So athiests..........

[logical4u]

You just can't deal with the fact that the J freak Xmas was intentionally placed in winter so as to make the religion easier to push out older longer held beliefs.

Do you really think that 2000 years ago that people really cared if the winter tradition of gift giving was observed on the 21st or the 25th?

I agree with you. The celebration of Yeshua's birth was intentionally placed after the winter solstice when the "light" was on its way back to longer days. It was and is a celebration of the birth of Yeshua's birth. There was not a competing holiday in North America since the first Christians settled here, determined to make a life where liberty and religious freedom (for Christians, make no mistake there was not a lot of tolerance for witches, or druids) could be enjoyed in their particular communities. So, yes, it was deliberately placed in the winter. There was not a "popular" winter solstice celebration for hundreds of years when Grant made Christmas a "holiday" (holy day). That pretty much means that Christmas for the lifetimes going back five, six generations was all about Yeshua's birth, not pagan celebrations. The whole pagan time frame is a neat piece of trivia, but it is no longer celebrated by communities or relevant. On the other hand, Christmas is celebrated by Christians around the world. And yes there are places where religions are mingled (can't we all just get along) to keep the peace. And it this country, you are free to celebrate "winter solstice". You can post the locations of the celebrations here if you would like, who knows, maybe the atheists that deny the Lord would join "that" faith.

It is no longer celebrated because christians superimposed their religion over the older religions of the day. It's that simple.

It will be interesting to see what religion superimposes itself on christianity in the future.

Ahhh, Ahhh, quick, change the subject. Still having problems accepting that Christians celebrate the gift of Yeshua, to mankind at Christmas?

 

[logical4u]

[I have studied the Bible for over 60 years and the Qur'an for a little over ten years. I do not accept either Book to be the complete, inspired and inerrant word of God. I am convinced that God will not judge us by what we believe, but rather how we live our lives in accordance with that belief. Belief is not volitional; that is, we cannot will ourselves to believe one way or another. The idea that one can believe upon command is illogical and contrary to human nature. Rather, belief is an involuntary act; belief is our perspective created by our total life's experiences filtered through the prism of our individual preferences and prejudices. Our beliefs are the product of the fickle forces of heredity and environment, things that are more controlled by chance than choice. We are not so much masters of our beliefs as we are its slaves; therefore, I am persuaded that God would not judge us by what we believe, but rather how we act on those beliefs.

This perspective is actually substantiated by the Bible, once you get past the humanly-created rigamarole:

Micah 6:8: He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.

When Christians don't do these things, and then seek to cram their dogma down people's throats, they shouldn't really be surprised that they are vehemently rejected.

Clean your own house before you start worrying about mine.

I don't believe anyone was "worried about your house". It seems very hostile toward Christians, this post of yours. If you claim not to "believe" why do you post Biblical text to manipulate those that do?

 

[logical4u]

The church of England during the crusades was Catholic.
The times back then was aggressive, brutal and bloody,in the name of Christianity.
Catholics as well as Protestants.
The misconceptions of the heads of both religions brought about a lot of the religious wars.
And both religions burnt witches, but for different reasons. Catholics because they posed a threat (how dare they, to be healers and midwives) Protestants because they were evil. Both were wrong.

And yet when you look for genuine "good" in the world, you find it with "Christian charities". I know there are "other" charities, but comparitively speaking the Christian charities outshine, out perform, out give all the others.

I am really tired of talking about the Crusades. Those of you that bring it up want to spout muslim propoganda without recognizing the tens and hundreds of thousands that were slaughtered, converted or subjugated by the muslims as part of their 1400 year plus war (that still continues today), against the "non" believer. If you want to discuss this, please start with the 300+ years of deceit, destruction and death as islam marched from Mecca, west (and in every other direction). Please explain why a "religion" that has absolutely no certain leader (the two factions have splintered into hundreds), where everyone of them believes they have the authority and duty to kill, kill, kill ANYONE that does not believe as them, were the "innocents" in the Crusades. Until then, please quit wasting our time about interesting history that is no longer relevant in the Christian faith today.

 

[logical4u]

Seemed fairly accurate, actually.

really? the catholic church ran the crusades?

or was that church of england?

the catholic church burned witches at the stake?

or was that puritans?

Why would you put the church of England in there, they had enough of their own problems and were recognized as part of the Catholic church by the pope at the time of the crusades. It was the pope, the catholic church, and Spain that started the crusades.

The Crusades were Europe's answer to the march of islam to the west. It was a defensive war.