Astralinre

Does "accepting" another person's beliefs include saying that those beliefs may be true? If so, what do you mean by acceptance? So you admit that you do not respect the beliefs of those who believe in intolerance? They are equally tolerant, because they both only tolerate the religions that agree with them. Religion A believes in tolerance, so it tolerates only tolerant relgions. Religion F does not believe in tolerance, so it tolerates only those who agree that Religion F is exclusively true. Either way, they are both tolerating only those with whom they agree. Show me one difference between the two besides numbers. If I eat one apple, and you eat four apples, aren't we both still eating apples?

Define "respecting other people's beliefs." What is it? How does one do it? What does it look like when one does it? Why do you not respect the belief that intolerance of other religions is a good thing?

Everyone may have the right to evaluate right and wrong for himself, but if there is an absolute right and wrong, what the person believes may be false. If there is an absolute right and wrong, then it will not change based on what society accepts. Whether or not something is "up-to-date" is no test of its validity, because absolute, universal truth does not change with the times. Therefore, assuming absolute morality, and assuming God's character and revelation as that standard, society is in the wrong if it disagrees with the Bible, not the other way around. People taking the Bible's words out of context to support their hate does not mean that the Bible teaches hate. That they even have to take the words out of context to support hate shows that the Bible does not teach hate. If Biblical Christianity taught hatred for sinners, no one would have to take verses out of context to support hate. However, Biblical Christianity teaches love for sinners, so it is absurd to say that it teaches hate because some people take parts out of context. My mother tells me, "Don't cross the street." I later cross the street to see a friend, get hit by a car, and end up in the hospital. When my mother asks me why I did it, I say, "You told me, 'Cross the street.'" It is true that she said those words, but she preceeded them with the word "Don't." I took a part of what she said completely out of context to support my own actions. This is exactly what those who misquote the Bible to promote hate do: they take one part of God's Word and seperate it from the rest of His teachings, resulting in beliefs that are completely in conflict with a Biblical worldview.

Show me one difference between the two besides numbers. If I eat one apple, and you eat four apples, aren't we both still eating apples? Why can it not be the case that all beliefs and religions are intolerant? Is their a logical reason for this, or do you simply refuse to accept the possibility? Perhaps the answer lies in your definition of tolerance, so how exactly would you define tolerance?

I would agree that no religion would have a complete view of God; finite beings cannot exhausitively know an infinite being. However, I do believe that a religion can know truly, and teach only truth, even if they do not know all truth. A child may only know that 2+2=4, and may not know that tanX = sinX / cosX. However, not knowing everything about mathematics does not falsify his knowledge of basic math. And to your point about other planets, if God is silent, then you're absolutely right. We have no way of knowing whether or not we're closer to the truth than they are. However, if God speaks, we can know, and they can know. They may have an entirely different frame of reference, but if God speaks to both us and them, then we may both know truly despite our different ideologies. Before blaming all war and extremism on religion, keep in mind that the 20th Century was the most godless century in history, and also the bloodiest. 1. How do you know that it is only an opinion that homosexuality is wrong? Assuming that there are absolute morals, which Christians do, isn't it possible that homosexuality is wrong in all ages, regardless of whether or not it's accepted? 2. The Bible teaching that homosexuality is wrong does not encourage hate unless taken out of the context of Christianity. The Bible teaches that stealing is wrong, but does not teach us to hate the thief. It teaches us that lying is wrong, but does not teach us to hate the liar. It teaches us that we are all sinners, we are all guilty, therefore we have no basis to hate other sinners. It teaches that we can be redeemed from our sins through Jesus, but it tells us to love the unredeemed, not hate them. Jesus taught that the world will know His true followers by their love. Now, Biblical love does not say, "Everything you do is okay." Biblical love says, "What you're doing is wrong, therefore repent, turn from you sin, and find happiness." A follower of Christ is not a rich man berating a poor man for not having food. A follower of Christ is a poor man who has been invited to a daily feast and is urging his fellow beggars to come with him.

If something is true, does it need to change over time? If Pythagoras, 2500 years ago or so, discovered that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, do we need to update that truth because times have changed? So hypothetically, if the Bible is true, would it need to be updated to fit the times? It might need to be applied in different ways, but the truths themselves would remain the same, and would always work if applied correctly. Timeless truth is always timely, after all. If you deny the truth of the Bible, the whole point is moot, but assuming it is true, it would not need to change with the times. The only things that change with the times are things which are not universally true, but timeless truth is always timely.

Let's say Religion A believes in Seven Holy Doctrines. They hold these Seven Doctrines to generate the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people when followed, and believe that disobeying these Doctrines leads to strife and unhappiness. Because they regard these Doctrines so highly, they do not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. Now let's take Santeza. He believes in Tolerance above all else. Tolerance will generate the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers of people; Intolerance will lead to strife and unhappiness. Because he regards Tolerance as so important, he does not tolerate those who practice Intolerance. Both are equally intolerant of beliefs that go against their own. It does not matter whether there is one belief, or seven beliefs, or one hundred beliefs. Either way, the person who ascribes to the belief(s) is exclusively intolerant of anything that goes against that belief.

If there were a God, and It were to reveal Itself to humans, wouldn't it be possible and logical for one system to have all the right facts? If one system embraced all of the things that God had revealed, and others systems did not, then wouldn't it be logical to say that that religion is God's religion? What if something does have factual reasoning? Now, I don't mean hard proof; I mean that it fits the facts of life. If it explains life as we find it, then may we accept it as true? _________________ I have a question for everyone here: What is true tolerance? Is it accepting that other people have beliefs and never interfering with that, even if you believe them to be wrong? Is it saying that others' beliefs may be true? Is it saying that everyone's beliefs are true? It seems that most people who use the word "tolerance" nowadays intend one of those meanings, and most of them insist that Christians are intolerant and insult us for that. Of course they see Christians as intolerant! We define tolerance differently that they do. They say tolerance is not claiming exclusive truth. We say tolerance in speaking the truth in love. They say tolerance is not fighting over beliefs because you don't know which belief is true. We say tolerance is loving your neighbor and living in peace with him, even when you do know he's wrong. Their tolerance tolerates all ideas. Our tolerance tolerates one idea, but all people. Feel free to argue all you like about how people who call themselves Christians don't do this. Of course they don't; even Jesus taught that most who would call themselves His followers would not really know Him. But regardless of how people act, this is the tolerance that Biblical Christianity teaches: allow only the truth, and hate all ideas that are false, but love those who hold those ideas, and show them the truth through your actions, your attitude, and your words. This is Christian Tolerance, and it is vastly different from Postmodern Tolerance, which is why Christians are so often hated for being intolerant.

Your mom misinterprets things.

Right now I'm looking at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama.

He doesn't have to prove the benefits of arranged marriage: You are the one saying that it's barbaric, so the burden of proof lies on you. He's given you good reasons why it isn't barbaric, which you've yet to refute. He never said taht choosing your own spouse is for the worse, merely that arranged marriage isn't barbaric. Then for what did you make this thread? It seems like you made this thread only for people who come from your point of view and agree with your point. Locke's point is that your reasons for calling arranged marriage barbaric are inconsistent with your own beliefs about your own culture. He has shown you, in terms familiar to you, how arranged marriage is reasonable and acceptable. Your response has been to plug your ears, stick your tongue out at him, and say "I'm only going to look at this from my point of view, which is right, and ignore logic and other points of view!" Why not actually deal with his arguments rather than refuse to look outside your point of view?

In no particular order, these are some of my favorites: Orthodoxy - G.K. Chesterton The Ballad of the White Horse - G.K. Chesterton The Divine Comedy - Dante Alighieri Black - Ted Dekker Red - Ted Dekker White - Ted Dekker When Heaven Weeps - Ted Dekker Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card Speaker for the Dead - Orson Scott Card The Silmarillion - J.R.R. Tolkein

;o *gasp*. Your 6% scientoligist. :P Don't tell Tom Cruise.

Since I just consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ, and not a member of any Christian denomination, the first few all fit in various aspects.

Happy Winter-een-mas, everybody. Let's hope no major companies try to steal it from the gamers this year.

I remember those days.. Such a waste of time if you ask me.. I thought it was cute. you could always tell which girl had a crush on you by comparing what her little card said compaired to all the others... so what if they were already preprinted Disney messages, some of them were still better than others Who cares about the cards? The free candy is all that matters. :P I've always liked Valentine's Day, because I enjoy doing romantic things for my girlfriend anyway. (Not that I have one at the moment, but I have the past two years.) I don't care that it's commercialized; I like making my girl happy, and Valentine's Day is a nice occasion to do that. I enjoy giving unexpected suprises even more, but that doesn't stop me from doing it when it's expected.

If we haven't yet used those tools to find out how existence came to be, what proof do you have that science and reasoning can prove it? Of course, the vaguity of the term religion is the main cause of this disagreement. Both religions and scientific atheism are belief systems based on unprovable assumptions. They are essentially the same, and their followers share a similar devotion. Where do you draw the line between banning discussion of one thought system and allowing another? Why should only "secular" discussions be allowed, when the atheistic point of view is essentially the same as religious points of view? Why should the administration say, "You are only allowed to approach this discussion from this point of view. If you disagree with this belief system, get over it." Anyway, I don't think this topic will lead much of anywhere is only a scientific atheistic worldview is acceptable. I propose that either the ban on religous discussion is lifted now that we've had our little break, or that this topic is locked and abandoned until the ban is lifted.

You'll pay for revealing that information to surface dwellers. The High Council was already nervous about the small hints I've been giving, but your indiscretion may have put us both in mortal danger. Report to the High Council with me first thing tomorrow morning. Walk the Path of the Current to arrive at the trial as quickly as possible, else they decide to execute you for your treason, and me for inspiring it.

A little hydrogen peroxide can work wonders. And the bubbles feel oh so relaxing.

Without religious input, this thread becomes pointless and one-sided. Everyone is going to say that there's nothing real after death (or perhaps somebody will believe in the paranormal), so there will hardly be any interesting discussion. Unless, of course, Insane feels like arguing the metaphysics of it, because I know I'm certainly too tired and busy to do so. :P

Hahaha, a link? On the internet? Divulging the secrets of Atlantean technology? That's hilarious. If you want to study such things, you have to go straight to the ancient underground library they left in the Yucatan. Of course, the exact location is classified, available only to those of Atlantean descent, such as myself. I could tell you all about the library, it's exact location, and the information housed in it, but then I'd have to kill you.

Very big problem here. This city won't survive for even 3 years, unless there's some super strong material I havn't heard of. Yes it will, because yes there is. You obviously know nothing of Atlantean technology.

That isn't really a good argument. You can get a lot of forum experience on other forums before joining here. Generally you can tell the people who are experienced by how they act. Intarweb has acted in the way that makes me think he has a lot of forum experience. No crappy new topics, easy to read posts, and logical arguments. Plus I have a theory that he isn't someone knew to this forum at all. [thematic music plays] DAAAAAAA da da da daaaaaaaa! [/music] A good topic involves one or more of the following - intelligent (or ridiculously unintelligent) debate, understandable writing, humor, or a chance to get to know other forum members better.

Thinking literally, what would you do for oxygen? And food for that matter. We'd use machines that harvest oxygen from the water, of course. How do you think the Atlanteans have survived for thousands of years down there? For that matter, how do you think fish breathe? Of course, we'd also use the water to produce electricity, and we could catch fish and grow various types of seaweed for food. We'd have to have a strong structure to keep the water out of the actual city, secure locking mechanisms for getting to the farms and powerplant outside of the city, and plenty of breathing apparatuses for when we're outside of the city.

HONK IF YOU LOVE TIP.IT! bumper stickers. For the win. I'd either build a city on the ocean floor, or travel to the submerged city of Atlantis and live with them. If the former, I'd take plenty of people and books with me so that we can repopulate the earth and preserve thousands of years of culture. Once the storms subside, we'll move back to the surface.