Actually, my pick isn’t suitable as a post in GD. Not to worry, though; there wouldn’t be any colorful language in it.
What if that archaeologist found absolute proof that he never existed at all? Would that change his message? I think so.
Philosophy maybe; faith, not so much. At least not if the Christian apologists on this board are to be believed. Faith, we are told, is not something that one can be *reasoned *into. It must be experienced. You either have it or you don’t.
Well, yes actually. I do. In the long run, it is the individual who determines how much of the Bible she or he believes is literally true, how much is the truth explained through metaphor, and how much is in code, how much is nonsense, etc.
Biblical scholarship is helpful, but we all make the basic decision for ourselves whether we are well-educated or not.
[nitpick]
That would be “thimbleful” I do believe.
[/nitpick]
Well? Shouldn’t we derive some shred of useful information from the hamsters’ travail here?
To be sure, there are those, generally conservative evangelical “Bible-believing” (their self-epithet) Protestants, who claim this. But it is not borne out by the Bible itself, which uses the term in three principal ways: 1) The self-effectuating decree of God, such that He speaks and it is so, this usage being equated with Jesus Christ in the first chapter of John’s Gospel; 2) a single decree or pronouncement of God, often but not always preserved in a scripture passage; 3) the collected decrees and pronouncements of God, taken as a unit. Note that this is not equivalent to the Bible as a whole, but only to those elements of it believed to have been uttered by Him either directly or through a prophet speaking in his behalf. Kanicbird may have the arguments available for why some Christians believe the entire Bible to equate to ‘the word of God.’ (II Timothy 3:16, the most frequently quoted prooftext, is not only not the words of St. Paul but nothing that anyone whatsoever wrote in the original Greek, being a transmogrification of an extended series of terms in antithesis mistranslated as an independent sentence or two.
No, it’s based on a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. To be sure, much of what most people for 1900+ years have known of Him has been largely gained from the Gospels. But draw a careful line between belief in a living entity and a verbal portrait of a person.
- The Bible nowhere says that Jesus was born on Christmas. 2. You mistake modern concepts of objective reportage vs. falsified spin for classical-period polemic biography. Playing fast and footloose with what we would regard as the facts today in order to produce a “deeper truth” about the individual and what He or she stood for was a commonplace in the First Century, and not merely in pursuit of religious agendas – cf. Virgil, Livy, Hesiod, Herodotus, etc.
Ever hear of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle? Wikipedia can be easily demonstrated to contain falsehoods at any given time. Does that mean that the entire content of Wikipedia is to be disregarded?
And issues of theology are not readily falsifiable by historical research. If it were demonstrated conclusively and definitively tomorrow that Jesus came into existence as a human being as a result of sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary, it would not damage in the slightest what most Christians mean by referencing Him as “the Son of God.”
As tomndebb said, you’re fighting a straw man of your own creation here. I’d venture to guess that every Doper who self-identifies as Christian is perfectly well aware of your “revelations” in the OP, insofar as you have set forth facts and not your own reactions, and is not bothered in the slightest by them.
Thanks, I shall.
I thought the octopus was in the garden in the shade, not a manger in Bethlehem.
You haven’t said anything here that the average Christian doesn’t already know. It is common knowledge. It is not the literal points that matter, it is love, the spirit of giving and remembering our spirituality that this season is all about. I guess you missed the point.
And yet nobody ever calls the pagans out for stealing Christmas from the Flintstones.
I will admit that I often add sooooo much verbiage to my OPs that people have trouble finding the core argument. So, here is a Yuletide gift from Valteron — brevity!!! 
If you look at my OP, the basic argument hidden under all that other stuff is this:
**Christians complain that society is taking the “Christ” out of “Christmas” and proclaim “Jesus is the reason for the season” as if this celebration was originally about the birth of Jesus, and had been stolen from them.
Bullshit. They hijacked the pagan solstice festival and arbitrarily decided it was the birthdate of Jesus.**
Does that sound enough like an argument to suit you? I am not asking if you agree with it. I am only asking if it sounds like an argument.
This is a religious freedom issue. In the definition of this forum, GD is for this and that kinds of debate, “and (if you feel you must) witnessing.” Some of you believe that witnessing must be restricted to believers. Why restrict the rights of the doubters? Can you give me a good reason? When a Hindu or Orthodox Jew witnesses here, do you shoo her off the soapbox because only those who agree with your worldview can witness? I would guess not.
Maybe Valteron’s religious position is different from your own, but he has every right to witness in Great Debates, along with the creationists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Just look at that quote by Lekatt! Poor, poor Christians with their smug implication that Christianity is somehow the source of morality, decency and love of one’s fellow humans.
I have to get going now, because it is 11 a.m. and every year, this atheist donates hours of his time and buys hundreds of dollars (literally) of food to bring to the Alkathon, which is a special drop-in they hold every year for recovering alcoholics who want to stay sober during the holidays. There is food and music and warmth, and counsellors on hand. Many of these people dare not go to their families during the holidays because all their family members do there is drink.
I also donate many hours a week to a home for HIV and AIDS persons.
I NEVER brag about all this to people who know me, since I believe that charitable acts lose their value if you collect PR brownie points for doing them. But since “Valteron” is a pen-name, it is ok to say this here.
None of the people I help at the Alkathon care that I am gay. I am just a person helping another person.
I know that Bill O’Reilly made a big deal out of the “progressive secularists” trying to take the Christ out of Christmas a few years ago, but it seems he has since let that one go. The phrase “Jesus is the reason for the season” predates this by a long shot, and really has nothing to do with anyone trying to take Christmas away from the christians. It is merely a declaration of faith.
Please be careful not to wrestle with that strawman too close to the yule log.
That’s not true. Putting aside the question of Constantine’s tyranny (and that while he legalized Christianity, he didn’t impose it), most of the evidence suggests that there wasn’t a unified Christmas date set until the 4th century, after Constantine’s death, and that the practice of dating Christmas on Dec. 25 started in Rome, not in Constantinople. (You would expect to find the practice first in Constantinople if it was due to imperial decree.)
That comes from medieval symbolism. The tradition is that one of the wise men was European, one was African, and one was Asian. So you’ve got people from the whole world worshiping Jesus at his birth.
(Further ranting omitted)
Dude, we *know * all this. So what? Just 'cause we celebrate the birth of Christ on a date when people were having a party anyway doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy, or a lie.
Relax a little. Have some egg nog. It’s on me.
Bingo! (And no, that’s not a cheap Episcopal shot at tomndebb.)
I actually didn’t find Valteron’s post all that offensive; the “bullshit” part was a little jarring, especially in light of the alleged joy and generosity of the season. I’m just happy I live in a place and time where and when people aren’t slowly strangled by construction cranes for yelling “Bullshit!” at my religion.
Merry Christmas to all y’all. I’ll be celebrating tonight at a little Episcopal church where all baptized Christians are welcome at the communion rail (even those who refuse to welcome me at their’s.) I’ll recite the Nicene Creed even though I don’t actually believe in a literal interpretation of it. And I’ll choke up during “Silent Night” and won’t be able to finish singing it.
They also each had an age; they were young, middle-aged, and elderly to symbolize all people. It wasn’t meant to be literal, and I think most people know that. (Heck, last week in the children’s Sunday School, the teacher carefully explained to the 4 and 5-yos that a Nativity set is a picture, not what it really looked like.)
The theme of kings from all over the world was also a popular theme for medieval artists, because it served as a pointed reminder that earthly kings still answered to someone above them. It was an injuction against tyranny.
Anyway, I’m not sure what the point of the OP was. But I always like to discuss the traditions and legends that have grown up around the core of Christianity (such stories, of course, grow around any popular figure or movement, from Robin Hood to Islam).
Ya know, beyond old biddies that believe Bill O’Reilly’s “War on Christmas” nonsense, I’ve never actually met anyone that bought into it.
I’d also go so far as to say they’re the ones that are buying out of touch because Christmas became a secular “winter holiday” a long time ago. I’d go so far as to say even most Christians believe that.
And on that note… Evangelical Athiests are much more annoying than other evangelicals because after a few minutes of eyerolling, a Christian will just walk away, with the knowledge that another heathen will burn for all eternity. But Athiests have to keep pushing because they’re preaching science and science cannot be disproved. You know, except when new theories supplant old ones.
Well said, I don’t care that you are gay either. Keep up the good work and just be who you are, atheists don’t need to bash theists. We can all live in peace and love.
I’ve never liked the word “kings” in reference to the wise men. The Bible says “magi” or “wise men”, depending on the translation. The interpretation that sounds most sensible to me is that they were Zoroastrian astrologers. My pastor went so far as to call them sorcerers.
The point being that the birth of Christ was announced, not only to Jewish peasants (the shepherds), but also to high-ranking, foreign practitioners of arts (astrology and/or sorcery) expressly forbidden by Jewish law. In other words, He was here for everybody.
However, it is generally agreed that the magi didn’t appear at the stable. They showed up some time later, hence the description of their arrival at the “house” where he was staying.
Yes, but my point was that people turned them into kings for a reason.