The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism

Am I a heretic? Maybe. If believing that God is all powerful, all loving, wiser than His creation and perfectly willing and capable of saving all of His children makes me a heretic, sign me up.


The First Christmas  

, 3 comments


In many ways, every Christmas is the first Christmas.  Every Christmas some aspect of your life is true for the first time. But, I think for the most part, we cling to the past not wanting to acknowledge that each Christmas is just a little bit different than the last.  This year was the first in some ways I'd really rather not think about.

This year was the first Christmas for:


  • Not having Pops with us.  My father-in-law is not dead. But, he's been stricken with Alzheimer's and this is his first Christmas where he didn't even realize it was Christmas and was not with the family.

  • Coincidentally, this was the first Christmas where Ty's whole family did not get together at one time.  The celebration was supposed to be at our house this year.  But, due to weather and schedules, not more than one of her brothers or sister was here at a time.  Shell came the Friday before Christmas.  Derrick came the Sunday before Christmas bringing Grandmother.  Tim came the Sunday after Christmas.  We did not see Kelly or Eric at all this year.

  • Having one of the grandparents with us on Christmas day.  Ten years ago, when Ty was pregnant with Shayna was our first Christmas in our own home.  Since that time neither Ty nor I had seen our parents on Christmas day.  This year, Grandmother joined us.  It was a bittersweet time as we loved having her with us and the girls were thrilled to have their grandmother with them on Christmas day- first time ever for Shayna and for Kayla first time in memory.  But, it was a reminder that Pops is no longer with us and the first time Grandmother wasn't in her own home for Christmas ever.  It was also the first Christmas since she got married that she didn't make the Christmas dinner for.

  • Having no children in the house who believe in Santa.   Last year, Shayna was pretty sure there was no Santa.  But, this year she wasn't afraid to say it out loud.  Most of their presents were wrapped this year and there was nothing to assemble, no cookies and milk to put out.  We actually went to bed before midnight.

  • Having a teenager in the house.  Kayla turned 13 in November. She still asked for a couple of toys (she'd be mortified if her little teeny-bopper buddies found out).  But, the days of girlish joy about Christmas are behind us with Kayla.

  • No one said "This is the best Christmas ever!"  When Kayla was younger, she would announce on every birthday and every Christmas "This is the best birthday/Christmas ever!".  When Shayna was old enough, she joined the tradition.  Instead, this year Shayna announced "This is the best Christmas yet!"  When I asked her why she changed the phrase, she said that she hadn't yet experienced all the Christmases to come so, it made more sense to just rate the ones that had already passed.
None of these firsts are things I really want to look forward to.  There's a little sadness that comes with each Christmas as I realize I only have so many left and less to look forward to than I have to look back on.  Kayla and Shayna's joy on Christmas morning as they discovered what Santa had brought brought back the joy I used to experience as a child.  That's gone now.  Maybe one day I'll experience it with grandchildren in my children's home.  But, it won't be the same. But, I enjoyed my Christmas with the girls, Ty and Grandmother.  It was different than Christmases past but still very good.



Punishment- Revenge or Rehabilitation?  

, , , 11 comments

The Distortions Unlimited Electric Chair Gag w...
This is a subject that I have always found fascinating.  What is it with the human desire for revenge?  What is revenge? How does it benefit anyone?  How did we evolve into creatures that think that an "eye for an eye" sets the world right.  I don't know who said it.  But, I think it's brilliant.  "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless."  But, from the time we are children, there's an instinct to "get even".  If you strike me, I strike you back.

I'm not exempt from this desire.  I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty.  But, when I hear of a mother who kills her child or people who rape and torture people, I want to make an exception.   My lower nature takes over.  When someone makes me angry, my immediate response is to do something back to him/her.  But, "why?" I ask myself.  I'm no pacifist.  I believe in self-defense.  I think it's necessary.  I also believe in punishment for wrongs.  Punishment is necessary.  But, punishment can be given for one of two reasons- either retributive punishment (pay back) or rehabilitative* punishment which is intended to deter the undesired behavior from happening again in the future.   Note the word, future. While the actions taken to punish someone might be exactly the same, the intent makes all the difference in the world. As a father, if one of my daughters does something wrong, I reserve the right to punish her or not to punish her.  But, I never punish her because she "deserves" it or to pay her back for something she's done to me or someone else.  I punish her to teach her a lesson.  I punish her to give her an undesired consequence to an action so that she won't do it again.  The punishment may be more severe or less severe depending on the offense.  But, if for some reason,  I believe the punishment is unnecessary I simply do not punish her.

Let's contrast this with the notion of "justice" that we pin on G-d.  Because G-d is "just", supposedly G-d has no choice but to punish us for our "sins".  G-d's role of judge overrides G-d's desire as a Heavenly Father.  G-d has less leeway in the punishment department than I do.  Taking it even further, every sin is an offense against G-d who is infinitely good, therefore He's infinitely offended and every sin is worth of death and/or eternal torment.

A good friend of mine simply cannot fathom that I cannot fathom this type of "justice". But, it is pure nonsense to me.  The whole penal substitution atonement theory in which G-d has to pay Godself a price for our sins therefore sends an innocent man who is really G-d to die in our stead just doesn't work.  If an offense is "paid" for it's not forgiven, it's paid.   So, we're told Jesus paid the price for our sins.  OK so far.  But, wait.  You have to accept the payment for it to count?  Huh? Say what?  So, if I have a loan out with the bank (G-d in this analogy) and someone else (Jesus) pays my mortgage, the bank will still come after me for the money even though they have it in their pocket?  G-d's a double dipper?

Mike (in the umpteenth time trying to explain this to me) came up with this analogy:

May I give an example:  Johnny hits Billy and Johnny is not sorry but rather proud of himself for doing so.  Billy wants to hit Johnny back; its a matter of stature, pride, show of individual strength and self-sufficiency etc..    This is all natural and RIGHT!  Johnny DESERVES to be hit back.  Now, what if Johnny says he is sorry to Billy.   Well, Billy can, if he so chooses, forgive Johnny.  Billy takes it and keeps it, but by forgiving Johnny, Billy shows spiritual maturity. BUT, look at it, Billy has taken the pain TWICE: he took it from the first strike and from not hitting back, which he would have wanted to do.  However, what if Johnny had moved BEFORE he felt remorse.  He wants to say sorry, but he has no idea where Billy is.  Johnny says sorry to Jesus and Jesus takes the SECOND pain that Billy would have taken.  Billy will be compensated later for his pain.
So, the notion here is that if we forgive an offense us we are not only out the initial pain, we are taking a second hit.  Also, the notion here is that somehow hitting someone back makes things right.  It cancels the ledger.  Even more bizarre, if some third party agrees to allow me to hit him in the stead of the guy who hit me, I'm somehow "restored" to full health.

I say "no" to this notion.  It's an infantile mind that thinks by hitting someone back we are gaining something.  We know this. We teach this to our children.  Then, we forget the lesson ourselves.  The mature person realizes first of all, that hitting back accomplishes nothing as far as setting the record right. And, secondly any act I take to diminish another human being ultimately diminishes all of us, myself included. 

I have to admit something.  I used to be a proponent of capital punishment.  After all it's in the Bible.  And, if G-d is willing/able to send people to eternal torment for not being part of the right church, surely it makes sense for us to dispatch someone to justice if they rape, torture and/or murder.  But, once I began to really think about this and how little sense it made for G-d to eternally torment His creation, the notion of capital punishment began to fall apart for me.

This is not to say that wrong actions don't or shouldn't have consequences.  Any act that diminishes another human being is wrong and will have negative consequences.  Sometimes, it makes sense to make sure negative actions are punished (see rehabilitative punishment above).  But, it's way past time for us to evolve beyond an eye for an eye thinking.

Forgiveness is not just for the forgiven.  It's not a gift. It's a recognition that nothing can change the past.   "Forgiveness is giving up all hope for a better past "is one of my favorite sayings. It's a recognition of what your grandmother told you "Two wrongs don't make a right.".  It's not absorbing more pain, it's not even saintly.  It just makes sense.


* footnote- in the case of the criminal justice system there are those times when physical restraint  (incarceration) is necessary to prevent a criminal from re-offending.  This I don't see so much as punishment as I do the protection of society.  It is not paying the criminal back nor is it rehabilitating him.  It is physically removing the ability for him to do the act again.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Christmas Cookie Recipe  

3 comments

Plateful of Christmas CookiesImage via Wikipedia Christmas Tequila Cookies

  •     1 cup of dark brown sugar
  •     1 cup (2 sticks) butter
  •     1 cup of granulated sugar
  •     4 large eggs
  •     2 cups of dried fruit, such as dried cranberries or raisins
  •     1 tsp baking soda
  •     1 tsp salt
  •     1 tsp fresh lemon juice
  •     1 cup coarsely chopped walnuts or pecans
  •     2 cups all-purpose flour
  •     1 bottle Jose Cuervo Tequila (silver or gold, as desired)

Sample the Cuervo to check quality.

Take a large bowl, check the Cuervo again, to be sure it is of the highest quality, pour one level cup and drink. Turn on the electric mixer. Beat one cup of butter in a large fluffy bowl.

Add one teaspoon of sugar. Beat again. At this point it's best to make sure the Cuervo is still OK, try another cup just in case.

Turn off the mixerer thingy. Break 2 leggs and add to the bowl and chuck in the cup of dried fruit.  Pick the frigging fruit off floor.

Mix on the turner. If the fried druit gets stuck in the beaterers just pry it loose with a drewscriver.

Sample the Cuervo to check for tonsisticity.

Next, sift two cups of salt, or something.  Check the Jose Cuervo.

Now shift the lemon juice and strain your nuts. Add one table. Add a spoon of sugar, or somefink. Whatever you can find.

Grease the oven. Turn the cake tin 360 degrees and try not to fall over.  Don't forget to beat off the turner.

Finally, throw the bowl through the window, finish the Cose Juervo and make sure to put the stove in the dishwasher.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Karma?  

4 comments

Instant Karma!Image via Wikipedia
Yesterday I blogged about why Tiger Woods' downfall was a good thing.  Someone I know asked how I could possibly be glad this happened and that just wasn't right.  I think my post really upset her. Then, this morning happened.  Another learning moment.

I saw my friend's comment about my blog post and shot off how I subscribe to the "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." philosophy.  There's a silver lining behind every cloud.

Flash back to last night.  Last night I realized my car battery was dead.  I had a breakfast meeting this morning, one I was really looking forward to because I rarely get out of the house for social events.  So, the great news is I realized the battery was dead last night and had time to jump start my car.  Yippee, mini-disaster avoided.  Got the car jump started.  Let it run for a few minutes.  Then, went to bed and set the alarm clock to get up early.

This morning I  up early, got dressed and went out to start the car.  The battery was dead as a doornail. Not good.  I'm mad.  But, hey, I allowed time for this.  No problem, I may be a few minutes later than I thought I would be.  But, I can still make the breakfast,  I got out the jumper cables, hooked them up, cranked my car.  Nothing!  Not even a click.  Disaster again.  But, wait.  The car started last night when I hooked up the jumper cables.  I'm no mechanic. But, it must be that I just don't have the cables hooked up right.  It'll be OK.  I can still make it.  I checked the connections, turned the key again.  Still nothing!  Disaster again.  Our garage is pretty dim.  I thought maybe there's a problem with the connections I'm not seeing.  I'll grab a flashlight.  Fortunately, I think, we're prepared.  I know just where three flashlights are.  I get the first flashlight.  It has batteries.  But, it doesn't work.  Second flashlight- no batteries.  Another disaster. But, wait, I just bought AA batteries at Costco last week.  Maybe it takes AA. It does.  Great. Put in the batteries.  It doesn't work.  Onto the third flashlight.  It is missing batteries too. But, (good news again), it takes AA batteries, too.  It's got to work.  I put in the batteries, push the button. It's broken, too.  Disaster again.  Now, I'm really getting frustrated.  I think "How could this morning get any worse?  I got out of bed early for this?"  I remember that there's a huge lantern in the house that I used to blind the coyotes lurking around our yard.  If I can find it maybe I can get the car started.  I find the lantern, pull it out of the closet.  And, the handle on it promptly breaks.  About the only good thing that happened up until that point is it didn't fall to the floor and break or smash my foot (this thing is heavy).  As I take it out to the garage, muttering under my breath, I'm reminded of what I just posted on my blog and I kind of smile to myself.  If you're going to say "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger." one minute you surely can't be upset about this little problem.  Suddenly, my whole mood shifted.  Maybe this was just karma.

p.s.- I was finally able to get the car started.  But, I did miss my breakfast meeting.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Why Tiger's Downfall Is a Good Thing  

5 comments

Brian Prepares to Launch One Into The WoodsImage by BrianWestChest via Flickr
I've watched what Tiger has been going through over the past couple of weeks with great interest, some sadness and a lot of compassion.  I'm one of Tiger's biggest fans.  I feel horribly for Tiger and Elin and his kids.  But, there's a silver lining in Tiger's "downfall".  That silver lining is we need our icons knocked off of their pedestals every once in a while so the rest of us can maintain some perspective.

Like millions of others, I have watched Tiger grow up.  I've fantasized about living his dream life.  Professional golfer. Most recognized athlete in the world.  Richest athlete in the world.  Married to a knock-out blonde.  Mind like a steel trap.  Built like a Greek god.  Two beautiful children.  I mean Tiger had it all.  What more could you possibly hope for.  I'd watch Tiger and think "Of the billions of people on the planet, how did this get get the fortune/karma to be Tiger Woods?"  I'd watch Tiger and fantasize about his "perfect" life.  Wow.  What would be like to be like Tiger? Why couldn't my life be more like that? It's easy to get caught up in that.  I mean Tiger carefully projected the near-perfect image.  The only fault we could find with Tiger was he's too competitive.  Every once in a while he'd let loose with a blue streak of swear words.  Other than that, perfect.

The reaction to Tiger's downfall has been pretty predicatable. Some are outraged at him.  How dare he let us down? (Did we forget that who he let down was Elin, his kids and himself?).  Women it seeems are more angry at him.  Men (more easily seeing themselves in Tiger's behavior) seem to be much quicker to forgive.  Me, while I feel sorry for Tiger, I look at this as a teaching moment for my children and a reminder to myself.  In a way, I'm glad it happened. I hope Tiger's marriage survives it and is stronger going forward.

Tiger's downfall is a reminder that no matter what we have, we are all still (only) human.  No amount of money, or fame or power makes us immune from making the stupid mistakes that humans make.  No one's life is perfect no matter how it looks from the outside.  We all have our insecurities, our temptations and our imperfections. A few years back when Michael Jordan was "the man" there was a commercial "Be like Mike" was the tag line. Honestly, there was a time when I could have said the words "I want to be like Tiger." and really meant them. To have his golf swing, his looks, his money. Right now, not so much.  I wouldn't trade what I have right now for all of Tiger's fame and fortune. Today, I'm guessing if Tiger knew who I was, Tiger might say "I want to be like Brian." 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

A War Is Not a Football Game  

, 7 comments

070822-A-6849A-667 -- Scouts from 2nd Battalio...Image via Wikipedia

I dutifully watched President Obama's speech on our "surge" in Afghanistan Tuesday evening.  I say dutifully because it quite frankly was hard for me to stay focused. I kept playing with my iPhone while it was on.  The next day I thought I really should watch it because I know I'm going to have to discuss it.   So, I brought it up on YouTube and tried again.  I kept having to stop it and go back because I just kept drifting off to do other things.  I hate war. I hated it when I heard that Obama had decided to send in 30,000 more troops.  I was hoping after weeks of meeting with advisors and hearing all kinds of brilliant plans he'd come up with something new, something innovative.  Something I could really get behind.  But, alas, he did not.  30,000 more troops.  $30 billion more dollars (per year- $1M per man per year) and who knows how many more lives; poured into a dysfunctional country that doesn't seem to even want peace or democracy.

The reaction to Obama's speech has been fascinating.  The far left feels betrayed, is shocked and outraged.  Michael Moore's open letter to the President blasted him and said if he followed through on this decision he would be the new war President.  Pacificistic idealists said "war only brings more war" and insisted the only course of action is to bring all of our troops home immediately and unconditionally. Fortunately for them, it's easy to be idealistic when you don't really have responsibilty for the safety and security of a nation (or a few nations) in the balance. For them, it's all academic.  If Obama were to make that move and in six months or a year another 9/11 was launched from Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, I suspect many of those on the far left would wish they had been a little more pragmatic.

As Jon Stewart pointed out, if the far left feels betrayed, then the far right should be happy.  Right?  No.  They didn't like the "spirit" of the speech.  They wanted Obama to be more upbeat, more "rah-rah".  They wanted him to shake his fists and get us all fired up about going out there and kicking some butt.  They complain that Obama didn't use the word "win".   They say by setting a goal to begin withdrawal we show we are not really committed.  We just committed about $45 billion  additional dollars and the lives of 30,000 men and women for a year and half  and we're not committed?  Winning is important to them. Winning at all costs apparently.  No deadlines.  No timeframe for withdrawal.  Just a blank check and an unlimited supply of young men and women is what they want. One of my conservative friends claims the end date (just before the next Presidential election) is politically motivated so that Obama can claim victory on that date.  Huh?  By making that date public, Obama is taking a huge risk.  If he doesn't make it (actually pretty likely), his opponents will immediately say his strategy has failed.

The left hates the content.   The right hates the spirit.  What's a President to do?

I've got news for those who want to "win" the war.  War has changed over the course of the last several decades.  In the old days, you had a government who had an army.  Our army fought your army and when our army kicked your army's butt, you had to concede and give us what we want.  In those days we fought over land, trade routes, spices- you  know, the important stuff.  Now though, we are fighting an ideology, not an army.  Al Qaeda doesn't represent a country.  They don't really even have any specific demands.  Al Qaeda represents an ideology.   They have a virtually unlimited supply of recruits.  Their "leaders" don't really care how many "troops" they pour into this fray.  No amount of attrition is going to make them say uncle.  In fact, the more oppressive they can make us out to be the more successful their recruiting becomes and the so-called leaders get to feel they are on a true jihad (as they have incorrectly defined jihad).

Obama took the middle road.  He has agreed to a limited commitment with some definite goals and an end date.  By doing so, he angered the hawks.  However, he did not agree to begin an immediate withdrawal.  By doing so, he angered the doves.  When you have people on both extremes angry with you, it's just possible that you're doing the right thing. At first I thought he was compromising, trying to appease both sides and by doing so, he might be just making everyone angry.  But, the more I think about it the more I think the strategy makes sense.  It's not either or, in this case.  It's both.  We have to stay for some period of time and use some amount of force.   If we're going to do that, we have to have enough force to get the job done and keep our troops safe.  But, we have to make it clear to the Afghan government (and the other governments involved) that we will not be there forever.

Someone joked that it took Obama months to make a decision George Bush could have made in a few days.  I'm glad Obama took his time on this decision.  I'm glad he weighed all possible options.  Because he took his time, I feel confident that this is probably the best course of action for us, as much as I hate to hear it.  I'm glad that Obama didn't get all rah-rah in his speech.  His mood was appropriate for the content.  Somber, reserved, reluctant but resolved to do what needs to be done.  He didn't use the word "win" because we will not "win" against Al Qaeda with guns and tanks, not even with drones.  We have to win the hearts and minds of the people they are recruiting.  The only way to bring lasting peace to the region is to not only carry a big stick but to recruit their recruits out from under them to convince them there is a better way.  Otherwise, it's like trying to kill an army of cockroaches with a flyswatter and the cockroaches are reproducing as fast as you can take them out. 

War is not a football game.  No one's keeping score and there is no clock.  Unfortunately, there is a time when you have to use protective force.  This seems to be one of those times.  We need to protect the people of Afghanistan and the people of America until Al Qaeda and the Taliban can be contained by changing the way of thinking of enough people. 



Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Case for God (Book Review)  

, 3 comments

Brain foodImage by trib via Flickr
Wow.  I just finished reading Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God".  I feel like I have completed a college course in theology and history. The Case for God covers theology, philosophy, history etc. from the beginning of recorded time up until the present.  It is a relatively quick overview of the complex and ever-changing relationships between natural sciences, theology, religion, government and social sciences throughout the millenia.  Armstrong doesn't just stick to Judeo-Christian history either covering other religions (including Islam) and how their views of G-d have changed over the course of time.

I'm not much of a history buff.  I have to admit at times I found the book to be difficult to plow through.  It's full of names and dates that I wasn't particularly interested in.  But, what I have found as I have studied a little about the history of religion and theology is that it's important to understand how things have changed over time because we have a tendency to believe that the way we look at things today is the way we have always looked at things (and is necessarily the right way to look at things). Both science and theology have undergone a great deal of evolution, with periods of sometimes quantum leaps.  And, both have alternated back and forth between thinking they know all there is to know and realizing we actually know very little. We seem to be emerging from a time in which we placed a great deal of faith in science to give us all of the answers.  However, the lack of attaining the promised Utopia, we now have even more creative and efficient ways of destroying ourselves and the planet, and scientific discoveries about just how mysterious the universe is (quantum physics) have caused many to realize that we didn't know quite as much as we thought we did and maybe science doesn't have all of the answers.  For many science had become the new religion.  That, I knew.  What I didn't realize before reading this book is we've been down that path before.  The same thing has happened (is happening) with religion.  Fundamentalists (those who think their Bible/religion/church is inerrant, literal and perfect) would have us believe they are upholding the traditions of the faith. But, the truth is this type of fundamentalism is a relatively modern phenomenon just like the rabid atheism that some are professing now.  One point in the book that really jumped out at me and will stay with me is that while it might be tempting to view fundamentalism and atheism as polar opposites, they are really two sides of the same coin and each is a reaction to the other.  Theists who think they have all of the answers and who put G-d in a box create atheists who reject that particular version of G-d.  The more the atheist attacks the theists' G-d, the more the theist feels he has to defend by making more and more declarative statements and holding tighter to them.  The more he does that, the more the atheist caricatures all religion and rejects the straw man G-d the theist has set up for him.  The truth is most of us are somewhere in the middle realizing that we cannot completely define G-d, that we do not have an ultimate and literal book of truth and that we will always fall short no matter what we say about G-d.

While I did find the book to be tedious at times, I also found it to be highly engaging and full of insights I had not had before.  I think I ended up highlighting about half of the book.  As a progressive wrestling with reconciling the god of my youth with the reality I see all around me and moving past my fundamentalist background I find myself caught in between the two "modern" extremes.  Atheist friends ask how I can remain a Christian, how I can remain a believer.  After all religion is just opium for the masses, wishful thinking.  Fundamentalists say I'm no longer a Christian because I don't "believe" anymore. What I've realized is that those who say people like me are heretics because we don't believe in their version of G-d or Christianity are wrong. It's the fundamentalists who are actually new on the scene.  Throughout Christian (and Jewish) history most people did not take the Bible literally and certainly did not think they knew all there was to know about G-d or that G-d was just a bigger, smarter version of us who lives in the sky.

Another important point I took from the book is that the theist needs the atheist.  When theists get too comfortable with their tidy theological systems and have G-d stuffed back into the proverbial box that we're always trying to fit Her in, we need the atheist to come along and challenge us with a "Not so fast.  What about...?"  Instead of looking at atheists as a threat, we should look at them as the iron that sharpens iron.  I've found this to be true in my life.  My atheist friends have kept me on my toes and actually helped me deepen my faith (while often challenging my beliefs).  I remember one guy in particular who was a devout agnostic.  He wasn't going to be swayed one way or the other.  I was on   a board swarming with atheists, fundamentalists and a few of us who were moving towards being progressive.  My friend would call all of us out.  He kept the atheists and us theist both in line.  He was a scientist and would challenge my silly, childish beliefs about G-d stripping them away one by one.  At the time, it felt like my world was falling apart.  But, looking back on it, I am truly grateful for what I learned from him.

As I read the book, I kept thinking that it was not what I was expecting.  I was expecting an argument for why I should "believe".  I was expecting a scientific, modern proof of why belief is better than non-belief.  Instead what Armstrong points out is science has its place and religion has its place.  Science is about the how things happen.  Religion is about the why. Religion was and is intended to answer the questions science cannot answer.

Overall, I do highly recommend the book.  I got it after listening to Karen on a TED talk and on a radio interview.  In just a few minutes, her insights blew me away and I just knew I had to get this book.   I am so glad I did. If you're like me, you might struggle to get through the names and dates.  But, don't worry, there's no final exam at the end.  I think the historical perspective Karen Armstrong brings to the book is very important.  I also like the fact that it's not just about Christian or any particular tradition's history but about the way mankind as a whole has viewed G-d.  The Case for God won't make unbelievers into believers (not in the traditional sense anyway).  But, I think it might help agnostics and atheists understand what at at least some of are talking about when we say we believe in G-d.  I am of the opinion that no one cannot believe in G-d, if we could agree on what we are talking about when we use the word.






Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Newer Posts Older Posts
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)