As a former pagan and recovering anti-Catholic, I find the Church did not co-opt pagan holy days. Recognizing worship is a basic human trait, the Church completed the circle, it gave ultimate respect,comfort and meaning to the pagan cultures that she came in contact with. Christmas, and and Christ "completes",and "explains" paganism. Search the lives of Kateri Tekakwitha and Black Elk. Pagan's prayer said at every Mass. Protestants criticize Church for "paganism". St Paul sent to the "Gentiles"
Video translation: I am young and therefore I feel the need to capitulate to the agnostic or athiest point of view. He called Jesus a "dictator," that's helpful discourse? You are a fool.
@TheOpprobrium What does my age have to do with atheism? I get tired with the Freedom From Religion foundation a lot but I understand their views. And though you may not like the wording, if you believe that as a Christian you must obey God and that everything you need to do to avoid eternity in hell is predetermined by God, then that would fit the definition of a dictatorship (obey to the letter or suffer unimaginable consequences.)
@TheOpprobrium Nothing is predetermined and frankly, no, calling you a fool is not productive discourse but it described what I feel everytime I see yet another discounting religion for some amorphous idea of reality. Good luck to you in your quest for truth.
Well I think you've missed the basis for my criticism of organized religion. Let's just say, in broad strokes, that I think that the basis for our existence is much larger than any religion can account for and I think people get defensive when we try to raise that point.
I think a quest for truth (if you're referring to ultimate truth) is a losing bet but the best we can do is foster understanding and compassion for those we share this existence with. But however you go about that is up to you.
i have been open. and after reading the word and finding out what it says there's no way that a person can honestly think that it's not true(if you read it and try to understand it) not just read it to scrutinize it.
That's the problem. If you read something or analyze something with the intent to come to a certain conclusion your judgment and understanding is tainted from the go. Study comparative religion. The story of Christ is nothing new. Most major religions follow the same basic pattern (read up on the story of Horus.) There are many religions still existing today. To single out Christianity as the one "true" religion is to submit to wishful thinking and turn off the critical part of your brain.
You're making assumptions. First, you can't lump atheists together, because they are just people who don't believe in a god. You and I are both atheists when it comes to Zeus. That's like lumping all non-U2 fans together because they share something in common. Secondly, I don't learn about religions with the intent to prove them wrong. I am interested in them because they are mythology, and mythology tells us a lot about the human condition and about the societies that created the stories.
Also, I used to think I believed in Christianity when I was a kid, but that's because that's just what a person is brought up with. You can't expect a child to say that they "believe" something about the origins of the cosmos and the way to salvation. They're just mirroring the words of their parents. I became non-religious when I realized that there were too many similarities between the religions. I think the only way one can find anything value in religion is by looking at them as mythology.
That is how you test beliefs. You scrutinize them, and attempt to find flaws. If they stand up to the scrutiny it helps to confirm them, If they don't hold up you need to seriously consider their validity.
That is how science works as well, every scientist wants to prove that another is wrong. Proving a theory wrong, and coming up with a new one is how scientists gain fame and fortune.
dan barker was a preacher correct? i am an adamant christian. and knowing that this man knew the truth and turned away scares me frankly. but dan knows the word and instead of putting up a sign that tears the thing apart and gives no reasons(even though any reasons he could make would be wrong) he could have put up a sign showing why christmas is not a christian holiday. and i'm not saying that it is because it's not. but there are better ways then the way that this organization takes at times.
See, this is what is frustrating. It's not THE TRUTH. You can believe in something as much as you want and it is still just a BELIEF. Shout it from the rooftops, but it is still a BELIEF. Period! Barker became an atheist after being a priest because he started questioning what he was preaching and realized it didn't hold up to scrutiny.
You say "any reasons he could make would be wrong." That shows that you're closing your mind and opposing points before you hear them. THAT scares me, frankly.
the way that dan barker goes about most of his debates is attacks. i'm not trying to start a fight about dan barker. i know that he is sadly mistaken and if you would like i'll show you why but thats another topic. but back to the topic at hand. most of the debates that i have seen him in he openly attacks and makes fun of the person he is debating with. the most recent would be the debate against kyle butt at the university of north carolina(i believe that was where it took place)
I have seen him and Annie Lori Gaylor discuss these topics frequently. I do find very often that they are too adamant about their position. However, I think he is in the right here. He represents a group of people who are still viewed as monsters in the public's eye. This sign is not an attack. It is merely another point of view. Dan may be confrontational sometimes, but I don't think he is here. He just isn't ashamed of his views.
As a former pagan and recovering anti-Catholic, I find the Church did not co-opt pagan holy days. Recognizing worship is a basic human trait, the Church completed the circle, it gave ultimate respect,comfort and meaning to the pagan cultures that she came in contact with. Christmas, and and Christ "completes",and "explains" paganism. Search the lives of Kateri Tekakwitha and Black Elk. Pagan's prayer said at every Mass. Protestants criticize Church for "paganism". St Paul sent to the "Gentiles"
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
Video translation: I am young and therefore I feel the need to capitulate to the agnostic or athiest point of view. He called Jesus a "dictator," that's helpful discourse? You are a fool.
TheOpprobrium 1 year ago
@TheOpprobrium What does my age have to do with atheism? I get tired with the Freedom From Religion foundation a lot but I understand their views. And though you may not like the wording, if you believe that as a Christian you must obey God and that everything you need to do to avoid eternity in hell is predetermined by God, then that would fit the definition of a dictatorship (obey to the letter or suffer unimaginable consequences.)
And is calling me a fool "helpful discourse?"
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@TheOpprobrium Nothing is predetermined and frankly, no, calling you a fool is not productive discourse but it described what I feel everytime I see yet another discounting religion for some amorphous idea of reality. Good luck to you in your quest for truth.
TheOpprobrium 1 year ago
Well I think you've missed the basis for my criticism of organized religion. Let's just say, in broad strokes, that I think that the basis for our existence is much larger than any religion can account for and I think people get defensive when we try to raise that point.
I think a quest for truth (if you're referring to ultimate truth) is a losing bet but the best we can do is foster understanding and compassion for those we share this existence with. But however you go about that is up to you.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
i think what's necessary is a war on circumcision.
gingowitch 1 year ago
i have been open. and after reading the word and finding out what it says there's no way that a person can honestly think that it's not true(if you read it and try to understand it) not just read it to scrutinize it.
jsutrumpetboy 3 years ago
That's the problem. If you read something or analyze something with the intent to come to a certain conclusion your judgment and understanding is tainted from the go. Study comparative religion. The story of Christ is nothing new. Most major religions follow the same basic pattern (read up on the story of Horus.) There are many religions still existing today. To single out Christianity as the one "true" religion is to submit to wishful thinking and turn off the critical part of your brain.
bcfilmguy 3 years ago
you say that you can't go at it looking for one thing. yet all atheists go at the bible to prove it wrong so you must be calling yourself a hypocrite
jsutrumpetboy 3 years ago
You're making assumptions. First, you can't lump atheists together, because they are just people who don't believe in a god. You and I are both atheists when it comes to Zeus. That's like lumping all non-U2 fans together because they share something in common. Secondly, I don't learn about religions with the intent to prove them wrong. I am interested in them because they are mythology, and mythology tells us a lot about the human condition and about the societies that created the stories.
bcfilmguy 3 years ago
Also, I used to think I believed in Christianity when I was a kid, but that's because that's just what a person is brought up with. You can't expect a child to say that they "believe" something about the origins of the cosmos and the way to salvation. They're just mirroring the words of their parents. I became non-religious when I realized that there were too many similarities between the religions. I think the only way one can find anything value in religion is by looking at them as mythology.
bcfilmguy 3 years ago
"all atheists go at the bible to prove it wrong"
That is how you test beliefs. You scrutinize them, and attempt to find flaws. If they stand up to the scrutiny it helps to confirm them, If they don't hold up you need to seriously consider their validity.
That is how science works as well, every scientist wants to prove that another is wrong. Proving a theory wrong, and coming up with a new one is how scientists gain fame and fortune.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
dan barker was a preacher correct? i am an adamant christian. and knowing that this man knew the truth and turned away scares me frankly. but dan knows the word and instead of putting up a sign that tears the thing apart and gives no reasons(even though any reasons he could make would be wrong) he could have put up a sign showing why christmas is not a christian holiday. and i'm not saying that it is because it's not. but there are better ways then the way that this organization takes at times.
jsutrumpetboy 3 years ago
See, this is what is frustrating. It's not THE TRUTH. You can believe in something as much as you want and it is still just a BELIEF. Shout it from the rooftops, but it is still a BELIEF. Period! Barker became an atheist after being a priest because he started questioning what he was preaching and realized it didn't hold up to scrutiny.
You say "any reasons he could make would be wrong." That shows that you're closing your mind and opposing points before you hear them. THAT scares me, frankly.
bcfilmguy 3 years ago
the way that dan barker goes about most of his debates is attacks. i'm not trying to start a fight about dan barker. i know that he is sadly mistaken and if you would like i'll show you why but thats another topic. but back to the topic at hand. most of the debates that i have seen him in he openly attacks and makes fun of the person he is debating with. the most recent would be the debate against kyle butt at the university of north carolina(i believe that was where it took place)
jsutrumpetboy 3 years ago
I have seen him and Annie Lori Gaylor discuss these topics frequently. I do find very often that they are too adamant about their position. However, I think he is in the right here. He represents a group of people who are still viewed as monsters in the public's eye. This sign is not an attack. It is merely another point of view. Dan may be confrontational sometimes, but I don't think he is here. He just isn't ashamed of his views.
bcfilmguy 3 years ago
attack and disagreeing are two different things.
jsutrumpetboy 3 years ago
Attacking and disagreeing are two different things. I agree. Care to elaborate?
bcfilmguy 3 years ago