Changes

:As I've just posted above, if you want to debate something like this, you need to start from common ground and build from there.  That Christianity (which is the "religion" in question here) is merely a personal opinion is ''not'' that common ground, because you and I both have different views on that.  For me, Christianity is simply acknowledgement that God is real and as described in the Bible.  That is, we are not talking about subjective beliefs, but about truth-claims.  Is God real or not?  Did He actually declare witchcraft to be wrong, or not?  If the answers to those questions are Yes He is and Yes He did, then it naturally follows that witchcraft ''is'' wrong.  But so many bibliosceptics fail to address those questions, instead ''avoiding'' those questions by claiming, as though it is accepted or self-evident (neither of which is the case), that Christianity is merely a subjective belief.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:As I've just posted above, if you want to debate something like this, you need to start from common ground and build from there.  That Christianity (which is the "religion" in question here) is merely a personal opinion is ''not'' that common ground, because you and I both have different views on that.  For me, Christianity is simply acknowledgement that God is real and as described in the Bible.  That is, we are not talking about subjective beliefs, but about truth-claims.  Is God real or not?  Did He actually declare witchcraft to be wrong, or not?  If the answers to those questions are Yes He is and Yes He did, then it naturally follows that witchcraft ''is'' wrong.  But so many bibliosceptics fail to address those questions, instead ''avoiding'' those questions by claiming, as though it is accepted or self-evident (neither of which is the case), that Christianity is merely a subjective belief.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Just noticed, it´s kind of useless to plan adding in a history section or similar, when the article has been protected. A great discussion indeed, when only one side of the discussion actually has the right to edit the article. Thus, You Win, I Lose, and will now keep my mouth shut for the time being. Useless arguing hurts my head, I rather contribute something. ->  

Just noticed, it´s kind of useless to plan adding in a history section or similar, when the article has been protected. A great discussion indeed, when only one side of the discussion actually has the right to edit the article. Thus, You Win, I Lose, and will now keep my mouth shut for the time being. Useless arguing hurts my head, I rather contribute something. ->