How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[KarenNC]

**Absolute nonsense. This is a lie invented by late-19th century antiChristian secularists, and promoted in a slightly different form by anti-Catholic “liberal” protestants: that people of the ancient and middle ages were ignorant anti-scientific morons who though they lived on a flat earth with the stars holes in a screen just a few miles away and God and the angels and saints sitting on clouds. Unfortunately many today are woefully ignorant of history and believe this lie. In fact modern science was founded upon principles deduced from Catholicism. I doubt if anyone in Christendom, even the most ignorant illiterate peasant, would have ever believed what you claim “early Christians” believed. eg the Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy (yes one of those ancient Greeks who realised how irrational polytheism is), which was the standard astronomy textbook in Christendom for more than a millennium, states in Chapter 1, “In relation to the distance of the stars, the earth has no appreciable size and must be treated as a locus (a mathematical point)”. **

Certainly there were philosophical schools in the late Hellenistic period who were moving toward a form of monism or monotheism. I have never disputed that.

I don’t believe I said that they all believed the Earth was flat. I did assert that they did not have a modern understanding of cosmology, geography, astronomy, etc. I also said that modern Christians are not limited to the scientific understanding of their forebears, why should they expect that those of another religion should be.
cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/geography/form.html
luminarium.org/encyclopedia/medievalcosmology.htm

I concede, medieval Christians thought that the stars were not necessarily holes in the fabric of the heavens, but that they were hung on or fixed to the spheres, though the idea did exist
honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/Programs/p4/p4.html
press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7785.pdf

Note that I do understand that much of the Medieval worldview of science was based on the ancient Greeks. I don’t claim that they had a perfect understanding of the cosmos, nor that we do today.

**Whoa, first you say you want us to apply the same considerations to your religion that we apply to Christianity. Then you say you DON’T want us to consider your religion’s myths the way we consider our Scriptures. **

I am saying that you are incorrect if you believe that the ancients (or modern polytheists for that matter) held the same beliefs about their myths that Christianity (or other revealed religion) holds about its scriptures.

**Certainly we can see that many of the Greek myths teach moral lessons or comment on the human situation. But all mainstream Christians believe that if Scripture says something happened, it DID happen, it’s not just a myth. Moreover the historical, archeological etc evidence supports this in many ways. **

No, not all mainstream Christians are Biblical literalists, which is what I was discussing. rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm says that, at least in the US, fewer Catholics believe that than Protestants.

Myths are not fairy tales made up to please children. They are vehicles for conveying very important truths about the way in which a society believes one must live to be properly human (how we should relate to each other) and the way in which one should relate to that which is beyond human understanding. I am not trivializing anything when I speak of it as a myth or mythic, quite the opposite, really.

 

[KarenNC]

KarenNC “pretends” to believe in her (?) gods, and wants us to to admit that we pretend to believe in our God.

No, I acknowledge that you believe in your God. I state that I do not. I ask that you admit that I actually believe in my Gods. I don’t require that you believe in them as well. While I consider your belief that your God is the only one mistaken, it is not a threat to my belief in or the existence of my Gods that you hold that belief.

Problem is that we DO believe in our God, and she’s annoyed that we are better “believers” (or at least think we are) than she is.

How do you quantify belief? What is the measurable scale I purportedly use?

(( Neopagans were not once-upon-time pagans. They were once non-pagans, and are now anti-Christians. Neopagan actually means anti-Christian. ))

You might want a new dictionary.

Neo means “new.” If by “once-upon-time pagan” you mean that I believe I am practicing my religion exactly as an ancient Greek would, then you are incorrect (if you mean something else by the phrase, you will have to clarify). I fully acknowledge that I am not practicing the Hellenic religion in exactly the way that an ancient Athenian might have. I am not an ancient Athenian. I don’t claim that there is any unbroken history between the ancients and myself religiously.

I am not anti-Christian. I am non-Christian. There is a difference.

Certainly many who identify as Neopagans grew up in a Christian religion, but many others grew up in other religions or in no religion at all. If someone converts from Protestant to Catholic Christian, should I describe them as an “anti-Protestant” or as a “Catholic?” If from Judaism, are they an “anti-Jew” rather than a Catholic?

I prefer to define myself in terms of what I do believe rather than that which I do not (for one thing it takes too long to say I am a non-Muslim, non-Hindu, non-Jain, non-Jew, non-Heathen, non-Wiccan, non-Mormon, non-JW, non-Sikh, non-Christian, etc not to mention the lengths to which I would have to go if I were to include all the sects of the various religions I am not–doesn’t fit well into boxes on forms )

 

[KarenNC]

So what have you done with Ares, the ancient Hellenic war-god? I’m sure that both the polytheists and the anti-polytheists among the ancient Greeks would have thought it ridiculous to assert that some of their gods are real whilst others are myths.

And why choose the Hellenic gods anyway, out of all the dozens of polytheistic belief-systems? Are you of Greek extraction?

I haven’t “done” anything with Ares. I am sure there are Hellenic Neopagan soldiers and others who are in situations of battle and strife who do worship Him. My life does not bring me into His sphere of influence. That does not mean that I believe He is less “real” than the Ones with whom I do have a specific relationship.

No, I am not of Greek extraction. They are the Ones whose stories speak to my soul, the Ones in whose worship I feel I have come home. I am sure that anyone who has talked to a convert to any religion is aware of the existence of that feeling.

In Judaism (at least in some forms), there is the concept that a Jewish soul may be born into a Gentile body and that the convert is simply that soul “coming home” to where it has always belonged. Perhaps I have a Hellenic soul in that sense. I know that I have had these impulses to this form of worship and experiences with these Gods at minimum since I was 10 years old, a point at which I was totally immersed in a very actively Christian family, society and worldview. I struggled for many, many years in attempts to make my experiences of divinity fit into any version of the Christian mold, because I did not think there was any other available, to no avail. I finally decided that it was time to stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I actually did try to fit into a Celtic and into a Germanic polytheism (I am of Germanic, Scottish, English, etc extraction), but none of them spoke to me at all despite my best efforts. It is the Gods of my cultural heritage (Western civilization is firmly based on Greco-Roman foundations) that I found my place.

 

[Mr.Bee]

I am not anti-Christian. I am non-Christian. There is a difference.

:banghead:

 

[KarenNC]

But respectfully, do you realize that all of these gods are answerable to a higher authority, (at least that is what I believe)

I fully understand that you believe all of that. Try to understand that I do not, and that my belief is grounded in thoughtful study, deep soul-searching, much reflection and concrete personal experience. My religion is not a philosophical or mental exercise. It is not a whim, an adolescent cry for attention, something with which to shock my parents (in my mid 40s is a bit late for that ), an attempt to bend reality to my preference, a convenience or a protest against anyone else’s religion. It is a daily reality that sustains me and gives meaning to my life.

 

[KarenNC]

OK that was hyperbole. You pretend to be Christian when you see an advantage to being Christian, yet ostentatiously condemn Christianity when the tide’s flowing that way.

Sorry, in re-reading your post, I realized that you meant Unitarian Universalism instead of me, personally. No. The UU church does not pretend to be Christian, though it certainly acknowledges that it grew out of liberal Christianity.

www.uua.org

 

[Mr.Bee]

I fully understand that you believe all of that. Try to understand that I do not, and that my belief is grounded in thoughtful study, deep soul-searching, much reflection and concrete personal experience. My religion is not a philosophical or mental exercise. It is not a whim, an adolescent cry for attention, something with which to shock my parents (in my mid 40s is a bit late for that ), an attempt to bend reality to my preference, a convenience or a protest against anyone else’s religion. It is a daily reality that sustains me and gives meaning to my life.

Okay.

 

[eliasaph99]

Myths are not fairy tales made up to please children. They are vehicles for conveying very important truths about the way in which a society believes one must live to be properly human (how we should relate to each other) and the way in which one should relate to that which is beyond human understanding. I am not trivializing anything when I speak of it as a myth or mythic, quite the opposite, really.

The myths of the ancients were not meant to portray a moral or desirable method of life. Many of them did teach lessons, and those that teach lessons that are compatible with the morality derived from Christianity have been adapted and retold in our culture.

However, to state that the Grecian stories about their gods were understood by the Greeks only as moral lessons is false. They explained how the universe came to exist, where the gods came from, how the current gods came into power, etc. There are many Grecian myths that do not even attempt any type of moral lesson, but simply relate some supposed historical event in the life of a god or the gods. A good example of this is the story of the Titan War which the Greek pantheon waged against the Titans (the children of Uranus) who ruled the world before them. The story does not have as its main objective, the communication of a moral lesson. The main objective is to tell the tale of how Zeus came to rule the sky, Poseidon the sea, etc.

Another example is the banishment of Persephone to the underworld for three months every year. This story doesn’t relate any moral teaching, but instead attempts to expain the seasons as the expression of the emotional state of Persephones mother.

I feel it necessary to ask you my question again. I truly feel that you are avoiding answering it. So, here it is again:

Where are your gods? Where do they live?

 

[Petergee]

Sorry, in re-reading your post, I realized that you meant Unitarian Universalism instead of me, personally. No. The UU church does not pretend to be Christian, though it certainly acknowledges that it grew out of liberal Christianity.

www.uua.org

Reading the history of your association, it obviously ceased to be a church in 1961 at the latest, so should stop identifying itself as one. It also is plainly neither unitarian nor universalist in the senses in which everybody but itself uses those words. It’s always a bad sign when an organisation calls itself by a name which does not honestly describe what it is, but disguises and even plainly contradicts its true nature. (Another e.g. “Popular Democratic Republic”.)

 

[Keikiolu]

KarenNC “pretends” to believe in her (?) gods, and wants us to to admit that we pretend to believe in our God.

No, I acknowledge that you believe in your God. I state that I do not. I ask that you admit that I actually believe in my Gods. I don’t require that you believe in them as well. While I consider your belief that your God is the only one mistaken, it is not a threat to my belief in or the existence of my Gods that you hold that belief.

Where we differ is in our meaning of the word “believe”.

Christians do not believe in people (characters) that are not persons (actual personalities).

You believe in people (characters) who are “personifications of principles” (derived personalities).

You put your gods on the same “level” as our God, as if our God were just one of the gods that “achieved primacy”.

That is a basic misunderstanding of our faith.

Problem is that we DO believe in our God, and she’s annoyed that we are better “believers” (or at least think we are) than she is.

How do you quantify belief? What is the measurable scale I purportedly use?

Your quality of belief is of the order of belief in the tooth-fairy. I actually do believe in the tooth-fairy, as a personification of parental love, and a lovely childish (not childlike) story and ritual that maintains the mystery of childhood during childhood.

You can not believe as we believe in our God, simply because you can’t accept the validity that there IS only one God, and that acceptance is required to possess that form of belief.

You can’t drive a car, if you don’t have a car.

You have only a bunch of bicycles. You drive bicycles, not a car.

(( Neopagans were not once-upon-time pagans. They were once non-pagans, and are now anti-Christians. Neopagan actually means anti-Christian. ))

You might want a new dictionary.

Neo means “new.” If by “once-upon-time pagan” you mean that I believe I am practicing my religion exactly as an ancient Greek would, then you are incorrect (if you mean something else by the phrase, you will have to clarify).

If you say so.

My contention is that neo-paganism is simply (or complexly) a counter reaction to Christianity.

I’m not going to change your mind. You’re not ging to change mine. So it’s best that we just live with our basic premises.

I fully acknowledge that I am not practicing the Hellenic religion in exactly the way that an ancient Athenian might have. I am not an ancient Athenian. I don’t claim that there is any unbroken history between the ancients and myself religiously.

I am not anti-Christian. I am non-Christian. There is a difference

Certainly many who identify as Neopagans grew up in a Christian religion, but many others grew up in other religions or in no religion at all.

What society did you grow up in? (country and time period)

If you grew up in a “western counrty” within the last 50 years, your societal milieu was Christian.

Neopaganism is a juvenile rebellion against one’s social milieu, and most likely against the perceived “oppression” (parentalness) of “the patriarchy” (dominant society) and/or actual parents.

Once again, that is my belief, which you won’t change, and which I don’t expect you to agree with.

Continued below…

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

**If someone converts … “anti-Protestant” or as a “Catholic?” If from Judaism, are they an “anti-Jew”…? **

Ex-protestants are Christians who have finally figured out that they need the fullness of their faith, and rejoined.

Jews are God fearing folk who never figured out that the fullness of the faith (in God) was to be a part of Jesus’ Church, who finally DID figure it out…!! (yeah!)

Neopagans are not God fearing folks, who think that their inventions can substitute for God.

By definition, anyone who promotes idol worship (gods) is anti-Christian.

People are not an anti-Christian simply because they aren’t Christians,… they are only anti-Christian if they exhibit behaviors that are utterly opposed by Christianity.

I prefer to define myself in terms of what I do believe rather than that which I do not (for one thing it takes too long to say … {and it} doesn’t fit well into boxes on forms )

What do you believe?

“Neopagan” simply means “new pagan”, and pagans were the uneducated (through no fault of their own) who haven’t come to believe the truth.

You’ve intellectualized your “pagan-ness” into a firm and unconquerable fortress of “conviction”.

I’m not going to convince you of a single thing, which is cool, and you’re not going to convince me of anything either.

Best of luck to you in your “freaky” religious journey (I like to “jab” folks that I respect for their intellectual prowess), and we’ll always be here when you grow up.

Is that “charitable”…!? Heck, yeah,…! If she takes that as an assault on her person, as opposed to my perception of her goofy religion, then she’s not as “adult” as I give her credit for.

If she doesn’t take offense, then she knows her person is valuable and lovable and worth being prodded into correctness, and she’ll smack be back with a good heart as we mutually wave at each other as we leave out of our opposing doorways.

Best to 'ya, kiddo…!

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

 

[KarenNC]

** You believe in people (characters) who are “personifications of principles” (derived personalities).**

No, I don’t believe that my Gods are “personifications of principles,” “derived personalities” nor that they are merely aspects of a single God or imperfect attempts at describing the Christian God. They are real, discrete entities. Now I do not dispute that there are many Neopagans whose beliefs about their deities are different than mine.

You put your gods on the same “level” as our God, as if our God were just one of the gods that “achieved primacy”.

I don’t believe that your God achieved primacy.

That is a basic misunderstanding of our faith.

No, I fully understand that you believe that your God is not only primary, but the only one there is. I do not agree.

Your quality of belief is of the order of belief in the tooth-fairy. I actually do believe in the tooth-fairy, as a personification of parental love, and a lovely childish (not childlike) story and ritual that maintains the mystery of childhood during childhood.

No, I’m perfectly capable of distinguishing between stories for children and the Gods whose reality I experience. For the record, I don’t believe that the tooth-fairy is anything but a pleasant fiction and game, certainly not the “personification of parental love.”

You can not believe as we believe in our God, simply because you can’t accept the validity that there IS only one God, and that acceptance is required to possess that form of belief.

This is not a difference in quality of belief. It is a difference in focus of worship and the attendant strictures that a particular focus requires.

You can’t drive a car, if you don’t have a car.
You have only a bunch of bicycles. You drive bicycles, not a car.

A more apt analogy would be that you claim that a car is not only the best, but in fact the only, way in which one can move about (and a particular make and model of car at that). That only that car really exists and that trains, planes, bicycles, motorcycles, boats, spacecraft, hot air balloons, hanggliders, parachutes, gliders, ultralights, skateboards, scooters, tricycles, etc do not exist, but are only delusions, despite the fact that other people claim to have used these for transportation on a daily basis.

My contention is that neo-paganism is simply (or complexly) a counter reaction to Christianity.

And I disagree.

I’m not going to change your mind. You’re not ging to change mine. So it’s best that we just live with our basic premises.

Likely true.

cont.

 

[KarenNC]

**What society did you grow up in? (country and time period). If you grew up in a “western counrty” within the last 50 years, your societal milieu was Christian.

Neopaganism is a juvenile rebellion against one’s social milieu, and most likely against the perceived “oppression” (parentalness) of “the patriarchy” (dominant society) and/or actual parents.

Once again, that is my belief, which you won’t change, and which I don’t expect you to agree with. **

True, I am not likely to change the opinion of someone who has no interest in hearing the experiences of a person who is actually involved in a different situation with the idea that s/he may learn something one did not know before. I have to say that I have learned an incredible amount about Catholicism from my time here (I have only known a handful of Catholics before to the.extent of having religious conversations of this depth). I can’t say that I have ever before encountered Catholics in real life or in my reading quite like those here. It certainly has cemented my opinion that I would not fit in well .

However, for anyone who might be interested in learning about an actual Neopagan’s views (which is, as I understand it, the purpose of this particular portion of the forum), I will expand.

I grew up in the Southern US and I am 44 years old. I was raised very Calvinist, then my family switched to Evangelical when I was in my late teens. I broke with that and began a search for a Christian faith that I might be able to believe. I was Episcopalian for a number of years (very traditional liturgy, which I love, and liberal theology) and involved in many discussions with friends who eventually became Catholic (one is now a Jesuit priest). All of these years were spent in intense study, both alone and with clergy or others, on Christianity in a myriad of forms, searching for a place to fit, as I had never considered that I would or could be anything but a Christian.

I was in my early 30s when I finally realized that I could no longer continue to try to force my very unorthodox experiences and beliefs into any mold of the Christian church, and further study helped me see that they were, in fact, outside the realms of monotheism (if I could be a monotheist, I would likely be a Reform Jew). It was not until several years after this break that I found my home in Hellenic Neopaganism.

I do not and have not felt “oppressed by the patriarchy.” I am not particularly a feminist and have a very traditional marriage, including deferring to my husband on many matters and being a stay-at-home wife and mother. I am not seeking a feminine rather than a masculine deity. I am not of the opinion that the world was perfect before the Evil Penis People brought their Awful Sky Father God to mess up the (highly romanticized, imagined) utopian society of the Peace-loving Nonviolent Goddess Worshippers who lived in Neolithic Europe (and all shared exactly the same society and religion–right). I believe that most forms of Goddess-only worship as I see them in the US today are really monotheistic God-worship by another name.

If I were going to switch to a religion to rebel against my actual parents, well, that goal could have been accomplished much more easily by switching to almost any non-fundamentalist brand of Christianity. Heck, expressing the opinion that if one were using wine in communion it might be nicer if it tasted like something other than raisins soaked in kerosene was sufficient for that .

I am not attempting to rebel against my social milieu. It would be infinitely easier if I could simply “pass” as a Christian and I wish I could do so. In retrospect, I realize that I actually did this for many years and achieved nothing but spiritual emptiness. This would be much easier to do if I was neither utterly convinced of the reality of my religious experiences nor cared about being intellectually and emotionally honest. Neither is the case, so we simply try to get along. I am not a proselytizer for my faith, but neither am I interested in remaining silent in the face of misinformation. I don’t believe that that does either party any good.

 

[KarenNC]

**By definition, anyone who promotes idol worship (gods) is anti-Christian.

People are not an anti-Christian simply because they aren’t Christians,… they are only anti-Christian if they exhibit behaviors that are utterly opposed by Christianity.**

Well, then, if you are going to classify all non-Christians as anti-Christians, I guess I am in good company with the Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Sounds disturbingly reminiscent of the arguments that I hear from the local fundamentalist Protestants–“if you aren’t just like us, you are automatically actively against us and our enemies rather than simply different.”

What do you believe?

Read back over any number of posts, if you like, or, if you would like to actually have a discussion on this, we need to break it down into “what do you believe about…” I think you can get a fairly good start from this thread alone. If not, you can always check my other posts by clicking on my profile.

"Neopagan" simply means "new pagan"

Hey, you found a better dictionary!

**pagans were the uneducated (through no fault of their own) who haven’t come to believe the truth.
**

Well, Í can’t say I am ashamed to join the “uneducated” ranks of the ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as folks like Gandhi, the Dalia Lama, etc.

**Best of luck to you in your “freaky” religious journey (I like to “jab” folks that I respect for their intellectual prowess), and we’ll always be here when you grow up. **

Thanks. Feel free to get back to me when you begin to realize the circularity of the basis of your religion and we can talk further.

 

[KarenNC]

The myths of the ancients were not meant to portray a moral or desirable method of life. Many of them did teach lessons, and those that teach lessons that are compatible with the morality derived from Christianity have been adapted and retold in our culture.

True. In terms of any lessons on morality, they were more a lesson in avoiding hubris, remembering that we are not Gods. I see many of them as primarily cautionary tales, more concerned with what happens to those who exceed their place than as an example of what humans should do. There is no concept of imitatio dei in Hellenism.

**However, to state that the Grecian stories about their gods were understood by the Greeks only as moral lessons is false. **

Don’t believe I said that. I said:
“They are vehicles for conveying very important truths about the way in which a society believes one must live to be properly human (how we should relate to each other) and the way in which one should relate to that which is beyond human understanding.”

I believe the stories of the Christian Bible are the same. I don’t consider the sacred stories of any culture to be merely moral tales, merely historical records, etc.

I did say the Greek myths were not viewed as literally true (in the sense of if one had a time machine and went to such and such a place at such and such a time, one would see such and such an action] any more than I believe most people view the stories of the Old Testament as such. They were also not viewed as unchanging divinely dictated revelation, either.

Where are your gods? Where do they live?

I answered you. They are not corporate beings in the way that humans are, so I do not believe They have some fixed physical abode. Certainly there are tales that They manifested in various shapes, including human, but I do not see those as having to be read as literal historical fact rather than someone’s attempt to express, through the limitations of human language, an experience with that which is beyond the ability of humans to fully understand. On the other hand, They are Gods, so I am not likely to totally rule out the possibility.

There is no reason to require that Olympus be understood as nothing other than the physical mountain in Greece rather than a religious allegory than one is required to believe that there is a physical heavenly Jerusalem with streets paved with gold and gates made of pearl with mansions with street addresses that one can visit and view.

Perhaps this article (written by my husband) will give you some insight
pagantheologies.pbwiki.com/Truth-vs-Fact

 

[KarenNC]

:banghead:

Not sure why the difference is problematic for you. The prefix “non-” carries the meaning of “not” or “other than.” The prefix “anti-” means “one that is opposed.”

Surely it is not so hard to understand that something can be other than something else without being actively opposed to it? An apple is not an anti-raspberry, though they are both fruits. A woman is not an “anti-man,” though they are both human. An American is not automatically “anti-Norwegian” (though I suppose it might be possible) though they are both citizens of countries. These are all things that are mutually exclusive (they are either one or the other, not both at the same time or interchangable) without necessarily being actively opposed to each other.

I believe Christianity is mistaken in many ways, but I do not set out to actively oppose it. I much prefer a live and let live option and figure the Gods will sort it out if They deem it necessary. I rarely enter into discussions about my views unless someone asks or some misinformation arises. I do not actively proselytize in any way, trying to convert Christians (or anyone else) away from their religion. I do not, however, see that that means that I should never discuss my beliefs when they are relevant to the discussion or pretend that I do not disagree. I don’t see why I should not expect civility or the respect to at least acknowledge that I have a “real” religion and reasons for the beliefs I have, since I give that to Christians.

 

[cheese_sdc]

I am not of the opinion that the world was perfect before the Evil Penis People brought their Awful Sky Father God to mess up the (highly romanticized, imagined) utopian society of the Peace-loving Nonviolent Goddess Worshippers who lived in Neolithic Europe (and all shared exactly the same society and religion–right).

:bowdown:

 

[isaac.madsen]

Could it be that other religions are just different interpretations and there is no one true religion? Just truths and falsehoods in all religions? Could God be too complex for any human being to fully understand??

That is the way that I feel from the things that I have witnessed in my life. Catholicism seems to be the only possible legitimate claim to having been started by God, but only for those who believe that Jesus Christ (or Joshua ben Joseph) is God. I believe that such is the case, but the subject of this thread needs to be addressed before I can accept Catholicism as Christ’s church.

Sadly, it seems to me this thread has gone into a “let’s make fun of everyone” stage. That is unfortunate, as I have come to these forums in the intent of finding serious discussion about these topics. An occasional joke is appropriate but if you want to take over a thread with jokes, make your own thread on the subject so those of us who actually want to discuss this topic can do so.

 

[water]

Sadly, it seems to me this thread has gone into a “let’s make fun of everyone” stage. That is unfortunate, as I have come to these forums in the intent of finding serious discussion about these topics. An occasional joke is appropriate but if you want to take over a thread with jokes, make your own thread on the subject so those of us who actually want to discuss this topic can do so.

I am sorry that you have had this experience with some, and I am sure that your voice has been heard. I would say that you should not let these few comments discourage you from finding the truth in Christ.

God bless.

 

[Mr.Bee]

Not sure why the difference is problematic for you. The prefix “non-” carries the meaning of “not” or “other than.” The prefix “anti-” means “one that is opposed.”

No no, I get it. And I respect your faith, although I disagree.

But that statement was so… hmmmm… PC?

If you were running for president and said that statement about your beliefs in a speech, I would automatically not vote for you. I’d really rather you say you were anti-…

Just me I guess.