Christianity banned from cinemas

[ad_orientem]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[floo]

Mysticism isn't a method, it's a word used to justify assertions in the absence of a method.

O.

I agree.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

So they don't own Easter then. Or Sunday.

Ah well!! ( that Jermyp is such a smarty pants )

Gonnagle.

[ad_orientem]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ad_orientem]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[King Oberon]

May I direct you to my signature.

Well rationalism certainly isn't going to lead to religion that's for sure 

[ad_orientem]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ad_orientem]

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.

[Samuel]

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...

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ad_orientem]

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.

[floo]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Enki]

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

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

[ad_orientem]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ad_orientem]

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.