Happy Holidays

[Kizyr]

Does it fluctuate like Easter does? I thought I remember it being celebrated in November a few years back.

No, it's on the lunar calendar, not solar. It shifts back about 11-12 days each year. Easter only fluctuates to be on a Sunday. Hanukkah and all other Jewish holidays fluctuate, but the Jewish calendar has an adjustment every few years to re-synchronize with the solar calendar. KF

[meg]

you know--christmas is a cultural thing, not just a religious holiday now. if it were purely religious, there'd be no santa in the first place, and the whole country wouldn't shut down for it. it would also be celebrated in spring/summer--i can't recall the date the scholars say christ was actually born around.

the current status of christmas is largely political and commercial and cultural. christians can celebrate it however they choose. but i think if they want to put "christ in christmas" they need to scrap its current special treatment. their kids need to have to bring a special slip to school to excuse them for their religious holidays, just like all the kids of other religions do.

this "war on christmas" and "put christ in christmas" stuff is political nonsense.

[Alunissage]

you know--christmas is a cultural thing, not just a religious holiday now. if it were purely religious, there'd be no santa in the first place, and the whole country wouldn't shut down for it. it would also be celebrated in spring/summer--i can't recall the date the scholars say christ was actually born around.

Fall, actually. Octoberish.

[GhaleonOne]

It's most likely on Yom Kippur, but there are actually a few good arguments for why Jesus may have been born around the December 25th date as well.

[lutomboy]

Ok so I am late on happy X-Mass but happy New Year everyone

[Angelalex242]

According to Catholic Doctrine, December 25th is the right date by default.

Catholics have an 'infallibility' doctrine concerning faith and morals. That is, when the Pope teaches something about faith or morals, God prevents him from screwing up. This only applies to matters of faith...the pope can't tell you the winning lotto numbers or who'll win the superbowl. Just faith stuff.

Christ's birthday would count as a matter of faith and morals. As the date of Christmas was decided before Protestants existed (and even before the Anglican Church existed), none of the other denominations had a chance to weigh in on the matter. It was decided in the Vatican, and that was that.

Anyways, it's surprising what you can find on Google...

[lutomboy]

Dose it really mater what day it falls on it’s the meaning that counts, one day we all (should) just get along and have peace with ourselves and others

[Shinji]

Happy New Year, everyone.

[meg]

According to Catholic Doctrine, December 25th is the right date by default.

Catholics have an 'infallibility' doctrine concerning faith and morals. That is, when the Pope teaches something about faith or morals, God prevents him from screwing up. This only applies to matters of faith...the pope can't tell you the winning lotto numbers or who'll win the superbowl. Just faith stuff.

Christ's birthday would count as a matter of faith and morals.

i'm familiar with their doctrine on always being right. i actually really like catholicism, but, historically speaking, they (and we christians in generally) have been a bit bastardly regarding how we spread our religion. and christmas is where it is because we wanted to usurp the pagan holidays that traditionally fell around this time. so, the vatican can say what they want about when christ's birthday was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice

of course, i can't begrudge the pope of the age that much. of all the old mythologies, i'm pretty sure that, for the father-figure god slot, odin was near the top of the list of "major jerks." i mean i'm pretty sure he's a bigger jerk than our satan. lucifer's known for being arrogant, and lying, and tempting people to do bad things. odin's known for sacrificing his own children to get a bit more power. i'm thinking that, holiday season aside, christianity probably did as well as it did in europe because in the norse religion, their most christ-like figure had been murdered (by the OTHER jerk, loki), and the people weren't getting him back until after the leading jerk-gods destroyed the world in an epic war.

[Jenner]

Okay fine, I'll -Fatal Hopper- post A BIT.

And a belated Merry Die Natalis Solis Invicti to all, by the way. I hope you had no trouble finding white cows without blemish.

Jesus Was Born on June 17th

Kizyr and I had a lovely discussion a few weeks ago about how ridiculous I am being about this. When a religion gets popular and (often) warlike and starts converting large quantities of population that religion will often adopt and alter popular rituals, holidays, and festivals of the previous religion to fit into the new religion's overall doctrine. (Sometimes they even borrow historical/religious figures as well, but that's another debate all together) Sometimes the alterations are laughably silly, from Greek to Roman pantheon for example, other times it's much more complicated. Regardless, winter celebrations have had a long and glorious history throughout innumerable cultures. and Christmas is only one of many of said celebrations. Most of these festivities arguably exist solely because, at this time of year, it's so lamentably cold and grim you can either throw a party or slit your wrists. Most people know all about Winter solstice, Yule, Kwanza, Saturnalia and whatever else has sprung up lately. A lot of these celebrations conveniently fall up around the same dates/times because it's around the 19-30th of December that the cold weather gets noticeably more dark and dreary. Suffice to say, ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE PLAGIARISTS. Anyway, one religious holiday that fell exactly on December 25th could actually be the the true source as it involved a Christ Analog type figure. Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the Birth(day) of the Unconquered Sun gets it's foundation from a faith called Zoroastrianism. It follows the story of the Sun God, Mithras. Mithras's story in the vaguest sense shares common plot elements with Christ's story.

I'm done with the tl;dr, the point remains that all religions have their dirty, corrupt, evil, sickening and double-standard rubbish, but I know CERTAIN Christians (I know some of you are good out there) and, hopefully, certain Catholics as well (I have yet to meet one, that doesn't mean they don't exist--just like Unicorns!) try to distance themselves and set themselves apart from that shenanigans. They are not responsible for the actions of the asshats in their faith. REGARDLESS, while it's arguable that all religions have a history of war and killing, forced conversion, torture, rape, genocide and brainwashing no one, in my opinion, has done it quite like Christianity/Catholicism--they really know how to kick it up a notch.

I have yet to see Buddhism used as an excuse to limit ones fellow human beings to stations as second class citizens. I have yet to come across a tenant in Taoism that excludes certain people from the rights and accesses that the rest of the culture has. I have never seen a faith so gregariously treat members of THAT SAME FAITH as scum and pariahs quite like Christians and Catholics do to members of their religious community who think, and question and whom they disagree with. Or whom have "bad habits" (read: homosexuality) that the church disagrees with.

Once upon a time, Jenner bright-eyed, obedient, unquestioning faith filled balloon of Lutheran Brainwashing at its finest. Then the lovely preacher man decided to do a sermon on how Jesus died for everyone's sins and we're all imperfect and we will all sin and we must ask for forgiveness but GODDAMN THOSE HOMOSEXUALS BECAUSE THEY ARE GONNA BURN, BURN, BURN, PTOOEY! Young girl Jenner questioned said preacher about why homosexuals, who are people just like you and me, and created in God's image, are denied the benefit of Jesus's sacrifice and God's love. The preacher, mortified, told her parents that she was an evil doubter who didn't understand and that she should just shut up and not ask questions AND JUST ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD COMING FROM HIS LIPS. Jenner was punished for seeking understanding. So, Jenner was no longer a Lutheran because she decided to -Fatal Hopper- that -Dung Beetle-, and told that hate-spewing bigoted, prejudice-sculpting faith of exclusion to go eat a dick and decided live a moralistic life unhindered by misinterpreted scripture and hypocrisy.

Perhaps Jenner was just in a bad congregation, and maybe she should search for other churches where she can find a Preacher who isn't a bigot. No, no thank you, I do not think I will.

No offense to all the good and decent people of faith out there and on these forums, but seriously, -Fatal Hopper- your church. Not you, just your church.

PROTIP: If you really want to but the 'Christ' back in Christmas than stop feeding into the bloody commercialism and consumerist -Dung Beetle-.

And this has been another hypocritical hate-spewed message brought to you by a bitter resentful heathen. Bah Humbug.

[Nobiyuki77]

*applaud*

Same here, I'm no longer Catholic because of this. I'm now agnostic.

[Kizyr]

Kizyr and I had a lovely discussion a few weeks ago about how ridiculous I am being about this.

...yeah, I can see that conversation didn't amount to very much.

When a religion gets popular and (often) warlike and starts converting large quantities of population that religion will often adopt and alter popular rituals, holidays, and festivals of the previous religion to fit into the new religion's overall doctrine. (Sometimes they even borrow historical/religious figures as well, but that's another debate all together)

You say this like it's a bad thing. The funny thing is that Christianity's most major boost in history was with its adoption by the Romans once Constantine became emperor. And, while Constantine wasn't really your model Christian, he wasn't any more or less bloody than your average Roman Emperor (excluding the horrendously bloody ones, like Nero or Caligula). Not to mention that Christianity was gradually becoming the predominant religion even before Constantine stepped up.

I'm done with the tl;dr, the point remains that all religions have their dirty, corrupt, evil, sickening and double-standard rubbish, but I know CERTAIN Christians (I know some of you are good out there) and, hopefully, certain Catholics as well (I have yet to meet one, that doesn't mean they don't exist--just like Unicorns!) try to distance themselves and set themselves apart from that shenanigans. They are not responsible for the actions of the asshats in their faith.

I'm still amused by how selective you are with this. You have a hard time finding Christians and Catholics who are good people, yet I have an easy time finding them--and, I've found far more good Catholics than bad ones.

Did it ever occur to you that you don't see someone as being Catholic until you find something wrong with them? Until then, when would their religion ever come up? Or perhaps, did it occur to you that what you're seeing is the result of something else entirely--like a lack of education, a lack of diverse friends (I mean diverse in opinion, not superficial diversity), etc.?

It's funny that you know people who are religious and you consider good people, yet, that hasn't modified your opinion at all. This is one of the reasons I never pretend to be a saint or a representative of my religion--because anyone with common sense doesn't need me to "prove" anything to them, and anyone who's going to be inherently biased isn't someone whose opinion I can (or care to) affect.

REGARDLESS, while it's arguable that all religions have a history of war and killing, forced conversion, torture, rape, genocide and brainwashing no one, in my opinion, has done it quite like Christianity/Catholicism--they really know how to kick it up a notch. ... I have yet to see Buddhism used as an excuse to limit ones fellow human beings to stations as second class citizens. I have yet to come across a tenant in Taoism that excludes certain people from the rights and accesses that the rest of the culture has. I have never seen a faith so gregariously treat members of THAT SAME FAITH as scum and pariahs quite like Christians and Catholics do to members of their religious community who think, and question and whom they disagree with. Or whom have "bad habits" (read: homosexuality) that the church disagrees with.

You've yet to see any of that because you're lousy with history (this is by your own admission). Nichiren Buddhism was an aspect of the ultra-nationalism in Japan that eventually was used to justify the slaughter and subjugation of Korea, China, and other countries prior to WW2. Taoism and Buddhism in general are also radically different than the way that many other religions operate, which is why you won't see the same actions ascribed to them: in both, there's no specific mention of divinity, and in Taoism, there isn't much of a moral code (which is why there's some debate as to whether it's a "religion" in the Western sense, or a philosophy--same holds true for Confucianism).

Seriously, if you find any major philosophy that talks about right and wrong, and which has enough adherents, there are going to be people who either use it to justify bad acts, or who do bad acts in spite of said philosophy.

No offense to all the good and decent people of faith out there and on these forums, but seriously, -Fatal Hopper- your church. Not you, just your church.

So... you had a bad experience when you were little, and thus you justify your short-sightedness now?

And how you can say a comment like that and expect people to take "no offense"? Criticism is one thing. But "-Fatal Hopper- it" isn't a criticism.

PROTIP: If you really want to but the 'Christ' back in Christmas than stop feeding into the bloody commercialism and consumerist -Dung Beetle-.

That's the point of it. KF

[Angelalex242]

I wonder if it ever occurred to Jenner that she's hating Christianity so much...that she's becoming herself the very bigot (Against Christianity) that caused her leave Christianity behind in the first place.

Funny how life works.

[Kizyr]

I wonder if it ever occurred to Jenner that she's hating Christianity so much...that she's becoming herself the very bigot (Against Christianity) that caused her leave Christianity behind in the first place.

Funny how life works.

No, Jenner definitely isn't. I know her well enough to know that much. That and I've argued against enough narrow-minded atheists to be able to distinguish between genuine bigotry or malice and a simple lack of understanding. KF

[GhaleonOne]

I'll back Kiz with this one. I'm not on AIM enough these days to have talked to Jenner much in recent years, but having been friends with her for quite some time, I think it's more chalked up to a bad experience with Christianity for Jenner.

[Sonic#]

You say this like it's a bad thing. The funny thing is that Christianity's most major boost in history was with its adoption by the Romans once Constantine became emperor. And, while Constantine wasn't really your model Christian, he wasn't any more or less bloody than your average Roman Emperor (excluding the horrendously bloody ones, like Nero or Caligula). Not to mention that Christianity was gradually becoming the predominant religion even before Constantine stepped up.

Yes. Religions techically commit plagiarism, in the sense that they adopt a standard that's already there. But as Kizyr says, it's not negative. They do that as a form of adaptation to what people want and need from their religion. Its goal doesn't need to be converting a populace (though it can be); Judaism isn't much of a religion people convert to, but they constantly had to reinterpret laws to fit contemporary circumstances, adopting standards from the society around them. For example, they built their first temple in Jerusalem based on a Phoenician tripartite design, because that was the sign of opulence. It's how religion becomes and remains relevant for its believers. So it's a positive mechanism for the religion (which perseveres) and people (who have something to believe in).

Yes, outspoken leaders and followers use religion as an excuse for their prejudices. Religion can be misused. But for every mainstream religion I can think of, most of the practitioners I know are decent people. Maybe not fantastic, but not horrible.

[Angelalex242]

I see, I was mistaken, then.

I apologize, Jenner.

[Jenner]

Kizyr and I had a lovely discussion a few weeks ago about how ridiculous I am being about this.

...yeah, I can see that conversation didn't amount to very much.

I never claimed it worked now did I.

When a religion gets popular and (often) warlike and starts converting large quantities of population that religion will often adopt and alter popular rituals, holidays, and festivals of the previous religion to fit into the new religion's overall doctrine. (Sometimes they even borrow historical/religious figures as well, but that's another debate all together)

You say this like it's a bad thing. The funny thing is that Christianity's most major boost in history was with its adoption by the Romans once Constantine became emperor. And, while Constantine wasn't really your model Christian, he wasn't any more or less bloody than your average Roman Emperor (excluding the horrendously bloody ones, like Nero or Caligula). Not to mention that Christianity was gradually becoming the predominant religion even before Constantine stepped up.

I've heard, what I would call "Bad Christians" claiming that a person can call themselves Christian but it doesn't make them one. It is arguable that Constantine and others like them saw the spread and popularity of Christianity growing. One of the primary reasons Christianity was growing was because it, at the time, was a faith that condemned the Romans and the Romans were not very popular at the time. Like, -Dragon Diamond-, if I made a religion that condemned George W. Bush tomorrow and testified and gospelized and did the whole shebang (Hell even a "Damn America" Religion would probably florish right now. It's probably a factor in the growth of extremist "islamic" (it gets the quotes and lower casing because it's not really Islam) factions who have made "damn America" their thing.) I'd have a pretty freaking popular religion wouldn't I? (Aside: Shoe-Thower Guy* would definitely be deified as a Saint.) Constantine's rule from 306-337 was pretty much the last "great" era of Roman History. And Constantine's embrace of Christianity can be seen as an attempt to garner support for a country whic was very quickly becoming extremely unpopular. Less than 50 years after the end of Constantine's reign paganism was outlawed by Emperor Theodosius, but within those scant five decades had shown that the Roman Empire was already in sharp decline, as a Roman army with vastly superior number was defeated by the Visigoths who had rebelled against Emperor Valen and killed him. Rebellion became rather popular after that and some historians believe it was the desperate embracing of Christianity and damning of alternate religions which slowed, but ultimately could not stop, the fall of the Roman Empire. Within 100 years of Constantine's death Attila was mopping the floor with the once mighty Roman army and Rome was regularly sacked by vandals and rebels. The Roman military could not even retaliate against the sackers, because by this point in time (466) Rome was made of Fail, it's great boarders had shrunken down to just a figment of their once great expanse, and by the end of the 4th century, Rome no longer really existed. Long story short, the Romans can call themselves Christian until they're blue in the face, it is arguable if they really were or meant it (just like any other person who espouses a faith) or if they were just using it as a tool. (just like any other person might.)

I'm done with the tl;dr, the point remains that all religions have their dirty, corrupt, evil, sickening and double-standard rubbish, but I know CERTAIN Christians (I know some of you are good out there) and, hopefully, certain Catholics as well (I have yet to meet one, that doesn't mean they don't exist--just like Unicorns!) try to distance themselves and set themselves apart from that shenanigans. They are not responsible for the actions of the asshats in their faith.

I'm still amused by how selective you are with this. You have a hard time finding Christians and Catholics who are good people, yet I have an easy time finding them--and, I've found far more good Catholics than bad ones.

You should introduce me to some of them. No one is perfect and we all have double-standards, but I've drawn the line, and maybe my line was laid down a little too close but, oh well, the fact remains that I've yet to met a Catholic that hasn't behaved like they were Gods Gift To Everything. Who made one statement damning of a sin then days later would do the same thing. But hey, they're not held accountable for that because they're Catholic and that other person wasn't so nyah. Catholics don't have to prove -Dragon Diamond- to me, Christians don't have to prove -Dragon Diamond- to me. In High School some worthless c-word was spreading false rumors about me, I was already hugely unpopular, and she was claiming I had done and believed I was all these things that I really wasn't and even claimed I was a racist and that I believed and espoused all these things I most definitely did not. Well, I eventually followed the -Dragon Diamond- trail to her and called her out on it. We had a lovely debate/argument where the shitstarter got thoroughly owned and her -Dragon Diamond- was thrown right back in her face. For about a week and a half after that people had a new respect for me, then went right back to ignoring me and pretending I didn't exist, which was much better than picking on me and giving me grief. Catholics and Christians, (especially Catholics, you have a pointy-hated mouthpiece spouting "infallible" -Dung Beetle-.) you have members/leaders of your faith saying crap that YOU know is wrong, spreading lies that YOU KNOW are not true and behaving in a manner that YOU KNOW is inappropriate. You are letting these people speak for you and sitting idly by. You are letting your faith of love and tolerance be used as a tool for hate, prejudice and separatism. SPEAK OUT. No, I am not high horsing, I DID SPEAK OUT. I've gone to congregations, I've called shenanigans on churches, I've had scripture wars with bigots, deacons and preachers alike. I was alone and while my voice was heard, I do not know if I, alone, changed anything about those people, their church-goers, or that church. I've never been contacted by someone who woke up after my diatribes. And here I thought a lone stone ---> ripples ---> waves. Perhaps it will take a million voices to shake the roofs. If you "Good Christians/Catholics" truly outnumber the asshats, than CALL THEM OUT take some -Fatal Hopper- responsibility for how your faith is being presented. I did, it changed nothing, and rather than be part of a faith that preaches hate and intolerance, I left it. I bet those preachers would listen the second the freaking collection plates stopped coming in.

Did it ever occur to you that you don't see someone as being Catholic until you find something wrong with them? Until then, when would their religion ever come up? Or perhaps, did it occur to you that what you're seeing is the result of something else entirely--like a lack of education, a lack of diverse friends (I mean diverse in opinion, not superficial diversity), etc.?

It did, but, while you and I do not agree on the extent and voracity of my judgment I've come to the belief, when I really investigated myself (because, contrary to popular belief, I am NOT happy having all this hate and do not like it in myself. But it has become a beast beyond my control right now. I have been trying to get it under reins) that I don't go looking for faults in a person I discover is Catholic. Since we are mortal and imperfect, those faults are already there. I ignore the minor faults and imperfections, and accept them. The human errors are not blown out of proportion because of the person's faith. It's the big hypocritical backwards double-standard asshattery that rings out false to me, and it is those faults that I disapprove of. And THEN I berate their bad Catholicness, as if they are separate entities (and perhaps they are, I am investigating into that.) Thus far these mega-faults and epic fails of said person are, not only in direct correlation to their -Dragon Diamond- Catholicness, but also emboldened by it.

It's funny that you know people who are religious and you consider good people, yet, that hasn't modified your opinion at all. This is one of the reasons I never pretend to be a saint or a representative of my religion--because anyone with common sense doesn't need me to "prove" anything to them, and anyone who's going to be inherently biased isn't someone whose opinion I can (or care to) affect.

You're wrong, it's altered my opinion of them. For awhile, I did try to use them as conduits to alter my opinions, however, Meg quickly became tired of being the representative of Decent Christianity, especially when Christianity really started to get -Dragon Diamond-. I've found, though personal experience (as read above), that it is VERY difficult to be the lone representative of common sense and decency in a faith that has asshats getting out of hand. When something like this becomes such a monster and takes up such a life of its own it is beyond the scope and power of one person to change it. It's too much pressure on that individual, it's too exhausting, to embittering. No, Kizyr, you don't need to prove -Dragon Diamond- to me, they need to prove -Dragon Diamond- to the MILLIONS of angry and confused Catholics, Christians and ex of both who are all becoming increasingly DISSATISFIED and WEARY of their faith. Who, like me, are tired of seeing their faith being used as a weapon of terror and hatred against innocent well-meaning peoples. Who have had it with their faith being interpreted as a faith of bigots, corruption, and liars, and who are fed up with being the lone voice of reason amongst the screaming masses of -Fatal Hopper-, howling intelligibly and throwing their own excrement.

REGARDLESS, while it's arguable that all religions have a history of war and killing, forced conversion, torture, rape, genocide and brainwashing no one, in my opinion, has done it quite like Christianity/Catholicism--they really know how to kick it up a notch. ... I have yet to see Buddhism used as an excuse to limit ones fellow human beings to stations as second class citizens. I have yet to come across a tenant in Taoism that excludes certain people from the rights and accesses that the rest of the culture has. I have never seen a faith so gregariously treat members of THAT SAME FAITH as scum and pariahs quite like Christians and Catholics do to members of their religious community who think, and question and whom they disagree with. Or whom have "bad habits" (read: homosexuality) that the church disagrees with.

You've yet to see any of that because you're lousy with history (this is by your own admission). Nichiren Buddhism was an aspect of the ultra-nationalism in Japan that eventually was used to justify the slaughter and subjugation of Korea, China, and other countries prior to WW2. Taoism and Buddhism in general are also radically different than the way that many other religions operate, which is why you won't see the same actions ascribed to them: in both, there's no specific mention of divinity, and in Taoism, there isn't much of a moral code (which is why there's some debate as to whether it's a "religion" in the Western sense, or a philosophy--same holds true for Confucianism). Seriously, if you find any major philosophy that talks about right and wrong, and which has enough adherents, there are going to be people who either use it to justify bad acts, or who do bad acts in spite of said philosophy.

What was China founded on? What was Japan founded on? How old are these counties? How old is their culture? Could I not argue that this current trend of uber-conservative, neo-fundy, bible humping, Flag-Lapel-Pin-Wearing Bigotry is a form of upcoming ultra-nationalism? From a historical standpoint, your arguments are valid and not without worth or merit. All religions totally suck balls and all popular, and even unpopular philosophies have been used by unsavory, and/or misinformed well meaning individuals to cause grief and rubbish. However, while there is correlation and connection to historical events that have happened outside of the country, and lessons that can be learned from them. This is America and America is a young country that is, by and large, creating it's OWN history. America is, above all else, a nation which has a culture made up from cherry picking the best and worst of all the cultures that amass within its massive boarders. America is a country that was founded on Freedom, Liberty, and Liberation from Persecution. Equality and Justice is in it's founding documents and is the backbone of the government. Freedom, Equality, Liberty and Justice, for all humankind. Not Hate, Superiority, Elitism, and Asshattery.

No offense to all the good and decent people of faith out there and on these forums, but seriously, -Fatal Hopper- your church. Not you, just your church.

So... you had a bad experience when you were little, and thus you justify your short-sightedness now?

Yes, I do. At least my misconceptions, whether they are or aren't misconceptions, are grounded in a real world experience and recurring events that are relevant to the world as they happen now. Instead of based on a the words of a continually re-translated book that has never been updated with the times, and that has never accounted for it's own imperfections, and that books interpretation by any bright-eyed douche who can gather an audience. No it's not perfect, yes, it is flawed. And because I am willing to admit it, and am trying to work on it, I am Right, or am heading in the right direction. I am winning. And because they are willing to scream and holler and and be RIGHT FOREVER NO MATTER WHAT SHUT YOUR HEATHEN MOUTH. They are wrong, and they deserve to lose. they deserve my hatred because they have earned it. Homosexuals have not, they have done nothing wrong. So, once again, -Fatal Hopper- THEM.

And how you can say a comment like that and expect people to take "no offense"? Criticism is one thing. But "-Fatal Hopper- it" isn't a criticism.

Firstly, see above. Secondly, because I'm Jenner, -Borgan-! >:3

[Jenner]

Firstly,

PROTIP: If you really want to but the 'Christ' back in Christmas than stop feeding into the bloody commercialism and consumerist -Dung Beetle-.

That's the point of it. KF

No, it's not. That was never meant to be the point of it. Just because that's the point NOW doesn't mean it's right, but I doubt there'll be any getting rid of it now. It's too late. The commercial aspect of Christmas thrives only because it is profitable and people are greedy. However,originally Christmas was calibrated much like other winter festivities of the era, sans the sacrifices. It was a celebration of Christ's Goodness, of his birth and of Humanities salvation. It was celebrated with a feast, song (modern day caroling is a continuation of this), and dancing in direct correlation with other holidays that happened in that time. Then, people began exchanging humble home-made gifts, archeological evidence dates these adorable harmless exchanges happening somewhere within the early middle ages, and increasing in popularity as time increased. Then commercialism took over and now people are getting crushed to death inside Wallmart. 'Tis the season to commit Manslaughter.

Anyway, this is all intense now. I daresay chaps, this is the Internets and no one is wrong on the Internets. *adjusts her monocle.*

I wonder if it ever occurred to Jenner that she's hating Christianity so much...that she's becoming herself the very bigot (Against Christianity) that caused her leave Christianity behind in the first place.

Funny how life works.

No, Jenner definitely isn't. I know her well enough to know that much. That and I've argued against enough narrow-minded atheists to be able to distinguish between genuine bigotry or malice and a simple lack of understanding. KF

Um, ...thanks I think. o.O;

I'll back Kiz with this one. I'm not on AIM enough these days to have talked to Jenner much in recent years, but having been friends with her for quite some time, I think it's more chalked up to a bad experience with Christianity for Jenner.

Damn right, wild Jenners are a product of their environment and cultural strains. Rowr.

I see, I was mistaken, then.

I apologize, Jenner.

Eh, you ain' don' nothin' worth apologizing for, hotness. ;0

[Kizyr]

Long story short, the Romans can call themselves Christian until they're blue in the face, it is arguable if they really were or meant it (just like any other person who espouses a faith) or if they were just using it as a tool. (just like any other person might.)

Ok, most of that really didn't have any point. How is any of this subject related to the fall of the Roman Empire? I said that Christianity received the biggest boost due to Constantine. That's not negated by the fact that Christianity was already becoming more prominent in the empire--actually, that more supports my point, since Christianity's early spread wasn't through violence but through enduring persecution.

Let me clarify what I'm getting at: Christianity rose to prominence in its early history not due to being spread through violence, but because of the natural course of how things worked in the Roman Empire. That wasn't any more or less violent than the periods of history before or after (er, well, compared to Nero and the year of the four emperors, maybe it was less violent). What you're saying is supporting my point.

You should introduce me to some of them. No one is perfect and we all have double-standards, but I've drawn the line, and maybe my line was laid down a little too close but, oh well, the fact remains that I've yet to met a Catholic that hasn't behaved like they were Gods Gift To Everything. Who made one statement damning of a sin then days later would do the same thing.

I don't keep a tally of the religions of the people I meet. What you're saying is convincing me more that you don't see someone as Catholic until they do something to upset you; but if they're generally good people, you pay no mind to their religion. I generally meet people from different backgrounds in the normal course of my life; most of these have been good people, and some of them have been Catholic.

I mean, consider, if it wasn't for me, you could easily say the same thing about Muslims, no? Actually, you didn't even know I was Muslim for the longest time--it wasn't until it specifically came up in conversation.

It's the big hypocritical backwards double-standard asshattery that rings out false to me, and it is those faults that I disapprove of. And THEN I berate their bad Catholicness, as if they are separate entities (and perhaps they are, I am investigating into that.) Thus far these mega-faults and epic fails of said person are, not only in direct correlation to their -Dragon Diamond- Catholicness, but also emboldened by it.

You say one thing and you're doing another. You claim you're evaluating people as individuals and religion as a whole separately, but then you're using your experience with specific individuals to judge an entire billion people who have the same religion.

Consider this for a moment... Do people who do bad things genuinely believe they're wrong? Most people who have a habit of doing something that we'd consider wrong has some justification for it--and it's not uncommon for that justification to come from whatever philosophy or belief they have. It's why not just religion is used as a justification, but also: history, socialism and communism, nationalism, and science, to name a few. And if you want to make the claim that it's because of religion that so many people are killed, I can easily cite ten times the amount of people killed due to any of those other philosophies.

The difference is, I don't claim that it's the philosophy that causes bad acts.

If you "Good Christians/Catholics" truly outnumber the asshats, than CALL THEM OUT take some -Fatal Hopper- responsibility for how your faith is being presented. I did, it changed nothing, and rather than be part of a faith that preaches hate and intolerance, I left it. I bet those preachers would listen the second the freaking collection plates stopped coming in.

They do, you just don't notice whenever someone does something good as a result of their religion. Besides, why is it incumbent upon them to prove something to you? You said so yourself:

No, Kizyr, you don't need to prove -Dragon Diamond- to me, they need to prove -Dragon Diamond- to the MILLIONS of angry and confused Catholics, Christians and ex of both who are all becoming increasingly DISSATISFIED and WEARY of their faith.

Oh, and there's also the fact that humility is one of the things encouraged by several different faiths, Christianity included. It sort of discourages bragging about how much good you've done when you've done it.

Also, clarify: who is "they" in your sentence? You're using ambiguous pronouns there.

What was China founded on? What was Japan founded on? How old are these counties? How old is their culture? Could I not argue that this current trend of uber-conservative, neo-fundy, bible humping, Flag-Lapel-Pin-Wearing Bigotry is a form of upcoming ultra-nationalism?

...yes? But what's your point? I do think it's tied to nationalism--and more generally it's tied to wanting to identify oneself as superior to other people. It doesn't matter what the philosophy or label is, even if it contradicts the notion of superiority (since you can find creative ways of justifying it). Again, you're supporting my point here: what you're seeing isn't an intrinsic quality of any one religion, including Christianity.

Your other questions make no sense. I can get into what all different incarnations of China were founded upon, or how Japan has defined and redefined itself, but that isn't relevant any more. My point was that Buddhism and other religions (and philosophies) have been used to justify horrible things. Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And, by extension, just because you're overly aware of situations when it's perpetuated by Christians doesn't mean that Christianity is unique in this respect.

All religions totally suck balls and all popular, and even unpopular philosophies have been used by unsavory, and/or misinformed well meaning individuals to cause grief and rubbish.

And again, you're only looking at situations when people use religion as a justification to do awful things (usually with creative and faulty reasoning), while ignoring whenever it's been a cause of good things.

However, while there is correlation and connection to historical events that have happened outside of the country, and lessons that can be learned from them. This is America and America is a young country that is, by and large, creating it's OWN history.

I'm not really seeing your point here. Plus, that first line wasn't a complete sentence. We're creating our own history. And...?

My guess is that you're not understanding what my point was earlier. I've tried to simplify and restate it above.

Yes, I do. At least my misconceptions, whether they are or aren't misconceptions, are grounded in a real world experience and recurring events that are relevant to the world as they happen now. Instead of based on a the words of a continually re-translated book that has never been updated with the times, and that has never accounted for it's own imperfections, and that books interpretation by any bright-eyed douche who can gather an audience.

Why assume that everyone else's conceptions aren't also based on experience? Mine certainly are, since I've seen plenty more examples of religion being a force of good than evil. Then again, I also account for the fact that evil acts are way more noticeable, and I don't ignore or gloss over examples that don't mesh with my world view.

It might seem weird that as a Muslim I'm sitting here defending Christianity, particularly since I do have some criticisms of Christianity, its history, and various major churches. But, my problem isn't with what religion you're heaping criticism upon. It's with your method altogether. That is, it's based on selective reasoning and confirmation/negation bias. Your same rationale can be (and is) used to justify antagonism towards a lot of different groups, so whether or not you picked a group that I actually belong do isn't my concern. KF