- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Ah, but original meanings of most things are lost these days, the original point pages back was that holidays are being treated as secular break time, when in reality they are supposed to be religious days of obligation for observers of faith.The point was that originally the term holiday was told that saying it has a connection to religion because the origin of the word is holy-day. And since that was the original meaning, it still holds even though it is not used in such a reference anymore. Thus, if original meanings are all that matter than the original meaning for the spring equinox and winter solstice celebrations should hold true as well.
I don't argue the bunny is Pagan, that is true, but the overall point is that the Easter Bunny isn't a symbol of the actual christian mass, for the most part, he's just something we tell our kids about to keep their world magical for a while, and in the long run, I think when we as christian adults see it, our memories keep the kids in us alive while we observe the season. But the bunny has nothing whatsoever to do with the season outside of fluff.The Easter bunny, by the way, is pagan in and of itself. The rabbit was a symbol of fertility, and that was one of the main celebrations for the spring equinox. I don't exactly know why it was adopted, but as other things it was probably to help pagans make a transition by usurping holidays and symbols.
The Easter bunny, by the way, is pagan in and of itself. The rabbit was a symbol of fertility, and that was one of the main celebrations for the spring equinox. I don't exactly know why it was adopted, but as other things it was probably to help pagans make a transition by usurping holidays and symbols.
Any EVIDENCE rather than your supposition that this was the purpose of the Dec. 25 date? I have already shared the Scriptural backing for it. Put up or shut up!
Not all of Origen's contemporaries agreed that Christ's birthday shouldn't be celebrated, and some began to speculate on the date (actual records were apparently long lost). Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) favored May 20 but noted that others had argued for April 18, April 19, and May 28. Hippolytus (c.170-c.236) championed January 2. November 17, November 20, and March 25 all had backers as well. A Latin treatise written around 243 pegged March 21, because that was believed to be the date on which God created the sun. Polycarp (c.69-c.155) had followed the same line of reasoning to conclude that Christ's birth and baptism most likely occurred on Wednesday, because the sun was created on the fourth day.
The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen's concern about pagan gods and the church's identification of God's son with the celestial sun. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman "birth of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.
Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336, after Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire's favored religion. Eastern churches, however, held on to January 6 as the date for Christ's birth and his baptism. Most easterners eventually adopted December 25, celebrating Christ's birth on the earlier date and his baptism on the latter, but the Armenian church celebrates his birth on January 6. Incidentally, the Western church does celebrate Epiphany on January 6, but as the arrival date of the Magi rather than as the date of Christ's baptism.
Ah, but original meanings of most things are lost these days, the original point pages back was that holidays are being treated as secular break time, when in reality they are supposed to be religious days of obligation for observers of faith.
I don't like static arguments. Because things always change, and thus I was attempting to highlight the absurdity of trying to hold the old meaning of a word valid today while taking other things in their evolved state. Everything changes, even religious celebrations as we are seeing now. More and more certain religious holidays (especially Christmas) are being "secularized" I suppose is the word. That is that people celebrate it more for the celebration itself and less for the religious implications. This too will happen as everything changes; there is no infinite.
I don't argue the bunny is Pagan, that is true, but the overall point is that the Easter Bunny isn't a symbol of the actual christian mass, for the most part, he's just something we tell our kids about to keep their world magical for a while, and in the long run, I think when we as christian adults see it, our memories keep the kids in us alive while we observe the season. But the bunny has nothing whatsoever to do with the season outside of fluff.
What about the finding of eggs? When was that implemented, the Egg is also another worshiped symbol of fertility; which was what the old Spring Equinox celebration was all about. In the end I don't really care if the fact that things like gift giving and and christmas trees all had roots in differing pagan religions. Nor do I care that Constantine put Christmas on the 25th, and that he has trying to unite the whole of his people under Christianity. Things now are as they are now, meanings and such have changed and people don't imply the same meanings to celebrations or words that they once did.
Are you attending a winter solstice festival?Which was celebrated first, the winter solstice or Christmas? Christmas came after and the reasoning was to convert pagans. You can try to re-invent the reason all you want, but it won't succeed.
What about the finding of eggs? When was that implemented, the Egg is also another worshiped symbol of fertility; which was what the old Spring Equinox celebration was all about. In the end I don't really care if the fact that things like gift giving and and christmas trees all had roots in differing pagan
Nor do I care that Constantine put Christmas on the 25th, and that he has trying to unite the whole of his people under Christianity. Things now are as they are now, meanings and such have changed and people don't imply the same meanings to celebrations or words that they once did.
Are you attending a winter solstice festival?
Sounds like a lot of conjecture and mental masterbation in that quote.
Very simply once again.
The Annunciation to Mary is celebrated on March 25. The basis for this is that the angel came to her in the sixth month (which very well could have been late March in the modern calendar as measured from the Jewish New Year.) That same passage implies that Mary was not yet with child. Exactly nine months later, we celebrate the birth of Christ.
I am not claiming that this is the day of His birth. However, the December 25 day wasn't simply taken from the blue nor was it unquestionably taken from a pagan festival either.
Check my previous posts. I had already outlined this in more detail, which you and your cohorts basically ignored, presumably because you had no retort to it.
Now, your complaints about Easter would be?
Yes, they found a way to explain the date. Spring Solistice is in March. I just popped in here. I haven't been participating in this thread too much. Don't try to put me into some organized group you are fighting.
I'm an atheist. I don't go to meetings. What about the Star discrepancy?
Glad it doesn't bother you, but it is used as justification by some that Christmas has pagan roots and it simply is not the case.
Vernal Equinox is in March. (no such thing as Spring Solstice) Easter is SOMETIMES in March, so there is an automatic link between the two?
Silly! :rofl
Yes things change, but principles don't, the fact that more people are celebrating without knowing the true meaning of the holiday is not an excuse though, it is possible to enjoy the celebration as it is now and keep an amount of reverence towards the belief, even if you don't share it, which is the overall point we are all trying to get to, I believe.I don't like static arguments. Because things always change, and thus I was attempting to highlight the absurdity of trying to hold the old meaning of a word valid today while taking other things in their evolved state. Everything changes, even religious celebrations as we are seeing now.The problem isn't with those that celebrate with us, the problem comes when statements of a secular nature, like "I can't believe those Christians have the nerve to put a claim on Christmas" are uttered, I don't have a problem with you are anyone else sharing in the joy and happiness of the holiday, I just wish certain extreme secularists would stop acting as if there is no religious basis for it.More and more certain religious holidays (especially Christmas) are being "secularized" I suppose is the word. That is that people celebrate it more for the celebration itself and less for the religious implications. This too will happen as everything changes; there is no infinite.
This part I am less informed on, so I couldn't discuss it honestly.What about the finding of eggs? When was that implemented, the Egg is also another worshiped symbol of fertility; which was what the old Spring Equinox celebration was all about. In the end I don't really care if the fact that things like gift giving and and christmas trees all had roots in differing pagan religions. Nor do I care that Constantine put Christmas on the 25th, and that he has trying to unite the whole of his people under Christianity. Things now are as they are now, meanings and such have changed and people don't imply the same meanings to celebrations or words that they once did.
Education doesn't make one smart, it makes them educated, big difference. I know a lot of smart high school graduates who are more useful to society than many of my fellow alums.
Playing semantic games doesn't make you look SMARTER.
How do you figure? Because Joe xian offers up some of his money to his church? Because Joe Xians money was taxed? That's a pretty ridiculous stretch. "The Church" doesn't pay property tax therefore the property is "free" as compared to the government building which is paid for by taxes, me being one of the payees.If the community funded it it isn't free, their taxes paid for it.
So it's about numbers then? Religion A has more followers therefore they are entitled to more benefits from the government than religion B or those without any religion? I doubt this is what the founders had in mind. In fact, I'm sure of it.So find enough representation for your beliefs
Not exactly, we also have "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Which basically means that the government is to be secular. Therefore placing religious symbols on government property is akin to saying -we approve of this religion-. :thumbdownWe have a freedom OF not FROM religion, the establishment clause is simply there to insure that you don't go to prison for not being of a certain belief, not to be confused with your "right" to not have to see religious symbols you disagree with,
And there we have the true attitude of xianity 'hey you minority, we can do as we please and if you don't like it too bad for you'.if you don't like the sybol that the community paid for you are free to turn your head, why would you as a minority opinion want to go against the will of the majority in a community for something they have a right to.
Neither does calling my statement semantics, education is education, intelligence is intelligence, and they are not interchangeable or synonomous. Lesson over.Playing semantic games doesn't make you look SMARTER.
First off you have combined two competing concepts in an attempt to come to a singular principle of governance which is in itself a logical fallacy. Taxes v the "wall of seperation" are not interrelated concepts. Government buildings are paid for by taxes, but it does not mean that because YOU don't want to see a religious symbol that YOU can just complain and get it carted off, seperation of church and state means that Congress shall not establish a church, it also states that they shall not infringe the free expression of religion, which means if a church wants to donate a cross, or a mosque wants to donate their symbol, the city is not compelled, yet allowed to display it.How do you figure? Because Joe xian offers up some of his money to his church? Because Joe Xians money was taxed? That's a pretty ridiculous stretch. "The Church" doesn't pay property tax therefore the property is "free" as compared to the government building which is paid for by taxes, me being one of the payees.
Doesn't matter by the numbers, but the point is that numbers mean something in the aggregate in that it can be argued that the city, which is not part of the Congress or federal government is merely representing the core values of it's majority, also, private donations would be more likely to come from that majority because there are more of them, so of course it's a numbers game, it just isn't "law by numbers" as you seem to be trying to assert.So it's about numbers then? Religion A has more followers therefore they are entitled to more benefits from the government than religion B or those without any religion? I doubt this is what the founders had in mind. In fact, I'm sure of it.
No, it doesn't, it means that there shall be no government established church, such as the Anglican church in England. Fail. :tomato:Not exactly, we also have "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Which basically means that the government is to be secular. Therefore placing religious symbols on government property is akin to saying -we approve of this religion-. :thumbdown
Unlike that attitude, "I don't like it so stop, even though the rest of you agree with each other, or aren't offended" :violin:And there we have the true attitude of xianity 'hey you minority, we can do as we please and if you don't like it too bad for you'.
I feel that putting a nativity scene on government property to be inflamatory because it makes it look as though my government supports xianity. Just like xians find saying that there is no god to be inflamatory.Not unless they say something inflamatory along with it,
You don't see the irony behind those words? :dohis your core belief so shaky that someone else's representation of their beliefs makes you uncomfortable?
So it should depend in part on who gets their trappings in the space first?I could see if the nativity scene was placed next to an athiest or scientology sign that was there first, but the case we are discussing is the exact opposite.
The Constitution provides that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority. Your attitude and position is that of a xian who simply believes in mob rule, the strongest (greatest numbers) rule over the weak (the few) but I believe that somewhere in the bible (sermon on the mount) that your god claims the meek shall inherit the earth. Of course that was written when xianity was the minority...Government of the people, not government of the person, government property isn't "yours" but the majority of people happen to be christian, so it is represented as such,
That's pretty much how I feel about xians who continue to ignore other peoples feelings in favor of their own desire to be powerful over others. I believe this is the reason xians refuse to stop putting their religious trappings on public property; to display their power over the rest of us. Basically your attitude, we can do as we please because there is more of us than you... in my opinion, it's not very Christ-like. But then, who ever said xianity was Christ-like? Not the actions of xians...I don't even care about the sign that was put up in this story, it was the time, place, and manner which are disgusting. That doesn't matter to the discussion.
It isn't reasonable because you don't like it or because it isn't reasonable? You'll have to explain why it isn't reasonable which you haven't done so far. Your example of religious expression is ridiculous since the religious are free to express themselves on their religiously owned property instead of publicaly owned property. The fallacy you expose is that xians believe that because of their numbers/wealth/history that they are entitled to things.No, they aren't, they are representing the people of that faith, in no way are you compelled by the government to believe that or look at the symbol. Time, place, manner, if all symbols had to be included they may be included with RESPECT to each other. Because it isn't reasonable, the fact is that if the majority of the community are barred their religious expression then the first as it was written has been violated.
Wouldn't you be if someone directly attacked you?
Putting a symbol of evil in front of my courthouse is a direct attack on me and my freedoms. :2wave:
Putting a symbol of evil in front of my courthouse is a direct attack on me and my freedoms. :2wave:
I thought Athiests did not believe in evil?
Okay, here is what you are uneducated about. Time:holidays, Place: directly in front of a religious symbol, Manner: condescending, arrogant, superiorist, smug. That amounts to an attack on someone else's belief, TPM is a legal guage that the Supreme Court has been using for more than half a century. This was an attack by all stretches of the imagination and could be defined as such using various cases, such as Chaplinski v New Hampshire. The Time, Place, and Manner were directly coorelated to the religion that the Atheists disagreed with and there were NO prior attacks to them, if you don't get it that means you can't see past your own agenda.
Placing a religious symbol on government property, which is my property, is a blatant attack on my government, which is me. Thanks for playing the, I don't understand our democracy, game.Right back at "you don't have to believe in it if you don't want to do so but there's no need to make a blatant attack at those who do."
Placing a religious symbol on government property, which is my property, is a blatant attack on my government, which is me. Thanks for playing the, I don't understand our democracy, game.
"You feel" is not a compelling reason, the fact is you have a freedom OF not FROM religion. No one who is reasonable feels offended by someone else's expression of belief, we are talking about a direct attack within the context of this story. I don't find saying "there is no god" to be inflamatory, but the Time, Place, and Manner of this particular sign in this particular news story is offensive.I feel that putting a nativity scene on government property to be inflamatory because it makes it look as though my government supports xianity. Just like xians find saying that there is no god to be inflamatory.
In order for this to be an irony, I would have to be of the mindset that I am absolutely right that there is a god and you would have to be absolutely wrong, I do believe there is a god but can entertain others ideals as well, I am not the one telling Atheists to stop talking about their beliefs, I am the one, along with most moderate Christians, Atheists, and other faiths saying not to do it next to an expression of someone else's religion. I am also NOT the one saying no municipality should be able to express their majority beliefs on public property, regardless of my own worldview. In other words, if these Atheists feel so challenged that they must suppress others expressions of faith, why? Other than a less than solid belief.You don't see the irony behind those words? :doh
You got one thing right, it was placed on public property, what part of that makes the Atheists placing a sign in it's direct area okay?So it should depend in part on who gets their trappings in the space first?
The nativity scene was placed on public property, secular property.
You make a lot of assumptions, first, I am a Catholic, but not a devout, I haven't been inside a church in years, since the last wedding I attended. Second, I don't take anyone's free and protected expression being attacked or infringed, which is why I am on the Christian's side here, not because I am affiliated with said beliefs, third, I am not advocating, as I have already stated, majority rule, however, you are taking this victimized minority stance, MOST people of various faiths are NOT offended by others expression, so sorry if YOU INDIVIDUALLY are.The Constitution provides that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority. Your attitude and position is that of a xian who simply believes in mob rule, the strongest (greatest numbers) rule over the weak (the few) but I believe that somewhere in the bible (sermon on the mount) that your god claims the meek shall inherit the earth. Of course that was written when xianity was the minority...
You would see it that way, and trust me, you and others like you are the furthest things from our minds, until someone pulls stupid **** like we are seeing now, or the prayer bans in school, etc. Don't attack us and you won't hear anything from us, keep these attitudes up though, and it will eventually get ugly.That's pretty much how I feel about xians who continue to ignore other peoples feelings in favor of their own desire to be powerful over others. I believe this is the reason xians refuse to stop putting their religious trappings on public property; to display their power over the rest of us.Our attitude huh? Have you ever considered that whining and asserting rights you don't have get irritating and bring this to you.Basically your attitude, we can do as we please because there is more of us than you... in my opinion, it's not very Christ-like. But then, who ever said xianity was Christ-like? Not the actions of xians...
No, it isn't. In fact, Congress opens with a prayer, that kind of invalidates that whole absolute seperation argument of yours doesn't it? Maybe you can whine about that next, since their "your" employees.Placing a religious symbol on government property, which is my property, is a blatant attack on my government, which is me. Thanks for playing the, I don't understand our democracy, game.
Pray tell, Slippery Slope,where is this in our Constitution ?The Constitution provides that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?