As for the arrogance accusation.  Please, just stop.  I’m not the one here claiming to know the meaning of life.  This is, indeed, a two way street.  I haven’t even advocated that there is no god.  I stated it plainly at the beginning, I’m pretty much an agnostic of sorts.  If stating "I don’t know." is deemed as arrogance, I really don’t know what else to say because, it would seem, it’s a one way conversation.  No thanks, again.

To expound on one of my earlier statements:  The Bible is not a magic book.  The Bible is not God either.  It’s got a pretty rough history because it was (obviously) written, edited and compiled by man.  Man wrote it, not "God."  What religionists need/want is something magical like an obelisk (Space Oddyssey 2001).  We don’t have that and we should stop treating the Bible as such. 
To boot, using Scripture to try and convince me (anyone) isn’t going to work.  I have beef with it and that’s why I’m not using it as my guiding light and trying to throw verses here and there aren’t exactly effectively either.  Just a few words of advice.
If you think me suggesting a few things like I did was arrogance, it was not.  No, far from it.  I mean, if anything, and anybody could walk away with the truthes I typed.  Admitting "I don’t know." is really quite refreshing.  I have no ax to grind and perhaps a few of you will see that Christianity isn’t (true?).  That’s arrogance? 
Oy ve.  I’m not even sure why I bother to type.  My words are so limited here and the conversation is limited to comments and responses. 
If faith is not objective, no thanks.  I’ll pass, again.  That’s precisely why I reject other religions.  Sure, they have their morals and principles of which might be conducive to how I conduct my life but placing trust or what have you (i.e. "believing in Jesus", "being saved" "from the fiery depths of hell"). 
As jumbled as this sounds (I really don’t care), I’m just an average guy with average intelligence.  My heart can’t receive what my mind can’t conceive.  It’s simple, I don’t believe in things like the Easter Bunny because they’re not true.  I don’t believe in a sun god because I know enough that it’s a gigantic star of which our world goes around.  Fire isn’t magic and neither has a little god that gets angry every so often.  Hurricanes happen because of combined storms and not because of some god behind it all because s/he is pissed off.  If this qualifies as arrogance, fine.  Call me arrogant but they’re pretty well mistaken. 
Do what you do, do what makes you happy.  If it makes you a better person, fine and no worries.  I don’t agree with it and neither do I think it’s true but it’s really not that big of a deal either so long as we mind our own business.  Dare I say that agnostics and theists are really in the minority here meaning you’ve got the advantage on so many levels (social/political). 
Anyway, enjoy my incoherent rant.  It’s a bit crap and I know it.  Cheers.

Again, i think there is great value in the classical arguments for the existence of God, but ultimately, there is little in these arguments that points us to THE specific God incarnate – that come through revelation.

Take the resurrection for example. Is it an objective historical occurence? If by ‘objective’ we mean that it really happened in time and space then, yes, it is objective. But if we mean by ‘objective’ that it is empirically demonstrable, then we have a limited number of records, some of which slightly disagree with each other in minor historical details, and none of which was written by an ‘objective’ third party.

What I’m getting at is, the reason I believe the resurrection happened is not because of the historical objectivity of the event (though in some sense that is helpful), but because God has revealed to me and my community that this event took place in time and space and give meaning to my life and meaning to existence in general. This is revelation – and revelation is far from an objective reality – that is, it is not observable in the scientific sense.

Again, though, this is why I think all the arguments (objective and subjective) should be taken as a whole – because together they create a pretty air-tight case, not just for theism, but for Christian theism.

As to myths – yes, that horse was beaten in anothe post. In this case, I really do think our problem is the modernist paradigm of what counts as truth. I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, I’m simply saying that the modernist paradigm has difficulty with that kind of ‘truth.’ But, as Travis said, that horse is already beaten and it is only distracting to this conversation.

gringo, i agree there is a fine line between becoming dogmatic in our “beliefs” and being open to new revelations that are consistent with the documents we believe in.

the bible tells us to be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. we strive to find a humble confidence in the faith we have. and that may lead us to “believe” in certain things, if for a time, before those “beliefs” are deepened or they are changed.

gringo, can you explain this: “It’s not an obelisk nor something that tore out of reality and landed in our lap but that’s exactly what we need but that’s exactly what we don’t have. We’re talking about imperfect language and how this Bible is on comparable to God.”

trying to follow you, but don’t understand your train of thought…

If I can offer some advice here folks, it’s this: Don’t be afraid to be wrong. Don’t be afraid to actually question.

And this… your assumptions that those who “believe” are afraid to be wrong is reaching a bit, don’t you think? And your assumption that because you have found different answers means that others have not questioned (or at least questioned correctly) comes across as quite arrogant.

Myths aren’t true because they’re invented by man.

Not necessarily. It depends on your definition of myth, I guess.

I would define “myth” as a story that holds significant (often spiritual) meaning. Such story may be a historical event or a made up story.

Why can’t myths be true? Because they aren’t true, that’s why.

Come on… I know that you can do better than that.

I got into trouble once for claiming the Bible contains mythology. Yet most, if not all, Biblical scholars (liberal, conservative, and everything in between) would agree that the Bible contains mythology. Yet many of those would say that the Bible is true.

Why can’t myths be true?  Because they aren’t true, that’s why.  Why base my entire life on something that is fake or most likely didn’t happen?

Just because I can’t explain something doesn’t mean it should be automatically attributed to a divine being. 
As stated previously, I know why Mormonism and Scientology are not true and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary to use that same sort of logic towards any other faith that claims to be true.
I don’t mean to put rain on anybody’s parade here but reading this stuff on inerrancy etc. is a little weird.  It’s a book written by man and compiled by man.  It’s not an obelisk nor something that tore out of reality and landed in our lap but that’s exactly what we need but that’s exactly what we don’t have.  We’re talking about imperfect language and how this Bible is on comparable to God.  To boot, we’re (all of us) are stuck in (I’m guessing) in a very western view of things.  I’d be money all of us are Americans too.  This has loads to do with our interpretations. 

If I can offer some advice here folks, it’s this:  Don’t be afraid to be wrong.  Don’t be afraid to actually question.  Don’t be afraid to walk away and roam around.  It sucks being wrong, it sucks having the very faith I’ve established a good deal or at least the important parts of my life shaken mightily.  There’s a heck of a lot more freedom in saying (and admitting) "I just don’t know."  We want answers… badly and I totally understand but it’s not gonna happen. 

I’m no rocket scientist but it seems to figure out the meaning of life, one has to be.  Besides, it’s looks as if a number of people are making the mistake that Christianity is somehow the default "God" or what have you.

Cheers.

I believe your last post was a response to my last post, and I thank you for that.

First, I really like your phrase “the mystery of existence and reality.” Jean-Paul Sartre said that all of philosophy can be boiled down to the question “why is there something instead of nothing?” I think this is very profound. The problem of being is one of the dilemmas that man has always (and will always) wrestle with until they find their answer in God and God alone. There are some very good arguments that claim that only God is the reason for the existence of anything at all (let alone morals, minds, and conscience).

I believe on of the simplest and most eloquent of these arguments is Leibniz’s cosmological argument for the existence of God. Employing his principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz’s argument is as follows:

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

What do you think Gringo?

To Tom,

I very much enjoyed your post. I would have to disagree with some/much of what is being said about the validity of myths when used to communicate truths, but this horse was beaten enough in a previous discussion :).

Concerning what you said about the arguments for the existence of God, you are exactly right. Whatever arguments came out of the modern thinkers (e.g. Descartes, Leibniz, etc.), they were simply standing on the shoulders of giants before them. Even Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum” can be found in the writings of Augustine.

I think this points out a fallacy that I see a lot here in our delightful dialogues here at Mass Theology. Just because one sees the revelation of God and His universe as coherent, ordered, and beautifully systematic does not mean that one is thinking modernly (e.g. the scholastics, Anslem, Aquinas, Calvin, and yes St. Paul). The modern thinkers saw the universe mechanistically, to the point where it lead to a naturalism/materialism which reduced the universe and man to the impersonal. This is where modernism went wrong. Therefore, I believe that the universe is harmonious and in perfect order according to the will of God. Just as his Word (the written and the Incarnate Christ) is perfect and inerrant as well. Does this mean there is know mystery to the universe and the Bible? Of course not! God has given us these mysteries and our reason to probe the depths of existence and to find Him there lurking beyond the shadows. Indeed, to throw up our hands in existential angst and let the postmodern waves wash over us is not only wrong, but boring.

Soli Deo Gloria

-Travis

I would also say that I don’t think the burden of proof is on the theist – there are always certain things people consider as base beliefs upon which they structure other beliefs. These basic beliefs are seldom ‘proved’ – and everyone has them. For the theist, the existence of God is a basic belief – it needs not be demonstrated. The onus is on the atheists to destroy that basic belief.

Also, in response the post – I don’t think the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments have lost value, even in a postmodern world. They were, after all, not modernist constructions, but premodern constructions. Also, most of them were not attempting to prove the existence of God, but rather trying to probe the mystery of something already believed.

These arguments have their value, I think, primarily when they are taken together. When we take them together with the other evidences (historical, experience, saintly persons) they comprise a pretty strong argument for theism.

I also like the fact that the ontological argument views the existence of God extending from a right definition of God – that is, we define God first, then determine if such a being exists. This ‘that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived’ arguement is really fascinating to me.