Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Final-Mycologist7785 t1_j183mpj wrote

Reply to comment by iamlucky13 in Next to the manger at Capitol Campus by LoudLemming

Ahh yes Wikipedia! A 100% authentic source of information!

/s

Granted they've gotten better. But,

Going deeper than that, if you think things have been construed by people in power and/or office, and STILL choose to belive a book that has been in circulation for hundreds of years. And been a key role in government policies over litteral decades...

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

If laws are manipulated to achieve what those in power desire, what the fuck makes you think that hasn't been done a hundred times over in a book, that literally dictates how the majority of people live?

'Translated' by those in a convenient power place in history.

What places such a holy fucking artifact, that anyone can purchase mind you, above the rest of all else?

Shouldn't at least a couple of those raise a red flag?

I won't link a Wikipedia article. Find your own rabbit hole.

−1

iamlucky13 t1_j1ajb54 wrote

  1. I will start by restating my main point to be more clear. Your comment on solstice being chosen to convert pagans is not need to know information because:

A) A person who considers the birth of Jesus to be significant (presumably due to their religious beliefs) is not going to find their beliefs challenged by the point, "nobody recorded the actual date Jesus was born, but because some early Christians thought celebrating it on a date that pagans already used for a holiday might help convert some of them* they chose to also use that holiday."

If you think the theory that Christians would want to convert pagans is shocking news to Christians that will scandalize them away from their faith, you don't seem to know much about Christianity.

B) Nobody who doesn't consider the birth of Jesus significant is going to change their observance or non-observance of Christmas based on the same.

  1. I didn't offer a Wikipedia reference as proof. I offered it as a place where there is a summary of some of the discussion illustrating the complexity of understanding how Christmas came to be celebrate around the time of the solstice.

There are two very common corallary forms of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy that I like to call "argumentum ad Wikipediam" and "argumentum contra Wikipediam." You are demonstrating the latter.

Which is ironic, because the alternative that has been presented is to accept the authority of an unknown person posting on the internet. Or to follow the argument back to its known source with the 18th century Lutheran preacher Paul Jablonski who promoted the idea the date was chosen for pagan reasons in order to portray Catholicism as a pagan-influenced corruption of Christianity.

  1. The rest of your post seems like it might be in reference to the Bible. You really didn't clarify what you're talking about. But the topic now at hand was about the date of Christmas, which the Bible does not give any obvious clues about, and I don't see a useful reason to expand the discussion to the Bible in this thread.

* Edit - I apologize for not noticing before your are not the same poster as I previously respond to. I have edited my post to remove an reference to the prior poster's words as your own.

0