Link Stats
Added By: PackOne
Added on: 12/24/2007 @ 10:16:36 PM
Link View Count: 575
Other
Rate this Link
Yours:

Rated 0 times.

Official Merry Christmas Thread

Merry Christmas
View External Link [www.flw.com]
Back to Link List
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/26/2007 @ 07:46:54 AM
 Quote this comment
It's hard when you're away from the -can for a few days.

Merry Christmas, Y'all
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
12/24/2008 @ 09:09:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Merry Christmas everybody.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
12/24/2008 @ 10:52:14 PM
 Quote this comment
I concur. Merry Christmas!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - You analyze me. Tend to despise me. You laugh when I stumble and fall.
12/24/2008 @ 11:11:18 PM
 Quote this comment
Agreed. Merry Christmas to all canners.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
12/25/2009 @ 09:16:46 AM
 Quote this comment
And again, two years later, Merry Christmas guys, you all are great.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
12/26/2009 @ 02:41:45 AM
 Quote this comment
Merry Christmas to you P-one, as well as to all others.

Although it's already past Christmas now. It's Boxing Day as I write this.
Which I guess celebrates the anniversary of Little Mac defeating Piston Honda for the WVBA Minor Circuit title.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/26/2009 @ 09:26:15 PM
 Quote this comment
I know this is past christmas, and now that its done and over with, lets review the origins of christmas.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
12/27/2009 @ 02:14:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's the thing with the origins: These are always done in a conspiratorial "open your eyes Sheeple!" type manner, when in reality I don't think many people who look into it really deny it. It's hard to deny that Easter took over for the spring celebration of fertility if you ponder why we give out eggs and rabbits. People quibble about the details of this and that, maybe, but the fact that Christianity glommed their holidays onto existing holidays is obvious. That's what new religions did. "Hey, come on over, we're just like you!" However, its roots are also irrelevant. If the bible said "Jesus was born on March 3rd" and and Christians celebrated on 12/25 just to coincide with a pagan god/birth holiday then that would be notable. However, 12/25 is really just as good a date as any to represent the day we celebrate.

Which brings me to their last point. It's ridiculous to pretend that somethings origins are always relevant. Whatever they had to tell pagans to get them to celebrate the first Christmases has nothing to do with why people celebrate now, and that isn't the cop-out they make it out to be. It really is irrelevant. Their Hitler analogy is stupid, because people now are celebrating something good tacked onto something bad. The only way that analogy makes sense is if Hitler and Jesus are equally detestable. Even if you don't believe Jesus is the son of God, you could see that as preposterous. Or if a few years later people decided Hitler was a dick, but wanted to keep the Holiday they liked, so they made it about celebrating beer, chocolate, and cars.

Furthermore, it would also potentially be irrelevant. If 1000 years in the future Hitler was a character of lore that only historical scholars knew anything about and all "celebrating his birthday" was in reality was a time when families got together to be with one another and share a big meal, and hang bananas from the ceiling fan, or whatever bizarre traditions they would carry out without caring what it means, why would it even matter what the origins are? It's just not true that everyone that would observe the holiday would be "celebrating Hitler's birthday."

Lots of atheists celebrate Christmas, and I don't see why there's anything wrong/hypocritical about that either. The meaning of things changes over time. Christmas has become just as valid as a non denominational holiday where we gather and buy crap for each other. So, much in the same way Jesus need not even apply to observe Christmas as a holiday with pomp and circumstance all its own, the pagan stuff need not apply, especially since in that case you're talking about some ancient relic that 15 people probably still actually observe for exactly what it was 2000 years ago.

I know this sounds like a cop out, but I don't think it is: What ever the holiday is to you is why you're celebrating it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 5 times, last at 12/27/2009 2:43:57 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 09:44:01 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:14:28 PM
especially since in that case you're talking about some ancient relic that 15 people probably still actually observe for exactly what it was 2000 years ago.


What do you mean by this?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
12/28/2009 @ 09:50:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.

Interesting. Where was Bill O'Reilly's war on Christmas back then?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 12/28/2009 9:50:27 am
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
12/28/2009 @ 10:05:04 AM
 Quote this comment
I think this is the only really important thing to know about the Origins of the Christmas holiday, and the reason it is celebrated as Christmas (all the other things I believe are not important: ie christmas trees, lights, presents, etc). Jesus was born; the Bible tells of a heavenly host of angels singing the glory of this event. If the angels should put on such a display, then why not the Christians who believe this to be their savior? Regardless of the other non-Christian related traditions, Christians long ago started celebrating the Birth of Jesus on December 25th.

The origins of Christmas as we know it to be celebrated I think are relevant mostly to those who cry foul any time someone says "holiday" instead of Christmas. Those who claim that secularists are "stealing Christmas" or whatever they are doing should probably realize that essentially, the Church started Christmas to sort of "steal" a different holiday in the first place. Other than that, there is no reason for Christians to be concerned that Christmas was once something very unChristian, especially because the origins of Christmas were essentially tainted from the very beginning. Taking an event like Jesus birth and making it an encourage part of some debaucherous ritual is a bad way to start a Christian tradition. The fact that over the years Christians have tried to make it more and more about the birth of Christ only makes it more meaningful as they are basically remaking the tradition the way it should have been started from teh very beginning.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
12/28/2009 @ 10:18:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:44:01 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:14:28 PM
especially since in that case you're talking about some ancient relic that 15 people probably still actually observe for exactly what it was 2000 years ago.


What do you mean by this?


I'm saying if it's the case that there's nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas as just an american holiday and ignoring the Christian roots while 70% of the country is celebrating it as a Christian holiday* it's especially true that celebrating it as a purely Christian holiday and ignoring the pagan roots is fine, given that I doubt there's anyone left celebrating murder-fest.

*Though, even in this case Christmas is really 2 holidays to many people. There's the Jesus/Church aspect, and the meal/presents/family aspect that really don't entangle much.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
12/28/2009 @ 10:28:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:05:04 AM
I think this is the only really important thing to know about the Origins of the Christmas holiday, and the reason it is celebrated as Christmas (all the other things I believe are not important: ie christmas trees, lights, presents, etc). Jesus was born; the Bible tells of a heavenly host of angels singing the glory of this event. If the angels should put on such a display, then why not the Christians who believe this to be their savior? Regardless of the other non-Christian related traditions, Christians long ago started celebrating the Birth of Jesus on December 25th.

The origins of Christmas as we know it to be celebrated I think are relevant mostly to those who cry foul any time someone says "holiday" instead of Christmas. Those who claim that secularists are "stealing Christmas" or whatever they are doing should probably realize that essentially, the Church started Christmas to sort of "steal" a different holiday in the first place. Other than that, there is no reason for Christians to be concerned that Christmas was once something very unChristian, especially because the origins of Christmas were essentially tainted from the very beginning. Taking an event like Jesus birth and making it an encourage part of some debaucherous ritual is a bad way to start a Christian tradition. The fact that over the years Christians have tried to make it more and more about the birth of Christ only makes it more meaningful as they are basically remaking the tradition the way it should have been started from teh very beginning.


Interesting point, though I still don't think the roots are all that relevant. If your great-great-great-great-great grandfather stole something that was then passed down through the generations, and was then stolen from you, I'd think it still ok for you to be upset about it.

The "war on Christmas" isn't about Christmas being taken away. No one is saying "You can't say Merry Christmas in public," people are just pissed that other people aren't saying it enough. At best it's intolerance of tolerance, "Eat shit! How DARE you peons pretend that there is anyone on Earth that doesn't celebrate Christmas!", at worse it's just illogical nonsense given that even Christians celebrate multiple holidays in a small window we call "The Holiday Season" and often celebrate multiple instances of a given holiday spanning a week +/- of the day the holiday is on. (For example, Christmas isn't over in my family, and in many ways is 3-4 holidays in and of itself.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/28/2009 10:38:23 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
12/28/2009 @ 03:46:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:28:51 AM
The "war on Christmas" isn't about Christmas being taken away. No one is saying "You can't say Merry Christmas in public," people are just pissed that other people aren't saying it enough. At best it's intolerance of tolerance, "Eat shit! How DARE you peons pretend that there is anyone on Earth that doesn't celebrate Christmas!" at worse it's just illogical nonsense


But now you're being intolerant of people who believe there is a war on Christmas. You're just as bad as them! emoticon

Seriously though, I think you're being a bit harsh. For most, it's just a push-back against what is seen as silly and excessive political correctness.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 07:53:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:28:51 AM
No one is saying "You can't say Merry Christmas in public,"[quote]

Actually, Wal Mart did just that not too long ago. I believe they have since retracted this drecree, but it made headlines a few years ago.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
12/28/2009 @ 11:17:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:53:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:28:51 AM
No one is saying "You can't say Merry Christmas in public,"


Actually, Wal Mart did just that not too long ago. I believe they have since retracted this drecree, but it made headlines a few years ago.


Really? Walmart told you you can't say Merry Christmas? I find that hard to believe.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 12/28/2009 11:53:03 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
12/28/2009 @ 11:31:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Stop the misquoting madness!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
12/29/2009 @ 12:10:08 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:46:19 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:28:51 AM
The "war on Christmas" isn't about Christmas being taken away. No one is saying "You can't say Merry Christmas in public," people are just pissed that other people aren't saying it enough. At best it's intolerance of tolerance, "Eat shit! How DARE you peons pretend that there is anyone on Earth that doesn't celebrate Christmas!" at worse it's just illogical nonsense


But now you're being intolerant of people who believe there is a war on Christmas. You're just as bad as them! emoticon

Seriously though, I think you're being a bit harsh. For most, it's just a push-back against what is seen as silly and excessive political correctness.


I think that's being overly generous. You can't call something a "War on ____" without it playing some sort of "we're being singled out for attack" type card. O'Reilly basically declared stores not saying "Christmas" the first step toward gay marriage, willy-nilly abortions, and euthanasia. This isn't excessive PC-ness in almost all instances of complaint. At worst its a good use an all inclusive term, at best it's really just more correct period. You have tons of people claming "no one can be offended just by someone saying "Merry Christmas" to them*, who consider just NOT saying something offensive enough to never shop there again. (And that's their right, of course, but it's still stupid.)

The closest it comes to silly PC-ness is the "Holiday Tree" phenomenon, but it almost all cases of that it's in a situation where there probably shouldn't be a Christmas tree of any sort, so you have the options a) Take it down or b) we can pretend the tree is a universal symbol and all know we jobbed the system on the DL. It's almost invariably extra Christmas where the "holiday tree" gets invoked. That is, where it's not completely made up, which it is in most cases. If there's a "Day after Holiday sale" on 12/26 at Sears, then yes, that's silly, but the fervor and boycotts isn't over that, it's who says Christmas the most vs who dares to cross us by attacking us by saying "Holiday" in person or in print and reacting to that as if people are lobbying for them not to be allowed to have a Christmas tree in their homes.

If there's a problem these people should have with the state of Christmas, it should be that the holiday is now approximately 99.5% about buying stuff, so I find it ironic that their biggest concern is the cashier having the audacity to say "Holidays" as they buy $300 worth of things that have nothing to do with Jesus that they plan on writing "From Santa" on.

*Which is probably true. Though, I suspect there would be hell to pay if people were wished "Happy Chanukah" at the checkout. Maybe this is a lefty hippy way to look at it, but no matter what they wish you, it's what they celebrate, and they mean well. If someone wishes me "Happy Chanukah" they still what me to be happy in whatever I'm doing for those 8 days.

The other aspect of it (religion on public turf) is nothing really new, but it's just about people wanting to uphold the constitution against people who are ok with ignoring it until someone wants their religion recognized.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/29/2009 12:30:36 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
12/29/2009 @ 12:37:01 AM
 Quote this comment
For example, the complaints on these type websites are beyond narcissistic. The things people actually rated as "offensive" are often mind blowing.

I like this one:

Rating: Christmas-Friendly
Comment: ...I've noticed that they do respect all Holidays. If you look in there ad now they do say Merry Christmas.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 12/29/2009 12:38:20 am
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 01:47:02 AM
 Quote this comment
Well Jerm back on your first comment, the Hitler analogy was just pointing out that we adopted a pagan holiday. Not to mention the many things we celebrate on christmas. If you guys only knew the sick origins of this stuff. I celebrate it now because I have to as I am forced by my parents to. But when I grow up I most certainly not raising my kids around this xmas bullshit. Ill exchange gifts around that time of the year, but as far as xmas tree, stockings, santa decorations, xmas lights, missletoes and the like. nope. Look at this guys.. seriously....

III. The Origins of Christmas Customs

A. The Origin of Christmas Tree
Just as early Christians recruited Roman pagans by associating Christmas with the Saturnalia, so too worshippers of the Asheira cult and its offshoots were recruited by the Church sanctioning “Christmas Trees”.[7] Pagans had long worshipped trees in the forest, or brought them into their homes and decorated them, and this observance was adopted and painted with a Christian veneer by the Church.

B. The Origin of Mistletoe
Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the female Nanna. Druid rituals use mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim.[8] The Christian custom of “kissing under the mistletoe” is a later synthesis of the sexual license of Saturnalia with the Druidic sacrificial cult.[9]

C. The Origin of Christmas Presents
In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January). Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace. The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas (see below).[10]

D. The Origin of Santa Claus

a. Nicholas was born in Parara, Turkey in 270 CE and later became Bishop of Myra. He died in 345 CE on December 6th. He was only named a saint in the 19th century.

b. Nicholas was among the most senior bishops who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and created the New Testament. The text they produced portrayed Jews as “the children of the devil”[11] who sentenced Jesus to death.

c. In 1087, a group of sailors who idolized Nicholas moved his bones from Turkey to a sanctuary in Bari, Italy. There Nicholas supplanted a female boon-giving deity called The Grandmother, or Pasqua Epiphania, who used to fill the children's stockings with her gifts. The Grandmother was ousted from her shrine at Bari, which became the center of the Nicholas cult. Members of this group gave each other gifts during a pageant they conducted annually on the anniversary of Nicholas’ death, December 6.

d. The Nicholas cult spread north until it was adopted by German and Celtic pagans. These groups worshipped a pantheon led by Woden –their chief god and the father of Thor, Balder, and Tiw. Woden had a long, white beard and rode a horse through the heavens one evening each Autumn. When Nicholas merged with Woden, he shed his Mediterranean appearance, grew a beard, mounted a flying horse, rescheduled his flight for December, and donned heavy winter clothing.

e. In a bid for pagan adherents in Northern Europe, the Catholic Church adopted the Nicholas cult and taught that he did (and they should) distribute gifts on December 25th instead of December 6th.

f. In 1809, the novelist Washington Irving (most famous his The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle) wrote a satire of Dutch culture entitled Knickerbocker History. The satire refers several times to the white bearded, flying-horse riding Saint Nicholas using his Dutch name, Santa Claus.

g. Dr. Clement Moore, a professor at Union Seminary, read Knickerbocker History, and in 1822 he published a poem based on the character Santa Claus: “Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse. The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in the hope that Saint Nicholas soon would be there…” Moore innovated by portraying a Santa with eight reindeer who descended through chimneys.

h. The Bavarian illustrator Thomas Nast almost completed the modern picture of Santa Claus. From 1862 through 1886, based on Moore’s poem, Nast drew more than 2,200 cartoon images of Santa for Harper’s Weekly. Before Nast, Saint Nicholas had been pictured as everything from a stern looking bishop to a gnome-like figure in a frock. Nast also gave Santa a home at the North Pole, his workshop filled with elves, and his list of the good and bad children of the world. All Santa was missing was his red outfit.

i. In 1931, the Coca Cola Corporation contracted the Swedish commercial artist Haddon Sundblom to create a coke-drinking Santa. Sundblom modeled his Santa on his friend Lou Prentice, chosen for his cheerful, chubby face. The corporation insisted that Santa’s fur-trimmed suit be bright, Coca Cola red. And Santa was born – a blend of Christian crusader, pagan god, and commercial idol.

So basically xmas trees came from pagans who brought them into their homes to worship them. Mistletoe came from druid rituals where they used mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim, and gift giving came from the roman practice of saturnalia. Santa actually was an anti- Semitist who wanted everyone to believe the jews killed jesus and his good looks came from coke. So yes Jerm you can make the link between santa and Hitler because Hitler hated jews, and it seems like our buddy saint nick hated jews as well. Talk about a big change from what I learned in school. Something we do know about xmas is this. Many of the most popular Christmas customs – including Christmas trees, mistletoe, Christmas presents, and Santa Claus – are modern incarnations of the most depraved pagan rituals ever practiced on earth.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tater Salad?
12/29/2009 @ 07:46:29 AM
 Quote this comment
The Christian Forefathers (everyone after Christ, it seems) are notorious for stealing details from other religions. It's fact, not fantasy, and it makes a lot of sense to have utilized well-known dates and times. Christianity had to establish itself, and how better than re-associating dates and times and festivals with your new religion?

That said, I'm still a card carrying member of my own brand of Christianity.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 07:52:47 AM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 01:47:02 AM
Well Jerm back on your first comment...


Well, to start with the positive, I guess it's admirable that you want to do the "right" thing and don't want to take part in celebrations you think are wrong. But I hope you're not going to base your life off of things you find on any particular website without doing at least some legwork.

Anytime religion is even remotely involved you'll get a wide spectrum of info on any particular topic. For every site that claims one thing, you'll probably find a site that tells you the exact opposite. For every historical event that has any religious significance, you'll probably find at least 5 theories about "what actually happened" and the various conspiracy theories people have passed along as fact. Which is "ironic" I guess since most of the sites are railing against the same thing.

Let's look at this:

Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 01:47:02 AM

b. Nicholas was among the most senior bishops who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and created the New Testament. The text they produced portrayed Jews as “the children of the devil”[11] who sentenced Jesus to death.


I'm not the foremost authority on New Testament history by any means, but I think if you looked around for some impartial, or at least, "more impartial" documents about the Council of Nicaea, you'd find it did not have anything to do with "creating" the New Testament. Not even anything close. I'll share what I have found regarding the council. To boil it down into simple terms, the council met regarding, most notably, the divinity of Jesus Christ. And it doesn't even seem to be a divine vs. not divine debate, as much as it was about Jesus the Son's divinity in relation to The Father's divinity. It seems there had developed a teaching at that time that most didn't feel was correct or consistent with the longstanding teachings of the faith (such as those by the apostles in the New Testament) and so they met, and discussed it, and came to an agreement on what they believe to be the correct teaching, put it in writing, and all of the 200+ bishops in attendance apparently signed it except maybe two.
So while the original Nicaen creed may have been created at that time, the claim that the New Testament was created there is not true. In fact, it seems the New Testament was used to form the creed. So basically, they were putting in their own words a few ideas that had already existed in the NT since being written in the first century.

(I'm not sure where the website you used got their facts, but apparently "The DaVinci Code" is one of the bigger sources of misinformation on this and other church history issues. For instance, apparently a character in the book says the council created the divinity idea altogether and the vote was "close." Texts exist which show both those ideas to be way off base. I know this thread isn't about that book, but I wanted to mention it since that book is probably the only exposure to a lot of these topics that many people have had and it seems as though the book contains a book-full of historical references such as those that are basically laughable to historians.)

And without intending to open up a two millenia-old debate, I'd say that, Nicean council or not, the sentence that you quoted:

"The text they produced portrayed Jews as “the children of the devil”[11] who sentenced Jesus to death."

is an awfully loaded sentence, with phrasing that likely wouldn't pass a "neutrality test" if you chose to apply one.


Edit: Also, on a more minor note, it seems Santa doesn't wear red because of Coca-Cola and the image wasn't invented by them either. Check out http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp

So, to summarize, I looked at two things on the list and found that both were inaccurate. I didn't investigate any of the others, but I doubt I picked the only two.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 4 times, last at 12/29/2009 8:10:17 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 09:57:56 AM
 Quote this comment
JFK: Why do the origins bother you so much? How is that relevant to what we celebrate today? Things evolve into other things with other meaningless/connotations. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would probably file a lawsuit if a person of authority used the word "Colored" to describe a subordinate.

We aren't putting up a Christmas tree because the pagans did it, we're putting up a tree because it's tradition. You need not trace something back 2000 years and say "THAT'S WHY WE CELEBRATE?! SCREW THAT!" You're free to do what you want, but ultimately your traditions are your own. If you and three like minded buddies get together every 12/25 to boycott Christmas by ordering Chinese food and playing Halo for 8 hours then all that would really mean is that's how you four chose to celebrate Christmas.

Also just to reiterate what I mentioned and Jon expanded on: The devil is in the details here anyway. Did Christianity borrow stuff? Sure. However, that really only matters if you're claiming the whole story was cribbed from other religions, as some places state, and there's some evidence for, but ultimately the story was passed down a few generations before it was written down as the Bible, so even if the "walked on water" story was stolen from another God story, that doesn't send the whole of the Bible into a tailspin.

Now, I'm not suggesting you have to go all the way to the other end of the spectrum to see what apologists who just white wash everything have to say either, but there is reputable info out there, and I suspect, like a myth on mythbusters, there's a little truth behind lots of the claims, just not to the extent being portrayed by these conspiratorial style sites.

There's debate over what, if anything, the Council of Nicaea actually altered, and they probably did leave out some text altogether, but it's unfair to just simply state they "created the New Testament." Created it as we know it, sure. It was never one book prior to this point. (Well, I'm sure someone stored it all in one place somewhere, but it wasn't official.) There was, some debates over what belonged, some people thought revelations didn't really fit, help, and/or was written by someone on drugs, but the implication most times is that they created the bible from whole cloth, which just isn't the case. The footnote on that "the children of the devil[11]" goes to one verse about 20 words long. I wouldn't say that's building the Bible around that idea, and if you hadn't been tipped off before this, it's a huge "we're not even trying to be impartial" red flag. It's a jewish website, so it should be an even bigger red flag that those statements should be read skeptically. Since you're basing your whole "Santa is Hitler" theory on this one claus (ha!) I'd make sure you're right. (Ignoring the fact that disliking Jews and murdering 6 million in a particularly horrible fashion aren't exactly the same thing either.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 10:45:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:46:29 AM
The Christian Forefathers (everyone after Christ, it seems) are notorious for stealing details from other religions. It's fact, not fantasy, and it makes a lot of sense to have utilized well-known dates and times. Christianity had to establish itself, and how better than re-associating dates and times and festivals with your new religion?


It was way before Christianity as well, but again, doesn't matter to Christmas at all. The Old Testament creation story was lifted almost entirely from the Babylonian creation myth, where Tiamat, the goddess of the sea, eventually forms the heavens and the earth, etc, etc. And many pre-Christian religions have their own version of "Jesus." Sometimes I wish that the Jews in exile had lifted the Olympians for their stories. I might actually go to church if there were stories of Pegasus springing from Medusa's severed head.

And really, when I hang mistletoe, I have fond thoughts of Norse Gods warring over the goddess Nanna. Then we go have cocoa and tell pagan stories by the fire, while dealing with the strange grandma issues the Norse stories bring up.

Note: Tiamat was killed by her "son," Marduk, and her body was then used to form the heavens and the earth. So really, if you ever celebrate the fact the the earth or the stars exist, you are supporting matricide.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Micah screwed with this at 12/29/2009 10:46:36 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
12/29/2009 @ 11:12:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, really though, Judaism and Christianity weren't first, so their stories are going to sound lifted no matter what, every religion has some God creating everything. How different can they sound if you whittle them down to the big events? That doesn't necessarily mean they were lifted, and even if allegories like the flood story were lifted, all that would necessarily mean is that they thought that was still apt. These would really only be issues for people who thought the Bible was the inerrant word of God, and they have bigger hurdles to worry about, like the internal inconsistencies.

However, there's a lot of misinformation out there. Searching for some information I stumbled across a site that detailed all the things in the bible that were stolen. It had all the makings of a raving loon, but that doens't mean the info is made up. If I didn't read far enough I wouldn't have seen this, which calls into question everything he had already said: The "Tower of Babel" is another ALLEGORY. In ancient times, humans could communicate telepathically, without words. This was taken from us, but is now becoming a reality again, as many of us are experiencing this through the opening of the mind and soul with power meditation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 12/29/2009 11:35:58 am
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - We can do this easy, or we can do it real easy
12/29/2009 @ 11:37:33 AM
 Quote this comment
Actually many parts are directly lifted. If you read the original Hebrew (which I obviously haven't, but am listening to people who have), you can see many words and passages that coincide with the original Babylonian myths. There are actual Hebrew puns in the writing that bridge the divide between the 2 languages. It definitely doesn't make it any less apt. They're all just handed down stories anyway. The Odyssey and the Iliad were passed down orally for hundreds of years before they were written down. I'm sure what we read is a lot different than what was originally told. Either way, I'm still having a Christmas tree and I refuse to hate Jews.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/29/2009 @ 11:45:48 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:12:00 PM
That doesn't necessarily mean they were lifted, and even if allegories like the flood story were lifted, all that would necessarily mean is that they thought that was still apt.


Or, maybe if many cultures and religions tell of a flood, it means that there actually was a flood that covered the whole earth.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 11:54:23 AM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - Today @ 11:37:33 AM
Actually many parts are directly lifted. If you read the original Hebrew (which I obviously haven't, but am listening to people who have), you can see many words and passages that coincide with the original Babylonian myths. There are actual Hebrew puns in the writing that bridge the divide between the 2 languages. It definitely doesn't make it any less apt. They're all just handed down stories anyway. The Odyssey and the Iliad were passed down orally for hundreds of years before they were written down. I'm sure what we read is a lot different than what was originally told. Either way, I'm still having a Christmas tree and I refuse to hate Jews.


Well, like I said, and you joked, if you aren't sitting around celebrating the pagans you aren't having a pagan celebration, it's really that simple. Lots of things have roots that probably aren't that flattering, but they've become traditions on their own. I haven't looked, but I assume that the origin of engagement rings was marking that woman as someone soon to be your property, but good luck to you if you ever told your soon-to-be ex that you won't buy her an engagement ring because 1400's society were chauvinistic.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
12/29/2009 @ 12:08:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:45:48 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:12:00 AM
That doesn't necessarily mean they were lifted, and even if allegories like the flood story were lifted, all that would necessarily mean is that they thought that was still apt.


Or, maybe if many cultures and religions tell of a flood, it means that there actually was a flood that covered the whole earth.


Sure could, though given that they still existed to pass on the story, it's still more likely than not just a good yarn. If you're looking at it as an event that actually happened, suddenly the fact that many previous cultures told stories about their gods flooding the earth at different times and sparing one guy who was forewarned would be pretty troubling, yes? I guess they were all wrong about their gods, but the god of the Bible heard the story one day and thought, "hmm, that's not a bad idea, this time it's for reals bitches! You there, grab some animals, this shit's about to get crazy all up in here."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
12/29/2009 @ 12:27:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:54:23 PM
Well, like I said, and you joked, if you aren't sitting around celebrating the pagans you aren't having a pagan celebration, it's really that simple.


In fact, for any Christian who is worried about the origins of the Christmas as we know it, the Bible actually deals with this type of issue almost directly when it talks about whether or not you should eat meat that has been sacrificed to pagan gods. The Bible basically says, if you are ok with it, then do it. But, if you have doubts about it, then you should not do it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 12/29/2009 12:28:24 pm
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons
12/29/2009 @ 01:16:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:45:48 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:12:00 PM
That doesn't necessarily mean they were lifted, and even if allegories like the flood story were lifted, all that would necessarily mean is that they thought that was still apt.


Or, maybe if many cultures and religions tell of a flood, it means that there actually was a flood that covered the whole earth.


There probably was, but since the "whole world" to people then was about 20 square miles, it isn't quite as impressive.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 11:45:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:08:11 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:45:48 AM

Or, maybe if many cultures and religions tell of a flood, it means that there actually was a flood that covered the whole earth.


Sure could, though given that they still existed to pass on the story, it's still more likely than not just a good yarn. If you're looking at it as an event that actually happened, suddenly the fact that many previous cultures told stories about their gods flooding the earth at different times and sparing one guy who was forewarned would be pretty troubling, yes? I guess they were all wrong about their gods, but the god of the Bible heard the story one day and thought, "hmm, that's not a bad idea, this time it's for reals bitches! You there, grab some animals, this shit's about to get crazy all up in here."


What's the evidence that they were previous cultures and not post-flood cultures that ditched the Noah part of the story but still passed on some version of a flood story? It'd be fairly difficult to have previous cultures if the known world was 20 square miles.

At any rate, the 11th commandment isn't "Thou shalt celebrate Christmas the right way", so I really don't even have an opinion on anything else mentioned here. There is no "right way", there is no "real meaning of Christmas" because it means too many different things to too many different people. And besides that, think of how much energy we waste on Christmas lights.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
12/30/2009 @ 01:14:06 AM
 Quote this comment
I don't care enough to look, cause it really doesn't matter. Virgin births, walking on water, etc, had all been done before. At best it's interesting, but someone could have an almost word for word version of noah 1000 years earlier but with a different god/main character, all that could mean is they mis-attributed the event to their god, or the story is about the lessen, and not meant to be a literal event anyway. It's harder to explain the new testament things where the events clearly happened after these other stories, but many people don't claim the bible is inerrant either.

Besides, floods happen, and are devastating, so it's really not all that meaningful that cultures all have their really-big flood story, and since people who believe in gods attribute everything to them it really doesn't mean anything that other cultures invent a "the gods must be pissed" explanation for them. People like to tell stories. It's like the people that say dragons must have existed because dozens of ancient cultures have stories about them. Reptiles exist, and can be freaky, or are a ferocious looking thing to represent you as your logo, what better to exaggerated their size in a scary story, and pass that down? I've said it before on here, I'm sure, but I don't know why people assume exaggerating was invented in 1932, and that tall tales began with Paul Bunyan.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 12/30/2009 1:22:20 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 07:56:26 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:45:48 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:12:00 AM
That doesn't necessarily mean they were lifted, and even if allegories like the flood story were lifted, all that would necessarily mean is that they thought that was still apt.
Or, maybe if many cultures and religions tell of a flood, it means that there actually was a flood that covered the whole earth.


Or you could believe all the archeological evidence. I get your point, but on this we have physical proof. We also have scientific proof the plagues of Egypt and the escape from Israel could have been naturally occurring phenomena.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted.
12/30/2009 @ 07:57:45 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:45:34 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:08:11 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:45:48 AM
Or, maybe if many cultures and religions tell of a flood, it means that there actually was a flood that covered the whole earth.
Sure could, though given that they still existed to pass on the story, it's still more likely than not just a good yarn. If you're looking at it as an event that actually happened, suddenly the fact that many previous cultures told stories about their gods flooding the earth at different times and sparing one guy who was forewarned would be pretty troubling, yes? I guess they were all wrong about their gods, but the god of the Bible heard the story one day and thought, "hmm, that's not a bad idea, this time it's for reals bitches! You there, grab some animals, this shit's about to get crazy all up in here."
What's the evidence that they were previous cultures and not post-flood cultures that ditched the Noah part of the story but still passed on some version of a flood story? It'd be fairly difficult to have previous cultures if the known world was 20 square miles. .


Prometheus and Deucalion
Dardanus
Samothrace
Jupiter- Deucalion and Pyrrha
Jupiter- Philemon and Baucis
Romulus, king of Alba
Bergelmir
Titan (celtic)
Dwyfan and Dwyfach

ok, I'm bored- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec screwed with this at 12/30/2009 8:01:07 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
12/30/2009 @ 09:49:35 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 07:56:26 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:45:48 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:12:00 AM
That doesn't necessarily mean they were lifted, and even if allegories like the flood story were lifted, all that would necessarily mean is that they thought that was still apt.
Or, maybe if many cultures and religions tell of a flood, it means that there actually was a flood that covered the whole earth.


Or you could believe all the archeological evidence. I get your point, but on this we have physical proof. We also have scientific proof the plagues of Egypt and the escape from Israel could have been naturally occurring phenomena.


Actually I'm fairly certain there's no compelling extra-biblical account/evidence that Israelites even were enslaved by the Egyptians, let alone the Exodus and plagues. It's true there might be explanations for some of the plagues, but that's done in a "let's assume they happened, could there be an explanation" sense, it doesn't mean they happened. The Egyptians kept meticulous records, especially when the army was involved (including defeats). They almost certainly would have recorded events that led to every fish, cattle, crop, the army, 2.5 million slaves (half the Egyptian population), and most of the Egyptian children, being lost/killed. It also would have almost certainly meant someone else at least recorded the aftermath of a powerful country who would have been decimated for decades/centuries after. Obviously this proves nothing, but it's fairly telling. What would be more noteworthy than this happening? There would be obvious records/evidence of such an event, not one vague mark here that could refer to this or that, and reading between the lines on things like "the culture of an area changed around the time the Israelites would have arrived" or a way-too-small campsite in the desert that falls within 500 years of when it might have occurred.

Edit: But we're getting off course here, the point is, celebrating Christmas is NOT celebrating a pagan holiday, just because they put it on the same day thousands of years ago. (And really didn't really encourage people to celebrate that way anyway, just sort of begrudgingly accepted the people that were already pagans celebrating the way they always had.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 12/30/2009 10:08:28 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tater Salad?
12/30/2009 @ 10:21:35 AM
 Quote this comment
What I said was that there was scientific research that proved the plagues could be explained- that they could occur naturally, and in a sequence.

The existance of Israelites in Egypt has been archeologically proven and dating confirms that the presence coincides with the dates estimated from the Bible. The Quran also mentions the exodus, and gives another, similar account of what happened (Surat al Shuara 17). Egyptologists have, of course, excavated places from that time frame, and although the tools, foods, clothing, etc, used would have been egyptian (what slave has their own gear?) there has been considerable evidence of Israelites. Unfortunately the presence of Israelites could also be attributed to Israelite immigrants who migrated with the Hyksos, who settled in the Nile Delta in the Middle Kingdom.

Long story short, there is evidence of their presence, absolutely; that they were enslaved is likely, given that the Hyksos were expelled in the beginning of the 18th dynasty, and any stragglers could have been taken. Dr. Zahi Hawass, God of Egyptian Antiquities (Director) has a lot to say on the topic. He also says that there are sites he thinks could be Israelite tombs, or settlements, or something of that nature, but the (Islamic) Government has barred excavation due to certain possible discoveries and their impact on regional relations.

If you're wondering where my info comes from, it's mainly from watching a lot of Nat Geo, reading the Bible, and being a big nerd.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 10:41:24 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, I never said Egyptians and Isrealites never crossed paths, just that it's almost certainly the case we wouldn't use words like "could have" and "likely" to describe something there should be fairly obvious evidence of. Some Isrealites being enslaved doesn't really mean a whole lot, that would be an inevitability of living near a powerful empire that used slave labor. If half the Egyptian population was enslaved Isrealites , that left at once, especially following 10 back to back disasters that would make Katrina look like a blustery day in comparison, it's almost certainly the case someone would have noted it, in a society that kept records of battles, treaties, deals, trades, etc, or by one of the societies that had Egypt drop the ball on their deal because Egypt was suddenly 1/3 the population it was, with no food sources left.

Edit: As for the Quran, that's irrelevant as corroboration/evidence. It's a derivative work. It would be like saying Mary Jane Watson must be real because she was in Spiderman and Spiderman 2.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/30/2009 10:45:27 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 12:17:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Except that Spider never claims in any way to be anything other than fiction.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 12:31:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Does that matter? The point is it means nothing. It really means less than nothing, as it would be more surprising for it not to be the case. It's only ever-so-slightly slightly less ridiculous than saying the flood story, or exodus story, in the Bible is corroborated by the one in the Torah. It's one account of the stories, told 3 times, not three accounts of the stories.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 12/30/2009 12:58:20 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 01:05:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:31:16 PM
It's one account of the stories, told 3 times, not three accounts of the stories.


Except that every ancient culture has a flood story, myth, account, or whatever you want to call it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 01:17:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Sure, but then you'd have to verify that those are all the same flood, or happened. Floods aren't exactly rare, and most people had no sense of the size of the world they lived in, and even those who knew it was big didn't know how big. Lots of cultures that had no contact have similar stories, fears, made up creatures, etc. We're all human, and the same things scare us.

The point here is that the Qur'an doesn't provide any more outside sourced evidence for the events or characters in the Bible than the Bible does for the Torah. They're spin-offs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/30/2009 1:23:07 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 01:20:49 PM
 Quote this comment
don't get caught up on a minor detail and you won't lose sight of the big picture. Just about every ancient culture man has ever produced had a flood storywith strikingly similar details. We're taught this in high school- Gilgamesh, Noah, etc.

To get caught up on one detail from hours ago and use it as your main point (like taking a stance on the Quran) is complete Jeremy-cliche!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 01:58:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, you brought the Quran up as evidence of the Exodus, so I'm not sure how it's my fault we stopped talking about the flood and talked about the Quran.

Let's break down aspects of the Noah Flood that other cultures may or may not tell:

1) God angry, wants to kill everyone and start fresh. Might makes right, all that.
2) Warns one guy or one guy survives
3) Builds a boat
4) Saves animals
5) Giant flood

Floods happen, so a tale about a giant flood isn't all that much of a stretch. Anything of that magnitude is going to be attributed to whatever god you believe in, and it's doubtful anyone would interpret that as a loving gesture, so obviously we had it coming somehow. Almost every tale told has a hero, a lone survivor, etc. He survives, so almost by definition he has to know in advance it's coming somehow, and his response to an epic flood isn't going to be to build a rocket ship, of course he builds a boat. Other than the saving of the animals, which non-coincidentally is the part that changes the most, and even isn't that large of a stretch seeing as they are innocent, and people are dependent on them to survive, the story practically writes itself.

Besides which, that's just as much a case as the Bible is a bunch of stories stolen by a someone to retell their people as it would be corroborating evidence. And besides that a huge flood wouldn't automatically imply it was supernatural anyway, and even if it HAD to be supernatural somehow there's really no more reason to beleive the Christian God did it than there is to beleive another version that says Poseidon did it.

There's really no logic to the argument that if the non-supernatural parts of Bible are historically accurate then the supernatural parts are proved, in any sense. Those would need to be a whole separate topic. Believe it, or not, but the historical accuracy of the Bible really doesn't prove anything one way, or the other, unless you think it's literal and error free in those matters, and not just in matters of faith (Inerrant vs infallible), or not even meant to be historical.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 12/30/2009 2:04:23 pm
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - I didn't make that! It fell out of your hair that way!
12/30/2009 @ 02:10:40 PM
 Quote this comment
The fact is it probably did happen, but Jeremy touches on it perfectly when he says "most people had no sense of the size of the world they lived in." That was my point when I said the "world" was 20 square miles back then. Even with archeological evidence of a flood in the middle east, there obviously isn't any for a flood at the same time in the Americas, Australia, Southern Africa, etc.

Touching on storytelling and going back to Exodus, the plagues and the exodus itself all can have happened if you take into account storytelling and historical context. (I'm ignoring the fact that there really is no evidence anywhere that the exodus took place). The Exodus is suspected to happen sometime between 1500-1200 BC. The stories are now widely believed not to have been written by Moses, but to have been written down hundreds of years later. Even today with massive libraries, the internet, etc., we have to go to snopes.com to find out what many of the real historical folklore stories from even 50 years ago came from. These stories are being passed down only orally and through a network of people that had reason to make the start of their civilization look as grand as possible. Imagine what the story of the Revolutionary War would look like if there was no written record, and Americans just passed down the story of George Washington to their children. Most likely, Washington would have crossed the Delaware by himself and defeated the British with thunderbolts from his fingertips, emperor style.

Just off the top of my head, you could easily say that there were Jews enslaved in Egypt who wanted to be free. One year there was a locust infestation which killed off a vast majority of the crops, leading to widespread famine. There are already historical accounts later in the Old Testament of mothers killing their children during famine, which could account for the killing of many firstborn. Not being able to feed even their own civilians, Egypt was forced to free the Jews in order to support their own civilization. Over the years, obviously all stories get taken to the extreme. The locusts killed ALL the crops, God killed EVERY firstborn, etc, etc. Or you could just believe God, Allah, Zeus, the Thetans, or whoever did it all.

And clearly Poseidon caused the flood. No one else has the power to build an underwater go-kart track, much less flood the entire earth.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Micah screwed with this at 12/30/2009 2:13:49 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 02:14:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - Today @ 02:10:40 PM
Most like, Washington would have crossed the Delaware by himself and defeated the British with thunderbolts from his fingertips, emperor style.


That's not what happened?! Damn public schools.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 02:33:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 12/27/2009 @ 03:14:28 PM
Here's the thing with the origins: These are always done in a conspiratorial "open your eyes Sheeple!"


I reread this and laughed because Sheeple sounds like something a Jewish grandmother would say.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
12/30/2009 @ 02:34:33 PM
 Quote this comment
emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
12/30/2009 @ 02:42:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Just for the record, I think the non-supernatural portions of the Bible are fairly accurate, at least in terms of any other document of events from antiquity. One has to watch for things that have likelihood, or motive, to be embellished over the years, and be aware that even if they are doing a faithful retelling in their mind, our memories suck. Micah, Carl, and I could all tell a story about a single event in PCWs history as faithfully as possible, and tell three different stories.

The day after the Challenger shuttle explosion, psychologist Ulric Neisser asked his students to fill out a questionnaire about the incident, like where they were when they heard the news, who told them etc. Three years later he asked them the same questions again and at least 25% of them were wrong about every major detail. Only 10% matched their responses to the ones from three years earlier. Furthermore, confidence in the memories had no correlation with their accuracy. Students who had inaccurate recall were just as likely to be confident in their memories as students whose memories were unchanged. One student verified that while the answers on paper where in his handwriting, he insisted they were wrong.

However, while cross verification would be ideal, the Bible is ultimately in the same boat with other historical texts. Many were also passed down by word of mouth and not recorded generations later when no eye witnesses remained. For example, no one knows if Socrates was real or not. I have no problem thinking that it's true that everything in the Bible was based on something real and provable. That really doesn't prove much though. For example, proving there was a guy named Jesus that was teaching these things really doesn't prove anything, because that isn't really the pertinent issue when discussing "does the person portrayed here exist."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 12/30/2009 3:35:43 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 04:19:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:42:24 PM
Just for the record, I think the non-supernatural portions of the Bible are fairly accurate


So your version of the Bible would be about 6 pages long?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
12/30/2009 @ 05:12:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Ha, well there are quite a few mentions of figures/events. In terms of that, and getting a sense of what culture was like in those times, I think it's it's unfairly written off sometimes, when in fact there are very few historical documents that aren't subject to word of mouth, translation errors, etc. When it speaks to things like who was king of what when, where countries/cities were, and things is has little reason to be biased about, I don't see why it isn't as relevant as any other documentation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 05:15:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy is a big fan of all the begetting. (begatting??) And screw James Patterson, just get me a cup of hot cocoa and some good Numbers reading.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 05:25:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, since it's sort of on topic, now, Thomas Jefferson did actually create a version of the Bible that got rid of the old testament and anything supernatural since he deems it in there only by exaggerations and whatnot. I guess his point was Jesus had some good things to say, and did some good things, regardless of his divinity. Not sure how long it is, but it's in the public domain. By the top of page 3 in a particularly large fonted version Jesus is 30, and the Sermon on the mount seems to be on page 6, so I'm guessing it's not terribly long.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 12/30/2009 5:25:20 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/30/2009 @ 08:56:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, most of the new testament is when Jesus is 30 years or older, and the Sermon on the Mount is as early as the 5th chapter in the new testament.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/31/2009 @ 01:19:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, sure, it's also not in chronological order, which is one of the things Jefferson "fixed" so things could potentially be earlier, I'm just saying he skips a lot, like the entire birth story altogether, and replaces it with like 7 lines. "Early as the 5th chapter" is a bit different than 11th paragraph, but I didn't mean to imply that the sermon was one of the last things he did, if that's what you thought I meant.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.