war on Christmas

[DanKroh 11]

Rooster: Why do you suggest that non-Christians will be, or ought to be, offended when others wish them a "Merry Christmas"?

 

Well, how about that it assumes that I celebrate Christmas, which according to you, must mean that I am a Christian (since it is silly for non-Christians to care about that holiday). On the other hand, why would a Christian be offended by being wished "Happy Holidays"?

 

Ed: Cool planet? That's it? That's what I figured. Nothing!

 

Well, not being a follower of Saturn, I can't tell you what the appeal is for those people. However, I can't tell you what the appeal is for a Hindu to worship Vishnu, either. But that doesn't mean that I would mock the beliefs of either (or any) religion. I see that it is easy for you to talk the talk of respecting the beliefs of others, but when it actually comes to walking the walk, you could use a wheelchair. Seems to me that both you and Rooster are of the opinion that some religions are more deserving of respect than others. I would be happy for you to contradict me and show that you truly do respect the religious beliefs of everyone.

[SemperParatus 1]

Jack Lewis' famous quote on why Jesus should not be patronized with the teacher/philosopher label...

 

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: Im ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I dont accept His claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Jack Lewis also was a member of the Church of England and rejected the claims by the Roman Catholic Church that it is the one true church of God. So, if we believe his claims about Christ, to we have to believe his claims about the Catholic Church as well?

 

Unless, of course, you're talking about the Jack Lewis who played for the Red Sox in the early 1900's

[DanKroh 11]

Yes, Jack Lewis' quote is an excellent summation of the intolerance of many Christians for beliefs that do not match their own.

 

You know, if you wanted to believe that Herne was a nice myth, but you didn't believe he was a god, thank you very much, I would not be offended as a follower of Herne. In fact, you could believe that Herne was the devil incarnate as long as you were at least respectful to me to not say it to my face. I'm not going to dictate to you what you have to believe about my gods. In fact, I couldn't give a hoot what you believe about my gods, as long as you are respectful of MY beliefs. I respect your belief that Christ was the Son of God. I'm glad it brings you comfort and gives your life meaning and a moral compass. I have neither belittled you for having that belief nor told you that there is no way that he was divine. All I ask is the same respect in return.

[Trevorum 24]

I know that many of my friends believe that Yshua was divine. Everyone is welcome to their religious beliefs. But they needn't put words in the mouths of others. Lewis sets up a false premise from the start; I do not accept the dichotomy that Yshua was either a god or insane. It's like saying that Abraham Lincoln was either King of England or an escaped felon - take your pick.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

C.S. Lewis was terrible at logic; his lord/liar/lunatic false trilemma overlooks plenty of other possibilities, such as being misquoted.

[SemperParatus 1]

If I were to start proclaiming myself to be God on this forum, I would surely be lambasted as a kook. Because I am not God. If you don't believe Jesus is Lord, in spite of his many claims to be, why do you hang the label 'great teacher', rather than kook, around his neck?

 

How could he be a great teacher for you, when you do not accept the premise for his existence in the first place? You may like and ascribe to the catch-phrase 'love your neighbor as thyself', but at the same time you discount as fallacy his first and greatest commandment to 'love God with all your heart and soul'. Summing up his existence as a great teacher or philosopher because he said some things you agree with, ignores the fact that he said much more that you would object to as delusional, misinformed, or just plain wrong.

[DanKroh 11]

Well, SemperParatus, since you have (IMHO) the cheek to demand that I justify my beliefs to you....

 

I base my label on actions rather than words. Words are cheap, and can be misinterpreted and misquoted. Actions speak much louder. It is how Jesus lived his life that I admire, how he treated the people around him, rather than what he actually prosletized. Now, I do have to make some assumptions that Christ's actions have been relatively accurately portrayed in the Bible, but I find it more likely that his words might be distorted than accounts of his actions.

 

Now, I am not disrespectful of your faith to demand that you provide a logical reasoning of your belief in Christ's divinity (one which does not involve the circular reasoning of, "Because he said so"). I understand that the acceptance of his divinity is a matter of faith, which by definition means that it is without proof.

[Kudu 186]

Now, I do have to make some assumptions that Christ's actions have been relatively accurately portrayed in the Bible, but I find it more likely that his words might be distorted than accounts of his actions.

 

I'd say just the opposite. The accounts of his supernatural miracles are suspect, but his moral allegories as recorded by his chosen disciples may be intact.

 

Most people do not realize that B-P's father, Rev. Baden Powell (first name "Baden," last name "Powell" -- no hyphen) was more famous (or infamous--he was charged with heresy, after all) in the 19th century than his son was in the 20th century. He was the first cleric in England to support Darwin. It was this liberal pro-evolution, anti-supernatural theological movement (of which Rev. Baden Powell was the spearhead) that gave birth to the Bible-literalist backlash which is so well represented in the BSA today.

 

So you could say that we have Baden Powell to thank for Christian fundamentalism.

 

It is ironic that religious fundamentalists now have control of the government-established monopoly on Scouting in the United States :-/

 

From Tim Jeal's biography Baden-Powell:

 

"In The Order of Nature he finally abandoned his earlier attempts to find satisfactory rational proof of the validity of Christian belief. Instead he now stressed the personal spiritual appeal of Jesus' teaching, claiming that the only 'proof' Christianity required was contained in the moral truth of the Gospels. Such arguments placed him far closer to the Unitarians and to radical theologians like Blanco White and Francis Newman than to his old colleagues in the Anglican Church.

 

"During the 1850s, many clerics explained away evolutionary theories by arguing that the gaps in the fossil record and the apparent suddenness of changes in species could only be explained by God's decision to create anew every time conditions became unfavorable for existing species. In The Order of Nature Baden Powell poured scorn on such last-ditch arguments. In the October issue of the influential Quarterly Review his book was savaged by the Archbishop of Dublin and others. Far from recanting, Professor Powell sent off a still more trenchant essay--in which he demolished the historical authenticity of the miracles--for inclusion in a collection provisionally entitled Essays and Reviews." See:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/ideals/beads.htm

 

Kudu

[DanKroh 11]

Kudu says: I'd say just the opposite. The accounts of his supernatural miracles are suspect, but his moral allegories as recorded by his chosen disciples may be intact.

 

That's an interesting theory, but here's my theory. In studying other languages, my experience is that the words for ideas and abstract concepts are much more nuanced, and much harder to translate than the words for actions and concrete concepts. Therefore, it is more likely (assuming that no one writing the Bible has out and out lied about events and ideas), that more complex, abstract concepts (like divinity and morality) are more susceptable to misinterpretation and mistranlation than descriptions of actions.

 

And I'm sure that those who believe that the Bible is inerrant will consider this another silly idea.

[SemperParatus 1]

"I base my label on actions rather than words. Words are cheap, and can be misinterpreted and misquoted. Actions speak much louder. It is how Jesus lived his life that I admire, how he treated the people around him, rather than what he actually prosletized. Now, I do have to make some assumptions that Christ's actions have been relatively accurately portrayed in the Bible, but I find it more likely that his words might be distorted than accounts of his actions."

 

Okay, lets look at some of his actions (which in your own words you assume to be accurately portrayed):

 

Turning water into wine.

 

Feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves of

bread.

 

Healing lepers by a simple touch of the hand.

 

Giving sight to the blind with spit and dirt.

 

Walking on water.

 

Bringing dead people to life.

 

Being resurrected.

 

Are these the actions of a mere teacher?

 

[Rooster7 11]

SemperParatus is exactly right.

 

In order for anyone to uplift Jesus as a great teacher or philosopher, and not recognize him as God, one must completely ignore the claims He made about himself.

 

And just to clarify, I doubt that SemperParatus is offended. I know Im not. Im just dumb-founded that folks cannot see the simple truth.

 

DanKroh,

 

So, when some well-meaning Jew wishes me a Happy Hanukkah, I have a right to be offended? I should berate and beseech him to start using the more generic and politically friendly Happy Holidays?

 

Why would someone be offended by the force-fed, politically correct Happy Holidays? Because - its a bogus meaningless greeting that ignores the obvious that millions of Christians in this country want and need to recognize their God at this particular time of the year. And worse, self-proclaimed liberal intellectuals embrace and exploit it as an opportunity to spit in the collective eye of Christians without recognizing or taking ownership of their own hatred and duplicity. And finally, it is yet another example whereas self-proclaimed Christians willingly deny an opportunity to recognize and honor their Lord and Savior in deference to an inane liberal philosophy, which claims that we must deny our own faith in order to properly recognize the faith of others.

 

Id much rather have a faithful Jew wish me a since and hardy Happy Hanukkah without any forethought, then to be subjected to the empty refrain of Happy Holidays, deliberately concocted and designed purely so to not offend. At best, its a sterilized greeting with no meaning. At worst, its a mindset that encourages Christians to place a higher priority on political correctness than on honoring their Lord and Savior. In short, this whole idea of settling on a universal holiday greeting is a bunch of ****!

 

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarmneither hot nor coldI am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Revelation 3:15&16(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[DanKroh 11]

Well, then Rooster, I thank you for the good intentions of your Christmas greeting, and wish you and yours a sincere and heartfelt Happy Yule. May the return of the sun shine bright blessings on your house.

 

 

[DanKroh 11]

SemperParatus says: Are these the actions of a mere teacher?

 

Never said there was anything "mere" about Jesus. Actually, the phrase I used was "great teacher". I guess you also missed the part where I said that I think he was certainly "touched" by God.

 

And the actions I had in mind were more along the lines of how he lived his life and how he treated the people around him, rather than a laundry list of the miracles he may have performed. Things like (just a few examples):

 

Asking the rich to help the poor.

Calling for an end to discrimination based on social class.

Showing compassion for those that others considered outcast (lepers, etc.)

Encouraging people to be responsible for their own actions, and to be judged on those actions rather than on their words (especially when the two contradicted each other).

 

So riddle me this, SemperParatus, is your request for an explanation of my beliefs out of simple curiosity and respectful desire to better understand the beliefs of others, or due to some need to prove my beliefs invalid and silly? Again, I would point out that I have not demanded that you justify your belief about Christ's divinity, so why do you feel it necessary that I justify mine?

 

Do you feel that you have truly shown respect for my beliefs?

[SemperParatus 1]

DK,

 

I have reread all of your posts on this forum, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out what your 'belief' is, other than that you believe you are somehow being disrespected for it (whatever it is) by a bunch of intolerant Christian bigots.

 

Something to do with yule, winter harvests, Saturn etc.? Why don't you explain what you believe, I am interested in understanding. And, please don't just direct me to a website.

 

And you can wish me anything, I am not offended. After all, 'words are cheap'.