I have a suspicion that this may be too religious, but I thought I'd give it a shot. To me, it's interesting that this group is actually trying to shift the focus. The main issue is that not everyone that celebrates the holiday is very religious or religious at all. Still, I kind of like what they're trying to do. If we thought about this holiday the right way, we may actually be able to make a real difference with it. Instead of worrying over whether Bobby and Susie like they're new toys, spend some of that money on charity. I guess the real message is that, during this season of giving, we'd do well to try and remember that our family is much larger than those we're related to by blood.
Everyone needs to do their part. Our world would be so much better if they did.
As far as Oreilly and his Pro Christian cronies go, Christmas isn't the only religious holiday that happens during this time of year. Each of the Major Western Religions has a holiday that happens around this time. To say nothing of the myriad of pagan religions who's holidays predate Christianity itself etc. Which is why, frankly it needs to be Holiday Season not just, Christmas. It's a self important view which ruins the holidays every year for me at least.
So if roughly 75% of the population claims to be Christian, and another 21% (84% or the remaining 25% of the population) celebrates Christmas in a non-religious manner, I fail to see the purpose of expunging "Merry Christmas" from the language.
Perhaps those who do not celebrate Christmas, or who do but who follow a different faith, could simply accept the greeting in the spirit in which it is offered, just as I do if someone says "Happy Hanukkha", "Happy Holidays" or some other greeting that does not apply to me but which applies to them. I accept such a greeting in the spirit in which it is intended and would hope others would do likewise, not matter what the actual words are.
Common sense and common courtesy go a lot further than intolerance and a misplaced victim complex.
I simply do not believe, that whining over the removing of "christmas" is anything to worry about when the spirit remains intact.
Saying that it's time to rally and rise up against evil commercialism simply isn't the answer. Especially since really it's a bunch of whining over nothing.
Dec 25th is in my eyes, our official day of giving a nod to all of those days without having to go through each and every one and making the worlds strangest Holiday card.
Don't say that "well he was born then!" when ample evidence tells us he was actually born around Easter, and he died more like in October. We changed the day for our convience early in our history to closer emulate existing religions and make converting those heathens and pagans easier.
"Well we have a holiday then too! and it's about the same thing!" (same thing with Easter)
Modern December, is what I call the Holiday Cluster****, if you were going to acknowledge every single religious holiday in it.
Christmas is about, duh, Christ.
For those who believe in Christ, yes. For those that do not, no.
Christmas is about celebrating Christ and the gift He gave to us all.
Gift he gave us? So it is about the phat lewtz!!! ;)
The sheer number of Holidays that happen this month, is why I always tell someone Happy Holidays, unless I know specifically their religion and whether they practice it or not. My bases are all covered against anyone that's overly sensitive, and I'm genuinely sincere when saying it..............most of the time.
Also, let's face it. Dec 25th isn't a day. It's an entire season and a half. We start gearing up for it late october, and it rolls into New Years.
Then you aren't really celebrating Christmas. You are just exchanging gifts. Which is fine, but it isn't Christmas.
No I'm celebrating Christmas, I'm just not celebrating Christ.
Why must you mock religion? Especially to people you know to be believers, knowing you will get a negative reaction?
I'm not mocking religion, I'm making a bit of a punny joke around the use of the word "gift".
The true meaning I was raised is, peace, selflessness, and good will towards men.
The Messenger is Irrelevant, as far as the spirit and meaning of the message is concerned.
This is probably entering dangerous ground, but it's like how alot of baptists literally think if you aren't christian you are going to hell. Not how you live your life, and how you treat others determining where you go.
You don't have to be christian to hold the values that Christmas is intended to mean close to your heart.
thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/tha...
Really puts it in perspective in a semi humorous sort of way.
Or the first that held them in value. :-p
You aren't a creationist by chance are you?
Well it's easy really. If you view Christmas, as the US Federal Holiday in which we officially recognize most of the major brands of Religions (in this country I don't know too much about Eastern Religions), it's pretty easy.
See, we'd rather as a people acknowledge christmas because our evil overlords, would rather just give us a day maybe two off, rather than a week or two weeks.
Boraxe, with all due respect, you cannot celebrate Christmas without the Christ.
With all due respect, I can and do.
You can spend time with friends and family, exchange gifts, and have a wonderful time, but without celebrating the true meaning of Christmas, which involves Christ, you are not celebrating Christmas. You are exchanging gifts and having fun with friends and family.
I'm sorry if the notion of "Christmas without Christ" offends you, but it is not unique to me.
What you are describing is Giftmas.
It's really not, though kudos for the word "Giftmas". I like it.
Or you mean participate rather than celebrate.
Nope, I mean celebrate.
Why must you mock religion? Especially to people you know to be believers, knowing you will get a negative reaction?
You of all people feel compeled to ask why a person would say something when they know the reaction will be negative?
When you think about it, from a pure historical standpoint, christmas and holidays like it make sense from a purely War waging aspect. Dead of winter it is a great deal more difficult to wage war because the ability to supply troops is lower.
So the idea of peace being stronger in people's minds does probably have some basis in that it's harder to wage military campaigns during this time of year.
Ps the world and it's creation (and life) can be explained by science purely. That's not to say I do not believe in divine beings or some form of greater collective consciousness.
Anyway.
Show
Here's some vodka
For Christians this is one of the most important religious holidays days of the year.
This isn't traditionally true. The most signifigant holiday on the Christain/Catholic/etc calendar is Easter. To be fair, Christmas was never considered a very religious holiday (for proof, check out the Puritan's views on Christmas. I'll give you a hint: They didn't celebrate).
The fact of the matter is, the name is irrelevant. What is Christmas now was Saturnalia 1500 years ago and Winter Soltice celebrations before that and guess what? They espouse the same values and have the same social "meanings" attached despite which God has his name on the day. What is so wrong with wanting to celebrate Family, the warm hearth (home), good food and making the world a better place even outside of a religious context?
For further proof, I will bring up the old Athiest favorite: Christ wasn't born in December.
And to head off any nasty replies, I am Lutheran.
Good. Then we can all agree that there is no such thing as a "War on Christmas" and I can stop hearing people foam at the mouth about it.
Not all can agree. I feel there is a war. Unlike others, however, I see it as a war of attrition.
That should be something everyone can get behind, and I am rather horrified that there are people who apparently think otherwise.
What's getting lost here, thanks to a badly written article, is that there is a group of people trying to do something which is good and I would like to think, even though I am not Christian myself, is not at all against Christian values but in fact in line with what Christ was supposed to teach people---charity, humility, not being greedy or focusing on material wealth.
That should be something everyone can get behind, and I am rath11111111er horrified that there are people who apparently think otherwise.
Do not mistake my last (and only) comment on this thread. I happen to agree with the movement 100%, and feel that it is now how it SHOULD be. The only point I was addressing was the war. As stated, it is a war of attrition. Hence the need for such a movement.
another where an atheist was driving through the desert and spotted an old war memorial that was a cross and took offense to it... now it is boarded up and unrecognizable)
One person being an intolerant wanker does not a conspiracy make. I did some Googling and could find no mention of this, though I did find:
"In Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, an atheist group requested permission to put up a sign by the Memorial square fountain war memorial. The sign would have been in memory of atheist war veterans, so it would certainly be appropriate, but Christians objected because it would have been near a Christmas nativity scene. The city council was informed that the law required them to either accept signs and displays on a content neutral basis, or not accept any signs and display."
atheism.about.com/b/2009/11/27/chambersb...
This is as silly as if you went around saying "you're not really married, because it's not a marriage in (my) god's eyes!"
What goes around....
It's not like Christians themselves are guilty of mass persecution and terrible crimes against non christians or anything.. not like there were Inquisitions, Witchhunts, and Crusades or anything.
I think the said War Memorial could have been in better taste. Frankly, that's a rather stupid memorial. Way to show our appreciation... two sticks nailed together... these people only died in droves for you and your fellow man and all.
Private property is one thing, however government monuments shouldn't be rife with religious icons. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of Seperation of Church and state.
As for "christian values" please don't tell me you are hinting at marriage. Really. An institution, which frankly is more financial than anything in original intent. Assault on christian values. really
Boraxe: Common sense and common courtesy go a lot further than intolerance and a misplaced victim complex.
Well said. It's not Christmas specific, but things get drawn to a head this time of year.
Dare to dream, right? Ironic in a season that pretty much sums up what you said in the secular demographics & religious ones, and yet, engaging extra traffic, longer lines, financial woes (featuring ingrate kids & subpar presents!), and so forth to go through the motions tends to have the inverse effect.
This is not to say I don't like Christmas. I'm very partial to it; I don't mind midnight service on Eve, trying to figure out what family member 'x' needs vs. wants, "Christmas Story" on loop 24/7, slogging through an unanticipated snowfall, etc. That's okay and we can weather those things well enough. This is as good as it gets realistically. You could be giftless & w/out loved ones in some crappy firebase near Khandahar. Or, God forbid, working retail on the 26th (shopping isn't the problem, it's angry ppl & returns)...
However, I cannot abide more screaming kids w/ ridiculous demands, d-bags cutting each other off in traffic cuz' the mall is closing, ppl banking on their Xmas bonus (it's a bonus, not a given) instead of TCOB, and hijacking of otherwise tasteful peripherals and window dressing (Xmas remixes, American Idol BS, Cosby Sweaters™!) and whoring it up for a quick buck.
Then, you get these lose cannons that stare daggers at you for wishing them a "Merry Christmas"...A kind word becomes a faux pas? What happened?
Look, ppl, it's not a dissertation on someone's religious affiliation, it's a simple and dignified way for well wishing that ppl w/ chips on their shoulder will take and run w/ in the opposite direction (tripping over their own vitriol & "righteous" indignation). Would you rather I just give you the finger & drink my eggnog? Would that spare your delicate PC sensibilities? Perhaps I just ignore you per the currency of your line of socializing, ala bystander apathy, and leave you to your own devices when encumbered w/ gifts @ the checkout, stuck in a snowbank, feeling the clinch of a end of year deadline? No, they're gonna' let you have it w/ both barrels cuz' you haven't developed that telepathy yet they insist on.
Bricktop said it best, "When I throw a dog a bone, I don't want to know if it tastes good." -Snatch
Any wonder why highest suicide rates of the year are right around next week...food for thought. Take the Yuletide greeting, smile and nod. It has its "benefits". Best case scenario, "Oh, well thanks. Same to you." Even to the most mercenary atheist out there, you might make a friend, get bumped up in line, someone let you out in traffic, get a tip on a hot sale down the corridor, free gift wrapping, Hell, a phone number or date even (Xmas '01, you rock!).
ex) a Jew in line w/ me @ Border's when I uttered the dreaded Yule greeting, only to have him snicker and remind me he was going to Temple comically (telepathy is on my to-do list). "Oh, sorry, well, Happy Hanukka then," to which he corrected me, "No, you were fine the 1st time, you're a Xian, right? No biggie. It's cool. Here..." and he gave me a 50% off coupon he wasn't using which was badass considering mom's gift was pricey (ironically, pastor mom's book was about Christ/Star of Bethlehem which transitioned into typical banter). KARMA: With the $25 or so he saved me, I got him a cappucino at the cafe there while he was still in check-out w/ plenty of left over money to spare (this would later turn into padding ex's gift which would, in turn, become another "gift" on its own [mo' karma]). Coffee was parleyed into an invite to one of the best New Year's parties I ever went to. What a rare moment.
Now a' days...grr. When you're called a "****" by local thugs for holding the door for someone juggling 2 kids and a lot of baggage, well, what then? That really razzes me/kills the whole vibe.
PC holiday: If you have time for angtsty socio-political commentary in the busy season, might I suggest shelving that rhetoric and spending said time w/ your friends and family instead? Which one will carry you farther, the nameless stranger at the mall that tried to do right whom you'll never see again (accept maybe in the parking lot w/ hilarious results) or the ppl who love you?
Cpt. Micha: Don't say that "well he was born then!" when ample evidence tells us he was actually born around Easter, and he died more like in October. We changed the day for our convience early in our history to closer emulate existing religions and make converting those heathens and pagans easier.
Speculation is around March (DOB). IIRC, clue was the sheep were recently shorn of wool (post Winter) denoting season. And when you say "we", I think you mean "they". I didn't get a vote, nor was I a Catholic, or a super ancient timeless being...though I get that a lot these days 
. You're talking about Saturnalia, the Roman holiday (not a host of religions) they assimilated into Christmas. Same thing w/ Halloween (Samhain = All Saints Day), Easter (Oester), etc.
Oh, and pagan is heathen, though kind of a **** move to call someone a heathen now. Technically, it's anything non-Christian, not a religion onto itself, however, these days, it's all over the place. It is typically confused w/ Wicca and whatever nature-based religion du jour is popular of late.
pagan/pagani, n. (Latin) = "farmer". They called them that cuz' Roman farmers (rural types in general) were a very suspicious and antiquated lot, not having the benefits an urban center can bring, namely education, killer architecture, a more cosmopolitan world view, commerce, higher rate of socialization, etc. Thusly, they were very stubborn & supersticious to adopt anything new, religion or no. It was used as an insult well before Christendom for what it's worth. Like us calling someone a country bumpkin basically.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. Merry Christmas.
And remember to always drink your Ovaltine kids.
This is as silly as if you went around saying "your're not really married, because it's not a marriage in (my) god's eyes!"
I wish people who do say that realized how silly they sound when they do so.
As an aside, something for the anti-gay folks to consider: about 1 in 10* people are gay. If you have nine or more friends, one of you is probably gay. Next time you're watching a bunch of macho football players run around a field, think about the fact that at least 1 player on each side is probably gay.
*Strangely, also the same percentage for left-handedness.
My personal take on creationisim, since it was brought up and thus the tread is likely to be locked soon anyways: people are stupid. The entire argument behind the validity of the bible as anything beside a worthless collection of stories is that they where told to man by god. God did not want to waste all that effort to explain to us how species where made or the earth was formed in all the gritty details. It was laid out for us in an abbridged symbolic fashion like he was talking to a retarded infant. And periodically we stand up like stupid infants and yell at eachoter about how something works one way or another because dad said thats how it worked. Dad just wasn't interested in explaining the inner workings of his creations to you, but rather was caught up in giving you moral lessons.
Me likely.
The exchange of gifts around this time of year isn't anything new though.
For christmas it is.
It's not like Christians themselves are guilty of mass persecution and terrible crimes against non christians or anything.. not like there were Inquisitions, Witchhunts, and Crusades or anything.
This is a fallacy. Just because some followers of a religion at one time did not adhere to the tenents of their religion very well should not taint the whole religion forever more. It's like saying I don't believe in welfare because the USSR was a socialist state and Stalin killed a lot of people.
@1_ton_ghost: bravissima!
for you: 
I wish people who do say that realized how silly they sound when they do so.
As an aside, something for the anti-gay folks to consider: about 1 in 10* people are gay. If you have nine or more friends, one of you is probably gay. Next time you're watching a bunch of macho football players run around a field, think about the fact that at least 1 player on each side is probably gay.
*Strangely, also the same percentage for left-handedness.
Wait. So left handed people are gay? Or is it that gay people are left handed?
And what do you do with witches? Burn them! And what, apart from witches, burns? Wood! So why do witches burn? ... Cuz they're made of wood? Good!
But I'm left-ha -- oh. oh no.
Here, I'll make ya feel better (by making you ill). I'm only left handed when I ... uhh ... when I ...
If that ain't some kind of odd evidence, I don't know what is.
@EE: I may be reading wrong - but his statement was more akin to - if you aren't celebrating Christ, then you aren't celebrating Christmas (he even gave alternatives).
And I disagree.
And I disagree.
Then how do you define Christmas, as it would require Christmas being a secular, and not a religious holiday?
@1_ton_ghost: bravissima!
for you:
Thanks, but I didn't do anything spectacular like that time I saved an entire family from a sinking battleship only to realize the whole thing was perpetrated by Kaiser Sose where I most gallantly defeated him w/ a rapist wit!
Still, you know what goes great w/ 3 cookies? Eggnog. Merry Christmas (you either get a football or a check for college). Respect.
And I disagree.
Then how do you define Christmas, as it would require Christmas being a secular, and not a religious holiday?
The fact of the matter is, the name is irrelevant. What is Christmas now was Saturnalia 1500 years ago and Winter Soltice celebrations before that and guess what? They espouse the same values and have the same social "meanings" attached despite which God has his name on the day.
HTH!
HTH!
HTH? (not familiar)
Moreover, the response isn't applicable. Besides Christmas, I will also be "celebrating" Yule (although not Hannukah for one of the first years in recent history). However, only in the first will I be celebrating Christ - as it is the purpose of the Holiday. It''s the reason I mentioned the examples he gave. You can celebrate all you want, but you wouldn't be celebrating Christmas.
I wish people who do say that realized how silly they sound when they do so.
As an aside, something for the anti-gay folks to consider: about 1 in 10* people are gay. If you have nine or more friends, one of you is probably gay. Next time you're watching a bunch of macho football players run around a field, think about the fact that at least 1 player on each side is probably gay.
*Strangely, also the same percentage for left-handedness.
Wait. So left handed people are gay? Or is it that gay people are left handed?
Not surprisingly I came to the same conclusion. ;)
Not surprisingly I came to the same conclusion. ;)
I wonder what that means. I do have some ideas ...
You can celebrate all you want, but you wouldn't be celebrating Christmas.
... from a Christian point of view. Christmas, believe it or not, has many meanings today. If the people I celebrate with call what we do Christmas, then it is Christmas to us. And guess what - we're the only people, in this instance, that matter. That's why this stuff is totally meaningless. We're all seeing things from different points of view and then making our assessments of other peoples' ideas based from only our own. While what some here do may not be considered celebrating Christmas by the church, they do not need church acceptance to celebrate Christmas. And that's something I honestly hope the devout would respect and understand. There is no one true way.
Not surprisingly I came to the same conclusion. ;)
I wonder what that means. I do have some ideas ...
Don't say anything about a white Christmas, k?
Also, Roland (Dark Tower) was a lefty only "when". His saving grace when giant crabs snapped off a few fingers on his gun hand.
HTH? (not familiar)
Hope this helps. It's a little glib.
Moreover, the response isn't applicable. Besides Christmas, I will also be "celebrating" Yule (although not Hannukah for one of the first years in recent history). However, only in the first will I be celebrating Christ - as it is the purpose of the Holiday. It''s the reason I mentioned the examples he gave. You can celebrate all you want, but you wouldn't be celebrating Christmas.
This is purely semantic. The function of Christmas was never to "celebrate christ".
Don't say anything about a white Christmas, k?
But ... but White Christmas is my favorite Christmas movie! It really is, too. Easily the greatest holiday film of all time.
Yeah it's pretty good. I still like It's a Wonderful Life better because Jimmy Stewart is better than everyone.
Yeah it's pretty good. I still like It's a Wonderful Life better because Jimmy Stewart is better than everyone.
That's crazy talk! WC has Rosemary Clooney, Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye! That's a friggin' all star line up, man! If you don't think WC is the best Christmas movie ever, you're totally celebrating Christmas movies wrong.
... from a Christian point of view. Christmas, believe it or not, has many meanings today. If the people I celebrate with call what we do Christmas, then it is Christmas to us. And guess what - we're the only people, in this instance, that matter. That's why this stuff is totally meaningless. We're all seeing things from different points of view and then making our assessments of other peoples' ideas based from only our own. While what some here do may not be considered celebrating Christmas by the church, they do not need church acceptance to celebrate Christmas. And that's something I honestly hope the devout would respect and understand. There is no one true way.
This goes back to what words mean - hence I asked for the definition - the PRIMARY (even at current) is the Christian Holiday. As a word itself, it would not exist, if not for Christ. So, you can call what you celebrate whatever you will - however, if you said you were celebrating Easter - you'd be using the word, incorrectly. The same with Christmas - unless you mean it to be something else.
Yeah it's pretty good. I still like It's a Wonderful Life better because Jimmy Stewart is better than everyone.
It's A Christmas Story for me. I've seen it like a thousand times and it never gets old.
This is purely semantic. The function of Christmas was never to "celebrate christ".
It is ENTIRELY semantic (. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.) The language is conveying a meaning that is incorrect. Pick an appropriate term. Christmas bears with it the celebration of Christ's birth. Other holidays for this season do NOT. If you call what you celebrate Christmas, you've used the wrong term. Much like if I called the bits you use on the keyboard your noses. (after all, it's a projection from your body, just the same, right).
Z_B... you know I love ya, but you aren't celebrating Christmas without Christ. You may be participating in Christmas, but without the Jesus part people hate so much, it isn't celebrating Christmas. Now, there is nothing wrong with what you do ... at all, but it isn't celebrating Christmas. Please see PBN's post above.
I think God's cool with what I do. I'm also certain JC would be, too. This is just a different way of looking at things. I respect your opinion and am happy you respect mine. We'll not agree, and that's ok. I'll still get hammered with ya if you're ever in town. :D
This goes back to what words mean - hence I asked for the definition - the PRIMARY (even at current) is the Christian Holiday. As a word itself, it would not exist, if not for Christ. So, you can call what you celebrate whatever you will - however, if you said you were celebrating Easter - you'd be using the word, incorrectly. The same with Christmas - unless you mean it to be something else.
So words can't have multiple meanings now. Ok. Gotcha.
Look, this is about a word. The fact that we're having this conversation - placing all of the focus on the word instead of the intent - means we're both missing the point entirely. I don't care what you think about what I call what I do. It doesn't change anything. The fact that you and others don't consider what I do a celebration of Christmas means nothing. I'm still celebrating Christmas no matter how wrong you think I am. I'm perfectly ok with the way you see things. I just happen to see them differently. And that's ok.
And I disagree.
Then how do you define Christmas, as it would require Christmas being a secular, and not a religious holiday?
Why bother? To some people it's a religiuos holiday. To some it's not. And to think you can dictate that some people are doing it wrong is arrogance of the highest order.
It's A Christmas Story for me. I've seen it like a thousand times and it never gets old.
That's a great one. Shot in my hometown, it holds a place just for that. And the fact that I looked an awful lot like Ralphie for a portion of my childhood doesn't hurt my connection to it one bit. ;)
Fa ra ra ra ra, ra ra ra-ra!
I'm also a fan of Bad Santa. It makes me chortle with Christmas (er ... secular version of birth anniversary) delight.
ZB: But ... but White Christmas is my favorite Christmas movie! It really is, too. Easily the greatest holiday film of all time.
It was the word play, jock seeks jock ad, and, uh, wow…look @ the time!
…It’s time to get ill as they say. I can’t even remember what that film is about, apart from Xmas that is. Still, I hear good things.
I’m kind of a sucker for “The Little Princess” (long story, and no, Dateline isn’t involved), “It’s a Wonderful Life”, oh, and here’s one you might dig, “A Mightnight Clear” www.allmovie.com/work/a-midnight-clear-3... which is more of a war movie w/ Christmas @ its core. Watched that one for Religion & Film class, quite a hit.
@ EVERYONE ELSE: Anyway, isn't Christmas labeled as a religious holiday by the State?
Not that I'm a dyed in the wool Lutheran, but I tend to differ to their platform that religion is a personal issue between you and God. That said, this, the holiday tirp to Grandma's, the bird on the table, evening service, everything is between you and Him IMO. Someone has an issue w/ that, well, complaints work UP the chain of command, not DOWN.
Also, the Buddhists have a very cool approach on the matter, as well as other religious holidays. Participate if you want. It may prove enlightening, make someone else's holiday brighter and increase good will, or...uh, it beats watching a subpar college ball game? Yeah, that's it.
Why stir the pot (cause suffering)? Are not all religions a path to God?
It was the word play, jock seeks jock ad, and, uh, wow…look @ the time!…It’s time to get ill as they say. I can’t even remember what that film is about, apart from Xmas that is. Still, I hear good things.
I’m kind of a sucker for “The Little Princess” (long story, and no, Dateline isn’t involved), “It’s a Wonderful Life”, oh, and here’s one you might dig, “A Mightnight Clear” www.allmovie.com/work/a-midnight-clear-3... which is more of a war movie w/ Christmas @ its core. Watched that one for Religion & Film class, quite a hit.
I caught the play. Just felt like mentioning the movie for some reason. Likely cuz me, the fiancee and the kiddo watched it this past weekend (new tradition I started cuz I wanted to share my love for that movie - so far, so good).
I think I may start a thread about Christmas movies. Not that I care a whit that this'n is gettin' derailed (kinda my schtick), but I also know that this thread is not long for this world. Movies are fun to talk about, no?
Why bother? To some people it's a religiuos holiday. To some it's not. And to think you can dictate that some people are doing it wrong is arrogance of the highest order.
I was going by the dictionary (silly me). That isn't arrogance at all. That is how we interpret words. Can all words mean whatever we want to? How will we communicate, then?
So - I'll ask the question again - what is Christmas, if not the celebration of Christ's birth?
edited to add: the question is posed to Z_B as well. For example, would you be equally correct if you decided that you were celebrating Hannukah, or Ramadan?
Jesus Christ kid! What is it with you and sandwiches?!
Ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Awesome movie!
Yes. It's fantastic.
I'm three feet tall you ****!
edited to add: the question is posed to Z_B as well. For example, would you be equally correct if you decided that you were celebrating Hannukah, or Ramadan?
Why not? So long as I follow in the spirit of either, am I not celebrating it?
Christmas was originally a pagan holiday.
No - it wasn't. "Pagans" predated christianity with their mid-winter festivals (of various names) Christmas wasn't fully "established" until around the 3rd-4th century AD
Later christ was slapped on it but nothing had ever really changed.
Which introduced the term Christmas as it was a particular festival AMONG MANY celebrated during this time. To this day many other mid-winter festivals are still celebrated under their original (or newer names)
It's A Christmas Story for me. I've seen it like a thousand times and it never gets old.That's a great one. Shot in my hometown, it holds a place just for that. And the fact that I looked an awful lot like Ralphie for a portion of my childhood doesn't hurt my connection to it one bit. ;)
Partially shot in mine too (Toronto), though with the flaming red hair I had growing up I looked more like Scott Farkus.
Nobody is saying you are doing anything "wrong"...
Funny, you were saying it wasn't Christmas, weren't you?
Why not? So long as I follow in the spirit of either, am I not celebrating it?
You are most certainly, in such a case. Which is MY point. The spirit of Christmas (as opposed to the many other holidays of this time) is a celebration of the Nativity. That is its DEFINING feature - what separates it from Yule, or Hannukah, or Ramadan, or any other.
Christmas was originally a pagan holiday.
No - it wasn't. "Pagans" predated christianity with their mid-winter festivals (of various names) Christmas wasn't fully "established" until around the 3rd-4th century ADLater christ was slapped on it but nothing had ever really changed.
Which introduced the term Christmas as it was a particular festival AMONG MANY celebrated during this time. To this day many other mid-winter festivals are still celebrated under their original (or newer names)
As I understand it when it was relabled christmas nothing had changed about the roman holiday. The celebration stayed the same but just had a name change and the god everyone was partyin' for was now God (jesus) instead of the roman gods.
So - I'll ask the question again - what is Christmas, if not the celebration of Christ's birth?
And again I refuse. You celebrate your Christmas your way. And leave your nose out of mine. I don't care if you think I'm doing it wrong, I'm putting up a Christmas tree, with Christmas lights, exchanging Christmas gifts and spending Christmas with my family.
And if that bothers you so much, then you're far too interested in my business.
Partially shot in mine too (Toronto), though with the flaming red hair I had growing up I looked more like Scott Farkus.
Heh.
I never did get around to stickin' my tongue on a frozen flag pole ... ;)
Merry Xmas, everyone!
Question to those that feel it ain't Christmas without Christ (I'm just curious):
Do you consider anything Christmas music if it does not contain a reference to JC? Jingle Bells - Christmas song? That sort of thing ...
You are putting up a holiday tree, with holiday lights, exchanging holiday gifts, and spending the holidays with your family.
I hope you know how silly you sound.
As I understand it when it was relabled christmas nothing had changed about the roman holiday. The celebration stayed the same but just had a name change and the god everyone was partyin' for was now God (jesus) instead of the roman gods.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that. First, it wasn't a "relabeling", the date actually came about as the result of a confluence of forces - the Egyptians, the Visigoths, and the Romans. However, it was after the church established the timeline of Advent, and reconciled the dates of conception and birth, that the date was set and labeled for the Nativiity. At that point, the church set aside the festival dates (which, due to advent ran longer than the current festival day - or 12 days, depending on your viewpoint). Further still, the date of visitation (celebrated by the gifts) was still held much later than the original yule festivals. So, in aggregate, no - a lot of it was altered.
Then it isn't Christmas...
HO HO HO!
And again I refuse.
You'd rather others NOT understand you? alright, I suppose.
You celebrate your Christmas your way. And leave your nose out of mine.
It is - I never asked how you plan to celebrate this time of year. I only asked how you define Christmas.
I don't care if you think I'm doing it wrong, I'm putting up a Christmas tree, with Christmas lights, exchanging Christmas gifts and spending Christmas with my family.
Nor did I say you were "doing it" wrong. I said you may be using the wrong word - OR using it in a way that didn't line up with its definition (the reason I asked you to supply one)
And if that bothers you so much, then you're far too interested in my business.
Not interested at all in your business. Interested in having a discussion - which NECESSITATES that we all agree on the definitions of the terms we use. Or, barring that, at a minimum, that each knows the meaning behind the other's use of terms.
Good question!
Yes.
But they've nothing to do with Christ. How does that follow the rest?
Wait, so its cool if I go around calling people niger bitch **** **** and the like, as long as I choose to personally define them as not bad things? Hmm, an interesting position, no doubt, but rather contrary to modern trends for sure.
Whether it's "cool" or not is up to whoever you're asking for their opinion, but yes, people re-purpose words, symbols, and phrases all the time. Didn't we already have that discussion? Back when I first put images in my sig?
As I understand it when it was relabled christmas nothing had changed about the roman holiday. The celebration stayed the same but just had a name change and the god everyone was partyin' for was now God (jesus) instead of the roman gods.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that. First, it wasn't a "relabeling", the date actually came about as the result of a confluence of forces - the Egyptians, the Visigoths, and the Romans. However, it was after the church established the timeline of Advent, and reconciled the dates of conception and birth, that the date was set and labeled for the Nativiity. At that point, the church set aside the festival dates (which, due to advent ran longer than the current festival day - or 12 days, depending on your viewpoint). Further still, the date of visitation (celebrated by the gifts) was still held much later than the original yule festivals. So, in aggregate, no - a lot of it was altered.
So how do we get the nativity set in december when none of the clues in the bible point towards winter?
It was a basic relabling of a popular pagan holiday in order make conversion a bit more welcoming cuz people don't like it when you take away holidays they like Oh so much.
And again I refuse.
You'd rather others NOT understand you? alright, I suppose.
Who's misunderstood me? Any confusion about whether or not I'm celebrating a religious holiday has been cleared up, and continuing to pretend to not understand is a neat, but duplicious, act.
You celebrate your Christmas your way. And leave your nose out of mine.
It is - I never asked how you plan to celebrate this time of year. I only asked how you define Christmas.
You're objecting to me calling it Christmas, aren't you?
I don't care if you think I'm doing it wrong, I'm putting up a Christmas tree, with Christmas lights, exchanging Christmas gifts and spending Christmas with my family.
Nor did I say you were "doing it" wrong. I said you may be using the wrong word
You're saying it's not Christmas, aren't you? And if I'm trying to celebrate Christmas, and not, then I'm doing it wrong, aren't I?
And if that bothers you so much, then you're far too interested in my business.
Not interested at all in your business.
Then stop telling me I'm doing it wrong, no? Part of minding your own business is not telling others what to do.
Do you consider anything Christmas music if it does not contain a reference to JC? Jingle Bells - Christmas song? That sort of thing ...
Yes. In that case, you are using Christmas as an adjective, and not as the noun (the holiday itself). As such, you are describing the music (or movies) being "of, or in relation to" Christmas. It is only in saying that one is "celebrating Christmas" that the word is being improperly used.
As another example - my son recently turned 5 years old. His birthday was December 12th (a Saturday). As it turns out we had 3 different celebrations for him 12/12 (where we celbrated his birthday and 2 others in the family), 12/14 (just us), and 12/15 (with the in-laws). On all 3 days we were celebrating his brithday (although, only 1 was his actual date of birth) - and on NONE of them were we celebrating the various days of Hannukah.
Yes. In that case, you are using Christmas as an adjective, and not as the noun (the holiday itself). As such, you are describing the music (or movies) being "of, or in relation to" Christmas. It is only in saying that one is "celebrating Christmas" that the word is being improperly used.
As another example - my son recently turned 5 years old. His birthday was December 12th (a Saturday). As it turns out we had 3 different celebrations for him 12/12 (where we celbrated his birthday and 2 others in the family), 12/14 (just us), and 12/15 (with the in-laws). On all 3 days we were celebrating his brithday (although, only 1 was his actual date of birth) - and on NONE of them were we celebrating the various days of Hannukah.
No. If Christmas needs Christ, no song that does not include Christ can be a Christmas song. That's misleading.
Who's misunderstood me? Any confusion about whether or not I'm celebrating a religious holiday has been cleared up, and continuing to pretend to not understand is a neat, but duplicious, act.
Not duplicitous - you are using an alternate (uncommon) definition of a word - I asked you to define it as it makes your two statements incongruous. The only other option I have is to assume the definition you are applying. I choose not to do so, as that would be arrogance. Wasn't it you who stated it was less arrogant to ask than assume? (quite some time ago, on this board)
You're objecting to me calling it Christmas, aren't you?
Objecting? Not sure - I believe you are using the wrong term. Is that an objection? (seriously. If you used the term MUST and I thought MAY would be better and more accurate, is that objection?)
You're saying it's not Christmas, aren't you? And if I'm trying to celebrate Christmas, and not, then I'm doing it wrong, aren't I?
I don't believe you are trying to celebrate Christmas. I'm trying to figure out what it is you mean by the term, but you refuse to tell me.
Then stop telling me I'm doing it wrong, no? Part of minding your own business is not telling others what to do.
Haven't said you were doing anything wrong yet (except use a term incorrectly - and only in the celebration form, mind you - not in the descriptive form). Perhaps, again, if you could use a less ambiguous (apparently, for some) term, or explained how you are defining the one you are using, there would be no need for argument?
So is a Christmas song a Christmas song if it has no reference to JC? I have to say yes, traditional Puertorrican Christmas songs are more often about partying, having fun, drinking beer and nonsense (we literally have a song that tells a story about killing a chicken, making a soup, eating it at midnight, the rooster placing a curse on the people who ate the chicken, the people who ate the chicken suffering from food poisoning and the rooster laughing all night long).
No. If Christmas needs Christ, no song that does not include Christ can be a Christmas song. That's misleading.
That's not how language works, unfortunately. If you're grandmother knit you a sweater (when you were 30) for your birthday, it would be a "birthday sweater", regardless of when it was made, and even though it wasn't made on your birthday. Christmas, itself, is a holiday - a religious feast. Many traditions have become associated with Christmas, and given that "Christmas" association. They are tied to the holiday, not to Christ. Only the holiday is tied to Christ. Another example would be the proverbial "Easter Bonnet" - nothing to do with the ressurection.
You're right, there is no need for argument. I mean really... you could, at any time, stop trying to tell other people what to do, no?
I'm not telling other people what to do. I ASKED how a term was being used, as it was being used in a way contrary to its primary definition. As you accused me of being duplicitous - might I also ask how you justify the continuous accusation that I am trying to tell other people what to do when I've done no such thing.
No. If Christmas needs Christ, no song that does not include Christ can be a Christmas song. That's misleading.
That's not how language works, unfortunately. If you're grandmother knit you a sweater (when you were 30) for your birthday, it would be a "birthday sweater", regardless of when it was made, and even though it wasn't made on your birthday. Christmas, itself, is a holiday - a religious feast. Many traditions have become associated with Christmas, and given that "Christmas" association. They are tied to the holiday, not to Christ. Only the holiday is tied to Christ. Another example would be the proverbial "Easter Bonnet" - nothing to do with the ressurection.
Not really, I wish, but not really. The holiday only has to do with JC if somebody celebrates it like that. Or are you saying that when my atheist uncles celebrate X-mas they are celebrating the birth of JC? Obviously no.
You're right, there is no need for argument. I mean really... you could, at any time, stop trying to tell other people what to do, no?
I'm not telling other people what to do. I ASKED how a term was being used, as it was being used in a way contrary to its primary definition. As you accused me of being duplicitous - might I also ask how you justify the continuous accusation that I am trying to tell other people what to do when I've done no such thing.
Well you are using a strict definition, socially Christmas just mean the federal holiday held December 25th which some people give religious connotation to.
might I also ask how you justify the continuous accusation that I am trying to tell other people what to do when I've done no such thing.
So... you didn't type this then?
if you aren't celebrating Christ, then you aren't celebrating Christmas
Not really, I wish, but not really. The holiday only has to do with JC if somebody celebrates it like that. Or are you saying that when my atheist uncles celebrate X-mas they are celebrating the birth of JC? Obviously no.
Actually - the suggestion is that they are either celebrating something other than Christmas, or joining in a Christmas celebration that others are having. Unlike the other Holidays at this time of year, there is a big push to secularize Christmas. At least, for now, the dictionary hasn't made that change (see my rants against the "new" definition of liberal in other threads). Yes, I realize that, in practice, fewer people celebrating "Christmas" are truly celebrating Christmas. That, however, just leads back to my prior two posts "What IS Christmas?", and "it's a war of attrition".
You're right, there is no need for argument. I mean really... you could, at any time, stop trying to tell other people what to do, no?
I'm not telling other people what to do. I ASKED how a term was being used, as it was being used in a way contrary to its primary definition. As you accused me of being duplicitous - might I also ask how you justify the continuous accusation that I am trying to tell other people what to do when I've done no such thing.
Your definition is unnecesaryly strict and socially unreal. To a lot of people Christmas means, primarily, the federal holiday held on December 25th that some people give religious connotations to.
So... you didn't type this then?if you aren't celebrating Christ, then you aren't celebrating Christmas
I did - where in that do I tell anyone what to do, or what not to do? I reaffirmed the definition of Christmas (as I understand it, AND as the primary definition from the dictionary).
I believe that same post (if not any of the myriad others) went on to ASK if perhaps you were using a different definition. It goes back to communication and being understood.
sarcasm
Or should we just fungle whatever blorps we want and just lambish that others rectice our jibbons?
/sarcasm
It is ENTIRELY semantic
Is this a case of "why discuss actual meaning when etymology is so much more pleasant?". It's so hard to tell what you're actually getting at sometimes. I don't think anyone is arguing that "Christ" doesn't mean "Jesus".
Why don't we all get Ramadan off?
Because Ramadan doesn't have the same social significance in our culture?
So... you didn't type this then?if you aren't celebrating Christ, then you aren't celebrating Christmas
I did - where in that do I tell anyone what to do, or what not to do?
Ah, you're right. You're not telling me what to do. You're just calling me either an idiot or a liar.
Your definition is unnecesaryly strict and socially unreal. To a lot of people Christmas means, primarily, the federal holiday held on December 25th that some people give religious connotations to.
Not mine - the dictionary's. For the record - that's a valid definition (the secondary, in fact) and is pretty much the answer I expected. That's why the reference to the war of attrition. I mentioned my ranting against what happened with the word liberal for similar reasoning. When such "crossovers" occur, all sides are weakened. Those that don't believe in the religion are damaging themselves by adopting the terms, and inflating the perceived "strength" of that religion. Meanwhile, the religious adherants are weakened in that they no longer feel the bond of faith to the appropriate degree. In such a case, it would be better that the secular have its own term. Much like with secular assumption of marriage in non-communal societies. It's a path that will inevitably lead to divisiveness.
What social significance?
It is a religious holiday, like Christmas.
People who aren't Christians get this day off, why not let everybody have it off... like everybody has Christmas off?
I don't think Muslim countries give the entire month off, do they?
Ah, you're right. You're not telling me what to do. You're just calling me either an idiot or a liar.
I called you neither. Nor do I believe either. Stubborn, and argumentative, at this point, perhaps - for little reason that I can discern. You disagree with this:
Christ·mas
n.
1. A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus.
That's fine, I get that. My post confirmed the above, and had no bearing on you EXCEPT in your use in the term, as is defined above - no more, no less. Do you always use the precise word you mean to, and NEVER use a term incorrectly? If so, you are a much better man than I. If not, I'm unclear on how questioning the use of a term that goes against its primary definition has ANY reflection upon you as more than a misstatement.
That's fine, I get that. My post confirmed the above, and had no bearing on you EXCEPT in your use in the term, as is defined above - no more, no less. Do you always use the precise word you mean to, and NEVER use a term incorrectly? If so, you are a much better man than I. If not, I'm unclear on how questioning the use of a term that goes against its primary definition has ANY reflection upon you as more than a misstatement.
No. If Christmas needs Christ, no song that does not include Christ can be a Christmas song. That's misleading.
No it isn't. Sex requires genitals (assuming that reproductive organs can be called genitals in all know species), but things that are not genitals and do not themselves contain genitals, can still be called sexy and, according to the accepted definition, be correct in majority opinion. Now, if you engage in an act that does not involve any genitals at all, and call it sex, most people would say you used the word "sex" wrong.
Ah, you're right. You're not telling me what to do. You're just calling me either an idiot or a liar.
I called you neither.
Then you accept that you can celebrate Christmas without celebrating Christ?
It's just a name, that means something different to different people. Just like referring to "Erik" summons a different picture to me, then it does to you.
It would be quite insane for me to try and force all of you to think about me, and only me, whenever you heard that name, wouldn't it? Christmas is the same. Ultimately, for many people, it's just a name for a period of time, generally considered to be running from about 24th to the 26th of December, and there´s nothing you can do about it.
It's a downside of everyone knowing about something. The meaning of it will get corrupted. Compare it to 'aspirin'. Did you think about a very specific brand of painkillers? Or did you think about any random brand you have in your drawer that might be a painkiller, but is definately not aspirin?
Christmas is the same. It once meant the celebration of Christ, but then everybody knew about it, corrupted its meaning, and now it means something else to some people, and the same old thing to other people.
You can whine, you can moan, or you can just stfu and enjoy whatever you consider christmas. I know I will. (hint: it does not contain any Christ)
(The 'aspirin' analogy will fail if it doesn't convert properly from Dutch; sorry about that.)
I wouldn't know and it doesn't matter.
If Christmas is given off by the gov't to everybody, and it is a religious holiday, why aren't all religious holidays given off to everybody?
You may see where I am going with this and be hesitant to answer...
Far be it for me to hesitate
This goes into a broader topic which (I'm sure you realizes) sets off almost every libertarian nerve in me. They shouldn't. It's like how benefits and bonuses are now assumed to be part and parcel (if not MANDATED) of earnings. As a benefit, people got time off to celebrate with their families. Of course, why should one group have and another not, so - everybody gets it. As you point out, however, there are too many disparate beliefs to accomodate all - so winners and losers must be picked. Of course, if secular would indeed keep separate from religion, a lot of the mess would be avoided.
Ah, you're right. You're not telling me what to do. You're just calling me either an idiot or a liar.
I called you neither.
Then you accept that you can celebrate Christmas without celebrating Christ?
...? I have only read some of the posts so far, but even I think I could guess PBN's stance on this: "Not according to the first definition in his dictionary. Possibly according to a diffrent definition of the word."
If Christmas is given off by the gov't to everybody, and it is a religious holiday, why aren't all religious holidays given off to everybody?
You may see where I am going with this and be hesitant to answer...
If Christmas is given off by the gov't to everybody, and the gov't is not a religious institution (due to the seperation of church and state), then the days off you get cannot be a religious holiday...
But they still call it Christmas.
Interesting...
If Christmas is given off by the gov't to everybody, and it is a religious holiday, why aren't all religious holidays given off to everybody?
You may see where I am going with this and be hesitant to answer...
If Christmas is given off by the gov't to everybody, and the gov't is not a religious institution (due to the seperation of church and state), then the days off you get cannot be a religious holiday...
But they still call it Christmas.
Interesting...
It isn't given off by the government to everybody. It is not illegal to work on christmas. The government just chooses not to have its workers work on that day, as is its right.
Then you accept that you can celebrate Christmas without celebrating Christ?
If you mean me, specifically, I wouldn't, as it goes against the definition of Christmas. If you are referring to a general "you", again I would consider it that you are celebrating this time of year, you are not, however, celebrating Christmas.
If Christmas is given off by the gov't to everybody, and it is a religious holiday, why aren't all religious holidays given off to everybody?
You may see where I am going with this and be hesitant to answer...
If Christmas is given off by the gov't to everybody, and the gov't is not a religious institution (due to the seperation of church and state), then the days off you get cannot be a religious holiday...
But they still call it Christmas.
Interesting...
It isn't given off by the government to everybody. It is not illegal to work on christmas. The government just chooses not to have its workers work on that day, as is its right.
Ah ok, misread that probably. That's how it works here, too. The company I work for doesn't even have any fixed holidays; you can just take free days whenever you like. Which is how it should be, too.
For the government, too.
you are not, however, celebrating Christmas.
And if you are not celebrating Christmas, but claim to be celebraing Christmas then that makes you...?
you are not, however, celebrating Christmas.
And if you are not celebrating Christmas, but claim to be celebraing Christmas then that makes you...?
A liar, mislead, delusional, or semantically defiant. Any number of other option I suppose.
Edit: and lest the thank you be misconstrued, it is extended to TA, as he mentions "other" (one of which I explicitly spelled out)
I thought I was fairly clear in my posts (and rather civil).
Yes. You have, quite clearly, been insistent that Christmas cannot be celebrated without Christ. Why you balk at the logical conclusions from that statement is a mystery.
Not really, I wish, but not really. The holiday only has to do with JC if somebody celebrates it like that. Or are you saying that when my atheist uncles celebrate X-mas they are celebrating the birth of JC? Obviously no.
Actually - the suggestion is that they are either celebrating something other than Christmas, or joining in a Christmas celebration that others are having. Unlike the other Holidays at this time of year, there is a big push to secularize Christmas. At least, for now, the dictionary hasn't made that change (see my rants against the "new" definition of liberal in other threads). Yes, I realize that, in practice, fewer people celebrating "Christmas" are truly celebrating Christmas. That, however, just leads back to my prior two posts "What IS Christmas?", and "it's a war of attrition".
Ok, first of all nobody is actively pushing for the secularization of Christmas (unless you believe Satan to be actively pushing for it, which is a completely different teological debate about how he functions) it just happens naturally. It's social progress (for lack of a better word). Christmas began as a Christian holiday but as more and more non-Christians became part of the fabric of the Western world (and as Western traditions such as Christmas expanded) the purely religious definition of Christmas disappeared. Now, a lot of the world sees the day as a normal holiday + the gifts and family and friends. There is nothing wrong with that, no secret liberal (socialist, marxist, nazist) plot against Christians, just the natural winds of change which as a Religion we better begin to cope with instead of lashing out at. To summarize, Christmas is of religious significanse to those who give it religious significance, but it's not to to those who don't. Now we Christians have every right in our convictions to say that what they celebrate isn't the 'true' Chrsitmas in a Christian sense, but we can't say that it's not Christmas to them.
Your definition is unnecesaryly strict and socially unreal. To a lot of people Christmas means, primarily, the federal holiday held on December 25th that some people give religious connotations to.
Then it shouldn't be called Christmas then.
A lot of other religious holidays fall during that same time.
Why don't we all get Ramadan off?
By that same token we really shouldn't call Easter, Easter because we don't believe in Ēostre, but we are smarter than that and recognize that words change in meaning over time.
Your definition is unnecesaryly strict and socially unreal. To a lot of people Christmas means, primarily, the federal holiday held on December 25th that some people give religious connotations to.
Not mine - the dictionary's. For the record - that's a valid definition (the secondary, in fact) and is pretty much the answer I expected. That's why the reference to the war of attrition. I mentioned my ranting against what happened with the word liberal for similar reasoning. When such "crossovers" occur, all sides are weakened. Those that don't believe in the religion are damaging themselves by adopting the terms, and inflating the perceived "strength" of that religion. Meanwhile, the religious adherants are weakened in that they no longer feel the bond of faith to the appropriate degree. In such a case, it would be better that the secular have its own term. Much like with secular assumption of marriage in non-communal societies. It's a path that will inevitably lead to divisiveness.
I cal BS here, with all due respet. We don't need to form linguistic ghettos ust because we want to keep some words (ie: ideas) pure it's pure nonsense. Christmas to a non-Christian household is very diferent fromt he Christmas I and SHAZAMAZON celebrate, but it's their Christmas and we can't go around like Holy Crusader denouncing them, it's stupid and it gives Christians a bad name. Once upon a time mayde you could have converted a whole town by condeming them to hell if they did not do so, but nowadays any such sort of Religious Moralizing (and that is what this whole "War on Christmas nonsense is about, mild intolerance and rabid reactionism to change). If a Christian wants to preserve the true meaning of Christmas they celebrate it with their family and children and pass the gospel along to friends and neighbors in the hope that they will react to it, you don't go telling people YOU'RE WRONG (infidel) it doesn't help and it'll make them less willing to hear. Besides, true Christians have no need for a 'pure' December 25th, we are supposed to celebrate the birth of the messiah every day of our lives, it is what we believe (or at least should).
No matter how much "society" has changed meanings, it still isn't Christmas without Christ. It should be called something else then.
To a Christian, but world isn't Christian and, despite the clamoring of many, neither is the nation. And if we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion then Christmas isn't Christmas because it's simply a co-opted pagan religion and celebrating it would amount to idolworshipping.
Really, we, as a community, need to relax and realize that the world is changing, tolerate it but still stand strong in and preach the faith.
You are all fighting over the fact that it cannot be Christmas without Christ. That's true. Just as it can't be an omelette without egg or a tortilla without being disc-shaped, right?
Well, I know that the definition of omelette is "beaten eggs cooked without stirring until set and served folded in half". And, I don't know about you, but I couldn't eat an omelette without something in it. But, true omelette-lovers would tell you that putting anything in an omelette is sacrilege. They might even go as far as to tell you that you're doing it wrong.
Similarly, do you know what a tortilla is? Oh, yeah. It's one o' them roundish bready things ain't it? Well, in the U.S., Central America, and Mexico, sure that's what it is. But, in Spain, what they call tortillas are closer to what we call omelettes.
And, for those of you who were fighting over what it is to celebrate, there is at least one definition that states that it is "to observe a notable occasion with festivities". So, telling people that they are simply participating and couldn't possibly celebrate is wrong.
In much the same way, the definition in the dictionary for Christmas is completely about the birth of Christ. Also in the definition, though is that it is "usually observed as a legal holiday". So, saying that anyone observing the legal holiday of Christmas would be saying that they are celebrating it, according to the dictionary. Yes?
And, that doesn't even touch upon the evolution of the word Christmas, socially. Christmas has grown to be more than just the day Christ was born (yes evidence suggests otherwise - I don't care for purposes of my argument). Christmas has now become almost synonymous with the December holiday season. I am sure that if you asked 10 people "What is Christmas", you wouldn't get the definition from the dictionary from each one of them. You would most likely get something closer to the gift-giving, peace-harboring, man-loving answer with a dash of "Jesus's Birthday". Very few people will eloquently quote from the Bible like Linus did.
The definitions in the dictionary can be right, while missing the point. Just like the definition for omelette, there is a lot of stuffing that a word carries that is taken as a given that simply isn't in existence in the black-and-white lettering.
The biggest point of this rant (or it should have been) is that we are rather off topic. This thread started on the topic of Advent Conspiracies and their work to reform Christmas from its current state to being more about the giving of love and less about the giving of gift-cards.
Ok, first of all nobody is actively pushing for the secularization of Christmas
Yes, some are, indeed. Primarily it goes by the name of commercialization. Although, as you state later on, it is just a function of time, and to be expected given our society. (also, on the theological side, I agree that Satan doesn't work that way, in fact, I'm more of the belief that he is a servant of God, not an enemy)
There is nothing wrong with that, no secret liberal (socialist, marxist, nazist) plot against Christians, just the natural winds of change which as a Religion we better begin to cope with instead of lashing out at. To summarize, Christmas is of religious significanse to those who give it religious significance, but it's not to to those who don't. Now we Christians have every right in our convictions to say that what they celebrate isn't the 'true' Chrsitmas in a Christian sense, but we can't say that it's not Christmas to them.
Hence my reference to the distinction of primary and secondary definitions. I mention the term liberal, as it also underwent a shift. (I adhere to the classical definition from the political spectrum) Which as any other, caused more harm than good (in my opinion).
Also - as for Oestre - you have to remember the source. In this particular case, I'm more inclined to believe the name was back-dated. The only theological/etymological root would be Astarte (Ostara), which is assumed. Easter, itself, however, falls into the same line. (after that - it becomes a word game again - as Passover is also celebrated at this time - of course that brings us back to Pesach, and Pasach 25 - which is how we ended up with Christmas - hehe)
Okay. Everyone here seems to be distracted by definitions at the moment. Now, while I agree that the definition of a word is important and often gripe and correct people using words incorrectly, I think it's also important to realize that there is more to these particular words than just the black-and-white definition in the dictionary.
You are all fighting over the fact that it cannot be Christmas without Christ. That's true. Just as it can't be an omelette without egg or a tortilla without being disc-shaped, right?
Well, I know that the definition of omelette is "beaten eggs cooked without stirring until set and served folded in half". And, I don't know about you, but I couldn't eat an omelette without something in it. But, true omelette-lovers would tell you that putting anything in an omelette is sacrilege. They might even go as far as to tell you that you're doing it wrong.
Similarly, do you know what a tortilla is? Oh, yeah. It's one o' them roundish bready things ain't it? Well, in the U.S., Central America, and Mexico, sure that's what it is. But, in Spain, what they call tortillas are closer to what we call omelettes.
And, for those of you who were fighting over what it is to celebrate, there is at least one definition that states that it is "to observe a notable occasion with festivities". So, telling people that they are simply participating and couldn't possibly celebrate is wrong.
In much the same way, the definition in the dictionary for Christmas is completely about the birth of Christ. Also in the definition, though is that it is "usually observed as a legal holiday". So, saying that anyone observing the legal holiday of Christmas would be saying that they are celebrating it, according to the dictionary. Yes?
And, that doesn't even touch upon the evolution of the word Christmas, socially. Christmas has grown to be more than just the day Christ was born (yes evidence suggests otherwise - I don't care for purposes of my argument). Christmas has now become almost synonymous with the December holiday season. I am sure that if you asked 10 people "What is Christmas", you wouldn't get the definition from the dictionary from each one of them. You would most likely get something closer to the gift-giving, peace-harboring, man-loving answer with a dash of "Jesus's Birthday". Very few people will eloquently quote from the Bible like Linus did.
The definitions in the dictionary can be right, while missing the point. Just like the definition for omelette, there is a lot of stuffing that a word carries that is taken as a given that simply isn't in existence in the black-and-white lettering.
The biggest point of this rant (or it should have been) is that we are rather off topic. This thread started on the topic of Advent Conspiracies and their work to reform Christmas from its current state to being more about the giving of love and less about the giving of gift-cards.
Good post. Have a cookie!
Ok, first of all nobody is actively pushing for the secularization of Christmas
Yes, some are, indeed. Primarily it goes by the name of commercialization. Although, as you state later on, it is just a function of time, and to be expected given our society. (also, on the theological side, I agree that Satan doesn't work that way, in fact, I'm more of the belief that he is a servant of God, not an enemy)
Well that's not a push towards secularization, thats a push towards profit, two very diferent things (the second beign one we actively participate in, so I guess that means Christians are trying to secularize Christmas?). I guess what I'm trying to say is that some people aare in masse trying to secularize the holiday is not a sincere statement, know if you say that Christmas has been commercialized then yes, it happen its a side effect of capitalism to commercialize everything.
There is nothing wrong with that, no secret liberal (socialist, marxist, nazist) plot against Christians, just the natural winds of change which as a Religion we better begin to cope with instead of lashing out at. To summarize, Christmas is of religious significanse to those who give it religious significance, but it's not to to those who don't. Now we Christians have every right in our convictions to say that what they celebrate isn't the 'true' Chrsitmas in a Christian sense, but we can't say that it's not Christmas to them.
Hence my reference to the distinction of primary and secondary definitions. I mention the term liberal, as it also underwent a shift. (I adhere to the classical definition from the political spectrum) Which as any other, caused more harm than good (in my opinion).
I disagree with you here, there is no harm in words changing meanings, its just the natural evolution of language. And just like economic liberals may now have to call themselves neo-classicals, now american liberalism has to be called progressivism. Sure, as a political science student I can atest to the pain in the ass it is to have to always define what you mean when you say X, but in any normal discussion you tell Pete that Joe is a Liberal and he'll think left-wing, no harm done there.
PS: I absolutely disagree with your views on Satan
PSS: It's really fun to say "I absolutely disagree with your views on Satan', makes it seem like we're talking about a problematic buddy.
I cal BS here, with all due respet.
You're welcome to - but I'll stand behind my statements (as quoted)
We don't need to form linguistic ghettos ust because we want to keep some words (ie: ideas) pure it's pure nonsense.
Not sure what you mean by linguistic ghettos. It's not a question of "wanting to" keep some words pure. I simply spelled out what inevitably follows.
Christmas to a non-Christian household is very diferent fromt he Christmas I and SHAZAMAZON celebrate, but it's their Christmas and we can't go around like Holy Crusader denouncing them, it's stupid and it gives Christians a bad name.
I'm not a Holy Crusader, nor did I "denounce" anyone. I disagreed with them using a word incorrectly, as in not in its primary form.
Once upon a time mayde you could have converted a whole town by condeming them to hell if they did not do so, but nowadays any such sort of Religious Moralizing (and that is what this whole "War on Christmas nonsense is about, mild intolerance and rabid reactionism to change).
You did, it seems, misunderstand my point about the "war of attrition". Look to church attendance records - that's a clearer example, perhaps. Commerce is eating away on our values - has been for some time. It has fundamentally changed the nature of the holiday - little bit, by little bit, until it is what it is today.
If a Christian wants to preserve the true meaning of Christmas they celebrate it with their family and children and pass the gospel along to friends and neighbors in the hope that they will react to it, you don't go telling people YOU'RE WRONG (infidel) it doesn't help and it'll make them less willing to hear. Besides, true Christians have no need for a 'pure' December 25th, we are supposed to celebrate the birth of the messiah every day of our lives, it is what we believe (or at least should).
Actually - we shouldn't celebrate the birth every day - but that's a different theological argument. However, as to the you're wrong, I've done it before when terms were used that differ from the primary definition. In no other case was I accused of being a "Holy Crusader" or so harsh (or accusing them of being infidels). In defending this particular terms definition (as it is a religious term) I become a religious zealot?
And if we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion then Christmas isn't Christmas because it's simply a co-opted pagan religion and celebrating it would amount to idolworshipping.
I covered this earlier - that is not the entire story. It was not a coopting in the form that is widely circulated.
Really, we, as a community, need to relax and realize that the world is changing, tolerate it but still stand strong in and preach the faith.
I agree with most of this - all of it, depending on what you mean by "preach the faith",
I cal BS here, with all due respet.
You're welcome to - but I'll stand behind my statements (as quoted)
Wouldn't expect anything less.
We don't need to form linguistic ghettos ust because we want to keep some words (ie: ideas) pure it's pure nonsense.
Not sure what you mean by linguistic ghettos. It's not a question of "wanting to" keep some words pure. I simply spelled out what inevitably follows.
Sorry, didn't really mean to direct everything at you, or anyone in particular. By linguistic ghettos I meant the decision that some words can't be used out of the dictionary definition because of some notions of right/wrong (as i think some people do when saying Christmas isn't Christmas without the Christ (surely it isn't to a Christian, but not everybody is a Christian) or the word marriage which to me being a Baptist is very strict in what it is, but I must recognize that to others the definition is more ample. Uhh, personaly I see no great danger in words or disadvantage to words changing or gaining meanings over time.
Christmas to a non-Christian household is very diferent fromt he Christmas I and SHAZAMAZON celebrate, but it's their Christmas and we can't go around like Holy Crusader denouncing them, it's stupid and it gives Christians a bad name.
I'm not a Holy Crusader, nor did I "denounce" anyone. I disagreed with them using a word incorrectly, as in not in its primary form.
again, I was speaking in general terms refering to some of the more radical Christians in this world and television personalities. i also was refering to people saying that if a non-believer celebrates Christmas but not Christ they aren't celebrating Christmas, it's their Christmas not ours.
Once upon a time mayde you could have converted a whole town by condeming them to hell if they did not do so, but nowadays any such sort of Religious Moralizing (and that is what this whole "War on Christmas nonsense is about, mild intolerance and rabid reactionism to change).
You did, it seems, misunderstand my point about the "war of attrition". Look to church attendance records - that's a clearer example, perhaps. Commerce is eating away on our values - has been for some time. It has fundamentally changed the nature of the holiday - little bit, by little bit, until it is what it is today.
Actually I wasn't reffering to attrition, just to the tendecy of the Christian religion to radicalize in the face of change. A prime example would be creationism, there was a time when Christians held the belief that if science and the Bible contradicted, it meant that in those passages whee it did the Bible was more symbolic than literal.
As for Commerce eating away at our values, yeah, but even if we lived in a society without commerce our values would be corrupted over time, there is no escaping it.
If a Christian wants to preserve the true meaning of Christmas they celebrate it with their family and children and pass the gospel along to friends and neighbors in the hope that they will react to it, you don't go telling people YOU'RE WRONG (infidel) it doesn't help and it'll make them less willing to hear. Besides, true Christians have no need for a 'pure' December 25th, we are supposed to celebrate the birth of the messiah every day of our lives, it is what we believe (or at least should).
Actually - we shouldn't celebrate the birth every day - but that's a different theological argument. However, as to the you're wrong, I've done it before when terms were used that differ from the primary definition. In no other case was I accused of being a "Holy Crusader" or so harsh (or accusing them of being infidels). In defending this particular terms definition (as it is a religious term) I become a religious zealot?
Well I was exagerating with the (infidel) comment, didn't mean to imply you or anybody has done so, sorry. Also didn't mean to acusse you of being a Crusader or anything and apologize if that is what came through. iwas once again refering to radical Christians and reactionaries.
As far as defending a definition, that's a foolish enterprise; first of all dictionary definitions aren't meant to be comprehensive or even universal, the ordering of the definitions isn't even done on a correcteness basis as much as it is done on a conveniece basis. Dictionary definitions serve not as a way to police language but as a way tohelp people understand language; thus if someone needs to know what Christmas is the dictionary will give you the most formal definition but it lacks completely any information on the actual social social significance of the word. I guess I jsut don't see the use in telling people that theya re using Christmas wrong when under all practical circumstances they are not.
And if we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion then Christmas isn't Christmas because it's simply a co-opted pagan religion and celebrating it would amount to idolworshipping.
I covered this earlier - that is not the entire story. It was not a coopting in the form that is widely circulated.
So in this case the strict definition of Co-opt has no importance? But honestly I care little about this aspect of the argument so.... whatever.
Really, we, as a community, need to relax and realize that the world is changing, tolerate it but still stand strong in and preach the faith.
I agree with most of this - all of it, depending on what you mean by "preach the faith",
I'm a baptist, not that hard to guess.
Again I apologize if you felt I was callign you a Crusader or accusing you of calling people infidel (and I never though I would have to apologize for something like this, honestly I'm laughing my ass off today).
PS: Thanks for being civil.
By linguistic ghettos I meant the decision that some words can't be used out of the dictionary definition because of some notions of right/wrong (as i think some people do when saying Christmas isn't Christmas without the Christ (surely it isn't to a Christian, but not everybody is a Christian) or the word marriage which to me being a Baptist is very strict in what it is, but I must recognize that to others the definition is more ample.
I try to avoid the terms right and wrong (I mentioned this elsewhere). However, when engaged in a discussion it is necessary that the terms used are clearly understood and accepted (at least in the context the speaker meant to convey). That is the surest way to avoid both misunderstanding and conflict.
Uhh, personaly I see no great danger in words or disadvantage to words changing or gaining meanings over time.
See above - the issue is that during transition, these terms are open to misunderstanding and thence disagreement. Moreover, it is something that nowadays is more propeled through "spin". Rhetoric is another term wherein I prefer the classical definition over the more "modern" term.
it's their Christmas not ours.
Which goes right back to agreeing on the definition of the term used.
first of all dictionary definitions aren't meant to be comprehensive or even universal, the ordering of the definitions isn't even done on a correcteness basis as much as it is done on a conveniece basis.
Actually - most put them in order of common usage.
Dictionary definitions serve not as a way to police language but as a way tohelp people understand language;
Agreed.
PS: Thanks for being civil.
my pleasure (read my sig)
Also - out of curiousity - in re: Satan - are you going by an English translation, or by the original hebrew, aramaic and greek?
my apologies.
I try to avoid the terms right and wrong (I mentioned this elsewhere). However, when engaged in a discussion it is necessary that the terms used are clearly understood and accepted (at least in the context the speaker meant to convey). That is the surest way to avoid both misunderstanding and conflict.
I agree with you however in the context of the thread an unnecessarily strict definition of Christmas is being used by some in that they claim that you cant have Christmas without Christ. This is not true unless you are speaking in a religious context, and most people in this thread don't speak about Christmas in a religious context. The conflict in this thread doesn't come from a misunderstanding of meaning but from the insistence of some that their definition of Christmas is right/better that that of others.
See above - the issue is that during transition, these terms are open to misunderstanding and thence disagreement.
More disagreement than misunderstanding really. And in this thread there has been no misunderstanding as much as a push, however good-intentioned, to force a strict definition upon others.
Moreover, it is something that nowadays is more propeled through "spin". Rhetoric is another term wherein I prefer the classical definition over the more "modern" term.
Much as I prefered Teddy Roosevelt Republicans to modern-day Republicans, but to call people who believe in what Teddy did Republicans would be (most likely) wrong. As for the whole 'spin' thing I would argue that most redefinition of words are created by a bottom-up approach, not the other way around; and really spin is a very subjective term and is mostly applied to issues and stories rather than ideas.
it's their Christmas not ours.
Which goes right back to agreeing on the definition of the term used.
No, it just means that we need to recognize that words have multiple definitions or meanings and that rather than agreeing on a 'correct' definition (which would quite literally be spin because one side would get dominion over a word and that's just stupid) we need to understand what it means to each other because this isn't a scholarly discussion where words can only mean one thing for the sake of scientific clarity.
first of all dictionary definitions aren't meant to be comprehensive or even universal, the ordering of the definitions isn't even done on a correcteness basis as much as it is done on a conveniece basis.
Actually - most put them in order of common usage.
Not really, go to the Oxford dictionary and the derogatory word for homosexuals will not be defined as homosexual put rather 'a tiring task'. Not really it's most common usage.
Dictionaries are mainly academic crutches and as such place preference to the technical usage of words.
Also - out of curiousity - in re: Satan - are you going by an English translation, or by the original hebrew, aramaic and greek?
By Satan I mean Lucifer who deemed himself worthy of being God and as thus was cast along with the angels that allied with him into hell and eternal separation from the glory of God. Satan who constantly works to draw humanity away from their creator in a futile effort to topple the Father and who will be cast along with the hosts of hell into the lake of fire at the end of Armageddon. That's who I mean. (I can't really speak about the English translation as my Bibles are in Spanish and I'm not a religious scholar.)
Good post. Have a cookie!
glee
A COOKIE!!!
/glee
Good post. Have a cookie!
glee
A COOKIE!!!
/glee
yes... yes... enjoy, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Look, this is about a word. The fact that we're having this conversation - placing all of the focus on the word instead of the intent - means we're both missing the point entirely. I don't care what you think about what I call what I do. It doesn't change anything. The fact that you and others don't consider what I do a celebration of Christmas means nothing. I'm still celebrating Christmas no matter how wrong you think I am. I'm perfectly ok with the way you see things. I just happen to see them differently. And that's ok.
this pretty much sums up the whole of human philosophy and belief.
More disagreement than misunderstanding really. And in this thread there has been no misunderstanding as much as a push, however good-intentioned, to force a strict definition upon others.
I was hoping for this, actually. Is it not also a push, however good-intentioned, to force a lax definition on some?
As for the whole 'spin' thing I would argue that most redefinition of words are created by a bottom-up approach, not the other way around; and really spin is a very subjective term and is mostly applied to issues and stories rather than ideas.
That would be an interesting bit of research, in my opinion, as I disagree. Through history, words have been altered to demonize, normally from those at the top or with vested interest, influencing through false rhetoric "the masses".
No, it just means that we need to recognize that words have multiple definitions or meanings and that rather than agreeing on a 'correct' definition (which would quite literally be spin because one side would get dominion over a word and that's just stupid) we need to understand what it means to each other because this isn't a scholarly discussion where words can only mean one thing for the sake of scientific clarity.
Agreed - which is why I asked.
Not really, go to the Oxford dictionary and the derogatory word for homosexuals will not be defined as homosexual put rather 'a tiring task'. Not really it's most common usage.
Not sure which derogatory you mean, so can't check. However - I would ask what edition you are referencing, and the last time it was updated.
Dictionaries are mainly academic crutches and as such place preference to the technical usage of words.
They are also a decent guage as to the current usage of terms (though admittedly, back by about 2 years)
By Satan I mean Lucifer who deemed himself worthy of being God and as thus was cast along with the angels that allied with him into hell and eternal separation from the glory of God. Satan who constantly works to draw humanity away from their creator in a futile effort to topple the Father and who will be cast along with the hosts of hell into the lake of fire at the end of Armageddon. That's who I mean. (I can't really speak about the English translation as my Bibles are in Spanish and I'm not a religious scholar.)
That's alright, the conglomeration of the Lucifer and "El Shaddai" answers the question.
Is it not also a push, however good-intentioned, to force a lax definition on some?
So are we doomed to talk past each other?
Or, to put it another way, what word should be used to describe the holiday celebrated by millions on Dec 25th of each year but without religious connotation? Such celebrations include being with family, decorating a tree, giving gifts and eating. Is there a word for that specific holiday aside from Christmas? If not, I'm pretty confident that I can use the term "Christmas" and be understood by all but the most literal-minded.
Not only that, but if we're going to be technical about the term, should Christmas be only celebrated by Catholics? After all, protestants don't celebrate "mass" at all.
what word should be used to describe the holiday celebrated by millions on Dec 25th of each year but without religious connotation? Such celebrations include being with family, decorating a tree, giving gifts and eating. Is there a word for that specific holiday aside from Christmas?
Saturnalia is one such word
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia
edited to add: or better yet - Festivus!
PSS: It's really fun to say "I absolutely disagree with your views on Satan', makes it seem like we're talking about a problematic buddy.
We really need to have an intervention for that guy. That whole "Trying to tempt Man and then overthrow heaven" thing? Cry for help.
We can invite Yaweh, Jesus, Eve, Adam, Moses, Mohamed, anyone else he's wronged. Tell him how much his damnation addiction and drinking problem are hurting us all. See if we can get him to rehab. With any luck, a few months of therapy, get him on the road to recovery. A couple years down the line and, BAM, most beautiful angel.
No, because you aren't celebrating the spirit of it! You are participating without celebrating.
Ask a Muslim if, as an infidel, would you be celebrating Ramadan if you participate in it.
I understand where you are coming from Z_B, and believe me, I am not trying to take anything away from you.
Hmmmm...
One could say you really are celebrating Christmas, even if you don't believe in Jesus, by the simple act of participating...
Just want to point out not all Muslims think that people not party to their particular faith are Infidels.
Your definition is unnecesaryly strict and socially unreal. To a lot of people Christmas means, primarily, the federal holiday held on December 25th that some people give religious connotations to.
Then it shouldn't be called Christmas then.
A lot of other religious holidays fall during that same time.
Why don't we all get Ramadan off?
I fielded this one already remember? I'll field it again. Because our Evil Overlords, only want to give us one day off at a time. Rather than act like decent civilized folk and give us a freakin week or two weeks off.
I was hoping for this, actually. Is it not also a push, however good-intentioned, to force a lax definition on some?
No, because that would be the natural evolution of the word. If you start to unnecessarily regulate a word you are intrinsically committing a from of linguistic prejudice and are literally beginning to 'spin' a word to suit your ideology. The best thing to do is to acknowledge the different meanings of a word.
That would be an interesting bit of research, in my opinion, as I disagree. Through history, words have been altered to demonize, normally from those at the top or with vested interest, influencing through false rhetoric "the masses".
That's why I should never speak in absolutes, it really depends on the word. "Death Tax" is a perfect example of a top-down spin. Christmas however is a bottoms-up example of the evolution of the word.
Not sure which derogatory you mean, so can't check. However - I would ask what edition you are referencing, and the last time it was updated.
It rhymes with rag. And it's the Online version, s it's pretty updated.
They are also a decent guage as to the current usage of terms (though admittedly, back by about 2 years)
To some extent, but their main function (at least that of published dictionaries) is to be a tool for students or scholars.
That's alright, the conglomeration of the Lucifer and "El Shaddai" answers the question.
Now I return the question to you, out of curiosity. Who is Satan to you?
We really need to have an intervention for that guy. That whole "Trying to tempt Man and then overthrow heaven" thing? Cry for help.
We can invite Yaweh, Jesus, Eve, Adam, Moses, Mohamed, anyone else he's wronged. Tell him how much his damnation addiction and drinking problem are hurting us all. See if we can get him to rehab. With any luck, a few months of therapy, get him on the road to recovery. A couple years down the line and, BAM, most beautiful angel.
And remember, don't go to hard on him, didn't work out last time, and whatever you do, don't look into his lovely sexy scrumptious blue eyes.
No, because that would be the natural evolution of the word. If you start to unnecessarily regulate a word you are intrinsically committing a from of linguistic prejudice and are literally beginning to 'spin' a word to suit your ideology. The best thing to do is to acknowledge the different meanings of a word.
A few things here. Obviously, I disagree that such an evolution, especially in this case, is natural. To explain, consider: why Christmas (alone among the many Holidays), my view of commerce's influence, and the history of Christmas as celebrated (or not) in the US. As for the linguistic prejudice - the bias is only to preserve clear meaning. (More on this below - re. Satan). That is part of the reason that for quite some time (and in some instances to this day) laws are committed in latin, as the nature of language helps prevent misinterpretation. By "acknowledging the different meanings", you essentially blur the line of what is truly being said, and, as stated, opening the door to miscommunication.
It rhymes with rag. And it's the Online version, s it's pretty updated.
interesting - they split the word into separate entries - denoting the slang as a separate word, as it's considered an abbreviation (at least in others). Is your contention that using the word as a derogatory has made the proper use of the term obsolete? If not, the dictionary seems to have it right.
Now I return the question to you, out of curiosity. Who is Satan to you?
I'm glad you asked - as this touches on the root of the language issue. (disclaimer: I had a hunch it would, that's why I continued it). To me Satan is Satan - ha'Satan, who acts as an agent of God. This figure is not to be confused with either Lucifer (the morning lord - Eze? I believe), OR the King of Tyre, and definitely NOT the serpent of the garden. Then again, I go by the word itself. Satan had definition. That definition was "expanded" by the masses to include more than it was ever intended to. As a result, trying to know truth (at least to the extent of what has been written, whether or not you believe the writings to contain truth, themselves) becomes impossible. As the concepts that you bring to bear are those that belong to others, and not ha-satan, we NECESSARILY come to a point of unneeded disagreement.
OMG, this thread is still going?
I was just about to say that. It's ... amazing. Maybe the mods are in the Christmas spirit?
I do wonder what the Advent Conspiracy would think about the current discussion, though. ;)
Probably that we should all be burned at the stake?
OMG, this thread is still going?
I was just about to say that. It's ... amazing. Maybe the mods are in the Christmas spirit?
I hope so, cos a lot of the members certainly aren't.
This thread is a perfect example of how far web forums deviate from real-life. Can you imagine a group of casual acquaintances spending several days arguing over the semantics of the word "Christmas", complete with reference materials, in real-life?
Ol' Saint Nick's got bourbon breath
It's so cold you could catch your death
A cop sold me some crystal meth
It's a Merry ****in' Christmas
Everything's so Chritmassy
The streets are twinkling with frozen pee
My priest just sat on santa's knee
It's a Merry ****in' Christmas
All the kids go to bed each night to dream what Santa brings 'em
Unless they're Jewish or Muslim or some other jip religion
Crappy toys flying off the shelves
Midgets dressed up to look like elves
Spread good cheer or burn in hell
It's a Merry ****in' Christmas
All the kids go to bed each night to dream what Santa brings 'em
Unless they're jewish or muslim or some other jip religion
Cracklin' fires to keep me warm
And my collection of Asian porn
Cradle my bells and work my horn
It's a keep on truckin', last year suckin', midget chuckin', slap the puck-in, how much wood could a wood chuck chuckin', Merry ****in' Christmas
HO HO HO!
Shut up!
I hope so, cos a lot of the members certainly aren't.
This thread is a perfect example of how far web forums deviate from real-life. Can you imagine a group of casual acquaintances spending several days arguing over the semantics of the word "Chirstmas", complete with reference materials, in real-life?
Heh. Yeah, not exactly typical bar conversation. ;) I've argued some odd stuff, but I've never forum debated at home.
And my collection of Asian porn
Cradle my bells and work my horn
Now that's what Christmas means to me ...
I wonder what kind of Asian porn?
There are different kinds, some more disqusting, some less...
I'm not into all that weird stuff, you know? I just have this thing for asian gals. Sooooo hawt.
Are you familiar with Annie Cruz?... Phillipino....
Smokin' hot!!!
No, but I predict I soon shall be. ;)
Damn forum keeps f-in' with this post. It's there, it's gone, there's two, delete one and they're all gone ...
Are you familiar with Annie Cruz?... Phillipino....
Smokin' hot!!!
Grr. Forum is f-d up. Can't post properly.
All this because of a word. I'm suddenly very glad at being able to say glædelig jul without having (most) people read something christian in it.
Season's greeting to you too, but we like to call this Christmas. Ya know, because it's in the month of Christmas. It's the one with all the snow and the evergreens everywhere.
I got a few sites saying that it translates to season's greetings and a few others saying it translates to Merry Christmas.
At least you guys weren't debating who's calendar is the right one (featuring Mayan indie variable!) in terms of what New Year's is gonna' be like, should be like, etc. etc.
"Ho ho ho, now I have a machine gun too."
Season's greeting to you too, but we like to call this Christmas. Ya know, because it's in the month of Christmas. It's the one with all the snow and the evergreens everywhere.
Well, here it's jul, or juletiden, and it works just as well, without the christian baggage. Besides, after having decorated my home with pine, red ribbons, goats made of straw, and little figures of nisser, it doesn't feel right to me to pretend I'm celebrating a christian tradition, especially not since the latter two things are downright heathen.
But of course, whatever works for you. I'm just relieved that what works for me is also what works for people in my country. I'd rather celebrate jul without controversies and battles over the word.
America needs to go back to the good ol' days when Christmas was banned.
EDIT: Now it looks like DS poofed her post.
I guess I should go play some DDO then.
America needs to go back to the good ol' days when Christmas was banned.
For being too pagan ironically enough.
A Country founded by Christians declares it's holidays and general culture by Christian norms.
Non-Christians raised in this general culture then start to adopt the conventions of the culture for whatever reason (that's the way Granmammy did it).
Then when the Non-Christians don't agree with the original particulars, they get smacked around and harrassed. Sounds pretty American to me. Right.
Now, IMOO:
Shazamazon, you need to scale back the knee-jerk. Your definition may not always apply, especially with Americans. If you are not an American, that's the first thing you should know about us. If you are an American, then you should already know this, and are merely being shallow and rigid.
PBN: An argument of semantics on a Forum is almost always like an argument of Religion and Politics. It never completely resolves. Common American Culture (CAC for future reference) dictates that that day is a Holiday called "Christmas" no matter what the original connotations.
Nothing personal at either of you. You make your points very well. EE is making the opposite point. I have a lot of respect for all of you, but that argument is getting nowhere.
Personally, I'd rather celebrate something other than Dead People and Jesus. How about living people, and really cool things we've done as a nation and a culture, and leave Jesus out of it entirely.
Like oh, say, the Fourth of July. We all get together and blow some **** up to commemorate the day we stood up as a nation and told those British and their taxes to go take a long walk into a short airlock. Now that's a Holiday. The people that started that one were very much alive, and went on to kick much arse and take names.
But that's me. OTOH, next ebil fragger starts throwing Kwanzaa at me is going to get a piece of my mind. It materialized a few years back on a calendar, great, fine, wonderful. But what is it?
"It's a day to commemorate one's African Heritage."
Okay. Then it should apply to everyone, right? The argument being of course that Humanity arose from Africa, so we can use it to remind everyone that we all derive from the same source, can try and get along in rememberance of that.
I could have gotten behind that. Really. That would have been something to really push and make happen. Can't find any history on it, but that's mostly okay.
Then, of course, I was "educated."
You have to be of a darker skin tone than I am to "celebrate" Kwanzaa. It applies to only those of antropologically Negroid stock. Caucasoids and Mongoloids need not apply. The reason I didn't find anything about it historically is that some dumbbell here in the US made it up from whole cloth and picked on a couple of calendar makers until they added it to their list.
He then waited until people asked, and spun it until people forgot somehow that it hadn't been there just a year or two prior. It's timing near Christmas is because 'That's when the People would be gathering anyway.'(quote not precise, but intent communicated). Ron Karenga made a pile of money, and the rest of the world giggled at us.
One wonders why it's named for the currency standard in Angola(the kwanza)?
All about the monies, at least here. Christmas as intended lives on in the Faithful, and for the rest of us, it's a convienient label for a holiday we all loved as kids, before we decided that Gawd sucks.
Z_B: As for your original question, I think they're doing a fine job hanging themselves. I'll let them have all the rope they want, and when they start in on the religious violence, haul them up short and let 'em swing. If they're busy being intolerant, then so be it.
At least in this single case, they seem to be making a rather touching attempt to do something good for others in the process. They all need a big hug, and their guilty conciences salved for another year. In the end, that's what it's about.
You can't do good or ill in the world in an entirely clean, convenient, hassle-free way. Get down to the Shelter and see how those people live, what they're like. Interact with them a little, and you see people, just like you are.
I've been on both sides of that soup line.
Focus on your own community first, though. The kidlets in Africa have enough help, and Sally Struthers doesn't need another yacht. How about the homeless family down the street, taking shelter from the snow under some cardboard boxes?
Don't send money to Africa, where it gets pooled together and then taken by Warlords. If money it must be, than how about the local shelter, or the Food Bank? A lot of them are controlled by the various churches, true, but there are at least some secularly-based ones.
Or,if you have space, take a family in that's having a bad time, and help them return to society. It's not as hard as you'd think.
-Sarena
Edit: Original post deleted in response to Forum Squirrelliness, and reposted with the same information not repeated eleven times.
DS, did you accidentally copy past part of your post? I seem to be seeing double or triple.
America needs to go back to the good ol' days when Christmas was banned.
EDIT: Now it looks like DS poofed her post.
I guess I should go play some DDO then.
My post has returned, and better for the lack of Squirrelly Wrath that was going on in there.
-Sarena
They really help
Seriously they really do.
and
you could have put each copy in another sblock so that people kept clicking them to read the same things.
The downside to this charity giving is that it doesn't seem to stimulate local economies, but the normal Christmas burst spending at all the big malls doesn't either. Your money goes to China, the redcross, or Africa if you go with what options are presented so far. The fourth option is to buy a few presents (Food) from local stories that are made in the US or your home country for our Canadian neighbors. Or you can send money to localy made charities that spend money on local services, like soup kitchens and stuff. This keeps your city from or town from losing its small business's as the economic crunch tightens its merciless grip.
I aimed my topic at this idea since I live in Michigan and the state is dying, dying like a cancer patient in a pottery kilm. So yeah, final statements; spend money American made presents from small local business or send money to local charities, or give money to bigger charities that send services or utilities to poor countries oversea's. That prevents your money from being stolen by rebels or African civil war soldiers and being used to buy guns, ect, ect.
A few things here. Obviously, I disagree that such an evolution, especially in this case, is natural. To explain, consider: why Christmas (alone among the many Holidays)
Because it was ther prevailing holiday and prevailing culture is absorbed by those who are immersed in it.
my view of commerce's influence, and the history of Christmas as celebrated (or not) in the US.
but commerce is a part of culture, and serves the needs and wants of society (in the process eliminating needs and creating wants, we are that kind of animals)
As for the linguistic prejudice - the bias is only to preserve clear meaning. (More on this below - re. Satan). That is part of the reason that for quite some time (and in some instances to this day) laws are committed in latin, as the nature of language helps prevent misinterpretation. By "acknowledging the different meanings", you essentially blur the line of what is truly being said, and, as stated, opening the door to miscommunication.
You would be right if this was an academic paper, or a law, but it isn't, we're discussing culture (and as a social scientist in training I can tell you that culture is never one sided, and language, being one of the most defining aspects of society is incredibly complex and can't be reduced to simple singular meanings. I don't think we disagree at all, correct me if I'm wrong; you thin clear definitions are required only where necessary (scholarly papers and laws, being examples), outside of it language could and should be multifaceted.
Is your contention that using the word as a derogatory has made the proper use of the term obsolete? If not, the dictionary seems to have it right.
No, I was using it as a example of published dictionaries give preference to technical, not common use.
I'm glad you asked - as this touches on the root of the language issue. (disclaimer: I had a hunch it would, that's why I continued it). To me Satan is Satan - ha'Satan, who acts as an agent of God. This figure is not to be confused with either Lucifer (the morning lord - Eze? I believe), OR the King of Tyre, and definitely NOT the serpent of the garden. Then again, I go by the word itself. Satan had definition. That definition was "expanded" by the masses to include more than it was ever intended to. As a result, trying to know truth (at least to the extent of what has been written, whether or not you believe the writings to contain truth, themselves) becomes impossible. As the concepts that you bring to bear are those that belong to others, and not ha-satan, we NECESSARILY come to a point of unneeded disagreement.
Not really, you yourself gave very different names for different aspects of the idea of Satan, on an investigative paper or essay or book about the history of Satan then the use of those names would be necessary. In common parlance, those names are not used and the idea of Satan is understood as the foil to God.
PS: Not that I don't like the discussion about the importance of clear singular definitions, but we've derailed this thread enough. If you want to continue it, a new thread should be made, possibly following forum rules. Also, I'm leaving for Spain in saturday, so if you want to explicitly continue the debate with me, please wait until January 11th.
PSS: Feel sorry for all you WASPs hispanics get two Christmases. BOOYAH!!!
PBN: An argument of semantics on a Forum is almost always like an argument of Religion and Politics. It never completely resolves. Common American Culture (CAC for future reference) dictates that that day is a Holiday called "Christmas" no matter what the original connotations.
already admitted that while back, DS - the only argument I've been making is that that practice does a disservice to all involved.
Nothing personal at either of you.
Not taken as such.
Focus on your own community first, though. The kidlets in Africa have enough help, and Sally Struthers doesn't need another yacht. How about the homeless family down the street, taking shelter from the snow under some cardboard boxes?
Don't send money to Africa, where it gets pooled together and then taken by Warlords. If money it must be, than how about the local shelter, or the Food Bank? A lot of them are controlled by the various churches, true, but there are at least some secularly-based ones.
Couldn't agree more. Also - even with donations down, most still would prefer time over money.
Because it was ther prevailing holiday and prevailing culture is absorbed by those who are immersed in it.
You skipped the question - Easter is (for 2 different reasons) a more prevalent holiday to be absorbed by the culture. It wasn't Easter, however - (nor St John's Day, the second most likely). Instead they pick (at different times, and the history of when they were each adopted in this country is relevant) Christmas, and Halloween. With Halloween, they renamed it, at least. The answer, again, is commerce. Thanks to the stories of the Turkish Saint - care of the Dutch (Sinter Klaus) - translated through a brit, Christmas became a marketing opportunity.
but commerce is a part of culture, and serves the needs and wants of society (in the process eliminating needs and creating wants, we are that kind of animals)
And that is exactly why commerce should NOT enter the house of worship. There are a couple of fitting quotes, one readily seen from that, the other about justly rendering what is due. I will leave those for you to look up, as to stay within the CoC radar.
You would be right if this was an academic paper, or a law, but it isn't, we're discussing culture (and as a social scientist in training I can tell you that culture is never one sided, and language, being one of the most defining aspects of society is incredibly complex and can't be reduced to simple singular meanings. I don't think we disagree at all, correct me if I'm wrong; you thin clear definitions are required only where necessary (scholarly papers and laws, being examples), outside of it language could and should be multifaceted.
Language could be multifaceted, and is almost always. However, some terms should be singular.
Not really, you yourself gave very different names for different aspects of the idea of Satan, on an investigative paper or essay or book about the history of Satan then the use of those names would be necessary. In common parlance, those names are not used and the idea of Satan is understood as the foil to God.
Again - I disagree. Unless you could explain how you would manage to credit the acts of different beings to a single entity. In this particular case - common parlance is wrong. (akin to it being "common parlance" that the earth was flat). When the tales were written the acts were attributed NOT to different aspects of an entity, but rather separate entities. One, in particular, ha'Satan (Satan in English), is described as an agent of God, a servant. The other terms that have been translated were translated incorrectly. (Many such were introduced at the time of KJ - which is why I asked if you were going by an English Bible as many derive from that original.
PS: Not that I don't like the discussion about the importance of clear singular definitions, but we've derailed this thread enough. If you want to continue it, a new thread should be made, possibly following forum rules. Also, I'm leaving for Spain in saturday, so if you want to explicitly continue the debate with me, please wait until January 11th.
I think we did alright - but who knows... Have a safe flight.
PSS: Feel sorry for all you WASPs hispanics get two Christmases. BOOYAH!!!
As do Italians ;)
already admitted that while back, DS - the only argument I've been making is that that practice does a disservice to all involved.
I think most could agree to this thought, albeit put in this way, rather than the way the thought was originally put forward by Shazamazon.
Again, nothing personal about or towards anyone, and I'm glad you didn't take it that way. You're a dear friend, and I like the idea of being able to disagree with you from time to time.
As for donations of time, yes, a lot of places need volunteers of all stripes, even the homeless and destitute, who have nothing but. Everyone can help, if but for a little while. Even an hour or two a week does wonders. A $10 donation can feed a family of four for a couple of days here in the US. Don't think Africa has the monopoly on starving people.
They don't.
Sally Struthers just wants you to think they do. Next time you see one of those commericals on the TV, with the little girl, think about how many people could have been fed for what it cost to buy that slimeball actor's shoes alone.
Never mind what it cost to take Santa-looking old dude to Africa, shoot the commercial, fly him back (plus camera crew!) and then produce the commercial and put it on the TV to saturation levels?
How many people right here could have been fed? For that matter, they could have just about rebuilt the entire village for what that commercial alone costs.
But that "little girl" is still starving?
Why didn't the local authorities arrest them for pure hypocrisy?
Better, why aren't we calling that number a million times every hour to tell them what kind of monstrous slime they are?
Make a difference where you live, and maybe the crime rate you like to spend so much time *****ing about will go down.
-Sarena
America is the most giving country in the world.
There are stats for it... I will attempt to find them should someone wanna argue...
No need for that. It's true. And now you got me sayin' so, too. And everyone knows that when two people say somethin', it's totally, totally true.
(Just to be clear, it is true. My statement may have seemed a bit glib, but I was jus' actin' the fool. Again. America gives tons to other places. I wish we'd give more to our own.)
You can't help others if you can't help yourself.
You skipped the question
I don't think I skipped the question, Christmas is far more prevalent thatn Ramadan or Kwanza or Hanukka or even Three King's Day and thus will be absorbed by those who are immersed in the Christmas culture. I'll give an example of non-hispanic americans that move to Puerto Rico, they've never celebrated January 6 as a day to recognize JC's birth (and yes I'm symplifying the significance of the day, but whatever). Yet many of them the first or second year they spend here, BAM! January 6th, presents for the kids. Give them some more years and they'll be eating barbeque Pig and drinking Coquito.
And that is exactly why commerce should NOT enter the house of worship.
Oh I absolutely agree; hell I get annoyed when they seel fundraiser cookies at church. But, again, that's religious thought, the secular o secularized man doesn't think like that, they see no wrong there. And honestly in their understaning of Christmas there is no wrong there.
Language could be multifaceted, and is almost always. However, some terms should be singular.
But I really see no necessity to make Christmas one of those words (or any other word really, but I don't like to speak in absolutes, specially on the internet). I face no dificulty in life because Christmas has many meanings, nor has it made communication more dificult.
Again - I disagree. Unless you could explain how you would manage to credit the acts of different beings to a single entity. In this particular case - common parlance is wrong. (akin to it being "common parlance" that the earth was flat). When the tales were written the acts were attributed NOT to different aspects of an entity, but rather separate entities. One, in particular, ha'Satan (Satan in English), is described as an agent of God, a servant. The other terms that have been translated were translated incorrectly. (Many such were introduced at the time of KJ - which is why I asked if you were going by an English Bible as many derive from that original.
But this happens and has happened to all religions, terms, words, characters change (specially old ones). There is no Right or Wrong here, yust "I believe, you believe" or "Current/ non-current" or "Predominant/non-predominant". That's why I think that even though Faith in a Religion is ussually an exercise in security in one's ideas , any good follower of a faith should have a nagging voice at the back of his head telling him "this could be wrong".
I think we did alright - but who knows... Have a safe flight.
Thank You, I'll multiply your wishes by six just to make sure they last me. ;)
America is the most giving country in the world.
There are stats for it... I will attempt to find them should someone wanna argue...
Yeah I think the stats are that when a desaster happens somewhere in the world the US gives more aid than basically all other countries in the world combined. And I think most of it comes from donations from poor people that can't really affort to but do it anyways. And well a small donation from a million or so people really does add up quickly.
America is the most giving country in the world.
There are stats for it... I will attempt to find them should someone wanna argue...
I'm curious about which source you used. I googled it, and my guess is you're talking about total amount of $ given, right?
I think the stats are that when a desaster happens somewhere in the world the US gives more aid than basically all other countries in the world combined. And I think most of it comes from donations from poor people that can't really affort to but do it anyways. And well a small donation from a million or so people really does add up quickly.
That's one thing I never really understood; when it comes to giving to foreign countries, Americans have no problems. But hen it comes to givin to fellow Americans, then they start worrying about heir pockets.
Yeah I think the stats are that when a desaster happens somewhere in the world the US gives more aid than basically all other countries in the world combined.
That's some truth Ruth.
I remember a few years ago, right around this time of year, huge tsunami struck Sri Lanka, parts of Thailand, and my God, it was a juggernaut. More ppl died outright than the Hiroshima blast (over 100k IIRC) and we were johnny-on-the-spot w/ naval shipments of food aid and the like. Nary a thank you from world opinion, save the actual victims. I wonder how many of those support units were flying just a bit further North to Afghanistan originally...whatever, we stepped up to the plate (again). No one but those ppl cared. Not our problem, right?
Yeah, that erdana; color:#000000; font-size:9pt">cataclysm turned into a footnote though in comparison to a much smaller face of mother nature's wrath via watery death that reared its ugly head in a little cesspool called New Orleans. FYI, genius is not heeding French architects advising to build elsewhere, above sea level, not flanked by a lake, coast, and endless swamp/bogs. This was foretold long ago. We knew it was only a matter of time. Basically, an aquatic version of the San Andres fault line. Still, against much adversity, they forged ahead. The malaria, typhoid, and $ alone...
If we're talking about God again, you'd swear it was the Great Flood part II w/ all the media coverage, outrage, testimony, and bla bla bla. Katrina & Rita became pop culture staples, buzzwords for political dissidents & media, and an effigy of American irresponsibility...despite it paling in comparison to a similar tragedy of epic proportions.
Lesson: catastophic nightmare in another country? Cut 'em a check, pat self on back. Everyone forgets. Far less invasive natural disaster in this country (featuring all manner of extraneous social commentary)? Qualitative; fill the Hell out of every TV time slot, get celeb awareness (cuz' you probably didn't hear given it was on every media outlet for years), cater to every "expert witness", bemoan the sad state of affairs, etc. Quantitative; factual evidence post hurricane -> poorly maintained levees, bad 1st response, many refusing to evacuate well before (then later complain about their losses), oh, and the largest misallocation of relief aid funding ever (Dept. of Treasury).
ex) issuing of debit cards to "refugees" = not long after, started seeing purchases of Prada bags, DTV purchases, liqour, guns, even a handful of slated sex change ops. Uh, hello, paper trail? "I lost my house, you owe me! Ohh, ball game tickets will surely sate my righteous anger." And we can't stop thinking about how the govt. let us (them) down again and again. Meanwhile, a few hundred US dead are interred and life goes on. So does the posturing. Elsewhere, some sandy beach that was previously the stomping grounds of the Tamil Tigers is now host to a necropolis of mammoth proportions. Entire bloodlines wiped out. But that's over "there"...totally different.
And I think most of it comes from donations from poor people that can't really affort to but do it anyways. And well a small donation from a million or so people really does add up quickly.
Yes, quite correct again. Good insight btw.
Irony is the poorest states in the Union (Mississippi & Louisiana IIRC) technically give more $ in charitable donations than the richest (Mass. & NY I believe). In my fictional despotic reign, all these corrupt bankers at the end of the year receiving massive raises (w/ our TARP $ btw) have their assets seized. $ is now circulated to Afghan/Iraqi vets, pensions, education, and to countries actually grateful for our valuable services, no strings attached...just like the money that was sent to these gold-plated Shylocks initially.
Yeah, that erdana; color:#000000; font-size:9pt">cataclysm turned into a footnote though in comparison to a much smaller face of mother nature's wrath via watery death that reared its ugly head in a little cesspool called New Orleans. FYI, genius is not heeding French architects advising to build elsewhere, above sea level, not flanked by a lake, coast, and endless swamp/bogs. This was foretold long ago. We knew it was only a matter of time. Basically, an aquatic version of the San Andres fault line. Still, against much adversity, they forged ahead. The malaria, typhoid, and $ alone...
When New Orleans was founded it was inland and on high ground. Humans
about with the river and swamp moved the shoreline.Yeah, that erdana; color:#000000; font-size:9pt">cataclysm turned into a footnote though in comparison to a much smaller face of mother nature's wrath via watery death that reared its ugly head in a little cesspool called New Orleans. FYI, genius is not heeding French architects advising to build elsewhere, above sea level, not flanked by a lake, coast, and endless swamp/bogs. This was foretold long ago. We knew it was only a matter of time. Basically, an aquatic version of the San Andres fault line. Still, against much adversity, they forged ahead. The malaria, typhoid, and $ alone...
When New Orleans was founded it was inland and on high ground. Humans
Great. How does this effect the topic at large though?
What bothers me about the Katrina outrage is that people expected us to have trailers and military aid onsite NOW. Well, seems they forgot that all of the infrastructure the military was gonna use to get there got obliterated. See, it's hard to drive through a lake. So those doods got an unfair shake and so did Bush - for that part of it. The rest - gift card fiasco, etc - can be laid at his feet. Gotta keep logistics in mind, though.
How does this effect the topic at large though?
It doesn't, it only addresses the quoted text in particular.
All I'm saying is, it got blown out of proportion. Real ppl in greater need got hammered w/ nary a warning overseas and we jumped on it right away. Hurricane was brewing well in the Gulf and we knew it was coming, there was ample warning...many stayed...did nothing, then were quick to demand a handout which the govt. quickly conceeded to, only to find waste on a level we'd never seen before.
They do not know what true suffering is. One day though, they will, but there will be no bailout.
That is a fairly accurate asessment, though I can only blame the short-sighted, the greedy, and so forth for abusing a means made hastilly to help them. Give a man a fish...
All I'm saying is, it got blown out of proportion. Real ppl in greater need got hammered w/ nary a warning overseas and we jumped on it right away. Hurricane was brewing well in the Gulf and we knew it was coming, there was ample warning...many stayed...did nothing, then were quick to demand a handout which the govt. quickly conceeded to, only to find waste on a level we'd never seen before.
They do not know what true suffering is. One day though, they will, but there will be no bailout.
I agree with ya 100%. Sad how it all works.
2) It's the fact that the government failed in so many ways before, during, and after the disaster. Honestly the pictures from Katrina is what you expect to see from an underdeveloped country, not from one of the major cities in the "Biggest, bestest most mother****ing jingoistic nation in the world". It was an embarassment to the Nation and there should be outrage that the government in all levels failed to foresee and react to the problem. Even worse is the fact that it still hasn't begun massive reconstrution in NoLa and the other Southern States affected.
Ps: I'm surprised at the large number of libertarian-minded people in this board, and in the DnD community in general.
It was an embarrassment to the Nation and there should be outrage that the government in all levels failed to foresee and react to the problem.
Foresee? They forecasted the mother weeks in advance and told people to get the **** out of dodge. The real problem was the idiotic assessment of the levees. They should have been built better, that's for damn sure. But we couldn't go back in time or shore them up - so we told people that if they stayed, they'd be massively boned by god. Some chose the boning. You can't blame the government for individual decisions. You also cannot blame them for not having literally immediate response. That was an impossibility. You can, however, blame them for the FEMA trailers, misappropriation of funds, etc, etc. There's plenty of blame to be had - just not in certain cases.
Ps: I'm surprised at the large number of libertarian-minded people in this board, and in the DnD community in general.
Why? Honestly curious - no hidden motives.
Ps: I'm surprised at the large number of libertarian-minded people in this board, and in the DnD community in general.
Do you mean "libertarian" as in people who believe in personal freedoms and liberty or "Libertarian" as in the bat
crazy policital party?I don't believe Spain ever suffered two huge building collapses and over 3000 people perish in one attack... nor has there been so many killed and so much destruction by any one attack in Northern Ireland...
Didn't imply that, but then again I'm sure more Spaniards and Irish have died in the course of history due to repeated terrorist attacks than the ones who died out of one (or three if you want to divide them) attack(s). The main point of my statement, and were I would like people to focus, because death is death and I have no interest in discussing which was worse, is that the closer (physically or emotionaly) something happens the more the reaction to it is amplified.
Foresee? They forecasted the mother weeks in advance and told people to get the **** out of dodge. The real problem was the idiotic assessment of the levees. They should have been built better, that's for damn sure. But we couldn't go back in time or shore them up - so we told people that if they stayed, they'd be massively boned by god. Some chose the boning. You can't blame the government for individual decisions. You also cannot blame them for not having literally immediate response. That was an impossibility. You can, however, blame them for the FEMA trailers, misappropriation of funds, etc, etc. There's plenty of blame to be had - just not in certain cases.
I wasn't blaming the government for everything, it just didn't do it's job. I live in an island used to Hurricanes (though many years have passed since the last one), and I always remembered that city and state goverment MADE everyone leave dangerous islands, even if it was against their will; there is no way you can tell me NoLA, Louisiana, and the US federal goverment couldn't have evacuated or moved people to safer places. Of course, morons will always be morons, and in that day there were may of those; but the goverment failed in not keeping the levies up to date, or making them stronger, or destrooying natural barriers to storm surges. And no I'm not saying immediate reaction is necessary, I'm saying that if you know that big mofo hurracain is comming you have everything ready to help as soon as possible. Again, if an island goverment can do it, why can't a state or national goverment? The goverment failed with Katrina, nobody can deny it.
Ps: I'm surprised at the large number of libertarian-minded people in this board, and in the DnD community in general.
Why? Honestly curious - no hidden motives.
I don't know I assosiated DnD players as more inclined towards other ideologies, preconceptions, nothing else. Also that Libertarians are hard to come by and I'm amazed at their concentration in these forums. I meant nothing bad by it, just an expression of amusement.
Ps: I'm surprised at the large number of libertarian-minded people in this board, and in the DnD community in general.
Do you mean "libertarian" as in people who believe in personal freedoms and liberty or "Libertarian" as in the bat
I mean it as anarcho-capitalist, or anything resembeling that. Also what you said with the caveat that other ideologies also believe in personal freedoms.
I wasn't blaming the government for everything, it just didn't do it's job. I live in an island used to Hurricanes (though many years have passed since the last one), and I always remembered that city and state goverment MADE everyone leave dangerous islands, even if it was against their will; there is no way you can tell me NoLA, Louisiana, and the US federal goverment couldn't have evacuated or moved people to safer places. Of course, morons will always be morons, and in that day there were may of those; but the goverment failed in not keeping the levies up to date, or making them stronger, or destrooying natural barriers to storm surges. And no I'm not saying immediate reaction is necessary, I'm saying that if you know that big mofo hurracain is comming you have everything ready to help as soon as possible. Again, if an island goverment can do it, why can't a state or national goverment? The goverment failed with Katrina, nobody can deny it.
They were ready. Honest. It just takes time to move a massive amount of men and materiel through a destroyed city. It really is. The expected timeline was insane.
Oh, we also don't make it a policy to bodily evict people from their own property. Kinda sends a bad message - no matter the intent.
But yes, the government did fail. No doubt.
I don't know I assosiated DnD players as more inclined towards other ideologies, preconceptions, nothing else. Also that Libertarians are hard to come by and I'm amazed at their concentration in these forums. I meant nothing bad by it, just an expression of amusement.
I didn't think ya meant anything by it, it just interested me. Thanks for answering.
They were ready. Honest. It just takes time to move a massive amount of men and materiel through a destroyed city. It really is. The expected timeline was insane.
I don't doubt they prepared for something, just not well enough. Also the response was horrible, regardless of timeline. Then again I'm judging this from how the colonial government in my island has responded to hurricaines past
Oh, we also don't make it a policy to bodily evict people from their own property. Kinda sends a bad message - no matter the intent.
Oh, I know, here neither. It's just a matter of responsability to the citizen to not let them drown during a storm. Other than situations like that it's his house and if he doesn't want to leave he won't.
Speaking about libertarianism and possibly small government. The Governor of Puerto Rico has been floated around as a reeeeaaallllyyyy long-shot candidate for President in 2012 (blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archiv...)
One: The failure of the levee system itself.
Two: The refusal of people to leave the affected area beforehand
Three: The slowness of the repsonse getting in afterwards.
The waste afterwards completely aside.
The first we can lay at the feet of the Feds. Just not the ones in power at the time. The infrastructure in the United States is falling apart, and the levees are a part of that. A lack of money inflowing from the Federal Government has resulted in a lot of roads, levees, bridges, etc going to pot.
The Fed hasn't given over assistance for infrastructure by law in a couple of decades now.
The second is entirely on them. They don't get to sue the Fed(or anyone else) for injuries they sustained in the process of riding out a storm they were repeatedly told about. Should have required them to sign waivers when they elected to stay, saying once and for all that they remained of their own free will, eschewing assistance, knowing full well that their lives could be forfeit.
Then watch them sue after. No dice.
Number three is just funny. The Fed has no right (nor technically power) to do *anything* until invited by the several States. Remember the Civil War? It was about State's Rights. When the States are later allowed to exercise those rights, the Fed gets Blasted.
I had a giggle. The Governor of Lousiana didn't ask for help in any way, shape, or form until almost 36 hours *after* the storm passed. A day and a freaking half.
We had assistabce in neighboring states ready to go to the aid of New Orleans, but it was badly damaged in the storm, and we weren't allowed to otherwise.
Not until asked. Once asked, on the other hand, they were on the problem like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm.
-Sarena
Three things went wrong with the strike of Katrina. In the end, only *one* of these can be remotely the Fed's fault.
One: The failure of the levee system itself.
Two: The refusal of people to leave the affected area beforehand
Three: The slowness of the repsonse getting in afterwards.
The waste afterwards completely aside.
The first we can lay at the feet of the Feds. Just not the ones in power at the time. The infrastructure in the United States is falling apart, and the levees are a part of that. A lack of money inflowing from the Federal Government has resulted in a lot of roads, levees, bridges, etc going to pot.
The Fed hasn't given over assistance for infrastructure by law in a couple of decades now.
The second is entirely on them. They don't get to sue the Fed(or anyone else) for injuries they sustained in the process of riding out a storm they were repeatedly told about. Should have required them to sign waivers when they elected to stay, saying once and for all that they remained of their own free will, eschewing assistance, knowing full well that their lives could be forfeit.
Then watch them sue after. No dice.
Number three is just funny. The Fed has no right (nor technically power) to do *anything* until invited by the several States. Remember the Civil War? It was about State's Rights. When the States are later allowed to exercise those rights, the Fed gets Blasted.
I had a giggle. The Governor of Lousiana didn't ask for help in any way, shape, or form until almost 36 hours *after* the storm passed. A day and a freaking half.
We had assistabce in neighboring states ready to go to the aid of New Orleans, but it was badly damaged in the storm, and we weren't allowed to otherwise.
Not until asked. Once asked, on the other hand, they were on the problem like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm.
-Sarena
I agree with most of what you said. Also, didn't know that the Fed couldn't help until asked to. However, concerning the evacuation, one would need to study how viable leaving the area was to some of the residents, something I've heard was an issue, that there wasn't a good evacuation plan for the areas that got hit hard.
Anyways, Katrina was the perfect example of government (at all levels local and federal) failing to do their job correctly.
Number three is just funny. The Fed has no right (nor technically power) to do *anything* until invited by the several States. Remember the Civil War? It was about State's Rights. When the States are later allowed to exercise those rights, the Fed gets Blasted.
I had a giggle. The Governor of Lousiana didn't ask for help in any way, shape, or form until almost 36 hours *after* the storm passed. A day and a freaking half.
Yep and so that's not the Fed's fault. It's the state's fault. They did not ask for help and they did not accept aid that was offered. And the feds coming into the state and taking over the situation and running the show without state approval is likely a violation of state's rights. Brotherjgizmo, the government has no right to force poeple off their property even if the Apocalypse is coming. If someone wants to stay and die then they have all the rights in the world to do so. What they shouldn't do is complain that aid is too slow getting to them when they were told to leave days in advance. They were told to get out. Told what would likely happen and so they have nobody to blame but themselves for putting themselves in that horrible situation. As far as aid goes. They have their horrible state and their horrible city to blame. If anything the FEDs should be commended for not barging in and violating state's rights in that situation.
Oh and the old french quarter is the only part of NO IIRC that is built above sea lvl. All the rest of it is built on swamp land. Or at least it was a swamp until it was changed into farmland and then later the city was placed on it.
Brotherjgizmo, the government has no right to force poeple off their property even if the Apocalypse is coming. If someone wants to stay and die then they have all the rights in the world to do so. What they shouldn't do is complain that aid is too slow getting to them when they were told to leave days in advance. They were told to get out. Told what would likely happen and so they have nobody to blame but themselves for putting themselves in that horrible situation.
Oh, I don't completely disagree. But in a fire the Fire Departmen can drag you out, like it or not. Getting people out of a disaster area is the same, only that it's done before the disaster comes. It may make people angry but it saves life and it saves money for everyone if people don't die. I think that the duty to protect the life of a citizen comes before the right of property.
EDIT: let me editorialize thid a little bit. Th right to property is one that is recognized and should be protected. however when the government has to make a choice as to wheter it is better to deprive on of it temporarily or permanently because of security issues, they should do so (in a strcit cost/benefict analysis). Of course, it is the duty of the citizen to demand in court if he feels the goverment stepped over the line. And it is the duty of the courts (and juries) to be referees in that dispute.
As far as aid goes. They have their horrible state and their horrible city to blame. If anything the FEDs should be commended for not barging in and violating state's rights in that situation.
I would respond to this but I'd like to know beforehand how accurate this is; my guess would be that in disaster situations the Federal Goverment can 'barge in'. Either way, and i'll say it again, all levels of goverment failed. But the federal goverment has the most funds and resources to do anything; so far NoLA is still in shambles and the Federal Government has done nothing. And you know what, I'm glad the Army Corp of Engineers got found at Fault over the levees, and hope they remain at fault after the appeal process; If it would have been LA or NYC or Chicago that got hit like that they wouldn't have been forgotten, I'm possitive.
I just don't really get it, and am dismayed at how ineffective the American Goverment, my goverment, has become over the years; and it is a problem of the system that encouraged it's own inneficiencies.
EDIT: Actually finally got some info, yeah the local and state goverment dropped the ball big time. Although the Federal Goverment was (aknowledging the inevitable delays) , and still is slow to help with the aftermath.
Oh, I don't completely disagree. But in a fire the Fire Departmen can drag you out, like it or not. Getting people out of a disaster area is the same, only that it's done before the disaster comes. It may make people angry but it saves life and it saves money for everyone if people don't die. I think that the duty to protect the life of a citizen comes before the right of property.
EDIT: let me editorialize thid a little bit. Th right to property is one that is recognized and should be protected. however when the government has to make a choice as to wheter it is better to deprive on of it temporarily or permanently because of security issues, they should do so (in a strcit cost/benefict analysis). Of course, it is the duty of the citizen to demand in court if he feels the goverment stepped over the line. And it is the duty of the courts (and juries) to be referees in that dispute.
Most often a person doesn't choose to choke to death in a burning building. In this case these people chose to stay and die. And yeah firemen do pull people out of burning buildings whether or not they like it but I do think that if the person asks not to be saved then the fireman shouldn't. It was that person's choice.
And I must dissagree with you. I believe that a person's choice over their own property and their own life should override what the government thinks, or knows, what's best for them.
I would respond to this but I'd like to know beforehand how accurate this is; my guess would be that in disaster situations the Federal Goverment can 'barge in'. Either way, and i'll say it again, all levels of goverment failed. But the federal goverment has the most funds and resources to do anything; so far NoLA is still in shambles and the Federal Government has done nothing. And you know what, I'm glad the Army Corp of Engineers got found at Fault over the levees, and hope they remain at fault after the appeal process; If it would have been LA or NYC or Chicago that got hit like that they wouldn't have been forgotten, I'm possitive.
I just don't really get it, and am dismayed at how ineffective the American Goverment, my goverment, has become over the years; and it is a problem of the system that encouraged it's own inneficiencies.
The fed can barge in but it doesn't mean people will like it. If they march in like they own the state and against the state's will then I'm sure there will be a ton of troulbe in the courts over it.
The reason for the Army Corp of Engineers thing is because, unlike New Orleans, those cities actually matter in America's eyes.
And no the governament has not been getting worse. It has always been this bad. With my limited studies of US history I'd probably even say that this is an improvement from the past.
Most often a person doesn't choose to choke to death in a burning building. In this case these people chose to stay and die. And yeah firemen do pull people out of burning buildings whether or not they like it but I do think that if the person asks not to be saved then the fireman shouldn't. It was that person's choice.
And I must dissagree with you. I believe that a person's choice over their own property and their own life should override what the government thinks, or knows, what's best for them.
Before I answer I'd like to make clear that we are working in the hypothetical here; if we were discussing actual law then what I feel is correct or what you feel correct wouldn't matter.
Now, since we are talking hypotheticals; I would agree with you if people were Islands, if their choices would not affect anybody, but sadly nobody, or most nobody, is an island and choices affect others. If a person decides to die in a fire or not evacuate a place in imminent danger and their death could be a cost to government or a family, drag them out. You're not violating property rights, the property is their, it isn't compromised or anything (at most, you trespassed) what you did is use the coercive power of the state to save costs (to put it coldly). I know that if I had a brother who refused to leave his burning house I wouldn't complain if firefighters dragged him out by his leg because that's a lot of mony I saved on the bastards funeral.
The fed can barge in but it doesn't mean people will like it. If they march in like they own the state and against the state's will then I'm sure there will be a ton of troulbe in the courts over it.
The reason for the Army Corp of Engineers thing is because, unlike New Orleans, those cities actually matter in America's eyes.
And no the governament has not been getting worse. It has always been this bad. With my limited studies of US history I'd probably even say that this is an improvement from the past.
Most people don't mind if the government makes their life easier. Neither would a state really, most complaints about violations of State's rights are mainly posturing (Texas is an excellent example, they complain that the Fed's steal their money when in fact they receive more than they give). Basically if the Fed's intervene and do it right, nobody will complain, just like government programs, if done right (or somewhat right) and the benefits it confers come at a good price, most nobody will complain (I'm talking in a general sense here there will always be exceptions).
It has been better in the past. Nowadays the federal government has be Californianized a Democratic Party that always compromises and thus creates weak legislation, and a Republican Party that obstructs as a way to power.
That's just the most recent thing, the influence of money in campaigns is embarrassing, the two party system a sham, the Senate an insult to democracy, the Supreme Court (arguably the best branch of government) dodges difficult rulings, Congress needs term limits, the whole system is to slow to change, and Education as a whole in the nation is pure crap. Oh, lets not forget that the tax structure is a huge FU to the middle class, healthcare is too complicated corrupt and inefficient, income disparity is embarrassing, elections are not representative, the date of the elections is horrible...........
As a result, the only real work that can be done is the on odd-numbered years (the rest of the time is currying the voters to keep them in office). Having to forge new alliances every time around the block can be trying at best. The Senate brings bills of larger law, and the House brings matters of Spending before both houses, in an effort to make two versions of the same bill, which then is brought before the President before it can be acted upon.
There are very few cases where this procedure can be circumvented, and nearly nobody is willing to upset the People who's votes reportedly count for all to make those things happen.
Martial Law, for example, can be declared in degrees, and places complete power in the hands of the Executive, by suspending the effective Constitution. If the Governor of Lousiana had declared Martial Law ahead of time, and ordered New Orleans and the surrounding countryside cleared, then it would have been done, but he would have destroyed any hope of being re-elected once Martial Law was lifted.
We consider it heavy-handed in the extreme. Reality check: How many would have been saved by so doing, despite it being political suicide?
Anyone they had time to move between declaration and the event. The city could have been cleared in short order.
Not that I'm espousing the idea. Far from it. I'm waiting for a President to take issue with Foriegn Policy and do exactly that, and then use his/her/it's new-found power in the greatest of Palpatine style.
Any other significant approach on the other hand, suffers from Committee Paralysis. Bureaucracy will kill people just as effectively as a thirty-foot wave.
Now... This leads to a nifty segeway into the current state of the Economy. There *is* a way to fix it, even if we are just repeating a stunt from ages gone by, and fix another issue at the same time. In fact, it's one I already mentioned.
Can anyone tell me what that might be?
If Pro and Con are opposite in meaning( and usually argument), what is the opposite of Progress?
-Sarena
Now, since we are talking hypotheticals; I would agree with you if people were Islands, if their choices would not affect anybody, but sadly nobody, or most nobody, is an island and choices affect others. If a person decides to die in a fire or not evacuate a place in imminent danger and their death could be a cost to government or a family, drag them out. You're not violating property rights, the property is their, it isn't compromised or anything (at most, you trespassed) what you did is use the coercive power of the state to save costs (to put it coldly). I know that if I had a brother who refused to leave his burning house I wouldn't complain if firefighters dragged him out by his leg because that's a lot of mony I saved on the bastards funeral.
Forcing people out of their homes, or from their daily lives, even if it is to save their lives, is a violation of their rights as far as I see it. If someone wants to make a stupid decision then let them. Unless the people ask to be moved then government shouldn't step in (although I do think that in a situation like Katrina people should leave on their own means and not by that of the government). After the storm the state did not ask for help. To me that says that they're on it and have things under control. Now seeing as how they were not on it and did not have things under control they are to blame for not seeking the aid from the federal government and from other states. If really someone is to be solely blamed for the response it should be the state of which I never see people rail on them. It's always on bush of which they did the correct thing of not stepping in until asked.
And coercive power of state? What's coercive about forcefully removing people from their homes? To me that sounds a bit like martial law and a bit like a tyrannical government. I don't care what if it saves lives that sorta thing shouldn't be happening. Who cares if it saves lives or money a government entity should not have the power to basically steal us out of our homes even if they use "for your safety" as an excuse. I'm pretty sure that if law enforcement and military tried this many of them would likely get shot. Heck I'd likely go and fight back if they tried taking me from my home. Of course if a hurricane was rolling in and I was told to get out I'd leave my home for a few days, but if the military came to my door with guns and said I was leaving, for no good apparent reason, damn right I'd be pissed. Well something similar did happen like this after Katrina of which the government took away the weapons that were lawfully owned by hard working americans. One hell of a violation of rights there. And as I understand it the whole thing didn't help out one damn bit. It was done in the peoples' best interest and was unconstitutional and as I understand it didn't have any good results. I'm not for government doing stuff like this when our country was founded on principles of freedom not government ruling our lives.
And if my brother decided to stay in that fire and not be rescued then sucks for him. I'm sure he'd have his reasons though. If the firefighter does pull him out, and if he wanted to stay in there for whatever reason, then I'd hope he'd raise hell for the firefighter being an ass. Yes funerals do cost a lot of money and can be a drain on our pocket books but we shouldn't let money rule our daily lives or our legislation (to the degree that it does) nor the decisions that of our government officials such as a president. Yes money is important but we shouldn't be violating rights because it will save money.
Most people don't mind if the government makes their life easier.
And something that one might see as making their life easier another might see as a burden upon their life. As of my opinion, if the government is involved then it's likely a burden upon the people.
Forcing people out of their homes, or from their daily lives, even if it is to save their lives, is a violation of their rights as far as I see it. If someone wants to make a stupid decision then let them. Unless the people ask to be moved then government shouldn't step in (although I do think that in a situation like Katrina people should leave on their own means and not by that of the government). After the storm the state did not ask for help. To me that says that they're on it and have things under control. Now seeing as how they were not on it and did not have things under control they are to blame for not seeking the aid from the federal government and from other states. If really someone is to be solely blamed for the response it should be the state of which I never see people rail on them. It's always on bush of which they did the correct thing of not stepping in until asked.
But a lot of the people who didn't leave, were car-less and poor, basically they had to take the brunt of the force because they weren't rich enough to escape. I'm sorry, but in situations like that the government should pull them out, even if by force. And yes, I've said no a million times government at all levels failed. But the government of Louisiana under Jindal has been working with what it has to deal with the damage, yet both Bush and now Obama, and all the congresses in between have effectively ignored the damage and the Federal government should be chastised for that. ver since the aftermath of Katrina, they have been dragging their feet.
And coercive power of state? What's coercive about forcefully removing people from their homes? To me that sounds a bit like martial law and a bit like a tyrannical government. I don't care what if it saves lives that sorta thing shouldn't be happening. Who cares if it saves lives or money a government entity should not have the power to basically steal us out of our homes even if they use "for your safety" as an excuse. I'm pretty sure that if law enforcement and military tried this many of them would likely get shot. Heck I'd likely go and fight back if they tried taking me from my home. Of course if a hurricane was rolling in and I was told to get out I'd leave my home for a few days, but if the military came to my door with guns and said I was leaving, for no good apparent reason, damn right I'd be pissed. Well something similar did happen like this after Katrina of which the government took away the weapons that were lawfully owned by hard working americans. One hell of a violation of rights there. And as I understand it the whole thing didn't help out one damn bit. It was done in the peoples' best interest and was unconstitutional and as I understand it didn't have any good results. I'm not for government doing stuff like this when our country was founded on principles of freedom not government ruling our lives.
And if my brother decided to stay in that fire and not be rescued then sucks for him. I'm sure he'd have his reasons though. If the firefighter does pull him out, and if he wanted to stay in there for whatever reason, then I'd hope he'd raise hell for the firefighter being an ass. Yes funerals do cost a lot of money and can be a drain on our pocket books but we shouldn't let money rule our daily lives or our legislation (to the degree that it does) nor the decisions that of our government officials such as a president. Yes money is important but we shouldn't be violating rights because it will save money.
Most people don't mind if the government makes their life easier.
And something that one might see as making their life easier another might see as a burden upon their life. As of my opinion, if the government is involved then it's likely a burden upon the people.
I disagree, I think good government is a relief to society; I think Aristoteles was right when he said that man without the polis is no man at all because we are not autarchic. I think that if there is legal consensus of when the government can stop you from making a ridiculously stupid thing (purposefully, or due to ignorance or due to not being capable of doing anything else) that will harm others, they can do so. These circumstances must be strict and kept an eye on by citizens through democracy.
Taking a citizen out of a house that will burn or drown can be done under the same justifications as taxes, traffic laws, and regulation of alcohol and smoking.
EDIT: and yes any act of the government is an infringement of our natural state of freedom, but that's because the mere act of living in structured society is a limitation of our freedoms.
But a lot of the people who didn't leave, were car-less and poor, basically they had to take the brunt of the force because they weren't rich enough to escape.
A lot of them could have gotten out but they waited until to late, when all the buss drivers and such had all basically left. They were not proactive. they were lazy and so it is their fault for being there. They had several days in which they could have taken cheep public transportation out of there and they failed to do it. It doesn't have much to do with them not having cars (roads where backed up and many cars ran out of gas on the road so likely wouldn't have helped) or being poor. It has to do with them being stupid and lazy enough to wait until the last second when there was no possible way of leaving or in some cases just not even making an effort to leave.
I disagree, I think good government is a relief to society;
sure but then we'd first need a good government.
Taking a citizen out of a house that will burn or drown can be done under the same justifications as taxes, traffic laws, and regulation of alcohol and smoking.
With many traffic laws, if you break them, then you're putting others into potential danger. Same goes for many of the other regulations. But as far as the dumb nitpick laws such as when and where you can drink or smoke, I do understand that they have been made to "protect" us. I do however feel that many of them are unconstitutional and should have never been made in the first place or let last.
EDIT: and yes any act of the government is an infringement of our natural state of freedom, but that's because the mere act of living in structured society is a limitation of our freedoms.
I know that and I"m cool if they infringe on one's rights when they have violated the rights and freedoms of others. But to do so in the guise of "protecting people that don't know better", to feel obligated to "save" our lives by telling us what we can and cannot do, is in my eyes unconstitutional and just a bunch of horrible, though good intentioned, legislative exercising of power and carrying out of said powers by executive officials.
-Sarena
A lot of them could have gotten out but they waited until to late, when all the buss drivers and such had all basically left. They were not proactive. they were lazy and so it is their fault for being there. They had several days in which they could have taken cheep public transportation out of there and they failed to do it.
It's not as easy as that though, I don't know were you live, but as a person of a commonly hit nation (semi-nation) I can tell you how dangerous lack of information is, and how lack of information tends to disproportionally affects the poor. People depend on their government for information (low-income people more so) on destructive weather, The state government didn't really take or advice people of the buses until it was to late for anybody to take advantage of anything.
It doesn't have much to do with them not having cars (roads where backed up and many cars ran out of gas on the road so likely wouldn't have helped) or being poor. It has to do with them being stupid and lazy enough to wait until the last second when there was no possible way of leaving or in some cases just not even making an effort to leave.
If anything you just gave more proof that the government was asleep at the wheel. Honestly, it's embarrassing that Louisiana and the US can't get a good disaster plan working while the debt-ridden, corrupt, inefficient and bloated Puerto Rican Government can do it by memory. And let me tell you, Puerto Rico has its large number of lazy, stupid people.
I disagree, I think good government is a relief to society;
sure but then we'd first need a good government.
True, although you guys have it good still.
Same goes for many of the other regulations. But as far as the dumb nitpick laws such as when and where you can drink or smoke, I do understand that they have been made to "protect" us. I do however feel that many of them are unconstitutional and should have never been made in the first place or let last.
I feel english only laws are unconstitutional ,yet many states have decided to trample all over the first amendment. About the constitutionality of those laws, in the American system something is constitutional until the Supreme Court decides it isn't, this is my main beef with the Supreme Court, they are generally intelligent with their ruling (although I'm scared shitless about their actually considering letting corporations to contribute freely to political campaigns). Philosophically I disagree though, and now that I finally thought it over I can say why.
Goverment in most cases is charged with the protection of the citizen, thusly they have the duty to evacuate the citizenship when necessary (bomb, killer wave, fire, etc...). So under those circumstances, the policeman or firefighter will go door to door telling people to scram (no weapons drawn) once those who have done so voluntarily do so, they start to evacuate those who want to but cannot; after that is done, they start to move those who refuse to leave the danger zone. Why? Because it is against the nature of man to make decisions that will end its life (unless he is near death to begin with), therefore one has to suppose that the stragglers are incapable of making a thoughtful decision and must be removed, (put the cuffs on him and place him in the truck). The role of the government in saving lives seems pretty obvious to me.
Goverment in most cases is charged with the protection of the citizen
From eachother and from outside forces, not from themselves. If a person wants to kill themselves and does it in a way that puts no one else at risk (financial risk does not qualify) then the government is overstepping it's bounds to stop them. The government should not be a nanny.
Goverment in most cases is charged with the protection of the citizen....-snip-.....The role of the government in saving lives seems pretty obvious to me.
This is where we differ. I think that, for the most part, government should play no role in saving lives especially when it is saving peoples from their own decisions. I think that government.... well EE answered it pretty well so read below.
Goverment in most cases is charged with the protection of the citizen
From eachother and from outside forces, not from themselves. If a person wants to kill themselves and does it in a way that puts no one else at risk (financial risk does not qualify) then the government is overstepping it's bounds to stop them. The government should not be a nanny.
So if anything what the government should do is let them people know that a killer of a storm is coming and that they should get the hell out of dodge. I'm sure a lot of news programs will already bo doing this though. Maybe the government could go and have this broadcasted regularly on TV and radio in the places that the storm will be hitting. Sure they should inform but I think that it should be up to the people, not the government, on whether or not they do get the hell out of dodge.
Holy crap ppl…man, you guys really took what I said and ran, nay, sprinted way the Hell out w/ it. I was just trying to draw a comparison to a real example of life’s harsh realities during the Xmas tsunami and how our govt. (not “we”; do not pigeonhole the constituency) tried to take the charitable/speedy approach ala "goodwill towards men, that whole Xmas schtick" to it (conveniently forgotten in 2 pages of Katrina dissection) and the similar disaster that was bungled. Katrina/Rita: far less death & destruction than the real disaster w/ a veneer of “Oh, God, it’s so bad, this is everyone else’s fault (but mine)!” posturing and the govt. becomes the whipping boy once again for the ineptitude of so many others. It’s not so b/w hardly ever.
That is, a slew of independent variables in a history of “wtf happened?” there are lazily/incompetently consolidated into one big complaint/F-U towards the govt. We want it nice and easily digestable as pausing to realistically critique problem ‘x’ takes effort, time, and insight; not really the hallmark of John/Jane Doe American sadly. Little media blurbs, hearsay and conjecture, smaller facets of the bigger diamond we can easilly see. It’s easy to feel self-righteous (self-indulgent) and point the finger. We like easy outs. Going on the offensive so quickly often betrays why someone should really be on the defensive in many ways.
DarkSpartan: Any other significant approach on the other hand, suffers from Committee Paralysis. Bureaucracy will kill people just as effectively as a thirty-foot wave.
“Committee Paralysis”…I like that, and yes, so true. Couldn’t quite put a finger (name) on the collective adversity previously. This is an excellent summary, nj. Dad always used to say, “The 1st job a politician makes is insuring their 2nd term (job).” Despite the alleged mandate of accurate, selfless representation, they rarely, if ever, separate their own sense of self-preservation (their mere jobs) from those of their constituency’s who’s homes, education, jobs, etc are at stake.
Bro.Gizmo: It has been better in the past. Nowadays the federal government has be Californianized a Democratic Party that always compromises and thus creates weak legislation, and a Republican Party that obstructs as a way to power.
They kowtow to any rabble rouser or special interest and focus more on short-sightedness and image, not the long view of the gestalt (common American foible). It is a miasma of deeply entrenched elements who’s machinations, initially designed for good/growth, have got them so ingrained in the body politic that removing them, even carefully, will cause a major system shock. See period of massive upheaval, intractable d-bags, and a media explosion like a nuke.
It’s like a contemporary company work ethic; don’t necessarily work so hard you get recognition (you know, your actual job description), just make yourself indispensable so that you just become a permanent fixture and are too difficult to negotiate around/through. And the Republicans obstruct equally and w/out foresight as their counterparts across the aisle. See filibuster for one. Robert’s Rules of Order should be tattooed to all their bodies for referencing. They forget themselves and their jobs. Both parties are equally worthless as a whole w/ a rare few gems on either side allowed to shine for brief moments before they are simply inundated by an opposing force who would like them to disappear, stop rocking the boat as one (wo)man’s dream of proper governance will step on the toes of another’s income, power, or election chances often enough…
Bro.Gizmo: Anyways, Katrina was the perfect example of government (at all levels local and federal) failing to do their job correctly.
I respectfully disagree. Maybe, not sure if I'm qualified to say. I’d say the Civil War probably takes the cake. Katrina was peanuts. Some political snags to be sure, but not a complete wreck. It was only natural disaster w/ poor administrative actions coupled w/ an apathetic and lazy population. The Great Depression is where we should be looking. Even 9-11 is a far greater testament to the total unpreparedness of our govt.’s 1st basic, simple duty; defend the citizenry (this is a Pres.’s first responsibility as Cmnd in Chief…as it should be given the awesome might & budget of our military and the lives @ stake). Still, econ bounced back w/in 6 months of the WTC collapse (Dave Ramsey, CNN, Fox) which is a nice reminder to the perseverance & tenacity of our many ppl...no bailout needed. Private sector went back to work, the sine wave came out of the trough. Meanwhile, the govt. nearly cripples the airline industry when they try the same thing.
DirtyFrank: Oh and the old french quarter is the only part of NO IIRC that is built above sea lvl. All the rest of it is built on swamp land. Or at least it was a swamp until it was changed into farmland and then later the city was placed on it.
I thought as much despite Boraxe stipulating otherwise initially. Doesn’t matter, that chunk of real-estate is not a place I would ever want to make a home, have commerce, or industry. Govt there is (has been) a litany of corruption, crime is rampant, it’s incredibly poor, huge concentration of AIDS, rather dirty, etc. They had this coming and when it was during the city’s inception, they knew this was a very real and distinct possibility. It’s not like hurricanes are the province of the 21st century alone, right? I mean, Hell, crossing the Atlantic, trafficking the Carribbean, the Triangular Trade, etc; hurricanes were a bigger deal then than now by a long shot, no?
Typical govt botch; poor planning…not unlike our current 2-front war, current econ, infrastructure, etc. These were simple aspects of running a nation that have been visited many times in our, and other nations’ pasts, and yet we simply cannot, or more likely, do not take note in typical cause/effect mindedness. We’ve been through all of these things before, and yet we keep making the same damn mistakes.
Escher Enigma: …The government should not be a nanny.
Thank you, and yes, 100%, well said. Welfare dependence, constant meddling on the state & local level (for our own good!), more pork than you could shake a stick at (that’s a lot of swine btw), constant oversight in spheres of influence that don’t need it creating more waste and inefficiency, but not a watchful eye for miles around w/ wasteful budgets, pressuring banks to make retarded loans (and kick start the recession), political scandals, and bla bla bla. We allowed this.
A Russian gamer I knew in college summed it up best, “I love America, no one is responsible for what they do.” An oversimplification, yes, but a pretty big nod as to why govt. is turning into a needy mom w/ control issues. And perhaps we deserve it…we give away our power for nothing.
Perhaps this will help navigate back into Christmas waters in hilarious fashion. Indulge.
I think I've derailed enough.
Perhaps this will help navigate back into Christmas waters in hilarious fashion. Indulge.
That. Is. Horribly. Funny.
"It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. Then it's hilarious!"
As for it looking like a third world disaster zone, yep and that was before the Hurricane. Afterwards... yeah... Thanks Fema.
We've bounced back from worse disasters (see the 1912 quake) but those cities mattered to the rest of the country and were capable of generating wealth.
New Orleans isn't, and wasn't. They were dirt poor long before the Hurricane borderlined on being a disaster zone already.
The craptastic engineering of the levees, and then Fema's botching in the aftermath is what made that so devastating. Let alone the insurance companies not doing what they were paid for.
As for attacking the poor people that couldn't evacuate. Do you really think most of those that stayed wanted to? Really? Where would they go? Hell most of them couldn't afford to leave the city if they wanted to. That's the thing alot of people forget. Particularly in the Red Tie department. When you are that poor, your options are at best severely limited.
Not 'rich enough' to escape? How much does a ****ing bus ticket cost?
Anyhoo, we may live as a collective, but we are still individuals. Some people don't like it when others want to tell us how to live our individual lives. As a rule, we're subjected to that every day. However, this does not mean that there should not be limits as to how far this is allowed to go. Forcibly removing me from my property when a storm is coming falls into this category. For one, I may wish to stay behind to protect my stuff from looters - which hit the impacted areas like a plague of locusts, if you recall (nothin' like seein' a moron carry a 50" plasma through 2 feet of water. Where you gonna plug it in, holmes?). I do not want a nanny state. Read 1984.
So much for the Advent Conspiracy, eh? I knew it was comin' ...
EDIT: Actually, it waited until I posted this to pop up my last post. The vulgarity is still appropriate.
I posted something and this thread ate it. Again. **** you thread. **** your face.
EDIT: Actually, it waited until I posted this to pop up my last post. The vulgarity is still appropriate.
Yeah I noticed that. it sayed you're the last to post but cpt was the last post. And just because yer poor it doesn't mean you're not able to relocate. I'm sure many of them, or most, could have gotten the hell out of dodge if they wished to. They do it well enough without hurricanes. ;)
I posted something and this thread ate it. Again. **** you thread. **** your face.
Is it also tasteful?
-Sarena
Is it also tasteful?
-Sarena
It's right above the swear-y one. Now. Two hours in between to get it to actually post. Tasteful? Umm ... that'n ain't so bad, I guess. But who needs taste with words? Ya don't eat 'em. An' I likes me some wordy color. 'Specially blue. ;)
Except that pink on white is ninety kinds of annoying.
-Sarena
Edited to add: ticket for a Greyhound is about $50 for a one-way, one-day trip on the spot. Ish. Your mileage may vary.
-Sarena
I think this is all the fault of my one Lit Prof back in that college place. It was a class that read different short stories, essays, etc and then wrote a paper of that style. I got a C on my test paper (we were told to write one that wouldn't count for real credit so she could appraise our skill). The reason? The language seemed forced (it was) and she felt that I should write how I talked in class when we were discussing the crap we read. I took that to heart and only got one grade lower than an A from that point on (stoopid research papers - can't talk in my own voice all that well with them - they bore me to no end). So it's a lesson that stuck. The only lesson, actually, that's still with me from that place. Er ... there is one more: Never block a lunge by using a downward angle that leads toward your crotch when you're not wearin' a cup. Foil Meets Testicle is not the romantic comedy we all expected. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of laughs. But there was damned sure no love.
EDIT: Forgot my point. Blame my college prof. It's her fault I do stuff like say '**** your face' to a forum thread.
For Christians this is one of the most important religious holidays days of the year. For the rest it has become a popular secular holiday (84% of non-Christian Americans celebrate Christmas).
So if roughly 75% of the population claims to be Christian, and another 21% (84% or the remaining 25% of the population) celebrates Christmas in a non-religious manner, I fail to see the purpose of expunging "Merry Christmas" from the language.
Perhaps those who do not celebrate Christmas, or who do but who follow a different faith, could simply accept the greeting in the spirit in which it is offered, just as I do if someone says "Happy Hanukkha", "Happy Holidays" or some other greeting that does not apply to me but which applies to them. I accept such a greeting in the spirit in which it is intended and would hope others would do likewise, not matter what the actual words are.
Common sense and common courtesy go a lot further than intolerance and a misplaced victim complex.
Amen.
Christmas is about, duh, Christ.
For those who believe in Christ, yes. For those that do not, no.
Well, to be really blunt, if you're a non-believer, then you really don't have any bussiness joining in on our holiday, now do you? But here you all are anyways (and look what a mess it's become because of that).....
So be a polite guest & enjoy our Gods human birthday party - yes, with it's conveiniently chosen & artificial date - for what it is.
Well, to be really blunt, if you're a non-believer, then you really don't have any bussiness joining in on our holiday, now do you? But here you all are anyways (and look what a mess it's become because of that).....
So be a polite guest & enjoy our Gods human birthday party - yes, with it's conveiniently chosen & artificial date - for what it is.
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place the artificial date of your God's human birthday at the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place your God's artificial human birthday party in the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
A couple of points. First - it's a bit more complicated than that. (both were placed "after the fact"), Second - the date wasn't (and isn't) the same. This is truly a case where it just happens to work out to a similar enough date that one was able to detract from the other. Yule occurs prior to Christmas (regardless on how you would place Christmas).
My personal take on creationisim, since it was brought up and thus the tread is likely to be locked soon anyways: people are stupid. The entire argument behind the validity of the bible as anything beside a worthless collection of stories is that they where told to man by god. God did not want to waste all that effort to explain to us how species where made or the earth was formed in all the gritty details. It was laid out for us in an abbridged symbolic fashion like he was talking to a retarded infant. And periodically we stand up like stupid infants and yell at eachoter about how something works one way or another because dad said thats how it worked. Dad just wasn't interested in explaining the inner workings of his creations to you, but rather was caught up in giving you moral lessons.
He did leave us with the ability & means to eventually figure it out on our own though.
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place your God's artificial human birthday party in the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
A couple of points. First - it's a bit more complicated than that. (both were placed "after the fact"), Second - the date wasn't (and isn't) the same. This is truly a case where it just happens to work out to a similar enough date that one was able to detract from the other. Yule occurs prior to Christmas (regardless on how you would place Christmas).
Not always. Yule was a longer period of time, and the primary feasts were sometimes held in January. Not to mention that many yule traditions continued, even after it was determined that Jesus' birthday was around the same time, to the point where certain countries haven't even bothered to change the name.
Ps the world and it's creation (and life) can be explained by science purely.
Yes, and that science is one of the chief reasons I believe.
Afterall, EVERYTHING we've encountered on any level is 100% interconected. We're standing in, heck we're part of, the most complex of machinery imaginable. And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"? I don't think so. "THIS" was engineered. Thus I've no problem with science & religion co-existing.
Not always.
as far as beginning or ending? traditionally (prior to Bede's rewrite in the 8th century), the year began on the solstice. By the time of Christ, and the switch of calendars it was rewritten to coincide. For the ending, most celebrations that run into January, run into Epiphony (Jan 6 - the "other" Christmas)
Yule was a longer period of time, and the primary feasts were sometimes held in January.
Yes - Yule was a whole month (Giuli). As for the primary feasts - see above.
Not to mention that many yule traditions continued, even after it was determined that Jesus' birthday was placed around the same time , to the point where certain countries haven't even bothered to change the name.
Definitiely in this case - the traditions were stolen in full. Minor note, however, Jesus' birthday was not placed in regard to the Yule festivities, but rather based upon the Paschal ones. For this, you'd have to trace back to the OLD egyptian calendar.
Not that many are interested, but for more information, you should look into calendar development, as it came to be about, as man went from stellar->lunar->solar worship.
PBN...
How the hell did you get so smart?
Some kinda super-soldier program?
hehe - nah - good genes, a LOT of reading, and an impossible life's goal (to know everything).
Yes, and that science is one of the chief reasons I believe.
Afterall, EVERYTHING we've encountered on any level is 100% interconected. We're standing in, heck we're part of, the most complex of machinery imaginable. And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"? I don't think so. "THIS" was engineered. Thus I've no problem with science & religion co-existing.
An interesting exercise, if you feel like it. Research the breakdown of belief in deity among scientists and mathmeticians, and the breakdown based upon field of study. None of it is truly surprising, though some is quite illuminating. Astronomers and mathemeticians tend to the higher side - no surprise, but quantum physicists? Whereas the one's most involved in the "debates" (biologists) score lowest.
edited to add: (a nod to TA) The reference to a 6 year old I find fitting. History (especially of human knowledge, ie. science) is something all should have the privilege to study. As we grow "older" and more knowledgeable, we (in general) tend to disregard the knowledge and wisdom of previous times (reminiscent of a teenager "knowing better" than his/her parents). I mentioned elsewhere about the fallacy of a "flat earth", or geocentrism (as prior civilizations knew better). It is just more of the same, in my view. We "think" we know better. Yet, as you have noticed, the more we learn, the more we can reconcile the information we have been given. That is part of the reason why I, personally, allow for additional possibilities. As soon as one "thinks" (s)he knows everything, (s)he necessarily has closed the door on any additional learning. I find that particular viewpoint arrogant. There are two classic examples I normally bring up in conversation. First - you don't have to know about trichonosis to learn not to eat pork. Second - and more fitting - for a LONG time people have denied the possibility of a "great flood" (even though it was written about by BOTH the babylonians and the egyptian/hebrews), only to find out in more recent times that such seems, indeed, to be the case. (examining fossil records and "layering" in various locales).
Sorry about the wall of text for an edit.
And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"?
Sure. Why not? If chance can lead to beautiful sunsets, Jesus' face in bagels, and quasars, why not everything else? It's not like there's a shortage of space and time for coincidences to happen in.
edited to add: (a nod to TA) The reference to a 6 year old I find fitting. History (especially of human knowledge, ie. science) is something all should have the privilege to study. As we grow "older" and more knowledgeable, we (in general) tend to disregard the knowledge and wisdom of previous times (reminiscent of a teenager "knowing better" than his/her parents). I mentioned elsewhere about the fallacy of a "flat earth", or geocentrism (as prior civilizations knew better). It is just more of the same, in my view. We "think" we know better. Yet, as you have noticed, the more we learn, the more we can reconcile the information we have been given. That is part of the reason why I, personally, allow for additional possibilities. As soon as one "thinks" (s)he knows everything, (s)he necessarily has closed the door on any additional learning. I find that particular viewpoint arrogant. There are two classic examples I normally bring up in conversation. First - you don't have to know about trichonosis to learn not to eat pork. Second - and more fitting - for a LONG time people have denied the possibility of a "great flood" (even though it was written about by BOTH the babylonians and the egyptian/hebrews), only to find out in more recent times that such seems, indeed, to be the case. (examining fossil records and "layering" in various locales).
Sorry about the wall of text for an edit.
Don't be sorry for it was informative.
And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"?
Sure. Why not? If chance can lead to beautiful sunsets, Jesus' face in bagels, and quasars, why not everything else? It's not like there's a shortage of space and time for coincidences to happen in.
Exactly, in an infinitely large universe, exactly everything is possible.
Also, the odd of everything lining up might be near infinite-to-1, but would you really have noticed if things didn't line up? If life weren't possible?
You are arguing after the fact, like claiming that is impossible for someone winning the lottery after he has, because the odds are against him. We exist. But don't think we had to. It might just be chance.
Don't consider our little race so universally important that it simply had to be so. It might as well not have existed, and we would have never noticed.
So much of what we're working with relies upon an assumption from Step One - if we try to take it all to the same place and tie it together. That's ... shaky, IMO. Better than nothing, but possibly equivalent.
So where did space and time for infinite possibilities come from?
To put it into scientific terms (although it is based on a couple of what many would call non-scientifc beliefs - namely, "as above, so below", and Genesis) - my personal speculation of the matter (no pun intended) is that it is one MASSIVE vacuum reaction. What studies we have done in relation to such exercises is consistent with our given state (with, of course - EVERYTHING being much larger, and more expansive)
Well there's an infinite number of universes out there. So it's anyone's guess really.
This I find interesting. You do realize this is naught but another belief, true?
The universe is expanding, correct?
Haven't the scientists already "discovered" evidence pointing to an expanding universe?
Well, God said "Let there be light"... He never said for it to stop...
Actually, I haven't stayed on top of that aspect of astronomy as of late. However, I recall some years back talk that the rate of expansion was decreasing, and we had either begun to contract, or were getting closer to doing so. (again, consistent with what happens, on a MUCH smaller timeframe, in a vacuum reaction)
Actually, I haven't stayed on top of that aspect of astronomy as of late. However, I recall some years back talk that the rate of expansion was decreasing, and we had either begun to contract, or were getting closer to doing so. (again, consistent with what happens, on a MUCH smaller timeframe, in a vacuum reaction)
Expansion decrease and/or Universal contraction were hypothesized at one point but all evidence I've read of late has said that the rate of expansion is not slowing and that the Universe will not contract, so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
(You know... other then it being written down billions of years after the fact)
We had to start somewhere, but if we were created, our creator had to start somewhere, too. And if he's not a part of our Universe, then there has to be some other Universe somewhere that he is a part of, and that had to come from somewhere as well. And who created that?
I might not know how it all started, but then again, neither does anyone else. It's all speculation.
Why is it a strange notion for the Universe to have existed forever and come from nothing, but it makes perfect sense that a creature so infinitely complex that it can create said Universe has always been there?
(You know... other then it being written down billions of years after the fact)
We had to start somewhere, but if we were created, our creator had to start somewhere, too. And if he's not a part of our Universe, then there has to be some other Universe somewhere that he is a part of, and that had to come from somewhere as well. And who created that?
I might not know how it all started, but then again, neither does anyone else. It's all speculation.
That was, you know, exactly my point.
The universe is expanding, correct?
Haven't the scientists already "discovered" evidence pointing to an expanding universe?
Well, God said "Let there be light"... He never said for it to stop...
Yes it is expanding but scientists do not know as to what rate. All that we have is a snap shot of a few years of study within the billions of years of our universe's existence. It is however assumed that because the red shift of distant objects is much greater that the expansion must be increasing but this can just be a phenomenon of expansion itself. So not that good of an assumption. The creation of a new telescope (space based I believe) is on the works that will be able to determine changes in red and blue shifts to extremely small degrees. Doing a survey of many of the objects in our universe scientists will be able to determine for once the rate of the expansion. This will let us know if the expansion is increasing, constant or decreasing. The expansion of the universe was discovered something like 50 years or more ago. The tech back then, if used to try and figure out expansion rate, would likely take a few million years. So basically information was gained that changed the way we look at the universe and some people started making huge sweeping assumptions. Our tech is better now and so in the length of something like 20 years the expansion rate should be able to be determined. But until then astronomers might as well keep studying galaxy super clusters to see if they do indeed form a fractal structure throughout the universe. If true then the universe would have structure and would help explain things like the uniformity of the background radiation of the universe.
Expansion decrease and/or Universal contraction were hypothesized at one point but all evidence I've read of late has said that the rate of expansion is not slowing and that the Universe will not contract, so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
And I was SO looking forward to it
Ah well; the post remains; perhaps it'll be a useful reply to something to be posted later (like quantum-posting, or something)
so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
Restaurant at the End of the Universe reference?
Absolutely.
Sorry Zombie_Babies, I guess I misread your post then
Ah well; the post remains; perhaps it'll be a useful reply to something to be posted later (like quantum-posting, or something)
No need for that. I was being purposefully vague. Your declaration was necessary in order to actually get the point across. So ... thanks.
Interesting, but my point was simply that the only thing we have is speculation.
And that doesn't bother me at all.
And that doesn't bother me at all.
Nor I. Facts is facts. We just gotta remember that speculation is a-ok no matter if it's about an eternal universe forged from and existing in nothing or a ... flying spaghetti monster. ;)
Nor I. Facts is facts. We just gotta remember that speculation is a-ok no matter if it's about an eternal universe forged from and existing in nothing or a ... flying spaghetti monster. ;)
hehe - not sure why, but I've always been partial to this image:
Is it also tasteful?
-Sarena
It's right above the swear-y one. Now. Two hours in between to get it to actually post. Tasteful? Umm ... that'n ain't so bad, I guess. But who needs taste with words? Ya don't eat 'em. An' I likes me some wordy color. 'Specially blue. ;)
Except that pink on white is ninety kinds of annoying.
-Sarena
Edited to add: ticket for a Greyhound is about $50 for a one-way, one-day trip on the spot. Ish. Your mileage may vary.
-Sarena
I think this is all the fault of my one Lit Prof back in that college place. It was a class that read different short stories, essays, etc and then wrote a paper of that style. I got a C on my test paper (we were told to write one that wouldn't count for real credit so she could appraise our skill). The reason? The language seemed forced (it was) and she felt that I should write how I talked in class when we were discussing the crap we read. I took that to heart and only got one grade lower than an A from that point on (stoopid research papers - can't talk in my own voice all that well with them - they bore me to no end). So it's a lesson that stuck. The only lesson, actually, that's still with me from that place. Er ... there is one more: Never block a lunge by using a downward angle that leads toward your crotch when you're not wearin' a cup. Foil Meets Testicle is not the romantic comedy we all expected. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of laughs. But there was damned sure no love.
EDIT: Forgot my point. Blame my college prof. It's her fault I do stuff like say '**** your face' to a forum thread.
For Christians this is one of the most important religious holidays days of the year. For the rest it has become a popular secular holiday (84% of non-Christian Americans celebrate Christmas).
So if roughly 75% of the population claims to be Christian, and another 21% (84% or the remaining 25% of the population) celebrates Christmas in a non-religious manner, I fail to see the purpose of expunging "Merry Christmas" from the language.
Perhaps those who do not celebrate Christmas, or who do but who follow a different faith, could simply accept the greeting in the spirit in which it is offered, just as I do if someone says "Happy Hanukkha", "Happy Holidays" or some other greeting that does not apply to me but which applies to them. I accept such a greeting in the spirit in which it is intended and would hope others would do likewise, not matter what the actual words are.
Common sense and common courtesy go a lot further than intolerance and a misplaced victim complex.
Amen.
Christmas is about, duh, Christ.
For those who believe in Christ, yes. For those that do not, no.
Well, to be really blunt, if you're a non-believer, then you really don't have any bussiness joining in on our holiday, now do you? But here you all are anyways (and look what a mess it's become because of that).....
So be a polite guest & enjoy our Gods human birthday party - yes, with it's conveiniently chosen & artificial date - for what it is.
Well, to be really blunt, if you're a non-believer, then you really don't have any bussiness joining in on our holiday, now do you? But here you all are anyways (and look what a mess it's become because of that).....
So be a polite guest & enjoy our Gods human birthday party - yes, with it's conveiniently chosen & artificial date - for what it is.
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place the artificial date of your God's human birthday at the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place your God's artificial human birthday party in the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
A couple of points. First - it's a bit more complicated than that. (both were placed "after the fact"), Second - the date wasn't (and isn't) the same. This is truly a case where it just happens to work out to a similar enough date that one was able to detract from the other. Yule occurs prior to Christmas (regardless on how you would place Christmas).
My personal take on creationisim, since it was brought up and thus the tread is likely to be locked soon anyways: people are stupid. The entire argument behind the validity of the bible as anything beside a worthless collection of stories is that they where told to man by god. God did not want to waste all that effort to explain to us how species where made or the earth was formed in all the gritty details. It was laid out for us in an abbridged symbolic fashion like he was talking to a retarded infant. And periodically we stand up like stupid infants and yell at eachoter about how something works one way or another because dad said thats how it worked. Dad just wasn't interested in explaining the inner workings of his creations to you, but rather was caught up in giving you moral lessons.
He did leave us with the ability & means to eventually figure it out on our own though.
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place your God's artificial human birthday party in the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
A couple of points. First - it's a bit more complicated than that. (both were placed "after the fact"), Second - the date wasn't (and isn't) the same. This is truly a case where it just happens to work out to a similar enough date that one was able to detract from the other. Yule occurs prior to Christmas (regardless on how you would place Christmas).
Not always. Yule was a longer period of time, and the primary feasts were sometimes held in January. Not to mention that many yule traditions continued, even after it was determined that Jesus' birthday was around the same time, to the point where certain countries haven't even bothered to change the name.
Ps the world and it's creation (and life) can be explained by science purely.
Yes, and that science is one of the chief reasons I believe.
Afterall, EVERYTHING we've encountered on any level is 100% interconected. We're standing in, heck we're part of, the most complex of machinery imaginable. And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"? I don't think so. "THIS" was engineered. Thus I've no problem with science & religion co-existing.
Not always.
as far as beginning or ending? traditionally (prior to Bede's rewrite in the 8th century), the year began on the solstice. By the time of Christ, and the switch of calendars it was rewritten to coincide. For the ending, most celebrations that run into January, run into Epiphony (Jan 6 - the "other" Christmas)
Yule was a longer period of time, and the primary feasts were sometimes held in January.
Yes - Yule was a whole month (Giuli). As for the primary feasts - see above.
Not to mention that many yule traditions continued, even after it was determined that Jesus' birthday was placed around the same time , to the point where certain countries haven't even bothered to change the name.
Definitiely in this case - the traditions were stolen in full. Minor note, however, Jesus' birthday was not placed in regard to the Yule festivities, but rather based upon the Paschal ones. For this, you'd have to trace back to the OLD egyptian calendar.
Not that many are interested, but for more information, you should look into calendar development, as it came to be about, as man went from stellar->lunar->solar worship.
PBN...
How the hell did you get so smart?
Some kinda super-soldier program?
hehe - nah - good genes, a LOT of reading, and an impossible life's goal (to know everything).
Yes, and that science is one of the chief reasons I believe.
Afterall, EVERYTHING we've encountered on any level is 100% interconected. We're standing in, heck we're part of, the most complex of machinery imaginable. And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"? I don't think so. "THIS" was engineered. Thus I've no problem with science & religion co-existing.
An interesting exercise, if you feel like it. Research the breakdown of belief in deity among scientists and mathmeticians, and the breakdown based upon field of study. None of it is truly surprising, though some is quite illuminating. Astronomers and mathemeticians tend to the higher side - no surprise, but quantum physicists? Whereas the one's most involved in the "debates" (biologists) score lowest.
edited to add: (a nod to TA) The reference to a 6 year old I find fitting. History (especially of human knowledge, ie. science) is something all should have the privilege to study. As we grow "older" and more knowledgeable, we (in general) tend to disregard the knowledge and wisdom of previous times (reminiscent of a teenager "knowing better" than his/her parents). I mentioned elsewhere about the fallacy of a "flat earth", or geocentrism (as prior civilizations knew better). It is just more of the same, in my view. We "think" we know better. Yet, as you have noticed, the more we learn, the more we can reconcile the information we have been given. That is part of the reason why I, personally, allow for additional possibilities. As soon as one "thinks" (s)he knows everything, (s)he necessarily has closed the door on any additional learning. I find that particular viewpoint arrogant. There are two classic examples I normally bring up in conversation. First - you don't have to know about trichonosis to learn not to eat pork. Second - and more fitting - for a LONG time people have denied the possibility of a "great flood" (even though it was written about by BOTH the babylonians and the egyptian/hebrews), only to find out in more recent times that such seems, indeed, to be the case. (examining fossil records and "layering" in various locales).
Sorry about the wall of text for an edit.
And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"?
Sure. Why not? If chance can lead to beautiful sunsets, Jesus' face in bagels, and quasars, why not everything else? It's not like there's a shortage of space and time for coincidences to happen in.
edited to add: (a nod to TA) The reference to a 6 year old I find fitting. History (especially of human knowledge, ie. science) is something all should have the privilege to study. As we grow "older" and more knowledgeable, we (in general) tend to disregard the knowledge and wisdom of previous times (reminiscent of a teenager "knowing better" than his/her parents). I mentioned elsewhere about the fallacy of a "flat earth", or geocentrism (as prior civilizations knew better). It is just more of the same, in my view. We "think" we know better. Yet, as you have noticed, the more we learn, the more we can reconcile the information we have been given. That is part of the reason why I, personally, allow for additional possibilities. As soon as one "thinks" (s)he knows everything, (s)he necessarily has closed the door on any additional learning. I find that particular viewpoint arrogant. There are two classic examples I normally bring up in conversation. First - you don't have to know about trichonosis to learn not to eat pork. Second - and more fitting - for a LONG time people have denied the possibility of a "great flood" (even though it was written about by BOTH the babylonians and the egyptian/hebrews), only to find out in more recent times that such seems, indeed, to be the case. (examining fossil records and "layering" in various locales).
Sorry about the wall of text for an edit.
Don't be sorry for it was informative.
And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"?
Sure. Why not? If chance can lead to beautiful sunsets, Jesus' face in bagels, and quasars, why not everything else? It's not like there's a shortage of space and time for coincidences to happen in.
Exactly, in an infinitely large universe, exactly everything is possible.
Also, the odd of everything lining up might be near infinite-to-1, but would you really have noticed if things didn't line up? If life weren't possible?
You are arguing after the fact, like claiming that is impossible for someone winning the lottery after he has, because the odds are against him. We exist. But don't think we had to. It might just be chance.
Don't consider our little race so universally important that it simply had to be so. It might as well not have existed, and we would have never noticed.
So much of what we're working with relies upon an assumption from Step One - if we try to take it all to the same place and tie it together. That's ... shaky, IMO. Better than nothing, but possibly equivalent.
So where did space and time for infinite possibilities come from?
To put it into scientific terms (although it is based on a couple of what many would call non-scientifc beliefs - namely, "as above, so below", and Genesis) - my personal speculation of the matter (no pun intended) is that it is one MASSIVE vacuum reaction. What studies we have done in relation to such exercises is consistent with our given state (with, of course - EVERYTHING being much larger, and more expansive)
Well there's an infinite number of universes out there. So it's anyone's guess really.
This I find interesting. You do realize this is naught but another belief, true?
The universe is expanding, correct?
Haven't the scientists already "discovered" evidence pointing to an expanding universe?
Well, God said "Let there be light"... He never said for it to stop...
Actually, I haven't stayed on top of that aspect of astronomy as of late. However, I recall some years back talk that the rate of expansion was decreasing, and we had either begun to contract, or were getting closer to doing so. (again, consistent with what happens, on a MUCH smaller timeframe, in a vacuum reaction)
Actually, I haven't stayed on top of that aspect of astronomy as of late. However, I recall some years back talk that the rate of expansion was decreasing, and we had either begun to contract, or were getting closer to doing so. (again, consistent with what happens, on a MUCH smaller timeframe, in a vacuum reaction)
Expansion decrease and/or Universal contraction were hypothesized at one point but all evidence I've read of late has said that the rate of expansion is not slowing and that the Universe will not contract, so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
(You know... other then it being written down billions of years after the fact)
We had to start somewhere, but if we were created, our creator had to start somewhere, too. And if he's not a part of our Universe, then there has to be some other Universe somewhere that he is a part of, and that had to come from somewhere as well. And who created that?
I might not know how it all started, but then again, neither does anyone else. It's all speculation.
Why is it a strange notion for the Universe to have existed forever and come from nothing, but it makes perfect sense that a creature so infinitely complex that it can create said Universe has always been there?
(You know... other then it being written down billions of years after the fact)
We had to start somewhere, but if we were created, our creator had to start somewhere, too. And if he's not a part of our Universe, then there has to be some other Universe somewhere that he is a part of, and that had to come from somewhere as well. And who created that?
I might not know how it all started, but then again, neither does anyone else. It's all speculation.
That was, you know, exactly my point.
The universe is expanding, correct?
Haven't the scientists already "discovered" evidence pointing to an expanding universe?
Well, God said "Let there be light"... He never said for it to stop...
Yes it is expanding but scientists do not know as to what rate. All that we have is a snap shot of a few years of study within the billions of years of our universe's existence. It is however assumed that because the red shift of distant objects is much greater that the expansion must be increasing but this can just be a phenomenon of expansion itself. So not that good of an assumption. The creation of a new telescope (space based I believe) is on the works that will be able to determine changes in red and blue shifts to extremely small degrees. Doing a survey of many of the objects in our universe scientists will be able to determine for once the rate of the expansion. This will let us know if the expansion is increasing, constant or decreasing. The expansion of the universe was discovered something like 50 years or more ago. The tech back then, if used to try and figure out expansion rate, would likely take a few million years. So basically information was gained that changed the way we look at the universe and some people started making huge sweeping assumptions. Our tech is better now and so in the length of something like 20 years the expansion rate should be able to be determined. But until then astronomers might as well keep studying galaxy super clusters to see if they do indeed form a fractal structure throughout the universe. If true then the universe would have structure and would help explain things like the uniformity of the background radiation of the universe.
Expansion decrease and/or Universal contraction were hypothesized at one point but all evidence I've read of late has said that the rate of expansion is not slowing and that the Universe will not contract, so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
And I was SO looking forward to it
Ah well; the post remains; perhaps it'll be a useful reply to something to be posted later (like quantum-posting, or something)
so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
Restaurant at the End of the Universe reference?
Absolutely.
Sorry Zombie_Babies, I guess I misread your post then
Ah well; the post remains; perhaps it'll be a useful reply to something to be posted later (like quantum-posting, or something)
No need for that. I was being purposefully vague. Your declaration was necessary in order to actually get the point across. So ... thanks.
Interesting, but my point was simply that the only thing we have is speculation.
And that doesn't bother me at all.
And that doesn't bother me at all.
Nor I. Facts is facts. We just gotta remember that speculation is a-ok no matter if it's about an eternal universe forged from and existing in nothing or a ... flying spaghetti monster. ;)
Nor I. Facts is facts. We just gotta remember that speculation is a-ok no matter if it's about an eternal universe forged from and existing in nothing or a ... flying spaghetti monster. ;)
hehe - not sure why, but I've always been partial to this image:
Is it also tasteful?
-Sarena
It's right above the swear-y one. Now. Two hours in between to get it to actually post. Tasteful? Umm ... that'n ain't so bad, I guess. But who needs taste with words? Ya don't eat 'em. An' I likes me some wordy color. 'Specially blue. ;)
Except that pink on white is ninety kinds of annoying.
-Sarena
Edited to add: ticket for a Greyhound is about $50 for a one-way, one-day trip on the spot. Ish. Your mileage may vary.
-Sarena
I think this is all the fault of my one Lit Prof back in that college place. It was a class that read different short stories, essays, etc and then wrote a paper of that style. I got a C on my test paper (we were told to write one that wouldn't count for real credit so she could appraise our skill). The reason? The language seemed forced (it was) and she felt that I should write how I talked in class when we were discussing the crap we read. I took that to heart and only got one grade lower than an A from that point on (stoopid research papers - can't talk in my own voice all that well with them - they bore me to no end). So it's a lesson that stuck. The only lesson, actually, that's still with me from that place. Er ... there is one more: Never block a lunge by using a downward angle that leads toward your crotch when you're not wearin' a cup. Foil Meets Testicle is not the romantic comedy we all expected. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of laughs. But there was damned sure no love.
EDIT: Forgot my point. Blame my college prof. It's her fault I do stuff like say '**** your face' to a forum thread.
For Christians this is one of the most important religious holidays days of the year. For the rest it has become a popular secular holiday (84% of non-Christian Americans celebrate Christmas).
So if roughly 75% of the population claims to be Christian, and another 21% (84% or the remaining 25% of the population) celebrates Christmas in a non-religious manner, I fail to see the purpose of expunging "Merry Christmas" from the language.
Perhaps those who do not celebrate Christmas, or who do but who follow a different faith, could simply accept the greeting in the spirit in which it is offered, just as I do if someone says "Happy Hanukkha", "Happy Holidays" or some other greeting that does not apply to me but which applies to them. I accept such a greeting in the spirit in which it is intended and would hope others would do likewise, not matter what the actual words are.
Common sense and common courtesy go a lot further than intolerance and a misplaced victim complex.
Amen.
Christmas is about, duh, Christ.
For those who believe in Christ, yes. For those that do not, no.
Well, to be really blunt, if you're a non-believer, then you really don't have any bussiness joining in on our holiday, now do you? But here you all are anyways (and look what a mess it's become because of that).....
So be a polite guest & enjoy our Gods human birthday party - yes, with it's conveiniently chosen & artificial date - for what it is.
Well, to be really blunt, if you're a non-believer, then you really don't have any bussiness joining in on our holiday, now do you? But here you all are anyways (and look what a mess it's become because of that).....
So be a polite guest & enjoy our Gods human birthday party - yes, with it's conveiniently chosen & artificial date - for what it is.
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place the artificial date of your God's human birthday at the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place your God's artificial human birthday party in the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
A couple of points. First - it's a bit more complicated than that. (both were placed "after the fact"), Second - the date wasn't (and isn't) the same. This is truly a case where it just happens to work out to a similar enough date that one was able to detract from the other. Yule occurs prior to Christmas (regardless on how you would place Christmas).
My personal take on creationisim, since it was brought up and thus the tread is likely to be locked soon anyways: people are stupid. The entire argument behind the validity of the bible as anything beside a worthless collection of stories is that they where told to man by god. God did not want to waste all that effort to explain to us how species where made or the earth was formed in all the gritty details. It was laid out for us in an abbridged symbolic fashion like he was talking to a retarded infant. And periodically we stand up like stupid infants and yell at eachoter about how something works one way or another because dad said thats how it worked. Dad just wasn't interested in explaining the inner workings of his creations to you, but rather was caught up in giving you moral lessons.
He did leave us with the ability & means to eventually figure it out on our own though.
And did you (Christians) have a right to conveiniently place your God's artificial human birthday party in the same time as our yule (or in my case, jul), just because it was a popular time to celebrate? It goes both ways you know
A couple of points. First - it's a bit more complicated than that. (both were placed "after the fact"), Second - the date wasn't (and isn't) the same. This is truly a case where it just happens to work out to a similar enough date that one was able to detract from the other. Yule occurs prior to Christmas (regardless on how you would place Christmas).
Not always. Yule was a longer period of time, and the primary feasts were sometimes held in January. Not to mention that many yule traditions continued, even after it was determined that Jesus' birthday was around the same time, to the point where certain countries haven't even bothered to change the name.
Ps the world and it's creation (and life) can be explained by science purely.
Yes, and that science is one of the chief reasons I believe.
Afterall, EVERYTHING we've encountered on any level is 100% interconected. We're standing in, heck we're part of, the most complex of machinery imaginable. And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"? I don't think so. "THIS" was engineered. Thus I've no problem with science & religion co-existing.
Not always.
as far as beginning or ending? traditionally (prior to Bede's rewrite in the 8th century), the year began on the solstice. By the time of Christ, and the switch of calendars it was rewritten to coincide. For the ending, most celebrations that run into January, run into Epiphony (Jan 6 - the "other" Christmas)
Yule was a longer period of time, and the primary feasts were sometimes held in January.
Yes - Yule was a whole month (Giuli). As for the primary feasts - see above.
Not to mention that many yule traditions continued, even after it was determined that Jesus' birthday was placed around the same time , to the point where certain countries haven't even bothered to change the name.
Definitiely in this case - the traditions were stolen in full. Minor note, however, Jesus' birthday was not placed in regard to the Yule festivities, but rather based upon the Paschal ones. For this, you'd have to trace back to the OLD egyptian calendar.
Not that many are interested, but for more information, you should look into calendar development, as it came to be about, as man went from stellar->lunar->solar worship.
PBN...
How the hell did you get so smart?
Some kinda super-soldier program?
hehe - nah - good genes, a LOT of reading, and an impossible life's goal (to know everything).
Yes, and that science is one of the chief reasons I believe.
Afterall, EVERYTHING we've encountered on any level is 100% interconected. We're standing in, heck we're part of, the most complex of machinery imaginable. And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"? I don't think so. "THIS" was engineered. Thus I've no problem with science & religion co-existing.
An interesting exercise, if you feel like it. Research the breakdown of belief in deity among scientists and mathmeticians, and the breakdown based upon field of study. None of it is truly surprising, though some is quite illuminating. Astronomers and mathemeticians tend to the higher side - no surprise, but quantum physicists? Whereas the one's most involved in the "debates" (biologists) score lowest.
edited to add: (a nod to TA) The reference to a 6 year old I find fitting. History (especially of human knowledge, ie. science) is something all should have the privilege to study. As we grow "older" and more knowledgeable, we (in general) tend to disregard the knowledge and wisdom of previous times (reminiscent of a teenager "knowing better" than his/her parents). I mentioned elsewhere about the fallacy of a "flat earth", or geocentrism (as prior civilizations knew better). It is just more of the same, in my view. We "think" we know better. Yet, as you have noticed, the more we learn, the more we can reconcile the information we have been given. That is part of the reason why I, personally, allow for additional possibilities. As soon as one "thinks" (s)he knows everything, (s)he necessarily has closed the door on any additional learning. I find that particular viewpoint arrogant. There are two classic examples I normally bring up in conversation. First - you don't have to know about trichonosis to learn not to eat pork. Second - and more fitting - for a LONG time people have denied the possibility of a "great flood" (even though it was written about by BOTH the babylonians and the egyptian/hebrews), only to find out in more recent times that such seems, indeed, to be the case. (examining fossil records and "layering" in various locales).
Sorry about the wall of text for an edit.
And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"?
Sure. Why not? If chance can lead to beautiful sunsets, Jesus' face in bagels, and quasars, why not everything else? It's not like there's a shortage of space and time for coincidences to happen in.
edited to add: (a nod to TA) The reference to a 6 year old I find fitting. History (especially of human knowledge, ie. science) is something all should have the privilege to study. As we grow "older" and more knowledgeable, we (in general) tend to disregard the knowledge and wisdom of previous times (reminiscent of a teenager "knowing better" than his/her parents). I mentioned elsewhere about the fallacy of a "flat earth", or geocentrism (as prior civilizations knew better). It is just more of the same, in my view. We "think" we know better. Yet, as you have noticed, the more we learn, the more we can reconcile the information we have been given. That is part of the reason why I, personally, allow for additional possibilities. As soon as one "thinks" (s)he knows everything, (s)he necessarily has closed the door on any additional learning. I find that particular viewpoint arrogant. There are two classic examples I normally bring up in conversation. First - you don't have to know about trichonosis to learn not to eat pork. Second - and more fitting - for a LONG time people have denied the possibility of a "great flood" (even though it was written about by BOTH the babylonians and the egyptian/hebrews), only to find out in more recent times that such seems, indeed, to be the case. (examining fossil records and "layering" in various locales).
Sorry about the wall of text for an edit.
Don't be sorry for it was informative.
And some would have me believe that all of this is mere coincidance? That it's just how it all happened to "line up"?
Sure. Why not? If chance can lead to beautiful sunsets, Jesus' face in bagels, and quasars, why not everything else? It's not like there's a shortage of space and time for coincidences to happen in.
Exactly, in an infinitely large universe, exactly everything is possible.
Also, the odd of everything lining up might be near infinite-to-1, but would you really have noticed if things didn't line up? If life weren't possible?
You are arguing after the fact, like claiming that is impossible for someone winning the lottery after he has, because the odds are against him. We exist. But don't think we had to. It might just be chance.
Don't consider our little race so universally important that it simply had to be so. It might as well not have existed, and we would have never noticed.
So much of what we're working with relies upon an assumption from Step One - if we try to take it all to the same place and tie it together. That's ... shaky, IMO. Better than nothing, but possibly equivalent.
So where did space and time for infinite possibilities come from?
To put it into scientific terms (although it is based on a couple of what many would call non-scientifc beliefs - namely, "as above, so below", and Genesis) - my personal speculation of the matter (no pun intended) is that it is one MASSIVE vacuum reaction. What studies we have done in relation to such exercises is consistent with our given state (with, of course - EVERYTHING being much larger, and more expansive)
Well there's an infinite number of universes out there. So it's anyone's guess really.
This I find interesting. You do realize this is naught but another belief, true?
The universe is expanding, correct?
Haven't the scientists already "discovered" evidence pointing to an expanding universe?
Well, God said "Let there be light"... He never said for it to stop...
Actually, I haven't stayed on top of that aspect of astronomy as of late. However, I recall some years back talk that the rate of expansion was decreasing, and we had either begun to contract, or were getting closer to doing so. (again, consistent with what happens, on a MUCH smaller timeframe, in a vacuum reaction)
Actually, I haven't stayed on top of that aspect of astronomy as of late. However, I recall some years back talk that the rate of expansion was decreasing, and we had either begun to contract, or were getting closer to doing so. (again, consistent with what happens, on a MUCH smaller timeframe, in a vacuum reaction)
Expansion decrease and/or Universal contraction were hypothesized at one point but all evidence I've read of late has said that the rate of expansion is not slowing and that the Universe will not contract, so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
(You know... other then it being written down billions of years after the fact)
We had to start somewhere, but if we were created, our creator had to start somewhere, too. And if he's not a part of our Universe, then there has to be some other Universe somewhere that he is a part of, and that had to come from somewhere as well. And who created that?
I might not know how it all started, but then again, neither does anyone else. It's all speculation.
Why is it a strange notion for the Universe to have existed forever and come from nothing, but it makes perfect sense that a creature so infinitely complex that it can create said Universe has always been there?
(You know... other then it being written down billions of years after the fact)
We had to start somewhere, but if we were created, our creator had to start somewhere, too. And if he's not a part of our Universe, then there has to be some other Universe somewhere that he is a part of, and that had to come from somewhere as well. And who created that?
I might not know how it all started, but then again, neither does anyone else. It's all speculation.
That was, you know, exactly my point.
The universe is expanding, correct?
Haven't the scientists already "discovered" evidence pointing to an expanding universe?
Well, God said "Let there be light"... He never said for it to stop...
Yes it is expanding but scientists do not know as to what rate. All that we have is a snap shot of a few years of study within the billions of years of our universe's existence. It is however assumed that because the red shift of distant objects is much greater that the expansion must be increasing but this can just be a phenomenon of expansion itself. So not that good of an assumption. The creation of a new telescope (space based I believe) is on the works that will be able to determine changes in red and blue shifts to extremely small degrees. Doing a survey of many of the objects in our universe scientists will be able to determine for once the rate of the expansion. This will let us know if the expansion is increasing, constant or decreasing. The expansion of the universe was discovered something like 50 years or more ago. The tech back then, if used to try and figure out expansion rate, would likely take a few million years. So basically information was gained that changed the way we look at the universe and some people started making huge sweeping assumptions. Our tech is better now and so in the length of something like 20 years the expansion rate should be able to be determined. But until then astronomers might as well keep studying galaxy super clusters to see if they do indeed form a fractal structure throughout the universe. If true then the universe would have structure and would help explain things like the uniformity of the background radiation of the universe.
Expansion decrease and/or Universal contraction were hypothesized at one point but all evidence I've read of late has said that the rate of expansion is not slowing and that the Universe will not contract, so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
And I was SO looking forward to it
Ah well; the post remains; perhaps it'll be a useful reply to something to be posted later (like quantum-posting, or something)
so no breakfast at Milliways for us.
Restaurant at the End of the Universe reference?
Absolutely.
Sorry Zombie_Babies, I guess I misread your post then
Ah well; the post remains; perhaps it'll be a useful reply to something to be posted later (like quantum-posting, or something)
No need for that. I was being purposefully vague. Your declaration was necessary in order to actually get the point across. So ... thanks.
Interesting, but my point was simply that the only thing we have is speculation.
And that doesn't bother me at all.
And that doesn't bother me at all.
Nor I. Facts is facts. We just gotta remember that speculation is a-ok no matter if it's about an eternal universe forged from and existing in nothing or a ... flying spaghetti monster. ;)
Nor I. Facts is facts. We just gotta remember that speculation is a-ok no matter if it's about an eternal universe forged from and existing in nothing or a ... flying spaghetti monster. ;)
hehe - not sure why, but I've always been partial to this image: