OT-Tolerance

I've not read Budds Rants - I'm talkin' about the rest o' ya.

>

Well, perhaps if you did read them it would give you a better understanding.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "burden of proof". The individual making a claim bears the burden of proof so, in the absence of physical evodence, it's up to believers to prove the above.

In a word, BULLSHIT!!! The Bible is chronologically correct in SOME instances but the only way the spiritual content can be proven is by interviewing the (long dead) participants.

You're absolutely correct and that illustrates the fallacy of you challenging others to disprove your faith. By your own word you admit that your beliefs cannot be proven.

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?

I am too lazy to reply to other postings separately, so I will do them all in this one post.

whatever it is. I won't 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 ticked off.

We're talking personal beliefs not a scientific journal article.

If you have a belief, than it must at be provable, or at least reasonable or possible to you. What it is to anyone else is irrelevant, and no one is under a burden to "prove" a "belief" to anyone, much less one that is unprovable.

I might reiterate what another poster said: proof of a God, or of the lack of a God, is largely impossible. These are "beliefs" and as such are not proven.

Generally, it's easier to prove something "isn't" rather than something "is", so deriving a proof that there isn't a God should be an easier task to accomplish.

SMH

I regard myself as among "the faithful" (in that I think there probably is "something" like a God in this Universe although I doubt any religion really has a handle on the way it truly is), and I have no problem with a 4 billion old Solar system/Earth.

Of course it changes. The Catholic Church accepts the Sun being at the center of the Solar system. The fact that it at one time did not means simply that humans are error prone (and worse).

Any number of scientists through the ages have been wrong as well. Sometimes the scientific community itself can be quite hard on those who do not follow the widely accepted theory of the way things are.

Does that mean Science is a bad thing? Nope, just means scientists can be egotistical, self-interested and narrow minded at times just like anyone else.

SMH

Thats backwards logic. You can't prove or disprove a thought.

The Bible says it can't be 4 billion years old according to our resident scholar here.

My point was that at the time their religion was based on their belief the Earth was the center. It was a fundamental principal in their belief. We see that same thing with todays religions. To them the Earth can not possibly be older than about 8,000 years. They make no room at all for the possibility they are wrong. They turn their back on anything that suggests they are wrong. Just as happened in prior cultures and religions that are long gone.

Actually, this is incorrect. It is just about impossible to prove that something isn't because just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it didn't or doesn't happen. To prove something is only requires that you see and verify it and although this can be extremely difficult at times, it is still easier than proving something never happened since we currently don't have the ability of time travel.

Don't have a clue what's up with him. Probably his fourth.

No plowing anymore. Was going to but messed up my shoulder in Sept. The doc's are trying to figure out what they are going to do. Cat scan in the morning so that should give a direction. Planning on being in Fl. by the spring so will have no need to the truck, hopefully it will be gone by the weekend. Bought a Charger SRT 8 to replace it.

No! Please no snow in Florida

Denny has been doing a snow dance for a month.

Roy

Actually, if you take the bible LITERALLY, it COULD be. In Genesis 1 it says: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,and the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The beginning of the world AS WE KNOW IT started here. The "seven days", whether literal 24 hour days or not, start here.

Is it possible this is "earth MK II"? The remains of "earth MkI" may date from MUCH OLDER. NOWHERE in the bible does it say God created the earth from NOTHING.

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.

I'm not standing up for Budd. I'm just saying don't be the pot calling the kettle black - Y'all are every bit as intollerant as Budd is. And perhaps moreso.

That's BS! We listened to Budds and now yours for quite some time before anything was said. After a fashion these post's verge on harrasment.

You're crackin me up.

Craig C.

Hmmmm..... they seem to have a lot of common, both use the same mail program as well.