Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.

Not OP. Imho if Christ's followers lied about his birthdate in order to take over a pagan holiday, that's deceitful no matter what the intent behind it. I don't believe they knew better than those who celebrated the Solstice. It was deceitful plain and simple.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But you do realize that you are not going to change anyone's mind, right[b]? Live and let live. I'm a Christian who personally couldn't care less if you believe in God or not. It doesn't harm me one way or the other.

Not true -- people changes their mind all the time about god. more people are deciding against god than ever before -- thanks to understanding of science and information so freey available on the internet.

And again you show your simplistic mindset. Throughout history some of the most amazing scientific thinkers have also been people of faith.

Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Ampere, Volta, Pasteur, Einstein, Darwin

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I'm an atheist, so I can't directly respond to OP's original question, but things have, as usual, spread out.

The universe is vast, and the existence of life is a total puzzle. I don't have any answer to how or why it all came to be, so if someone wants to say "God" instead of "I haven't the foggiest idea", that's fine with me.

I believe in the golden rule. I think I have value and wish to be treated as though I have value, so I try to do the same to others. For those who think such belief can only come from believing in God, I'm thrilled that you believe in God. I hope you can take my word that such belief is possible apart from belief in God.

I don't expect any believer is going to change my mind, nor vice-versa. That does not mean we can't learn from each other, but it does mean that it makes no sense to keep battering each other with insults and accusations of stupidity.

So if you are a believer, then in your eyes we atheists should also be seen as children of God and deserving of your love. And if you're an atheist, then accept as a clearly observable fact that belief is a reality, one which hard-headed scientists actually study.

The Golden Rule, aka the Ethics of Reciprocity, can be found in nearly every world religion and appears in the gospels in Matthew 7:12. This Christian has no beef with atheists per se, but I do find the simplistic charge that believers in any God must be stupid and uneducated to be patently offensive. There are a great many highly educated people in this world who believe in God, and OP and others here are certainly no great intellects if their knowledge of the subject at hand and their ability to engage in discussion are any indication.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I'm an atheist, so I can't directly respond to OP's original question, but things have, as usual, spread out.

The universe is vast, and the existence of life is a total puzzle. I don't have any answer to how or why it all came to be, so if someone wants to say "God" instead of "I haven't the foggiest idea", that's fine with me.

I believe in the golden rule. I think I have value and wish to be treated as though I have value, so I try to do the same to others. For those who think such belief can only come from believing in God, I'm thrilled that you believe in God. I hope you can take my word that such belief is possible apart from belief in God.

I don't expect any believer is going to change my mind, nor vice-versa. That does not mean we can't learn from each other, but it does mean that it makes no sense to keep battering each other with insults and accusations of stupidity.

So if you are a believer, then in your eyes we atheists should also be seen as children of God and deserving of your love. And if you're an atheist, then accept as a clearly observable fact that belief is a reality, one which hard-headed scientists actually study.

That the brain is wired to believe at some level is a reality -- but the beliefs are not necessarily true and science is is hard at work figuring that out too. As the number of believers is going down and with less childhood indoctrination, it will decrease further and faster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.

Not OP. Imho if Christ's followers lied about his birthdate in order to take over a pagan holiday, that's deceitful no matter what the intent behind it. I don't believe they knew better than those who celebrated the Solstice. It was deceitful plain and simple.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But you do realize that you are not going to change anyone's mind, right[b]? Live and let live. I'm a Christian who personally couldn't care less if you believe in God or not. It doesn't harm me one way or the other.

Not true -- people changes their mind all the time about god. more people are deciding against god than ever before -- thanks to understanding of science and information so freey available on the internet.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I'm an atheist, so I can't directly respond to OP's original question, but things have, as usual, spread out.

The universe is vast, and the existence of life is a total puzzle. I don't have any answer to how or why it all came to be, so if someone wants to say "God" instead of "I haven't the foggiest idea", that's fine with me.

I believe in the golden rule. I think I have value and wish to be treated as though I have value, so I try to do the same to others. For those who think such belief can only come from believing in God, I'm thrilled that you believe in God. I hope you can take my word that such belief is possible apart from belief in God.

I don't expect any believer is going to change my mind, nor vice-versa. That does not mean we can't learn from each other, but it does mean that it makes no sense to keep battering each other with insults and accusations of stupidity.

So if you are a believer, then in your eyes we atheists should also be seen as children of God and deserving of your love. And if you're an atheist, then accept as a clearly observable fact that belief is a reality, one which hard-headed scientists actually study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.

Not OP. Imho if Christ's followers lied about his birthdate in order to take over a pagan holiday, that's deceitful no matter what the intent behind it. I don't believe they knew better than those who celebrated the Solstice. It was deceitful plain and simple.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But you do realize that you are not going to change anyone's mind, right[b]? Live and let live. I'm a Christian who personally couldn't care less if you believe in God or not. It doesn't harm me one way or the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.

Not OP. Imho if Christ's followers lied about his birthdate in order to take over a pagan holiday, that's deceitful no matter what the intent behind it. I don't believe they knew better than those who celebrated the Solstice. It was deceitful plain and simple.

Your insistence on deceit in choosing a day of the year to celebrate Christ's birth is quite astonishing. You clearly are a very black and white person who doesn't know the difference between literal and figurative truth. Your insistence on a very rigid sense of literal truth is scary to tell you the truth. I am very relieved you are not religious as such insistence on literalness is what makes for the very worst of religious extremists and zealots.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I'm an atheist, so I can't directly respond to OP's original question, but things have, as usual, spread out.

The universe is vast, and the existence of life is a total puzzle. I don't have any answer to how or why it all came to be, so if someone wants to say "God" instead of "I haven't the foggiest idea", that's fine with me.

I believe in the golden rule. I think I have value and wish to be treated as though I have value, so I try to do the same to others. For those who think such belief can only come from believing in God, I'm thrilled that you believe in God. I hope you can take my word that such belief is possible apart from belief in God.

I don't expect any believer is going to change my mind, nor vice-versa. That does not mean we can't learn from each other, but it does mean that it makes no sense to keep battering each other with insults and accusations of stupidity.

So if you are a believer, then in your eyes we atheists should also be seen as children of God and deserving of your love. And if you're an atheist, then accept as a clearly observable fact that belief is a reality, one which hard-headed scientists actually study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.

Not OP. Imho if Christ's followers lied about his birthdate in order to take over a pagan holiday, that's deceitful no matter what the intent behind it. I don't believe they knew better than those who celebrated the Solstice. It was deceitful plain and simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.

Not OP. Imho if Christ's followers lied about his birthdate in order to take over a pagan holiday, that's deceitful no matter what the intent behind it. I don't believe they knew better than those who celebrated the Solstice. It was deceitful plain and simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.