Joan, res-My point was that the majority of the organizations themselves are NOT "Christian"! That is, they have no specific religious affiliation! Anybody -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, animist -- can join them, and anybody does! And, as I said, if you can prove otherwise, I will eat my hat. :-)
I agree and never said or inferred otherwise. So what are you disagreeing with regarding my assumptions? Your hat appears safe for now. :-)
Joan, if we all went around demanding proof for everything we said, this thread would be a very demanding and tiring ordeal. Just as an example, wouldn't the onus be on you to cite your *proof* to the above claim? Some things we simply take at face value without *proof*. When a disagreement arises regarding someones assumption, is it really fair to say, state your proof or the assumption is invalid? To me it would be just as fair to say, "state your challenging proof or that assumption is invalid".
Questions of pure opinion or belief, because they are not measurable, rarely lead to resolution. We might not be able to find a resolution or *proof*. If two neighbors argue whether one mountain is higher than another, they can consult an atlas to ascertain which is correct. However, if one person feels that Van Gogh is a superior painter to Rembrandt, while another is convinced the opposite is true, there may never be agreement or *proof*. In fact there is no correct answer to such a debate. So demanding proof for everything one says is not logical.
If someone made a preposterous claim, such as the one you cited, the opinions and beliefs of others would be axiomatic.
But thanks for giving me the chance to think about this.
Michael |
