Atheists Ruin Christmas in Santa Monica

I'd seriously doubt that having only two nativity scenes in that park is going to ruin anyones Christmas. Let the atheists have their fun while making fools of themselves.

 

No true, each of those scenes were meticulously crafted and beautiful to look at, the size and number of them were a delight to look at every year.

 

And just how has that ruined Christmas? If it did then apparently it doesn't take much to ruin Christmas in Santa Monica.

 

It didn't ruin Christmas, it's just sad to not see those scenes up as they have been for decades all because of a few out-of-towners who have a vendetta against anything religious during a religious holiday season. These idiots who put up a sign in a bucket instead of a beautiful display that the community worked on are nothing but a bunch of grinches.

 

I'm glad (*)(*)(*)(*) like this doesn't fly around here.

If this happened around here, then there would be middle of the night defacings of the atheist banners/signs.

 

I couldn't agree more. But isn't what they've done in a way confirm that they recognize Christmas because they acted in opposition to it as a Christian holiday?

 

The spaces were decided with a lottery system.

Looks like the christians are just gonna have to suck it up. Besides they've had years monopolizing the space, they can sit back and show some good old fashioned christian fellowship and let the atheists promote their message this year.

 

Yes, but at the expense of countless people and families who have enjoyed these displays for decades, for their own selfish and thoughtless reasons. They are purposefully starting an argument and a fight over displays that have been there for generations that all denominations have enjoyed. I had Jewish neighbors who loved to walk that park and look at the displays.

These guys are nothing but bullies, and I don't believe for a second that they were just lucky by getting all these spots by lottery.

 

They could just divide up the spaces equally. Each religion gets one space, and the atheists get one space. The other spaces remain empty.

There. Problem solved, no more fighting.

 

I have a question for you all. Cause I'm sick and tired of all the atheists here...


When did the nativity story become religious? A birth of a baby, 2000 years ago. A birth of a teacher. How is that religious?

What about images of movies on billboards? Why are those ok? what about the titanic movie? why didn't you have a problem with that?


The nativity story is HISTORY. It's part of writen history. Just like pearl harbor, the civil war, the roman empire and every other book about something in history. Ever seen the movie TROY? can any of you prove that happened the way it was portrayed? How come you all don't have a problem with films that show homosapiens acting like monkeys. and that's ok with you?

why is it that you have a problem with people reenacting a baby's birth?

 

How is the nativity story religious? Umm...because it is about the birth of Jesus, perhaps? And no, it isn't history, unless you can prove Jesus came into being the way he did.

The movie Troy is based on history, and is also partly made up to engage an audience. Are you saying the nativity story was deliberately made up to make people interested in it?

 

Mak. OY VEY!!!

I'm talking about a part of history. the scrolls are historical documents. they tell a story. same as the stories of the sumerians, greeks, mayans. etc. there are tons of stories of the mayans and sacrifices that everyone believes. based on some stone table description. the egyptian hiroglyphs tell stories and people believe those. so why is it so hard to believe something that was actually writen by smart people, by hand on huge, large scrolls? They are in detail and obviously writen to tell something that happened.

The movie troy and alexander are all made up too then? none of you have any evidence that a birth of a baby didn't happen in Bethlehem?

you mean to tell me there were no babies born there? that its all made up? Mak, please get educated about this city and the story of the nativity, it fits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem


I have no doubt that Jesus was born there..the evidence is all there. And no, it isn't religious. Religion is what's wrong with people. Religion kills beliefs and destroys families. A personal belief is not a religion. Just because I BELIEVE in the HISTORY of jesus does not make me religious.

 

Bravo. We are gonna have to nominate you to head that committee for the duration of your life. You would make matters so much easier. Truly good post.

 

Two accounts in the New Testament describe Jesus as born in Bethlehem. According to the Gospel of Luke,[19] Jesus' parents lived in Nazareth and travelled to Bethlehem for the census of AD 6, and Jesus was born there before the family returned to Nazareth. In the Gospel of Matthew version, it states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but does not state where the family traveled from. It does, however reference the family leaving for Egypt to avoid persecution before returning to live in Nazareth: [23][24] Matthew reports that Herod the Great, told that a 'King of the Jews' has been born in Bethlehem, ordered the killing of all the children aged two and under in the town and surrounding areas. Jesus' father Joseph is warned of this in a dream, and the family escapes this fate by fleeing to Egypt and returning only after Herod has died. But being warned in another dream not to return to Judea, Joseph withdraws the family to Galilee, and goes to live in Nazareth.

Early Christians interpreted a verse in the Book of Micah[25] as a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem.[26] Many modern scholars question whether Jesus was really born in Bethlehem, and suggest that the different Gospel accounts were invented to present the birth of Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy and imply a connection to the lineage of King David.[27][28][29][30] The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John do not include a nativity narrative or any hint that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and refer to him only as being from Nazareth.[31] In a 2005 article in Archaeology magazine, archaeologist Aviram Oshri pointed to the absence of evidence of settlement of the area at the time when Jesus was born, and postulates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Galilee.[32] Opposing him, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor argues for the traditional position.[33]

The existence of early traditions of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is attested by the Christian apologist Justin Martyr, who stated in his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 155–161) that the Holy Family had taken refuge in a cave outside of the town.[34] Origen of Alexandria, writing around the year 247, referred to a cave in the town of Bethlehem which local people believed was the birthplace of Jesus.[35] This cave was possibly one which had previously been a site of the cult of Tammuz.[36]

Bethlehem is a real place...therefore it's history...

 

Yes Jedi, Bethlehem is a real place but that doesn't mean that Jesus was born there. It could have been said he was born there because it is more convenient. If there is historical proof he was born in that city, then so be it.

 

I wouldn't want to head that committee but it sounds like the only workable option. Each side gets their fair share and no one is left out.

 

Ok. there's tons of proof that he was born there...does that make it religious for you? that a baby was born in that city? How so?

If there is proof enough that he was born there...will you then still call the bible a fairytale?

 

Documented proof?

Just because the Bible contains some historical fact doesn't make it true. Most Christians know that a lot of the Bible is just stories, part history. Like any Holy book.

 

hahaha, this is silly mak. why would each religion get a space during the birth of jesus? this makes no sense. do other religions talk about the birth of jesus in their books? NO! so why would they deserve a space there?

it's like recreating the titanic sinking, with 5 other ships around it sinking too. and some jews, muslims, and budists in the ship sinking with it.

 

wow. Mak just wow!

No one has ever proven to me or anyone else that the bible is fiction. ever. So your arguments are invalid. Until you can disprove the bible and it's stories you and the atheists got nothing.

 

You want me to disprove the 'virgin' birth??? The coming back to life when you have been killed? The living inside a whale? The building of a boat in which no animals fought? The humans living for 1000 years or longer?

You believe every single word in the Bible???

 

you are describing most of the stories in the old testament mak. those stories were writen by men and retold, and some of them could be misinterpreted. the most important part of the bible is the new testament, when it gets to the birth of jesus and the teachings and all the stories around it. the new testament is more historically accurate than the old testament. why? because jesus was here to tell everyone what to write down. the old testament didn't have that, except moses and the ten commandments.

 

Is the virgin birth mentioned in the NT then?

 

Gee, the Bible is documented. The artifacts from which it was compiled have allegedly been validated by scientific method to authenticate those artifacts, the interpretation has met with peer review and a consensus was obtained which allowed the compilation into a book called the Bible. Not only that, but even on this forum, a non-theist declares that she uses the Bible as PROOF for her claims.

 

I like how you're deeming all religious scriptures to be non fictional.

What made you accept the Abrahamic narratives out of all the other true narratives? Obviously, the lifes of Zoroaster, Hermes and Baldr are just as historically valid as any of the characters in the Bible.