Good Friday could be better.
-
Michael Martin wrote:
Close cockhead, lucky you live a long way away, I track down and beat f*** out of smarmy fucks like you over here.
I doubt you would be capable. So it turns out that the enlightened atheist is actually just a crazy.
You are the biggest wanker to ever grace these forums. Happy Easter you fucking twat! :)
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
You are the biggest wanker to ever grace these forums. Happy Easter you fucking twat! :)
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecottI would agree that I have the biggest wanker. :)
-
Correct. The same is true with Christmas. Nothing in the Gospels states when Jesus was born, so the celebration of his birth was set to coincide with the Roman festival of Saturnalia. In this case also the Christian celebration has replaced the pagan observances. Deus caritas est
Andy Moore wrote:
In this case also the Christian celebration has replaced the pagan observances.
You think Christmas has replaced the pagan observance? In fact, December 25th was chosen, yes, because of the Roman festival of the Sun. The religious leaders adopted this festival and tried to make it "Christian". The pagan roots of Christmas have long been recognized and was even banned in England and some American colonies because of this. Not convinced that it's pagan? The first-century Christians did not, and would not have, celebrated Jesus birthday. His disciples likely knew that birthday celebrations were connected with superstition. For instance, many Greeks and Romans of ancient times believed that a spirit attended the birth of each human and protected that one throughout life. “This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born,” says the book The Lore of Birthdays. So the very celebration of his birth would link that celebration with pagan superstitions. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
I didn't say that, you illiterate retard. I said the claim that it was pagan in origin came up 20 years after you were born. The easter bunny has been around for 500 years. If it were pagan, it would have been around for 2000 years.
espeir wrote:
I didn't say that, you illiterate retard. I said the claim that it was pagan in origin came up 20 years after you were born. The easter bunny has been around for 500 years. If it were pagan, it would have been around for 2000 years.
“Ancient pagans used the rabbit as a symbol of the abundant new life of the spring season. . . . The first record of the bunny as an Easter symbol is found in Germany about 1572,” says The Catholic Encyclopedia for School and Home. The Easter bunny has been around for 500 years, the fertility symbol of the rabbit has been around for much, much longer. So, yes, it is pagan. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Andy Moore wrote:
In this case also the Christian celebration has replaced the pagan observances.
You think Christmas has replaced the pagan observance? In fact, December 25th was chosen, yes, because of the Roman festival of the Sun. The religious leaders adopted this festival and tried to make it "Christian". The pagan roots of Christmas have long been recognized and was even banned in England and some American colonies because of this. Not convinced that it's pagan? The first-century Christians did not, and would not have, celebrated Jesus birthday. His disciples likely knew that birthday celebrations were connected with superstition. For instance, many Greeks and Romans of ancient times believed that a spirit attended the birth of each human and protected that one throughout life. “This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born,” says the book The Lore of Birthdays. So the very celebration of his birth would link that celebration with pagan superstitions. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
Are you that guy that sponsors those billboards that say going to church on Sunday is satanic?
-
espeir wrote:
I didn't say that, you illiterate retard. I said the claim that it was pagan in origin came up 20 years after you were born. The easter bunny has been around for 500 years. If it were pagan, it would have been around for 2000 years.
“Ancient pagans used the rabbit as a symbol of the abundant new life of the spring season. . . . The first record of the bunny as an Easter symbol is found in Germany about 1572,” says The Catholic Encyclopedia for School and Home. The Easter bunny has been around for 500 years, the fertility symbol of the rabbit has been around for much, much longer. So, yes, it is pagan. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
No... It's not pagan. We named the planet Saturn after a pagan God, but that does not mean that's it's pagan to call it Saturn. Our society has certain traditions that date back may date back to pagan times, but unless we practice those traditions with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods, then it is not pagan. The rabbit may or may not have derived its fertile sumbolism from pagan traditions, but the fact that it was not used as a symbol for Easter until the 1500's (when paganism was no more) indicates that it does not have pagan roots. They were cultural roots.
-
Are you that guy that sponsors those billboards that say going to church on Sunday is satanic?
espeir wrote:
Are you that guy that sponsors those billboards that say going to church on Sunday is satanic?
No, sir. As I noted in my other posts, I am Christian. I just don't observe pagan practices and beliefs. I attend Sunday, and Tuesday and Thursday as well. I read the Bible daily and strive to apply it in my life. We are all imperfect, though, so I'm not trying to claim I'm better than anyone else. Just pointing out a bit of history. Anyone that is serious about observing a religious holiday, I believe, should be ready and willing to research that celebration to see if it really is in accord with their beliefs. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
No... It's not pagan. We named the planet Saturn after a pagan God, but that does not mean that's it's pagan to call it Saturn. Our society has certain traditions that date back may date back to pagan times, but unless we practice those traditions with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods, then it is not pagan. The rabbit may or may not have derived its fertile sumbolism from pagan traditions, but the fact that it was not used as a symbol for Easter until the 1500's (when paganism was no more) indicates that it does not have pagan roots. They were cultural roots.
Interesting. A few points:
espeir wrote:
but unless we practice those traditions with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods, then it is not pagan.
So, you're promoting a mixing of Christian and pagan traditions, though of course no longer with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods? 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says "what fellowship does light have with darkness? Further what harmony is there between Christ and Belial... 'and quit touching the unclean thing'." Does it seem appropriate then to mix pagan traditions with true worship when the Bible clearly tells us not to? Would it make sense to buy a gift for your father that is decorated with things that you know he clearly hates? Also,
espeir wrote:
The rabbit may or may not have derived its fertile sumbolism from pagan traditions, but the fact that it was not used as a symbol for Easter until the 1500's (when paganism was no more) indicates that it does not have pagan roots.
Have you heard of wicken, taoism, buddhism, African tribal religions, etc., etc? There still is pagan religions out there, pagan meaning not Christian (or Muslim or Jew). In addition, the ancient Egyptian religions are dead (I think), but would you consider it right for me to take images of Osiris, Horus, or Ra and to name them for Christian Saints or Jesus and use them in my worship? Would that even make sense? These pagan 'gods' were held in opposition to the true God. Do you think He cares, then, whether the religions are still around? So what if the pagan religion that spawned the Easter bunny isn't alive anymore? Wouldn't God still find that pagan god just as offensive today? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Interesting. A few points:
espeir wrote:
but unless we practice those traditions with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods, then it is not pagan.
So, you're promoting a mixing of Christian and pagan traditions, though of course no longer with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods? 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says "what fellowship does light have with darkness? Further what harmony is there between Christ and Belial... 'and quit touching the unclean thing'." Does it seem appropriate then to mix pagan traditions with true worship when the Bible clearly tells us not to? Would it make sense to buy a gift for your father that is decorated with things that you know he clearly hates? Also,
espeir wrote:
The rabbit may or may not have derived its fertile sumbolism from pagan traditions, but the fact that it was not used as a symbol for Easter until the 1500's (when paganism was no more) indicates that it does not have pagan roots.
Have you heard of wicken, taoism, buddhism, African tribal religions, etc., etc? There still is pagan religions out there, pagan meaning not Christian (or Muslim or Jew). In addition, the ancient Egyptian religions are dead (I think), but would you consider it right for me to take images of Osiris, Horus, or Ra and to name them for Christian Saints or Jesus and use them in my worship? Would that even make sense? These pagan 'gods' were held in opposition to the true God. Do you think He cares, then, whether the religions are still around? So what if the pagan religion that spawned the Easter bunny isn't alive anymore? Wouldn't God still find that pagan god just as offensive today? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
So, you're promoting a mixing of Christian and pagan traditions, though of course no longer with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods? 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says "what fellowship does light have with darkness? Further what harmony is there between Christ and Belial... 'and quit touching the unclean thing'." Does it seem appropriate then to mix pagan traditions with true worship when the Bible clearly tells us not to? Would it make sense to buy a gift for your father that is decorated with things that you know he clearly hates?
That is not clear. Corinthians is clearer: "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." So then it is clearly stated that as long as we know the heart of what we in regard to idols, paganism, etc..., that it does not matter if we eat meat sacrificed for a pagan God as long as we are not pagans. I should think the same would apply for Easter. If we are not celebrating pagan Gods but are celbrating the resurrection, then we are doing no wrong. We are not wrapping Easter in paganism, it merely has historical roots with the great conversion.
bugDanny wrote:
Have you heard of wicken, taoism, buddhism, African tribal religions, etc., etc? There still is pagan religions out there, pagan meaning not Christian (or Muslim or Jew). In addition, the ancient Egyptian religions are dead (I think), but would you consider it right for me to take images of Osiris, Horus, or Ra and to name them for Christian Saints or Jesus and use them in my worship? Would that even make sense? These pagan 'gods' were held in opposition to the true God. Do you think He cares, then, whether the religions are still around? So what if the pagan religion that spawned the Easter bunny isn't alive anymo
-
No, I'm pretty sure I know my stuff! :cool:
-
espeir wrote:
Wow! Do I know my stuff or what! :suss:
Not really cock muncher, I forgot the inability of the average american to get irony or sarcasm. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
I forgot the inability of the average american to get irony or sarcasm.
Whoa, don't compare espeir to the average American, he's no where near average. :laugh: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Michael Martin wrote:
I forgot the inability of the average american to get irony or sarcasm.
Whoa, don't compare espeir to the average American, he's no where near average. :laugh: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Michael Martin wrote:
I forgot the inability of the average american to get irony or sarcasm.
Whoa, don't compare espeir to the average American, he's no where near average. :laugh: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
he's no where near average
I agree with that. I leave behind mediocrity for the masses. :cool:
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I do think that Christians can be well-adjusted and also that Atheists can have problems, but from my own experience, vocal Christians tend to have issues. Maybe there are quiet sane ones, but they don't tell me their religion?
I agree with that. I don't like the "megachurch" (often referring to themselves as born-agains) crowd. They tend to be maladjusted people who go back and forth between being drug addicts and "Christians". Those are also the vocal crazy ones. I also agree that most atheists are reasonable people, but those that I refer to as "militant" are much worse than the Christian crazies in my view. At least the Crazy Christians mean well. Militant atheists seem bent on destruction of religion more than conversion (which is innocuous).
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Exactly. Look at the etymology of the word Atheist. From Greek atheos from a- "without" + theos "a god". You must first have people who believe in god to have people who disbelieve in that god. If there were no people who believed in god, then we'd all be something like agnostics.
That's not true. While the term atheism may require that theism exists, the concept of Godlessness does not require that a concept of God exists. If religion never formed, then everyone would be an atheist (but called something else).
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I don't believe this either, can you provied examples?
Read this thread.
espeir wrote:
They tend to be maladjusted people who go back and forth between being drug addicts and "Christians".
Like those you were so proud of a minute ago for holding the highest positions in government? :wtf: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
he's no where near average
I agree with that. I leave behind mediocrity for the masses. :cool:
-
espeir wrote:
I leave behind mediocrity for the masses.
That's true. Your trail of mediocrity is wide and deep. The masses can't avoid stepping in it. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Yes. I consume wisdom and purge my ignorance...leaving it for others to wallow in. Swim in my intellectual excrement....swim....
-
Maybe he's been busy, what with the global population growing like crazy. He can't rightly be expected to make things right for everyone here on Earth. That's what the promise of Heaven is all about. It's like, "Sorry, things get out of hand down here, but stick with me and I'll make it alright after your times up". BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wrightbrianwelsch wrote:
Maybe he's been busy, what with the global population growing like crazy. He can't rightly be expected to make things right for everyone here on Earth.
Omnipotence out the window again. Gee, I'm omnipotent but I don't care. I'm omnipotent but I'm just too busy. How convenient. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
espeir wrote:
They tend to be maladjusted people who go back and forth between being drug addicts and "Christians".
Like those you were so proud of a minute ago for holding the highest positions in government? :wtf: At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
I said certain Christians. As per my statement, those would obviously not be the well-adjusted members of our society...That's what the word "maladjusted" means.
-
brianwelsch wrote:
Maybe he's been busy, what with the global population growing like crazy. He can't rightly be expected to make things right for everyone here on Earth.
Omnipotence out the window again. Gee, I'm omnipotent but I don't care. I'm omnipotent but I'm just too busy. How convenient. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
You're certainly not omniscient.
-
bugDanny wrote:
So, you're promoting a mixing of Christian and pagan traditions, though of course no longer with the intent of worshipping pagan Gods? 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says "what fellowship does light have with darkness? Further what harmony is there between Christ and Belial... 'and quit touching the unclean thing'." Does it seem appropriate then to mix pagan traditions with true worship when the Bible clearly tells us not to? Would it make sense to buy a gift for your father that is decorated with things that you know he clearly hates?
That is not clear. Corinthians is clearer: "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." So then it is clearly stated that as long as we know the heart of what we in regard to idols, paganism, etc..., that it does not matter if we eat meat sacrificed for a pagan God as long as we are not pagans. I should think the same would apply for Easter. If we are not celebrating pagan Gods but are celbrating the resurrection, then we are doing no wrong. We are not wrapping Easter in paganism, it merely has historical roots with the great conversion.
bugDanny wrote:
Have you heard of wicken, taoism, buddhism, African tribal religions, etc., etc? There still is pagan religions out there, pagan meaning not Christian (or Muslim or Jew). In addition, the ancient Egyptian religions are dead (I think), but would you consider it right for me to take images of Osiris, Horus, or Ra and to name them for Christian Saints or Jesus and use them in my worship? Would that even make sense? These pagan 'gods' were held in opposition to the true God. Do you think He cares, then, whether the religions are still around? So what if the pagan religion that spawned the Easter bunny isn't alive anymo
espeir wrote:
So then it is clearly stated that as long as we know the heart of what we in regard to idols, paganism, etc..., that it does not matter if we eat meat sacrificed for a pagan God as long as we are not pagans.
You are right about that quotation. It was refering to the Jews who would buy meat in the marketplace, but others would not eat meat at all because they were afraid it may have been sacrificed to idols. About celebrating Easter, however, the scripture does not apply. There was a difference between eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols, and actually going and sacrificing to idols. It's akin to buying a bunny that may have been used in easter celebrations, and actually using that bunny to celebrate easter. There you would be taking an active part in the pagan celebration. If you need some scriptures that may be more clear, consider, Ephesians 5:10 tells us to "Keep on making sure of what is acceptable in the Lord." Thereby imploring us to really search out that what we are doing and believing is acceptable. But it seems you feel that the origins of holidays have little to do with how they are celebrated today. Do origins really matter? Consider: Suppose you saw a piece of candy lying in the gutter. Would you pick up that candy and eat it? Of course not! That candy is unclean. Like that candy, holidays may seem sweet, but they have been picked up from unclean places. We need the viewpoint of Isaiah at Isaiah 52: 11 "Touch nothing unclean." I don't see how it's unclear that 2 Corinthians says not to mix light with darkness, good with bad, pagan with Christian. According to those altars and celebrations in Israel that were pagan, the Israelites were told this at Deuteronomy 7:5,6 "On the other hand, this is what you should do to them: Their altars you should pull down, and their sacred pillars you should break down and their sacred poles you should cut down, and their graven images you should burn with fire." If the Israelites were supposed to tear down, not reuse but tear down, pagan altars and sacred pillars, wouldn't it make sense that we, too, wouldn't want to use pagan customs and traditions for Christian worship? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!