The Atheist Evangalist

[cuchulain]

sacrilege should apply only to members of the faith, imo.  As has been said, to hold someone else to your own standards is simply illogical.

[ChristLight]

An interesting note on Christmas, the fact is, Christmas is not a Christian holiday. We forget. In the Babylonian days, the first feast of Saturnalia began at the hands of Nimrod and Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). It is Nimrod who chooses December 17, (the Gregorian calendar not used then, but they did go by the Winter Solstice, the shortest  day of the Sun) Saturnalia celebrated the god of sowing and harvest. Nimrod also is the originator of the god Mithra (Mithras), the god of the sun. Guess what that feast day is. You guessed it, December 25 (again going by the Winter Solstice). It was the Babylonian culture, once these two holidays were established, to have a wild party, anything goes, week long party, from December 17-25. Work was set aside for this whole week, and all kinds of lawless revelry took place.

The Book of Jeremiah (chapter 13, I think) tells of evergreen trees being nailed up so it wouldn't fall over, since it was decorated with silver and gold ornaments. Those little baby "Oscilla," that we now use as Christmas ornaments are a remnant of the "children who were made to walk through the fire," again ordered my Nimrod. Recent history shows that piles of baby and children's skulls and bones were found at certain sites in the former Babylonian grounds, which confirm this horrible institution attributed to Nimrod. Old World Encyclopedias confirm this horrible account.

The horrid practice of "having the children walk through the fire," being burned alive, was for the sole purpose of thinking that the parents would become enlightened. This is also were the ridiculous notion of purgatory comes from. The belief in purgatory is often mistakenly attributed to Catholicism. But that is not true. Purgatory comes from this practice of "purging," as if human sacrifice would appease any God (god).

In Solon, Ohio there was a court case when manger scenes were removed from schools and the town, saying that Christmas was a religious holiday, and some did not want religion on town property, the separation of church and state. They lost the case. It was ruled that Christmas is not a religious holiday, because it transcended any religion, and belonged to everyone.

I think the sacrilege here is putting the birth of Jesus on a non-Christian, horrific holiday, as if there is such a thing as "Christianizing," child murder. By the way, if the parents did not go along with having their children "walk through the fire," then the parents were murdered outright. Either sway, human blood got spilled.

Santa Claus is another fable, based on the Norse god Odin (Woden). The real person of St. Nicholas who served as a bishop, actually was in attendance at the Council of Nice in 325 AD long after the birth of Jesus.

The first Christian martyr for Jesus was Stephen. Catholics celebrate his feast day on December 26. Why was Stephen stoned? (Paul was present at the stoning death of Stephen). It was because Stephen preached against the Saturnalia human traditions. But there was so much revelry and partying, that they all stoned him to silence him. Can you imagine the upheaval that would take place today if we started telling people not to celebrate Christmas because they would be honoring the god Mithras, not the birth of Jesus?

If Christians really want to celebrate Jesus birthday, then they should celebrate it in either September or October, when it really was. Don't forget, the first census ever held in an organized way was held during the birth of Jesus. The census would not have taken place in the snow and ice in December, nor would the shepherds be out in the fields with the sheep in the winter. The practice was for the shepherds to be out of the fields before the heavy rains came, usually late October, November. Back in the time of Jesus, birthdays were not celebrated. They celebrated people, and all that they did, at their deaths. The only birthdays mentioned in the traditional Bible, is when John the Baptist gets beheaded on Herod's birthday, and in the OT when a baker gets beheaded at pharaoh's birthday. Those are the only recorded birthdays in the Bible.

I just spent a year studying all this for my fiction book, Mystery of the Sturbridge Keys, to be published in 6-8 weeks. It also goes into all the Old World Empires, which trace back to Noah's sons, grandsons and great-grandsons. I'll keep you posted.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Rev Linda Hourihan

[mererdog]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

sacrilege should apply only to members of the faith, imo.  As has been said, to hold someone else to your own standards is simply illogical.

Emotional reactions are not logical, but they are usually predictable. This is where empathy comes in. If I hurt your feelings with something I do or say, focusing on my opinion that you shouldn't have been hurt is simply a way of deflecting responsibility. Focusing, instead, on why you were hurt allows me to act responsibly in the future by making informed decisions about how to get the results I want.

And that bit about how sacrilege should only apply to members of the faith is your standard, so it is illogical to hold others to it, no? 

Edited August 29, 2016 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 7/23/2016 at 0:48 AM, Dan56 said:

Its an oxymoron. The definition of Evangelist; "is a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, especially by public preaching". 

There are more definitions than that. It can also refer to any of the authors of the Gospels, a patriarch in the Mormon Church, or anyone who promotes anything fervently. It is a good rule of thumb that if your dictionary lists only one definition for any word, it is not a very good dictionary. In the context of the phrase in question, it is that last definition that applies.

And, for the record, Urban Dictionary is not a good way to learn anything other than what opinionated high schoolers think.

I posted this explanation earlier, but it apparently got lost in a software glitch....

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

And that bit about how sacrilege should only apply to members of the faith is your standard, so it is illogical to hold others to it, no? 

It is illogical for them to apply their standard to me, as well, no?  What's good for the goose, and all?

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

It is illogical for them to apply their standard to me, as well, no?

Yes. As stated earlier, emotional reactions are not logical. As for geese and ganders...Two wrongs do not make a right, and if they were jumping off a bridge would you jump too?

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Yes. As stated earlier, emotional reactions are not logical. As for geese and ganders...Two wrongs do not make a right, and if they were jumping off a bridge would you jump too?

What do you see as a second wrong?

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

There are more definitions than that. It can also refer to any of the authors of the Gospels, a patriarch in the Mormon Church, or anyone who promotes anything fervently. It is a good rule of thumb that if your dictionary lists only one definition for any word, it is not a very good dictionary. In the context of the phrase in question, it is that last definition that applies.

And, for the record, Urban Dictionary is not a good way to learn anything other than what opinionated high schoolers think.

I posted this explanation earlier, but it apparently got lost in a software glitch....

Yes, I went on to define its application to Atheist Evangelist too. But my point was that the primary definition of 'evangelist' is generally associated with the Christian  connotation. Atheist evangelist just sounds weird to me, as contrary as godless-Christian, both being oxymoron's in the same sense as jumbo-shrimp.   

[mererdog]

19 hours ago, cuchulain said:

What do you see as a second wrong?

When I mentioned two wrongs, I was not addressing the specifics of this topic, but rather the general flaws of the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" justification. That particular truism is a variation of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy, or the Appeal To Hypocrisy.  It exists only so that ,when discussing whether our actions are right, focus can be shifted onto the irrelevant fact that others do not do what is right. Do you disagree?

As to the specifics of the topic, my point has not been that there is anything inherently wrong being done. But, in practical terms, the first rule of diplomacy is "Never insult anyone by accident." To say that putting up a sacrilegious billboard does no harm is like saying there is no harm in calling a random stranger a **. Sure, they are responsible for their own actions, and sure, they shouldn't get upset over what some random guy says. And maybe you even happen to be the first person to ever say it as a compliment. But... Emotional responses are usually predictable, so not factoring them in is as irresponsible as not seeing how much the billboard costs before you rent it.

Edited August 30, 2016 by mererdog

[mererdog]

17 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Yes, I went on to define its application to Atheist Evangelist too.

Well, you made a guess, but your guess wasn't super accurate.

[scottedward]

On 8/29/2016 at 1:06 PM, Dan56 said:

Atheist evangelist just sounds weird to me, as contrary as godless-Christian, both being oxymoron's in the same sense as jumbo-shrimp.   

Very clever, Dan.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I find Atheism similar to being vegetarian.  In a world where nobody ate meat, there wouldn't even be a word for vegetarian.  Atheism, as a word, is reactive in the same way.  In a godless world, there would be no Atheists and no word for Atheism.