But his argument does not work then. What he was saying is that you don’t want to close yourself off by committing to one religion. You are stating his position as actually advocating being closed. That is rejecting any faith that wants to tie you to any thing. Which pretty much rules out all religion because they inevitably require you to do or believe or not do or not believe something. So rather than keeping both eyes open to see better he is really saying close both eyes to avoid being fooled.

Your views are restricting your argument, as you’re confined to believing that God is a Christian icon, and that anyone making an argument about God is making an argument about the Christian God, in essence… YOUR God. Again, this is the reason Steve is trying to open people’s minds.

That is my perspective. If you want to explain what you believe about God or humanity that is different from Christian thinking I am happy to listen. I will likely be skeptical but I shall try and be fair.

I do not refuse to look at non-Christian beliefs. In fact, Catholics are forbidden to take such a position. Vatican II requires us to listen to anybody’s religious thought and even tells us we should expect to learn and grow to be better Catholics by doing so. That includes atheists, anti-Catholics, anybody.

You state:
“That is a statement of faith that is either true or false. You are, for example, denying the need to have a relationship with Jesus to know God. So you are choosing in favor of some religous traditions who would accept this statment and against some that would not. So you are doing the very thing this article says not to do.”

The article says not to restrict yourself to living a close-minded life by choosing only the views of one religion. What Josh is saying is, in essence, God is not a “religious” icon so much as a “spiritual” icon and therefore worshipping “God” does not have to be tied to religion. You can worship God without tying yourself to literally ANYTHING, simply by doing your own thing. This is what the article promotes.

Your views are restricting your argument, as you’re confined to believing that God is a Christian icon, and that anyone making an argument about God is making an argument about the Christian God, in essence… YOUR God. Again, this is the reason Steve is trying to open people’s minds.

As for your point about uncertainty. I know lots of people who feel less certain about choosing their spouse than they are about choosing their religion. You have to distinguish between knowing religious traditions and knowing God. I can compare the Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddist, and Moslem faiths without really delving into the mysteries of who God is and who I am. The traditons are mich less mysterious that God Himself.

You can have a relationship with God without someone telling you what he wants. You can find whats right if you just think.

That is a statement of faith that is either true or false. You are, for example, denying the need to have a relationship with Jesus to know God. So you are choosing in favor of some religous traditions who would accept this statment and against some that would not. So you are doing the very thing this article says not to do.

I am not trying to prove my religion. I am just arguing for following any religous ideas to their logical conclusion. If you want to be atheist then push atheism and try to go where it leads. If you can’t go there then you need to question it. Same with Catholicism or anything else. Test everything. Don’t be afaid of the truth you might find.