Would You Ever Submit And Worship God

[OrdinaryClay]

I think logic and reason is the perfect crutch for people to have. We constantly have information being thrown our way, but not all of it is true or even reasonable. Logic is how determine how sound the argument is, and reason is how we determine if the information is plausible.

 

Just because something sounds reasonable does not mean it is true, and just because is an argument is valid also does not mean it is true. Logic and reason are simply tools to assist in determining the truth of the argument presented to us supported by proof.

 

We can't believe everything that is presented to us, that is madness. Anyone claiming to have the answer to all of life's questions better be prepared to defend that claim. Every religion claims to hold the path to enlightenment, but Christianity claims to have Answer. This is not something to be taken lightly. As someone once said, "Extraordinary claims, call for extraordinary proof." 

 

In the scientific community, before information is allowed to be considered as scientific fact, it must go through peer review. If the information holds up to criticism it is accepted as fact. If Christianity is true, than it too should hold up to criticism. 

Actually, the adage is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and it was Sagan. It is just a maxim and does not hold true mostly because people pick and choose what they want to feel is extraordinary. The law of gravity is a profoundly extraordinary claim, yet can be demonstrated simply(in hindsight .

 

Logic and reason are tools. - not crutches. They are wonderful tools and I embrace them fully. I have used these tools extensively and so have an enormous number of other people. We have all concluded that the God of the Bible is who He says He is. God is not a scientific claim, though. God is a supernatural claim. The supernatural is by definition outside the scope of science.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

I think logic and reason is the perfect crutch for people to have. We constantly have information being thrown our way, but not all of it is true or even reasonable. Logic is how determine how sound the argument is, and reason is how we determine if the information is plausible.

 

Just because something sounds reasonable does not mean it is true, and just because is an argument is valid also does not mean it is true. Logic and reason are simply tools to assist in determining the truth of the argument presented to us supported by proof.

 

We can't believe everything that is presented to us, that is madness. Anyone claiming to have the answer to all of life's questions better be prepared to defend that claim. Every religion claims to hold the path to enlightenment, but Christianity claims to have Answer. This is not something to be taken lightly. As someone once said, "Extraordinary claims, call for extraordinary proof." 

 

In the scientific community, before information is allowed to be considered as scientific fact, it must go through peer review. If the information holds up to criticism it is accepted as fact. If Christianity is true, than it too should hold up to criticism. 

Actually, the adage is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and it was Sagan. It is just a maxim and does not hold true mostly because people pick and choose what they want to feel is extraordinary. The law of gravity is a profoundly extraordinary claim, yet can be demonstrated simply(in hindsight .

 

Logic and reason are tools. - not crutches. They are wonderful tools and I embrace them fully. I have used these tools extensively and so have an enormous number of other people. We have all concluded that the God of the Bible is who He says He is. God is not a scientific claim, though. God is a supernatural claim. The supernatural is by definition outside the scope of science.

 

What's out of the ordinary about gravity?

[OrdinaryClay]

He would have to explain why faith - believing something without evidence - is a good thing.  It's never a good idea to have this kind of faith in any other aspect of life (just ask any of Bernie Madoff's victims,) so why is it a good thing regarding God?

When my children were born I had faith they would grow up to love me as much as I loved them.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

 

 

Why would polytheism seem more rational to you?

 

Let's just say that polytheism is less irrational  than Christianity.  It accurately reflects the primitive nature of religion in general, setting up powerful role models to be the standard-bearers of a tribe.  In that respect it is part of our history and culture, and its appearance in culture makes pretty good sense.  It is also a useful vehicle for conveying community moral standards to the masses through storytelling.

 

Christianity, on the other hand, has no stories of its own.  It is a syncretic mess with bits and pieces nicked from Jewish, Greek and Egyptian culture.  At its heart, it actually has no heart.  It is a mere cardboard cutout, propped up by layer upon layer of apologetics and philosophical hypotheses that have no relevance to reality.  It is music with no rhythm, melody or harmony; a story with no poetry; a painting with pale and clashing smears of colour.

 

paganism which is a super set of polytheism is the syncretic mess. even the pagans admit that.

 

Anyway, nothing you said makes the belief set called polytheism or paganism less irrational or more rational. Having more significance on a culture by culture basis does not in itself make something more rational.

 

Actually, paganism is a modern term for any religion that isn't abrahamic. It's not a syncratic mess. Some pagan religions were syncretic, yet still very well organised and isn't always polytheistic. She didn't say it wasn't rational, she was basing her post off what you said.

[Bhim]

So you follow dharma because it goes nowhere? Why not follow some homeless person you find downtown. I believe you follow dharma because you think it is going somewhere.

I can't speak for Deva, but I follow Dharma because it's what my parents and all my ancestors have practiced. To borrow from the Old Testament: why should I follow gods that neither I nor my fathers have known?

 

Yeah, genocide (among other things) is so much more acceptable than eternal torture.

The worst part is, one can legitimately make the statement you wrote above without any hint of sarcasm. Only Christianity has managed to create something worse than genocide. I'm no fan of Muslims, but even Islam has a more favorable view of the afterlife than Christianity.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

Why would polytheism seem more rational to you?

 

Let's just say that polytheism is less irrational  than Christianity.  It accurately reflects the primitive nature of religion in general, setting up powerful role models to be the standard-bearers of a tribe.  In that respect it is part of our history and culture, and its appearance in culture makes pretty good sense.  It is also a useful vehicle for conveying community moral standards to the masses through storytelling.

 

Christianity, on the other hand, has no stories of its own.  It is a syncretic mess with bits and pieces nicked from Jewish, Greek and Egyptian culture.  At its heart, it actually has no heart.  It is a mere cardboard cutout, propped up by layer upon layer of apologetics and philosophical hypotheses that have no relevance to reality.  It is music with no rhythm, melody or harmony; a story with no poetry; a painting with pale and clashing smears of colour.

 

paganism which is a super set of polytheism is the syncretic mess. even the pagans admit that.

 

Anyway, nothing you said makes the belief set called polytheism or paganism less irrational or more rational. Having more significance on a culture by culture basis does not in itself make something more rational.

 

Actually, paganism is a modern term for any religion that isn't abrahamic. It's not a syncratic mess. Some pagan religions were syncretic, yet still very well organised and isn't always polytheistic. She didn't say it wasn't rational, she was basing her post off what you said.

 

You are just regurgitating modern pagan mythos. Kind of like the nutty "wiccan" arguments about the origin of witchcraft. Debating the semantics of the word is fruitless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Etymology And it is most certainly a syncretic mess on the whole. After all, pagans pride themselves in allowing their followers to believe anything they darn well please, as long as it does not include Christ and substitutional atonement. Funny how that works. Anything is okay as Long as Christ is not the source of atonement. More evidence for the truth of the Gospels.

 

Clearly I said paganism is a superset of polytheism, which would mean that it is not always polytheistic.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

I can't speak for Deva, but I follow Dharma because it's what my parents and all my ancestors have practiced. To borrow from the Old Testament: why should I follow gods that neither I nor my fathers have known?

 

The question posed was not why, but where does dharma lead you.

[seeker001]

 

On your other post, no I haven't heard of natural theology. I'll check it out later, do you have a good link to information about it.

Natural Theology deals with evidence other than special revelation. The Bible is a form of Special revelation.

 

This book is very good. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZL4JL19ge5QC&printsec=frontcover&cad=0#v=onepage

 

It can be bought for a Kindle reader very cheaply. That book is very thorough. There are easy texts o the subject also.

 

Thank you, I'll put it on my reading list. Hopefully, the library will have a copy I can grab. 

 

 

 

 

 

On your other post, no I haven't heard of natural theology. I'll check it out later, do you have a good link to information about it.

 

I'll answer for him since he ran away - typical with them. You can find it right in the bible starting with Genesis.. lol

 

I like to see where people are getting their sources from, I usually post where I'm getting my information from. Seeing where people get their information from

1. Allows me to get a quick lookup. True I can google this but

2. I tend to judge people's credibility by their sources.

 

If they are getting their information from a respectable source or if they are supporting their argument from one, I give more weight to their argument. If they are getting it from a fringe site, than I give it less weight. 

 

See my post earlier for a good source. Google will provide others. What I find is that many atheists reject material simply based on the source and never take the time to actually read the subject. I hope you go beyond that.

 

There is a good reason to be skeptical about the sources, as Abraham Lincoln once said, "Just because something is posted on the internet, does not mean it is true."  If I see someone making a claim, but the source is pointing to The Onion, for example, then I'm mostly likely going to disregard it. It may have some grain of truth in it (perhaps in a satirical way), but I'm not taking it as seriously. If I see the source pointed to something like PBS, BBC, or the Huffington Post then I'm giving it some credibility. 

[Thurisaz]

This is coming from a guy who follows and has faith in the nordic mythical gods.

Good job ignoring the main point again. I'm sure your führer is proud of you. Shout a double Sieg Heil when you meet him the next time.

 

Gotta say, you're dependable. The same hilarious idiocy in every single posting.

[raoul]

 

 

Actually, that is reasonable with the caveat that proof outside mathematics and logic is really a collection of evidence which upon reaching a certain threshold will convince us of something.

There is no proof outside math and logic.

 

Then there is no proof for your statement. So you must simply believe this based on faith. Good luck.

 

Once more a cultist slyly shifts a word/meaning and then pretends it's valid. To wit - their misuse of 'faith' to extrapolate back onto us. The word is solely to be used in a biblical reference and NOT for anything else. The bible says 'without faith it's impossible to please' their god and 'faith is the essence of things hoped for the things NOT SEEN' (Hebrews). It has NOTHING to do with a premise posited regarding what was posited. You can attack the premise on its own merit, in fact I have a problem with the premise myself. But to try and say it's the same type of faith, ie: blind, childlike as described in your bible, is nonsensical. And welcome back, we missed you while we were sharpening our knives again. LOL

[raoul]

 

OC: You must first show that your god exists in order to legitimately ask if we would worship him?

You don't honestly believe that do you. Really. It's called abstract thought! We all got it.

 

No it is not - it is a very valid and reasonable request. What does abstract thought have to do with evidence and/or proof? Cultists like you have avoided this dilemma for centuries. It's a very simple premise - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/proof. And cultists have failed, miserably, regarding this. You have demonstrated the problem with your shifting the argument by redefining the argument. Now, the proof please. Anything. ONE shred of evidence?

[raoul]

You are just regurgitating modern pagan mythos. Kind of like the nutty "wiccan" arguments about the origin of witchcraft.

 

 

Nutty wiccan arguments? Are they like someone who believes in talking serpents, entire civilizations coming from just TWO people, waters being parted, et.al? ROFL

[raoul]

This is not true. It can easily be argued that an atheist gains psychological comfort believing they will be eternally unconscious after death. Atheists are forever proclaiming death is just like before birth.

 

No psychological comfort required in order to believe what is a rational/logical construct. If we weren't in a state of being for billions of years prior to being born and there weren't any ill effects from it, then going back to this same non-existence after death has nothing to do with comfort - once more you, as the cultists always do, shift the argument we use on you to us to avoid any defense.

 

If death is just like before birth than who in their right mind would be scared of death.

 

Right - we leave the being scared to death to you cultists who've had to invent a pie in the sky worshipping a skydaddy in order to avoid the reality of death.

 

No, indeed, atheism is a psychological crutch and is used to quell the fears of life after death.

 

Nope, atheism is a reality based philosophy which has NOTHING to do with fear - it has to do with reality, not the mythical based bible and blood thirsty god cultists worship without thought. But nice try in shifting the burdon of proof again. Sadly, it doesn't work because all of us are well aware of your and other cult members' tactics. It's no different than when we hear garbage like 'our faith is the same a reason'

[Deva]

 

So you follow dharma because it goes nowhere? Why not follow some homeless person you find downtown. I believe you follow dharma because you think it is going somewhere.

 

 

You are very strange.  You are acting like you can read my mind, whereas you don't know me and don't have a clue.  More Christian presumption of motives.

 

Anyway, I never gave you a reason why I follow Dharma. You just make something up and go from there.  lol

[raoul]

Regarding OC's question 'would we believe and worship if given proof' - all of us, especially ME screwed up. I think all of us should've said 'yeah we would definitely believe and worship. Now please provide us with some solid proof/evidence and you cannot use the bible since it's been so discredited by many scholars'. This may have led to something quite different and even funny from the cultist.

[Deva]

 

You are just regurgitating modern pagan mythos. Kind of like the nutty "wiccan" arguments about the origin of witchcraft. Debating the semantics of the word is fruitless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Etymology And it is most certainly a syncretic mess on the whole. After all, pagans pride themselves in allowing their followers to believe anything they darn well please, as long as it does not include Christ and substitutional atonement. Funny how that works. Anything is okay as Long as Christ is not the source of atonement. More evidence for the truth of the Gospels.

 

paganism which is a super set of polytheism is the syncretic mess. even the pagans admit that.

 

 

So, because  many people do not believe in a substitutionary atonement, therefore it must be true.  lol.

 

Christians have the biggest syncretic mess I can think of.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Back to the OP:  a "brain event" that someone thinks is a message from God doesn't cut it as a basis for submission and worship of said god.

 

1. one cannot tell whether the brain event is caused by another entity, existing outside oneself, or by something in one's own brain (it doesn't matter that the brain is/may be the locus of the "experience").  E.g. my father was convinced that he had a mystical experience in 1952, through which God was revealed to him.  He was taken to a psychiatrist who thought it was a psychotic episode.  Similar things happened to him in subsequent decades.  There wasn't any feature of the experience, as far as I can tell, that served as a testing element separate from the experience, by which he or others could test whether the experience was an instance of revelation or not.  The results in his life, in my view, make it clear that it was psychosis.  Lots of people have had experiences.  Antlerman has not weighed in on this thread, but could do so.  If I had an experience that seemed to be a revelation, how would I know that it was one?  

 

2.  related to 1:  lots of people in history have experienced revelations, as they thought, and the content of what they say they received results in contradictory claims.  If revelation is self-authenticating to the one who receives it, how can disputes among the "revealed" propositions be adjudicated in a non-question-begging way?

 

3.  As far as my understanding of the Buddha story goes, Siddartha did not receive revelation as is claimed of, say, Mohammed.  He sat down under a tree and gained and developed insights about human experience, suffering, and transcendence of or release from suffering.

People worship buddha even though all he had were "brain events". (ya, I know, the western buddhists will all claim they don't worship, buddha. they do in the east, and they're the experts)

 

In any event ...

1) "brain events", whatever that is, can be based on an outside reality. You cannot simply extrapolate your personal experience with your father to all of reality.

2) belief, in God is based on far more than "brain events". I don't for a minute care if you deny external evidence for God. It does exist, and millions of intelligent, logical, sane people know this to be true.

 

What you say about the Buddha is either irrelevant or is destructive of your own position.  Your 1) doesn't deal with the problem of how to determine whether an experience that someone says is an instance of revelation is an instance of revelation.  You also, again as many times before, attribute to me a position that I did not articulate.  I am coming to the conclusion that you are no gentleman.

 

In your 2), you seem willing to jettison experiences anyway and rely on "external evidence."  So far on this forum you have not provided strong external evidence, and in your 2), you slide into an argumentum ad populum.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

He would have to explain why faith - believing something without evidence - is a good thing. It's never a good idea to have this kind of faith in any other aspect of life (just ask any of Bernie Madoff's victims,) so why is it a good thing regarding God?

When my children were born I had faith they would grow up to love me as much as I loved them.

You might have faith that your children love you, but you can't command them to love you. Do you see the difference here, god does not have faith we love him, he commands us to love him and if we don't....... Well you know the rest.

[Ravenstar]

I'm an agnostic atheist pagan

 

wrap your little mind around that one   LOL

[seeker001]

For me the question is not that there is a god, I have faith in a higher power. But the difference is, I'm not claiming that to be the truth. It is something I just have faith in. Perhaps there isn't a higher power and the physical realm is all there is. 

 

The thing is, I hold doubt in the Christian Interpretation of this higher power, and I'm not alone in this doubt. I do not believe the Christian way is the only path to enlightenment. Just because someone has turned away from Christianity does not mean someone has turned away from spirituality.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

It seems anti Christians engage in a deep form of selection bias where they focus in on, dwell on, obsess over that which they are able to interpret in their own minds as justification for their pre-existing vitriol. They ignore the deep and everlasting Love God freely offers. I don't believe for a minute any anti Christian cares one whit about what happened to the Canaanites. They do care about how to cast the God they hate in a bad light through careful and obsessive selection.

Christians practice selection bias on a much more aggressive scale.

They select the version  of "God" that appeals most to them and then assert to all others that their version is the official God, and that it exists because they say so.

They obsess on this to the point of sermonizing at any opportunity.

 

Also, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was not a "Trinity", which is the most popular Christian version of God.

This "God" you speak of is a hypothetical construct loosely based on the writings of ancient tribal people.

 

The Christian God does not give everlasting love freely.

That's a popular Christian lie and should be ignored because it's dishonest false advertising.

If a person fails to react properly and worship this God, the so-called "free" love is taken away and replaced with damnation and wrath.

The love is merely conditional, not unlike a dog that receives a treat if it responds correctly.

 

The issue of Canaanites is not if non-Christians care about them but that Christians proclaim God is "love" and then steadfastly ignore the obvious Biblical refutation of that claim.

 

Anti-Christians practice selection bias because that's all they got to prop up their anti-Christian feelings.

They select the version  of "God" that allows them to create the caricature that justifies their irrational vitriol.

They obsess on this to the point of being blinded to the vast majority of Scripture that demonstrates the true nature of the Lord of Hosts.

 

The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is a trinitarian God.

The "God" caricatured by anti-Christians is a mob sourced construct based on personal and volatile emotions en-mass.

 

The Christian God gives everlasting love freely.

That's a known Christian truth which is demonstrated by the Bible.

If a person rejects the offer of salvation from God, they will not experience this love because they willingly reject it.

The love is an unconditional love offered to any human being no matter their race, ethnicity or social status.

 

The issue of the Canaanites is not that Christians ignore Scripture. On the contrary, Christians are demonstrably the only ones who read all of scripture and take the entire volume of scripture into account. Anti-Christians trot out their one trick ponies by focusing on a select set of verses and ignoring the rest of the Bible.

 

 

Again, you are calling people who reject Christianity Anti-Christians. We are not against Christians... just their crappy religion. No we don't practice selection bias. Just because your god does some good things in your Bible, for his ass-kissing slaves only, does not suddenly mean his true nature is this absolutely wonderful and amazing god, alright? If you base your views on your own god from that only, then you must be ignoring all of the crap he does that clearly demonstrates that you believe in a god who is a sadistic narcissist, attempting to convince his slaves that he is a wonderful and amazing god. If he exists, he must convince people that he is good somehow, or otherwise he would have nobody to worship him. He can't send everyone to Hell can he? If he did, he'd be a bit lonely upstairs with nobody to kiss his ass. Your claim that our views on your religion are irrational is nothing more than your opinion (and probably an opinion shared by many Christians, but a lot of people sharing your view does not make it anything more than opinion, does it?), not a fact.

 

So what, is your god a conjoined set of triplets, all thinking the same thoughts, unable to be individuals?

 

No your god most certainly does not give love freely, unless of course he is giving love freely to the people who are trapped in Hell and will remain trapped there for a long time or was giving love to all of the babies he killed/had killed for the sins of the adults within their communities full of rebellious sinners. Was he giving love freely to Job when he allowed Satan to destroy his life in a manner that makes me think of a human father releasing his rabid pit bull on his own son and his son's whole family? So what if your god gave Job a whole new family. Does that instantly make it all better? Does it make your god look like the perfect example of a loving father? Does it make your god look like he is anything more than a construct put together by primitive and barbaric people?

 

Anti-Christianity people do not ignore the parts of the Bible that are good we just don't think that those things instantly make your religion true or good, since there is just far too much crap in that Bible of yours. Let's assume you do read the whole Bible and do not ignore all of the bad stuff. I will take a guess that what you do is focus on the good things your god apparently does for the people who always do everything he says, like the good little submissives they ought to be, and think, "Yeah, see? He does good things for those that do everything he commands them to do, so he must be a wonderful and amazing god!" Then when you read the crap your god does, you know, the things that make him appear as though he might be a sadistic narcissist, you probably think to yourself, "Well, he must have had a good reason to do those things... He's perfect and knows everything and I'm just a man. I don't understand why he does crappy things. Maybe I just don't know the whole picture, so when he kills/orders the killing of babies, to punish adults for killing babies, or tortures Job for no reason other than to prove to some lower being that Job would remain his little bitch, he must have had a good reason and these things he does/did must not be as crappy as they appear."

 

Do you do that OC? Do you believe your god is good only because of the good things he sometimes does to his good little submissives, but just make excuses for him when he does terrible things that would get a human sent to prison for a very long time and make you think that human was a monster, for doing the exact same things?

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

What would bring you to completely submit and worship The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Which god? The characters your are submitting are also in the Koran and the Talmud, and they also have different attitudes and definition of what God's rules are. Even the Christian faith here in the US cannot agree on God's attributes so you really need to define this further.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Yes, I did mean willingly.

 

Given that no one would willingly submit and worship Him given evidence it is clear all the talk about evidence is just a psychological crutch. I think a reasonable interpretation is that anti Christian "evidence talk" is just a way of comforting themselves. There is a deep need to convince themselves that He does not exist.

 

Still waiting on which version of God I would have to be submitted too. Your opening question is not complete.

[bornagainathiest]

As tempted as I am to tackle OC in this thread, I won't do it.

 

Why?  Because he still owes me answers from  this thread...

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55943-does-evil-exist/page-8

 

The four questions I put to Clay, in post #159 (April 9) are completely new and have never been asked by me before - so his claim that I'm repeating myself is nothing but a deflection.  Nor can he claim that he's already answered these questions, elsewhere in this forum.  But if he wants to cite just where he thinks he did, I'd be happy to see him fail to do so.

 

The covering up of this dodge by starting up another thread and his firing off a mass volley of replies to other threads won't deflect me from my purpose.  Imho, it speaks of someone getting desperate and resorting to diversionary tactics. 

 

To OrdinaryClay...

Sorry 'friend', but I'll see you in the relevant thread, any time you're ready.

 

BAA.

 

I'm still waiting and Clay's still dodging and starting up new threads to deflect attention away from his unfinished business.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

 

 

paganism which is a super set of polytheism is the syncretic mess. even the pagans admit that.

 

Anyway, nothing you said makes the belief set called polytheism or paganism less irrational or more rational. Having more significance on a culture by culture basis does not in itself make something more rational.

 

Actually, paganism is a modern term for any religion that isn't abrahamic. It's not a syncratic mess. Some pagan religions were syncretic, yet still very well organised and isn't always polytheistic. She didn't say it wasn't rational, she was basing her post off what you said.

 

You are just regurgitating modern pagan mythos. Kind of like the nutty "wiccan" arguments about the origin of witchcraft. Debating the semantics of the word is fruitless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Etymology And it is most certainly a syncretic mess on the whole. After all, pagans pride themselves in allowing their followers to believe anything they darn well please, as long as it does not include Christ and substitutional atonement. Funny how that works. Anything is okay as Long as Christ is not the source of atonement. More evidence for the truth of the Gospels.

 

Clearly I said paganism is a superset of polytheism, which would mean that it is not always polytheistic.

 

 

 

I'm not the one debating the semantics, you are. Hence, "etymology". And I know that etymologically it meant redneck/hillbilly in latin.

 

I'm just using one of many definitions of paganism, see that's just the problem, you haven't defined it, and yet you make blanket statements about it. Paganism wasn't one religion. There was at least one religion per tribe to one religion per region in ancient times. Each with an elaborate system of rituals, myths, ideas, etc... Some, especially those in Canaan and Mesopotamia, and to a lesser extent Egypt, Greece and Rome resembled the Bible in many respects.

 

From what I see, the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity are the very syncretic mess you refer to. Except, I have the decency to discuss seperate religions seperately, and not make mass blanket statements about them because unlike you, I actually know something about them.

 

Also, I'm going to be splitting hairs with my own definitions, but there are christopagans and judeopagans as well.

 

Most pagans do have the mindset to let everyone believe what they want, but its not inherent to paganism or a feature of it. It's because many of us started elsewhere and think that  everyone should follow their own path. Because alot of us also became unitarian universalists along the way.

 

Polytheism isn't a religion, nor is paganism. Paganism is a term for a large swath of religions. And polytheism is a term for a large swath of religions under which are considered pagan, but there are monotheistic pagans too. And atheistic ones. And the list goes on!

 

What is evidence of the truth of Gospels? People believed what they wanted when they were written, so that's like saying that proof that I, personally, am god, is because the sky is blue! Because I said it was blue! How idiotic can one get  with that?