There have been numerous God(s) throughout the worlds history. Many of
those religions lasted far longer than the rather young Christianity.
Did these God(s) of these long lost cultures exist? They vanished when
these cultures vanished and new religions began. Each new culture
brings with it a new religion claiming it is the only correct one. It's
possible in another 1000 years some new religion, culture and God(s)
will be created just as has happened in our history.
My beliefs, for the most part, can be be proven; Christianity can't be
proven and is strictly based on faith.
If you want to live by the tenets of a religion I will gladly "tolerate"
that practice but when you want to interject your beliefs into government I
You couldn't be more wrong.
Like many believers you believe that values can only come from religion;
again, you're wrong.
There are concepts of right and wrong that are universal and transcend
> The basic fundamental values ridiculed as "Christian values" are also
Never said otherwise. Some of your so called "Christian values" are
The fact that several religions are based on the Old Testament adds no
credibility to the beliefs.
For most of civilized history people believed the Earth was flat; they were
wrong, and it's quite possible that believers in the god of Abraham are also
wrong and number among the members of the thousands of religions that have
existed since the beginning of recorded history.
Your last statement makes a lot of assumptions. You falsely ASSume that all
of those who deny God, Jesus Christ and christianity deny the existence of a
Before you accuse me of playing word games by distinguishing between God and
a higher power, be aware that they are not necessarily the same thing.
For all any of us know, that higher power might be a non-entity.
Your beliefs can be proven?
Prove that the inherent universal concepts of right and wrong are NOT
instilled by the allmighty.
Prove that the old testament is wrong.
Prove that Christ was not the son of God, and that he did not die to
absolve all who believe of the guilt of their sins.
I'd say you are taking AT LEAST as much on faith as the Christian is.
The new testament is one of the most historically correct and provable
peices of ancient literature known to man today. The more secular
(non-religous) scholars and investigators dig into it, trying to find
fault, the more they find can be historically proven or substantiated
by the other known and accepted historical records.
Even the old testament, which was handed down for centuries only as an
oral tradition, has been found to be extremely accurate in many
If both the old and new testament were not the underpinnings of
a/several religons they would still be valuable as historic records,
works of ancient literature and philosophy. ( in other words, they are
not "good fiction".
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
You're asking for proof AGAINST your beliefs in an attempt to prove them
right. My neighbors 4 year old has an invisible friend she 'plays'
with. Since nobody can prove this invisible friend doesn't exist it
therefore must per your logic?
Nobody is attempting to prove you wrong. They are your beliefs. It is
when you attempt to impose your beliefs onto others that the tolerance
stops. Keep your beliefs where they belong...with you.
I am too lazy to reply to other postings separately, so I will do them
all in this one post.
necessarily agree with you - but I'll let you believe whatever you
like, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others
(whether that be myself, as a Christian, or anyone else). You don't
need to prove anything to me."
I agree with you. As a Christian, I will tolerate the views of others,
although I may not agree with them. For everyone else, please
understand, if I am trying to convince you to believe what I believe,
this does not necessarily mean that I am intolerant. If I was
intolerant, I would say, "Believe what I believe or I'll kill you."
But simply asking someone to consider what I believe is not intolerance
(and vice versa for anyone asking me to consider different beliefs).
Now I realize that Budd is very extreme in this matter (he has accused
me of being an "uneducated liberal" in response to my attempt to defend
him in an older post), but please realize that true Christians will be
tolerant of others' beliefs, even if they do not agree with them.
life and then say you believe in God and accept Christ as your savior the last
day of your life
and be forgiven ans accepted into heaven?"
It may not make sense, but it is essentially what Jesus did on the
cross when he forgave the thief who was repentant at the end of his
life. I would add one thing to what you said, though, which is that
you must truly be repentant for what you have done.
John, the essence of belief is faith. Anything that can be proven is a
fact; anything else is a belief. Take the origin of the universe, for
example. No matter what stance you take on the issue, it is a belief.
I cannot prove that God created the universe any more than anyone can
prove that a matterless void exploded and formed everything that exists
today. Either way, it takes faith to believe what you think. What
this is getting at, though: much of the Bible has been proven to be
true; the rest (supernatural acts and so on) cannot be proven, which is
where faith comes into play.
Thats what its all about. If you want others to be tolerant of you then
you must extend that same tolerance to others. Mutual respect for each
others beliefs. Thats whats not happened here and why so many are
My beliefs can be proven to be true for ME -by MY experience. That
does not transfer to you. ANd I'm not asking ANYONE to disprove my
beliefs. I'm just challenging those who BELIEVE my beliefs are wrong
to prove theirs. They BELIEVE there is no God? Can they prove there is
no God? No. So why should I need to prove there is.
They BELIEVE the Bible is fiction. Can they prove it? No they can not.
Can I prove it is truth? 100% beyond the shadow of any doubt? No. But
the fact that in MANY ways it has been proven to be historically
accurate (New testament, at any rate) means there is a better chance
it IS true than that it is not.
They BELIEVE there are no eternal rammifications to living their own
life, the way they see fit - with no "higher power". Can they prove
they are right? Not in this life - but IF they are wrong, and there
IS an eternity, they'll find out when "time runs out". At that point,
perhaps, there will be incontrivertible proof one way or the other.
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
As I stated earlier, the burden of proof lies with the individual making the
claim not the doubter. If you want to believe in something with no physical
being you are free to do so but when you want your beliefs to be the basis
of government you must prove the existence of your God before expecting
others to live by his/her "teachings".
That is the gist of this thread and the one that spawned it, it's not about
the existence or non-existence of God but it is about believers forcing
their views on non-believers by interjecting religion into government.
Margaret Mitchell wrote the novel Gone With the Wind. It is based on a known
historical period and some of the events are historically accurate.
Does that mean there actually was a plantation called Tara? Does that prove
that there was a real-life character called Rhett Butler or Scarett O'Hara?
Using your logic, partial accuracy in the novel "means there is a better
chance it IS true than that it is not".
There are writings of other cultures and other Gods throughout the
worlds history. The people and places in these writings have been shown
to exist. Were the spiritual parts of these writings factual? If they
were then the Bible is in conflict with them yet these cultures believed
just as strongly as those of todays religions. Some of these ancient
religions lasted far longer than the rather young Christianity of today.
So what happened to these lost religions? Why were they all wrong and
todays religion is the correct one?
Define proof. What is proof to many is completely ignored by those
who's own beliefs are on conflict. For instance, theres enough evidence
to make a strong case that the earth and the universe is far older than
8,000 years or so. Won't matter to the faithful. They will never
believe any such evidence. It took many decades for religious groups to
agree that the earth is round and revolves around the sun and neither is
the center of the universe. Prior to their eventual acceptance of these
facts anyone who differed in their views were told they were flat out
wrong with zero possibility of being correct. In many cases they were
persecuted for their 'wrong' beliefs. So what happened? Did religion
change to match facts? How can religion change?
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.