How tolerant are you of other religions?

[tcampen]

Jesus is the one and only way into heaven.
Anything else is just religion, and I do not interfere with ones religion. Religion is man made ritual.
Jesus is God given life.

Palatka44,

thanks for your input, but some of us tend not to be pursuaded by such conclusory statements that are devoid of any support whatsoever. That's the point of this discussion. Support, evidence, and analysis. If your god is so true, it should hold up fine.

 

[giddylid1uk]

Just wondering

Since there seem to be people of all different faiths and ideas on this chat, how tolerant are we of one another? Do you find it difficult or easy to talk to others who differ in opinion from you? What do you want those of other faiths to know about you when interacting with you?

I don't believe it matters what faith you are, as long as you don't force it on another person or say that their belief is wrong.
Lyd

 

[Funkmd]

TC if you dont mind me asking
just so i know where you are coming from.

What is it that you DO beleive in?

 

[radorth]

The Nicene Creed covers a lot of ground, but is certainly NOT exhaustive of what christianity is. It does not cover the method of salvation, which gets back to the point I was making.

When you have a creed like that which the majority of Christians can witness too, you're just picking nits IMO.

Are Jehova's Witnesses Christian? How about Mormons? Who decides who is and who is not a "real" Christian (other than God, of course)?

I already admitted we cannot know a person's heart. It is you who keep saying "How do we know? How do we know? But that isn't the issue here, The issue is whether you yourself can KNOW THAT YOU KNOW. You are muddying the waters by, IMO using the divsions among Christians as an excuse. Jesus said anyone who wants to know will know, and know that they know, and experience certain manifestations which many have. It is incumbent on you to prove him and us are being disingenuous.

I would never deny you your personal spiritual experience or revelation that is a profound part of what you believe.

You deny it each time you find another excuse not to make a sincere effort to find out for yourself. I have NEVER heard a heartfelt testimony of how someone searched for God with their whole heart and found nothing. A few insightful questions quickly expose those who pretend they have.

Many evangelical Christians are hightly skeptical of speaking in tongues. Harold Campy of Family Radio says, "The minute you try to add to the Bible, from this vision or that tongue, or whatever, and one person adds this, and another one adds that, and someone else adds something else, and then attempt to interpret the Bible in the light of all this new information, you end up with a gospel that will take you almost anywhere. This is exactly what is happening today. The false gospels are going off in all directions."

You know, it's just amazing how you quote one Christian to disprove another's point, when you don't believe a *&%$ thing either of them says. This is a meaningless argument from authority anyway, since you have provided no rationale. You've been asked several times to make a rational argument that spiritual truth does not exist, and cannot be known, but you don't have one I guess. While you point to the subjectivity of others, you make only subjective arguments, providing subjective evidence.

I'll even take "Well I did this and that, and prayed just like you did, and your God didn't show up." Of course I may have a few questions.

In fact, he sees tongues as satanic. He's got millions of people following his bible analysis world wide, do you can't call him "fringe." It's even debated in these forums.

Of course HE NEVER had any real spiritual experience, nor any of the 9 specific gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor the "rivers of living water" Jesus spoke of, and therefore, he's just another believer. He doesn't know anything, and his faith is based on mere assertion. He has to knock it because he's never experienced it, and sincere folks are asking questions. I'm surprised a skeptic like yourself can't see through that.

So you can interpret your experience however you like. Maybe is was the holy spirit, maybe it was satan, maybe it was aliens, maybe it was the power of your own mind, or any number of different reasons. But ultimately, it is for you to decide.

No, when we have physical manifestations and testimonies like the apostles had, it's for you to decide.

I agree, it's not about proof, nor is it about "rebelling" against your concept of god, any more than you are rebelling against the true god Allah. It's called differences in opinion, spiritual experience, and personal revelation.

Not when we have it and you don't. You know it's a great marvel how skeptics demand some manifestation and proof, then declare anything which should get them looking harder into the facts to be "subjective."

But that's OK. God knows he's wasting his time proving anything to the unwilling anyway. He'll go where a little old unknown black lady, praying her heart out in a converted stable on Asusa Street , and let her be the first person in 1500 years to speak in tongues exactly as the disciples did.

I'd like to watch you argue with her while the "subjective" fire in her eyes burns a hole through your own pitiful arguments.

Rad

 

[revolutio]

You deny it each time you find another excuse not to make a sincere effort to find out for yourself. I have NEVER heard a heartfelt testimony of how someone searched for God with their whole heart and found nothing. A few insightful questions quickly expose those who pretend they have.

People always find what they want to spiritually. Only someone who wanted there to be a God would find him (whether he exists or not). So naturally a person who searches for God 'with their whole heart' will find him.

I personally would love to believe there is a God, it would simplify life dramatically, answer many of my questions, and finally give me a real purpose. However I am unable to see and proof of the existence of a god. Though I suppose I am not searching with my whole heart, no?

 

[Mr.Cheese]

I am a Christian.
But my interest in modern fiction has exposed me to opposing or alternative worldviews.
I think we're missing out on a lot when we fail to understand that we can learn something from them.

 

[truthteller]

People always find what they want to spiritually. Only someone who wanted there to be a God would find him (whether he exists or not). So naturally a person who searches for God 'with their whole heart' will find him.

I personally would love to believe there is a God, it would simplify life dramatically, answer many of my questions, and finally give me a real purpose. However I am unable to see and proof of the existence of a god. Though I suppose I am not searching with my whole heart, no?

This last paragraph is very iffy, "would love to believe". With the "simplify life dramatically", sounds like maybe it's more a desire to complicate life.

But in the interest of the honest reader here (could be you), I'll answer this "unable to see..proof of the existence of a god".

This "inability", when it comes into contact with the facts, falls easily, when accompanied by sincerity. There's evidence aplenty. History abounds with people who were worse skeptics than you, but they were sincere, who went about to debunk God, and the Bible. I point to the Bible as something that is easily testable against the facts.

The 19th century birthed archaeologists in droves who raced to the Middle East to disprove the Bible. Including one who re-traced Paul's travels in Acts, and ended up writing about his newfound belief. Simon Greanleaf, who rejected the resurrection as a fairy tale until a student challenged him to consider the evidence. Intending to disprove it with finality, the result was his testimony as to why he became a believer. The resurrection is real. Jesus lives!

Cosmologists hurry to hide their embarrassment over "the anthropic principle", where the universe is full of completely independent physical constants, such as gravity, the charges of subatomics, all that. The fossil record, DNA, look carefully at what evidence they present, and consider the things they hide. Why are scientists so desperate for any straw of evidence against divine creation that a remote country Chinese farmer can pull a fraud on their intentionally and selectively gullible psyches?

Look around a little bit if you *really* want to know the truth. I came back from total atheism based on science evidence.

 

[revolutio]

This "inability", when it comes into contact with the facts, falls easily, when accompanied by sincerity. There's evidence aplenty. History abounds with people who were worse skeptics than you, but they were sincere, who went about to debunk God, and the Bible. I point to the Bible as something that is easily testable against the facts.

The 19th century birthed archaeologists in droves who raced to the Middle East to disprove the Bible. Including one who re-traced Paul's travels in Acts, and ended up writing about his newfound belief. Simon Greanleaf, who rejected the resurrection as a fairy tale until a student challenged him to consider the evidence. Intending to disprove it with finality, the result was his testimony as to why he became a believer. The resurrection is real. Jesus lives!

Cosmologists hurry to hide their embarrassment over "the anthropic principle", where the universe is full of completely independent physical constants, such as gravity, the charges of subatomics, all that. The fossil record, DNA, look carefully at what evidence they present, and consider the things they hide. Why are scientists so desperate for any straw of evidence against divine creation that a remote country Chinese farmer can pull a fraud on their intentionally and selectively gullible psyches?

Physical evidence only goes so far when dealing with God. An omnipotent God would be able to do whatever they will so it is hardly within the range of science to disprove him/her/it. Absolute facts may exist but no one can view them objectively so I put little faith in them.

I am speaking mostly from a philosophical and logical stance when I say that I see little evidence towards God. I concede that something cannot come from nothing, this is the biggest argument for a God in my opinion. I don't really care whether other people were athiests and then converted. I am me, not them. I need my own sort of proof.

Though in the end, I really don't want to know the truth. The search for truth is one of the most rewarding things in life. However, if I were to actually find some sort of ultimate truth it would remove a great pleasure from my life, no? Maybe if I did find the Christian God it would bring a new sort of pleasure and purpose, but I will find that out when and if that comes to pass.

 

[radorth]

Re: revolutio

People always find what they want to spiritually.

Some do, but not always. In my case I sincerely did not care who he was or even if he existed. I had no intention of serving him if he did exist, I just wanted to know if he did.

Only someone who wanted there to be a God would find him (whether he exists or not). So naturally a person who searches for God 'with their whole heart' will find him.

You're making a bunch of implied assumptions here

1. That God does not exist, and only those who make up things in their head will find him

2. That a person searching for spiritual truth, rather than God, will not find God.

3. That only people who want there to be a God will find him.

4. That there are no objective manfestations of God which should be considered proof by any reasonable person.

These are basically your own subjective beliefs, and are unprovable. Meanwhile old black ladies nobody's ever heard of have no such beliefs, and are free to speak in langages they never studied. Inexplicable healings take place daily. People die and see heaven or hell, and their lives are completely changed, and all you can come up with is that they must be starved for oxygen or an assertion that "they must just wanna believe."

And isn't it amazing that NOT ONE of the people who has ever experienced these things ever really stops believing God is real, even after they backslide? Not one apostate Christian ever said the resuurection never happened or jesus could not work miracles. Using your rationale, all the apostates and backsliders in the world would stop believing just because they don't want to any more.

Rad

 

[tcampen]

TC if you dont mind me asking
just so i know where you are coming from.

What is it that you DO beleive in?

That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot.

I believe we are all right and all wrong in our individual faiths. To what degree, I don't know, since such is an unknowable. But overall, I really don't believe anybody's got the spirituality thing figured out even close enough to claim anyone else is wrong.

I base this on logic, rational analysis of the evidence, and god's personally revelation to me.

I believe in love, justice, forgiveness, learning, empathy and respect as among the most virtuous of human traits to strive for and promote. I believe hate, violence, intollerance, persecution and oppression are among the worst human traits, and we ought to strive to irradicate them at every opportunity.

I'm inclined to not believe in a personal god, but rather the totality of everything is god. This would include the natural world, and everything else - if it exists. I believe consciousness is special, and probably holds properties we couldn't even fathom - but I have no idea if that consciousness survives death. But if it does, I know with every fiber of my being that I have nothing to worry about.

I do not believe in basing moral absolutes on a particular supernatural being, and then trying to impose that on people who don't believe in that being. To do so is a clear precurser to oppression. I believe that if something is wrong, there should be a clear, articulable reason it is so, that all fair-minded people can understand. Thus, moral absolutes are possible (i.e. rape is always wrong.)

I believe secular governments protect all religious people, and am fearful of anyone who wants their particular religion recognized as the official, the sanctioned, or the superior religion above all others. This would be a very, very bad idea.

I believe there is infinitely more to be gained in life by being openminded, rather than believing you got it all figured out. I believe life is a process where every effort should be made to appreciate the journey, rather than only focusing on the final destination.

I believe all people pick and choose what they want to believe, and I am no exception.

 

[revolutio]

You're making a bunch of implied assumptions here

1. That God does not exist, and only those who make up things in their head will find him

2. That a person searching for spiritual truth, rather than God, will not find God.

3. That only people who want there to be a God will find him.

4. That there are no objective manfestations of God which should be considered proof by any reasonable person.

1. Sorry I didn't put in the converse. I believe the same is true for people who don't want God to exist. There is no end to evidence pointing both ways it is just a matter of which people look at. Like you said some people get exposed to what they see as irrefutable evidence and convert. This happens both ways.

2. Usually in my experience people go looking for spiritual truth already with a slant to their views. Few people have a clear enough mind to go looking for 'spiritual truth' without already having some idea as to what it is.

3. In my opinion that is basically true, whether they consciously want to find God or whether they are just particularly amiable to the concept. Someone who is adamant about disliking the concept of God, will likely not let themselves see the evidence towards him/her/it.

4. Sure certain manifestations can be used as evidence towards God. However there is no end to the number of things we don't know so no one thing can really be said to be irrefutable evidence. In either way for that matter. However usually these evidence for or against God seem to only be seen by people who already believe that way so everything is tainted by the opinions you already have. Though I concede that many people have seen an event they couldn't explain through their current beliefs and converted to another belief system.

These are basically your own subjective beliefs, and are unprovable. Meanwhile old black ladies nobody's ever heard of have no such beliefs, and are free to speak in langages they never studied. Inexplicable healings take place daily. People die and see heaven or hell, and their lives are completely changed, and all you can come up with is that they must be starved for oxygen or an assertion that "they must just wanna believe."

And isn't it amazing that NOT ONE of the people who has ever experienced these things ever really stops believing God is real, even after they backslide? Not one apostate Christian ever said the resuurection never happened or jesus could not work miracles. Using your rationale, all the apostates and backsliders in the world would stop believing just because they don't want to any more.

Rad

Of course these are my own subjective views, what else do I have to give? Lots of weird things happen in the world, the majority of which people can not even begin to guess at the cause of. I think it is quite a leap to assume that all of those are the result of divine intervention. Who knows, maybe some of them are, I don't know.

Are you privy to the inner thoughts of every single one of those people? I didn't think so, nor do you likely personally know every one, so how can you make those statements? 'NOT ONE' is a pretty definitive statement to make about something, you better be able to back it up.

I have met Christians (though I doubt you would call them that) who do not believe in the resurrection nor in miracles in your sense of it.

 

[radorth]

1. Sorry I didn't put in the converse. I believe the same is true for people who don't want God to exist. There is no end to evidence pointing both ways it is just a matter of which people look at. Like you said some people get exposed to what they see as irrefutable evidence and convert. This happens both ways.

2. Usually in my experience people go looking for spiritual truth already with a slant to their views. Few people have a clear enough mind to go looking for 'spiritual truth' without already having some idea as to what it is.

3. In my opinion that is basically true, whether they consciously want to find God or whether they are just particularly amiable to the concept. Someone who is adamant about disliking the concept of God, will likely not let themselves see the evidence towards him/her/it.

4. Sure certain manifestations can be used as evidence towards God. However there is no end to the number of things we don't know so no one thing can really be said to be irrefutable evidence. In either way for that matter. However usually these evidence for or against God seem to only be seen by people who already believe that way so everything is tainted by the opinions you already have. Though I concede that many people have seen an event they couldn't explain through their current beliefs and converted to another belief system.

1. Very well

2. But not everybody sets out that way. In fact I think some Christians set out to find God and hoped it wasn't Jesus, whose followers and the evils done in Jesus' name, turned them off. That was my case. Since everyone does not have the same motives, your theory doesn't mean much IMO.

3. There are many intellectuals (Muggeridge, Lewis, etc) who set out to disprove God, but had enough integrity to realize they were biased and double-minded. There are also skeptical historians (Durant, Klausner, etc) who have decided they were applying tests of truth to the Gospels that would deny the veracity of most historical documents. Durant , a skeptic until he died, calls the arguments of NT skeptics minutiae.

The point is that only people who really don't give a frig what it is ever find the truth. I think we more or less agree there, but you cannot explain the conversions of Muggeridge and Lewis, or the declarations of some skeptical historians that the Gospels are essentially history. I can. And my testimony is that I didn't give a frig what the truth was, and I still don't. This is why I'm highly critical of the church, the war in Iraq, and many things conservatives believe in. To know the truth, you cannot care what it is or have any bias. To be right, you must never be concerned that you are right
.

Of course these are my own subjective views, what else do I have to give?

Well at least you are honest. I appreciate that. But do you really think it wise to be throwing out subjective views where God is concerned? I must fault both you AND the church for doing that. It's not wise at all, and the consequences of being wrong are enormous, perhaps even worse for some "believers" who know nothing, and preach nothing.

"Well I believe this, and I believe that"

Who cares? If you actually KNOW, and know that you know, then say something. Otherwise be quiet, or present some testimony such as "I did XYZ and your God never showed up." It seems hypocritical to me that skeptics complain about subjective assertions, then make their own.

But then, we're all pretty hypocritical, aren't we?

Your fellow hypocrite,

Rad

 

[revolutio]

The point is that only people who really don't give a frig what it is ever find the truth. I think we more or less agree there, but you cannot explain the conversions of Muggeridge and Lewis, or the declarations of some skeptical historians that the Gospels are essentially history. I can. And my testimony is that I didn't give a frig what the truth was, and I still don't. This is why I'm highly critical of the church, the war in Iraq, and many things conservatives believe in. To know the truth, you cannot care what it is or have any bias. To be right, you must never be concerned that you are right

Haha, I like that. I certainly can explain their conversions: the Gospels are essentially history. Most of the physical events presented in them are backed up by numerous other sources. However the supernatural parts are not, you have to place trust in the writer that it was not fabricated. It is a matter of trust really, those historians converted because they saw no reason for someone to truthfully recount history then add their own spice to it. I don't trust them, frankly humanity doesn't have a good track record There are many people who were born believers and died skeptics (i.e. Einstein, Feynman) so obviously both sides have some merits. Maybe I am on the side I am because i like the company more.

Well at least you are honest. I appreciate that. But do you really think it wise to be throwing out subjective views where God is concerned? I must fault both you AND the church for doing that. It's not wise at all, and the consequences of being wrong are enormous, perhaps even worse for some "believers" who know nothing, and preach nothing.

"Well I believe this, and I believe that"

Who cares? If you actually KNOW, and know that you know, then say something. Otherwise be quiet, or present some testimony such as "I did XYZ and your God never showed up." It seems hypocritical to me that skeptics complain about subjective assertions, then make their own.

But then, we're all pretty hypocritical, aren't we?

Your fellow hypocrite,

Rad

Hmm testimony. Well something cannot come from nothing therefor something must have always existed. A huge plain filled with nothing or an advanced, sentient, and highly intelligent entity. Right now I am leaning towards the first, though maybe they both exist, I don't know because one of them I have never seen.

Maybe the Christian God does exist, all I know is that people don't deserve punishment for making decisions that affect no one else. Though I am probably being presumptuous to think I know something that an omniscient entity does not.

Basically I know a God has never tried to communicate with me. If he has, then he obviously wasn't smart enough to figure out how thick-headed I am.

I have resolved never to call someone hypocritical again because their are always a plethora of things I do and believe that could be turned against me as hypocritical.

 

[radorth]

Continuing

Are you privy to the inner thoughts of every single one of those people? I didn't think so, nor do you likely personally know every one, so how can you make those statements? 'NOT ONE' is a pretty definitive statement to make about something, you better be able to back it up.

I am stating historical fact. I've studied the history of the church and the times as long as anyone here, and I never found even ONE testimony of an apostate early Christian who said the Gospel writers made up the story of Jesus, or that anyone lied about the miracles, or the resurrection, or even that the stories were redacted or the result of collusion. I would find this fact astounding even if one person was found. And believe me, the atheist researcheres have looked high and low.

Rad

 

[revolutio]

I am stating historical fact. I've studied the history of the church and the times as long as anyone here, and I never found even ONE testimony of an apostate early Christian who said the Gospel writers made up the story of Jesus, or that anyone lied about the miracles, or the resurrection, or even that the stories were redacted or the result of collusion. I would find this fact astounding even if one person was found. And believe me, the atheist researcheres have looked high and low.

Rad

Oh I misunderstood what you were saying. But still, why would the results from early in Christianity's history hold more sway than those in modern day?

And why have the theistic researchers not looked high and low? The more they look the more it would support their opinions.

 

[Palatka44]

Hmm testimony. Well something cannot come from nothing therefor something must have always existed. A huge plain filled with nothing or an advanced, sentient, and highly intelligent entity. Right now I am leaning towards the first, though maybe they both exist, I don't know because one of them I have never seen..

Though you are now leaning towards the first, You will lean to the latter soon. Though this statement of mine will likely not convince you to lean toward God there will come a day when all that there is will not only lean but bow to Him.

Maybe the Christian God does exist, all I know is that people don't deserve punishment for making decisions that affect no one else. Though I am probably being presumptuous to think I know something that an omniscient entity does not..

There were only a man (Adam) and his wife (Eve) on earth at the time when they disobeyed. Their action only affected their relationship with God. But little did they know that not only their relationship with Him was severed, the relationship that God would have with their offspring might never be. Though He does care that others are affected by your actions. Here is something that was emailed to me from a friend.
God won't ask what kind of car you drove, but He'll ask how many
people you drove who didn't have transportation.
God won't ask the square footage of your house, but He'll ask how many people you welcomed into your home.
God won't ask about the clothes you had in your closet, but He'll
ask how many you helped to clothe.
God won't ask what your highest salary was, but He'll ask if you compromised your character to obtain it.
God won't ask what your job title was, but He'll ask if you
performed your job to the best of your ability.
God won't ask how many friends you had, but He'll ask how many
people to whom you were a friend.
God won't ask in what neighborhood you lived, but He'll ask how you treated your neighbors.
God won't ask about the color of your skin, but He'll ask about the content of your character.
God won't ask why it took you so long to seek Salvation, but He'll
lovingly take you to your mansion in heaven.

He mainly cares how our actions have affected our relationship with Him. He does not delight in punishment it is His wish that none should perish but that ALL should have eternal life.

Basically I know a God has never tried to communicate with me. If he has, then he obviously wasn't smart enough to figure out how thick-headed I am. .

Oh but God has called to you through the life of His Son.

It is our thick-headedness that we must over come to see that Jesus was His Son.

I have resolved never to call someone hypocritical again because their are always a plethora of things I do and believe that could be turned against me as hypocritical.

You do have a heart that is ready to believe Revolutio. Please do not deny the relationship that God wants to have with you.

 

[revolutio]

It is our thick-headedness that we must over come to see that Jesus was His Son. You do have a heart that is ready to believe Revolutio. Please do not deny the relationship that God wants to have with you.

I am trying to do the best I can with my life. I am kind to others and have regretted every time I have hurt someone physically or emotionally. Every lie that has slipped off my tongue I regret. I go out of my way to prevent conflict and to keep things copacetic for all.

I decided to do all that without a God, whether he exists or not, whether I believe in him or not, I will continue doing that. If that isn't enough for a good afterlife then I don't think that afterlife is worth the extra effort being taken away from doing what is important to me.

This is harsh sounding no doubt, but basically don't think rewards and punishments should hinge on opinions; they should hinge on deeds alone.

 

[Aaron11]

So, for intense and purposes, what's the point?

Intents and purposes?

 

[Aaron11]

Exactly! but the flatness of the Earth is a falsifiable assertion, by travelling around the world in a boat, or orbiting the planet in a spacecraft. Please tell me what method or process could be used to falsify the existence of God.

What about when the flatness of the Earth wasn't a falsifiable assertion? What about when they couldn't sail around the world or orbit the planet in a spacecraft? The truth would not be negotiated.

I guess you aren't debating whether or not there is absolute supernatural truth. So what is your point? Just that God can't be proven? If so, I would have given you that 20 posts ago.

 

[Aaron11]

If that isn't enough for a good afterlife then I don't think that afterlife is worth the extra effort being taken away from doing what is important to me.

God wants to live in you. Give Him the chance and He promises it will be worth it in this life and the next. That's all I have to say about that.