PDA

View Full Version : The real history and origin of Christmas: a pagan holiday with pagan rituals. Did you know that?


bronco0608
04-12-2011, 02:00 PM
Origin of Christmas:

Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B. The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

And some other intersting tidbits:

The Origins of Christmas Customs

A. The Origin of Christmas Tree
Just as early Christians recruited Roman pagans by associating Christmas with the Saturnalia, so too worshippers of the Asheira cult and its offshoots were recruited by the Church sanctioning “Christmas Trees”.[7] Pagans had long worshipped trees in the forest, or brought them into their homes and decorated them, and this observance was adopted and painted with a Christian veneer by the Church.

B. The Origin of Mistletoe
Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the female Nanna. Druid rituals use mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim.[8] The Christian custom of “kissing under the mistletoe” is a later synthesis of the sexual license of Saturnalia with the Druidic sacrificial cult.[9]

C. The Origin of Christmas Presents
In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January). Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace. The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas


http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

srphoenix
04-12-2011, 02:10 PM
definitely interesting stuff. It's too bad the Catholic church at the time tried to use several of the greatest events in history to appease the pagans of the day. Easter is the same way, it originally was a festival about the pagan fertility god. Christ's birth, death and resurrection can stand by themselves on their own dates corresponding to when they actually happened. There was never a need to try and cover over pagan dates.

It's also unfortunate that we've done the same things today associating Christmas more with presents and Easter more with bunnies and candy than with Jesus Christ's birth and resurrection.

Tebow would agree with me, hehe, go Broncos.

bronco0608
04-12-2011, 02:14 PM
definitely interesting stuff. It's too bad the Catholic church at the time tried to use several of the greatest events in history to appease the pagans of the day. Easter is the same way, it originally was a festival about the pagan fertility god. Christ's birth, death and resurrection can stand by themselves on their own dates corresponding to when they actually happened. There was never a need to try and cover over pagan dates.

It's also unfortunate that we've done the same things today associating Christmas more with presents and Easter more with bunnies and candy than with Jesus Christ's birth and resurrection.

Tebow would agree with me, hehe, go Broncos.

Absolutely. Its funny how a celebration so steeped in depravity is celebrated around the world; yet the people celebrating it have no idea why they are celebrating.

I mean, should I send out Happy Saturnalia cards this December?

The world is ass-backwards.

Kaylore
04-12-2011, 02:15 PM
I knew most of the myths: Christ was born in April and the Church merged the birthday with the Winter Solstice celebration. However a lot of what is written here isn't true. I'm pretty sure the modern Christmas tree came from one of the Kings of England being a German and bringing that tradition with him. And I am well aware that Germanic tribes were pagan, but they weren't fans of the Roman gods. This article reads like they've always had Christmas trees and they really haven't. In fact Roman culture is a hobby of mine and I can tell you absolutely that gift-giving was a more recent Christmas tradition. The idea that Roman culture has continued un-broken for 2000 years isn't true. There are definitely influences but, this reads like "...and we've been doing it ever since!"

Tombstone RJ
04-12-2011, 02:16 PM
just wait until you learn about the yule log!

bronco militia
04-12-2011, 02:17 PM
http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/96532.gif

ghwk
04-12-2011, 02:20 PM
Our Christian forebears also used to dance around a Maypole, worship of a big huge phallic symbol. We should not have done away with this tradition!

bronco0608
04-12-2011, 02:22 PM
I knew most of the myths: Christ was born in April and the Church merged the birthday with the Winter Solstice celebration.

If Christ was born in April, why does the church continue to celebrate his birthday in December? December 25th is just a random date in Christianity, but not so for pagans.

Doesn't make sense, does it?

ghwk
04-12-2011, 02:25 PM
Because mama church is a power whore.

JJG
04-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Its pretty common for new religions to adapt to existing holidays and rituals and put their own twist on them. It makes it easier to gain trust and convert people. It Doesn't really change the significance behind the holidays for me.

Inkana7
04-12-2011, 02:57 PM
Lies. This is all a part of the liberal war on Christmas.

tsiguy96
04-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Its pretty common for new religions to adapt to existing holidays and rituals and put their own twist on them. It makes it easier to gain trust and convert people. It Doesn't really change the significance behind the holidays for me.

the fact that religions feel the need to constantly convert others instead of just following their own beliefs and whoever wants to hop on can changes the significance of a lot of things. so much for just leaving people be, they have to overtake other religions and to make the "transition" easier they will celebrate holidays at the same time. does that sound very "spiritual" to anyone?

JJG
04-12-2011, 04:31 PM
the fact that religions feel the need to constantly convert others instead of just following their own beliefs and whoever wants to hop on can changes the significance of a lot of things. so much for just leaving people be, they have to overtake other religions and to make the "transition" easier they will celebrate holidays at the same time. does that sound very "spiritual" to anyone?

People want thier beliefs/ideals to be validated, be it religion, politics, favorite sports teams or any other opinion we have. Its human nature.

bronco0608
04-12-2011, 05:06 PM
Lies. This is all a part of the liberal war on Christmas.

Really? So Christ was born in December? The Bible doesn't say that.

So how exactly is kissing a random stranger under a misletoe Christian? Where did that come from?

Archer81
04-12-2011, 05:18 PM
If Christ was born in April, why does the church continue to celebrate his birthday in December? December 25th is just a random date in Christianity, but not so for pagans.

Doesn't make sense, does it?


Only if you are an idiot.

Romans were very religious. In adopting Christianity, roman religious practices merged to attract converts. This would include Roman holy days and celebrations. As Christianity spread beyond Rome the practice of adopting some pagan culture continued. This is not unique to Christianity, either. Islam, Judaism and Hinduism celebrate holy and feast days that predate the practice of that religion. Just how it is.

And the point of Christmas and Easter is not presents in one case or finding ridiculous eggs/oblong spheres on the other. Its about the birth and resurrection of Christ. When it is celebrated doesnt matter. The fact it is does.

:Broncos:

Archer81
04-12-2011, 05:20 PM
Really? So Christ was born in December? The Bible doesn't say that.
So how exactly is kissing a random stranger under a misletoe Christian? Where did that come from?


Bible gives clues. But considering the nature of the calendars then (solar/lunar) you could have spring in December or snowfall in June. More than likely Christ was born in spring, but as I said, hard to be completely sure.


:Broncos:

Broncos_OTM
04-12-2011, 05:45 PM
i ask who DIDNTknow that

Jay3
04-12-2011, 05:56 PM
The examples in the OP were focused on Roman traditions, but Nordic traditions were also incorporated. The festival of Yule was the Germanic holiday tied to the winter solstice.

Popps
04-12-2011, 06:00 PM
This should end well.

worm
04-12-2011, 06:42 PM
I have the utmost confidence that this is a topic that the Orange Mane is expert in.

rugbythug
04-12-2011, 06:45 PM
Funny that people say see how christians did this. When in most cases it was not christians but those who tried to use the christian name to rule. Personally the only thing. Christmas has in common with the roman celebration is a date.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 06:50 PM
I knew most of the myths: Christ was born in April and the Church merged the birthday with the Winter Solstice celebration. However a lot of what is written here isn't true.

I don't know, would shepherds have their sheep out grazing in the Winter?

rugbythug
04-12-2011, 06:56 PM
I don't know, would shepherds have their sheep out grazing in the Winter?

Probably. They are in the mediteranean. I think the grazed year round.

Jay3
04-12-2011, 07:00 PM
What's the big deal? The Bible doesn't say anything about having a holiday called "Christmas." Christmas is the most worldly, commercialized export of Christianity ever. It's no surprise that it came from a non-Christian cultural tradition.

And I say that as a Christian. Christmas leaves very little to be be proud of, other than the "real" meaning Christians ascribe to it. The rest of it is kind of overwhelming, commercialized, and self-centered.

TDmvp
04-12-2011, 07:20 PM
http://www.soffercollective.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/duh-duh1233387823.jpg

Popps
04-12-2011, 07:25 PM
What's the big deal? The Bible doesn't say anything about having a holiday called "Christmas." Christmas is the most worldly, commercialized export of Christianity ever. It's no surprise that it came from a non-Christian cultural tradition.

And I say that as a Christian. Christmas leaves very little to be be proud of, other than the "real" meaning Christians ascribe to it. The rest of it is kind of overwhelming, commercialized, and self-centered.

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/100/761/original/Cool-story-bro.jpg?1298172580

listopencil
04-12-2011, 07:35 PM
Probably. They are in the mediteranean. I think the grazed year round.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Land/THE+LAND-+Geography+and+Climate.htm

Climate

Israel's climate ranges from temperate to tropical, with plenty of sunshine. Two distinct seasons predominate: a rainy winter period from November to May; and a dry summer season which extends through the next six months. Rainfall is relatively heavy in the North and center of the country, with much less in the northern Negev and almost negligible amounts in the southern areas.

Regional conditions vary considerably, with humid summers and mild winters on the coast; dry summers and moderately cold winters in the hill regions (including Jerusalem), hot dry summers and pleasant winters in the Jordan Valley; and year-round semidesert conditions in the Negev. Weather extremes range from occasional winter snowfall at higher elevations to periodic oppressively hot dry winds, which send temperatures soaring, particularly in spring and autumn.



Bethlehem is aprox. 5 miles South of Jerusalem. That sight has the min/max as 43-55 degrees in January. I am still looking for info about when sheep would be grazing though.

rugbythug
04-12-2011, 07:48 PM
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Land/THE+LAND-+Geography+and+Climate.htm

Climate

Israel's climate ranges from temperate to tropical, with plenty of sunshine. Two distinct seasons predominate: a rainy winter period from November to May; and a dry summer season which extends through the next six months. Rainfall is relatively heavy in the North and center of the country, with much less in the northern Negev and almost negligible amounts in the southern areas.

Regional conditions vary considerably, with humid summers and mild winters on the coast; dry summers and moderately cold winters in the hill regions (including Jerusalem), hot dry summers and pleasant winters in the Jordan Valley; and year-round semidesert conditions in the Negev. Weather extremes range from occasional winter snowfall at higher elevations to periodic oppressively hot dry winds, which send temperatures soaring, particularly in spring and autumn.



Bethlehem is aprox. 5 miles South of Jerusalem. That sight has the min/max as 43-55 degrees in January. I am still looking for info about when sheep would be grazing though.

Not sure what you are pushing at. However you graze year round unless you live in an area where the snow gets to deep. I raised sheep in Wyoming.

Tombstone RJ
04-12-2011, 07:51 PM
Not sure what you are pushing at. However you graze year round unless you live in an area where the snow gets to deep. I raised sheep in Wyoming.

Nuh-uh! When it gets too cold you bring all the animals inside!!! Didn't you know that 2000 years ago they had indoor farms?!? Well DUH!

listopencil
04-12-2011, 07:53 PM
Not sure what you are pushing at. However you graze year round unless you live in an area where the snow gets to deep. I raised sheep in Wyoming.

Pushing at? I'm not "pushing at" anything. I am trying to find out if it would be logical for a shepherd near Jerusalem 2000 years ago to have his sheep out grazing at night during Winter.

Tombstone RJ
04-12-2011, 08:05 PM
Pushing at? I'm not "pushing at" anything. I am trying to find out if it would be logical for a shepherd near Jerusalem 2000 years ago to have his sheep out grazing at night during Winter.

He wouldn't have a choice my friend. The Shepherd stays with the flock day and night, rain or shine. He's got to keep the sheep with him, outside, yet protected from other wild animals. There were no barbwire fences, this is why being a shepherd was an extremely difficult job and part of the reason why Christ is referred to as the Good Shepherd.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 08:09 PM
He wouldn't have a choice my friend. The Shepherd stays with the flock day and night, rain or shine. He's got to keep the sheep with him, outside, yet protected from other wild animals. There were no barbwire fences, this is why being a shepherd was an extremely difficult job and part of the reason why Christ is referred to as the Good Shepherd.


Still not sure. Every source I find states plainly that the Jews did not take there sheep out to graze in the Winter because of the rains, but that they did stay outside with them during what would be Summer and Fall.

rugbythug
04-12-2011, 08:10 PM
Pushing at? I'm not "pushing at" anything. I am trying to find out if it would be logical for a shepherd near Jerusalem 2000 years ago to have his sheep out grazing at night during Winter.

They would not have had any type of food source other than grazing. They did not put up hay. And Wheat was far to valuable. I'm sure some animals had "feed" but sheep would not been one of them. Mostly horses for transport.

these are all educated guesses from personal Animal Husbandry.

rugbythug
04-12-2011, 08:14 PM
What's the big deal? The Bible doesn't say anything about having a holiday called "Christmas." Christmas is the most worldly, commercialized export of Christianity ever. It's no surprise that it came from a non-Christian cultural tradition.

And I say that as a Christian. Christmas leaves very little to be be proud of, other than the "real" meaning Christians ascribe to it. The rest of it is kind of overwhelming, commercialized, and self-centered.

Cosign

Tombstone RJ
04-12-2011, 08:18 PM
Still not sure. Every source I find states plainly that the Jews did not take there sheep out to graze in the Winter because of the rains, but that they did stay outside with them during what would be Summer and Fall.

The sheep had to eat in winter too. Unless the shepherd stockpiled food for the sheep to eat (I guess this is possible) then they had to survive on forage that was available, which means grazing.

http://www.grazeonline.com/articles/wintersheep.html

listopencil
04-12-2011, 08:20 PM
They would not have had any type of food source other than grazing. They did not put up hay. And Wheat was far to valuable. I'm sure some animals had "feed" but sheep would not been one of them. Mostly horses for transport.

these are all educated guesses from personal Animal Husbandry.

Here, check this out:

http://www.bibleonly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=786:the-birth-of-the-pascal-lamb-of-god&catid=37:preserving-bible-times&Itemid=65

Way too much info to cut-and-paste here. Also, it's still not something I would credit as a definitive answer. I was trying to find some articles about shepherding in Israel of that time period but no luck so far.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 08:21 PM
The sheep had to eat in winter too. Unless the shepherd stockpiled food for the sheep to eat (I guess this is possible) then they had to survive on forage that was available, which means grazing.

http://www.grazeonline.com/articles/wintersheep.html


The situation is more complicated than that. More than I originally thought as well. Check out the link: http://www.bibleonly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=786:the-birth-of-the-pascal-lamb-of-god&catid=37:preserving-bible-times&Itemid=65

Tombstone RJ
04-12-2011, 08:35 PM
Yah, being a shepherd back then was a tough, dirty job. I believe David was a shepherd too, before he became the king of Israel (I could be wrong). He started out as a shepherd for his families flock.

gobroncos313
04-12-2011, 09:38 PM
What amazes me is how some people can think that literally millions of people the past 2,000 years have all been wrong with how they practice their Christianity. But now they, in all their wisdom, have it all figured out. For all the bickering about dates here is some interesting information http://www.bethlehemstar.net/

The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) set the date of Easter as the Sunday following the paschal full moon, which is the full moon that falls on or after the vernal (spring) equinox.

We know that Easter must always occur on a Sunday, because Sunday was the day of Christ's Resurrection. But why the paschal full moon? Because that was the date of Passover in the Jewish calendar, and the Last Supper (Holy Thursday) occurred on the Passover. Therefore, Easter was the Sunday after Passover.

So Easter has much more to do with its relation to the Passover than anything pagan.

epicSocialism4tw
04-12-2011, 09:57 PM
Its pretty common for new religions to adapt to existing holidays and rituals and put their own twist on them. It makes it easier to gain trust and convert people. It Doesn't really change the significance behind the holidays for me.

Yeah, you see it in America with Kwanzaa and Hanukkah. Hanukkah existed previously, but it has been elevated in importance due to its proximity with Christmas and the expectations of gifts that Jewish children share with Christian children during the same time period.

Its a way for other religions to take part in a cultures major holiday celebrations with their own set of beliefs.

epicSocialism4tw
04-12-2011, 10:00 PM
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Land/THE+LAND-+Geography+and+Climate.htm

Climate

Israel's climate ranges from temperate to tropical, with plenty of sunshine. Two distinct seasons predominate: a rainy winter period from November to May; and a dry summer season which extends through the next six months. Rainfall is relatively heavy in the North and center of the country, with much less in the northern Negev and almost negligible amounts in the southern areas.

Regional conditions vary considerably, with humid summers and mild winters on the coast; dry summers and moderately cold winters in the hill regions (including Jerusalem), hot dry summers and pleasant winters in the Jordan Valley; and year-round semidesert conditions in the Negev. Weather extremes range from occasional winter snowfall at higher elevations to periodic oppressively hot dry winds, which send temperatures soaring, particularly in spring and autumn.



Bethlehem is aprox. 5 miles South of Jerusalem. That sight has the min/max as 43-55 degrees in January. I am still looking for info about when sheep would be grazing though.

Think of the bay area of California...they have the same climate as what is in that part of the mediterranean. That makes winter a rainy season.

Dedhed
04-12-2011, 10:17 PM
People want thier beliefs/ideals to be validated, be it religion, politics, favorite sports teams or any other opinion we have. Its human nature.

The truth doesn't need validation, which explains why religion is so fallacious.

epicSocialism4tw
04-12-2011, 10:24 PM
The truth doesn't need validation, which explains why religion is so fallacious.

Truth absolutely needs validation. Thats what the scientific method is all about.

Most religions see truth as a pillar within their faith. Christianity sees truth as one of its most important tenets, and this value has attributed to western developments like the scientific method and the Judeo-Christian systems of justice that have become ubiquitous in western cultures. Its no mistake that the great scientists have been religious or educated in religious communities. Newton, Mendel, Darwin, on and on.

It makes sense that religious people would seek truths, because they are usually seeking answers from a god, who they believe is the author of truth. At least that's the way that the Judeo-Christian religions see it.

Do you believe in absolute truth?

gobroncos313
04-12-2011, 10:38 PM
Truth absolutely needs validation. Thats what the scientific method is all about.

Most religions see truth as a pillar within their faith. Christianity sees truth as one of its most important tenets, and this value has attributed to western developments like the scientific method and the Judeo-Christian systems of justice that have become ubiquitous in western cultures. Its no mistake that the great scientists have been religious or educated in religious communities. Newton, Mendel, Darwin, on and on.

It makes sense that religious people would seek truths, because they are usually seeking answers from a god, who they believe is the author of truth. At least that's the way that the Judeo-Christian religions see it.

Do you believe in absolute truth?


What is truth? - This question was probably asked in contempt, and hence Jesus did not answer it. Had the question been sincere, and had Pilate really sought it as Nicodemus had done John 3, Jesus would not have hesitated to explain to him the nature of his kingdom. They were now alone in the judgment-hall John 18:33, and as soon as Pilate had asked the question, without waiting for an answer, he went out. It is evident that he was satisfied, from the answer of Jesus John 18:36-37, that he was not a king in the sense in which the Jews accused him; that he would not endanger the Roman government, and consequently that he was innocent of the charge alleged against him. He regarded him, clearly, as a fanatic poor, ignorant, and deluded, but innocent and not dangerous. Hence, he sought to release him; and, hence, in contempt, he asked him this question, and immediately went out, not expecting an answer.

This question had long agitated the world. It was the great subject of inquiry in all the schools of the Greeks. Different sects of philosophers had held different opinions, and Pilate now, in derision, asked him, whom he esteemed an ignorant fanatic, whether he could solve this long-agitated question. He might have had an answer. If he had patiently waited in sincerity, Jesus would have told him what it was. Thousands ask the question in the same way. They have a fixed contempt for the Bible; they deride the instructions of religion; they are unwilling to investigate and to wait at the gates of wisdom; and hence, like Pilate, they remain ignorant of the great Source of truth, and die in darkness and in error. All might find truth if they would seek it; none ever will find it if they do not apply for it to the great source of light the God of truth, and seek it patiently in the way in which he has chosen to communicate it to mankind. How highly should we prize the Bible! And how patiently and prayerfully should we search the Scriptures, that we may not err and die forever! See the notes at John 14:6.

I find in him no fault - See Luke 23:4.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 11:11 PM
What is truth? - This question was probably asked in contempt, and hence Jesus did not answer it. Had the question been sincere, and had Pilate really sought it as Nicodemus had done John 3, Jesus would not have hesitated to explain to him the nature of his kingdom. They were now alone in the judgment-hall John 18:33, and as soon as Pilate had asked the question, without waiting for an answer, he went out. It is evident that he was satisfied, from the answer of Jesus John 18:36-37, that he was not a king in the sense in which the Jews accused him; that he would not endanger the Roman government, and consequently that he was innocent of the charge alleged against him. He regarded him, clearly, as a fanatic poor, ignorant, and deluded, but innocent and not dangerous. Hence, he sought to release him; and, hence, in contempt, he asked him this question, and immediately went out, not expecting an answer.

This question had long agitated the world. It was the great subject of inquiry in all the schools of the Greeks. Different sects of philosophers had held different opinions, and Pilate now, in derision, asked him, whom he esteemed an ignorant fanatic, whether he could solve this long-agitated question. He might have had an answer. If he had patiently waited in sincerity, Jesus would have told him what it was. Thousands ask the question in the same way. They have a fixed contempt for the Bible; they deride the instructions of religion; they are unwilling to investigate and to wait at the gates of wisdom; and hence, like Pilate, they remain ignorant of the great Source of truth, and die in darkness and in error. All might find truth if they would seek it; none ever will find it if they do not apply for it to the great source of light the God of truth, and seek it patiently in the way in which he has chosen to communicate it to mankind. How highly should we prize the Bible! And how patiently and prayerfully should we search the Scriptures, that we may not err and die forever! See the notes at John 14:6.

I find in him no fault - See Luke 23:4.

Wow, what a huge load of crap.

epicSocialism4tw
04-12-2011, 11:46 PM
Wow, what a huge load of crap.

There are many, many, many people much smarter than you or I who would count that guy's post as wisdom.

srphoenix
04-13-2011, 06:56 AM
What is truth? - This question was probably asked in contempt, and hence Jesus did not answer it. Had the question been sincere, and had Pilate really sought it as Nicodemus had done John 3, Jesus would not have hesitated to explain to him the nature of his kingdom. They were now alone in the judgment-hall John 18:33, and as soon as Pilate had asked the question, without waiting for an answer, he went out. It is evident that he was satisfied, from the answer of Jesus John 18:36-37, that he was not a king in the sense in which the Jews accused him; that he would not endanger the Roman government, and consequently that he was innocent of the charge alleged against him. He regarded him, clearly, as a fanatic poor, ignorant, and deluded, but innocent and not dangerous. Hence, he sought to release him; and, hence, in contempt, he asked him this question, and immediately went out, not expecting an answer.

This question had long agitated the world. It was the great subject of inquiry in all the schools of the Greeks. Different sects of philosophers had held different opinions, and Pilate now, in derision, asked him, whom he esteemed an ignorant fanatic, whether he could solve this long-agitated question. He might have had an answer. If he had patiently waited in sincerity, Jesus would have told him what it was. Thousands ask the question in the same way. They have a fixed contempt for the Bible; they deride the instructions of religion; they are unwilling to investigate and to wait at the gates of wisdom; and hence, like Pilate, they remain ignorant of the great Source of truth, and die in darkness and in error. All might find truth if they would seek it; none ever will find it if they do not apply for it to the great source of light the God of truth, and seek it patiently in the way in which he has chosen to communicate it to mankind. How highly should we prize the Bible! And how patiently and prayerfully should we search the Scriptures, that we may not err and die forever! See the notes at John 14:6.

I find in him no fault - See Luke 23:4.

LOVE IT, nicely done and repped!

Smiling Assassin27
04-13-2011, 09:12 AM
Origin of Christmas:


Quote:
Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B. The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

And some other intersting tidbits:


Quote:
The Origins of Christmas Customs

A. The Origin of Christmas Tree
Just as early Christians recruited Roman pagans by associating Christmas with the Saturnalia, so too worshippers of the Asheira cult and its offshoots were recruited by the Church sanctioning “Christmas Trees”.[7] Pagans had long worshipped trees in the forest, or brought them into their homes and decorated them, and this observance was adopted and painted with a Christian veneer by the Church.

B. The Origin of Mistletoe
Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the female Nanna. Druid rituals use mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim.[8] The Christian custom of “kissing under the mistletoe” is a later synthesis of the sexual license of Saturnalia with the Druidic sacrificial cult.[9]

C. The Origin of Christmas Presents
In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January). Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace. The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas


http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...eRealStory.htm


Dude, do just a little research. This is incorrect in a big way. If you're gonna take an unsolicited swipe at the Catholic Church, at least be sure you know what you're talking about.

PM me if you wanna get the true info on this. Got little time for an argument as weak as this.

Kaylore
04-13-2011, 09:29 AM
Bible gives clues. But considering the nature of the calendars then (solar/lunar) you could have spring in December or snowfall in June. More than likely Christ was born in spring, but as I said, hard to be completely sure.


:Broncos:

We can actually nail it down to the last week of March or first week of April. The "clues" are corroborated against Roman historical fact. Octavian, then Agustus, ordered an empire-wide census. Judeah kept their records based on family's original land of inheritance. This "tax" that Mary and Joseph went to was really a census that was definitely issued at that time. Joseph went to Bethlehem because he was of David's line and David was from Bethlehem.

It is important to note that the Jews kept strict and long genealogies and during Christ's life, while he was attacked for many things, they never once attempted to argue he wasn't of king David's line, something they would have done non-stop if they had evidence to support such an attack.

bronco0608
04-13-2011, 11:36 AM
Dude, do just a little research. This is incorrect in a big way. If you're gonna take an unsolicited swipe at the Catholic Church, at least be sure you know what you're talking about.

PM me if you wanna get the true info on this. Got little time for an argument as weak as this.

Take a swipe at the Catholic Church? If I was doing that, I would point out such things like the epidemic of priests molesting young boys. What the **** was up with that? I could see if it was one priest, but it was a gang of them. I will never understand that. How do you explain it?

That is a huge black eye because it the most vile, disgusting thing to do in society and the CHURCH was doing it. Terrible.

But that's not why I started this thread. The reason I started this is because I find it really disingenuous that the Church promotes Dec 25th like it is really Jesus's birthday -- its not. And then when you dig deeper, the whole holiday has its roots in deprave behavior which makes it even more perplexing.

Like I stated before: December 25th has no roots with Christianity, but December 25th was a signifigant date for pagans. All the rituals have pagan history: miseltoe, putting a tree in your house etc.

Its crazy.

Blart
04-13-2011, 11:46 AM
Jesus died so we can enjoy Christmas

Blart
04-13-2011, 12:00 PM
What is truth? - This question was probably asked in contempt, and hence Jesus did not answer it. Had the question been sincere, and had Pilate really sought it as Nicodemus had done John 3, Jesus would not have hesitated to explain to him the nature of his kingdom. They were now alone in the judgment-hall John 18:33, and as soon as Pilate had asked the question, without waiting for an answer, he went out. It is evident that he was satisfied, from the answer of Jesus John 18:36-37, that he was not a king in the sense in which the Jews accused him; that he would not endanger the Roman government, and consequently that he was innocent of the charge alleged against him. He regarded him, clearly, as a fanatic poor, ignorant, and deluded, but innocent and not dangerous. Hence, he sought to release him; and, hence, in contempt, he asked him this question, and immediately went out, not expecting an answer.

This question had long agitated the world. It was the great subject of inquiry in all the schools of the Greeks. Different sects of philosophers had held different opinions, and Pilate now, in derision, asked him, whom he esteemed an ignorant fanatic, whether he could solve this long-agitated question. He might have had an answer. If he had patiently waited in sincerity, Jesus would have told him what it was. Thousands ask the question in the same way. They have a fixed contempt for the Bible; they deride the instructions of religion; they are unwilling to investigate and to wait at the gates of wisdom; and hence, like Pilate, they remain ignorant of the great Source of truth, and die in darkness and in error. All might find truth if they would seek it; none ever will find it if they do not apply for it to the great source of light the God of truth, and seek it patiently in the way in which he has chosen to communicate it to mankind. How highly should we prize the Bible! And how patiently and prayerfully should we search the Scriptures, that we may not err and die forever! See the notes at John 14:6.

I find in him no fault - See Luke 23:4.


If we're going to copy/paste (http://tinyurl.com/3z2ay79) truth quotes,

“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.” - Oscar Wilde

Archer81
04-13-2011, 12:17 PM
If we're going to copy/paste (http://tinyurl.com/3z2ay79) truth quotes,

“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.” - Oscar Wilde


Science is a religion unto itself. Complete with its own priests and rituals, sinners and frauds. It also has its own extremists and fundementalists.


:Broncos:

bronco0608
04-13-2011, 12:20 PM
If we're going to copy/paste (http://tinyurl.com/3z2ay79) truth quotes,

“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.” - Oscar Wilde

How is science the record of dead religions?

epicSocialism4tw
04-13-2011, 12:28 PM
How is science the record of dead religions?

Wilde was using some wilde hyperbole to try to say that scientific discoveries are essentially catalogued death-blows to religions. Which is a patently false and intellectually dishonest statement. The world is still as religious as it has ever been, and is still populated by the same religions in large part that were popular in his day.

Its just a bad quote, because it really doesnt say anything.

rugbythug
04-13-2011, 12:36 PM
Most lopsided poll in mane history?

broncocalijohn
04-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Absolutely. Its funny how a celebration so steeped in depravity is celebrated around the world; yet the people celebrating it have no idea why they are celebrating.

I mean, should I send out Happy Saturnalia cards this December?

The world is ass-backwards.

32 people out of 32 in your poll knew of this yet you still want to go with this post?
Religion brought in the pagans by taking their pagan rituals and turned it into a religious celebration. At the time, many more pagans than religious folks so isnt that the easiest way to get them to convert or get the message out to a wider audience? This is well before newspapers, internet, tv, etc.

Kaylore
04-13-2011, 02:08 PM
Take a swipe at the Catholic Church? If I was doing that, I would point out such things like the epidemic of priests molesting young boys. What the **** was up with that? I could see if it was one priest, but it was a gang of them. I will never understand that. How do you explain it?

That is a huge black eye because it the most vile, disgusting thing to do in society and the CHURCH was doing it. Terrible.

But that's not why I started this thread. The reason I started this is because I find it really disingenuous that the Church promotes Dec 25th like it is really Jesus's birthday -- its not. And then when you dig deeper, the whole holiday has its roots in deprave behavior which makes it even more perplexing.

Like I stated before: December 25th has no roots with Christianity, but December 25th was a signifigant date for pagans. All the rituals have pagan history: miseltoe, putting a tree in your house etc.

Its crazy.

Who cares?

First of all, the pagans weren't all bad. There were many different cults that celebrated the solstice differently. Pagan is a catch all term that means anyone not coming from judeo-religious tree. And that's not what people think of when they celebrate it anyway now so it doesn't matter.

JJG
04-14-2011, 08:24 AM
Most lopsided poll in mane history?

Most likely. Someone should start a poll, just to confirm.

gyldenlove
04-14-2011, 09:15 AM
Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the female Nanna.

That is bull**** of the highest caliber.

Balder was the most beautiful male god and had the gift of foresight in dreams, at one point his dreams turned from happy to nightmares and he foresaw death for himself and that he would go to the death realm. Frigg (his mother and wife of Odin) wanted to help him and made every living organism and all things swear not to hurt Balder making him in effect invulnerable, however she had forgotten the little mistletoe. It became a sport to throw things at him because he couldn't be hurt, however Loke the god of strife and lies discovered that the mistletoe could kill Balder so he asked Hoder who was Balders brother and who was blind, to shoot at Balder and Loke gave him a mistletoe arrow which killed Balder. Nanna was the wife of Balder.

gyldenlove
04-14-2011, 09:25 AM
Wilde was using some wilde hyperbole to try to say that scientific discoveries are essentially catalogued death-blows to religions. Which is a patently false and intellectually dishonest statement. The world is still as religious as it has ever been, and is still populated by the same religions in large part that were popular in his day.

Its just a bad quote, because it really doesnt say anything.

You have to remember that Wilde grew up in a pretty heavily catholic society in Ireland and then moved to England during the prosperous Victorian time where religion was becoming less important and science and technology was on the rise. It has not been difficult for him to see a correlation between the poor and undeveloped Ireland with its strong religious presence and the much more technologically developed and affluent England with a much weaker religious presence. Certainly to some extend it is easy to see even today that in many areas with marginal religious influence are technologically more advanced than areas where religion is dominant, certainly China, Northern Europe and North America where religion is not as dominant as it is in Southern Europe, South America, the Middle East and India are all more advanced, however taking that correlation as a causative relationship is extremely dangerous and probably incorrect.

broncosteven
04-14-2011, 11:17 AM
If Christ was born in April, why does the church continue to celebrate his birthday in December? December 25th is just a random date in Christianity, but not so for pagans.

Doesn't make sense, does it?

You haven't been following the Mexican Earthquake thread, in it McGoober clearly states that everything is a conspiracy to cover up the fact that there is an Anti-gravity device that is so powerfull the government had to create hoaxes about Aliens and change the date of Jesus's birthday to cover it up!

woodall
04-14-2011, 12:05 PM
Science is a religion unto itself. Complete with its own priests and rituals, sinners and frauds. It also has its own extremists and fundementalists.

This is a ridiculous statement that is often used by people who are trying to discredit science. Science is constantly searching for truth and is eager to discard older theories while religion claims to represent ultimate truth. The problem is that each religion claims a different truth and there is zero objective evidence to prove religious claims.

TailgateNut
04-14-2011, 12:10 PM
This is a ridiculous statement that is often used by people who are trying to discredit science. Science is constantly searching for truth and is eager to discard older theories while religion claims to represent ultimate truth. The problem is that each religion claims a different truth and there is zero objective evidence to prove religious claims.

Don't try to make sense on the OM.


CUE DramaLlama.......Hilarious!

broncocalijohn
04-14-2011, 12:52 PM
This is a ridiculous statement that is often used by people who are trying to discredit science. Science is constantly searching for truth and is eager to discard older theories while religion claims to represent ultimate truth. The problem is that each religion claims a different truth and there is zero objective evidence to prove religious claims.

No, Chris has a point. You have the Global Warming situations of putting the "answers" before the work has been performed or completed. Take your "priest" or "fundamentalist" aka Internet Al Gore and try to have everyone follow him as he preaches his way of truth.
With religion that are more Western, you have branches of different religions but there is one God and Christ that everyone believes in. Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans and Methodist all believe in the same God. They just worship him in different ways. Ask all those that follow those religions if they believe in Christ, Son of God and Died for your sins. You will get 100% "YES!"
The difference between the two is what I stated has already happened and is believed to be the core of the movement. Science is constantly changing theories as technology helps determine their conclusions. Some are absolute and others are argued among scientists... including global warming.

Archer81
04-14-2011, 03:31 PM
1. This is a ridiculous statement that is often used by people who are trying to discredit science. 2. Science is constantly searching for truth and is eager to 3. discard older theories while religion claims to represent ultimate truth. 4. The problem is that each religion claims a different truth and there is zero objective evidence to prove religious claims.


1. No one is trying to discredit science. It has its uses.

2. Science seeks the how of things. Religion and philosophy want to know the why.

3. As does religion. Or is the position of the Church still has the earth at the center of the solar system?

4. See number 2.

5. Depending on who is looking at it makes evidence highly subjective. An example of this is global warming alarmists. One side is absolutely sure people are the main cause. The other side believes its just the climate cycle of the planet. Because of the tendency by one side to overplay the "objective" evidence they are pushing for a complete restructuring of human society. Then we learn evidence was withheld from the UN because it disagreed with the Al Gore Man Bear Pig group's aims. Then it was renamed from global warming to climate change to make it sound less threatening.


:Broncos:

woodall
04-14-2011, 03:43 PM
No, Chris has a point. You have the Global Warming situations of putting the "answers" before the work has been performed or completed. Take your "priest" or "fundamentalist" aka Internet Al Gore and try to have everyone follow him as he preaches his way of truth.
With religion that are more Western, you have branches of different religions but there is one God and Christ that everyone believes in. Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans and Methodist all believe in the same God. They just worship him in different ways. Ask all those that follow those religions if they believe in Christ, Son of God and Died for your sins. You will get 100% "YES!"
The difference between the two is what I stated has already happened and is believed to be the core of the movement. Science is constantly changing theories as technology helps determine their conclusions. Some are absolute and others are argued among scientists... including global warming.

Al Gore is not a scientist and any real scientist would admit that there is much more work to do on global climate change. "Global Warming" isn't very accurate and "global climate change" is the preferred term. I was raised Christian (Catholic) and I understand that all Christians worship the same deity....that is kind of obvious isn't it? I am talking about the thousands of different and competing religions that have existed as long as humankind has existed. These religions worship different gods and have different explanations for where we came from and what happens to us after we die AND yet they all claim to have special access to ultimate truth. I think that is the single biggest critique one can make against religion. Which one is correct??? The Christian will claim his religion is true, The Muslim will claim his is true, The Jew will do the same and so on and so forth.....They all can't be true because they have competing claims, doctrines, ideologies....hell they worship different deities! You are right that science is always changing because as technology improves we can understand more about the universe that we exist in. That is a strength of science, out with the old disproven theories and in with the new information. There is never a claim to ultimate truth. If a scientist tried to make that claim then he or she is not a good scientist, but religious leaders make that claim all the time based on ancient writings that were written when humans thought the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.

woodall
04-14-2011, 04:05 PM
1. No one is trying to discredit science. It has its uses.

2. Science seeks the how of things. Religion and philosophy want to know the why.

3. As does religion. Or is the position of the Church still has the earth at the center of the solar system?

4. See number 2.

5. Depending on who is looking at it makes evidence highly subjective. An example of this is global warming alarmists. One side is absolutely sure people are the main cause. The other side believes its just the climate cycle of the planet. Because of the tendency by one side to overplay the "objective" evidence they are pushing for a complete restructuring of human society. Then we learn evidence was withheld from the UN because it disagreed with the Al Gore Man Bear Pig group's aims. Then it was renamed from global warming to climate change to make it sound less threatening.

1. By claiming that science is a religion unto itself, you are trying to discredit it because that is simply not true.

2.So religion has been forced to accept scientific discoveries like the earth not being the center of the universe? Religion should get zero credit for accepting these facts. Most of the time they fought it tooth and nail.

listopencil
04-15-2011, 09:32 AM
"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people."

Now there's a good quote.

Kaylore
04-15-2011, 02:39 PM
This is a ridiculous statement that is often used by people who are trying to discredit science. Science is constantly searching for truth and is eager to discard older theories while religion claims to represent ultimate truth. The problem is that each religion claims a different truth and there is zero objective evidence to prove religious claims.

No he's right. Yes, science and the scientific process are orderly, methodical and work to disprove and prove itself over and over. Everything is questioned and re-questioned in the pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately to the masses at large it is misused or maybe more appropriately unused entirely.

For example how many times is a report posted in the media that reads "scientists (nebulous term) determine (insert claim)" and everyone immediately adopts it as fact without even looking at the evidence itself? That absolutely itself isn't the scientific process. They would need to look at the test results, have it re-tested several times over and over before they could accept it as fact. Obviously not personally, but there needs to be some thorough follow up. They should question everything until it is absolutely proven.

They don't, though. If a "scientist" says it and its on the internet, they believe it is true. In this way they've ironically adopted the worst attribute they claim is exclusive to religions persons. Most people that claim to "believe" science actually don't and are just religion-haters that don't like the idea of not doing what they want all the time and are reaching for every excuse they can to not feel bad about their actions.

gyldenlove
04-15-2011, 05:10 PM
No he's right. Yes, science and the scientific process are orderly, methodical and work to disprove and prove itself over and over. Everything is questioned and re-questioned in the pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately to the masses at large it is misused or maybe more appropriately unused entirely.

For example how many times is a report posted in the media that reads "scientists (nebulous term) determine (insert claim)" and everyone immediately adopts it as fact without even looking at the evidence itself? That absolutely itself isn't the scientific process. They would need to look at the test results, have it re-tested several times over and over before they could accept it as fact. Obviously not personally, but there needs to be some thorough follow up. They should question everything until it is absolutely proven.

They don't, though. If a "scientist" says it and its on the internet, they believe it is true. In this way they've ironically adopted the worst attribute they claim is exclusive to religions persons. Most people that claim to "believe" science actually don't and are just religion-haters that don't like the idea of not doing what they want all the time and are reaching for every excuse they can to not feel bad about their actions.

The only belief there is in science is wether an individual finds the combined body of evidence for and against a certain claim to be such that that claim is substantially more likely than any alternate claim.

As an example take Gauss's law for magnetic fields, this is a purely empirical statement that can be interpreted to mean there are no magnetic monopoles, this law is generally believed to be true because no magnetic monopoles have been observed conclusively and reproducibly and any situation we have applied the law to has confirmed it, as a result it is easy to believe Gauss's law for magnetic fields to be true. If magnetic monopoles are confirmed to exist or a law that produces the same results as Gauss's law but gives more testable predictions that turn out to be true is found then Gauss's law will be abandoned.

The main difference between religious faith and scientific belief is that scientific belief is determined by the evidence and is subject to change with new evidence or new interpretations of existing evidence, while religious faith is static and not subject to evidence. A scientist does not have to believe in a certain theory to work on it, in fact that can some times be detrimental, however there will always be a few nutbars willing to buy into a theory with no solid evidence or despite good evidence against that theory.

Fedaykin
04-15-2011, 07:11 PM
Most people that claim to "believe" science actually don't and are just religion-haters that don't like the idea of not doing what they want all the time and are reaching for every excuse they can to not feel bad about their actions.

That's a really tired old dishonest canard -- I'd expect better from you.

Kaylore
04-16-2011, 08:50 AM
That's a really tired old dishonest canard -- I'd expect better from you.

That is a bit heavy handed and more so than I meant it to be. I should have said "most people that say they 'believe science' when asked why they hate religion" use it as a convenient anti-religion bashing tool. True scientific minded people either don't really care about religion, have some criticisms but do not do so from mean spirited or selfish positions, or are themselves religious too.

And I stick to my statement that science is a religion for many people. In fact I would argue everyone has their own "religion" they just aren't aware of it. Rituals, beliefs, and hero worship. This site is full of Bronco worshipers.

Kaylore
04-16-2011, 08:58 AM
The only belief there is in science is wether an individual finds the combined body of evidence for and against a certain claim to be such that that claim is substantially more likely than any alternate claim.

As an example take Gauss's law for magnetic fields, this is a purely empirical statement that can be interpreted to mean there are no magnetic monopoles, this law is generally believed to be true because no magnetic monopoles have been observed conclusively and reproducibly and any situation we have applied the law to has confirmed it, as a result it is easy to believe Gauss's law for magnetic fields to be true. If magnetic monopoles are confirmed to exist or a law that produces the same results as Gauss's law but gives more testable predictions that turn out to be true is found then Gauss's law will be abandoned.

The main difference between religious faith and scientific belief is that scientific belief is determined by the evidence and is subject to change with new evidence or new interpretations of existing evidence, while religious faith is static and not subject to evidence. A scientist does not have to believe in a certain theory to work on it, in fact that can some times be detrimental, however there will always be a few nutbars willing to buy into a theory with no solid evidence or despite good evidence against that theory.

Yes the only constant is that it's constantly changing and being re-evaluated. Thomas Kuhn sort of clarified this where he proved that science isn't a gradual progression, or a ramp. It's more like a sand castle that gets built more and more ornately and then a when the new paradigm is proved it washes the entire thing away and the scientists build it from scratch.

But I wasn't speaking on scientists and the scientific community, who are generally more responsible. I was referring to the general populace and the media. The media likes to use the term "scientists have shown evidence that eating twinkies may cause cancer" which the layman reads and interprets as "all scientists everywhere prove that twinkies cause cancer." Nevermind the journalist isn't qualified and probably didn't try to go over the testing methodology, and never mind that if they mention additional testing is needed, they usually shove it at the bottom of the article. And the number of scientists and their qualifications are never evaluated in any measure. The public doesn't question it. They accept these tidbits as fact. That is the exact kind of bad behavior that created all sorts of criticism (rightly so) against Churches during the enlightenment.

ZachKC
04-16-2011, 09:07 AM
I have no earthly idea why religious and non religious people try to influence each other.

None.

ant1999e
04-16-2011, 10:10 AM
32 people out of 32 in your poll knew of this yet you still want to go with this post?
Religion brought in the pagans by taking their pagan rituals and turned it into a religious celebration. At the time, many more pagans than religious folks so isnt that the easiest way to get them to convert or get the message out to a wider audience? This is well before newspapers, internet, tv, etc.

This.

TheReverend
04-16-2011, 10:34 AM
Better poll option: "who cares?"

It's clearly more of a cultural event than a religious one in this day and age

rugbythug
04-16-2011, 11:00 AM
I have no earthly idea why religious and non religious people try to influence each other.

None.


Think harder about it. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that accepting the gift of his Sacrifice on the Cross is the only way anyone goes to Heaven. Lack of acceptance of his Sacrifice damns a soul to Hell for Eternity.

Given that I believe this to be true. What kind of Person would I be if I did not attempt to influence you?

TheReverend
04-16-2011, 11:25 AM
Think harder about it. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that accepting the gift of his Sacrifice on the Cross is the only way anyone goes to Heaven. Lack of acceptance of his Sacrifice damns a soul to Hell for Eternity.

Given that I believe this to be true. What kind of Person would I be if I did not attempt to influence you?

....A tolerant person who accepts and loves his neighbor per Christs' own teachings?

rugbythug
04-16-2011, 11:31 AM
....A tolerant person who accepts and loves his neighbor per Christs' own teachings?

Christ's Teachings include:

Matthew 28:19

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

broncocalijohn
04-16-2011, 05:00 PM
....A tolerant person who accepts and loves his neighbor per Christs' own teachings?
What does being tolerant and having others turn to the lord? I don't do the jehovahs witness preaching door to door or bring it up just for preaching sake but if we are having a church get together, I will invite those to hang out outside our church and let them see for themselves. Plus, as a Catholic, beer and wine is normally involved so how can it be a bad time? If you want to be a non believer, that is your choice and you have many options to change. I judge you on the person not the religious part of you. God can judge you for the afterlife.

Punisher
04-16-2011, 05:28 PM
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Funny/baby-hamburger.jpg

TheReverend
04-16-2011, 05:44 PM
What does being tolerant and having others turn to the lord? I don't do the jehovahs witness preaching door to door or bring it up just for preaching sake but if we are having a church get together, I will invite those to hang out outside our church and let them see for themselves. Plus, as a Catholic, beer and wine is normally involved so how can it be a bad time? If you want to be a non believer, that is your choice and you have many options to change. I judge you on the person not the religious part of you. God can judge you for the afterlife.

Don't disagree at all...?

Blueflame
04-16-2011, 07:14 PM
Think harder about it. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that accepting the gift of his Sacrifice on the Cross is the only way anyone goes to Heaven. Lack of acceptance of his Sacrifice damns a soul to Hell for Eternity.

Given that I believe this to be true. What kind of Person would I be if I did not attempt to influence you?

When one attempts to influence others to adopt their religious beliefs, however... one must be prepared to be very diligent in "walking the walk" as much as they "talk the talk"... or they risk being viewed as a hypocrite, which will in turn alienate more "unsaved" people than it will convince. It isn't the "setting yourself up as an example" part that's difficult; it's the "living up to that billing".

TonyR
04-18-2011, 10:43 AM
On a somewhat related note...

Christians have long celebrated Jesus Christ's Last Supper on Maundy Thursday but new research released Monday claims to show it took place on the Wednesday before the crucifixion.

Professor Colin Humphreys, a scientist at the University of Cambridge, believes it is all due to a calendar mix-up -- and asserts his findings strengthen the case for finally introducing a fixed date for Easter.

Humphreys uses a combination of biblical, historical and astronomical research to try to pinpoint the precise nature and timing of Jesus's final meal with his disciples before his death.

Researchers have long been puzzled by an apparent inconsistency in the Bible.

While Matthew, Mark and Luke all say the Last Supper coincided with the start of the Jewish festival of Passover, John claims it took place before Passover.

Humphreys has concluded in a new book, "The Mystery Of The Last Supper", that Jesus -- along with Matthew, Mark and Luke -- may have been using a different calendar to John.

"Whatever you think about the Bible, the fact is that Jewish people would never mistake the Passover meal for another meal, so for the Gospels to contradict themselves in this regard is really hard to understand," Humphreys said.

"Many biblical scholars say that, for this reason, you can't trust the Gospels at all. But if we use science and the Gospels hand in hand, we can actually prove that there was no contradiction."

In Humphreys' theory, Jesus went by an old-fashioned Jewish calendar rather than the official lunar calendar which was in widespread use at the time of his death and is still in use today.

This would put the Passover meal -- and the Last Supper -- on the Wednesday, explaining how such a large number of events took place between the meal and the crucifixion.

It would follow that Jesus' arrest, interrogation and separate trials did not all take place in the space of one night but in fact occurred over a longer period.

Humphreys believes a date could therefore be ascribed to Easter in our modern solar calendar, and working on the basis that the crucifixion took place on April 3, Easter Day would be on April 5.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110418/wl_uk_afp/britainreligionchristianseaster

broncocalijohn
04-18-2011, 03:46 PM
Good! I can handle Thanksgiving being a certain Thursday of the week, but having Easter with Easter break always at the same time would make planning your travel an easier plan.

gobroncos313
04-18-2011, 04:00 PM
Take a swipe at the Catholic Church? If I was doing that, I would point out such things like the epidemic of priests molesting young boys. What the **** was up with that? I could see if it was one priest, but it was a gang of them. I will never understand that. How do you explain it?

That is a huge black eye because it the most vile, disgusting thing to do in society and the CHURCH was doing it. Terrible.



It is a black eye and one case in the Church is too many but the truth is that what you are talking about is a problem in our society. The number of abuses in the Catholic Church is a much lower percentage than most other organizations. I read an article link (http://www.gazette.com/articles/coach-108557-jennifer-public.html) about sexual abuse in the front range of Colorado public school systems. More cases documented there in 2010 in the front range Public School System in 2010 than in the entire Catholic Church in all 50 states.
The thing is that it typically only gets reported if it happens in the Catholic Church. Before you start tearing the Church down based upon lies you need to get your facts straight.