Atheists Pressure MI School District to Stop Treating the Birth of Jesus as Fact

[ecco]

Nobody claims that Jesus was born on December 25th, and if they do then they clearly don't know their early history of Christianity.

The average Christian doesn't know the early history of Christianity.

If Christ was born in the spring or summer or fall, that doesn't make one iota of difference to us. We didn't split the Feast of the Nativity from the Feast of Theophany on January 6th and move it to the 25th to win over pagans or because we thought it was His birthday.

If not to entice pagans, then why?

Moreover, the 25th is not the solstice. That would be between the 20th and the 23rd.

Are you intentionally ignoring the disparities between the Gregorian and Julian calendars?

But that doesn't make Christmas a pagan holiday. That would make it a Christian replacement of one.

A partial replacement. The Yule log predates Christ {Yule is the name of the old Winter Solstice festivals in Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe}.

If you Google "Pagan Christmas" you'll find many, many more examples of Pagan traditions co-opted by Christmas people.

 

[Kenny]

Is the money you give your religious club tax deductible?
Does your church pay property taxes?
Tom

Do other not-for-profit pay property taxes? Is the money that you give to them tax deductible?

Obviously my questions makes your point mute.

 

[Shiranui117]

The average Christian doesn't know the early history of Christianity.

Regrettably. And yet I'm sure many of them could break down for you in detail the composition of half the major teams in their favorite sports.

If not to entice pagans, then why?

As I said, to keep converts who were already in the Church from being tempted to revert to paganism during Sol Invictus. Pagans wouldn't change their entire religion and entire way of seeing the world and interacting with it just because the Christians had a nice party once a year.

Are you intentionally ignoring the disparities between the Gregorian and Julian calendars?

Even using the Julian calendar, the date of the solstice is not fixed due to errors in how the Julian calendar calculates leap days. This is why many Orthodox who still use the Julian Calendar celebrate Christmas on Julian December 25th, which is now more than two weeks after the solstice.

A partial replacement. The Yule log predates Christ {Yule is the name of the old Winter Solstice festivals in Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe}.

Yes, and that has nothing to do with the origins of Christmas. That has to do with the survival of one tradition in one region far from Christianity's homelands in the Eastern Mediterranean. Plus, I'm not sure how "pagan" one could rightly call the act of burning a log in a fire.

If you Google "Pagan Christmas" you'll find many, many more examples of Pagan traditions co-opted by Christmas people.

Alright, and absolutely none of those have anything to do with the Christian celebration of Christmas. Christians all around the world survive just fine without these traditions, as did our forefathers in the 300's and earlier. We've been just fine without these traditions for centuries before they were introduced, and we've kept on going with our Christian feast day commemorating the Nativity of Christ. Christmas trees, burning logs in fires, roasting chestnuts, etc. are all little side things. You could take them away today and Christmas would be just fine, albeit without the commercialized aspects.

 

[Salvador]

There's zero evidence for the resurrected Christ, but there's evidence of a historical Jesus.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

The most convincing evidence for me of a historical Jesus is the first century Judean ossuary with the Aramaic inscription of "Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua" (James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus") which could be archeological evidence of Jesus, whom Christianity is largely based upon, likely being in Jerusalem during the First Century.

James Ossuary - Wikipedia

[

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I was an atheist until 27 years old.

Well.... that "explains".... exactly nothing.

You repeatedly demonstrate you lack a clear understanding of what 'atheist' even means.

You repeatedly, even after correction, re-post disingenuous statements and claims.

So, the odds of the above being even a tiny bit accurate? Are nearly zero...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

For some reason, more than a few holy rollers like to claim that they were once atheists. It never fails to amuse me.

Considering his near-total lack of understanding of what 'atheist' even means?

And his propensity for posting false statements, even after being called on them?

What are the odds his claim is remotely true?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There's zero evidence for the resurrected Christ, but there's evidence of a historical Jesus.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia .

No. Wiki is a popularity contest-- especially with respect to this silly claim. There is zero reason to think there ever was a singular, charismatic figure to whom the Legend Of Jesus can be attributed. Possibly a sizable number of wandering Rabbis? Who's Friend of a Friend stories were collected, re-titled into one mythic person? Sure. The Jews were an Occupied People, after all.

The most convincing evidence for me of a historical Jesus is the first century Judean ossuary with the Aramaic inscription of "Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua" (James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus") which could be archeological evidence of Jesus, whom Christianity is largely based upon, likely being in Jerusalem during the First Century.

James Ossuary - Wikipedia

[

LMAO! Fraud, from a convicted Fraudister. Did you not read the Wiki article? Paragraph 3: from your own link

.

In 2003, The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) determined that the inscriptions were forged at a much later date.[6][7] In December 2004, Oded Golan was charged with 44 counts of forgery, fraud and deception, including forgery of the Ossuary inscription.[8] .

Fake "relic" from a time when people were happy to take moola from gullible fools.... has that time ever come to an end?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Do other not-for-profit pay property taxes?.

No.... but they should. .

Is the money that you give to them tax deductible?.

Yes... but it should not be.

More to the point: NO CHURCH IS TRULY NOT A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS:

IT's PROFITS ARE SELLING RELIGION. FOR WHICH NONE HAVE ANY PROOF.

Thus? ALL--repeat--ALL churches fall under the "For Entertainment Only" headline-- and ought to be taxed at the highest rate.

LET THEM PROVE THEIR CLAIMS TO QUALIFY FOR NON-PROFIT. HAVE THEIR GOD CONTACT THE IRS ON THEIR BEHALF....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Obviously my questions makes your point mute.

MOOT.... the word you want is MOOT.

'MUTE' means to quiet or to silence, as in "mute that trumpet, it's too loud"

 

[Curious George]

Do other not-for-profit pay property taxes? Is the money that you give to them tax deductible?

Obviously my questions makes your point mute.

It depends. And how does that make his questions or point moot?

 

[Earthling]

For some reason, more than a few holy rollers like to claim that they were once atheists. It never fails to amuse me.

I think I estimated your comprehension skills in another post. What amuses me is that an atheist will tell you that the only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in God, then doubt that anyone could ever possibly have not believed in God and changed their mind. That's idiotic.

Some people are raised believers and become unbelievers. Some are raised as unbelievers and become believers. Get over it.

 

[Woberts]

It depends. And how does that make his questions or point moot?

*mute

 

[Kenny]

MOOT.... the word you want is MOOT.

'MUTE' means to quiet or to silence, as in "mute that trumpet, it's too loud"

ROFL!!!! True... true...

 

[Kenny]

No.... but they should. .


Yes... but it should not be.

More to the point: NO CHURCH IS TRULY NOT A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS:

IT's PROFITS ARE SELLING RELIGION. FOR WHICH NONE HAVE ANY PROOF.

Thus? ALL--repeat--ALL churches fall under the "For Entertainment Only" headline-- and ought to be taxed at the highest rate.

LET THEM PROVE THEIR CLAIMS TO QUALIFY FOR NON-PROFIT. HAVE THEIR GOD CONTACT THE IRS ON THEIR BEHALF....

Ok... so the real issue here is that you want everyone to pay taxes and not about churches.

Why did churches never pay? Because the fore-fathers knew that this was a Christian based country and the King doesn't pay taxes to the people. And because we believed in equality, we decided that people that are in the business of helping others, need to be empowered to do so.

 

[ecco]

There's zero evidence for the resurrected Christ, but there's evidence of a historical Jesus.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

The most convincing evidence for me of a historical Jesus is the first century Judean ossuary with the Aramaic inscription of "Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua" (James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus") which could be archeological evidence of Jesus, whom Christianity is largely based upon, likely being in Jerusalem during the First Century.

James Ossuary - Wikipedia

[

From your own link...My emphases

The inscription is considered significant because, if genuine, it might provide archaeological evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.[1][dubious – discuss]​

So, if this is the "most convincing evidence for" you don't have very much.

 

[Kenny]

If you Google "Pagan Christmas" you'll find many, many more examples of Pagan traditions co-opted by Christmas people.

Frankly, I think co-opted isn't quite how it happened.

For an example, $100 isn't evil in and of itself. If you bribe someone, in essence, it became evil but if you helped someone it became good.

So if we would take the Christmas tree. Pagan used it to carve and decorate to worship it which, in Jewish scriptures, was evil. However, if one uses the tree to talk about the Cross, the star at the top to talk about the star that showed the wise men where to find him and the candles to signify that we have become His light to the world, it is good and that would be how it came about. We use everything to reach people with the gospel.

We are free to use it or not use it.

 

[Kenny]

It depends. And how does that make his questions or point moot?

Because it is equality for all not for profit organizations. His point was "only religions get the benefit".

 

[ecco]

I think I estimated your comprehension skills in another post. What amuses me is that an atheist will tell you that the only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in God, then doubt that anyone could ever possibly have not believed in God and changed their mind. That's idiotic.

No. It's called being skeptical. Skepticism is what leads to not believing in supernatural entities. Do you really expect any will believe that you went from being an atheist to being a full-blown holy roller? No. That you are a full-blown holy roller is evidenced by your view on evolution...

If someone presented evolution to me in a manner which demonstrated that my beliefs in the Bible were wrong, it would be up to me to decide which I believe, but if it were true I would renounce my beliefs and believe in evolution. I don't want to believe in a false God.

 

[ecco]

Frankly, I think co-opted isn't quite how it happened.

For an example, $100 isn't evil in and of itself. If you bribe someone, in essence, it became evil but if you helped someone it became good.

So if we would take the Christmas tree. Pagan used it to carve and decorate to worship it which, in Jewish scriptures, was evil. However, if one uses the tree to talk about the Cross, the star at the top to talk about the star that showed the wise men where to find him and the candles to signify that we have become His light to the world, it is good and that would be how it came about. We use everything to reach people with the gospel.

As I said - co-opted.

 

[Woberts]

Why did churches never pay? Because the fore-fathers knew that this was a Christian based country and the King doesn't pay taxes to the people. And because we believed in equality, we decided that people that are in the business of helping others, need to be empowered to do so.

This is demonstrably false. Churches are tax-exempt because the government thought the ability
to tax = the ability to control. Sorry, but America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, either.