Hi Toby,
I did visit, as you asked, and found the whole thing interesting to read. Still, there is a lot here, and no real way to deal with all the points. To be honest, if you wanted to get at an answer with the level of granularity that would satisfy you, we'd probably have to write a 300-400 page book together... which won't happen in this format, I can assure you, unfortunately. :)
There's a number of days left on your question, so I need to take some time to think about what would be productive to say -- things that would help you, rather than dragging the topic into one more dead-end alley or red herring as looks like has happened a few times. (And again, I don't have every answer in the world; all I can do is share where I'm at and why, and maybe something will prove useful for you.)
I will say that I was disappointed in a few of the postings [Why do some of the most critical posts end up being some of the ironically most pretentious ones? :) ], while I found a few of them reasonable in describing why that person had come to believe in Jesus. While I don't come at it the same way they do, their experiences were what they needed to meet their own personal criteria, and what they learned from their experiences fits with what I've learned in my own walk... so I give them credibility even if it wouldn't have been enough for me to believe originally.
That being said, I could also see why the answer(s) did not satisfy you. I do not know you -- I wonder sometimes how often you might be as frustrated as pleased to have such a rigorous set of criteria you feel compelled to meet. [I wonder if part of you loves being this way, while part of you wishes you could just accept something for once that didn't have to be so empirically qualified. Is it ever painful to deal with? Just curious. If you want to answer -- and you seem inclined to -- feel free. :) ]
Anyway, I will write more later, I hope. Meawhile, take care.
--
Thursday 5pm: Yes, I'm still here. Still working, editing, and deleting. I feel like an old man in comparison watching your comments grow, I just don't have the energy I used to have to keep up with you (snort).
I appreciate you being extremely forward about where you are at in terms of faith. It doesn't get any more clear than that.
So how do you deal with this belief that life is ultimately meaningless? I'd sincerely love to hear more about that. Seriously, how do you maintain intellectual integrity without committing suicide? [Oops, i forgot -- you're the one asking questions here... :)
(Note: Please don't quote guys like Sartre to me -- if I wanted to know his opinion, I'd just read his books. I want to know what Tobey thinks. )
--
Hey, thank you for explaining a bit. You've never read Jean-Paul Sartre?
Huh. Well, I guess I have egg on my face for that one -- you didn't quote him, he's simply the "philosophical poster boy" of the existentialist "life has no meaning" position and I had assumed you would have read something by him. Sorry. :)
It really doesn't bother you that you believe life is ultimately meaningless? Wow. It's just funny, because that struggle -- the search for inherent meaning and value -- has always been very real for me.
Well, there ARE atheists who don't want to believe in God. They hate the idea of being underneath someone else's power and want to feel completely self-reliant and free. They usually cast themselves as the "noble but suffering hero" in the universal farce that is life -- knowing that life has no meaning, but choosing to do wonderful, heroic things anyway in order to somehow create their own meaning. You seem to be of a very different sort.
--
I'm sort of at a loss of how to respond to most of your comments. I've written and rewritten a number of things, and am not either happy with the content or the direction and don't want to post them.
My basic thoughts, I think, are what I will share with you, right off the cuff and little editing:
1. I think your inductive reasoning works very well with exploring whether something might be possible (even plausible) and for detecting inconsistencies / logical flaws in an argument.
2. Inductive reasoning, though, always remains "smoke and mirrors" -- it's always supposition and analogy. You have made some comments that seemed purely speculatory to me and seemed to show little knowledge of the topic in discussion -- and I think if you had studied those areas (such as the transmission of Biblical documents, how records were kept, the practices of the times, etc.), then your position would have been shaped a little differently.
How much actual background Bible knowledge (such as what it is, it's purpose, how it was put together, how it was editied, what the common practices were for that time, the oral tradition that resulted in certain "forms" being used in the structure of the OT, how common detailed memorization was in that culture, and so forth) do you have? Again, I think that some of your speculations would not have been made, if you read up more on the topic.
Maybe you have, and maybe you have some valid concerns about the Christian position on document transmission. If you haven't, though, I'd suggest you to start searching through it, just to learn the basics and be able to converse about them -- because anyone with any knowledge will start challenging some of your suppositions.
I just picked up this book called "Zondervan's Handbook of the Bible." It's got a bunch of overview material within it. I found it helpful, and it would give you ideas for future areas of study.
I think you'd be surprised at how the Bible is actually viewed by the mainstream church, because its position (as stated in this book) is not the "fundamentalist/literalist" position that agnostics and atheists always seem to argue against. The Bible is very much a pastiche of different works, each with different audiences and writers and purposes, and so you can't weigh what it says with the same criteria throughout.
3. I don't know how old you are. Your spirit sounds young, your mind sounds older. My one piece of advice at this time would be, don't let your strengths destroy you.
You have a good logical mind and a good imagination. I think they've sort of overshadowed some other aspects of life, though. I'm watching you -- instead of really exploring the things that people are sharing -- just finding the quickest potential flaw in them and then throwing everything out the window.
I understand why, but based on my similar experiences, it's not the right way to go about it.
One thing to realize is that head knowledge is only part of the truth. You only find out the whole truth by committing yourself to something or someone. You're overanalyzing everything, finding possibilities of flaws in everything, so that you'll simply go in circles forever, but truth becomes more real and obvious when you've invested yourself in something.
You can't manage every risk 100%. You say you want to believe, but you're demanding something you'll never get -- no possibility of being wrong. At some point, you end up realizing you just need to make the best choice you can, decide what is worth that level of loyalty from you, make the commitment, and take each day one at a time. (If later you decide you messed up, then change direction.)
I'm telling you this because you sound like you really WANT to believe in something, would in fact prefer it, but want to be 100% sure ahead of time. You won't ever be 100% sure. The only thing you're 100% sure of is that you're unsure, and so where you are now is where you will always be unless you decide to rethink your demands.
You know why we make truth decisions? Ultimately, we make them because of the relationships involved... and not because of the logical content. If someone is "living out" truth, then we are convinced of its rightness more than any intellectual argument can.
My brain is going here, so I need to close right now, and I don't want to burden down this with too many comments.
As far as your actual question, I don't believe in Zeus because of the nature of the stories in which he appears, because I do not find him admirable or someone I would want to serve and dedicate myself to, and because I don't believe that the relationship Greek mythology described between the gods and each other and humans was the best way to relate. They were in fact quite dysfunctional and little more than immature human beings with supernatural powers.
While your opinion of Jehovah might be similar (most people seem to "read" God that way when just skimming the Bible), I've found that the core concepts of love and how God says to relate reflect the best way for human beings to relate to each other in reality. At least as far as the interpersonals go, the Bible is "true" to life. But this is not something you would see until you really dig in and experience some things.
I admit to knowing little of Vishnu. It's been on my reading list for ages, but my list is a mile long and I'm already 50-100 books behind.... There is never enough time, right? :) So I will refrain from saying something uneducated here about her/him.
Anyway, take care, I hope our dialogue continues. Feel free to drop me a real e-mail / yahoo personal message if you'd like, it might be easier to stay in touch that way.