• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

Gibberish said:
Because he's talking to Mary. Mary hasn't conceived yet. The Angel visited Mary when Elizabeth was now in her sixth month. Which the Angel tells Mary this at the end of their encounter and Mary runs to see Elizabeth.

None of this of course proves Jesus wasn't conceived in March, it just proves that this specific passage doesn't state he was. As I stated previously, we know Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist. If we find out when John was born we will know when Jesus was born. And also as a previously stated, John was born in March and thus Jesus was born in September.
Click to expand...

What is the basis for John being born in March?
 
dclxvinoise said:
Well, I'd rather have an unbiased teacher or rather one who doesn't have a clear political agenda.
Click to expand...

You keep accusing Mr. Medved of bias as though bias is a bad thing.

Being wrong, spinning facts, lying, ignoring contrary evidence...these things are wrong.

Having an opinion and the ability to back it up = not wrong.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Moderator's Warning:
Christmas has been cancelled. The war is over. Go home and be with your families.


//satire
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the movie "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" when Santa had to announce the cancellation of Christmas due to the weather before Rudolph saved the day.
 
Slippery Slope said:
The Treaty of Tripoli
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Click to expand...

Thank you kindly for this response.

The government of the US is secular just as it should be.

The whole US as a nation the secular government is an element of is not secular.

I think it's important for people to realize the distinction.
 
Ikari said:
K, so you're not going to answer the question. Fine.

The founding fathers wanted a lot of things, Jefferson wanted routine revolution against the government (I happen to think this one should be done), many wanted laws to naturally expire after a certain number of years (in theory a good idea, but in practice would probably produce omnibills with lots of hidden laws). But this is our Republic, and the nature of what We the People want and desire changes. During the heyday of absolute Christian dominance, yeah there were what you said. But what's acceptable and what's not changes with time. The founders owned slaves, so unambiguously claiming that because the founders did it makes it right isn't a complete argument. I happen to like a lot of what the founders said, especially the anti-federalists (whom oddly enough were federalists in the true sense of the word). But what's political philosophy and what is public pressure/accepted norm are two different things. And the pressures and accepted norms change with the generations. Things aren't stagnate. Yes the founders did some of these things, they had religious holidays and evoked the name of gods in relation to politics. But that was then and this is now, the accepted norm isn't one of total and absolute Christian dominance anymore and the government, including the SCOTUS the body which currently has power to interpret the Constitution, has stated that it is no longer applicable.
Click to expand...

The argument against slavery was based on ideals codified in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is based on the Natural Law of the Deceleration of Independence, which is overtly Christian.

Therefore, slavery's end in America is accurately credited to core Christian ideals.

Not secular ideals.

Arguing, as you just did, that the presence of Christianity = the presence of slavery is contradictory logic. Christianity, coming from Judaism, is nesiseraly based on deliverance from savory. One only needs to look at history to see that this Christian nation, in it's pursuit to become more perfect, seceded in becoming more perfect in it's practice of it's ideal when it chose to end slavery.

Also, arguing that the whims of society are inherently benign and that the law must change to accommodate whatever those whims are is to allow slavery to be re-established if the whims of society head in that direction.
 
I wasn't blaming Christianity for slavery. I was merely pointing out that the argument that the founders did something doesn't hold together in and of itself. Things do change. There may have been necessity of a fledgling nation to keep slavery around till a point in which it could get rid of it and survive the turmoil that it would cause. I think there is a lot of merit in listening to what the founders had to say, especially when it comes to political philosophy. I find merit in much of their arguments. But as shown by slavery, just because it was allowed and accepted at the time of the founders doesn't mean it should still be around and accepted. Christianity had nothing to do specifically with slavery; but it too has undergone a perception change since the times of the founders. Christianity was at one time given lots of dominance, in some flavor almost all were a form of Christian and the society of the time had no problem in declaring it as such. So you have behavior on behalf of the founders which subscribed to some form of Christianity and the public perception allowed for a more "Christian or the highway" sort of outlook. Those times too have changed. And while Christianity is still the dominate religion, it no longer holds monopoly in the eyes of the public at large.

Things have changed, and while not every whim of the majority can be entertained (as the majority can not infringe upon the rights of the minority); certain aspects can be entertained. I can't imagine how from my post you gathered that I was blaming Christianity for slavery; but to make it clear I was not. Nor do I buy the idea that Christianity took us out of slavery. I think there were many changes in the overall ideals of the people and even secular logic can easily lead one to believe that slavery is wrong and should be abolished. There's a lot of good ideals in Christianity, as there are in other religions, how much it is practiced is another thing. Slavery persisted during an age where the West was dominated by Christianity. It took time for people to change the overall aggregate opinions towards it. The base of Christianity would of course say it's wrong, but if people were always working from the base then it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. Love thy enemy and turn the other cheek are also teachings from Christianity, yet how many Christians are pro war?

Again, that's not saying Christianity causes war, for man causes war. But it's also not necessarily a road block either. What's necessary is overall perception shifts of the public. And theist and atheist logic can both lead to the same answer, there's nothing inherent in one that prevents it from echoing the other in terms of social construct.

So just because the founders did something doesn't mean that we should still be doing it. There is a lot of wisdom in their words and philosophy, but there's also some folly in their action. It's not an end all excuse, though I happen to like much of the writings of the founders. There's no war on Christmas or War on Christianity in this country, that's just a ratings grab by people like Hannity and O'Riley. There is beginning to be an overall shift in public perception that is one of more inclusion of other ideals and opinions, but it's not something aligned against the practice of Christianity on the whole (there are individual examples of some being against the practice of religion, but that's a small percentage of the whole).
 
ludahai said:
What is the basis for John being born in March?
Click to expand...

John's father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah [Luke 1:5] and it was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that his wife Elizabeth would have a child and after his service he traveled home and conceived John [Luke 1:8-13;22-24]. The course Abijah is the 8th course of the temple which starts the second sabbath of the third month, Sivan (May-June) [Chr 24:7-18]. So if Zacharias did indeed return home right after this service [Luke 1:23] then John was most likely conceived early July, nine months later John would have been born in March. Adding another six months, as Mary was 3 months pregnant at John's birth [Luke 1:26], Jesus would have been born in September.

Despite all this, Christian's celebrate John's birthday on June 24 (Summer Solstice) and Jesus's birthday on December 25 (Winter Solstice).
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Reminds me of the movie "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" when Santa had to announce the cancellation of Christmas due to the weather before Rudolph saved the day.
Click to expand...

Yep, just watched it with my niece a couple nights ago. :mrgreen:
 
Jerry said:
Ahh, so when an atheist regulerly dones a jersy, watches a game and *gasp* speaks to the players on her screen, acording to you she is therefore not atheist, but pagan, because she is doing a ritual.

Just my opinion here, but you might want to check your logic there.
Click to expand...

Where did that come from? Cheering on a sports team is hardly the same thing as getting dressed, going to place of worship and performing rituals. Think about the drinking of the blood and eating of the body/spirit. ;)
 
Jerry said:
Heh, every year there's someone who thinks it's a big scandle.

Here ya go: When was Jesus Born?

The celibration was tailored to assist pagan asimilation into the church, and it met with respectable efectivness. Everyone knowes, very few care, because it's just as much a reason to party as anyother :2wave:
Click to expand...

Thanks.. But No Thanks! Next time you want me to read a linky? Try to find an unbiased source;)
 
Blackdog said:
Someone really needs to bone up on their history.

Major Christian holidays outside of passover do not exist in the Bible. They were a plan by the Roman Emperor to convert pagans and help them assimilate into the Roman Church.

"Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen, at that precise time of the year, in honor oft the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed."



Good and evil are concepts that existed in other places never touched by ancient Persia, so your answer is not even close to correct.

Your premise is highly flawed which leads to a flawed conclusion, not supported in any way by accurate data.

You need to come up with something other than opinion.
Click to expand...

I think you need to take your own advice. I said the first concept of good v/s evil can be traced back to Zoroastrianism and this is indeed a fact. That is where the concept of Satan came from! I know this is true!
 
Read This!!!! And learn all about Zoroastrianism!
Zorastrianism

One quote from the link: "Most religious historians believe the the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs concerning God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, the virgin birth of the savior, slaughter of the innocents, resurrection, the final judgment, etc. were all derived from Zoroastrianism."


So HA!! Told ya I knew what I was talking about! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Ahh yes, and because political correctness demands that we lie and claim that no faith or religion is better then any other, that they are all the same, we can therefore conclude that faith=bad.

The truth is, some faiths are superior to others. Superiority can be measured by how consistent one practices according to the doctrine and how much the practices prove to be beneficial to both the individual and society.

Lesser religions will serve the individual primarily and largely disregard the community. This results in less stable and less productive societies.

"God hates fags" is hardly consistent with the doctrine nor does it first serve the community.
Click to expand...

Religious snobbery at its very best. :roll:

More people have died in the name of religion(s) than anything else so spare me this crap about how more religion is better for society:doh
 
Slippery Slope said:
I think it comes out of an interest in learning. I mean, learning something other than what the bible says. All of my atheist friends have college degrees and stacks of books but, living here in the south now, I've only seen a few fundamentalist xians with more than a bible (or a few) and a few other fundy xian books on being more fundy.
Click to expand...

There was a study I read about a while back that pretty much proved that the majority of athiest are smarter than fundamentalist Christians. I seemed to have lost the link though:confused:
 
Kali said:
I think you need to take your own advice. I said the first concept of good v/s evil can be traced back to Zoroastrianism and this is indeed a fact. That is where the concept of Satan came from! I know this is true!
Click to expand...

So you ignore the meat of my post showing your error in your comment about pagan holidays etc. which is what my history reference was referring to.

But thats OK, Ill bite...

It is believed that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, Zoroastrianism itself inherited ideas from other belief systems and, like other practiced religions, accommodates some degree of syncretism.

So I guess they all were influenced by someone at some point.
 
Kali said:
There was a study I read about a while back that pretty much proved that the majority of athiest are smarter than fundamentalist Christians. I seemed to have lost the link though:confused:
Click to expand...

Absolutely wrong. It was a study that said people who are religious tend to have less education than those who were agnostic or atheist. Had little to do with intelligence. :roll:
 
Kali said:
Religious snobbery at its very best. :roll:

More people have died in the name of religion(s) than anything else so spare me this crap about how more religion is better for society:doh
Click to expand...

Wow, you really do need to look at your history.

The most destructive wars in the history of man kind had nothing at all to do with religion. Just the death toll from WWII alone would be enough to prove you wrong. But lets add a few more...

WWI
Korea
Vietnam
English Civil War
American Civil War
French Revolutoin
American Revolution


And the list goes on and on.
 
ludahai said:
Unlikely, but not impossible. Frankly, we don't know when he was born. The date is NOT the point, the reason for the celebration is.
Click to expand...

Very true. What is impossible is the whole Virgin Birth Concept. My bad and thanks for correcting me;)

Do you ever feel strange that you may be doing the celebration at the wrong time? What if He is angry about it? Don't we all get a tad annoyed when someone forgets our birthday or sends us a late birthday gift? :mrgreen:
 
Blackdog said:
Absolutely wrong. It was a study that said people who are religious tend to have less education than those who were agnostic or atheist. Had little to do with intelligence. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, clearly, they are ignorant obviously. Now, if I start googling the correlation between ignorance and intelligence, what do you suppose I will find, generally?
 
ludahai said:
You make the claim, but you don't back it up.

Most Christian holidays are NOT pagan based. Just because they happen at the same time of year, that doesn't mean that they are the basis for it. Heck, you could have a Christian holiday at ANY time of year, and make some fictitious pagan connection to it.

Are you claiming that Zorasterism is older than Judaism? Even if so, the notion that good v. evil supposedly comes from Zorasterism, this now means that only that religion can legitimately hold to it? Are you so closed minded to think that God can't work through other cultures, and other faith systems to reveal His ultimate truths?
Click to expand...


I am really curious about something that you said/asked in you very last question: Do you think that God works through other cultures and other faith systems?

Guess what I am trying to ask is do you think that most other faiths are all worshipping same god just under different names and that they will all go to Heaven because they have the right idea?

I am sorry if I have came off as closed minded in this thread because that is not me. I guess this is just a touchy subject with me because I feel that sometimes Christians in this country have an advantage because they are the majority and yet they always cry about their rights when it is the other faiths that are in the minority that seem to get the most scorn in our country.

People are so shallow when it comes to religion. Like it is their way or the highway. I hope I have not came off as one of those shallow people in this thread but it is hard when people will not even be friends with you because of the path you decided to take. I am really open minded but hate when Christians try to convert me. Just accept me for me and also just leave your religion out of my government! Why the constant need to push when you are in the majority and control a lot of things in this country already. What about ALL people. :confused:
 
Kali said:
Where did that come from? Cheering on a sports team is hardly the same thing as getting dressed, going to place of worship and performing rituals. Think about the drinking of the blood and eating of the body/spirit. ;)
Click to expand...




Hmm i don my vintage Scott Stevens game worn Jersey, my vintage Devils new era cap.....

Ok getting dressed, check.


then I head out to the ironbounds where I gorge myself on the flesh and blood of many animals, Rodizio

Then I head to the Arena which is sacred ground....


Then we do chants like "asshole....asshole....asshole..." or "kill... kill... kill" or "marty's better"..... or "let's go devils".....


mechanically it is identical. :2wave:
 
Kali said:
Religious snobbery at its very best. :roll:

More people have died in the name of religion(s) than anything else so spare me this crap about how more religion is better for society:doh
Click to expand...



Nonsense. atheists governments namley the communist regiemes killed over 100 million people last century.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Hmm i don my vintage Scott Stevens game worn Jersey, my vintage Devils new era cap.....

Ok getting dressed, check.


then I head out to the ironbounds where I gorge myself on the flesh and blood of many animals, Rodizio

Then I head to the Arena which is sacred ground....


Then we do chants like "asshole....asshole....asshole..." or "kill... kill... kill" or "marty's better"..... or "let's go devils".....


mechanically it is identical. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Though I am not a hockey fan, one of my best friends is. Everything you say makes sense. It is a "religious" experience. Great analogy. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom