Is Christmas Biblical or Sacred Church Tradition?

C

Chuckt

Guest
cheezgrits said:
Also, please compose your apology that owe me or delete the post you made about me hating christianity. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Apologize? No. I'm going to go through your old messages unless you want an "out" or unless you delete your old messages.

It is the holiday season and I'm pretty busy so you might have to wait till after the holidays or New Year.

Usually when you call someone a bigot, it is hate. And when you call someone a troll then you're saying you don't respect what they have to say or that they have a right to their first amendment rights or freedom of religion through speech so I have every right to say that it is hate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
littlelady

littlelady

God bless the USA
Chuckt said:
Apologize? No. I'm going to go through your old messages unless you want an "out" or unless you delete your old messages.

It is the holiday season and I'm pretty busy so you might have to wait till after the holidays or New Year.

Usually when you call someone a bigot, it is hate.
Click to expand...

You are a bigot, but so are a lot of people, but not cheez. I can save you the trouble so you don't have to research cheez's posts, since you are so busy. He has never said he hates Christianity. I think of cheez as a gentle hippie, who loves all people, no matter what his own individual faith is. Love and peace, Chuck.

And, Merry Christmas! :smile:
 
Last edited:
cheezgrits

cheezgrits

Thought pirate
Chuckt said:
Apologize? No. I'm going to go through your old messages unless you want an "out" or unless you delete your old messages.

It is the holiday season and I'm pretty busy so you might have to wait till after the holidays or New Year.

Usually when you call someone a bigot, it is hate. And when you call someone a troll then you're saying you don't respect what they have to say or that they have a right to their first amendment rights or freedom of religion through speech so I have every right to say that it is hate.
Click to expand...

Now you're reading into what I wrote and are turning it into your definition of hate. That's fine, but you first said that We (assuming you have polled everyone) knows that I hate christianity. Big difference. If you choose to scroll through my post that is fine. But you made an accusation without facts first to back you up, so therefore you bore false witness and broke a commandment. The right thing to do would be to apologize.

But if choose to not have honor and the courage to admit wrong and make it right, well, then, my brother, there is nothing I can do about that. May you find peace on your path.
 
cheezgrits

cheezgrits

Thought pirate
Chuckt said:
Usually when you call someone a bigot, it is hate. And when you call someone a troll then you're saying you don't respect what they have to say or that they have a right to their first amendment rights or freedom of religion through speech so I have every right to say that it is hate.
Click to expand...

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

How is that hate? That is an observation. I can certainly back up my calling you a troll with hard evidence to the above. But if it offends you, then I apologize for my disrespect of you.
n Chinese, trolling is referred to as bái mù (Chinese: 白目; literally: "white eye"), which can be straightforwardly explained as "eyes without pupils", in the sense that whilst the pupil of the eye is used for vision, the white section of the eye cannot see, and trolling involves blindly talking nonsense over the internet, having total disregard to sensitivities or being oblivious to the situation at hand, akin to having eyes without pupils. An alternative term is bái làn (Chinese: 白爛; literally: "white rot"), which describes a post completely nonsensical and full of folly made to upset others, and derives from a Taiwanese slang term for the male genitalia, where genitalia that is pale white in colour represents that someone is young, and thus foolish. Both terms originate from Taiwan, and are also used in Hong Kong and mainland China. Another term, xiǎo bái (Chinese: 小白; literally: "little white") is a derogatory term that refers to both bái mù and bái làn that is used on anonymous posting internet forums. Another common term for a troll used in mainland China is pēn zi (Chinese: 噴子; literally: "sprayer, spurter").

n Japanese, tsuri (釣り?) means "fishing" and refers to intentionally misleading posts whose only purpose is to get the readers to react, i.e. get trolled. arashi (荒らし?) means "laying waste" and can also be used to refer to simple spamming.
Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and machiavellianism.[42][43] The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities[42] and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the "dark triad of personality" should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears "to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism."[43] Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, "Do not feed the trolls!" The 2013 study found that trolls often have a high expectation of what it means to be successful, which is higher than they are able to attain, and this results in them resenting others who think they are successful but who fall below their standards.

Just so you know I don't throw that term out lightly. Later, we'll examine the word bigot.
 
A

Amused_despair

New Member
Chuckt said:
Apologize? No. I'm going to go through your old messages unless you want an "out" or unless you delete your old messages.

It is the holiday season and I'm pretty busy so you might have to wait till after the holidays or New Year.

Usually when you call someone a bigot, it is hate. And when you call someone a troll then you're saying you don't respect what they have to say or that they have a right to their first amendment rights or freedom of religion through speech so I have every right to say that it is hate.
Click to expand...

Actually, many times when someone is called a bigot it is because they are a bigot, just like when they are called tall it is because they are tall. Some descriptions are very easy to interpret. When someone is called a troll it is many time because they are acting like a troll (see definition provided by other poster above). If you want to be called a Christian, act like Christ.
 
Radiant1

Radiant1

Soul Probe
I guess you're not bothering to get your house in order first. So be it. The judgment will lay on you.

Why did you not bother to address your conundrum with 2Peter? Did you think if you ignored it we wouldn't notice? :eyebrow:

Chuckt said:
They searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so and they did not go to sacred tradition because God's word was their authority. In other words, what God says is more important than tradition.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's talk about the Bareans. If you notice they received the Word with all willingness and searched the scriptures, but how did they received the Word with all willingness if they only had the OT (and the Septuagint OT at that which, again, YOU DON'T USE)? They received the Word via Paul (Tradition) and then checked the prophecies in the OT (Scripture), which is as it should be as well as vice versa because both Tradition and Scripture go hand-in-hand. Are you saying that what Paul told them was not important? What you're looking at here is the Catholic model, not the Protestant one. Now, let's also look at what Paul does later in the chapter:

Acts 17:28 - For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’

Paul is quoting pagan philosophers (Epimenides of Knossos and Aratus of Soli). He is not using scripture but rather outside sources to teach about God. That right there should tell you that the early Church never supported scripture alone (and again, scripture itself doesn't support it either).

But hey, you can keep disparaging Tradition. It only gives me an opportunity to present the evidence so that all "free-thinkers" can judge for themselves.

Chuckt said:
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html
The Old Deluder Act (1647)
From Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (1853), II: 203

It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.

If you knew your history, the unknown tongue was Latin and the reason why Protestants started schools was so that Christians could have the scriptures.
Click to expand...

I know my history just fine, thank you. "The Old Deluder Act" was a Massachusetts school law, and who founded the Massachusetts colony? Protestants! The same ones who burned witches by the way. So, it's no surprise that you would find this act there. All this proves is that Protestants have taught anti-Catholic polemic since at least 1642 (or 1647 depending on your source), which just proves what I've said before; it's an institutionalized bigotry. I know this also by experience for I have heard the ministers preach anti-Catholicism at their pulpit. Good thing I'm a "free-thinker" and checked into what they were telling me.

Chuckt said:
Why was education affected by the Protestant Reformation?

Best Answer: Before Protestantism, most education in the Western World was at religious schools, Priests held a monopoly on local education.
Click to expand...

From your own source, Catholics had schools before Protestantism, go figure. I'm guessing the monopoly was because Catholicism was the only institution at that time to even have schools. If Catholicism wanted to keep people dumb, it wouldn't have had schools to begin with. In addition, your source says it was religious schools, which means, counter to your previous claims, they were also teaching the bible.

Chuckt said:
Also, Latin was the Bible Language, until the mid-1950's. Most of the liturgy of the Church, and readings from Bible were done in Latin only.
Few people could read their Bibles, and often they could not understand what was being said in church, they took it "on faith".
The Pope of Rome, ruled all of Christiandom.

After the "Reformation", the Bible was translated into local languages, and then the local common people needed an education to read it.
Protestantism taught that each man or woman could get salvation directly through either faith, or good works, or both. They didn't need the clergy as "intermediaries".

Each local denomination ruled it's own church, made up its own rules, rather than take directions from Rome.

This lead to many problems. But it gave a great boost to modern education, because now schools were more independent from Rome too, and each local area decided what to teach in their schools.

Still, for a long time, most schools had religious instruction, and were supported by church funding. Not until after the American Revolution, did people start talking about separation of church an state.

Public schools were opened, that were supported by local property taxes, or the selling of state land. That really changed education, as then professionals, and secularism replaced "bible" based teachings.

What some people think started in the 20th century, secularism, actually started with te Protestant Reformation, and the allowance for "free thinkers" rather than those who had to accept domination of chuch dogma.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080914065619AAxtIHO
Click to expand...

I don't know what credentials the person posting this on Yahoo Answers has, but at any rate...

Protestants can't take credit for the changes in education, but the printing press can. Before that everything had to be printed by hand. The printing press was made by a Catholic whom first printed Catholic bibles as well as Papal letters and Latin grammar schoolbooks. The Church didn't disapprove of people reading scripture for themselves. If that were the case then Bishops Cyril and Methodius would not have created an alphabet for the Slavic people they were ministering to back in the 9th century. What the Church disapproves of is people interpreting scripture erroneously without Tradition to back it up as well as crappy translations (hence why it stayed in Latin for so long). By way of example, the King James version translates a word as unicorns (yeah, *unicorns*) because the translator didn't know what the original Hebrew word meant, and that's just the surface.

I wouldn't think Protestants would take credit for separation of church and state, as the founding Fathers were challenging institutionalized religion which also included Protestantism (like what the Massachusetts colony held dear), but if you want to make the claim as being responsible for secularism, then by all means go right ahead and take credit. Atheists will thank you in as much as they despise you. In fact, I will thank you because the last thing I would want is to be ruled by someone like yourself; ironically, Protestantism has saved me from Protestantism. :smile:


I hope you and yours enjoy your Christmas with all the (t)raditions that come along with it as you celebrate it on the date given to you by (T)radition. :huggy:
 
littlelady

littlelady

God bless the USA
Chuckt said:
I predict your discussion would get locked because it would grow too hot for the board.
Click to expand...

:lol: You are kidding, right? Or do you have a sense of humor after all? Oh wait. You are too blinded. Never mind.

You haven't been here long enough to know how funny your post is to me. All I can do is shake head. You are grasping at straws now, and I feel bad for you. As strange as that sounds. You need to chill. Just looking out for you.
 
Last edited:
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Midnightrider said:
no, i look at the evidence and decide which one came first. There are plenty of archeological records that predate christianity and include the virgin birth, the three wise men and the giving of gifts were part of their theology. I dont have a dog in the fight so i dont need to try to find a story that fits my preconceived notions.

As for christimas being a christian holiday, i agree compelety. No matter how we got to where we are, this is how christians celebrate christmas.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight…

Archeology that predates Christianity = valid proof that something happened
Archeology that substantiates biblical events = not proof that something happened

You do realize this is finding a story that fits your preconceived notions?
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
Let me get this straight…

Archeology that predates Christianity = valid proof that something happened
Archeology that substantiates biblical events = not proof that something happened

You do realize this is finding a story that fits your preconceived notions?
Click to expand...
There is no doubt archeology supports some events in the bible.
I'll get back to this next week. Merry Christmas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top