Militant Agnosticism

[ghostdog19]

You get pleasure from it?

Well whadda you think Sherlock?

I don't know, which is why I ask.

Let's just say that I get a similar pleasure from it to the one you get by coming on here and arguing with others.....or you could just read the earlier post where I described it as an 'enjoyable hobby.'

I'm not, arguing. I'm asking.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

You get pleasure from it?

Well whadda you think Sherlock?

I don't know, which is why I ask.

Let's just say that I get a similar pleasure from it to the one you get by coming on here and arguing with others.....or you could just read the earlier post where I described it as an 'enjoyable hobby.'

I'm not, arguing. I'm asking.

Hey Ghostie, just a couple of quick questions, Do you like to debate?
Oh and erm.....what DID happen to all the gold?

 

[ghostdog19]

Ghostie, a quick question, Do you like to debate?

sure. Reason why I ask (and I fear you may have me slightly wrong as I sense you may be thinking I'm having you on or disagreeing with you) is because you often hear people say 'it annoys me'. But I don't often read people saying they 'enjoy it'. And so this intrigues me.

I remember once someone faked being a police officer at the scene of a crime when a telesales caller rang them. So they pranked them. And they recorded it, put it on the web (shall look for it later, sure there's a thread on it somewhere) and it was hilarious. So I respect that you say you get a kick out of it... but what I want to know about (simply because I'm curious) what sort of kick.

I suppose I mean, do you do it because it annoys you, and therefore if you're going to get any gratification out of the experience you may as well, or do you do it like this radio guy does it? Me personally, I wouldn't because it seems a waste of time... and lets face it, if you have someone selling you something, they ought to know what they're selling, but by that same measure, you ought to know why you don't want it.

So there's another question... have you read the bible and come to that conclusion yourself (though given your arguments, I assume not, and I don't mean that disrespectfully, it's just you have an awful lot of practicing theists who've haven't either) or from the soundbites of others? ie: examples of supposed contradictions in the bible that you may have read. Point I'm making here is about drawing your own conclusions. what I'm asking is where you draw the line at drawing your own conclusions. And that's a question I ask because I believe it personal to the individual. You may feel that you're informed to a degree (ie: what suits you... and that's universal, nothing wrong with that), or that you may feel you wish you were or weren't. So I'm not arguing, merely collecting data as it were so that I may better understand your view point, since you're so forthcoming about saying you enjoy. nothing wrong with sport, after all.

Unless it's Lacrosse.

 

[ghostdog19]

what DID happen to all the gold?

there's been a couple of posts about that already. from me, Crunchy and Ramon. re: earlier posts. Nothing is said of what happened to the gold, nor what form it took. Your question however is akin to asking, "so what did Boo Radley do for a living after he saved them kids?" to someone trying to sell you To Kill a Mocking Bird, when the fact is, Harper Lee doesn't even touch on the subject. But I dare say that if you'd read the bible for yourself, you'd know that is doesn't say anything about what happened to the gold. Also, you say 'all that gold' which is something of an assumption. All that gold? It just says gold. And it doesn't state what form either (as discussed earlier), though I'd wager it was of a tokenistic monetary form rather than medicinal (as great as that idea is).

 

[QuaziWashboard]

You get pleasure from it?

Well whadda you think Sherlock?

I don't know, which is why I ask.

Let's just say that I get a similar pleasure from it to the one you get by coming on here and arguing with others.....or you could just read the earlier post where I described it as an 'enjoyable hobby.'

I'm not, arguing. I'm asking.

Ghostie, a quick question, Do you like to debate?

sure. Reason why I ask (and I fear you may have me slightly wrong as I sense you may be thinking I'm having you on or disagreeing with you) is because you often hear people say 'it annoys me'. But I don't often read people saying they 'enjoy it'. And so this intrigues me.

I remember once someone faked being a police officer at the scene of a crime when a telesales caller rang them. So they pranked them. And they recorded it, put it on the web (shall look for it later, sure there's a thread on it somewhere) and it was hilarious. So I respect that you say you get a kick out of it... but what I want to know about (simply because I'm curious) what sort of kick.

I suppose I mean, do you do it because it annoys you, and therefore if you're going to get any gratification out of the experience you may as well, or do you do it like this radio guy does it? Me personally, I wouldn't because it seems a waste of time... and lets face it, if you have someone selling you something, they ought to know what they're selling, but by that same measure, you ought to know why you don't want it.

So there's another question... have you read the bible and come to that conclusion yourself (though given your arguments, I assume not, and I don't mean that disrespectfully, it's just you have an awful lot of practicing theists who've haven't either) or from the soundbites of others? ie: examples of supposed contradictions in the bible that you may have read. Point I'm making here is about drawing your own conclusions. what I'm asking is where you draw the line at drawing your own conclusions. And that's a question I ask because I believe it personal to the individual. You may feel that you're informed to a degree (ie: what suits you... and that's universal, nothing wrong with that), or that you may feel you wish you were or weren't. So I'm not arguing, merely collecting data as it were so that I may better understand your view point, since you're so forthcoming about saying you enjoy. nothing wrong with sport, after all.

Unless it's Lacrosse.

OK, after your about-turn from 'it's disrespectful' to 'nothing wrong with sport' I'll bite.

Yes the kick I get from it would be comparable to the same kick I get from practical jokes. (which I also do as often as good taste allows)
I also like to debate and the 'gold' question is actualy something that I've wondered about ever since I first read the bible many years ago as a child. I like to study human nature and nobody can tell me that Joseph wouldn't be secretly hurt that his wife had a child that wasn't his, no matter what his outward appearance said. It also seems strange to me that someone so central to Jesus life is hardly mentioned in his life story, so this bit of the 'line' is actualy a serious question that I find most Christans have never even considered before, (which gives them a really confused look on their faces that I just can't help finding hilarious...sorry it's just the way I am.) In other words, how do YOU think Joseph felt when Mary became pregnant and why do YOU think that Joseph is hardly mentioned in the Bible. I'm just trying to get their viewpoint on it.
The gold itself...well yes I know it doesn't say in the Bible how much gold there was and so it could be explained away by saying it was probably a very small amount, so that's just a little bit of harmless sillyness. Like mother-in-law gags.
Drawing my own conclusions? Well I see something that I don't understand and ask someone who should know more about it than me in order to draw a more educated conclusion.

Yes I have read the Bible although I can't claim to have studied it as much as you obviously have. What I will state though, while I'm at it, is that I don't actualy believe the Bible to be bunkum as you may feel I do. I like to study scientific evidence and theories that suggests cirtain Bible stories may be true. I find it totaly facinating

The reason I ask you if you like to debate is because I have noticed that you often get into quite long arguments with various members of this message board that I'm sure you MUST enjoy it. I raise this matter as a way of explaining that I get the same enjoyment out debating with someone on my doorstep that you get debating with someone on here.

So what are your views on how Joseph felt and why he's hardly mentioned in the Bible?

 

[ghostdog19]

OK, after your about-turn from 'it's disrespectful' to 'nothing wrong with sport' I'll bite.

ha! I thought that might work. I don't expect you to have the same scruples as me. My endevour is only to understand why you see it your way. I was asked earlier why your questions were silly, I think you've done a bang up job of explaining that now.

Yes the kick I get from it would be comparable to the same kick I get from practical jokes. (which I also do as often as good taste allows)
I also like to debate and the 'gold' question is actualy something that I've wondered about ever since I first read the bible many years ago as a child. I like to study human nature and nobody can tell me that Joseph wouldn't be secretly hurt that his wife had a child that wasn't his, no matter what his outward appearance said. It also seems strange to me that someone so central to Jesus life is hardly mentioned in his life story, so this bit of the 'line' is actualy a serious question that I find most Christans have never even considered before, (which gives them a really confused look on their faces that I just can't help finding hilarious...sorry it's just the way I am.) In other words, how do YOU think Joseph felt when Mary became pregnant and why do YOU think that Joseph is hardly mentioned in the Bible. I'm just trying to get their viewpoint on it.
The gold itself...well yes I know it doesn't say in the Bible how much gold there was and so it could be explained away by saying it was probably a very small amount, so that's just a little bit of harmless sillyness. Like mother-in-law gags.

As I was saying. Silly. But I am glad we are in agreement on that point.

Drawing my own conclusions? Well I see something that I don't understand and ask someone who should know more about it than me in order to draw a more educated conclusion.

Yes I have read the Bible although I can't claim to have studied it as much as you obviously have. What I will state though, while I'm at it, is that I don't actualy believe the Bible to be bunkum as you may feel I do. I like to study scientific evidence and theories that suggests cirtain Bible stories may be true. I find it totaly facinating

The reason I ask you if you like to debate is because I have noticed that you often get into quite long arguments with various members of this message board that I'm sure you MUST enjoy it. I raise this matter as a way of explaining that I get the same enjoyment out debating with someone on my doorstep that you get debating with someone on here.

So what are your views on how Joseph felt and why he's hardly mentioned in the Bible?

See, a question like that is a 'book club' question. not a question wherein you're wondering why people haven't got answers (which is what you said at the start of all of this), when what you're really asking for is opinions (because you know there isn't an answer). So you saying they haven't got answers. Well, of course they haven't. What's more, you KNOW they haven't and that there isn't one. A view on it however. That's different to having answers.

My view? Well, since you ask...

There was a comic strip once by Ian Carney and Woodrow Phoenix called "My Two Dads" about Jesus and his two fathers, Joseph and God. In it, Joseph says "Look Jesus, I have fashioned you this hoop and stick," to which God says "Bah, that's nothing son, look, I have made you a Nintendo 64". Which pretty much sums up my view of Joseph. I bet that wasn't the answer you were expecting.

But if you were asking me for an outright answer... as you would with the gold...I would probably shrug my shoulders and give you one of those puzzled looks that so amuse you.

As for Christians stealing pagan festivals.... explain that one to me. How did they do that? Or is this another one of those practical jokes, wherein you know that's not the straight dope and you just love to see the looks on their faces?

 

[Min Bannister]

Though Joseph is not mentioned in the Bible much he is mentioned in the apocryphal books where he is said to be an old man, nearly 90 when he married Mary and had already had a long marriage and children by then. Despite this, when Mary became pregnant I'm sure he WAS hurt so it is a good job that the Angel of the Lord came to him specially to tell him it was alright (this is in the Bible). Given his great age it is likely he was dead by the time Jesus started doing stuff and this would be why he is not mentioned.

 

[ghostdog19]

He was around up till roughly when Jesus was 12 I think. Matthew 1:16, in the Sinaitic Palimpsest says that "Joseph... begat Jesus, who is called the Christ". Which isn't a view held by orthodox Christianity (obviously).

 

[Bistoinferno]

As for Christians stealing pagan festivals.... explain that one to me.

I won’t pretend I know much about this but I thought that even in the church they admitted that Christmas at least is of a Pagan origin?

This site is only from a quick Google but these Christians http://godkind.org/pagan-holidays.html seem to see celebrating Christmas and Easter as a violation of Gods law concerning the worshiping of false Gods and religions.

Mind you they do end up saying rather ominously “Moreover, God's law imposes the death penalty on all who improperly worship him.” :shock:

 

[Min Bannister]

As for Christians stealing pagan festivals.... explain that one to me.

I won’t pretend I know much about this but I thought that even in the church they admitted that Christmas at least is of a Pagan origin?

How is it stealing? People can celebrate whatever the hell they like on 25th December.

 

[Bistoinferno]

I didn’t say it was stealing that was mentioned in a quote I took from Ghost Dogs post.

My point was that I was under the impression that Christmas in particular had begun as a Pagan festival, which Christianity had assumed into its own practices and used for its own means.

It doesn’t matter to me what people celebrate or when but it obviously does to the Christians in the link I posted earlier. They would consider it breaking Gods law to celebrate what they see as a false religious holiday.

 

[ghostdog19]

My point was that I was under the impression that Christmas in particular had begun as a Pagan festival, which Christianity had assumed into its own practices and used for its own means.

Nobody is denying it. Big clue to Jesus' birth can be found in the mention that shepherds tended their flocks at night. Meaning Jesus was born during lambing season... spring. But rather then say it all again, explaining why Christmas is when it is, in the spirit of Blue Peter...

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... ras#677488

It was unity, contrary to what's said later in the thread, because Mithraism was a very strong opposing religion at the time; this was more a political move. Many Mithraic customs survive today, including handshakes and monarchs wearing crowns.

Later in the thread Quake42 mentions this being 6th and 7th century... i think it's actually 4th (Mithras was a Roman Pagan state religion), it didn't really catch on till those other dates in places like Jerusalem, so, mostly right, it was just a little earlier. And this was after Mithraism disappeared quite literally into the mountains. The Alps to be precise. Mithras is still venerated today by the Parsis who, as luck would have it, are descendants of the Persian Zorastrians. Bringing us full circle again to our wise men.

 

[stu neville]

So you could make a case that some Iranians pursue a purer aspect of Christianity than GW Bush?

Oooh, that has possibilities...

 

[ramonmercado]

So you could make a case that some Iranians pursue a purer aspect of Christianity than GW Bush?

Oooh, that has possibilities...

Yeah, no turkeys involved.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

OK, after your about-turn from 'it's disrespectful' to 'nothing wrong with sport' I'll bite.

ha! I thought that might work. I don't expect you to have the same scruples as me. My endevour is only to understand why you see it your way. I was asked earlier why your questions were silly, I think you've done a bang up job of explaining that now.

If you really want to know why my questions were silly all you had to do was ask. The reason my questions were silly is because I like silly things, they were my questions and I wanted them to be silly. It's just my sense of humour.

Drawing my own conclusions? Well I see something that I don't understand and ask someone who should know more about it than me in order to draw a more educated conclusion.

Yes I have read the Bible although I can't claim to have studied it as much as you obviously have. What I will state though, while I'm at it, is that I don't actualy believe the Bible to be bunkum as you may feel I do. I like to study scientific evidence and theories that suggests cirtain Bible stories may be true. I find it totaly facinating

So what are your views on how Joseph felt and why he's hardly mentioned in the Bible?

So you saying they haven't got answers. Well, of course they haven't. What's more, you KNOW they haven't and that there isn't one. A view on it however. That's different to having answers.

No, I'm saying they don't even have a view about it, they've never even thought about it, which is the reason for the puzzled looks I get. Something like Joseph's relationship with Mary is human interest. If it were to happen today, that is what people would be talking about and what the press would be writing about. Yet the person knocking on my door who wants to talk about the bible and apparently knows what they are talking about has never even thought about it. Why? because they've blindly accepted their religion and are now knocking on my door in the hope that I too will blindly accept it.
Another one that they never seem to have thought about is God breaking his own commandments. The question about God and Mary commiting adultry is a tongue in cheek nod towards the subject but a more serious way of putting it would be to ask them their view about God saying 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL !' when in the Bible, He does it all the time. If it's true, then it's a double standard and if the religious person standing on my doorstep is willing to accept that double standard from the God they prey to, what else are they willing to accept? In other words I'm just trying to make them think for themselves in a lighthearted way.

My view? Well, since you ask...

There was a comic strip once by Ian Carney and Woodrow Phoenix called "My Two Dads" about Jesus and his two fathers, Joseph and God. In it, Joseph says "Look Jesus, I have fashioned you this hoop and stick," to which God says "Bah, that's nothing son, look, I have made you a Nintendo 64". Which pretty much sums up my view of Joseph. I bet that wasn't the answer you were expecting.

You assume that I had an expectation but I didn't, I was simply interested in your view to see if you've ever thought about it.

As for Christians stealing pagan festivals.... explain that one to me. How did they do that? Or is this another one of those practical jokes, wherein you know that's not the straight dope and you just love to see the looks on their faces?

As you say in another post, 'Shepherds tended their flocks at night. Meaning Jesus was born during lambing season... spring,' so you at least accept that Dec. 25th has nothing whatsoever to do with the birth of Christ. It is widely accepted that Christmas came about as a Christian replacement for a mid winter Pagan festival. It's also widely accepted that Pagans (or anyone of any other faith apart from Christianity) were persicuted by the ruling Christians until they were either dead or accepted the Christian faith as their own.
Are you saying this isn't true?

 

[Beakmoo]

I'm not sure if lambing season is Spring. They're already at it on The Archers. :? (Doesn't change the facts about them pinching Pagan festivals though, I'm just being a geek about it.)

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Well, seeing as how sheep gestation is about 5 months and sheep can lamb twice a year, it must varey a bit. But that's just UK sheep. I don't know much about sheep in Jerusalem but I would imagine that breeding and lambing seasons are longer due to it being a warmer climate.
However, a thought occures. The quote 'Shepherds tended their flocks at night' doesn't actualy mention lambs. It just says that they were tending to their flock of sheep. I'm not sure if lambs are mentioned at the time of Christ's birth anywhere else in the Bible though.

 

[Bistoinferno]

'Shepherds tended their flocks at night. Meaning Jesus was born during lambing season... spring,' so you at least accept that Dec. 25th has nothing whatsoever to do with the birth of Christ. In other words, it's a lie.

This is sort of what I have been trying to get at. If the 25th of December has, in reality nothing to do with the birth of Christ then many Christians I know are actually unconsciously breaking a religious law and this would be important to them. I know my grandmother, who is too set in her ways now, would genuinely be distressed to discover that the 25th of December was not actually when Christ was born as this is a fundamental aspect of her religion.

 

[DeeDeeTee]

How is this breaking a religous law? Please correct me if I'm wrong as I don't have a bible handy, but does it state or even hint at all when the birth take place? (ok the shepards are bit of a clue.)

Then if we don't actually know the true date then any day can be taken to act as the symbolic official date. The early church then picked the most expedient date for political & social reasons at the time. Then if the Catholic church decrees that the birth of Christ will be the 25th Dec then that's the law for Catholics. Don't other churches have different dates for his birth? Is it the mormens who say that he was actually born on the 1st October (or is it the Jehovah witnessess??)

 

[ghostdog19]

'Shepherds tended their flocks at night. Meaning Jesus was born during lambing season... spring,' so you at least accept that Dec. 25th has nothing whatsoever to do with the birth of Christ. In other words, it's a lie.

The point I'm making isn't about whether it's the right date or not (though Shepherds tending the flocks at night is spring and prophets live out a certain number of days according to old customs so he'd die the day he was born, and that would make his birth date in March). It's that people say "Christians stole Christmas" or words to that effect, but rarely do they know why or how or what for. Christianity didn't "steal" Christmas, Romans changed their main religion from Mithraism to Christianity. And the actually story of how that happened paints a very different picture to the shallow appraisal of people who say "Christians stole it". The reason "unity" comes up (in the linked post) is because they politically didn't really have any other option than to be all embracing because Mithraism, obviously, was very popular. Christianity as a whole (talking about the rest of Europe, Jerusalem etc) rejected the change and took a good few hundred years before it came around to the idea... and we're talking long after Mithras and its follows had all but disappeared into the mountains (the alps to be precise).

This context, when people opposed to "Christmas" talk about the pagan festivals being stolen, is rarely acknowledged or applied. And if they so much as remember what 'actually' happened, if they've chanced upon reading about it or found out for themselves, then what they won't readily address is that as much as we criticize Christianity for the division of church and state, Mithraism was very much about altar and throne.

This is sort of what I have been trying to get at. If the 25th of December has, in reality nothing to do with the birth of Christ then many Christians I know are actually unconsciously breaking a religious law and this would be important to them.

Can you elaborate on this?

I know my grandmother, who is too set in her ways now, would genuinely be distressed to discover that the 25th of December was not actually when Christ was born as this is a fundamental aspect of her religion.

Is it?

 

[ramonmercado]

I dont think 25/12 being the only date is a tenet of roman catholicism although older people may be attached to it. Even in (RC) primary school I was taught that 25/12 probably wasn't the actual date.

 

[ghostdog19]

I dont think 25/12 being the only date is a tenet of roman catholicism although older people may be attached to it. Even in (RC) primary school I was taught that 25/12 probably wasn't the actual date.

Likewise. Problem is, critics of it prefer it to be set in stone and quite literal otherwise it's nonsense. Alas poor symbolism and allegory

 

[Bistoinferno]

Bistoinferno wrote:

This is sort of what I have been trying to get at. If the 25th of December has, in reality nothing to do with the birth of Christ then many Christians I know are actually unconsciously breaking a religious law and this would be important to them.

Can you elaborate on this?

In a link I posted earlier, the Christians writing on the site regarded celebrating 25th of December as a holy day as sinful. In their opinion as they do not believe the 25th of Dec is the true date of Christ’s birth, to celebrate it is to celebrate a false holy day. Now I don’t think it matters a jot but I suspect there are many people who try to follow the teachings of the Bible and would not want to celebrate a false holy day but by celebrating the 25th of Dec are in avertedly doing so if it is not in fact really the birth day of Christ.

Bistoinferno wrote:
I know my grandmother, who is too set in her ways now, would genuinely be distressed to discover that the 25th of December was not actually when Christ was born as this is a fundamental aspect of her religion.

Is it?

I think so as she tends to believe everything the church says but that’s also true of the Daily Mail so probably not a great example to use.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

Fundamental error. You are not celebrating the day, you celebrate the event. The celebration of christmas is a celebration of the incarnation through which salvation is attained. The date is largely irrelevant theologically. Any scholar who has studied theology (not just some hack with a bible) can point this out to you.

One of the greatest errors of christianity and the RC church is that it doesn't explain much of its teaching. This has the added pain of allowing some of its members to go off half-cock and create false ideas about what their religion actually teaches.

Sadly, I think your grandmother is in this catagory. No offence.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

So what about Christian persicution of other religions and faiths over hundreds of years? So called witches were tried and killed, the Inquisition really did happen and Pagans and members of other faiths were forced to convert for fear of what might happen if they didn't. This is all accepted history isn't it?
If your religion is taken away from you and a couple of important dates of your religious calendar are changed to celebrate the birth and death of a leading figure from the 'new religion' then wouldn't you think that the 'old religion's' festivals had been stolen from you?
Can you imagine it happening nowadays?

As for breaking religious law, well the Commandments says;
'You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
Christians would appear to worship a cross, ironicly, a devise for death, and what about that fish image?
Then there's the little thing about worshiping Christ going against 'You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God'.

 

[Min Bannister]

So what about Christian persicution of other religions and faiths over hundreds of years? So called witches were tried and killed, the Inquisition really did happen and Pagans and members of other faiths were forced to convert for fear of what might happen if they didn't. This is all accepted history isn't it?
If your religion is taken away from you and a couple of important dates of your religious calendar are changed to celebrate the birth and death of a leading figure from the 'new religion' then wouldn't you think that the 'old religion's' festivals had been stolen from you?
Can you imagine it happening nowadays?

It has already been explained several times by different posters that the date for Christmas was decided long before the inquisition or the witch hunts and also the circumstances under which it happened.

As for breaking religious law, well the Commandments says;
'You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
Christians would appear to worship a cross, ironicly, a devise for death, and what about that fish image?

What about them? No-one worships a cross or a fish they are just symbols. Incidentally the fish symbol came about as a secret symbol so that Christians would know one another and hopefully avoid being tortured and killed by those lovely pagans.

Then there's the little thing about worshiping Christ going against 'You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God'.

The Trinity

 

[QuaziWashboard]

It has already been explained several times by different posters that the date for Christmas was decided long before the inquisition or the witch hunts and also the circumstances under which it happened.

Yes I know that, but the dates and order of it happening arn't really important. My point is that these things happened. When one religion is replaced by another, then remnants of the 'old religion' will survive for hundreds of years afterwards, there are still practicing Pagans today who are at least critisized by many modern day Christians. The Pagans of the witch hunt and inquisition times would still have been practicing their winter rituals and would have been persicuted for it. In that respect, their winter festivities were taken from them and replaced by Christmas.

As for breaking religious law, well the Commandments says;
'You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
Christians would appear to worship a cross, ironicly, a devise for death, and what about that fish image?

What about them? No-one worships a cross or a fish they are just symbols.

But surely a symbol IS an image? The image of Christ upon the cross is still an image isn't it? Read the commandment again, it doesn't mention worshiping, (that's a different commandment; 'You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.') just that you're not to 'make' an image, yet you go into almost any church and there's an image of Christ on the cross on the alter. Surely that image must have been 'made' by someone?
As for the 'fish' thing. This is God we're talking about. All knowing deity. He obviously must have known that Christians were going to use the image of a fish, otherwise, why would He have said ''or that is in the water''?

Incidentally the fish symbol came about as a secret symbol so that Christians would know one another and hopefully avoid being tortured and killed by those lovely pagans.

It's no good pointing fingers and saying 'They started it!!' Innocent people who just wanted to practice the 'old religion' were still persicuted by Christians, which in itself goes against the teachings of Christ. It may have been six of one and half a dozen of the other but as an agnostic, I'm just glad that I needn't get involved with all that.

The Trinity

That's fair enough, if Christ WAS God, but many believe that he wasn't.

 

[Min Bannister]

Yes I know that, but the dates and order of it happening arn't really important.

Well yes they are because your beef here seems to be that the date of the 25th of December was "stolen" from the Pagans and you seem to be muddling that up with persecutions that occured many centuries later.

My point is that these things happened. When one religion is replaced by another, then remnants of the 'old religion' will survive for hundreds of years afterwards, there are still practicing Pagans today who are at least critisized by many modern day Christians. The Pagans of the witch hunt and inquisition times would still have been practicing their winter rituals and would have been persicuted for it. In that respect, their winter festivities were taken from them and replaced by Christmas.

No they haven't. Winter Solstice is now the 21st of December, not the 25th. I am not sure when it would have been round about the time of the Inquisition but it wouldn't have been the 25th. Winter Solstice has not been "stolen" from anyone, it is still there and on a different day from Christmas.

But surely a symbol IS an image?

Indeed, as is a carving of an apple, a drawing of a hedghog or anything else. This is why the Bible is not taken literally by Christians (apart from some rather odd groups).

It's no good pointing fingers and saying 'They started it!!' Innocent people who just wanted to practice the 'old religion' were still persicuted by Christians, which in itself goes against the teachings of Christ. It may have been six of one and half a dozen of the other but as an agnostic, I'm just glad that I needn't get involved with all that.

Absolutely, it went against all the teachings of Christ and could never be justified-I don't think anyone nowadays would even try-not in terms of religion anyway. It still doesn't mean you can claim Christmas was stolen from Pagans at the time when pagans were persecuting Christians, then claim it was stolen again later (at a time when the dates no longer match up-see above) when Christians were persecuting others. (It is hard to tell how many actual "pagans" were persecuted-the Inquisition was aimed mainly at Jews, the witch hunts, particularly in the UK happened post reformation. I don't think it is set in stone but it is "co-incidental" that many of the persecutions happened in Catholic areas..)

That's fair enough, if Christ WAS God, but many believe that he wasn't.

But Christians do

 

[ramonmercado]

That's fair enough, if Christ WAS God, but many believe that he wasn't.

But Christians do

Well, not all Christians. There are some Anglican Bishops who have their doubts.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Yes I know that, but the dates and order of it happening arn't really important.

Well yes they are because your beef here seems to be that the date of the 25th of December was "stolen" from the Pagans and you seem to be muddling that up with persecutions that occured many centuries later.

No they're not because I never even mentioned the date '25th Dec.' being stolen from them, I said that their 'winter festivities' were taken from them and 'replaced' by Christmas, which as we all know is on the 25th Dec. The Pagans I'm talking about are the ones who were persicuted centuries later, and as a result of that persicution, were no longer allowed to practice their religion and it's festivities. In other words, their winter rituals were taken from them and replaced by Christmas.

My point is that these things happened. When one religion is replaced by another, then remnants of the 'old religion' will survive for hundreds of years afterwards, there are still practicing Pagans today who are at least critisized by many modern day Christians. The Pagans of the witch hunt and inquisition times would still have been practicing their winter rituals and would have been persicuted for it. In that respect, their winter festivities were taken from them and replaced by Christmas.

No they haven't. Winter Solstice is now the 21st of December, not the 25th. I am not sure when it would have been round about the time of the Inquisition but it wouldn't have been the 25th. Winter Solstice has not been "stolen" from anyone, it is still there and on a different day from Christmas.

Again, I never mentioned any dates, or Winter Solstace itself, just that during times of persicution of Pagans by Christians, Pagan winter festivities (which go on longer than just one day) was no longer allowed, in other words, taken from them and replaced by Christmas.

But surely a symbol IS an image?

Indeed, as is a carving of an apple, a drawing of a hedghog or anything else. This is why the Bible is not taken literally by Christians (apart from some rather odd groups).

Ahh but the commandments makes it quite clear that the images He is talking about are ones that are used in worship. Namely, (in my opinion) the cross, the fish and the image of Christ. Anyway, what sort of religion is it that doesn't take the words of the book that it's entire 'faith' is based on 'literally'?

It's no good pointing fingers and saying 'They started it!!' Innocent people who just wanted to practice the 'old religion' were still persicuted by Christians, which in itself goes against the teachings of Christ. It may have been six of one and half a dozen of the other but as an agnostic, I'm just glad that I needn't get involved with all that.

Absolutely, it went against all the teachings of Christ and could never be justified-I don't think anyone nowadays would even try-not in terms of religion anyway. It still doesn't mean you can claim Christmas was stolen from Pagans at the time when pagans were persecuting Christians, then claim it was stolen again later (at a time when the dates no longer match up-see above) when Christians were persecuting others. (It is hard to tell how many actual "pagans" were persecuted-the Inquisition was aimed mainly at Jews, the witch hunts, particularly in the UK happened post reformation. I don't think it is set in stone but it is "co-incidental" that many of the persecutions happened in Catholic areas..)

Again, your getting me wrong, I never said that 'Christmas was stolen from Pagans at the time when pagans were persecuting Christians'. I said that pagans that came later were persicuted by Christians. It also doesn't matter how many Pagans were persicuted by the Inquisition, just that some were and that the Inquisition was carried out by Christians, which by your words of ' Absolutely, it went against all the teachings of Christ' you obviously agree with.

That's fair enough, if Christ WAS God, but many believe that he wasn't.

But Christians do

Well yes..of course they would...if they took the Bible literally.