Do you claim any religious faith? / How are you on sharing?

[Bill Mattocks]

Is it a sort of 'texting' shorthand? The "Cross" followed by "tian"? Otherwise it reads as Ex-tian which makes no sense in context .

Shorthand it might be, and one sees 'Xmas' instead of "Christmas' here in the US; some even say it like that; 'ex-muss'.

Some evangelical Christians take offense at this and see it as a diabolical attempt to remove the word 'Christ' from both terms. I'm not quite so wrapped around the axle about it. I would just prefer to see the correct term used.

Unless we're talking about the English, whom I take devilish delight in mistreating.

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: I try my darndest not to take offense when the political-geography-mangling occurs

 

[Tez3]

It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas

 

[elder999]

It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas

Not quite. "Jesus" is "Joshua," in Greek. Most of the Hebrews at that time and place were quite Hellenized, actually-gave Paul fits, later on. Of course, their common language was Aramaic, so the name is really "Jeshua. "...all via Latin as well, of course. Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. It's no wonder the King James Version-and so many others-are as full of errors and mistranslations as they are.

"Jesus of Nazareth?" Really? :lfao:

They all mean "G_d will save," though, as long as I'm trying to be all politically correct and non-offensive, and all.

As for using "X" for "Christ," Canuck is actually doing it to avoid associations with the word "messiah," which transliterates as "kristos," in Greek, or "the anointed one."

So, by using the "X", he's actually putting the "Christ" right back into "Christmas" and "Christian," as Tez posted....:lol:

carry on....

 

[Ken Morgan]

Well as there is zero historical evidence that Jesus/Joshua actually existed, to me you’re all arguing over the correct length of the Easter bunnys' ears.

 

[ks - learning to fly]

I am a Catholic, born and raised and have no problem sharing my faith...what I won't do is attempt to cram my religion or beliefs down anyone's throat. If someone is hesitant about sharing their faith, my guess would be that maybe they aren't too sure of where they stand themselves. I firmly believe, however, when your foundation is solid - your roots are also strong and your actions should reflect that foundation.

***bows*** Kris :ultracool

 

[Jenna]

I am a Catholic, born and raised and have no problem sharing my faith...what I won't do is attempt to cram my religion or beliefs down anyone's throat. If someone is hesitant about sharing their faith, my guess would be that maybe they aren't too sure of where they stand themselves. I firmly believe, however, when your foundation is solid - your roots are also strong and your actions should reflect that foundation.

***bows*** Kris :ultracool

Hello Kris and thank you for posting, I am grateful for your contribution. I appreciate your position and am pleased that your faith is well-routed. I would agree with your point and imagine that cramming anything down the throat of anyone else can potentially cause a choking hazard. Do you believe that those who might attempt to choke off another belief with the weight of their own are in some way insecure about their own beliefs? Thank you again.

 

[elder999]

Well as there is zero historical evidence that Jesus/Joshua actually existed, to me you’re all arguing over the correct length of the Easter bunnies ears.

I'd venture that Christianity itself, while its present forms are a creation of the 3rd or 4th century after Christ, still certainly constitutes historical evidence of something. I mean, something happened, and someone was involved, and it all made quite an impression, but as to what those actually, were.............

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't want to re-route this excellent discussion down a false path but isn't it the case that the story of Jesus Christ is just the re-branding of earlier mythic tales? In which case the existence of the story in the Bible constitutes historical evidence of would-be leaders (spiritual and political) seeking a 'peg' on which to hang their hat?

But that isn't what this thread has been about ... and I think we've had a very long thread on this before haven't we? Something about the Bible being literal truth or suchlike?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas

Excuse me, but aren't we getting back to the 'you do not get to define my religion' thing? Christianity calls itself Christianity. That is the correct name for it, according to the faith itself. However, if you insist on calling it what you feel is correct instead, I'm certainly not going to argue with you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well as there is zero historical evidence that Jesus/Joshua actually existed, to me you’re all arguing over the correct length of the Easter bunnys' ears.

There is evidence that Jesus, the person, existed. If you choose to discount what little evidence does exist, that is your own business, but it does not stop existing because you choose not to believe it.

 

[elder999]

I don't want to re-route this excellent discussion down a false path but isn't it the case that the story of Jesus Christ is just the re-branding of earlier mythic tales? In which case the existence of the story in the Bible constitutes historical evidence of would-be leaders (spiritual and political) seeking a 'peg' on which to hang their hat?

But that isn't what this thread has been about ... and I think we've had a very long thread on this before haven't we? Something about the Bible being literal truth or suchlike?

The hanged or crucified man resurrected is a common archetype. And people naturally tend to combine belief systems-it's called syncreticism-rather than adopt one to the exclusion of others, hierarchical insistence on the contrary notwithstanding. So you wind up with Islam keeping pagan beliefs and symbolism, and Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals and symbolism. Many Catholic saints are just an evolution of some local pagan god.

Scratch any religion hard enough, and you'll find another underneath.

Scratch any god-or saint-hard enough, and you'll find an older god underneath.

carry on.....

 

[Josh Oakley]

It's not shorthand and it's not offensive, Canuck is using it correctly. X comes from the Greek for 'ch'. Actually calling Jesus, Jesus is incorrect. Try Joshua if you are going to use English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
http://www.squidoo.com/xmas-keeps-christ-in-christmas

His name and mine are different by a character, if I remember.

I believe mine transliterates to Yehoshua, and his to yeshua. But I could be wrong. My Hebrew is pretty rusty.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

Shorthand it might be, and one sees 'Xmas' instead of "Christmas' here in the US; some even say it like that; 'ex-muss'.

Some evangelical Christians take offense at this and see it as a diabolical attempt to remove the word 'Christ' from both terms. I'm not quite so wrapped around the axle about it. I would just prefer to see the correct term used

Canuck and Tez would no more associate kristos-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."

"G_d. ""

Xtian."


Much less offensive to them, see, but they're not telling anyone that we have to write it that way.:lol:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't want to re-route this excellent discussion down a false path but isn't it the case that the story of Jesus Christ is just the re-branding of earlier mythic tales? In which case the existence of the story in the Bible constitutes historical evidence of would-be leaders (spiritual and political) seeking a 'peg' on which to hang their hat?

There are many claims that Christianity - and Judaism and Islam - all share many similarities with earlier religions. They similarities are true in many cases. Of course, that doesn't prove anything one way or another. If I write a novel that reminds people very much of another novel written long ago, it doesn't prove plagiarism, but it certainly does raise the question. In the case of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Creation myth and the Christian Jesus the Christ story, there are many similarities with other religions, other deities. That's about all we can say about it without crossing from speculation into belief.

It is also true that there are some atheists (and so-called humanists/secularists) who are actually anti-Christian, and they prove this by producing false claims about various pre-Christian religions and declaring them 'the same' as Christianity.

Bob knows about this - he recently passed on a graphic on FB that purported to show how Christianity stole this and stole that from various religions, all great ha-ha and hee-hee for all the anti-Christians, except that about 80% of it was not actually true. And that's kind of a problem for me. Point out flaws in Christianty? OK, no problem, it has them. Point out similarity to other pre-Christian religions? Hey, if they're there, they're there. Make crap up in an attempt to attack Christianity? OK, but at that point, let's stop pretending you're anything but an anti-Christian. Lie to yourself about being 'secular' and 'humanist' and 'not religious' all you want, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. I know hate when I see it. FYI, the 'you' in the preceding is meant to be the generic 'you', not you personally. Just venting.

I don't even mind it when people are anti-Christian. I just wish they'd be honest about it. "Oh, I'm not anti-Christian, I'm an atheist." My dying ***, son. Your hatred is palpable, your attacks are focused. If you hate Christianity, good for you, but let's not pretend it's something else. That's cowardly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Canuck and Tez would no more associate kristos-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."

G_d.

Xtian.

Much less offensive to them, see, but they're not telling anyone that they have to write it that way.

I would be happy to use the term 'G_d' if that is less offensive. When I said some evangelical Christians find the term 'Xtian' offensive, I was speaking the truth. Neither Tez nor I (nor you) get to tell them what they do and do not find offensive. I'm personally not offended.

Use whatever term floats your ****ing boat.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I'd venture that Christianity itself, while its present forms are a creation of the 3rd or 4th century after Christ, still certainly constitutes historical evidence of something. I mean, something happened, and someone was involved, and it all made quite an impression, but as to what those actually, were.............

I don't know... 300-400 years is plenty of time to make someone up. 10 years can get the job done, really.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

There are many claims that Christianity - and Judaism and Islam - all share many similarities with earlier religions. They similarities are true in many cases. Of course, that doesn't prove anything one way or another. If I write a novel that reminds people very much of another novel written long ago, it doesn't prove plagiarism, but it certainly does raise the question. In the case of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Creation myth and the Christian Jesus the Christ story, there are many similarities with other religions, other deities. That's about all we can say about it without crossing from speculation into belief.

It is also true that there are some atheists (and so-called humanists/secularists) who are actually anti-Christian, and they prove this by producing false claims about various pre-Christian religions and declaring them 'the same' as Christianity.

Bob knows about this - he recently passed on a graphic on FB that purported to show how Christianity stole this and stole that from various religions, all great ha-ha and hee-hee for all the anti-Christians, except that about 80% of it was not actually true. And that's kind of a problem for me. Point out flaws in Christianty? OK, no problem, it has them. Point out similarity to other pre-Christian religions? Hey, if they're there, they're there. Make crap up in an attempt to attack Christianity? OK, but at that point, let's stop pretending you're anything but an anti-Christian. Lie to yourself about being 'secular' and 'humanist' and 'not religious' all you want, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. I know hate when I see it. FYI, the 'you' in the preceding is meant to be the generic 'you', not you personally. Just venting.

I don't even mind it when people are anti-Christian. I just wish they'd be honest about it. "Oh, I'm not anti-Christian, I'm an atheist." My dying ***, son. Your hatred is palpable, your attacks are focused. If you hate Christianity, good for you, but let's not pretend it's something else. That's cowardly.

How about "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-Christianity"? I believe the main tenets of Christianity (the the golden rule stuff-- that is good stuff... And pretty universal) are rubbish, as are the tenets of Judaism, wicca, and any other religion I have studied in depth.

But that doesn't make me anti-Jew, anti-wiccan, or anti-Christian.

I get your basic point, just wanted to add clarification.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't know... 300-400 years is plenty of time to make someone up. 10 years can get the job done, really.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

Your viewpoint is in the minority among historical scholars. Even Richard Dawkins believed that there was 'probably' such a man in real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

A few modern writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells and Robert M. Price[191] question whether Jesus ever existed, and whether attempts to use the Gospels to reconstruct his life give the Gospels too much credit. This position, put forward in works such as the movies Religulous and The God Who Wasn't There, is not held by most professional historians, nor the vast majority of New Testament scholars.[192][193][194][195] Richard Dawkins wrote that while Jesus probably existed, it is "possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all."[196] The philosopher Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: and Peter Gandy argues that Jesus was derived from pagan gods like Dionysus.

Let us put it another way, and return to your original point. There most definitely *is* evidence that Jesus existed. Whether you wish to believe it or not is up to you. But it would be incorrect to say that there is no evidence.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How about "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-Christianity"? I believe the main tenets of Christianity (the the golden rule stuff-- that is good stuff... And pretty universal) are rubbish, as are the tenets of Judaism, wicca, and any other religion I have studied in depth.

But that doesn't make me anti-Jew, anti-wiccan, or anti-Christian.

I get your basic point, just wanted to add clarification.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

That's fine - and I accept the clarification. One can be anti-Christianity without being anti-Christian. I've had people tell me they thought my Pope is the anti-Christ, but they like *me* just fine. It's a bit off-putting, but oh well, I'll live.

In any case, I'm fine with someone who is anti-Christian or anti-Christianity. I just don't like it when they cloak it as something else. "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm atheist." Funny, since all they do is run down Christianity all day long.

I've got a couple atheist friends on FB; seems like every other post on their timeline is about this or that horrible thing Christianity has done to them. I get it; but I don't think atheism is what they seem to think it is.