Christians attempt to silence non-religious messages at Christmas

[Swoop187]

I think atheists hate God and have made it their mission in life to destroy religion!

If your an atheist why do you care what religious folks do? You obviously dont believe in God so why would religion matter to you???

Atheists actually GO OUT of their way to challenge religion and it makes no sense what so ever!

The truth is this has nothing to do with religion to the Atheists and everything to do with religious ethics.

Atheists have a problem with people living their lives under a given specific set of rules that conflict with their own morals and ethics..

Oh and if anyone is trying to silence anyone at Christmas its the Atheists trying to silence and abolish Christmas as a religious holiday.

Yea, yea....Atheists are nothing more then victims of Christian ideology....

What makes your ideology so damn great????

Religion has been an ethical standard for 6,7,8 thousand years and you atheists mope about thinking your superior .... You're not, you're anarchists who believe their should be no morals or ethics, people should make their own whatever they might be...

Totally astounding really..

 

[Swoop187]

Did you just make that shit up?

Atheists give more to charity???

Yea maybe donations to progressive liberal organizations... I dont see Atheists donating where it counts like helping the sick, poor and hungry around the world.

Oh and I love your little bias cartoon as well...

All tho I do agree that abortions are nothing short of murder.... However let the other immoral folks dig their own grave, I dont really care! What they do really doesnt effect me as long as they dont promote it...

The idea that every Christian is a nut is truly a pathetic one spread by the anti-religious folks.

If you want to argue ideology then save the extremist crap for the extremists.

Another thing I find disgusting that atheists do is only tackle Christianity, they wont touch any minority religion in the union with a 10 foot pole such as Islam... Again its more picking and choosing by liberals (and yes the majority of atheists are liberal.)

I said nothing of specific monetary giving by atheists, though I could likely support that. I referred to atheists generally having more "charitable" outlooks than Christians...for instance, the example of the "Moral" Majority and the "Christian" Coalition in supporting every variety of neoliberalism is appalling and anti-Christian.

I also referred to the libertarian communist practices of the early apostles of the Christian church, and even more so, of the Holy Spirit through those apostles.

Yes atheists are generally more liberal not charitable..

 

[Agnapostate]

Yea, yea....Atheists are nothing more then victims of Christian ideology....

What makes your ideology so damn great????

Religion has been an ethical standard for 6,7,8 thousand years and you atheists mope about thinking your superior .... You're not, you're anarchists who believe their should be no morals or ethics, people should make their own whatever they might be...

Totally astounding really..

Amusing list, since I happen to have devoted a good deal of study to anarchist ethics. I also don't know where you picked up the idea that I was an atheist. I just cited several Scriptural references to legitimately Christian charity of the nature that is not practiced by those who favor neoliberal expansion, so a true Christian would note that accordingly.

 

[Swoop187]

Yea, yea....Atheists are nothing more then victims of Christian ideology....

What makes your ideology so damn great????

Religion has been an ethical standard for 6,7,8 thousand years and you atheists mope about thinking your superior .... You're not, you're anarchists who believe their should be no morals or ethics, people should make their own whatever they might be...

Totally astounding really..

Amusing list, since I happen to have devoted a good deal of study to anarchist ethics. I also don't know where you picked up the idea that I was an atheist. I just cited several Scriptural references to legitimately Christian charity of the nature that is not practiced by those who favor neoliberal expansion, so a true Christian would note that accordingly.

Real anarchists dont have ethics, Real anarchists are active sociopaths.

Your use of neoliberalism when using to describe a Christian group has me confused.. Are you using it to describe one who goes against tradition or are you using it as a metaphor for conservative?

 

[Agnapostate]

Real anarchists dont have ethics, Real anarchists are active sociopaths.

You've already demonstrated that you're ignorant of Marxism and other varieties of socialism; I suspect that you're similarly ignorant of anarchism. Anarchist theory involves organization utilizing horizontal federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical, direct democratic collectives and communes.

Your use of neoliberalism when using to describe a Christian group has me confused.. Are you using it to describe one who goes against tradition or are you using it as a metaphor for conservative?

I am referring to economic neoliberalism of the nature promoted under the regimes of Reagan and Thatcher, which was wholeheartedly supported by Falwell and Robertson, and the remainder of their ilk, and strongly conflicts with the early apostles' practice of libertarian communism.

 

[Swoop187]

Real anarchists dont have ethics, Real anarchists are active sociopaths.

You've already demonstrated that you're ignorant of Marxism and other varieties of socialism; I suspect that you're similarly ignorant of anarchism. Anarchist theory involves organization utilizing horizontal federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical, direct democratic collectives and communes.

Ethics and morals = Law

Their is no organization in anarchy, to have organization you need a ruling party which would contradict anarchy.

True anarchy is impossible, even animals arent anarchistic.

Your use of neoliberalism when using to describe a Christian group has me confused.. Are you using it to describe one who goes against tradition or are you using it as a metaphor for conservative?

I am referring to economic neoliberalism of the nature promoted under the regimes of Reagan and Thatcher, which was wholeheartedly supported by Falwell and Robertson, and the remainder of their ilk, and strongly conflicts with the early apostles' practice of libertarian communism.

So you believe the only way to be a true Christian is to practice libertarian communism?

 

[Father Time]

I think atheists hate God and have made it their mission in life to destroy religion!

Aside from the idiotic blanket statement, how can you possibly hate something that you don't believe exists?

"I'm going to sacrifice a goat to Zeus."

"That's a stupid thing to do."

"Why do you hate Zeus?"

If your an atheist why do you care what religious folks do? You obviously dont believe in God so why would religion matter to you???

Oh so when government has endorsements of religion paid for by tax money (in God we trust) they're not supposed to care? When some religions treat them as evil (the bible calls them fools), they're not supposed to care? When laws get passed based on religious ideology and nothing else they're not supposed to care?

Makes perfect sense.

Religion has a large influence in society and to ignore that is to just live in ignorance.

Atheists actually GO OUT of their way to challenge religion and it makes no sense what so ever!

It makes just as much sense as any other religion tries to spread it's ideology.

The truth is this has nothing to do with religion to the Atheists and everything to do with religious ethics.

Atheists have a problem with people living their lives under a given specific set of rules that conflict with their own morals and ethics..

Once again stupid blanket statements. You know I can easily find groups trying to spread 'the word of God' (as they interpret it) through law. Does that mean I can replace Atheists with Christians in that last statement.

Oh and if anyone is trying to silence anyone at Christmas its the Atheists trying to silence and abolish Christmas as a religious holiday.

That really is an impossible task.

 

[manu1959]

what possible message of importance could a non religious group have at christmas worth hearing......

and for extra credit do you think they give each other gifts to celebrate christmas.....

 

[Agnapostate]

Ethics and morals = Law

Their is no organization in anarchy, to have organization you need a ruling party which would contradict anarchy.

True anarchy is impossible, even animals arent anarchistic.

At the heart of your claims is a deep misunderstanding and lack of awareness of political theory and its various applications. To remedy your immediate ignorance of anarchist theory, I would recommend that you take a look at Section A.1 of the Anarchist FAQ, What is Anarchism?

I can also comment on anarchist theory to some extent. As I have explained previously, anarchism is based on a highly organized society, not on any form of "chaos" or "disorder." Organization would come in the form of federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives or communes that were governed through direct democracy. Though the state would be abolished, public control would be maintained through decentralized means.

As public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ council, this would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action, though they are not strictly libertarian socialist themselves.

Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.

In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers’ councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.

The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.

Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them. Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.

And that is a very basic overview of how anarchism might function.

Now, the most widespread and illustrative example of such a society, (though there are others), would be the anarchist collectives that existed throughout much of Spain during the Spanish civil war between 1936 and 1939. The Spanish anarchist collectives probably the greatest example of the widespread benefits of libertarian socialism, specifically anarchism, in action. The author Sam Dolgoff estimated that about eight million people were directly or indirectly impacted by the Spanish Revolution and the anarchist collectives, and about two million workers directly participated in the collectivization process.

According to Antony Beevor, an author on the Spanish Revolution:

The total for the whole of Republican territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services such as water, gas and electricity were working under new management within hours of the storming of the Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate factories to war production meant that metallurgical concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July . . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive feats of those early days was the resurrection of the public transport system at a time when the streets were still littered and barricaded.

Another author, Jose Peirats, writes this:

Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical innovations was an event without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta collectivists organised classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and even a school of arts and professions. The Seros schools were free to all neighbours, collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its most illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop. only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza (pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus organised a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an experimental agricultural laboratory.

The collectives voluntarily contributed enormous stocks of provisions and other supplies to the fighting troops. Utiel sent 1,490 litres of oil and 300 bushels of potatoes to the Madrid front (in addition to huge stocks of beans, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Porales de Tujana sent great quantities of bread, oil, flour, and potatoes to the front, and eggs, meat, and milk to the military hospital.

The efforts of the collectives take on added significance when we take into account that their youngest and most vigorous workers were fighting in the trenches. 200 members of the little collective of Vilaboi were at the front; from Viledecans, 60; Amposta, 300; and Calande, 500.

It is estimated that eight to ten million people were directly or indirectly affected by the Spanish anarchist collectives. Author Leval has estimated 1,700 agrarian collectives, with 400 for Aragon, (although other estimates have been above 500), 900 for Levant, 300 for Castile , 30 for Estremadura, 40 for Catalonia, and an unknown number for Andalusia. He estimates that all industries and transportation were collectivized in the urban areas of Catalonia, (and indeed, 75% of all of Catalonia was estimated to have been collectivized in some way), 70% of all industries in Levant, and an unknown percentage in Castile.

The victories and social and economic benefits promoted in the Spanish Revolution through the implementation of libertarian socialist ideals, such as the establishment of syndicalism, voluntary association, and workers self-management strongly suggests that anarchist and libertarian socialist theories and practices are of a practical nature.

So you believe the only way to be a true Christian is to practice libertarian communism?

True Christianity certainly involves more egalitarian economic frameworks, not specifically libertarian communism. But Christian opposition to socialism and communism are misguided inasmuch as they are primarily focused toward the state atheist, state capitalist Soviet Union, which is inappropriately referred to by anti-socialists' in general.

So while "libertarian communism" need not be explicitly espoused by every Christian, it is reasonable to expect that Christians will adopt an economically egalitarian outlook that accurately notes Biblical prohibitions of iniquities that are conventional capitalist business practices. (Usury is an excellent example.) It is also reasonable to expect that libertarian communism in its manifestation was of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as the Acts of the Apostles were truly the Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles.

 

[frazzledgear]

I often find greater charity among atheists than Christians, which saddens me. Since the Acts of the Apostles ought to properly be called the Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, since the apostles could do nothing if the power of God was not in them, and the practices of the apostles clearly proscribe libertarian communism as an act of the faithful, it's astonishing that many so-called "Christians" primarily seek association with the rich and the powerful...Jimmy Swaggart is a prime example, as are Falwell and Robertson and their support of the expansion of neoliberalism.

Just where are all those atheists you think are so much more charitable than everyone else? You mean because atheists CLAIM to be so much more charitable it somehow makes it true? Which set of data do you want me to provide to prove you are wrong? Any idea how many different liberal and atheist supporting organizations have tried to prove that Christians are not only the most intolerant, stingiest and hateful people in the country, but in the entire world -and not only weren't able to prove that, but ended up with data strongly suggesting that it was the opposite instead and those those furthest to the left and those furthest from any religious beliefs at all who fit that bill instead? Do you really quake in your boots that hordes of machete-wielding Christians are going to kick in your door and cut off your head? Or even throw you in prison in some country because you aren't a Christian? Does ANYONE in the world? ROFLMAO Get real. I don't need to even review their data because after all these years, I am able to come to their same conclusions based on decades of personal experience. Atheists can only drag up events that occurred before the Reformation, CENTURIES ago - to pretend they are "proving" their nonexistent point that in some way Christianity and ALL religious beliefs are all bad, evil and wrong -without any understanding of what the Reformation even means to Christianity.

I know a whole lot of Christians from a whole lot of different denominations and branches and I know and have met a lot of atheists during my life. All my adult life, not just for a few years. Not as many atheists as Christians -but then atheists are a small minority in this country and the entire world compared to those with religious beliefs. But I have yet to meet ANY atheist who is as generous and compassionate as the average Christian I have met. Atheists are among the most bigoted, intolerant and human being-hating people I have ever met. Oh sure, atheists are the very first to CLAIM they are the ones with the "real" compassion and generosity, and the very first to CLAIM to be morally superior to anyone with religious beliefs -especially Christians. But the hard data -no matter who has collected it - just doesn't support that. There are always strings attached to the "generosity" or "compassion" of an atheist. Atheists don't identify with others because of their shared humanity -as Christians do. But usually are only able to identify with other human beings based on their shared political ideology instead. If you don't share the political beliefs of an atheist -that atheist is far more likely to spend his time demanding a tree not be cut down than defending ANY of your constitutional rights. The only possible exception is if you are a convicted mass murderer of course. Never the victim of that mass murderer. And most people on this thread know I'm telling the truth with all this.

Do you have ANY idea how many atheists I have met who thought the people of New Orleans should have been denied any federal aid after Hurricane Katrina for no other reason than the fact the state of Louisiana went for Bush in 2004? To this day I am still shocked that anyone even privately held that opinion -much less expressed it openly. Only to hear one atheist and far leftist after another say they believed the same thing.

After hearing that, do you REALLY think these are people who, if they were ever to grab absolute power, I could or would ever trust to protect MY rights and respect MY humanity? Would you really trust YOURS in their hands? Why? History has already shown no one should EVER trust such people. It wasn't atheists who created our Constitution that provided equal rights based only on shared citizenship -and sorry, I wouldn't trust the very people who think political ideology must come before shared humanity to EVER provide me with the rights they claim for themselves, much less trust them to protect my life. And I have historical precedence that proves THE most inhumane, THE most brutal, THE most murderous regimes in modern history -were not born of Christianity. Or of ANY religion or religious belief. But of atheism. Atheists have never once produced a moral, decent society that protected human beings for no other reason than the fact they ARE human beings. Not once. And their own words, sentiments and political positions prove they aren't going to start now.

These are the very people who insist it should be legal and MORAL to kill unwanted human lives if they are the very youngest of human lives. If that is actually true, then what if these same people were to say in the future that it is no less immoral to kill unwanted human lives who are just a little bit older? Atheists are the same people who insist it should be legal and MORAL to cannibalize the very youngest of human lives if MIGHT benefit an older human life. Not even that it WILL benefit an older human life -just might do so. But if it MIGHT benefit another, older human life to kill this youngest of life, what will stop them from saying it is legal and "moral" to kill a slightly older human life? Just where is the cutoff with an atheist? And what determines that cutoff and why? I'd really like to know that -and if atheists are going to pretend they hold the "real" moral code for all mankind -then society is first entitled to know those answers as well.

There is no true moral foundation for atheists at any given time in history. That doesn't mean atheists cannot be moral, plenty of atheists are moral. But it does mean their definition of morality and their moral code changes with the times. The only problem with that is the fact my HUMANITY never changes. Does YOURS? If yours doesn't, what arrogance and immorality does it take to claim it changes for ANY other human life just because atheists say so?

Atheists can only demand that the line in the sand be changed whenever they feel like it. But to the detriment of all mankind -atheists cannot EVER draw a line in the sand themselves. And never will.

 

[YWN666]

I'll take your refusal to answer the question and instead to try to change what I said or twist my words as your recognition that you simply can't support your position...

I'm not avoiding the question, I figured that you were smart enough to get your answer from the comment I made. The person in question could be considered to be doing more than just speaking if he is physically handing out flyers and prompting people to participate. As I already said, though, your preacher saying bad things about homosexuality is not crossing that line unless he is doing more than jut speaking. There is a fine line between just speaking and actually participating or inciting others to participate. I'd have to see more specifics to decide one way or the other.

What more would you need beyond the admission by one of the Congressmen who is cosponsoring this bill in the Congressional Committee hearing, that it can be interpreted to apply in exactly the way that I've described here???

Oh, I know. You want him to call you up and explain it to ya himself...

Oh, I should accept a Congressmans word as the one and only truth? You're daft.
I need more specifics on your dogfighting scenario in order to answer your question. It is too vague to answer but then again, that is what you're basing your argument on so it is in our best interest to leave it vague. You're trying to equate illegal actions with free speech.
Maybe you should try debating on a board that doesn't require logic and reasoning. You and the rest of the right wing retards would feel more at home in such a place.

 

[YWN666]

I often find greater charity among atheists than Christians, which saddens me. Since the Acts of the Apostles ought to properly be called the Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, since the apostles could do nothing if the power of God was not in them, and the practices of the apostles clearly proscribe libertarian communism as an act of the faithful, it's astonishing that many so-called "Christians" primarily seek association with the rich and the powerful...Jimmy Swaggart is a prime example, as are Falwell and Robertson and their support of the expansion of neoliberalism.

Atheists are among the most bigoted, intolerant and human being-hating people I have ever met. Oh sure, atheists are the very first to CLAIM they are the ones with the "real" compassion and generosity, and the very first to CLAIM to be morally superior to anyone with religious beliefs -especially Christians. But the hard data -no matter who has collected it - just doesn't support that.

How many atheists were in this sample that you tested?

I know a woman who works at the complaint department in a major department store and she says that every christian she encounters is a nasty selfish son-of-a-bitch with nothing good to say about anyone or anything.

Get the point?

 

[Father Time]

I often find greater charity among atheists than Christians, which saddens me. Since the Acts of the Apostles ought to properly be called the Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, since the apostles could do nothing if the power of God was not in them, and the practices of the apostles clearly proscribe libertarian communism as an act of the faithful, it's astonishing that many so-called "Christians" primarily seek association with the rich and the powerful...Jimmy Swaggart is a prime example, as are Falwell and Robertson and their support of the expansion of neoliberalism.

Atheists are among the most bigoted, intolerant and human being-hating people I have ever met. Oh sure, atheists are the very first to CLAIM they are the ones with the "real" compassion and generosity, and the very first to CLAIM to be morally superior to anyone with religious beliefs -especially Christians. But the hard data -no matter who has collected it - just doesn't support that.

How many atheists were in this sample that you tested?

I know a woman who works at the complaint department in a major department store and she says that every christian she encounters is a nasty selfish son-of-a-bitch with nothing good to say about anyone or anything.

Get the point?

Plus there's the possibility you've met atheists without realizing it and of course those folks wouldn't fit in your sample.

Although it's blanket stereotyping and stupidity to assume all atheists act like the ones you've met.

 

[No_Promises1987]

Atheists, should get their own holiday, and it would be a national holiday, and make it a advertisement type holiday (basically like Christmas, but designed to fit your right to religion), anyone who is Atheist, should consider fighting for this, because then your rights are violated if they don't allow it.

Look, Christmas is what it is...its in our schools, its loved by our kids, its a tree, lights and Santa, and its religious, to the fundies, yeah they get their day. You can celebrate it three ways, 1) the fun part.... minus the religion, 2) the fun part and the religious, or 3)ignore it and treat it like any other day. Christmas is such a meal ticket for advertisers because the majority of people celebrate the holiday for the 1 and 2 reason's listed above ^ I understand the annoyance of it, I get annoyed at advertisements that think it's cute to use old songs and change them or use it towards a product that has nothing to with the song....

 

[k2skier]

Christmas is an annual holiday celebrated on December 25 that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It's a Christian holiday.

Not quite through the whole thread yet but this is what I was just thinking about.

Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25Th, the star of Bethlehem wasn't in the sky in December.


From;
associatedcontent.com/article/1336287/christmas_day_is_june_17_according.html
December 25 was Chosen by the Roman Catholic Church

Astronomers say they have found the original star of Bethlehem, the star that, according to the Christian bible, led the three wise men to the place of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. They also say that Christians have been celebrating Jesus' birth on the wrong day for at least 17 centuries.

Researchers are now saying that the bright star chronicled in the Christian bible was most likely a conjunction between the planets Venus and Jupiter, a visual anomaly that would appear extremely bright in the night sky. Australian astonomer Dave Reneke, according to the Telegraph, used computer software to calculate the stars and the night sky at the time of Jesus' birth. Reneke believes that the 'wise men' noted the anomaly and took it to be the sign of prophecy and followed the star's light to Bethlehem.

Historians generally place the nativity as occurring between 3 BC and 1 AD.

According to Reneke's calculations and using the Gospel of Matthew, the planetary conjunction of Venus and Jupiter occurred on June 17, 2 BC.

Reneke says that the research team is not definitively stating that the conjunction was the star of Bethlehem, but the two planets coming together would have appeared as one bright object in the sky. And the timing is coincidental.

Reneke told the Telegraph, "December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

"This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

"Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith."

Throughout the centuries, several theories have been proffered to explain the 'Christmas star,' or star of Bethlehem. One theory suggested that the star was a brilliant supernova, an exploding star that lit the way for the 'wise men.' Some have suggested a comet.

Reneke believes that the research done by his team is the most compelling to date.


American Atheist Press on one of their Winter Solstice cards;

December 25Th,

by the Julian Calendar, was the winter solstice. This day, originally regarded by the pagans as the day of the nativity of the sun - the shortest day of the year, when the light began it's conquering battle against the darkness - has been celebrated universally throughout human history.

Even being adopted by the Christians as a day on which to celebrate the birth of Jesus, this ancient holiday, set by motions of celestial bodies, survives as a a day of rejoicing that good will and love will have a perpetual rebirth in the minds of all people-even as the sun has a symbolic rebirth yearly.


Now if something like this was displayed by a nativity scene then I think it wouldn't have offended so many. But the main reason for ffrf.org displaying a harshly worded message is because one really big American principal is being broken, IMO, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

good info at religioustolerance.org

 

[Againsheila]

Christmas is an annual holiday celebrated on December 25 that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It's a Christian holiday.

Not quite through the whole thread yet but this is what I was just thinking about.

Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25Th, the star of Bethlehem wasn't in the sky in December.


From;
associatedcontent.com/article/1336287/christmas_day_is_june_17_according.html
December 25 was Chosen by the Roman Catholic Church

Astronomers say they have found the original star of Bethlehem, the star that, according to the Christian bible, led the three wise men to the place of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. They also say that Christians have been celebrating Jesus' birth on the wrong day for at least 17 centuries.

Researchers are now saying that the bright star chronicled in the Christian bible was most likely a conjunction between the planets Venus and Jupiter, a visual anomaly that would appear extremely bright in the night sky. Australian astonomer Dave Reneke, according to the Telegraph, used computer software to calculate the stars and the night sky at the time of Jesus' birth. Reneke believes that the 'wise men' noted the anomaly and took it to be the sign of prophecy and followed the star's light to Bethlehem.

Historians generally place the nativity as occurring between 3 BC and 1 AD.

According to Reneke's calculations and using the Gospel of Matthew, the planetary conjunction of Venus and Jupiter occurred on June 17, 2 BC.

Reneke says that the research team is not definitively stating that the conjunction was the star of Bethlehem, but the two planets coming together would have appeared as one bright object in the sky. And the timing is coincidental.

Reneke told the Telegraph, "December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

"This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

"Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith."

Throughout the centuries, several theories have been proffered to explain the 'Christmas star,' or star of Bethlehem. One theory suggested that the star was a brilliant supernova, an exploding star that lit the way for the 'wise men.' Some have suggested a comet.

Reneke believes that the research done by his team is the most compelling to date.


American Atheist Press on one of their Winter Solstice cards;

December 25Th,

by the Julian Calendar, was the winter solstice. This day, originally regarded by the pagans as the day of the nativity of the sun - the shortest day of the year, when the light began it's conquering battle against the darkness - has been celebrated universally throughout human history.

Even being adopted by the Christians as a day on which to celebrate the birth of Jesus, this ancient holiday, set by motions of celestial bodies, survives as a a day of rejoicing that good will and love will have a perpetual rebirth in the minds of all people-even as the sun has a symbolic rebirth yearly.


Now if something like this was displayed by a nativity scene then I think it wouldn't have offended so many. But the main reason for ffrf.org displaying a harshly worded message is because one really big American principal is being broken, IMO, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

good info at religioustolerance.org

Well, you're 1/2 right. No one would have complained if the sign had been worded as above, but the principal reason they worded it the way they did was to cause hatred. When called on it being hatred toward religion, the man's reply was that a nativity scene is a symbol of hatred. He didn't defend his sign, he worded it that way on purpose and he as much as admitted that he did it to cause controversy.

BTW, there is no separation of church and state in any of our laws. There is a law requiring our government not to establish a religion but nothing about no allowing people to hold religious ceremonies in public institutions and congress has started with a prayer since the beginning, a clear sign that our forefathers never intended the complete separation of church and state.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think atheists hate God and have made it their mission in life to destroy religion!

Aside from the idiotic blanket statement, how can you possibly hate something that you don't believe exists?

"I'm going to sacrifice a goat to Zeus."

"That's a stupid thing to do."

"Why do you hate Zeus?"

If your an atheist why do you care what religious folks do? You obviously dont believe in God so why would religion matter to you???

Oh so when government has endorsements of religion paid for by tax money (in God we trust) they're not supposed to care? When some religions treat them as evil (the bible calls them fools), they're not supposed to care? When laws get passed based on religious ideology and nothing else they're not supposed to care?

Makes perfect sense.

Religion has a large influence in society and to ignore that is to just live in ignorance.



It makes just as much sense as any other religion tries to spread it's ideology.

The truth is this has nothing to do with religion to the Atheists and everything to do with religious ethics.

Atheists have a problem with people living their lives under a given specific set of rules that conflict with their own morals and ethics..

Once again stupid blanket statements. You know I can easily find groups trying to spread 'the word of God' (as they interpret it) through law. Does that mean I can replace Atheists with Christians in that last statement.

Oh and if anyone is trying to silence anyone at Christmas its the Atheists trying to silence and abolish Christmas as a religious holiday.

That really is an impossible task.

You don't hate God. You hate people who believe in God, and you see yourself as superior to them in intellect and value. YOu think it is a good thing to desecrate the things that believers hold dear, and ridicule believers, and challenge their faith at every corner.

The religion of atheism is no better than any other religion which has allowed assholes and despots to attack those who believe differently than they do.

 

[AllieBaba]

Christmas is an annual holiday celebrated on December 25 that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It's a Christian holiday.

Not quite through the whole thread yet but this is what I was just thinking about.

Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25Th, the star of Bethlehem wasn't in the sky in December.


From;
associatedcontent.com/article/1336287/christmas_day_is_june_17_according.html
December 25 was Chosen by the Roman Catholic Church

Astronomers say they have found the original star of Bethlehem, the star that, according to the Christian bible, led the three wise men to the place of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. They also say that Christians have been celebrating Jesus' birth on the wrong day for at least 17 centuries.

Researchers are now saying that the bright star chronicled in the Christian bible was most likely a conjunction between the planets Venus and Jupiter, a visual anomaly that would appear extremely bright in the night sky. Australian astonomer Dave Reneke, according to the Telegraph, used computer software to calculate the stars and the night sky at the time of Jesus' birth. Reneke believes that the 'wise men' noted the anomaly and took it to be the sign of prophecy and followed the star's light to Bethlehem.

Historians generally place the nativity as occurring between 3 BC and 1 AD.

According to Reneke's calculations and using the Gospel of Matthew, the planetary conjunction of Venus and Jupiter occurred on June 17, 2 BC.

Reneke says that the research team is not definitively stating that the conjunction was the star of Bethlehem, but the two planets coming together would have appeared as one bright object in the sky. And the timing is coincidental.

Reneke told the Telegraph, "December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

"This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

"Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith."

Throughout the centuries, several theories have been proffered to explain the 'Christmas star,' or star of Bethlehem. One theory suggested that the star was a brilliant supernova, an exploding star that lit the way for the 'wise men.' Some have suggested a comet.

Reneke believes that the research done by his team is the most compelling to date.


American Atheist Press on one of their Winter Solstice cards;

December 25Th,

by the Julian Calendar, was the winter solstice. This day, originally regarded by the pagans as the day of the nativity of the sun - the shortest day of the year, when the light began it's conquering battle against the darkness - has been celebrated universally throughout human history.

Even being adopted by the Christians as a day on which to celebrate the birth of Jesus, this ancient holiday, set by motions of celestial bodies, survives as a a day of rejoicing that good will and love will have a perpetual rebirth in the minds of all people-even as the sun has a symbolic rebirth yearly.


Now if something like this was displayed by a nativity scene then I think it wouldn't have offended so many. But the main reason for ffrf.org displaying a harshly worded message is because one really big American principal is being broken, IMO, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

good info at religioustolerance.org

Well, you're 1/2 right. No one would have complained if the sign had been worded as above, but the principal reason they worded it the way they did was to cause hatred. When called on it being hatred toward religion, the man's reply was that a nativity scene is a symbol of hatred. He didn't defend his sign, he worded it that way on purpose and he as much as admitted that he did it to cause controversy.

BTW, there is no separation of church and state in any of our laws. There is a law requiring our government not to establish a religion but nothing about no allowing people to hold religious ceremonies in public institutions and congress has started with a prayer since the beginning, a clear sign that our forefathers never intended the complete separation of church and state.

THe sole purpose of separation of church and state was to prevent the government from interfering in the right of people to CELEBRATE THEIR RELIGION publicly, as they see fit, and never be persecuted because of it.

It wasn't to keep religion out of politics. It was to keep politics out of religion.

We have the right to display our religious beliefs in public, and there's nothing in the constitution that says otherwise.
TEchnically, we should be allowed to use public property to do the same, per Jefferson, who said no one should be denigrated in politics for referencing his religion, and who include God in every important political speech or manuscript he ever authored.

 

[Agnapostate]

But those atheist Muslim Satanist Wiccans at the ACLU never give up!

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it's not the Muslim Atheist Wiccans that are the problem. It's the progressive liberals. A.k.a. fascists.