Festivity, OK it has no scientific validity. So what? No proof that it was sanctioned by God or there is no testimony or anything solid based on research to back up that Christ ever lived except in the hearts and minds of his devotees. I cannot ratify it and believe in its scientific foundation, for there is none, since I am a diehard evolutionist. I am convinced that Darwin was and is still right and what is more my belief in his findings has been underpinned after reading the Origin of Species. But I am in for Christmas. I love to celebrate it and all the more I revere it after reading a Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Festivals have their worth, implication and their relevance which we cannot premise if we cannot deeply watch the total involvement people have in it, immersing themselves in the very stream and flow of it. I am a witness, being born somewhere outside this culture. Cultures no matter which tribes or communities one come from are great reservoirs that inundate and anoint smeared human souls dirtied and mired in their sinful ditches they perform in their everyday routines. Imagine there is no Christmas amongst Christians, no Dashain amongst Hindus. There will be no joy and no fresh and jubilant moods. Our life will be somewhat akin to Scrooges in A Christmas Carol. It is not necessary one has to be a Christian or believe in Christianity to enjoy the vigor of Christmas. I grew up in a Hindu upbringing but I can enjoy in Mass celebrating Christmas. For I believe that Christmas has its foundation on Unity and Harmony that brings all together from across diverse human societies for oneness.
I may be mistaken, but I thought that most historians accepted synoptics/Pauline letters as some historical foundation for a Galilean Rabbi called 'Jesus of Nazareth' who was in fact crucified by Pontius Pilate, which, alongside references by Josephus and Tacitus to the man, established a likelihood that this guy had done some preaching and rabbinical teaching before his death? Putting that aside, I agree with you for the most part about the value of festivals and holidays, although these days this particular festival is a bit too consumer and greed driven for my taste. It begs the question, is there a point where Christmas is more stressful and pressure filled than anything else.
Of course you don't have to be Christian to celebrate and enjoy Christmas. Christianity is just one of the traditions associated with the ancient festival - and it's certainly not the original tradition. For the vast majority of people, the xmas tree, family celebration, special foods, decorations based on nature (holly, mistletoe etc), and the concept of abundance and renewal are the predominant themes - and these are all pagan. It doesn't matter what the NAME of the thing is, the actual practice is a pleasingly ancient pagan festival - putting us in touch with our northern European ancestors. Well, those of us with northern European ancestors, anyway
Christmas (Yule/Solstice/Saturnia) has become little more than a retail experience and a reason for Christians to complain about non-Christians not celebrating it properly. My family does our version just to please the Grandchild and have fun...I couldn't care less about the made up baby Jesus part.
I would submit that the secular (which is actually pagan) is the main theme of the festival. Probably always has been. The church wasn't up on their social anthropology at the time they imagined they make a pagan festival their own. Humans really do have surprisingly long cultural/racial memories. Which might be why we're seeing such a resurgence of interest in Yulefest - now that there is no longer any compulsory Christianisation of the event.
The Bible was written by around 40 authors over 1500 years and the fact you can find no direct contradictions in it because of much of its vagueness is more than enough to keep the possibility of its authenticity on the table. Some say that nobody short of a creator could have pulled off something like that. It certainly is not necessary to believe in God to partake in the festivities and we Christians actually encourage that.
since many holy books have been written which are vague and 'consistent', I guess you're saying gods were behind all of them. for some reason I had you pegged as a monotheist, so that comes as a surprise. - - - Updated - - - It certainly isn't necessary to believe in the winter solstice to partake in the festivities, and we pagans and atheists actually encourage that
I was not saying that the Bible provided proof, I was saying that per the scientific method the bible would provide enough evidence to keep God as a possibility.
right. as do all the other vague and 'consistent' holy books. they also all have ample evidence to keep primitive humans as possible authors. which do YOU think is more likely? that all the old holy books were penned by gods, or that humans like to invent things?
None of the others have the evidence the Bible does that I stated above. Compare it to the Quran which we do not even know who wrote but we do know it was written only the course of 23 years. Any single person or group could have done that. As the games "Chinese whispers" and "grapevine" have shown in psychology, it is almost impossible to keep a story consistent even among 20 people telling it. In order for this to happen over 15 centuries, each of the writers would have needed to have access to all other writings as well as have spent a very long time studying them for inconsistencies. When you break it down like that it is almost an impossibility. Imagine 40 people writing the harry potter series with little to no access with what was written before and keeping it consistent. So unless you want to imply that the people who put the actual canon together rewrote the entire thing, this has to remain as a possibility.
there is nothing remotely mysterious about the evolution of the bible, Spooks. it's exactly as mysteriously 'consistent' as thousands of other myth/holy books. differences in longevity and dissemination are not mysterious either. it's simply a function of who had the power and resources over the past 1700 years. the bible is like that Scottish fast food franchise - it's everywhere, and it's pretty consistent - but it's still crap.
I never said it was mysterious. Take God out of the equation for a second. Now consider the actual writing of the book, how long it took, and how flawlessly it flows......that in itself is practically an impossibility to do with so many authors over so many years with little to no access of previous writings. That alone gives us a possibility that God may be real.
All it tells us is that many people, over many years, had a vested interest in perpetuating the dogma in more or less its original form. If you're attempting to argue along the lines of popularity or longevity - then I refer you back to the Scottish fast food chain. Really, there is nothing in the bible which is outside the reach of determined men. If there was, it would have long since been taken far more seriously than it has. And no, numbers don't equate to being taken seriously.
2 Chronicles 7:16 - "I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there." Acts 7:48 - "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:" 1 Timothy 6:16 - "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen." 1 Kings 8:12 - "Then Solomon said, 'The Lord has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud'" Exodus 31:17 - "It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Isaiah 40:28 - "He will not grow tired or weary," Proverbs 15:3 - "The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good." Genesis 11:5 - "But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building." Acts 1:24 - "Then they prayed, Lord, you know everyones heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen" Deuteronomy 13:3 - "you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." Jeremiah 32:27 - "I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" Judges 1:19 - "The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron." I haven't even scratched the surface.
Most of the authors of the Bible had little to no access to previous writings and nothing more then stories about what happened before. Take four people and tell a story to one of them, have it passed around, when it gets back to you it will be completely different. This is what gives credibility to the Bible. One of these authors, at some point, would have made a very, very clear mistake in their writing that contradicted others. It would be impossible not to. On top of that, I do not recall any of the authors being religious scholars and they were all busy with other stuff instead of pouring over previous text to make sure their writings did not contradict anything else. Tell me how this is possible to pull off?
that's really reaching, Spooks. we have no way of knowing how much the story has altered. but even if it had only changed a little over the years and various authors, that doesn't mean a thing. we have many stories extant today which have remained more or less the same over thousands of years. Some are even oral tradition - and much MUCH older. Australian aboriginal people have been handing down the same dreaming stories for up to 60,000 years.
we don't - but we do know they've barely changed in the past 200+ years. more to the point, written records can be copied far more accurately than can oral records.
Dream stories are easy to copy because they are short. Pouring over text, which most authors of the Bible did not have direct access to, is not something we can assume they did. But do not forget my main point here which is not to prove that the Bible was real, only to present the possibility that it may be. I admit that based on the evidence you could be right but you also should admit that based on the evidence that I may be. Perhaps it is the Aboriginals who are right but given the amount of evidence we have to look at there appears to be more for the Bible.
actually dreamtime stories are often long and complex - and there are many of them. humans are very good at handing down myths and legends - written or not. if you have a long history of a particular set of myths, and it's restricted to a single geographical area, you can be about as certain as it's possible to get that the stories have endured by entirely human means. IF your bible stories randomly appeared in, say, the 5thC AD in far eastern China, and in northern Alaska, and in central Africa - then there might be some argument for divine intervention. I would say there's far more evidence that the Australians were divinely inspired - given they lived in far flung locations and didn't travel widely. Granted there are different dreaming stories in different areas of the country - there are some common themes.
There is evidence for both, that was my point. So going back to your original point, yes its possible Christianity is wrong and the Gods of Native Americans or the Greeks were right. But when considering all that they have to offer from the evidence provided, I find Christianity to have the most so I chose that religion as my God. I could be wrong but my religion has made me a better person, it has given me hope, relieved my fears, and made me a better person not only to my family and friends but to humanity over all. That is something I would never give up.
Well now I'd have to beg to differ on that first point. From my perspective, Christianity has no more evidence for it than any other religion - you've simply been exposed to more 'evidence', in the form of support and endorsement. You haven't really 'chosen' Christianity, since you were born into it. If you were a white American of anglo-celtic extraction and a Hindu, then I would acknowledge you've made a choice. I'll also have to beg to differ on the boons you believe your faith has provided you. YOU did all those things. All you needed to succeed was a little motivation - which could have been found anywhere. The nature of the motivation is entirely irrelevant - what matters is that you had it in you to change. Imagine if every creator of a brilliant work of art wanted us to ignore the art and study the muse. YOU are the art - never forget that.
Religions and "Gods" are as varied as humans. Everyone defines whatever they want or are told...Atheists as well. All these are correct, and all are wrong depending on the person. None are real to reality.
We already discussed the evidence but that was not the point. The point was that there is enough evidence for a God that no realistic person that cares about the truth could dismiss it as a possibility. As I have also stated in the past, there is the theory that all Gods are actually the same God which I subscribe to. God cares about faith, not by what name you call him. As you stated, there are different cultures and traditions all over the world so it would make sense for God to present himself to different cultures differently.
