"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:t6ult0l96ng9h9fb2seuf1derq3p2mlsj1@4ax.com...

Yes - your inability to accept that your religion doesn't follow the
teachings of its founder.

No wrong conclusion. It's that my gut feeling is your story is not

I'm not buying what you're selling.

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:t6ult0l96ng9h9fb2seuf1derq3p2mlsj1@4ax.com...

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 07:29:56 -0800, "Precision" <precision@Usenet.com>
said in alt.atheism:

What year do you claim this occurred? I'm inclined to believe a
miscommunication resulted in the perception that a baptized Jehovah's
Witness called and said, "Get this filth off our steps!" when perhaps they
said nothing of the sort.

It wasn't a misconception and it wasn't a miscommunication - it was a
face-to-face 'order'.

If I call the police and ask them, for example,
"can you take the homeless persons camping outside my door to a shelter,"
and the dispatcher gets on the radio and says to the officer, "I have a
call
to get that homeless filth off their doorstep" then I can see how that
officer would have a dim view of myself... when in fact I said nothing of
the sort to begin with!

But, in this case, when I went inside to see exactly what the problem
was, I was told to "get this [homeless in the doorway being indicated
with a contemptuous wave of the hand] filth off our steps".

1) Police don't take kindly to being given orders by civilians. (And
the tone of voice left no doubt that this individual was used to
having his orders obeyed instantly and with no questioning.)

2) The only way to 'remove' them would have been to charge them with
trespassing, which is almost impossible to make stick, since the steps
are really publicly-accessible territory. It also would have involved
this individual's appearance in court, which he refused to accept.
(His complaint, about his property, so he had to prosecute it.)

We're apparently dealing with miscommunication here.

Yes - your inability to accept that your religion doesn't follow the
teachings of its founder.

No wrong conclusion. It's that my gut feeling is your story is not credible.
I'm not buying what you're selling.

I will kill file Vero right now so I never have to
here another depraved word utter forth from her filthy mouth and stone cold
heart again. -

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 03:41:27 -0800, "Precision" <precision@Usenet.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Just so you know, Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT celebrate Christmas. We

that Christ would have never wanted his holy name associated with the

god you so aptly described.

Just so you know, many atheists don't believe that your Jesus actually
existed. Not that we believe he didn't - we don't believe he did.
There's a difference.

This is important for you to know because you said "Christians are as
deceitful and two faced as ever" (in regards Christmas).

Many Christian sects don't consider JWs (or Mormons, or Catholics, or
...) to be Christians.

You should know
that not all Christians fall into this category! There are those on Earth
today who practice Christianity as it was practiced in the first century
C.E. when no Christian celebrated the birth of Christ.

Sorry, no, JWs pray in public, they proselytize in places where their
preaching isn't wanted, they own worldly goods, etc.

MANY sects claim to still be doing things the way they were done by
Christ himself ... but ALL of them, without exception, are relatively
new Churches with no special links to the first century.

Perhaps you should have said, "When it comes to specifics, Christians

exception to Jehovah's Witnesses are as deceitful and two faced as ever."

Hang out at the Watchtower on a cold winter evening. If any of the
homeless still try taking shelter from the wind in the doorways, I'll
bet the 'good Christians' in the building still call the police to
have them removed. Not exactly what Christ would have done.

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7v3ft0hjifpbk0qaab2jhs510ngstve98t@4ax.com...

On 1 Jan 2005 10:16:49 -0800,

Before this gets entirely out of hand, I think both sides might wish to
know that there is no date for the birthday of Mithras, or the Persian
Mitra, specified in any ancient text. I know that the idea that
Mithras was born on 25th December goes around. But it's not true.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa122397b.htm "Mithras,
the sun-god, was born of a virgin in a cave on December 25, and
worshipped on Sunday, the day of the conquering sun."

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue022.html "Modern scholars believe
that the cult of Mithras was based on the secret understanding of an
astronomical phenomenon know as the "precession of the equinoxes",
that is, the background of fixed stars is not really fixed. They knew
that solar events such as solstices could be used to plot the movement
of these stars. Also, as the days begin lengthening after the winter
solstice, it is a time of new beginnings and hope for the future. Thus
Mithras' birthday was set at the winter solstice, which is usually on
December 22. However, due to the insertion of intercalary days (days
inserted into the calendar to correct for accumulated error) and
confusion with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, it has slipped to
December 25."

2. People who know that the Romans worshipped a deity called Sol
Invictus suppose that this day was a festival of Sol Invictus. This is
wrong: the cult was created in 274AD by Aurelian, while the name of the
day is primitive in Rome. The sun cult celebrated its festivals in
warmer weather!

"Sol Invictus" was the Roman name for "Mithras". The Zoroastrian
Mithras was the Sun god.

4. One of them may have learned that Mithras is also sometimes called
Mithras Sol Invictus (Mithras the unconquered sun) and supposed that
this means Mithras=Sol Invictus (it does not).

See above - it does.

"When it comes to specifics, Christians are as deceitful and two faced
as ever. They are utterly unable to deny that 25 December was the
birthday of the Unconquerable Sun, the Roman name of Mithras. What
they say is that it does not matter! Suddenly all Christians become
fundamentalists because the New Testament does not say when Jesus was
born. The church decided Jesus was born on 25 December precisely
because it was already the highly popular birthday of Mithras, and a
national holiday. What it was was the midwinter solstice, a solar
festival and therefore associated with a solar god. The reason the
Christian bishops were happy to accept this as a Christian festival
was because Christianity was seen by everyone as a solar religion-even
the Christian bishops." - ibid
--
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed
at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

Thanks for the additional historical perspective!

Just so you know, Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT celebrate Christmas. We believe
that Christ would have never wanted his holy name associated with the pagan
god you so aptly described.

This is important for you to know because you said "Christians are as
deceitful and two faced as ever" (in regards Christmas). You should know
that not all Christians fall into this category! There are those on Earth
today who practice Christianity as it was practiced in the first century
C.E. when no Christian celebrated the birth of Christ. Rather they
celebrated his LIFE and the sacrifice he made to save mankind from sin that
deprives our souls of immortality.

Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the one most sacred day of remembrance in the
year, known by many as the Lord's Evening Meal on the passover that Jesus
himself ordained his true followers to keep in remembrance of the Lord:

(Luke 22:14-20) 14 At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table,
and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them: "I have greatly desired
to eat this passover with YOU before I suffer; 16 for I tell YOU, I will not
eat it again until it becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 And,
accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: "Take this and pass it from one to
the other among yourselves; 18 for I tell YOU, From now on I will not drink
again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of God arrives." 19
Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying:
"This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in
remembrance of me." 20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the
evening meal, he saying: "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my
blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.


No other celebration was ordained by Christ as worth celebrating. You have
helped confirm my original concerns about holidays such as Christmas and
their origins.

Perhaps you should have said, "When it comes to specifics, Christians with
exception to Jehovah's Witnesses are as deceitful and two faced as ever."

Although I'm sure that many who celebrate Christmas have good intentions...
and many consider good intentions as better than asphalt in paving roads...

On 1 Jan 2005 10:16:49 -0800,

Before this gets entirely out of hand, I think both sides might wish

know that there is no date for the birthday of Mithras, or the

Mitra, specified in any ancient text. I know that the idea that
Mithras was born on 25th December goes around. But it's not true.

On 1 Jan 2005 10:16:49 -0800,

Before this gets entirely out of hand, I think both sides might wish to
know that there is no date for the birthday of Mithras, or the Persian
Mitra, specified in any ancient text. I know that the idea that
Mithras was born on 25th December goes around. But it's not true.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa122397b.htm łMithras,
the sun-god, was born of a virgin in a cave on December 25, and
worshipped on Sunday, the day of the conquering sun."

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue022.html "Modern scholars believe
that the cult of Mithras was based on the secret understanding of an
astronomical phenomenon know as the "precession of the equinoxes",
that is, the background of fixed stars is not really fixed. They knew
that solar events such as solstices could be used to plot the movement
of these stars. Also, as the days begin lengthening after the winter
solstice, it is a time of new beginnings and hope for the future. Thus
Mithras' birthday was set at the winter solstice, which is usually on
December 22. However, due to the insertion of intercalary days (days
inserted into the calendar to correct for accumulated error) and
confusion with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, it has slipped to
December 25."

2. People who know that the Romans worshipped a deity called Sol
Invictus suppose that this day was a festival of Sol Invictus. This is
wrong: the cult was created in 274AD by Aurelian, while the name of the
day is primitive in Rome. The sun cult celebrated its festivals in
warmer weather!

"Sol Invictus" was the Roman name for "Mithras". The Zoroastrian
Mithras was the Sun god.

4. One of them may have learned that Mithras is also sometimes called
Mithras Sol Invictus (Mithras the unconquered sun) and supposed that
this means Mithras=Sol Invictus (it does not).

See above - it does.

"When it comes to specifics, Christians are as deceitful and two faced
as ever. They are utterly unable to deny that 25 December was the
birthday of the Unconquerable Sun, the Roman name of Mithras. What
they say is that it does not matter! Suddenly all Christians become
fundamentalists because the New Testament does not say when Jesus was
born. The church decided Jesus was born on 25 December precisely
because it was already the highly popular birthday of Mithras, and a
national holiday. What it was was the midwinter solstice, a solar
festival and therefore associated with a solar god. The reason the
Christian bishops were happy to accept this as a Christian festival
was because Christianity was seen by everyone as a solar religion‹even
the Christian bishops." - ibid

"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BDFA4B70.76AC%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...

in article 41d4c3c9_3@Usenet.com, Precision at

"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BDF9AE11.75D1%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...

in article 41d3f531_1@Usenet.com, Precision at

"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:41D3CAC6.F4F41893@netvigator.com...

William Kimbler wrote:

Try this on for size maybe; just maybe it was just nature and all
the
right
factors happening at just the right time to cause such a disaster. In
short
terms it just happened because everything just fell into place at the
right
time.

I guess what I am saying is don't read more into it than what's
there.

The earth's plates are moving all the time and seismic actions are
recorded
daily, only occasionally do things get out of hand.

Read no more into it than that.

The size of this tradegy, bad though it is, does nothing, but nothing
to
bolster belief in any gods or a god that would cause such a tragic
event
a
few
days after celebrating the birthday of His so called son, leading to
the
death
of over 30,000 children.

Excellent point that God is likely angry about the choice of dates to
celebrate His only-begotten Son's birthday,

Not another one! And no, he did not make a point about the "choice of
dates".

But if God is angry that people celebrate the Birth of Christ on
Decemeber
25, then that is awfully petty to be angry about, considering we don't
know
exactly when He was born. The important thing is that people remember
Him
and why He came. On December 25, as well as December 24, 23, 26, 27,
etc.,
I
thanked God and worshipped Him.

And almost nobody cares about what you have posted below. Only a few
cranky
fundies who don't understand what real worship is about. Whether a
"heathen"
holiday was coopted or not is unimportant. No one worships Mithra today.
He
is all but forgotten. Those going to church on Christmas to worship were
worshipping Christ.

The Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Your Letter is devoid of
God's
Spirit.

although I wouldn't go so far as
to think He caused the disaster to send a signal of His displeasure in
this
regard.

That would be rather silly, wouldn't it, considering that most people in
that part of the world are not Christians, much less celebrate
Christmas?

Anti-Christmas rant deleted.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

Instead of arguing with you about whether history should be dismissed
with
the waive of a hand,

I didn't say that. But even so, you don't consider the entire history of
everything you do or are associated with.

I just want to say that I cannot imagine any Christian
who believes in celebrating birthdays wanting their birthday celebrated
on
the birthdate of a false god instead of the actual date of which they
were
born.

Provided that someone knows the day I was born on, I'd rather like them to
celebrate that day. However, there have been several times in which my own
birthday has been celebrated early or late, depending upon circumstances.
It
really didn't matter.

If one believes it is important to celebrate someone's birthday, and they
do
not know the date of that person, then suppose others arbitrarily chose
the
date of an ancient god because they figured it was as good as any other
day.
"Since we don't know the exact day or month of their birthday," they
reasoned, "why not use the god Mythra's birthday instead?"

Well, you'd be hard pressed to actually *prove* that this was the exact
reasoning behind the date for Christmas. The reasoning was a good little
bit
more complex than that.

But you'd have had a hard time finding any day that was not associated
with
some god or other. Why, you have probably said that "Today is Thursday",
and
you thus acknowledged that today is the day dedicated to the Norse God
Thor.
Congratulations on your idolatry. (Yes, it was a ridiculous statement, and
you do not worship Thor). Then again, you probably worship God either on
the
day devoted to Saturn or the day devoted to the Sun. Hmmmm. It seems to me
you have a problem.

Now suppose that the person whose birthday they are celebrating on this
arbitrary date may feel strongly about false gods, and prefer that if
you're
going to celebrate their birthday at all - but don't know the exact
date -
to pick some neutral date instead?

You are supposing that there exists a nice, neutral date. Got any in mind?

But what does Paul say about these false gods? "We know that an idol in
this
world is nothing,", and that "there is no God byt one.' If after all there
are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth ... Yet for us there is
one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whome we live, and
one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live."
1
Corinthians 8:4b-6.

I submit that God doesn't care about the birthdays of other so-called
gods.
When I celebrate Christ's birth, I celebrate Him, not some other so-called
god who does not exist.

And, when the early church was helping new converts turn from their old
pagan associations by celebrating godly things on the days the pagans
celebrated other things, they were doing what God has done with His people
from the start.

Oh yes! Do you think priests with vestments were unique to Israel? Or that
a
priestly family was a unique thing within Israel? Why God's commands to
Moses concerning the priesthood were, in some measure, a copy of what the
Israelites had known from Egypt and from their contacts with the other
nations around them. Priests wore special garments, breastplates with
precious stones and elaborate headdresses, were generally a caste or
family
(not just anyone could become a priest), made sacrifices for
transgressions,
and were alone able to minister the things of God. There was a place for
worship, and the tabernacle (and later the Temple) had layouts that were
not
really unique either. The people saw the familiar symbols they had always
known, but worshipped God instead of the gods they had known before.

If God was willing to take these familiar points of the nations around
them
and use them to direct worship to Himself, what do you have against it?
Probably an ignorance of the way God has done things throughout the Bible.

Let's take Jesus Christ as a case in point. Is there evidence Jesus, if
nobody knows the real date of his birthday, would be okay about them
choosing the birthday of a mythical god that people once worshipped?

"We know that 'an idol in this world is nothing.' and that 'there is no
god
but one.'"

Why, Jesus Christ was even OK with paying tribute to Caesar with coins
bearing Caesar's figure on them. Why should He be so worked up about a
little thing like a birthday? And Paul was OK with people eating meat
sacrificed to idols, even though the heathen saw the act of eating that
meat
as participating in the worship of those idols. Paul said it wasn't, since
the false gods didn't exist.

And for a real kicker, think about this! Paul told the men at Athens that
their "unknown god" was actually the Lord Himself, and that God wanted
them
to know who they were really worshipping in their ignorance (see Acts 17).
Now, was this "unknown god" *really* God Himself? Of course not. They had
constructed an altar to every god they could think of, and wanted to make
sure they hadn't missed any. And Paul used that fact to bring them the
gospel in a way that caused people to hear it who otherwise would not
have.

And you are concerned about a birthday? Paul used a *PAGAN ALTAR* and
called
it God's.

You are hung up on the wrong things, brother!

Raymond, I'm not going to even go there or debate that issue.

That's fine. Scripturally, you lose anyway. Nothing even to really debate.
I
have just shown from the Bible that God was willing to use familiar
symbols
-- even heathen ones -- to point people to Himself.

If I believed in celebrating birthdays, hypothetically speaking (!),

I bet you do! Particularly your own. Or if you are a parent, then you
almost
certainly celebrate your children's birthdays (else you are likely the
meanest grinch I have ever met). And celebrating the birth of the Son of
God
was something even the Angels did! I see no reason not to join them!

I will
simply state that I would personally have told them, "I don't feel
comfortable with your picking the date of a mythical god to celebrate my
birthday.

And you know, Jesus, God incarnate Who surely Knew this would be the case,
was silent about the issue. It doesn't really matter what you would have
done -- He didn't do it.

If you don't know the date of my birthday then why not pick some
neutral date to celebrate it? It bothers me that according to history,
the
early church decided that Mytha's birthday was a good date to celebrate
my
birthday.

It shouldn't. It was common sense.

Why not pick another month to celebrate it? If you really want to
celebrate it at all?"

Because if you don't replace a heathen practice with a godly one, then you
will have people fall back into heathen practices. Mithra's birthday was
celebrated. So you do *nothing* on that day? Then your young believers go
and celebrate because they always have, then feel guilty about it and fall
away from the church. Why not give them something better, more Holy and
reverent?

And if your church is like most others, on Halloween night you have some
kind of church activity, right? By your own objections, horrors! You are
doing something spiritual on a day which ancient people worshipped false
gods! Why, if you are like most fundamentalist churches, you have a
"harvest
festival" and you decorate the fellowship hall and play games and the
children wear costumes. How worldly can you get?

But it isn't worldly at all. You are directing the minds of the children
away from "trick or treat" and witches and ghosts and spirits to a fun
time
based upon more Christian values. But you still had to have it on the same
day to make it work.

Do you object to a church having a "harvest festival" on Halloween? If you
don't your objection to Christmas on December 25 is hypocritical.

Furthermore today virtually no one except for the rabid letterkeepers even
think about such a thing. I went to a concert a few days before Christmas.
Every song was about Christ's birth and the hope it gave to a sinful
world.
Have you ever sung any of these Christmas carols? If not, why not?

I celebrate the Lord's Evening Meal, and personally don't see why I
should
add Christmas knowing the viewpoint of Jesus Christ's Father expressed
about
false God's in the book of Exodus chapters 33 and 34?

Read 1 Corinthians 8. Paul had a "Christian" perspective on the matter.

God is not as rabidly unreasonable as you would make Him out to be. In
Exodus 32, the people worshipped an idol. But Christians who celebrate
Christmas are not doing that.

If you're going to condemn me for that, if harshly judging the faith in
Christ of others is part of your religion, Raymond, then so be it.

You are free to do as you like. But you are condemning others for their
own
faith in action, aren't you? And that is part of your religion.

Sigh, I know that fundamentalists like very much to reference the Law.
They
are much more comfortable with the Letter than they are with the Spirit.
And
yes, the Law is important. Important enough that we are not under the Law
any longer, right? You have read Galatians, haven't you?

Or, how long has it been since you have heard a series of messages on the
Sermon on the Mount? Christ presented His conditions for discipleship in
the
Kingdom there, and fundamentalism generally ignores it. It is much too
hard
and strenuous and requires too much self-examination. It is much easier to
focus on the externals of others than to examine one's own self.

I conclude that most people overly concerned about this issue haven't
really
considered how God shepherded His people along over the years, or how He
used symbols familiar from round about while directing the worship toward
Himself.

But I encourage you to do so, and not to judge those of us who find joy in
Him on December 25.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

I'll compliment you on the many good points and counterpoints you raised.

I just want to clarify that the basis of my argument on Christmas coinciding
with the date of Mythra's birthday is not that Mythra's birthday
historically just happens to coincide with the early church's choice of date
to celebrate Jesus Christ. For example, if Halloween falls on a meeting
night at the Kingdom Hall you are correct that we wouldn't preempt the
meeting to another night. I'm also not suggesting that a "neutral" day of
the year is a day where nothing of anything of pagan historical significance
has ever happened.

Rather, my understanding is the early church in the 4th century specifically
chose December 25th to celebrate Christ's birthday because at the time they
were also celebrating Mythra's birthday on that same date. They decided to
consolidate the two dates so they could celebrate BOTH birthdays at the same
time.

I'll give you an analogy as to why I find this offensive. Imagine if a
family member was adopted from a foreign country where the parents were
killed (such as an infant orphan from the current tsunami crisis whose
parents were killed and birth records destroyed, adopted by an American
couple). Since the couple doesn't know the infant's exact birthday, lacking
birth records destroyed in the disaster, they decide for personal reasons it
would be nice to celebrate that birthday on the same date as their own
child's birthday on February 17th. In other words, in lack of knowing the
exact birthday (as is the case of Jesus) the couple makes a conscious choice
of dates, in this case, it's the same birthdate as their own natural
child's, so they can celebrate both birthdays together.

Now, in the case of Jesus, the early church in the 4th century made a
conscious choice of dates for another reason. Having abandoned pure
Christianity and having turned to false gods as did the Israelites
chronicled in the book of Exodus (chapters 33 and 34), the early church
celebrated Mythra's birthday on December 25th already.

Not knowing Jesus Christ's birthday, the church leaders decided, why not
consolidate the two birthdays into one? We can honor the god Mythra and at
the same time honor Jesus Christ, they reasoned! And so was born Christmas.

This is NOT the same as my making a big to-do about Christmas because it
coincidentally happens to fall on the same day as some pagan celebration!
Rather, the very church that was supposed to be Christ's prophesied faithful
and wise servant or faithful and discreet slave (compare Matthew 24:45-51)
turned to celebrating a false god, a practice which Jehovah abhors.

Instead
of setting aside a separate date for the celebrating of Jesus Christ's
birthday, they decided to consolidate the two, almost as if they viewed
Mythra and Christ as siblings who should be honored together as equals.

Interestingly, the only birthday ever mentioned in the Bible was king
Herod's, who received a gruesome gift: the head of John the Baptist!

(Matthew 14:1-13) 14 At that particular time Herod, the district ruler,
heard the report about Jesus 2 and said to his servants: "This is John the
Baptist. He was raised up from the dead, and this is why the powerful works
are operating in him." 3 For Herod had arrested John and bound him and put
him away in prison on account of He·roŽdi·as the wife of Philip his brother.
4 For John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to be having
her." 5 However, although he wanted to kill him, he feared the crowd,
because they took him for a prophet. 6 But when Herod's birthday was being
celebrated the daughter of He·roŽdi·as danced at it and pleased Herod so
much 7 that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. 8 Then
she, under her mother's coaching, said: "Give me here upon a platter the
head of John the Baptist." 9 Grieved though he was, the king out of regard
for his oaths and for those reclining with him commanded it to be given; 10
and he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 And his head was brought
on a platter and given to the maiden, and she brought it to her mother. 12
Finally his disciples came up and removed the corpse and buried him and came
and reported to Jesus. 13 At hearing this Jesus withdrew from there by boat
into a lonely place for isolation; but the crowds, getting to hear of it,
followed him on foot from the cities.

No other mention of anyone's birthday celebration appears in the Old or New
Testaments of the Holy Bible. I find this very interesting in light of what
I just said above.

Try this on for size maybe; just maybe it was just nature and all the
right factors happening at just the right time to cause such a disaster.
In short terms it just happened because everything just fell into place at
the right time.



I guess what I am saying is don't read more into it than what's there.