Christianity banned from cinemas

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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."

[Shaker]

It was cobblers when you posted it yesterday. Do you really think mindless repetition stands in for a properly thought out, well argued case?

[ad_orientem]

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!

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

So we have moved on from certificates to awards? BA, Floo in this weird cosy cuddle of irrelevance.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

Why not?  It merely indicates her intellectual and moral sueriority over the atheists on here.

Are you just taking the 'p'?

[Shaker]

Somebody took it 

[BashfulAnthony]

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."

[Gordon]

Are you just taking the 'p'?

Nice one: the humour of typos 

[Shaker]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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!"

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Shaker]

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).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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!

[Shaker]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.