Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 22, 2015, 09:20:09 AM
-
The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK. No doubt the Stalinist Secular Humanists here will be cock a hoop now that our children can watch violence without being assailed for thirty seconds by people saying the Lords prayer.
-
I should think so too, religion and politics should definitely not be advertised on TV or in the cinema, imo.
-
Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK.
Well, in that case I'll remember to take a Christian with me the next time I go to the cinema.
-
I should think so too, religion and politics should definitely not be advertised on TV or in the cinema, imo.
-
I should think so too, religion and politics should definitely not be advertised on TV or in the cinema, imo.
But I suppose an atheist cinema campaign would be OK?
-
Oops no answer to whether Atheists would accept a ban on atheist cinema advertising no surprise there.
Given what people are prepared to accept in the cinema .Wanting to ban 30 seconds of the Lord's Prayer is further evidence of being frightened of God.
-
But I suppose an atheist cinema campaign would be OK?
Just wondering what you mean by an atheist cinema campaign. Also what was the intended purpose of showing the Lords Prayer?
-
Just wondering what you mean by an atheist cinema campaign. Also what was the intended purpose of showing the Lords Prayer?
Something like the AtheistBus Campaign.
-
I would support a cinemas right to say they wouldn't show something like that.
What was then intended purpose of showing the Lord's Prayer in cinemas?
-
I don't go to the cinema to see atheist or religious advertising.
Let's be totally fair here........ And ban both.
No discrimination there.
I'm not keen on advertising anyway but in brings them ( cinemas) in funds to keep them going and gives you extra time to find your seat, but let's just keep the advertising to things you buy .........
Personally I'd rather have a supporting film like they did many years ago ( too long ago for some of you to remember I expect :-[ ) but sometimes the supporting film was better than the one you went to see.
I think it's a good idea to scrap adverts altogether and have a supporting film.
Best supporting film I ever saw was a nature one about the changing seasons in the desert and how it bloomed after the rare rain it got.
The last thing I want is religious and non religious moralising when I go to watch a film.
I go to enjoy myself............ ::)
So ''Last temptation of Christ'' to be banned then?
-
The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK. No doubt the Stalinist Secular Humanists here will be cock a hoop now that our children can watch violence without being assailed for thirty seconds by people saying the Lords prayer.
Any chance of a link (a) so we can tell what on earth you're on about and (b) how far divorced from reality you are this time?
-
Throaty voiceover: Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the Cinema.............Quentin Tarantino presents. Book of Common Prayer 3.
Cut to Bus Garage with sulphur and brimstone raining down from heaven.
Floo: Played by Sandra Bullock...''Oh Shaker...It's a theist apocalypse out there what are we going to do?''
Shaker: Played by George Clooney.......'' Get the atheist Bus on the road''
Shaker manfully steers bus out of Garage the skies clear and the sun shines.
Len James: Played by Morgan Freeman....'' It just shows what common sense can do''.
Curtain falls .....Choc Ices served.
-
But I suppose an atheist cinema campaign would be OK?
Don't be silly, of course it wouldn't!
-
Any chance of a link (a) so we can tell what on earth you're on about and (b) how far divorced from reality you are this time?
Surely...and that's rich from someone who comes from Leicester.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34891928
-
1. Why couldn't you have done that in the OP?
2. What's the connection with Leicester, exactly?
-
Surely...and that's rich from someone who comes from Leicester.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34891928
You really need to take some more water with it; many of your posts don't come over as posted by someone who is completely sober! ::)
-
Surely...and that's rich from someone who comes from Leicester.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34891928
So, in fact, it wasn't a ban at all, it was a commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message as a precursor their completely secular film showing. If it were being suggested as an advert for a run of, say, 'Noah', it might have been more successful.
This isn't a ban, it's a sign of overwhelming disinterest from purveyor's of public entertainment. It's the same reason ITV has very little religious programming - commercially, in this country, it's just not viable.
O.
-
So, in fact, it wasn't a ban at all, it was a commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message as a precursor their completely secular film showing. If it were being suggested as an advert for a run of, say, 'Noah', it might have been more successful.
This isn't a ban, it's a sign of overwhelming disinterest from purveyor's of public entertainment. It's the same reason ITV has very little religious programming - commercially, in this country, it's just not viable.
O.
It isn't the same as disinterest, that would be happy to show the advert if there was money for it.
-
Am I the only one who finds the efforts of the CofE to piggyback on the new Star Wars film tasteless?
-
Am I the only one who finds the efforts of the CofE to piggyback on the new Star Wars film tasteless?
No but you might be the only one who hasn't spotted the religious content of Star Wars.......
...............May the Force be with you.
-
Yes, there's a lot of Eastern thought in there. You could liken the Force to chi or prana.
-
George Lucas is on record as having said that Jediism was cut pretty much wholesale from Buddhism and especially Taoism - there are whole books devoted to this.
-
No but you might be the only one who hasn't spotted the religious content of Star Wars.......
...............May the Force be with you.
Ironically, it was the reduction of 'The Force' to midichlorians that ruined the spectacle for me... science ruining the magic, who'd have thought.
O.
-
The Force is morally neutral. To liken it to, say, Christian concepts of the Holy Spirit is a bit odd given what Vader and the Emperor do with it.
-
The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK. No doubt the Stalinist Secular Humanists here will be cock a hoop now that our children can watch violence without being assailed for thirty seconds by people saying the Lords prayer.
I suppose Muslims are just as dissatisfied that they are banned from being shown verses from the Quran before this Star Wars movie.
-
Sounds like didums religionists didn't get their own way and its made them cry.
It's not fair we religionists have always had these privileges whenever, we've only had to ask previously, somebody turned us down this time, I'm going to tell my mum, so there.
I would think the message is, get used to it, you're on the way out here in the UK.
ippy
-
Perhaps "religions" ought to be allowed to advertise; in cinemas, etc.
Claims they make could then be open to scrutiny by The Advertising Standards People.
This would be really interesting ie
Hopey pays for an ad which says faith can cure illnesses, praise the lord and be cured.
ASA declares the ad untruthful and bans it.
Oh what fun
-
The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK. No doubt the Stalinist Secular Humanists here will be cock a hoop now that our children can watch violence without being assailed for thirty seconds by people saying the Lords prayer.
Your OP and your thread title do not match, OS. Christianity has NOT been banned from cinemas. As for the NSS's viewpoint; their spokesman, speaking on this morning's BBC breakfast show, said that whilst they would have no problem with the advert being shown, the situation is that after the debacle (his word) of showing pro- and anti-Scottish Independence adverts in cinemas, the Digital Cinema Media agency decided that thy would no longer show political or religious adverts for fear of offending people who held opposing views.
Now, I think that that was a poor decision, and probably shows DCM to be weak, but that was their decision. I suspect that the CofE's advert has been in the pipeline for many months of planning so has been caught up in this decision (I'm not sure when the decision was taken by DCM)
This then opens the whole debate over whether we have the right to be offended, and therefore people have to act to defend us from being offended. That is a whole new debate (which I seem to remember we've alreadsy had in the past, but it may be worth reopening - since there are plenty of adverts that offend me, such as those that degrade both men and women; promote alcohol, tobacco and gambling; encourage buying for buying sake; etc.
-
If the'd made it with MANY religions' prayers in then THAT would've been better but.......
-
Just wondering what you mean by an atheist cinema campaign. Also what was the intended purpose of showing the Lords Prayer?
An atheist advertising campaign would be something along the lines of that campaign that the BHA (?) ran on the side of buses a couple of years back.
-
If the'd made it with MANY religions' prayers in then THAT would've been better but.......
Better only in a very abstract, technical sense - the fact that the advert contains the Lord's Prayer does amount to promoting/privileging one particular religion over all others ... something that would never fly in the USA, for example.
I don't think that the decision shows DCM to be weak; if anything the opposite. In rejecting political and religious adverts they're clearly trying to uphold the disinterestedness that secularism proper demands.
-
George Lucas is on record as having said that Jediism was cut pretty much wholesale from Buddhism and especially Taoism - there are whole books devoted to this.
Yes but that just adds to the mystery as to why certain Secular Humanists are shit scared of 30 seconds of the Lord's prayer but feel safe with 3 hours of Taoism or Buddhism.
-
Yes but that just adds to the mystery as to why certain Secular Humanists are shit scared of 30 seconds of the Lord's prayer but feel safe with 3 hours of Taoism or Buddhism.
Firstly they're not scared; they just don't want religion force-fed to them on a night out at the pictures. People already have all the opportunities in the world to pursue religion if they want to. Do they? Do they buggery.
Secondly, a Star Wars film isn't "three hours of Taoism or Buddhism." It's soft science fiction. Not real. Madey-uppy, Vlad. You should be more than familiar with that.
-
Sounds like didums religionists didn't get their own way and its made them cry.
It's not fair we religionists have always had these privileges whenever, we've only had to ask previously, somebody turned us down this time, I'm going to tell my mum, so there.
I would think the message is, get used to it, you're on the way out here in the UK.
ippy
By Stalinist means so it seems.
-
Stalinism: just one more of the many words Vlad doesn't know the meaning of.
-
Your OP and your thread title do not match, OS. Christianity has NOT been banned from cinemas. As for the NSS's viewpoint; their spokesman, speaking on this morning's BBC breakfast show, said that whilst they would have no problem with the advert being shown, the situation is that after the debacle (his word) of showing pro- and anti-Scottish Independence adverts in cinemas, the Digital Cinema Media agency decided that thy would no longer show political or religious adverts for fear of offending people who held opposing views.
Now, I think that that was a poor decision, and probably shows DCM to be weak, but that was their decision. I suspect that the CofE's advert has been in the pipeline for many months of planning so has been caught up in this decision (I'm not sure when the decision was taken by DCM)
This then opens the whole debate over whether we have the right to be offended, and therefore people have to act to defend us from being offended. That is a whole new debate (which I seem to remember we've alreadsy had in the past, but it may be worth reopening - since there are plenty of adverts that offend me, such as those that degrade both men and women; promote alcohol, tobacco and gambling; encourage buying for buying sake; etc.
It shows that antitheists reserve their own right to offend.....and their own right not to be ''offended''.
-
By Stalinist means so it seems.
Your bandying about the term Stalinist here pisses on the graves of those who died under a disgusting regime. As you spunked that pathetic little message, and gave yourself a little squeeze of delight at using Stalinist in a post, you showed yourself as a shameless user of suffering for a cheap and entirely meaningless point.
-
Perhaps "religions" ought to be allowed to advertise; in cinemas, etc.
Claims they make could then be open to scrutiny by The Advertising Standards People.
This would be really interesting ie
Hopey pays for an ad which says faith can cure illnesses, praise the lord and be cured.
ASA declares the ad untruthful and bans it.
Oh what fun
That could be interesting, john. After all, one reason why medical journals are not keen to run articles about faith-healings is that the concept runs counter to the narrative that such journals want to put over - that medical science can, or at least will be able to cure all our ills.
Let's envisage such an ad. Scene 1 introduces a person who has been told that there is no medical cure for their condition and they have only weeks to live and shows an X-ray of the tumour or whatever that is threatening to kill them.
Scene 2, the same person several months or years later talking about how, following prayer, their survival expectancy has increased dramatically and/or their symptoms (eg tumour or whatever) has disappeared completely, again showing an x-ray of the same part of the body.
I realise that some, as some here do, will claim that prayer had nothing to do with the healing, choosing instead to wheel out that famous scientific treatment - spontaneous healing. I'm not convinced that trying to replace 'unscientific claims' by equally 'unscientific claims' really works!!
-
Your bandying about the term Stalinist here pisses on the graves of those who died under a disgusting regime. As you spunked that pathetic little message, and gave yourself a little squeeze of delight at using Stalinist in a post, you showed yourself as a shameless user of suffering for a cheap and entirely meaningless point.
As I have said before. A few years ago the atheist Bamber Gascoigne made a programme called the Christians where he reflected upon the Stalinist policy of keeping all religion behind closed doors and out of the public forum. He understood the significance of this policy. Modern secular Humanists fail to.
I am just echoing Bamber's sentiments and speaking to those who do not heed the lessons of history. Not one bit of Stalinist policy should be acceptable.
-
It shows that antitheists reserve their own right to offend.....and their own right not to be ''offended''.
What makes you think the business decision makers at DCM are atheists, let alone anti-theists? What makes you think the decision makers at the cinema chains are atheists or anti-theists? Who is it that you think they are offending when they decline to show inappropriate advertising for a particular audience to that audience?
Or are you just offended because someone didn't immediately comply with the Church of England?
O.
-
That could be interesting, john. After all, one reason why medical journals are not keen to run articles about faith-healings is that the concept runs counter to the narrative that such journals want to put over - that medical science can, or at least will be able to cure all our ills.
Let's envisage such an ad. Scene 1 introduces a person who has been told that there is no medical cure for their condition and they have only weeks to live and shows an X-ray of the tumour or whatever that is threatening to kill them.
Scene 2, the same person several months or years later talking about how, following prayer, their survival expectancy has increased dramatically and/or their symptoms (eg tumour or whatever) has disappeared completely, again showing an x-ray of the same part of the body.
I realise that some, as some here do, will claim that prayer had nothing to do with the healing, choosing instead to wheel out that famous scientific treatment - spontaneous healing. I'm not convinced that trying to replace 'unscientific claims' by equally 'unscientific claims' really works!!
The problem is, though, that even when it comes to 'spontaneous healing', the praying/attending churches/buying vials of water from Lourdes doesn't have an effect. Whilst you could quite justifiably advertise the fact that spontaneous healing occurs, and we don't know why, what would you sell with that? Nothing can be shown to link to it.
O.
-
Secondly, a Star Wars film isn't "three hours of Taoism or Buddhism." It's soft science fiction. Not real. Madey-uppy, Vlad. You should be more than familiar with that.
Well, if Lucas did say what you have claimed him to have said - " ... that Jediism was cut pretty much wholesale from Buddhism and especially Taoism - there are whole books devoted to this", then the 'soft science fiction' claim is stretching the definition of that phrase quite a lot.
-
That could be interesting, john. After all, one reason why medical journals are not keen to run articles about faith-healings is that the concept runs counter to the narrative that such journals want to put over - that medical science can, or at least will be able to cure all our ills.
How do you know that that's a reason? Seems to me vastly more likely that medical journals are not keen to run such stories for a variety of far, far more plausible reasons:
- such stories tend to be wholly anecdotal, with vague, hand-waving pseudo-details and no evidence whatever offered for their veracity, with all requests for traceable details - names, people, places, dates - given the Hope treatment (i.e. completely ignored). There have been examples of this on this very forum;
- such stories tend to fall down badly on scientific rigour, being untestable and unrepeatable.
-
As I have said before. A few years ago the atheist Bamber Gascoigne made a programme called the Christians where he reflected upon the Stalinist policy of keeping all religion behind closed doors and out of the public forum. He understood the significance of this policy. Modern secular Humanists fail to.
We all understand the significance of it, but some of us don't see any real problem with Christianity withering away, in exactly the same way that we've not noticed a considerable cultural damage from the absence of Zeus worship.
I am just echoing Bamber's sentiments and speaking to those who do not heed the lessons of history. Not one bit of Stalinist policy should be acceptable.
You can echo them - we still aren't that bothered by the idea of religion withering away. To suggest that it's akin to the Stalinist slaying of religious figures, destruction of their infrastructure and official banning of the organisations and arrangements thought is just dipshittery of the highest order. It's not like you to resort to ridiculous hyperbole to mask the fact that you're making no point at all.
O.
-
Well, if Lucas did say what you have claimed him to have said - " ... that Jediism was cut pretty much wholesale from Buddhism and especially Taoism - there are whole books devoted to this", then the 'soft science fiction' claim is stretching the definition of that phrase quite a lot.
No it isn't.
Not when you know what it actually means, anyway.
-
So, in fact, it wasn't a ban at all, it was a commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message as a precursor their completely secular film showing. If it were being suggested as an advert for a run of, say, 'Noah', it might have been more successful.
This isn't a ban, it's a sign of overwhelming disinterest from purveyor's of public entertainment. It's the same reason ITV has very little religious programming - commercially, in this country, it's just not viable.
O.
O, no it wasn't a "commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message". It was a commercial decision by a media rights agency - NOT the cinemas chains themselves - that they would not accept any political or religous advertising. The reason given was 'for fear of offence being taken by one or more of their customers'.
As for your second paragraph, there is nothing in the decision to indicate "overwhelming disinterest from purveyor's of public entertainment". As you have said, it's a commercial decision.
-
No it isn't.
Not when you know what it actually means, anyway.
And you know for sure that your interpretation of Lucas' comment is the correct one? I've heard the claim you referred to before, and the commentator at the time (not a religious person to my knowledge, and not within a religious context) suggested that this means that there is an element of religious thinking within the films.
-
And you know for sure that your interpretation of Lucas' comment is the correct one?
I've read what Lucas has said, if that's what you mean. It's not my interpretation, it's his scattered comments on the philosophical underpinnings of Jediism and associated concepts (like the Force).
I've heard the claim you referred to before, and the commentator at the time (not a religious person to my knowledge, and not within a religious context) suggested that this means that there is an element of religious thinking within the films.
Depends if you consider Buddhism and Taoism to be religions. Many do not.
-
If the'd made it with MANY religions' prayers in then THAT would've been better but.......
... it would probably still have fallen foul of DCM's comercial decision.
-
... it would probably still have fallen foul of DCM's comercial decision.
Ten minutes ago you said it wasn't one:
O, no it wasn't a "commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message".
-
The problem is, though, that even when it comes to 'spontaneous healing', the praying/attending churches/buying vials of water from Lourdes doesn't have an effect. Whilst you could quite justifiably advertise the fact that spontaneous healing occurs, and we don't know why, what would you sell with that? Nothing can be shown to link to it.
O.
The issue is, though, that the ASA would have nothing to argue against the claim with. If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?
-
There should be no political or religious advertising in cinemas.
They are the wrong things to put in a cinema.
And why are adverts for mobile phones, clothes, status symbols, etc., etc. any better?
-
The issue is, though, that the ASA would have nothing to argue against the claim with. If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?
You could always remind them that they're committing the negative proof fallacy, of course.
-
Sounds like didums religionists didn't get their own way and its made them cry.
It's not fair we religionists have always had these privileges whenever, we've only had to ask previously, somebody turned us down this time, I'm going to tell my mum, so there.
I would think the message is, get used to it, you're on the way out here in the UK.
ippy
That's what I was thinking, although I'm no good at being witty!! :d
-
How do you know that that's a reason? Seems to me vastly more likely that medical journals are not keen to run such stories for a variety of far, far more plausible reasons:
- such stories tend to be wholly anecdotal, with vague, hand-waving pseudo-details and no evidence whatever offered for their veracity, with all requests for traceable details - names, people, places, dates - given the Hope treatment (i.e. completely ignored). There have been examples of this on this very forum;
- such stories tend to fall down badly on scientific rigour, being untestable and unrepeatable.
OK, for one thing, I have read articles explaining why such journals don't run them. If I remember the best one was in the BMJ from back in the 80s. Secondly, I know of several cases where the 'anecdotal' wassupported by scientific evidence such as X-rays, test results, etc. Furthermore, the "requests for traceable details" were provided by the patients, but not verified by the medics involved - in some cases on the orders of their employers.
I'm sorry to highlight your confirmation bias, Shaker, but these refusals to release details, often under the guise of doctor/patient confidentiality have taken place on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances - including circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with healings of any kind.
-
You could always remind them that they're committing the negative proof fallacy, of course.
But I don't think that the ASA can make decisions based on that concept. ;)
-
It's a bit weird.
If it was a film depicting a religious figure like Jesus, I'd at least understand it ( but not agree with it).
If, as Shaker has pointed out, the philosophical underpinnings of Jediism and associated concepts are based in Buddhism and Taoism, then why not attach a 'religiously' themed advert to its showing?
-
By Stalinist means so it seems.
You still are unable to get it Vlad, I like any other Secular Humanist am happy to be treated in the same way as religionists and would also be quite happy to support religionists if the ban was for religionists only and they then allowed secular humanist advertising.
I do wonder what part of secular humanism it is you're not getting, only up till now you're making it look as though you can't understand any of it?
There isn't any connection between Joe Starlin and secular humanism that I know of?
ippy
-
If I had my way ALL ads would be banned, I detest them!
-
An atheist advertising campaign would be something along the lines of that campaign that the BHA (?) ran on the side of buses a couple of years back.
Yes - see my earlier post.
-
OK, for one thing, I have read articles explaining why such journals don't run them. If I remember the best one was in the BMJ from back in the 80s.
So you say.
Secondly, I know of several cases where the 'anecdotal' wassupported by scientific evidence such as X-rays, test results, etc.
So you say.
Furthermore, the "requests for traceable details" were provided by the patients, but not verified by the medics involved - in some cases on the orders of their employers.
So you say.
I'm sorry to highlight your confirmation bias, Shaker, but these refusals to release details, often under the guise of doctor/patient confidentiality have taken place on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances - including circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with healings of any kind.
... which is a perfect get-out for somebody trying to claim that something exists but doesn't want to admit to the utter dearth of evidence for it.
There's always an excuse of one sort or another.
-
If, as Shaker has pointed out, the philosophical underpinnings of Jediism and associated concepts are based in Buddhism and Taoism, then why not attach a 'religiously' themed advert to its showing?
Because whether Buddhism and Taoism are religions at all doesn't admit of a definitive and objective answer. A great many people - adherents and non-adherents alike - regard them as philosophical traditions.
-
I should think so too, religion and politics should definitely not be advertised on TV or in the cinema, imo.
What about Party Political Broadcasts?
-
You still are unable to get it Vlad, I like any other Secular Humanist am happy to be treated in the same way as religionists and would also be quite happy to support religionists if the ban was for religionists only and they then allowed secular humanist advertising.
I do wonder what part of secular humanism it is you're not getting, only up till now you're making it look as though you can't understand any of it?
There isn't any connection between Joe Starlin and secular humanism that I know of?
ippy
You just can't see that this has been a secular humanist society for decades so what you and others propose is a secular humanist society where only they are allowed expression.
If you think we haven't notice your reasonable side ''level playing field'' and your knuckle dragging side. ''You are on your way out''. Then I suspect you don't give a shit what people think of your views.
On the other hand if this is yours and other people's reaction to God then there must be something in this God business ;)
-
What about Party Political Broadcasts?
I would ban them too as they are not usually truthful.
-
O, no it wasn't a "commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message". It was a commercial decision by a media rights agency - NOT the cinemas chains themselves - that they would not accept any political or religous advertising. The reason given was 'for fear of offence being taken by one or more of their customers'.
And would they have made that decision without any input from their major partners? Ok, so DCM as representatives of the cinema chains rather than the cinema chains themselves.
As for your second paragraph, there is nothing in the decision to indicate "overwhelming disinterest from purveyor's of public entertainment". As you have said, it's a commercial decision.
If it were going to interest people they'd be happy to do it. If it were going to interest more people than it upset they'd do it. It's only going to upset a handful of rabble-rousers, which means the people it's going to interest are only a handful, too. That makes the rest - the overwhelming majority - completely disinterested.
O.
-
Dear Vlad,
The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK.
No such thing as bad publicity, no doubt questions will be asked at the highest level.
I watched the advert, not the most inspiring and I much prefer Our Lords advice on Prayer.
Anyway on the subject of movies with religious connotations, hundreds of them :o :o
Biblical stories, the film industry loves them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_the_Bible
Gonnagle.
-
Let's just see if NSS and BHS get the cameras rolling eh?
-
Dear Vlad,
No such thing as bad publicity, no doubt questions will be asked at the highest level.
I watched the advert, not the most inspiring and I much prefer Our Lords advice on Prayer.
Anyway on the subject of movies with religious connotations, hundreds of them :o :o
Biblical stories, the film industry loves them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_the_Bible
Gonnagle.
I saw it featured on the lunchtime news, it was ghastly and would put people off I reckon!
-
That's what I was thinking, although I'm no good at being witty!! :d
I wasn't trying to be witty and I didn't think I was.
I just wrote out my thoughts exactly as they were from inside my head at that moment.
ippy
-
Dear Vlad,
No such thing as bad publicity, no doubt questions will be asked at the highest level.
I watched the advert, not the most inspiring and I much prefer Our Lords advice on Prayer.
Anyway on the subject of movies with religious connotations, hundreds of them :o :o
Biblical stories, the film industry loves them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_the_Bible
Gonnagle.
The irony here is that not only were the big blockbusters biblical epics. J. Arthur Rank started of by making Methodist themed films and started Odeon cinemas which is one of the circuits which won't be showing the adverts.
-
I saw it featured on the lunchtime news, it was ghastly and would put people off I reckon!
That probably means more people will end up seeing it than would have if they had just shown it in the flicks.
-
The issue is, though, that the ASA would have nothing to argue against the claim with. If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?
The ASA don't start by asking people to disprove the claims, they first ask the claimant to back their claim. When the faith healers went 'But God!' they'd reject the advert.
O.
-
That probably ;D means more people will end up seeing it than would have if they had just shown it in the flicks.
True. I certainly would never have seen it at the cinema as I dislike them, and have only been about 10 times in the whole of my 65 years.
-
OK, for one thing, I have read articles explaining why such journals don't run them. If I remember the best one was in the BMJ from back in the 80s. Secondly, I know of several cases where the 'anecdotal' wassupported by scientific evidence such as X-rays, test results, etc. Furthermore, the "requests for traceable details" were provided by the patients, but not verified by the medics involved - in some cases on the orders of their employers.
Yeah, they're keeping the details in a folder with the info on aliens and who really killed Kennedy's body-double!!!
Good grief. No-one is denying that some people recover, or at least improve, when the prevailing medical opinion is that they won't, that's the nature of attempting to predict complex systems like human health. To claim, though, that the medical profession's known rates of accuracy are due to the effects of prayer rather than the lack of complete knowledge on behalf of the medical profession is a) the god of the gaps nonsense, b) in defiance of the well-documented evidence that prayer doesn't work and c) ignoring the fact that these incidents do not occur any more or less often in patients receiving 'alternative care' than they do in those not recieving it.
I'm sorry to highlight your confirmation bias, Shaker, but these refusals to release details, often under the guise of doctor/patient confidentiality have taken place on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances - including circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with healings of any kind.
If the details haven't been released because of doctor/patient confidentiality, how can you claim to know that they show Shaker is suffering from confirmation bias and isn't just, you know.... right?
O.
-
You just can't see that this has been a secular humanist society for decades so what you and others propose is a secular humanist society where only they are allowed expression.
If you think we haven't notice your reasonable side ''level playing field'' and your knuckle dragging side. ''You are on your way out''. Then I suspect you don't give a shit what people think of your views.
On the other hand if this is yours and other people's reaction to God then there must be something in this God business ;)
In that previous reply to your post Vlad, I was trying to let you know the way the average secular humanist would see this ban, my personal views of all religions doesn't make me want to establish a Taliban like Secular Humanist police state, why do you think that I do?
ippy
-
Dear Vlad,
Let's just see if NSS and BHS get the cameras rolling eh?
Lights, camera, action :o :o I am reminded of Spike Milligan, what are we going to do now, what are we going to do now :) :)
Gonnagle.
-
You just can't see that this has been a secular humanist society for decades so what you and others propose is a secular humanist society where only they are allowed expression.
No-one is banning you, stop trying to self-victimise your situation. In our modern, secular humanist society (with reserved seats in the government for representatives of the state's official religion) there is a well-protected place for your faith - in your churches.
In publicly owned places, if they don't want the trouble that religion brings, they're not obliged to invite religion in - that's the nature of freedom of speech. You can say whatever the hell you like, but you can't force people to listen.
If you think we haven't notice your reasonable side ''level playing field'' and your knuckle dragging side. ''You are on your way out''. Then I suspect you don't give a shit what people think of your views.
To an extent, no, given that I don't think there's enough of them to shift the balance of public opinion enough to change the situation.
On the other hand if this is yours and other people's reaction to God then there must be something in this God business ;)
No, our problem is that there's something in this religion business.
O.
-
The issue is, though, that the ASA would have nothing to argue against the claim with. If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?
"Here We Go Again Happy As Can Be".
ippy
-
It's a bit weird.
If it was a film depicting a religious figure like Jesus, I'd at least understand it ( but not agree with it).
Perhaps they don't think unbelievers go to see religious type films, and the audiences are made up of believers.
Perhaps they should have tried for a spot when " life of Brian " was showing ;)
It's 'outreach' - selling the church to those outside it. The Star Wars audience is going to be massive and in the cinema there's no skip button. Quite frankly I think it is unpleasant opportunism.
-
In that previous reply to your post Vlad, I was trying to let you know the way the average secular humanist would see this ban, my personal views of all religions doesn't make me want to establish a Taliban like Secular Humanist police state, why do you think that I do?
ippy
Ippy....I admit I may overreact to your posts particularly when you come up with stuff like ''you're on your way out''. But look at it this way. These cinema people must think a good deal of people are going to be offended by this advert. We know it is unlikely to be other religionists who generally like the presence of the C of E and who probably have there own cinema culture anyway.
So that generally leaves the secular humanists offended by this. The question is what and why would they be upset about?
That advertisers obviously do market research means this cannot simply be a misreading of the audience.
So Ippy....what is going down in good old secular Humanist Britain that it is offended by people saying the Lords prayer?
-
Dear Vlad,
Lights, camera, action :o :o I am reminded of Spike Milligan, what are we going to do now, what are we going to do now :) :)
Gonnagle.
Oh yes I forgot Gonners you're another one that's clueless about secular humanism, unless, of course, you've done a course on the subject, that is, since your last brush with us?
ippy
-
Dear Vlad,
Lights, camera, action :o :o I am reminded of Spike Milligan, what are we going to do now, what are we going to do now :) :)
Gonnagle.
Can you imagine Dawkins in 3D and Panavision?
-
Ippy....I admit I may overreact to your posts particularly when you come up with stuff like ''you're on your way out''. But look at it this way. These cinema people must think a good deal of people are going to be offended by this advert.
No, they just need to think that one or two agitators would secure negative press coverage - newsworthiness is not proportional to actual relevance or importance.
We know it is unlikely to be other religionists who generally like the presence of the C of E and who probably have there own cinema culture anyway.
I think it's safe to say that Star Wars will cover pretty much all the religious demographics except the few that wouldn't attend the cinema for anything.
So that generally leaves the secular humanists offended by this. The question is what and why would they be upset about?
The few that would be upset - perhaps they've had bad experiences with the church, perhaps they object to the institutional misogyny and homophobia, perhaps they object to the pandering to the expressly homophobic elements of the world-wide Anglican community. Perhaps the reality is that no-one would be upset, and this is part of an egalitarian prohibition to prevent fundamentalists advertising.
That advertisers obviously do market research means this cannot simply be a misreading of the audience.
Indeed, but it could be aimed at precluding certain advertisers - say Islamic fundamentalists - but which for legal reasons needs not to single out a single faith.
So Ippy....what is going down in good old secular Humanist Britain that it is offended by people saying the Lords prayer?
If only it were actually that simple. Religion is an emotive topic, it doesn't need a rational objection to get negative column inches.
O.
-
I'm not sure about this assumption that it is people saying the Lords Prayer that people are offended by. It doesn't offend me.
-
Can you imagine Dawkins in 3D and Panavision?
What would be the point? Militant atheism is just having a case and stating it - if you're going to shell out for 3D and expensive visuals go for the religious militants... far more bang for your buck.
O.
-
Dear ippy,
secular humanism, I use this forum above all to be educated, so educate me, go on I know you want to. :P
Gonnagle.
-
No, they just need to think that one or two agitators would secure negative press coverage - newsworthiness is not proportional to actual relevance or importance.
I think it's safe to say that Star Wars will cover pretty much all the religious demographics except the few that wouldn't attend the cinema for anything.
The few that would be upset - perhaps they've had bad experiences with the church, perhaps they object to the institutional misogyny and homophobia, perhaps they object to the pandering to the expressly homophobic elements of the world-wide Anglican community. Perhaps the reality is that no-one would be upset, and this is part of an egalitarian prohibition to prevent fundamentalists advertising.
Indeed, but it could be aimed at precluding certain advertisers - say Islamic fundamentalists - but which for legal reasons needs not to single out a single faith.
If only it were actually that simple. Religion is an emotive topic, it doesn't need a rational objection to get negative column inches.
O.
I think you'll find mysogeny and homophobia can survive quite well
in secular society along with stuff like modern slavery etc, etc.
You are monomaniacle about religion.
-
Dear ippy,
secular humanism, I use this forum above all to be educated, so educate me, go on I know you want to. :P
Gonnagle.
Not to duck the question, Gonners, but this is a decent summary, though lacks a section on 'criticisms': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
O.
-
Ippy....I admit I may overreact to your posts particularly when you come up with stuff like ''you're on your way out''. But look at it this way. These cinema people must think a good deal of people are going to be offended by this advert. We know it is unlikely to be other religionists who generally like the presence of the C of E and who probably have there own cinema culture anyway.
So that generally leaves the secular humanists offended by this. The question is what and why would they be upset about?
That advertisers obviously do market research means this cannot simply be a misreading of the audience.
So Ippy....what is going down in good old secular Humanist Britain that it is offended by people saying the Lords prayer?
Vlad the lords prayer has never offended me nor does this rendition, what is and can be offensive about it is only when it's applied as described by some as, "it's only the lords prayer, I don't know what you're on about", as though what's the harm it's only the lords prayer, go on let it go, the point is, it's now the time and not before time, for the level playing field, it shouldn't have any precedence over any other subject such a politics or be left behind; Secularism.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
secular humanism, I use this forum above all to be educated, so educate me, go on I know you want to. :P
Gonnagle.
No point Gonners, you're not thick so the only other reason you ask is, no matter what, you're determined to not understand, go wind up elsewhere.
ippy
-
True, at least with the TV you can turn the channel over or record what you want to see.
In the cinema you are just stuck with it.
Sorry...........had to put my tea down.............just got a picture of a load of Secular Humanist cinema goers slurping their Kia Ora's loudly during the Lord's Prayer.
-
At this point I think we can all conclude that Christianity hasn't been and isn't being banned anywhere, cinemas included ;)
-
If hearing a minute of the Lord's Prayer is so terrible that it might give offence to some other religious people, or non-religious ones, then why wasn't the London bus fiasco seen in the same light; and many more people would have seen that? Pure censorship. A dangerous precedent to set.
-
The only people invoking the concept of offence here have been those in the media group who have a policy of not accepting any political and religious adverts, which is their prerogative. That's their stated reason: personally I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the majority non-religious, apatheist population simply aren't interested in religious propaganda wherever it comes from and don't want to see it on a night out at the pictures. There's nothing "terrible" about it; it's that to the majority it's an irrelevance, not to mention unfairly privileging one religion over all others in a nation at a time when adherence to that religion is a minority pursuit to say the least.
What was a fiasco about the London bus campaign?
-
At this point I think we can all conclude that Christianity hasn't been and isn't being banned anywhere, cinemas included ;)
At least you and I can agree on that, Shakes.
-
The only people invoking the concept of offence here have been those in the media group who have a policy of not accepting any political and religious adverts, which is their prerogative. That's their stated reason: personally I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the majority non-religious, apatheist population simply aren't interested in religious propaganda wherever it comes from and don't want to see it on a night out at the pictures. There's nothing "terrible" about it; it's that to the majority it's an irrelevance.
What was a fiasco about the London bus campaign?
It was no more than a silly, childish, waste of time and money - wonder who paid... :D
-
If hearing a minute of the Lord's Prayer is so terrible that it might give offence to some other religious people, or non-religious ones, then why wasn't the London bus fiasco seen in the same light; and many more people would have seen that? Pure censorship. A dangerous precedent to set.
By all accounts, BA, DCM had already made a commercial decision that they would not take any political and religious advertising. There is absolutely no suggestion that this is a case of censorship.
Whether their commercial decision was a good decision is a matter for a different debate.
-
By all accounts, BA, DCM had already made a commercial decision that they would not take any political and religious advertising. There is absolutely no suggestion that this is a case of censorship.
Whether their commercial decision was a good decision is a matter for a different debate.
Well, you might well contend that not to take any political or religious advertising is, in fact, censorship.
-
It was no more than a silly, childish, waste of time and money
Ah - so it's only your opinion, then.
wonder who paid...
Predominantly ordinary people who made small donations (but in large numbers ;) ).
-
Well, you might well contend that not to take any political or religious advertising is in fact censorship.
You would be incredibly silly to do so.
-
You would be incredibly silly to do so.
Really? Why?
-
Really? Why?
Because it's either paranoia or simple I-didn't-get-my-way whining to interpret commercial decisions by a large corporation as a calculated attempt to suppress/silence a particular voice or point of view, which is what censorship is.
-
Ah - so it's only your opinion, then. Predominantly ordinary people who made small donations (but in large numbers ;) ).
But then, originally, Dawkins agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500. ;D
Very generous! But then he will have recouped the money from sales of his silly book (GD), which so many naive people were daft enough to buy.
-
Because it's either paranoia or simple I-didn't-get-my-way whining to interpret commercial decisions by a large corporation as a calculated attempt to suppress/silence a particular voice or point of view, which is what censorship is.
What a truly ridiculous answer!
-
What a truly ridiculous answer!
No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.
Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.
-
No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.
Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.
I think banning anything is some sort of censorship, actually!
-
No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.
Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.
Exactly.
-
No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.
Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.
We all know where to go and what to do if we want to buy coca cola, but it's still advertised freely, even though it is now considered harmful to health because of the sugar content.
-
Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.
I made the same point earlier. There isn't a square inch of English soil without a C of E parish church to serve its inhabitants, and let's not forget all the other churches and chapels belonging to the other Christian denominations, added to which the synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, Jain temples, Sikh gurdwaras and all the rest.
People are not denied opportunities to seek out religion(s) if they want to.
-
We all know where to go and what to do if we want to buy coca cola, but it's still advertised freely, even though it is now considered harmful to health because of the sugar content.
The occasional can is harmful to nobody's health. If you drink a lot of it that's your own fault, not that of the Coca Cola corporation. It's called personal responsibility, or used to be anyway.
-
The occasional can is harmful to nobody's health. If you drink a lot of it that's your own fault, not that of the Coca Cola corporation. It's called personal responsibility, or used to be anyway.
Then why are smoking advertisements banned? The occasional smoke is harmful to nobody's health.
-
Dear Outrider,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Thank you ( and yes ippy was right, I was looking for a wind up ) but your link is a bit of an eye opener, all started from religious beginnings.
In 1878, the Society established the Church of Humanity under Congreve's direction. There they introduced sacraments of the Religion of Humanity and published a co-operative translation of Comte's Positive Polity. When Congreve repudiated their Paris co-religionists in 1878, Beesly, Harrison, Bridges, and others formed their own positivist society, with Beesly as president, and opened a rival centre, Newton Hall, in a courtyard off Fleet Street.
The New York City version of the church was established by English immigrant Henry Edger. The American version of the "Church of Humanity." was largely modeled on the English church. Like the English version it wasn't atheistic and had sermons and sacramental rites.[13] At times the services included readings from conventional religious works like the Book of Isaiah.[14] It was not as significant as the church in England, but did include several educated people.[15]
Ethical movement[edit]
Felix Adler, founder of the ethical movement.
Another important precursor was the ethical movement of the 19th century. The South Place Ethical Society was founded in 1793 as the South Place Chapel on Finsbury Square, on the edge of the City of London,[16] and in the early nineteenth century was known as "a radical gathering-place.[17] At that point it was a Unitarian chapel, and that movement, like Quakers, supported female equality.[18] Under the leadership of Reverend William Johnson Fox,[19] it lent its pulpit to activists such as Anna Wheeler, one of the first women to campaign for feminism at public meetings in England, who spoke in 1829 on "Rights of Women." In later decades, the chapel changed its name to the South Place Ethical Society, now the Conway Hall Ethical Society. Today Conway Hall explicitly identifies itself as a humanist organisation, albeit one primarily focused on concerts, events, and the maintenance of its humanist library and archives. It bills itself as "The landmark of London’s independent intellectual, political and cultural life."
In America, the ethical movement was propounded by Felix Adler, who established the New York Society for Ethical Culture in 1877.[20] By 1886, similar societies had sprouted up in Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis.[21]
Church of Humanity, book of Isaiah, modelled on the CoE. :o
Makes me wonder where the influence of religion actually starts and ends.
Gonnagle.
-
Given what churches claim - this advert focuses on prayer - the only way they could fairly advertise would be to do what spiritualist mediums have to do by law and advertise as 'for entertainment purposes only', even though theirs is a faith path every bit as legitimate as any other.
-
Then why are smoking advertisements banned: "The occasional smoke is harmful to nobody's health."
It probably isn't, actually; but I don't know of too many people who have a single cigarette once in a while. I don't doubt that they exist, and would say that they're not doing themselves any measurable harm. A fairer comparison would be between 20 cigarettes a day (over a long period - years) and 20 cans of Coke a day, likewise.
-
It probably isn't, actually; but I don't know of too many people who have a single cigarette once in a while. I don't doubt that they exist, and would say that they're not doing themselves any measurable harm. A fairer comparison would be between 20 cigarettes a day (over a long period - years) and 20 cans of Coke a day, likewise.
I'm sure there are all manner of ways people imbibe either.
-
I'm sure there are all manner of ways people imbibe either.
Absolutely - people do what they want to do.
-
Well, you might well contend that not to take any political or religious advertising is in fact censorship.
If the government enacted a law to prevent you saying that if you wanted, that would be censorship. No-one is being stopped from saying anything if they want. The Church of England can say the Lord's Prayer if they want.
Some cinema chains, through their marketing agency, have opted not to take money to say it on someone's behalf.
That's not censorship, that's the exact opposite, that's freedom of speech - part of freedom of speech is the freedom not to have to toe a particular line.
O.
-
Dear Bashers,
But then he will have recouped the money from sales of his silly book (GD), which so many naive people were daft enough to buy.
Hey!! :P :P in my defence, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, actually I enjoyed that book, I still have my old battered copy of it, the margins full of me writing, oh you bloody well think so ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bashers,
Hey!! :P :P in my defence, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, actually I enjoyed that book, I still have my old battered copy of it, the margins full of me writing, oh you bloody well think so ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
Have you actually learned anything from it, Gonners?
-
It probably isn't, actually; but I don't know of too many people who have a single cigarette once in a while. I don't doubt that they exist, and would say that they're not doing themselves any measurable harm. A fairer comparison would be between 20 cigarettes a day (over a long period - years) and 20 cans of Coke a day, likewise.
Given the recent campaigns of the risks of relatively minor exposure to other's cigarette smoke I think it's a given that one cigarette occasionally causes harm. And I think it likely that we will see limits on advertising imposed on high sugar foods in the future.
But the point surely is that coke advertises fizzy drink, which is what it sells and the customer buys. What is it that an advert about the Lords Prayer is selling, and how can I be sure it will deliver?
-
It was no more than a silly, childish, waste of time and money - wonder who paid... :D
I think it started as a response to seeing this on the side of two London buses:
"When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8 )" with a web address shown.
I'm sure you'll think that this was "silly, childish, waste of time and money" too, all in the interests of fairness, of course. :D
What is worse is that if you visited the web address, you were accosted with the following:
"You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)" (Matthew 25:41)."
So perhaps the London Bus campaign was all about delivering the much more re-assuring message:
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Not that anyone has to believe either of those messages, of course. :)
It was funded originally by private donations, was then supported by the BHA(with Richard Dawkins agreeing to match donations up to £5500). Actually over £150,000 was raised through private donations(enough to support buses over the whole of the UK) and the campaign spread all over the world.
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of a 'fiasco' is!
-
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of a 'fiasco' is!
Bashers's definition is: "People saying stuff I don't like."
-
Dear Bashers,
Have you actually learned anything from it, Gonners?
Yes, just how wrong can one man be.
Actually the book is like one very long Floo post, God is an evil sod :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
I think it started as a response to seeing this on the side of two London buses:
"When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8 )" with a web address shown.
I'm sure you'll think that this was "silly, childish, waste of time and money" too, all in the interests of fairness, of course. :D
What is worse is that if you visited the web address, you were accosted with the following:
"You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)" (Matthew 25:41)."
So perhaps the London Bus campaign was all about delivering the much more re-assuring message:
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Not that anyone has to believe either of those messages, of course. :)
It was funded originally by private donations, was then supported by the BHA(with Richard Dawkins agreeing to match donations up to £5500). Actually over £150,000 was raised through private donations(enough to support buses over the whole of the UK) and the campaign spread all over the world.
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of a 'fiasco' is!
Fiasco: a complete failure, especially a ludicrous or humiliating one.
So I guess it was one!
-
Dear Bashers,
Yes, just how wrong can one man be.
Actually the book is like one very long Floo post, God is an evil sod :P :P
Gonnagle.
I have never called the deity an evil SOD, so there! :P ;D
-
I have never called the deity an evil SOD, so there! :P ;D
No, worse than that!
-
Given the recent campaigns of the risks of relatively minor exposure to other's cigarette smoke I think it's a given that one cigarette occasionally causes harm. And I think it likely that we will see limits on advertising imposed on high sugar foods in the future.
But the point surely is that coke advertises fizzy drink, which is what it sells and the customer buys. What is it that an advert about the Lords Prayer is selling, and how can I be sure it will deliver?
That would appear to be the case.
-
No, worse than that!
If God doesn't like it, he's more than welcome to go for a good old-fashioned smiting... he supposedly knows where we are, right... or is that Santa?
O.
-
Given the recent campaigns of the risks of relatively minor exposure to other's cigarette smoke I think it's a given that one cigarette occasionally causes harm. And I think it likely that we will see limits on advertising imposed on high sugar foods in the future.
But the point surely is that coke advertises fizzy drink, which is what it sells and the customer buys. What is it that an advert about the Lords Prayer is selling, and how can I be sure it will deliver?
Interesting: can you provide evidence to back that?
-
Presumably whoever is behind the advertisement felt that targeting this type of advert at a specific cinema audience (those wishing to watch Stars Wars) was a good business decision: bums on pews, so to speak.
Like everyone else I am regularly exposed to what are, for me, meaningless adverts - for instance for cat food (I don't have a cat, and never will) or face cream (I do have a face, but it is mostly hidden behind hair), so I just have to conclude that some people like cats or enjoy having creamy faces and simply ignore these encouragements. An advert for Christianity based on the Lord's Prayer is, for me, about as relevant as one claiming that Kattomeat is loved by felines.
When I go to the cinema I'd prefer just to see the film I've paid money to see but I recognise that advertising has always been part of the business model of cinemas - so I just take my iPod with me and listen to that until the seemingly interminable ads (all of them) are finished, since I'm not compelled to pay attention to any of them any more than I'm compelled to watch 'Songs of Praise' at home.
Personally I think this is probably a toe-curlingly cringe-laden attempt to make Christianity seem 'relevant' that is on a par with those cosmetic ads that tried to convince that without 'Bosewellox' female faces everywhere would be deprived of essential nutrients - I wouldn't ban it, but it might be best forgotten as being an embarrassingly twee idea in the first place: and one that can be easily ignored even if one has to sit through it.
-
Dear Floo,
I have never called the deity an evil SOD, so there!
Poetic license, not to worry, God is a big guy with big shoulders ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
I think I read that it has something to do with the lead up to Christmas, a gentle reminder that it's not all about consumerism.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Floo,
Poetic license, not to worry, God is a big guy with big shoulders ;)
Gonnagle.
How do you know?
Answer, you don't.
Ippy
-
How do you know?
Answer, you don't.
Ippy
Let him answer for himself. He can certainly cope with anything you can throw at him.
-
Interesting: can you provide evidence to back that?
http://tinyurl.com/nsf9xrj
According to this smoking lightly is more of a risk factor for heart disease.
-
A few points:
- All products advertised in the cinema are, as far as I am aware, real and can be acquired.
- I never go to the cinema (obviously) but if I did, and was there to watch the Star Wars film, I would not want the words of the Lord's Prayer in my ears, as it would cause a grit your teeth moment!. You only have to take the first few words:
Our Father - no such imagined person exists
which art in heaven - so what's that|? Another non-existent imagined idea
etc
-
http://tinyurl.com/nsf9xrj
According to this smoking lightly is more of a risk factor for heart disease.
Sorry, can't get the link up.
-
Sorry, can't get the link up.
That's smoking for you, apparently.
-
Dear ippy,
How do you know?
He/she/it puts up with the likes of me, and believe me old son that requires God like qualities, endless patience being just one.
Gonnagle.
-
A few points:
- All products advertised in the cinema are, as far as I am aware, real and can be acquired.
They may be acquirable, but are they necessarily good for one, and are they necessarily necessary.
You only have to take the first few words:
Our Father - no such imagined person exists
which art in heaven - so what's that|? Another non-existent imagined idea
etc
These comments are, of course, only your opinion, Susan. Furthermore, heaven is a perfectly legitimately imgined idea - thousands of people use the term and not merely in a religious sense.
-
How do you know?
Experience, ippy. Don't you make some judgements depending on your own experiences, even if there is no scientific evidence for the aspect of your life you're dealing with?
-
Personally I think this is probably a toe-curlingly cringe-laden attempt to make Christianity seem 'relevant' that is on a par with those cosmetic ads that tried to convince that without 'Bosewellox' female faces everywhere would be deprived of essential nutrients - I wouldn't ban it, but it might be best forgotten as being an embarrassingly twee idea in the first place: and one that can be easily ignored even if one has to sit through it.
Not sure that there is any attempt to make anything seem relevant beyond reminding people who cared to pay attention to the ad that they are approaching a season of the year that has more than merely commercial value. Regarding the 'embarrasingly twee idea' it woud have no more twee than most of the adverts seen in the cinema throughout the year.
-
Not sure that there is any attempt to make anything seem relevant beyond reminding people who cared to pay attention to the ad that they are approaching a season of the year that has more than merely commercial value.
Most people know that already though and don't need Jesus injected into it - that's why most people (who can) will be spending time enjoying themselves with family and friends.
-
Most people know that already though and don't need Jesus injected into it - that's why most people (who can) will be spending time enjoying themselves with family and friends.
Except that - if statistics are to believed - many indicate that they don't know that Jesus is the reason for this particular season, Shaker. It has nothing to do with injecting anything. Ironically, those who hold religious beliefs other than Christianity not only often know this, but have no problem with it being highlighted.
-
Except that - if statistics are to believed - many indicate that they don't know that Jesus is the reason for this particular season, Shaker.
Which statistics?
And why on earth should they care?
-
Except that - if statistics are to believed - many indicate that they don't know that Jesus is the reason for this particular season, Shaker.
Except that Jesus isn't the 'reason for the season', Hope - by the way, before I forget, let me be the first to wish you a Happy Saturnalia.
-
Let him answer for himself. He can certainly cope with anything you can throw at him.
What's your imagination got to do with it BA?
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
He/she/it puts up with the likes of me, and believe me old son that requires God like qualities, endless patience being just one.
Gonnagle.
Well gonners if that's something that keeps your imagination working, good luck.
ippy
-
Not sure that there is any attempt to make anything seem relevant beyond reminding people who cared to pay attention to the ad that they are approaching a season of the year that has more than merely commercial value. Regarding the 'embarrasingly twee idea' it woud have no more twee than most of the adverts seen in the cinema throughout the year.
You really believe this nonsense Hope, never mind.
ippy
-
Except that Jesus isn't the 'reason for the season', Hope - by the way, before I forget, let me be the first to wish you a Happy Saturnalia.
Is that Saturnalia or Stalinalia?
-
Is that Saturnalia or Stalinalia?
The former, Vlad: but then you already know that!
-
I don't know who Vlad is more obsessed with - Richard Dawkins or Joseph Stalin.
Perhaps it's Sean Carroll instead ;)
-
The former, Vlad: but then you already know that!
Ok ......are we going to be treated to discourses on the danger of Nativity Plays this yulemastide?
-
Except that Jesus isn't the 'reason for the season', Hope - by the way, before I forget, let me be the first to wish you a Happy Saturnalia.
Sorry, to disappoint you, but Jesus is the reason for the season. We wouldn't have Christmas if it wasn't for the birth of Jesus. I'm not saying that we might not have other festivals - such as Saturnalia - but we wouldn't have Christmas - and that is what most people here in the UK still know it as.
-
I don't know who Vlad is more obsessed with - Richard Dawkins or Joseph Stalin.
Perhaps it's Sean Carroll instead ;)
Sounds like an old firm of solicitors....Dawkins,Carroll and Stalin
.................or as they are known now.......Norfolk and Good.
-
Sorry, to disappoint you, but Jesus is the reason for the season. We wouldn't have Christmas if it wasn't for the birth of Jesus. I'm not saying that we might not have other festivals - such as Saturnalia
Since winter festivals predate(d) Christianity, it's a certainty.
but we wouldn't have Christmas - and that is what most people here in the UK still know it as.
In name only ;)
-
Ok ......are we going to be treated to discourses on the danger of Nativity Plays this yulemastide?
These events are, of course, Christian propaganda of the most nefarious type made worse by ensnaring in young into participating in scurrilous fictitious nonsense.
Fortunately I was able to protect my kids/grandkids from be sucked into this type of brainwashing.
-
These events are, of course, Christian propaganda of the most nefarious type made worse by ensnaring in young into participating in scurrilous fictitious nonsense.
Fortunately I was able to protect my kids/grandkids from be sucked into this type of brainwashing.
LOL
-
These events are, of course, Christian propaganda of the most nefarious type made worse by ensnaring in young into participating in scurrilous fictitious nonsense.
Fortunately I was able to protect my kids/grandkids from be sucked into this type of brainwashing.
Absolutely Barkingu
-
Absolutely Barkingu
So good you commented on it twice (think about that for a second).
-
Since winter festivals predate(d) Christianity, it's a certainty.
No, its not a certainty. Society might have chosen to do away with festivals at some point in the past. There is a historical precedent, when Cromwell's Puritans did away with Christmas as it existed at the time, without reinstating the Pagan festivals it had superceded.
In name only ;)
Precisely, without the name - Christ - the Christmas festival would not exist. Thanks for confirming my statement.
-
No, its not a certainty. Society might have chosen to do away with festivals at some point in the past. There is a historical precedent, when Cromwell's Puritans did away with Christmas as it existed at the time, without reinstating the Pagan festivals it had superceded.
Precisely, without the name - Christ - the Christmas festival would not exist. Thanks for confirming my statement.
The festival would exist just under a different name.
-
Why anyone thinks atheists are the ones the cinema chain was worried about offending is beyond me! In the latest terrorist massacre it was fundamentalist Muslims who murdered anyone who believed in the wrong sort of religion!
Maybe you think a gang of atheists might run into their cinemas spraying bullets at everyone!
-
Precisely, without the name - Christ - the Christmas festival would not exist. Thanks for confirming my statement.
Without your alleged Jesus there's every reason to believe that people at this latitude would have some sort of festival at the darkest time of year, called something, anything else (such as Jul, Jol or Joulu as it's known in the Scandinavian countries). That the festival is known as Christmas bears as much relation to Christianity for the vast majority today as calling Wednesday by that name does to followers of Woden :)
-
There is a historical precedent, when Cromwell's Puritans did away with Christmas as it existed at the time, without reinstating the Pagan festivals it had superceded.
So the last people to actually ban Christmas were (puritanical) Christians. At least that explains why they didn't reinstate the Pagan festivals. ::)
-
Well, in that case I'll remember to take a Christian with me the next time I go to the cinema.
Lovin it! ... Go Squeakyvoice... ;D
-
Dear Vlad,
Lights, camera, action :o :o I am reminded of Spike Milligan, what are we going to do now, what are we going to do now :) :)
Gonnagle.
Just a minute...I got it written down here on a piece of paper. ;D
-
Interesting: can you provide evidence to back that?
I think the fact is that you have to pay to find out if the coke does as it says. The Lords prayer is about faith. If you don't like fizzy drinks you won't buy them.
If you don't pray then why would you wonder about it working?
Not sure people really think about the difference between selling something and sharing something. About want and supply. If you don't want it, no need for a supply. ;) :)
-
Presumably whoever is behind the advertisement felt that targeting this type of advert at a specific cinema audience (those wishing to watch Stars Wars) was a good business decision: bums on pews, so to speak.
Like everyone else I am regularly exposed to what are, for me, meaningless adverts - for instance for cat food (I don't have a cat, and never will) or face cream (I do have a face, but it is mostly hidden behind hair), so I just have to conclude that some people like cats or enjoy having creamy faces and simply ignore these encouragements. An advert for Christianity based on the Lord's Prayer is, for me, about as relevant as one claiming that Kattomeat is loved by felines.
When I go to the cinema I'd prefer just to see the film I've paid money to see but I recognise that advertising has always been part of the business model of cinemas - so I just take my iPod with me and listen to that until the seemingly interminable ads (all of them) are finished, since I'm not compelled to pay attention to any of them any more than I'm compelled to watch 'Songs of Praise' at home.
Personally I think this is probably a toe-curlingly cringe-laden attempt to make Christianity seem 'relevant' that is on a par with those cosmetic ads that tried to convince that without 'Bosewellox' female faces everywhere would be deprived of essential nutrients - I wouldn't ban it, but it might be best forgotten as being an embarrassingly twee idea in the first place: and one that can be easily ignored even if one has to sit through it.
Seen the said advert.. Not selling anything... Prayer is about enlightenment and spiritual need. Hair shampoo is for those who have hair. Christian prayer is for those who have faith.
Sometimes it is good to remind people that God is always there to pray to. Just because they advertise shampoo doesn't mean everyone will need it or use it. But they get the choice that is the freedom to choose... :)
-
Except that - if statistics are to believed - many indicate that they don't know that Jesus is the reason for this particular season, Shaker. It has nothing to do with injecting anything. Ironically, those who hold religious beliefs other than Christianity not only often know this, but have no problem with it being highlighted.
Jesus is not 'the reason for the season' - the reason is to do with orbital mechanics meaning there is a point where the days stop getting shorter and start getting longer again. Christianity hijacked that observation by earlier traditions, and consumerism hijacked that.
The reason for the season is whatever you want it to be.
O.
-
Jesus is not 'the reason for the season' - the reason is to do with orbital mechanics meaning there is a point where the days stop getting shorter and start getting longer again. Christianity hijacked that observation by earlier traditions, and consumerism hijacked that.
The reason for the season is whatever you want it to be.
O.
Agreed.
-
Sorry, to disappoint you, but Jesus is the reason for the season. We wouldn't have Christmas if it wasn't for the birth of Jesus. I'm not saying that we might not have other festivals - such as Saturnalia - but we wouldn't have Christmas - and that is what most people here in the UK still know it as.
That rather depends - if you mean the name, well no we wouldn't, but if you think the celebration is about the name I think you've got your priorities way out of kilter with pretty much everyone else.
If you mean the concept of a midwinter celebration with gifts and family, that predates Christianity, let alone Christmas.
O.
-
Why anyone thinks atheists are the ones the cinema chain was worried about offending is beyond me! In the latest terrorist massacre it was fundamentalist Muslims who murdered anyone who believed in the wrong sort of religion!
Maybe you think a gang of atheists might run into their cinemas spraying bullets at everyone!
Shhh! Don't go bringing reason into it, or rationale, or actual observation of real-world events... this is about imaginary threats and the self-induced sense of victimisation that comes from a ban that doesn't actually exist in the first place...
O.
-
Seen the said advert.. Not selling anything...
Then why do they need an advert?
Prayer is about enlightenment and spiritual need.
That's one opinion. Prayer is about trying to cast magic is another opinion.
Hair shampoo is for those who have hair. Christian prayer is for those who have faith.
So why churn it out at a showing of a work of fiction in which the major factions are involved with a concept based on a Buddhist/Taoist framework?
Sometimes it is good to remind people that God is always there to pray to.
Is it? I disagree, it's never worthwhile getting people to pray, it's better to get them to do something useful.
Just because they advertise shampoo doesn't mean everyone will need it or use it. But they get the choice that is the freedom to choose... :)
Yes. And those cinemas had the freedom to choose. They didn't choose Christianity - boo hoo... that's not a ban, that's a commentary on the relevance of Christianity in the 21st Century in Britain.
O.
-
Dear ippy,
He/she/it puts up with the likes of me, and believe me old son that requires God like qualities, endless patience being just one.
Gonnagle.
How can you possibly know?
ippy
-
Jesus is not 'the reason for the season' - the reason is to do with orbital mechanics meaning there is a point where the days stop getting shorter and start getting longer again. Christianity hijacked that observation by earlier traditions, and consumerism hijacked that.
The reason for the season is whatever you want it to be.
O.
So, why is it called Christmas? I am not denying that previous traditions existed, though never, to my knowledge, on Dec 25th - but Christmas is a Christian festival in the same way that Samhain and Beltane are Pagan festivals for their respective times of year. Commercial interests have only partially hijacked the Christmas Festival, since we still have the Christian aspects of it being celebrated. Without those Christian elements we would never have had 'Christmas'. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in reminding people what the festival actually means - in exactly the same way that I would have no problem with adverts reminding people what Samhain and Beltane, Saturnalia and Eid al-Fitr, etc. mean for those who celebrate them.
To an extent, the fact that so few people know what these various festivals mean points to the way in which we as a society have become divorced from our cultural roots.
-
Yes. And those cinemas had the freedom to choose. They didn't choose Christianity - boo hoo... that's not a ban, that's a commentary on the relevance of Christianity in the 21st Century in Britain.
O.
Actually they have decided not to allow any adverts that are political or religious (and they are clear that overt atheist advertising would not be permitted either).
The policy from the Digital Cinema Media (DCM) agency states:
"To be approved, an advertisement must ... not in the reasonable opinion of DCM constitute political or religious advertising.", with further clarification on what is meant by 'religious', as follows:
"Religious advertising means: advertising which wholly or partially advertises any religion, faith or equivalent systems of belief (including any absence of belief) or any part of any religion, faith or such equivalent systems of belief."
So they aren't targeting Christianity specifically, but having a blanket ban. I guess one of the problems had they allowed this advert would be that they could reasonably then ban an advert that might be far less innocuous, perhaps involving a more fundamentalist, extremist line from a different Christian group or maybe from another religion, e.g. Islam. Having allowed this advert they couldn't reasonably then ban a later advert.
-
So, why is it called Christmas? I am not denying that previous traditions existed, though never, to my knowledge, on Dec 25th - but Christmas is a Christian festival in the same way that Samhain and Beltane are Pagan festivals for their respective times of year. Commercial interests have only partially hijacked the Christmas Festival, since we still have the Christian aspects of it being celebrated. Without those Christian elements we would never have had 'Christmas'. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in reminding people what the festival actually means - in exactly the same way that I would have no problem with adverts reminding people what Samhain and Beltane, Saturnalia and Eid al-Fitr, etc. mean for those who celebrate them.
To an extent, the fact that so few people know what these various festivals mean points to the way in which we as a society have become divorced from our cultural roots.
Oh here we go again.
So why is Easter called ... err ... Easter - celebrated by Christians as a Christian festival yet the etymology of the word has absolutely zero to do with Christianity and is, very likely, derived from a pagan spring goddess.
You can't try to have it both ways Hope.
The reality is that both Christmas (named after a Christian deity) and Easter (named after a Pagan deity) are complex multifaceted festivals, involving religious aspects and also aspects that are much more related to the season.
People celebrate them in a range of ways on a spectrum from entirely religious, through to entirely seasonal - although I suspect most people celebrate in a kind of mixed mode, involving traditional elements of each. But don't forget that just because people may nod to the religious traditions of Christmas that doesn't mean they either believe it nor think it important. Just a couple of weeks ago many of us enjoyed fireworks at an event that derived from anti catholic sentiment in the early 17thC - I doubt that many of us believe in that anti catholic sentiment now.
-
Dear Outrider,
Is it? I disagree, it's never worthwhile getting people to pray, it's better to get them to do something useful.
Is it? Like coming together to remember, but Our Lord had different ideas when it came to prayer, quiet contemplation, nothing wrong with a bit of quiet contemplation.
Gonnagle.
-
Then why do they need an advert?
In the same way that many other adverts aren't selling things but giving information.
That's one opinion. Prayer is about trying to cast magic is another opinion.
Yet no-one has ever managed to provide any evidence for that opinion and (before Shakes tries his much-loved negative-proof fallacy trick) an opinion is equivalent to an assertion so that opinion needs to have some supportin evidence.
Is it? I disagree, it's never worthwhile getting people to pray, it's better to get them to do something useful.
The two are often the same, O.
Yes. And those cinemas had the freedom to choose. They didn't choose Christianity - boo hoo... that's not a ban, that's a commentary on the relevance of Christianity in the 21st Century in Britain.
Actually, no the cinemas didn't have the freedom to choose. The refusal to allow the advert (not a ban, as you correctly say) was taken by an agency that provides said cinemas with advertising material.
-
Actually they have decided not to allow any adverts that are political or religious (and they are clear that overt atheist advertising would not be permitted either).
I have been surprised that no-one picked this up when I originally pointed this out in a post fairly early in the thread.
I found the reason given quite amusing - it all came out of the fall-out from their running competing adverts from the two Scottish Independence Referendum campaigns.
Whether that was a good enough reason to refuse any adverts from political or religious groups is open to debate, but as I've previously said that's a debate for another thread.
-
Just a couple of weeks ago many of us enjoyed fireworks at an event that derived from anti catholic sentiment in the early 17thC - I doubt that many of us believe in that anti catholic sentiment now.
I doubt that a majority of the population even know about it.
-
Dear Outrider,
Is it? Like coming together to remember, but Our Lord had different ideas when it came to prayer, quiet contemplation, nothing wrong with a bit of quiet contemplation.
Gonnagle.
Yes Gonners I suppose your lord would, if in fact it ever existed.
Our Lord Dawkins wouldn't go with your imagination Gonners, nor Our other Lord, The Most Reverent Lord Harris.
Lord, what a load of old B_______s.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Yes Gonners I suppose your lord would, if in fact it ever existed.
Not an it, a he.
Gonnagle.
-
So, why is it called Christmas?
Have you noticed that it's only called Christmas in areas where Christianity held sway for a long time? It's like our language is shaped by history!!!
I am not denying that previous traditions existed, though never, to my knowledge, on Dec 25th - but Christmas is a Christian festival in the same way that Samhain and Beltane are Pagan festivals for their respective times of year.
And Hanukkah, and Diwali, and Pancha Ganapati, and Malkh, and Modraniht, Dies Natalis Solas Invicti (specifically December 25th), Yule, Yalda, Sadeh, Maslenitsa, Malanka. I'm not denying that Christmas is a festival for Christians, but it's also the cultural name for the midwinter festival in many post-Christian societies where people celebrate, but what they celebrate isn't Jesus.
Commercial interests have only partially hijacked the Christmas Festival, since we still have the Christian aspects of it being celebrated.
Which 'we' is this? You might, I sure as hell don't, and I know a large number of other people who don't.
Without those Christian elements we would never have had 'Christmas'. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in reminding people what the festival actually means - in exactly the same way that I would have no problem with adverts reminding people what Samhain and Beltane, Saturnalia and Eid al-Fitr, etc. mean for those who celebrate them.
Whereas I do see a problem with claiming that the festival 'really means' anything about Jesus at all. For me it means family, forgetting about work and day-to-day demands, and spending some time just revelling in the company of the people in the world that mean the most to you. If you want to add religious elements to your celebration, if you want to entirely replace that family stuff with religion, you go knock yourself out, that's your choice.
There is no 'real' meaning to the season, it's an opportunity for everyone to decide for themselves what they want to make of it.
To an extent, the fact that so few people know what these various festivals mean points to the way in which we as a society have become divorced from our cultural roots.
At some point, the trivialities of the past become unimportant - they might be interesting, but the details are irrelevant. If everyone gradually forgot that Hades was supposed to have kidnapped Persephone from Demeter and that the pomegranate seeds she ate are the reason for winter, guess what - we'd still have winter. Persephone is not the 'real meaning' of winter.
O.
-
Yet no-one has ever managed to provide any evidence for that opinion and (before Shakes tries his much-loved negative-proof fallacy trick) an opinion is equivalent to an assertion so that opinion needs to have some supportin evidence.
So people say special words, with a ritual ending, and think that something's going to change in reality - how is that not casting a spell? I know that you are one of the more sophisticated Christians who don't believe that prayer is about asking for things and expecting them to happen, but you can't pretend that those people are not out there. In this instance, the words of this ritual are asking for an intervention 'give us this day our daily bread', 'deliver us not into temptation', 'deliver us from evil'...
The two are often the same, O.
Give me a bucket of water and a prayer and I can wash just as well as I can with a bucket of water.
Actually, no the cinemas didn't have the freedom to choose. The refusal to allow the advert (not a ban, as you correctly say) was taken by an agency that provides said cinemas with advertising material.
And which is guided in its policy making by the major cinema chains, with whom it consulted previously to establish this policy. Yes, the cinemas did have the freedom to choose, and they chose to exercise that freedom in asking their agency to implement that policy.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Whereas I do see a problem with claiming that the festival 'really means' anything about Jesus at all. For me it means family, forgetting about work and day-to-day demands, and spending some time just revelling in the company of the people in the world that mean the most to you. If you want to add religious elements to your celebration, if you want to entirely replace that family stuff with religion, you go knock yourself out, that's your choice.
All thanks too, religion it's an insidious bugger.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
All thanks too, religion it's an insidious bugger.
Gonnagle.
Anything good is God's fault, right :)
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Anything good is God's fault, right
Pass ;)
And I think you would need to explain first, what is God.
Anyway, if anyone is interested this topic/thread, is going to be discussed on Jeremy vine, radio 2.
Gonnagle.
-
Jesus is not 'the reason for the season' - the reason is to do with orbital mechanics meaning there is a point where the days stop getting shorter and start getting longer again. Christianity hijacked that observation by earlier traditions, and consumerism hijacked that.
The reason for the season is whatever you want it to be.
O.
Astronomically speaking, the winter solstice is when the new year begins, and historically speaking it's when the 2016th year of our Lord begins.
And I don't go to the cinema, its too expensive!
-
Astronomically speaking, the winter solstice is when the new year begins, and historically speaking it's when the 2016th year of our Lord begins.
You have no real idea when Jesus was born, it was highly unlikely to have been on December 25th nearly 2016 years ago
-
Actually, another reason why I don't go to the cinema is because of the advertising, which is often unsuitable. Bring down the price and bring in the Lord's prayer and I might start going again.
-
You have no real idea when Jesus was born, it was highly unlikely to have been on December 25th nearly 2016 years ago
Off topic alert...
That doesn't matter, His birth was a historical event that occurred around that time.
-
Actually, another reason why I don't go to the cinema is because of the advertising, which is often unsuitable. Bring down the price and bring in the Lord's prayer and I might start going again.
The 'Lord's Prayer' is probably a load of lying garbage.
-
That doesn't matter, His birth was a historical event that occurred around that time.
You want to believe that but it certainly can't be regarded as historical!
-
Astronomically speaking, the winter solstice is when the new year begins, and historically speaking it's when the 2016th year of our Lord begins.
Astronomically speaking, the season does include the winter solstice, yes. Historically it's been when people celebrated the birth of Jesus (even though the depictions of the activities suggests early spring); it's also when a number of other religious traditions celebrate elements of their faith practices.
O.
-
Actually, another reason why I don't go to the cinema is because of the advertising, which is often unsuitable. Bring down the price and bring in the Lord's prayer and I might start going again.
If you want cheap entertainment and the Lord's prayer, don't bother with a cinema, go to a church - everything you want, little risk of bad language and most of the time you can take your pick of seats, too.
O.
-
Dear atheist,
The Lord has spoken. :o
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/richard-dawkins-says-uk-cinemas-should-screen-the-lords-prayer
Gonnagle.
-
Dear atheist,
The Lord has spoken. :o
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/richard-dawkins-says-uk-cinemas-should-screen-the-lords-prayer
Gonnagle.
Why did he have to do that? Vlud's going to have a 'Dawkins'-gasm all over the site now... :o
O.
-
Quite frankly I think it is unpleasant opportunism.
But isn't that what all advertising is?
I don't intend to pick on Rhiannon here. I'm just taking this quote as sort of representing a few of the opinions expressed in a similar vein
There are plenty of things I'm not interested in buying and yet I have to sit through shitty adverts about them. But that is a free market and rampant capitalism for you. Its annoying, but that's all. I can't believe an 'advert' about christian prayer in the cinema is going to do much more than give people a chance to go to the loo, or check their phones, or carry on chatting. I'd say that adverts for gambling websites or alchohol are far more ethically suspect than a fluffy advert that essentially says 'prayer is nice'... "Pfff... whatever. This Lynx advert is pretty funny though"
I suppose in rejecting the ad the cinema chain is at least showing some thought about what it shows, and not just blindly taking the cash with a 'thanks very much', but honestly, surely there are bigger fish to fry than the desperate CofE marketing department.
-
You mean you actually still watch live TV rather than record it so you can skip the ads? The only TV I watch live is sport, and as the ad breaks happen when nothing's going on then I go and make a cup of tea or take the dog out
That's impossible in a cinema - you really don't want to get up and go to the loo once you are seated - and that is why I find it unpleasant in a way that I wouldn't if they'd paid for a minute in the middle of Coronation St.
-
Returning to Rhiannon's comment about unpleasant opportunism on the part of the C of E, I've just read the story over again and am surprised that nobody has picked up just how opportunistic, in fact cynical, this was. A spokesman said:
The prospect of a multigenerational cultural event offered by the release of Star Wars: the Force Awakens on 18 December – a week before Christmas Day – was too good an opportunity to miss
As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too. We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.
-
I agree completely. It's not the content that is objectionable.
-
Dear Outrider,
Ah yes!! the big question, is Dawkins Vlads agent or is Vlad Dawkins agent.
The unholy trinity, Vlad, Dawkins and Cox.
Anyway, no such thing as bad publicity.
From the Guardian a few years back.
Jeremy Vine has double cause for celebration. Not only is it 10 years since he took over from Jimmy Young, but the Radio 2 lunchtime show outperformed Radio 4's Today in the latest audience figures to become the most popular news programme on UK radio with 7.3 million listeners a week.
The CoE must be thinking, what a wonderful stroke of luck, or maybe, The Lord moves in mysterious ways :)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Shaker and Rhiannon, ( my two favourite pagans )
As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too. We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.
I agree completely. It's not the content that is objectionable.
Yes!! totally despicable, to promote a message which they find highly important on the back of a Star wars film.
If Mohammed won't come to the mountain.
Gonnagle.
-
As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too. We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.
Well, targetting a message to reach the largest audience makes sense, I suppose. I'm just amused at the irony of an organisation that decries consumerism and commercialisation using those tools to try to claim that the real message of Christmas isn't those tools...
O.
-
Off topic alert...
That doesn't matter, His birth was a historical event that occurred around that time.
It may or may not have been a historical event.
But even if it was, I'd grant that it was likely to be about 2016 years ago, give or take 5 years or so either way.
But there is nothing no evidence that the birth took place in December (let alone 25th Dec) compared to say, March or October, or any other time of the year.
-
So, why is it called Christmas? I am not denying that previous traditions existed, though never, to my knowledge, on Dec 25th
This is a joke isn't it? What has December 25th got to do with Christianity? Where is the scripture that says December 25?
-
Dear Shaker and Rhiannon, ( my two favourite pagans )
Yes!! totally despicable, to promote a message which they find highly important on the back of a Star wars film.
If Mohammed won't come to the mountain.
Gonnagle.
You know I nearly became a priest? I left the church long before I lost my faith, and the reason for that was seeing from the inside how the church had stopped serving God and had reached the point where it was serving itself. And that is ultimately what this is about - boosting interest in the CofE, not just prayer.
-
The C of E trying to reach a large number of people for Christ in the week of the celebration of His birth? How despicable of them ::)
-
The C of E trying to reach a large number of people for Christ in the week of the celebration of His birth? How despicable of them ::)
Most of what is attributed to Jesus is more than likely a lie!
-
This is a joke isn't it? What has December 25th got to do with Christianity? Where is the scripture that says December 25?
It says nothing.
But at the time when Christians first adopted 25th Dec for their festival, that date was the date of the winter solstice under the Julian calendar. That it has now shifted to the 21st/22nd is due to the inaccuracies in the Julian calendar and the approaches used to fix those inaccuracies under the Gregorian calendar.
-
Well, targetting a message to reach the largest audience makes sense, I suppose. I'm just amused at the irony of an organisation that decries consumerism and commercialisation using those tools to try to claim that the real message of Christmas isn't those tools...
O.
Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect sense from a marketing point of view; your second sentence is the point I was trying to make. I think it's fair to say that the advertising business is generally regarded as cynical and opportunistic or even downright amoral - I haven't seen it myself but I gather that the series Mad Men is pretty much built around this. It's not what you expect of the C of E though, for the reasons given. I expect it and ignore it when people are trying to flog me cars I won't drive and make-up I won't (often) wear; it's the disparity between the commercial approach and the religion that says you can't serve God and Mammon both that jars.
Promulgating a message is one thing, but if this had been in the middle of August it would seem less objectionable to me - less crass. I think it's the naked opportunism of "Loads of people will turn out to see the new Star Wars film - go get 'em" that rankles.
But then, Christianity has never been any different.
-
This campaign sounds very much like desperate marketing from a failing business - the only people it will resonate with are its existing customers.
-
This campaign sounds very much like desperate marketing from a failing business - the only people it will resonate with are its existing custome...
It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow. But it matters not: the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas! Thanks for that! :D
-
It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow. But it matters not: the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas! Thanks for that! :D
Why is it hypocrisy? The media group has a policy which they're adhering to - wouldn't it have been hypocrisy to have had the policy and not followed it?
-
As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too.
That's the way advertising works. There's no point in showing an advertisement when nobody is watching. That's why critically successful programmes without good ratings often get canned on commercial TV channels, because the advertising slots can't be sold, or at least can't be sold at a good margin.
I would have thought the CofE would have to pay top dollar for that Star Wars slot. If not, the advertising company needs new management.
We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.
The people who run the CofE think they are saving people's souls by converting them to Christianity. They regard it as their moral duty to reach as many people as possible. I don't see why they are any more worthy of condemnation than anybody else who wants to advertise in front of the new Star Wars film, so long as their advert doesn't make false claims.
-
Why is it hypocrisy? The media group has a policy which they're adhering to - wouldn't it have been hypocrisy to have had the policy and not followed it?
Because they allow adverts for violent videos and others unsuitable for children to view. Do they not consider those might give offence?
-
It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow.
How is it 'hypocrisy' (never mind that it's not a 'ban'). They don't want to upset their customers, so they've decided not to take on that advert. It would be hypocrisy if they were to allow adverts they suspected might upset a number of their customers - do you have any evidence of that?
But it matters not: the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas! Thanks for that! :D
Indeed. The church can now look forward to three extra people still not giving a crap next year....
O.
-
How is it 'hypocrisy' (never mind that it's not a 'ban'). They don't want to upset their customers, so they've decided not to take on that advert. It would be hypocrisy if they were to allow adverts they suspected might upset a number of their customers - do you have any evidence of that?
Indeed. The church can now look forward to three extra people still not giving a crap next year....
O.
Which is precisely what they do! You ought to check before you post!
-
It says nothing.
But at the time when Christians first adopted 25th Dec for their festival, that date was the date of the winter solstice under the Julian calendar. That it has now shifted to the 21st/22nd is due to the inaccuracies in the Julian calendar and the approaches used to fix those inaccuracies under the Gregorian calendar.
Don't argue with me, I'm not the one claiming December 25th is Jesus' birthday.
I do remember having an argument with a Christian once before on this subject and he did try to use the point that December 25th isn't the solstice in his favour:
"Christmas is not a solstice festival because it happens four days after the solstice, ha!"
He learned something of the history of the calendar that day.
-
Because they allow adverts for violent videos and others unsuitable for children to view. Do they not consider those might give offence?
I doubt it. I should think that most people have a reasonably good idea of what they're going to see in advance based on who is in the film. If I knew absolutely nothing else about a new film other than that Bruce Willis is in it, my expectation that it would be a light, frothy romcom would be low and my expectation that there would be some guns, shooting and a fair bodycount would be quite high. People don't exist and act in a vacuum.
-
The people who run the CofE think they are saving people's souls by converting them to Christianity. They regard it as their moral duty to reach as many people as possible.
... which is precisely what many find objectionable in itself.
-
It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow. But it matters not: the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas! Thanks for that! :D
True - I agree with you that the debate on this has highlighted the video.
However, and in doing so, it also highlights (as others have said) the embarrassing irony of the CofE adopting a commercial marketing strategy that was intended to piggy-back on possibly the most hyped-up film in recent times: a bit like their earlier involvement in Wonga.
As I said they are a failing organisation, and this campaign show some aspects of why they are failing - I wonder which bright-spark thought that this idea would ever resonate outwith the CofE's existing (and declining) customer base?
-
Because they allow adverts for violent videos and others unsuitable for children to view. Do they not consider those might give offence?
No they don't. If you go in to see a 12A film, you will see no advertising that is inappropriate for the certificate. You will also see no trailers for films above 12A.
-
... which is precisely what many find objectionable in itself.
Most people aren't as bothered as you, and the other obsessive atheists on here. And as you suggested earlier, people are quite capable of making decisions for themselves, and such a video is hardly likely to sway them much.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
I would have thought the CofE would have to pay top dollar for that Star Wars slot. If not, the advertising company needs new management.
I didn't quite catch what the CoE rep on the Jeremy Vine was saying, but I think he said that the CoE had wangled some kind of a discount, and I suppose this could be something that upsets me, how much did this little venture cost, but that could be that I don't see the big picture.
The big picture :o :o Star Wars, never have got what all the fuss is about.
Gonnagle.
-
... which is precisely what many find objectionable in itself.
Liberals and middle-of-the-road Anglicans tend not to believe that you need to believe in order to be saved (not sure about Welby but it certainly wasn't part of Rowan William's theology). What they regard as their duty is 'growing the church' - having enough people coming in each week in order to keep going.
-
... which is precisely what many find objectionable in itself.
There are plenty of adverts that I find objectionable for various reasons, including, probably, the one we are discussing, but as long as they don't lie, I put up with them because they make my ticket a bit cheaper.
-
I didn't quite catch what the CoE rep on the Jeremy Vine was saying, but I think he said that the CoE had wangled some kind of a discount, and I suppose this could be something that upsets me, how much did this little venture cost, but that could be that I don't see the big picture.
A discount on a huge amount of money still stacks up as a lot of money, which is certainly not going to where the tenets of Christianity say it should go. Rather than criticising a company for having a policy, sticking to it and calling this "hypocrisy, " Bashers should be looking to this as a prime example.
-
No they don't. If you go in to see a 12A film, you will see no advertising that is inappropriate for the certificate. You will also see no trailers for films above 12A.
Do you naively believe that only children need to be protected from violent images? It is adults who are affected enough to be swayed by advertising into committing violent acts.
-
Do you naively believe that only children need to be protected from violent images? It is adults who are affected enough to be swayed by advertising into committing violent acts.
Evidence for this?
-
Because they allow adverts for violent videos and others unsuitable for children to view. Do they not consider those might give offence?
Those issues are reviewed by the ASA and the BBFC before the adverts and trailers are approved for use, so that decision on 'offensiveness' are taken by the regulators.
The DCM, for whatever reason, believe that violence (of a particular level) isn't likely to cause offence to the Star Wars audience, but overt religious sentiments might.
They might be wrong, they might be generally right but unfortunately incorrect on this specific instance, but neither of those equates to hypocrisy.
O.
-
The Bible is full of violence, maybe that should have an over 18 rating!
-
Which is precisely what they do! You ought to check before you post!
No, I don't think they do. I think they have a pretty good idea of the sensibilities of their customer base who are prepared to accept a degree of artificial violence in the name of entertainment, and a degree of hyperbole in the name of selling consumer goods, but who aren't interested in being preached at in an entertainment event they've paid for.
That you might be more offended by one than the other does not make this a general rule. More importantly, of course, they might be restrained by the law: they might not believe THIS religious message would upset people, but that SOME religious messages might, but they are not permitted to discriminate between religious messages: they either take them all or they don't take any, and they've chosen not to take any.
O.
-
Dear Gordon,
As I said they are a failing organisation, and this campaign show some aspects of why they are failing - I wonder which bright-spark thought that this idea would ever resonate outwith the CofE's existing (and declining) customer base?
From a Christian perspective, I doubt any Christian on here will disagree, if only one is saved.
But I would like to echo Bashers thanks, a big thank you for banning this little video.
Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War, alls fair in Love and War ;D ;D
Gonnagle.
-
Do you naively believe that only children need to be protected from violent images? It is adults who are affected enough to be swayed by advertising into committing violent acts.
Has there ever been any evidence that films - or video games, or books - encourage people to commit violent acts? I've yet to see any, I've seen numerous studies which suggest that the data don't support a link...
On the other hand, I think I could probably find a link between the people who commit suicide bombings and people who pray...
O.
-
Ouch ... ;)
-
Do you naively believe that only children need to be protected from violent images? It is adults who are affected enough to be swayed by advertising into committing violent acts.
I love a good violent action movie. I could watch Die Hard on hard rotation. I laughed out loud the first time I saw the scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent Vega accidentally discharges his firearm.
In spite of this, I have never felt the desire to commit a violent act of the nature portrayed in those films. When i was five, I loved Tom and Jerry, but even then, people like you were saying the violence was a problem and I used to think "it's a cartoon. Can't grown ups tell the difference between cartoons and real life?"
-
Just to note that the title of the OP is typically muddle-headed.
First, "Christianity" hasn't been banned at all. Rather the company concerned has a policy of not accepting religious or political ads of any type.
Second, nothing has been "banned" in any case; rather a commercial business has decided not to accept a business opportunity from a potential client is all.
As for the policy itself, it makes sense to me. If they accepted an ad from one religious (or political) quarter, on what basis then would they say "no" to a different religious (or political) ad from another - the Fred Phelps outfit, or ISIS maybe? Unless those ads happened to break the law - by inciting violence for example - they'd have a much bigger problem trying to rationalise which they would and would not accept.
I like to think that if I was a more thoughtful Christian type I'd think the same thing by the way, albeit that that's something I'm unlikely ever to be able to test.
-
From a Christian perspective, I doubt any Christian on here will disagree, if only one is saved.
Do you really think that anyone who doesn't already believe will be swayed by the lies of a 'ban'? It's an attempt by the CofE to appear like they're the rebellious outsiders, pitching themselves as the victims of a breach of their freedom of speech, and so they're reaching out to the youth via... Jeremy Vine's radio show. Really - how far out of touch?
Are we going to see the 'War on Christmas' bullshit spread across the Atlantic in the wake of this, legions of Christians martyred by the absence of snowflakes from coffee cups and the tendency for open-minded people to say 'happy holidays'?
But I would like to echo Bashers thanks, a big thank you for banning this little video.
Didn't figure you for a 'liar for Jesus', Gonners. Who's banned anything?
Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War, alls fair in Love and War ;D ;D
"I am the way, the truth*, and the life..." * except when it helps, when maybe the truth is a little malleable.
O.
-
Yo Gonners,
But I would like to echo Bashers thanks, a big thank you for banning this little video.
You're heading towards falling into BA's mistake here - they made a commercial decision, and moreover one that would apply to ads by any other religious groups. If their policy was to refuse ads from car manufacturers and so they turned down an ad from, say, Toyota, would you suggest that they had "banned Toyota", or instead just implemented a commercial policy?
Whether more or fewer people turn up at church following the brouhaha is I suspect something to which the company concerned is entirely indifferent.
-
Are we going to see the 'War on Christmas' bullshit spread across the Atlantic in the wake of this, legions of Christians martyred by the absence of snowflakes from coffee cups and the tendency for open-minded people to say 'happy holidays'?
The last people in this country to have a serious war on Christmas were....
... the Christians! Yay!
http://www.historytoday.com/chris-durston/puritan-war-christmas
-
Dear Outrider and Blue,
Refused to screen, happy :-* :-*
Gonnagle.
-
I'm just amused at the irony of an organisation that decries consumerism and commercialisation using those tools to try to claim that the real message of Christmas isn't those tools...
O.
I quite agree with that.
-
Dear ippy,
Not an it, a he.
Gonnagle.
For something that's so unlikely to have ever existed other than in the mind, does it really matter?
If there is any credible evidence that makes me wrong, let me know?
ippy
-
If I knew absolutely nothing else about a new film other than that Bruce Willis is in it, my expectation that it would be a light, frothy romcom would be low and my expectation that there would be some guns, shooting and a fair bodycount would be quite high.
Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker
-
Well, quite.
-
Although I couldn't honestly care less about this advert I do think its interesting how it highlights our attitude towards religion ad the CofE specifically in this case.
there appears to be a strong feeling that the CofE should be held to a higher moral standard those organisations typically found advertising stuff, and that says something both about our attitude to religion but also to advertising, I think.
It looks like, from this thread, that there a feeling that non-Christians want to see the CofE behaving in a moral way. And that we care enough to be upset when we find that it doesn't match that expectation. Whether it is right to have that expectation is another discussion, but that fact that it exists at all is interesting. At the very least it shows that many of us see the CofE (or religion in general parhaps) as having some definable roll in society, even if the details are hazy.
hmmmm......
-
Surely the expectation comes largely from the fact that the C of E is still deemed by somebody or other - certainly itself - to deserve a voice in any discussion on any "moral" issue. If there's any panel/discussion-type show on abortion or assisted suicide or anything similar, chances are there'll be someone in a dog collar taking part.
Whether a particular denomination is held to a higher standard is open to debate. Than the world of advertising, very likely; but I'd have said that recent events have shown that people seem to want to hold clergy to fairly ordinary, normal, everyday standards such as not raping small children, for example.
-
there appears to be a strong feeling that the CofE should be held to a higher moral standard those organisations typically found advertising stuff, and that says something both about our attitude to religion but also to advertising, I think.
I think, rather, that the sanctimonious history of the CofE means that when they don't act to the standards they've set it's tempting to point it out.
It looks like, from this thread, that there a feeling that non-Christians want to see the CofE behaving in a moral way.
No, I think generally we just want them to leave us alone.
And that we care enough to be upset when we find that it doesn't match that expectation.
Hypocrisy bothers us, yes.
At the very least it shows that many of us see the CofE (or religion in general parhaps) as having some definable roll in society, even if the details are hazy.
Not really. It shows that we're aware the CofE thinks it should have some role in society, and that we're all frankly fed up with the attention it gets which far, far outweighs its relevance.
O.
-
Although I couldn't honestly care less about this advert I do think its interesting how it highlights our attitude towards religion ad the CofE specifically in this case.
there appears to be a strong feeling that the CofE should be held to a higher moral standard those organisations typically found advertising stuff, and that says something both about our attitude to religion but also to advertising, I think.
It looks like, from this thread, that there a feeling that non-Christians want to see the CofE behaving in a moral way. And that we care enough to be upset when we find that it doesn't match that expectation. Whether it is right to have that expectation is another discussion, but that fact that it exists at all is interesting. At the very least it shows that many of us see the CofE (or religion in general parhaps) as having some definable roll in society, even if the details are hazy.
hmmmm......
Actually it's because I see the CofE as an immoral organisation, for all the good it does, that I find this objectionable. And I formed that picture from the inside. Make no mistake: this advert is about saving the CofE, not individual cinema-goers.
-
fair enough... its got us talking about the CofE though hasn't it? So I guess on that score the advert did its job
-
fair enough... its got us talking about the CofE though hasn't it? So I guess on that score the advert did its job
But is for people to talk about the C of E, often in uncomplimentary and unflattering ways, really all that the C of E wants?
-
'The only thing worse than being talked about.....'
-
Yes, we're discussing the CofE, not prayer, let alone God. So the purpose of the advert was..?
-
Has there ever been any evidence that films - or video games, or books - encourage people to commit violent acts? I've yet to see any, I've seen numerous studies which suggest that the data don't support a link...
On the other hand, I think I could probably find a link between the people who commit suicide bombings and people who pray...
O.
There are some studies which show a link: By Joe Tidy, Sky News Reporter
A comprehensive study of studies claims to have found definitive evidence that playing violent video games leads to aggression.
The report from the American Psychological Association (APA) reviewed more than 300 violent video game papers published between 2005 and 2013.
Players were tested in a variety of ways over a variety of time periods from the short term to the longer term - and researchers concluded that violent video game use has an effect on aggression.
"The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in pro-social behaviour, empathy and sensitivity to aggression," the report concludes."
-
Surely the expectation comes largely from the fact that the C of E is still deemed by somebody or other - certainly itself - to deserve a voice in any discussion on any "moral" issue. If there's any panel/discussion-type show on abortion or assisted suicide or anything similar, chances are there'll be someone in a dog collar taking part.
Whether a particular denomination is held to a higher standard is open to debate. Than the world of advertising, very likely; but I'd have said that recent events have shown that people seem to want to hold clergy to fairly ordinary, normal, everyday standards such as not raping small children, for example.
Have you ever noticed the BBC keeps a person of one religious persuasion or another in a small cabinet so that if any event happens that involves moral or ethical events needing a comment, they can break the glass and instantly let them out and present a religionists, any religionists, point of view.
The above is daft I know, but if they did do the above would there be much of a difference in how they present the news for example?
ippy
-
Have you ever noticed the BBC keeps a person of one religious persuasion or another in a small cabinet so that if any event happens that involves moral or ethical events needing a comment, they can break the glass and instantly let them out and present a religionists, any religionists, point of view.
The above is daft I know, but if they did do the above would there be much of a difference in how they present the news for example?
ippy
A touch fanciful, even for you! So, they have to wheel a religionist out, eh? That implies there are none none immediately to hand: so all the contributors must otherwise be atheists then. Seems fair!
-
There are some studies which show a link: By Joe Tidy, Sky News Reporter
A comprehensive study of studies claims to have found definitive evidence that playing violent video games leads to aggression.
The report from the American Psychological Association (APA) reviewed more than 300 violent video game papers published between 2005 and 2013.
Players were tested in a variety of ways over a variety of time periods from the short term to the longer term - and researchers concluded that violent video game use has an effect on aggression.
"The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in pro-social behaviour, empathy and sensitivity to aggression," the report concludes."
His take on it is... subjective. There is a link, but the paper's take is that it's likely the players who are naturally more aggressive choose the more violent games, not that the games cause the aggression.
The exception to that was particularly young children, which is part of the justification for age categories on games (which are typically ignored, unfortunately), though even there the data weren't conclusive.
That reported aggression was almost entirely short-term - minutes, not even hours - and the two papers that reported longer-term effects were both on extremely small cohorts where statistical deviations are quite likely.
The conclusion from the authors of the paper is significantly more neutral than Tidy's reporting: they acknowledge a degree of correlation, but not causation, between violent video game use and aggression in the short term, no reliable evidence of long term links and - most importantly - no evidence of sufficient effect to imply it's a significant factor in actual violent events.
This is entirely in keeping with the findings of the effects of violent films and the much less studied effects of depictions of violence in books and comics - that it has a short term effect of viewers/players, but should be kept away from impressionable children.
O.
-
BA,
A touch fanciful, even for you! So, they have to wheel a religionist out, eh? That implies there are none none immediately to hand:...
Oh there are plenty immediately to hand. The contentious issue though is why the media seems to think their thoughts should be listened to and broadcast.
...so all the contributors must otherwise be atheists then. Seems fair!
That's a false opposition - the people who should be consulted and have their views reported on issues of morality are those who have either some expertise in the subject or at least a mandate to be listened to: professors of moral philosophy for example who have studied the issue at hand and had their published findings critiqued, or those who have been elected to office and so at least have a mandate to represent the views of their constituents.
Whether those people also happen to be theists or atheists is neither here nor there. Just assuming however that someone's thoughts should be reported because he is a Bishop or similar seems to me to be a skewing of news values.
Incidentally, I feel the same way when Prince Charles is given a privileged right of audience at some official or governmental institution but that's another conversation I guess.
-
BA,
Oh there are plenty immediately to hand. The contentious issue though is why the media seems to think their thoughts should be listened to.
That's a false opposition - the people who should be consulted and have their views reported on issues of morality are those who have either some expertise in the subject or at least a mandate to be listened to: professors of moral philosophy for example who have studied the issue at hand and had their published findings critiqued, or those who have been elected to office and so at least have a mandate to represent the views of their constituents.
Whether those people also happen to be theists or atheists is neither here nor there. Just assuming however that someone's thoughts should be reported because he is a Bishop or similar seems to be to be a skewing of news values.
Incidentally, I feel the same way when Prince Charles is given a privileged right of audience at some official or governmental institution but that's another conversation I guess.
I think having professors of moral philosophy on talking about it is marginally more relevant than professors of theology, but only by a very small margin
Having a qualification might enable to express more coherently some thoughts, though far from in all cases of professors, but it really doesn't make anyone more of an expert in the world of what we should do in the practical.
Again as with a number of recent posts we are tending to an argumentum ad certificatem, rather than the arguments themselves. There are subjects where listening to experts is sensible, say a general.in how to fight a war, but when it comes to should you fight the war that is a wider question than their expertise. Same is true of moral philosophy profs here.
-
NS,
I think having professors of moral philosophy on talking about it is marginally more relevant than professors of theology, but only by a very small margin
Having a qualification might enable to express more coherently some thoughts, though far from in all cases of professors, but it really doesn't make anyone more of an expert in the world of what we should do in the practical.
Again as with a number of recent posts we are tending to an argumentum ad certificatem, rather than the arguments themselves. There are subjects where listening to experts is sensible, say a general.in how to fight a war, but when it comes to should you fight the war that is a wider question than their expertise. Same is true of moral philosophy profs here.
It's not so much the possession of a certificate by the professors but rather that their arguments have been set out, critiqued, refined etc and so can be examined and considered on their merits. By contrast, "My faith tells me X" etc is the beginning and end of it, and is about as much use to discussions of morality as it is to the design of aeroplane wings.
-
I think having professors of moral philosophy on talking about it is marginally more relevant than professors of theology, but only by a very small margin
Having a qualification might enable to express more coherently some thoughts, though far from in all cases of professors, but it really doesn't make anyone more of an expert in the world of what we should do in the practical.
Again as with a number of recent posts we are tending to an argumentum ad certificatem, rather than the arguments themselves. There are subjects where listening to experts is sensible, say a general.in how to fight a war, but when it comes to should you fight the war that is a wider question than their expertise. Same is true of moral philosophy profs here.
You can't guarantee that you're going to get useful input from them, but you do increase your chances of an informed opinion if you consult someone whose field of study is involved - of course, academics don't always make the best communicators. If you're hosting a TV debate and you want people who will have something to contribute, picking people qualified in the area is a reasonable measure to increase your chances.
At the other end, I'm not sure that become a Bishop isn't, in its way, a testament to achievement - I'm just not sure that it's an achievement in any sort of rational view of morality.
I would definitely agree that the CofE is over-represented and over-emphasised in these kinds of debates given the portion of the populace that it actually represents and the limited scope of its expertise.
O.
-
NS,
It's not so much the possession of a certificate by the professors but rather that their arguments have been set out, critiqued, refined etc and so can be examined and considered on their merits. By contrast, "My faith tells me X" etc is the beginning and end of it, and is about as much use to discussions of morality as it is to the design of aeroplane wings.
Except they aren't criticised in a real world fashion, it's an academic process about the consistency of positions, about the development of ideas and how we examine moral questions. It is not about being an expert in actual should. The church representatives are at least that, representatives of a group, just like politicians.
-
His take on it is... subjective. There is a link, but the paper's take is that it's likely the players who are naturally more aggressive choose the more violent games, not that the games cause the aggression.
The exception to that was particularly young children, which is part of the justification for age categories on games (which are typically ignored, unfortunately), though even there the data weren't conclusive.
That reported aggression was almost entirely short-term - minutes, not even hours - and the two papers that reported longer-term effects were both on extremely small cohorts where statistical deviations are quite likely.
The conclusion from the authors of the paper is significantly more neutral than Tidy's reporting: they acknowledge a degree of correlation, but not causation, between violent video game use and aggression in the short term, no reliable evidence of long term links and - most importantly - no evidence of sufficient effect to imply it's a significant factor in actual violent events.
This is entirely in keeping with the findings of the effects of violent films and the much less studied effects of depictions of violence in books and comics - that it has a short term effect of viewers/players, but should be kept away from impressionable children.
O.
I didn't expect you to accept the link: I doubt you would accept any link I provide. You said you weren't aware of any, and I quoted one. However, it is not I you need to deny it to, but the authors: tell them , in your expert opinion, they have it wrong!
-
The festival would exist just under a different name.
Not really, BR; without Christ one wouldn't have a festival celebrating his birth. Other festivals might very well occur, but not one celebrating the birth of the single most influential person in human history.
-
Why anyone thinks atheists are the ones the cinema chain was worried about offending is beyond me! In the latest terrorist massacre it was fundamentalist Muslims who murdered anyone who believed in the wrong sort of religion!
Maybe you think a gang of atheists might run into their cinemas spraying bullets at everyone!
And the Muslims I know would regard this post as highly offensive - probably more so than their sitting through an advert featuring the Lord's Prayer, jj.
-
Not really, BR; without Christ one wouldn't have a festival celebrating his birth.
Indeed; it would be the sort of midwinter festival of light and colour and merriment based on perennial human desires and preferences - even human physiology - rather than transient religious myths.
Oh wait: we've already got that.
-
Indeed; it would be the sort of midwinter festival of light and colour and merriment based on perennial human desires and preferences - even human physiology - rather than transient religious myths.
Oh wait: we've already got that.
And, no doubt, in your usual hypocritical manner, you will participate. Happy Christmas.
-
I didn't expect you to accept the link: I doubt you would accept any link I provide.
I'll happily review pretty much any link on any subject, I don't promise to accept your take (or that of a Sky News journalist), but I like to think that I'll review it and explain why I feel as I do.
You said you weren't aware of any, and I quoted one.
I'm afraid you didn't. You cited a news article which backed your view, referring to a paper that didn't.
However, it is not I you need to deny it to, but the authors: tell them , in your expert opinion, they have it wrong!
I said I wasn't aware of any links that backed your claim - the one you cited, as I pointed out, didn't do that. I explained why, and you're more than welcome to look at the original report - as I have done - rather than rely on the Sky News reporter's take on it without any sort of critical assessment of Sky News' market and the spin they would put on it.
I don't need to tell the authors of the report what I think, I reported their take from their paper. I needed to tell you, who had instead believed the journalist's slant on it. I don't really need to tell the journalist - I suspect he'd either fail to appreciate the difference of nuance, or he knows exactly what he's doing and would suggest that it's good journalism to give the story 'an angle'.
O.
-
NS,
Except they aren't criticised in a real world fashion, it's an academic process about the consistency of positions, about the development of ideas and how we examine moral questions. It is not about being an expert in actual should. The church representatives are at least that, representatives of a group, just like politicians.
To an extent, but the fact remains that academics will generally set out their reasoning: "because X, therefore Y" etc that the rest of us can address with reasoning of our own. The result is either, "you're wrong because of a flaw in your thinking as follows so I disagree with your conclusion", or, "I cannot find a flaw on your reasoning so I must agree with your conclusion".
Contrast that with, "my faith tells me X" and how else can someone respond except with a, "so what"?
As for the constituencies of Bishops, I guess to an extent footfall in churches on a Sunday is a kind of mandate but a more tenuous one I'd say than that of someone elected on the basis of a manifesto.
-
And, no doubt, in your usual hypocritical manner, you will participate. Happy Christmas.
You use the names of the days of the week and months of the year, don't you?
Or do you favour the Quaker system - first day/month, second day/month, third day/month, etc?
-
Not really, BR; without Christ one wouldn't have a festival celebrating his birth.
That's not what my celebration is, so no difference.
Other festivals might very well occur, but not one celebrating the birth of the single most influential person in human history.
Is he the most influential person? Or is it the person that made up the stories about it him that turned form a well-meaning wandering philosopher into a magic-wielding avatar? Or is it the person that adopted the cult based on that story as the official religion of the Roman Empire?
O.
-
I'll happily review pretty much any link on any subject, I don't promise to accept your take (or that of a Sky News journalist), but I like to think that I'll review it and explain why I feel as I do.
I'm afraid you didn't. You cited a news article which backed your view, referring to a paper that didn't.
I said I wasn't aware of any links that backed your claim - the one you cited, as I pointed out, didn't do that. I explained why, and you're more than welcome to look at the original report - as I have done - rather than rely on the Sky News reporter's take on it without any sort of critical assessment of Sky News' market and the spin they would put on it.
I don't need to tell the authors of the report what I think, I reported their take from their paper. I needed to tell you, who had instead believed the journalist's slant on it. I don't really need to tell the journalist - I suspect he'd either fail to appreciate the difference of nuance, or he knows exactly what he's doing and would suggest that it's good journalism to give the story 'an angle'.
O.
Then contact Sky, and tell them you are not happy on the journalist's "take." As far as I can see, he was simply reporting the thrust of the study. If you think his coverage was slanted, or inadequate, make your point to his superiors. It is unprofessional to mis-report, or inject your own slant.
-
Not really, BR; without Christ one wouldn't have a festival celebrating his birth.
What on earth makes you think that everyone enjoying the forthcoming mid-winter holiday is in any sense celebrating your particular choice of religious myth?
For some of us at least, it is just a holiday that contains a number of 'traditions', Christian or otherwise, that can be picked from or ignored as a matter of personal preference.
-
I think it's a given that without Christ there'd be no festival celebrating his birth. It's just that other people celebrate a festival by the same name without the religious bits.
-
What on earth makes you think that everyone enjoying the forthcoming mid-winter holiday is in any sense celebrating your particular choice of religious myth?
For some of us at least, it is just a holiday that contains a number of 'traditions', Christian or otherwise, that can be picked from or ignored as a matter of personal preference.
It is folk like yourself who seem to feel that everyone is somehow celebrating the Christian story around which Christmas is all about. I have never said they are. Rather, I am pointing out that many have no idea just what the festival of Christmas is actually about, choosing (or perhaps being forced, by ignorance) to celebrate a commercial festival. It may well be the case that some are celebrating neither, but some other festival that is not known as Christmas or Winter Festival, or whatever.
-
BA,
Then contact Sky, and tell them you are not happy on the journalist's "take." As far as I can see, he was simply reporting the thrust of the study. If you think his coverage was slanted, or inadequate, make your point to his superiors. It is unprofessional to mis-report, or inject your own slant.
No, Outy took the trouble to show you that an opinion you expressed is based on a false understanding of the facts. Your response now should either be, "that's not what the journalist did, and here's why" or, "thank you for correcting me Outy, I'll either change my opinion or will cite a study that does in fact support it".
Just throwing dust at it is ungracious at best and dishonest at worst.
-
I think it's a given that without Christ there'd be no festival celebrating his birth. It's just that other people celebrate a festival by the same name without the religious bits.
Good try, Rhiannon. But there are many who celebrate Christmas, with all the Christian aspects thrown in, who are not Christians - I think some are on here. Some celebrate and pretend they are celebrating some other festival; and many of them are, I suggest, simply trying to argue away their false participation.
-
I am pointing out that many have no idea just what the festival of Christmas is actually about
What it's "actually" about is whatever you wish to make of it.
choosing (or perhaps being forced, by ignorance) to celebrate a commercial festival.
Nobody is forced to "celebrate a commercial festival."
-
I think it's a given that without Christ there'd be no festival celebrating his birth. It's just that other people celebrate a festival by the same name without the religious bits.
'Another festival' that actually has no purpose under the name of 'Christmas'. At least when religions take over existing festivals, they rename them to fit their new contexts ;) I see nothing wrong with pointing out to those caught up in commerciality that there is something more to Christmas than commercial interests, or merely family time.
-
What it's "actually" about is whatever you wish to make of it.
Would you say the same about Eid, or Dossain?
-
Hope,
It is folk like yourself who seem to feel that everyone is somehow celebrating the Christian story around which Christmas is all about. I have never said they are. Rather, I am pointing out that many have no idea just what the festival of Christmas is actually about, choosing (or perhaps being forced, by ignorance) to celebrate a commercial festival. It may well be the case that some are celebrating neither, but some other festival that is not known as Christmas or Winter Festival, or whatever.
The problem here is that what you think christmas is "really" about - ie, the Christian re-interpretation of a pre-existing festival - is not necessarily what others think it's "really" about at all.
-
NS,
To an extent, but the fact remains that academics will generally set out their reasoning: "because X, therefore Y" etc that the rest of us can address with reasoning of our own. The result is either, "you're wrong because of a flaw in your thinking as follows so I disagree with your conclusion", or, "I cannot find a flaw on your reasoning so I must agree with your conclusion".
Contrast that with, "my faith tells me X" and how else can someone respond except with a, "so what"?
As for the constituencies of Bishops, I guess to an extent footfall in churches on a Sunday is a kind of mandate but a more tenuous one I'd say than that of someone elected on the basis of a manifesto.
Except the initial decision here in terms of what should happen is not anything that a moral philosophy professor has any real expertise in. And us just making any such decision on their subjective opinion. As to setting out their arguments logically, depends,I've seen good ones and bad ones, and that applies to moral philosophy professors, other academics and religious representatives, many of whom are or have been academics. The arguments though at base on morality are based on personal opinion. As already pointed out this sort of take on morality, is not what is taught and studied in moral philisophy.
Any good MP prof would, I suggest, address any such questions hypothetically laying out the if you took a certain moral stance, and laying out a variety of them, that one might decided more likely one thing or another in this case. They would not argue for a particular decision as they should realise that that would not be appropriate for them.
-
It is folk like yourself who seem to feel that everyone is somehow celebrating the Christian story around which Christmas is all about. I have never said they are. Rather, I am pointing out that many have no idea just what the festival of Christmas is actually about, choosing (or perhaps being forced, by ignorance) to celebrate a commercial festival.
That's what Christmas is 'actually' about for some people. You are suggesting that Christmas is 'actually' about Jesus - it may have been, once, it might still be for some people, but there are a number of ways and reasons to celebrate Christmas and religious concepts are only one of them.
O.
-
'Another festival' that actually has no purpose under the name of 'Christmas'. At least when religions take over existing festivals, they rename them to fit their new contexts ;) I see nothing wrong with pointing out to those caught up in commerciality that there is something more to Christmas than commercial interests, or merely family time.
'Merely' family time? How odd.
-
Good try, Rhiannon. But there are many who celebrate Christmas, with all the Christian aspects thrown in, who are not Christians - I think some are on here.
Who, and based on what evidence?
Some celebrate and pretend they are celebrating some other festival
Who are you to say that people are pretending?
and many of them are, I suggest, simply trying to argue away their false participation.
We have Hope's word for it that an opinion is equal to an assertion which stands in need of substantiation. (Going to come back and bit him on the arse, that one). So where's your evidence for this?
-
Would you say the same about Eid, or Dossain?
Yes (about Eid - no idea what the other one is).
-
'Merely' family time? How odd.
How pathetic.
-
Who, and based on what evidence?
Who are you to say that people are pretending? We have Hope's word for it that an opinion is equal to an assertion which stands in need of substantiation. (Going to come back and bit him on the arse, that one). So where's your evidence for this?
I think you know full well what people do at Christmas, whatever their religious tendency, or whether they are of no religion. You protest too much at what I say!
Got your Christmas cards yet?
-
Good try, Rhiannon. But there are many who celebrate Christmas, with all the Christian aspects thrown in, who are not Christians - I think some are on here. Some celebrate and pretend they are celebrating some other festival; and many of them are, I suggest, simply trying to argue away their false participation.
Well yes, as the parent of schoolchildren I'll be attending various performances, one of which happens in the most beautiful medieval church. But I'm not doing so because I want to participate in the religious aspects of it.
We all carve out our own meanings for Christmas. I wonder what makes you think that you have the right to try to impose yours on others.
-
I see the discussion has moved on, but I think calling this a ban is very weird. Religious advertising has not been made illegal, it's a commercial decision.
-
I think you know full well what people do at Christmas, whatever their religious tendency, or whether they are of no religion. You protest too much at what I say!
No, I'm protesting because you seem to be utterly divorced from the reality of what Christmas actually is to the vast majority of the population and what that vast majority actually does. Jesus is not involved, I can assure you. It's precisely and exactly because I know full well what Christmas is and the functions it fulfils that I'm contradicting your ridiculously twee St. Mary Mead in the 1950s version of a modern Christmas.
Got your Christmas cards yet?
Far too early.
-
At least when religions take over existing festivals, they rename them to fit their new contexts ;)
Except in the case of Easter, which I thought was the most important Christian festival of them all, yet the name has nothing to do with Christianity and is likely named after a pagan goddess of the spring.
Aren't you a bit embarrassed that your most important festival is named after a pagan goddess, Hope?
-
No, I'm protesting because you seem to be utterly divorced from the reality of what Christmas actually is to the vast majority of the population and what that vast majority actually does. Jesus is not involved, I can assure you.
Far too early.
Some figures to corroborate that, please.
Don't forget to join in the carols when you go down to the shopping centre. :)
-
You do know that carols are played in shops to get people to buy more stuff, don't you, BA?
-
Some figures to corroborate that, please.
You could look to the church attendance figures, I dare say, which are very likely highest at Christmas but in relation to the population as a whole are still tiny.
Don't forget to join in the carols when you go down to the shopping centre. :)
And waste valuable shopping time? You must be joking.
-
A touch fanciful, even for you! So, they have to wheel a religionist out, eh? That implies there are none none immediately to hand: so all the contributors must otherwise be atheists then. Seems fair!
I agree it would be a touch fanciful if it only happened occasionally.
ippy
-
You do know tha
Of course: but you don't have to join in if you don't want.
Have to join in with Noddy
-
You do know that carols are played in shops to get people to buy more stuff, don't you, BA?
Of course: but you don't have to join in if you don't want.
-
You could look to the church attendance figures, I dare say, which are very likely highest at Christmas but in relation to the population as a whole are still tiny.
And waste valuable shopping time? You must be joking.
Going to, church, or not, does not prove thing about whether you accept the Christmas story, or not. Unless you can quote some figures, as I asked?
Don't want you to waste time: you must get in all your Christmas cards, and stuff.
-
Of course: but you don't have to join in if you don't want.
With the carols? No, I don't.
-
With the carols? No, I don't.
Some will, even if they don't believe it all.
-
Some will, even if they don't believe it all.
Of course. Which is fine; it's only hypocritical to do so if you are pretending to believe when you don't.
-
We all carve out our own meanings for Christmas.
Christmas has been comprehensively privatised; you make of it whatever you want to make of it and give it your own meanings and create your own traditions. Certain human traits are universal and perennial - I'm thinking of the desire for warmth, light and colour at the darkest and drabbest time of year, and especially the love for family - so it's hardly a surprise that so many people do the same things.
I wonder what makes you think that you have the right to try to impose yours on others.
I don't think he's trying to do that, but in the teeth of all evidence he's trying to convince us that an incredibly old-fashioned sepia-tinted caricature of the "perfect" Christmas - through the snow to church in the morning, back home for Christmas lunch and then gather round the Bakelite wireless to hear the King's Christmas broadcast - is still a reality, presumably on the basis that he wishes it were still so. Yet again Bashers and the modern world are sharply at variance.
-
Of course. Which is fine; it's only hypocritical to do so if you are pretending to believe when you don't.
And I think that is happening. I wonder how many atheists actually make it clear to their children, or the children of friends, that they don't believe in Christ, and Christmas? Pretty shattering and to a child to have such a revelation thrown at them!
-
Some will, even if they don't believe it all.
Some will even if they don't believe any of it, because some people enjoy a nice tune.
-
And I think that is happening. I wonder how many atheists actually make it clear to their children, or the children of friends, that they don't believe in Christ, and Christmas? Pretty shattering and to a child to have such a revelation thrown at them!
Are you for real?
-
Some will, even if they don't believe it all.
yup I will be singing carols until the cows come home between now and the week before Christmas, including at a concert and several charity fundraising events.
Why? Because I love singing and it is completely irrelevant whether I believe the words or not (I don't by the way), it doesn't affect my enjoyment of singing.
And earlier this month I sang at a concert with a piece with words by Blake, and guess what, I'm not a Blake-ist. Also there was a piece about the First World War, but I am broadly a pacifist. Another written to celebrate a military victory by the British over the French, yet I am certainly not a Francophobe who wants to see them soundly beaten - again, far from it.
So I really don't understand your point BA.
-
Some will even if they don't believe any of it, because some people enjoy a nice tune.
And of course, being atheists, hypocrisy is second nature to them. ;)
-
And of course, being atheists, hypocrisy is second nature to them. ;)
What's hypocritical about enjoying music?
-
What's hypocritical about enjoying music?
As long as you don't ever join in with the words, of course; and to suggest plenty of atheists don't join in, is naive.
-
As long as you don't ever join in with the words, of course; and to suggest plenty of atheists don't join in, is naive.
Yup that's me - I enjoy singing all sorts of things including carols. But why does that make me a hypocrite - there is no rule that says you can't sing something less you believe it.
Do your really believe its fun to stay at the YMCA as you are singing along BA?
-
Yup that's me - I enjoy singing all sorts of things including carols. But why does that make me a hypocrite - there is no rule that says you can't sing something less you believe it.
Do your really believe its fun to stay at the YMCA as you are singing along BA?
You could hum! I think it a bit much to join in carols, at a specifically Christian celebration, when you repudiate all the song stands for. Have the courage of your convictions.
-
As long as you don't ever join in with the words, of course; and to suggest plenty of atheists don't join in, is naive.
What a dismal, shrivelled, wizened view of life you must have where even the enjoyment of a nice melody irrespective of the words is, according to you, "hypocritical." That takes a rare degree of utter joylessness.
-
You could hum! I think it a bit much to join in carols, at a specifically Christian celebration, when you repudiate all the song stands for. Have the courage of your convictions.
They aren't magic words, BA.
-
Some will, even if they don't believe it all.
Some people insist on calling the day after Wednesday 'Thursday' without reference to either Thor or Jupiter: it is just the label that is now convention.
On this same basis 'Christmas' is used by non-Christians and is in no sense is cap-doffing towards your choice of religion. I have a friend who makes a point of sending ' 'Happy Saturnalia' but personally I couldn't be bothered enough to make the effort she does.
I'm happy enough that the kids in the family enjoy and that Boxing Day brings a high standard of horse-racing to be enjoyed: apart from that I really don't give a damn about carols, pine-trees, Bing or Slade, festive editions of TV shows I don't watch normally or what the 'message' is that the Queen/Pope/Moderator of the Church of Scotland choose to inflict on us via the media assuming that we should all be aware of what these characters say.
Apart from that though!
-
Christmas has been comprehensively privatised; you make of it whatever you want to make of it and give it your own meanings and create your own traditions. Certain human traits are universal and perennial - I'm thinking of the desire for warmth, light and colour at the darkest and drabbest time of year, and especially the love for family - so it's hardly a surprise that so many people do the same things.
I don't think he's trying to do that, but in the teeth of all evidence he's trying to convince us that an incredibly old-fashioned sepia-tinted caricature of the "perfect" Christmas - through the snow to church in the morning, back home for Christmas lunch and then gather round the Bakelite wireless to hear the King's Christmas broadcast - is still a reality, presumably on the basis that he wishes it were still so. Yet again Bashers and the modern world are sharply at variance.
But he's pretty clear that we can't send Christmas cards or sing carols unless we're believers. And that feels like a pretty big imposition of his views over those of others.
-
What a dismal, shrivelled, wizened view of life you must have where even the enjoyment of a nice melody irrespective of the words is, according to you, "hypocritical." That takes a rare degree of utter joylessness.
Not even a good try. You can listen, and enjoy the tunes; but I was referring to the act of joining in, singing the words Do read more carefully.
As to a "dismal, shrivelled, wizened view of life," well that is exactly how I've always pictured you; and your posting fully demonstrates that.
-
Not even a good try. You can listen, and enjoy the tunes; but I was referring to the act of joining in, singing the words Do read more carefully.
What difference does that make? As Rhi said (and you ignored, true to form), they're not magic.
As to a "dismal, shrivelled, wizened view of life," well that is exactly how I've always pictured you; and your posting fully demonstrates that.
And yet I'm the one who enjoys a good tune wherever it comes from and whatever the words might be.
-
What difference does that make? As Rhi said (and you ignored, true to form), they're not magic.
And yet I'm the one who enjoys a good tune wherever it comes from and whatever the words might be.
However you wriggle - which you have to do so often - singing Christmas carols at Christmas, as an atheist, is hypocritical, cowardly and deceitful.
-
However you wriggle - which you have to do so often - singing Christmas carols at Christmas, as an atheist, is hypocritical, cowardly and deceitful.
No it isn't, and for all your posturing you haven't furnished us with a single scrap of a reason to think so.
But I tell you what: run away from the discussion yet again saying that you've said all you're going to say, despite convincing nobody.
-
No it isn't, and for all your posturing you haven't furnished us with a single scrap of a reason to think so.
But I tell you what: run away from the discussion yet again saying that you've said all you're going to say, despite convincing nobody.
Who's running away?
I don't really expect to change your mind about anything, You are so closed-minded and dogmatic, that it would be a minor miracle to change your mind. As my first headmaster said to me, so long ago: "when faced with pig-ignorant dogmatism and failure to concede anything, however ridiculous the position, you can only keep chipping away."
Having said all that, I shall now leave, for tea; not running, but sedately wending my way, having put you in your place ;) place.
-
However you wriggle - which you have to do so often - singing Christmas carols at Christmas, as an atheist, is hypocritical, cowardly and deceitful.
But why? Are you saying that taking part in, or enjoying, music, must involve a belief in the words? I sometimes play music by Jewish cantors, as I find it haunting, so are you saying that I must be Jewish to do this?
-
But why? Are you saying that taking part in, or enjoying, music, must involve a belief in the words? I sometimes play music by Jewish cantors, as I find it haunting, so are you saying that I must be Jewish to do this?
To join in singing the words of a specific Christian event, one that is precious to them, when you do not believe in them, is rather unctuous.
-
But why? Are you saying that taking part in, or enjoying, music, must involve a belief in the words? I sometimes play music by Jewish cantors, as I find it haunting, so are you saying that I must be Jewish to do this?
There'll be an ad hoc excuse for this. I asked if my culturally, nominally Hindu but actually non-religious neighbours were hypocrites for sending Christmas cards. According to Bashers, they're not, even though they don't believe in or celebrate any of the Christian trappings; when atheists in the same position send Christmas cards, they're hypocrites, apparently.
Still not at all sure how that one works in any rational, logical way.
-
To join in singing the words of a specific Christian event, one that is precious to them, when you do not believe in them, is rather unctuous.
So at a carol concert, non-Christians should remain silent? Wow, that's such a kill-joy attitude.
-
To join in singing the words of a specific Christian event
But you've been told more times than I can remember that for most it isn't.
-
To join in singing the words of a specific Christian event, one that is precious to them, when you do not believe in them, is rather unctuous.
Me old mother didn’t think that when I saw the hymns at my father's funeral. Shall I give you her number so you can tell her that I was being cowardly doing that?
-
Or indeed when I went to the Jewish wedding of my friends Ceferino and Simon this year, I could have refused to wear a yarmulke, but I think that would of made me a bit of a dick.
-
Or even when I went round to Claire's last weekend and I happily ate the vegetarian food instead of asking for bacon.
-
However you wriggle - which you have to do so often - singing Christmas carols at Christmas, as an atheist, is hypocritical, cowardly and deceitful.
No it isn't - stick a guitar in my hand and I'll happily give you my rendition of 'Puttin on the Ritz' even though I've never been to New York.
-
Or Jake the peg, even though you have two legs, diddle diddle dum
"Or my old mans a dustman" when he isn't.
;)
Hypocrites all, I tell you ;)
-
BA #333
What arrogant smugness to think you have put Shaker 'in his place'! I suppose it is remotely possible that you were trying to make a joke, but it didn't sound like it to me.
-
BA's jokes are no laughing matter ;)
-
BA #333
What arrogant smugness to think you have put Shaker 'in his place'! I suppose it is remotely possible that you were trying to make a joke, but it didn't sound like it to me.
What arrogant smugness to think that Shaker cannot be put in his place.
Recently Shaker's claim that David Attenborough's approach to religion was anodyne appeasement was in fact shown to be mere decency of a kind Shaker can never grasp or partake of.
-
Me old mother didn’t think that when I saw the hymns at my father's funeral. Shall I give you her number so you can tell her that I was being cowardly doing that?
This reminds me of the memorial service for a very dear neighbour of mine. He lost his faith in WW2 as a prisoner of war; every day that I knew him he sang 'Onward Christian Soldiers' whilst walking his dog to keep rhythm as his knee was bad. Knowing that most of his friends in the village were Anglican, his wife arranged for a memorial service with hymns to be held in our parish church, and the pp followed her instructions not to mention anything to do with Christianity, salvation or God's love, even though he felt he wasn't doing his 'job' as it were.
Bunch of hypocrites. ::)
-
However you wriggle - which you have to do so often - singing Christmas carols at Christmas, as an atheist, is hypocritical, cowardly and deceitful.
Must tell my wife, another atheist, as are the rest of my family, oh yes my wife's a gospel singer, loves almost everything about it, so do I.
Funnily enough most of the singers in her group are atheists too, like the rest of us they love the music.
ippy
-
You could hum! I think it a bit much to join in carols, at a specifically Christian celebration, when you repudiate all the song stands for. Have the courage of your convictions.
Hmm - not sure the musical director of my choir would be too happy with me (and the other atheists in the choir) humming rather than singing the words.
Nor the 300 or so members of the public who pay good money to come and see us perform in our Christmas concert.
Don't forget we are 'performing' not 'worshiping' BA.
-
Hmm - not sure the musical director of my choir would be too happy with me (and the other atheists in the choir) humming rather than singing the words.
I think you'll find that you're allowed to sing, but you have to keep your fingers crossed.
Because that stops the magic getting in. Or out.
Or something.
-
And what about all them atheist composers who wrote music in religious forms, and even worse, all them religious composers who wrote music that had nothing to do with religion at all.
Bastards, the lot of them >:(
-
As long as you don't ever join in with the words, of course; and to suggest plenty of atheists don't join in, is naive.
Oh, wow... does that mean that if I sing Taylor Swift's 'Blank Space' that I'll be attracted to men?
O.
-
Hmm - not sure the musical director of my choir would be too happy with me (and the other atheists in the choir) humming rather than singing the words.
Flos Campi by Ralph Vaughan Williams has a prominent part for a large but wordless chorus - literally humming and aaahing throughout.
I'm sure that's ideologically acceptable to BA ;)
-
The c of e are thinking of taking it to court, they say it's religious discrimination.
:o
I don't think it is.
I don't think people want it, and the cinemas need to listen to what their customers want.
If you let the c of e do it, the you have to let the scientologists and Mormons do it.
I absolutely hate the idea.
There are lots of places I respect the presence of religion, such as remembrance services and even in council meetings where it is part of a longstanding tradition and people have the option to step outside for a minute, but in cinemas?
No!
No one I've spoken to thinks it's appropriate.
I think the c of e will lose face on this one, if they force it through the court.
>:(
More importantly, I think they'll lose the case. Religious discrimination prevents religious views being treated differently, this isn't treating any religious view differently from any other - I don't see they have a leg to stand on.
DCM will say that it's a contentious area that sparks discussions they don't want to be a part of, and as evidence will site the coverage it's had in the media.
O.
-
I don't really expect to change your mind about anything, You are so closed-minded and dogmatic, that it would be a minor miracle to change your mind.
Which dogma do we have that we can be dogmatic about, out of interest?
As my first headmaster said to me, so long ago: "when faced with pig-ignorant dogmatism and failure to concede anything, however ridiculous the position, you can only keep chipping away."
Shame he didn't succeed, I'd say.
Having said all that, I shall now leave, for tea; not running, but sedately wending my way, having put you in your place ;) place.
Firmly outside of your view of 'proper' Christmas... where we started. Well there's a relief.
I can see how Christmas carols might, in some instances, be considered to have a religious origin or a religious spin - and equally how some people can like to sing and not give a toss what they're singing, hence Boyzone - but what's religious about sending Christmas cards?
O.
[/quote]
-
I come late to this discussion - but I would just like to register my thoughts that this ban is a load of nonsense. I bet the cinema chains will be taking plenty of Christmas generated dosh from the breweries, supermarket chains, perfume companies etc.
One advert/film that isn't for a "commercial" purpose and they turn money down. Wankers.
And I post this as an unrepentant atheist.
-
I come late to this discussion - but I would just like to register my thoughts that this ban is a load of nonsense. I bet the cinema chains will be taking plenty of Christmas generated dosh from the breweries, supermarket chains, perfume companies etc.
One advert/film that isn't for a "commercial" purpose and they turn money down. Wankers.
And I post this as an unrepentant atheist.
Personally, in this country, I don't think too many people would have cared less about it if it were shown. However, once that one is shown it opens up a whole can of worms - the religious discrimination laws would have then made it difficult to turn down adverts from Islamic groups - which aren't intrinsically any more worrying to anyone who actually thinks, but there are Sun readers out there - or the Scientologists (who aren't shy about getting their lawyers out when they feel like it) and who knows who else, and certainly there are people out there who would take offence at some of those.
Given the sentiments it's aroused, I think they've made a reasonably good call... if they can weather the storm and not be bullied into caving in.
O.
-
Personally, in this country, I don't think too many people would have cared less about it if it were shown. However, once that one is shown it opens up a whole can of worms - the religious discrimination laws would have then made it difficult to turn down adverts from Islamic groups - which aren't intrinsically any more worrying to anyone who actually thinks, but there are Sun readers out there - or the Scientologists (who aren't shy about getting their lawyers out when they feel like it) and who knows who else, and certainly there are people out there who would take offence at some of those.
Given the sentiments it's aroused, I think they've made a reasonably good call... if they can weather the storm and not be bullied into caving in.
O.
The average cinema goer does not know what day it is so no problem.The Lord will have his way and with all these nutters from isis knocking about better to stay at home at least you wont be charged £3-00 for a bag of not very good sweets,rip off merchants is the key word.
~TW~
-
Dear Wonderful World,
What a wonderful argument, atheists enjoying religious music, an argument within an argument, but this is not the first discussion we have ever had on the subject.
What do atheist feel when they listen to religious music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_ztEW1NE
Are you lifted, does your soul rejoice.
Have mercy upon me, O God, after Thy great goodness
According to the multitude of Thy mercies do away mine offences.
Wash me thoroughly from my wickedness: and cleanse me from my sin.
For I acknowledge my faults: and my sin is ever before me.
That's God creation can make something so beautiful.
Atheism a closed book to me, but I am getting there.
Sorry! the music does carry me away, I digress, we had this discussion or one similar many moons ago, a very talented and highly regarded composer ( atheist ) of religious music ( documentary on the telly regarding Christian music ) stated, to compose religious music I need to moved by the Spirit, or words to that effect.
What do atheists feel when they listen to this.
I can hazard a guess at what you feel, God.
Dear ippy,
Your family enjoy singing Gospel music, brilliant, honestly I think that is wonderful.
What about,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxMEsTcw_pk
God and sinners reconciled.
The Devil has all the best tunes, not by a long chalk.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bloody hell look at the time,
Before I say goodnight,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRfLl5OEDy8
The weary world rejoices :) :)
Gonnagle.
-
Oh, wow... does that mean that if I sing Taylor Swift's 'Blank Space' that I'll be attracted to men?
O.
What's wrong with that? Are you homophobic, or something?
-
Which dogma do we have that we can be dogmatic about, out of interest?
Shame he didn't succeed, I'd say.
Firmly outside of your view of 'proper' Christmas... where we started. Well there's a relief.
I can see how Christmas carols might, in some instances, be considered to have a religious origin or a religious spin - and equally how some people can like to sing and not give a toss what they're singing, hence Boyzone - but what's religious about sending Christmas cards?
O....
For an intelligent man, you make some pretty lame arguments sometimes!
-
Must tell my wife, another atheist, as are the rest of my family, oh yes my wife's a gospel singer, loves almost everything about it, so do I.
Funnily enough most of the singers in her group are atheists too, like the rest of us they love the music.
ippy
What do I say to that? Next, they'll be singing the Red Flag at the Tory Conference, and saying they just like the tune! :D
-
Hmm - not sure the musical director of my choir would be too happy with me (and the other atheists in the choir) humming rather than singing the words.
Nor the 300 or so members of the public who pay good money to come and see us perform in our Christmas concert.
Don't forget we are 'performing' not 'worshiping' BA.
Then try and sing something that doesn't include devotional themes: bizarre!
-
I think you'll find that you're allowed to sing, but you have to keep your fingers crossed.
Because that stops the magic getting in. Or out.
Or something.
Well articulated... ;D
-
Gonners: The 1989 recording of Thomas Tallis's Salvator Mundi II (the II is very important as Tallis wrote two different versions) by the Winchester Cathedral choir directed by David Hill is far and away one of the loveliest pieces I know - an impossibly beautiful recording. I've heard a thousand others and this remains the best, hands down. It's not on YouTube as far as I know and is difficult to find online but I did turn up this link - scroll down to number nine on the list to find Salvator Mundi II:
http://sneg.audio/show/winchester-cathedral-choir-david-hill
-
Which dogma do we have that we can be dogmatic about, out of interest?
Shame he didn't succeed, I'd say.
Firmly outside of your view of 'proper' Christmas... where we started. Well there's a relief.
I can see how Christmas carols might, in some instances, be considered to have a religious origin or a religious spin - and equally how some people can like to sing and not give a toss what they're singing, hence Boyzone - but what's religious about sending Christmas cards?
O.
If the cards have a message about Jesus, they are devotional, and should be sent on that basis. If not, they are merely nice and pretty cards, which can mean anything you wish.
-
Hmm - not sure the musical director of my choir would be too happy with me (and the other atheists in the choir) humming rather than singing the words.
Nor the 300 or so members of the public who pay good money to come and see us perform in our Christmas concert.
Don't forget we are 'performing' not 'worshiping' BA.
Then you should ensure that your performing is appropriate, and not trivialising what is special to so many, by singing without any conviction in what you are singing. I think a performance should window not only your talents, but your sincerity.
-
Flos Campi by Ralph Vaughan Williams has a prominent part for a large but wordless chorus - literally humming and aaahing throughout.
I'm sure that's ideologically acceptable to BA ;)
Now, for an atheist, he had the right idea! :)
-
Yes, we're discussing the CofE, not prayer, let alone God. So the purpose of the advert was..?
To advertise what they believe to be the word of God.
Given that they see that as their mission, I honestly can't see what the problem is. Provided they keep within the law, they have every right to advertise when and where they like. Also, DCM has every right not to accept their business.
-
I love a good violent action movie. I could watch Die Hard on hard rotation. I laughed out loud the first time I saw the scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent Vega accidentally discharges his firearm.
In spite of this, I have never felt the desire to commit a violent act of the nature portrayed in those films. When i was five, I loved Tom and Jerry, but even then, people like you were saying the violence was a problem and I used to think "it's a cartoon. Can't grown ups tell the difference between cartoons and real life?"
Fine; but you are an intelligent, discerning, and well-adjusted individual. Many, many, are not, and will be adversely influenced by such viewing. And even if only a few are, it is a slippery slope.
-
'Another festival' that actually has no purpose under the name of 'Christmas'. At least when religions take over existing festivals, they rename them to fit their new contexts
How do you explain Eater?
-
How do you explain Eater?
I explain Easter as being the time I celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus. No more, no less. With Christmas there is discussion to be had: He certainly wasn't born on the 25th; not that it matters. There is discussion to be had over the Nativity. But with Easter, it is a whole different ball game. Easter is the very crux of Christian belief, and to trivialise it by such things as claiming it is a Pagan festival, is a total red herring. It is a very, very, special time for Christians, and I think, whatever your beliefs, or no beliefs, it is not asking much to respect that.
-
If the cards have a message about Jesus, they are devotional, and should be sent on that basis. If not, they are merely nice and pretty cards, which can mean anything you wish.
Isn't that exactly what so many of us have been saying?
-
Isn't that exactly what so many of us have been saying?
No, it isn't. Not unless you concede that it is inappropriate to sing about Jesus and His birth when you don't believe it. To sing about nothing in particular to the music of a carol is another thing.
-
No, it isn't.
Sure it is. Many of us here have taken considerable pains to tell you that Christmas is a privatised and malleable affair; people make of it whatever they want to, seeing it how they want to see it and creating their own traditions. Many Australians spend Christmas morning on the beach in blazing sunshine, complete with Santa. Personally I can't imagine anything worse, but that's another way of doing Christmas that suits a lot of people.
Not unless you concede that it is inappropriate to sing about Jesus and His birth when you don't believe it. To sing about nothing in particular to the music of a carol is another thing.
Nothing remotely inappropriate about it. They're still not magic and nobody owns these songs; the best ones are so ancient and of such obscure origin that more often than not they can only be credited to our old friends Mr. Trad. and Mr. Anon. I find it hard to believe that many people give much if any thought to the words in any case; the words are simply a vehicle for a cracking good melody which is a delight to sing for those who can do so, rather than vice versa.
-
Now, for an atheist, he had the right idea! :)
... but then of course there's the reams of "religious" music he wrote. "There's no reason why an atheist can't write a good Mass," he said, and he was of course quite right - his example (the Mass in G minor) being amazingly lovely:
https://youtu.be/lGCCRN0o9Lo
-
Personally I dont understand why DCM have made the decision to ban the advert, (not christians as is stated in the OP,) from their cinemas on the grounds that "some advertisements - unintentionally or otherwise - could cause offence to those of differing political persuasions, as well as to those of differing faiths and indeed of no faith".
Did anybody at DCM actually watch the advert?
There is nothing in it that should cause offence, in fact anyone who gets all offended by it must be the kind of permanently offended attention seeker who pisses pretty much everyone off with their unwarranted whinging on subjects they are plainly ignorant of.
Below is a link to the ad. Feel free to be offended by it, or not as is your want.
https://youtu.be/dx1ud-3fXC8
Its basically an advert promoting the "Just Prey" website. How is that offensive?
I get that some may object to children being forced to recite the lords prayer at state run schools etc. I know I do, but the actually advert doesn't force anyone to actually say the Lord's Prayer, so I have no objection to it at all.
-
I explain Easter as being the time I celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus. No more, no less. With Christmas there is discussion to be had: He certainly wasn't born on the 25th; not that it matters. There is discussion to be had over the Nativity. But with Easter, it is a whole different ball game. Easter is the very crux of Christian belief, and to trivialise it by such things as claiming it is a Pagan festival, is a total red herring. It is a very, very, special time for Christians, and I think, whatever your beliefs, or no beliefs, it is not asking much to respect that.
If it is so important to you as a Christian why is Easter named after a pagan goddess of the spring.
The name has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Why not call it something that relates to Christianity as is the case in most other languages. If Christmas has to be Christian because of the etymology of its name, then Easter has to be pagan for the same reason - claiming anything else is hypocrisy BA.
-
But with Easter, it is a whole different ball game. Easter is the very crux of Christian belief, and to trivialise it by such things as claiming it is a Pagan festival, is a total red herring. It is a very, very, special time for Christians, and I think, whatever your beliefs, or no beliefs, it is not asking much to respect that.
Yes it is: 'Easter' is just the spring/vernal equinox festival onto which Christians have incorporated some of their religious dogma, where even its name (since I think you the laboured the 'Christ' in 'Christmas' line earlier) has pagan origins. Just like with 'Christmas' the spring holiday can be enjoyed without any direct reference to Christianity: for example, I don't recall rabbits looming large in the NT.
That you think it is 'special' is fine, so you can spend it how you wish, but that doesn't mean that non-Christians should treat this holiday with particular reverence just because you Christians do, and there are always other options: for example, in 2014 the archaic law that prohibited horse-racing on so-called 'Good Friday' was repealed so in 2016 I'll be off to Musselburgh on that day, which won't inconvenience or interfere in the slightest in however you Christians choose to spend your 'Good Friday' (or as I call it 'Friday').
-
BA,
If the cards have a message about Jesus, they are devotional, and should be sent on that basis. If not, they are merely nice and pretty cards, which can mean anything you wish.
URGENT: Can I ask for your wisdom and guidance on a matter of some urgency please? I was planning this year to send Christmas cards featuring Jesus riding a unicorn while slaying the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Given your wholly justified role as judge and arbiiter of the SS ("Sufficient Sincerity") test, can you advise please on whether this would be OK, or whether I'd fail the dreaded "hypocrite" test.
I await your instruction with some trepidation.
Ta everso.
-
BA,
No, it isn't. Not unless you concede that it is inappropriate to sing about Jesus and His birth when you don't believe it. To sing about nothing in particular to the music of a carol is another thing.
Oh no - this is getting worse! I'm just back from dropping the kids at school and we had a good old sing-song to the radio on the way in. Now you've got me worried though...
...I'm fine I think with "I kissed a girl and I liked it" - I can be reasonably sincere about that so don't feel too hypocritical (hang on, does that make make me an adulterer though? - Oo-er!) but I'm less sure about Justin Bieber's "Love yourself". What form should this self-love take if I'm not to be a hypocrite please?
But then it got worse - only Air's "Sexy Boy"! See, here's the thing - I don't actually find boys to be, well, sexy yet I quite like the song. What should I have done please? I'm thinking perhaps faking a coughing fit for 3 mins 22 seconds but my girls would have rumbled that, and just going quiet and looking out of the window would have raised their suspicions too.
This is a minefield man - I need you help here...URGENTLY!
-
Vlud,
Personally I dont understand why DCM have made the decision to ban the advert,..
What you actually don't understand is that they haven't "banned" anything. See Reply 248.
-
And for all they say offence might be taken, I'm not seeing anyone here offended by the advert's actual content.
-
Rhi,
And for all they say offence might be taken, I'm not seeing anyone here offended by the advert's actual content.
But their policy isn't about that ad specifically - rather their blanket refusal to accept any religious (or political) ads means they avoid having to make value judgments in future on a case-by-case basis - "C of E fine, Scientologists not fine" etc.
-
Rhi,
But their policy isn't about that ad specifically - rather their blanket refusal to accept any religious (or political) ads means they avoid having to make value judgments in future on a case-by-case basis - "C of E fine, Scientologists not fine" etc.
Yeah, I get that, but that's led to the comment about it being wet to object to a bit of prayer. And that's not what is objectionable.
-
Rhi,
Yeah, I get that, but that's led to the comment about it being wet to object to a bit of prayer. And that's not what is objectionable.
Actually some of us would find it to be "objectionable" in any case, but being offended by something is the worst argument of all for banning something I think. You're right though - accept one and you have no basis on which to refuse any other (provided it's legal) and that's why they've turned down the C of E's business (though not of course "banned" anything).
-
For an intelligent man, you make some pretty lame arguments sometimes!
For a lame argument you conspicuously avoid actually countering it in any way.
O.
-
Personally I dont understand why DCM have made the decision to ban the advert, (not christians as is stated in the OP,) from their cinemas on the grounds that "some advertisements - unintentionally or otherwise - could cause offence to those of differing political persuasions, as well as to those of differing faiths and indeed of no faith".
Did anybody at DCM actually watch the advert?
There is nothing in it that should cause offence, in fact anyone who gets all offended by it must be the kind of permanently offended attention seeker who pisses pretty much everyone off with their unwarranted whinging on subjects they are plainly ignorant of.
Below is a link to the ad. Feel free to be offended by it, or not as is your want.
https://youtu.be/dx1ud-3fXC8
Its basically an advert promoting the "Just Prey" website. How is that offensive?
I get that some may object to children being forced to recite the lords prayer at state run schools etc. I know I do, but the actually advert doesn't force anyone to actually say the Lord's Prayer, so I have no objection to it at all.
It hasn't been rejected because it is offensive. It's been rejected because DCM received the request and immediately saw that this could be the first of many: religion is a hot topic, and whilst this is relatively innoffensive, others might not be.
Normally that would a 'slippery slope' argument, I'd agree, they can review each advert on its own merits, but the law places strict limits on their capacity to make independent judgments between various religions.
Understanding that, and in light of the backlash from their experience with Scottish independence campaign adverts, they opted for a policy where they aren't going to be showing religious or political adverts.
That's not 'a ban', it's a commercial decision. No-one is stopping anyone else saying anything, a company is choosing not to say it themselves.
O.
-
Dear Forum,
Damn!! Here's me thinking, singing, music, the voice raised in full glory to God, what finer gift could God bestow, nah >:( >:( sex, it all boils down to sex, no wonder creationists don't like evolution, it's all about sex ( not to keen on it myself, I much prefer mad passionate love making, madder the better :P ).
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/david-attenborough---why-humans-sing/3101418#transcript
It's tempting to think that human beings very early in their history used music in a similar way. And there can be little question that a male with a good singing voice in our own society today is still a source of sexual attraction and excitement. What else is a serenade? Watch a pop concert! And just as among the great reed warblers, quality counts. Females have been selecting males with a versatile larynx since way back in our ancestry.
Today young men sing together to generate camaraderie, and religious people use song to generate the deepest and most profound emotions among themselves and their listeners. But the prime function of song is something else. Shakespeare wondered if music was the food of love. Well, vocally at least, it certainly was. And what is more, it still is.
No wonder that Elvis was such a hit with the ladies, he had it all, brilliant voice, all the right moves and spectacular plumage.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wonderful World,
What a wonderful argument, atheists enjoying religious music, an argument within an argument, but this is not the first discussion we have ever had on the subject.
What do atheist feel when they listen to religious music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_ztEW1NE
Are you lifted, does your soul rejoice.
That's God creation can make something so beautiful.
Atheism a closed book to me, but I am getting there.
Sorry! the music does carry me away, I digress, we had this discussion or one similar many moons ago, a very talented and highly regarded composer ( atheist ) of religious music ( documentary on the telly regarding Christian music ) stated, to compose religious music I need to moved by the Spirit, or words to that effect.
What do atheists feel when they listen to this.
I can hazard a guess at what you feel, God.
Dear ippy,
Your family enjoy singing Gospel music, brilliant, honestly I think that is wonderful.
What about,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxMEsTcw_pk
God and sinners reconciled.
The Devil has all the best tunes, not by a long chalk.
Gonnagle.
Gospel singing, the music is fantastic, so what if the words are praising something imaginary, very few things in life are perfect.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
so what if the words are praising something imaginary
Love songs to your imaginary friend, who loves ya baby :P
Dear theists,
I ask, nay I demand!! a group hug for all our atheist posters :-* :-*
Gonnagle.
-
Yes it is: 'Easter' is just the spring/vernal equinox festival onto which Christians have incorporated some of their religious dogma
No it isn't. Easter is a Christian festival based on the Jewish Pesach. It has nothing to do with the Vernal equinox, based, as it is on a lunar calendar.
The point about Easter is that the name (in English) derives from the name of an ancient Saxon month named after an ancient Saxon deity and therefore makes a mockery of the Christian argument, expressed several times here, that they own Christmas just because of the name.
-
jeremyp,
No it isn't. Easter is a Christian festival based on the Jewish Pesach. It has nothing to do with the Vernal equinox, based, as it is on a lunar calendar.
The point about Easter is that the name (in English) derives from the name of an ancient Saxon month named after an ancient Saxon deity and therefore makes a mockery of the Christian argument, expressed several times here, that they own Christmas just because of the name.
Fun etymological factoid of the day: from "Easter" we also get "oestrus", "oestrogen" etc.
-
Incidentally, one of the hypotheses as to why Christians moved their weekly devotional day from the Sabbath (or Saturn's Day as we call it) to The Sun's Day was because many of their neighbours celebrated Sol Invictus on that day. Incidentally, the same religion had a festival on 25th December called "Birth of the Sun". Coincidence? You decide.
-
No it isn't. Easter is a Christian festival based on the Jewish Pesach. It has nothing to do with the Vernal equinox, based, as it is on a lunar calendar.
The point about Easter is that the name (in English) derives from the name of an ancient Saxon month named after an ancient Saxon deity and therefore makes a mockery of the Christian argument, expressed several times here, that they own Christmas just because of the name.
I agree on your second paragraph, but I'm not sure the first can be justified as the name is extremely important.
Were Christians in the UK to call Christmas, 'Yule' instead of Christmas I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude that 'Yule' is a Christian festival based on the nativity. Rather we would conclude that the Christian nativity festival had 'co-opted' an earlier pagan festival associated with mid winter and added their religious elements while retaining the name of that older festival.
While the origins of terms and the presence of festival in ancient times can be rather obscure, I think there is ample evidence of a spring (or dawn) goddess across germanic northern europe and even beyond with variant names being Ēostre, Ēastre, Ostara, Austrō etc.
Bede (who remember was writing at a time when anglo-saxon England was just transitioning from pagan to christian beliefs (when he was born there was still a pagan King in England) and undoubtedly there would have still been significant pagan religious worship ongoing is clear that there were festivals to Eostre at that time.
'Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.'
Interesting to note that Bede also refers to the Christianisation of the time of year to 'Paschal month' and elsewhere refers to the Christian festival as Paschal, which is of course its correct title in Christian terms - translated into English as Passion. But although virtually every other language describes the Christian festival as Paschal (or derivatives) for some reason in English the older pagan name of Easter stuck.
-
For a lame argument you conspicuously avoid actually countering it in any way.
Lame, yes, and as such not worth the effort to rebut.
-
If it is so important to you as a Christian why is Easter named after a pagan goddess of the spring.
The name has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Why not call it something that relates to Christianity as is the case in most other languages. If Christmas has to be Christian because of the etymology of its name, then Easter has to be pagan for the same reason - claiming anything else is hypocrisy BA.
Sometimes you talk the most abominable tosh: so irrelevant!
-
Sure it is. Many of us here have taken considerable pains to tell you that Christmas is a privatised and malleable affair; people make of it whatever they want to, seeing it how they want to see it and creating their own traditions. Many Australians spend Christmas morning on the beach in blazing sunshine, complete with Santa. Personally I can't imagine anything worse, but that's another way of doing Christmas that suits a lot of people.
Nothing remotely inappropriate about it. They're still not magic and nobody owns these songs; the best ones are so ancient and of such obscure origin that more often than not they can only be credited to our old friends Mr. Trad. and Mr. Anon. I find it hard to believe that many people give much if any thought to the words in any case; the words are simply a vehicle for a cracking good melody which is a delight to sing for those who can do so, rather than vice versa.
Try and spin it as hard as you like: you are a massive hypocrite!
-
Sometimes you talk the most abominable tosh: so irrelevant!
So why is it relevant then in your world if non Christians celebrate Christmas in a non religious manner. You can't have it both ways BA. If the etymology of Christmas is so critical that it must only be celebrated as a Christian festival (which seems to be your line) then it is just as relevant for Easter, which if you are being consistent must only be celebrated as a pagan spring festival.
Now I believe neither of those things - I'm completely comfortable with people celebrating on 25th Dec as a mid winter festival without considering it to be a religious festival to them, and to call it Christmas. Likewise I have no problem with people celebrating the purported resurrection of Jesus in late March/early April without considering it to be a pagan spring festival and calling it Easter.
It is you who seem to be majoring on the double standards here.
-
... but then of course there's the reams of "religious" music he wrote. "There's no reason why an atheist can't write a good Mass," he said, and he was of course quite right - his example (the Mass in G minor) being amazingly lovely:
https://youtu.be/lGCCRN0o9Lo
As regards Flos Campi, the work was of course inspired by the Song of Solomon, which is in the Old Testament, so our dear old friend probably wouldn't have minded so much (not that he'd have picked up on this detail in the first place, of course).
It's a pity that Berlioz, Brahms, Verdi and quite a number of other composers couldn't be around to be instructed that they were being 'insincere' when they wrote some of their most famous works. "Hey, Berlioz - lay off that "L'enfance du Christ" you intend writing - we know you don't believe all that about the adoration of the shepherds etc".
What's going to happen to some of our most famous British choirs - I'm sure they would rapidly disappear if only the believing Christians among them were allowed to sing the Christian music in their repertoires? I think we should inform Sir John Eliot Gardiner (non-believer). I think he'd be up for giving somebody a damn good punch on the nose.
-
So why is it relevant then in your world if non Christians celebrate Christmas in a non religious manner. You can't have it both ways BA. If the etymology of Christmas is so critical that it must only be celebrated as a Christian festival (which seems to be your line) then it is just as relevant for Easter, which if you are being consistent must only be celebrated as a pagan spring festival.
Now I believe neither of those things - I'm completely comfortable with people celebrating on 25th Dec as a mid winter festival without considering it to be a religious festival to them, and to call it Christmas. Likewise I have no problem with people celebrating the purported resurrection of Jesus in late March/early April without considering it to be a pagan spring festival and calling it Easter.
It is you who see...
Nonsense! I have the same take on atheists and their participation in either Christmas or Easter celebrations.. It matters not a jot whether you say that Easter is a Pagan festival: that is not my point. It is also a Christian festival, and atheists need to butt out of Easter and Christmas. Celebrate your own festival, if you have one, and leave Christianity alone - just for once!
-
Nonsense! I have the same take on atheists and their participation in either Christmas or Easter celebrations.. It matters not a jot whether you say that Easter is a Pagan festival: that is not my point. It is also a Christian festival, and atheists need to butt out of Ester and Christmas. Celebrate your own festival, if you have one, and leave Christianity alone - just for once!
We are celebrating our own thing - we do it in the depths of winter, and it's called 'Christmas', because that's the name for it that we inherited. We keep some of the traditions - Santa, stockings, reindeer, decorated trees, traditional songs (by Trad., Anon. and, particularly, Holder) and we just take some time out, spend some of our hard-earned money on gifts for ourselves and our loved ones, indulge in a little more rich food than we need to...
Easter, by contrast, I tend to leave alone as it's just an excuse for chocolate companies to try to blitz children, but that's my take, there are probably others.
O.
-
It matters not a jot whether you say that Easter is a Pagan festival: that is not my point. It is also a Christian festival, and atheists need to butt out of Ester and Christmas. Celebrate your own festival, if you have one, and leave Christianity alone - just for once!
They aren't 'yours' BA: so you do your thing and we'll do ours.
If we use the commonly used names for these festivals it means not a jot: they are just names and there is no requirement for anyone to be precious about them.
-
BA,
Try and spin it as hard as you like: you are a massive hypocrite!
Dammit man, I'm trying my best not to be but still await your instruction as God's inquisitor/enforcer in chief - see Replies 384 & 385.
Did I mention that it was urgent?
-
They aren't 'yours' BA: so you do your thing and we'll do ours.
If we use the commonly used names for these festivals it means not a jot: they are just names and there is no requirement for anyone to be precious about them.
Christmas and Easter certainly aren't yours. Dates and claims to such dates are red herrings. Leave Christmas and Easter to Christians, and just do your own thing, whatever that is.
I can't recollect ever seeing cards or music or any references to Pagan celebrations at this time of the year. I'm sure there are some; so stick to those, and leave Christian traditions to Christians.
-
They aren't 'yours' BA: so you do your thing and we'll do ours.
If we use the commonly used names for these festivals it means not a jot: they are just names and there is no requirement for anyone to be precious about them.
Indeed - to paraphrase. It doesn't matter a jot whether you say Christmas is a Christian festival: it is also a mid winter festival (celebrated by atheists as well as believers, because guess what mid winter is a fact, it requires no belief).
You have no more claim of monopoly on the 'meaning of Christmas' than pagans do on the 'meaning of Easter'.
Stop being so hypocritical - either accept that non Christians can celebrate Christmas as a non Christian festival or accept that you can't celebrate Easter as a Christian festival.
-
Christmas and Easter certainly aren't yours. Dates and claims to such dates are red herrings. Leave Christmas and Easter to Christians, and just do your own thing, whatever that is.
You have a claim over Christmas.
You have no claim over Easter - it's named after a pagan spring goddess for crying out loud.
-
Christmas and Easter certainly aren't yours. Dates and claims to such dates are red herrings. Leave Christmas and Easter to Christians, and just do your own thing, whatever that is.
You are taking this far too seriously, BA - these are now just secular seasonal holidays, and nobody is stopping you from overlaying them which whatever brand of religious myth suits your taste.
-
Indeed - to paraphrase. It doesn't matter a jot whether you say Christmas is a Christian festival: it is also a mid winter festival (celebrated by atheists as well as believers, because guess what mid winter is a fact, it requires no belief).
You have no more claim of monopoly on the 'meaning of Christmas' than pagans do on the 'meaning of Easter'.
Stop being so hypocritical - either accept that non Christians can celebrate Christmas as a non Christian festival or accept that you can't celebrate Easter as a Christian festival.
You can celebrate anything you like at this time of year: but don't call it Christmas (Christ's Mass), or join in specifically Christian traditions. That is hypocritical, and, I might say, a denial of your own beliefs, for those who actually have any.
-
You can celebrate anything you like at this time of year: but don't call it Christmas (Christ's Mass), or join in specifically Christian traditions. That is hypocritical, and, I might say, a denial of your own beliefs, for those who actually have any.
You can celebrate the purported resurrection of Jesus in the spring: but don't call it Easter named after Eostre, pagan goddess of the spring. That is hypocritical.
BA - just recognise this is an argument you aren't going to win. Accusing others of hypocrisy for celebrating Christmas as anything other than a Christian festival, while happily celebrating Easter as something other than a pagan spring festival isn't really going to win any arguments, is it now.
-
You can celebrate the purported resurrection of Jesus in the spring: but don't call it Easter named after Eostre, pagan goddess of the spring. That is hypocritical.
BA - just recognise this is an argument you aren't going to win. Accusing others of hypocrisy for celebrating Christmas as anything other than a Christian festival, while happily celebrating Easter as something other than a pagan spring festival isn't really going to win any arguments, is it now.
I don't celebrate a name, I celebrate an event. I expect at some point this next month you will send or receive Christmas cards, sing carols, join in with specific Christian traditions, etc, If you do, it is you who is a hypocrite. I lose nothing: it is you who loses: loses any credibility!
-
BA,
You can celebrate anything you like at this time of year: but don't call it Christmas (Christ's Mass), or join in specifically Christian traditions. That is hypocritical, and, I might say, a denial of your own beliefs, for those who actually have any.
Such arrogance, such pomposity, such stupidity!
If someone wants to sing Christmas carols that have religious content they can pick and choose which bits to take seriously or not as they please with no "hypocrisy" involved at all. All they're saying is, "this bit's a bit daft lyrics-wise, but hey it's a nice song so I'll happily sing along anyway" - there's not some kind of entrance exam of "sincerity" you have to pass first!
If you genuinely think otherwise presumably you'd stop your kids going to school the day they "do" Eid - after all, you wouldn't want them to be hypocrites now would you...
Good grief!
-
I can't recollect ever seeing cards or music or any references to Pagan celebrations at this time of the year.
Really ???
So you never receive any cards with mid winter symbolism? You know the ones with snow-flakes, or Robins on snowy gates, perhaps some ice skaters wrapped up against the cold, winter scenes. Or images of Holly or mistletoes, or decorated (ever green) trees to bring cheer to the darkest part of the year, maybe a picture of a roaring, warming fire or any number of animals in snowy wintery landscape.
-
The real truth of this is that you non-believers simply want to indulge in Christmas festivities and you make these arguments to try and justify your participation. I bet you have a Christmas dinner. Why not make up a Pagan dinner, or whatever dinner you want, instead of hi-jacking a specifically Christian tradition?
-
I don't celebrate a name, I celebrate an event.
Then you must apply the same standard to others. So I and others celebrate an event - mid winter - given that you seem comfortable that the name is irrelevant why are you so het up if I and others chose to call that celebration of mid winter Christmas, just as you call your Christian festival Easter.
-
BA,
I lose nothing...
Now there I agree with you - you can't "lose "something you lost long, long ago.
-
The real truth of this is that you non-believers simply want to indulge in Christmas festivities and you make these arguments to try and justify your participation. I bet you have a Christmas dinner. Why not make up a Pagan dinner, or whatever dinner you want, instead of hi-jacking a specifically Christian tradition?
Given that much of the earliest pagan mid winter festivities will have been associated with marking a time of year where food was scarce with a welcome feast in celebration of the turning of the year, the point at which days start to get longer again and the promise of plenty again in the spring and summer can be recognised, then I think feasting is much more aligned with the mid winter celebration than with the nativity.
In what way is a christmas pudding (remember made with dried fruit from the previous autumn) have anything to do with the nativity. And guess what you might even put a spring of holly on top, a classic pagan symbol.
-
Then you must apply the same standard to others. So I and others celebrate an event - mid winter - given that you seem comfortable that the name is irrelevant why are you so het up if I and others chose to call that celebration of mid winter Christmas, just as you call your Christian festival Easter.
I repeat: I do not celebrate a name, I celebrate the birth and death of Jesus. You people can celebrate what you like, just leave Christmas festivities and the celebration of Easter to Christianity. Trouble is, you people cannot leave Christianity alone. Those who are Pagans spend most of their time on this forum discussing and de-bunking other beliefs, in paricular, Christianity. Your obsession is worrying.
-
The real truth of this is that you non-believers simply want to indulge in Christmas festivities and you make these arguments to try and justify your participation. I bet you have a Christmas dinner. Why not make up a Pagan dinner, or whatever dinner you want, instead of hi-jacking a specifically Christian tradition?
As far as I'm aware there is no fixed formula for 'Christmas Dinner; and the menu varies in line with local cuisines, and Christmas cards are a Victorian invention designed to encourage use the the then new postal system - you seem to be hi-jacking non-Christian elements yourself.
Anyway, I thought 'goodwill to our fellow man' etc was all part of the seasonal tradition - though you seem to be devoid of this yourself, BA (or should I call you Ebenezer?)
-
I repeat: I do not celebrate a name, I celebrate the birth and death of Jesus. You people can celebrate what you like, just leave Christmas festivities and the celebration of Easter to Christianity. Trouble is, you people cannot leave Christianity alone. Those who are Pagans spend most of their time on this forum discussing and de-bunking other beliefs, in paricular, Christianity. Your obsession is worrying.
Getting a bit riled aren't you. Trouble is you cannot actually see the double standards in what you say.
Were you to call your celebration of the purported resurrection of Jesus something other than Easter (as most other countries do, with named derivatives of Paschal) then you might not be accused of double standards. But you don't, so double standards it is.
If I genuinely believed that in your celebration of Christmas that you restricted it totally to Christian elements, with no customs and symbolism with pagan mid winter routes (e.g. holly, mistletoe, decorations, yule log on the fire, cards with winter scenes etc etc etc, lights to brighten the darkest time of the year - none of which have anything to do with the nativity and everything to do with older mid winter festivities) then you might not be accused of double standards. But I doubt very much that you do.
-
Blimey posts have strayed a long way from the actual point of the thread. If a certain poster feels so strongly about his version of Christmas then maybe he would like to start a new thread on that subject. ::)
-
As far as I'm aware there is no fixed formula for 'Christmas Dinner; and the menu varies in line with local cuisines, and Christmas cards are a Victorian invention designed to encourage use the the then new postal system - you seem to be hi-jacking non-Christian elements yourself.
Anyway, I thought 'goodwill to our fellow man' etc was all part of the seasonal tradition - though you seem to be devoid of this yourself, BA (or should I call you Ebenezer?)
I'm not devoid of good will: just ant-hypocrisy.
Ebenezer? Sounds like you don't know much about Dickens, either. ;)
-
Christmas and Easter certainly aren't yours. Dates and claims to such dates are red herrings. Leave Christmas and Easter to Christians, and just do your own thing, whatever that is.
Sounds good - my thing is Christmas.
I can't recollect ever seeing cards or music or any references to Pagan celebrations at this time of the year.
Really? No Christmas trees? No snow-covered scenery? No crescent moons and fields of stars? No robins? No holly wreathes? You think pagans didn't sing before the Christians attempted to purge them from Europe? I'm not into music, particularly, but I recall hearing of "This Endris Night" as having pagan origins.
I'm sure there are some; so stick to those, and leave Christian traditions to Christians.
Which Christian traditions would those be? Just so I know which cultural traditions I'm banned from taking part in whilst Christians cry that they aren't being allowed to advertise in cinemas.
O.
-
I'm not into music, particularly, but I recall hearing of "This Endris Night" as having pagan origins.
It is interesting how many carols combine elements of the nativity and elements that have nothing to do with the nativity and everything to do with a pagan mid winter festival.
Good examples being:
In the bleak mid winter
The holly and the ivy
Deck the halls (well actually I don't think this has anything Christian about it at all)
Good King Wenceslas (barely anything Christian)
Past three O'Clock
Sans Day Carol
-
It is interesting how many carols combine elements of the nativity and elements that have nothing to do with the nativity and everything to do with a pagan mid winter festival.
Good examples being:
In the bleak mid winter
The holly and the ivy
Deck the halls (well actually I don't think this has anything Christian about it at all)
Good King Wenceslas (barely anything Christian)
Past three O'Clock
Sans Day Carol
The point being
~TW~
-
The point being
~TW~
That what we see as our 'traditional' Christmas is multifaceted and incorporates element both from the Christian nativity and the pagan mid winter festivals.
I suspect if we eliminated either of those our Christmas would seem very odd to most of us.
-
That what we see as our 'traditional' Christmas is multifaceted and incorporates element both from the Christian nativity and the pagan mid winter festivals.
I suspect if we eliminated either of those our Christmas would seem very odd to most of us.
We have two types that celebrate Christmas those that belong to God and those that do not belong to God,so a mixture of music and song is fine by me.
~TW~
-
I'm not devoid of good will: just ant-hypocrisy.
Precisely.
-
We have two types that celebrate Christmas those that belong to God and those that do not belong to God,so a mixture of music and song is fine by me.
~TW~
Glad that's your view - live and let live.
Maybe you can try to persuade our chum BA.
-
I repeat: I do not celebrate a name
Indeed: you seem to worship one - just a name rather than any celebration or festivities, given the amount of squealing you do over it.
-
Glad that's your view - live and let live.
Maybe you can try to persuade our chum BA.
Good grief - I've seen it all when ~TW is the voice of reason.
-
I repeat: I do not celebrate a name, I celebrate the birth and death of Jesus. You people can celebrate what you like, just leave Christmas festivities and the celebration of Easter to Christianity. Trouble is, you people cannot leave Christianity alone. Those who are Pagans spend most of their time on this forum discussing and de-bunking other beliefs, in paricular, Christianity. Your obsession is worrying.
Indeed: you seem to worship one - just a name rather than any celebration or festivities, given the amount of squealing you do over it.
Yet he accuses others of hypocrisy when they do exactly the same.
Which sounds to me like ... err ... hypocrisy.
-
Yet he accuses others of hypocrisy when they do exactly the same.
Which sounds to me like ... err ... hypocrisy.
My nominally/culturally but actually non-religious Hindu neigbours don't believe in any of the trappings of Christianity, send Christmas cards but are not (according to BA) hypocrites, whereas atheists in exactly the same position (according to BA) are.
I'm still trying to work out how that one stacks up.
-
My nominally/culturally but actually non-religious Hindu neigbours don't believe in any of the trappings of Christianity, send Christmas cards but are not (according to BA) hypocrites, whereas atheists in exactly the same position (according to BA) are.
I'm still trying to work out how that one stacks up.
And I'd be astonished if BA restricts his Christmas celebrations to things which are clearly linked to the Christian nativity story and never adds anything linked to the pagan mid winter celebration.
-
And I'd be astonished if BA restricts his Christmas celebrations to things which are clearly linked to the Christian nativity story and never adds anything linked to the pagan mid winter celebration.
Well, there's only one way to find out - send round a PC (Proper Christmas) from the Nottinghamshire CCC (Christian Christmas Constabulary) to inspect BA's house for any ideological impurities, in the Christmas cards he sends and receives for example.
One robin sitting on a snowy fence and he's for the high jump ;)
-
I only found out the other day Xmas trees are forbidden in the Bible!
-
BA,
I'm not devoid of good will: just ant-hypocrisy.
Damn those hypocritical ants.
If I'm invited to a vegetarian's house for dinner, I'll eat vegetarian; if I'm invited to a mosque and asked to take my shoes off, I'll take my shoes off; if I'm asked to come to a carol service when some of the lyrics are Christian in nature, I'll sing away.
None of these things are hypocritical at all - just good manners.
What would you do in those circumstances?
-
I'm not sure the first can be justified as the name is extremely important.
The first paragraph is factually correct.
Were Christians in the UK to call Christmas, 'Yule' instead of Christmas I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude that 'Yule' is a Christian festival based on the nativity.
But the situation is different. The Christian Easter can be traced back to a set of late first century documents that link it to the Jewish Pesach. There are no such early documents for Christmas. Furthermore, some traditions associated with Yule seem to have survived, but we know nothing about any festivities associated with Eostre.
Rather we would conclude that the Christian nativity festival had 'co-opted' an earlier pagan festival associated with mid winter and added their religious elements while retaining the name of that older festival.
The earliest attestation to Yule dates from the 4th century and so does the earliest attestation to Christmas.
-
It hasn't been rejected because it is offensive. It's been rejected because DCM received the request and immediately saw that this could be the first of many: religion is a hot topic, and whilst this is relatively innoffensive, others might not be.
Normally that would a 'slippery slope' argument, I'd agree, they can review each advert on its own merits, but the law places strict limits on their capacity to make independent judgments between various religions.
Understanding that, and in light of the backlash from their experience with Scottish independence campaign adverts, they opted for a policy where they aren't going to be showing religious or political adverts.
That's not 'a ban', it's a commercial decision. No-one is stopping anyone else saying anything, a company is choosing not to say it themselves.
O.
Fair dos Outie.
My personal feelings are - if they decide to ban an ad promoting a prayer website where does it end?
Wish they could use the same excuses to ban ALL christmas advertising on the telly to!!
-
My personal feelings are - if they decide to ban an ad promoting a prayer website where does it end?
In principal I'm in favour of the idea that people should be allowed to say what they like and we can judge them on it. The bland, inoffensive pap of the Church of England could then just be largely ignored for the meaningless nothing that it is, whilst more objectionable views could be challenged. Unfortunately, there are Daily Mail and Sun readers allowed out in public without someone to explain for them.
Wish they could use the same excuses to ban ALL christmas advertising on the telly to!!
Maybe not all of it, but there are traditionally twelve days of Christmas, and none of them are in November!
O.
-
The first paragraph is factually correct.
But the situation is different. The Christian Easter can be traced back to a set of late first century documents that link it to the Jewish Pesach. There are no such early documents for Christmas. Furthermore, some traditions associated with Yule seem to have survived, but we know nothing about any festivities associated with Eostre.
The earliest attestation to Yule dates from the 4th century and so does the earliest attestation to Christmas.
It is about time and place. The Christian Paschal can certainly be traced back to the first century, but not the Christian Easter, which is a peculiarity, that can only trace its origin back to the Christianisation of Britain in the 7thC.
So perhaps my Yule analogy wasn't the best, and I wasn't using it in the context of being accurate on timing etc, merely as an example.
So try this one. Imagine that in a particular country with a specific religious tradition there was festival called 'Jump-tide' named after the Autumn god Jump. Then a new religion came into that country and eventually over a century or so that new religion became the dominant one. They had a different festival marking the death of their deity Smash - which they called Smash-son. Bit by bit the people start to mark Smash-son, but unlike everywhere else they continue to describe it as Jump-tide'. I think you'd argue that, at the very least the new religion stole the name, or more likely that the new religion co-opted the older festival and added their religious elements while retaining the name of that older festival.
It wouldn't really make any difference if Smash-son predated Jump-tide elsewhere, merely that Jump-tide predated Smash-son in that particular country, which certainly seems to be the case with Easter compared to Paschal in Anglo-saxon England.
So on Easter, the key dates aren't the 1stC but the 7thC when Christianity became properly embedded in England replacing polytheistic paganism. And Bede (who was writing at the time) is clear in seeing a distinction between Easter (being the old pagan festival) and Paschal (the term he uses to describe the new Christian festival). Yet somehow the term Paschal never took hold.
-
The real truth of this is that you non-believers simply want to indulge in Christmas festivities
We want to, and we do.
and you make these arguments to try and justify your participation.
Participation is justified by the fact that it's enjoyable, which is usually sufficient justification for doing almost anything in life, I find.
I bet you have a Christmas dinner.
I have dinner every other of the 364 days in the year, Bashers; I don't make an exception because it's Christmas. Or is that what non-believers are supposed to do, fast? Not our thing, old fruit.
Why not make up a Pagan dinner, or whatever dinner you want
What would a pagan dinner consist of? I wouldn't know where to start.
instead of hi-jacking a specifically Christian tradition?
Because it isn't one. Christianity doesn't own eating as well as arbitrary positions of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun and every word in the English language.
-
We want to, and we do.Participation is justified by the fact that it's enjoyable, which is usually sufficient justification for doing almost anything in life, I find.I have dinner every other of the 364 days in the year, Bashers; I don't make an exception because it's Christmas. Or is that what non-believers are supposed to do, fast? Not our thing, old fruit.What would a pagan dinner consist of? I wouldn't know where to start.Because it isn't one. Christianity doesn't own eating as well as arbitrary positions of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun and every word in the English language.
Good old Shaky, lame, unconvincing, and as hypocritical as ever.
-
Christmas festivities are part of our culture and has become a time to spend with family and friends. Most people I know see it as this and not as a celebration of the birth of Jesus, although clearly there are many people who do see it as that. I send Christmas cards, have a Christmas dinner and exchange presents because that is what you do at Christmas. I don't sing carols as I find it inappropriate for a non-believer. I don't care whether Christmas is based is a pagan festival or not - to me it is just a cultural tradition which I join in with as it is the done thing and it is nice to have one day focused on families.
Back to the topic of the thread. I have watched the Lords Prayer 'advert' and didn't find anything wrong or offensive with it but can understand why the cinemas or their advertisers have introduced a policy regarding religious and political advertising and think they have every right so to do provided it shows consistency for all religions and political parties and issues.
-
Good old Shaky, lame, unconvincing, and as hypocritical as ever.
I would have thought that having a big feast to mark the mid winter point, the turning of the year so to speak, is pretty inherently pagan, at the very least with a small 'p'.
-
: Sassy on November 23, 2015, 12:22:04 AM
Seen the said advert.. Not selling anything...
Outrider:
Then why do they need an advert?
Why do you need an advert for anything? To let people know as a nation prayer is important in such times.
Prayer is about enlightenment and spiritual need.
Outrider:
That's one opinion. Prayer is about trying to cast magic is another opinion.
What type of magic and how does it work? Does it work? Well are you sure you really thought and understood what you wrote?
Hair shampoo is for those who have hair. Christian prayer is for those who have faith.
Outrider:
So why churn it out at a showing of a work of fiction in which the major factions are involved with a concept based on a Buddhist/Taoist framework?
Ignorance must be bliss for you.
Sometimes it is good to remind people that God is always there to pray to.
Outrider:
Is it? I disagree, it's never worthwhile getting people to pray, it's better to get them to do something useful.
Just say for instance you don't go fishing or even drive then adverts for fishing tackle or Cars would not really be of interest to you.
But you seem to think that you can be prejudicial towards people of faith and not those who fish or drive cars because the advert
is not to your particular beliefs or activities. Grow up O.
Just because they advertise shampoo doesn't mean everyone will need it or use it. But they get the choice that is the freedom to choose... :)
Outrider:
Yes. And those cinemas had the freedom to choose. They didn't choose Christianity - boo hoo... that's not a ban, that's a commentary on the relevance of Christianity in the 21st Century in Britain.
O.
People who don't drive have to watch the car adverts at Cinemas. People who do not use mobile phones have had to watch the Orange adds for years. The relevance of Christianity is that it has been around a lot longer than the things advertised in Cinemas and it is the religion of this Country, You might not like it, but tough live with it...
-
Good old Shaky, lame, unconvincing, and as hypocritical as ever.
to the tune of of Rawhide
'Trollin', trollin', trollin'. Keep those posts a-trolling, raw shite'
-
to the tune of of Rawhide
'Trollin', trollin', trollin'. Keep those posts a-trolling, raw shite'
Ooooh, you used the word 'shite'. :-[
Now expect a 'low life', 'gutter language', 'bad manners' type, telling off.
(something that doesn't seem to happen for the same offence if you are Vlad! Just an observation. ::) )
-
BA, can you tell me what a pagan dinner is? I had no idea such a thing existed.
-
Couldn't resist ;) :P
http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/holidaysandcelebrations/tp/PaganSabbatRecipes.htm
The buttered rum sounds nice
http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/yulecooking/r/Buttered_Rum.htm
Yum!
http://recipesforapagansoul.weebly.com/samhain-oct-31.html
I'm in danger of going off topic, but it's all just seasonal food - that's what the Wheel is, for those who keep it - observing the seasons. Not that all pagans do. But it's not really different from what most people eat at differing times of the year.
The only celebration meal that I can think of that is tied specifically to the beliefs around the particular festival is the tradition of eating milky dishes around Imbolc, which is linked by some to the pregnancy and milk of ewes, but even that isn't definitive.
-
People who don't drive have to watch the car adverts at Cinemas. People who do not use mobile phones have had to watch the Orange adds for years.
Are you really comparing religious beliefs to whether you drive or use a mobile phone?
-
Why do you need an advert for anything?
To sell more, occasionally for public information purposes, although less so these days it seems.
To let people know as a nation prayer is important in such times.
That's a claim I'd love to see the ASA have a look over :) Prayer is important to some people, perhaps, but that says something about them rather than about prayer.
What type of magic and how does it work? Does it work? Well are you sure you really thought and understood what you wrote?
I've no idea, I didn't realise there were different 'types' of magic, given that they're all imaginary. How does it work? It doesn't, from the evidence. Did I think that through - yes, that's just one of the reasons I don't do it.
Ignorance must be bliss for you.
Yours or mine? Yours makes this like shooting fish in a barrel, which isn't that much fun but it is important. My ignorance, in the areas where I am ignorant, are wonderful - they give me things to learn.
Just say for instance you don't go fishing or even drive then adverts for fishing tackle or Cars would not really be of interest to you. But you seem to think that you can be prejudicial towards people of faith and not those who fish or drive cars because the advert is not to your particular beliefs or activities.
No, I haven't decided that I don't want to show it, it's not my decision. The cinema advertising agency has decided that, on balance, getting involved in religious advertising would agitate or irritate more of its customers than would be happy. That might not be a comment, specifically, on this advert, but on the concept of religious advertising generally. That's their call, not mine. I can see their reasoning - the acrimony on here shows that it's a contentious issue when it is an inoffensive example, imagine the possibilities if some fringe group wanted to put their beliefs on the screen.
Grow up O.
What, you mean look at the bigger picture with an awareness of possible implications of a policy with an eye to the legal implications of the anti-discrimination legislation? Or do you mean cry because my club isn't special any more and make up stories about 'bans' and complain that someone else exercising their right to free speech is 'censorship' because they aren't saying what I want them to?
People who don't drive have to watch the car adverts at Cinemas. People who do not use mobile phones have had to watch the Orange adds for years.
The DCM's opinion is that car adverts and mobile phone adverts are unlikely to offend non-drivers and non-callers excessively, whilst religious advertising will irritate other religious viewpoints. They may be right or wrong, but that's their freedom of speech decision to make - they choose what topics they will carry and what topics they won't.
The relevance of Christianity is that it has been around a lot longer than the things advertised in Cinemas and it is the religion of this Country, You might not like it, but tough live with it...
I've had to live with it all my life. And, thankfully, it's having less and less of an impact, becoming less and less relevant. This advertising is, obviously, an attempt to rectify that from the church's point of view, and the cinema chains have decided they don't want to be a part of that. Church's already have their own tax-exempt locations to pray from, they already have priveleged access to schools, they already have reserved time on the national state broadcaster - they aren't short of forced outlets for their speech.
Cinemas are under no compulsion to represent them if they don't want to. They don't want to.
O.
-
to the tune of of Rawhide
'Trollin', trollin', trollin'. Keep those posts a-trolling, raw shite'
:D :D despite the last word!
-
It is about time and place. The Christian Paschal can certainly be traced back to the first century, but not the Christian Easter,
It's the same thing but with a different name, probably depriving from the name of the month in which it usually fell.
So perhaps my Yule analogy wasn't the best, and I wasn't using it in the context of being accurate on timing etc, merely as an example.
I understand that, but I think Yule was a festival that was co-opted or merged with the Christian Christmas. We still have Yule logs and I think that the "Twelve Days of Christmas" are a relic of Yule. Christmas itself is almost certainly a Christianising of some Roman solstice festival e.g. Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, especially when you consider that there is no gospel justification for such a festival.
I think you'd argue that, at the very least the new religion stole the name
I'd certainly agree with that as far as Easter is concerned except that the name may only come from the name of the ancient month rather than any particular festival in it.
or more likely that the new religion co-opted the older festival and added their religious elements
There is no evidence that this happened with Easter, whereas there is evidence it happened with Christmas.
So on Easter, the key dates aren't the 1stC but the 7thC when Christianity became properly embedded in England replacing polytheistic paganism.
But the question is "did Easter taker over any festivals that were there before?" and there is no evidence that it did. Other festivals may have fallen into disuse as a result of Christianity taking over bur none of their customs seem to have made it into Easter.
And Bede (who was writing at the time) is clear in seeing a distinction between Easter (being the old pagan festival) and Paschal (the term he uses to describe the new Christian festival). Yet somehow the term Paschal never took hold.
If Bede thinks there is a distinction between Christian Easter and other contemporary festivals, then surely that is evidence that these festivals were not merged in with Christian Easter?
-
I bet you have a Christmas dinner. Why not make up a Pagan dinner, or whatever dinner you want, instead of hi-jacking a specifically Christian tradition?
What is specifically Christian about a turkey dinner with roast potatoes , stuffing, pigs in blankets and brussels sprouts followed by Christmas pudding? Which of those items I listed would Jesus' family have eaten on his birthday?
-
Vlad,
My personal feelings are - if they decide to ban an ad promoting a prayer website where does it end?
Once again, they have not - and could not - "ban" anything. Bans are generally imposed by official agencies - this outfit is a commercial business that's merely decided to have a commercial policy not to accept business from religious or political clients, any religious or political clients.
If for whatever reason you decided that you didn't like Japanese cars, then the man from your local Toyota dealership rang you with a special offer and you declined would you have "banned" Toyota or just decided not to do business with them?
The more pertinent question by the way would be, if they did accept this ad, where would it end? Scientologists? Fred Phelps? ISIS?
-
What is specifically Christian about a turkey dinner with roast potatoes , stuffing, pigs in blankets and brussels sprouts followed by Christmas pudding? Which of those items I listed would Jesus' family have eaten on his birthday?
Does anyone have a cake with 2000+ candles on it planned for their table? :-\
-
Seb,
Does anyone have a cake with 2000+ candles on it planned for their table? :-\
Only BA I guess, to show how "sincere" he is.
On 25 December I do though plan to call Jesus College Cambridge and to sing "Happy birthday to you". Will that do?
-
What is specifically Christian about a turkey dinner with roast potatoes , stuffing, pigs in blankets and brussels sprouts followed by Christmas pudding? Which of those items I listed would Jesus' family have eaten on his birthday?
I reckon someone could probably find a verse in the Bible, which they could imaginatively construe to mean Jesus liked to partake of those food items on his birthday! ;D
-
Jeremy,
What is specifically Christian about a turkey dinner with roast potatoes , stuffing, pigs in blankets and brussels sprouts followed by Christmas pudding? Which of those items I listed would Jesus' family have eaten on his birthday?
I wouldn't have thought Jesus would have been a big fan of the pigs in blankets at least would he?
-
What is specifically Christian about a turkey dinner with roast potatoes , stuffing, pigs in blankets and brussels sprouts followed by Christmas ...
It's not the dinner!! It's the fact that you celebrate with a dinner on Jesus' birthday. Thought you'd followed that.
-
It's not the dinner!! It's the fact that you celebrate with a dinner on Jesus' birthday. Thought you'd followed that.
But we're not celebrating anything to do with Jesus - I thought you had followed that.
As I said before, I eat dinner every day - Christmas isn't exempt.
-
I reckon someone could probably find a verse in the Bible, which they could imaginatively construe to mean Jesus liked to partake of those food items on his birthday! ;D
You're the Bible expert, still reading it, I gather!. So, you should be able to find such a verse. Well?
-
But we're not celebrating anything to do with Jesus - I thought you had followed that.
As I said before, I eat dinner every day - Christmas isn't exempt.
Not only that - most of constitutes the traditional 'Christmas' dinner features on our plates throughout the year: so remember folks, a turkey isn't just for Christmas!
-
But we're not celebrating anything to do with Jesus - I thought you had followed that.
As I said before, I eat dinner every day - Christmas isn't exempt.
But why are people having a "special" dinner on 25th. then? Do they have these special "spreads" every day, then?
-
But why are people having a "special" dinner on 25th. then? Do they have these special "spreads" every day, then?
To celebrate mid winter of course.
Or for whatever other reason is important for folk at that time of year, which may largely involve a long standing traditional opportunity to spend time with friends and family.
-
It's the fact that you celebrate with a dinner on Jesus' birthday.
And your evidence that Jesus was born on 25th Dec is exactly. Zero.
Unlike the evidence that 25th Dec was (under Julian calendar before its inaccuracy caused drift) the date of the winter solstice.
-
To celebrate mid winter of course.
Or for whatever other reason is important for folk at that time of year, which may largely involve a long standing traditional opportunity to spend time with friends and family.
Mid-winter would be on the 21st. or 22nd. So why the 25th?
-
But why are people having a "special" dinner on 25th. then?
Because it's Christmas - a secular public holiday with its roots in ancient pagan midwinter festivities and customs of varying antiquity.
Do they have these special "spreads" every day, then?
No, as that would be far too much work in the preparation and cooking. Remember that the Christmas lunch is typically cooked by people on holiday, i.e. not at work.
-
And your evidence that Jesus was born on 25th Dec is exactly. Zero.
Unlike the evidence that 25th Dec was (under Julian calendar before its inaccuracy caused drift) the date of the winter solstice.
No, we don't know the exact date of His birth, and it certainly wasn't December 25th., but tradition has been the 25th., and that is when we celebrate it. So why are you joining in the celebration?
-
We're not.
-
We're not.
Then why don't non-Christians have their "bash" on, say 23rd, 27th., or any other day than 25th? It's all holiday time.
-
Then why don't non-Christians have their "bash" on, say 23rd, 27th., or any other day than 25th? It's all holiday time.
Because somebody, for whatever reason, decided upon December 25th as Christmas Day, which in itself is hopelessly wrong in any case.
You're forgetting that calendars are human creations - there are all sorts of different ones and are subject to alteration, tweaking and tampering (as happened in 1752 for example).
-
Then why don't non-Christians have their "bash" on, say 23rd, 27th., or any other day than 25th? It's all holiday time.
Because we prefer to have it on Christmas Day of course! It gets the meal bit over on a day when there is no horse-racing that would otherwise be missed.
-
Mid-winter would be on the 21st. or 22nd. So why the 25th?
A tradition which to many has no connection to Jesus.
-
Because somebody, for whatever reason, decided upon December 25th as Christmas Day.
You're forgetting that calendars are human creations - there are all sorts of different ones and are subject to alteration, tweaking and tampering (as happened in 1752 for example).
Right, some Christian or other, nominally Pope Julius 1. So, I ask again: why do you celebrate on that day?
-
It really isn't that much of a puzzle is it BA? We all grew up as kids celebrating Christmas as a fun family time and carry on that tradition. I personally don't go overboard with it and can take it or leave it but do enjoy spending time with the family.
-
It really isn't that much of a puzzle is it BA?
Seems to be! ::)
-
A tradition which to many has no connection to Jesus.
So why do people celebrate on the particular day, I ask again.
-
Because we want to.
-
So why do people celebrate on the particular day, I ask again.
Because that's the tradition - not that they are really celebrating anything just enjoying time with family, a nice meal and a day off from everyday stuff.
-
So why do people celebrate on the particular day, I ask again.
Tradition, we tell you again. It's not the birthdate of Jesus as you have already stated so your insistence that it's a Christian festival is looking pretty tenuous, isn't it?
-
Because we want to.
Oh no ... I haven't heard that bloody song in years and now it's going to be in my head all night :'(
-
Because that's the tradition - not that they are really celebrating anything just enjoying time with family, a nice meal and a day off from everyday stuff.
That's stuff to celebrate, surely.
-
That's stuff to celebrate, surely.
Yes, of course, but there is more than one meaning to the word and I think BA is using it in a way i wouldn't think applied to that (I think!).
-
TASMINA NASRIN ( look her up.)
Tasmina Nasrin, an award-winning writer, physician, secular humanist and human rights activist, is known for her powerful writings on women, oppression and unflinching criticism of religion, writes:
"I celebrate no religious festivals since my childhood. I don’t celebrate because I am an atheist. I can’t find a reason to celebrate Eid, Puja, Christmas, Hanukkah etc. Do I need to celebrate something? Not really. But if I feel like celebrating a special Day, there are plenty of Days out there. Human Rights Day. Women’s Day, Children’s Day, International Labour Day, World Poetry Day, World Health Day, Darwin Day etc. A humane holiday is universal.
I get surprised when ex-Christian atheists instead of celebrating a day off work, celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in God the "
A non-hypocritical atheist, who says it as it is. So, you lot, have the courage of your convictions!
-
She's referring to ex-Christian atheists.
Doesn't apply to me, then ;)
Also, my nominally Hindu neighbours observe (not really 'celebrate' as such) Christmas and they're not hypocrites - you said so yourself. So why are atheists in the same position hypocrites according to you?
-
She's referring to ex-Christian atheists.
Doesn't apply to me, then ;)
She hit the nail on the head, and what she says includes the likes of you.
-
TASLIMA NASREEN ( look her up.)
Taslima Nasreen, an award-winning writer, physician, secular humanist and human rights activist, is known for her powerful writings on women, oppression and unflinching criticism of religion, writes:
"I celebrate no religious festivals since my childhood. I don’t celebrate because I am an atheist. I can’t find a reason to celebrate Eid, Puja, Christmas, Hanukkah etc. Do I need to celebrate something? Not really. But if I feel like celebrating a special Day, there are plenty of Days out there. Human Rights Day. Women’s Day, Children’s Day, International Labour Day, World Poetry Day, World Health Day, Darwin Day etc. A humane holiday is universal.
I get surprised when ex-Christian atheists instead of celebrating a day off work, celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in God the "
A non-hypocritical atheist, who says it as it is. So, you lot, have the courage of your convictions!
Courage of convictions - not to take part in a nice family day? What would be the point of that? I think the idea that Christmas is necessarily a religious event is wrong. Nothing religious about the way we do it.
-
She hit the nail on the head, and what she says includes the likes of you.
No she didn't, and no it doesn't. How many times does it have to be explained to you?
-
Courage of convictions - not to take part in a nice family day? What would be the point of that? I think the idea that Christmas is a religious event is wrong. Nothing religious about the way we do it.
You haven't appreciated what she said. Your answer is a cop-out.
-
You haven't appreciated what she said. Your answer is a cop-out.
Explain why you think that please.
-
You haven't appreciated what she said.
'Appreciated' is not a synonym for 'agree with.' I've read what she's said carefully; I think it's a load of balls.
-
My kids live in a world where Christmas is just about the biggest thing in theirs and their friends' lives each year. To not allow them to celebrate because we aren't Christian would make me a pompous bigot.
-
You mean, you let them out of the cellar for Christmas??? :o
Kids get everything these days!
-
My kids live in a world where Christmas is just about the biggest thing in theirs and their friends' lives each year. To not allow them to celebrate because we aren't Christian would make me a pompous bigot.
So instead you settle for hypocrisy. As Nasreem put it: "...Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in God."
-
So instead you settle for hypocrisy. As Nasreem put it: "...Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in God."
For it to be hypocrisy one would have to put on 'a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles'. If you aren't pretending to celebrate the birth of Jesus then it isn't hypocrisy. Jesus doesn't come into it for me so no hypocrisy.
-
"Atheists don't believe in God" - she's a sharp one!
No, they don't believe in God. They frequently do however "believe in" (wrong phrase, but ...) celebration, in good times, in light and colour in the midst of darkness and drabness, in good food and good drink, in nice music, in a respite from the weary drudgery of wage slavery, in sharing all of the above with those they love most.
-
Rhi,
...would make me a pompous bigot.
Maybe BA would agree with you a job share?
-
Nasrim went on to say:
" I do not celebrate religious festivals, I do not miss anything. I can celebrate a happy feast any day. I can celebrate a family get-together any day of the year. You can do the same if you want. You can give gifts to the children you love on Children’s Day. You can light up your home and neighbourhood on December 10 to celebrate Human Rights Day or on December 15 to celebrate Bill of Rights Day or on December 16 to celebrate Boston Tea Party Anniversary or Beethoven’s birthday or Victory Day of Bangladesh. Do we really need Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any charlatan’s birthday to have our family re-union, to exchange gifts, to eat good food, or to light up our homes? The answer is simple, no."
That covers all the excuses you lot have lamely tried. She is a clear-sighted, and honest woman. Take a lesson atheists. I may not appreciate her atheism, but I appreciate her honesty and lack of hypocrisy.
-
Nasreem went on to say:
" I do not celebrate religious festivals
Me either.
I do not miss anything. I can celebrate a happy feast any day. I can celebrate a family get-together any day of the year. You can do the same if you want. You can give gifts to the children you love on Children’s Day. You can light up your home and neighbourhood on December 10 to celebrate Human Rights Day or on December 15 to celebrate Bill of Rights Day or on December 16 to celebrate Boston Tea Party Anniversary or Beethoven’s birthday or Victory Day of Bangladesh. Do we really need Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any charlatan’s birthday to have our family re-union, to exchange gifts, to eat good food, or to light up our homes? The answer is simple, no."
Exactly.
That covers all the excuses you lot have lamely tried. She is a clear-sighted, and honest woman. Take a lesson atheists. I may not appreciate her atheism, but I appreciate her honesty and lack of hypocrisy.
Which bit of "Atheists and those of non-Christian religions are not celebrating a religious festival" are you finding so hard to comprehend?
Her examples are, to me, worthy but rather dull in a sort of overly earnest sort of way. Even given my love for music, one of the mainstays of my life, am I really going to observe Beethoven's birthday? No. Boston Tea Party Day means sod all to me, and I don't live in Bangladesh. I'm happy to know that it's Human Rights Day, but it's not a cause for festivities. I celebrate for one day on my birthday because that's all I can get away with, but at the darkest and most colourless time of the year I want more than that.
No, I'm afraid Nasreen just doesn't seem to get the concept of a festival of light and colour at these latitudes at this time of year, any more than you do.
-
Me either.Exactly.
Which bit of "Atheists and those of non-Christian religions are not celebrating a religious festival" are you finding so hard to comprehend?
Keep trying! Once a hypocrite, always a hypocrite!
-
Nasreem went on to say:
" I do not celebrate religious festivals, I do not miss anything. I can celebrate a happy feast any day. I can celebrate a family get-together any day of the year. You can do the same if you want. You can give gifts to the children you love on Children’s Day. You can light up your home and neighbourhood on December 10 to celebrate Human Rights Day or on December 15 to celebrate Bill of Rights Day or on December 16 to celebrate Boston Tea Party Anniversary or Beethoven’s birthday or Victory Day of Bangladesh. Do we really need Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any charlatan’s birthday to have our family re-union, to exchange gifts, to eat good food, or to light up our homes? The answer is simple, no."
That covers all the excuses you lot have lamely tried. She is a clear-sighted, and honest woman. Take a lesson atheists. I may not appreciate her atheism, but I appreciate her honesty and lack of hypocrisy.
That's her point of view - fine. She didn't grow up in Britain with a tradition of celebrating Christmas as a family day did she? Probably sees things differently to people who did.
No one is making excuses or being hypocrites - we have all been honest and said we are not celebrating Jesus's birth by having a Christmas dinner and a day with the family. It is a tradition in Britain which is a harmless and fun one to carry on, nothing more than that. Can you really not see that?
-
BA,
So why do people celebrate on the particular day, I ask again.
Seriously?
Because it's a ancient festival based on the turning of the year (the origin of religious resurrection myths incidentally) that's become embedded in our cultural lives such that most people have the day off work, most people enjoy a convivial time with friends and family, most people take the opportunity for a blow out meal featuring lots of dishes and symbols that long pre-date the arrival of christian beliefs still held by some.
That your particular religion chose to bolt itself onto that festival even though 364 others were available makes the question, "so why do Christians celebrate on that particular day?" the more pertinent one I'd have thought. Luckily for you though most of us aren't pompous or illiterate enough to accuse Christians of 'hypocrisy" even though they don't believe in many of the symbols and rituals of the day they've also co-opted for their own.
-
That's her point of view - fine. She didn't grow up in Britain with a tradition of celebrating Christmas as a family day did she? Probably sees things differently to people who did.
No one is making excuses or being hypocrites - we have all been honest and said we are not celebrating Jesus's birth by having a Christmas dinner and a day with the family. It is a tradition in Britain which is a harmless and fun one to carry on, nothing more than that. Can you really not see that?
She lived for ten years in Europe, and has that experience of Christmas traditions here. No, I do not accept that. Read what Nasrin says, again.
-
'Appreciated' is not a synonym for 'agree with.' I've read what she's said carefully; I think it's a load of balls.
She spoke the truth. The fact that you don't either understand it or appreciate her honesty is no surprise.
-
She lived for ten years in Europe, and has that experience of Christmas traditions here. No, I do not accept that. Read what Nasrin says, again.
I have. She lived in Western Europe for 10 years but did not grow up in Britain with our traditions so does not have the same cultural associations. I don't agree with her point of view. Why do you think I should?
-
Does anyone have a cake with 2000+ candles on it planned for their table? :-\
Well, every time I see a sprout, I think of baby Jesus, yum yum!
-
I have. She lived in Western Europe for 19 years but did not grow up in Britain with our traditions so does not have the same cultural associations. I don't agree with her point of view. Why do you think I should?
Because she's right!
-
Because she's right!
For her, but there is no reason why her views are right for anyone else.
-
For her, but there is no reason why her views are right for anyone else.
If she's right, then her views apply to all atheists.
-
BA,
Because she's right!
Why in your head does someone expressing an opinion with which you happen to agree thereby make her "right" exactly?
As she's an atheist and I agree with atheism, does that make her right about that too then?
-
She spoke the truth. The fact that you don't either understand it or appreciate her honesty is no surprise.
I understand it entirely - and I see no reason to doubt her honesty either. Yet again, these are not alternative words for "correct." She has stated her opinion honestly (so have I), and I disagree with practically all of it. She may have lived in Europe for ten years but it clearly didn't instil in her much understanding of the place of Christmas in secular European culture.
-
If she's right, then her views apply to all atheists.
No, she's expressing how she feels and that she doesn't understand why atheists celebrate the birth of Jesus. What she says makes sense for her but she doesn't seem to understand, like you, that atheists are not celebrating the birth of Jesus but are carrying on a long standing tradition which to them has nothing to do with Jesus.
-
If she's right, then her views apply to all atheists.
In the annals of "Utterly ridiculous twaddle to come out with" that one is outstanding.
-
No, she's expressing how she feels and that she doesn't understand why atheists celebrate the birth of Jesus.
It would be a bit unusual for an atheist to do that, although strictly speaking there's nothing about being an atheist that prevents you from admiring and respecting the example of Jesus if that's how you feel.
I just think that she's fairly firmly out of the loop with how the vast majority of people - Europe-wide, I'd say - see and observe Christmas. What was once a religious festival for everybody now is an entirely secularised public holiday and midwinter festival for the vast majority.
I don't think she's a creationist, but she appears not to understand the concept of evolution in other contexts.
-
It would be a bit unusual for an atheist to do that,
Indeed - but she said 'I get surprised when ex-Christian atheists instead of celebrating a day off work, celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus.' That's where my comment came from.
... although strictly speaking there's nothing about being an atheist that prevents you from admiring and respecting the example of Jesus if that's how you feel.
Again, indeed.
I just think that she's fairly firmly out of the loop with how the vast majority of people - Europe-wide, I'd say - see and observe Christmas. What was once a religious festival for everybody now is an entirely secularised public holiday and midwinter festival for the vast majority.
I think that is how it is for me and many others but not all of course.
I don't think she's a creationist, but she appears not to understand the concept of evolution in other contexts.
[/quote]
-
BA,
Why in your head does someone expressing an opinion with which you happen to agree thereby make her "right" exactly?
As she's an atheist and I agree with atheism, does that make her right about that too then?
You, of course, never would suggest that someone who holds your views is therefore, right!
You are an atheist, so I presume you think she is right, as she is an atheist, too.
-
BA,
You, of course, never would suggest that someone who holds your views is therefore, right!
No I wouldn't. Agreeing with me is no guarantee of rightness - I'd want to understand their reasoning too.
You are an atheist, so I presume you think she is right, as she is an atheist, too.
About what? You do know that it's entirely possible to be a atheist and pretty much an anything else (except a theist) too don't you?
You can be atheist fascist, atheist philanthropist, atheist philatelist for that matter.
-
BA,
No I wouldn't. Agreeing with me is no guarantee of rightness - I'd want to understand their reasoning too.
About what? You do know that it's entirely possible to be a atheist and pretty much an anything else (except a theist) too don't you?
You can be atheist fascist, atheist philanthropist, atheist philatelist for that matter.
I think you know that I'm referring to, since this is a religion and ethics forum.
-
BA,
I think you know that I'm referring to, since this is a religion and ethics forum.
Actually I don't - I couldn't tell whether you were referring to her atheism or to her views about Christmas.
-
BA,
Actually I don't - I couldn't tell whether you were referring to her atheism or to her views about Christmas.
Both. I believe her take is one which atheists ought to espouse, if they are honest with themselves.
-
Both. I believe her take is one which atheists ought to espouse, if they are honest with themselves.
We are being honest with ourselves and enjoying a traditional family time with no suggestion that we are in anyway celebrating the birth of Jesus.
-
You, of course, never would suggest that someone who holds your views is therefore, right!
You are an atheist, so I presume you think she is right, as she is an atheist, too.
Bashers, have you never before encountered the concept of people who agree on one thing disagreeing on another thing?
-
Bashers, have you never before encountered the concept of people who agree on one thing disagreeing on another thing?
Yes I have encountered that!!! What has it to do with accepting what Nasrin says? You just don't want to admit she is right.
-
BA,
Both. I believe her take is one which atheists ought to espouse, if they are honest with themselves.
Then you "believe" wrongly, for reasons that have been explained to you several times now and that you've largely ignored. Why do you think that "honest" Christians shouldn't leave Christmas well alone given the pagan symbols and rituals so embedded in it that they clearly don't believe in? After all, there were 364 days (365 on a leap year) they could have picked instead just as arbitrarily.
-
We are being honest with ourselves and enjoying a traditional family time with no suggestion that we are in anyway celebrating the birth of Jesus.
Then why do it on the 25th? As Nasrin says, if that is what you want, you can do it any time.
-
Yes I have encountered that!!! What has it to do with accepting what Nasrin says?
Because you seem to think that because somebody agrees with her as to the existence of gods, they're somehow duty bound to agree with her about something, anything, everything else.
You just don't want to admit she is right.
She isn't right - I disagree with just about everything she has said, and have explained why, in #504, #507, #519 and #522.
-
Yes I have encountered that!!! What has it to do with accepting what Nasrin says? You just don't want to admit she is right.
I think the bit about agreeing with someone else because they are an atheist too - if you re read the post - is meant to just refer to agreeing on atheism, not anything else.
-
BA,
You just don't want to admit she is right.
Aside from her agreeing with you, so far at least you've provided no argument of any kind to persuade us that she is right.
My view is that she's wrong because she doesn't understand the deep embeddedness of Christmas as a cultural phenomenon in Western society, but there you go.
-
Then why do it on the 25th? As Nasrin says, if that is what you want, you can do it any time.
This has been answered so many times on here is there really a need to say it again!
-
BA,
Then why do it on the 25th?
Why do Christians do it on the 25th - they had plenty of other dates available without nicking someone else's!
-
Nasrin has hit the nail on the head about you lot, and you can waffle away all night, and you won't alter a thing she so rightly says about you, her fellow atheists. I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners. Thank you Taslima Nasrin! 8)
-
Nasrin has hit the nail on the head about you lot, and you can waffle away all night, and you won't alter a thing she so rightly says about you, her fellow atheists. I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners. Thank you Tasmina Nasrin! 8)
Yeah, right. You keep telling yourself that. You haven't addressed any of the points made, have repeatedly asked questions when they have been answered before, and then hidden behind someone else when you didn't have your own words to make a sensible argument. Not really taking anyone to the cleaners now is it. And you make a lot of fuss about bad language because it doesn't show respect for other people, then you take the approach and attitude you have on this thread. There is more than one way of showing disrespect.
-
BA you couldn't take anybody to the cleaners if you walked them into the nearest branch of Johnson's holding their hand.
-
Nasrin has hit the nail on the head about you lot, and you can waffle away all night, and you won't alter a thing she so rightly says about you, her fellow atheists. I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners. Thank you Taslima Nasrin! 8)
Take this quote from her with you since you seem to be in agreement with things that she says!
Religion pulls human beings backwards, it goes against science and progressiveness. Religion engulfs people with a fear of the supernatural. It bars people from laughing and never allows people to exercise their choice.
-
BA,
I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners. Thank you Taslima Nasrin! 8)
Having no argument of your own and simply ignoring the arguments that rebut your opinion is not taking taking someone else to the cleaners, it's being taken to the cleaners yourself.
Incidentally, here are some other gods with birthdays on 25 December: Marduk, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Mithras, Saturn, Sol,
Apollo, Serapis, and Huitzilopochli.
What are the chances eh? It's almost as if all of them plus Jesus had birthdays picked for them on the basis of pre-existing observations about the shortest day, the re-birth of the year etc.
Funny that.
-
I actually think it is far simpler than anyone has admitted so far. The origin of Christmas, and the various rituals etc is not the point. Perhaps it's most recent identity as a festival was most closely associated with Christianity, but those days are waning.
The fact is that Christmas doesn't belong to Christians any more. Perhaps it never did.
None of your protestations are going to change that BA. The horse is long gone. You are fumbling for a barn door that rotted off its hinges years ago.
-
You, of course, never would suggest that someone who holds your views is therefore, right!
You are an atheist, so I presume you think she is right, as she is an atheist, too.
Ah so if someone is a theist, by this logic you must agree with them in everything. So you, Bashful Anthony, are a supporter of the attacks in Paris, Yola and Bamoko.
-
BA,
Having no argument of your own and simply ignoring the arguments that rebut your opinion is not taking taking someone else to the cleaners, it's being taken to the cleaners yourself.
Incidentally, here are some other gods with birthdays on 25 December: Marduk, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Mithras, Saturn, Sol,
Apollo, Serapis, and Huitzilopochli.
What are the chances eh? It's almost as if all of them plus Jesus had birthdays picked for them on the basis of pre-existing observations about the shortest day, the re-birth of the year etc.
Funny that.
With the exception of Mithras I think many on your lists are gods rather than God. Read Bentley Hart on the difference.....Hint.....
gods don't rank with Philosophical naturalism as a world view.
You don't know much about Leprechauns either.
-
Ah so if someone is a theist, by this logic you must agree with them in everything. So you, Bashful Anthony, are a supporter of the attacks in Paris, Yolanda and Bamoko.
I really don't think that BA meant that since she is an atheist that other atheists must agree with her on everything. I think the point was that atheists would say she is right regarding atheism - it was an attempt to point out that atheist would use the word 'right' when they meant they agreed with her regarding atheism, a justification for his use of the word right. I think.
-
I really don't think that BA meant that since she is an atheist that other atheists must agree with her on everything. I think the point was that atheists would say she is right regarding atheism - it was an attempt to point out that atheist would use the word 'right' when they meant they agreed with her regarding atheism, a justification for his use of the word right. I think.
And given their theism was at least in part the reason hat they provide for their behaviour, then they, by his 'logic' should be agreed with and supported by him
-
Nasrim went on to say:
" I do not celebrate religious festivals, I do not miss anything. I can celebrate a happy feast any day. I can celebrate a family get-together any day of the year. You can do the same if you want. You can give gifts to the children you love on Children’s Day. You can light up your home and neighbourhood on December 10 to celebrate Human Rights Day or on December 15 to celebrate Bill of Rights Day or on December 16 to celebrate Boston Tea Party Anniversary or Beethoven’s birthday or Victory Day of Bangladesh. Do we really need Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any charlatan’s birthday to have our family re-union, to exchange gifts, to eat good food, or to light up our homes? The answer is simple, no."
That covers all the excuses you lot have lamely tried. She is a clear-sighted, and honest woman. Take a lesson atheists. I may not appreciate her atheism, but I appreciate her honesty and lack of hypocrisy.
But none of those are close to the actual winter solstice (under the amended Gregorian calendar) nor on the traditional winter solstice under the Julian calendar of 25th Dec that has traditionally been the day of celebration of mid winter long before Jesus' birth.
And if we are on dates for celebrating Jesus' birth don't forget that many Christians don't celebrate on the 25th Dec but in early January - so you guys aren't even consistent which isn't surprising as Dec 25th is a date merely plucked from the air to celebrate Jesus' birth, unlike for celebrating mid winter where it is linked to a real, live event that actually happens (indeed actually happens every year).
-
With the exception of Mithras I think many on your lists are gods rather than God. Read Bentley Hart on the difference.....Hint.....
gods don't rank with Philosophical naturalism as a world view.
You don't know much about Leprechauns either.
No, let's read you on the difference. Tell me the definitions that make some form of logically coherent position and lay out the differences.
-
I actually think it is far simpler than anyone has admitted so far. The origin of Christmas, and the various rituals etc is not the point. Perhaps it's most recent identity as a festival was most closely associated with Christianity, but those days are waning.
The fact is that Christmas doesn't belong to Christians any more. Perhaps it never did.
None of your protestations are going to change that BA. The horse is long gone. You are fumbling for a barn door that rotted off its hinges years ago.
Well said. :)
-
And if we are on dates for celebrating Jesus' birth don't forget that many Christians don't celebrate on the 25th Dec but in early January - so you guys aren't even consistent which isn't surprising as Dec 25th is a date merely plucked from the air to celebrate Jesus' birth, unlike for celebrating mid winter where it is linked to a real, live event that actually happens (indeed actually happens every year).
Firstly, all Christians celebrate the Feast of the Nativity on the 25th of December. Work it out! Secondly, the 25th of December is not a date "merely plucked from the air". As I said on "The Trinity" thread:
"Both the scriptures and creation mystically point to midwinter. We know that St. John the Baptist was born six months before our Lord and in the Gospel he says of Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease". Creation also testifies to this, for the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on midsummer after which the Sun decreases, and the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ on midwinter after which the Sun increases. Both the liturgical calendar and the cosmos are in harmony and of that we should not be surprised for creation speaks of him through whom all things were made."
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9512.msg563030#msg563030
-
And given their theism was at least in part the reason hat they provide for their behaviour, then they, by his 'logic' should be agreed with and supported by him
No.
-
No.
You would have to flesh that out a bit.
-
If someone says they believe there is a God and someone else says they are 'right' then they are saying they agree there is a God , not agreeing with everything else that person thinks. In this case the point was, I believe, that since BA agreed with what the person said he was correct in saying that she was right. He said that he assumed atheists would say someone else who said they didn't believe in God was 'right' on this not necessarily right on everything. It was about whether the word 'right' was correct in a situation where you shared a common point of view on something.
-
If someone says they believe there is a God and someone else says they are 'right' then they are saying they agree there is a God , not agreeing with everything else that person thinks. In this case the point was, I believe, that since BA agreed with what the person said he was correct in saying that she was right. He said that he assumed atheists would say someone else who said they didn't believe in God was 'right' on this not necessarily right on everything. It was about whether the word 'right' was correct in a situation where you shared a common point of view on something.
But 'this' is nothing to do with being atheist unless you assume that being an atheist means you agree on things other than not believing in God. Since Bash has not put any boundaries around that supposed agreement then logically the point about agreeing with the murderers in Yola applies. He doesn't, of course, actually believe that but that means his 'argument' falls.
-
But 'this' is nothing to do with being atheist unless you assume that being an atheist means you agree on things other than not believing in God.
What 'this'?
Since Bash has not put any boundaries around that supposed agreement then logically the point about agreeing with the murderers in Yola applies. He doesn't, of course, actually believe that but that means his 'argument' falls.
His argument here was that it is correct to use the word 'right' when you agree with someone on something. It is not at all logical to extrapolate that to suggest that he thinks the murderers in Yola where right.
The wider discussion is about a different argument where I, clearly, think he is wrong. It is no
-
That it is wrong for an atheist to celebrate Christmas. Note you were the first to use the term 'this' so I assumed you were talking about that. His comment on it doesn't limit in any sense what atheists are want to agree on, and clearly implies that it should be everything.
-
That it is wrong for an atheist to celebrate Christmas.
A seperate argument.
Note you were the first to use the term 'this' so I assumed you were talking about that.
I thought I had made it clear in a couple of posts at least what I was referring to. When I used 'this' I said 'He said that he assumed atheists would say someone else who said they didn't believe in God was 'right' on this not necessarily right on everything.' so seems pretty clear what I was referring to and it wasn't the argument about whether atheists should celebrate Christmas.
His comment on it doesn't limit in any sense what atheists are want to agree on, and clearly implies that it should be everything.
Not to me and I really think you are taking the interpretation way too far.
-
Firstly, all Christians celebrate the Feast of the Nativity on the 25th of December.
Really, and there was me thinking that Christmas was celebrated on the 7th Jan in some places, for example Russia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_in_Russia
And Greece, and Ukraine etc etc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11329660/Where-is-Christmas-being-celebrated-on-January-7.html
-
Dear Samuel,
The fact is that Christmas doesn't belong to Christians any more. Perhaps it never did.
Help me out here, where am I going wrong in my thinking.
Christmas, Christ's Mass, Mass, The Eucharist, atheists are celebrating this?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Samuel,
Help me out here, where am I going wrong in my thinking.
Christmas, Christ's Mass, Mass, The Eucharist, atheists are celebrating this?
Gonnagle.
I doubt that.
-
Vlud,
With the exception of Mithras I think many on your lists are gods rather than God. Read Bentley Hart on the difference.....
Whether people thought these gods were ones among many or the only real one has no relevance whatever to that fact that they were all given the same birthday.
Hint.....
gods don't rank with Philosophical naturalism as a world view.
Hint...stop spouting gibberish and try to grasp what's actually being said here.
You don't know much about Leprechauns either.
But here's the thing - on what basis do you think you "know" anything about your pick of the available deities either? For all you know I may think I've "intuited" every bit as much knowledge about leprechauns as you think you've "intuited" knowledge about the christian god.
As you utterly ever to provide a method of any kind to distinguish the epistemic value of your claims abut "god" from the epistemic value of my claims about leprechauns, we must be equally knowledgeable or equally ignorant as you please.
Oh, and as it seems to have slipped your mind again:
Bluehillside's fourth maxim clearly states that any argument for god that works equally well for leprechauns is probably a bad argument.
Maybe if you wrote it down a hundred times or something you'd stop blundering into the same mistake about the content of the respective claims?
-
a_o,
Firstly, all Christians celebrate the Feast of the Nativity on the 25th of December. Work it out! Secondly, the 25th of December is not a date "merely plucked from the air". As I said on "The Trinity" thread:
"Both the scriptures and creation mystically point to midwinter. We know that St. John the Baptist was born six months before our Lord and in the Gospel he says of Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease". Creation also testifies to this, for the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on midsummer after which the Sun decreases, and the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ on midwinter after which the Sun increases. Both the liturgical calendar and the cosmos are in harmony and of that we should not be surprised for creation speaks of him through whom all things were made."
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9512.msg563030#msg563030
First, not all christians do that at all.
Second, "mystically pointing" is fun and all if you like that kind of thing but the fact remains that many cultures from many places at many different times have come up with many different gods and given all of them the same birthday - the winter solstice - for fairly obvious reasons to do with the symbolism of the "birth" of a new year.
Now if you want to claim not only that your god is the only real one but also, by a remarkable co-incidence, that he happened to have the same birthday as many of the preceding false ones that's up to you but evidentially it's looking a bit suspect don't you think?
-
Gonners,
Help me out here, where am I going wrong in my thinking.
Christmas, Christ's Mass, Mass, The Eucharist, atheists are celebrating this?
No - the winter solstice festival long pre-dates the arrival of christianity, and was already embedded in our (and other) cultures before then. The christian faith came relatively late to the party, became powerful enough to have it re-branded "Christmas" and added a few rituals and symbols of its own. To a large extent the influence of christianity in this country at least has declined, but we're still left with some of the trappings it brought (literally) to the table.
These days, unless they happen to be christians, most folks are happy enough to enjoy the fact of holiday and a bit of a knees up with no particular reference to the baby Jesus, despite the bleatings of the BAs of this world that his faith somehow claims squatters rights over it.
Presumably though BA would not accept a charge of hypocrisy for having a christmas tree - a ritual heavily laden with pre-christian symbolism, later re-popularised by the Victorians - because he doesn't believe sincerely in paganism. Now that's hypocritical!
-
No - the winter solstice festival long pre-dates the arrival of christianity, and was already embedded in our (and other) cultures before then.
And wasn't traditionally celebrated on Dec 25th. More often than not, it was celebrated 3 days earlier on the 22nd.
By the way, at which point did the year's beginning become 'January 1st'. Would older cultures have had the new year starting immediately after the solstice?
-
Hope,
And wasn't traditionally celebrated on Dec 25th. More often than not, it was celebrated 3 days earlier on the 22nd.
By the way, at which point did the year's beginning become 'January 1st'. Would older cultures have had the new year starting immediately after the solstice?
It's more complicated than that, and has to do with calendrics. As calendars were introduced they tended to get the exact length of the year wrong, so festival dates drifted over time. Either way though, the winter "old year out, new year in" festival tradition is pretty universal, so it's hardly surprising that christianity adopted it too.
-
Really, and there was me thinking that Christmas was celebrated on the 7th Jan in some places, for example Russia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_in_Russia
And Greece, and Ukraine etc etc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11329660/Where-is-Christmas-being-celebrated-on-January-7.html
Only according to the Gregorian calendar.
-
Firstly, all Christians celebrate the Feast of the Nativity on the 25th of December. Work it out!
This is actually a misnomer, a_o, and will, to an extent, depend on which calender one is working on. Some Orthodox believers celebrate early in what we would call January. Whilst we were working in nepal, the Nepalese church was seriously considering moving Christmas to the end of October/early November, so as to coincide with what is the main Nepalese cultural festival.
Secondly, the 25th of December is not a date "merely plucked from the air". As I said on "The Trinity" thread:
"Both the scriptures and creation mystically point to midwinter. ...
Except, of course, for those passages that suggest that it occurred at a different time of year. And therein lies the problem: there is no Biblical passage that provides a definitive timing of the event. However, extra-Biblical records - such the Roman records concerning the census and scientific records concerning the comet that is likely the 'star' - place the event sometime in early to mid-autumn - late September/early October.
... We know that St. John the Baptist was born six months before our Lord and in the Gospel he says of Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease". Creation also testifies to this, for the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on midsummer after which the Sun decreases, and the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ on midwinter after which the Sun increases. Both the liturgical calendar and the cosmos are in harmony and of that we should not be surprised for creation speaks of him through whom all things were made."
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9512.msg563030#msg563030
As I understand it from what I have read, the celebration of Jesus' birth didn't become common until the 3rd or 4th century AD, and most saints' days became popular in the 4th or 5th, so dating Christmas by referring to a saint's day is the wrong way round.
-
a_o,
First, not all christians do that at all.
Second, "mystically pointing" is fun and all if you like that kind of thing but the fact remains that many cultures from many places at many different times have come up with many different gods and given all of them the same birthday - the winter solstice - for fairly obvious reasons to do with the symbolism of the "birth" of a new year.
Now if you want to claim not only that your god is the only real one but also, by a remarkable co-incidence, that he happened to have the same birthday as many of the preceding false ones that's up to you but evidentially it's looking a bit suspect don't you think?
Even the Russians and the Greeks celebrate the Nativity on the 25th of December, just not according to the Gregorian calendar. I thought people knew that.
As for the pagans, they saw creation pointng towards a certain time but they did not know what it was they were celebrating. Instead they decided to dedicate it to idols and demons instead of the one true God.
-
Only according to the Gregorian calendar.
Which is de facto international standard. And although there are some countries that don't use it as standard all those countries that celebrate on the 7th Jan use the Gregorian calendar, as do those who celebrate on the 25th Dec.
So you accept that some Christians celebrate Christmas one one day and others celebrate nearly 2 weeks later.
-
Dear Blue,
Ah yes but!! my point is, actually I think it is two points, Christians do own Christmas, Christ's Mass, and non Christians are not in fact celebrating Christmas, Christ's Mass.
You know, personally I would be happy with non Christians just raising a glass and saying, happy birthday big man thanks for the day off, although I will be working, hell it's treble time 8) yes, yes!! I know, straight to hell Gonnagle, although I will be collecting £200 ;) ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Which is de facto international standard. And although there are some countries that don't use it as standard all those countries that celebrate on the 7th Jan use the Gregorian calendar, as do those who celebrate on the 25th Dec.
So you accept that some Christians celebrate Christmas one one day and others celebrate nearly 2 weeks later.
You're confusing the secular calendar with the liturgical calendar. All Christians, according to their liturgical calendars, celebrate the Nativity on the 25th of December.
-
You're confusing the secular calendar with the liturgical calendar. All Christians, according to their liturgical calendars, celebrate the Nativity on the 25th of December.
Then they don't agree on their calendar.
I ask again (and will rephrase just to make sure there is absolute clarity) - do you accept that there will be some Christians celebrating Christmas in 29 days time and others who will celebrate it nearly 2 weeks later.
-
Dear Samuel,
Help me out here, where am I going wrong in my thinking.
Christmas, Christ's Mass, Mass, The Eucharist, atheists are celebrating this?
Gonnagle.
No, we're celebrating a culturally traditionally midwinter festival of food, gifts, family, music, TV spectaculars and music. Some of that has had religious influences from the past, some people still choose to emphasise those religious elements. One of those religious elements is the name, 'Christmas'.
Whilst it might have had a religious origin as a name, neither the origins of the festival nor the current celebration are intrinsically Christian.
O.
-
Then they don't agree on their calendar.
I ask again (and will rephrase just to make sure there is absolute clarity) - do you accept that there will be some Christians celebrating Christmas in 29 days time and others who will celebrate it nearly 2 weeks later.
Of course, yet that's not because they disagree on the date but rather the calendar.
-
Dear Outrider,
No, we're celebrating a culturally traditionally midwinter festival of food, gifts, family, music, TV spectaculars and music.
Fair enough, not Christmas.
Dear Mods,
I think we can shut this thread down now, Christians 2 non Christians 0.
Gonnagle it is not a competition, like hell it's not :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
This is actually a misnomer, a_o, and will, to an extent, depend on which calender one is working on. Some Orthodox believers celebrate early in what we would call January. Whilst we were working in nepal, the Nepalese church was seriously considering moving Christmas to the end of October/early November, so as to coincide with what is the main Nepalese cultural festival.
Except, of course, for those passages that suggest that it occurred at a different time of year. And therein lies the problem: there is no Biblical passage that provides a definitive timing of the event. However, extra-Biblical records - such the Roman records concerning the census and scientific records concerning the comet that is likely the 'star' - place the event sometime in early to mid-autumn - late September/early October.
As I understand it from what I have read, the celebration of Jesus' birth didn't become common until the 3rd or 4th century AD, and most saints' days became popular in the 4th or 5th, so dating Christmas by referring to a saint's day is the wrong way round.
Actually Tertullian or Irenaeus (I can't remember which one) gives us a clue regarding the date for the Nativity, that being the Feast of the Annunciation (one of the oldest feasts in the liturgical calendar) which falls on the 25th of March, it being believed that our Mord died on the cross on the same day of the year he was conceived.
-
"Both the scriptures and creation mystically point to midwinter. We know that St. John the Baptist was born six months before our Lord and in the Gospel he says of Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease". Creation also testifies to this, for the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on midsummer after which the Sun decreases, and the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ on midwinter after which the Sun increases. Both the liturgical calendar and the cosmos are in harmony and of that we should not be surprised for creation speaks of him through whom all things were made."
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9512.msg563030#msg563030
This is the most non-sense bit of circular arguing I have heard in a long time. And you should perhaps take this up with your co-religionists Hope and BA who also think you are talking rubbish.
But to nail your points.
1. Is there any credible historical evidence that John the baptist was born on 25th June (or thereabouts) - No.
2. Is there any credible historical evidence that Jesus was born on 25th Dec (or thereabouts) - No.
3. Is there any credible historical evidence that John the baptist was born 6 months before Jesus - well not sure if it is credible, but yes. In Luke 1 where it is suggested that Mary became pregnant when Elizabeth was already 6 months pregnant. But that's it.
-
Why would I care what Hope and BS...sorry, I meant BA, think? What I care about is holding fast to those things we have received from the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:14; Jude 1:3).
-
Why would I care what Hope and BS...sorry, I meant BA, think? What I care about is holding fast to those things we have received from the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:14; Jude 1:3).
And what do those tow verses tell us about the birth dates of either Jesus or John?
Oh yes, exactly nothing.
-
But to nail your points.
1. Is there any credible historical evidence that John the baptist was born on 25th June (or thereabouts) - No.
2. Is there any credible historical evidence that Jesus was born on 25th Dec (or thereabouts) - No.
3. Is there any credible historical evidence that John the baptist was born 6 months before Jesus - well not sure if it is credible, but yes. In Luke 1 where it is suggested that Mary became pregnant when Elizabeth was already 6 months pregnant. But that's it.
For what it is worth I think a reasonably convincing argument can be made from Scripture that the birth of Jesus was probably late September or early October in the year 5BC, with John the Baptist's birth being perhaps mid-April of that year In addition to the Luke 1:26 passage mentioned in Point 3 above it also necessary to appeal to a few other NT passages and one critical passage in the OT in reaching this conclusion.
Jesus would then have commenced His ministry at the age of thirty, immediately following His baptism by John, in late Sept to early Oct AD 26. The crucifixion at Passover would have been in early April AD 30, following a ministry of exactly three and a half years.
But then I accept the Scriptures as credible evidence! So at this point probably best to agree to disagree.
-
I'm saying that the faith the Church has received from the Apostles is much more important to me than the opinions of two of our posters.
-
I'm saying that the faith the Church has received from the Apostles is much more important to me than the opinions of two of our posters.
But we are talking about the date of birth of Jesus and John and as we've seen there is absolutely nothing within the bible to support your view that Jesus was born on 25th Dec and John on 25th June - absolutely nothing whatsoever, zilch, zip, nada ???
-
I would say, as I have already argued, that the scriptures do point to mid-winter. I hope you also realise that being an Orthodox Christian I do not hold to sola scriptura but that the ancient liturgies of the Church are essentially as authorative as the scriptures for both belong to the same tradition.
-
I would say, as I have already argued, that the scriptures do point to mid-winter. I hope you also realise that being an Orthodox Christian I do not hold to sola scriptura but that the ancient liturgies of the Church are essentially as authorative as the scriptures for both belong to the same tradition.
Where do they point to mid winter?
-
I would say, as I have already argued, that the scriptures do point to mid-winter.
No they don't - as I made clear earlier (and others including other christians agree) there is nothing in the scripture that pin-points the birth of Jesus to late Dec or John to late June, although there is some scant information that suggests they were born 6 months apart.
I hope you also realise that being an Orthodox Christian I do not hold to sola scriptura but that the ancient liturgies of the Church are essentially as authorative as the scriptures for both belong to the same tradition.
You can hold to whatever you like, but I'm asking for evidence - and there is no credible evidence to back up your assertion.
-
For what it is worth I think a reasonably convincing argument can be made from Scripture that the birth of Jesus was probably late September or early October in the year 5BC, with John the Baptist's birth being perhaps mid-April of that year In addition to the Luke 1:26 passage mentioned in Point 3 above it also necessary to appeal to a few other NT passages and one critical passage in the OT in reaching this conclusion.
Jesus would then have commenced His ministry at the age of thirty, immediately following His baptism by John, in late Sept to early Oct AD 26. The crucifixion at Passover would have been in early April AD 30, following a ministry of exactly three and a half years.
But then I accept the Scriptures as credible evidence! So at this point probably best to agree to disagree.
I don't thick we are disagreeing, as what you have said is entirely consistent with my points that:
1. Is there any credible historical evidence that John the baptist was born on 25th June (or thereabouts) - No.
2. Is there any credible historical evidence that Jesus was born on 25th Dec (or thereabouts) - No.
-
No they don't - as I made clear earlier (and others including other christians agree) there is nothing in the scripture that pin-points the birth of Jesus to late Dec or John to late June, although there is some scant information that suggests they were born 6 months apart.
You can hold to whatever you like, but I'm asking for evidence - and there is no credible evidence to back up your assertion.
No, you just don't accept the method, the method being mysticism.
-
a_o,
No, you just don't accept the method, the method being mysticism.
In what way do you think mysticism to be a "method" exactly?
-
No, you just don't accept the method, the method being mysticism.
Mysticism isn't a method, it's a word used to justify assertions in the absence of a method.
O.
-
Christians do own Christmas, Christ's Mass, and non Christians are not in fact celebrating Christmas, Christ's Mass.
So they don't own Easter then. Or Sunday.
-
Mysticism isn't a method, it's a word used to justify assertions in the absence of a method.
O.
I agree.
-
mys·ti·cism.
[ˈmistəˌsizəm]
NOUN
1.
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2.
belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.
I assume Ad O is using it in the first rather than the second sense.
Still not a method though.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
So they don't own Easter then. Or Sunday.
Ah well!! ( that Jermyp is such a smarty pants )
Gonnagle.
-
I assume Ad O is using it in the first rather than the second sense.
Still not a method though.
Why? Still, method or route or whatever you want to call the process by which one gets from A to B, mysticism has always belonged to the faith.
-
No, you just don't accept the method, the method being mysticism.
A quote which demonstrates very clearly that AO has no credible evidence.
Thank you for confirming my view.
-
A quote which demonstrates very clearly that AO has no credible evidence.
Thank you for confirming my view.
Well, fuck me! Even if it was explicit you still wouldn't believe it, therefore nothing the scriptures say, whether explictly or implicitly, would be "credible" in your eyes. May I direct you to my signature.
-
Well, fuck me! Even if it was explicit you still wouldn't believe it, therefore nothing the scriptures say, whether explictly or implicitly, would be "credible" in your eyes. May I direct you to my signature.
Wrong - earlier I clearly accepted that there was evidence in the scriptures that Jesus and John were born 6 months apart.
Of course that needs to be taken in the context of it being a single statement in a single source. Whether one believes it or not is a secondary point, but nonetheless there is a claim in the scriptures to that effect.
However there is nothing in the scriptures that alludes to Jesus being born in Dec and John in June - nothing. So there isn't any need for me to chose to believe it or not, because there is nothing there to believe or to refute.
-
May I direct you to my signature.
Well rationalism certainly isn't going to lead to religion that's for sure ::)
-
Wrong - earlier I clearly accepted that there was evidence in the scriptures that Jesus and John were born 6 months apart.
Of course that needs to be taken in the context of it being a single statement in a single source. Whether one believes it or not is a secondary point, but nonetheless there is a claim in the scriptures to that effect.
However there is nothing in the scriptures that alludes to Jesus being born in Dec and John in June - nothing. So there isn't any need for me to chose to believe it or not, because there is nothing there to believe or to refute.
There is something. I provided it in my first post.
-
There is something. I provided it in my first post.
No you haven't.
All you did was provide a circular argument based on a starting point of presumption that one or other of Jesus/John's birthdays was on Dec 31st/June 31st. Without actually providing evidence that either is the case then you can't use the 6 months apart to suggest the birthdate of the other. So effectively you are using your conclusion to justify your argument.
Fail - try again.
-
No you haven't.
All you did was provide a circular argument based on a starting point of presumption that one or other of Jesus/John's birthdays was on Dec 31st/June 31st. Without actually providing evidence that either is the case then you can't use the 6 months apart to suggest the birthdate of the other. So effectively you are using your conclusion to justify your argument.
Fail - try again.
I did. "He must increase, but I must decrease." This is the passage nterpreted mystically. I can't remember whether it was Ratzinger's book "The Spirit Of The Liturgy" of the first book in his "Jesus Of Nazareth" series but he too uses the same verse. Mysticism has always been used in the Christianity to understand the scriptures and is perfectly legitimate.
-
Fair enough, not Christmas.
Hey Gonners
this is kind of my point. Christianity no longer defines what Christmas is about. In that sense it no longer owns it as a festival. You can insist as much as you like that it is Christ's Mass, but it won't change the fact that secular society has almost entirely appropriated the name and broad values of Christmas as a festival.
Its tough, but that's the way the horrible blue ones in the quality street crumble...
-
I did. "He must increase, but I must decrease." This is the passage nterpreted mystically. I can't remember whether it was Ratzinger's book "The Spirit Of The Liturgy" of the first book in his "Jesus Of Nazareth" series but he too uses the same verse. Mysticism has always been used in the Christianity to understand the scriptures and is perfectly legitimate.
No you didn't.
You have taken a quote out of context and put a bizarre spin on it.
In context:
'You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ 29 The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.'
Any sane person would interpret this as John indicating that Jesus was to be greater than him and therefore once Jesus is on the scene John's important will decrease while Jesus' will increase.
The suggestion that this phrase means I was born in late June and Jesus in late Dec is totally bizarre, or rather a clear example of quote mining, putting two and two together to make about one thousand in order to try to prove a point for which you have no evidence.
-
Er, yes I did. Here: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11232.msg573057#msg573057
You must be blind. You also have a very one dimensional view of the scriptures. The scriptures can and do have more than one sense. So, I would agree with the interpretation you give but wouldn't limit it to just that for mystically it also points to something else.
-
Er, yes I did. Here: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11232.msg573057#msg573057
You must be blind. You also have a very one dimensional view of the scriptures. The scriptures can and do have more than one sense. So, I would agree with the interpretation you give but wouldn't limit it to just that for mystically it also points to something else.
People seem to be able to interpret the Bible any which way to suit their take on faith!
-
Er, yes I did. Here: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11232.msg573057#msg573057
You must be blind. You also have a very one dimensional view of the scriptures. The scriptures can and do have more than one sense. So, I would agree with the interpretation you give but wouldn't limit it to just that for mystically it also points to something else.
Nope - wrong again.
You have suggested that "He must increase, but I must decrease." means I was born in June, he was born in Dec - perhaps the most bizarre interpretation I've heard in a long while (and there are many bizarre interpretations around).
And even if it was to be taken in the context of the sun (which is frankly bonkers), it still makes no sense because after June the sun decreases only for 6 months, then increases again ... and repeat ad nausiam.
-
Dear Outrider,
Fair enough, not Christmas.
Dear Mods,
I think we can shut this thread down now, Christians 2 non Christians 0.
Gonnagle it is not a competition, like hell it's not :P :P
Gonnagle.
I think that's silly, Gonners. (silly, a word originally meaning worthy or blessed)
I think Christmas has a myriad of subtly different meanings to those who celebrate it.(myriad, a word originally meaning exactly 10000)
You seem a regular kind of guy though. (guy, originally meaning an eponymus Guy Fawkws or, from that, a frightful figure)
I shall be partaking in the usual Christmas celebrations(Christmas, a word originally meaning Christ's Mass) without any thought of the birth of Jesus whatsoever. Indeed I, no doubt like many others, will be taking my fill of meat and drink at this time. (meat, a word which originally meant any solid food)
I think that the Christian importance given to the word 'Christmas' is gradually fizzling out, at least in this country. (fizzle, a word which originally meant quiet flatulence).
Cheers ;) :)
-
You're lost, I'm afraid, because you're shackled to your rationalist way of thinking, which has been the downfall of the West. It's quite obvious from your posts on this thread and your one dimensional thinking.
-
You're lost, I'm afraid, because you're shackled to your rationalist way of thinking, which has been the downfall of the West. It's quite obvious from your posts on this thread and your one dimensional thinking.
The West (which you live in too) seems to be doing all right as far as I can see with its rationalistic shackles - you know, those same shackles which have not only given you the life you lead but have saved it, possibly on more than one occasion. Unless your idea of all right is living in some benighted disease-ridden hell hole wiping the dysentery off your arse with leaves.
No accounting for tastes.
-
You're lost, I'm afraid, because you're shackled to your rationalist way of thinking, which has been the downfall of the West. It's quite obvious from your posts on this thread and your one dimensional thinking.
Not sure whether that comment was aimed at me or others, but I'll comment anyhow.
I think the person who is 'lost' is the one who is so beholden to a view that they feel they must create or manipulate the evidence so as to confirm their view. That is stifling and ultimately, of course, the road to ruin. The world is (and has been) full of 'empires' that 'knew they were right', created evidence to 'prove' they were right and created structures to try to maintain their unevidenced dogma. And guess what - they fail. The world develops, it progresses, it changes and the smart people look for evidence and then use that evidence to decide what to do and what is right, not the other way around.
So the one dimensional thinker is the person chained to a non rational dogma, not the one who allows rationalism to open their eyes to all sorts of possibilities.
-
Not sure whether that comment was aimed at me or others, but I'll comment anyhow.
I think the person who is 'lost' is the one who is so beholden to a view that they feel they must create or manipulate the evidence so as to confirm their view. That is stifling and ultimately, of course, the road to ruin. The world is (and has been) full of 'empires' that 'knew they were right', created evidence to 'prove' they were right and created structures to try to maintain their unevidenced dogma. And guess what - they fail. The world develops, it progresses, it changes and the smart people look for evidence and then use that evidence to decide what to do and what is right, not the other way around.
So the one dimensional thinker is the person chained to a non rational dogma, not the one who allows rationalism to open their eyes to all sorts of possibilities.
One can only understand the scriptures properly through the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that is, through the ancient liturgies, the holy councils, the fathers and the lives of the saints. Everything else is just the opinion of men.
-
One can only understand the scriptures properly through the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that is, through the ancient liturgies, the holy councils, the fathers and the lives of the saints. Everything else is just the opinion of men.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU
-
One can only understand the scriptures properly through the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that is, through the ancient liturgies, the holy councils, the fathers and the lives of the saints. Everything else is just the opinion of men.
Every word of which is just the opinion of men (or actually one man, you).
And guess what - had the early church chosen September 5th as the day to celebrate the birth of Jesus you would be swearing blind that some random phrase in the bible 'proved' that John was born on March 5th and Jesus on Sept 5th.
-
Worth repeating (Taslima Nasrin), for the poor atheists still trying to excuse the inexcusable, from an atheist who is honest and realistic:
"I celebrate no religious festivals since my childhood. I don’t celebrate because I am an atheist. I can’t find a reason to celebrate Eid, Puja, Christmas, Hanukkah etc. Do I need to celebrate something? Not really. But if I feel like celebrating a special Day, there are plenty of Days out there. Human Rights Day. Women’s Day, Children’s Day, International Labour Day, World Poetry Day, World Health Day, Darwin Day etc. A humane holiday is universal.
I get surprised when ex-Christian atheists instead of celebrating a day off work, celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in God the father, Jesus the son or the holy spirit. Atheists are not Christians, they do not need to participate in Christian holiday.
Many atheists even celebrate the pagan festival of winter solstice. Why do they need to celebrate a Pagan festival? It is true that many rituals of modern Christmas celebrations are pagan. But this is not a good reason to celebrate Christmas or Solstice. Atheists are neither pagan nor Christian. They don’t uphold ancient pagan superstitions, so why do so with those which happen to be popular at Christmas time? There’s nothing about ancient paganism which is any more rational than modern Christianity."
-
It was cobblers when you posted it yesterday. Do you really think mindless repetition stands in for a properly thought out, well argued case?
-
It is the consensus of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. That is how we know, for our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Everything points to mid-winter, not only the scriptures nut also the ancient liturgies (including the calendar), the testimony of the fathers, the holy councils, even creation itself which is an icon which, by-the-way, is why those who still keep the traditions handed down to us face East when we pray, ad orientem. Lex orandi lex credendi!
-
It was cobblers when you posted it yesterday. Do you really think mindless repetition stands in for a properly thought out, well argued case?
You can only resort to aimless denunciation, as always. As an atheist, she is streets ahead of you in honesty and truthfulness.
-
You can only resort to aimless denunciation, as always. As an atheist, she is streets ahead of you in honesty and truthfulness.
How would you know? You haven't the faintest idea of her truthfulness or the lack of it; she has merely said something with which you agree, which is a very different matter indeed.
And given your demonstrable (in fact, demonstrated) duplicity and hypocrisy with regard to so-called "bad language" as demonstrated by me last night on another thread you are in no position to lecture anyone on truthfulness. What does your book say about eyes, motes and beams?
-
It was cobblers when you posted it yesterday. Do you really think mindless repetition stands in for a properly thought out, well argued case?
Yep - the problem with this piece from BA's favourite atheist is the assumption being made that atheists are somehow celebrating some form of divinity: which is unreconstructed bollocks, since for those unencumbered by any version of theism Christmas is no more, or less, than a mid-winter break.
-
How would you know? You haven't the faintest idea of her truthfulness or the lack of it; she has merely said something with which you agree, which is a very different matter indeed.
And given your demonstrable duplicity and hypocrisy with regard to so-called "bad language" as demonstrated by me last night on another thread you are in no position to lecture anyone on truthfulness. What does your book say about eyes, motes and beams?
First of all, she is an award-winning individual, which puts her streets ahead of little you.
As to the swearing bit: I answered that, adequately, and you, typically, ignore that. Hence at least one reason that you could never hold a light to the likes of Nasrin for truthfulness and realism. Sorry old fella, you fail the test.
-
So we have moved on from certificates to awards? BA, Floo in this weird cosy cuddle of irrelevance.
-
So we have moved on from certificates to awards? BA, Floo in this weird cosy cuddle of irrelevance.
Why not? It merely indicates her intellectual and moral sueriority over the atheists on here.
-
First of all, she is an award-winning individual, which puts her streets ahead of little you.
This combined deflection-cum-ad hominem is supposed to vouch for her honesty how, exactly? Johann Hari is, or was, an award-winning journalist who a few years ago was found to be guilty of plagiarism and altering Wikipedia pages using an alias, for which he returned the Orwell Prize he had won earlier and had to leave the Independent. Winning awards doesn't seem to tie in with honesty, does it - indeed, how on earth could it?
As to the swearing bit: I answered that, adequately, and you, typically, ignore that.
I can't ignore what I haven't first seen. Where did you "answer it adequately"? Adequately to whom, for that matter? A link will do nicely. Simple enough to provide, yes?
-
Why not? It merely indicates her intellectual and moral sueriority over the atheists on here.
Are you just taking the 'p'?
-
Somebody took it ;)
-
This combined deflection-cum-ad hominem is supposed to vouch for her honesty how, exactly? Johann Hari is, or was, an award-winning journalist who a few years ago was found to be guilty of plagiarism and altering Wikipedia pages using an alias, for which the returned the Orwell Prize he had won earlier and had to leave the Independent.
I can't ignore what I haven't first seen. Where did you "answer it adequately"? Adequately to whom, for that matter? A link will do nicely. Simple enough to provide, yes?
She was giving an opinion, no more; and one which all but the hypocritical, would agree with - which is why you don't agree.
I posted that if I had "ignored" On stage swearing, then I would have reprimanded him had I seen it. Do you deny I said that? By the way, I don't monitor all posts for swearing content, and anyway, it's pretty clear by now what I think. So, that's another hole blasted in your poorly thought-out "argument."
-
Are you just taking the 'p'?
Nice one: the humour of typos ;)
-
She was giving an opinion, no more; and one which all but the hypocritical, would agree with - which is why you don't agree.
And that's what you consider to be an argument, is it?
Iposted that if I had "ignored" On stage swearing, then I would have reprimanded him had I seen it. Do you deny I said that?
Not at all; the issue is why you're claming not to have seen said post when you quoted it in order to reply to it. What will the excuse be this time? Are you in the habit of quoting unread posts?
By the way, I don't monitor all posts for swearing content
Nothing to do with monitoring; this is solely about your hypocrisy in boring everyone to tears with your Mary Whitehouse act over swearing when atheists do it but breathing not a word when a theist does it.
and anyway, it's pretty clear by now what I think.
Alas, it's crystal clear that you do very little thinking at all on the strength of your performance (I use the word advisedly) here and on the Justin Welby thread.
Look, you've been tucked up on this one good and proper and the evidence remains on the forum for anyone to check out for themselves, so suck it up and move on to your next swivel-eyed rant about nothing.
-
And that's what you consider to be an argument, is it?
Not at all; the issue is why you're claming not to have seen said post when you quoted it in order to reply to it. What will the excuse be this time? Are you in the habit of quoting unread posts?
Nothing to do with monitoring; this is solely about your hypocrisy in boring everyone to tears with your Mary Whitehouse act over swearing when atheists do it but breathing not a word when a theist does it. Alas, it's crystal clear that you do very little thinking at all on the strength of your performance (I use the word advisedly) here and on the Justin Welby thread.
Look, you've been tucked up on this one good and proper and the evidence remains on the forum for anyone to check out for themselves, so suck it up and move on to your next swivel-eyed rant about nothing.
I said, "opinion." Don't just post what you think I said: read properly!!
The rest of your of your post is the usual mixture of insult, irrelevance, and flawed "logic!"
-
By all means point out the flaws.
What Nasrin said was the total truth, and no petty and irrelevant arguments from you will change what is an opinion you dislike; and dislike because it is true.
-
I said, "opinion." Don't just post what you think I said: read properly!!
I wasn't referring to her opinion, with which I disagree and have said why at some length, but on your fallacious pseudo-argument that only a hypocrite would disagree with her opinion.
The rest of your of your post is the usual mixture of insult, irrelevance, and flawed "logic!"
By all means point out what you consider to be the flaws in my response(s).
-
Vlud,
Whether people thought these gods were ones among many or the only real one has no relevance whatever to that fact that they were all given the same birthday.
Hint...stop spouting gibberish and try to grasp what's actually being said here.
But here's the thing - on what basis do you think you "know" anything about your pick of the available deities either? For all you know I may think I've "intuited" every bit as much knowledge about leprechauns as you think you've "intuited" knowledge about the christian god.
As you utterly ever to provide a method of any kind to distinguish the epistemic value of your claims abut "god" from the epistemic value of my claims about leprechauns, we must be equally knowledgeable or equally ignorant as you please.
Oh, and as it seems to have slipped your mind again:
Bluehillside's fourth maxim clearly states that any argument for god that works equally well for leprechauns is probably a bad argument.
Maybe if you wrote it down a hundred times or something you'd stop blundering into the same mistake about the content of the respective claims?
But Hillside your leprechauns have the same properties as God and none of Leprechauns.......In other words you are not following ANY methodology whatsoever.
You have a record therefore of failing in the basics of reasoned argument. So much for a disciplined approach to thought.
There are plenty of atheists who will also point out why the FSM and Invisible pink unicorns were a bad move in the world of atheists claiming the rational highground.
Learn the difference between God and ''gods'' then you might be on the first steps of a methodology and on the road out of Talkingshitesville.
-
I wasn't referring to her opinion, with which I disagree and have said why at some length, but on your fallacious pseudo-argument that only a hypocrite would disagree with her opinion.
By all means point out what you consider to be the flaws in my response(s).
The whole wretched post of yours is a waste of time and effort. I shall simply ignore it now, and also ignore your predicable accusation of running away - anybody would run away from you!
-
What Nasrin said was the total truth
That in itself is sheer opinion, and opinions are OK, aren't they?
and no petty and irrelevant arguments from you will change what is an opinion you dislike; and dislike because it is true.
It isn't true. I dislike it because it's badly thought through, poorly argued, and by all appearances based on nothing, least of all any actual experience of how Christmas is seen and observed by the majority. She doesn't get it any more than you do.
-
That in itself is sheer opinion, and opinions are OK, aren't they?
It isn't true. I dislike it because it's badly thought through, poorly argued, and by all appearances based on nothing, least of all any actual experience of how Christmas is seen and observed by the majority. She doesn't get it any more than you do.
So her opinion, a widely-travelled and well-thought of atheist, is wrong, and yours, based on I don't know what, is superior! Be honest (you may need to look that word up), you don't like it because it rings true, for you and all atheists who are hypocritical enough to celebrate Christmas.
-
I'm trying to figure out why BA thinks it's so despicable for non-Christians to have a nice time celebrating on Christmas Day.
Nope, can't manage it.
-
What this Nazrin person said sounds as negative, pessimistic and gloomy as BA's posts!
-
I'm trying to figure out why BA thinks it's so despicable for non-Christians to have a nice time celebrating on Christmas Day.
Nope, can't manage it.
Because it's hypocritical.
-
Because it's hypocritical.
So your value judgement that it's hypocritical overrides your appreciation of the happiness of others. Nice.
-
So her opinion, a widely-travelled and well-thought of atheist, is wrong, and yours, based on I don't know what, is superior!
You accuse me of irrelevance, but what does the fact she is well-travelled (not entirely out of free choice; in fear of her life she was forced into exile) have to do with anything at all? By whom is she thought well of and why does their opinion count?
I've explained why I think she's wrong in several posts on this thread.
be honest (you may need to look that word up), you don't like it because it rings true, for you and all atheists who are hypocritical enough to celebrate Christmas.
Except "ringing true" is the very opposite of the case for me and, I'd go so far as to say, the majority of the population, atheists or not, with regard to Christmas.
I thought you were supposed to be ignoring my posts?
-
Because it's hypocritical.
I've asked this question a couple of times before without a response - perhaps it'll be third time lucky.
Bashers, if as you have said my nominally Hindu but actually non-religious neighbours are not hypocrites for sending Christmas cards and marking Christmas, why according to you are atheists in precisely the same position hypocrites when they do exactly the same?
-
She was giving an opinion, no more
Indeed and she is, of course, perfectly entitled to her opinion.
; and one which all but the hypocritical, would agree with - which is why you don't agree.
Nope - you are wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to hear her opinion but not to agree with it, as indeed I don't.
That doesn't make me a hypocrite any more than you are a hypocrite for celebrating 'Easter' (although you are a hypocrite for claiming that non christians shouldn't celebrate Christmas, but think it's fine for non pagans to celebrate Easter).
-
Indeed and she is, of course, perfectly entitled to her opinion.
Nope - you are wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to hear her opinion but not to agree with it, as indeed I don't.
That doesn't make me a hypocrite any more than you are a hypocrite for celebrating 'Easter' (although you are a hypocrite for claiming that non christians shouldn't celebrate Christmas, but think it's fine for non pagans to celebrate Easter).
Easter? I celebrate the Resurrection of Our Lord, not a name or a date. So what's hypocritical about that, eh?
-
If you want to celebrate that sort of thing couldn't you find your own name for it?
-
Indeed and she is, of course, perfectly entitled to her opinion.
Nope - you are wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to hear her opinion but not to agree with it, as indeed I don't.
That doesn't make me a hypocrite any more than you are a hypocrite for celebrating 'Easter' (although you are a hypocrite for claiming that non christians shouldn't celebrate Christmas, but think it's fine for non pagans to celebrate Easter).
Easter? I celebrate the Resurrection of Our Lord, not a name or a date. So what's hypocritical about that, eh?
Christmas? I celebrate the mid winter, not a name or a purported deity. So what's hypocritical about that, eh?
You can't have it both ways BA.
-
If you want to celebrate that sort of thing couldn't you find your own name for it?
The name is of no consequence: it is the event I celebrate.
-
Christmas? I celebrate the mid winter, not a name or a purported deity. So what's hypocritical about that, eh?
You can't have it both ways BA.
Mid-winter is December 21st, or 22: not 25th.
-
The name is of no consequence: it is the event I celebrate.
So why did you place such emphasis on Christmas being Christ's Mass [sic]? Isn't that name of no consequence too?
-
Vlunderer,
But Hillside your leprechauns have the same properties as God and none of Leprechauns.......In other words you are not following ANY methodology whatsoever.
First, no they don't. Whatever characteristics you claim for your supernatural god, I claim different ones for my supernatural leprechauns.
Second, you're accusing someone else of 'not following ANY method whatsoever" ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
'kinell - for once, words fail me...
You have a record therefore of failing in the basics of reasoned argument. So much for a disciplined approach to thought.
Your "therefore" fails, and so therefore does your conclusion.
There are plenty of atheists who will also point out why the FSM and Invisible pink unicorns were a bad move in the world of atheists claiming the rational highground.
No doubt you'll be citing some then but, in the meantime, if they too serve to demonstrate Bluehillside's fourth maxim than they're not a "bad move" at all.
Learn the difference between God and ''gods'' then you might be on the first steps of a methodology and on the road out of Talkingshitesville.
Learn finally to answer what method you finally propose to use to distinguish your personal intuition from just guessing about stuff and then finally ypu might have a way out of your ludicrousness.
-
So why did you place such emphasis on Christmas being Christ's Mass [sic]? Isn't that name of no consequence too?
No, most certainly not. The clue as to why I place emphasis on the name, is in the name itself!
-
No, most certainly not. The clue as to why I place emphasis on the name, is in the name itself!
Bit that's merely the name by which the midwinter festival is known in English.
-
Bit that's merely the name by which the midwinter festival is known in English.
It is the celebration of the Nativity: nothing to do with mid-winter.
-
It's your celebration of the nativity; not ours.
-
It's your celebration of the nativity; not ours.
That. I'm not celebrating anybody's nativity. If you want to, great. I don't have to.
-
That. I'm not celebrating anybody's nativity. If you want to, great. I don't have to.
Then leave December 25th. alone!!
-
BA: “2+2 = 5”
Sensible person: “Er, no it doesn’t. It actually equals four."
BA: “2+2=5”
Sensible person: “Look, it really doesn’t and here are various facts and arguments that explain why…
BA: “2+2=5”
Sensible person: “Look, you’re wrong about that and you’ve just ignored the explanations for why you’re wrong.
BA: “Here’s a quote from someone who also thinks that 2+2=5. This person likes Twiglets. You guys also like Twiglets. Therefore you guys must agree with everything this person says.
Sensible person: “Er, that’s a complete non sequitur. It’s entirely possible to agree with someone about one thing and to disagree with him about a different thing.”
BA: "2+2=5”
Sensible person: “AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!”
BA: “I now claim my victory. Thanks Twiglet-liking person who agrees with me!”
Next day…
BA: “Here’s that quote again about 2+2 equalling 5 from the Twiglet person. It bears repeating.”
Sensible person: “OFFS!”
-
It's your celebration of the nativity; not ours.
Fine. So why do you celebrate on December 25th? What are you celebrating? Mid-winter, I might remind you, is December 21st. or 22nd.
-
Then leave December 25th. alone!!
No. It's a public holiday, if you hadn't noticed.
-
One day every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Borrowing Christmas is kind of a warm up :)
-
Then leave December 25th. alone!!
No, it's the day my family chooses to celebrate. And that is none of your business.
Not that we actually need your approval - strangely enough we'll get on just fine without it.
-
2Corrie,
One day every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Borrowing Christmas is kind of a warm up
Could you just explain to BA that Christians had in fact only borrowed it please.
Ta.
-
No, it's the day my family chooses to celebrate. And that is none of your business.
Pathetic excuse. Leave Christmas alone : you are not a Christian; stop sullying it with your anti-Christian presence.
-
Fine. So why do you celebrate on December 25th? What are you celebrating? Mid-winter, I might remind you, is December 21st. or 22nd.
Without accurate timekeeping calendars - which are usually of very ancient origin - can't cope with the fact that a year isn't an exact quantity, and thus left alone calendars drift and have to be rejigged to bring them back into line. Think of a leap year. Added to which in 1752 Britain adopted a new calendar, "losing" eleven days in the process.
-
Pathetic excuse. Leave Christmas alone : you are not a Christian; stop sullying it with your anti-Christian presence.
Is your special day really so weak that a pagan having a party makes it dirty?
-
2Corrie,
Could you just explain to BA that Christians had in fact only borrowed it please.
Ta.
We have not borrowed anything. Do you ever read the posts first? I have said, it is not the date that is important, it is the event, and since Jesus was certainly not born on December 25th, then we could just as easily celebrate on February 3rd, or any date. Clear? So, why do you celebrate December 25th?
-
Is your special day really so weak that a pagan having a party makes it dirty?
It does make you hypocritical. So, back to square 1.
-
It does make you hypocritical. So, back to square 1.
You said I 'sullied' it. That's different from being hypocritical.
-
You said I 'sullied' it. That's different from being hypocritical.
Okay. By impinging on a Christian festival, with your long-running and quite strident anti-Christian stance, you are totally disrespecting the occasion.
-
Okay. By impinging on a Christian festival, with your long-running and quite strident anti-Christian stance, you are totally disrespecting the occasion.
Nope, still not the same thing.
Not that I'm sure how I'm 'impinging' on it. I'm not planning on getting the local coven to crash midnight mass or go in for some ritual turkey sacrificing.
-
So, why do you celebrate December 25th?
This is true - our youngest was born on 21st December 1988 (the day of the Lockerbie disaster), and there was a worry part way through the pregnancy that involved a wait for test results, but it all turned out fine (she will be 27 next month, and is an absolute delight).
We got to take her home on Christmas Day 1988 - best Xmas present ever!
-
Okay. By impinging on a Christian festival
It isn't. As in other ways you seem to be unable to cope with the modern world as it actually is and not how you wish it to be. The simplest definition of (biological) evolution is 'change over time'; that's the definition of any kind of evolution, and that includes cultural evolution. What Christmas used to be for the majority - a Christian festival predicated on the wrong birth date of Jesus - is so no longer for anything but a small minority. The 'meaning' of Christmas has become privatised so that people are now free to make of Christmas whatever they like.That is as much a fact as anything is. High time you got used to it.
-
'Privatised' is exactly it.
-
It isn't. As in other ways you seem to be unable to cope with the modern world as it actually is and not how you wish it to be. The simplest definition of (biological) evolution is 'change over time'; that's the definition of any kind of evolution, and that includes cultural evolution. What Christmas used to be for the majority - a Christian festival predicated on the wrong birth date of Jesus - is so no longer for anything but a small minority. The 'meaning' of Christmas has become privatised so that people are now free to make of Christmas whatever they like.That is as much a fact as anything is. High time you...
Just another attempting at trying, and failing, to justify your hypocrisy. You lose, and badly!
-
You're not actually fooling anybody by this mindless repetition of the accusation of hypocrisy without a ghost of a coherent argument to back it up.
-
This is true - our youngest was born on 21st December 1988 (the day of the Lockerbie disaster), and there was a worry part way through the pregnancy that involved a wait for test results, but it all turned out fine (she will be 27 next month, and is an absolute delight).
We got to take her home on Christmas Day 1988 - best Xmas present ever!
I'm very happy your daughter's birth was such a joy in the end. But, with respect, does your celebration involve Christmas trees, and cards, etc?
-
I'm very happy your daughter's birth was such a joy in the end. But, with respect, does your celebration involve Christmas trees, and cards, etc?
Pagan trees and Victorian cards, indeed ;)
-
I'm very happy your daughter's birth was such a joy in the end. But, with respect, does your celebration involve Christmas trees, and cards, etc?
Does your's have a Christmas tree because that isn't Christian? Are you declaring yourself to be a hypocrite by your terms?
-
Pagan trees and Victorian cards, indeed ;)
No. The Christmas tree is essentially a European innovation; and specifically Christian. And cards with the nativity, angels, etc, are rather associated with Christ's mass.
-
You're not actually fooling anybody by this mindless repetition of the accusation of hypocrisy without a ghost of a coherent argument to back it up.
I have quoted a perfectly reasonable view that Christmas is nothing to do with atheists, and by an atheist; but in your paranoid efforts, lasting over the years, to deny anything Christian, you simply make yourself look lame: and how!!
-
No. The Christmas tree is essentially a European innovation; and specifically Christian. And cards with the nativity, angels, etc, are rather associated with Christ's mass.
Hopeless. Clearly, so bereft of an argument, you've now resorted to invention.
-
I have quoted a perfectly reasonable view that Christmas is nothing to do with atheists, and by an atheist; but in your paranoid efforts, lasting over the years, to deny anything Christian, you simply make yourself look lame: and how!!
This "reasonable view" is the view of one atheist that you've latched onto like a limpet because of one opinion.
Do you agree that her opinion of religion in general as quoted by Sebastian Toe in #542 is equally reasonable?
-
Hopeless. Clearly, so bereft of an argument, you've now resorted to invention.
Hey, Bonzo! Leave that bone alone. It's getting on everybody's nerves watching you! You knowi t's too big for you!
-
Do stop it, BA. Nobody minds you having your nativity celebration. But you lost your argument pages back; carrying on in this vein just makes you look both intolerant and daft.
-
Do stop it, BA. Nobody minds you having your nativity celebration. But you lost your argument pages back; carrying on in this vein just makes you look both intolerant and daft.
On the contrary, Rhiannon: I won the argument quite clearly; not that there is much of an argument, since my position is palpably the correct one; and the very fact the atheists cannot leave it be, shows that they feel guilty about their own duplicity, and are vainly trying to justify it: and failing. And with that resounding success, I will leave it. Do tell Shaky he can calm down now and think of his blood pressure! ;)
-
On the contrary,Rhiannon: I won the argument quite clearly, and the very fact the atheists cannot leave it be, shows that they feel guilty about their own duplicity, and are vainly trying to justify is: and failing.
You can add 'deluded' to 'intolerant' and 'daft'.
-
You win arguments by actually having a case in the first place and having the better reasoning. That's you out on both counts. You don't win by saying that you're the winner.
Still, you've made yourself look like a prize tool and incidentally revealed your hypocrisy about swearing elsewhere, so it's been worthwhile for that alone.
-
You win arguments by actually having a case in the first place and having the better reasoning. That's you out on both counts. You don't win by saying that you're the winner.
Still, you've made yourself look like a prize tool and incidentally revealed your hypocrisy about swearing elsewhere, so it's been worthwhile for that alone.
Calm down you lot. Try and be good losers; and if you're good, you can have some Christmas cake, as long as you don't bother with the rest of Christmas. ;D Don't allow yourself to be deluded! ;D
Apart from all that, this is way off-topic; and usually I get criticised if I do that. But in this case, as dear Dave would say, "we're all in this together."
-
Deluded is absolutely the correct word, Rhi ::)
-
Deluded is absolutely the correct word, Rhi ::)
Glad you are honest enough to admit it! :D
-
One other thing: good night, all.
-
One other thing: good night, all.
Night, night, BA.
-
On the contrary, Rhiannon: I won the argument quite clearly; not that there is much of an argument, since my position is palpably the correct one; and the very fact the atheists cannot leave it be, shows that they feel guilty about their own duplicity, and are vainly trying to justify it: and failing. And with that resounding success, I will leave it. Do tell Shaky he can calm down now and think of his blood pressure! ;)
BA = Violet Elizabeth Bott
-
Calm down you lot. Try and be good losers; and if you're good, you can have some Christmas cake, as long as you don't bother with the rest of Christmas. ;D Don't allow yourself to be deluded! ;D
I won the argument quite clearly; not that there is much of an argument, since my position is palpably the correct one; and the very fact the atheists cannot leave it be, shows that they feel guilty about their own duplicity, and are vainly trying to justify it: and failing. And with that resounding success, I will leave it. Do tell Shaky he can calm down now and think of his blood pressure! ;)
One other thing: good night, all.
Classic WUM language and use of smilies. Just take no notice.
-
It is the celebration of the Nativity: nothing to do with mid-winter.
Bash is correct.
Solstice is the 21st month. The winter Solstice the 21st December.
What I find interesting is that the experts as you call them Shakes, all say the pagans stole the dates and even shifted to make themselves look as if they always used that time.
Truth is everyone wants to connect their beliefs to the Christ.
Or even make out their beliefs older. But as God created everything then God gets to be the oldest belief.
I wonder if people get really jealous of how Christ has stuck around for all these centuries and is wider known and understood more than any other belief.
I guess their is room for all beliefs. But trying to steal a celebration is a little childish. Christmas Day is for Christ. You can't change it can you.
-
What I find interesting is that the experts as you call them Shakes, all say the pagans stole the dates and even shifted to make themselves look as if they always used that time.
Which "experts" are you referring to and what are, or rather where are your sources for this assertion?
Truth is everyone wants to connect their beliefs to the Christ.
Pretty sure they don't. Atheists don't. Pagans don't. My culturally (barely) Hindu neighbours don't. Large-minded and friendly adherents of non-Christian religions who simply enjoy the trappings and appurtenances of a British Christmas don't.
or even make out their beliefs older. But as God created everything then God gets to be the oldest belief.
There isn't even an attempt to make sense out of that mangled mess.
I wonder if people get really jealous of how Christ has stuck around for all these centuries and is wider known and understood more than any other belief.
No. There are two different fallacies involved there, by the way. See if you can spot them.
Christmas Day is for Christ.
Not in our house, it isn't.
You can't change it can you.
Too late was the cry!
-
BA = Violet Elizabeth Bott
Strikes me as more of a Black Knight type ;)
https://youtu.be/dhRUe-gz690
-
Shaker
« Reply #697 on: November 26, 2015, 11:58:40 PM »
Quote from: Sassy on November 26, 2015, 11:38:59 PM
What I find interesting is that the experts as you call them Shakes, all say the pagans stole the dates and even shifted to make themselves look as if they always used that time.
Which "experts" are you referring to and what are, or rather where are your sources for this assertion?
If you really bothered to check anything up you would not be asking....
Truth is everyone wants to connect their beliefs to the Christ.
Pretty sure they don't. Atheists don't. Pagans don't. My culturally (barely) Hindu neighbours don't. Large-minded and friendly adherents of non-Christian religions who simply enjoy the trappings and appurtenances of a British Christmas don't.
Not in a position to speak for everyone. But if you understood how the different religions try to connect themselves to Christ then you would not be answering would you?
I've an Indian friend who, when he was seven ,moved with his family from India to England, where he was enrolled at a new school. On his first day he was asked to speak to the class about a saint from his Hindu tradition.
Enthusiastically he began to tell the story of the saint called Ishu, who was born in a cowshed, was visited by three holy men, performed many amazing miracles, walked on water and spoke a wonderful sermon on a mountain.
Of course, he was telling the story of Christ. But he was bewildered to hear that the teacher laid claim to Ishu for herself and her friends and she let him know that this was her Lord and her story, not his. He was very upset about this, because Ishu's tale was his favourite story.
or even make out their beliefs older. But as God created everything then God gets to be the oldest belief.
There isn't even an attempt to make sense out of that mangled mess.
Lacking in ability and knowledge....
I wonder if people get really jealous of how Christ has stuck around for all these centuries and is wider known and understood more than any other belief.
No. There are two different fallacies involved there, by the way. See if you can spot them.
Is that it? Is that the best you can do... lacking in imagination too.
Christmas Day is for Christ.
Not in our house, it isn't.
Your house doesn't count but I bet you eat CRIMBO dinner and expect and give presents...
You can't change it can you.
Too late was the cry!
I suppose you would be crying after that reply... :o ;D 8)
-
On the contrary, Rhiannon: I won the argument quite clearly; not that there is much of an argument, since my position is palpably the correct one; and the very fact the atheists cannot leave it be, shows that they feel guilty about their own duplicity, and are vainly trying to justify it: and failing. And with that resounding success, I will leave it. Do tell Shaky he can calm down now and think of his blood pressure! ;)
What mammoth self-delusion!!
-
If you really bothered to check anything up you would not be asking....
Evasion expected. Evasion noted.
But if you understood how the different religions try to connect themselves to Christ then you would not be answering would you?
They don't.
Is that it? Is that the best you can do... lacking in imagination too.
What's that got to do with the fact that I've pointed out the fallacies you deploy?
Your house doesn't count
Why not?
but I bet you eat CRIMBO dinner and expect and give presents...
I eat dinner every day. I don't get any presents from Jesus so I don't buy for him either.
-
Bash is correct.
Solstice is the 21st month. The winter Solstice the 21st December.
What I find interesting is that the experts as you call them Shakes, all say the pagans stole the dates and even shifted to make themselves look as if they always used that time.
Oh do keep up please Sassy.
This point has already been discussed. Under the Julian calendar around the time of Jesus' birth and thereafter the solstice was on the 25th Dec and also there are records of festivals to celebrate the winter solstice (Brumalia, Saturnalia, Sol Invictus) at the solstice, or ending on the solstice, i.e. 25th Dec. Evidence for the solstice being on the 25th comes from, amongst others Pliny, writing in the 1stC and there are numerous references from many contemporary writers about the solstice festivals. So for example Servius writes that Bruma is celebrated 8 days (counting inclusively so Jan 1st is day 1) before the Kalends of January (1st Jan) - you work it our but I make that December 25th.
So there is no real doubt that in those days the solstice and its celebrations were on the 25th Dec and that remains the traditional day for their celebration. That the solstice is now on the 21/22 is down to the inaccuracies in the Julian calendar and the approach to dealing with them with the creation of the Gregorian calendar centuries later.
-
On the contrary, Rhiannon: I won the argument quite clearly; not that there is much of an argument, since my position is palpably the correct one; and the very fact the atheists cannot leave it be, shows that they feel guilty about their own duplicity, and are vainly trying to justify it: and failing. And with that resounding success, I will leave it. Do tell Shaky he can calm down now and think of his blood pressure! ;)
We've already established BA as a hypocrite for considering it unacceptable for non Christians to celebrate at Christmas but to think it perfectly OK for non pagans to celebrate Easter.
Now we get this comment. Now I'm not sure whether this is complete delusion on his part, total arrogance or merely demonstrating deep irony. I hope for his case it is the latter.
-
What mammoth self-delusion!!
I'll bet you haven't even read the through the discussion: just the usual denunciation. You are a very bigoted person!
-
We've already established BA as a hypocrite for considering it unacceptable for non Christians to celebrate at Christmas but to think it perfectly OK for non pagans to celebrate Easter.
Now we get this comment. Now I'm not sure whether this is complete delusion on his part, total arrogance or merely demonstrating deep irony. I hope for his case it is the latter.
To try and enlighten your confusion: read carefully, for once: I, all Christians, do not celebrate something called Easter; we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and it matters not what date it falls on (remembering that Easter is a moveable feast anyway.) I've said this already; so clearly you are not following; but perhaps now you get it - an unlikely scenario!
-
I, all Christians, do not celebrate something called Easter; we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Nope you celebrate the purported resurrection of Jesus in a festival that you call Easter.
A bit like others who celebrate the mid winter and solstice in a festival that we call Christmas.
Both are either equally right, or equally wrong.
In my view I have no problem with either, but in your mind one is OK (non pagans celebrating a festival that they call Easter) but the other wrong (non Christians celebrating a festival that they call Christmas). That is, of course, rank hypocrisy.
-
Nope you celebrate the purported resurrection of Jesus in a festival that you call Easter.
A bit like others who celebrate the mid winter and solstice in a festival that we call Christmas.
Both are either equally right, or equally wrong.
In my view I have no problem with either, but in your mind one is OK (non pagans celebrating a festival that they call Easter) but the other wrong (non Christians celebrating a festival that they call Christmas). That is, of course, rank hypocrisy.
You really are quite good at talking your way round the truth. What I said was clear enough. So forget your silly spin and accept the reality of what I say. That will be difficult for you, but do try old son.
-
We've already established BA as a hypocrite for considering it unacceptable for non Christians to celebrate at Christmas
Not wholly true - some non-Christians marking Christmas are not hypocrites and pass the Bashers test if they're brown, like my neighbours. He won't have a go at those (though he won't explain why).
-
Not wholly true - some non-Christians marking Christmas are not hypocrites and pass the Bashers test if they're brown, like my neighbours. He won't have a go at those (though he won't explain why).
Double hypocrisy then.
-
You really are quite good at talking your way round the truth. What I said was clear enough. So forget your silly spin and accept the reality of what I say. That will be difficult for you, but do try old son.
Ooh do I detect a begrudgingly given complement there BA.
Sounds as if, in your heart of hearts you know full well that your argument is totally inconsistent and that I am right. Shame you can't simply admit it - we'd think rather more of you if you would.
-
Double hypocrisy then.
You are a lad! I never put you down as one of the "if I say it three times it's true," brigade. In fact, you may well have been a founder member. :(
-
You are a lad! I never put you down as one of the "if I say it three times it's true," brigade. In fact, you may well have been a founder member. :(
how many times it is said is irrelevant.
If your argument is strong then saying it once (or as many times as you like) doesn't change that fact.
If your argument is weak, like yours, you can say it until you are blue in that face and it won't become any stronger.
-
how many times it is said is irrelevant.
If your argument is strong then saying it once (or as many times as you like) doesn't change that fact.
If your argument is weak, like yours, you can say it until you are blue in that face and it won't become any stronger.
Get over yourself. You know I'm right. I expect your pride won't let you admit it. I understand; just a quiet acknowledgement will suffice. ;)
-
Ooh do I detect a begrudgingly given complement there BA.
Sounds as if, in your heart of hearts you know full well that your argument is totally inconsistent and that I am right. Shame you can't simply admit it - we'd think rather more of you if you would.
Sorry, no. I tried, but couldn't think of one. :)
By the way: you misspelt compliment. ;D
-
Dear Me,
Well we have Christmas all sewn up as in Christ's Mass but Easter, which numpty decided on Easter.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Me,
Well we have Christmas all sewn up as in Christ's Mass but Easter, which numpty decided on Easter.
Gonnagle.
I expect it was chosen to annoy the Pagans! :D
-
Dear Bashers,
I expect it was chosen to annoy the Pagans!
Seems we do that quite a lot, there is another road that leads up to our Cathedral, it is called Drygate, I always thought it had something to do with the brewery at the bottom of the road, but another theory is that dry is an old germanic word for druid, the gate to the druids, old St Mungo built his Church on top of a pagan site.
Bloody Christians we will pinch anything that is not nailed down :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Well, what have we learned here then?
First, we know that festivals around the winter solstice are very ancient, much more ancient than Christianity. We know specifically for example that the Roman Dies Sol Invictus fell on 25 December as did the feast of Mithras, and we know that various characteristics of celebration, carousing and the like took place at these festivals.
We know too that several centuries after Christ the church, in the absence of any date of birth information from its holy texts, decided to pick the existing 25 December festival and to bolt its own celebrations on top of that, taking some rituals and symbols that were there already and adding some of its own. It also managed a pretty nifty re-branding job while it was at it.
We also know that many other characteristics were added much later on, especially by the Victorians.
The other thing we know is that for the most part people accept and enjoy this melange of influences and symbols as all part of the fun without ever needing to adopt the various religious beliefs that gave rise to them - paganism, christianity, Mithrasism etc.
So far, so jolly.
Then though we have the odd sight of BA doing his cuckoo in the nest act - not only does he deny the antecedence of Christmas from beliefs other than his own, he would also seek to re-invent the facts (about christmas trees for example) so as to co-opt them when they don't fit his thesis, and then to accuse others of hypocrisy for not embracing the superstitions he likes along with the cultural effect they had. In the absence of any argument to support him in this remarkably daft claim, he also quotes an atheist who happens to agree with him and in some as yet unexplained way just assumes that if other atheists agree with her about her atheism, they must also agree with her about anything else she may happen to say.
So here's the thing: the more pertinent audience for "why not leave 25 December alone?" isn't the atheists at all is seems to me, it's the BAs of this world. Of course, if ever he had the nous to recognise that accepting the addition of christian influences on the day is just good manners by the rest of us his whole problem would go away in any case, but I ain't holding my breath.
-
Dear Bashers,
Seems we do that quite a lot, there is another road that leads up to our Cathedral, it is called Drygate, I always thought it had something to do with the brewery at the bottom of the road, but another theory is that dry is an old germanic word for druid, the gate to the druids, old St Mungo built his Church on top of a pagan site.
Bloody Christians we will pinch anything that is not nailed down :o :o
Gonnagle.
Gonners, you are so generous: you know we are only pinching back what's ours anyway, ( Stands back and waits for atheist back-lash!)
-
Bloody Christians we will pinch anything that is not nailed down :o :o
Which is wierd, because you'd think they'd have hammers in their tradition given the whole crucifixion thing...
O.
-
Gonners, you are so generous: you know we are only pinching back what's ours anyway, ( Stands back and waits for atheist back-lash!)
Twat.
I know that you don't like the language; I could have said that you were an ignorant blow-hard trolling for the sake of it to try to hide the fact that you know you lost this argument ages ago and don't have the humility and/or courage to just admit that, but that lacks the succinctness and spirit that's warranted in the circumstances.
You're just being a twat.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Which is wierd, because you'd think they'd have hammers in their tradition given the whole crucifixion thing...
Well it is Friday, and very weak attempts at humour were once a big thing on this forum and the old beeb, Friday jokes and the pagans old glitter room, happy days. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Twat.
I know that you don't like the language; I could have said that you were an ignorant blow-hard trolling for the sake of it to try to hide the fact that you know you lost this argument ages ago and don't have the humility and/or courage to just admit that, but that lacks the succinctness and spirit that's warranted in the circumstances.
You're just being a twat.
O.
You really ought to take some sort of course in being concise. And do try and control yourself; there's no need to lapse into the vernacular, and show yourself up; and just because you lost the argument! ;D
-
Well, what have we learned here then?
First, we know that festivals around the winter solstice are very ancient, much more ancient than Christianity. We know specifically for example that the Roman Dies Sol Invictus fell on 25 December as did the feast of Mithras, and we know that various characteristics of celebration, carousing and the like took place at these festivals.
We know too that several centuries after Christ the church, in the absence of any date of birth information from its holy texts, decided to pick the existing 25 December festival and to bolt its own celebrations on top of that, taking some rituals and symbols that were there already and adding some of its own. It also managed a pretty nifty re-branding job while it was at it.
We also know that many other characteristics were added much later on, especially by the Victorians.
The other thing we know is that for the most part people accept and enjoy this melange of influences and symbols as all part of the fun without ever needing to adopt the various religious beliefs that gave rise to them - paganism, christianity, Mithrasism etc.
So far, so jolly.
Then though we have the odd sight of BA doing his cuckoo in the nest act - not only does he deny the antecedence of Christmas from beliefs other than his own, he would also seek to re-invent the facts (about christmas trees for example) so as to co-opt them when they don't fit his thesis, and then to accuse others of hypocrisy for not embracing the superstitions he likes along with the cultural effect they had. In the absence of any argument to support him in this remarkably daft claim, he also quotes an atheist who happens to agree with him and in some as yet unexplained way just assumes that if other atheists agree with her about her atheism, they must also agree with her about anything else she may happen to say.
So here's the thing: the more pertinent audience for "why not leave 25 December alone?" isn't the atheists at all is seems to me, it's the BAs of this world. Of course, if ever he had the nous to recognise that accepting the addition of christian influences on the day is just good manners by the rest of us his whole problem would go away in any case, but I ain't holding my breath.
Go on. ;D
Hmm: what was it: "a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."
-
BA,
You really ought to take some sort of course in being concise. And do try and control yourself; there's no need to lapse into the vernacular, and show yourself up; and just because you lost the argument! ;D
He hasn't.
To be fair to you though, it'd be wrong to say that you'd lost the argument too. To lose an argument you have to have made an actual argument in the first place; making and endlessly repeating daft assertions isn't an argument of any kind, which is why the rest of us can rightly point and laugh in response.
Or tell you you're a twat.
-
BA,
Hmm: what was it: "a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."
Further avoidance noted. Do you not think you've already heaped enough embarrassment on yourself for one thread now?
-
BA,
He hasn't.
To be fair to you though, it'd be wrong to say that you'd lost the argument too. To lose an argument you have to have made an actual argument in the first place; making and endlessly repeating daft assertions isn't an argument of any kind, which is why the rest of us can rightly point and laugh in response.
Or tell you you're a twat.
Such a delight to be engaged in such intellectual discussion. Take heed you great debaters, you're under pressure from an expert! ;D
-
Such a delight to be engaged in such intellectual discussion. Take heed you great debaters, you're under pressure from an expert! ;D
I stood up for you recently.
Someone told me you did not have the intelligence of a moron.
I stood up for you, and told him you had.
-
BA,
Such a delight to be engaged in such intellectual discussion. Take heed you great debaters, you're under pressure from an expert! ;D
You're not "engaged" in anything: asserting a mistake and endlessly repeating it isn't engagement, it's just asserting a mistake and endlessly repeating it. What response then would you expect other than pointing and laughing?
-
I stood up for you recently.
Someone told me you did not have the intelligence of a moron.
I stood up for you, and told him you had.
Well, it just goes to prove what I always thought: you lack judgement. :D :D
-
Well, it just goes to prove what I always thought: you lack judgement. :D :D
Are you saying that you do not have the intelligence of a moron?
-
Are you saying that you do not have the intelligence of a moron?
Look up humour. You could have done that whilst googling for a joke. I am able to laugh at myself, as well as laughing at you.
-
Look up humour. You could have done that whilst googling for a joke. I am able to laugh at myself, as well as laughing at you.
When I imagine what's going on in your mind, it's squirrels juggling knives.
-
When I imagine what's going on in your mind, it's squirrels juggling knives.
;D ;D ;D Hey wait a minute, what am I laughing at? If I agree with you, we'll both be wrong!
-
Strikes me as more of a Black Knight type ;)
https://youtu.be/dhRUe-gz690
The Black Knight at least had a torso left. In the case in question, all that we hear is a mouth gobbing off.
-
By the way: you misspelt compliment. ;D
So sue me then.
-
Get over yourself. You know I'm right. I expect your pride won't let you admit it. I understand; just a quiet acknowledgement will suffice. ;)
You are such a comedian BA - my sides are splitting.
I suggest you should quietly and humbly accept it when you have resoundingly lost an argument.
-
So sue me then.
No, don't be silly! But I will keep an eye on you, since you are clearly in need of a little spelling help! :)
-
No, don't be silly! But I will keep an eye on you, since you are clearly in need of a little spelling help! :)
Indeed thanks for that - my spelling has always been pretty terrible. Never seemed to hold me back in rising to the top in a glittering academic career though ;)
-
Indeed thanks for that - my spelling has always been pretty terrible. Never seemed to hold me back in rising to the top in a glittering academic career though ;)
There used to be a pet shop I went to, a long time ago now, which had a mynah bird which greeted you as you went in with, "good morning professor, b*****." You weren't around then, were you? :D
-
There used to be a pet shop I went to, a long time ago now, which had a mynah bird which greeted you as you went in with, "good morning professor, b*****." You weren't around then, were you? :D
I'm sure that comment was reserved purely for you BA :D
-
I'm sure that comment was reserved purely for you BA :D
I see; so you are clearly of the opinion that I am a professor! ;)
-
I see; so you are clearly of the opinion that I am a professor! ;)
Nope, just that you are a wee b*****.
There's only one Professor on these boards ;)
-
BA,
Further avoidance noted. Do you not think you've already heaped enough embarrassment on yourself for one thread now?
Avoiding you is totally sensible: the embarrassment comes when I have to read what you post. ;)
-
Might I just take this opportunity to remind everyone that the premis of the title of the thread is competely false and therefore question whether this thread has any value, especially as a number of posters have made the same point.
-
Nope, just that you are a wee b*****.
There's only one Professor on these boards ;)
And it ain't you, that's for sure! The above is about as professorial as, as...as an extremely un-professorial person. :D
-
And it ain't you, that's for sure! The above is about as professorial as, as...as an extremely un-professorial person. :D
Oh no BA - you've got it wrong yet again, when it would have been so easy for you to get it right just for once ;)
-
Oh no BA - you've got it wrong yet again, when it would have been so easy for yo to get it right just for once ;)
I am right on the ball with this, as always. It is yo who's wrong!! :)
-
I am right on the ball with this, as always. It is yo who's wrong!! :)
Yes indeed you are very good at pointing out spelling errors, or in this case, typos due to posting from a tiny mobile device - well done you.
Shame you are wrong on just about everything else.
-
I am right on the ball with this, as always. It is yo who's wrong!! :)
Error corrected in the original post.
-
Evasion expected. Evasion noted.
They don't.
What's that got to do with the fact that I've pointed out the fallacies you deploy?
Why not?I eat dinner every day. I don't get any presents from Jesus so I don't buy for him either.
Evasion from what.. well go on show us...
As for the rest when they remove the quote to answer it makes not sense.
-
OSBIWO said: "The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK".
Could Christians not be shown advertising in other places? I am shown advertising every time I put on the TV or open a newspaper. Don't see how we can avoid being shown it.
(I'll get me coat)
-
Moderator:
A number of recent posts in this thread are on the subject of the Forum functions on how posts are quoted, which is derailing this thread.
Therefore, these posts will be split off and merged into the Nested Quotes thread on the Mod & Admin Board.
Update: completed, so anyone wishing to post about quoting should do so on -
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11183.50
-
This BBC iWonder item regarding the date of Christmas makes for interesting reading
http://bbc.in/1NPhUMk