"Conspiracy" Thread Versus "Religious" Thread

[rhinefire]

I personally cannot stomach reading any of the posts in the Conspiracy section because to me 99.9% of it is not proven. That is exactly why I am troubled with people quoting what was done more than 2,000 years ago. Example; JFK-shot captured on film before thousands of onlookers, captured the killer and millions say "no, that's now what happened." How can any person rationalize "faith" if it is founded and rests firmly on the concept of a 2,000 years gap in reporting actions when reporters were every square inch around the JFK murder and we STILL doubt. Please don't respond with faith is all you need to believe when I feel confidant you don't know what your kids did last Saturday night.

 

[votemout]

I personally cannot stomach reading any of the posts in the Conspiracy section because to me 99.9% of it is not proven. That is exactly why I am troubled with people quoting what was done more than 2,000 years ago. Example; JFK-shot captured on film before thousands of onlookers, captured the killer and millions say "no, that's now what happened." How can any person rationalize "faith" if it is founded and rests firmly on the concept of a 2,000 years gap in reporting actions when reporters were every square inch around the JFK murder and we STILL doubt. Please don't respond with faith is all you need to believe when I feel confidant you don't know what your kids did last Saturday night.

Then dont there are other threads here. :whothere::beatdeadhorse:scared:

 

[serato]

I'm not clear as to what the OP is trying to suggest, or why this thread is placed in this section. I'm failing to comprehend the OP's use of the " 99.9% " statistic, when that is the original percentage assigned to the probability of conspiracy of the assassination. The original committee, their findings, assessment, deemed foul play to be 99.9%

 

[nota bene]

I personally cannot stomach reading any of the posts in the Conspiracy section because to me 99.9% of it is not proven. That is exactly why I am troubled with people quoting what was done more than 2,000 years ago. Example; JFK-shot captured on film before thousands of onlookers, captured the killer and millions say "no, that's now what happened." How can any person rationalize "faith" if it is founded and rests firmly on the concept of a 2,000 years gap in reporting actions when reporters were every square inch around the JFK murder and we STILL doubt. Please don't respond with faith is all you need to believe when I feel confidant you don't know what your kids did last Saturday night.

Your confidence is misplaced; I know exactly what my kid did last Saturday night. And my faith isn't based on a "concept"; it's based on a belief I was taught as a child that I have experienced personally to be true.

 

[rjay]

Your confidence is misplaced; I know exactly what my kid did last Saturday night. And my faith isn't based on a "concept"; it's based on a belief I was taught as a child that I have experienced personally to be true.

Oh. Are you Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, perhaps Christian? People of all these faiths could make the same statement, and they all, in their hearts, know that their religion is the only true path. You of course are different, because you know your religion is truly the only path and the others are misguided. Probably because of where they were born.

 

[nota bene]

Oh. Are you Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, perhaps Christian? People of all these faiths could make the same statement, and they all, in their hearts, know that their religion is the only true path. You of course are different, because you know your religion is truly the only path and the others are misguided. Probably because of where they were born.

<snicker> I'm not at all different than anyone else who is content and confident in his or her own faith...but don't put words in my mouth. I have never spoken of faiths other than mine being misguided. Ever.

And here's why: I realize that none of us sees God except in part. I've lived long enough to realize that I have often been mistaken when I think I know it all, and I have always been respectful of others' beliefs and also non-beliefs whether I agree or not.

Although your post here isn't suggestive of this, I presume that you also wish earnestly to be respectful of others' beliefs/non-beliefs. Maybe this could begin with your reading others' words rather than reading into them what you want to.