affects of 2+2 on me

[[censored]]

6 months ago I would have said I was 50/50 as to whether god existed or not, and would have said if anything I was a christian.

Now I think it is nearly impossible that there is a god (which makes me sad) that exists in anyway that is commonly described and out of all the religions I would say judism is probably has the best (albeit slim) chanve of being correct.

If I end up in hell, I will come looking for revenge (i'm looking at you D.S.)

[drudman]

"Effects".

[lehighguy]

Poker effects: good
Life effects: bad, i should be playing more poker and posting less in politics forum

[Stuey]

50/50 is hard to believe, did you even think about it much? I mean if you thought there was a 50/50 chance there was a God out there I would hope it would become important to find out more as soon as possible.

I'm sure you always thought there was a 100% chance that if there was a God he didn't require you to worship him. Otherwise you are one big gambler.

If there is a God and he required me to worship him to receive perks I would be madder at him than I would be at D.S. if I ended up in hell.

[[censored]]

by 50/50 I guess I meant somewhat likely

[BluffTHIS!]

Saying you were 50% a Christian is the same as saying you are 50% a virgin. You never were a Christian actually because although individual Christians might have a certain level of doubt, especially regarding specific doctrines, 50% is so a high a level IMO as to not really possess faith. However, 50% is a great starting point from which to read God's word and to pray for greater faith. No one will ever intellectualize themselves into being a true believer. Only the experience of practicing that faith, albeit with doubts, and seeing life from the perspective of faith can enable God's grace to be effecacious. It not necessary that the level of doubt ever become 0, but an extremely high level of doubt will not allow one to respond to the promptings of grace. C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity, will show that reason can get you very far along the way, but that one still has to make a "leap of faith" to truly become a Christian.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi [censored]:

You should be able to find DS in the horse book. You know, the one where your horse always comes in one out of the money for your bet.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Stuey]

I do agree with the feeling of sadness once you think there is little chance there is a God.

What I find amazing however is that those that are born again or find a stronger belief in God later on in their life seem to change the way they act in positive ways.

And people who decide there is little or no chance a God exists just feel sad. They never start behaving badly just because they feel they can get away with it now. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

So it is easier to act good than it is to become evil?

[[censored]]

The three most compelling arguements that changed me were

1) Belief in god not being consistent through out history. ie the greeks and all there weird ass stuff (zeus, apollo)

2) the differences between religions

3) the "code of conduct" of god being ideal rules dor a society to thrive.

Also I had never really thought about the discrepancy between the old and new testiment.

Anyways I still have a very positive opinion of religion as a whole.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Belief in god not being consistent through out history. ie the greeks and all there weird ass stuff (zeus, apollo)

2) the differences between religions

[/ QUOTE ]

I am referring only to catholicism since you have that partial background. How is God being inconsistent just because some people believe things contrary to what He has revealed, whether weird or not? He is consistent, people aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
3) the "code of conduct" of god being ideal rules dor a society to thrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by this you mean that a religion's morality, even if true, shouldn't be imposed by a civil society, then I would agree in *most* cases that do not affect a person's life or property directly, that is, if a person's life or property is not being directly threatened by some action. Thus, I certainly would not agree that society should punish someone as in puritan new england for not attending services or for blasphemy. But surely you do not think that Christian moral prescriptions regarding not injuring another when not in self-defense, or not lawfully depriving another person of his property should not be part of civil law do you?