# Jesus may be the "reason"...



## Guest

...but he has nothing to do with the "season."

Get over it, folks.

Near as scholars can determine, Jesus (and there is a consensus that he existed) was born in late September or early October.

There are two reasons why we celebrate it during this season:

1) The early Christians were Jews. They already had a minor holiday/miracle they celebrated at this time of year. Perhaps you've heard of it?

2) The early Jewish/Christian missionaries found themselves up against lots of pagans who already had a year-end celebration of the Winter Solstice (Dec. 21) as the end of the old year, as it was the shortest day of the year. They found it easier to make converts if rather than doing away with their thousand-of-years-old heathen celebration, these missionaries worked it in as a part of the New Christian Faith. Adapting the "miracle" of Hanukkah to incorporate Christianity and still allow pagans to celebrate their ancient rituals made a perfect mesh.

People were celebrating the Winter Solstice and end of the year looooooong before Jesus was born. Lying about when he was born just made things... you know... easier.

Jesus may be the reason, but it is Jews, Pagans and the earth's natural period of revolution around the Sun that are purely responsible for making it the "season."


----------



## thejackylking #884

Actually if you follow the time line of the Bible Jesus was born during tax/census time which back in those days as it is now was done during the spring.  Also every christian holiday has pagan roots because as Jim said it was easier to convert pagans by taking over their holidays.  If you look at most of the traditions of our holidays they have nothing to do with christianity.  Even the days of the week are named after norse gods.  Sunday and Monday are named after the sun and moon.  Tuesday is named after Tyre the norse god of justice. Wednesday is named after Odin the king of the gods.  Thursday is named after Thor.  Friday is named after Freya Odins wife, and Saturday is named after Sutyr a fire giant who is Odins brother.


----------



## Guest

jackyl: While we're on the same page, the tax/census (as I understand it) was done in the fall, _after_ the harvest. Thus allowing the maximum government income. I've read some theories that Jesus was born in the spring, but *in my own opinion*, the September birth seems more likely to me.

I don't totally discount a spring birth. It actually falls in line more with the ideal timeline of a census. Lotsa babies conceived in September.  But you don't tax a people _after_ they've used up their winter stores.

Historical evidence on this is split and widely varied. The majority seem (from what I've read) to come down to a date around September 30.

But who knows?

The main point is that you see where I'm coming from. And agree in principle (if not season) with me. And I'm grateful for that. I thought there were one or two other people out there who might see where I was coming from, and you weren't one of the folks I expected to hear from.

It's nice to meetcha! My name's Jim.


----------



## Teninx

Excuse us all to Noel. We'll sing our Carols in December and you guys can run through the crowd telling us we're too late in the year.


----------



## Guest

Teninx said:


> Excuse us all to Noel. We'll sing our Carols in December and you guys can run through the crowd telling us we're too late in the year.


I have to see a giant billboard from the single most currently active (posts per/day average) member on the entire forum telling me constantly that "Jesus is the reason for the season."

I was trying to lend a little perspective.

I love Christmas. And I'm not even a Christian anymore.

Our tree is brightly lit. I sing both Christian and secular carols... enthusiastically. Even in the shower. I believe that Christmas is the most glorious and magical time of year... and that *real* magic is possible (due to the belief of millions of the deserving) during this time of year.

If I can do all that, surely you can accept that Jesus wasn't necessarily born on December 25. Can't you? And that we don't need the lie shoved down our throats here on KB?


----------



## thejackylking #884

Bacardi Jim said:


> jackyl: While we're on the same page, the tax/census (as I understand it) was done in the fall, _after_ the harvest. Thus allowing the maximum government income. I've read some theories that Jesus was born in the spring, but *in my own opinion*, the September birth seems more likely to me.
> 
> I don't totally discount a spring birth. It actually falls in line more with the ideal timeline of a census. Lotsa babies conceived in September.  But you don't tax a people _after_ they've used up their winter stores.
> 
> Historical evidence on this is split and widely varied. The majority seem (from what I've read) to come down to a date around September 30.
> 
> But who knows?
> 
> The main point is that you see where I'm coming from. And agree in principle (if not season) with me. And I'm grateful for that. I thought there were one or two other people out there who might see where I was coming from, and you weren't one of the folks I expected to hear from.
> 
> It's nice to meetcha! My name's Jim.


Glad to be able to suprise you. Also you do realize that december was originally the 10th month of the year. Catholics changed the new year from March (spring solstice) to January in order to honor the Roman god Janus. Janus was the 2 faced god. 1 face looking back over the past and 1 looking to the future. Thus the tradition of looking over the past year and making resolutions for thupcoming one.


----------



## KBoards Admin

Bacardi Jim said:


> I have to see a giant billboard from the single most currently active (posts per/day average) member on the entire forum telling me constantly that "Jesus is the reason for the season."
> 
> I was trying to lend a little perspective.
> 
> I love Christmas. And I'm not even a Christian anymore.
> 
> Our tree is brightly lit. I sing both Christian and secular carols... enthusiastically. Even in the shower. I believe that Christmas is the most glorious and magical time of year... and that *real* magic is possible (due to the belief of millions of the deserving) during this time of year.
> 
> If I can do all that, surely you can accept that Jesus wasn't necessarily born on December 25. Can't you? And that we don't need the lie shoved down our throats here on KB?


Easy now, Jim.

It's traditional to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25. Someone having that saying on their sig is hardly shoving a lie down your throat - even if it might be historically inaccurate. Y'er splittin' hairs!!


----------



## Elijsha

i read post alot but i must not be reading sigs at all cause i have not seen this lol. this just something to spout off about/vent or what?


----------



## Guest

Harvey said:


> Easy now, Jim.
> 
> It's traditional to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25. Someone having that saying on their sig is hardly shoving a lie down your throat - even if it might be historically inaccurate. Y'er splittin' hairs!!


They (Christian KB members) get to put up pro-Christ billboards and commercials with impunity, and without you saying a word about it..
I've tried to be literate, educational and non-discriminatory. And bring an equality to the "I can't prove a thing I believe in" rhetoric.

Non-believers deserve equal time. If Angela and Dori and others get to spam us all with pro-Christ messages on an hourly basis, then surely there is a way for those of us who believe otherwise to respond. Isn't there?

There was no doubt that this was a religious discussion when you read the topic.


----------



## Marci

thejackylking said:


> Actually if you follow the time line of the Bible Jesus was born during tax/census time which back in those days as it is now was done during the spring. Also every christian holiday has pagan roots because as Jim said it was easier to convert pagans by taking over their holidays. If you look at most of the traditions of our holidays they have nothing to do with christianity. Even the days of the week are named after norse gods. Sunday and Monday are named after the sun and moon. Tuesday is named after Tyre the norse god of justice. Wednesday is named after Odin the king of the gods. Thursday is named after Thor. Friday is named after Freya Odins wife, and Saturday is named after Sutyr a fire giant who is Odins brother.


Thanks, Jackylking -

I have wondered where the names of the week come from, and now I know! I also like the info you gave about the month of January, too.

Harvey,

Bacardi Jim has a very valid point. There is very little "Christ" to do with "Christmas". I have been in churches where very devout believers were astonished to learn what Jim & Jackylking have stated here.

I, too, have been put off by some very large and prominent signs and symbols in one's signature line and/or avatar. I finally decided to turn them all off. Added benefit of that is it there are more posts per page now for me to read 

While it is indeed not being "forced" on him, it is very hard to ignore unless you decide to do what I did. There is not much you can do between seeing it all or seeing none, from what I can tell of the options available in your profile.

Marci


----------



## thejackylking #884

Thanks I'm a font of trivia.


----------



## Leslie

Jim,

I have a signature that expresses my opinion on an issue that some here might find objectionable. Are you going to call me out on that?

I don't particularly enjoy the holiday season. I spend alot of time trying to manage my mood (I tend to get depressed), keep the spending under control, and just keeping an even keel in my life. This task is not made easier because we live in a society that wants to shove Christmas down my throat at every opportunity, beginning with decorations in stores in October, endless ads on TV, music on the radio, etc etc. I guess a signatures of a few KB members are so far off my radar screen that I barely notice them, much less let them bug me. 

That said, thanks for the info on the days of the week, holidays, taxes and so on. I didn't know some of that info.

Here's something that has always bugged me: the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is December 8. That would lend support to Jim's theory of a September birth. When I was younger and started figuring things out, I never understood how these dates were supposed to work. Mary was either pregnant for 2 1/2 weeks or 12+ months. Huh?

L


----------



## Guest

Leslie: I thought it was obvious by now that I support the desire of any two loving people to declare their love for each other and be married in the eyes of the IRS.


----------



## Leslie

Bacardi Jim said:


> Leslie: I thought it was obvious by now that I support the desire of any two loving people to declare their love for each other and be married in the eyes of the IRS.


Yes, it is.


----------



## Teninx

Bacardi Jim said:


> I have to see a giant billboard from the single most currently active (posts per/day average) member on the entire forum telling me constantly that "Jesus is the reason for the season."
> 
> I was trying to lend a little perspective.
> 
> I love Christmas. And I'm not even a Christian anymore.
> 
> Our tree is brightly lit. I sing both Christian and secular carols... enthusiastically. Even in the shower. I believe that Christmas is the most glorious and magical time of year... and that *real* magic is possible (due to the belief of millions of the deserving) during this time of year.
> 
> If I can do all that, surely you can accept that Jesus wasn't necessarily born on December 25. Can't you? And that we don't need the lie shoved down our throats here on KB?


There must be a Nativity Scene somewhere in your town that you can picket.


----------



## Guest

thejackylking said:


> Actually if you follow the time line of the Bible Jesus was born during tax/census time which back in those days as it is now was done during the spring. Also every christian holiday has pagan roots because as Jim said it was easier to convert pagans by taking over their holidays. If you look at most of the traditions of our holidays they have nothing to do with christianity. Even the days of the week are named after norse gods. Sunday and Monday are named after the sun and moon. Tuesday is named after Tyre the norse god of justice. Wednesday is named after Odin the king of the gods. Thursday is named after Thor. Friday is named after Freya Odins wife, and Saturday is named after Sutyr a fire giant who is Odins brother.


Another interesting note, the days of the week are named for a different set of gods in the "Romance" languages. Mars, Mercury, Juno/Jove, Venus, and Saturn. They still use the moon for Monday, but substitute Domingo or overseeing god as Sunday.

This information saved Jim's and my sanity while playing a computer adventure game. A puzzle involved in the game required the player to match the god to the day of the week. We forgot that the game was originally written in French, and it just did not make sense using Norse (English) gods to fit the days. Thank goodness the explanation came to me while I slept and for my 2 yrs. of high school French.


----------



## chobitz

*ahem* I am not a theologian but I play one on TV  

If we want to go deeper.. there is a theory that Constantine was a shrewd leader. He worshiped Mithra and was not a Christian at all. So he changed the rules of Christianity to fit Mithraism (um is that a word..it is now!) including going to services on SUNday as Mithra was a SUN god. Jesus and Mithra share too much of a coincidence. Both were born to a virgin for instance..

Anywho back on topic Maggie..

I don't mind sigs. I love Leslie's for instance (oh and BTW I wear a white knot here in the armpit of the bible belt and LOVE to see certain Christians squirm when I explain why I wear it). Even though I do not think Jesus is the reason for the season I don't find it offensive at all.

BUT I do find people who refuse to say Happy Holidays(or correct those who do) because a certain ass wrote a book about a so called 'war on Christmas' offensive  Christmas isn't the only winter holiday you know..


----------



## thejackylking #884

The catholics changed the sabbath to Sunday as a display of power.  To prove that they could.  They also changed a lot of other things.  Needless to say if you look at religious history it could be called stranger than fiction.  Way to many things to discuss here with to much ability to tick people off.


----------



## Guest

The History Channel has produced several shows about different holidays. They always seem to mention how Pagan rites were co-opted by the Catholics. (It goes much further than has been mentioned.) The shows are quite informative and illuminating. The stories take on some very different meanings when you see the original rites and rituals.


----------



## Wisteria Clematis

Marci said:


> I, too, have been put off by some very large and prominent signs and symbols in one's signature line and/or avatar. I finally decided to turn them all off. Added benefit of that is it there are more posts per page now for me to read
> 
> While it is indeed not being "forced" on him, it is very hard to ignore unless you decide to do what I did. There is not much you can do between seeing it all or seeing none, from what I can tell of the options available in your profile.
> 
> Marci


I'd like to go on record as saying that I find the prominent Christian symbols and messages in signature lines as being rather offensive also. In the interest of keeping peace I have not complained, but I do find it very heavy-handed and sometimes resent the fact that I either have to see it constantly or, as Marci said, turn all of them off altogether. I wish we could find a way to compromise and keep peoples religious affilations off of KB.


----------



## Jeff

I’d like to go on record as saying that the only time I’m offended on this board is when someone says something hurtful or insulting to or about others. What possible harm can Leslie’s white knot or Sailor’s "pray for our troops", or whomever’s "Jesus is the reason" do to anyone? Life's too short to bicker over trivialities. 

‘Tis the season to be jolly.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

We have gone through this in my own family which has quite divergent beliefs that run the gamut and has had to find ways to coexist.  It's a learning process and there are invariably some bumps in the road.  I expect that can happen here if we want it to badly enough.  In our family, our respect for each other got us by the facts that we didn't and don't agree with the beliefs.  Hope we can do that here...of course, it helped that we had to have T'giving dinner together every year.

BTW, I'd like to point out that it's perfectly possible to be a Christian and acknowledge that all the points made here are true.  I'd like to introduce you to my sister-in-law Peg, the Presbyterian minister...wait, she's not on Kindleboards...oh, well, trust me, she knows and agrees with just about everything I've read here.

Peace of the season.


Betsy


----------



## robin.goodfellow

> Thanks I'm a font of trivia.


Actually, Jackylking, I believe you may be a "fount" of trivia.

I am also not offended by signatures or avs, but have found this entire discussion fascinating.

~robin


----------



## Wisteria Clematis

Betsy the Quilter said:


> We have gone through this in my own family which has quite divergent beliefs that run the gamut and has had to find ways to coexist. It's a learning process and there are invariably some bumps in the road. I expect that can happen here if we want it to badly enough. In our family, our respect for each other got us by the facts that we didn't and don't agree with the beliefs. Hope we can do that here...of course, it helped that we had to have T'giving dinner together every year.
> 
> BTW, I'd like to point out that it's perfectly possible to be a Christian and acknowledge that all the points made here are true.


Of course. I agree completely that it is possible for people of all faiths to coexist peacefully. I am just saying that it is easier for that to happen if folks with a particular religious belief do not constantly put their beliefs in other peoples faces. I won't belabor this, I really don't want to be seen as a troublemaker. I'm just saying.....

Alternatively, if I start using a pentagram in my signature line I would expect that would be allowed without comment from the mods as well.


----------



## drenee

I try to respect everyone's uniqueness.  If we all believed the same thing, and all held to the same truths, how we would learn and grow and become better people.  The great thing about living in a free country is having the freedom to celebrate the season in whatever way gives us peace and comfort.  I too come from a family of very diverse beliefs.  But we are all very happy that we have one time of year where the work world semi-stops to give us some time to enjoy one another.  

Leslie, I understand your emotions at this time of year.  I go through the same thing.  This year I found decorations out beginning in September.  That is way too long for a one day event.  Too many years I have made decisions based on outside pressure rather than what I really felt I wanted to do.  

Again, I'm just happy to live where I have the freedom to celebrate this time of year however I feel appropriate.


----------



## Scathach

As a Pagan, the first thing that stuck me was that the board definitely seemed to have a Christian thing going. Immediately I did a double take on posting here due to the discrimination my family and I have deal with in our community due to our religious beliefs. I think on the day I joined there was a lot of talk about Christian books and I did notice some of the signatures. However I reminded myself that about 89% (my guestimate not statistically proven data of course) of Christians are sweet and awesome folk and though we don't agree on the same religious ideology, I think that we can live together (or hang out on a forum) without wanting to throw sticks at each other.

Yes most of the Christian holidays stem from Pagan or Heathen (yes there is a significant difference between the two) holidays. Yes there were holy wars and a whole slew of violence and madness because of Christian belief... well honestly Pagans and Heathens of the time weren't the most peaceful of people either (somehow many fluffy bunny pagans forget that). I have friends and family who are Pagan, Heathen, Christan (mostly Catholic), Agnostic, Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, and even a satanist (by philosophy).

If my mosh-posh group of friends and family can get along and play nice then I think that everyone on this board can do the same. So long as none of you come over and throw bricks and paint at my windows we be all good (yes it has happened before). "Jesus is the reason, for the season" is obviously the reason for that particular individual, some people actually celebrate the coming of Christ on X-mas just as I celebrate the Germanic holiday of Yule and pay homage to my ancestors, the Gods, and sharing in the love of my family. Honestly, there are just as many Pagans confused about historic beginnings of Christmas/Yule just as there are Christians. I am happy that the Heathen symbols of the Yule Tree, the wreaths, and the lights were all kept and merged into the common American christmas.

I don't find the Christian messages on the board offensive, I believe everyone should have basic right to express themselves. But also know they might make some individuals who have been persecuted because of their own beliefs a little wary about joining. But seriously this is a forum about our love of reading, books, and the holy kindle (jk). I don't mind sharing my holiday with Christians, and honestly Jesus was a pretty cool dude with an awesome message (from what little I know of Christianity), unfortunately that message seems muddled by the words and actions of other men. Oh well I hate to say such a cliched phrase but ... Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

(I should point out that my family DOES discuss religion, we just don't get mad at each other.  Like I said, it helps when you have to sit across the table from one another.  Maybe we need to get a REALLY BIG table here.)


----------



## Spiritdancer

Betsy the Quilter said:


> BTW, I'd like to point out that it's perfectly possible to be a Christian and acknowledge that all the points made here are true. I'd like to introduce you to my sister-in-law Peg, the Presbyterian minister...wait, she's not on Kindleboards...oh, well, trust me, she knows and agrees with just about everything I've read here.


Me too...I'm a United Methodist minister...and I agree with the historical info Jim brought up. Just about every modern commentary agrees. I am very liberal, very open to people of all faiths or belief choices, and just want everyone to get along.  Mostly, we just need to care for one another and respect where each of us comes from and where we are at the moment.


----------



## chobitz

I like Gandi's quote:



> I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.


----------



## thejackylking #884

chobitz said:


> I like Gandi's quote:


Unfortunately that is too true. Unfortunately there are several "Christians" who believe that being christian means that they are superior to others. They have a tendency to look down on others who are not as "righteous" as they are. They seem to forget that "Church is a hospital for sinners not a sanitarium for saints." I can't remember who originally said that but I've always agreed with it. If you are going to go to church and be a christian then act like one.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Forgive me for going off topic, but Chobitz, congrats on hitting 100 posts! And with a Ghandi quote, too!

Wahoo!



Betsy


----------



## chobitz

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Forgive me for going off topic, but Chobitz, congrats on hitting 100 posts! And with a Ghandi quote, too!
> 
> Wahoo!
> 
> 
> 
> Betsy


LOL I just noticed.
Yep I guess my edamucation paid off


----------



## Leslie

thejackylking also just hit 100 posts! Wa-hoo we're breaking records here! LOL

L


----------



## thejackylking #884

Thank you Leslie


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Woo-hoo thejackylking!


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott

Congrats on 100 posts Chobitz and the jackylking.  WOO HOO!!!


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Coming in late but, what the heck.

Leslie:  regarding feast of Immaculate Conception.  That has nothing to do with Christmas, really.  Early in Christian history the church decreed that, in order to have given birth to Jesus, both God and man, Mary his mother must have been pure.  There had been a previous doctrine of Original Sin which caused a problem.   So the doctrine of Immaculate Conception was conceived (cough, cough, pardon the pun).  This doctrine holds that God had plans for Mary even as she was born and he caused her to be born without the stain of original sin so she would be a suitable vessel for His Son when the time came.  The Virgin Birth is the doctrine that holds that Mary gave birth without first having sexual relations with a man.  There is also a feast in the church on March 25 (what a coincidence!) known as the Annunciation which is when the angel came to Mary and said, "guess what?".

Also, as regards the calendar.  December was the 10th month.  It was Julius Caesar who added July.  And then Augustus Caesar who added August.  Talk about egos. . . .  At some point in the 1800s various countries were using various counting systems for days as well as hours of the day, but the world was becoming smaller and it was decided to have one calendar for the whole world, as well as set up a standard for time.  Most countries agreed fairly quickly. . .there were problems with leap years and it was causing trouble for trade.  (Though I seem to recall that Russia took until the early 20th century before they switched.)

It is true that the Church built it's worship calendar on, to some extent, pagan feasts already in existence.  It was a gentle proselytizing rather than heavy handed:  "Hey, you have a big party at the solstice?  Cool, let's talk about this Jesus guy who had some good ideas.  When was he born?  Uh, now, yeah, that's it. . .he was born at the solstice so he must be pretty special let me tell you some stories. . . ."  Same sort of thing happened for Easter, taking into consideration that the stories handed down were pretty clear that the events described happened during the feast of Passover.

As to when Christmas is celebrated and how:  hey, I go to Mass every week, play in the choir, my husband works for the parish.  But to each, his own.  I don't defend everything every Catholic does, or even completely agree with everything the Church teaches, but I get something out of it and I've made peace with myself regarding the things with which I disagree.  The church has done some really bad stuff in it's history and totally lost the message of Jesus at times.  In my opinion,  that message was be good to people, take care of each other, protect those who need it and be tolerant of those with whom you disagree.  This is not just a Christian teaching. . .ever read the teachings of the Buddha?  At core, most 'religions' have this at their root.  But somewhere in 'getting organized' things get codified and then twisted and then Muslims fight Jews and Catholics fight Protestants.  When, if you look at the beginning. . . .we all believed the same thing!

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see a big conspiracy in when Christmas is celebrated.  And I don't have any problem with how people choose to celebrate it . . .or choose not to.  (I do have a problem with people who try to tell others that their way is wrong.)  Anyway, Happy Festivus, Happy Solstice, Happy Hannukah, Merry Christmas, Blessed Kwanzaa, and Happy New Year.  In short, Happy Everything.  

Ann


----------



## tessa

This is why I love Thanksgiving You can wish everybody you see Happy Thanksgiving and no one gets offended.


----------



## Angela

I would first like to say that Jim’s statements about the origins of Christmas and the fact that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th are most accurate and I have been taught this from a very early age. For a Christian, celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th is tradition.

Next... I never intended my signature bar to offend anyone. I chose it for the season and added it after Thanksgiving and the Kindle Birthday celebration as a representation of the upcoming holiday season, much the same as others did with their blinking lights and holly. I chose that particular one for 2 reasons… 1) it made me feel good. I too have a problem with depression in the winter months and I liked it because it gives me a sense of well-being and peace, 2) it was purple and it was easy to see when I return to a thread to give me a visual that I had already replied to a post (I really love the color purple).

I am not here on this board to push my beliefs on anyone. I am here for the same reason most of you are. I love to read, I purchased a Kindle and wanted to hang out with others that I had something in common with, and I wanted to learn more about the Kindle. Added benefits that I did not expect were the wonderful recommendations for books in genres and by authors I never would have given a second glance to otherwise.

Other than my signature bar, I have kept my beliefs pretty low key. I even asked permission before starting the Christian Fiction Fan thread, and started it so that that genre could be discussed openly and that people could choose whether or not they wanted to participate. When the discussion got off topic on the CF thread, I requested that Devotional books, etc be moved to another thread for the same reason so that we could keep CF as a genre thread and not a religious discussion.

Last night when I saw this thread had been started, I read what Jim wrote and decided not to respond right away. I knew right away that he was referring to me. I have had a suspicion that he has been *gunning* for me for weeks. He has on more than one occasion posted a reply after mine that has been done in a way to be *joking* yet *stabbing* and I have let them slide because I did not want to end up saying something I would regret later. I just wish he had come to me weeks ago and let me know that he found my signature offensive.

My original plan had been to switch back to my purple butterfly on December 26th, but so that Harvey and the mods (who are a very diverse group within themselves) are not accused of being biased, and in respect for those of you who have posted replies to this thread, I will change my signature back early. I do apologize to any individuals that I have offended, but I will never apologize for my beliefs or my faith. Yes, I am a Christian and Jesus is MY reason for the season, but that in no way makes me perfect or superior to anyone, anywhere. I am a very imperfect being living in an imperfect world and I do not/have not and will never look down upon or speak unkindly about another person just because they do not believe the same way I do. For those who do not share my beliefs, but have accepted me anyway, I thank you and value your friendship and opinions.

I have enjoyed my time here on the boards and hope to spend many fun-filled hours to come in the future. I love the diversity of the people that are here and I am looking forward to getting to know all of you more.

Angela


----------



## Jeff

Angela said:


> My original plan had been to switch back to my purple butterfly on December 26th, but so that Harvey and the mods (who are a very diverse group within themselves) are not accused of being biased, and in respect for those of you who have posted replies to this thread, I will change my signature back early.


Oh, Angela, I hate that. You have every right to put anything you want on your signature. Please change it back if it gives you comfort.


----------



## tlshaw

This has been an interesting post to read. I have read and understand where people are coming from. I am a Christian and have grown up with the various theories about when Christ was born. However, for me, that doesn't change the fact that I celebrate Christmas and Christ's birth.

I try not to "shove" my beliefs on people, and respect theirs. However, I am also a little frustrated when Christians are seen as pushy for expressing their views. 

Why not allow Christians their signatures, and anyone else their's as long as they are not obscene. And yes, there is a legal definition of obscene and pornographic. Also, as one of my instructors in grad school said, the freedom of expression also means the freedom to be offended. So, although someone's free speech may offend me, that is my right to be offended, not shut them down.

Ok, off my soapbox and back to work.

By the way, I really do love this board, and love reading Jim's comments.


----------



## Leslie

In a thread that could have quickly degenerated into mudslinging, I am pleased to see courteous and thoughtful responses instead. It reminds me of a quote from *Brokeback Mountain* by Annie Proulx:

*They were respectful of each other's opinions, each glad to have a companion where none had been expected. *

Thanks, everyone.

L


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott

Angela said:


> I would first like to say that Jim's statements about the origins of Christmas and the fact that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th are most accurate and I have been taught this from a very early age. For a Christian, celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th is tradition.
> 
> Next... I never intended my signature bar to offend anyone. I chose it for the season and added it after Thanksgiving and the Kindle Birthday celebration as a representation of the upcoming holiday season, much the same as others did with their blinking lights and holly. I chose that particular one for 2 reasons&#8230; 1) it made me feel good. I too have a problem with depression in the winter months and I liked it because it gives me a sense of well-being and peace, 2) it was purple and it was easy to see when I return to a thread to give me a visual that I had already replied to a post (I really love the color purple).
> 
> I am not here on this board to push my beliefs on anyone. I am here for the same reason most of you are. I love to read, I purchased a Kindle and wanted to hang out with others that I had something in common with, and I wanted to learn more about the Kindle. Added benefits that I did not expect were the wonderful recommendations for books in genres and by authors I never would have given a second glance to otherwise.
> 
> Other than my signature bar, I have kept my beliefs pretty low key. I even asked permission before starting the Christian Fiction Fan thread, and started it so that that genre could be discussed openly and that people could choose whether or not they wanted to participate. When the discussion got off topic on the CF thread, I requested that Devotional books, etc be moved to another thread for the same reason so that we could keep CF as a genre thread and not a religious discussion.
> 
> Last night when I saw this thread had been started, I read what Jim wrote and decided not to respond right away. I knew right away that he was referring to me. I have had a suspicion that he has been *gunning* for me for weeks. He has on more than one occasion posted a reply after mine that has been done in a way to be *joking* yet *stabbing* and I have let them slide because I did not want to end up saying something I would regret later. I just wish he had come to me weeks ago and let me know that he found my signature offensive.
> 
> My original plan had been to switch back to my purple butterfly on December 26th, but so that Harvey and the mods (who are a very diverse group within themselves) are not accused of being biased, and in respect for those of you who have posted replies to this thread, I will change my signature back early. I do apologize to any individuals that I have offended, but I will never apologize for my beliefs or my faith. Yes, I am a Christian and Jesus is MY reason for the season, but that in no way makes me perfect or superior to anyone, anywhere. I am a very imperfect being living in an imperfect world and I do not/have not and will never look down upon or speak unkindly about another person just because they do not believe the same way I do. For those who do not share my beliefs, but have accepted me anyway, I thank you and value your friendship and opinions.
> 
> I have enjoyed my time here on the boards and hope to spend many fun-filled hours to come in the future. I love the diversity of the people that are here and I am looking forward to getting to know all of you more.
> 
> Angela


Angele we all have the freedom to express our beliefs, no need to change your signature. Please don't do that. We are all unique and diverse individuals. I will be respectful of Jim's opinion although I do not agree with what he said about you or Dori. We can agree to disagree. Leave the signature as is, you would be doing a disservice to others that appreciate it. 

Thanks,
Linda


----------



## tc

Ann and Angela I could not have said it better.   

As someone who has gone to Seminary to study Christian Education, it is taught that Dec 25th is not the date of the birth of Christ. 

I on the other hand will leave this board.  This just has been the last straw so to speak.  This topic is being held in the right subdivision of this board.  I give you that and the fact that I did not have to read this thread. I am not better than anyone on this board and to not try to be. However this whole board has formed cliches. It hurts when one has something to say and 90% of the time get ignored. Be that as it may, I leave.


----------



## chobitz

I agree. Angela keep your sig. Like I said I am not offended by a christian sig as long as it isn't something the degrades others like anti gay or a 'my god is bigger then your god' and you are NOT that type of christian.

Live and let live is my motto. I only have problems with bigots and sadly a lot of christians in our area are not like you Angela but more like the christians Gandi mentioned. Which is to say they aren't true christians at all.


----------



## Jeff

tc said:


> Be that as it may, I leave.


You have friends here. Please don't abandon us.


----------



## Geemont

Bacardi Jim said:


> Near as scholars can determine, Jesus (and there is a consensus that he existed) was born in late September or early October.


Actually, some credible scholars do question the existence of a historical Jesus.



I haven't read the book, but I heard an author interviewed, and he claims the lack historical evidence can create doubt his actual existence. For Price, historical evidence must be outside the gospels and other religious documents.

Another interesting source is Bart D. Ehrman. The has written a few books, but I haven't read them. I've listened to his class on *Historical Jesus* from The Teaching Company. It is an excellent review of the historical evidence (and other evidence), but doesn't question the actual existence of Jesus. However, Ehrman's summery of Jesus life is much different from traditional views: "[Jesus was a] first-century Jewish apocalypticist...who fully expected that the history of the world as he knew it was going to come to a screeching halt and that God was going to overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment [within the lifespan of his followers]."

This Kindle book covers the subject:



For me, as a non-theistic non-Christian, Christmas is just a paid day off work. I like solution in Olympia where there is a traditional Christmas display and a non-theistic plaque to counter it.


----------



## Mnemosyne

Not overly religious here. Just try to live by my favorite rule, the golden one. Treat others as you'd have them treat you. 

Nemo


----------



## Angela

Jeff said:


> Oh, Angela, I hate that. You have every right to put anything you want on your signature. Please change it back if it gives you comfort.


Thank you Jeff, but I don't *need* that signature bar. I have already been given comfort in the kinds words from you and many others, and my purpley butterfly has special meaning to me and I enjoying seeing back.

I would like to note that I did NOT change my signature because of anything that Jim said... I did it in honor of those who posted to this thread with respect and tollerance. It is for them I changed it and only them.

tc... please don't leave the boards because of this, you are needed here.



chobitz said:


> I agree. Angela keep your sig. Like I said I am not offended by a christian sig as long as it isn't something the degrades others like anti gay or a 'my god is bigger then your god' and you are NOT that type of christian.
> 
> Live and let live is my motto. I only have problems with bigots and sadly a lot of christians in our area are not like you Angela but more like the christians Gandi mentioned. Which is to say they aren't true christians at all.


Thank you chobitz for you kind words and respect for my beliefs. I am still looking forward to the possibilty of us meeting up after the first of the year.


----------



## Sailor

Angela,

I have kept quiet for far too long. In AMERICA we ALL have FREEDOM OF SPEECH! It is a time honored Right and The First Amendment. I will not lay on my back and let someone take my RIGHT away from me for their opinion. And Harvey can use his own forum as he sees fit to use, that is his right, and people can come and go as they please. Harvey is a strong Christian man who has his own set of beliefs that he does not force on anyone either, just like you don't Angela.

I for one am tired of the few people who get their knickers in a bunch because someone stated a simple salutary greeting, no matter what season or event it might be.

The reason for Christmas is CHRIST's MASS...so who ever doesn't like it can just overlook your Posts or Signature line. They can not celebrate CHRISTmas either, that is their choosing. And for all those who are so offended by the CHRISTIAN way, they will have to make it right with HIM in the end, not you.

Angela, I for one would like to see your Jesus is the Reason on your signature line, please put it back on. At least it is one of them I am not offended by, but then if I don't like something I just overlook it being the grown adult I am now.


----------



## Chad Winters

I think its funny that there is a standard rhetoric that Christians are hateful and don't allow other opinions.

And yet most of this thread has been an anti-Christian rant, started because of a signature that does what it is designed to do....tell you a little about the person and their beliefs. 

It seems the non-Christians are big on freedom of speech except for Christians....they shouldn't say anything.

And I have to say that BJ's original post is a common logical category error. The fact that other non Christmas celebrations have occured in winter does not mean we have to celebrate "Christmas" without Christ. Many Christians feel that they are being told that they cannot celebrate "Christmas" they have to celebrate "Winter Holidays". We would not tell a Jewish person that they can't celebrate Hannukah, would we? The problem is people want the celebration without the original reason. 

If you're not a Christian and want a celebration in Winter, no problem. But don't tell the Christian they can't have Christmas


----------



## tessa

People...People.. Am I the only one who sees this?   This discussion has been going on for over 2,000 years and it will keep going as long as their are people who are insecure in their beliefs and feel they  must challenge others.   Mason/Church   No one wins.

So Jim in order for you to have the freedom to say what you want, Angela has the right to post what she wants. You both are right.

TC by you leaving is the same as saying your wrong. Please don't go.


----------



## KBoards Admin

Jim, 

 This thread would have been stronger (and healthier for this community) if you had made your historical points without personalizing it against Angela. If you can post these insightful and interesting posts, and resist the urge to put digs in that personalize it, we would all be the better for it. 

 I do not want this community to be damaged by a poster making others feel bad simply because they have a sig that - c'mon - is pretty conventional for this time of year. 

- Harvey


----------



## pidgeon92

To disparage the comforting beliefs of others is wholly unkind.


----------



## Scathach

sailor said:


> And for all those who are so offended by the CHRISTIAN way, they will have to make it right with HIM in the end, not you.


no offense but that was a bit unnecessary, you have your right to post it but could be offensive to others who don't believe in a Christian god, thats all I will say about that.

Angela sorry if you felt any pressure for taking down your sig. I for one respect your faith, its different from my own but thats okay thats what makes humankind great, our differences. I think we all need to remember that we should feel free to express ourselves, so long as it isn't hurtful or hateful


----------



## Jen

Can't we all just get along?  

Everyone has their own beliefs, no one is right, and no one is wrong.  I personally don't even think what Christmas is to a lot folks has anything to do with religion anymore.  It's about material things and it drives me insane.  The real meaning (or it should be anyway) has been lost in the gimme gimme attitude of gift receiving.  I don't care what you believe, but this time of year should be a special magical time.  That was lost a long time ago on a lot of people.  

And Angela - I'm not personally very religious (more spiritual in general) but I have never, ever been offended by your signature.  Like I said - I respect what you guys believe as I expect you to respect what I do or don't believe.  We're all just human.  

Anyway, just my two cents.  
*backs away slowly.......*


----------



## chobitz

sailor said:


> And for all those who are so offended by the CHRISTIAN way, they will have to make it right with HIM in the end, not you.


Sorry but the whole My God is Bigger then Your God BS is EXACTLY what causes these threads and its one of the reasons I turned my back on the christian church. Implying damnation does a great disservice to christians who want to lead a quiet private life.

All you do with sentiments like this is make us who aren't christian angry and less likely to listen to you.

Its the reason I want to get the hell out of the bible belt!

No offense to those on the boards who are the quiet christians who respect others. My anger is not directed towards you and I apologize to ya'll.


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott

Harvey said:


> Jim,
> 
> This thread would have been stronger (and healthier for this community) if you had made your historical points without personalizing it against Angela. If you can post these insightful and interesting posts, and resist the urge to put digs in that personalize it, we would all be the better for it.
> 
> I do not want this community to be damaged by a poster making others feel bad simply because they have a sig that - c'mon - is pretty conventional for this time of year.
> 
> - Harvey


Harvey please note that Jim also offended Dori in his post.

Thanks,
Linda


----------



## Sailor

Scathach said:


> no offense but that was a bit unnecessary, you have your right to post it but could be offensive to others who don't believe in a Christian god, thats all I will say about that.


To make my statement clear, I was only on the topic of Christianity. I do believe every Religion has their equal right to pray, worship and believe how they choose to. There are all good people in every walk of All faiths, including Muslims who are now looked down upon unfavorable because of the war. And I would go all out to fight for their equal rights to pray to Allah as well.


----------



## Scathach

sailor said:


> To make my statement clear, I was only on the topic of Christianity. I do believe every Religion has their equal right to pray, worship and believe how they choose to. There are all good people in every walk of All faiths, including Muslims who are now looked down upon unfavorable because of the war. And I would go all out to fight for their equal rights to pray to Allah as well.


Okay I can see what you mean, thank you so much for clarifying your meaning  I have heard too many people in my life saying I am going to have to face "god" for my beliefs. So reading it the first time it kinda sounded like that to me. I see now that is absolutely not your intent


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott

Alright everybody take a deep breath. We *all* have different beliefs and will never *agree* on them. We can agree to disagree and not be disrespectful of each other. 

P. S. Looks as if we are all cool, great job everyone!!

Thanks,
Linda


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz)

Wow, I am amazed at how civilized this discussion is. Must be the "cultured" readers.  I can say that almost every other forum, message board, email lists, etc that I have been a member of have had strict rules of certain "off topic" threads. Those being - religion, politics and computer operating systems. Any discussion of the 3 is likely to start a flame war.


----------



## KBoards Admin

mom133d said:


> ...
> Those being - religion, politics and computer operating systems. Any discussion of the 3 is likely to start a flame war.


Ha! I love the operating systems is in that list.


----------



## wavsite

sailor said:


> I for one am tired of the few people who get their knickers in a bunch because someone stated a simple salutary greeting, no matter what season or event it might be.


I can agree with you completely on this point, sailor - the point is not the words of the greeting but the intentions behind it. If I come up to you and say "Happy Holidays", that should be no more or less offensive than "Merry Christmas" or "Season's Greetings" or "Merry Meet and Blessed Be".



sailor said:


> The reason for Christmas is CHRIST's MASS...


Well, here I have to differ with you. Sure, the *name* of the holiday has religious tones and/or reasons, but the *reason for the season* is NOT fixed to a specific religion, or to any at all. And let's be honest here, the reason the entire US of A celebrates "Christmas" is because it's a Federal Holiday! So we all have to plan our holiday travels and vacation time around THAT day, whether we are Christian or not.



sailor said:


> ...so who ever doesn't like it can just overlook your Posts or Signature line. They can not celebrate CHRISTmas either, that is their choosing.


I agree - if I don't want to read signature lines, I don't have to, and if I don't want to celebrate a religion's holiday, I don't have to do that, either. I for one am NOT offended by the Christian way, or any other way. What offends me is when the *people* involved in the religion decide to push their beliefs off on me.

You celebrate the Winter Solstice *your* way, with Gods and Angels and whatnot, and we will celebrate it *our* way - lighting traditional red and green candles to light up the winter dark, bringing holly boughs inside with their red berries to signify nature and the coming of spring, eating fresh fruits to celebrate the return of the sun. And yes, exchanging gifts with friends and family, because hey - the end of the year NEEDS presents! 



Chad Winters said:


> ... The fact that other non Christmas celebrations have occured in winter does not mean we have to celebrate "Christmas" without Christ. Many Christians feel that they are being told that they cannot celebrate "Christmas" they have to celebrate "Winter Holidays". We would not tell a Jewish person that they can't celebrate Hannukah, would we? The problem is people want the celebration without the original reason.
> 
> If you're not a Christian and want a celebration in Winter, no problem. But don't tell the Christian they can't have Christmas


The problem isn't that you "can't have Christmas" if you're Christian. The problem is when Christians start to say that Christmas is THEIRS, and the rest of us can't have our own celebrations at the same time, by whatever name, unless we include Christ, because that's "what it's all about".

We all call it "Christmas" (in the USA), and celebrate at the same time, because of the rules set up by the government and our various employers. So when we get Christmas Day off, that day is not negotiable - even though my family is agnostic and prefers to celebrate "Winter Solstice", I don't get the Solstice off, and I can't exchange that work day with Christmas day, because my office is closed.

So when I notice things like forum sigs or bumper stickers saying it's "CHRIST's MASS", it does end up being a little offensive to me. However, returning to the first thing I said in this post, I know it's the intentions behind those words that matter. The forum sigs here don't bother me, because I turned them off weeks ago. But from everything I've read here, these folks have the intention of wishing everyone a happy Winter Solstice, even if the words are a little different. And so I thank them for their greetings, and return them as well - have a Happy Solstice, everyone!



mom133d said:


> ... Those being - religion, politics and computer operating systems. Any discussion of the 3 is likely to start a flame war.


Haha, too true, especially the operating systems!


----------



## Angela

Sailor, Chad, Tessa, Harvey, Pidgeon, Scathach and Jen… thank you all for your comments. I appreciate your messages of support and respect. I in turn will always endeavor to extend the same respect to you and all others here on KB.

Please don’t let this thread cause any division of the board.  I thought long and hard before making my decision to post a reply and to make the *week early* change to my signature. I did not feel any pressure to change it. As I stated before, it was done solely out of respect to those who showed me respect. I will leave my cute little butterfly where it is, although I am thinking I might make it bigger!

Angela


----------



## cat616

Well, it sure has been stimulating to read a thread that requires some intellectual thought.

It makes me sad that some in our community are offended by others in our community who do not hold the same beliefs. (This goes for everyone, regardless of their beliefs and every community wether it be cyberspace, a workplace or the people who you catch the bus with).

Lets get real people. This is the real world. We are human. We are going to get offended by other people. We get offended many times during every day. We are going to misunderstand other people's intentions. We must all remember very little in this world is about us as Individuals. Even though my little world is very important to me, I must remember I am not even on the radar of 99.999999999...% of the rest of the world population.

I felt offended by Angela's footer. Momentarily. Not because of what it represents. I took it as an comeback to my footer that day. (It was Black Friday and I was using a "Shop Till You Drop" theme). Of course I was being self centered and very quickly got over myself. Duh, It is not about me!!! Humans cannot help themselves. We are all "legends in our own minds".

Christmas is a very difficult time of the year for everyone. Most of us are trying to live the "Hallmark Card Dream" and find ourselves severely lacking in that Department. I have noticed that some of us here have been more argumentative than usual. Could this be because of frustrations with ourselves as related to the season? Heaven/Hell knows? I know that I have typed some offensive stuff but fortunately I always think three or four times before I post and have (so far) been able to recognize what will cause trouble and have walked away without comment.

And now it is time to cue the doves....


----------



## Cat

Is anyone offended by my current .sig? 
If anyone even remembers when I'd originally ranted briefly about the religious pics/sigs/etc, it was merely to make a point about something else that was going on. While slightly annoying, as many sigs can be -not just religious ones, they really don't bother me. In fact, it was pointed out to me by another member that someone had changed their sig immediately after my post -hence my current .sig. I don't pay enough attention to stuff like that that I'd even noticed. 
As Jeff wrote:


Jeff said:


> What possible harm can Leslie's white knot or Sailor's "pray for our troops", or whomever's "Jesus is the reason" do to anyone?


and I agree heartily.

Now, posts/sigs/whatever stating I'll have to answer to Him because I just did or said ABC, and posts of that type I DO find offensive. There's a difference, imho.

Not to put too fine a point on it Angela, but you still have Gods wing fluttering messenger as your AV . I'm cool with it, tho, I'm just sayin' is all.



robin.goodfellow said:


> Actually, Jackylking, I believe you may be a "fount" of trivia.
> 
> ~robin


I thought the same thing. I was gonna quote it in my sig cuz it gave me a giggle, but I looked up "font" first, and he was quite right to use the word font.


----------



## Guest

Wow!

I woke up expecting that this thread would be locked or I'd be banned. Instead, I find that an intelligent and (mostly) respectful debate ensued. It's a Christmas miracle!

A few comments:

First: I don't want anybody to leave or change their signatures. People have many different beliefs and the right to express them. The whole idea of my original post wasn't to shut anybody up. It was merely to provide "equal time" to believers of other ideas. People have every right to go around expressing their Christian beliefs whenever and wherever they want. If it grates on someone's nerves, there are several avenues available for people to ignore it. (As has been pointed out in this thread.) I only wanted to provide an isolated spot in which non-Christians could get the opportunity to also express their views.

It appears that this worked, to an extent. People with alternative views have expressed them here. The key word being "here." Not all over the board in every post they make. I have little doubt that if a group of people started putting Satanic messages in every post they made in every thread on the board, that it would take far less than a month before somebody said something.

I'm not trying to shut anybody up or change anybody's mind. I merely feel that given how sensitive religious beliefs are that their expression should probably be confined to particular "Not Quite Kindle" threads and not bandied about indiscriminately. Whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan, if you go around constantly wearing your faith on your sleeve, you are going to offend or irritate _somebody_. I merely wanted to make some folks aware of that fact.

I'm not anti-Christian or anti-Christmas. See one of my first posts in the thread about my love for and belief in this season. I just thought that given the amount of Christian rhetoric we get exposed to here on a daily basis, there should be at least one place for those with alternate beliefs to have a place to speak their mind.

Second: Angela--I'm sorry I held you up as a target. You certainly are not the most strident of the Christian proselytizers on KB. Far from it. In your regular posting (the Christian book threads aside) you have always been reasonable, secular and non-judgemental. You were just the most _obvious_ example of Christian rhetoric, with your sig. (It was actually somebody _else's_ deciding to use a similar sig that motivated this thread.) Regardless, it was unfair of me to hold you up as a specific public example when it was a whole group of people that had pushed me to this point. You are actually one of my favorite posters and certainly one of my favorites of the "Christ Crowd." Please accept my humble apologies.


----------



## Jeff

Pretty classy.


----------



## Guest

Jeff said:


> Pretty classy.


That may be the nicest thing you've ever said to me. 

Yeah, I'm much classier when I'm sober.


----------



## Jeff

Bacardi Jim said:


> That may be the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
> 
> Yeah, I'm much classier when I'm sober.


I calls 'em the way I sees 'em. But I don't bat for the other team. Wait. Which thread is this?


----------



## Leslie

Jeff said:


> I calls 'em the way I sees 'em. But I don't bat for the other team. Wait. Which thread is this?


This one...oh wait, I'm confused...


----------



## Guest

Jeff said:


> I calls 'em the way I sees 'em. But I don't bat for the other team. Wait. Which thread is this?


----------



## Guest

*shakes fist at the faster Leslie*


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott

All three of ya'll are confused, are ya'll sober??


----------



## Jeff

Leslie said:


> This one...oh wait, I'm confused...


Oh, Leslie, that's dirty pool.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Leslie said:


> Here's something that has always bugged me: the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is December 8. That would lend support to Jim's theory of a September birth. When I was younger and started figuring things out, I never understood how these dates were supposed to work. Mary was either pregnant for 2 1/2 weeks or 12+ months. Huh?
> 
> L


Leslie, I don't know if someone has responded to this or not. Too many posts to read and it's late for me. Yours is a common misconception (no pun intended) but this is what the Immaculate Conception is all about.



> The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin.


----------



## Gables Girl

Leslie said:


> Jim,
> 
> I have a signature that expresses my opinion on an issue that some here might find objectionable. Are you going to call me out on that?
> 
> I don't particularly enjoy the holiday season. I spend alot of time trying to manage my mood (I tend to get depressed), keep the spending under control, and just keeping an even keel in my life. This task is not made easier because we live in a society that wants to shove Christmas down my throat at every opportunity, beginning with decorations in stores in October, endless ads on TV, music on the radio, etc etc. I guess a signatures of a few KB members are so far off my radar screen that I barely notice them, much less let them bug me.
> 
> That said, thanks for the info on the days of the week, holidays, taxes and so on. I didn't know some of that info.
> 
> Here's something that has always bugged me: the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is December 8. That would lend support to Jim's theory of a September birth. When I was younger and started figuring things out, I never understood how these dates were supposed to work. Mary was either pregnant for 2 1/2 weeks or 12+ months. Huh?
> 
> L


According to this story they now say Jesus was born on June 17, 2 BC based upon the configuration of the stars.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/3687843/Jesus-was-born-in-June-astronomers-claim.html

So it could have been 6 months..... Any way the three kings had to have taken more then 12 days to get there. Camels don't travel that fast and they came a good distance.  (Ducking from incoming stones)


----------



## Guest

Gables Girl said:


> So it could have been 6 months..... Any way the three kings had to have taken more then 12 days to get there. Camels don't travel that fast and they came a good distance.  (Ducking from incoming stones)


Actually, the Gospel of Matthew (the only one that mentions the Magi) says that they arrived some two years after the birth of Jesus. Matthew doesn't bother to explain why the family was still living in that inn's stable two years later.


----------



## Geemont

Gables Girl said:


> According to this story they now say Jesus was born on June 17, 2 BC based upon the configuration of the stars.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/3687843/Jesus-was-born-in-June-astronomers-claim.html





> Mr Reneke says the wise men probably interpreted it as the sign they had been waiting for, and they followed the 'star' to Christ's birthplace in a stable in Bethlehem, as described in the Bible.


However, if the wise men story is apocryphal, and it probably is, then a "conjunction of the planets Venus and Jupiter" would have no bearing on the birthdate and birthplace of any Jewish child. Sure, there could have been a shinning star in the night sky some 2,000 years ago, and the author of the magi story could have heard or read an account of it, then incorporated into his tale. Or, then again, the author could have just made it up. No way to know.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Yes, as a minister I know says "was you there?"

Betsy


----------



## Guest

I'll just mention this too: Matthew never says there were three Magi.  He only says that they brought three presents.  There could have been anywhere from 2 to 22 Magi.  Their alleged names (Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar) didn't show up in legend until the Sixth Century.


----------



## Chad Winters

Bacardi Jim said:


> Actually, the Gospel of Matthew (the only one that mentions the Magi) says that they arrived some two years after the birth of Jesus. Matthew doesn't bother to explain why the family was still living in that inn's stable two years later.


Actually it does not say they are still living in the cave. Most likely they had moved out by then 

Mat 2:11 As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.


----------



## sjc

This is a *very* interesting and informative post. I will not offer an opinion, however, I will state: There are 2 topics that can and will always be *heavily debated* (until the end of time): Religion and Politics.


----------



## Leslie

sjc said:


> This is a *very* interesting and informative post. I will not offer an opinion, however, I will state: There are 2 topics that can and will always be *heavily debated* (until the end of time): Religion and Politics.


According to some people, you should add computer operating systems to that list! LOL


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott

sjc said:


> This is a *very* interesting and informative post. I will not offer an opinion, however, I will state: There are 2 topics that can and will always be *heavily debated* (until the end of time): Religion and Politics.


You are so right SJC!


----------



## Guest

Chad Winters said:


> Actually it does not say they are still living in the cave. Most likely they had moved out by then
> 
> Mat 2:11 As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.


I know. It was a joke, as all modern Nativity presentations depict them showing up at the stable.


----------



## cat616

sjc said:


> This is a *very* interesting and informative post. I will not offer an opinion, however, I will state: There are 2 topics that can and will always be *heavily debated* (until the end of time): Religion and Politics.


I cannot understand why people get so riled up about discussions on these topics.

And as for arguing over OSs - I just remind my PC friends that Windows was made so that their computers could pretend to be what my Mac has been along. This statement usually shuts them down pretty quick if they are looking for an argument from me!


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

Leslie said:


> According to some people, you should add computer operating systems to that list! LOL


And we guitar players have a whole list of things to have passionate arguments about, most of which don't actually end in fist fights, but that's because we have to be be careful of our hands. And most of which are completely non-comprehensible to non-players. And most of which don't matter an iota, if truth be told.

You haven't seen a religious war until you see an argument about the merits of lacquer versus polyurethane finishes.

Mike


----------



## sjc

Cat616: *In response:* The reason why people get so *"riled" *up about these topics is _because_ they ARE so _"debatable"_. Religion and Politcs are so diverse and appeal to the _masses_ in such an _array_ and are so universal, yet multifaceted, that they can't possibly "not" be hot topics.

I think if a topic has multiple layers it becomes debatable because we are so diverse and nothing will ever change that. Society is a melting pot with so much in the mix; it is a given that there are subjects of which, there will always be debate. That's what makes the world go round...be pretty boring otherwise. I believe the term I'm looking for in people relating to such topics is: "passionate" we become passionate about our beliefs.


----------



## Geemont

Leslie said:


> According to some people, you should add computer operating systems to that list! LOL


Don't forget Coke vs Pepsi.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

For quilters, machine quilting vs hand quilting...  and don't get me started on the "right way" to applique!  LOL!

Betsy


----------



## Gables Girl

Leslie said:


> According to some people, you should add computer operating systems to that list! LOL


You can add programming languages to that. Developers will spend endless hours arguing about them.


----------



## Mikuto

And don't even think about arguing the merits of World of Warcraft vs. Everquest II. Or any MMORPG for that matter. People get downright vicious!


----------



## chobitz

Mikuto said:


> And don't even think about arguing the merits of World of Warcraft vs. Everquest II. Or any MMORPG for that matter. People get downright vicious!


Now its Warhammer Online vs Warcraft, Free to Play vs Subscription.

Hey we forgot the most obvious!

DTB vs Ebooks!


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

sjc said:


> I believe the term I'm looking for in people relating to such topics is: "passionate" we become passionate about our beliefs.


I may have strong beliefs about some things, but I'd like to think that I don't hold any of them so strongly that I wouldn't abandon them in a second if credible evidence to the contrary was presented. I'm very evidence-driven.

Which is why I don't get involved in arguments about politics or religion; neither is evidence-based.

Mike


----------



## Lotus

I'd add sports in there.

I usually equate religious belief and sports teams with being in love. You can't explain or logically argue why you go for one team (or religion), because the faith in them is not something logical, it's a feeling. You'll defend your team (or religion, or the one you love, or your favorite OS), even if it isn't popular or doing well, simply because you have faith/love.

You believe what you believe, and really, no one is going to be able to change that.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

Lotus said:


> You believe what you believe, and really, no one is going to be able to change that.


What a completely depressing idea.

Mike


----------



## Mikuto

jmiked said:


> What a completely depressing idea.
> 
> Mike


Though it's a fairly accurate one for as far as I can tell.


----------



## Guest

Geemont said:


> Don't forget Coke vs Pepsi.


We have resolved this argument in our household. Blue and red peacefully co-exist in our refrigerator. But, as Lotus said


> You believe what you believe, and really, no one is going to be able to change that.


 The best we can do is agree to disagree.

Pepsi is sewer water. Coke rules.


----------



## Gables Girl

jmiked said:


> What a completely depressing idea.
> 
> Mike


As the joke goes, everyone has to believe in something so I believe I'll have another beer.


----------



## Guest

Gables Girl said:


> As the joke goes, everyone has to believe in something so I believe I'll have another beer.


Some people see the glass as half empty.
Some people see it as half full.
My view is that if there's only half a drink left, the bartender better get cracking on a refill.


----------



## Gables Girl

Bacardi Jim said:


> Some people see the glass as half empty.
> Some people see it as half full.
> My view is that if there's only half a drink left, the bartender better get cracking on a refill.


I'll drink to that!


----------



## chobitz

Gables Girl said:


> As the joke goes, everyone has to believe in something so I believe I'll have another beer.


Ah but what kind of beer? I'm sort of a beer snob. I don't like the macro brewers (ie Miller etc).


----------



## cat616

Surely we can be passionate about something and also debate it without letting the discussion degrade into an argument.

IMHO arguments occur when the participants either one, two or all of them decide that their position is superior.  Then the discussion gets heated because "How dare you look down on me because I do not agree with you?"  It is no longer about the debate subject, it turns into a matter of disrespect for each other and each others views and opinions.


----------



## Guest

cat616: In my opinion, this thread has remained amazingly respectful given the passionate beliefs of many of the posters on all sides of the issue.


----------



## Gables Girl

chobitz said:


> Ah but what kind of beer? I'm sort of a beer snob. I don't like the macro brewers (ie Miller etc).


Down here it's Bacardi Anejo in a Cuba Libre, forget beer.


----------



## Guest

Gables Girl said:


> Down here it's Bacardi Anejo in a Cuba Libre, forget beer.


I prefer Bacardi 8 over the Añejo. And I can't stand lime in my rum & coke (Pepsi).


----------



## cat616

Bacardi Jim said:


> cat616: In my opinion, this thread has remained amazingly respectful given the passionate beliefs of many of the posters on all sides of the issue.


I have not suggested otherwise.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

LuckyRainbow said:


> Pepsi is sewer water. Coke rules.


I knew you were a very smart woman, LR!

Betsy


----------



## Guest

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I knew you were a very smart woman, LR!
> 
> Betsy


Ahem. You're OFF TOPIC!


----------



## Gables Girl

Bacardi Jim said:


> I prefer Bacardi 8 over the Añejo. And I can't stand lime in my rum & coke (Pepsi).


Now you are talking sipping rum. Bacardi 8 and soda, yes. Why waste it as a mixer with flavored stuff? A spritz of Key Lime is nice if yo mix it with coke (pepsi).


----------



## Guest

Gables Girl said:


> Now you are talking sipping rum. Bacardi 8 and soda, yes. Why waste it as a mixer with flavored stuff? A spritz of Key Lime is nice if yo mix it with coke (pepsi).


Actually, I get myself a bottle of Bacardi 8 every year for Christmas and for my birthday. And all I put in it is three ice cubes. I let them melt about halfway, sit back and sip.

I was merely comparing it to the Añejo.

And I hate lime in my rum. I know that makes me the oddball, but I'm comfortable in that role.


----------



## Gables Girl

Bacardi Jim said:


> Actually, I get myself a bottle of Bacardi 8 every year for Christmas and for my birthday. And all I put in it is three ice cubes. I let them melt about halfway, sit back and sip.
> 
> I was merely comparing it to the Añejo.
> 
> And I hate lime in my rum. I know that makes me the oddball, but I'm comfortable in that role.


What ever makes you happy. Cheers!


----------



## Cat

Bacardi Jim said:


> And I hate lime in my rum. I know that makes me _one of_ the oddballs, but I'm comfortable in that role.


fixie. 

I think the participants in your thread have done an extraordinary job of keeping it civil. In fact I'm not sure I've seen a thread where there are _clearly_ differing views about religion/spirituality, and how to present & express oneself, that has gone on so long and had so little friction.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Bacardi Jim said:


> Ahem. You're OFF TOPIC!


Not at all. That was an inflammatory comment meant to provoke a response to prove LR and others' point that the Coke vs Pepsi dispute is just as passionately debated as some of the other topics mentioned. And just as pointlessly debated, from my point of view, since Coke is so clearly better.  You've proven my point.

Betsy


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Not at all. That was an inflammatory comment meant to provoke a response to prove LR and others' point that the Coke vs Pepsi dispute is just as passionately debated as some of the other topics mentioned. And just as pointlessly debated, from my point of view, since Coke is so clearly better.  You've proven my point.
> 
> Betsy


Dr Pepper.


----------



## Guest

Cat said:


> I think the participants in your thread have done an extraordinary job of keeping it civil. In fact I'm not sure I've seen a thread where there are _clearly_ differing views about religion/spirituality, and how to present & express oneself, that has gone on so long and had so little friction.


It could be because this thread has now devolved into "Signature Drinks" lite. I don't think religion has been mentioned in pages and pages.


----------



## Cat

LuckyRainbow said:


> It could be because this thread has now devolved into "Signature Drinks" lite. I don't think religion has been mentioned in pages and pages.


I thought about that, but I thought it still applied since I don't think anyone's forgotten the original topic. Could be wrong, tho.

Water for me. Not much of a soda drinker, but back in the day I did like Pepsi better. My mother likes only Fresca (YUK!!!) but she can't find it anymore.


----------



## Guest

Cat said:


> fixie.


You turned me into a newt.


----------



## Cat

lol, as in neut?


----------



## Guest

Cat said:


> lol, as in neut?


----------



## sebat

Cat said:


> My mother likes only Fresca (YUK!!!) but she can't find it anymore.


Has your mom looked lately. Fresca is everywhere, again. They are even doing a couple of flavor variations. DH and my father drink it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Re:  guitars -- Martin vs. Taylor.  I own 2 Martins and a Takamine (Martin clone).  But I have to admit that I've seen/played some mighty fine Taylors. . . .

OTOH, sometimes the debate is acoustic or electric (3 acoustic, 1 electric bass).  or 6 vs 12 string (the Takamine is 12).

Re:  soft drinks -- Hubby prefers Mt. Dew.  Or real Coke.  If he's feeling like he has to be good he prefers Diet Pepsi.  go figure.  I drink Cherry Coke Zero because it tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper.  

Re: beer -- yes.

Ann


----------



## tlshaw

cat616 said:


> Surely we can be passionate about something and also debate it without letting the discussion degrade into an argument.
> 
> IMHO arguments occur when the participants either one, two or all of them decide that their position is superior. Then the discussion gets heated because "How dare you look down on me because I do not agree with you?" It is no longer about the debate subject, it turns into a matter of disrespect for each other and each others views and opinions.


I think you hit the nail on the head. I usually try to avoid such discussions, because I have found that a lot of people are looking for something to argue about. If asked how I see something, I will tell people, but if they want to then go on to blast me, I walk away.

I am glad that this discussion has remained civil. I may not agree with someone, but they have as much right as I do to express themselves.


----------



## cat616

tlshaw said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head. I usually try to avoid such discussions, because I have found that a lot of people are looking for something to argue about. If asked how I see something, I will tell people, but if they want to then go on to blast me, I walk away.
> 
> I am glad that this discussion has remained civil. I may not agree with someone, but they have as much right as I do to express themselves.


I agree. Thanks for the affirmation.


----------



## bosslady402

Bacardi Jim said:


> You turned me into a newt.


I assume you got better? (then she's not a witch!)

Seriously though, this was a fascinating thread and I wish I was online when it was active (darn christmas shopping).

One observation I have is that for those of us who view ourselves as agnostic or atheist, it is very difficult to defend our beliefs (or lack thereof) _without_ disparaging the beliefs of others. It is much easier for a religious person to defend what they believe, because they are not required to offer any proofs to support that belief. To defend that you do not believe in something, the usual method is to pick apart the underlying tenets of that other philosophy and show that they are baseless. This, needless to say, is usually found offensive by the other party. (Hence the moratorium on religious or political discussions at my in-laws house )

As for tolerance, that is probably the only feasible solution, although it too has it's drawbacks. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris writes that he believes that tolerance allows the extremists, in any faith, to proliferate, because it supports an atmosphere in which it is a cultural taboo to criticize anyone for their religious faith. He laments that even the moderates within the same denomination find it difficult to draw the line between themselves and those that have taken their faith to a harmful extreme (to themselves or others). And that the moderates are the only ones who could even hope to contain the extremism within their own ranks - outsiders need not apply.

As for the historical tendencies for organized religions to 'hijack' pagan or folk holidays, that lends itself to the theory that religion 'evolved' - not necessarily that it was genetic (although there are theories that are exploring that) but that from the time humans developed language and the ability to communicate, religion developed as a cultural phenomenon, and perpetuated because the benefits it gave to those within 'the group' gave them an evolutionary advantage over those not in their 'group'. And that over time, those groups that were successful in passing on their set of beliefs to the next generation became the 'organized' religions we know today - and the rest fell by the wayside (no one believes in Zeus anymore). This is explored in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon  by Danial C. Dennett

Here is a link to the Dennett book; I can't seem to get the link to the Sam Harris book to work, but it's not hard to find.

Has anyone read any of these (or is interested in reading them)?


----------



## Marci

bosslady said:


> Has anyone read any of these (or is interested in reading them)?


Is the Link Maker working correctly? I've clicked on this image a couple of times and nothing happens. 

Marci


----------



## Marci

Bacardi Jim said:


>


Love this one, Jim! Happens to me all too often, as I wear 2 hearing aids.

Marci


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Here are links to the books bosslady suggested:



















Betsy


----------



## bosslady402

thanks Betsy - I don't know what I was doing wrong - probably just mentally fatigued from shovelling my car out the driveway for an hour... or maybe I was experimenting too much with the 'signature drinks' thread...


----------



## Geemont

I've got the DTV of _The End of Faith_ and _Breaking the Spell_. I've read the former, but not the laster. Harris' statements against tolerance were surprising, a bit shocking, and not what I'd normally attest, but not entirely without merit. People are not willing accept ridiculous non-secular claims, e.g., A man says eating yogurt will make him invisible, but it is in bad form to ridicule a man if the claim are religious, e.g., my Pastor says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. If I remember correctly, Harris says were should analyze all claims equally, both religious and non-religious, and not tolerant the ridiculous, or, get out of the habit of giving religious beliefs a pass on critical analysis.

Now I might have muddled Harris thoughts on tolerance with a few other books along the same subject line:



























_(Edit - updated links with Link-Maker. - HC)_


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Geemont said:


> If I remember correctly, Harris says were should analyze all claims equally, both religious and non-religious, and not tolerant the ridiculous, or, get out of the habit of giving religious beliefs a pass on critical analysis.


I'm even happy to tolerate the ridiculous -- as long as it's not hurting anyone else.  I mean _I Don't Know_ do I?  That's kinda the whole point of belief: you think it's true but you really don't _know_.

Ann


----------



## Selcien

Chad Winters said:


> It seems the non-Christians are big on freedom of speech except for Christians....they shouldn't say anything.


Freedom of speech isn't solely the right to speak in favor of something, it's also the right to speak against something as well.

People have the right to put "Jesus is the reason for the season" in their Sig but people also have the right to speak against it, and people also have the right to speak against the speaking against. Basically, anything that a person says is covered by freedom of speech regardless of how much the views themselves contradict each other, the only way for freedom of speech to be violated is when physical action is taken to silence someone.



Scathach said:


> no offense but that was a bit unnecessary, you have your right to post it but could be offensive to others who don't believe in a Christian god, thats all I will say about that.)


I really do not understand that line of thought. If a person truly doesn't believe that the Christian God exists then how can someone saying that they'll have to answer to a God that doesn't exist be offensive?



Jen said:


> Everyone has their own beliefs, no one is right, and no one is wrong.


Belief is not a creature of compromise, either a person believes in something, or they don't, and to truly believe in anything a person must believe that they are right, if they do not then their belief is not true.

I come from a Christian background, went to a Christian School from 1st to 3rd grade (the only time I ever took a bus to school), and I went to church growing up, not sure when I stopped going, mid to late teens I think. I neither believe that God exists nor that God doesn't exist as there are times where I think it's possible, and there are times that I don't. My biggest deterrent is that it seems too convenient and I do not say that casually. I've faced one of the things that people dread facing this year, the death of my father. At his wake, when the preacher was talking I found it quite tempting to seek comfort from the idea that my father went to heaven, but I couldn't. We don't go to church, haven't for a while, and quite honestly, I do not believe in God, so how could I take comfort from something that I don't believe in just because it made things easier?

My belief isn't nice, doesn't give comfort, and can be summed up simply. Life is an aberration, death is the natural state of being.

Gee, it's no wonder that I have such a cheerful and lighthearted outlook.


----------



## Linda Cannon-Mott

Sorry to hear about the death of your Father Selcien. I lost my Dad a few years ago and still have a void in my life. It is tough.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

I'm sorry for your loss, Selcien.  Lost my father in 1997...and my mom in 2002.  Still miss them both and wish I could talk to them.  It's a tough thing to get used to.

Betsy


----------



## luvmy4brats

Selcien said:


> I come from a Christian background, went to a Christian School from 1st to 3rd grade (the only time I ever took a bus to school), and I went to church growing up, not sure when I stopped going, mid to late teens I think.* I neither believe that God exists nor that God doesn't exist as there are times where I think it's possible, and there are times that I don't.* My biggest deterrent is that it seems too convenient and I do not say that casually. I've faced one of the things that people dread facing this year, the death of my father. At his wake, when the preacher was talking I found it quite tempting to seek comfort from the idea that my father went to heaven, but I couldn't. We don't go to church, haven't for a while, and quite honestly, *I do not believe in God,* so how could I take comfort from something that I don't believe in just because it made things easier?


I trimmed your post for space. Bolded by me. I'm curious. You contradict yourself in this paragraph.

I agree with Jen - Beliefs don't have to be right or wrong, they just _are_. And beliefs can (and often do) change.


----------



## Selcien

We never talked much and we were quite good at arguing, and honestly, he was better off as old age had really slammed him hard, and he was suffering way too much.

What troubles me is that my mother is taking it hard. She's been having problems with her appetite and has lost weight (she's gone down two sizes), the doctors haven't figured out why, and her sleeping habits are erratic, and the only prescription that helps is too effective. So she either has difficulty sleeping or she sleeps way too much. The worst part is that I'm not capable of being the kind of person that she needs.



luvmy4brats said:


> I trimmed your post for space. Bolded by me. I'm curious. You contradict yourself in this paragraph.
> 
> I agree with Jen - Beliefs don't have to be right or wrong, they just _are_. And beliefs can (and often do) change.


My natural state is one of neutrality, the times where I believed were due to convenience, and the times I didn't believe were reactionary.

To explain. There is a Slayer song that inspired a type of nightmare that was highly effective. The words that triggered it were "before you see the light you must die" and the nightmares it inspired followed suit. The initial dreams occurred around my bedroom which had an open closet and the room would be dark, I'd walk to the light switch, start to reach out to flip it on, and an invisible force would pick me up, and then I'd be pulled towards the closet where two red eyes glowed. The nightmare changed so that it wouldn't be predictable but always centered on the light. When you cannot move (ala the Full Body Bind spell in Harry Potter) and something evil is very close to you, you're bound to call on anything that might help. So I do not count that as truly believing. Those nightmares were a pain to wake up from and sometimes it felt as if I had woken up from death.

The times that I didn't believe are because any time someone talks about how they believe in God I go the opposite way, so I cannot count that as not believing as when left to my own devices I find that it's every bit as plausible as the Big Bang theory which doesn't explain where the mass that became everything came from, which of course is where I also get hung up with God. Assuming that there is a God that created everything, who created God?


----------



## thejackylking #884

luvmy4brats said:


> I agree with Jen - Beliefs don't have to be right or wrong, they just _are_. And beliefs can (and often do) change.


There has to be a foundation to the belief. No belief _just is._ There is always a foundation. If the foundation is wrong then the belief is wrong. When it comes to religion people are all to willing to accept contradictions. Th world in which we live in does not allow contradictions. either something is or it isn't. or to put it another way "A house divided cannot stand" a contradiction to a belief should show that that belief is incorrect. When you base beliefs on proven facts and not emotions they are a lot easier to accept and hold. That is why scientific beliefs have evolved over the years. As we become more and more able to discern facts our beliefs become more and more firm. With religion there are no hard and fast facts. No proof. Religion as we know it today serves no logical purpose. Original sin goes against the very foundation of our modern morality of innocent until proven guilty. Original sin says that you are guilty and there is no way that you can be good. Religion basically says that all of mankind is sinful and only some unproven unseen supernatural being is able to forgive us of a sin we did not commit. Why would I want to be involved in a religion that says I'm not worthy of anything because some supposed ancestor long ago committed a sin that I had no part in?


----------



## bosslady402

thejackylking said:


> Religion as we know it today serves no logical purpose.


But if religion did not serve a purpose, it would not still be around (maybe _logical_ is the key word here).

Dennett intended his book to be read by religious people who were willing to think rationally, and he hoped that his arguments would 'break the spell' (hence the title of the book) that prevented them from considering that their beliefs were psycological constructs, and not based on actual fact. He thought if everyone could recognize this, the need to prove superiority of one religion over another would disappear, and the conlicts between them as well.

He did not advocate the elimination of religion, though, (at least not yet) because his research showed that it evolved to fulfill needs of society and the individual; these needs would still exist, and he was reluctant to predict what would happen if people were not provided with an alternative to fulfill those needs.

That was the one disapointment I had with his book - he was not able suggest any of those possible alternatives. He stressed that research needs to be performed, both to determine alternatives, and to try and predict what the impact those alternatives would have - a 'be careful what you wish for' sentiment. (maybe his next book?)


----------



## chobitz

bosslady said:


> But if religion did not serve a purpose, it would not still be around (maybe _logical_ is the key word here).


My psych professor explained it once to me..
If someone is healthy, happy, well off and emotionally stable they are very unlikely to be religious. If someone is sick, poor, suffering and just not happy they tend to be religious. Studies have proved this over and over. Right now people are flocking to churches because of the economy. Once it stabilizes churches will lose their congregation again.

The idea that life is just a bump in the road and afterlife will be so much better is like free Prozac.

Personally I believe in God, or a higher power, but I believe religion is man made. Religion and God are mutually exclusive. You can go to church and not find god or not go to church and find god.

I use to go about my life and ignore religion when I lived in Philly. But the minute I moved down to the bible belt I had a huge culture shock! I have come to not be able to stand anything about the Christian Right. I cannot believe such a bigotry group of people dare call themselves Christian.

I have since become a huge champion for the separation of church and state. I am a card carrying member of the ACLU and yes I am one you will see protesting school boards if they dare to even think of teaching ID or have prayers in school.

I also have a bumper sticker , next to my Darwin fish, that says "Jesus was the ultimate liberal". I've had to replace it once already because someone dared tear it and scribble on it.


----------



## Lynn

I thought and debated with myself if I was going to respond here at all and decided I would as I am going to trust that since so far this has been a calm discussion and exchange of ideas I should have no hesitation in expressing my views. Having said that- basically I am having faith that I am not going to come under personal criticism for my views. I accept that all may not believe what I believe and I will be the first to admit I am no theologian, some of what I have come to believe I can not explain. Since I work in a medical field I am surrounded by facts that can be proven and certainly would come under fire for treating any of my patients based on just my gut feeling that this is the right way. I can imagine the response I would get if I told someone well I believed I was right about that, but I have no proof or research to back me up. So some things about my beliefs I do at times have a hard time accepting because I can not prove them. Creationism and original sin are a couple but there are many more. I have come to the conclusion that for me, I need to feel there is something more to life than just the here and now and I think lots of people are looking for that or already believe that. I may have been born with original sin but that does not make me unworthy of anything. Yes my beliefs are Christian and I may hope that anyone struggling with their beliefs may come to believe as I do- that God loves me and died for me-forgiving me. I certainly do not feel that anyone else's beliefs are wrong just because they are not the same as mine. I do feel that many people of whatever belief get accused of lots of things because we like to generalize- all Christians or Muslims or Jews or pagans or atheists are... whatever, when the reality is that most of us also do not support the extremists and are lumped in with everyone who claims to believe the same things. I certainly don't think that people who are religious are unhappy, ill  or poor. I am not and certainly hope that my church family is not. I do think when unfortunate things happen that more people look to religion for answers and hope. I do not promote pushing of religion down peoples throats or that they should be forced or coerced into praying or learning about religion (and not just Christianity). But I also do not feel that I should be told I  can't pray or practice my religion as I wish as long as I am not infringing on anyone elses rights. 

Sorry if this kind of rambles, wish we could save a post for later( or maybe we can and I just don't know how) 

Lynn L


----------



## pidgeon92

Lynn said:


> wish we could save a post for later( or maybe we can and I just don't know how)


Use a text editor, like notepad, so you can save your post. Then copy and paste your text into the posting window.


----------



## tlshaw

I have to second Lynn's post. I have heard the idea that religion is just for poor, sick, maladjusted. However, I have to say that is a gross generalization that is without merit. I have been raised and still am a Christian. I, as well as my family, are all healthy, my husband and I have very good professional jobs and are well-educated.

I think the problems comes with generalizations - it is too easy to stereotype anyone who disagrees with us. I don't tell anyone that I am better than they are, or assume that because they look or believe a certain way I can put them in a certain box. I do, however, get very frustrated with people who claim to be open-minded, but then call me a bigot because I am a Christian, without knowing anything about me.

I agree that each person has a right to their own beliefs and speech, but please do not deny me the same right without ridicule. Rights are one thing, common courtesy is another.


----------



## chobitz

I have no problems with Christian moderates or Christian liberals. Thanks to the Christian left the civil rights movement got off the ground in the 60's. Heck alot of the Christian left are pushing for gay rights!

I DO have a problem when the Christian right imposes their believes into politics and my life in general. The last 8 yrs proved how bad the Christian right could ruin this country.

What I am saying is not every Christian is bad. But the extreme groups in Christianity (ala the Christian right) ARE giving the kind hearted and truly Christian ,as in living like Christ,  a bad name.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

Lynn said:


> I do not promote pushing of religion down peoples throats or that they should be forced or coerced into praying or learning about religion (and not just Christianity).


I agree. It's a shame that children are indoctrinated into parent's religious beliefs before they are old enough to understand they have the right to believe something else or not believe at all.

Mike


----------



## Lynn

Thanks tlshaw, I do not usually express my views publically for fear of offending someone. But more and more I believe that those of us who are kind of middle of the road in our views are somewhat to blame with others' perceptions. If we allow those who are at the extremes  do all the talking there will be no balance to the ideas or beliefs presented to those outside of our religion or cause, whatever it may be. 

Lynn L


----------



## bosslady402

I'm glad you found the courage to post, because not much in the world can be solved if people from opposing viewpoints can't at least talk to each other....



Lynn said:


> I do feel that many people of whatever belief get accused of lots of things because we like to generalize- all Christians or Muslims or Jews or pagans or atheists are... whatever, when the reality is that most of us also do not support the extremists and are lumped in with everyone who claims to believe the same things.


I agree with you completely. I have a hypothetical question - not for you personally, unless you would like to answer, but to illustrate one reason why I think it's been so difficult to control extremism in our society.



Lynn said:


> Since I work in a medical field I am surrounded by facts that can be proven and certainly would come under fire for treating any of my patients based on just my gut feeling that this is the right way. I can imagine the response I would get if I told someone well I believed I was right about that, but I have no proof or research to back me up.


You know that a certain procedure was risky, but had a, say, 80% chance of curing a patient. But the patient (or the patients parents) were refusing the procedure based on religious beliefs. You have many beliefs in common with the patient, and you may feel compelled to support them in their convictions, but you still know, based on your medical experience, that without the procedure, serious complications will arise.

Do you think someone in your position should intervene, and convince them to do the procedure? Or would you lean towards respecting their position, and supporting them in their faith? Or would you be too conflicted to take a side, and hope that things work out for the best without your intervention?

Again, this is a hypothetical question, and I hope you've never had the misfortune as to be placed in such a difficult position. But I wonder what percentage of people of faith overlook viewpoints/decisions/actions taken by their brethren, that they disagree with, and that they would not want to be 'lumped in' with, but do not feel they could/should challenge?

For example, a lady in my mothers church (catholic) believes that she can heal people. She asked my mother for a ride to the hospital, so that she could pray and heal different parishioners in the hospital for various reasons. My mother felt extremely uncomfortable about this, but didn't know what to do, since the lady in question is a fellow churchmember and a respectable member of the community. So I guess my mother compromised - rather than say the real reason why (that she did not believe in the woman's ability and did not want to appear to believe by assisting her) she demurred and came up with some other reason why she couldn't take her.

You could say the situation above is really harmless, and no one was injured, discriminated against, or disrespected, and you'd be right. But I think it is millions of situations like this, big and small, that create the atmosphere where extremism can grow.

I think the world depends upon people of faith who are willing to go on record and say to people within their own groups 'yes, I share your faith, but you have taken it too far and I cannot join you there'.

I hope I haven't scared you away, I really appreciate your willingness to share your point of view.


----------



## chobitz

bosslady said:


> I think the world depends upon people of faith who are willing to go on record and say to people within their own groups 'yes, I share your faith, but you have taken it too far and I cannot join you there'.


With your one sentance you expressed what I feel. If more people did this can you imagine how much better the world would be?


----------



## Jeff

For what it’s worth:

A few years ago I was in Saudi Arabia during Ramadan. During the times for prayer, while the call was echoing from the speakers on the mosques, the religious police, through smaller speakers on top of their vans screamed “Salah, salah!”, which means pray. When a man or woman moved too slowly toward the mosque, the police jumped off the running boards of the van and beat them with long truncheons. If anyone resisted they were captured and thrown into the back of the van. 

I saw all this from a window above the streets of Riyadh. When I expressed my horror to my Saudi friends, they pulled me away from the window looked around nervously as if someone might have heard me, and told me not to speak of it again.


----------



## bosslady402

chobitz said:


> With your one sentance you expressed what I feel. If more people did this can you imagine how much better the world would be?


thank you. now if we could only convince my mother-in-law... *sigh*


----------



## Lynn

chobitz said:


> With your one sentance you expressed what I feel. If more people did this can you imagine how much better the world would be?


 I heartily agree which is one reason I decided to post- starting small in a friendly environment!

Bosslady- am thinking about your scenario- I am not in that situation fortunately ( I am a veterinarian so religious views do not come up) but it is thought provoking as a what if. Sometimes I have to deal with the opposite where treatment is withheld for other reasons 9Usually financial) and suffering potentially allowed to continue if I don't step in. With the situation with your mother I would like to think I would have enough conviction to say no and tell her why, but I am not sure that I could- quite probably would compromise like your mom did. And then would be upset with myself after for not making a stand.

Lynn L


----------



## Gables Girl

I have debated about getting into this discussion, but finally want to add my opinion.  As some of you know (see my click on this book) I come from a family that has been very religious, we have also had various denominations through out the years in he family.  We have had literal religious fights in our family.  This has lead to my by current beliefs.  While I believe in God, I don't necessarily believe in organized religion.  There are certain comforting rituals of the church, but much of what various religions promulgate is merely man's interpretation of what they think God wants.  The biggest problem with religion is the extreme right or left, the my way or your are going to hell crowd, they see nothing but their own side and religion.  I had a great-grandmother who joined a church and announced that unless the rest of her family converted they were all going to hell.  Made family get togethers so much fun, she preached everyone cringed. 

We all need to understand that we all do not have to believe exactly the same thing, however everyone has the right to what they believe in and to practice their religion.  What I don't agree with is when someone wants to impose his or her beliefs on me.  I won't try to make you believe what I do, if you don't try to make me believe in your beliefs.  To paraphrase Voltaire I may detest what you believe, but I will defend you right to believe it.  I only ask the same from others.


----------



## Suzanne

tlshaw said:


> I think the problems comes with generalizations - it is too easy to stereotype anyone who disagrees with us. I don't tell anyone that I am better than they are, or assume that because they look or believe a certain way I can put them in a certain box. I do, however, get very frustrated with people who claim to be open-minded, but then call me a bigot because I am a Christian, without knowing anything about me.
> 
> I agree that each person has a right to their own beliefs and speech, but please do not deny me the same right without ridicule. Rights are one thing, common courtesy is another.


I have also kept away from this discussion. It simply broke my heart when Angela took down her "Reason for the Season" graphic.

TLShaw, thank you for putting into words what I feel. My husband & I are very healthy, happy and fairly well off. I am not suffering from any depression. These kind of generalizations belittle my faith. I am a Christian. I have my beliefs. Others are from their different religions. They have their beliefs. Some do not believe at all in a particular religion or god. That is everyone's right. It is so necessary to treat each other with respect.


----------



## Jeff

chobitz said:


> My psych professor explained it once to me..
> If someone is healthy, happy, well off and emotionally stable they are very unlikely to be religious. If someone is sick, poor, suffering and just not happy they tend to be religious.


"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." ~ Karl Marx


----------



## Chad Winters

Jeff said:


> "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." ~ Karl Marx


Yeah....we should take all of our advice from Marx...


----------



## Jeff

Chad Winters said:


> Yeah....we should take all of our advice from Marx...


Or from the psych professor referenced in the quote from "chobitz" Maggie; they seemed to be saying the same thing to me.


----------



## chobitz

Jeff said:


> Or from the psych professor referenced in the quote from "chobitz"; they seemed to be saying the same thing to me.


Its Maggie, chobitz is just a screen name.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz)

Perhaps when "Are you there God, Its me Margret" comes to Kindle we should have a book klub for it. 

I was thinking over the weekend how strange it is that we can all agree that Santa Claus, Papa Noel, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle are the same person but we can't agree that there is perhaps one diety is the same through out the world. For the most part, we all believe the same thing...

Or maybe those truely are different guys and that's how he can visit all the good boys and girls in one night...


----------



## Cowgirl

Harvey said:


> Jim,
> 
> This thread would have been stronger (and healthier for this community) if you had made your historical points without personalizing it against Angela. If you can post these insightful and interesting posts, and resist the urge to put digs in that personalize it, we would all be the better for it.
> 
> I do not want this community to be damaged by a poster making others feel bad simply because they have a sig that - c'mon - is pretty conventional for this time of year.
> 
> - Harvey


When I read the title of this thread I simply said WHY...What did this have to do with kindles and reading. I hope Angela reconsiders and puts back her siggy...which has nothing to do with what I believe but rather my belief she can do and say whatever she wants to. Nothing gets people hotter than bringing up religion and politics...both of which I refuse to particate in.


----------



## Chad Winters

I do think there is a difference between nicknames for the same person and beings that if real as represented by each religion are completely different. If the God of the Bible is true, he is different from Allah, and if the Hindu gods are true, then the God of the bible cannot be. I just can't go the relativism route.

I base my faith on evidence and what I feel is most likely to be correct. As a physician with degrees in biology and biochem, my evaluation led to my belief that Christianity best fit the world as it is. (for a similar account see Astrophysicist Hugh Ross's account of his search http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/hugh_ross_testimony.shtml

Note that this is not the ill-informed cultural christianity that most people have just assumed. It is just "automatically true" that we haven't thought about evidence or have any facts. There are a lot of good thinkers out there. (www.str.org, www.reason.org, but these are not the people the mainstream media will ask for soundbites when they need a counterpoint to the other side. Much better to ask Pat Robertson or Joel Osteen and get a shallow or poorly reasoned answer.

Enough soapbox....but I figured a counterpoint to the atheists/agnostics  was fair. Especially as they have no answer for how life came from non-life (except blind faith that it did) or how the universe came to exist. The refusal for a long time by astrophysicists to accept the evidence for the "Big Bang" because of its obvious link to creation of the universe is a good example that naturalism is as much a faith-based religion as any other.

In the Kindle spirit....











Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
In this apologia for Christian faith, Keller mines material from literary classics, philosophy, anthropology and a multitude of other disciplines to make an intellectually compelling case for God. Written for skeptics and the believers who love them, the book draws on the author's encounters as founding pastor of New York's booming Redeemer Presbyterian Church. One of Keller's most provocative arguments is that all doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. Drawing on sources as diverse as 19th-century author Robert Louis Stevenson and contemporary New Testament theologian N.T. Wright, Keller attempts to deconstruct everyone he finds in his way, from the evolutionary psychologist Richard Dawkins to popular author Dan Brown. The first, shorter part of the book looks at popular arguments against God's existence, while the second builds on general arguments for God to culminate in a sharp focus on the redemptive work of God in Christ. Keller's condensed summaries of arguments for and against theism make the scope of the book overwhelming at times. Nonetheless, it should serve both as testimony to the author's encyclopedic learning and as a compelling overview of the current debate on faith for those who doubt and for those who want to re-evaluate what they believe, and why. (Feb. 14) 
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
"In a flood of bestsellers by skeptics and atheists...Timothy Keller stands out as an effective counterpoint and a defender of the faith. The Reason for God makes a tight, accessible case for reasoned religious belief." 
-Washington Post

"It's a provocative premise, in pursuit of which Keller...takes on nonbelievers from evolutionary biologists to the recent rash of atheist authors." 
-The Boston Globe

"Reverend Tim Keller [is] a Manhattan institution, one of those open urban secrets, like your favorite dim sum place, with a following so ardent and so fast-growing that he has never thought to advertise." 
-Newsweek

"The most successful Christian Evangelist in [New York City]...with intellectual, brimstone-free sermons that manage to cite Woody Allen alongside Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
-New York Magazine

"An intellectually compelling case for God."
-Publishers Weekly

"I thank God for him." 
-Billy Graham 
-------------------------------------




















Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
British philosopher Flew has long been something of an evangelist for atheism, debating theologians and pastors in front of enormous crowds. In 2004, breathless news reports announced that the nonagenarian had changed his mind. This book tells why. Ironically, his arguments about the absurdity of God-talk launched a revival of philosophical theists, some of whom, like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, were important in Flew's recent conversion to theism. Breakthroughs in science, especially cosmology, also played a part: if the speed or mass of the electron were off just a little, no life could have evolved on this planet. Perhaps the arrogance of the New Atheists also emboldened him, as Flew taunts them for failing to live up to the greatness of atheists of yore. The book concludes with an appendix by New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright, arguing for the coherence of Christian belief in the resurrection. Flew praises Wright, though he maintains some distance still from orthodox Christianity. The book will be most avidly embraced by traditional theists seeking argumentative ammunition. It sometimes disappoints: quoting other authorities at length, citing religion-friendly scientists for pages at a time and belaboring side issues, like the claim that Einstein was really a religious believer of sorts. (Nov.) 
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
"A fascinating record &#8230;it will come as a most uncomfortable jolt to those who were once his fellow atheists." -- Nicholas Wolterstorff, Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, Yale University

"A most valuable and readable overview of the many evidential changes of landscape that 20th century science is furnishing to the oldest question in Western civilization: Is there a God?" -- American Spectator

"A stellar philosophical mind ponders the latest scientific results. The conclusion: a God stands behind the rationality of nature." -- Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution

"Antony Flew not only has the philosophical virtues; he has the virtues of the philosopher. Civil in argument, relentlessly reasonable&#8230;." -- Ralph McInerny, Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

"Flew couldn't be more engaging and remain an analytic philosopher..." -- Booklist

"Flew's exposition will be a source for reflective inquiry for many, many years..." -- Daniel N. Robinson, Philosophy Department, Oxford University

"The most lucid and penetrative pieces of philosophical theology to appear in years, altogether brilliant." -- The Catholic Herald

"This is a fascinating and very readable account &#8230;" -- Professor John Hick, Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Research in Arts and Social Sciences, University of Birmingham

"This is a remarkable book in many ways." -- Huston Smith, author of The World's Religions

"Towering and courageous... Flew's colleagues in the church of fundamentalist atheism will be scandalized." -- Francis S. Collins, New York Times bestselling author of The Language of God

---------


----------



## Jeff

Chad Winters said:


> Enough soapbox....but I figured a counterpoint to the atheists/agnostics was fair.


Not only fair, but very well said. Thank you.


----------



## chobitz

Just because I believe in God and not religion (which is man made and NOT God made) does not make me an agnostic or an atheist.

I believe in the Big Bang AND Evolution. But I also believe that God caused both. BUT I don't want kids taught ID which is just an excuse to bring religion into public schools.

I believe you have the right to believe in anything you want in YOUR home in YOUR place of worship. But not where it breaks what this great country is built on. So NO I do not believe in religion public schools or courts or on government grounds. No commandments on the lawn of a state building, no endorsed prayers in school room (what you do on your time is your business), no laws made because of religion (IE anti gay marriage).

I never would ask for religion to be abolished. Thats not right. I just want separation of church and state respected. Is that so wrong??


----------



## Chad Winters

chobitz said:


> Just because I believe in God and not religion (which is man made and NOT God made) does not make me an agnostic or an atheist.
> 
> I believe in the Big Bang AND Evolution. But I also believe that God caused both. BUT I don't want kids taught ID which is just an excuse to bring religion into public schools.


So you believe in a Creator of the Universe....but you don't think that option and the evidence (true ID is just allowing science to include the possibility of a creator and showing the evidence that supports it, instead of disallowing at the beginning which is what naturalism does now) should be taught?



chobitz said:


> I believe you have the right to believe in anything you want in YOUR home in YOUR place of worship. But not where it breaks what this great country is built on. So NO I do not believe in religion public schools or courts or on government grounds. No commandments on the lawn of a state building, no endorsed prayers in school room (what you do on your time is your business), no laws made because of religion (IE anti gay marriage).
> 
> I never would ask for religion to be abolished. Thats not right. I just want separation of church and state respected. Is that so wrong??


I don't think religious items need to be on government buildings either....but you and many then take it to far. Laws are legislated morality, and religion deals with morality. There is no way around it. To be fair those of the "naturalist" religion would not be able to make laws either and we would just have anarchy.

Nevertheless, you can be anti-gay marriage for non-biblical reasons (heterosexual unions are the natural family unit that society is historically built on.) 
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5255 
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5727 
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5727.

not to spam links.....but it is rare that a reasoned argument for this side is expressed. I just hate strawman arguments. Not everyone on the other side is like the opposition in Jack Black's video and not agreeing with someone does not equal hatred of that person.


----------



## Jeff

chobitz said:


> I just want separation of church and state respected. Is that so wrong??


Of course it's not wrong in any way, Maggie. I took exception to your statement that only the needy were religious because I saw that it hurt some people. We absolutely agree on the constitutional issues, a wonderful document which also gives us the right to disagree. Merry Christmas and may God bless America.


----------



## chobitz

Chad Winters said:


> So you believe in a Creator of the Universe....but you don't think that option and the evidence (true ID is just allowing science to include the possibility of a creator and showing the evidence that supports it, instead of disallowing at the beginning which is what naturalism does now) should be taught?


Nope because 
a) science is science. ID is a religious based theory. Why teach religion in science? 
b) its just an excuse for the Christian right to get religion in public schools 
c) if a parent feels so strongly about ID why not send their child to a private Christian school?


----------



## tlshaw

Chobitz:
ID does not necessarily teach that God created the universe, but more that there is a design to the development. Remember, evolution is also a theory in that it can't be proven(i.e. recreated). However, it is normally taught as fact. I think open minds should allow for both viewpoints to be taught.

Saying it is only a way to get religion  into the schools misrepresents ID. There are  scientists who are researching this theory from a purely scientific aspect. If you want proof with no leap of faith, there is none. Any scientist will tell you that. Remember, the Big Bang Theory also takes a leap of faith.


----------



## Sailor

> author= Chad Winters on Yesterday at 02:21:57 PM
> Yeah....we should take all of our advice from Marx...





Jeff said:


> We absolutely agree on the constitutional issues, a wonderful document which also gives us the right to disagree. Merry Christmas and may God bless America.


Chad Winters and Jeff,

I whole heartedly agree with with both of you. You defend your views well, and are very well spoken on this subject.

Jeff, +1 on the Merry Christmas and may God Bless America.

And if I might add: God Bless Our Troops and keep them safe and a Merry Christmas to them as well.


----------



## thejackylking #884

The whole point of separation of church and state is simply that there is no religious branch of our government. We don't force the teaching of one religion over any other and the church is not responsible for creating or enforcing laws. These were concepts that were in heavy circulation during the middle ages. Every king had a bishop sitting behind his throne whispering in his ear. King henry was forced to institute his own church in order to be able to get a divorce. This is the kind of thing that our forefathers wanted to avoid in our new country. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with public prayer. Separation of church and state also does not negate the fact that this country was founded on christian beliefs. As indicated by the wording in the Declaration of Independence.

" the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

" that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

The constitution protects the right of people to practice any religion they wish even it is no religion at all. Everybody throws around the phrase separation of church and state as if it was actually written in one of this countries founding documents but if you read the entire text of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution no where will you find those words. It was actually a treatise written by Thomas Jefferson later on. As Inigo Montayo would say "You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means."

People need to learn to be more tolerant all the way around and respect everyone else's beliefs and they also need to quit being so sensitive. I get sick and tired of the entire PC era. It seems that no one can say anything because _It might offend someone._ No where in the Constitution does it say that you have the freedom from being offended. Get over it.

By the way I'm not a religious person but if someone else gets comfort from their superstitious beliefs it's no skin off my nose.


----------



## Sailor

thejackylking said:


> The whole point of separation of church and state is simply that there is no religious branch of our government. We don't force the teaching of one religion over any other and the church is not responsible for creating or enforcing laws...


TheJackylKing,

Thank you for this well grounded post. It is excellent and your facts are dead on. It brings joy to my heart that there are men like you out there that have the ability to express what I could not. When I speak I tend to sound one sided, this is exactly what I would have said if I could.

Thank you again,

-sailor


----------



## Scathach

Teninx said:


> There must be a Nativity Scene somewhere in your town that you can picket.


now now, the conversation was actually interesting and intellectual it would be nice to keep it along that lines please


----------



## Jeff

Scathach said:


> now now, the conversation was actually interesting and intellectual it would be nice to keep it along that lines please


It didn't start out that way. Please note that the quote from Teninx was on December 18, 2008, 06:11:58 AM. Everyone has cooled down since then.


----------



## Sailor

Jeff said:


> It didn't start out that way. Please note that the quote from Teninx was on December 18, 2008, 06:11:58 AM. Everyone has cooled down since then.


Teninx also speaks tongue-in-cheek on situations and is good humored. He sometimes leaves it to the reader to take from his posts what they choose to read into it.


----------



## Scathach

Bahaha your totally right! I must have been on a separate page when I read it thinking it was the last post.  Oh silly me lol

Anyhoo I am loving what I am reading here, especially TheJackylKing comments on the topic of "separation of state" and I also wish people weren't so overly sensitive about everything. I am not as well versed when it comes to political American history it was an interesting clarification.

Meh, nothing really bothers me none so long as they aren't hurting me or mine.  However I do understand some sensitivity on the part of minority groups of all kind, having been on the end of religious and racial discrimination.  It can be so easy to feel that the larger group is against you, I don't feel that way at all but I can understand how others feel, and I can understand how others feel with the whole PC thing, I think its gone a bit overboard personally but I do however like the fact that my boss calling me "chickie" isn't acceptable so I can't say I don't benefit from the whole PC craze either...


----------



## Jeff

Scathach said:


> Bahaha your totally right! I must have been on a separate page when I read it thinking it was the last post.


A completely understandable mistake.


----------



## Teninx

Mainly I bang on the keyboard till a bunch of letters form, then I delete the ones that don't make sense.


----------



## luvmy4brats

Here are 3 quotes from a movie I was just watching that made me think of this thread.

_"You have every right to believe whatever you want to believe. Now, I have told you the truth. But, if I am wrong, I will be glad to admit it."_

_"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to."_

_"If you can't accept anything in faith, you are doomed to life dominated by doubt." _

- Miracle on 34th Street (1994)

Take it for what you want. Like I said, they just made me think of this thread.


----------



## Gables Girl

Teninx said:


> Mainly I bang on the keyboard till a bunch of letters form, then I delete the ones that don't make sense.


Never give away your secrets, others will copy them.


----------



## Leslie

I am posting this with a little bit of trepidation because...well, because I don't usually post stuff like this. And I usually don't like stuff like this. But I got it from a friend and watched it and I have to say, it was really beautiful. Even brought tears to my eyes...yes, old hard-hearted me. I thought the pictures were lovely, the music was nice and I appreciated the sentiment. So, I wanted to share it with you and this thread seemed the best place to do it. Note the title: Interview with God. If that in anyway would be offensive to you, please don't click the link.

http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup-frame.html

L


----------



## Sailor

Leslie said:


> I am posting this with a little bit of trepidation because...well, because I don't usually post stuff like this. Note the title: Interview with God. If that in anyway would be offensive to you, please don't click the link. http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup-frame.html


Leslie,

I just saw this and I agree, it is beautiful.

Thank you for sharing,

-sailor


----------



## hazeldazel

I am an atheist myself, and I was glad to see this thread as an alternative point of view.  I admit, that the first time I saw the "reason for the season" sig, I rolled my eyes a bit as it seemed more of the "attack on Christmas" rhetoric that seems so prevalent now (altho now that I know the poster better, I don't think that anymore).  I wasn't offended though, it wasn't offensive per se, and I try to respect everyone's choice of faith just as I expect people to respect mine.  I don't mind the posts or sigs that have Christian/religious content, as long as it's not making a judgment on me or telling me that I have to do something or suffer a toasty fate.   

that said, happy xmas/winter solstice/kwanzaa/chanukaa/day off from work!
hazeldazel


----------



## thejackylking #884

and let's not forget "Festivus for the rest of us"

I know I watch too many Seinfeld reruns.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

there's a Festivus pole in Georgetown.  They've been reading grievances every Saturday.  Some are quite funny. . . . .

Ann


----------



## PraiseGod13

It would probably be better if I said nothing more on the subject so I don't offend any more people here - but that is not easy.  I totally believe in everyone's right to their own opinion and the right to voice that without being labeled as "shoving it down someone's throat".  I would have appreciated that being my right as well.  I also, as a Christian, used the Jesus is the Reason for the Season signature.... that is my belief.  And, it doesn't matter to me whether or not I celebrate this event on the correct calendar day.... all that matters to me is that I honor my Saviour's birth.  I had no idea that my letting you be aware of what I believe would offend you and for that I apologize.... I meant no offense.  But, sadly, now I must also understand that my very name on this board also falls into the category of offending others and, evidently, shoves my belief down their throat every time they read one of my posts because it praises my God.  Again, it was not my intention to offend/upset anyone.  My given first name is Judith and in Hebrew that means Praise God which is why my mom gave me that name.  So, when I don't want to use my "real name".... I use its meaning as my "identifier" instead.  I will not be unfaithful to my beliefs, so I will not change my chosen "name" on these boards so as not to offend others.  I respected others' right to not believe, and mistakenly assumed that I would be respected here even though I do believe.  That is obviously not the case..... so I will no longer post so that others will not be offended that I am.... forever..... PraiseGod13.


----------



## KBoards Admin

^ PraiseGod13... please reconsider, and don't over-react. I think the vast majority of the comments here indicate that you are supported just like many others in this board. You are welcome here, and your user name is not offensive. So stick around!


----------



## MonaSW

PraiseGod13, please don't go, all should be welcome here!


----------



## chobitz

PraiseGod I am not offended by the name at all. Its just a name on a board. Why would your name or someone's sigfile offend me?

"shoving someone's beliefs" involve a lot more than user names and sig files.

So stay if you want. These boards aren't for christians or non christians they are for kindle users!


----------



## Leslie

Yes, PraiseGod, please reconsider! I enjoy your posts and your enthusiasm for your Kindle. Judith is a beautiful name and it's sentiment, PraiseGod, is beautiful too.

L


----------



## Michael R. Hicks

PraiseGod13 said:


> I respected others' right to not believe, and mistakenly assumed that I would be respected here even though I do believe. That is obviously not the case..... so I will no longer post so that others will not be offended that I am.... forever..... PraiseGod13.


Judith - you have as much right as anybody else to wear your beliefs or interests on your sleeve (and in your sig file and screen name), as it were. Like everyone else, as long as what we post stays within the *very* reasonable rules of "Harvey's house" here, whatever you have to say (or display in your posts) is just as legit as anyone else.

Sure, not everyone may agree with it - and that's okay. We're a diverse group of people, and as some have commented in various places, it would be a boring world, indeed, if we agreed on everything! But the vast majority of people here, I believe, are very reasonable, tolerant, and respectful of differing beliefs. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinions (again, within the scope of the forum rules and reasonableness), but consider their observations for what they are: opinions. Everybody's got one, and yours is just as valid as anyone else's.

So put your sig file out there and be happy about your screen name (as you should be)! As chobitz said, it's just a screen name, and put what you want in your sig file - as long as it follows the decorum rules that all of us have to abide by (and which are pretty darn reasonable), it's cool. Don't leave for the wrong reasons, because you *are* respected here.

And a Merry Christmas to ya!! 
Mike


----------



## Scathach

Oh my Praisegod don't stop posting, I don't think anyone here is offended by your username.  Heck, my username, Scathach, is of one of the Scottish deities I myself honor and have a deep devotion to, If anyone is offended by your username they should be just as miffed at me as well  

Don't go, we are all here gathered by the love of reading, of course we might all be a little different, but I think most of us here were pretty civilly (omg is that really spelt right?) discussing


----------



## KBoards Admin

Yes, as an elder in my church, and someone who takes his faith pretty seriously, I am probably at the far end of the spectrum on this issue... and yet I find this community to be supportive of each other even amidst our diversity. I appreciate that.

I know that at times we can get posts that get a little too personal or critical, on any side of an issue. But we will always do our best to moderate in a way to avoid that. It's important to me and the mods that we always be a welcoming place here. And thankfully, you in our community make that job an easy and joyful one.


----------



## Guest

I'll just mention that there are many "hard" scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc.) who believe in God.  The two are not necessarily diametrically opposed.

I'll also mention that it is quite possible to believe in a God without buying into the whole Christian mythos.  In fact, that's what most of the world does.


----------



## thejackylking #884

Praise God don't stop posting.  As you'll see in one of my earlier posts no where in our founding documents does it say that you have the right to not be offended.  If someone is offended by your name or sig then it is their problem not yours.  As far as I can tell this is a knee jerk reaction that you are having.  Sort of along the lines of "I'm going to take my ball and go home".  We're all adults here and can deal with each other as such.  Enjoy your life and don't allow others to bring you down.

Al


----------



## Guest

bosslady said:


> I assume you got better? (then she's not a witch!)
> 
> Seriously though, this was a fascinating thread and I wish I was online when it was active (darn christmas shopping).
> 
> One observation I have is that for those of us who view ourselves as agnostic or atheist, it is very difficult to defend our beliefs (or lack thereof) _without_ disparaging the beliefs of others. It is much easier for a religious person to defend what they believe, because they are not required to offer any proofs to support that belief. To defend that you do not believe in something, the usual method is to pick apart the underlying tenets of that other philosophy and show that they are baseless. This, needless to say, is usually found offensive by the other party. (Hence the moratorium on religious or political discussions at my in-laws house )
> 
> As for tolerance, that is probably the only feasible solution, although it too has it's drawbacks. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris writes that he believes that tolerance allows the extremists, in any faith, to proliferate, because it supports an atmosphere in which it is a cultural taboo to criticize anyone for their religious faith. He laments that even the moderates within the same denomination find it difficult to draw the line between themselves and those that have taken their faith to a harmful extreme (to themselves or others). And that the moderates are the only ones who could even hope to contain the extremism within their own ranks - outsiders need not apply.
> 
> As for the historical tendencies for organized religions to 'hijack' pagan or folk holidays, that lends itself to the theory that religion 'evolved' - not necessarily that it was genetic (although there are theories that are exploring that) but that from the time humans developed language and the ability to communicate, religion developed as a cultural phenomenon, and perpetuated because the benefits it gave to those within 'the group' gave them an evolutionary advantage over those not in their 'group'. And that over time, those groups that were successful in passing on their set of beliefs to the next generation became the 'organized' religions we know today - and the rest fell by the wayside (no one believes in Zeus anymore). This is explored in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon  by Danial C. Dennett


I wish I'd seen this post earlier. It's fascinating. As one of the last Weberian Structural-Functionalist sociologists left in existence, I found this post highly insightful.


----------



## Guest

A couple of other thoughts:

The "separation of Church and State" is largely a Constitutional myth. The exact words of the First Amendment are: "*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In my understanding of it, this says nothing about religious icons on city property or other local or state Church/State debates. In fact, the Constitution specifically says that states are free to enact any law they want that isn't prohibited by the Constitution, regardless of what the Federal government does, so long as they don't directly contradict the Federal law. Thus, the First Amendment has nothing to say about the Ten Commandments being displayed on the lawn of a Tennessee state courthouse. It _does_, however, preclude *Congress* from changing the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words "under God" and of legislating that "In God We Trust" to be put on our money.

The "right to privacy" is another such legal fiction. It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. While I morally agree with Roe v. Wade, I find the decision to be based on a fallacious argument. I'd love to see an actual Constitutional amendment that would validate the right to privacy on a real legal level.

On a completely different matter, evolution/adaptation *is* both observable and repeatable. Numerous experiments with fruit flies and flatworms have demonstrated this. As has the (more to the point) observed and recorded evolution of the Gypsy Moth.


----------



## Jeff

Bacardi Jim said:


> The "separation of Church and State" is largely a Constitutional myth.


The Jackyl King already addressed this quite extensively:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,1613.msg42548.html#msg42548



Bacardi Jim said:


> The "right to privacy" is another such legal fiction.


Fiction? For many years now, the Supreme Court has interpreted the "liberty" guarantee of the 14th Amendment (overruling Dred Scott)* as a right of privacy, and all recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans support this interpretation of the Constitution.

Indeed the Constitution does not contain an express right to privacy, but the Bill of Rights certainly reflects the concerns of the framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy: The privacy of individual belief in 1st Amendment; the privacy from having one's home seized to billet soldiers in the 3rd Amendment; the privacy to protect one's property from unreasonable searches in the 4th Amendment, and the privacy of personal information in the 5th Amendment.

Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says: "enumeration of certain rights" (in the Bill of Rights) "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------



## Marci

Hi, Folks -

I just sent a PM to PG13 asking her to not "retire" from Kindleboards.

I may be poking my neck out here a bit yet I find it important to me to post parts of that letter here as well.

_"I am deeply distressed to read your message that you have decided to no longer post on the Kindleboards.

I, like many others, would like to strongly encourage you to reconsider your decision. I believe the whole "Jesus May Be the Reason" thread to be a mutually respectful airing of beliefs and opinions. To paraphrase, one is not the many. Meaning, a person's belief is just that - one person's.

I have no doubt at all that you *are* respected on the Kindleboard; very much so. I will echo what others have responded to this specific post: That your name is beautiful (real & board name), that simply having your board name on a post ***does not equal*** "shoving [your] religion down another's throat", your presence will be a great loss.

Please, please reconsider.

Sincerely,

Marci

P.S. - I hope you have had the courage to read the responses that have been posted sent you posted yours. All of them have been positive._


----------



## Jeff

That’s a very nice and thoughtful letter, Marci. Many of us hope that Judith listens to you.


----------



## Leslie

Thank you, Marci.


----------



## Guest

Jeff said:


> The Jackyl King already addressed this quite extensively...


I felt I had more to say on the topic. Didn't realize that Jacky's was the final word on the matter. Sorry. 



> Fiction? For many years now, the Supreme Court has interpreted the "liberty" guarantee of the 14th Amendment (overruling Dred Scott)* as a right of privacy, and all recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans support this interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> Indeed the Constitution does not contain an express right to privacy, but the Bill of Rights certainly reflects the concerns of the framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy: The privacy of individual belief in 1st Amendment; the privacy from having one's home seized to billet soldiers in the 3rd Amendment; the privacy to protect one's property from unreasonable searches in the 4th Amendment, and the privacy of personal information in the 5th Amendment.
> 
> Furthermore, the 9th Amendment says: "enumeration of certain rights" (in the Bill of Rights) "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
> 
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


If it were that cut-and-dried, it wouldn't still be a topic of such heated debate amongst Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices, would it?

Personally, I believe the right to privacy to be a basic human right. Sadly, I don't believe the Constitution as it now stands adequately spells that out. That "right" is only guaranteed through extrapolation and interpretation of what the Constitution _does_ say. I'd like to see that rectified (via Constitutional Amendment) before some less "interpretive" Justices than Blackmun and Burger make their way onto the Supreme Court and use the tenuousness of the "right to privacy" to overturn _Roe v. Wade_.


----------



## Jeff

Bacardi Jim said:


> I felt I had more to say on the topic. Didn't realize that Jacky's was the final word on the matter. Sorry.


Lighten up, Jim. I only meant that I wouldn't address that portion of your post since the Jekyll had already done so.

*Good morning.*​
Just in case you missed it: 70 in the heart of Texas with an expected high of 78. I know how much you love getting weather reports.


----------



## thejackylking #884

Bacardi Jim said:


> I felt I had more to say on the topic. Didn't realize that Jacky's was the final word on the matter. Sorry.


Sorry Jim, Sometimes I'm so eloquent that people just assume I'm totally correct and leave it at that. 

I do feel that you made some valid points too.

Al


----------



## Guest

While there is no constitutional "right to privacy", there is a federal law which does protect parts of your privacy, namely information relating to your medical records.

HIPAA "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act" was enacted in 1996 to protect workers who change jobs from being without health insurance and to limit length of time for preexisting conditions. The privacy portion went into effect in 2003. This is the portion which protects your PHI "protected health information".

As far as I know, this is the only federal law which specifically protects _your_ "right to privacy" and then it only protects your health information. Violation of a person's medical record has some rather stiff penalties attached which can include fines and federal prison time. The hospital I work at recently had such a breach of a local celebrity's information. Several employees were terminated and are facing severe penalties including fines, loss of licenses and jail time.

To read more about it, here is the Wiki-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA


----------



## thejackylking #884

let's not forget the 1974 federal privacy information act.


----------



## Guest

thejackylking said:


> Sorry Jim, Sometimes I'm so eloquent that people just assume I'm totally correct and leave it at that.
> 
> I do feel that you made some valid points too.
> 
> Al


Really, I was simply expanding slightly on what you had already said. But I thought the applicable portion of the First Amendment need quoting there.


----------



## Guest

> *The Privacy Act does apply to the records of every "individual," [4] but the Privacy Act only applies to records held by an "agency" *[5]
> 
> Therefore the records held by courts, executive components, or non-agency government entities are not subject to the provisions in the Privacy Act. You have no right to these records, or at least no right protected by Congressional statute [6]


Per Wikipedia, this does not really cover personal privacy.


----------



## Guest

If the "right to privacy" were, in fact, constitutionally guaranteed, then why can't I legally use LSD?  Surely that is more strictly and inherently an issue of "personal privacy" than is an abortion?  Yet there are numerous Federal anti-drug laws.

Why?

I suppose it's because constitutional scholars and judges believe that the societal harm caused by drugs outweighs whatever personal privacy the Constitution protects.  *shrug*


----------



## thejackylking #884

Too many things involved w/ drugs to allow it to be leagal.  When on drugs you are not in control of yourself and you potentially become a danger to others.  Drug makers and dealers obviously create a danger to others as well.  When you become or support things that are a danger to others then personal privacy becomes a non issue.  I realize you could say the same about tobacco and alcohol however the dangers aren't as large scale as they are for illicit drugs.


----------



## Guest

thejackylking said:


> Too many things involved w/ drugs to allow it to be leagal. When on drugs you are not in control of yourself and you potentially become a danger to others. Drug makers and dealers obviously create a danger to others as well. When you become or support things that are a danger to others then personal privacy becomes a non issue. I realize you could say the same about tobacco and alcohol however the dangers aren't as large scale as they are for illicit drugs.


But... but.... I have a right to privacy that says I can do anything to my body that I want to. It's in the Constitution! 

I hope you realize that I am pretty much in agreement with you, and I don't want to derail things further. I popped in just to agree with you (and expand slightly) that the "Constitutional separation of Church and State" was largely a legal myth. While posting that, it occured to me that the "Constitutional right to privacy" kind of fell into the same category. Thus my aside about it.

'Nuff said.


----------



## thejackylking #884

sarcasm aside it's not what you are doing to yourself that they are worried about it's what you wind up doing to others.  Not to mention the government isn't getting their cut via sales tax.


----------



## Guest

thejackylking said:


> sarcasm aside it's not what you are doing to yourself that they are worried about it's what you wind up doing to others. *Not to mention the government isn't getting their cut via sales tax.*


That hits the nail on the head. LOL


----------



## Guest

Jacky: Read my edit.


----------



## thejackylking #884

No prob Jim.  look through most of our posts you can tell that we agree quite a bit.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

thejackylking said:


> I realize you could say the same about tobacco and alcohol however the dangers aren't as large scale as they are for illicit drugs.


 I don't think I agree with that at all. Of course, I'm biased, I don't use any of those things (well, caffeine, heh. And chocolate).

Mike


----------



## thejackylking #884

jmiked said:


>


Tobacco primarily just damages your health. With alcohol obviously there is a greater danger than with tobacco to other peopole however the last time they banned alcohol it created a huge outlet for organized crime (which created a much greater threat than the alcohol itself) and spawned NASCAR. Not sure what to make of that last one.


----------



## Guest

jmiked said:


> I don't think I agree with that at all. Of course, I'm biased, I don't use any of those things (well, caffeine, heh. And chocolate).
> 
> Mike


There is certainly an argument to be made that alcohol kills more "innocent bystanders" (drivers) than illicit drugs do. Although drug-related violence in major cities like LA and NY is trying hard to catch up.


----------



## Chad Winters

thejackylking said:


> sarcasm aside it's not what you are doing to yourself that they are worried about it's what you wind up doing to others. Not to mention the government isn't getting their cut via sales tax.


Which is exactly why, to a Pro-Life person that the "right to privacy" does not equal a "right to an abortion" (I only bring it up because it sounded like someone was leaning that way earlier with the Supreme Court discussion). Its what you're doing to the human child that makes it not just a matter of personal privacy.


----------



## Guest

Chad Winters said:


> Which is exactly why, to a Pro-Life person that the "right to privacy" does not equal a "right to an abortion" (I only bring it up because it sounded like someone was leaning that way earlier with the Supreme Court discussion). Its what you're doing to the human child that makes it not just a matter of personal privacy.


I absolutely do not want this to become an abortion debate. What friendliness and reasonableness has been shown thus far will rapidly vanish if that happens. I brought up _Roe v Wade_ only because the Supreme Court ruled the way it did based fundamentally on the "right to privacy" and the "right to due process" supposedly guaranteed by the constitution. My point was that there are a lot of Constitutional scholars that say no such Constitutional right to privacy exists. However, the Supreme Court said differently, and that's the way it stands.


----------



## Jeff

thejackylking said:


> I realize you could say the same about tobacco...


As a pipe smoker, I protest.

Not really, but might I suggest a new topic if this debate is going to continue in this vein?


----------



## Guest

Jeff said:


> Not really, but might I suggest a new topic if this debate is going to continue in this vein?


We agree for a change.


----------



## Leslie

And I am just going to step in and say, I do not want to see an abortion debate and I will moderate it. I am sure Harvey will back me up on this. I am sure we all have strongly held opinions on this topic which will not change, no matter how much fighting hashing it out we try to do. We've all heard the arguments a zillion times. There is no need to make it a zillion and one here at Kindleboards. If someone really wants to talk about it, find another sandbox or take it to PM.

I'm not kidding, either.

Leslie
Global Mod


----------



## Guest

^^^I could not agree more.


----------



## Leslie

Bacardi Jim said:


> ^^^I could not agree more.


Thanks, Jim.

L


----------



## Guest

Leslie said:


> Thanks, Jim.
> 
> L


No. Thank YOU.


----------



## KBoards Admin

Leslie said:


> And I am just going to step in and say, I do not want to see an abortion debate and I will moderate it. I am sure Harvey will back me up on this. I am sure we all have strongly held opinions on this topic which will not change, no matter how much fighting hashing it out we try to do. We've all heard the arguments a zillion times. There is no need to make it a zillion and one here at Kindleboards. If someone really wants to talk about it, find another sandbox or take it to PM.
> 
> I'm not kidding, either.
> 
> Leslie
> Global Mod


That is wise and, yes, I agree 100%. Let's not go there at all. Period.


----------



## Gables Girl

I'm with BJ here, thank you both Leslie and Harvey.  This has been a civil and informed discussion so far and we need to keep it that way.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

You people are no fun at all. 



Just kidding.  

Mike


----------

