How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[KarenNC]

** I know you were saying God might just as well be “She” as a “He”. “Bisexual” was merely a silly/catchy word I used to make fun of the silliness of it.**

I invite you to show me one concrete example on any thread on this forum in which I have referred to the Christian God as She. The key in that sentence was “a God” since the discussion was about whether the claim of divine revelation was special pleading in that it only applied to the Christian God rather than to all beings described by humans as Gods. It might be more productive for the purposes of dialogue to actually read what I write and presume that I mean what I am saying instead of repeatedly telling me what I mean and believe.

I never said it was, I was referring to your belief that my position is undermined by the fact that “millions” disagree with it.

I said that that shows there is not an “existing consensus” that monotheism is the only way in which theism can and should be discussed.

** I have not “claimed” this even once, let alone “keep claiming” it.**

Then you are now saying that you do not know of an irrefutable argument for monotheism?

Sorry, I took your statements “I thought that you were asserting that the existence and nature of the polytheist “gods”, as conceived by the major polytheist religions, can be made subject to the same rational basis as the existence and nature of God as conceived by the major monotheist religions” and “The key word is “evidence”. Whether historical, philosophical, archeological, scientific or whatever, there’s plenty of it available to those who are willing to search with open minds for the truth” to mean that you believed there was a rational argument or evidential basis for monotheism that could not be answered by polytheism. I did not mean to confuse or shock you by such.

 

[KarenNC]

**And I’ll bet you just love the safe and comfortable thrill you get from being “ostracised” by those folks you obviously view as SO intellectually inferior to yourself. What horrible form does this “ostracism” take - feeling “unwelcome” at the church bingo session? **

I can’t say I “love” to have people physically turn away in a store and refuse to engage in conversation once they find you are not-Christian.

Honestly, if it were only me and my husband, it would not be a big issue. I am an adult and understood what I was letting myself in for when I finally ceased being dishonest about what I believed by trying to put on at least a nominally Christian front. People will be people and there are always those who will lash out in fear at, deride or ostracize those who are different from them in some way, regardless of the reason. It is more of a problem for me when they target my child.

I can’t say that I “love” having other families refuse to allow their children to play with my child for fear of some sort of contamination, to be barred from participation in the large majority of homeschool groups and activities (we homeschool) because I cannot sign a statement of faith saying that I believe the Bible is literally true.

I didn’t “love” having a preschooler crying because some other child’s parent at the park told her that she couldn’t play with their child because she and her parents are evil and going to burn in Hell forever.

I didn’t “love” sitting in a family gathering while my 5 year old step-nephew was being lavishly praised for going to school and telling all the other Christian kindergartners they were going to Hell because they weren’t the right kind of Christian. I don’t “love” having to tell my 6 year old child that there are certain things we don’t say around one set of her grandparents because I want them to continue to have a relationship with her.

I don’t “love” knowing that I need to be very careful about whether to involve my child in things like Girl Scouts or a class at the library that should have nothing to do with religion, because she might innocently say something that reflects that she is not Christian and be mocked or shunned. I don’t “love” having to talk to the leader of children’s groups that are by their bylaws required to be secular that we have an issue with making Resurrection Eggs as a craft or that having my 6 year old “just sit out” in the corner of the room when the group does something confessionally Christian. Note that I specifically do my best to pick groups that say they are secular to minimize this, but it still happens.

I don’t “love” having friends whose elementary school age children were repeatedly tormented on the school bus because they were not Christian.

I didn’t “love” finding this Sunday that someone had stuck a Jack Chick tract in the activity bags for the young children in our UU church, bags that are clearly labeled as being for children. It was presumably someone who was there as part of one of the groups that rents our building space during the week (this particular tract chick.com/reading/tracts/0003/0003_01.asp)). I don’t “love” knowing that she is likely to find something like that in any given public place, stuck between the pages of a library book or in the bookstore, or put in her trick or treat bag at Halloween.

These things are not representative of all Christians in our area, but unfortunately it is representative of a sizeable portion of them. We actually belong to the only inclusive homeschool group in the area, where we have Buddhists, Neopagans, Christians, agnostics, atheists, etc. I find that the diversity enriches our lives and, I hope, buffers my child against the worst of the ostracism by helping her get to know Christians who truly act “Christian.” I am trying hard not to have her grow up with a kneejerk reaction of hate, fear or even just disdain for those who are Christian. It is really hard to teach a child that just because some folks she encounters who claim a certain religion are mean, hate-filled or act like jerks doesn’t mean that all folks who claim that religion are the same.

I find that a lot of people in these international fora really don’t have a conception of exactly how Christian the American South can be and in what ways and thus the potential effects of being non-Christian in such an area. They think I am greatly overstating the case because that is not the way things are in their area of the country or the world. Here’s a link to a post that I put up in a thread a couple of months ago describing our area
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=126898&page=3 (see post #53 and #61). I will add that since that time the local newspaper has also started giving away bibles if you write in and guess the correct verse as their major promotion.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
What sarcasm?

The characteristic of “relativists” is that they can’t make decisions.

Do you disagree?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

No, I wouldn’t say that. Rather a relativist says his decision depends upon the actual situation; there is no absolute truth.

BTW, your sarcasm was evident when you captialized MAKE.

Since all decisions are provisional to a relativist, decisions are never final.

An unfinal decision is not a decision, but a “provision”.

But you’ve perfectly described the relativist as having NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS,… which is antithetical to being a Christian.

Therefore, there can be no relativist Christians, and anyone who describes himself as one is not indeed a Christian.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Petergee]

** I know you were saying God might just as well be “She” as a “He”. “Bisexual” was merely a silly/catchy word I used to make fun of the silliness of it.**

I invite you to show me one concrete example on any thread on this forum in which I have referred to the Christian God as She. The key in that sentence was “a God” since the discussion was about whether the claim of divine revelation was special pleading in that it only applied to the Christian God rather than to all beings described by humans as Gods. It might be more productive for the purposes of dialogue to actually read what I write and presume that I mean what I am saying instead of repeatedly telling me what I mean and believe.

I have never presumed otherwise, but it’s often difficult to work out what your eal position is because it seems to slip and slide all over the place. It would help if you observed the standard conventions of English: capital initials are used for proper names, not for generic nouns. As I said the “bisexual” crack was a lighthearted allusion to the silliness of your nomenclature, I certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone.

I never said it was, I was referring to your belief that my position is undermined by the fact that “millions” disagree with it.

I said that that shows there is not an “existing consensus” that monotheism is the only way in which theism can and should be discussed.

And you’re accusing me of bvelieving otherwise? What was that about putting words in others’ mouths?

** I have not “claimed” this even once, let alone “keep claiming” it.**

Then you are now saying that you do not know of an irrefutable argument for monotheism?

Again your “now” sems to imply that “before” I did know of such an argument. What was that about “read the words I said” (not the words you like to pretend that I said so that you can attack a strawman).

Sorry, I took your statements “I thought that you were asserting that the existence and nature of the polytheist “gods”, as conceived by the major polytheist religions, can be made subject to the same rational basis as the existence and nature of God as conceived by the major monotheist religions” and “The key word is “evidence”. Whether historical, philosophical, archeological, scientific or whatever, there’s plenty of it available to those who are willing to search with open minds for the truth” to mean that you believed there was a rational argument or evidential basis for monotheism that could not be answered by polytheism. I did not mean to confuse or shock you by such.

You didn’t. You only confused/shocked me when you seemed to assert first that polytheism can aswewr such arguments, then that polytheism has no need to concern itself with such arguments.

 

[Petergee]

**And I’ll bet you just love the safe and comfortable thrill you get from being “ostracised” by those folks you obviously view as SO intellectually inferior to yourself. What horrible form does this “ostracism” take - feeling “unwelcome” at the church bingo session? **

I can’t say I “love” to have people physically turn away in a store and refuse to engage in conversation once they find you are not-Christian.

I’m pretty sure the USA has no law that says you have a right to demand that any other people you choose must engage in conversation with you, and that any other child you choose must come to your house to play with your child.

And i’d guess that people’s reluctance to do this has less to do with your not being Christian and more to do with the religion that you have and your aggressive propagation of it.

to be barred from participation in the large majority of homeschool groups and activities (we homeschool) because I cannot sign a statement of faith saying that I believe the Bible is literally true.

No Catholic could sign such a statement either. As I’ve never heard them complain about this here or elsewhere, I conclude that this must be an extremely rare situation even in the “Deep South” of the USA. (We have plenty of people from there on this forum.) Certainly the evidence worldwide is that Christians and especially Catholics are 100 times more often the victims of bigotry, unfair discrimination, ostracism, hatred and violence, than they are the perpetrators of it on non-Catholics.

I don’t “love” having to tell my 6 year old child that there are certain things we don’t say around one set of her grandparents because I want them to continue to have a relationship with her.

Welcome to the world that millions of Catholics and other Christians face from relatives who are anti-Christian/anti-Catholic bigots. Deal with it.

I don’t “love” knowing that I need to be very careful about whether to involve my child in things like Girl Scouts or a class at the library that should have nothing to do with religion, because she might innocently say something that reflects that she is not Christian and be mocked or shunned. I don’t “love” having to talk to the leader of children’s groups that are by their bylaws required to be secular that we have an issue with making Resurrection Eggs as a craft or that having my 6 year old “just sit out” in the corner of the room when the group does something confessionally Christian. Note that I specifically do my best to pick groups that say they are secular to minimize this, but it still happens…the local newspaper has also started giving away bibles if you write in and guess the correct verse as their major promotion.

Look up “secular”. It does NOT mean “should have nothing to do with religion”.

I don’t “love” knowing that she is likely to find something like that in any given public place, stuck between the pages of a library book or in the bookstore, or put in her trick or treat bag at Halloween.

If you ease up on the paranoia and check, you’ll probably find that these people distribute such tracts everywhere and in the bag of EVERY kid who they meet at Halloween; it’s got nothing to do with your daughter’s religion, much less her unChristianity.

I am trying hard not to have her grow up with a kneejerk reaction of hate, fear or even just disdain for those who are Christian.

You could help by finding out what we actually believe so that you can stop misrepresenting our beliefs, and not confusing her by describing your “religion” as a “church”.

 

[Petergee]

**Descending to your level of silliness would be for me to say "Christians believe God is a Trinity, therefore the ancient Greek “gods” and “goddesses” must have each been “trinities”! **

That would truly be absurd, agreed, for there is no evidence of such. That particular bit of mental gymnastics seems reserved to Christians.

Perhaps you should devote some of your considerable argumentative energy towards pointing out this fact to the large numbers of your fellow “polytheist neo-pagans” who like to claim that Christians “stole” the concept of the Trinity from pagans.

 

[KarenNC]

Perhaps you should devote some of your considerable argumentative energy towards pointing out this fact to the large numbers of your fellow “polytheist neo-pagans” who like to claim that Christians “stole” the concept of the Trinity from pagans.

I do. Unfortunately, the Neopagan community is no more immune to poor history and the perpetuation of out of date scholarship than the Christian one is (step into any Christian bookstore or look at any “New Age” section of a bookstore).

 

[KarenNC]

I’m pretty sure the USA has no law that says you have a right to demand that any other people you choose must engage in conversation with you, and that any other child you choose must come to your house to play with your child.

You asked the form the ostracism could take. I gave examples.

**And i’d guess that people’s reluctance to do this has less to do with your not being Christian and more to do with the religion that you have and your aggressive propagation of it. **

In what way do you judge that I aggressively propagate it? By the fact that I engage in discussion when the subject comes up on the non-Catholic religions board of this forum, a place designed specifically to provide information about non-Catholic religions? I have never attempted to convert a single person to my religion. Provided information about it to combat misinformation, certainly, but I do not proselytize. I am under no religious obligation to do so.

How does “the religion that I have” differ from “not being Christian?” Also note that Catholics (and others these folks consider non-Christian since they don’t believe Catholics are Christians) have experienced similar treatment here, at least in the past. The religious diversity is growing, so that things are slowly improving and a more tolerant attitude is working its way out from the city proper into the surrounding area.

**No Catholic could sign such a statement either. As I’ve never heard them complain about this here or elsewhere, I conclude that this must be an extremely rare situation even in the “Deep South” of the USA. (We have plenty of people from there on this forum.) **

It is not a rare situation here. Out of the 10 or so homeschool associations in our metropolitan area (many with membership that measures in the hundreds), I know of 2 that do not require a statement of faith to join, and they are both small (50 or so families). It is more likely that you simply have not engaged in conversation with many Catholic homeschoolers from the area on the subject. Unless you are a homeschooler yourself, it is less likely to have come up. I don’t know how many Catholic homeschoolers we have in the area. I have only encountered one so far and, as she was a member of such a group, presumably she felt able to sign the statement. Many may instead have chosen to put their children into Catholic school.

**Certainly the evidence worldwide is that Christians and especially Catholics are 100 times more often the victims of bigotry, unfair discrimination, ostracism, hatred and violence, than they are the perpetrators of it on non-Catholics.
Welcome to the world that millions of Catholics and other Christians face from relatives who are anti-Christian/anti-Catholic bigots. Deal with it. **

I am “dealing with it” by trying to correct misinformation. Does it make it more desirable or acceptable that it happens to others? Until about 30 years ago, we had extremely few Catholics in this area, as well as extremely few Jews, frankly few anything other than Protestant Christians. I believe we should all be working together to end this sort of behavior, not just tolerate it.

My religion does not teach that there is any particular virtue in simply tolerating bigotry, hatred, discrimination or other negative behavior. It is never acceptable.

Look up “secular”. It does NOT mean “should have nothing to do with religion”.

m-w.com/dictionary/secular, definition 1b
“not overtly or specifically religious.”

** If you ease up on the paranoia and check, you’ll probably find that these people distribute such tracts everywhere and in the bag of EVERY kid who they meet at Halloween; it’s got nothing to do with your daughter’s religion, much less her unChristianity. **

If they are doing it to many people, how does that make me paranoid? Does that make it right or more acceptable that it happens to others? No, you are right, they also target other Christian children. If they felt that everyone believed as they did, they would not give it out to anyone.

You could help by finding out what we actually believe so that you can stop misrepresenting our beliefs, and not confusing her by describing your “religion” as a “church”.

We belong to the Unitarian Universalist Church and are very active members. It is part of the legal name and definition and is accepted as such by the US government for tax purposes. I have no qualms about using the term.

 

[Petergee]

I do. Unfortunately, the Neopagan community is no more immune to poor history and the perpetuation of out of date scholarship than the Christian one is (step into any Christian bookstore or look at any “New Age” section of a bookstore).

You seem to think “New Age” is a type of Christianity. On the contrary. It is anti-Christian. “New Agers” could more accurately be described as “Neo-Pagan”.

 

[Petergee]

**And i’d guess that people’s reluctance to do this has less to do with your not being Christian and more to do with the religion that you have and your aggressive propagation of it. **

In what way do you judge that I aggressively propagate it? By the fact that I engage in discussion when the subject comes up on the non-Catholic religions board of this forum, a place designed specifically to provide information about non-Catholic religions? I have never attempted to convert a single person to my religion. Provided information about it to combat misinformation, certainly, but I do not proselytize. I am under no religious obligation to do so.

More the overall tone of your comments here, which I assume you reproduce IRL. And you seem keen to promote misinformation about Christianity.

How does “the religion that I have” differ from “not being Christian?”

There are many more religions than Christianity and neo-paganism. I’m sure you would find far less “ostracism” if you were a Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, agnostic or virtually anything except “neo-pagan”.

**No Catholic could sign such a statement either. As I’ve never heard them complain about this here or elsewhere, I conclude that this must be an extremely rare situation even in the “Deep South” of the USA. (We have plenty of people from there on this forum.) **
It is not a rare situation here. Out of the 10 or so homeschool associations in our metropolitan area (many with membership that measures in the hundreds), I know of 2 that do not require a statement of faith to join, and they are both small (50 or so families). It is more likely that you simply have not engaged in conversation with many Catholic homeschoolers from the area on the subject. Unless you are a homeschooler yourself, it is less likely to have come up. I don’t know how many Catholic homeschoolers we have in the area. I have only encountered one so far and, as she was a member of such a group, presumably she felt able to sign the statement. Many may instead have chosen to put their children into Catholic school.

Isn’t it obvious that, as the majority of the population is Christian, the majority of those who choose to homeschool do so because they are dissatisfied with the anti-Christian atmosphere of US public schools? So naturally the majority of homeschooling groups will have a Christian ethos. And unfortunately due to the US’s appallingly discriminatory schools funding policies, the great majority of Catholics in your country simply can’t afford to send their kids to Catholic schools.

**Certainly the evidence worldwide is that Christians and especially Catholics are 100 times more often the victims of bigotry, unfair discrimination, ostracism, hatred and violence, than they are the perpetrators of it on non-Catholics.
Welcome to the world that millions of Catholics and other Christians face from relatives who are anti-Christian/anti-Catholic bigots. Deal with it. **
I am “dealing with it” by trying to correct misinformation. Does it make it more desirable or acceptable that it happens to others?

No, I am just pointing out the big picture to counter your exaggeration of one tiny piece of Christian bigotry as if it was typical or common.

Look up “secular”. It does NOT mean “should have nothing to do with religion”.
m-w.com/dictionary/secular, definition 1b
“not overtly or specifically religious.”

“secular” excludes the “specifically” religious, but it does NOT mean “expunging any trace of anything suggestive of religion”. There is no contradiction with eg with a secular newspaper printing Bible quotes or non-sectarian prayers, or even columns by representatives of specific religions provided they are identified as such.

** If you ease up on the paranoia and check, you’ll probably find that these people distribute such tracts everywhere and in the bag of EVERY kid who they meet at Halloween; it’s got nothing to do with your daughter’s religion, much less her unChristianity. **

If they are doing it to many people, how does that make me paranoid?

You gave it as an example of the “ostracism” you supposedly face for being non-christian/neo-pagan.

You could help by finding out what we actually believe so that you can stop misrepresenting our beliefs, and not confusing her by describing your “religion” as a “church”.

We belong to the Unitarian Universalist Church and are very active members. It is part of the legal name and definition and is accepted as such by the US government for tax purposes. I have no qualms about using the term.

Many of us have qualms about a lot of things the US government does. It is very dangerous to use the rulings of the US government as a spiritual guide. A “church” by definition is Christian, just as a mosque is Moslem and a synagogue is Jewish.

 

[eliasaph99]

KarenNC,

Why didn’t your gods save the Greeks who worshipped them from Roman domination?

Where are they now?

 

[KarenNC]

You seem to think “New Age” is a type of Christianity. On the contrary. It is anti-Christian. “New Agers” could more accurately be described as “Neo-Pagan”.

Re-read my post. I was referring to two different sections, as I was referring to two communities.

 

[KarenNC]

KarenNC,
Why didn’t your gods save the Greeks who worshipped them from Roman domination?
Where are they now?

So your basis for believing in the existence of a God depends on whether or not a particular side wins in a war? Does that mean that if a Christian country were to lose a war to a non-Christian country, the Christian God would be proved not to exist or would cease to exist? Only in that country or world-wide? Do you believe that the Christian God ceased to exist or was less “real” because Eastern Europe was Communist?

Where are who now, specifically?

 

[KarenNC]

More the overall tone of your comments here, which I assume you reproduce IRL. And you seem keen to promote misinformation about Christianity.

In what way do I seem “keen to promote misinformation about Christianity?”

How does the “overall tone” of my comments equate to “aggressively propagating” my religion (by which I presume you mean proselytizing) rather than providing information about it?

**There are many more religions than Christianity and neo-paganism. I’m sure you would find far less “ostracism” if you were a Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, agnostic or virtually anything except “neo-pagan”. **

True, there are. As to the latter, not necessarily, not in this neck of the woods and not by the folks I mentioned. Anyone other than their particular brand of Protestant Christian (even Catholics and other Protestants) are not fit to associate with and are damned to Hell.

** Isn’t it obvious that, as the majority of the population is Christian, the majority of those who choose to homeschool do so because they are dissatisfied with the anti-Christian atmosphere of US public schools?**

Not really. To provide religious instruction was only cited by 30% of homeschoolers as one of their reasons for homeschooling in the following survey
nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp

Interesting. I had no idea Australia used public funds to support Catholic schools and at least some private schools. Does it support other religious schools as well, say Protestant Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc?

Other than that, I am not sure how this relates. I said that rather than presume that because you have not encountered complaints on this forum, Catholic homeschoolers had difficulty with signing a statement of faith to join a group meant such a requirement was a rare event here, one might instead consider the possibility that 1) you have not had extensive contact with Catholic homeschoolers living in my area and they do indeed have a problem, 2) that the Catholic homeschoolers here don’t have a problem with signing or 3) that not very many Catholics in my area choose to homeschool, so it is not a big issue for them.

**No, I am just pointing out the big picture to counter your exaggeration of one tiny piece of Christian bigotry as if it was typical or common. **

I related personal experiences. If a bus hits you and you say so, it is not an exaggeration and it doesn’t matter to your situation whether it is typical or common for buses to strike people. It happened and it affected your life. I believe I took pains to say that I did not, in fact, consider such behavior to be representative of all Christians, to be representative of the experiences of all non-Christians, not even all those living in the US, nor did I ever say the folks who did this were Catholic.

** There is no contradiction with eg with a secular newspaper printing Bible quotes or non-sectarian prayers, or even columns by representatives of specific religions provided they are identified as such.**

No there isn’t. It’s a contradiction when a group that advertises itself as non-religious and accepts state funding under that condition provides religious programming specific to one religion only and tells others they can “just sit out.” If they had been honest and said upfront that they were a Christian-specific organization, I would not have had a problem with it and would have simply looked elsewhere. I would have the same concerns if the religious programming in such a situation were Neopagan, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu.

**You gave it as an example of the “ostracism” you supposedly face for being non-christian/neo-pagan. **

Please grant me the respect to admit that I am probably a better judge of what happens to me than you are, living on the other side of the world in an entirely different country and culture and having never met me.

** Many of us have qualms about a lot of things the US government does. It is very dangerous to use the rulings of the US government as a spiritual guide.**

So do I and I don’t do so.

** A “church” by definition is Christian, just as a mosque is Moslem and a synagogue is Jewish.**

May be the most common definition, but it is not the only one. It’s what’s on the sign in front of our building, so I’ll go with it, thanks.

Merriam Webster online
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers:
c : CONGREGATION
4 : a public divine worship

and Congregation is further defined as
1 a : an assembly of persons : GATHERING; especially : an assembly of persons met for worship and religious instruction b : a religious community: as (1) : an organized body of believers in a particular locality

 

[Mr.Bee]

No, I said that polytheism need not answer the ontological argument because not even monotheists consider it to be a valid argument for monotheism vs. polytheism, so it poses no obstacle to polytheism. This is the gist of the argument in Greer’s book regarding the ontological argument.

There’s something that is bothering me about this statement. You are saying that polytheism doesn’t need to answer the arguement on the bandwagon principal, since nobody is answering the question I don’t have to either.

The obstacle to polytheism seems to be that there needs to be one final decision maker for the universe, I can’t imagine we are all being run by committee, I’ve seen many business decisions made by “groupthink”… It doesn’t work, I don’t think God has a corporate mentality.

 

[Valke2]

There’s something that is bothering me about this statement. You are saying that polytheism doesn’t need to answer the arguement on the bandwagon principal, since nobody is answering the question I don’t have to either.

The obstacle to polytheism seems to be that there needs to be one final decision maker for the universe, I can’t imagine we are all being run by committee, I’ve seen many business decisions made by “groupthink”… It doesn’t work, I don’t think God has a corporate mentality.

Which is why you are not a polytheist. However, I’ve seen many successful corporations, and all of them have committees.

On the other hand, perhaps the world has the problems it has because it is, in fact, being run by committee.

On the other hand, perhaps the gods don’t consult each other and their actions are independent of what the others want or agree to, and that is why the world is like it is.

On the other hand…

 

[Petergee]

More the overall tone of your comments here, which I assume you reproduce IRL. And you seem keen to promote misinformation about Christianity.

In what way do I seem “keen to promote misinformation about Christianity?”

Just in this thread you’ve indulged in several instances of gross misinformation about Catholicism, which you could have easily checked on this very site.

How does the “overall tone” of my comments equate to “aggressively propagating” my religion (by which I presume you mean proselytizing) rather than providing information about it?

I gathered you would disagree. I guess we’ll have to leave it to others to read your posts and judge your tone for themselves.

**There are many more religions than Christianity and neo-paganism. I’m sure you would find far less “ostracism” if you were a Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, agnostic or virtually anything except “neo-pagan”. **

True, there are. As to the latter, not necessarily, not in this neck of the woods and not by the folks I mentioned. Anyone other than their particular brand of Protestant Christian (even Catholics and other Protestants) are not fit to associate with and are damned to Hell.

Then your use of it as an illustration of how generic “Christians” ostracise you, supposedly because you are nonChristian, is mistaken.

** Isn’t it obvious that, as the majority of the population is Christian, the majority of those who choose to homeschool do so because they are dissatisfied with the anti-Christian atmosphere of US public schools?**

Not really. To provide religious instruction was only cited by 30% of homeschoolers as one of their reasons for homeschooling in the following survey
nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_4.asp

I imagine many more refrain from mentioning it because they are afraid it would bring the govt down on their backs. If it’s anything like ours it already has a huge derry on homeschoolers.

Interesting. I had no idea Australia used public funds to support Catholic schools and at least some private schools. Does it support other religious schools as well, say Protestant Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc?

AFAIK every developed country does with the exception of yours.

Quote:
If you ease up on the paranoia and check, you’ll probably find that these people distribute such tracts everywhere and in the bag of EVERY kid who they meet at Halloween; it’s got nothing to do with your daughter’s religion, much less her unChristianity.

If they are doing it to many people, how does that make me paranoid?
**You gave it as an example of the “ostracism” you supposedly face for being non-christian/neo-pagan. **

Please grant me the respect to admit that I am probably a better judge of what happens to me than you are, living on the other side of the world in an entirely different country and culture and having never met me.

No one’s disputing your account of what happened to you. I am merely pointing out that it didn’t happen to you specifically because you are non-Christian or neo pagan and that such things are far, far more commony directed specifically at Christians than at neopagans or any other religion.

** A “church” by definition is Christian, just as a mosque is Moslem and a synagogue is Jewish.**

May be the most common definition, but it is not the only one. It’s what’s on the sign in front of our building, so I’ll go with it, thanks.

Merriam Webster online
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers:
c : CONGREGATION
4 : a public divine worship

OK if you want duelling dictionaries: Australian Contemporary Dictionary: church n.“a building for Christian worship; collective body of Christians; a denomination or sect of the Christian religion; the clergy; the church service.”(there are no other meanings given)

Btw this has been upheld in law in one case I know of where a Court ruled that a mosque cannot be built on a piece of land which had been “reserved for a church”.

This is probably a major reason why people find your sect objectionable, because whilst you affect to totally reject Christianity root and branch, you simultaneously adopt wholesale Christian theology, terminology etc and apply it to your religion.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eliasaph99 View Post
KarenNC,
Why didn’t your gods save the Greeks who worshipped them from Roman domination?
Where are they now?

So your basis for believing in the existence of a God depends on whether or not a particular side wins in a war? Does that mean that if a Christian country were to lose a war to a non-Christian country, the Christian God would be proved not to exist or would cease to exist? Only in that country or world-wide? Do you believe that the Christian God ceased to exist or was less “real” because Eastern Europe was Communist?

Where are who now, specifically?

No, but if Christianity totally disappeared for 1600 years and then had a supposed “revival”, there is no way I would believe in the truth of it.

You take the arguments of Aquinas, based on the Greek philosophers who had rejected polytheism as irrational more than 1500 years earlier, and attempt to twist them to prove polytheism. Sorry, but that just screams “humbug”.

 

[KarenNC]

There’s something that is bothering me about this statement. You are saying that polytheism doesn’t need to answer the arguement on the bandwagon principal, since nobody is answering the question I don’t have to either.

The discussion began because I mentioned to Everyman, IIRC, a book that looks at the classical arguments for theism and says that polytheism meets them as well as monotheism does, despite Western claims to the contrary (ie that only monotheism answers them adequately). Since that particular argument doesn’t hold up even for monotheism (which it purports to prove), I don’t see that polytheism must defend itself against it. The argument fails on it owns merits.

The obstacle to polytheism seems to be that there needs to be one final decision maker for the universe, I can’t imagine we are all being run by committee, I’ve seen many business decisions made by “groupthink”… It doesn’t work, I don’t think God has a corporate mentality.

Oh, I think it explains a great deal about the universe. Without trying to reconcile everything to a single omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, one has much less trouble comprehending why there might be evil in the world, why suffering exists, why people describe vastly different religious experiences, etc.

 

[KarenNC]

Which is why you are not a polytheist. However, I’ve seen many successful corporations, and all of them have committees.

On the other hand, perhaps the world has the problems it has because it is, in fact, being run by committee.

On the other hand, perhaps the gods don’t consult each other and their actions are independent of what the others want or agree to, and that is why the world is like it is.

On the other hand…

You’re on the right track