Pretty sure this is universal for ex-Christians during this time of year…..
Youâre gonna lose your mind when you find out where Christmas comes from
The appropriation of a pagan celebration of the winter solstice by the catholic church because they were too lazy to figure out when jesus was born and too stubborn to change it once they were told.
Tell me you’ve never researched how December 25th was decided without saying it
Please, inform me.
Sure thing.
The claim that Christmas is pagan never came from pagans originally, it first comes from a Moravian Protestant named Paul Ernst Jablonski in the 17th century, who made the claim simply because he was mad at the Vatican due to effects of the Thirty Years War, and was reinforced by a Scottish Presbyterian named Alexander Hislip in his book The Two Babylons where he claimed Roman Catholicism was just Babylonian paganism with Christian dressings. So it wasnât even pagans making the claim that Christians stole or appropriated their festivals, it was Protestants fighting against the Vatican and they said Roman Catholics gave December 25th as the date of Christâs birth arbitrarily. Also, pagan simply means non-Christian, and pagan beliefs varied wildly between countries, cities, and ethnic groups, so to claim that Christian has some pagan cultural influences is pointless, because we know that early Christians baptized pagans and any practices they had that werenât in service of demons or idols could be retained as long as they were turned towards God, so something like the yule log, might have originated in Norse pagan cultures, but there isnât anything inherently satanic about burning wood, and they could keep that activity in celebration if they wanted, so whats the problem?
As for December 25th, it goes back to 45BC when Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar, where December 25th was intended to be the shortest day of the year, which has funny parallels with the Incarnation (the sun and the Son being their weakest on Dec25). In 274AD, Emperor Aurelian established a new empire feast named the Feast of the Unconquerable Sun and set it on December 25th, to symbolize the sun coming back from weakness and becoming stronger. The earliest evidence for liturgical celebration of Christmas is 336AD in Rome, so this is why people say Christmas ripped off a pagan festival. Problem is is that Latin Christians were celebrating Christmas on December 25th fifty years before Aurelianâs feast. Aurelian, who didnât like Christians and sentenced them to death, likely did this to further persecute Christians in Rome.
So why did Christians choose December 25th? After Judaism split off of Christianity, the idea of when to celebrate the Christian Passover became an important question. It was the common belief in the early church that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal, but He was crucified on the day the Passover meal would be held. Greek Christians needed to know when to celebrate the Christian Passover, and they decided on the 14th of Artemision (spring) in the second century. In the fourth century the Greeks adopted the Roman calendar and the 14th of Artemision becomes April 6th. Eastern Christians end up with April 6th, Latin Christians wanted the historical death of Christs death, and came up with March 25th.
There is an ancient Jewish rabbinical idea of important Biblical figures (martyrs and prophets) dying on the same date they were either born or conceived on. So if you apply that to the above dates, and you add nine months. If Christ died on March 25th, then He was conceived on March 25th, nine months later is December 25th (the date of Christs incarnation according to the flesh). If Christ died on April 6th, add nine months, and you get January 6th, Theophany, Christs birth of water and the Holy Spirit. So ironically, both dates are correct âbirth datesâ for the Lord.
So if youâre going to call the same people who regularly fast, walked across the world to spread the Gospel, preached daily for years on end, did baptisms and liturgies and homilies regularly, if youâre gonna call THOSE people lazy, you need to explain why they would go through all this trouble to establish a date of celebration.
More Bruno and Alma because GRRRHH I LOVE THEM AND I THINK THEY NEEDED MORE SCREEN TIME
Ahem anyways he is showing her the rat and while she doesn’t really like the rats that much, her son is obviously head over heels for them so she makes her best effort to be supportive djfjgj-
Yeah, using that definition is extremely vague as it would invalidate self-defense. If someone tried to use my body without my consent, I would be well within my rights to kill them and I would do so without much consideration for how much pain I caused them or with regards to their life, but that still wouldnât be considered murder. I see abortion as a similar scenario. Even if I were to entertain the idea that a fetus is a person (which I donât btw) any women should still have the right to stop it from using her body without her consent, even if doing so kills it.
Self defense is neither inhumane nor barbarous. It also doesnât involve the death of an innocent person. And saying theyâre not persons doesnât make it true. They are, by every definition of the word, human. How are they not persons?
The child has absolutely no intention in pregnancy; it didnât have a single choice in the matter. It very much does not fit the definition of self defense.
I never said a fetus wasnât human, I said a fetus isnât a person because personhood is a social construct that is granted upon birth. The idea that a fetus has no say in the matter is a moot point. People in the midst of a mental health crisis that are posing a risk to others, for example, can still be killed in self-defense even though they donât have a say in the matter. But even if you want to entertain the idea that a fetus is a person with the same rights as you and me, that also means that a fetus canât use another personâs body without their consent. The pregnant person has rights too, unless you want to entertain the idea that a personâs right to live is more important than another personâs right to control their body.
Your comparison of a person having a mental health crisis and a fetus is a false equivalence. You may ethically kill someone threatening your life and property because you did not consent to their actions. A pregnant woman, in contrast, did consent to the presence of the fetus by consenting to sex, and, therefore, waived their Right to control their body in manners that cause harm to (or aggress upon) their unborn child.
Consent to sex is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy, that is true. However, consent may also be withdrawn at anytime. If a person agrees to sex but then changes their mind and wants to stop, continuing to have sex with that person after they withdrew consent is rape, correct? Another example is if I agreed to donate blood or give up a kidney, but then I change my mind before doing so, thatâs within my rights to do. The government doesnât get to come in and take my blood or kidney against my will to keep someone else alive just because I initially consented. Likewise, if a pregnant person decides they donât want to be pregnant anymore, the government has no right to force them to give up control of their body once their consent has been withdrawn.
If you admit the government has a role, the only role they have is to protect the lives of their subjects, born or unborn. You cannot unilaterally revoke someones Right to Self and Property just because they inconvenience you, which is what occurs in the situation you described above. If we are being consistent in how we recognize Natural Rights, and Iâm assuming our understandings meld here, we must recognize that the only time it is ethically permissible to violate someones Right to Self and Property is after they aggress upon you or someone else first. Even then, it is not always the most ethical course of action to end someones life for an aggression. Larceny does not always merit death, to a reasonable man, thus I do not see why the inaction of being conceived does.
The role of government is to uphold and protect the rights of their citizens. According to the U.S. constitution, a citizen is someone who has either been born or naturalized into the United States. A fetus, therefore, is not a citizen and doesnât have rights. The pregnant person however, is a U.S. citizen and does have rights. So, I would argue that the role in government in this case to to uphold the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person by allowing abortion to remain a legal option. I actually think banning abortion is unconstitutional. Not because of Roe vs Wade, which I acknowledge was a poorly judged opinion and should be overturned, but under the 13th amendment. Forcing someone to give up their bodily autonomy to keep a fetus alive puts them in a position of indentured servitude to a fetus, which like slavery is unconstitutional and illegal.
So, according to your argument, an immigrant, whether legal or illegal, has no rights and are not protected under the agreement of the constitution and the government owes them no protection whatsoever if they have not become citizens?
According to the constitution, that is indeed the case, but that isnât how we operate as a country. We still grant immigrants, even illegal immigrants basic human rights enjoyed by our own citizens. This is a good will policy rather than constitutionally demanded and Iâm not against it. We donât grand immigrants special rights though that are not enjoyed by our own citizens; so why should fetuses be the one group given the special right to use the bodies of others without their consent? I argue that they should not, meaning abortion should remain a legal option.
Good thing all that overturning Roe V Wade did was return it to the states, rather than outright ban abortions.Â
But there are times you cannot âwithdraw consentâ because itâs too late. Drive Drunk or even just driving you consent to the risk of a crash. You cannot not consent to that.Â
But even laws reflect itâs a person, if you kill a pregnant woman, itâs double homicide. If the unborn is not a person, itâs not a homicide.
If you play blackjack at a casino, you donât get to revoke your consent after you lose a hand. You donât get to claim âfinancial autonomyâ so you donât have to pay up.
But maybe OP has a point. Perhaps we can come to a compromise by considering a fetus â of a person.
Sure but this isnât a good analogy to address my stance on bodily autonomy. If you put money down on a gamble and then you lose the gamble, the moment you lose, the money you put down isnât your money anymore. Refusing to pay at that point would be theft. Thatâs the equivalent of a pregnant person carrying a child to term, delivering it and becoming a mother, then smothering the infant in its crib because being a mother was too much work. I would agree with you, that infanticide is murder, morally wrong, and should be legally actionable.
But if you initially agreed to play a game of blackjack, but then changed your mind before putting money down and starting to play, the casino shouldnât have legal authority to block you from leaving and force you to play your hand at blackjack and take your money if you lose that hand.
The aspect of gambling also doesnât come with nine months of a casino accessing your finances and taking what they want or causing you significant health risks so I donât see how this could ever be used as a comparable analogy to the loss of bodily autonomy involved in forcing women to carry fetuses to term against their will.
If you had sex you put money down.
Nope, sorry, it doesnât work that way. If you carry a fetus to term and deliver then you put money down. Consent to sex is not consent to being forced by the government to carry a pregnancy to term.
Fuck the government. There is no excuse to kill children.
Nobody is talking about killing children. Abortion terminates a pregnancy and kills a fetus. Fetuses arenât children as they have no bodily autonomy and thus are not their own being.
Do they have unique DNA?
Tumors have unique DNA too
And yet theyâre not sentient, nor persons.
Do you have a compulsion to prove how stupid you are?
âAnd yet theyâre not sentient, nor persons.â
Neither are fetuses
âDo you have a compulsion to prove how stupid you are?â
Projection
So you just make up excuses to kill children, huh?
âSo you just make up excuses to kill children, huh?â
They arenât children, they are fetuses
So if your children grew up into adulthood, theyâre technically not children any more, but it doesnât change the fact that youâre their parent. I donât even know why people have to argue about this. Before we could use the internet and type here, we all had to grow through that unborn life stage.
The irony is âfetusâ is literally Latin for âoffspringâ AKA
