Should Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?

[Nucklesack]

That's why you're antiChristian. The Bible isn't there to fit your beliefs. It's there to shape them. If you choose "not to believe", it doesn't change the truth written in it.

This from the guy who cant explain, using scripture from the Old Testament (which outlines the Messiah), the basis for a Second Coming.

And admits to shaping the bible to fit his desire that Jesus' coming was fortold in an unrelated event 700 years prior.

Irony know thy name

You folks just keep proving the Bible true with every post like this one.
An example: The "proof" is the same proof that you'd find in any court case. The judge & jury didn't see the crime but they make a decision based on the evidence. The problem is that none of you want to acknowledge the evidence. I told you, we don't have a blind foolish faith. Some of us know how to accept valid evidence when we see it.
Where's the proof that George Washington lived? How about Abe Lincoln?

Your right they dont exist, they never did. There are no items they owned in exisitence, there are no works they created that can be researched, and there is no lineage that can be contradicted

I rest my case with this man!
(From the department of redundancy department): You shouldn't try to understand spiritual things when you're not spiritual.

Really? So it takes a spirtual person to understand that the Immaculate Conception is NOT the Virgin Birth?

Ok

"It's thought" but not correct, so keep trying.

Ok so i guess it doesnt take a spirtual person to understand it.

And there's NO original sin, so that kills that idea.

Really? Maybe according to your particular flavor of Christianity, but other flavors will dispute that, especially Catholics.

So much for "One Truth"

 

[Merlin99]

You folks just keep proving the Bible true with every post like this one.
An example: The "proof" is the same proof that you'd find in any court case. The judge & jury didn't see the crime but they make a decision based on the evidence. The problem is that none of you want to acknowledge the evidence. I told you, we don't have a blind foolish faith. Some of us know how to accept valid evidence when we see it.
Where's the proof that George Washington lived? How about Abe Lincoln?

The proof if it were taken to a court would be tossed out without a second thought. There is no chain of custody, so to speak. How long after the fact was the bible written? Was there an eyewitness? The only ones who say that any of it occured are the ones with a stake in having others believe it to be true.

The truth of the matter is, you've pressed the "I Believe" button and want it it taken as fact, whereas the more agnostic types want hard proof, a smoking gun if you will.

 

[foodcritic]

The proof if it were taken to a court would be tossed out without a second thought. There is no chain of custody, so to speak. How long after the fact was the bible written? Was there an eyewitness? The only ones who say that any of it occured are the ones with a stake in having others believe it to be true.

The truth of the matter is, you've pressed the "I Believe" button and want it it taken as fact, whereas the more agnostic types want hard proof, a smoking gun if you will.

What more proof do you want? Archeological, extra biblical, historical.....etc plenty of facts to support it. Just look.

 

[Merlin99]

What more proof do you want? Archeological, extra biblical, historical.....etc plenty of facts to support it. Just look.

How about something tangible? Scientific proof of Noah and the flood, a pillar of salt with human organs, you know things that you could show in court.

 

[itsbob]

What more proof do you want? Archeological, extra biblical, historical.....etc plenty of facts to support it. Just look.

That's easy to say if you ignore the Archeological, 'extra biblical' and historical evidence that prove it's not true.

If you pick and chose what facts to include and what facts to not include, it's easy to prove anything any way you want. But to honestly prove something is true or not, you MUST include ALL evidence whether it supports your argument or not.

Otherwise you just have an agenda and don't really care about the truth.

 

[hvp05]

(From the department of redundancy department)

That was funny, whether you meant it that way or not.

You shouldn't try to understand spiritual things when you're not spiritual.

More seriously, you seem to not understand the difference between being spiritual and religious. I'm an atheist but there are times when I feel spiritual. :shrug:

You definitely come across as if you feel you belong to a special club, and you want only certain others to be admitted. You claim to be a "true" Christian, but is that not one of the worst things a Christian can do?

But perhaps you like it that way, as you do seem to react impulsively and pompously often. (Not saying others, particularly the local non-believers don't, but the non-believers are not necessarily bound to being accepting of others either.) I have agreed with some of the stuff you have posted regarding patriotism and politics, but when it comes to this I think your reasoning and debate skills are sorely lacking. Take that as you will, even if that's by virtually yelling back; as you say, we'll all have to pay our dues someday.

 

[ItalianScallion]

This from the guy who cant understand, using scripture from the Old Testament (which outlines the Messiah), the basis for a Second Coming.

:fixed:

And admits to shaping the bible to fit his desire that Jesus' coming was fortold in an unrelated event 700 years prior.

See the siggy line in mAlice's post...

Really? So it takes a spirtual person to understand that the Immaculate Conception is NOT the Virgin Birth?

Apparently YOU don't. :shrug:

Really? Maybe according to your particular flavor of Christianity, but other flavors will dispute that, especially Catholics. So much for "One Truth"

There are no "flavors of Christianity", just some confused denominations. I'll give you that one but it doesn't change THE one truth.

 

[itsbob]

I'll give you that one but it doesn't change THE one truth.

Buddhism??

It's been around a LOT longer.. so it MUST be the right one.

 

[ItalianScallion]

The proof if it were taken to a court would be tossed out without a second thought. There is no chain of custody, so to speak. How long after the fact was the bible written? Was there an eyewitness? The only ones who say that any of it occured are the ones with a stake in having others believe it to be true.
The truth of the matter is, you've pressed the "I Believe" button and want it it taken as fact, whereas the more agnostic types want hard proof, a smoking gun if you will.
How about something tangible? Scientific proof of Noah and the flood, a pillar of salt with human organs, you know things that you could show in court.

In a human court it might be tossed out but that's because they're mostly liberals & atheists judges there.
You'll believe most history books (with your version of faith) but you won't believe the longest surviving one?
Tangible? How about the entire creation? You, me, the sun, moon, stars, trees, mountains, dirt, animals? Need more? Ok, Noah's ark was located RIGHT where the Bible said it landed. Need more?

That was funny, whether you meant it that way or not.
More seriously, you seem to not understand the difference between being spiritual and religious. I'm an atheist but there are times when I feel spiritual. :shrug:
You definitely come across as if you feel you belong to a special club, and you want only certain others to be admitted. You claim to be a "true" Christian, but is that not one of the worst things a Christian can do?
But perhaps you like it that way, as you do seem to react impulsively and pompously often. (Not saying others, particularly the local non-believers don't, but the non-believers are not necessarily bound to being accepting of others either.) I have agreed with some of the stuff you have posted regarding patriotism and politics, but when it comes to this I think your reasoning and debate skills are sorely lacking. Take that as you will, even if that's by virtually yelling back; as you say, we'll all have to pay our dues someday.

Et tu Brute'?
It was intentional btw. I don't mince words. When I say spiritual or religious, I mean it in the sense of a believe in Jesus Christ. I know there's other "spiritual" types but they're not what I'm referring to.
I DO belong to a special club and I'd like everyone to join, not just "certain others".
And no, it isn't wrong to say I'm a true Christian. A Christian must be a true one or he is not one. This is the "lukewarm" folks that are mentioned in Revelation 3v16. There's no "riding the fence" with God. Either you are, or you aren't.
My reasoning and debate skills are very well honed. I was very nice and patient in the beginning but then people like Xaquin, Nucklesack, etc., came along with their name calling and any man can only take soo much. The problem is that I'm trying to reach people dead set against what I'm saying. The devil is screaming in their ears NOT to listen to me & the others. Christians know something that many people will not believe until they "cross over". Too much human tradition and human error has caused the denominational explosion that we see today. This is really bad because it has caused many to be misled away from the one truth. Like it or not; there's only one Jesus and they killed Him because of His narrowmindedness. The very same one myself and others display here. Yes, I said narrowmindedness. When there's only ONE WAY into Heaven and to God, of course it looks narrowminded.
To wrap this all up for you, it wouldn't matter how nice we are to the folks on here. They'd still hate us because we speak against what they are doing and what they believe, and they don't like that.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Buddhism??

It's been around a LOT longer.. so it MUST be the right one.

I don't know why people keep saying that but it's not true. Since there's only one true God and He created everything out of nothing in the very beginning, there's nothing older or that came before Him.
If you say Christianity started with Jesus you'd still be wrong because of the above reason. The name "Christian" came about in Jesus' time but the only difference is that they called Him the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob in the beginning. Same God though...

 

[hvp05]

I DO belong to a special club and I'd like everyone to join, not just "certain others".
And no, it isn't wrong to say I'm a true Christian. A Christian must be a true one or he is not one.

But you do not give that impression much of the time. You seem condescending and arrogant. That is not only unbecoming of you, but the beliefs you are attempting to convince others to follow.

My reasoning and debate skills are very well honed.

I have seen many, many people debate, and about religion specifically. Of the many who do it, only a few are genuinely effective, and I'm speaking of those across the spectrum. You are not one of those people. But you will continue as you see fit, and I wish you luck in whatever 'mission' you think you have.

I was very nice and patient in the beginning but then people like Xaquin, Nucklesack, etc., came along with their name calling and any man can only take soo much.

So let them get nasty and make spectacles of themselves. Why give it back? Not saying you can not/should not respond, but the silly insults are pointless. I mean, if you're so on the edge, would it not be better to just leave it alone and engage a more reasonable debate elsewhere?

it wouldn't matter how nice we are to the folks on here. They'd still hate us because we speak against what they are doing and what they believe, and they don't like that.

Hate? Really? I don't hate you. If I don't want to think about this stuff I don't come in here or read the posts. I couldn't hate someone for expressing themself, as long as they are reasonable in their approach. :shrug:

 

[ItalianScallion]

But you do not give that impression much of the time. You seem condescending and arrogant. That is not only unbecoming of you, but the beliefs you are attempting to convince others to follow.
I have seen many, many people debate, and about religion specifically. Of the many who do it, only a few are genuinely effective, and I'm speaking of those across the spectrum. You are not one of those people. But you will continue as you see fit, and I wish you luck in whatever 'mission' you think you have.

Well, if having more Bible knowledge and being bold about speaking it here seems "C & A" to you, then that's your perspective on it. What can I say? I will not be labled as a whimpy Bible thumper. My demeanor kinda changes depending on the people I'm speaking to. I really have a funny, mild mannered demeanor most of the time until someone does something to change it but I CAN go right back to "Clark Kent" in an instant. I don't hold grudges.

So let them get nasty and make spectacles of themselves. Why give it back? Not saying you can not/should not respond, but the silly insults are pointless. I mean, if you're so on the edge, would it not be better to just leave it alone and engage a more reasonable debate elsewhere?

If I kept my cool (and I have many times) I'd be ridiculed for that too. It feels good to give it back sometimes... This will show them that I'm human...
And I'd rather call it a "passionate discussion" instead of anger because I really do not get angry (like I used to). I'm allowed. I just can't sin when I get angry though...Besides, it's hard to tell a person's true intent on here sometimes. They can be using lots of these !!!! and really not be angry.

Hate? Really? I don't hate you. If I don't want to think about this stuff I don't come in here or read the posts. I couldn't hate someone for expressing themself, as long as they are reasonable in their approach. :shrug:

That shows that you have class. You've always kept a level head in here but then you haven't gotten into the trenches as much as I have about religious issues here.

 

[Merlin99]

In a human court it might be tossed out but that's because they're mostly liberals & atheists judges there.
You'll believe most history books (with your version of faith) but you won't believe the longest surviving one?
Tangible? How about the entire creation? You, me, the sun, moon, stars, trees, mountains, dirt, animals? Need more? Ok, Noah's ark was located RIGHT where the Bible said it landed. Need more?

We live in the human world, which world do you live in? I'll believe history books that provide proof, not each and every one does. The bible is the longest surviving book? Which version?

God created the sun, moon, and stars? who created him? Somebody here has the sig line First there was nothing and then something exploded, couldn't the same be said for God, first there was nothing then there was God. The Bible says that the ark came to ground on Mt. Ararat, after numerous visits the only photos of it were the ones printed in the weekly world news, these were in the same issue with the bat boy, can you point to any credible sources.

 

[Merlin99]

Good question. Does not knowing the answer mean the answer doesn't exist? Maybe. Are you suggesting that belief in the Bible is equally explainable as belief in the Big Bang theory? No I'm not, with the Big Bang theory there is at least some proof (expansion of the universe from a single point) With the bible I've yet to see proof. I would agree - no positive proof nor repeatable test, just inference from the data given.A thousands of years old wooden structure? What photos do we have of other abandoned wooden structures that are thousands of years old?I'm not the one who used it as proof, ask IS what the proof is that it's there.

....

 

[vraiblonde]

Don't think that's correct

It is correct. The Immaculate Conception celebrates the birth of Mary without original sin. The Catholics decided that since Jesus was born without OS, Mary must have been as well.

Carry on.

 

[Merlin99]

There's a lot more proof than just that of the Big Bang. But, again, that's not proof per se, it's simply inference from the data shown.

The exact same inference is available of "proof" of a supreme being. That the Supreme Being would be the specific Christian God doesn't exist, but the same amount of testable, repeatable, convincing evidence exists of a god as of macro evolution or the big bang - inference and faith in a theory.

That's the proof that I want to see, something tangible, testable, not something that requires you to have faith before you can accept it as proof.

 

[thatguy]

That's why you're antiChristian. The Bible isn't there to fit your beliefs. It's there to shape them. If you choose "not to believe", it doesn't change the truth written in it..

no, this is why you are a christian in name only. You feel you have the only reading of the bible that is "true" , and when confronted with the fact that you cannot back up your position of judgement through verse you quickly attack the pther poster.
The bible isn't there to be used as your weapon to denegrate other people.

 

[ItalianScallion]

We live in the human world, which world do you live in? I'll believe history books that provide proof, not each and every one does. The bible is the longest surviving book? Which version?
God created the sun, moon, and stars? who created him? Somebody here has the sig line First there was nothing and then something exploded, couldn't the same be said for God, first there was nothing then there was God. The Bible says that the ark came to ground on Mt. Ararat, after numerous visits the only photos of it were the ones printed in the weekly world news, these were in the same issue with the bat boy, can you point to any credible sources.

Version is irrelevant but I'd better restate my point. The 5 books that Moses wrote have been around longer than any other since they were written shortly after the creation. I meant to say that the Bible has been the most printed book of all times; More copies than any other book.
And God is eternal; no one created Him.
I gave you ample proof; you chose to ignore it.

no, this is why you are a christian in name only. You feel you have the only reading of the bible that is "true" , and when confronted with the fact that you cannot back up your position of judgement through verse you quickly attack the pther poster.
The bible isn't there to be used as your weapon to denegrate other people.

I did back it up. You're just not able to understand it. See mAlice's siggy line...

 

[Merlin99]

Version is irrelevant but I'd better restate my point. The 5 books that Moses wrote have been around longer than any other since they were written shortly after the creation. I meant to say that the Bible has been the most printed book of all times; More copies than any other book.
And God is eternal; no one created Him.
I gave you ample proof; you chose to ignore it.

I did back it up. You're just not able to understand it. See mAlice's siggy line...

If you want to believe that's proof go for it, as for me I tend to think you're delusional.

 

[ItalianScallion]

If you want to believe that's proof go for it, as for me I tend to think you're delusional.

Prove it!