D
DMagoh
Guest
Also, I have the UPMOST respect for your religion... so is it so much to ask that you have some respect for mine?
Wisc Wiccan
Sure. Where is the Wiccan Forum so I can go post on it?
Upvote
0
Also, I have the UPMOST respect for your religion... so is it so much to ask that you have some respect for mine?
Wisc Wiccan
My cousin is Pagan, Wiccan, and specifically a Druid. She's one of the nicest, most understanding people I've ever met and she's my closest cousin. Now I've been asking her about her beliefs and common base beliefs of Wiccans. And all the devil worshiping sacrificing babies garbage that's thrown around when a person hears 'Wicca' is false. It's actually a very free and spiritual faith. I'm looking more and more into it myself.
Now what are your views on it?
Well.....first off, being Wiccan I can tell you that we're NOT possesed by the "devil" or "satan" or whoever you want to refer to. We don't even believe in a "evil" being. It's a Christian concept. We don't need a "evil" being to blame mans "sins" on. The evil that man does is brought about by MAN. We don't ask you to try to save us, because we believe that we don't need saving. We DO believe in God, and many of us even believe in Jesus and all that believing in Him entails. Yes, believe it or not, there ARE Christian Wiccans!
I was a Christian for 40 years. I promoted the Christian faith in every way I could...through publications, ministering to others, and spreading the "Word". But I became very concerned about the path that the Christian church has taken. I saw MANY so called Christians practicing their faith on Sundays (or Saturdays) and putting it off the rest of the days of the week. You know what I mean, and if you don't, your just not paying attention. THESE are the people that you need to pray for. THESE are the people who need saving! To say you're a Christian and then live an unChristian lifestyle is an insult to God AND your religion!
In the Wiccan lifestyle, we believe that you should live a good, wholesome life EVERY DAY.....not just in church. And you shouldn't need the punishment of hell to make you do so.
Yes, there are some that claim to be Wiccan that REALLY are satanist...but the two are further apart than TRUE Wicca and Christians.
You can say what you want about the witchcraft aspect of Wicca. I can sit here and type till my fingers fall off and many of you wouldn't believe it anyways because you've been conditioned to believe otherwise, just like many would believe its a SIN just to THINK about it....remember I was a Christian for MANY years....I questioned MANY things about Wicca, but have many of the answers that I looked for. I cant say that about the Christian faith.
Many Wiccans don't even use "spellcrafting" in practice.
I don't need to be saved....I'm NOT possessed....I dont need to be "born again", I was born just fine the first time.
Also, I have the UPMOST respect for your religion (just not many of the people who claim to practice it) so is it so much to ask that you have some respect for mine?
Brightest Blessings to all of you....
Wisc Wiccan
As ecceletic as it can be, Paganism is united by a reverence for nature (among other things); this stops Pagans from being too distant from one another (like, say, Islam from Jainism).My husband refers to our friends lovingly as "smorgasboard pagans." They do a great deal of reading and worship, and as things "resonate" with them, they add them to their theology. So what one pagan does or believes may be very different from the next one.
This fits Paganism in general, Shamanism and all.My five-year-old daughter was a little confused. This was the first wedding she'd been to, and she wasn't sure what was going on. With their help, we explained that they worshiped the spirits in all of creation, and respected and honored them, and asked their protection and blessing and guidance in their daily lives. (remember, my friends are pagans with a heavy dose of shamanism, so this fits
I dunno, my mum is a rather religious Christian, and I would disagree with most of her beliefs. She's no novice when it comes to intellectual discussions, but she defers to my expertise (insofar as...) concerning new topics, and I wouldn't be so cruel as to challange her faith.She was rather upset after that, because it really hit home that her good friend, their daughter, didn't know Jesus. We talked to her about it, and the next time they came to visit, we heard her sharing JEsus stories with Yanna, their daughter.
It's hard to disagree so much about things that are so important, especially with people you love so much and care so deeply for.
You make it sound like the Klingon culture. (Neo-)Paganism is not about respect and honour in and of themselves, but rather a collective respect of the natural world.Anyway, I think it really boils down to this:
Neo-Paganism is a lovely, sweet nature-based religion of respect and honor.
I don't understand. I believe you are creating a strawman in which non-Christians make up their own rules for salvation.That being said, I believe that pagans are deceived, just as I think all non-Christians are deceived, in thinking that they can live a "good enough" life.
First, Karma is a Hindu notion, not a Pagan one. Second, the Law of Three-Fold Return is held by only a minority of Pagans.The idea of karma, which in Paganism is held forth in the three-fold law (what you do, whether good or ill, will return three-fold), is fine as far as it goes.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is but a statistical trend; it is not a concreate physical law. Likewise, the Three-Fold Law (assuming it exists), is not "You throw a rock, three rocks get thrown at you", sorta thing.It's as good a guideline as the Golden Rule, but it doesn't bear out in observation. Bad people don't always have three times the bad brought back on them, for instance.
Reincarnation has nothing do to with the Three-Fold Law (though Karma, which you referenced earlier, plays a part in Eastern reincarnation myths).So then you have to get into the idea of reincarnation, which many of my Pagan friends believe in, to reconcile the idea of justice working out over time.
No. The 'core' of Paganism is at least a spiritual respect for nature.And that just gets back to trying to be "good enough." Like almost every other religion, Paganism is at its core a "works-based" religion. It is gentler in its approach than many others, but the bottom line is there.
That, and the other Abrahamic religions. And Buddhism. And basically every other religion that has an endpoint.Christianity is the only belief system that breaks us out of striving for that unreachable summit of "goodness".
We know we're not "good." Even the nicest of people has their selfishnesses and flaws. Ultimately, it's impossible to know how much is "good enough" in other belief systems. And so people can become discouraged and defeated.
Quite.In Christ, we are justified, made righteous, made "good", not by what we do or have done... but by Christ's sacrifice for us on the cross. Our "goodness" flows from that sacrifice.. not out of fear or attaining for perfection for perfection's sake.. but out of love and gratitude for God's grace.
No other belief system has that sort of grace and mercy, let alone has it at its core.
That is a matter of your perspective. if we were not given free will for example, and God just forced salvation(and obedience)upon us then it is a possibility.Semantics. The events leading up to (and indeed after) the crucifixtion are unnecessary.
You spoke of me as unorthodox, Ill provide an example.
You say it is unnecessary, but was it really?
ask yourself, why those events were an absolute requirement.
perspectiveAnd as I have said, this limits his omnipotence. By definition there is another way.
you are basically testing God because you disagree with his methods. the ability to do something is not the same as the requirement to do so., nor is it indicative of the alternatives.
just because he could or can, does not mean he has to, or should.
I have not seen it, I have my own suspicions about these so called "parallels" and their origin.Nevertheless, there were witnesses to the resurrection of Mithras. Do you doubt their testimony?
You are the one who doubts it, why not go our and ask them yourself?Wait, none of these witnesses gave their own testimony? Paul merely referenced them when he wrote some decades after the events allegedly took place? Is there any independant, first-hand account of the ressurection of Jesus?
Thats the point, the Epistle is sent if you were alive back then you would be free to go and ask, them yourself, to put the rumors to rest, once and for all, yet I see no where anyone disputed it.
I don't as they likely discussed it as witnesses and not converts in the since we would be.One word: fraud. What makes you think Paul actually went around asking people for their testimony?
You can doubt it, but you aren't the first, and apparently your fellow doubters from that time did not feel it important enough to dispute at all.
so does doubtBlind faith has a dangerously powerful influence over humans.
you mentioned a six legged vs 4 legged insect disproof of the bible, and I stated the praying mantis has 4 legs.I'm sorry?
I was basically stating that I have frequently heard of evolutionary gaps of drastic change being consistent with evolution, unless it is supportive of say the Flood.Where have I claimed this?
I personally have dispute with evolution in general, and slipped into a bit of off topic.
I am not them.Irrelevant, though I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Evolutionary theory. I am talking of variation in a single human chromosome. Even the most staunch fundamentalist acknowledges 'microevolution'.
I believe it is more of an example of breeding, using existing genetic information in the so called "evolved" animal. but like I said its a bit off topic.
Oh I Got it, I believed it like most who are exposed to its indoctrination through school did, I even tried the theistic evolution route when I was in my agnostic stage, as it was the predominant explanation.Self-replicating systems + time = systems better at self-replication. What's not to get?
the problems present when you start reducing it to its fundamental components, like a motor, it is a system, compromised of smaller interdependent systems working together for the whole.
but if you start removing components it breaks down.
I did a longer explanation a while back before I abandoned the TE sub forum, as they asked if anyone was a te, and became a creationist, though I technically don't consider myself one. I have problems with several creationist beliefs, particularly with their attempt to appease the "intellectual elite" I am a Biblicists, though I am far from an expert in the scriptures.
But I explained my stance as simply as I could without doing a huge paper on the issue. and was attacked for being honest. By "christians" no less, well one was an atheist, but not one of the Christians called out anyone for making unfounded attacks on me, and after discussing the overall issue of the indoctrination of evolution, among other things for quite some time, the attacks seemed as Good a reason to leave that area for good.
After further reflection on the issue, it appears more indicative of a generalized doubt and departure from the scriptures overall, rather than a battle of the evidences, that it has "devolved"(pun intended) into.
Just saying that a feeling is not always the best thing to follow, in all cases, like my ex wife for example, that was something I should have followed friends advice on than my own feelings of the matter.That's nice
I see no reason why the events were absolutely necessary. Can you explain to me why they were?That is a matter of your perspective. if we were not given free will for example, and God just forced salvation(and obedience)upon us then it is a possibility.
You spoke of me as unorthodox, Ill provide an example.
You say it is unnecessary, but was it really?
ask yourself, why those events were an absolute requirement.
perspective
On the contrary, but creating an entity with such restricting qualities as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc, you create an entity that is very, if not entirely, predictable.you are basically testing God because you disagree with his methods. the ability to do something is not the same as the requirement to do so., nor is it indicative of the alternatives.
just because he could or can, does not mean he has to, or should.
Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th. A traveling teacher and master, Mithras also miracles, had twelve companions, and died for mans sins only to be resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the breaking of bread and wine is involved in the memorial of this event.I have not seen it, I have my own suspicions about these so called "parallels" and their origin.
And this proves... what? That the NT is unreliable? That we should take it on faith?You are the one who doubts it, why not go our and ask them yourself?
Thats the point, the Epistle is sent if you were alive back then you would be free to go and ask, them yourself, to put the rumors to rest, once and for all, yet I see no where anyone disputed it.
I don't as they likely discussed it as witnesses and not converts in the since we would be.
You can doubt it, but you aren't the first, and apparently your fellow doubters from that time did not feel it important enough to dispute at all.
so does doubt[/quote[
Doubt is a reasonable, often expected, response to extraordinary claims. Blind faith serves no purpose except coption and control of the masses.
Technically, the forearms of the praying mantis are modified limbs. That aside, are you seriously suggesting that the Hebrews considered the locust to appear to have four legs? Have you even seen one?you mentioned a six legged vs 4 legged insect disproof of the bible, and I stated the praying mantis has 4 legs.
By whom?I was basically stating that I have frequently heard of evolutionary gaps of drastic change being consistent with evolution, unless it is supportive of say the Flood.
So the science is sound, but you just... don't like it? Abusrd.I personally have dispute with evolution in general, and slipped into a bit of off topic.
This is microevolution.I am not them.
I believe it is more of an example of breeding, using existing genetic information in the so called "evolved" animal. but like I said its a bit off topic.
1) Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a given population.
2) Populations have been observed to experiance a change in the frequency of their alleles.
3) Therefore, evolution has been observed.
Anti-evolutionists feel that there is some distinction between adaptation and speciation. This, of course, stems from the Judaeo-Christian notion of 'kinds', which is never defined.
A crude analogy for the workings of relatively complex biological systems, but OK.the problems present when you start reducing it to its fundamental components, like a motor, it is a system, compromised of smaller interdependent systems working together for the whole.
Why would you start removing parts of an interdependant system?but if you start removing components it breaks down.
I also suggest you watch this video. It is basically proof that evolution is a blind watchmaker.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Evolution-IS-a-Blind-Watchmaker
Do you believe that the universe was intentionally created? If yes, then you are a Creationist. Otherwise, you are not (even if you answer, 'I don't know').I did a longer explanation a while back before I abandoned the TE sub forum, as they asked if anyone was a te, and became a creationist, though I technically don't consider myself one. I have problems with several creationist beliefs, particularly with their attempt to appease the "intellectual elite" I am a Biblicists, though I am far from an expert in the scriptures.
Not to be rude, but surely one must consider a stance on it's own merits, not on the behaviour of it's adherants? To disbelieve in evolutionary theory merely because some of it's adherants were mean is... daft.But I explained my stance as simply as I could without doing a huge paper on the issue. and was attacked for being honest. By "christians" no less, well one was an atheist, but not one of the Christians called out anyone for making unfounded attacks on me, and after discussing the overall issue of the indoctrination of evolution, among other things for quite some time, the attacks seemed as Good a reason to leave that area for good.
It's not so much a battle of the evidences, as it is 'We have the fossils. We win'. Arrogant? Maybe, but we certainly have a right to be.After further reflection on the issue, it appears more indicative of a generalized doubt and departure from the scriptures overall, rather than a battle of the evidences, that it has "devolved"(pun intended) into.
Indeed. However, you misunderstand my phraseology: I deliberately used the term 'feeling' to counter epsitimological claims by the Christians who say they 'know' that their faith is true. Wicca and Witchcraft offer more than just a nebulous 'freedom'. As does Christianity, in fact, but at least my faith delivers what it promises.Just saying that a feeling is not always the best thing to follow, in all cases, like my ex wife for example, that was something I should have followed friends advice on than my own feelings of the matter.
My cousin is Pagan, Wiccan, and specifically a Druid. She's one of the nicest, most understanding people I've ever met and she's my closest cousin. Now I've been asking her about her beliefs and common base beliefs of Wiccans. And all the devil worshiping sacrificing babies garbage that's thrown around when a person hears 'Wicca' is false. It's actually a very free and spiritual faith. I'm looking more and more into it myself.
Now what are your views on it?
Thanks for saving me all that typing.From what I've seen, Wicca encourages people to act in a good way towards others... so Wicca is ok I don't agree with all their beliefs, but it doesn't matter... everyone has different beliefs, and they are all equally valid, since it's impossible to prove who is right when it comes to religions.
From what I've seen, Wicca encourages people to act in a good way towards others... so Wicca is ok I don't agree with all their beliefs, but it doesn't matter... everyone has different beliefs, and they are all equally valid, since it's impossible to prove who is right when it comes to religions.
Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th. A traveling teacher and master, Mithras also miracles, had twelve companions, and died for man’s sins only to be resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the breaking of bread and wine is involved in the memorial of this event.
From what I've seen, Wicca encourages people to act in a good way towards others... so Wicca is ok I don't agree with all their beliefs, but it doesn't matter... everyone has different beliefs, and they are all equally valid, since it's impossible to prove who is right when it comes to religions.
How can someone on one hand say they know Jesus, say on the other that it is impossible to know which is the right way?
Jesus said, " I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but through me." John 14:6
Do you believe Him?
Not true.I believe the key emphasis here is the difference between belief and knowledge.
You believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, but you cannot know that.
I believe the key emphasis here is the difference between belief and knowledge.
You believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, but you cannot know that.
it is different for different people, Take the blasphemous passion of the Christ movie that not only adds substantially to the scripture, but adds the entire narrative of sufferings, in the film. some seem to feel a connection to that sort of thing, you obviouslly do not, but the scriptures are for all people for all time, so while one portion may mean little to one person, it may be of extreme use to another.I see no reason why the events were absolutely necessary. Can you explain to me why they were?
Again you are viewing things from the perspective of doubt, and then placing your own constraints upon them.On the contrary, but creating an entity with such restricting qualities as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc, you create an entity that is very, if not entirely, predictable.
I am aware of the influence it had upon catholicism, and the incorporation of paganistic ideas into the faith leavening it. I am also aware of many of the pagan holidays being incorporated such as Ishtar.Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th. A traveling teacher and master, Mithras also miracles, had twelve companions, and died for mans sins only to be resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the breaking of bread and wine is involved in the memorial of this event.
Bull and cave themes are common in both faiths, venerating the patron saint of soldier. Both religions used the rite of baptism, and each participated in an outwardly similar type of sacrament, bread and wine. Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. It has been claimed that both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, though for different reasons. It is noticable that the title of "Pope" (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words "Peter" (rock) and "mass" (sacrament) have significance in Mithraism. Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were similar (though Mithraism was more dualistic), including a great and final battle at the end of times, similar to Zoroastrianism. Mithraism's flood at the beginning of history was deemed necessary because what began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. Both religions believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead.
"When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered 'participants,' and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors."[4]
I was not however aware of this, though it does shed light on constantines mas sprinkling "baptisms" of soldiers, as well as the baptism of all but the sword arm of some "christians".Both Christianity and Mithraism were popular amongst soldiers. Mithraism was largely a soldiers' cult, and under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became the patron of Roman armies. Christianity also developed a huge following in the military, and even civilian Christians began to refer to themselves as milites ("soldiers"), in reference to the disciplined life they felt called to, while those less disciplined outside the faith were called pagani, borrowing the Roman military slang for "civilians".
However I fond no scriptural justification of warmongering in the spread of the gospel.
That is subject to interpretation. While I could pull the info on mithras and do a point by point comparison ,and contrast, i personally feel no need to waste the time with it, its like comparative religion, back when i saw all of the parallells between multiple faiths, I glossed over the differences, differences such as in your comparison.Mithras had no mother, but was miraculously born of a rock, or the petra genetix. His worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross as one of seven Mithraic ritual meals.
Some writers have said that a mithraeum on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 AD. Among them John Holland Smith wrote that "Gracchus suppressed the worship of Mithras at the cave on the Vatican hill," however he cites no evidence. No Mithraeum is known on the Vatican hill and the actions of Furius Maenius Gracchus are described only by Jerome, who does not mention the location, which suggests it was a private shrine instead.
The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests ("Magi") at the Savior's birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 CE.
As you can see, the mythologies of Mithras and Jesus are nearly identicle.
- Leahey, T-H (2004). A History of Psychology: Main Currents in Psychological Thought, 6th, Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 77
- Cumont, Franz (1911). Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. pp. 191, 193
- http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer...opics/Religion/Mithraism/David_Fingrut**.html
- Larson, Martin A. (1977). The Story of Christian Origins. pp. 190.
- de Riencourt, Amaury (1974). Sex and Power in History. pp. 135.
- Smith, John Holland (1976). The Death of Classical Paganism. pp. 146.
- Platner (1929). Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.
- Jerome, Letter 107 (To Laeta) -- see discussion at Internet Infidels
- Brewster, H. Pomeroy (1904). Saints and Festivals of the Christian Church. pp. 55.
- Taylor, J.. Pythagoreans and Essenes: Structural Parallels (Collection de la Revue des Études Juives, 32). Leuven: Peeters. ISBN 90-429-1482-3.
- Wood, Ralph C.. Biography of J. R. R. Tolkien.
As I stated in my last post, if the scripture is true then that means mithras is not of God, and if its not for Christ then it is against him, and who is it that makes the author of mithras?
I am sure you will call it simplistic, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do some sort of exhaustive comparison and contrast of it, or all other religions, as I have already done so to the extent of the satisfaction of my own doubt.
not that you just doubt it.And this proves... what? That the NT is unreliable? That we should take it on faith?
As someone once told me in a reply that is a cop out, the accusation that the bible is used as a means to controll the masses is propaganda frankly, it cannot be maintained unless only 1 party has access to the scriptures themselves, like say the Jim Jones cult where he kept them away from his followers. if you believe otherwise then by all means provide some examples, but once I began to read them for myself I quickly dismissed that atheistic baseless nonsense.Doubt is a reasonable, often expected, response to extraordinary claims. Blind faith serves no purpose except coption and control of the masses.
A viewpoint you have incorporated into your world view through your indoctrination in evolution, the same could be said of our arms based on framing it through the presumptions of evolution.Technically, the forearms of the praying mantis are modified limbs.
first off i am not convinced the verse is expressly speaking of locust.That aside, are you seriously suggesting that the Hebrews considered the locust to appear to have four legs? Have you even seen one?
however using your reply about the mantis the hind legs could also be considered modified limbs.
practically anyone in the TE sub forum. if the search function went back far enough I might could pull up some names , but you could possibly search it.By whom?
I also do not recall hearing an alternative explanation for "explosive" jumps in evolution in the so called fossil record.
like I stated I have done some exploration into it ,and its notions, and found them flawed, but thats a whole other topic altogether.So the science is sound, but you just... don't like it? Absurd.
breeding could also produce the same definition, however it does not involve new genetic information, only the reshuffling of already existing information and is not evolution. as for the so called anti evolutionary stance they are affected by the very same propaganda as the pro evolution side, only they seek to limit it because that would be too much of a stretch, I however see no such distinction.This is microevolution.
1) Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a given population.
2) Populations have been observed to experiance a change in the frequency of their alleles.
3) Therefore, evolution has been observed.
Anti-evolutionists feel that there is some distinction between adaptation and speciation. This, of course, stems from the Judaeo-Christian notion of 'kinds', which is never defined.
their is more involved than just genetics, the factors are exponentially expansive, but its a whole diatribe, and I say blaaa
I was just being simplistic, as the factors are ridiculously complex.A crude analogy for the workings of relatively complex biological systems, but OK.
well one I had decided to "create" some aliens for a story a friend was working on, back when i fancied that sort of thing, and I was dissatisfied with how most aliens are portrayed as having characteristics that were not so alien, so I though I would wind the clock back to the beginning. But kept running into problems when fast forwarding the project in the absence of a preconceived system.Why would you start removing parts of an interdependent system?
Got to love how their defence of evolution hinges on the foundation that they are not explaining abiogenesis or life origin, particularly when if one investigates the problems with evolution from abiogenesis, and the flaws inherent with that , that it falls apart.I also suggest you watch this video. It is basically proof that evolution is a blind watchmaker.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Evolution-IS-a-Blind-Watchmaker
a system is an inherent requirement for evolution to even function,
I find it fundamentally flawed that evolutionist have zero problem with having a theory based upon zero foundation, (the relegation that origin does not matter to evolution) When without origin to set up and define the said syetems they believe to see evolution occuring inside of, it is merely a notion, and has little meaning, except of course to financial and busness gain, but oh that would be implying evolution has a controll nature in its propaganda, and that the spread of its belief is beneficial to many who propagate it.
again i say blaaa
http://www.videosift.com/video/Evolution-IS-a-Blind-Watchmaker
I suppose that if you are basing it on that notion then you would consider me a creationist, though I have many problems with the more popular ones. I would liken it to where I have been called a fundamentalist, and I frankly don't feel the vast majority are fundamental enough in the scriptures.Do you believe that the universe was intentionally created? If yes, then you are a Creationist. Otherwise, you are not (even if you answer, 'I don't know').
However as the scriptures tell me to only be concerned wih being called a Christian, I tend to avoid other labels.
no I just abandoned the debates of the issue,Not to be rude, but surely one must consider a stance on it's own merits, not on the behaviour of it's adherants? To disbelieve in evolutionary theory merely because some of it's adherants were mean is... daft.
I came to my conclusions independently.
or foolish, limited evidence is just that limited.It's not so much a battle of the evidences, as it is 'We have the fossils. We win'. Arrogant? Maybe, but we certainly have a right to be.
I am probably going to regret this , butIndeed. However, you misunderstand my phraseology: I deliberately used the term 'feeling' to counter epistemological claims by the Christians who say they 'know' that their faith is true. Wicca and Witchcraft offer more than just a nebulous 'freedom'. As does Christianity, in fact, but at least my faith delivers what it promises
what?
Umm... religious beliefs are something you BELIEVE in, not something you KNOW.How can someone on one hand say they know Jesus, say on the other that it is impossible to know which is the right way?
Jesus said, " I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but through me." John 14:6
Do you believe Him?