Xref: utzoo soc.singles:12407 talk.religion.misc:3955 alt.flame:1139 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!tektronix!reed!littlei!omepd!uoregon!markv From: markv@uoregon.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.religion.misc,alt.flame Subject: Re: Christmas parties Message-ID: <1393@uoregon.UUCP> Date: 2 Jan 88 22:14:33 GMT References: <8712231623.AA24882@decwrl.dec.com> <1340@vaxwaller.UUCP> <14173@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <207@sp7040.UUCP> Reply-To: markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) Organization: University of Oregon, Computer Science, Eugene OR Lines: 67 In article <207@sp7040.UUCP> dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) writes: > >Take the example of Christna [sic?] beliefs. Here was a demi-god born 1200 >years before the Christian Jesus of a virgin mother who performed miracles >and was eventually put to death on a cross. Sound familiar? There have been >16 different sons-of-God, most of them males born of virgins. But there is >no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed. The Roman's never noted his >presence. Winter has been a time of parties dating far back when tribes, >seeing the sun grow ever lower in the heavens (pardon by use of that word), >would have dances and prayers hoping for it to return. Of course it always >did. Your arguments, if designed to convince Christians that they are living a lie, are highly ineffective. After all, religious convictions are matters of FAITH, not of "secular evidence". How incredibly poor in FAITH is a man who will only believe what is SHOWN to him, what is EXPLAINED to him, what cannot be denied. If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved. It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is potentially more rich. >Even the Bible contradicts itself not only about the time the alleged "Jesus" >was born, but also about his name, and the fact that he was born of a virgin. >You want the exact citations? - I'll quote them for you. But all this is >irrelevant to those persons who view the world through rose-colored glasses. >If you want to celebrate X-mas as religious - fine. But don't interfere with >my celebration. X-mas is a product of man, made by man, celebrated by man, >and so it will continue. It is amazing to me how religious intolerance continues. From my point of view (a not particularly good Roman Catholic) there is no doubt that Jesus was the real son of God. What that means? I have no idea. It is nice that you can find exact passages in the Bible to corroborate your viewpoint. The Bible has been used by many different (and many very evil) people as justification for actions. I guess the rule is, you can read anything you damn well please into the Bible. But then, that "don't make it so" either. >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >!{ihnp4!hpda!seismo!utah-cs!uplherc}!sp7040!dale > "The agony of my soul found vent in one loud, > long and final scream of despair." --POE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This really brightened my Christmas! I am not a particularly religious person. I disagree with many of the doctrines taught in my own church. I consider myself a Christian, but that word has so many negative Bible-thumping judgemental associations with it, that I rarely use it. What I am constantly amazed at is the amazing intolerance of people. Dammit, let people be what they wish to be! Some people will worship Christ's birth, as their Savior. Fine! Some will use it as an excuse to give one another gifts, be with family, get drunk a little, and take a couple of days of from the grind. Fine as well! Jews have a separate holiday which is closely spaced with Christmas, let them do whatever they do to celebrate. Let them do it openly, and don't get all bent out of shape. If you are like me, you try to appreciate both sides of Christmas (secular and religious) at least a little bit. When both sides are really there, then Christmas is meaningful for me. mark vandewettering, into the thick of philosophical discussion, in the new year