FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: gaylasue on September 29, 2011, 11:36:50 am
-
Do those who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible still celebrate Christmas with gifts, decorations, and all of the festivities? I'm sure they enjoy the day off with pay if they are blessed with a job that gives holiday pay! It seems like a lot of money is spent and a lot of festivites enjoyed if the true reason for the celebration is omitted.
-
I don't believe in Jeus Christ ! I know that He is a live living with your Heavenly Farther and mine .he will come and take some of us home to live with them one day!
-
Srry if i'm trolling but I don't believe Christmas is Christ's birth simply because there
s ZERO evidence(in the gospels) of it being cold when Jesus was born and I believe in Jesus.
-
Not really sure what the weather would have been in Bethlehem in December. I believe in Jesus and I celebrate Christmas, but I have known many non-believers who still celebrated Christmas as a gift giving and family gathering holiday.
-
Ok, this is the thing with Christmas some people today celebrate christmas for all the wrong reasons. Some people actually leave the Christ out of Christmas...
-
Well, if u don't believe in Jesus....u are not chistian........maybe buddist???? :angry7: :angry7: :angry7: :angry7:
-
Not really sure what the weather would have been in Bethlehem in December. I believe in Jesus and I celebrate Christmas, but I have known many non-believers who still celebrated Christmas as a gift giving and family gathering holiday.
Historically, it's considered nearly a toss-up between a rip-off of the Roman Festival of Mithras, (which was take from a Persian pagan festival, begun over 4,000 years ago - 2,012 BC), or of Sol Invictus. The reorganisation of the Roman calendar under Julius Caesar in 45 BC placed the date of the winter solstice on the 25th December, (the equivalent of the 21st or 22nd December using the modern calendar). Before and even after the advent of Christianity, the 25th of December was the day the Romans marked the turning of the year and the rebirth of the sun. The Brumalia marked the 25th as the shortest day whilst later, eastern influenced cults such as Mithras and Sol Invictus celebrated it as the birthdates of their cult deities. As you can see by the date, (45 BC), these celebrations on solstice predated xtianity by between 45 and 2,000 years.
-
I don't think that xmas is now only a celebration for Jesus. Our society has focused more on family gatherings and gift giving, not really on the celebration of Jesus' birth, which didn't happen in december anyway. Either way, it's still a time to try and spread a little extra joy.
-
I don't celebrate Xmas.
-
Of course, its more like culture instead of religious procedure
-
I have no choice in the matter, as far as my family is concerned. I am NOT a christian,nor do I believe in Jesus Christ, but my stupid birthday is on Christmas Day. Its just another winter's day to me, my birthday, time to spend with my husband, and a chance to put a smile on my childs face. Hope we get snow this year!!
MOAR SNOW!!!!! MOAR!! MOAR!!!!! MoAr!!!! ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Christmas has lost most if not all of it's religious signifance. It is now simply a way for retailers to coax buyers into the stores during the dead of winter.
-
Nope! But my non celebrating stance has more to do with the ridiculousness of the commercialism of it all than the ridiculousness of the superstitious origins. :P
-
I do, but I'd be just as happy not to.
And I'm with others, what does Santa have to do with Christ? Unless you go to church or pray or something, none of the regular Christmas things, like the tree, have anything to do with a religion that is still celebrated in modern times.
And in pre-modern times, it was a Jew killing holiday. So yeah.
The commercialism is just another strain on families that aren't doing so well in this economy.
Previously, in our family, we'd draw names and have all year to buy gifts just for one other family member's family (there's a lot of brothers and sisters and their kids in my family) and maybe some little gifts for all the kids.
Lately, the last couple years, it's just been a get-together and eat day, with only gifts given beforehand among the individual family. It's working out better, a lot less stress and strife, even if some people weren't quite as happy at first. Just little things given to the kids.
I'm happy if gifts are reserved instead for birthdays or spontaneous "saw this and thought of you!" times or just little party favor type things for the kids.
And before this question comes up, we celebrate Easter too. Because the Easter bunny and egg hunts also have nothing to do with a religion that is still celebrated in modern times.
-
I DO BELIEVE IN JESUS------but------I DO NOT take part in the Big Lie called Christmas.
-
YES, I BELIEVE IN JESUS
-
I am really happy to see that one of the posters appropriately aligned Christmas with the pagan Winter Solstice celebration. Few people who celebrate the holiday actually know the history of its origin. Good for you and thanks for sharing this accurate information!
-
I am really happy to see that one of the posters appropriately aligned Christmas with the pagan Winter Solstice celebration. Few people who celebrate the holiday actually know the history of its origin. Good for you and thanks for sharing this accurate information!
Thanks for that. Fewer still recall that there once was, (back around 217 BC), a week-long pagan celebration preceding winter solstice called, "Saturnalia". Saturnalia used to run just a couple of days but, expanded to a fest lasting from December 17th through December 23rd. Primarily a Roman festival, Saturnalia formed the roots for The Fraternis Saturni, an ancient occult order of Saturn worship. I found it somewhat ironic that a pagan festival was stolen by the xtians, pilfered in turn by "Gregor A. Gregorius" as an offshoot of Aleister Crowley’s Thelema, only to be appropriated by modern day commercialism.
Apparently, that was sufficient prostitution for even a fictional Santa to exclaim, "Ho, ho ho!"
-
It's pretty common knowledge that the Bible doesn't give the date of Jesus birth.The early church chose to celebrate Christ's birth in direct opposition to the pagan festivals of the time.
-
The early church chose to celebrate Christ's birth in direct opposition to the pagan festivals of the time.
More accurately, the "early church" chose to steal/appropriate/pilfer/co-opt/pre-empt/swipe/absorb/hyjack and alter perfectly good pre-existing pagan holidays because they're thieves.
-
Apparently, that was sufficient prostitution for even a fictional Santa to exclaim, "Ho, ho ho!"
That is hilarious.
The early church chose to celebrate Christ's birth in direct opposition to the pagan festivals of the time.
The force is not strong with this one.
-
Apparently, that was sufficient prostitution for even a fictional Santa to exclaim, "Ho, ho ho!"
That is hilarious.
The early church chose to celebrate Christ's birth in direct opposition to the pagan festivals of the time.
The force is not strong with this one.
Your conclusion is consistant with johnnie's own posted remarks and I'd concur.
-
Christians can't deny that some Christmas traditions are traced back to pagan celebrations and cultures. There are a couple examples:
**For the pagans winter celebration, ringing of bells were done to drive out the evil spirits. For the Christians, the ringing of bells were done to welcome in Christmas with joy and happiness. The Christians are reminded of the birth of Jesus.
**Pagans also used candle lighting to drive away the forces of cold and darkness. Christians light them at Christmas to rejoice in Jesus, the "Light of the World" - John 1:4-9.
**Druids offered gifts to their goats as part of a pagn ritual. In today's time, gifts are given to loved ones and friends. Biblically speaking, Jesus was the first and greatest gift ever given. The Magi, or Wisemen, gave gifts to Jesus, the child. His birth is considered worthy of celebration.
What's important to Christians is our traditions (of today) and what they mean to us as believers in Jesus. The origins of pagans had their traditions - however, the early believers, through the churches, wanted ways to celebrate Jesus's birth.
This is where personal choice comes in. If people don't want to celebrate a Christmas tradition because they believe it's too steeped in paganism, then they don't have to observe it. At the same time, if people feel that they can honor and worship God through a particular tradition, then they can observe it if they choose.
I would like to add, however, that there are also people who celebrate Christmas who aren't believers. They enjoy the tradition of family and friends getting together, dinners, presents, etc., without acknowledging anything Christian about it. There are other people who don't celebrate Christmas at all. That is their choice, as well.
Another thing I'd like to address is that it is said that it's documented that Jesus was born on December 25th. (There are some who disagree and since the Bible doesn't mention the exact date, apparently this is something we don't need to concern ourselves with.) The December 25th date coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice. The churches simply offered a Christian alternative for celebrating the birth of Christ and adjusted the ways of the pagans' celebrating to adapt to Christian ways.
-
Christians can't deny that some Christmas traditions are traced back to pagan celebrations and cultures.
The December 25th date coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice. The churches simply offered a Christian alternative for celebrating the birth of Christ and adjusted the ways of the pagans' celebrating to adapt to Christian ways.
I suppose one could characterize the co-opting of pagan festivals and rites which existed for far longer than xtianity had as 'simply a christian alternative' for absorbing and erasing entire previous belief systems. The use of "adjusted the ways of the pagans" was a particularly insidious euphemism, however. The sheer hubris involved is astounding.
-
Christians can't deny that some Christmas traditions are traced back to pagan celebrations and cultures.
The December 25th date coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice. The churches simply offered a Christian alternative for celebrating the birth of Christ and adjusted the ways of the pagans' celebrating to adapt to Christian ways.
I suppose one could characterize the co-opting of pagan festivals and rites which existed for far longer than xtianity had as 'simply a christian alternative' for absorbing and erasing entire previous belief systems. The use of "adjusted the ways of the pagans" was a particularly insidious euphemism, however. The sheer hubris involved is astounding.
On the contrary. The church's alternative did not absorb and erase the previous belief systems. The pagans could carry on as they wished. I want to clarify "adjusted the ways of the pagans" did not mean what you are implying that I meant - it meant, as you know what I meant, that they used the pagan's ideas and came up with their own way of celebrating for religious reasons. I might add that this was also centuries later.
-
On the contrary. The church's alternative did not absorb and erase the previous belief systems.
I could cite other instances to the Crusades and "Holy Wars" as evidence to the contrary if that massive amount of substantiation isn't enough.
The pagans could carry on as they wished.
You mean, they could convert or go underground with their previous beliefs, (since xtian 'missionaries' were "spreading the word" at the point of a sword)?
I want to clarify "adjusted the ways of the pagans" did not mean what you are implying that I meant - it meant, as you know what I meant, that they used the pagan's ideas and came up with their own way of celebrating for religious reasons. I might add that this was also centuries later.
Apparently, it did mean what I contended it meant; "used pagan ideas" means they stole/appropriated/plagiarized them. That makes them cultural thieves. This is historically clear and there's no need to rephrase it to white-wash it.
-
I am a Christian and Christmas is one of the happiest times for me because it brings all of our family together and some of my best memories are from Christmas times. But to answer the question at hand, I know of many non-Christians who do celebrate it, just not for religious purposes. As many others have said, Christmas has a very long history and people interpret these occurrences in different ways. It all depends on what you do or do not believe in. I have to say I agree with JCribb, even thought I do think the commercialism of Christmas is absolutely ridiculous.
-
I would like to suggest that the readers research, if they so desire and/or have the time, paganism/Christian holidays and come to their own conclusion. This is a heavy subject and would need some time to go all the way back in time and study what happened from the first pagan celebrations and what they meant, as well as the first Christian celebrations and what they meant. There is no argument on some of the pagan ideas shifting over to Christian ideas in the early church, but one should know the background and historic relevance between the two groups, and the people involved who made decisions, and the similarities of pagan and Christian groups mainly differing in what and who they worshipped or celebrated.
There are too many links to offer, but I've listed 2. There are many neutral links, Christian links, as well as athiest links, and other non-religious links. I only say this as to not be accused of being bias toward only the Christian links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/pcc03.htm
-
I have a link too. Someone tell me how true all this is? I know some of it is, but I haven't researched it all.
'Cause it kinda sicked me out when I first found it:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)
-
I have a link too. Someone tell me how true all this is? I know some of it is, but I haven't researched it all.
'Cause it kinda sicked me out when I first found it:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)
This link does seem to provide more "gory" detail for both the pagan side and the Christian side, in what they did to people, including acting above the law (or rather they called it "lawlessness.") The main thing, if you are really wanting to figure this out, is to study both sides of the groups involved. In my previous post, I said I felt people should study and make their own decisions whether or not to celebrate our holidays.
Many of our holidays seem to be derived from pagan origins, but there again, according to today's celebrations and what they now stand for, most holidays include families/friends coming together for special meals, quality time together, honoring certain people (such as birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day), celebrating: Jesus's birth (Christmas; although there are people who don't,) Thanksgiving (began by Pilgrims and Native Americans,) July 4th (Independence Day for America,) Valentine's Day, and others. They are not just holidays or special days, they include traditions that make these days special. However, it is the individual's and the families' decisions to acknowledge and participate or not.
-
I have a link too. Someone tell me how true all this is? I know some of it is, but I haven't researched it all.
'Cause it kinda sicked me out when I first found it:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)
This link does seem to provide more "gory" detail for both the pagan side and the Christian side, in what they did to people, including acting above the law (or rather they called it "lawlessness.") The main thing, if you are really wanting to figure this out, is to study both sides of the groups involved. In my previous post, I said I felt people should study and make their own decisions whether or not to celebrate our holidays.
Many of our holidays seem to be derived from pagan origins, but there again, according to today's celebrations and what they now stand for, most holidays include families/friends coming together for special meals, quality time together, honoring certain people (such as birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day), celebrating: Jesus's birth (Christmas; although there are people who don't,) Thanksgiving (began by Pilgrims and Native Americans,) July 4th (Independence Day for America,) Valentine's Day, and others. They are not just holidays or special days, they include traditions that make these days special. However, it is the individual's and the families' decisions to acknowledge and participate or not.
From that link: "In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians."
That's an inherent deceit against the pagans of that time. No matter what the appropriated 'holiday' consists of nowadays, it is based upon deceptions.
-
I have a link too. Someone tell me how true all this is? I know some of it is, but I haven't researched it all.
'Cause it kinda sicked me out when I first found it:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)
This link does seem to provide more "gory" detail for both the pagan side and the Christian side, in what they did to people, including acting above the law (or rather they called it "lawlessness.") The main thing, if you are really wanting to figure this out, is to study both sides of the groups involved. In my previous post, I said I felt people should study and make their own decisions whether or not to celebrate our holidays.
Many of our holidays seem to be derived from pagan origins, but there again, according to today's celebrations and what they now stand for, most holidays include families/friends coming together for special meals, quality time together, honoring certain people (such as birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day), celebrating: Jesus's birth (Christmas; although there are people who don't,) Thanksgiving (began by Pilgrims and Native Americans,) July 4th (Independence Day for America,) Valentine's Day, and others. They are not just holidays or special days, they include traditions that make these days special. However, it is the individual's and the families' decisions to acknowledge and participate or not.
From that link: "In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians."
That's an inherent deceit against the pagans of that time. No matter what the appropriated 'holiday' consists of nowadays, it is based upon deceptions.
So what is your point? What is it you want people to do? If you do or don't want to celebrate them, that's your choice. Everyone else can make their choice.
-
There's a lot of things that people do in recognition to Jesus Christ without even noticing it.
Ignorance is bliss, monkey see monkey do, people are like a leaf blowing in the wind until they
come across something that seems to wake them up.
I personally believe in Jesus, and have I do celebrate Christmas. My focus is not on the day of
which I celebrate his birth, but on the purpose of his birth. Merry Christmas!!
-
I have a link too. Someone tell me how true all this is? I know some of it is, but I haven't researched it all.
'Cause it kinda sicked me out when I first found it:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)
This link does seem to provide more "gory" detail for both the pagan side and the Christian side, in what they did to people, including acting above the law (or rather they called it "lawlessness.") The main thing, if you are really wanting to figure this out, is to study both sides of the groups involved. In my previous post, I said I felt people should study and make their own decisions whether or not to celebrate our holidays.
Many of our holidays seem to be derived from pagan origins, but there again, according to today's celebrations and what they now stand for, most holidays include families/friends coming together for special meals, quality time together, honoring certain people (such as birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day), celebrating: Jesus's birth (Christmas; although there are people who don't,) Thanksgiving (began by Pilgrims and Native Americans,) July 4th (Independence Day for America,) Valentine's Day, and others. They are not just holidays or special days, they include traditions that make these days special. However, it is the individual's and the families' decisions to acknowledge and participate or not.
From that link: "In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians."
That's an inherent deceit against the pagans of that time. No matter what the appropriated 'holiday' consists of nowadays, it is based upon deceptions.
So what is your point? What is it you want people to do? If you do or don't want to celebrate them, that's your choice. Everyone else can make their choice.
I'm not making any recommendations as to other people's choices. I'm simply pointing out that the 'xtian holiday' presented in modern times is a direct rip-off/appropriation/plagiarism/cultural theft of other pre-existant cultures. These factors can be disregarded as willed however, the fact remains that the basis of xtianity is dishonesty and theft while it it celebrated today by giving gifts, (out of subliminal guilt?).
-
There's a lot of things that people do in recognition to Jesus Christ without even noticing it.
Ignorance is bliss, monkey see monkey do, people are like a leaf blowing in the wind until they
come across something that seems to wake them up.
I personally believe in Jesus, and have I do celebrate Christmas. My focus is not on the day of
which I celebrate his birth, but on the purpose of his birth. Merry Christmas!!
I like the way you put this. It's the focus that is of importance of why we celebrate certain holidays.
-
I have a link too. Someone tell me how true all this is? I know some of it is, but I haven't researched it all.
'Cause it kinda sicked me out when I first found it:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)
This link does seem to provide more "gory" detail for both the pagan side and the Christian side, in what they did to people, including acting above the law (or rather they called it "lawlessness.") The main thing, if you are really wanting to figure this out, is to study both sides of the groups involved. In my previous post, I said I felt people should study and make their own decisions whether or not to celebrate our holidays.
Many of our holidays seem to be derived from pagan origins, but there again, according to today's celebrations and what they now stand for, most holidays include families/friends coming together for special meals, quality time together, honoring certain people (such as birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day), celebrating: Jesus's birth (Christmas; although there are people who don't,) Thanksgiving (began by Pilgrims and Native Americans,) July 4th (Independence Day for America,) Valentine's Day, and others. They are not just holidays or special days, they include traditions that make these days special. However, it is the individual's and the families' decisions to acknowledge and participate or not.
From that link: "In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians."
That's an inherent deceit against the pagans of that time. No matter what the appropriated 'holiday' consists of nowadays, it is based upon deceptions.
So what is your point? What is it you want people to do? If you do or don't want to celebrate them, that's your choice. Everyone else can make their choice.
I'm not making any recommendations as to other people's choices. I'm simply pointing out that the 'xtian holiday' presented in modern times is a direct rip-off/appropriation/plagiarism/cultural theft of other pre-existant culturals. These factors can be disregarded as willed however, the fact remains that the basis of xtianity is dishonesty and theft while it it celebrated today by giving gifts, (out of subliminal guilt?).
Considering the fact that these celebrations have been here before our time of today, you have to agree there are a majority of people who have no idea whatsoever of the pagans vs. Christians of centuries ago. People enjoy the celebrations of today, albeit some are way too commercialized. They enjoy the traditions associated with today and hearts are involved in the emotions, humor, love, etc. of the meanings of these days. You've got a lot of work to do if you are going to try and convince people to disregard these holidays.
Both sides (pagans and Christians) were wrong in some of what they did, especially to innocent or despised people. Paganism is being brought back into some churches of today - certain practices or rites. So, the line has to be drawn somewhere and decisions made one way or the other. At least with today's traditions of holidays, there is a goodness and heartfelt joy within many homes, churches, families, friends, children, and many more.
-
Paganism is being brought back into some churches of today - certain practices or rites. So, the line has to be drawn somewhere and decisions made one way or the other.
What sort of line has to drawn? Something that separates or, distinguishes xtianity from pagainsm?
At least with today's traditions of holidays, there is a goodness and heartfelt joy within many homes, churches, families, friends, children, and many more.[/color]
It does seem possible to have a nominally secular holiday without too many overtones but, it might be nice to call it winter solstice once again.
-
Paganism is being brought back into some churches of today - certain practices or rites. So, the line has to be drawn somewhere and decisions made one way or the other.
What sort of line has to drawn? Something that separates or, distinguishes xtianity from pagainsm?
At least with today's traditions of holidays, there is a goodness and heartfelt joy within many homes, churches, families, friends, children, and many more.[/color]
It does seem possible to have a nominally secular holiday without too many overtones but, it might be nice to call it winter solstice once again.
I followed that comment up with "decisions made one way or the other." The majority of people are on the side of the line who choose to celebrate whether they know about the origins or not. Another thing to remember is this doesn't take place just in America, but all over the world , with slight changes in which some things are added, done a little differently, etc.
-
Paganism is being brought back into some churches of today - certain practices or rites. So, the line has to be drawn somewhere and decisions made one way or the other.
What sort of line has to drawn? Something that separates or, distinguishes xtianity from pagainsm?
At least with today's traditions of holidays, there is a goodness and heartfelt joy within many homes, churches, families, friends, children, and many more.[/color]
It does seem possible to have a nominally secular holiday without too many overtones but, it might be nice to call it winter solstice once again.
I followed that comment up with "decisions made one way or the other."
Indeed you did, including a preceding comment referring to unspecified "certain practices or rites" which sparked the notion that even secular celebrants would be unlikely to want a restitution of the full Roman holiday of Saturnalia. No doubt you were obliquely referring to some other pagan practices and rites?
-
A lot of people try to make a big deal over the Christmas Tree and how it relates to Christmas.The fact is,the Christmas tree became popular in the 16th century loooong after everyone (apart from modern Atheists,apparently) had forgotten festivals to pagan deities.
-
A lot of people try to make a big deal over the Christmas Tree and how it relates to Christmas.The fact is,the Christmas tree became popular in the 16th century loooong after everyone (apart from modern Atheists,apparently) had forgotten festivals to pagan deities.
That is incorrect. The tree was preceded by "yule" celebrations, a pagan holiday which takes place on the day of the winter solstice, around December 21 and preceded the xtian holiday by centuries. In turn, yule was preceded by druid and other pagan practices by several more centuries. All this goes to substantiate the fact that xtianity was composed of cultural thieves who were apparently engaged in a practice of co-opting other religious practices in order to suppress/absorb them. No doubt xtians are pleased that xmas won't be accurately greeted with 'Merry Cultural Theft Day' any time soon.
-
No doubt xtians are pleased that xmas won't be accurately greeted with 'Merry Cultural Theft Day' any time soon.
As a result of knowing this, a few of my friends and I now call it "Giftmas".
-
No doubt xtians are pleased that xmas won't be accurately greeted with 'Merry Cultural Theft Day' any time soon.
As a result of knowing this, a few of my friends and I now call it "Giftmas".
Bucking any stereotypes extant, I've got a hispanic friend who refers to xmas as "no mas".
-
lolololol
-
A lot of people try to make a big deal over the Christmas Tree and how it relates to Christmas.The fact is,the Christmas tree became popular in the 16th century loooong after everyone (apart from modern Atheists,apparently) had forgotten festivals to pagan deities.
That is incorrect. The tree was preceded by "yule" celebrations, a pagan holiday which takes place on the day of the winter solstice, around December 21 and preceded the xtian holiday by centuries. In turn, yule was preceded by druid and other pagan practices by several more centuries. All this goes to substantiate the fact that xtianity was composed of cultural thieves who were apparently engaged in a practice of co-opting other religious practices in order to suppress/absorb them. No doubt xtians are pleased that xmas won't be accurately greeted with 'Merry Cultural Theft Day' any time soon.
The fact that pagans used a tree in their festivities (by your admission) centuries before Christians has no correlation to the fact that Christians used the evergreen as a symbol of Christ's eternal life in the 15th or 16th century.There was no competition with Saturnalia festivals at that point.
-
A lot of people try to make a big deal over the Christmas Tree and how it relates to Christmas.The fact is,the Christmas tree became popular in the 16th century loooong after everyone (apart from modern Atheists,apparently) had forgotten festivals to pagan deities.
That is incorrect. The tree was preceded by "yule" celebrations, a pagan holiday which takes place on the day of the winter solstice, around December 21 and preceded the xtian holiday by centuries. In turn, yule was preceded by druid and other pagan practices by several more centuries. All this goes to substantiate the fact that xtianity was composed of cultural thieves who were apparently engaged in a practice of co-opting other religious practices in order to suppress/absorb them. No doubt xtians are pleased that xmas won't be accurately greeted with 'Merry Cultural Theft Day' any time soon.
The fact that pagans used a tree in their festivities (by your admission) centuries before Christians has no correlation to the fact that Christians used the evergreen as a symbol of Christ's eternal life in the 15th or 16th century.There was no competition with Saturnalia festivals at that point.
Right, no correlation at all - except for the fact that pagans were using it during the 15th/16th centuries, (yule logs), at the time the xtians appropriated, (stole), the concept to reapply it to a xtian usage. Saturnalia was more commonly celebrated well before the 15th/16th centuries so, the "competition" the early church feared was with norse and northern European pagans of the 15th/16th centuries, (among other time periods). Their method of dealing with such "competition" was to rip-off other cultural beliefs, alter them slighty and incorporate them into xtianity in order to insidiously deceive pagans into thinking they could still engage in pagan practices within xtianity. There is an enormous amount of evidence to support these dishonest actions by early xtians. Latter xtians apparently can't stomach some of the core concepts of their "religion" being the products of cultural theft. That's a damned shame, isn't it?
-
A lot of people try to make a big deal over the Christmas Tree and how it relates to Christmas.The fact is,the Christmas tree became popular in the 16th century loooong after everyone (apart from modern Atheists,apparently) had forgotten festivals to pagan deities.
That is incorrect. The tree was preceded by "yule" celebrations, a pagan holiday which takes place on the day of the winter solstice, around December 21 and preceded the xtian holiday by centuries. In turn, yule was preceded by druid and other pagan practices by several more centuries. All this goes to substantiate the fact that xtianity was composed of cultural thieves who were apparently engaged in a practice of co-opting other religious practices in order to suppress/absorb them. No doubt xtians are pleased that xmas won't be accurately greeted with 'Merry Cultural Theft Day' any time soon.
The fact that pagans used a tree in their festivities (by your admission) centuries before Christians has no correlation to the fact that Christians used the evergreen as a symbol of Christ's eternal life in the 15th or 16th century.There was no competition with Saturnalia festivals at that point.
Right, no correlation at all - except for the fact that pagans were using it during the 15th/16th centuries, (yule logs), at the time the xtians appropriated, (stole), the concept to reapply it to a xtian usage. Saturnalia was more commonly celebrated well before the 15th/16th centuries so, the "competition" the early church feared was with norse and northern European pagans of the 15th/16th centuries, (among other time periods). Their method of dealing with such "competition" was to rip-off other cultural beliefs, alter them slighty and incorporate them into xtianity in order to insidiously deceive pagans into thinking they could still engage in pagan practices within xtianity. There is an enormous amount of evidence to support these dishonest actions by early xtians. Latter xtians apparently can't stomach some of the core concepts of their "religion" being the products of cultural theft. That's a damned shame, isn't it?
Firstly,the fact that pagans used trees (or "Yule logs")for their festivals is hardly grounds for considering it "theft" when Christians used Christmas Trees for their own purpose.(As far as I know,a tree can't be patented!)
But secondly,Christmas trees were made popular in Germany in the 16th century.The custom evolved over time from two Christian traditions. One was a “paradise tree” hung with apples as a reminder of the tree of life in the garden of Eden. The other was a triangular shelf holding Christmas figurines decorated by a star. In the 16th century, these two symbols merged into the present Christmas tree tradition. (as I said before,by your own admission) Pagans had their festivities prior centuries,and in another country.It's fairly ludicrous to believe that every concept of Christian celebration was a deliberate aping of pagan customs. ::)
-
A lot of people try to make a big deal over the Christmas Tree and how it relates to Christmas.The fact is,the Christmas tree became popular in the 16th century loooong after everyone (apart from modern Atheists,apparently) had forgotten festivals to pagan deities.
That is incorrect. The tree was preceded by "yule" celebrations, a pagan holiday which takes place on the day of the winter solstice, around December 21 and preceded the xtian holiday by centuries. In turn, yule was preceded by druid and other pagan practices by several more centuries. All this goes to substantiate the fact that xtianity was composed of cultural thieves who were apparently engaged in a practice of co-opting other religious practices in order to suppress/absorb them. No doubt xtians are pleased that xmas won't be accurately greeted with 'Merry Cultural Theft Day' any time soon.
The fact that pagans used a tree in their festivities (by your admission) centuries before Christians has no correlation to the fact that Christians used the evergreen as a symbol of Christ's eternal life in the 15th or 16th century.There was no competition with Saturnalia festivals at that point.
Right, no correlation at all - except for the fact that pagans were using it during the 15th/16th centuries, (yule logs), at the time the xtians appropriated, (stole), the concept to reapply it to a xtian usage. Saturnalia was more commonly celebrated well before the 15th/16th centuries so, the "competition" the early church feared was with norse and northern European pagans of the 15th/16th centuries, (among other time periods). Their method of dealing with such "competition" was to rip-off other cultural beliefs, alter them slighty and incorporate them into xtianity in order to insidiously deceive pagans into thinking they could still engage in pagan practices within xtianity. There is an enormous amount of evidence to support these dishonest actions by early xtians. Latter xtians apparently can't stomach some of the core concepts of their "religion" being the products of cultural theft. That's a damned shame, isn't it?
Firstly,the fact that pagans used trees (or "Yule logs")for their festivals is hardly grounds for considering it "theft" when Christians used Christmas Trees for their own purpose.(As far as I know,a tree can't be patented!)
Nothing was said about patent infringements, (or copyright infringements, for that matter). The concept of cultural theft includes the appropriation of another culture's religious precepts, (stealing aspects of their belief systems), and altering them to some new paradigm - like the xtians have done. Since the pre-existing pagan cultural practice associated with yule logs had nothing whatsoever to do with xtianity, (nor did the subsequent cultural theft of that practice have anything to the xtian religion until the time of that theft), we have evidence of xtian plagiarism.
But secondly,Christmas trees were made popular in Germany in the 16th century.The custom evolved over time from two Christian traditions.
What is the reference source for your contention? In Northern Europe, Winter festivities were once considered to be a Feast of the Dead, complete with ceremonies full of spirits, devils, and the haunting presence of the Norse god, Odin, and his night riders. One particularly durable Solstice festival was "Jol" (also known as "Jule" and pronounced "Yule"), a feast celebrated throughout Northern Europe and particularly in Scandinavia to honor Jolnir, another name for Odin. Since Odin was the god of intoxicating drink and ecstasy, as well as the god of death, Yule customs varied greatly from region to region. This practice extended back before 1000 BC, well before the 16th century.
Pagans had their festivities prior centuries,and in another country.It's fairly ludicrous to believe that every concept of Christian celebration was a deliberate aping of pagan customs. ::)
Firstly, northern Europe includes what is now Germany, so these practices occurred there and well as in Scandinavian countries. Secondly,I never
stated that "every" pagan practice was stolen or "aped" by xtians; I maintained that certain specific ones were ripped-off by xtians in order to absorb extant pagan practices into xtianity. Evidence of these cultural thefts exists in abundance and is nonambiguous. Your religion has a basis in theft and dishonesty and yet, apparently requires trust in the form of "faith". Now there's a ludicrous xtian idea.
-
In our household Christmas is all about the kids, tree and presents. No one even has Jesus on their mind.
Christmas is a day of giving gifts and love to love ones...thats it.
-
:crybaby2:
-
There's a lot of things that people do in recognition to Jesus Christ without even noticing it.
Ignorance is bliss, monkey see monkey do, people are like a leaf blowing in the wind until they
come across something that seems to wake them up.
I personally believe in Jesus, and I do celebrate Christmas. My focus is not on the day of
which I celebrate his birth, but on the purpose of his birth. Merry Christmas!!
I like the way you put this. It's the focus that is of importance of why we celebrate certain holidays.
Without purpose efforts fail, and without focus distraction occurs.
Like you said it's the focus that's important as to why we recognize and hold fast to certain holidays.
If a child is born on a 9:11 for e.g. does that mean we shouldn't celebrate his birthday?
Importance override certain historical event, (Its a move called CHANGE). it's an individual/personal choice.
-
There's a lot of things that people do in recognition to Jesus Christ without even noticing it.
Ignorance is bliss, monkey see monkey do, people are like a leaf blowing in the wind until they
come across something that seems to wake them up.
I personally believe in Jesus, and I do celebrate Christmas. My focus is not on the day of
which I celebrate his birth, but on the purpose of his birth. Merry Christmas!!
I like the way you put this. It's the focus that is of importance of why we celebrate certain holidays.
Without purpose efforts fail, and without focus distraction occurs.
Like you said it's the focus that's important as to why we recognize and hold fast to certain holidays.
If a child is born on a 9:11 for e.g. does that mean we shouldn't celebrate his birthday?
Importance override certain historical event, (Its a move called CHANGE). it's an individual/personal choice.
:thumbsup:
-
I AM PROUD TO SAY I AM A CHRISTIAN!! :angel11: I BELIEVE IN CHRIST! I also believe that Christmas is the day that Jesus was born. I celebrate Christmas as his birthday. I also celebrate it with the gifts, decorations, and Santa Claus. I do this for my two small children. They believe in Santa, but they also know it is Jesus birthday. As a matter of fact, on Christmas morning my oldest child says Merry Christmas and Happy Birthday Jesus! He knows the what Christmas is and will help tell his baby brother when he is old enough to understand. I hate it when people take Christ out of Christmas. I correct anyone who comes up to me and tells me Merry Xmas or Happy Holidays! I look at them and say Merry Christmas! I understand people have different beliefs, but don't down play mine! If I know you celebrate other holidays such as Kwanza or Hanukkah then I would say Happy Kwanza or Happy Hanukkah. I would not down play it. I will respect their religions as long as they respect mine. That is what is wrong with world today, people don't respect other people for who they are, what they believe in, and their cultures.
-
I do, but I'd be just as happy not to.
And I'm with others, what does Santa have to do with Christ? Unless you go to church or pray or something, none of the regular Christmas things, like the tree, have anything to do with a religion that is still celebrated in modern times.
And in pre-modern times, it was a Jew killing holiday. So yeah.
The commercialism is just another strain on families that aren't doing so well in this economy.
Previously, in our family, we'd draw names and have all year to buy gifts just for one other family member's family (there's a lot of brothers and sisters and their kids in my family) and maybe some little gifts for all the kids.
Lately, the last couple years, it's just been a get-together and eat day, with only gifts given beforehand among the individual family. It's working out better, a lot less stress and strife, even if some people weren't quite as happy at first. Just little things given to the kids.
I'm happy if gifts are reserved instead for birthdays or spontaneous "saw this and thought of you!" times or just little party favor type things for the kids.
And before this question comes up, we celebrate Easter too. Because the Easter bunny and egg hunts also have nothing to do with a religion that is still celebrated in modern times.
"The commercialism is just another strain on families that aren't doing so well in this economy."
That sentence right there is the reason my mom stopped celebrating the holiday(this is whenI wasn't studying with the JW's_, I forever hate all holidays because of this and I can get together with my family without celebrating them MAKE ANOTHER EXCUSE PEOPLE!!!!
-
Do those who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible still celebrate Christmas with gifts, decorations, and all of the festivities? I'm sure they enjoy the day off with pay if they are blessed with a job that gives holiday pay! It seems like a lot of money is spent and a lot of festivites enjoyed if the true reason for the celebration is omitted.
Sure, why not?
-
I believe in Jesus and celebrate his birthday on Dec 25th. I have studied this also and do not believe Jesus was born on the 25th of Dec. I do think it is possible that the 25th was the day the Holy Spirit entered Mary and Jesus was conceived.
-
I believe in Jesus and celebrate his birthday on Dec 25th. I have studied this also and do not believe Jesus was born on the 25th of Dec. I do think it is possible that the 25th was the day the Holy Spirit entered Mary and Jesus was conceived.
You dear sir or maam 0_0 contradict yourself you say you celebrate his birthday on the 25th yet don't believe he was born on the 25th, then you say you believe by holy spirit he was conceived on the 25th??!!! This will mean that you celebrate his conception and not his birth???!!!! ??? ???
-
I believe in Jesus and celebrate his birthday on Dec 25th. I have studied this also and do not believe Jesus was born on the 25th of Dec. I do think it is possible that the 25th was the day the Holy Spirit entered Mary and Jesus was conceived.
You dear sir or maam 0_0 contradict yourself you say you celebrate his birthday on the 25th yet don't believe he was born on the 25th, then you say you believe by holy spirit he was conceived on the 25th??!!! This will mean that you celebrate his conception and not his birth???!!!! ??? ???
More precisely, what's being directly implied there is a celebration of a "possible" 'immaculate conception'. Naturally, such magical acts as 'immaculate conceptions' are not considered to be magical acts when they're the "works of god", (that's only if magic isn't magic, depending upon who's supposedly doing it of course).
-
I believe in Jesus and celebrate his birthday on Dec 25th. I have studied this also and do not believe Jesus was born on the 25th of Dec. I do think it is possible that the 25th was the day the Holy Spirit entered Mary and Jesus was conceived.
You dear sir or maam 0_0 contradict yourself you say you celebrate his birthday on the 25th yet don't believe he was born on the 25th, then you say you believe by holy spirit he was conceived on the 25th??!!! This will mean that you celebrate his conception and not his birth???!!!! ??? ???
More precisely, what's being directly implied there is a celebration of a "possible" 'immaculate conception'. Naturally, such magical acts as 'immaculate conceptions' are not considered to be magical acts when they're the "works of god", (that's only if magic isn't magic, depending upon who's supposedly doing it of course).
I agree there's clear bias in holybooks on whats magic or not, if a miracle is performed by God or through his servants it's not magic but a miracle, however if miracles are performed by God'senemies such as demons or followers of demons then it's magic instead of a miracle. Also according to the trinity this is much more literal then an act of God, the holy spirit which is a person(if your trinitaria maryn or modalist) had literal sex with mary... Good thing my religion teaches that the holy spirit is a fore and not a person...
-
I do not believe in Jesus but I still celebrate Christmas because my parents believe in Him and because it is about spending time with your family and I feel it is wrong to not give gifts to Children for Christmas when you know every other child is getting them and yours will be left out and even resent you for it. I also dont believe as many people believe in Jesus as they say they do, church seems like one big social gathering to me and thats not how its supposed to be.
-
I do not believe in Jesus but I still celebrate Christmas because my parents believe in Him and because it is about spending time with your family and I feel it is wrong to not give gifts to Children for Christmas when you know every other child is getting them and yours will be left out and even resent you for it. I also dont believe as many people believe in Jesus as they say they do, church seems like one big social gathering to me and thats not how its supposed to be.
So you celebrate it because of your parents tradition and use it as an excuse to spend time with your family(not knocking just giving my 2cents). Church is more then a social club, it's for Profit Organizations and businesses. The church overemphasis praising the father through Jesus and basically makes money off of that. I went to a funeral at a Church for my aunt hazel a few months back they read about 5 scriptures and some of them was clearly misinterpreted and when they weren't reading one of the 5 scriptures it was just nonstop music that was just as loud if not more louder then a concert. To add icing on the cake the most prominent clergyman of the clergy literally said and I quote "we came from heaven" please read Genesis 2:7 everyone...
-
Good thing my religion teaches that the holy spirit is a fore and not a person...
A "fore"? In your religion, the "holy spirit" is a golf warning or, something else was intended?
-
Jesus is my Lord and Savior. "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and Rightous. I dare not trust in anything but only lean on Jesus name.
-
I'm not religious but I still celebrate Christmas because it is a family tradition. For me it is about spending time together and caring for each other rather than its original intent.
-
I don't celebrate Christmas. Growing up, my adoptive mother was a Christian, but never pressured us to follow in her footsteps. Instead, she let us choose for ourselves which path was right for us. She got us presents (and still does), but calls them "birthday extensions". :P
-
I'm not religious but I still celebrate Christmas because it is a family tradition. For me it is about spending time together and caring for each other rather than its original intent.
Why can't you do it on other days? :BangHead:
@Falcon9: No force not fore(typo) yes make fun of "the force" reference you know you want to.
@ashleyxatrocity: My aunt does the same thing I still get gifts but not on a holiday.
-
@Falcon9: No force not fore(typo) yes make fun of "the force" reference you know you want to.
Nah, it comes across funnier as a 'holy golf warning'.
-
@Falcon9: No force not fore(typo) yes make fun of "the force" reference you know you want to.
Nah, it comes across funnier as a 'holy golf warning'.
:BangHead:
-
I don't think Jesus Christ and Christmas really have anything to do with each despite what the churches say. Christmas is something for family's to celebrate by just being together. Unless JC is apart of your family literally, I think he should just be left at of all the turmoil. Come on give the guy a break. :thumbsup:
-
The day of December 25th is not Jesus' actual birthday. That's just the day it is celebrated.
-
Do those who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible still celebrate Christmas with gifts, decorations, and all of the festivities? I'm sure they enjoy the day off with pay if they are blessed with a job that gives holiday pay! It seems like a lot of money is spent and a lot of festivites enjoyed if the true reason for the celebration is omitted.
I know i do believe in Jesus Christ and the holey bible. My family dose celebrate Christmas with all the decoration and every thing else but we do know the reason for the season is Jesus and his birth i know he lived and died for me all i can say is it drives me nuts when people com plane that cause they don't believe in Christ that people should happy holidays i don't think so if you don't believe in Christ the make your holiday on new years leave Christmas alone.
-
Obviously, it's now a celebration of money.
-
That is a very good question?
-
yes i do there are many cultures who celebrate around this time and where celebrating before jesus was around the solstice it apart of many people faith.over time celebrating being together with family and friends has become the focal point of holidays and i dont see anything wrong with that
-
I celebrate christmas as a time of family togetherness,
-
... we do know the reason for the season is Jesus and his birth
"Christian missionaries frequently sought to stamp out pagan practices by building churches on the sites of pagan shrines or by associated Christian holidays with pagan rituals (eg. linking -Christmas with the celebration of the winter solstice)."--Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia. Merriam Webster. 2000. p. 1211
all i can say is it drives me nuts when people com plane that cause they don't believe in Christ that people should happy holidays i don't think so if you don't believe in Christ the make your holiday on new years leave Christmas alone.
Since "christmas" is a theft of pre-existing pagan holidays, it's ironic when people complain about fencing stolen culture.
-
this is simple reality folks.. if pple dont celebrate jesus birthday they celebrate a fake fat man with a beard saying ho ho ho...
its sad really... but id guess spirit lives on here.. but still why celebrate a fake fat man with a beard???
-
this is simple reality folks.. if pple dont celebrate jesus birthday they celebrate a fake fat man with a beard saying ho ho ho...
No, it's even simpler than that; winter solstice celebrations were appropriated to obscure them, not as the birth of some guy.
its sad really... but id guess spirit lives on here.. but still why celebrate a fake fat man with a beard???
think what you wanna think but please respect others peoples beliefs... its true that some think that way i have no problem with that im born raised christian but no one cant control anyones behaviors... so i suggest please be respectful to others as we respect yours...
So calling the beliefs of some others celebrating "a fake fat man with a beard" is respectful of their beliefs? My response emphasizes your hypocrisy in wanting your baseless, fictional beliefs 'respected' while disparaging those of others. Consider your beliefs disparaged.
-
@falcon9
i dont know why you have a beef with me.. im just saying i respect others.. but im just statin a simple fact of what others have been believing.. so as for you to judge me on something its uncalled for...
for you to call me a hypocrite so wrong on many levels.. im not judging here just statin a fact of pples behaviors..
so please cut the crap of me saying im a hypocrite.
for pple like you need to lighten up a bit it shows how you can be so ignorant...
non the less i think your doing the same thing right? even tho you think you have the right concept and the mindset for it and yet you judge others beliefs as well? im just saying man i agree that it is a pagen holiday but respect others for it too.. yeah my opinion but i still respect others... unlike some pple
-
@falcon9
i dont know why you have a beef with me.. im just saying i respect others..
Unless they believe in a "fake fat man with a beard"?
but im just statin a simple fact of what others have been believing.. so as for you to judge me on something its uncalled for...
I'm not judging you per se, I'm responding to what you've written here and that is called for.
for you to call me a hypocrite so wrong on many levels.. im not judging here just statin a fact of pples behaviors..
The hypocrisy consists of your making contradictory statements in which you want your beliefs in a religious figure to be 'respected' while you disparage the beliefs of others in another mythical figure.
so please cut the crap of me saying im a hypocrite.
Your own words demonstrate your hypocrisy. If you don't care for them, cease posting them.
for pple like you need to lighten up a bit it shows how you can be so ignorant...
Your empty characterization of my so-called ignorance is ironically-humorous.
-
@falcon9
i dont know why you have a beef with me.. im just saying i respect others..
Unless they believe in a "fake fat man with a beard"?
but im just statin a simple fact of what others have been believing.. so as for you to judge me on something its uncalled for...
I'm not judging you per se, I'm responding to what you've written here and that is called for.
for you to call me a hypocrite so wrong on many levels.. im not judging here just statin a fact of pples behaviors..
The hypocrisy consists of your making contradictory statements in which you want your beliefs in a religious figure to be 'respected' while you disparage the beliefs of others in another mythical figure.
so please cut the crap of me saying im a hypocrite.
Your own words demonstrate your hypocrisy. If you don't care for them, cease posting them.
for pple like you need to lighten up a bit it shows how you can be so ignorant...
Your empty characterization of my so-called ignorance is ironically-humorous.
man you try to generilize everything huh just because on what i said? LOL you can act smart but stop with the judgement and attacks on me.. i may not be on your level of your smartness but i have the right to say what i wanna say... im not smart as you are but please refrain yourself for acting fake... im just staten simpler of what you been statin... so stop with the nonsense bullying... you refer santa as a pagen holiday? that means fake isnt it? it means its useless right...
so before you go on i think you should be the one respecting pple here..
im not trying to be mean like you are just statin on what i see from this thread..
-
man you try to generilize everything huh just because on what i said?
No, I replied specifically to what you posted; no generalizations were required.
LOL you can act smart but stop with the judgement and attacks on me..
I'm not acting; I always post in this manner regarding this subject matter. These responses are to what you've posted, whether you consider them to be judgemental "attacks" or not. Since your posted replies can be considered as 'attacks' on reason, I've responded accordingly.
i may not be on your level of your smartness but i have the right to say what i wanna say...
You do have the "right" to make specious posts, just as I have the "right" to respond to substantially respond to them. It works both ways in a public forum.
im not smart as you are but please refrain yourself for acting fake...
You've mentioned 'judging' at least twice now, while hypocritically 'judging' that you perceive my replies as "acting fake". This is the second example of hypocrisy which you've posted, in your own words.
im just staten simpler of what you been statin... so stop with the nonsense bullying...
Now you're 'acting' like a martyr; this is niot "bullying", it is responding to the posts you've made. Consider stopping your nonsense of making false accusations or, continue on your present course. It's up to you.
you refer santa as a pagen holiday?
When did I do that? While the date celebrated is based on prior pagan holidays, (solstice, Festival of Mithris, Sol Invictus, etc.), "santa" derives from "St. Nick" - a xtian saint.
that means fake isnt it? it means its useless right...
Yes, xtian mythology consists of unsubstantiated myths. As far as those myths being "useless", I tend to concur.
so before you go on i think you should be the one respect pple here.. im not trying to be mean just statin on what i see..
I am unable to decipher the precise meaning of your inarticulate jumble however, it can be provisionally discerned as having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
-
man you try to generilize everything huh just because on what i said?
No, I replied specifically to what you posted; no generalizations were required.
LOL you can act smart but stop with the judgement and attacks on me..
I'm not acting; I always post in this manner regarding this subject matter. These responses are to what you've posted, whether you consider them to be judgemental "attacks" or not. Since your posted replies can be considered as 'attacks' on reason, I've responded accordingly.
i may not be on your level of your smartness but i have the right to say what i wanna say...
You do have the "right" to make specious posts, just as I have the "right" to respond to substantially respond to them. It works both ways in a public forum.
im not smart as you are but please refrain yourself for acting fake...
You've mentioned 'judging' at least twice now, while hypocritically 'judging' that you perceive my replies as "acting fake". This is the second example of hypocrisy which you've posted, in your own words.
im just staten simpler of what you been statin... so stop with the nonsense bullying...
Now you're 'acting' like a martyr; this is niot "bullying", it is responding to the posts you've made. Consider stopping your nonsense of making false accusations or, continue on your present course. It's up to you.
you refer santa as a pagen holiday?
When did I do that? While the date celebrated is based on prior pagan holidays, (solstice, Festival of Mithris, Sol Invictus, etc.), "santa" derives from "St. Nick" - a xtian saint.
that means fake isnt it? it means its useless right...
Yes, xtian mythology consists of unsubstantiated myths. As far as those myths being "useless", I tend to concur.
so before you go on i think you should be the one respect pple here.. im not trying to be mean just statin on what i see..
I am unable to decipher the precise meaning of your inarticulate jumble however, it can be provisionally discerned as having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
yes im unarmed that means im not smart as you... but im just statin the fact... so dont try to put your words saying im the bad guy here... im not trying to act mean here like you are with me. im just saying i agree with what you said. so what do you want me to do go kill myself ? is that what you really want? just saying it simplest way so regular pple like us can understand..
-
yes im unarmed that means im not smart as you... but im just statin the fact... so dont try to put your words saying im the bad guy here... im not trying to act mean here like you are with me.
Your interpretations of the English language appear to lean toward randomness; nothing was posted about your being "the bad guy".
im just saying i agree with what you said. so what do you want me to do go kill myself ? is that what you really want? just saying it simplest way so regular pple like us can understand..
No, your "simplest way" consists of contentious points and these were contended. The alternative to 'killing yourself' is to respond to what is actually written in reply, rather than characterizing yourself as some sort of 'victim'.
-
yes im unarmed that means im not smart as you... but im just statin the fact... so dont try to put your words saying im the bad guy here... im not trying to act mean here like you are with me.
Your interpretations of the English language appear to lean toward randomness; nothing was posted about your being "the bad guy".
im just saying i agree with what you said. so what do you want me to do go kill myself ? is that what you really want? just saying it simplest way so regular pple like us can understand..
No, your "simplest way" consists of contentious points and these were contended. The alternative to 'killing yourself' is to respond to what is actually written in reply, rather than characterizing yourself as some sort of 'victim'.
i understand you hate me.. and if you want me to apologize then fine i apologize for what i said.. i just want this to end aight... god your words do kill me tho... its just a headache......
but if i was acting mean in anyway im sorry.. just stop with the hate... you where statin the fact i was i well we where on the same boat.. but yet you keep referring me as a hypocrite where you where doing the same thing...
you just dont get it it do you... keep studying my words it doesnt matter you where doing the same thing by disrespecting pple of believing santa.. your the one to talk my friend...
-
i understand you hate me..
I don't know you well enough to hate you therefore, I do not. I don't even "hate" the posts you make, I'm merely challenging them.
and if you want me to apologize then fine i apologize for what i said.. i just want this to end aight... god your words do kill me tho... its just a headache......
No apologies were requested nor, required. You posted your opinions, these were challenged and you perceived these challenges as "attacks". If you did not wish your ideas to be challenged, why post them in this forum?
but if i was acting mean in anyway im sorry.. just stop with the hate...
There is no "hate" in these replies beyond your misperceptions.
you where statin the fact i was i well we where on the same boat.. but yet you keep referring me as a hypocrite where you where doing the same thing...
No, replies were made to specific posts in your own words which exemplified your hypocrisy in context. Conversely, I have no beliefs in either a mythical "santa" nor a mythical "jesus" therefore, no hypocrisy on my part has been envinced.
you just dont get it it do you...
Unless you're making some obscure point, my replies demonstrate what I "get". Yours demonstrate what you do not comprehend.
-
WOW its easy just to ignore him talk... but im glad i pushed that button...
-
if you dont like what i wrote thats ok.. ill move on... but if you want to challenge someone just dont challenge me..
I did state that I was challenging the context of what you'd posted. You have no control over who replies to your posts.
ignore me do what you can to block me...
I'd suggest that you adopt your own suggestion in regards to avoiding responding to any replies which 'disturb' your sensibilities. I'm choosing to reply and, given your posted responses, so are you.
im just here like everyone else stating opinions...
While there is a difference between a substantiated opinion and an unsubstantiated one, I occasionally respond to both types.
so please do me a favor ignore me...
If I choose to do so, I will. If not, I won't. This largely depends upon continued participation.
i want to talk with regular pple here that can understand and not take things seriously...
The solution is simple; cease replying to those for whom you have no substantive rebuttal. Or, keep pretending that others 'do not understand' whatever obscure point you're trying to make, (beyond that which can be discerned from what you've posted).
-
WOW its easy just to ignore him talk... but im glad i pushed that button...
Good for you, (and ostriches)! Now, that wasn't so difficult, was it?
-
... we do know the reason for the season is Jesus and his birth
"Christian missionaries frequently sought to stamp out pagan practices by building churches on the sites of pagan shrines or by associated Christian holidays with pagan rituals (eg. linking -Christmas with the celebration of the winter solstice)."--Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia. Merriam Webster. 2000. p. 1211
all i can say is it drives me nuts when people com plane that cause they don't believe in Christ that people should happy holidays i don't think so if you don't believe in Christ the make your holiday on new years leave Christmas alone.
Since "christmas" is a theft of pre-existing pagan holidays, it's ironic when people complain about fencing stolen culture.
Ya duh Ya duh Ya duh! *Yawn* The same ole answers over and over....... but if it makes you happy........ carry on. :confused1:
-
... we do know the reason for the season is Jesus and his birth
"Christian missionaries frequently sought to stamp out pagan practices by building churches on the sites of pagan shrines or by associated Christian holidays with pagan rituals (eg. linking -Christmas with the celebration of the winter solstice)."--Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia. Merriam Webster. 2000. p. 1211
all i can say is it drives me nuts when people com plane that cause they don't believe in Christ that people should happy holidays i don't think so if you don't believe in Christ the make your holiday on new years leave Christmas alone.
Since "christmas" is a theft of pre-existing pagan holidays, it's ironic when people complain about fencing stolen culture.
Ya duh Ya duh Ya duh! *Yawn* The same ole answers over and over....... but if it makes you happy........ carry on. :confused1:
It's the same answer to the same 'question' since the facts haven't 'magically-changed' for the supporters of cultural theft.
-
That last page was hilarious. Sammy starts pulling the victim card and making Falcon9 seem cruel ("You hate me! You want me to kill myself!" ) whereas all he does is answer them with basic logical answers of what's going on. I detected no cruelty.
Sammy-- this is DEBATE and DISCUSS. If you can't put your petty emotions aside and want to take everything personally (to the level of absurdity), you probably shouldn't be here (unless you're purposely doing it-- then we have an internet-troll problem). I'm not telling you to leave or anything, but if you're going to needlessly act like you're being harrassed when being debated in a debate forum, you're going to get called on the hypocrisy. I am by no means trying to be cruel here, but what I read from you just sounded childish. Seriously, reread your posts.
-
That last page was hilarious. Sammy starts pulling the victim card and making Falcon9 seem cruel ("You hate me! You want me to kill myself!" ) whereas all he does is answer them with basic logical answers of what's going on. I detected no cruelty.
Apparently, challenging baseless opinions can be considered as "cruel", eh? If you noticed what you obviously have, you probably also noticed that "Sammy" didn't bother responding to refutations of their 'opinions', that they resorted to 'attacking' with false accusations instead? Regardless, it could be discerned that "Sammy" declined to have their cherished beliefs challenged after posting them in the D+D forum.
Sammy-- this is DEBATE and DISCUSS. If you can't put your petty emotions aside and want to take everything personally (to the level of absurdity), you probably shouldn't be here (unless your purposely doing it-- then we have an internet-troll problem). I'm not telling you to leave or anything, but if you're going to needlessly act like you're being harrassed when being debated in a debate forum, you're going to get called on the hypocrisy. I am by no means trying to be cruel here, but what I read from you just sounded childish. Seriously, reread your posts.
Okay, that last sentence, ("Seriously, reread your posts"), was perhaps unintentionally cruel to "Sammy" - given the almost inarticulate nature of those posts. Shame on you, Falc, "Sammy" might threaten you with a restraining order too now.
-
this is simple reality folks.. if pple dont celebrate jesus birthday they celebrate a fake fat man with a beard saying ho ho ho...
There is more than two ways to eat a Reese's...come on, are you really that simple‐minded that you think all situations operate in black or white? What about people who don't partake in the seasonal madness at all (like me)? Does Hanukkah or Kwanzaa ring a bell? Yep, things are definitely not "god's way or the highway" when it comes to what people choose to do on the 25th day of December (which is not your pal Jesus's birthday anyway; we've been over this a million times).
why celebrate a fake fat man with a beard???
Last time I checked, Santa is a fun, optional tradition for kids, and Jesus is Santa for adults. ;D
-
There is no debate and discuss when one side consistently overrides the other side by refusing to acknowledge even their opinions. People are interested in learning, asking questions, researching, and discussing topics. However, especially with any of the religious topics, everything the posters, who are believers, respond, it is always refused. That's not debating one side with the other. It's ignoring their points because the points aren't necessarily PROVEN FACTS.
Your views of a particular science is just a theory - not ALL things have been proven yet. Both sides need to be mature and open enough to talk or just give an opinion. Sadly, some don't return the courtesy. And it seems to be the norm, especially with young Christians or new people who are Christians, who are simply answering the topic question with their own belief or opinion. There's no need going after them like that.
-
There is no debate and discuss when one side consistently overrides the other side by refusing to acknowledge even their opinions. People are interested in learning, asking questions, researching, and discussing topics. However, especially with any of the religious topics, everything the posters, who are believers, respond, it is always refused. That's not debating one side with the other. It's ignoring their points because the points aren't necessarily PROVEN FACTS.
Your views of a particular science is just a theory - not ALL things have been proven yet. Both sides need to be mature and open enough to talk or just give an opinion. Sadly, some don't return the courtesy. And it seems to be the norm, especially with young Christians or new people who are Christians, who are simply answering the topic question with their own belief or opinion. There's no need going after them like that.
thank you ...
-
this is simple reality folks.. if pple dont celebrate jesus birthday they celebrate a fake fat man with a beard saying ho ho ho...
There is more than two ways to eat a Reese's...come on, are you really that simple‐minded that you think all situations operate in black or white? What about people who don't partake in the seasonal madness at all (like me)? Does Hanukkah or Kwanzaa ring a bell? Yep, things are definitely not "god's way or the highway" when it comes to what people choose to do on the 25th day of December (which is not your pal Jesus's birthday anyway; we've been over this a million times).
why celebrate a fake fat man with a beard???
Last time I checked, Santa is a fun, optional tradition for kids, and Jesus is Santa for adults. ;D
yes finally someone gets me :) but i understand what you saying too..
-
There is no debate and discuss when one side consistently overrides the other side by refusing to acknowledge even their opinions. People are interested in learning, asking questions, researching, and discussing topics. However, especially with any of the religious topics, everything the posters, who are believers, respond, it is always refused.
On the contrary, every unsupported opinion posted thus far by "believers" has been refuted as baseless. That is the spirit of debate itself.
That's not debating one side with the other. It's ignoring their points because the points aren't necessarily PROVEN FACTS.
To reiterate, refuting a specious point is not the same as ignoring a specious point. They're specious because they're speculative opinions and that's what's being debated.
Your views of a particular science is just a theory - not ALL things have been proven yet.
Which particular science are you referring to? Evolution?
Both sides need to be mature and open enough to talk or just give an opinion. Sadly, some don't return the courtesy.
As previously indicated, there is a substantive difference between an unsupported opinion and a supported one. The "courtesy" to discuss and debate both exist in the D+D forum. What's 'discourteous' is when those holding unsupported opinions try to characterize opposing views as discourteous.
And it seems to be the norm, especially with young Christians or new people who are Christians, who are simply answering the topic question with their own belief or opinion. There's no need going after them like that.
It isn't "going after them", it's going after a publically-posted specious 'belief'; which is within the context of debating in the D+D forum.
-
There is no debate and discuss when one side consistently overrides the other side by refusing to acknowledge even their opinions. People are interested in learning, asking questions, researching, and discussing topics. However, especially with any of the religious topics, everything the posters, who are believers, respond, it is always refused. That's not debating one side with the other. It's ignoring their points because the points aren't necessarily PROVEN FACTS.
Your views of a particular science is just a theory - not ALL things have been proven yet. Both sides need to be mature and open enough to talk or just give an opinion. Sadly, some don't return the courtesy. And it seems to be the norm, especially with young Christians or new people who are Christians, who are simply answering the topic question with their own belief or opinion. There's no need going after them like that.
You're welcome. Been there to the point of it being ridiculous. I've been struggling with some major asthma/bronchial issues for quite some time now and realized getting well (still working on) is so much more important than going in circles with a certain one or two in here who really don't care to actually talk about these issues.
thank you ...
-
Been there to the point of it being ridiculous.
Actually, you actively participated until the point where it boiled-down to unsupported 'faith' and then bailed.
...so much more important than going in circles with a certain one or two in here who really don't care to actually talk about these issues.
A large number of substantive replies in more thaan one thread contradicts your contention that "a certain one or two in here who really don't care to actually talk about these issues". Such false characterizations in the face of evidence to the contrary shouldn't need to be emphasized but, they apparently do when the practice continues unabated.
-
There is no debate and discuss when one side consistently overrides the other side by refusing to acknowledge even their opinions. People are interested in learning, asking questions, researching, and discussing topics. However, especially with any of the religious topics, everything the posters, who are believers, respond, it is always refused. That's not debating one side with the other. It's ignoring their points because the points aren't necessarily PROVEN FACTS.
Your views of a particular science is just a theory - not ALL things have been proven yet. Both sides need to be mature and open enough to talk or just give an opinion. Sadly, some don't return the courtesy. And it seems to be the norm, especially with young Christians or new people who are Christians, who are simply answering the topic question with their own belief or opinion. There's no need going after them like that.
You're welcome. Been there to the point of it being ridiculous. I've been struggling with some major asthma/bronchial issues for quite some time now and realized getting well (still working on) is so much more important than going in circles with a certain one or two in here who really don't care to actually talk about these issues.
thank you ...
i feel the same way.... hope you get better and stay strong... :) lets make money
-
There is no debate and discuss when one side consistently overrides the other side by refusing to acknowledge even their opinions. People are interested in learning, asking questions, researching, and discussing topics. However, especially with any of the religious topics, everything the posters, who are believers, respond, it is always refused.
On the contrary, every unsupported opinion posted thus far by "believers" has been refuted as baseless. That is the spirit of debate itself.
That's not debating one side with the other. It's ignoring their points because the points aren't necessarily PROVEN FACTS.
To reiterate, refuting a specious point is not the same as ignoring a specious point. They're specious because they're speculative opinions and that's what's being debated.
Your views of a particular science is just a theory - not ALL things have been proven yet.
Which particular science are you referring to? Evolution?
Both sides need to be mature and open enough to talk or just give an opinion. Sadly, some don't return the courtesy.
As previously indicated, there is a substantive difference between an unsupported opinion and a supported one. The "courtesy" to discuss and debate both exist in the D+D forum. What's 'discourteous' is when those holding unsupported opinions try to characterize opposing views as discourteous.
And it seems to be the norm, especially with young Christians or new people who are Christians, who are simply answering the topic question with their own belief or opinion. There's no need going after them like that.
It isn't "going after them", it's going after a publically-posted specious 'belief'; which is within the context of debating in the D+D forum.
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc. That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason. You continue on with your circular refutes - I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely. I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
-
Been there to the point of it being ridiculous.
Actually, you actively participated until the point where it boiled-down to unsupported 'faith' and then bailed.
No sir, my health problems got bad and I had to prioritize.
-
There is no debate and discuss when one side consistently overrides the other side by refusing to acknowledge even their opinions. People are interested in learning, asking questions, researching, and discussing topics. However, especially with any of the religious topics, everything the posters, who are believers, respond, it is always refused. That's not debating one side with the other. It's ignoring their points because the points aren't necessarily PROVEN FACTS.
Your views of a particular science is just a theory - not ALL things have been proven yet. Both sides need to be mature and open enough to talk or just give an opinion. Sadly, some don't return the courtesy. And it seems to be the norm, especially with young Christians or new people who are Christians, who are simply answering the topic question with their own belief or opinion. There's no need going after them like that.
You're welcome. Been there to the point of it being ridiculous. I've been struggling with some major asthma/bronchial issues for quite some time now and realized getting well (still working on) is so much more important than going in circles with a certain one or two in here who really don't care to actually talk about these issues.
thank you ...
i feel the same way.... hope you get better and stay strong... :) lets make money
Thank you very much. :)
-
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc. That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason. You continue on with your circular refutes - I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely. I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
[/quote]
thank you for trying to help and realize on what to expect in here and i am very appreciative about it.. im just gonna ignore em and hopefully you can rest a bit... as i have already did im done with them for good :) get better ^^
these guys dont even recognized your health issues and saying you bailed.... such egomaniacs tho.. fo real...
-
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc. That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason. You continue on with your circular refutes - I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely. I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
thank you for trying to help and realize on what to expect in here and i am very appreciative about it.. im just gonna ignore em and hopefully you can rest a bit... as i have already did im done with them for good :) get better ^^
[/quote]
You're welcome and thank you. Happy New Year! :)
-
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.
Yes, that's what debating consists of. It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions. Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so. Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.
That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.
Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
You continue on with your circular refutes -
They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'. If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.
I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.
I read your circumventing and responding posts. I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own. On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.
I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
[/quote]
-
No sir, my health problems got bad and I had to prioritize.
In that case, you're posting some now so, either things have gotten better or, you've re-priortized.
-
im just gonna ignore em
Still waiting for that to occur after a few false pronouncements which were immediately voided by further replies.
these guys dont even recognized your health issues and saying you bailed.... such egomaniacs tho.. fo real...
It's been awhile however, I don't recall her mentioning health issues prior to bailing. Mentioning them now, after the fact has no bearing on a lack of previous information.
-
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.
Yes, that's what debating consists of. It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions. Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so. Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.
That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.
Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
You continue on with your circular refutes -
They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'. If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.
I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.
I read your circumventing and responding posts. I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own. On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.
I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
[/quote]
Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does. I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone. You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact. Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.
No 'hand-holding' here. Just a heads-up. I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided, have given up in here and have even quit FC. I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.
-
No sir, my health problems got bad and I had to prioritize.
In that case, you're posting some now so, either things have gotten better or, you've re-priortized.
Actually it's none of your concern. I post for my bonus just like all others. I bookmark some, read some, and felt led to say something because of what was going on.
-
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.
Yes, that's what debating consists of. It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions. Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so. Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.
That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.
Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
You continue on with your circular refutes -
They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'. If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.
I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.
I read your circumventing and responding posts. I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own. On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.
I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does. I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone. You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact. Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.
No 'hand-holding' here. Just a heads-up. I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided, have given up in here and have even quit FC. I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.
[/quote]
so truee and it was hard enough of those 2 egomaniacs ruin the fun out of it....
-
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.
Yes, that's what debating consists of. It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions. Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so. Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.
That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.
Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
You continue on with your circular refutes -
They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'. If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.
I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.
I read your circumventing and responding posts. I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own. On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.
I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does. I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone. You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact. Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.
The definition of "opinion" remains the same for everyone. I choose to occasionally refute unsupported opinions because they aren't equivalent to factual statements.
No 'hand-holding' here. Just a heads-up. I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided ...
If, by "one-sided", your meaning is that I use reason and many of those people you "feel bad for" do not, then isn't that a shame? Their being unable to debate using reason is not my responsibility. Their insistance upon making irrational and unsupported claims is not my responsibility. Apparently, you are implying that it is yours.
I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.
These forums are open to posting and replies by anyone who chooses to participate in them. This includes false characterizations of "mocking or goading" and definitely includes refuting unsupported nonsense in the D+D forum. If any participant's sensibilities are so fragile that they 'feel persecuted', the choice remains to participate or not in these forums. Reread the prelude to the D+D and ponder it a moment.
-
im just gonna ignore em
Still waiting for that to occur after a few false pronouncements which were immediately voided by further replies.
these guys dont even recognized your health issues and saying you bailed.... such egomaniacs tho.. fo real...
It's been awhile however, I don't recall her mentioning health issues prior to bailing. Mentioning them now, after the fact has no bearing on a lack of previous information.
You were way too much into refuting opinions that to care about anyone's health. Falconer and Jordandog knew about my health issues but that need not concern you either since you still consider it bailing.
-
it was hard enough of those 2 egomaniacs ruin the fun out of it....
Your conception of "fun", as well as your passsive-aggressive and unsupported characterizations, have no bearing on choosing to reply or not.
-
im just gonna ignore em
Still waiting for that to occur after a few false pronouncements which were immediately voided by further replies.
these guys dont even recognized your health issues and saying you bailed.... such egomaniacs tho.. fo real...
It's been awhile however, I don't recall her mentioning health issues prior to bailing. Mentioning them now, after the fact has no bearing on a lack of previous information.
You were way too much into refuting opinions that to care about anyone's health. Falconer and Jordandog knew about my health issues but that need not concern you either since you still consider it bailing.
ignoring is so much fun.. glad i took my profile pic out.....
-
You were way too much into refuting opinions that to care about anyone's health.
I'm sure I can go back and find at least one post made where I indicated concern for someone's health. It may not have been yours, (IIRC, it was for "Abrupt"; someone who'd previously participated in several heated exchanges with me).
Falconer and Jordandog knew about my health issues but that need not concern you either since you still consider it bailing.
I'm not in any off-forum contact with either of those people and wasn't previously aware of your health status. That said, the lack of being aware of that particular event had no bearing on refuting specious assertions you'd posted, (since, if you were well enough to post before those issues and are posting now, those issues aren't currently relavent).
-
ignoring is so much fun.. glad i took my profile pic out.....
However, it isn't really "ignoring" when continued passive-aggressive posts are being made. Just a heads-up on that.
-
No sir, my health problems got bad and I had to prioritize.
In that case, you're posting some now so, either things have gotten better or, you've re-priortized.
Actually it's none of your concern. I post for my bonus just like all others. I bookmark some, read some, and felt led to say something because of what was going on.
Exactly, it isn't my concern although you felt it necessary to mention regardless, (as an 'excuse', explanation or cop-out - who knows?).
-
You are still going in circles. You are not debating - you are refuting anything that to you is "unsupported," "baseless," "specious points," etc.
Yes, that's what debating consists of. It isn't the exchange of unsupported opinions. Debate often entails making some assertion(s), either supporting those assertions with evidence or, a chain of reasoning or, not doing so. Challenging either supported or unsupported contentions, (opinions/assertions/declarations etc.), is consistent with the process of debate.
That is not being open to reason, which you will say is unreasonable because those refutes are not reason.
Unsupported/unsubstantiated opinions are not equivalent to "reason" therefore, it is not unreasonable to reject irrational "refutes".
You continue on with your circular refutes -
They aren't "circular" refutations; they are basically the same reasoning used to refute unreasoned 'faith'. If you continue to base unsupported opinions upon equally unsupported 'faith', getting consistant refutations is a reasonable expectation.
I was just trying to help out a couple of posters, so they could maybe understand a little more about what to expect in some of these threads with regard to Christianity vs. non-christianity, Atheism, non-believers, and with certain ones who make it difficult to discuss things openly and maturely.
I read your circumventing and responding posts. I understand your willingness to enable those posting weak positions however, I don't concur with such 'hand-holding' and give every poster the opportunity to understand what they are posting to on their own. On the other hand, you may perceive them as 'crippled' by offerring such 'crutches' to them.
I don't feel like continuing with you, nor do I care to, until I am more up to par health-wise.
Well, I guess your dictionary means different for "opinion" than mine does. I could see you refuting facts, but an "opinion" is what one thinks or feels about something or someone. You are putting way too much into trying to make an opinion be equal to a fact. Yep, I know you will refute this - that's what you do.
The definition of "opinion" remains the same for everyone. I choose to occasionally refute unsupported opinions because they aren't equivalent to factual statements.
No 'hand-holding' here. Just a heads-up. I feel bad for a couple of people who, because of your "type" of debating one-sided ...
If, by "one-sided", your meaning is that I use reason and many of those people you "feel bad for" do not, then isn't that a shame? Their being unable to debate using reason is not my responsibility. Their insistance upon making irrational and unsupported claims is not my responsibility. Apparently, you are implying that it is yours.
I realize it was their choice, but it's wrong to me that they felt "beaten" down enough that they couldn't just talk with others about things they felt strongly about without certain people coming in deliberately mocking, goading, refuting, etc.
These forums are open to posting and replies by anyone who chooses to participate in them. This includes false characterizations of "mocking or goading" and definitely includes refuting unsupported nonsense in the D+D forum. If any participant's sensibilities are so fragile that they 'feel persecuted', the choice remains to participate or not in these forums. Reread the prelude to the D+D and ponder it a moment.
1. Observe the golden rule
Treat others as you would like to be treated.
(You know this does not mean for others to constantly make your opinions look baseless, specious, unsupported to the point where you don't enjoy debating. Courteousness of others with regards to speaking with them about their opinion or thoughts is what should be happening. **Yes, a D&D topic can be sparky and heated over view points, but when view points are not acknowledge right off at the start, but instead shut down because you always consider others' views as baseless, unsupported, circular, etc., they aren't being given fair opportunity to stand by their reasons, whether they make sense or not. Why debate then, because you've closed them out.)
2. Your use of the forums is a privilege, not a right, and we may revoke your access at any time and for any reason.
(You think it's a privilege to constantly badger others by not returning the favor of courteousness of respect for their opinions/beliefs/views? Debating is usually of differing views, but not constantly using the same words over and over and over to others because you deem any of theirs unsupported, baseless, specious, including not providing factual info for an opinion, is not making it a privilege to enjoy it. You are acting like it's your right to control these debates because your views are always accurate and correct and therefore there's no reason to tolerate anyone else who doesn't agree.)
**
A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk! **
-
Every Christian has their own opinions about Christmas because there are so many denominations and each church teaches different things about Christmas. My perspective is that I do NOT believe that Jesus was born on Dec 25 because it's in the history books that the Catholics made that day Christmas in accordance with a pagan sun god's birthday. Christmas tree has pagan history and connotations to it so I discourage using a tree, and I'm not really into decorating my apartment. But I do believe in giving away gifts because that is my way of showing my love to all the people that's close to me and that's dear to me. So basically, I only do the gift sharing, and nothing else really..
-
Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore,I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants to supply cause for a few posts.It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....
-
**[/color]Yes, a D&D topic can be sparky and heated over view points, but when view points are not acknowledge right off at the start, but instead shut down because you always consider others' views as baseless, unsupported, circular, etc., they aren't being given fair opportunity to stand by their reasons, whether they make sense or not. Why debate then, because you've closed them out.)
And yet, numerous posts exist which have the content of debating/challenging several different points of view. Therefore, these viewpoints were not "shut-down", they were addressed and challenged. Challenging assertions is consistent with the process of debate.
(You think it's a privilege to constantly badger others by not returning the favor of courteousness of respect for their opinions/beliefs/views?
Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion. There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied).
Debating is usually of differing views, but not constantly using the same words over and over and over to others because you deem any of theirs unsupported, baseless, specious, including not providing factual info for an opinion
What, you want more synonyms used when refuting the same points, (which often use the same words as well)? There is no requirement in teh process of debate to use different words to make the same point. I don't "deem" unsupported opinions as being unsupported when there is some substantiation for them.
You are acting like it's your right to control these debates because your views are always accurate and correct and therefore there's no reason to tolerate anyone else who doesn't agree.) **
Your assessment is in error since I cannot control the content of what others post. Neither have I overtly claimed that my views are "always accurate and correct", (although I do endeaver to achieve accuracy, unlike many of my opponents). Nothing was stated about 'tolerating' opposing points of view except by you. Are you implying that any point of view, (such as support of cannabilism, for instance), needs to be "tolerated"?
[/quote]
"A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk! ** [/quote]
That's what is states, alright. Is any part of that unclear to you?
-
Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore ...
I realize that it is largely a waste of effort to once again reiterate that "Falconeer02" and "falcon9" are two distinct FC members however, it would be refreshing were you to ignore what you cannot cognizantly reply to - that's your choice of course.
I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants ...
Speaking of "arrogant rants", I can't say as I've missed your xtian fanaticisms. I just figured you'd been busy lately.
It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....
This was ironically-funny in that you've previously made it apparent that you are uninterested in reasonable conversation, ("enlightment" being a forlorn hope in your instance for that reason).
-
**[/color]Yes, a D&D topic can be sparky and heated over view points, but when view points are not acknowledge right off at the start, but instead shut down because you always consider others' views as baseless, unsupported, circular, etc., they aren't being given fair opportunity to stand by their reasons, whether they make sense or not. Why debate then, because you've closed them out.)
And yet, numerous posts exist which have the content of debating/challenging several different points of view. Therefore, these viewpoints were not "shut-down", they were addressed and challenged. Challenging assertions is consistent with the process of debate.
(You think it's a privilege to constantly badger others by not returning the favor of courteousness of respect for their opinions/beliefs/views?
Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion. There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied).
Debating is usually of differing views, but not constantly using the same words over and over and over to others because you deem any of theirs unsupported, baseless, specious, including not providing factual info for an opinion
What, you want more synonyms used when refuting the same points, (which often use the same words as well)? There is no requirement in teh process of debate to use different words to make the same point. I don't "deem" unsupported opinions as being unsupported when there is some substantiation for them.
You are acting like it's your right to control these debates because your views are always accurate and correct and therefore there's no reason to tolerate anyone else who doesn't agree.) **
Your assessment is in error since I cannot control the content of what others post. Neither have I overtly claimed that my views are "always accurate and correct", (although I do endeaver to achieve accuracy, unlike many of my opponents). Nothing was stated about 'tolerating' opposing points of view except by you. Are you implying that any point of view, (such as support of cannabilism, for instance), needs to be "tolerated"?
"A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk! ** [/quote]
That's what is states, alright. Is any part of that unclear to you?
[/quote]
That's why I put the red ** beside and behind it to draw your attention back up to the section also marked with red ** to make a certain point. "Was any part of that unclear to you?"
This comment you made:
"Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion. There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied)." is exactly what I am speaking of in your attitude towards anyone who makes any kind of statement or answering the poster who posted the question, when it doesn't pass your approval of correctness.
Your idea of "challenge" is to use your ever-circular words of baseless, unsupported, specious, among others. Perhaps you could start providing information why you think your ideas are supported or factual - which at times you do; ask the others if they could provide info about their view, or whether or not it's a personal opinion; provide info back to them that either refutes theirs, supports yours, or makes you stop and think for a moment. When posters are "challenged" at the start with your same words, things become offense/defense, with agitating starting, and nothing can come of that or make any sense.
-
Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore,I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants to supply cause for a few posts.It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....
How can one expect to have an enlightening conversation with a Jedi who cowardly runs from arguments or just posts uneducated lies and then folds their arms like they've made a point? You constantly do this. Grow up.
-
"A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk!" **
That's what is states, alright. Is any part of that unclear to you? [/quote]
That's why I put the red ** beside and behind it to draw your attention back up to the section also marked with red ** to make a certain point. "Was any part of that unclear to you?" [/quote]
No, I speak and understand the English language.
This comment you made:
"Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion. There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied)."
is exactly what I am speaking of in your attitude towards anyone who makes any kind of statement or answering the poster who posted the question, when it doesn't pass your approval of correctness.
No one is under any obligation to passively-accept specious assertions - especially in the D+D forum. The ability to hold and post unsupported opinions remains unabated, regardless of any dissent to them.
Your idea of "challenge" is to use your ever-circular ...
Speaking of repeating the same "ever-circular", (e.g., responses which fail to address the context of the replies), your objection appears to be to the use of logic. No "circular" uses of logic were employed; the same method of reasoning remained consistent however. Your objection seems to be that when specious/unsupported/baseless/unsubstantiated assertions/claims are made, differnent refutations should be made, (because the poster of specious/unsupported/baseless/unsubstantiated comments should be 'allowed' to have them go unchallenged and not be required to back up anything they assert).
Perhaps you could start providing information why you think your ideas are supported or factual - which at times you do
Indeed, I have done so - thanks for noticing.
ask the others if they could provide info about their view, or whether or not it's a personal opinion; provide info back to them that either refutes theirs, supports yours, or makes you stop and think for a moment.
I have done so and am often met with various forms of irrationality, ratehr than a reasoned response. Were I to speculate the reason for that, I'd estimate that there either isn't a reasoned response, or that the poster is unable to provide one.
When posters are "challenged" at the start with your same words, things become offense/defense, with agitating starting, and nothing can come of that or make any sense.
As you no doubt may recall, 95% of my challenges begin with a response to a claim/assertion made and a request for supporting evidence, (if any). If the assertion ends up being an empty opinion, (e.g., one without substantive basis), then I consider the matter settled. The holders of the empty opinions often do not consider the matetr settled and begin making false accusations, specious subjective perceptions and other irrational behaviours. I understand this to be a common occurance, (hence my forum signature).
-
Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore,I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants to supply cause for a few posts.It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....
How can one expect to have an enlightening conversation with a Jedi who cowardly runs from arguments or just posts uneducated lies and then folds their arms like they've made a point? You constantly do this. Grow up.
According to his self-declaration, that would be something along the lines of "jedi for jesus". There is little liklihood of such fundamentalism changing in the near future. "Enlightment" will forever evade such a closed mind.
-
Yep.
-
Yep.
You pagan, you. (was going to post "*bleep* Vikings!" ala Python at first and it ended being 'at second').
-
Gaahhh! People, please learn to quote responsibily. Not being able to distinguish your text from the quoted post, quoting huge and unecesssary chunks...are both no-no's when it comes to getting your point across in a clear and concise way.
If you don't know how to wade through the BB Code, then quote the old-fashioned way: good ol' copy 'n' paste and a pair of these ---> " "
Thanks!
-
Do those who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible still celebrate Christmas with gifts, decorations, and all of the festivities? I'm sure they enjoy the day off with pay if they are blessed with a job that gives holiday pay! It seems like a lot of money is spent and a lot of festivites enjoyed if the true reason for the celebration is omitted.
[/quote
***They say(historians) that Jesus was really born in the Spring months and since the Winter Saustice was at this time(dec 25) - they decided to celebrate it then! This was a Pagan fest so amybe giving gifts is ok then! I seem to know weird little stories seldom heard - watch a lot of PBC/National Geographic/Nature channel etc...
sorry!!!
-
No you do not celebrate Christmas if you are not a Christian. Fact is Christian have no means to celebrate no holidays considering Jesus never promoted one nor did he urge anyone to name a religion after his name. I could explain all night but this site shall fair better....http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/Christmas-Trees.html....Hope this isn't offense but its the truth.
-
No you do not celebrate Christmas if you are not a Christian.
What, you're really a satanist if you're celebrating the mass, (death), of christ?
-
For the most part even atheist celebrate christmas, because it's not really associated with god anymore and it wasn't really a holiday meant to celebrate jesus's birth anyway. Christmas was originally a pagan holiday called Yule.
-
For the most part even atheist celebrate christmas, because it's not really associated with god anymore and it wasn't really a holiday meant to celebrate jesus's birth anyway. Christmas was originally a pagan holiday called Yule.
Even further back, "yule" was a pagan winter solstice celebration, (which had nothing to do with judeo-xtianity nor, yule per se).
-
For the most part even atheist celebrate christmas, because it's not really associated with god anymore and it wasn't really a holiday meant to celebrate jesus's birth anyway. Christmas was originally a pagan holiday called Yule.
Even further back, "yule" was a pagan winter solstice celebration, (which had nothing to do with judeo-xtianity nor, yule per se).
For the millionth time,the early Christians chose Dec 25 to celebrate Christ's birth as a rival celebration against paganism.The celebration of Christmas has not and will not have any more to do paganism than that. ::)
-
For the millionth time,the early Christians chose Dec 25 to celebrate Christ's birth as a rival celebration against paganism.
Since you are apparently unable to pay attention; I'd already mentioned that early xtians usurped the pagan holidays in their efforts to obscure pagan celebrations/practices. This does not show xtianity in a favorable light, (e.g., as cultural thieves).
The celebration of Christmas has not and will not have any more to do paganism than that. ::)
You've inverted the conclusion; paganism has nothing to to with 'xmyth' because the xtians ripped-off the pagan winter solstice date to subsume paganism. That's because xtianity is as dishonest as those xtians who tacitly support such dishonesty.
-
For the millionth time,the early Christians chose Dec 25 to celebrate Christ's birth as a rival celebration against paganism.
Since you are apparently unable to pay attention; I'd already mentioned that early xtians usurped the pagan holidays in their efforts to obscure pagan celebrations/practices. This does not show xtianity in a favorable light, (e.g., as cultural thieves).
The celebration of Christmas has not and will not have any more to do paganism than that. ::)
You've inverted the conclusion; paganism has nothing to to with 'xmyth' because the xtians ripped-off the pagan winter solstice date to subsume paganism. That's because xtianity is as dishonest as those xtians who tacitly support such dishonesty.
Please provide proof for your statement (red.)
-
That's because xtianity is as dishonest as those xtians who tacitly support such dishonesty.
Please provide proof for your statement (red.)
You're requesting a selection of references to support the contention that early xtians were dishonest in commiting such 'cultural thefts', (and that currently-extant xtians are dishonest by association)? That can be done, if you intend on responding to the validity of the substantiation, (rather than not responding/making tangential diversions/not debating the supporting elements). If not, it'd be a waste of time as there are numerous sources of evidence to support the 'cultural theft' contention.
-
That's because xtianity is as dishonest as those xtians who tacitly support such dishonesty.
Please provide proof for your statement (red.)
You're requesting a selection of references to support the contention that early xtians were dishonest in commiting such 'cultural thefts', (and that currently-extant xtians are dishonest by association)? That can be done, if you intend on responding to the validity of the substantiation, (rather than not responding/making tangential diversions/not debating the supporting elements). If not, it'd be a waste of time as there are numerous sources of evidence to support the 'cultural theft' contention.
Just as I thought - you only want to challenge for answers, not answer them unless stipulated by your rules.
-
You're requesting a selection of references to support the contention that early xtians were dishonest in commiting such 'cultural thefts', (and that currently-extant xtians are dishonest by association)? That can be done, if you intend on responding to the validity of the substantiation, (rather than not responding/making tangential diversions/not debating the supporting elements). If not, it'd be a waste of time as there are numerous sources of evidence to support the 'cultural theft' contention.
Just as I thought - you only want to challenge for answers, not answer them unless stipulated by your rules.
The stipulations were based upon going to the trouble of substantiation only to have those references ignored. The references supporting the contention are readily available nonetheless. Would posting them change your mind?
-
I do only because my family celebrates it. I really don't care too much about the original meaning behind December 25 either. I'm not going to single myself out from a tradition. My family is crazy so it's not even worth trying to anyways. I was raised as a die-hard Catholic. Now that I'm older and understand more about the world and questioned if what the Bible claims is actually true, I pulled away from being religious.
-
I do only because my family celebrates it. I really don't care too much about the original meaning behind December 25 either. I'm not going to single myself out from a tradition. My family is crazy so it's not even worth trying to anyways. I was raised as a die-hard Catholic. Now that I'm older and understand more about the world and questioned if what the Bible claims is actually true, I pulled away from being religious.
That seems a reasonable approach.
-
I don't believe in jesus, but I do celebrate Christmas. I don't celebrate it to honor his birth or whatever, I just do it to have fun and share gifts with my family and loved ones. Holidays shouldn't be limited to religion.. I even celebrate easter, but thats only for my little sister, to make her happy. Holidays nowadays don't even really relate to jesus that much when they were made to honor him..
-
For the millionth time,the early Christians chose Dec 25 to celebrate Christ's birth as a rival celebration against paganism.The celebration of Christmas has not and will not have any more to do paganism than that. ::)
And the numerous pagan customs/traditions associated with the holiday are just...a coincidence?
-
I do believe in Jesus Christ and do not buy into the crass commercialization of Christmas, I make my Christmas gifts and folks love them (and eat them immediately)!!!
-
For the millionth time,the early Christians chose Dec 25 to celebrate Christ's birth as a rival celebration against paganism.The celebration of Christmas has not and will not have any more to do paganism than that. ::)
And the numerous pagan customs/traditions associated with the holiday are just...a coincidence?
Just about as coincidental as many of the pagan ones preceding the xtian absorbtion/suppression of those customs & traditions by thousands of years?
-
No you do not celebrate Christmas if you are not a Christian. Fact is Christian have no means to celebrate no holidays considering Jesus never promoted one nor did he urge anyone to name a religion after his name. I could explain all night but this site shall fair better....http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/Christmas-Trees.html....Hope this isn't offense but its the truth.
Some half truths here but some truth is better then no truth(churchianity)
1. Jesus told his disciples to continue to do this in remembrance of me referring to the celebration replacing the passover(Luke 22)
2. They got the name christians by divine providence(acts 11:26) it's possible Jesus didn't give them this name though.
otherwise everything is correct btw santa can be rearranged to spell SATAN!!!! What are the odds?
-
Yes but it is not my choice, it is my family's choice and I have to get involved.
-
I am a muslim and have always celebrated Christmas.
-
Yes but it is not my choice, it is my family's choice and I have to get involved.
No you don't my moms side doesn't celebrate and my father's side does you can choose.
-
I am a muslim and have always celebrated Christmas.
Interesting. Is this a more unorthodox or, common practice within islam?
-
I am a muslim and have always celebrated Christmas.
Interesting. Is this a more unorthodox or, common practice within islam?
For once I agree with Falcon9, My boss is married to a Muslim and he doesn't celebrate Christmas.
-
I am a muslim and have always celebrated Christmas.
Interesting. Is this a more unorthodox or, common practice within islam?
For once I agree with Falcon9, My boss is married to a Muslim and he doesn't celebrate Christmas.
Agree with what; asking a question?
-
I am a muslim and have always celebrated Christmas.
Interesting. Is this a more unorthodox or, common practice within islam?
For once I agree with Falcon9, My boss is married to a Muslim and he doesn't celebrate Christmas.
I agree with your question yes :)
Agree with what; asking a question?