Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I too believe that churches have brought this on themselves by ignoring the pagan roots of the holiday. Instead of embracing the pagan traditions, true Christians should shun them just as the Israelites were required to do, and just as Jesus did. Perpetuating these traditions on the basis of "fun" does not bring honor to God.
If a student in my class was reading a comic book instead of the required reading, would I be satisfied if he just changed the cover? Disguising the winter solstice/saturnalia celebrations as Jesus' birth is (IMHO) disrespectful. If you peel back the layers and rid Christmas of every pagan tradition, you will have no holiday left.
Not if your Catholic. Mary was still visited by an angel. Jesus was still born in Bethlehem. If that's all we had, the holiday would be bigger and more important.
Not if your Catholic. Mary was still visited by an angel. Jesus was still born in Bethlehem. If that's all we had, the holiday would be bigger and more important.
The account of Jesus' birth as recorded in the bible is true, factual, miraculous, and joyous for sure. You don't have to be Catholic to believe that. Assigning Jesus' birth to coincide with the winter solstice/saturnalia pagan festival can for sure be chalked up to the Catholic church. Along with absorbing all of the pagan festivities with it.
Jesus never celebrated his birth because doing so was a tradition that belonged to the pagan societies. His followers never celebrated it either. How can partaking in a pagan festival which Jesus despised bring him honor in any way? There are better ways to bring honor to Jesus. If you like to perpetuate disgusting pagan traditions, enjoy your holiday.
The account of Jesus' birth as recorded in the bible is true, factual, miraculous, and joyous for sure. You don't have to be Catholic to believe that. Assigning Jesus' birth to coincide with the winter solstice/saturnalia pagan festival can for sure be chalked up to the Catholic church. Along with absorbing all of the pagan festivities with it.
Jesus never celebrated his birth because doing so was a tradition that belonged to the pagan societies. His followers never celebrated it either. How can partaking in a pagan festival which Jesus despised bring him honor in any way? There are better ways to bring honor to Jesus. If you like to perpetuate disgusting pagan traditions, enjoy your holiday.
What evil predisposition compels you to spew such filth and venom at this joyous time of the year? Why not just endure your own miserable attitude . . . no need to spread the gloom and doom. If the angels felt His birth was cause for "tidings of great joy" . . . who cares what the ugly traditions of the primitives were thought to be prior to Jesus's birth?
Either you know or you don't know that God exists. Since there is no concrete evidence to suggest that God exists, it's illogical and foolish to believe in it. Thus, it is more rational, and makes more sense, to not believe in God because no evidence points to his/her/its existence.
So, the burden of proof is on the religious to prove that God, without a doubt, exists. It's not the burdern of atheists to prove that God doesn't exist, because the lack of evidence suggesting that God does not exist is enough "proof" for the atheist.
I am, am I? I say you are. There. Now we are even. Regardless of whom the burden of proof is on, you point out that it is either one or the other. Either you believe in God, or you don't, fully. I hold that it is a possibility that there is a God, and also a possibility that there is not. Isn't it a more reasonable position to hold than jumping to a positive conclusion before the evidence is in? Atheists tend to claim that the lack of a God is the zero point of an argument, and the theist must bring to bear some "concrete evidence" in order to win the day. That could be true if the Atheist's assertion that there is no God is correct. But if there really is a God, which no one can deny there is a possibility of, as there is no "concrete proof" to refute it, then where does that leave the Atheist's argument? I have heard a lot about the arrogance of the religious viewpoint on CD, and there is some truth to that. All I am trying to point out is that it takes the same arrogance on the side of the Atheist to assume that their worldview is the foundation upon which to argue all worldviews, and that anyone who assumes to "know" the origins of the universe is a fool.
On the video itself a part of me finds this "Solstice" thing a tad odd. Aren't solstice celebrations kind of pagan? And if you are just celebrating it as an astronomical "reality" than do you celebrate the Summer Solstice as well? Does the woman in the video?
As "there is no God" is a newer concept, and less widely accepted, it can be argued it's the claim which needs to be proven.
I understand what you're saying but, logically speaking, it doesn't really matter if a belief in God is more widely held than a lack of belief in God. The conditions are still the same, and the burden of proof remains with the theist. More people believing does not make something "more" true. Either it is true or it is not.
I understand what you're saying but, logically speaking, it doesn't really matter if a belief in God is more widely held than a lack of belief in God. The conditions are still the same, and the burden of proof remains with the theist. More people believing does not make something "more" true. Either it is true or it is not.
Actually the burden is on the atheist that something came from nothing, not enev darkness, that life came from non life, all this happened without rhyme or reason. One big cosmic accident or joke.
I am, am I? I say you are. There. Now we are even. Regardless of whom the burden of proof is on, you point out that it is either one or the other. Either you believe in God, or you don't, fully. I hold that it is a possibility that there is a God, and also a possibility that there is not. Isn't it a more reasonable position to hold than jumping to a positive conclusion before the evidence is in? Atheists tend to claim that the lack of a God is the zero point of an argument, and the theist must bring to bear some "concrete evidence" in order to win the day. That could be true if the Atheist's assertion that there is no God is correct. But if there really is a God, which no one can deny there is a possibility of, as there is no "concrete proof" to refute it, then where does that leave the Atheist's argument? I have heard a lot about the arrogance of the religious viewpoint on CD, and there is some truth to that. All I am trying to point out is that it takes the same arrogance on the side of the Atheist to assume that their worldview is the foundation upon which to argue all worldviews, and that anyone who assumes to "know" the origins of the universe is a fool.
"Possibility that there is a god" is simply synonymous with guesswork and wishful thinking. If I said there was a possibility that the tooth fairy exists, and I got the majority of people to believe it and organize religion around it, does that automatically mean the tooth fairy has a possibility of existing? No, of course not. The point is, you don't know that god exists, and you can't prove that god exists, so, up until you can, it is reasonable, scientifically speaking, to say that god does not exist. That's not "arrogance," it's simply deduction.
I suggest you go back and reread what I responded to you with. Make sure you really understand it, mmmk?
I am not making a case for Atheism, as I am not an Atheist and have no personal feelings involved. I am just stating that, logically, Atheism makes empirical sense while theism does not.
I generally like Laura - but this is a bad interview.
1- This country is not 80% Christian.
2- She came off as a "know-it-all"
3- The question about serving in Africa - I would be willing to bet that there are non-Christians who serve. Christians do not hold the title concerning good deeds on earth.
4- The continuous mumbling while the guest was answering was rude and unprofessional.
I agree w/ Justcause with regards to hear behavior.
On the other hand - honoring the Winter Solstice? Please...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
