yet so interlectual. But I suppose Jesus does say come as a child. I realsed that that was not to mean come willfully ignorant but with Childlike faith, trust and dependance in God. Now it seems so weird for the created to deny a creator, so way out weird. Hey, but that's hindsight! oh, and it was comforting to be so gloriously wrong. It was like enjoying the reality and sheer rightness of my smallness. I didn't need to pretend to need no one but myself as the real last word on anything.

Answering Liana's thread, no real historian denies the historical reality of Jesus. The Jewish Historian Josephus writing in the same century writes about Jesus. The Roman Historian Tactus also mentions the Christians and who they believed in, and so many more. Also the historicity of the New Testament is also well founded. In the end we believe to understand. it's about faith , not the interlect that moves one to believe. The best thing is when you meet God first hand and not from a mind set or second hand through heresay, somehow what you `thought` about God doesn't mean anything at all. Actually it's really quite embarrassing, especially when one was as vociferously anti the Christian faith as I was. I'm just grateful He's forgiving and understands our weaknesses better than we do ourselves. I believe non Christians are desperate to find out that Jesus didn't exists, some kind of exoneration for what though? Before anyone gets apoplectic about that last remark, just ask yourself is that true? It's a weird kind of natural response caused by the very idea that Christians go around, whether good or bad examples, promoting a God of truth and holiness. We'd prefer just to keep the lovey dovey bits. And sin. well blimey, I used to find the word itself was offensive enough. In our post modern, post Christian, morally relative society, promoting a religion that encourages one to confess sin and value personal morality based on a God that we will be ultimately accountable to is down right heinous!

Apologies for posting my reply on a webpage... http://www.epimethean.com/hype/t08.htm ... but I found myself engrossed and (as ever) the words mounted... and I was unsure whether there might be a limit here... so... apologies :-) [%sig%]

I believe non Christians are desperate to find out that Jesus didn't exists, some kind of exoneration for what though? Before anyone gets apoplectic about that last remark, just ask yourself is that true? No.

Good. That's alright then.

... was that tumbleweed that just drifted by? An owl hooted in a nearby copse...

My friend K says "I impulse-bought 52 of the huggy bearded one... stitched them all together into a quilt that I can snooze contentedly within, safe in the knowledge that the warm Lord is surrounding me in hugginesses" You've got to admit theyre sweet...

Well I found Kevins reply fascinating, so thank you for answering Mark in such depth. Mark, have you read it?

Yeah. When you give your honest subjective opinions on this site you have to be prepared for the consequences. I was being very opinionated but I suppose I'm so used to people feeling they are able to put down people who hold strong religious views because thay don't, that I felt free to be as honest. But If I was in anyway offensive I apologise unreservedly. As for people extracting the Michael in their clever post modern way, well I bow to their superiour wit, and hope they are honest and don't cheat on their taxes, or steal things from work, or take off time for sickness when they're not really ill, and feed their goldfish every day and are kind to old people from the heart and are real labour supporters even when they're alone in their flats, and are as nice when they're drunk as when they are sober, and talk about people behind their backs but always remember to aplogise, and respect people who hold different views about Benjamin Zephania and admit when they've broken wind in front of people they look up to and always remember to keep in touch with their parents. Oh and are especially kind to card carrying Marxists who should enjoy our universal sympathy. Oh and are as witty about positive as well as negative things...Blah blah etc etc God Bless.

I find these discussion fascinating. My friend lives next door to an Islamic bookshop and, a few months ago, I got into a conversation with the owner. He told me that it says in the Koran, and is also scientifically proven, that man with beards have larger penises and are more likely to father children than those without. He also said that men who wear shoes which cover their feet, as opposed to sandals, are more likely to become homosexuals. It's largely pointless to discuss scientific or historical fact in the context of religion because whatever 'facts' you uncover are ultimately subject to interpretation which is based on your belief.

You've lost me now Mark.. I cant see any mickey taking here..

Me and Mark cross-posted earlier but as for this bizarre, if entertaining, bit of spleen venting: "As for people extracting the Michael in their clever post modern way, well I bow to their superiour wit... " it's typical of the line peddled by a significant minority of religious people that while they ought to be free to patronize and insult non-religious people with views such as: "I believe non Christians are desperate to find out that Jesus didn't exists, some kind of exoneration for what though?" there own views ought to considered with depth and solemnity. I don't have a problem with religion. I was brought up as a Christian and never rebelled against it. In fact, I found it very helpful and still follow many aspects of Christian teaching (although obviously there are many different varieties). I just don't believe in God.

David, it's so more right on to hold the non religious view. I was a non Christian far longer than I was a Christian and was more opinionated because their absolutist view seemed so incredible narrow, and I couldn't comprehend their seemingly indefencable stance vis-a-vis people who didn't believe what they believed, especially Christians who have Jesus as the only way to God.. I was far more patronising because they were so wrong. But now the idea of not believing in a God is just plain silly. Like going into a restaurant, having a meal and then saying you didn't bevieve in the chef. When a paradigm shift happens you change. Both sides patronise and on this site where the dominant beliefs are liberal, morally relativistic(Is that right?) and also full of the necessary, mine included, writer's ego, the Christian concept of other cenredness seems so irrelevant. Thus I am definitely among a minority, here anyway. So what, I Love you guys and there's plenty of time to repent! (Those who know I've got a sense of humour will get that as a joke!)

In response to Mark's reply (10:53) Hmmmm... firstly I should perhaps say that you have nothing to apologise for. Nothing that you had said was particularly offensive... mildly humourous and a tad sanctimonious... but I was unoffended. However, I am a little saddened (again) that you have not responded to the points I raised, especially as they were as a direct result of your own public assertions. But this, it seems, is par for the course on this particular topic, and your reactions thoroughly typical in my experience. Sorry, but they are. THIS is why people still believe in Jesus... they may question politicians, are capable of objectivism with regard to literature, critical of corn-flakes packaging... and so on... but they simply cannot, cannot, cannot face full-on the truth about Jesus. My points were argued in a good humour (or at least that was my intention; my brand of humour does tend to be a tad cynical, I suppose) and written as plainly as I could. They are, most certainly, valid... and were directly targeted to your own previous utterances. If you were serious about your 'beliefs' you would have taken the time to think and counter... lucidly. But to choose to respond with ... stealing things from work? Breaking wind? Kind to Marxists? Ah well. I am here and available should you ever wish to enter a serious discussion on this topic, one which could be a learning experience for us both, perhaps. Anytime. As for David's post... I have a beard, though unfortunately... :-) I am also uncertain whether it is 'largely pointless to discuss scientific or historical fact in the context of religion' for I believe this is a view that the Church itself has propagated for 2000 years, with good reason. Anyway, to do so is an extremely interesting and enlightening process, too. As for my own interpretive objectivism, well... you may believe what you choose but I know that, for me - as with most historians - uncovering nuggets from the sand and learning from the past is what it is all about. And should such a nugget counter my understanding, then I would stop and think and question and revise... it's what I do. In fact, on this issue, come to think of it... that's what I HAVE done... changing my opinion twice on the road to my current understanding... each change occasioned through exploration and the uncovering of knowledge. Had Mark been capable of presenting me with anything new, instead of descending into foolishness (no offence), then I believe I would have been capable of a third revision, even. Closed minds make me... shivver :-)

Dammit... cross-posting... arghhhh. Just one question for you Mark... could you just for a moment stop confusing God with Jesus? God, you assert, was never a man... Jesus, you assert, was. THAT's why you need to distinguish. I am not being 'right-on' in the views I hold... far from it... besides, for almost 2000 years, people with your belief-set have not only dominated and determined 'right-on-edness' but tortured and put to death those who have dared disagree (Galileo... for pete's sake... unbelievable). I would think yourself lucky that, should you (for some strange reason) consider yourself in the minority, that we in the majority (assumed) are more level-headed than your predecessors. My views are neither absolutionist nor narrow and I think I have, through posting, proved that my opinions are most definitely not 'indefencable.' Nor do I intend to be patronising ... pot, black, kettle... whoops... perhaps a little patronising :-) I have never said that the idea of believing in God is 'just plain silly' not that I agree qith your restaurant analogy... for obvious reasons. However, using this analogy... you assert that Jesus WAS the chef AND that he left his thumbprint in my burger. I simply do not agree. I am simply asking you to prove your assertation. So prove it. Please. Sigh. I have made valid points that run contrary to your stated sentences. Answer them please, that's all you have to do. Simple, right? After all, there ARE reasons why you believe in Jesus, right? You DO have some? As I think I have said... all else is just a smokescreen.

I do Kevin and I apologise for those remarks that you found flippant, I was also responding to other posts. I am very serious about my faith and although I believe you need to`believe to understand` and also in a spiritual realm that has a profound effect on our finite minds. I certainly have intellectual reasons for my faithand I feel they are valid. I hope to share them. Again I'm sorry for my facetiosness and look forward to honest, sensible discussion.

Hope I've not said anything to upset you Mark. My interest in this debate was to apply rigour to a so-called proof of Jesus - whether one chooses to believe in Jesus is a personal matter and a question fo faith. As I've said, I do rather envy you your faith. While I don't believe that one can prove through logic that God exists, nor do I believe that logic insists that God doesn't. At the end (and this is a conversation that Jude and I have had on the threads), science cannot explain why there is something instead of nothing. At some point, the universe came into being and nobody knows why. Maybe there is a God. I don't believe myself, but I do think that if more people followed the actual philosophies of Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha that the world might well be a better place. As Dave Allen used to say - good night, and may your God go with you.

You've always been a good friend on this site Andrew and keep in on my toes in terms of integrity

err `Keep me on my toes`, I mean!

Author: mark yelland-brown (---.44whit.proxy.easynet.net) Date: 02-23-04 15:27 I certainly have intellectual reasons for my faithand I feel they are valid. I hope to share them. Again I'm sorry for my facetiosness and look forward to honest, sensible discussion. There you go! I am all ears.

Well you can believe in Jesus, and why shouldn't you after all? It's like claiming you believe in the sea or dirt or whatever, he was an historically documented figure, so there's really no debate about that. The real issue is whether you think he was just a bloke, or the son of God. Personally, I'm with the he was just a bloke camp. I was brought up as a Catholic, never had any choice in the matter, just ended up that way via parent's belief. Of course when I got older, I had the intelligence to examine the situation and that's when it all got heaved out of the window. Which I might add, was not an easy decision since I had been effectively brainwashed with all the 'you'll go to hell if you don't believe it' from an early, and indeed susceptible age. Fortunately for me, intelligent reasoning won through, but I fully understand when people don't have the strength to come to the same decision, brainwashing being a powerful and effective thing. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting my parents, or the priests or teachers at my Catholic school were evil in this brainwashing which took place. I know that they were all sucked into it in the same way I was and just didn't, or never tried to, find their way to the place I'm at. For me the clincher is that the only reason I believed in it when I was young was because I was exposed to it, in much the same way as, all things being equal, I'd probably be a former Muslim or Hindu if I'd been born in another part of the world. The sad thing is that because religion is so widespread, and so ancient, it gains acceptance and in doing so attracts people as a choice rather than a decision made for them by parents or birthplace etc. These are the people I really feel sorry for. Now I know that anyone who still has religion will probably dismiss what I say out of hand, but I ask them to look deep inside themselves objectively and really ask themselves whether that really is them choosing that stance, or is it a fear that has been placed upon them by outside influences? And in case, for anyone who still believes that my imortal soul is in danger, I should like to point out that just because I don't go to a building with a spike on its roof once a week and sing naff hymns, it doesn't mean I have become a bad person. I still hold doors open for people and am kind etc, so what difference does it make? Hance, here's an a few interesting ones to test your religious beliefs. Note: people with fragile faith stop reading here: 1. Go to church, or turn on Songs of Praise or whatever, then really, and I mean seriously, watch what is going on. Ignore all the meaning and hocus pocus in what people are saying etc and just watch. You will find that what you are looking at is a bloke dressed as a wizard attempting to be taken seriously. 2. Bible conundrum: In Luke 22, where Jesus is waiting to be taken prisoner, he tells Peter that 'before the rooster crows three times today' Peter will have denied knowing him in order to prevent himself from also being captured. So here's the conundrum: If man has free will, how does Jesus know about that this event, which is yet to happen? Ooops. 3. And just to end things in a light-hearted way. If you want something that sums up everything I've said, check out the line in Monty Python's Life of Brian - which remember many faiths strenuously tried to have banned. The line from John Cleese: 'He's the true Messiah, and I should know, I've followed a few..' It says it all really.

Well, I am closely involved with Catholic people and I also have no worries about people who choose to reject religion, (I sit permanently on the fence) but I do worry when their arguments against (Catholicism) religion are so poor. I worry because other's may read them and use them as a guide to their own spiritual lives. You are correct in that Songs of Praise is the wrong programme to watch if you think you would like to explore faith; it just demonstrates that the C of E is playing into the hands of the congregation all the time and reducing the Mass into a hymn bash. Who says man has free will? If you have the definitive proof I'd love to read it. There is an interesting matter of the extent of free will. As for Peter, this story isn't addressing free will, it is a symbolic pattern of events that serves to communicate something about the nature of man and his faith. It is a prediction, and a fairly easy one to make, based on the weaknesses of mankind. As for Monty Python, it's just a gag, nothing more, nothing less. All it does is expose the idiocy of the followers, not the faith, the human aspect, not the divine.

Hmm. Coupla things to add: I was brought up a Christian, like David, and never rebelled against it. In fact, I was still trying to be a Christian when I joined this site, having been recently confirmed into the Church of England. I eventually decided (although it felt more like I was finally being honest with myself,) that I just don't believe in God, or any of this magic and heaven stuff. But no single factor hurried me along to that conclusion more than the philosophical arguments between Christians and Atheists that take place on the Internet. *Yes*, both sides could be petty, aggressive, condescending and stupid - but as someone coming to the debate from a pro-Christian perspective, I found the outrageous sophistry, circular arguments, ignorance and spite of the Christian camp far outweighed the Atheists' faults. Their major arguments were utterly embarrassing, and mostly based on a radical misinterpretation of what such things as 'science' and 'evolution' actually are. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, and all the posts on this thread have been pretty sensible, a mon avis, but that was how I felt about it at the time: ashamed to be associated with these idiotic attempts to make God and heaven sound logically plausible. "There is a well known arguement in basic Christian apologetics where it's suggested that either Jesus was mad, a liar, or who He says He was. There is then the assertion that no one, even an atheist would suggest that the words of Jesus are that of a madman or a liar therefore..." As well as what Andrew pointed out, this argument makes no allowance for the basic factor of human inconsistency. If I were to believe everything the Gospels said, I would find it likely that Jesus was a man capable of great teachings and wisdom, who also fell prey to self-delusion and arrogance. History is riddled with such characters.

Yes, Hen, I see where you are coming from, and it is your experience of all the rubbish that is bandied about by so-called Christians that makes me furious. I find there are just as many basing their lack of faith on weak arguments as there are arguing for God or religion, both are an easy route to take and hold nothing to admire. I read the C.S.Lewis in Jude's Top Ten recently. Worth it if you are considering this issue. Though there are many other good and better writiers on the matter I'm sure.

Read 'The Screwtape Letters' a while back - that was good fun, and intelligent.

In response to Liana's do atheists feel the need to prove the non existence of Jesus? Wow I thought this was a pretty cool question and have been pondering it greatly (which is why I haven't caught up with the rest of the thread) I guess the most honest answer I can give is... I don't know. Which isn't much help is it? Maybe atheists... that is atheists who would otherwise be Chrsitians, because they are the only one's who really care about the qustion of Jesus in this way,.... fall into two catagories, those who desperately need to prove he didn't exist for their own validation, and those that desperately need to prove to them selves that he DID and therefore have faith in him. I fall into the second catagory myself. More or less anyway. I have no trouble believing that a man named Jesus could have existed at that time, but I have no faith that he was God manifest as man. Though I have to say it would be nice if he was, and if there was some proof. Proof is, after all, what seperates atheists from believes and agnostics. Believers don't need proof, they have faith. Agnostics don't need proof either... they're happy to go on not knowing for sure one way or the other. But atheists, like myself, need tangible evidence... one way or the other. Well.... that was exciting... any other soul searching questions for me Liana?

In this "scientific" age the burden of proof is one which anybody who "believes" in anything has to accept the challenge of. This, in my humble opinion, is to misunderstand the nature of faith. A child is told that his daddy is a doctor, he knows his daddy is a doctor. But how can that child be said to "know"? He trusts what he has been told - it is not knowledge but faith. To search for proof is to misunderstand the nature of religion full stop. Christians make a huge mistake when they try to prove their faith. The Bible pattern of 'evangelism' is preaching followed by the gift of faith for some. The problem facing the West when it comes to religion is that Christianity's message is identified with the old-guard of our culture, a culture which produced some devastating effects on individuals, in the name of legitimising the community. What this all means, I am not sure. Christianity is bound to continue but radical changes are needed if it is to appeal to people once more. It has to be much more about love and acceptance than judgement and belonging to the club. People just don't feel the need for that level of approval any more. Anyway, these are just a few disparate thoughts inspired by the diverse elements of this thread. Feel free to argue and be passionate. I believe this is a subject still worth debating...

I agree with your point about Christians making the mistake of proving their faith Sheebs.... by definition faith is knowledge without proof Unfortunately for atheists saying a simple "I don't have faith" isn't enough. I get challenged all the time, far more than I ever did when I was supposedly Christian.... people are careful about upsetting the religious amongst us, but few people think that it's insulting to say to an atheist, but how do you explain this... or how do you live with that.... And bizarrely enough i've been accused of being self righteous and arrogant in my lack of belief, simply because by not believing in God I must be calling everyone else a fool.... which is crazy, I've never been less than in admiring towards people who follow a religion in this day and country, I am, however, rarely afforded the same courtacy. Half the time people refuse to believe that I DON'T believe in God just because I'm able to debate the various points of view on his existence... Which is interesting don't you think?

I sympathise with you entirely Vicky! there are many good reasons for being an atheist - not least the idea of a good God "inflicting" suffering on people (e.g. the discussion in The Brothers Karamazov). Believrs tend to have an arrogance because they believe they have the truth. This is the danger of religion - once we get into truth-claims we legitimise our own prejudices. This, of course, is what starts wars, kills and maims people. Not religion itself but the way we use it... You sound strong enough to deal with these challenges you face, but I wish that it was different. This is part of the reason I am so reluctant to name myself Christian - because of the negative connotations entrenched in that label....

Sounds like you and I have some thoughts in common Sheebs, see other thread in Gen Diss.