|
Meh... The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with. If it's in a stable, it's the Luke version, which has no wise men. If there are wise men, then it's the Matthew version, in which case there was indeed room at the inn.What? No outrage that the three wise men are chicks?
I was going to say the same thing, although it was implied that by the time the wise guys got there, that they had moved (or possibly started)in a house...
Matthew 2:11 -- On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary...
The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with.Probably the same reason(s) Christmas is on December 25th.
The Bible never even specifies how many travelers there were, only that there were plural. It only states that there were three gifts.
|
Meh... The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with. If it's in a stable, it's the Luke version, which has no wise men. If there are wise men, then it's the Matthew version, in which case there was indeed room at the inn.What? No outrage that the three wise men are chicks?
I'm not sure you got that oneright but be that as it may, I think this is a great example of extreme consumerism and why it is wrong. Female wise men meh.
|
What? No outrage that the three wise men are chicks?
Call me a kook, but I think it is a wonderful social commentary about the role commercialism plays in today's holiday observance. If you hadn't told me that those were supposed to be the three wise men I would have figured them for shoppers hurrying past the Naitivity on their way to another sale.
|
|
The Bible never even specifies how many travelers there were, only that there were plural. It only states that there were three gifts.The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with.Probably the same reason(s) Christmas is on December 25th.
Tradition says it is 3 men. Wisemen - Kings -Magi.
Tradition says it is 3 men. Wisemen - Kings -Magi.The Bible never even specifies how many travelers there were, only that there were plural. It only states that there were three gifts.The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with.Probably the same reason(s) Christmas is on December 25th.
Yep, just pointing out that it's tradition that says that - and tradition that celebrates it in December - and not anything in the text. The only thing it specifies in the text is that it was "wise men" from the east, male and more than one, and that they brought three gifts.
|
Call me a kook, but I think it is a wonderful social commentary about the role commercialism plays in today's holiday observance. If you hadn't told me that those were supposed to be the three wise men I would have figured them for shoppers hurrying past the Naitivity on their way to another sale.What? No outrage that the three wise men are chicks?
And isn't that what Christmas is all about?
It's a simple majority rules thing. There are some people out there who believe there is no god. These people are vastly outnumbered by the people who believe there is a god. It’s rather difficult for the minority atheists to round up all the god fearing people in the world and put them away even if they do think they’re crazy. It’s however much easier to round up the fairy worshipers whom both groups think are crazy or possibly blasphemous.Massive Edit:
I'm changing my post since it was probably a little too harsh. At the same time, what was said here was probably a bit outside of "civil". There are worshippers who believe in Jedi teaching. There are a lot of people who probably qualify as "crazy" but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be rounded up and put away. From that point of view, "crazy" is anyone who thinks differently than you do. That's a whole lot of people.
Be careful who you imply is "crazy".
I didn’t say, nor did I mean to imply that I thought all the monotheists in the world were crazy. I simply said that the monotheists of the world outnumber the atheists. And even if all of the atheists in the world did believe all of the monotheists were crazy they would still be vastly outnumbered and wouldn’t really be able to do anything about it. Again this is if all atheists thought the exact same way about religious people, which they don’t.
I'm just saying that it's the majority who decides what is sane.I’m not saying you’ll be shipped off to the insane asylum, but chances are you go around saying fairies are real, or that you are a jedi master as if they were hard facts and you’ll be getting some raised eyebrows, and chances are quite a few people are going to think you’re crazy. You go around saying that god exists, or that we evolved from monkeys, as if they were facts and no one will bat an eye. They might not agree with you, but enough people believe it that they probably won’t think you’re nuts.
Also, for the record I'm not saying that fairies aren't real or that you are not in fact a jedi master.
No.
And isn't that what Christmas is all about?
*shrug* Christmas means different things to different people.
*shrug* Christmas means different things to different people.No.
And isn't that what Christmas is all about?
Amen.
No.
And isn't that what Christmas is all about?
Psshaw! Next you'll tell me Black Friday isn't when the Pilgrams went to the mall to get fantastic deals on electronics, blankets, and beads to give to themselves and the Native Americans! If Jamestown founder Sam Walton were here, he'd have a scarlet U stitched to your tunic, you UnAmerican Unconsumerist!
What?
:)
|
|
No.
And isn't that what Christmas is all about?Psshaw! Next you'll tell me Black Friday isn't when the Pilgrams went to the mall to get fantastic deals on electronics, blankets, and beads to give to themselves and the Native Americans! If Jamestown founder Sam Walton were here, he'd have a scarlet U stitched to your tunic, you UnAmerican Unconsumerist!
What?
:)
Thank you for detecting my sarcasm :)
Crimson Jester, you wound me sometimes. I swear I'm not as heartless and heathenistic as you think I am.
If South Park has taught me anything it’s that Christmas is about two things. First and foremost, Presents. Secondly it’s about remembering Jesus Christ, and how he gave his life to rescue Santa Clause from an Iraqi prison.
|
|
No.
And isn't that what Christmas is all about?Psshaw! Next you'll tell me Black Friday isn't when the Pilgrams went to the mall to get fantastic deals on electronics, blankets, and beads to give to themselves and the Native Americans! If Jamestown founder Sam Walton were here, he'd have a scarlet U stitched to your tunic, you UnAmerican Unconsumerist!
What?
:)
Thank you for detecting my sarcasm :)
Crimson Jester, you wound me sometimes. I swear I'm not as heartless and heathenistic as you think I am.
I am very sorry. I should realize especially on this thread, my humor is not for everyone, and is not always apparent in writing. Please forgive me.
Crimson Jester, you wound me sometimes. I swear I'm not as heartless and heathenistic as you think I am.
I might be! :)
And presents are a perfectly good reason for a holiday. Sure they could be given at any time, but having one scheduled helps ration it so nobody looks bad if a bunch of gifts unexpectedly clustered on, say, Juneteenth and someone didn't get the memo. Like traffic signs, really.
I can't be the only person who has thought this...unless that would make me a cosmic horror. In that case, I think I'm cool with it. Also I get to eat people.
Make an irritatingly catchy song about it and then we’ll talk.I am quite dissapointed in a fellow canine. The word is poodle.Fair enough. But, didn't Jesus say to spread the word?Bird?
Gah ..urgh ...roll for Will .. DRAT! NAT ONE!
The real question is why so many nativity scenes put the wise men there to begin with.Probably the same reason(s) Christmas is on December 25th.
Well, the Dec. 25th was an attempt to co-opt the feast of Sol Invictus by early church leaders. It also dovetailed neatly into the traditional winter festivals of various peoples around the Mediterranian/Germanic world (Saturnalia, Yule, etc.)
That being said, there is a common misconception that Christians are celebrating Christ's birthday as Dec. 25th. It is actually the feast day commemorating his birth. That's why Eastern Orthodox still use the original Jan. 6th date. It really has nothing to do with the actual date of his birth.
|
|
Crimson Jester, you wound me sometimes. I swear I'm not as heartless and heathenistic as you think I am.I might be! :)
And presents are a perfectly good reason for a holiday. Sure they could be given at any time, but having one scheduled helps ration it so nobody looks bad if a bunch of gifts unexpectedly clustered on, say, Juneteenth and someone didn't get the memo. Like traffic signs, really.
I can't be the only person who has thought this...unless that would make me a cosmic horror. In that case, I think I'm cool with it. Also I get to eat people.
Meh, I'm not big of the whole idea of holiday gift-giving, even though I go along with it. Buying gifts because I'm supposed to seems painfully consumerist. I would rather we lived in a society where we simply give gifts when we feel moved to do so or have something that would be meaningful for another person.
I know, I know... I'll keep puffing on that pipe dream :)
|
|
I am very sorry. I should realize especially on this thread, my humor is not for everyone, and is not always apparent in writing. Please forgive me.No.
And isn't that what Christmas is all about?Psshaw! Next you'll tell me Black Friday isn't when the Pilgrams went to the mall to get fantastic deals on electronics, blankets, and beads to give to themselves and the Native Americans! If Jamestown founder Sam Walton were here, he'd have a scarlet U stitched to your tunic, you UnAmerican Unconsumerist!
What?
:)
Thank you for detecting my sarcasm :)
Crimson Jester, you wound me sometimes. I swear I'm not as heartless and heathenistic as you think I am.
I didn't mean to put too fine a point on it. I'll try to make it clearer where I stand. No harm/no foul.
Make an irritatingly catchy song about it and then we’ll talk.I am quite dissapointed in a fellow canine. The word is poodle.Fair enough. But, didn't Jesus say to spread the word?Bird?Gah ..urgh ...roll for Will .. DRAT! NAT ONE!
This isn't a Rick Roll is it? Are we still Rick Rolling these days? Oh the curiosity is eating me up inside. It would be more humane to just click it and end the aching suspense, but I will resist...
This isn't a Rick Roll is it? Are we still Rick Rolling these days? Oh the curiosity is eating me up inside. It would be more humane to just click it and end the aching suspense, but I will resist...Gah ..urgh ...roll for Will .. DRAT! NAT ONE!
No, no Rick Roll, something far, far more evil ...
Meh, I'm not big of the whole idea of holiday gift-giving, even though I go along with it. Buying gifts because I'm supposed to seems painfully consumerist. I would rather we lived in a society where we simply give gifts when we feel moved to do so or have something that would be meaningful for another person.
That's more or less what I do. Nobody gets a gift because I feel obligated. My mother's generation alone has eight people, excepting her, and they managed to spit out four kids between them, aside me, and one of those is now pregnant. (I didn't go to her wedding either.) How many gifts did I give to them? Zero. I don't expect that will change. They don't give me gifts either. This year I have bought or will buy for a total of three people, and that's enough.
The holiday is just a convenient way to schedule it all.
|
|
Meh, I'm not big of the whole idea of holiday gift-giving, even though I go along with it. Buying gifts because I'm supposed to seems painfully consumerist. I would rather we lived in a society where we simply give gifts when we feel moved to do so or have something that would be meaningful for another person.That's more or less what I do. Nobody gets a gift because I feel obligated. My mother's generation alone has eight people, excepting her, and they managed to spit out four kids between them, aside me, and one of those is now pregnant. (I didn't go to her wedding either.) How many gifts did I give to them? Zero. I don't expect that will change. They don't give me gifts either. This year I have bought or will buy for a total of three people, and that's enough.
The holiday is just a convenient way to schedule it all.
There's something to be said for that... You make a good point in terms of organization, avoiding social awkwardness, etc that I hadn't really thought about.
There's something to be said for that... You make a good point in terms of organization, avoiding social awkwardness, etc that I hadn't really thought about.
And another corrupted by my mad, unnatural ways! Bwa-ha-ha!
*twirls moustachios*
No, no Rick Roll, something far, far more evil ...This isn't a Rick Roll is it? Are we still Rick Rolling these days? Oh the curiosity is eating me up inside. It would be more humane to just click it and end the aching suspense, but I will resist...Gah ..urgh ...roll for Will .. DRAT! NAT ONE!
Somebody else click it and tell me what you see. I fwaid.
Family Guy. What the heck?
Family Guy. What the heck?
You have to read the context of the tangental conversation for it to make sense. And that clip is virally evil.
urgh ..ack.. thinking about it ..
A-POPPA-OOH-MAU-MAU-MAU-A-POPPA-OOH-MAU-MAU-MAU!
Goes shreiking off into the trees
|
Palin: America must "seek God's hand of protection"
Leaving aside the 1st amendment issues, I'm curious as to which God America should seek. I, personally, am torn between Mystra, Sarenrae and Cthulhu, but of course, I'm a Brit, so I don't think my views count. Ideas guys?
Enter scene: two people colliding and mixing a bible with a campaign sign.
"Hey, you got religion in my politics!"
"Hey, you got politics in my religion!"
Both explode
Two controversial things guaranteed to ignite when combined!
Palin: America must "seek God's hand of protection"
Leaving aside the 1st amendment issues, I'm curious as to which God America should seek. I, personally, am torn between Mystra, Sarenrae and Cthulhu, but of course, I'm a Brit, so I don't think my views count. Ideas guys?
Wow! The Daily Kos took everything she said and twisted it into something she didn't even say. Doesn't surprise me though.
These excerpts I got from Texas for Sarah Palin, commending her for her Godly attitude:
"I believe our country has been touched by God," said Palin, "because when we formed our union, leaders back then dedicated our country to God and said that we would seek His will for our great nation.
"I think if we could get back to that humbleness," she added, "with that kind of contrite spirit, I think that we would be able to be provided more of the answers to so many of the great challenges that we’re facing."
Gov. Palin noted that it takes Godly counsel, prayer and "a collective humble heart of a nation seeking God’s hand of protection and His blessings and prosperity. I think if we could get back to that, our country will be a safer, more prosperous and healthier nation."
------------
On the one hand, it seems pretty benign to me; she wants safety and prosperity for the U.S., and asks God for help in attaining them. On the other hand, it does beg the question of what happens to the people who choose not to be part of the "collective humble heart." Presumably, they have to be silenced, deported, or re-educated? I mean, we don't want those heathens ruining things for the rest of us by making God angry, right? Or maybe not. That part is all idle speculation and reading between lines, and too much of that can almost always get you into trouble.
For some reason, though, the hypothesis that our safety and prosperity as a nation are dependent solely on one factor (namely, appeasing some god) sort of reminds me of the whole sacrifices to Tlaloc thing.
Presumably, they have to be silenced, deported, or re-educated? I mean, we don't want those heathens ruining things for the rest of us by making God angry, right? Or maybe not. That part is all idle speculation and reading between lines, and too much of that can almost always get you into trouble.
I am glad you edited your original post Kirth. I thought you had gone to Crazyville for a minute. ;)
I am glad you edited your original post Kirth. I thought you had gone to Crazyville for a minute. ;)
Yeah, sometimes I get thinking faster than I can type, and half my thoughts get cut off. I almost always do a face-palm after reading an initial post, and then go back and edit it to fit what I was trying to say, vs. what came out.
Still, the chick kinda does creep me out a bit, I have to admit. It's not hard for me to picture her in an Aztec headdress, throwing babies into a fire in the top of a step pyramid! Which says more about my goofy imagination than it does about her, but what the hell, there you have it.
....Still, the chick kinda does creep me out a bit, I have to admit. It's not hard for me to picture her in an Aztec headdress, throwing babies into a fire in the top of a step pyramid.
It's funny, I am a Libertarian, and I really don't find her all that scary. I've been thinking of even picking up her book and trying it out. I think the whole religion angle is being waaaay overhyped by her political foes. I may not be Abrahamic in beliefs, but I am not neccesarily against anyone who is sincerely religious. I don't find that a negative.
I may not be Abrahamic in beliefs, but I am not neccesarily against anyone who is sincerely religious. I don't find that a negative.
The long and short of it is, when someone tells me "Only God knows what's best for this country, and only I know what God wants," I immediately assume they're either demented or a control freak. Because a third option (that they're right on both counts) is too often demonstratively not the case. As the saying goes, "He who claims to know the mind of God is engaged in the Devil's work."
The fourth possibility is that she doesn't believe any of that, and is just spouting off what her supporters want to hear. Which would make her no different at all from Obama, I guess.
I am glad you edited your original post Kirth. I thought you had gone to Crazyville for a minute. ;)Yeah, sometimes I get thinking faster than I can type, and half my thoughts get cut off. I almost always do a face-palm after reading an initial post, and then go back and edit it to fit what I was trying to say, vs. what came out.
Still, the chick kinda does creep me out a bit, I have to admit. It's not hard for me to picture her in an Aztec headdress, throwing babies into a fire in the top of a step pyramid! Which says more about my goofy imagination than it does about her, but what the hell, there you have it.
She has an odd voice and an odd way of expressing herself. I think that is what you find creepy. Yeah, as a conservative I can't see why other cons thinks she's all that. Some of the nuttiness I see with Palin's followers reminds me of some of Obama's followers. Too damn cult-like.
I may not be Abrahamic in beliefs, but I am not neccesarily against anyone who is sincerely religious. I don't find that a negative.The long and short of it is, when someone tells me "Only God knows what's best for this country, and only I know what God wants," I immediately assume they're either demented or a control freak. Because the third option (that they're right on both counts) is too often demonstratively not the case. As the saying goes, "He who claims to know the mind of God is engaged in the Devil's work."
No I get that, I just think that's not really the message she's trying to convey. I think that's how certain people would have you think she's acting, but those quotes you just posted didn't seem all that overbearingly religious. I think America could use a bit more humbleness. I may get angry when people talk smack about her, but overweening pride isn't a good thing either.
As for asking God's blessings on the country, why not? Can't hurt either way. She's not asking for religious litmus tests.
I'd be the first one against her should it come out she is anti-pagan*. Believe me, that's one of the major issues I had against Bob Barr, the last Libertarian Party nominee.
*EDIT: Or anti-other style religiosity
Still, the chick kinda does creep me out a bit, I have to admit. It's not hard for me to picture her in an Aztec headdress, throwing babies into a fire in the top of a step pyramid! Which says more about my goofy imagination than it does about her, but what the hell, there you have it.
That's not a totally wild fear, really. The dominant and preferred religious settlement for a disturbing number of Americans seems to be as follows:
1) Some form of religiosity is compulsory
2) Which must be compatible with the speaker's own form of religiosity
3) Other forms of religiosity may be tolerated, within certain limits, provided they are adjudged sufficiently compatible with the compulsory religiosity.
4) However at no point shall this toleration approach any species of equality. Dissidents must be kept in their place.
5) Failure to conform to the compulsory religiosity is to be punished with shunning, fines, censure, and/or violence.
6) All laws are subject to review and veto by a committee of experts on the compulsory religiosity.
7) Any movement, sentiment, or act to place varying religious sentiments in more equal positions with regard to the state is a persecution to be considered equivalent to genocide.
They will not admit as much, but this is more or less a combination of how Iran and Saudi Arabia are run. I wish I was making it up. I also wish the "America is a Christian Nation" crowd would realize that all their arguments are the same ones used by the America is a "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Nation" crowd all of forty years ago. (Falwell was a hardcore segregationist before he founded the Moral Majority, which is one of those names with two lies for the price of one.) But if wishes made reality, then I wouldn't need those two wishes.
The religious settlement I prefer is really radical. State secularism and total indifference to all religions. The government isn't out to cater, pander, facilitate, help, hinder, oppress, persecute, or destroy. It's just setting secular laws that everybody is obliged equally to follow. Such a state has no power to recognize, sanction, acknowledge, examine, or otherwise determine what is or is not a legitimate religion or religious objection. Such things are forbidden to it.
That would be true equality for belief and nonbelief alike, which I think is the problem. Argument over the state's support of religion historically is more about minority religions wanting the same privileges that the majority religions enjoy (they change their minds once they have them), not about real equality and freedom.
The religious settlement I prefer is really radical. State secularism and total indifference to all religions. The government isn't out to cater, pander, facilitate, help, hinder, oppress, persecute, or destroy. It's just setting secular laws that everybody is obliged equally to follow. Such a state has no power to recognize, sanction, acknowledge, examine, or otherwise determine what is or is not a legitimate religion or religious objection. Such things are forbidden to it.
That would be true equality for belief and nonbelief alike
I could second this.
Still, the chick kinda does creep me out a bit, I have to admit. It's not hard for me to picture her in an Aztec headdress, throwing babies into a fire in the top of a step pyramid! Which says more about my goofy imagination than it does about her, but what the hell, there you have it.That's not a totally wild fear, really. The dominant and preferred religious settlement for a disturbing number of Americans seems to be as follows:
1) Some form of religiosity is compulsory
2) Which must be compatible with the speaker's own form of religiosity
3) Other forms of religiosity may be tolerated, within certain limits, provided they are adjudged sufficiently compatible with the compulsory religiosity.
4) However at no point shall this toleration approach any species of equality. Dissidents must be kept in their place.
5) Failure to conform to the compulsory religiosity is to be punished with shunning, fines, censure, and/or violence.
6) All laws are subject to review and veto by a committee of experts on the compulsory religiosity.
7) Any movement, sentiment, or act to place varying religious sentiments in more equal positions with regard to the state is a persecution to be considered equivalent to genocide.
Samnell, you have a habit of throwing the "bigot card" on anybody who doesn't agree with you(Pres Man being your latest). Yet, you exhibit some of the worst bigotry on this board on a consistent basis. Why is that?
|
|
Because, if you can infer somebody is a bigot, it makes them off balance, and you can easily win your trite little argument AND smugly blow on he barrel of your smoking silver Colt .45, spin it on your finger, and ride off into the sunset as the hero for equality that you just know you are.
Duuuh!
+1
oh yeah I'm not here.
Still, the chick kinda does creep me out a bit, I have to admit. It's not hard for me to picture her in an Aztec headdress, throwing babies into a fire in the top of a step pyramid! Which says more about my goofy imagination than it does about her, but what the hell, there you have it.That's not a totally wild fear, really. The dominant and preferred religious settlement for a disturbing number of Americans seems to be as follows:
1) Some form of religiosity is compulsory
2) Which must be compatible with the speaker's own form of religiosity
3) Other forms of religiosity may be tolerated, within certain limits, provided they are adjudged sufficiently compatible with the compulsory religiosity.
4) However at no point shall this toleration approach any species of equality. Dissidents must be kept in their place.
5) Failure to conform to the compulsory religiosity is to be punished with shunning, fines, censure, and/or violence.
6) All laws are subject to review and veto by a committee of experts on the compulsory religiosity.
7) Any movement, sentiment, or act to place varying religious sentiments in more equal positions with regard to the state is a persecution to be considered equivalent to genocide.They will not admit as much, but this is more or less a combination of how Iran and Saudi Arabia are run. I wish I was making it up. I also wish the "America is a Christian Nation" crowd would realize that all their arguments are the same ones used by the America is a "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Nation" crowd all of forty years ago. (Falwell was a hardcore segregationist before he founded the Moral Majority, which is one of those names with two lies for the price of one.) But if wishes made reality, then I wouldn't need those two wishes.
The religious settlement I prefer is really radical. State secularism and total indifference to all religions. The government isn't out to cater, pander, facilitate, help, hinder,...
So, seeing as how people supposedly do not admit to that line of reasoning...how did you determine that is the dominant and preferred religious settlement for a disturbing number of Americans?
Note: Personal experience is a very, very bad means of determining traits to apply to groups (and subsets of groups) as large as "Americans".
Samnell, you have a habit of throwing the "bigot card" on anybody who doesn't agree with you(Pres Man being your latest). Yet, you exhibit some of the worst bigotry on this board on a consistent basis. Why is that?
If it's bigotry to call someone a bigot, I want to be the biggest bigot the universe has ever conceived. Pres Man has left a trial of white hoods and lynching photos over every thread about gay rights to which he's posted and which I've seen. I make no apologies for making the obvious inference.
Nor will I be duped by the ploy that civil discussion requires we allow people to defend the indefensible without comment. Decency trumps civility. I will no more sit by and pretend someone is being a reasonable person defending a different, but still decent point of view when said person is fighting tooth and nail against the advance of equal rights, whether that's Catholic emancipation in Victorian Britain, the equal rights of Jews in 1930s Germany, blacks in Alabama in 1950 or 1850, or gays today.
As the fight against gay marriage is morally indistinguishable from the fight against interracial marriage, identical rhetoric is warranted. Anything else is not merely dishonest, but irresponsibly refusing to call out indecency when it's right in front of your face. It makes one an accomplice to the injustices the bigot defends.
And how does one know someone favors something if they deny it? The same way you figure out anything else: observation and reasoning. If a person says he's not a racist, but he doesn't think white kids should have to sit in school next to black kids and things were better when they were not so compelled, then he has exposed his own lie. If someone says they believe in freedom of religion, but then supports state imposition of religious practice then this person has likewise exposed himself as a liar.
This is simplicity itself. One need only read the message board posts, the stump speeches, the campaign platforms, etc. It's the same thing we do with any historical figure and nobody objects. Even when the conclusion is disputed, it's with the same set of documents and using the same methods. The only difference between historical figures and living figures is that one set is breathing, but that hardly renders the method invalid. It may, however, give the living figure a chance to still improve as a person.