Should Non-Christians celebrate Christmas?

[tiny_dancer33]

Didn't read the rest of the argument, just responding to the original question.

My $.02: why not? Non-Catholics and non-Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day, non-blacks observe Martin Luther King Day, people who don't support all the Presidents observe Presidents' Day, people without servicemen and servicewomen in their families celebrate Veterans Day and Memorial Day, and non-pagans and non-Celtics celebrate Halloween/Samhain. What's the harm? Traditions and rituals are just as important as beliefs and can be commemorative signs of respect. Heck, traditions and rituals are how beliefs get passed down through generations, regardless of what dogma the participants follow. How do you think the basic traditions of Samhain have lasted for centuries despite the Gaels dying out ages ago? It's also how beliefs evolve - like the Christmas tree, once a symbol of Thor's strength and now used in the Christmas season to bring the pagan Germanic peoples to Christianity.

So that was more like $.05. But oh well. Basically my point is, sure, what's the harm? It might actually be beneficial for the season's perpetuation, from a cynical view. If only people who kept and observed all tenets of a holiday were allowed to celebrate it, we'd have a lot of empty quiet months.

 

[mAlice]

But, that conflicts with her statement of:If everyone is the ONLY one responsible for their life, then you are not responsible for others' lives.

You are intentionally being obtuse.

Obviously, I am responsible, to some degree, for the lives of others.

 

[itsbob]

I guess nobody can say for certain that there is any fact or fiction in any fairy tale they read. Jesus? Santa? Zeus? Big Foot? Is there proof any of them exist? Proof that any of them didn't exist? How about Joseph Smith? Is there any proof that his book of Mormon is false?

Using their logic, Joseph Smith existed, therefore the Book of Mormon MUST be true!

 

[mAlice]

Sorry, :shrug: I could only go by what you said.

So, is the only conflict, then, the forgiveness thing? Or, what was it about being human that you saw conflicted?

Conflict? Are we even in the same universe?

 

[itsbob]

You have a difficult time understanding the difference between proving something true, and proving something NOT true, don't you?

Just because some people believe the Book of Mormon does not make it truth, any more than some people NOT believing in the Book of Mormon makes it "fictional".

So, the flawed logic would be yours, and no one else's (except those that agree with your flawed logic).

Show me the flawed logic?

I give to you:

Bushes don't talk, nor does any other vegetation.. They don't now, they never have, they never will.. Fiction.

Rocks don't talk, They don't now, they never have, they never will.. Fiction.

People don't live to be more than 600 years old.. never have.. blah, blah, blah.. FICTION.

People don't rise from the dead.. never have... never will.. FICTION..

The Earth is not 6000 years old.. FICTION..

Which part of my logic is flawed?

 

[mAlice]

Show me the flawed logic?

I give to you:

Bushes don't talk, nor does any other vegetation.. They don't now, they never have, they never will.. Fiction.

Rocks don't talk, They don't now, they never have, they never will.. Fiction.

People don't live to be more than 600 years old.. never have.. blah, blah, blah.. FICTION.

People don't rise from the dead.. never have... never will.. FICTION..

The Earth is not 6000 years old.. FICTION..

Which part of my logic is flawed?

I give up. I don't think english is This Persons first lanquage.

 

[itsbob]

So, because you've never seen a perpetually burning bush that does not get consumed, and heard voices, it's impossible to have ever happened?

Since you used the term perpetual.. where is it that I can go see it??

And if you told me you talked to a burning bush I'd ask the state to have you comitted.

Same as if you me told your God spoke to you and told you to kill your son.. and you took him to the mountains to do said act..

You have the right to believe what you want, and give your money to who or what you want, but in the end this is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. It's a legal form of organized crime and they can do it all tax free!! They can steal in the name of religion, kill in the name of religion.. "tax" you to death in the name of religion, all on a promise of 70 virgi.. oh wait, wrong religion.. reincarnation to a supreme be.. oops wrong one again.. pleasing and living in eternity with the Volcano Go.. dangit, I'll get it yet.. Apollo and Zeus will smile upon you and award you with riches never imagin.. wrong again.. but I'm getting close..

Good thing we converted all those savages around the world and convinced (nice word for kill, maim and torture) them to give up their fictional Gods and dieties, and replaced them with our fictional God and Dieties..

 

[Beta84]

But, that conflicts with her statement of:If everyone is the ONLY one responsible for their life, then you are not responsible for others' lives.

You're either trying your best to disagree just because you can, or you're seriously not understanding what we're talking about. Just because you're responsible for your life and your actions doesn't mean that you can't feel guilt if your actions cause harm to others and do your best to not harm people. We're all responsible for our own life and our own actions, religious beliefs or not. That's what she said. You even quoted it.

So what's your argument? That if someone else shoots you in the head then her statement is wrong because then someone else became responsible for your life, and ended it? C'mon. You're making all of your other discussion look that much weaker because of your failure to grasp what we're saying here.

Using their logic, Joseph Smith existed, therefore the Book of Mormon MUST be true!

Depends on whose logic. I think This_Person is reasonable enough...he's saying that he believes it to be true based on faith, but he can't say it is absolute fact either. Then you have some of the zealots like Italian Stallion or whatever that say it is absolute truth and that there is "proof" it's true, just as there is "proof" that the book of Mormon is false. It's those people who I think are full of crap.

I can understand people having faith and believing in certain things, but the likelihood of it being true is probably minimal.

Show me the flawed logic?

I give to you:

Bushes don't talk, nor does any other vegetation.. They don't now, they never have, they never will.. Fiction.

Rocks don't talk, They don't now, they never have, they never will.. Fiction.

People don't live to be more than 600 years old.. never have.. blah, blah, blah.. FICTION.

People don't rise from the dead.. never have... never will.. FICTION..

The Earth is not 6000 years old.. FICTION..

Which part of my logic is flawed?

Dude, I'm sorry but there was definitely a burning bush that spoke to Moes.

The rock didn't speak, it was just supposed to produce water I think.

As far as the years and dates and all of that stuff, I think it's all out of whack. We know the earth is older than what has been said. Even if you argue that mankind was only around for the 6000 years of the bible, you'd still be wrong. The ages presented from the old testament are inaccurate, just as the days of creation are inaccurately timed too. I think years were calculated differently, the days were just standing for periods of time and not actual days, and time wasn't an accurate factor for large portions of those books.

 

[MrEvo]

Wait????

So, Santa ISNT real?

 

[Beta84]

No, my argument is that we are somewhat responsible for each other. Guilt is not the same as taking actively responsibility, and saying you are only responsible for your own life (implying that is true for others as well, and thus implying that you hold no responsibility for how your actions effect someone else's life) is not a good statement.

My original point was that being responsible for your actions, what she claimed was her truth, is exactly the same in Christianity. We are responsible for our actions, and the consequences good and bad that come from those actions/thoughts/deeds. That there is no conflict there.

I think the problem with a bunch of the arguments you've been having with people in this thread is that you are arguing based on your opinions, beliefs, and observations...while others are arguing against your religion as a collective unit. Let me give examples...

First, your belief that we are responsible for our own actions and all that. She might align with you there to some degree, but there are other Christians who believe a variety of other stuff. I've seen some say that we aren't responsible for anything because powers from above are the ones responsible and we're just tools that Jesus uses as he pleases...so if we cheated on our wives or killed our brothers out of anger, it was all part of a larger plan that was supposed to happen. I've seen others say that as long as you feel bad and confess your sins then it doesn't really matter what you do because you'll be forgiven anyway. I've seen people absolved from sin on death row because they "found religion" or some bullcrap like that. I don't see how any priest or religious figure could forgive them of their sins but then condemn non-believers to hell simply because they don't believe in an almighty power that doesn't straight up show a presence and expects you to simply 'have faith'. That right there is what we call a scare tactic used by Christianity to convert people and nothing more. But now I'm off topic...

Another thing I noticed was the discussion about how Christmas is handled. I think you were saying that you don't force it on others, you're OK with anyone celebrating, etc. Then others said people push it on them and it can get pretty intense being a non-Christian during the holiday season, but then you disagreed and said that didn't happen. Yet again, just because you are one way doesn't mean that there isn't another group of people that won't do that. There are a bunch of people who can't seem to comprehend why someone would be a different religion and try to force the holiday on others.

There are different versions of each religion. People aren't always necessarily arguing with your version. You can both be right at the same time.



And Evo...Santa IS real. Don't worry.

 

[itsbob]

The location is spelled out as clearly for you as it is for me in the Bible.

That's neither here nor there, though. Just because you haven't seen it, does it make it impossible to have happened? That is the question.

No, that is how the question is put to people that question their faith, and they scratch their heads, and say.. "Yeah, that makes sense!"

They seem to have an answer to everything.. and they use instances of things you believe without seeing them as proof their fiction is truth without seeing it or proof that it exists or happened. Doesn't wash with me.

That's like saying, "My Dog got hit by a car last week-end and died, but since I'm the Son of God I laid my hands upon him and returned him to the living."

You don't believe me? Do you believe there is a Flu viruse? Or infections caused by bacteria? Can you actually look at my hand and see the germs or the virus, or bacteria? NO? But they exist!! See, then what I'm telling you has to be true!! (and you can substitute any of the other of MILLIONS of facts and truths you can't see).

 

[itsbob]

The rock didn't speak, it was just supposed to produce water I think.

The Rocks pertain to the Book of Mormon. Two Rocks were used by Joseph Smith and his assistant, Umin and Thurmin I think were the rocks names, to translate the golden tablets.. Non-mormon Christians think this is ludicrous, and how do you expect ANYone to believe such nonsense TALKING ROCKS??.. But they have no issues believing the bible stories and bushes talking. Slightly hypocritical.

 

[Beta84]

you laugh, but that whole heaven/hell bit and the apocalypse and that last book were written when the Vatican was using scare tactics and trying to make everyone fear not being Christian. Look into your history. It's not a coincidence that those beliefs happened to emerge in that time period. I'm not debunking your entire religion, but I'd argue that part and it'd be much easier to be correct.

Oh wait, they just realized these things during that era and it was coincidental. My mistake.

 

[itsbob]

You're arguing backwards. YOU made a claim that Jesus, as Son of God, is fictional. To prove it, you rely on your belief that He is not, and your questions about the validity of other portions of the Bible, as your "facts", your "proof".

I never said Jesus is fictional.. He existed, he was a man.. the stories made up about him 400 years later are fictional, though based on some factual records. You want to see a similar form of writing? Read Stephen King.. he's the master of this type of fiction, second only to those that wrote the Bible.

Apparently it's an astounding work as it has captured millions of people just like you..

 

[Beta84]

You're arguing backwards. YOU made a claim that Jesus, as Son of God, is fictional. To prove it, you rely on your belief that He is not, and your questions about the validity of other portions of the Bible, as your "facts", your "proof".

I am not claiming there is proof of any of the things you stated. YOU made the claim that Jesus's role as Savior is fictional. You make the claim, you must back it up with proof.

When you have none, it reverts to "faith". You have faith the He is not, I have faith that He is. Neither of us can prove it. One person saying they can't prove the bacteria on the hand is no better than the other using it as proof - it's not proof of God's existence nor proof of lack of existence. It's a meaningless argument.

YOU made the claim that Jesus, as Son of God, as Savior, is fictional. All I'm trying to get you to admit to is that your opinion is just that, opinion. You BELIEVE He is fictional in that role, it's not actually fiction.

Faith...the concept that anyone can prove anything is real if someone believes in it. His argument is logic. He's arguing two things. 1st, that there is absolutely no proof that Jesus was divine. 2nd, that if the religion saying Jesus is divine has a bunch of other inaccuracies, then maybe the entire religion is inaccurate and full of it.

If I said there are invisible big pink fluffy dragons flying around, or if I said that there is a planet called Pandora that's just like in the movie Avatar, or that Shrek's fairy tale land and Far Far Away exist, could you prove me wrong? No. But if I made that claim, you'd probably call me a lunatic, right? What if I then said there was a guy who turned water to wine, walked on water, and resurrected himself after dying. You'd probably call me a lunatic then, too. Heck, even if Jesus was reborn and did the same thing, but there was no video evidence of it, you'd probably think that someone was full of crap. Yet you believe in Jesus's divinity because your parents did and because a book tells you to? Explain that.

 

[Beta84]

My parents are fair-weather believers at best, and I knew of God's existence in my heart before I knew of the book or read it.

If you made those claims, I would try and introduce you to the author of Avatar, or Shrek, and let them explain to you that they made it up. If you continued to believe after knowing that, I would not say it was fictional, I would simply disagree and choose not to believe.

He made the claim Jesus, as Son of God and Savior, is fictional. That is his believe, but that does not make his belief any more true than it makes my belief true simply because I believe it.

I apologize for using things that are recent, lets try this again.

You're telling me that you met the authors of the Bible and they have in fact confirmed that it's truth? Maybe itsbob would like to introduce you to the authors of the Bible so they could explain it to you as well. Oh wait, they're dead? It must be true! Just like Homer's Odyssey is true, along with the other Greek, Roman, and Norse legends. It's all true if they're dead!

 

[itsbob]

You make the claim, you must back it up with proof.

No I don't!

 

[Beta84]

Nope, not confirmed as truth. That's why I claim it as something I know, something I believe, something that I have faith in.

If I were to be so arrogant as to say it was fictional, I would provide my proof. Otherwise, I would simply disagree, and believe it to be false - not claim it was fictional.

the burden of proof lies with those that claim something to be true, not those that claim it to be false, just like with virtually everything else in this world.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

To anyone else, it would seem you were calling Jesus, as something other than just a man, fictional. What fictional character were you referring to in this Christmas thread?

I believe the point SEVERAL people have been trying to make that you don't seem able to wrap your head around is that there is as much proof that Jesus was the son of god as there is that the witches and wizards in Harry Potter are real, or that the vampires in the Twilight series are real. You really can't state that his status as the son of god is non-fictional because the only "proof" you have is a book written hundreds of years after his death, during a time when it was neither uncommon, nor unlawful to be on several different types of mind-altering drugs.

Science has established that a bush, or anything else, can not burn perpetually. It's not possible. In order to have fire, you have to have something to burn in order for that fire to continue. A bush is a living thing, and at that point in time it's safe to say we did not have the means to create perpetually burning fire(though even if we did, that would establish that this wasn't an act of God, but an act of man, therefore making the entire thing moot). No bush in the world, even when we bump up it's growth rate through chemicals, can produce enough material to continue a perpetually burning fire, especially not one large enough that it would have consumed an entire bush growing in the wild. So yeah, we have proof that that kind of thing is fictional. We can't even begin to get the pieces that are required to keep the fire going in place, we're certainly not going to be able to create the perpetually burning bush.

As for the voices coming from said bush... There's a word for that. It's called schizophrenia. Now.. if you want to say that schizophrenia is an act of God, I want you to contact every mental hospital in the entire world and tell them to set free those who have murdered, raped, stolen, etc, because it was the will of God. Because obviously, we can't prove it wasn't God, so we should just go along with it on the off chance that it was, right? That's pretty much what you're saying if you're saying that we should just automatically believe what the book says to be real even though we know, based on scientific research, that it's impossible.

People living to be 600 years old... Really? You WANT me to argue this? OK, fine. We've found remains of those modern-day humans(as well as those during the time when the bible was written) are descendant from. Based on analysis of bones, teeth, etc, we've established they lived VERY short lives, especially in comparison with how long people live today. If you believe that, you might as well believe in Rip Van Winkle, because that's just as scientifically impossible.

People coming back from the dead:I'll give you one thing. It was clever that you argued that people "come back from the dead" regularly now. HOWEVER... if I remember correctly, it took Jesus three days to supposedly return from the dead. I don't think there's EVER been a case where someone who was actually dead and didn't simply APPEAR to be dead got up and walked away after three days of their heart stopping. When your heart stops, which is what it takes for you to actually be DEAD and not simply comatose, your brain ceases to receive the proper oxygen it needs to continue living. Usually, it looses all the oxygen it needs within 20 minutes or less. So, can we safely say that someone isn't going to raise from the dead three days after his heart stopped and walk away? Yeah, I'd say science has proven this one impossible and fictional as well.

Now... as for the rock talking... I believe we've already covered that IF the book says the rock talked, we can safely call that schizophrenia of the person who heard said voice. If what Beta said was true and the rock produced water, the only way we could explain this would be condensation, or an underground, naturally occurring well with enough pressure to push water up through the rock's porous surface and cause it to collect and stay there once it's done so.

Now that I've provided science to prove that these things either could not have happened OR that when they "did" happen, simple science could be used to explain their occurrence, we notice that several of the major "acts of God" stated in the Bible are more or less fictional, and probably just stories written to help teach the people of the time, and those who came after, what they believed to be the "right" way to live. All that being said... it's a simple matter of Achem's razor. If all of those are untrue, there's a very high likelihood that the story that Jesus was the son of God is untrue as well.

Though after typing all of this up... it occurs to me that you might be one of those people who believes the "Intelligent Design Theory" should be taught in school. >.>

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Who claimed mankind created a perpetually burning bush?

Go back. Re-read. Better yet, I'll just put the quote here for you again and we'll see if you get it the second time around.

Science has established that a bush, or anything else, can not burn perpetually. It's not possible. In order to have fire, you have to have something to burn in order for that fire to continue. A bush is a living thing, and at that point in time it's safe to say we did not have the means to create perpetually burning fire(though even if we did, that would establish that this wasn't an act of God, but an act of man, therefore making the entire thing moot). No bush in the world, even when we bump up it's growth rate through chemicals, can produce enough material to continue a perpetually burning fire, especially not one large enough that it would have consumed an entire bush growing in the wild. So yeah, we have proof that that kind of thing is fictional. We can't even begin to get the pieces that are required to keep the fire going in place, we're certainly not going to be able to create the perpetually burning bush.

I never said we did. In fact, I said we didn't. We, at this point in time, can't. Bringing up that even if we did, was simply pointing out that if WE did it, it obviously wasn't an act of God, therefore the entire thing would be moot.