Do athiests celebrate christmas?

[mybike_yourface]

It was never ment to make you feel that way, it is supposed to bring you closer to God. That is what the big guys wants, a personal, father-to-child relationship with each of his children.

What sort of sicko father would condemn ANY of his children--no matter their behavior--to eternal, fiery damnation??

When they willingly turn their back to Him, they do it of their own accord, not His. People are free to choose to believe in Him or not, but in not believing, they condemn themselves.

interestingly christian religions are the only ones that really teach this eternal damnation thing. it's a peice of desperate propaganda put out buy the early church, if you ask me. if that's how their god feels about it(and people argue that he forgives as well) then screw him.

[reminisco]

if an atheist stubs his toe on the leg of the kitchen table, does that mean there is no table, and that those were just some really potent fucking acid tabs?

[reminisco]

interestingly christian religions are the only ones that really teach this eternal damnation thing. it's a peice of desperate propaganda put out buy the early church, if you ask me. if that's how their god feels about it(and people argue that he forgives as well) then screw him.

um, hello, read the Quran.

like, right now.

[CoffeeCream]

What sort of sicko father would condemn ANY of his children--no matter their behavior--to eternal, fiery damnation??

He doesn't. People do that themselves by rejecting Him.

[CoffeeCream]

If God is all-powerful and all that, why would he let his children that he loves be tortured? For eternity no less.

I used to think that way. All people are not God's children. We are made in the image of God but only those who believe in Him, submit to Him, and worship Him are His children.

If there was a fire in your home and someone offered you some help and a way to escape and you refused that help you wouldn't be able to blame them. It was your choice not to accept the help and you would receive the consequence of that decision.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Wow.

So, you would argue that their is no such thing as freedom of will while practicing it right now? Mankind as a whole turned our backs on God, not the other way as you suggest. Made in His likeness, yes. Made with no will of our own, no.

Would you torture your children for eternity solely for turning their back on you? Because that is Meggy's point.
If God is all-powerful and all that, why would he let his children that he loves be tortured? For eternity no less.

Here I go again:

Free will is a vital element of love. Love cannot exist without free will, because it's not love if it's forced. God desires us to love Him, and since God created us he created us with that purpose in mind: to love Him and as such to receive love from Him.

That is the only place where true joy may be found: in loving God. That is heaven. Pure love for God and pure love of God. Ultimately, the human soul is left with no joy if it does not fulfill this purpose.

You have a choice. You may love God or you may not. This choice must exist or love would not exist. You can take either way. You can love God, and as such experience heaven. Or you can pursue other things of temporary, earthy happiness, which doesn't last past this life (and often not even that long). These are your two choices. And it's a choice you freely make.

Heaven is the fulfillment of the human purpose. Hell is not fulfilling it. It's your call.

[reminisco]

If God is all-powerful and all that, why would he let his children that he loves be tortured? For eternity no less.

I used to think that way. All people are not God's children. We are made in the image of God but only those who believe in Him, submit to Him, and worship Him are His children.

If there was a fire in your home and someone offered you some help and a way to escape and you refused that help you wouldn't be able to blame them. It was your choice not to accept the help and you would receive the consequence of that decision.

you are both miscommunicating because you're both talking about two different things. Snotti is referring not just to the eternal part of the story, but the stuff that goes on only in this life as well.

KahluaCream is using an analogy only to give his reason for the eternal part of the story.

but forget this argument if you get to the in this life part. because there is no explaining the evil in this world, except to acknowledge that it is in all of us. and we must all conquer that enemy within, repeatedly and for our entire lives.

this is why good is stronger than evil. (good doesn't always win, of course, but--) good is necessarily an act of resistance. resisting evil makes one good. (resistance is what makes muscles grow -- that's all weight training is) whereas evil is necessarily an act of succumbing to the innate desires.

you've probably heard it said before that war makes good men better and bad men worse.

it's your choice in the end whether to resist the hell of this life or escape it with self-destruction (the innate evil enemy).

it's comforting to remember that God is omniscient of all of this. of this internal struggle. he knows full well that it's a trial to be human, an imperfect creature endowed with free will.

at least, this is how i think about it. but i don't wanna get in a big religion argument, cause unless you've read Kierkegaard, i can't really talk "religion", i'll only discuss philosophy.

[Snorri1234]

Heaven is the fulfillment of the human purpose. Hell is not fulfilling it. It's your call.

But hell is not just the absence of heaven and bliss, it's a punishment. It's not "if you don't accept me as your lord you won't get into heaven" it's "if you don't accept me as your lord you will burn in hell for eternity".

This is not about free will, this is about fake free will. It's like saying that "Give me your money or I'll shoot you" has two equal options.

I should note that the catholic concept of purgatory is a good solution to this problem. The choice there is better, as you can either get into heaven or not. It's not a choice between heaven or hell, unless you commit sins which is not the point anyway.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Heaven is the fulfillment of the human purpose. Hell is not fulfilling it. It's your call.

But hell is not just the absence of heaven and bliss, it's a punishment. It's not "if you don't accept me as your lord you won't get into heaven" it's "if you don't accept me as your lord you will burn in hell for eternity".

This is not about free will, this is about fake free will. It's like saying that "Give me your money or I'll shoot you" has two equal options.

I should note that the catholic concept of purgatory is a good solution to this problem. The choice there is better, as you can either get into heaven or not. It's not a choice between heaven or hell, unless you commit sins which is not the point anyway.

It is certainly free will. Your eternal destination is determined by your actions here on earth. Most theologians agree that the punishment of Hell is a freely chosen punishment, both here on earth and after death. I'll do my best to explain the concept:

Sin can trace its roots back to two basic problems: Pride, and lack of love. Essentially, they're tied together, because pride represents the extraordinary love of self which isn't really love to begin with. Anyways...

To go to Hell one must consciously reject God. It must basically boil down to the idea that man doesn't need God, or man can rise above God, or that man is above God's commandments etc etc. In a word, pride.

Whether or not the pain of Hell is literally torture or if it is torturous because it represents the eternal unfulfillment of the human purpose, the fact is that it is an option consciously chosen, perhaps even chosen after death. It may be chosen out of shame, because viewing the God whom one has blasphemed against is so painful that the torments of Hell are actually a lesser suffering. It may be out of further pride, an unwillingness to admit wrongdoing. Either way, you're left with a free choice to take either option, and there's nothing standing in your way except yourself.

[Snorri1234]

Sin can trace its roots back to two basic problems: Pride, and lack of love. Essentially, they're tied together, because pride represents the extraordinary love of self which isn't really love to begin with. Anyways...

Bullshit, because rejecting God is not tied in with sin. I can reject god and still not live a sinful life.

To go to Hell one must consciously reject God. It must basically boil down to the idea that man doesn't need God, or man can rise above God, or that man is above God's commandments etc etc. In a word, pride.

The problem here is that this first requires the belief God actually exist. I don't reject God because I think I don't need him, (I don't but that's besides the point), I reject him because I don't belief he exists. And this is even ignoring the countless people who just haven't heard of God.

Whether or not the pain of Hell is literally torture or if it is torturous because it represents the eternal unfulfillment of the human purpose,

You're right, it's torture either way.

perhaps even chosen after death.

Not according to most christians.

It may be chosen out of shame, because viewing the God whom one has blasphemed against is so painful that the torments of Hell are actually a lesser suffering. It may be out of further pride, an unwillingness to admit wrongdoing. Either way, you're left with a free choice to take either option, and there's nothing standing in your way except yourself.

We're talking about accepting god or not in the real world, not after death when you're sure there is a god anyway.

The problem is that you're saying that it's free choice because there are two options and you can choose, while I am saying that it's not free choice because the choices aren't equal.

[reminisco]

The problem here is that this first requires the belief God actually exist. I don't reject God because I think I don't need him, (I don't but that's besides the point), I reject him because I don't belief he exists. And this is even ignoring the countless people who just haven't heard of God.

almost every culture has an important story involving a redemption towards salvation. there's almost always a "chosen one" too. prophesies and etc.

that's why if i really had to get "deep" with it, i'd call myself a deist with Presbyterian leanings and Presbyterian ideas of government (one of the models considered in drafting our Constitution).

so the stories i know best are the ones that come from the Bible i've read, in two versions... NIV and King James. I've read an awful lot of texts from other religions, there's too many similarities for me to be so vain (or perhaps, full of the pride that OA referred to) to assume that the story i know is the only one that points in the direction of God, when all of the texts are always written by humans, who are, of course, fallible.

the greatest strength of the Bible (or the Pali Canon, for that matter), in my mind, is that it was authored by so many different people, all pointing towards a theme (that of redemption) that there's a truth to it repeated through all of our lifetimes, the neverending march of human nature (you should all read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations).

[Shitman079]

Well...

It is a fact that most of the traditional modern elements of Christmas have been taken from european pagan idea's. Such as The christmas tree being present...I've never been to the middle east, but I would hazard a guess that there are not a great deal of fully fledged tundra muthafuckers of trees within the bethlehem region. Yes, I'm also sceptical as to how often in snows within the middle east..but as I say, I've never been there, and would probably be accused of being "racist against jewish weather" or sumfink. But then again, maybe it is the same lard-arsed, missionary loving pilgrims, having raped the pagan european religions of their identity, and proclaiming it is as their own when they forcabley converted said peoples by the sword, and then masquerading under the flag of european identity with an asian religion, much in the same way as the rolling stones ripped of black peoples music and called it "rock n roll"...not that I give 2 squirts of shit about black culture, but you can see where I am coming from.

The point is, yes, I celebrate christmas, but not for the same reasons you dark-aged plebs do..it is about family, love and collectiveness for my superior aryan family...not about sheep-tendering and fucking frankincense to hide your hideous israeli body-odour.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Bullshit, because rejecting God is not tied in with sin. I can reject god and still not live a sinful life.

I'd say it's pretty obvious that rejecting God IS a sin.

The problem here is that this first requires the belief God actually exist. I don't reject God because I think I don't need him, (I don't but that's besides the point), I reject him because I don't belief he exists. And this is even ignoring the countless people who just haven't heard of God.

Your culpability for being an atheist is between you and God. No one knows how intellectually honest anyone else but God, really. I'm not one to judge who's going where, all I know is that conscious denial of God due to pride, vanity, stubbornness, etc is quite a crime. It's not for me to say or really speculate on who's guilty of it, however.

Not according to most christians.

It's an interesting theological debate, but I think a point that can be universally agreed upon is that the souls in Hell are better off where they are because the sight of God's perfection would be unbearable.

The problem is that you're saying that it's free choice because there are two options and you can choose, while I am saying that it's not free choice because the choices aren't equal.

I'm not sure I get what you mean. There certainly is free choice. You can do something, or you can not do something. Cause and effect seems to dictate that different actions will generally produce different effects. In the supernatural sense, different actions on earth lead to different eternal destinations.

Of course the options aren't equal. Why would they be?

[hecter]

Your culpability for being an atheist is between you and God. No one knows how intellectually honest anyone else but God, really. I'm not one to judge who's going where, all I know is that conscious denial of God due to pride, vanity, stubbornness, etc is quite a crime. It's not for me to say or really speculate on who's guilty of it, however.

Does this mean I am damned, though? I could be called a "natural atheist". I didn't choose to be an atheist, I just chose to accept what I was and take on the title, know what I mean? I COULD call myself a Christian, and say I believe in God, and go to church and all that fun stuff, but I'd be lying to myself and everybody else if I did. It's not something I can control and turn off and on at a whim. It's just the way I am. Why should I be damned for that?

[Shitman079]

It's just as well society has evolved past a point of barbarism, because in better days i'd have been reaching for the club and brutally battering ambrosia.

vain....stubborn....proud....

Maybe these are virtues allowed only to the followers of the "correct".

[reminisco]

Your culpability for being an atheist is between you and God. No one knows how intellectually honest anyone else but God, really. I'm not one to judge who's going where, all I know is that conscious denial of God due to pride, vanity, stubbornness, etc is quite a crime. It's not for me to say or really speculate on who's guilty of it, however.

Does this mean I am damned, though? I could be called a "natural atheist". I didn't choose to be an atheist, I just chose to accept what I was and take on the title, know what I mean? I COULD call myself a Christian, and say I believe in God, and go to church and all that fun stuff, but I'd be lying to myself and everybody else if I did. It's not something I can control and turn off and on at a whim. It's just the way I am. Why should I be damned for that?

probably because according to OA's model, that's faulty logic.

to follow that logic, it would be sound reason to say that the murderer who kills for fun is excused in his actions because that's just "the way he is". or that someone who is an alcoholic is not responsible for who he may harm while intoxicated behind the wheel, because, that's just the way he is.

Kant touches on all of this in the first Critique, and more in Metaphysics of Morals. see those titles for more information.

[Shitman079]

probably because according to OA's model, that's faulty logic.[

Fascinating.

to follow that logic, it would be sound reason to say that the murderer who kills for fun is excused in his actions because that's just "the way he is". or that someone who is an alcoholic is not responsible for who he may harm while intoxicated behind the wheel, because, that's just the way he is.

So, your superior logic abilities compare atheists behaviour to the volitions of criminals?

Kant touches on all of this in the first Critique, and more in Metaphysics of Morals. see those titles for more information.

This is probably not going to be on my Christmas "wishlist"

Merry fucking honika.

[Snorri1234]

I'm not sure I get what you mean. There certainly is free choice. You can do something, or you can not do something. Cause and effect seems to dictate that different actions will generally produce different effects. In the supernatural sense, different actions on earth lead to different eternal destinations.

Of course the options aren't equal. Why would they be?

As I said earlier, if someone walks up to you and says "give me your money or I'll shoot you", is that a real choice? Would you actually think about the choice, or go with the one that is less worse? And I don't mean, go with what you think is the best choice, but go with what is undoubtely the best choice.

In short: Do you actually think there are people who believe in God but choose to reject him? People who conciously reject God, even though he is love and perfection in every way?

[Snorri1234]

probably because according to OA's model, that's faulty logic.

And who is OA?

to follow that logic, it would be sound reason to say that the murderer who kills for fun is excused in his actions because that's just "the way he is". or that someone who is an alcoholic is not responsible for who he may harm while intoxicated behind the wheel, because, that's just the way he is.

Those people are dangers to society. It doesn't matter jack shit whether they consciously decided to become murderers or alcoholics, they should be locked up because the violate the right and life of others.

A more apt analogy is: Should homosexuals be excused for being gay because that is the way they are?

To answer that for you, OFCOURSE!

[SolidLuigi]

......,.......

[InkL0sed]

Doesn't it say somewhere in the bible or somethin that Jesus was born in June? I remember hearing that somewhere.

Christmas has never had any religious meaning to me, its been warped so far out of being a religious holiday. This picture is a good viewpoint.

Yeah, Christmas isn't actually Jesus' birthday. Constantine just said so to convert the pagans.

[reminisco]

probably because according to OA's model, that's faulty logic.[

Fascinating.

to follow that logic, it would be sound reason to say that the murderer who kills for fun is excused in his actions because that's just "the way he is". or that someone who is an alcoholic is not responsible for who he may harm while intoxicated behind the wheel, because, that's just the way he is.

So, your superior logic abilities compare atheists behaviour to the volitions of criminals?

Kant touches on all of this in the first Critique, and more in Metaphysics of Morals. see those titles for more information.

This is probably not going to be on my Christmas "wishlist"

Merry fucking honika.

either you're retarded or you don't understand English in the written word. reread what i wrote. i say nothing of my superior logic, you dumbass. i only reference the logic espoused earlier as a method for explaining why another viewpoint would disagree.

learn to read. then practice. (don't be ashamed to sound out words at first)

then learn about comprehension. (i know, that word might be too multisyllabic for an idiot like you, but you'll get there, kiddo. and if you do, i'll give you a gold star!)

someday, maybe you'll get it. until then, shut the f*ck up.

[reminisco]

And who is OA?

OnlyAmbrose

[Nataki Yiro]

lol atheist...

Being an atheist is like taking a test. If you don't fill in an answer you still lose...

[OnlyAmbrose]

Does this mean I am damned, though?

That's not for me to know.

I COULD call myself a Christian, and say I believe in God, and go to church and all that fun stuff, but I'd be lying to myself and everybody else if I did.

Well then I'm glad you don't.

It's just the way I am. Why should I be damned for that?

You won't be damned for being "who you are." You will be "damning" yourself by not fulfilling the very reason for which you were created.

vain....stubborn....proud....

Maybe these are virtues allowed only to the followers of the "correct".

They certainly are not allowed. Those who are "correct" and practice them are known as "hypocrites." Everyone falls into hypocrisy at some point, of course, but someone who claims to be Christian but consistently acts "vain", etc, is likely comparable to the Pharisees.

As I said earlier, if someone walks up to you and says "give me your money or I'll shoot you", is that a real choice? Would you actually think about the choice, or go with the one that is less worse? And I don't mean, go with what you think is the best choice, but go with what is undoubtely the best choice.

In short: Do you actually think there are people who believe in God but choose to reject him? People who conciously reject God, even though he is love and perfection in every way?

Yes. It is a real choice. And it's not just with the choice to follow God, there are choices Christians have to make every day which are just like it.

For instance. Many teenager Catholics, myself certainly included, struggle with masturbation. Please note that if you want to discuss the issue of masturbation itself, make a new thread, I'm just using it as an example.

Anywho, masturbation is a mortal sin according to Catholic theology. You cannot enter heaven with a mortal sin on your soul. But I do it anyways.

Why? Why do I fall into it even though I know that the consequences could be eternal? Simple. I rationalize to satisfy my desire for pleasure. I intentionally push down my conscience and reason which is screaming "don't do it." These past few years as a teenager in south orange county my mind grew accustomed to the idea of pleasure and leisure being paramount. My moral discipline failed over and over again, all over the place I'd be succumbing to pleasure, spending huge amounts of my paycheck on food and general pleasure.

So why do we make obviously fatal choices? Simple, because humans are not always desirous of the truth. Our happiness depends on that truth, but the pleasure principle has desires besides out ultimate happiness.

A bit of a roundabout way of answering the question, but I hope it helps. I can't judge atheists because I'm not God, but I don't doubt that many of them commit the sin of rejecting God for much the same reason that I commit the sin of masturbation.