cliffm (01/27/83)
It would seem to me that the three greatest proofs that
God exists are:
1) His creation -- the universe.
2) His revealed Word -- the Bible.
3) His Son -- Jesus Christ.
Of course there are many other manifestations of His presence,
as experienced by those who have dared to believe that GOD IS
(answered prayers, miraculous healings, speaking in unknown
languages, and other supernatural manifestations of the type
recorded in -- but not ending with -- Holy Scripture).
The problem for the agnostic is not a lack of evidence; it is
all around us. The problem is that of being ignorant of (or
refusing to believe) the evidence that we have. In some cases,
(not all) the agnostic would rather not think about the presence
of the Creator because he or she would then feel responsible
to obey His moral laws.
But what about the individual who is not a "hard core apatheist"
or skeptic, and is honestly searching for the truth? For these
individuals, I would like to suggest an experiment: Get out that
Bible that's been gathering dust, and begin reading it with an
open mind. Read it, not as you would a book on Greek mythology,
but as a history text [see Ref. 1]. (In spite of your preconceived
ideas, be open enough to acknowledge that it just MIGHT be true.)
As a starter, try reading the Gospel of St. John.
If you will do this experiment in faith, I can promise you --
on the authority of God's Word, that it will change not only
your mind, but your life.
Ref. 1: For an excellent treatise on the historical authenticity
of the Bible, read Josh McDowell's book: "Evidence that
Demands a Verdict".
Cliff Morgan
tektronix!cliffmsjb (01/29/83)
You are assuming that your interpretations of those three conditions are the ONLY interpretations available. I submit these: 1) Universe: Big Bang 2) The Bible: Prove God wrote it, not some priest. 3) Jesus Christ: Prove he was God's son (By 2 and 3, I do not mean to offend anyone who does believe that God wrote the Bible and/or that Jesus was his son -- if you believe it, that's fine with me; if you don't, it's also fine) Why should I believe that God created the Universe, that he wrote the Bible, and that Jesus was his son just because you say so? Also, telling an agnostic to take your word on God's honor is also meaningless if you think about it (and that is not to say that I am or am not an agnostic; frankly, that's none of your business)!
iz328 (02/01/83)
I, sir am an agnostic, and I find your article a little closed-
minded. You are saying, like many others, that agnostics don't want to
believe in God because they don't want to obey His moral strictures.
I disagree. It seems to me that religion has two parts. The first is
the belief in an overbeing. The second is the obeying of a code of
ethics, a set of moral laws that make life run more smoothly and
easily with the least strife for all. I can't believe in the first part;
to take the whole story on faith seems ludicrous- where's the proof?
I'm told to read the Bible, and everything will be clear. Well, I've
read parts of the Bible, and I found a muddled account that wandered
all over the place and espoused all sorts of terrible things along the
way; the sacrificing of young virgins to a mob of rapists, etc.,etc.
It doesn't make any sense. The believers tell me that once I've taken
the Step of Faith all will be clear. It's impossible-to understand,
one must have taken the step of faith, and one must take the step of
faith to understand.
However, though I can't believe, I CAN have morals. I feel that I
must form my own ethical and moral choices. I think that people give
a lot more thought to morals than the religious people give them credit
for. God doesn't need to hand them down to us; I think we can form
them for ourselves. Many of the Ten Commandments are just common sense;
of course you don't kill people; would YOU like to be killed? Or
cuckolded? Most of them are implicit in the way we animals live, and to
behave otherwise would cause dissent and fighting; not conducive to the
continuation of the race. Maybe we agnostics don't have faith in your
god, but we aren't amoral.
Jack of Shadows. (UCSD)daleh (02/04/83)
HERE, HERE!!!!!! Dale Henrichs tektronix!daleh
hutch (02/10/83)
arlan andrews claimed in the original response to which this is a response that the Christian arguments (in particular, although other religions are also slandered indirectly) are worthless, and specifically that Jesus did not return in the lifetime of witnesses, as promised. for discussion of this topic and his argument, please refer to the many upcoming responses in net.religion. Of course, one of these is likely to be my own response. Parting shot: Arlan, L. Ron Hubbard did indeed start Scientology (Dianetics) but there is considerable question as to whether or not he is still a "living" master, and the topic is being argued in the US Court system at this very moment. Now you can flame with more up-to-date info at your disposal. Steve Hutchison ... decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch