"And none of them provide satisfactory answers to life's questions in my opinion. How did we get here? Why are we here? If there is a God, why does he permit suffering? Why do we grow old, get sick and die? etc. "
If we had answers to those questions then there wouldn't be room for faith. There would just be facts.
That comment doesn't make any sense. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. You cannot have faith in something you don't believe. You can't believe in something that has not demonstrated to you that it is the truth. I found the answers to the questions that I posted through diligent study of the bible, and the world that I live in. Buddhism's answers to such questions were rather inconsequential, they don't believe in a "God" so to speak. Since I believe that all of this was put into motion for a reason, and by someone (though my study of science/evolution) the answers of buddhism and the concept of reincarnation and nirvana don't fit. I'm not intolerant of Buddhists, I'm kind to everyone, just like I have been kind to people here. But I respectively believe that concept to be an "untruth", not truth in a different outfit. I think the difference is I have the ability to quite thoroughly explain why, whereas other people take a "all roads lead to the same place" approach, which IMO, for some is just a copout to avoid reponsibility. If you don't know they truth, you can't be held responsible for not following it.
There is a god, or there isn't. The bible is his word or it isn't. Evolution is true or it isn't. In the end, only one person is going to be right. I think many are confusing intellectual argument (perhaps because some have lost their temper) with intolerance.
