If you love Christmas, thank a Pagan



Jill wrote:

> No one, religious or secular, can actually prove Jesus Christ was a living
> breathing person. He "rose from the dead" so of course there is no grave.
> The shroud of Turin was proven with modern testing to be a hoax. Oh, and
> Elvis is dead.

Do you also believe that Socrates never existed?

Bob
 
Sheldon Candycane sez:

> Your rheteric is much too reminescent of CHRISTmasy... who do you think
> you're fooling with that sneak in the back door claptrap. It's the
> friggin' DISHONESTY of it all that's offensive, and you're simply
> adding more disingenuous fuel to the yule log. You need a new script
> that doesn't reek like a Hallmark card. Perhaps if yoose self
> rightious religeous fanatics actually practiced Peace all year instead
> of just talking about it (lip service) with your honkytonk carnival
> ritualistic kewpie doll displays and commercializing it to death for
> one day. Yoose religious nuts talk a good Peace but each and every one
> of yoose is a violent scourge on this planet. Religion is the
> antithesis of Peace. Only when all religion is erradicated can there
> be Peace. Religion is no less violent a concept than the rape of small
> children, in fact that's what catholicism is based in, with that
> friggin' jesus ******* the worst child molester the planet has ever
> seen. Wtf do yoose think that santa garbage is all about.. hey kid,
> c'mere and sit on my lap, want a toy you gotta do good... right! And
> then uncle Spitzmaus gets his little niece to sit in his lap and play
> with his toy... and he does tickle-tickle back... hehehe, hohoho
>
> You know you wanna do her. (Ya think???)
>
> Sheldon Candycane


Sheldon, darlin', don't get your undies in a bunch. I'm an ex-hippy who
espouses no religion whatsoever, save perhaps science. That said, I
experience lapses of reason in which I'm guileless enough to wish for peace
on earth; then reality kicks in and I lose the Rebecca of Sunnybrook
Farm/Shirley Temple persona as quickly as I donned it. Allow me to dream
once in awhile . . .

Oh, and please get my gender right; I'm not a man, baby.

Auntie Spitz
--
"Home, James, and don't spare the horse!"
 
Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Jill wrote:
>
>> No one, religious or secular, can actually prove Jesus Christ was a
>> living breathing person. He "rose from the dead" so of course there
>> is no grave. The shroud of Turin was proven with modern testing to
>> be a hoax. Oh, and Elvis is dead.
>
> Do you also believe that Socrates never existed?
>
> Bob

Socrates isn't at the center of a religious cult.
Your reference is without reason or substance.

Ken.



--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com
 
Ken replied:

>>> No one, religious or secular, can actually prove Jesus Christ was a
>>> living breathing person. He "rose from the dead" so of course there
>>> is no grave. The shroud of Turin was proven with modern testing to
>>> be a hoax. Oh, and Elvis is dead.
>>
>> Do you also believe that Socrates never existed?
>>
>> Bob
>
> Socrates isn't at the center of a religious cult.
> Your reference is without reason or substance.

Hey, this back-and-forth discussion is a good example of the dialectical
method favored by my lord and savior Socrates! :)

Bob
 
Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Ken replied:
>
>>>> No one, religious or secular, can actually prove Jesus Christ was a
>>>> living breathing person. He "rose from the dead" so of course
>>>> there is no grave. The shroud of Turin was proven with modern
>>>> testing to be a hoax. Oh, and Elvis is dead.
>>>
>>> Do you also believe that Socrates never existed?
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> Socrates isn't at the center of a religious cult.
>> Your reference is without reason or substance.
>
> Hey, this back-and-forth discussion is a good example of the
> dialectical method favored by my lord and savior Socrates! :)
>
> Bob

Allright Bob!

Ken.



--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com
 

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "jmcquown" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But of course no
> > one can prove canonically, biblically or secularly that JESUS ever actually
> > existed, either.
>
>

I think this is an odd statement. Does "biblically" mean "by using the
Bible as a source" (which is how I read the sentence)? I apologize if I
have mis-read it. The Bible is the source that "proves" the existence of
Jesus. The Bible can be traced back to its origins from the scrolls that
were translated. The parts of the Bible, known as the Old Testament and
translated under the rule of King James, focus on the genealogy of Jesus
from Mary back to Adam and Eve in an unbroken line and outline the events
of his birth.

Why would you want to dispute this account? Even the Jews acknowledge the
existence of the birth of a boy child named Jesus.


If you don't attach any importance or significance to some historical
figure named Jesus (or Buddha, Mohammad, or Amaterasu Omikami, or for that
matter, Tom, ****, or Harry), that is fine. But, then what does it
matter and why is it important that it be "proved"? Would proof give some
significance to Jesus for you?

Perhaps you didn't mean Jesus, but instead meant Christ? Or perhaps,
God? If the existence of Christ or God could be proven, would that,
somehow, make a difference in the amount of significance or importance
you would assess either of them? Would you want
to validate or embrace or believe in either, or feel compelled to do so,
or feel justified in doing so?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just curious.

Elaine, too
 
zxcvbob wrote:
>
> Y'all are confusing the Roman Empire (Caesar, etc.) with the Holy Roman
> Empire (Charlemagne, etc).

That's probably it -- what I am talking about happened in the Middle Ages.
 
GQ wrote:
> Oh my. I do think we could have disagreed a bit more nicely. LOL

LOL...Oh, just wait. Ranee will run back to Rich and ask him how to
respond, LOL...
-L.
 
<<I think this is actually not true. Thenplease showing us all the
actual proof beyond any shadow of any doubt that he did live. I
personally believe he did exist but please show us the absolute proof.>>

no, no. the burden of proof rests with you. there is no evidence that
jesus existed. you say he did. it is up to you to bring the proof to the
table. can you produce a birth certificate? tax records? death
certificate? writings? anything except your say so? relatives? anything
will do except the bible wtitten by saul, later revisd by the greeks and
the popedom & then rewriten again by king james.
 
There is a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," written by
Josh McDowell, a man who started out to write a book proving that Jesus
never existed and ended up finding evidence so compelling that he became
a Christian believer. I have read it, and he has abundant evidence from
respected Hebrew historians, among other sources, that he documents
quite clearly.

Even the Jewish people, who do not believe He was anything more than
just another rabbi, don't deny His existence.

I am not saying this for any other reason other than you did ask for
evidence, so please don't think I am trying to argue.

Witchy Way wrote:
>
> no, no. the burden of proof rests with you. there is no evidence that
> jesus existed. you say he did. it is up to you to bring the proof to the
> table. can you produce a birth certificate? tax records? death
> certificate? writings? anything except your say so? relatives? anything
> will do except the bible wtitten by saul, later revisd by the greeks and
> the popedom & then rewriten again by king james.
 
"GQ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you love Christmas, thank a pagan
> By SUSAN GABLE
> Judging from recent columns and letters, it seems many readers believe
> Christians were the first to have the idea of a midwinter holiday.
> It's time to set the record straight.
>
> Many, if not most, early pagan cultures celebrated the winter
> solstice. The ancient Romans celebrated Saturnalia, in honor of the
> god of agriculture, in December. It was a time of masquerades in the
> streets, festive banquets, visiting friends, decorating with garlands
> of green accented with candles, and exchanging good-luck gifts.
>
> The upper-class followers of the Persian god Mithra celebrated his
> birthday on Dec. 25, the ''Birth of the Unconquerable Sun.'' Ancient
> Mesopotamians celebrated Zagmuk, when they believed their chief god
> Marduk would do battle with the forces of chaos for 12 days near the
> winter solstice.
>
> The Norse celebrated yule from the solstice into January, with the
> burning of the yule log and feasts. Germanic countries honored Oden in
> December. It was believed that he made nocturnal flights, checking up
> on his people and deciding who would prosper and who would perish
> during the coming year. Throughout Europe, people had ways of
> celebrating the return of longer days as the winter solstice passed.
>
> Around 350 AD, Pope Julius I was the first to declare Dec. 25 as the
> day to celebrate the birth of Christ. Earlier observances of the birth
> of Jesus had been solemn remembrances on different dates.
>
> Church leaders apparently hoped that the pagan holidays celebrated
> then would eventually be celebrated simply as Christmas. For the most
> part, they succeeded in transferring the customs from the old gods to
> the new one, though the custom of coming home from church to start a
> raucous, drunken celebration was probably not entirely what they had
> in mind.
>
> After the Reformation, some Protestant groups banned the celebration
> of Christmas altogether on the grounds that it was primarily a pagan
> celebration. The Puritans noted that the Bible gives no date for the
> birth of Jesus as part of their argument against observing Christmas.
>
> Celebrating Christmas was illegal in Boston from 1659 to 1681.
>
> Congress was in session on Dec. 25, 1789, the first Christmas under
> the new Constitution, a remnant of the Puritan rejection of the
> holiday. Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday until 1870, after
> waves of new immigrants had arrived bringing their Christmas customs
> with them.
>
> In short, anyone who enjoys the traditions of the season - decorating,
> visiting with friends and family, feasting, exchanging gifts - should
> thank a pagan and wish him ''Happy Holidays.''
>
> Susan Gable lives in Mashpee.




WAAASSSSAIIIIILLLLL MoFoS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Shaun 'solstice' aRe - Happy juul y'all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christianity is THEFT! Heheheheh...
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> X-No-archive: yes
> GQ wrote:
> > The upper-class followers of the Persian god Mithra celebrated his
> > birthday on Dec. 25, the ''Birth of the Unconquerable Sun.''
>
> There is very little if any evidence for this in the historical record,
> however.
>
> The idea that modern Christmas has pagan origins is not true, in our
> culture at least.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse

Shull bit.





Shaun aRe
 
Witchy Way wrote:
> <<I think this is actually not true. Thenplease showing us all the
> actual proof beyond any shadow of any doubt that he did live. I
> personally believe he did exist but please show us the absolute proof.>>
>
> no, no. the burden of proof rests with you. there is no evidence that
> jesus existed. you say he did. it is up to you to bring the proof to the
> table. can you produce a birth certificate? tax records? death
> certificate? writings? anything except your say so? relatives? anything
> will do except the bible wtitten by saul, later revisd by the greeks and
> the popedom & then rewriten again by king james.
>


Ok - I'll bite :)

I will simply try to "prove" that A man named christ existed (by default
I am also proving that he was a religious leader - not the main goal.)

Start with the writings of Tacitus, a Roman historian(some info on him
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0847598.html )


This is is a page from his writings...look about half way down the page...

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a
class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme
penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our
procurators, Pontius Pilatus..." Feel free to read more if you wish.

http://www.luth.se/luth/present/sweden/history/lit/tacitus/annals.xv.html


Next - Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor.

Here he talks about Christians and their worship of Christ
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

There are also works by Flavius Josephus - they are disputed...so I
won't link them.. you can look for yourself if you would like


Anyway - it's a start...

I got my initial information from this article

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/#text5

Because it is written by someone with a religious background, I searched
out the articles on the internet and tried to find non-christian sites
to reference.

It's not really that hard to prove that there was a man refered to as
Christ back then...

Roberta (in VA)
 
"Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to send" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> I second the motion. My secular history textbook at a secular college
> said that the reason why the Roman Empire made such phenomenal conquests
> is that they would incorporate the pagan religious customs of each group
> into some Roman Catholic ritual(s) in order to more easily attract
> them so they could be more easily conquered. If you think about it, it
> was a really intelligent way to assimilate them.

Precisely - conquer by slyness, over time - it was a long sighted view
indeed. Incorporate existing 'popular' and traditional spiritual celebration
dates into the 'new way', and gradually one would meld with the other until
people generally, as a whole, began to accept the 'new way' as the norm.
Clever, but very basic psycho-emotional manipulation.





Shaun aRe
 
"GQ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> LOLOLOLOL Actually, most people use the "x" just to shorten the word
> and nothing more. I am sure some use it to not use the word Christ but
> more often than not is for shortening the word and nothing more.

I use it because I celebrate this time of year but I am not a Christian - I
neither want people to mistake mefor a Christian, nor do I want to offend a
Christian when I refer to this time of year's celebrations. Well, that's
thge intent - if it does offend anyone it is most CERTAINLY not my problem
nor my concern - I am happy with my intent.

> Do
> you also see conspiracies in a can of corn?

What brand?




Shaun aRe
 
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:16:25 -0600, [email protected] (Witchy Way)
wrote:

><<I think this is actually not true. Thenplease showing us all the
>actual proof beyond any shadow of any doubt that he did live. I
>personally believe he did exist but please show us the absolute proof.>>
>
>no, no. the burden of proof rests with you. there is no evidence that
>jesus existed. you say he did. it is up to you to bring the proof to the
>table. can you produce a birth certificate? tax records? death
>certificate? writings? anything except your say so? relatives? anything
>will do except the bible wtitten by saul, later revisd by the greeks and
>the popedom & then rewriten again by king james.

I am not Christian. I am not the one who needs to prove anything. It
is the Christians who need to prove it since they are the ones who
tell us all about him.
 
"Pan Ohco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:45:38 +0200, cathyxyz wrote:
>
> >Pan Ohco wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Christmas is one of two core beliefs in christianity.
> >> The "x" was use as replacement for "Christ" during years of
> >> prosecution. Until modern times when it is being use, to remove the
> >> word "Christ" from Christmas.
> >
> >
> >FWIW, I found this in our local newspaper under the heading "The Facts
> >about Christmas":
> >
> >The common abbreviation for Christmas to Xmas is derived from the Greek
> >alphabet. "X" is letter "Chi", which is the first letter of Christ's
> >name in the Greek alphabet.
>
> Yes, it is a form of abbreviation of Christ. That's like going into an
> area of Buddhist, and saying "Bs the Man". Disrespectful as least.

(NOT pointedly aimed personally at you PO, just a prime place for me to post
this.)

The Lord Buddha, 'B', or mister 'sometimes fat sometimes skinny guy but hey
doesn't his image always look a bit feminine?!?' could care less - he
teaches us to be emotionally detached from base things, from the gross,
material pseudo-reality, not to become entangled in such.


As for Jesus - If the man himself has a problem, if He is so low and petty
himself as to take offence where none is intended, he will surely in his
omnipotence, his omniscience, take care of that himself. However, His Way
was not that way. Even the much hyped NT novel about him and his life
doesn't lean this way.

Who the heck is any human to intercede on His behalf, to take offence in His
stead? Which of us could say we see and know enough to judge this ourselves,
without at least first knowing His judgement? What human, who worships Him
and His name, could by rights, by what He thought, assume to speak for Him
and His feelings? He died for YOUR sins FFS, not so you could go around
hurling sins at whoever ****** you off, whoever you thought 'disrespected'
Him! If you are a firm and faithful believer, for His sake show some bloody
consistency in your belief! Oh yeah and quit the melodrama - it's so *camp*.

According to His followers, their *book*, he was a supremely forgiving
individual, who would not have assumed bitterness at any slight *of malice*,
let alone one of ignorance, or misunderstood intent. The sheer arrogance of
those who purport to follow Him and His Word, and yet behave in such a
manner is inherently disgusting to all He is said to stand for, and are
therefore failures by their own tenet.

Bunch of hypocritical wussies, IOW, those who say they follow but absolutely
do not.


Take care, be well, learn, love, forgive, teach - in whomever's name you
please, and be happy, most of all know thyself and love thyself for who you
are, and be happy in that.

May all your wishes be both wise and fulfilled.


Shaun aRe
 
On 19 Dec 2005 23:10:33 -0800, "-L." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>GQ wrote:
>> Oh my. I do think we could have disagreed a bit more nicely. LOL
>
>LOL...Oh, just wait. Ranee will run back to Rich and ask him how to
>respond, LOL...
>-L.

LOLOLOLOL She has been quite the testy one replying to my posts.
Apparently she thinks that if anyone questions anything or says
anything different from her view that it means that we are after her
religion. She doesn't even know the true history of her own religion
but she replies testy the way she does. LOLOLOL

GQ
 
"EastneyEnder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BFCB3C9F.58F9%[email protected]...
> Just out of curiosity as I've never had a Christmas tree before, and think
I
> might buy a small one this year (potted so it can be used again!), has
> anyone suggestions on what to put on the top? When I was a kid we had a
> fairy... I thought of a star, but would prefer a more non-Christian
symbol.
> Although I am sort-of Christian on paper, I lean more towards
> non-conformist/humanist/pagan (whatever) these days and can't think of
> anything tasteful and pretty (no santas or snowmen please).

A gret big puffter like Graham Norton. he'd appreciate the humour (I know
since I'm also British LOL!).







Shaun aRe
 
"Damsel in dis Dress" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Also, Crash has suggested a beer can as your tree topper. <rolling
> eyes>

Tell Crash for me please that he is a man after my own heart! As long as it
is a good brew and none of this pale watery mass made pish, that is ',;~}~






Shaun aRe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back