KarmaGirl KarmaGirl

"Christmas" - why do we celebrate it like we do?

▼

"Christmas" - why do we celebrate it like we do?

Traditions are odd things....

from JoeUser Forums

Christmas is an interesting time of year for me.  I’m not Christian.  I’m not any “religion”.  That is not to say that I am atheist, because I am not.  I just haven’t decided yet what I should believe.  But, with that, I end up questioning everything.  One of my biggest questions for winter is: “Why do we celebrate “Christmas” and why do we associate certain things with it?”

This is *not* an anti-Christian article.  It’s an article about history and tradition.  Many things have evolved over time, and “Christmas” is one of them.

-Jesus was not born on Christmas day, or really even close to it.  According to some bible scholars, he was born on

-Christmas trees really have nothing to do with Christmas.  They have been used as far back as we can tell for Solstice and Equinox celebrations.  Many religions used them as a way of praying to the “sun god” as a way of making him feel better.  (During the dark times of year, they thought that the god was sick and that evergreens would help the god get better). 

-On the Christmas tree note, the trees were not cut down.  Branches were removed, or the entire tree was moved.  When they started being brought in side, they were planted in planters then brought in.  They were used as a celebration of life during the “death” of winter.

-“Yule time” has nothing to do with “Christmas”.  It is a Norse tradition that pre-dates Jesus.  It was celebrated on the 21st of December.

-The 12 days of Christmas is from the same “Yule” tradition.  They would burn a giant log (Yule log) and feast and celebrate while it burned.  This log typically took 12 days to burn.

-It is believed that the Christian church adopted the 25th as the official celebration date of Jesus’ birth as a way of absorbing the traditions of the Saturnalia festival, which was a pagan festival which honors the God of agriculture “Saturn”.  The 25th is also the day that Romans observed Juvenalia, which is a celebration of the children and the birthday of Mithra, the “god of the unconquerable sun”.

-Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday in until

-During the Middle ages, Christmas was celebrated by attending church then celebrating in a drunken fashion, not unlike “Mardi Gras”. (Now, *that* is a tradition we should bring back! ;) )

There are many other traditions surrounding Christmas that are “odd”.  If you think of any that you don’t understand, let me know and I’ll see what I can dig up on them.  And, if you have some other info on it, reply with it.  I’d love to learn more!

 

misc
33,200 views 55 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

First, from what you say, it appears you are agnostic.

Second, the Christmas tree does have religious overtones.  It was used by A german Minister to demonstrate eternal life (evergreen - eternal).

Third, I had heard that Jesus was born in August, but with the Calendar shift in the middle ages, we are probably both right.

Which all eads me to rejoice that Christmas can be for all religions and creeds.  FOr it is the message that is important.  Not the Birth of Christ (and I will probably be branded aheretic for that one).

So let us celebrate the message: Peace on earth, goodwill towards man.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Okay, so there are no evergreens in Bethlehem.

Ever heard of Lebanon Cedars?

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, I am meaning Halloween, Christmas, Valentine's Day, and Easter (when I say they had pagan origins). Am I missing any "major" holidays? (besides the aforementioned Thanksgiving and The 4th).

Actually, Easter has its roots in the Passover feast, which was solely Jewish.  I am not positive, but I dont think that Christians consider Jews to be pagans, so that one is not based in Pagan rituals, but in the Old Testament.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, Easter has its roots in the Passover feast, which was solely Jewish. I am not positive, but I dont think that Christians consider Jews to be pagans, so that one is not based in Pagan rituals, but in the Old Testament.


Yes, but it also has roots in the Equinox, which was a pagan festival.



Being removed from an organized religion, I sit back many times and think "everyone is believing in the same thing, they just have different names for it". I know that Christians believe that you have to take Jesus as your savior to be "saved" and go to heaven, but people believed in "God" before Jesus walked the Earth. So, who isn't to say that God made many ways to worship him and all of them are right? It seems like if there is a God, then God would not have made just one path to heaven. God would have made many.


Agreed, Karma. An all-knowing and powerful God would realize that different people need different ways to reach "Him."
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Time to share a cute story....
As you might know, I live in Israel, am Jewish and do not celebrate Christmas. I have some neighbours that have two young daughters. They went (on their own) to visit their grandparents in Toronto last year, around this time. They were greeted at the Toronto airport by Santa Claus, who of course gave them candy.
They asked their grandfather who "that nice Rabbi was". He told them that it was Santa Claus, a nice man that brings toys to Christian children on Christmas eve. Told them that the children hang up stockings and in the morning they are stuffed with toys and candy, but emphasised that he does not visit Jewish children.
The children were back home by Christmas.... they hung stockings near the window and wrote a note in large letters (in Hebrew)...
Dear Santa, WE ARE NOT JEWISH!
I thought that was precious.

Thanks!  That was a great story!  And tell the children that Santa Claus DOES visit Jewish Children.  I have several Jewish friends who celebrate the day and the message, including an Orthodox Rabbi.  They do not include references to Jesus, just that a jolly fat man will deliver presents to good boys and girls.

Stick some candy in their stockings, and send me the bill!  I will be glad to play Santa!

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stick some candy in their stockings, and send me the bill! I will be glad to play Santa!


Get your checkbook ready
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes, but it also has roots in the Equinox, which was a pagan festival.

I dont see that as rooted in a pagan festival.  It was just when the church decided to celebrat it (the First SUnday after the First Friday following the First Full Moon following the Spring Equinox).  Maybe they made it so complicated so it would not be mistaken with a pagan ritual.

IN any event, that is more a lunar thing, than any connected pagan festival.

Reply #35 from WinCustomize Forums Top

IN any event, that is more a lunar thing, than any connected pagan festival.

Then, you could say it was based with a "Earth" religion, since it was "lunar" based......which would lead you back to pagans since most Earth religions are pagan.    

To me, I don't care why we celebrate the season.  Many people celebrate the season in many different ways and on different dates.  But, what they all have in common is the basic spirit to help each other, be kind, and give if you can. 

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Being removed from an organized religion, I sit back many times and think "everyone is believing in the same thing, they just have different names for it". I know that Christians believe that you have to take Jesus as your savior to be "saved" and go to heaven, but people believed in "God" before Jesus walked the Earth. So, who isn't to say that God made many ways to worship him and all of them are right? It seems like if there is a God, then God would not have made just one path to heaven. God would have made many.


Agreed, Karma. An all-knowing and powerful God would realize that different people need different ways to reach "Him."


That's where my philosopher's soul winces. I understand your view, but disagree, and here is why.

I believe that the source of humanity is a familiar emotion known as loneliness. With all the vastness of infinity before him (this, of course, was before time and space had meaning), God thought, "it is not right that I be alone." (His sentiment is later carried over to Adam in Genesis, but that's a whole different story.) So he created time, space, and, ultimately, humanity. (That was a heck of a lot of commas...) Love has no meaning apart from choice, and so God put certain limits on what he would allow himself to do. I know this because although the bible says that "he is not willing that any should perish," some do anyway (i.e. they die non-Christian). That tells me that, since God is omnipotent and could force them to believe whatever he wanted easily enough, God must have decided that decisions must be made by people so that their love might have validity. Keep in mind that God is doing this in self-interest, since that's the reason for humanity, after all.

After men were created, men voluntarily separated themselves from God (Adam and Eve eating the apple from the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil). That separation introduced since, and made it impossible for humans to enter heaven. Vindication was then granted for sins by animal sacrifice for thousands of years. Finally, Jesus paid the price for mankind by spilling his own blood, effectually removing the need for animal sacrifice and granting connection to God for any that accepted his gift. The utter disgrace of God obeying his own rules to such a degree that he had to suffer human death and separation makes it a slap in the face to say that you can ignore Jesus entirely except as a prophet and pretend there are other ways to God.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if there are multiple ways to God, then Christianity isn't one of them. Philosophically speaking, it just doesn't leave any room for tolerance. If I've been unclear, please tell me how and I'll attempt to clarify. Incidentally, there's a hint of the question of predestination here just because of the matter of free choice. If anybody would be interested, I could post an essay I wrote on the subject.

Dan
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
So I guess what I'm saying is that if there are multiple ways to God, then Christianity isn't one of them


Dan I agree with your presentation of Christianity (for the most part). However, you will note that in Christianity, God takes three forms--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Who is to say that Buddists aren't recognizing the Holy Spirit, that Judaism isn't worshipping "God." Yes, Christians maintain the importance of the Son, but I'm afraid that I am not a believer in the infallibility of the Bible. I am, however, a firm believer in a loving and just God.

This isn't the thread for this discussion, but I have a hard time believing that people who have never heard the word "Christ" uttered are doomed to Hell for all eternity. I brought this up in a bible study during college and the evangelical sunday school teacher explained to me that these people could experience Christ through the Holy Spirit. If you can rationalize that, you could rationalize many ways to God.

It is definitely your right to disagree because your path to God tells you that there is only "one" way--because, in my opinion, God knew that some humans needed to be "right." It's better to choose the "correct" way, than to pick the best religion out of a bunch of equally valid religions/paths.

Sorry for the hijack, Karma...very thought provoking article.
Reply #38 from WinCustomize Forums Top

 

That's where my philosopher's soul winces.

Actually, that is your Christian soul, not your philosopher's soul.  A true philosopher can look past a personal view point and try to see a larger picture.  By saying that Christianity is the "take it or leave it" way to God, then you are doing nothing more than trying to prove why you believe that way.

People who are raised a certain religion typically (and I mean that strongly) have a very hard time seeing another view point.  I understand Christianity, I also understand many other religions and can not discount their beliefs.  Tolerance comes from learning and understanding.

At the very basis, you first have to believe that Jesus was actually God's son and that he died to save mankind.  You can believe that Jesus was a great man guided by God without believing that he is the "saviour".  One can also question why a sacrifice needed to made to begin with.  Why would an all powerful God need anything sacrificed?  God should not need such things, however, mankind has done all sorts of things *thinking* that it is God's will.  But, who is to say that it was?

It is definitely your right to disagree because your path to God tells you that there is only "one" way--because, in my opinion, God knew that some humans needed to be "right." It's better to choose the "correct" way, than to pick the best religion out of a bunch of equally valid religions/paths.

I agree with that, but there is also another way that I look at it.  If there is a God, then God knows that the mankind that he made is diverse and has different needs in order to follow him.  He has made unique paths for these different needs.  Some people need a very strict rule to follow and need a place to worship.  Others do not need a "book" nor do they need anything more than their backyard to meet with God.  None of these paths are wrong, they are simply different.  As long as you truly believe, there is no wrong path to God.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with that, but there is also another way that I look at it. If there is a God, then God knows that the mankind that he made is diverse and has different needs in order to follow him. He has made unique paths for these different needs. Some people need a very strict rule to follow and need a place to worship. Others do not need a "book" nor do they need anything more than their backyard to meet with God. None of these paths are wrong, they are simply different. As long as you truly believe, there is no wrong path to God.


Karma--that is what I was trying to say. Thank you for wording it better than I did! (In fact, I think I left out some key words--I should start proof-reading more)!
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, you will note that in Christianity, God takes three forms--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Who is to say that Buddists aren't recognizing the Holy Spirit, that Judaism isn't worshipping "God."


The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not different entities, any more than steam, ice, and aqua are different entities. They are simply different manifestation of the same entities. If a person decided to believe that only liquid water was H2O, he would be wrong, not open-minded. And condoning that idea would only condone foolishness. That's not to say that Judaism is foolish, but it is to say that it's wrong.

the evangelical sunday school teacher explained to me that these people could experience Christ through the Holy Spirit. If you can rationalize that, you could rationalize many ways to God.


Human words have no meaning, and I believe that if you were to replace every "God" with "Mikimouse" it would not alter that person's ability to commune with God; however, the same God must be worshipped, meaning the intolerant God of the bible. Incidentally, I believe that every person is presented a clear chance to accept or reject Christ; however, this is a point of high contention.

God knew that some humans needed to be "right."


I don't think I'd like a God that catered to the needs of the human ego. I'm afraid I can't imagine a God being willing to deceive to such an extent that a true follower would believe another true follower was untrue because God catered to one but not the other, or in a different way. God is not a man, that He should lie. (Since us Christians are such fans of capitalization.)

Actually, that is your Christian soul, not your philosopher's soul. A true philosopher can look past a personal view point and try to see a larger picture. By saying that Christianity is the "take it or leave it" way to God, then you are doing nothing more than trying to prove why you believe that way.


No... actually, when I said my philosopher's soul, that was what I meant. My beliefs as a Christian are secondary; the reason I do what I do and believe what I believe is that my philosophy makes sense and fits together, and when I disagreed with you, what I meant was that what you said isn't philosophically sound. "A true philosopher" does not, as you suggest, believe that every possible view is correct.

People who are raised a certain religion typically (and I mean that strongly) have a very hard time seeing another view point. I understand Christianity, I also understand many other religions and can not discount their beliefs. Tolerance comes from learning and understanding.


If you are implying that I have difficulty understanding other viewpoints, I disagree. In fact, I think I have a natural attraction to atheism, despite my Christian upbringing. It is continued irrefutable proof that ties me to God and Christianity, not my upbringing. What irrefutable proof, you ask? Well, let's just put it this way; until you've explained away the irreducible complexity inherent in deoxyribose, ribose, and their famous progeny, DNA, anything but creationism strikes me as phenomenally weak. I'm an Occam's Razor kinda guy.

Why would an all powerful God need anything sacrificed? God should not need such things, however, mankind has done all sorts of things *thinking* that it is God's will. But, who is to say that it was?


God has a history of working within his own limits. The physical laws of the universe are his to deal with as he pleases, and yet he sent to Earth a son bound by physical laws. He could easily have secured the adoration of the entire world by altering their minds just the tiniest bit, but he chooses to give us free will instead. And for good reason: love without choice means nothing, and neither does a miracle without rules to step outside of. By obeying his own limits, God grants meaning to his presence on Earth. And as for your last question... read the bible. That's what says it was his will.

You can believe that Jesus was a great man guided by God without believing that he is the "saviour".


No, you can't. A great man who called himself the Messiah? A fool, if he was indeed great. To borrow from CS Lewis: either Jesus was Crazy, a Liar, or exactly what he said he was. His claim to being God's son makes him either crazy or a liar if it isn't true, and if it is... then Jesus is everything I believe him to be. But do Jesus' teachings seem the teachings of a liar, or the ravings of a lunatic? Reject or accept Jesus as you will, but there is no in between.

Some people need a very strict rule to follow and need a place to worship. Others do not need a "book" nor do they need anything more than their backyard to meet with God. None of these paths are wrong, they are simply different.


I would qualify that statement, but I agree with its spirit. It is true that everybody must find their own path to God- saying anything else would be like sending the same instruction manual with a dryer and a dishwasher- but all paths must lead to the same place: Jesus. Only through Jesus is there access to God.

Hoooooly crap... didn't expect this comment to be this long. Sorry everybody who's actually attempting to read all of it.

Dan
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not different entities, any more than steam, ice, and aqua are different entities


Agreed--but there are times when one of these entities is more appealing than the others, when you'd rather have liquid water than steam? That is my point. The "three persons in one" allows Christians the ability to latch-on to the one that is most appealling.

That's not to say that Judaism is foolish, but it is to say that it's wrong.


You, my friend, are a braver man than I. I would never be so bold as to state that another religion is wrong. I may not subscribe to it, I may not believe it is the "right" path, but to say it's wrong? Nope, wouldn't do it.

Human words have no meaning, and I believe that if you were to replace every "God" with "Mikimouse" it would not alter that person's ability to commune with God; however, the same God must be worshipped, meaning the intolerant God of the bible. Incidentally, I believe that every person is presented a clear chance to accept or reject Christ; however, this is a point of high contention.


If human words have no meaning--what is the point of this discussion? My ability to commune with God has very little to do with the Church I attend. So what if I am communing with Jesus on a daily basis but I have been calling him Allah, or communing with Buddha on a daily basis and calling him Jesus. The point simply is that if you are "touched" by the spirit, you are touched--it doesn't matter which rituals you perform, or what name you give your diety, it is all the same.

God is not a man, that He should lie.

I had poor word choice in that thought and defer to the way Karma expressed it. "Right" was not the word I was looking for and altered the meaning. However, I don't think offering differing paths is the same as deception. Of course, I will never know exactly what God's intentions are

No, you can't. A great man who called himself the Messiah? A fool, if he was indeed great. To borrow from CS Lewis: either Jesus was Crazy, a Liar, or exactly what he said he was. His claim to being God's son makes him either crazy or a liar if it isn't true, and if it is... then Jesus is everything I believe him to be. But do Jesus' teachings seem the teachings of a liar, or the ravings of a lunatic? Reject or accept Jesus as you will, but there is no in between.


I found this paragraph to be very interesting and plan to mull it over for a while.

Thanks for the insightful conversation, Dan. I always love hearing your take on things!
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

"A true philosopher" does not, as you suggest, believe that every possible view is correct.

I did not say that every possible view is correct.  I said that a philosopher looks at all the possibilities.  You are stating but one.  That is an opinion based on your belief.  You can say that it is not, but your words have shown nothing to say differently.  Everything that you "dispute" with is a Christian belief that you state as fact. 

There is a human element in religion.  It is not all "God".  The bible was written a few hundred years after Jesus died.  For all anyone knows- those stories are not complete.  You can say it is "the word of God", but God did not write the bible- people did.  Then other people interpreted it from its original form.  There are too many unknowns to state "fact" with religion (especially if you use the bible as your handbook).  Your statements are pure Christian and nothing more.  A great example of that is: "but all paths must lead to the same place: Jesus".  But, I can not blame you- you were raised Christian.  There are not many Christians who can look past the "Jesus" aspect with a fresh mind, and *that* is what I was referring to when I said that you were using a "Christian" mind, not a "philosophical" mind.  And, you proved my point.

No, you can't. A great man who called himself the Messiah?
But do Jesus' teachings seem the teachings of a liar, or the ravings of a lunatic? Reject or accept Jesus as you will, but there is no in between.

This is another point where Christians say it is an all or nothing but can't see the bit in between.  Yes, you can believe in Jesus and his teachings without believing that the path to God is through Jesus. There is a difference.  Many non-Christians believe that Jesus existed and that he taught man many great things. They may even believe that he was sent to Earth by God to "save" us through his teachings.  However, that does not mean that they believe that Jesus is the only path to God.  Believing in God is very basic.  Believing that the path to God is through Jesus is Christian only, and makes up only a fraction of all the people who believe in "God" or their version of "God". 

But with that, I have to ask you a couple questions about faith:

1) If a very young woman were to walk up to you today and tell you that she needs your help because she is pregnant but has never had sex, would you believe her?  Would you drop everything in your life and do whatever was needed to help her and raise that child even though you did not know her?  Could you have blind faith that it was real?  Or would you want facts and to have it "proved" to you through some modern technology?  Could you believe that the resulting child was divine?

2) If a man walked up to you and said that he was God's son and he was here to save you.  Would you believe him?  Would you follow his teachings?  Could you have blind faith in him?  Or, would you dismiss him as "crazy"?

On a more personal note- am I the only one who finds it a bit hypocritical to blacklist somebody yet go to their blog site to comment?  It's not that I mind, because if I did, I'd blacklist you also.  But, it does seem like a bit of a character flaw.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right?  

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
shadesofgrey
If human words have no meaning--what is the point of this discussion? My ability to commune with God has very little to do with the Church I attend. So what if I am communing with Jesus on a daily basis but I have been calling him Allah, or communing with Buddha on a daily basis and calling him Jesus. The point simply is that if you are "touched" by the spirit, you are touched--it doesn't matter which rituals you perform, or what name you give your diety, it is all the same.


On another blog I wrote Are There Different Paths to the Same God I quoted a book on the history of God that says almost the same thing. You may find it interesting. I do think one's knowledge plays a large part in one's accountability in choosing the method of worship.

There is a human element in religion. It is not all "God". The bible was written a few hundred years after Jesus died. For all anyone knows- those stories are not complete. You can say it is "the word of God", but God did not write the bible- people did. Then other people interpreted it from its original form. There are too many unknowns to state "fact" with religion (especially if you use the bible as your handbook). Your statements are pure Christian and nothing more. A great example of that is: "but all paths must lead to the same place: Jesus". But, I can not blame you- you were raised Christian.


Yes, the bible was written a few hundred years after Jesus died, but there are other corrobarating secular texts that supplement the accounts as well. Josephus was a secular historian at the time of Jesus, as well as others.

Believing that the path to God is through Jesus is Christian only, and makes up only a fraction of all the people who believe in "God" or their version of "God".


Do you agree Karma that in the above sentence, "definition" could be substituted for "version" with the same meaning?
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do you agree Karma that in the above sentence, "definition" could be substituted for "version" with the same meaning?

Yep.  It could.  Organized religion is simply believing that your definition of God and the path to heaven is right.  Christians believe that the only way to go to heaven is by accepting Jesus as your saviour.  However, if you take the "Jesus factor" out of it, there are many ways that people see God. 

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Christians believe that the only way to go to heaven is by accepting Jesus as your saviour.


As a Christian, I disagree with this blanket statement. As I wrote in a previous comment, One's knowledge plays a large part in one's accountability in choosing the method of worship. Also, most Christians believe in the Trinity, thus Jesus is but a facet or part of the "many ways that people see God."

This is most interesting.
Reply #46 from WinCustomize Forums Top

As a Christian, I disagree with this blanket statement.

Can you be Christian and not accept Jesus? 

The word "Christian" comes from the Greek word christianos which is derived from the word christos, or Christ ("anointed one).  To be a Christian, one would have to be a follower of Christ.  So, if you do not believe that Jesus is your Saviour, how can you truly be Christian?

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Karma:
I don't know how to respond to the first part in a way that would be anything but futily argumentative, so let's just let those differences rest. Moving on...

1) If a very young woman were to walk up to you today and tell you that she needs your help because she is pregnant but has never had sex, would you believe her? Would you drop everything in your life and do whatever was needed to help her and raise that child even though you did not know her? Could you have blind faith that it was real? Or would you want facts and to have it "proved" to you through some modern technology? Could you believe that the resulting child was divine?


I would immediately dismiss her as crazy. First of all, I can think of no reason for such a person- there is no prophecy to fulfill- but mostly because I am not gullible. Note that nobody was asked to believe that Jesus was anything but a person... the miracles and teachings quickly made that unbearably self-evident. I say unbearably because they killed him.

2) If a man walked up to you and said that he was God's son and he was here to save you. Would you believe him? Would you follow his teachings? Could you have blind faith in him? Or, would you dismiss him as "crazy"?


Of course not. I already have a savior and I don't happen to need another one. But let me try to answer the spirit of your question... my belief in any religion can only be described as reluctant. But I like to think that truth has a distinguishable quality about it, and that it's something ordinary people, like me, can recognise. I believe Jesus was God's son not because somebody told me, but because it is the same color as truth. That may sound shaky to you, but suffice it to say that some things only have evidence after they are believed.

On a more personal note- am I the only one who finds it a bit hypocritical to blacklist somebody yet go to their blog site to comment?


I understand this and will cease commenting should you ever ask. Actually, I don't go to your blog site, and my first comment was written before I knew you wrote the article. In fact, to my shame, I didn't even read the comments given before mine. I was just thinking about Christmas and wanted to throw in my two cents. I apologize for this breach in consistancy, and you may be assured that my comments on your site will restricted to this article. I'll try to look at the author first in the future:)

Shady:

Don't take my answering her first personally. It is, after all, her blog site... ahem... oh never mind. Sorry.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not different entities, any more than steam, ice, and aqua are different entitiesAgreed--but there are times when one of these entities is more appealing than the others, when you'd rather have liquid water than steam? That is my point. The "three persons in one" allows Christians the ability to latch-on to the one that is most appealling.


In that case, I agree, and would only add that the "Latching-on" process cannot involve the denial of the existence of the other two. Also, that process can make it difficult to see God in a decently holistic manner, but that it another discussion entirely.

That's not to say that Judaism is foolish, but it is to say that it's wrong.You, my friend, are a braver man than I. I would never be so bold as to state that another religion is wrong. I may not subscribe to it, I may not believe it is the "right" path, but to say it's wrong? Nope, wouldn't do it.


Well, if I am certain that my own is right (and I am, or I would live a much different life with far fewer inhibitions), and my religion and Judaism are mutually exclusive... well, not saying it outright is at best politically correct, and at worst avoiding the subject. As to being brave... well, I've been verbally beaten for intolerance before, and it's nothing I can't deal with.

If human words have no meaning--what is the point of this discussion? My ability to commune with God has very little to do with the Church I attend. So what if I am communing with Jesus on a daily basis but I have been calling him Allah, or communing with Buddha on a daily basis and calling him Jesus. The point simply is that if you are "touched" by the spirit, you are touched--it doesn't matter which rituals you perform, or what name you give your diety, it is all the same.


Yes and no. Words have no meaning, but the meanings we attach to them do. If you worship Allah and believe that his son Krishnu came to earth and died on a cross to pay your debt of sin and then rose again, and Buddha indwells you when you choose to accept Krishnu's gift of salvation; and further, that the three are an inseparable trinity that describes the nature of Allah, then yes, I believe you as much a Christian as I. But to have all of the beliefs and none of the terminology is, I imagine, somewhat rare.

I found this paragraph to be very interesting and plan to mull it over for a while.


I'd like to, once again, give credit to C.S. Lewis (Samual Clemens Lewis, however that makes sense) for coming up with this idea. Karma, you told me it was incorrect but never gave much of a reason why. If there is a logical refutation, please tell me so I can stop using it... I don't like to be a sitting duck for logical annihilation!

Can you be Christian and not accept Jesus?


No. For all the reasons you mentioned and more. To Heather, I emphasize that the trinity is as much one as it is several. You can't pick a facet and ignore all the others. The ace of spades is my favorite card in the deck, but to ignore all the others is to strip away its importance.

That's all, for now:)

Dan
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

I would immediately dismiss her as crazy. First of all, I can think of no reason for such a person- there is no prophecy to fulfill- but mostly because I am not gullible.

What if there is a prophecy and you missed the signs?  Should people have dismissed Mary as "crazy"?
The point is that religion is blind faith.  You have blind faith in something that already happened, but you can not think that maybe it could happen again, or that *more* can happen.  Did God quit communicating with us after the bible was written?  Why would He not try to touch us again?

To borrow from CS Lewis: either Jesus was Crazy, a Liar, or exactly what he said he was. His claim to being God's son makes him either crazy or a liar if it isn't true, and if it is... then Jesus is everything I believe him to be. But do Jesus' teachings seem the teachings of a liar, or the ravings of a lunatic? Reject or accept Jesus as you will, but there is no in between.
I'd like to, once again, give credit to C.S. Lewis (Samual Clemens Lewis, however that makes sense) for coming up with this idea. Karma, you told me it was incorrect but never gave much of a reason why. If there is a logical refutation, please tell me so I can stop using it... I don't like to be a sitting duck for logical annihilation!

I did give a reason why, but maybe you didn't understand.  You said that there is no in between of accepting or rejecting Jesus.  I said that there is.  You can believe that he was a great man and a teacher, but not the messiah.  You do not have to accept him as your savior or reject him entirely to believe that he taught great things to mankind.  *Many* religions believe that Jesus was great, but they don't all believe that he is the messiah or that you have to talk to him, ot directly to God.  So, you can believe in what he said, but not believe that he was actually the son of God or the "savior".  If Jesus really said that he was the Messiah (which is debatable since the bible was written a few hundred years after he died) then, if you don't believe he is the messiah, then he lied.  However, you can still believe in his teachings, therefore he is was not "crazy".  It's not an all or nothing issue, unless you are Christian.

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
What if there is a prophecy and you missed the signs? Should people have dismissed Mary as "crazy"?The point is that religion is blind faith. You have blind faith in something that already happened, but you can not think that maybe it could happen again, or that *more* can happen. Did God quit communicating with us after the bible was written? Why would He not try to touch us again?


I have faith, not "blind faith." My faith is well-supported and philosophically sound. As for suggesting that there is a prophecy... well, perhaps there's one that nobody has ever noticed, but every Jew knew there was supposed to be a Messiah coming. Whole different story. And no, God did not quit communicating, he "communicates" with me regularly, although "communicate" is a somewhat distanced way to phrase it.

I did give a reason why, but maybe you didn't understand. You said that there is no in between of accepting or rejecting Jesus. I said that there is. You can believe that he was a great man and a teacher, but not the messiah. You do not have to accept him as your savior or reject him entirely to believe that he taught great things to mankind. *Many* religions believe that Jesus was great, but they don't all believe that he is the messiah or that you have to talk to him, ot directly to God. So, you can believe in what he said, but not believe that he was actually the son of God or the "savior". If Jesus really said that he was the Messiah (which is debatable since the bible was written a few hundred years after he died) then, if you don't believe he is the messiah, then he lied. However, you can still believe in his teachings, therefore he is was not "crazy". It's not an all or nothing issue, unless you are Christian.


You've yet to respond to the essential argument, Karma. If you believe the teachings of a man who was lying for power- in which case his teachings are most likely divisive- or the teachings of somebody so deluded he thought he was God, and don't have a problem with that... then I have a bridge to sell you. Don't take advice from dead generals, Karma.

There's plenty of historical proof that Jesus existed, and that he was killed for claiming to be the Son of God. The rest one must depend on the bible, but Roman records confirm that much.

Dan
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

There's plenty of historical proof that Jesus existed, and that he was killed for claiming to be the Son of God. The rest one must depend on the bible, but Roman records confirm that much.

Right there is the bit that you are overlooking.  You are saying that the bible is truly accurate.  I am saying that it is possible that Jesus may have existed, was a great teacher, and was killed.  The bible tells you why he was killed, and that he was the son of God.

If you take the bible as a human written account of past life and not the word of God, things look much differently.  It is very difficult for a person that was raised a religion that believes in the bible to look at it as literature instead of a religious handbook.  Can you *honestly* say that you can remove yourself from your Christian beliefs and look at Christianity with a free mind?  Can you view the bible as tales told by men and not the word of God?  If not, then you can't say that you can see a different viewpoint.

Historical "proof" is quite weak when talking about things as old as when Jesus was alive.  Most of the "proof" is more of an educated guess.  Are their written records that show exactly what Jesus said?  Or, could you say that he said "I am the son of God" meaning the same as all of mankind are God's children?  There is no proof to that.  So, one can easily say that we know that Jesus existed, and believe that he was a great teacher, however still not believe that he was the Messiah.

But, here are some other questions: If you learn about Jesus through the bible, and you have to accept Jesus to go to heaven, how do aboriginals who can not read nor have communication with "modern" life get to heaven?  If they are not exposed to the bible or its teachings, how can they believe in something that they have never heard of?  And, why would God devise a plan that would exclude such people?