One nation, under who again?

[SouthernN'Proud]

I remain unconvinced and highly skeptical, if you can imagine that.

I'm having a tough time imagining it.

 

[catocom]

You've come in on some very old & heated arguments that have grown somewhat stale, therefore it's quicker to just say STFU than re-hash old stuff.

That's kinda what I was talking about last year.
I want it to be like it was when I was growing up for the kids I'm raising.

FUN! AND (with a meaning of celebration for my faith)

IMO if a person goes too far one way or the other, one or the other gets diminished.



(edit: I kinda like the rose colored glasses at Christmas time)

 

[BeardofPants]

I remain unconvinced and highly skeptical, if you can imagine that.

Given that you've got an av with santa pooping down a chimney, I don't find it very hard to imagine at all.

 

[Pogo]

You've come in on some very old & heated arguments that have grown somewhat stale, therefore it's quicker to just say STFU than re-hash old stuff.

There are people who consistently respond to topics that are stale or unworthy of comment. It brings to mind the quote by Mark Twain who said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

 

[chcr]

There are people who consistently respond to topics that are stale or unworthy of comment. It brings to mind the quote by Mark Twain who said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

I like that quote. Too bad I don't heed it very often.

 

[2minkey]

When the Ole Possum signed onto this website, he was diligent about reading the rules, regulations, etc.. Even checked and double checked, the part where it says this section contains volitile opinions, something not all bad as sometimes things need to be said that are not popular, border on or outrightly disavow the term "politically correct".

The Ole Possum' first impressions were with the seemingly intelligent conversation, back and forth banter and insight offered by most posters.
All before seeing the vulgarities used by Gonz and 2Minkey, who are not alone as there are others who, for some reason, have apparently found personal gratification with the use of vulgarities, inappropriate slang or profanity, thereby reducing themselves from a platform of reasonable discussion to a lower standard than us swamp creatures and road kill normally experience.

The Ole Possum knows and understands there is such a thing as freedom of speech, but this is not about freedom of speech. It is about observing what appeared to be reasonable discourse between humans who were thought capable of decent expression and intelligent debate without the use of colorful language.
And it makes the Ole Possum wonder, why is it necessary ????? Most of us got the point without the added invectives and colorful adjectives. Most recognize debate is held daily, beginning to end, without the use of vulgar, profane or disrespectful language.
Meantime, the Ole Possum will continue to hang in the trees by his tail, watching, listening and evaluating but please, continue with the dialogue with which you are most comfortable. It says volumes about you as a person.

The Ole Possum will watch, read and listen while others may now vent their wrath.

dude, vulgarity is FUN.

 

[Professur]

Right then. Pogo asked nicely. You may have notice I'm not that nice. For those of you who may have missed it: THE RULES

Either start following them, or I'll let Sam make me staff again. We all remember how well that worked last time, don't we?

 

[Gonz]

Someone who voluntarily quit their post joined a new lefty with barely a handful of posts to clean up Dodge. How helpful.

There are several years worth of decent posts. Ther are also several years of vulgarities. Most are both, depending on your political bent.

I'm about bored with the entire thing but won't allow disinformation to persist or be spread. Being a blind-boy (unable to see what is right in front of them)is bad, but carrying out personal vendettas isn't.

Yes, this is the place for RULES. Too bad she ran away too.

 

[Professur]

It isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.

 

[Gonz]

Saying it in 10,000 words was no more helpful than saying STFU stupid. It's just much quicker to do it the short way.

When someone comes along & wants to debate, there is a debate. When the entire argument consists of Bush Sucks, it's banter.

 

[Professur]

And when an entire conversation consists of 10 pages of Bush Sucks followed by STFU, it's time something changed.

 

[spike]

When someone comes along & wants to debate, there is a debate. When the entire argument consists of Bush Sucks, it's banter.

Haven't seen aguements consisting of just Bush Sucks but that would be better than some of the Israel/War/Bush = good banter we often see.

 

[MrBishop]

Christ's birth date is unknown and has been speculated throughout the ages. The notion that he was born on December 25 was put forth before Constantine.



http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21008

...try again

Was Jesus born on December 25, or in December at all? Although it's not impossible, it seems unlikely. The Bible does not specify a date or month. One problem with December is that it would be unusual for shepherds to be "abiding in the field" at this cold time of year when fields were unproductive. The normal practice was to keep the flocks in the fields from Spring to Autumn. Also, winter would likely be an especially difficult time for pregnant Mary to travel the long distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem (70 miles).

"A more probable time would be late September, the time of the annual Feast of Tabernacles, when such travel was commonly accepted. Thus, it is rather commonly believed (though not certain) that Jesus' birth was around the last of September. The conception of Christ, however, may have taken place in late December of the previous year. Our Christmas celebration may well be recognized as an honored observation of the incarnation of 'the Word made flesh' (John 1:14).


…The probability is that this mighty angel, leading the heavenly host in their praises, was Michael the archangel; this occasion was later commemorated by the early church as Michaelmas ('Michael sent'), on September 29, the same as the date of the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles. It would have at least been appropriate for Christ to have been born on such a date, for it was at His birth that 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt (literally tabernacled) among us' (John 1:14).

This would mean, then, that His conception took place in late December. Thus, it might well be that when we today celebrate Christ's birth at what we call Christmas (i.e., 'Christ sent'), we are actually celebrating His miraculous conception, the time when the Father sent the Son into the world, in the virgin's womb. This darkest time of the year--the time of the pagan Saturnalia, and the time when the sun (the physical 'light of the world') is at its greatest distance from the Holy Land--would surely be an appropriate time for God to send the spiritual 'light of the world' into the world as the 'Savior, which is Christ the Lord' (Luke 2:11)" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible (notes for Luke 2:8,13)].

 

[Professur]

I'm not really sure that 'winter' is as big a deal in Bethlehem as it is in Montreal, but I'm sure that the people were tougher then ... and had no damn choice anyhow.

To the best of my understanding, the real time identifier was ..... the Roman census, which was their reason for the trip in the first place. And Romans kept pretty damn good records, so I'm fairly sure 'they' knew when it was supposed to be.

 

[MrBishop]

The question then would be...what time of year was the census?

The census described by Luke

Other evidence arguing against a December birth of Jesus is the Roman census recorded by Luke. "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered... So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem..., to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son..." (Luke 2:1-7).

The Roman and Judean rulers knew that taking a census in winter would have been impractical and unpopular. Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel. According to the normal dates for the census, this would probably be the season of Christ's birth.

One author states that this census "could hardly have been at that season [December 25], however, for such a time would surely not have been chosen by the authorities for a public enrollment, which necessitated the population's traveling from all parts to their natal districts, storms and rain making journeys both unsafe and unpleasant in winter, except in specially favorable years" ("Christmas at Bethlehem," Holy-Days and Holidays, Cunningham Geikie).

Luke's account of the census argues strongly against a December date for Christ's birth. For such an agrarian society, an autumn post-harvest census was much more likely.

http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

Israeli meteorologists tracked December weather patterns for many years and concluded that the climate in Israel has been essentially constant for at least the last 2,000 years. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states that, "broadly speaking, weather phenomena and climatic conditions as pictured in the Bible correspond with conditions as observed today" (R.B.Y. Scott, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, p. 625).

The temperature in the area of Bethlehem in December averages around 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) but can drop to well below freezing, especially at night. Describing the weather there, Sara Ruhin, chief of the Israeli weather service, noted in a 1990 press release that the area has three months of frost: December with 29 F. [minus 1.6 C.]; January with 30 F. [minus 1.1 C.] and February with 32 F. [0 C.].

Snow is common for two or three days in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem in December and January. These were the winter months of increased precipitation in Christ's time, when the roads became practically unusable and people stayed mostly indoors.

 

[Professur]

Sounds a lot like Atlanta weather to me.

 

[Professur]

Was anyone looking for the Optimus Prime Santa? I just found it on my HD

 

[Gotholic]

1. It does not and never has meant non or anti-christian. Actually, the original meaning was something like "bumpkin." It came to be identified as non or anti-christian because, until the late middle ages, christanity was a religion of the middle and upper class, the well educated and gentrified. Farmers and serfs and such were consider lower class or "pagan."

It does not and never has meant non-Christian, eh?

It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i. e. those who live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained heathen after the cities had become Christian.

Source

[Origin: 1325–75; ME < ML, LL pāgānus worshiper of false gods, orig. civilian (i.e., not a soldier of Christ), L: peasant, n. use of pāgānus rural, civilian, deriv. of pāgus village, rural district (akin to pangere to fix, make fast); see -an1]

Source

The origin of the word Pagan came from the Latin word Paganus,
which means country dweller. When cities were Christianize the people in the country continued to practice the old religions.

The word Pagan soon took on the meaning "those folks out there in the sticks who still do all that old fashioned stuff". Later it came to mean any member of an indigenous folk or tribal religion or anyone who was not "of the Book" (i.e., the Koran, Bible, Torah).

Source - a pagan site.

There is general agreement that the word "Pagan" comes from the Latin word "paganus." Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the precise meaning of the word in the fifth century CE and before. There are three main interpretations. None has won general acceptance:

Most modern Pagan sources interpret the word to have meant "rustic," "hick," or "country bumpkin" -- a pejorative term. The implication was that Christians used the term to ridicule country folk who tenaciously held on to what the Christians considered old-fashioned, outmoded Pagan beliefs. Those in the country were much slower in adopting the new religion of Christianity than were the city folks. They still followed the Greek state religion, Roman state religion, Mithraism, various mystery religions, etc., long after those in urban areas had converted.

Some believe that in the early Roman Empire, "paganus" came to mean "civilian" as opposed to "military." Christians often called themselves "miles Christi" (Soldiers of Christ). The non-Christians became "pagani" -- non-soldiers or civilians. No denigration would be implied.

C. Mohrmann suggests that the general meaning was any "outsider," -- a neutral term -- and that the other meanings, "civilian" and "hick," were merely specialized uses of the term.

By the third century CE, its meaning evolved to include all non-Christians.

Source - another pagan site.


So what's the verdict? It seems The term "pagan" did not originate as non-Christian. But it evolved to mean that. Most people in the cities were converted to Christianity while the pagans in the country still held onto their old polytheistic ways.

2. All history is revisionist. It's the nature of history to be revisionist. Mine as well as yours. It's all propaganda, written to show the side that comes out ahead in the best possible light. As such, it seems foolish to me to accept things that make no sense out of hand because "history says so." You're right, Constantine didn't invent Christmas, exactly, he just brought about the circumstances under which it was codified. Who invented the light bulb? ...the flush toilet?

Could you elaborate on that?

3. Re your "evidence," do you even notice that, with the possible exception of Philo, all of these sources date from decades after the supposed death of Jesus. In other words hearsay, all no doubt directly related to the bible or the original works from which it was taken. I remain unconvinced and highly skeptical, if you can imagine that.

I'm well aware that their dates are decades after his death. But consider this...

Those pagan historians were well respected in their day. They had access to historical records that were still available. It would fit their agenda well to say in their writings that they doubt Jesus existed at all or even to just lie and say he never existed. Yet, those ancient pagan historians, who were opponents of Christianity, do not doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Anyways, true, there is no definite proof that he did exist. However, the general consensus among modern historians is that Jesus did exist.

...try again

"Try again", Mr.Bishop? I'm not advocating that Jesus was born on December 25. Your quote does not refute anything you quoted me for.

 

[chcr]

*sigh*
I misspoke (mistyped?). It did not originally mean non-or anti-christian, in fact it didn't originally have religious connotations at all. The christians redefined it to be so. Kind of like gay used to mean "happy-go-lucky." Then it meant homosexual and now it just means bad.

Could you elaborate on that?

Work it out. Edison didn't invent the incandescent light bulb, but we say he did. John Crapper didn't invent the flush toilet but we say he did. It's in the nature of a figure of speech. No one perswon "invented" christmas. Constantine, however, decided (for whatever reason) to make christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He brought together the various most accepted factions of christianity and "suggested" that they work out a coherent dogma. Believing that he excercised no input whatsoever into the process would be naive in the extreme. I realize this flies in the face of everything you've been told, but it's fairly obvious anyway. Constantine is the one who chose the Roman holiday of Saturnalia as the day, for instance. Therefore, I say he "invented" christmas.

Re your "evidence," I stated my objections. You still believe your evidence. Really not my problem at all. Many "well respected" historians accept that King Arthur actually existed even though you can show them the novel in which he was invented. Same goes for Robin Hood. The evidence is simply not compelling if you reflect on it dispassionately. A few "historians" (you can't really say with any certainty how well respedted they were 2000 years ago, now can you?) mention the Jesus story as it was related to them. thousands of other historians don't mention it at all. You choose what to believe. I choose what not to.

 

[Leslie]

If one refers to oneself as one's imaginary fantasy alter ego, is this still referred to as speaking in the third person?