About the pic used in this post... it is taken from the parent site (http://www.sermonillustrator.org/) of the God Literally Spoke to Me article. It's nonsense, of course. God is not a light in the sky. You are closer to seeing God by looking at your lawn than you are by looking to the sky.

A dead-on analogy Jennifer, thank you.

We might extend the analogy to wondering how a mind, hearing music inside their head but unable to either read or write musical scores or to play an instrument, could communicate the music to someone else. I'd guess they hum or sing. They might be able to get close but much may be lost in transmission.

And here is where the analogy can lead to new inquiry: Our music hearer, knowing that better ways of expressing the music she hears to others exists, might well decide to learn the language of music or learn to play an instrument or both. She has a known option that can permit her to communicate what she is experiencing more effectively. Whichever choice she might make, she would be choosing to make use of a tool. Do any such tools exist--or can they exist--for experiences of the spirit?

It creates a false dichotomy to say that we have the choice between God and hope on one hand and no God and hopelessness on the other. God and hope are not necessary to one another. Indeed, a good case could be made that belief in God to someday set things right is damaging to hope while abandoning dogma and taking responsibility for ourselves and the future we create provides a environment for the blossoming of hope.

I would have acquiesced to my dying spouse's wishes. To me, in that situation, compassion for the individual who is suffering would take precedence over... almost anything.

With respect to freedom to believe whatever we may wish to believe, that is the condition of our existence, i.e. no one can force another person to believe something. We may be able to force the appearance of belief but we cannot, at least at present, control another person's mind to that extent. Since that is how the world IS, any discussion of the ought, i.e. what would the best possible condition be, is purely philosophical.

As a philosophical question, it is of interest to consider under what circumstances, if any, one ought to change another person's beliefs if they can. Is it always wrong to change someone's beliefs? Obviously not. If someone could have changed Hitler's anti-Semitic beliefs then untold lives and incomprehensible suffering could have been averted. Is it always right to change someone's beliefs? Again, I would say obviously not. If someone believes that wearing green on Fridays will bring them good luck then what harm can come from the belief? If there can be no harm then a person's right to liberty supersedes any other considerations.

What do you think?

I am not sure what you mean by am I a zeitgeist. Zeitgeist is “the spirit of the times”, where “spirit” is understood to mean an attitude or principle, as opposed to an incorporeal being, so if you are asking if I am a product of my times then the answer is yes, of course I am.

Predictions are unpredictable, except that people will make them. I am aware of all the hoopla regarding 2012, just as I was for 2000 and 1984. Nothing will happen, just like nothing has happened every other time some apocalypse has been nigh. Seriously, as species and even as a culture, we’ve been through all this before. As always, the predictions prey upon our fears. Biblical prophecy, more than most, has a horrendous track record.

The Shroud of Turin is an interesting artifact. I do not know what it represents but I am, in accord with my belief system, confident that here is nothing supernatural about it. Perhaps the carbon dating from 1988 is sufficiently flawed to require additional investigation but I suspect—and it is only mildly informed opinion on my part—that the 13th to 14th century dates for the shroud will be confirmed. It is highly inaccurate to state that “scientists have confirmed its authenticity”. Simply by reading the Wikipedia entry on the shroud is sufficient disprove that claim, as well as the assertion that the image is known to be that of Jesus Christ. So, in summary, the shroud is an interesting artifact about which much remains in doubt. It is okay that we do not have all the answers right now, science never does and never will, but we will learn more as investigation continues.

If there is no God then there is no sin and no need for salvation. No one knows what, if anything, happens to us when we die. My best guess is that there is nothing. We simply cease. And, no, that does not cause me worry. There is nothing to fear in nothingness.

Isn’t it better to believe, just in case? That’s Pascal's Wager and, no, I do not think it is. Our beliefs constrain our choices. If we believe in something that is not real then we prevent ourselves from making the wisest decisions possible. I believe that is far too high a price to pay. The better the decisions that we make, the better the lives we lead and the better the world we create.

“Give Jesus a chance, he died for the Opportunity.”

He's had 2000 years. That's more of a chance than anyone else in all of history has been given.