• 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!

Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court

rather than being dismissed I think they are just being ignored.

Great, You don't believe in God, Jesus, Christianity, etc. Who really cares? Just don't bother getting involved.

Why not let others enjoy the season without juvenile interference.

I and others do enjoy the season, but we don't need others, aka pushy Christians (which is meant to include only those Christians who are pushy about this particular subject), to tell us why we should celebrate the season. I celebrate for my reasons and they are just as important as anyone elses.
 
You don't know that it would exist at all. You are trying to use speculation or a guess vs a well known fact. Sorry does not float. Just because something could or mite have the possibility of happening does not change the fact of what it already is today, or where it came from, period.

It is a fact that there are still people who celebrate the holiday season for those reasons. You can even include Hanukkah in there. So yes, that shows that the most likely conclusion is that we would still be celebrating this season for other reasons if Christmas never came along.

Your statement was

Without Christians and in the end a Jesus, no Christmas holiday would exists, period.

You would be wrong. Although it likely would not be called "Christmas", the season itself would still most likely exist and people would still almost certainly be celebrating something during that season.

And Christmas, at least many of the traditions associated with it, came from earlier celebrations of the season. They were added altogether.
 
It is a fact that there are still people who celebrate the holiday season for those reasons. You can even include Hanukkah in there. So yes, that shows that the most likely conclusion is that we would still be celebrating this season for other reasons if Christmas never came along.

"Most likely" is not fact and as I said just a guess.

Your statement was

You would be wrong. Although it likely would not be called "Christmas", the season itself would still most likely exist and people would still almost certainly be celebrating something during that season.

And Christmas, at least many of the traditions associated with it, came from earlier celebrations of the season. They were added altogether.

Again it is nothing but speculation on your part a guess. So no.
 
"Most likely" is not fact and as I said just a guess.

Again it is nothing but speculation on your part a guess. So no.

You made the very first speculation in this conversation, saying that without Jesus, there would be no Christmas holiday. We weren't talking about the specific holiday of Christmas, we were talking about the season and celebrations within that season. You cannot know that there would be no celebrations within this season without Jesus.

You can't even know for sure that there would be no Christmas, since "Christ" is actually a part of his title and so therefore could have easily been given to someone else had Jesus not existed.
 
Who else expresses Peace, Goodwill and Charity as their expressed philosophy? Is that the atheist message as well?

Pretty much everyone makes those claims, very few fail in those claims as badly as Christians.
 
You made the very first speculation in this conversation, saying that without Jesus, there would be no Christmas holiday. We weren't talking about the specific holiday of Christmas, we were talking about the season and celebrations within that season. You cannot know that there would be no celebrations within this season without Jesus.

You can't even know for sure that there would be no Christmas, since "Christ" is actually a part of his title and so therefore could have easily been given to someone else had Jesus not existed.

I doubt that Christ's mass would still be celebrated today without Jesus since he is the Christ that it is based off of.

There were/are lot's of holidays centered around the winter solstice so I agree that we would probably be celebrating something if Christmas did not exist, it would have likely carried over from one culture to another (usually does).

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with atheists trying to derail a 60 year old christian tradition of celebrating Christmas in a park though.
 
That's as far as the atheists have come along in their philosophical message? Defacing signs?

They're going to have to try a little harder if they're to gain any converts.

Atheists didn't deface any signs, but even going beyond Santa Monica, whenever an atheist sign goes up anywhere, it gets defaced by Christians.

What a bunch of slimeballs.
 
Some Christians think so, yeah. Not all Christianity think that homosexuality is an abomination.

Sure, that's why there are 41,000 sects of Christianity, but anyone who actually reads and follows the Bible, which supposedly they think is the inspired word of God, can come to no other interpretation, the Bible supports hatred of gays and defends slavery. It's only Christians who pick and choose which parts they want to pay attention to and which parts they want to ignore that come to other conclusions, mostly because those parts are morally reprehensible to them.
 
Pretty much everyone makes those claims, very few fail in those claims as badly as Christians.
Why? Some of the largest charity organizations in the world are christian non-prof orgs.
 
It is hers and possibly your own version of the truth, but that doesn't make it fact. I don't believe Jesus was born on Christmas or any of the story of the nativity, yet I still celebrate Christmas. It has nothing to do with Jesus to me and to many others. So yes, it is "insulting" in a way for someone to try to claim that Jesus is the only reason for the season (I am strong enough to not care though, but will point it out when necessary to make my point).

There's no question that Jesus wasn't born in December, the Biblical narrative makes it very clear it's not possible. The Church adopted December 25 as a date to celebrate it because the pagan cultures they were trying desperately to convert were using that date already for a pagan celebration so they just declared the celebration of Jesus' birth on the same day, the same as they did with Easter. So clearly, Jesus not only has never been the reason for the season (that's the winter solstice), Jesus was just something randomly tacked on to get more followers for the Catholic church.
 
Oh no worries. Instead of the "War on Christmas" it's morphed into a "War on atheists".

Hey, they're running scared, non-belief is the fastest growing segment of the population, people are fleeing the churches, they're losing power, what else are they going to do now that their empty and pathetic beliefs have failed them?
 
That's as far as the atheists have come along in their philosophical message? Defacing signs?

They're going to have to try a little harder if they're to gain any converts.

So they defaced their own signs in an effort to make Christians look bad? Is that your position?
 
Why? Some of the largest charity organizations in the world are christian non-prof orgs.

That's completely false. The largest charities out there are completely secular. The Red Cross, for instance, the largest charity there is, has nothing to do with religion. The most prolific charitable givers are also atheists. Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet give billions to help others and don't believe in gods. Then you take many of the most wealthy religious public figures and they give essentially nothing.

It's a myth perpetuated by the religious that you have to be religious to be caring. It's a flat-out lie.
 
Sure, that's why there are 41,000 sects of Christianity, but anyone who actually reads and follows the Bible, which supposedly they think is the inspired word of God, can come to no other interpretation, the Bible supports hatred of gays and defends slavery. It's only Christians who pick and choose which parts they want to pay attention to and which parts they want to ignore that come to other conclusions, mostly because those parts are morally reprehensible to them.

Emphasis mine. I see where you're coming from, but unfortunately as far as the bolded portion goes you're not correct. Life would ultimately be much more simple if you were correct.

The Jehova's Witnesses, for example, are a sect that exists all by itself because if a disagreement with every other sect over what one particular verse actually means -- they're not ignoring it, they're not reading it selectively, they simply understand it differently.

As far as it goes with the old testament (especially Leviticus), you have to keep in mind that when Jesus Christ showed up, the Bible portrays him as the replacement for all the laws that came before -- not because there are no restrictions in the wake of Christ's first coming, but because the vast bulk of the laws that predated him had to do with how to be righteous and how to assuage god's wrath when you fall short of being righteous. For example, Christ's death on the cross replaces the sacrifice of animals, only better -- animal sacrifice covered the since, Christ's blood washed them away. In the wake of that paradigm shift are some much simpler principles -- believe Jesus is your savior, and whatever treatment you show to the least significant person on the face of the earth you are showing to Jesus Christ.

The Christians who have a hard-on for Leviticus are ignoring this simple truth. They take the whole Bible as being the unblemished word of god, rather than a long-term record of god's relationship with Israel, vast swaths of which are ultimately replaced, altered or updated by Christ's sacrifice. God didn't change, but the relationship underwent some serious modifications. These same Christians are also ignoring the historical realities behind the Bible, the reality of what translation does to a text, and treating many passages which are simple recordings of what happened as god's stamp of approval on those happenings.
 
rather than being dismissed I think they are just being ignored.

Great, You don't believe in God, Jesus, Christianity, etc. Who really cares? Just don't bother getting involved.

Why not let others enjoy the season without juvenile interference.


But why should the government involve itself in saying "It's OK to celebrate this religious holiday, but not others?" The First Amendment does not require the government to build your church or give you a soapbox from which you can express your views.

I'm sure that the church has a front lawn they can display their nativity scene on, or at least one of the congregants does. Same is true of the atheists. Why does it have to be a public park?
 
I and others do enjoy the season, but we don't need others, aka pushy Christians (which is meant to include only those Christians who are pushy about this particular subject), to tell us why we should celebrate the season. I celebrate for my reasons and they are just as important as anyone elses.

Then go ahead and celebrate in your way and let others celebrate in theirs. I see "pushy" atheists rather than pushy Christians in this case. A tradition of 50 years is being lost because some poor atheists are offended. It's time they got a life.

In the city where I'm living at the moment there are Hindu festivals and Muslim festivals, as well as several others. Would these atheists try to break them up as well? I doubt they would have the balls. Nor would civilized people break up a Gay Pride parade or any number of rallies we allow in order that everyone get along.

This pettiness, the looking to be "offended" is just petty people trying to gain some fleeting importance and media attention they wouldn't otherwise have. They are a blister on society's backside and should be ridiculed at every opportunity. And they supply many opportunities.
 
Then go ahead and celebrate in your way and let others celebrate in theirs. I see "pushy" atheists rather than pushy Christians in this case. A tradition of 50 years is being lost because some poor atheists are offended. It's time they got a life.

In the city where I'm living at the moment there are Hindu festivals and Muslim festivals, as well as several others. Would these atheists try to break them up as well? I doubt they would have the balls. Nor would civilized people break up a Gay Pride parade or any number of rallies we allow in order that everyone get along.

This pettiness, the looking to be "offended" is just petty people trying to gain some fleeting importance and media attention they wouldn't otherwise have. They are a blister on society's backside and should be ridiculed at every opportunity. And they supply many opportunities.

How many nativity scenes were vandalized?
 
But why should the government involve itself in saying "It's OK to celebrate this religious holiday, but not others?" The First Amendment does not require the government to build your church or give you a soapbox from which you can express your views.

I'm sure that the church has a front lawn they can display their nativity scene on, or at least one of the congregants does. Same is true of the atheists. Why does it have to be a public park?

Public facilities are being used all the time for a variety of interests and functions but this time it is Christians, along with millions of others who actually enjoy this time pof the year who aren;t Christians.

Pushy Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Gays, Blacks, etc, have always been a problem for the closed minded who walk among us and will always find a way pick on an easy target.

This cowardly lot would never try the same thing with Muslims.
 
I don't see what the problem is with these ****ing atheists. I am an agnostic atheist and I could care less. I think that nativity scenes and Christmas is fun and doesn't need to have anything to do with religion. It is about expressing love and kindness to people and surely atheists are capable of this too. Zealous atheists are such assholes. Find something better to do.
 
Public facilities are being used all the time for a variety of interests and functions but this time it is Christians, along with millions of others who actually enjoy this time pof the year who aren;t Christians.

Pushy Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Gays, Blacks, etc, have always been a problem for the closed minded who walk among us and will always find a way pick on an easy target.

This cowardly lot would never try the same thing with Muslims.

Ah, playing the Muslim card. I also wouldn't walk into an NFL locker room and spout off racist rants...there's a difference between cowardly and stupid.

The "target" of vandalism was the atheist displays. Not the Nativity scenes. Whoever the child was that vandalized those ruined it for everyone. Not the atheists who put up the signs.
 
Emphasis mine. I see where you're coming from, but unfortunately as far as the bolded portion goes you're not correct. Life would ultimately be much more simple if you were correct.

The problem is, the passage in question, Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads", is very clear. If X then Y. There's no question what the passage means, nor can Christians simply pretend Leviticus doesn't apply anymore, Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 5:18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

So why aren't more Christians out killing gays left and right? Because Christianity and other religious have been moderated by secular society in the western world, they are not allowed to get away with what their holy book calls for so they've changed their beliefs to reflect their inability to do what the Bible calls for.
 
Back
Top Bottom