While I am currently an agnostic, I was raised very catholic for most of my childhood and even went to a catholic school from 6-8th grade (During which I became agnostic), so I do know a bit about the Bible. I recently was listening to a speech by Terrance McKenna and he put an interesting spin on the well-known 'Thomas the Doubter' story (If you don't know of it you might want to Google and read it or you won't get this post). So what McKenna brought up, is that while it is commonly thought to display Thomas as foolish or doubtful in a negative way, that's not the only way you can interpret it and may not be the message it was intended to send. When you think about it, how many people (If we're assuming the Bible is true to story) got to touch the resurrected body of Christ? Only one. The ONE man that EVER got to touch the resurrected body of Christ was Thomas the Doubter. That part of his speech -- about him being a 'doubter,' in that he only believes what he knows to be true (I'm not saying that correctly, but if you know him you know what I mean) -- really made me happy to be the same way. Recently I've been confused, as I really don't have much solid opinions about political and social issues. I always see reasonable pros and cons to either side and, while I might be slightly leaning one way or the other, I can never come to a conclusion. Now I'm glad I'm like this. As McKenna also said, and I'm paraphrasing, when you believe something you eliminate your ability to consider the views and opinions/facts of the other side. On the other hand, someone that always asks for 'proof' or something similar has the freedom to look upon both sides and see what either has to offer without bias. Thoughts? (Sorry if this seems random, I'm pretty high and really low on sleep lol)