fatpie42

Lol! That part was so blatantly written by a Christian wasn't it? Which sounds more like Easter: Pesach or Eostre? I know which one I'd bet on.

Did you know that Saint Bridget of Ireland is well know to have been created in place of a pagan Goddess? Fitting Christianity in with the existing pagan traditions was very common. I find it hilarious that modern Christians try to deny that this combining of traditions took place.

Um... I know you agree on the stuff above, but you still haven't answered my question have you? I asked you why we should wish to rename Easter. What's the reason?

Stay cool dude!

fatpie42

Well you would be using a completely different definition of evil than is found in our common usage then. It is normally considered perfectly reasonable to call hurricanes evil. Perhaps you could explain it as personification though....

Either way, I reckon that it is right to say that evil is a label we give to things we don't like. If you don't like 'conscious decisions of moral agents to violate the fairness principle', that would explain why you call it evil.

JPD

My misunderstanding I think. I threw Easter in because it appears to have religious connotations but actually it doesn't really when I look at it a bit more closely. There appears to be no need to rename it. That it has been hijacked by Christians shouldn't be justification for its renaming because it has retained its original Pagan meaning. I'm not so sure about Christmas though - I have problems with the name for obvious reasons.

fatpie42

You've just pointed to one of the benefits of a secular viewpoint and you expect us to take it as a 'drawback'? Are you nuts?

fatpie42

I don't like non-culturalisation, but I don't think that secularism aims for such a thing. I certainly don't think this is what the BHA wishes to acheive.

Can you give some examples?

JamesBannon

Absolutely fatpie. There's no going back.

Helpmabob, the reason we have sectarian divisions divisions today is due entirely to the influence of of that poisoned idiot John Knox. He was rabidly anti-Catholic, rabidly anti-semitic, a mysoginist and a misanthrope and besides he was a monumental hypocrite. if that's your idea of a "godly" man then I suggest you reappraise your thinking.

On a side not, today I was in a church (Church of the Nazarene) sorting out a networking problem for them. It was populated by genuinely nice people. When asked if I attended church I said "Goodness no, I'm an agnostic atheist!"... Stunned silence and then the follow-up question "Why do you reject Christ?". At that point I just shrugged my shoulders and said "Oh, lots of reasons". I then explained that I adopted a naturalist stance and was really too much of a rationalist to believe in what I regarded as superstition. I've a feeling that this shocked them and I will be questioned again tomorrow when I go back.

Helpmabob

Hi Oollon - Yes, I have to say that I think what I am doing is okay, although I am not doing it particularly well.

Hi JPD - I can’t tell exactly, but roughly in a not dissimilar way as to how Israel suffered in the OT when it turned from God.

Hi James – John Knox established a church where people could worship Christ for themselves, without going through the hierarchy of the priest, and pope to find God. People today generally do not worship Christ, but may be aware of what He represents, so they use it as an excuse to harbour division. The hatred is passed on from through families, but none of them truly worship Christ. Perhaps they go to their respective churches, but their hearts are cold. If it were not for the sectarianism badge, there would be something else which folk would hate each other over. The evil exists in the people (of both sides), not the religion.

JPD

Wow...that IS specific.
And you haven't explained how one can exclude "something" that is nothing.

*quaking awaiting angry Libran ear candle toting reflexologists.

fatpie42

ANY examples? Please? Helpmabob, is there a reason you've ignored me?

fatpie42

You don't seem to allow that many people in the world are Christians. With the proportion of people who CALL themselves Christians at around 20% and falling, and with the fact that you would deny the truth of that claim to many of them, surely you are actually condemning many people to hellfire simply on the basis of their belief. Atheists are often very moral people, but they don't normally suggest that theists have something bad coming to them for deluded beliefs. Theists like yourself however, seem to be prepared to condemn atheists to eternal hellfire for the supposed 'crime' of not having all the answers.

The Israelites were never atheists. They didn't give up on their BELIEF in God. It is more likely that 'denial of God' in the OT refers to turning from moral action. This seems to be an issue with fundamentalists attacking each other. But would you not agree with Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner, that some people who would NOT profess to be Christian might be classifiable as 'anonymous Christians' on the grounds of their way of acting?

I came across this passage in a book called "Religion Without God" recently. It's explaining the varied usage and denial of the concept 'God' and the subsequent difficulty involved in deciding which people are theists and which are not. (I believe it is a theist - most likely Christian - writing the book):