oVo wrote:I'm not touching that chain. Maybe evidence of a life giving force
is a better term than proof. Only cold air, smoke or the sense of
touch or smell will physically reveal your breath.
Speaking of accepting things, why is the Bible deemed believable
while other texts are dismissed? Also, what makes Christian Church rituals
--like taking communion-- more acceptable than the spiritual practices of
Objectively, without evidence or experience, probably nothing.
The difference people who follow Christianity find is that there is more evidence and proof, mostly in our personal lives. Some of that is certainly our biased upbringing, but not wholly. Others in other faiths certainly argue the same of their ideas. Theologians have held that in some cases, "different" faiths may really be the same, but using different terms. In truth, that might apply at some deeper level, though it certainly is not true on the surface. For example, even within the Christian church, Protestants and Roman Catholics very much disagree on several points, but will each generally acknowledge that the other can be faithful subjects of our Lord, Christ. I have heard it suggested that folks of other faiths may have similar deeper communality even if we superficially disagree. I have heard missionaries who, going to "new, unreached" cultures say that at some point they hear something like "oh, yeah... that is what you call it" when they are finally able to communicate about faith. (that is, they knew of the concepts bur described it differently). I have also heard great theologians recognize similarities between the deepest roots of faiths that seem very different on their surface.
Since much of human behavior is about specifics... whether to take our kids to that church or this other (or none), whether to be baptized or not, whether to eat this or that... etc, for humans, that deeper bit only really matters when it comes to saying that other people do or do not have the basic right to exist, to think as they do and so forth. Ultimately, none of us can know God's heart fully, none of us has his mind and so none of us is fully capable of judging the "true" faith and understanding of others. We can only operate on what we see and do. Knowing we are so limited is important.
That is why I say things like "I don't necessarily agree that homosexuality is OK, but I don't think I have the right to discriminate against them in any way" or "I don't want my kids to become Buddhist, but I do want them to understand the faith", etc, etc. Someone else merely existing and living, thinking as they do is not a fundamental harm to me. The harm is if I am to decide that I have the right to limit their thinking or speaking of their honest thoughts.