That's not entirely fair. There is no reason to call into question his past here. If he thinks that his religion has helped him become a better person, than let's just leave it at that.

I have to assume that you answered to my post and by accident chose the wrong hyperlink. You appear today in this forum but unlike Tim I am not inclined to think that you therefore are him. Are you not exactly what you don't like? If you can't tolerate Timbrown527's wallpapers becasue it's a different concept of life? What makes you think that I don't tolerate Tim? Please quote. There's an FAQ on the net. It's called "learn to quote". Just google and thou shalt find it. What do you mean by the last 200 years of science? Tim frequently says that the multitudes of organisms didn't evolve but were made by some guy called god. I have to applaud him for not yet having said that it all happened in 7 days. I'm not saying I agree with timbrown527, but I would be hard pressed to say the proof exists there is no god and timbrown527 is wrong. Please get the facts right. I never mentioned having proof of the non-existence of god. Please quote me if you think I did. I always said that I have yet to see proof of god. If you don't get the difference, I can't help you. Nonetheless, Tim has as of yet not produced any proof of god. Which makes god a topic for belief but not for fact or knowledge. That is how science works. Show me the facts and it is scientific. If you say that I can not proof the non-existence of god, then you are right, but it is still not scientific. That's all I am saying. Tim likes to put god forward as a fact while I am merely saying that a fact needs a proof. Which he can't produce. I am getting so tired of this... Another thing I would ask is, why are you so hostile to timbrown527 and christian concepts? Am I hostile? I think not. Please quote me. Otherwise I have to assume that this is just your gut feeling, which is then only based on a subjective appraisal of the facts and not the facts themselves. Which makes you a prejudicial person. Do they not have the same right as human beings to experess their opinions and idea's? You make it sound as if christians were no human beings. Which is not very nice. You seem very intolerant. Getting back to your question: I think that everyone should be allowed to say everything. In an ideal world, that is. On the other hand, if I insult someone on national tv, can he sue me and win? Yes he can. Why is that? Because one's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. That is my definition of tolerance. You are free to say or write anything as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And I will back it and fight for your right to do so. Let's imagine I put up a wallpaper of Osama bin Ladin here. Would it hurt the feelings of the relatives of the people who have suffered from his terrorist operations? I think so. I wouldn't want that here, because that is where my tolerance ends, because it hurts someone. Let's imagine I put up a wallpaper of a B-52 here. Would it hurt the feelings of the relatives of the Afghan civilians that were killed in Operation Enduring Freedom? I think so. That's why I wouldn't want it here. Let's imagine I put up a wallpaper of Jesus shagging a sheep. Would it hurt the feelings of the people who choose to believe in Jesus? You bet it would. That's why I am not doing it. I want to stress the fact that there are things which make other people angry or hurt their feelings. Tolerance is saying "it does offend me, but I think free speech is more important than my feelings." Tim doesn't realize that he is hurting lots of feelings. And he doesn't seem to wonder about where the expansion of his personal freedom starts to hurt the feelings of other people. There were several posters who actually put their hurt into words. So if he is taking it for granted that he can post and say anything he likes, shouldn't I assume the same? Why are you picking on me instead of the guy who can not look beyond his cultural context? If your definition of tolerance is different of mine then please consider the following wallpapers: A propaganda picture of a suicide bomber A picture of a rape A picture of Kennedy with his brains out A propaganda picture of Kim Yong Il (or whatever his name may be) A propaganda picture of a guy being cruzified A propaganda picture of Hitler or a swastika A picture of Stalin All of them are bound to hurt someone's feelings. I guess that is why we see so little of them. If your tolerance is boundless, then I bow to you and praise you, but most people are not that detached from their cultural life yet. Have pity on them and me and understand that some things are bound to provoke a reaction. My guess is that Tim is here merely for the sake of provoking a reation. And that, I don't like. Not in a forum which is dedicated to eye candy. You registered here today and your opinion is a contribution to the everchanging, ever different structure of this website. Please think about the people who have lived happily without Tim for a couple of years. And think about me who thinks that he is taking it a bit too far. It's in my opinion not intolerance, rather homedefense.

*7 Days* No, I'll NEVER agree that it was done in 7 days. It wasn't. It was done in *6*. *No Scientific evidence* That again. I've already told you before that the evidences for Christianity is not science but history and archaeology. This is why I don't care to discuss things with you. That and your penchant for ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments, which can be seen on other threads. Don't even bother messaging me any longer...There's no point in it. I'm not here for your entertainment. *fini* Tim

Tim, I wanted to respond to your posting and to Soyburg's. To Soyburg: Science isn't all it's cracked up to be. Just 150 years ago doctors thought "bleeding" was a way to help the sick, yet know science shows otherwise. The lack of blood cells icreased the chance of infection spreading and posible death. I would conclude (without going farther due to lack of time) that science isn't always right. I disagree with tolerance stopping at hurting someone's feelings. Physically hurting is one thing, but words are just words, and wallpapers are just 1' & 0's. If you don't like them don't download them. From your postings I conclude you have the problem. You can't see past "your cultural context" which consists of your feelings. If someone wants to post an Osama bin Laden wallpaper, so be it. I won't download is, but that person has the right to do that. That may be eye candy for someone. Should that be stopped. Not at all. I did register yesterday, because I wanted to repond t this post. As I have seen in other postings you try to insult the itelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. How childish! Are you an adolecent? You logic seems to point that way. To Tim: From this and other postings you do make some good points. The oblisks of shalamancer (sp?) post an account from the old testament, which is an event fo event recording of a battle and offerings to the kings of a nation. That is not biblical text, however that can not be over looked. What agenda did a non-jewish nation and king have to promote god? None that I can find. I can't speak for the feelings of everyone, but this is what I feel. Tim, you have the right to post whatever you deem to be art. Soyburg, you have the right to "not" download so called art you don't like. "I think that everyone should be allowed to say everything. In an ideal world, that is". Well, not quoting you Soyburg, what keeps it from being a perfect world is people with this mentality. I have not seen tim be hostile to anyone in anything he has posted. All he does is state what he believes. It seems you believe you believe different. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree?

"The oblisks of shalamancer (sp?) post an account from the old testament, which is an event fo event recording of a battle and offerings to the kings of a nation. That is not biblical text, however that can not be over looked. What agenda did a non-jewish nation and king have to promote god? None that I can find." Thanks, noname. You're right; many times there are what we call "extra-biblical" accounts (accounts outside the bible) to historical events. That doesn't conflict with scripture but rather supports it's historicity, which is key to knowing that the Bible is reliable -- speaking accurately about the things on which it speaks. There are other writings that give account of Noah's flood and other events as well -- again butressing the reliability of Scripture. Again, noname, thanks. Tim

Sure, I have the problem. Can't look beyond my cultural context. Am childish and/or adolescent. Yes, I keep the world from being perfect. That's me. I can't even spell tolerance.

Oh well... 6 days then. Saying *fini* is all polite and nice. But you see, there are lots of other comments around. If mine offend you, then just look at some others and find something to your taste. Thanks for keeping kde-look.org an open website.

"the evidences for Christianity is not science but history and archaeology" Hmmmm...i think you just insulted a lot of historians and archeologists by implying they are not scientists. And there is a lot of the archeologic evidence that raises questions about the creation in 6 days....

While agreeing with the rest of your post, I'd like to say that it is mostly geological and palaeontological evidence that tell us about the early earth. Archaeology starts whith the appearance of human beings which (hope I get it right this time) happened on Saturday, according to the bible.

Soyburg, you said, "Nonetheless, Tim has as of yet not produced any proof of god. Which makes god a topic for belief but not for fact or knowledge. That is how science works. Show me the facts and it is scientific. If you say that I can not proof the non-existence of god, then you are right, but it is still not scientific. That's all I am saying." I know I'm not addressing your main point here, which is not unfounded, but you *apparently* assert that the "theory" of evolution IS scientific in the following : "'What do you mean by the last 200 years of science? ' Tim frequently says that the multitudes of organisms didn't evolve but were made by some guy called god. I have to applaud him for not yet having said that it all happened in 7 days." You call evolution scientific? As I see it, you're as good as calling it fact. Just a question, but can you PROVE that evolution happened? Neither you, nor anyone alive was there when it happened. You can say all you want about the background radiation from the Big Bang, or the DNA similarities between us and the apes. **None of this constitutes proof; the scientific method does not apply, since evolution cannot be repeated NOR OBSERVED (think about all the missing links that were discredited, like Nebraska man).** People *believe* evolution -- it is not factually provable. And that *is* their choice. However, don't go telling me evolution is science. I'm not intending to flame or offend and I'm sorry if I have. It just irks me when "tolerant" people put this subtle intolerance into their language -- someone is ignoring science to believe in God. What rubbish.

Intolerance of Christianity is the last remaining intolerance tolerated by the tolerance police.

Very well put, Brandybuck. You may be familiar with Ravi Zacharias, the Christian apologist who was born in India. He's tremendous. I listen to him on a fairly frequent basis...and one day he was talking about a conversation he had with someone arguing for postmodernism and it's related thought system. Here's an excerpt: "As the professor waxed eloquent and expoounded on the law of non-contradiction, he eventually drew to his conclusion: "this [either/or] logic is a Western way of looking at reality. The real problem is that you are seeking...a contradiction as a westerner when you should be approaching it as an Easterner. The both/and is the Eastern way of viewing reality." After he belabored these two ideas on either/or and both/and for some time...I finally asked if I could interrupt his unpunctuated train of thought and raise one question...I said, "Sir, are you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I *either* use the both/and *or* nothing else? There was a pin-drop silence for what seemed an eternity. I repeated my question: "Are you telling me that when I am studying Hinduism I *either* use the both/and *or* nothing else? Have I got that right?" He threw his head back and said, "The either/or does seem to emerge, doesn't it?" "Indeed, it does emerge," I said. "And as a matter of fact, even in India we look both ways before we cross the street -- it is either the bus, or me, not the both of us." So, Brandybuck, you can see how "Tolerance" wants to say "everything is ok" UNTIL you disagree with it. They literally want to have it both ways...."Everything is equally true...except believing that all things aren't equally true". The dogma that there is no ultimate truth *becomes* the ultimate truth, and to deny it is the unpardonable sin. Thanks for the input! TIm

Tolerance does not mean believing all viewpoints to be equally valid. Rather, tolerance is a belief that living together in harmony takes precedence over other beliefs that may be in conflict. Thus, it is not fundamentally different from other belief systems, it just has different priorities. Consider: In the United States, we have freedom of religion. There is an inherent contradiction in that idea, for evangelical religions like Christianity and Islam anyway. In an evangelical religion, you are supposed to convert (it has been watered down over the ages) those who do not believe. However, that works against the idea of diverse people living together in harmony, as history has shown us. To resolve this conflict, the founding fathers essentially asserted that the principle of harmony (the freedom) takes precedence over religion. Thus, you can practice whatever religion you want, as long as you do not infringe on the freedoms of others --- religion is secondary to freedom. Now, you can see why it is not a contradiction for a tolerant person to disagree with others. Tolerance simply means putting the principle of harmony above certain other principles. It does not mean putting that principle above all else. For example, in the United States, we are not tolerant of murderers. Why? Because our principle of tolerance is secondary to our belief in the sanctity of human life. This comes back to why supposedly tolerant people are intolerant of organizations like faith2action. People like those attack beliefs that this country holds even more highly than tolerance, namely freedom and equality. In this way, tolerant people are no different, in principle, than radical Islamists who preach hatred against the infidels. Rather, tolerant people are merely willing to put up with a larger number of differences in the interest of harmony.

*Tolerance does not mean believing all viewpoints to be equally valid.* Then I don't know where you got your definition; having worked on a University campus, I can tell you that isn't the definition I've learned. Also, the NEA has been pushing a definition that goes past the current one to say "EBRACE and ENCOURAGE the values of others." No thanks. --tim

i agree!

If the wallpaper offends, there are many others to look at. It's not the wallpaper that I am offended by. I am offended by Tim's tendency to deny the last 200 years of science. And in the case of this particular wallpaper it's the organization he credits the picture to that offends me. You may hold a different opinion, but please visit their website and read a few of their articles about women, family, evolution, gay marriages, separation of state and church, ... Maybe then you'll get a notion about the kind of tolerance that these people (and I see Tim in that corner) are preaching. Tolerance is all nice and good. But I really don't like tolerance to be exploited by people who have little tolerance for different concepts of life. Does that make me intolerant?