Can religious holidays...

[Ariel Mae]

A fact that bears no relevance to the modern practice of any religion

It highly bears relevance on the modern practice of religion. The 'origins' and 'ties' are the reason religions are how they are today. Without them, you'd not have what you had today, so I fail to see the irrelevance.

 

[okeydokey]

On Superbowl Sunday, lots of local churches had "NFL or God" signs up, and I thought, why can't I have both.

 

[goofygirl]

But just to clarify, you are correct, I was offended before the 'resurrection thing' comment. I was initially offended by your similar comment in your original post; "The resurrection story was stolen ". Thought I made that clear, guess not.

What exactly offends you about that? Is it because she called the Resurrection a "thing"? Well, isn't it a "thing"? If its not a "thing" then what is it? Or do you want it to be called a "miracle", an "event" or something else? And are you offended at it being called a "story", or offended at it being called "stolen"??

I think Christians have bigger issues to worry about in the world other than someone calling their beliefs a "story" or a "thing."

 

[Galahad]

The fact that religions before Christianity believed something similar bears no relevance. The fact the Christianity borrowed rituals that were familiar in order to help its followers understand does not negate the beliefs. You're confusing chronology with cause and effect. Further, people follow their religion in the present. If a religious truth can be "supernatural" (which most adherents to a religion axiomatically accept) then it is not relevant that something was borrowed in the past because they are worshiping in the present. Religions are man-made and imperfect. If that's enough for you to reject them, fine. But if it isn't then constructing a chronological argument that you shouldn't follow them won't be very persuasive.

 

[Ariel Mae]

The fact that religions before Christianity believed something similar bears no relevance.

It quite does, especially if said belief was incorporated by the Christians. That is the basis to Christianity today.

The fact the Christianity borrowed rituals that were familiar in order to help its followers understand does not negate the beliefs.

It does not negate the beliefs, but further provides reason behind the beliefs.

Your confusing chronology with cause and effect. Further, people follow their religion in the present.

Really?

So...Christians aren't reading a Bible thousands of years old?

It's not about cause and effect, but about origin, roots, reason.

If a religious truth can be "supernatural" (which most adherents to a religion axiomatically accept) then it is not relevant that something was borrowed in the past because they are worshiping in the present.

They are worshipping, in present terms, what has evolved from the past, so it is quite relevant.

Religions are man-made and imperfect.

I can't deny that, but I would watch who you say that around in this day and age.

If that's enough for you to reject them, fine.

Who's rejecting anything? It's just powerful to know why you are where you are today.

But if it isn't then constructing a chronological argument that you shouldn't follow them won't be very persuasive.

Again, it's not about changing anything, but knowing the 'who' and 'why' behind the 'what'.

I think Christians have bigger issues to worry about in the world other than someone calling their beliefs a "story" or a "thing."

Same goes with any religion, really, any Faith system.

 

[goofygirl]

Believe it or not, the Easter Bunny, Paganism and Christ's ressurection story share the same theme: rabbits are symbols of fertility and birth, the Vernal Equinox (Spring) is a time for birth and rebirth (of plants that die in the winter), and the ressurection of Jesus is a rebirth. It's ALL about birth and rebirth! To say "well, one thing is wrong and the other is right" is just silly.

 

[beattyfamily]

What exactly offends you about that? Is it because she called the Resurrection a "thing"? Well, isn't it a "thing"? If its not a "thing" then what is it? Or do you want it to be called a "miracle", an "event" or something else? And are you offended at it being called a "story", or offended at it being called "stolen"??

I think Christians have bigger issues to worry about in the world other than someone calling their beliefs a "story" or a "thing."

Why do you care why I was offended? I'm just curious.

Her comments appeared to me to say that it (the resurrection) was something that did not happen as it was 'stolen' from another religion. For me and other Christians, the resurrection is not just a story, a 'thing' or 'stolen'. It is the most important aspect of our religion.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

 

[my4kids]

I'm sorry the ENTIRE premis of Christianity is about how Jesus died on a cross for your sins and then rose from the dead. That's the "good news" as Christians say, that should be spread, belief in that process is what gets you into heaven, there is no other way to salvation, according to most Christians. So, yeah, the fact that Christianity "incorporated" it from other sources is sort of important.

You were offended before I even said "resurrection thing" You were offended on my first post on that particular topic spare me the false outrage. You were offended that I brought it up, not because of the phrase I used in the second post on the issue.

Not according to Catholics. Well to Clarify, we believe Jesus dying for our sins is what is going to get us to heaven, but we do not believe that you HAD to KNOW it to get it. Now, if you were taught it and did not accept it, and turned from it for something else , you might have a problem. But if you were never taught, there is a benefit of doubt thing here. We believe God loves ALL his children, even the ones that didn't know Jesus existed.
Anyway , saying "most Christians" believe it, is inaccurate. I don't know the exact percentages, but I am pretty sure there are more Catholics on Earth than Born Agains(way more) (which I think is the denomination you refer to) Now there are more Born Agains on TV than Catholics preaching, so there is a perception among non-christians, that all christian believe that way, and well, don't believe what you see on TV.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

Why do you care why I was offended? I'm just curious.

Her comments appeared to me to say that it (the resurrection) was something that did not happen as it was 'stolen' from another religion. For me and other Christians, the resurrection is not just a story, a 'thing' or 'stolen'. It is the most important aspect of our religion.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

You're right, that's exactly what I was saying, it was taken...err...inccorportated...borrowed? from other religions. If it's the most "important aspect" of your religion, perhaps you should be interested in its origins.

 

[Galahad]

It quite does, especially if said belief was incorporated by the Christians. That is the basis to Christianity today.

Almost all attempts to say that, for example, the resurrection is a concept "taken" by Christianity from other traditions are attempts to negate the resurrection as a legitimate fact and basis for the religion. They are further usually used to attempt to accuse "most" Christians of being rather stupid in not "understanding" their own religion. All interesting academic exercises. But if the resurrection is true and the resurrection is the central event of the religion, then it does not become less so, or more so, simply because it was the central event of another religion that Paul happened to have heard about.

 

[Ariel Mae]

lmost all attempts to say that, for example, the resurrection is a concept "taken" by Christianity from other traditions are attempts to negate the resurrection as a legitimate fact and basis for the religion.

In my case, it's nothing but an attempt at learning of one's faith's origin.

They are further usually used to attempt to accuse "most" Christians of being rather stupid in not "understanding" their own religion. All interesting academic exercises.

If one is willing to avoid the cold heard facts, so be it. If one is not interested in their faith's origins, so be it. But it is power to know.

All interesting academic exercises.

Far from just academic.

But if the resurrection is true and the resurrection is the central event of the religion, then it does not become less so, or more so, simply because it was the central event of another religion that Paul happened to have heard about.

It's not about true or false, it's about learning, it's about history, it's about origin.

To quote the best post I've seen in this thread, by far:

If it's the most "important aspect" of your religion, perhaps you should be interested in its origins.

How can it be important if you don't know anything about it? (Meaning, how can it be important if you don't know it's origins?)

 

[beattyfamily]

You're right, that's exactly what I was saying, it was taken...err...inccorportated...borrowed? from other religions. If it's the most "important aspect" of your religion, perhaps you should be interested in its origins.

I give up. Total waste of time. Have fun.

 

[Galahad]

How can it be important if you don't know anything about it? (Meaning, how can it be important if you don't know it's origins?)

But how can "origins" be important if the actual event happened? It then is not important that other religions believed it. If I believe that the actual person of Jesus was resurrected, then the fact that other figures were said to have resurrected is not important. If knowing the origins means we must reject the actual event then you are not asking people to understand their religion, but reject it.

 

[Galahad]

BTW, I am aware and very interested in the "origins" you refer to. But it does not alter my basic belief in the events that suround my faith.

 

[Ariel Mae]

But how can "origins" be important if the actual event happened?

That would then be the origin: The actual event.

But, until then, the origin of the myths are what make or break the modern day religions.

It then is not important that other religions believed it.

Actually, it would be, because it would make or break whether they go to Hell or Heaven.

If I believe that the actual person of Jesus was resurrected, then the fact that other figures were said to have resurrected is not important.

But it's also Power to know why other religions believed the same thing, and also Power to connect two and two to equal four.

If knowing the origins means we must reject the actual event then you are not asking people to understand their religion, but reject it.

No one is asking anyone to reject anything. What is being asked is that one know the origins of their belief system.

It's called knowledge, and it's the root to learning.

It's also called History, and it's the root to Humanity.

 

[Ariel Mae]

BTW, I am aware and very interested in the "origins" you refer to. But it does not alter my basic belief in the events that suround my faith.

It shouldn't alter your belief system, but provide a background, an emphasis on why such a belief is shared, why such a belief is common, or uncommon, or whatnot.

 

[Galahad]

It shouldn't alter your belief system, but provide a background, an emphasis on why such a belief is shared, why such a belief is common, or uncommon, or whatnot.

I believe you are making a different point that the other poster on this topic. For you, as you say, want believers to understand the context and history. Most people, frankly, that go down this path have quite a different goal.

 

[cardaway]

So if it's wrong to deny the events of other religions, why does Christianity get away with it?

 

[Fitswimmer]

It shouldn't alter your belief system, but provide a background, an emphasis on why such a belief is shared, why such a belief is common, or uncommon, or whatnot.

And from there, we can establish a dialogue. Focusing on similarities rather than differences allows us to be more accepting of each other. I feel the same way about the different cultures in the US-as long as we continue to focus on our differences, we're going to continue to splinter apart.

We don't have to accept others beliefs as true in order to accept that others have a right to their beliefs.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

I believe you are making a different point that the other poster on this topic. For you, as you say, want believers to understand the context and history. Most people, frankly, that go down this path have quite a different goal.

Actually, my POINT, in my original post was to explain why I have no problem seperating the "fun" from the "religious" aspects of a holiday. Other posters chose to assign other, nefarious motives to my post and I ran with the debate.