CLE Forum
General Category => Bible Discussion => Topic started by: Zoologistkid on May 21, 2019, 11:45:55 AM
-
I managed to find a video about CMI defending Christmas, It was more deceptive than I thought it was going to be. For example, it uses the exact same bad argument of the false use of the "Genetic Fallacy" like Tony Breedan used it. They even claim that Christmas Traditions predate pagan traditions which we know is complete lies. Like always if they were to take a biblical stand on topics like these, they would lose a lot of viewers (e.g. money).
You can review it for yourselves here:
https://youtu.be/AnxoZljZDwI (https://youtu.be/AnxoZljZDwI)
-
How can Christmas predate the pagon? That will mean that Christmas was celebrated way before Jesus was born.
-
Thanks for the link Caleb, I will view that later. I wonder how much they agree with AIG and AIG's defense of Christmas.
-
It was celebrated before He was born but not as the false belief that it celebrates His birth. Creation Ministries are all the same: they say one thing and they know people aren't going to look it up. Ken Ham and his Ilk are infamous for doing it.
-
Hi, Jon, your welcome. I am not able to introduce myself to everyone but I do hope this at least give you an example of creationist bowing down to many things that aren't the Bible.
-
What is aig?
-
Answers In Genesis is AIG
-
They need there Christmas. It is there biggest money making time of the year
-
You know it is extremely obvious that they are defending it for money when they advertise their stuff in the video. You cannot make up their greed.
-
I had heard long ago that JW's did not celebrate Christmas because it was 'not in the Bible' but no one really expounded why. I had never thought about Christmas being a Catholic-pagan merge until this year. I always viewed Christmas as a celebration of Christ instead of santa claus - in other words, the choice is up to every Christian if they want to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25, otherwise it is a harmless festival. Little did I know ... I read Chris' article on Christmas and I now see things differently. Waaaaay differently.
-
It could be worse, the valentines day articles makes me want to puke when I see the "heart" symbol everywhere.
-
I had heard long ago that JW's did not celebrate Christmas because it was 'not in the Bible' but no one really expounded why. I had never thought about Christmas being a Catholic-pagan merge until this year. I always viewed Christmas as a celebration of Christ instead of santa claus - in other words, the choice is up to every Christian if they want to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25, otherwise it is a harmless festival. Little did I know ... I read Chris' article on Christmas and I now see things differently. Waaaaay differently.
I know you've been around for a while, I'm surprised you didn't see it until recently. That's interesting.
-
I had heard long ago that JW's did not celebrate Christmas because it was 'not in the Bible' but no one really expounded why. I had never thought about Christmas being a Catholic-pagan merge until this year. I always viewed Christmas as a celebration of Christ instead of santa claus - in other words, the choice is up to every Christian if they want to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25, otherwise it is a harmless festival. Little did I know ... I read Chris' article on Christmas and I now see things differently. Waaaaay differently.
I know you've been around for a while, I'm surprised you didn't see it until recently. That's interesting.
It was on my list of 'to read' but I read other articles first. I think I have read about half of your articles now and I am continuing to read when I can.
-
Jon, so what do you think of CMI's defense?
-
Jon, so what do you think of CMI's defense?
I'm watching it right now
-
Incredibly weak defense of Christmas, they used a lot of presupposition and align themselves with William Tighe (apparently an editor of Touchstone magazine and a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Pennsylvania) for defense of the December 25th date having nothing to do with pagan influences; rather, "Latin Christians attempting to determine the historical date of Christ's death." They only mention Sol Invictus and not Saturnalia/Yule. They did an extremely poor job of actually searching scripture for what the Word says about celebrations/festivals/etc. They added a lot of information that has absolutely nothing to do with the history of Christmas, almost like "here, this will make you feel good." And don't forget to give the gift of the magazine!!!. I checked the comments from people and CMI actually answered some: The Yule Log? CMI Said, "The Yule log is a modern tradition that has no origin in either Christianity or paganism—it never had any specific religious significance, pagan or otherwise. It was simply a festive decoration with a practical purpose."
-
Thanks, Jon. I like it when people begin to see things in a different light. Remember that the word credible means believable? In this case, CMI isn't believable at all. People always bring up saint Nicholas in defense. But they don't realize that he didn't exist and there is no evidence of him existing. When you align yourself with pagans, don't be surprised when you begin defending paganism.
-
they used a lot of presupposition and align themselves with William Tighe (apparently an editor of Touchstone magazine and a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Pennsylvania) for defense of the December 25th date having nothing to do with pagan influences;
I consider this a telltale sign if someone promoting heresy. When you have someone that uses a Roman Catholic source to defend their unbiblical beliefs you have, most likely, an heretic.
How to spot a heretic in 60 seconds or less:
https://youtu.be/GRbp0rp01to
-
This is either poorly researched or deceptive and dishonest. I noticed they repeated the same line that it is a new fad to expose the heathen roots of christmas. They also flat out lied when they said that the 25th of December was only celebrated after Jesus's death.
-
I think both are applicable. It is so poorly researched that it is completely dishonest. They always say this controversy only appeared recently but in reality, it has been going on since the Catholics picked up Christmas.
-
A 5-second internet search on 'yule log' turned up this wikipedia excerpt right off:
'The Yule log, Yule clog, or Christmas block is a specially selected log burnt on a hearth as a Christmas tradition in a number of countries in Europe. The origin of the folk custom is unclear. Numerous scholars have observed that, like other traditions associated with Yule, the custom may ultimately derive from Germanic paganism.'
The other articles mostly referred to recipes so I didn't bother with them.
But in Chris' article/book on Christmas, he cites numerous books by Wiccan/witch authors who readily admit to Yule being the same holiday as the Roman pagan Saturnalia. Church goers just don't seem to want to accept that, though, especially if they make money off the holiday.
-
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8: 31-32
In this case, the truth will set you free but not free from the insanity that is the defenders of Christmas! "Don't forget to buy Creation Magazine". You're not helping the belief that Creationists are like vampires and vultures when it comes to money.
-
"We love God and don't forget to buy our magazine".
Matthew 6:24 KJV No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
-
This is either poorly researched or deceptive and dishonest. I noticed they repeated the same line that it is a new fad to expose the heathen roots of christmas. They also flat out lied when they said that the 25th of December was only celebrated after Jesus's death.
Hmm... I'm not sure that's a lie, but it's deceptive. The solstice celebration was (I think) the 17th-24th, putting the shortest day of the year (21st) in the middle. The 25th is the day after that, and so that wasn't celebrated until around 400 A.D. So technically, yes, it was celebrated only after the death of Jesus, but they're deceiving people because (I'm presuming, since I haven't read what you're talking about) they'll argue that the early first Christians started celebrating it after 33 A.D., and if they argue that, then that would be a lie.
-
The worst part is the fact that Church Goers accepted these arguments without question. It is pretty sad when people are praising because they can celebrate these pagan festivals without guilt or worry.
-
I just picked up after re-watching their video that CMI said the Bible neither commands or forbids celebrating Christmas so Christians can either celebrate it or ignore it as long as the means of celebration are not unscriptural. Then they mention the "genetic fallacy" by equating even if Christmas came from paganism, pagan celebrations=Christmas celebrations to chemist Friedrich Kekule's dream of a snake wrapped in its own tale=correct ring structure of the Benzyne molecule, and because chemists don't need to worry about correct snake biology or dream psychology to analyze Benzyne, they yuck it up about how the rightness or wrongness of Christmas celebrations are independent of the truth or falsity of their supposed pagan parallell - and besides, the claim that Christmas is based on pagan tradition is not supported historically.
The worst part is the fact that Church Goers accepted these arguments without question. It is pretty sad when people are praising because they can celebrate these pagan festivals without guilt or worry.
here are two youtube viewer replies: You all should do a similar program for Easter and its so called pagan roots. and Great video! I want get magazine.
-
Then they mention the "genetic fallacy" by equating even if Christmas came from paganism, pagan celebrations=Christmas celebrations to chemist Friedrich Kekule's dream of a snake wrapped in its own tale=correct ring structure of the Benzyne molecule, and because chemists don't need to worry about correct snake biology or dream psychology to analyze Benzyne, they yuck it up about how the rightness or wrongness of Christmas celebrations are independent of the truth or falsity of their supposed pagan parallell
These Creation people do err when comparing physical things (the benzine molecule) with spiritual things (like Christmas). How's that for a logical fallacy?
1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
-
Hmm... I'm not sure that's a lie, but it's deceptive. The solstice celebration was (I think) the 17th-24th, putting the shortest day of the year (21st) in the middle. The 25th is the day after that, and so that wasn't celebrated until around 400 A.D. So technically, yes, it was celebrated only after the death of Jesus, but they're deceiving people because (I'm presuming, since I haven't read what you're talking about) they'll argue that the early first Christians started celebrating it after 33 A.D., and if they argue that, then that would be a lie.
Thanks for the info, Chris. I had forgotten the specific dates. I definitely need to brush up on this teaching. I remember thinking that all of these December festivals were the same. I had done a quick google search the other day and found the information below from history channel's website.
"The pagan celebration of Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture and time, began as a single day, but by the late Republic (133-31 B.C.) it had expanded to a weeklong festival beginning December 17. (On the Julian calendar, which the Romans used at the time, the winter solstice fell on December 25.)"
I don't know anything about the Julian calendar or the validity of the claims made. It would be interesting if true and would make more sense why they chose the 25th to be the day of their "new" christmas celebration.
Have you come across this claim in your research?
-
Chris, what do you think of CMI's defense?
-
I believe they are ignorant of the pagan aspects in today's celebrations, or they are very deceptive. I believe there are more fundamental issues with this ministry. I used to enjoy hearing their defense of Genesis, but if you examine their teachings you will find that they also doubt Genesis.
If you look at CMI's "what we believe" section you will find the quote below:
"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout."
Sounds good huh? I'm confused when I find new age bible versions in their teachings. Are they aware of the lies in these versions. If you don't truly believe that God's word is inherent and preserved, you cannot know what Genesis actually says.
I repeat what I said before. They are either ignorant of what they claim to believe or they are being dishonest.
-
What do you mean they doubt Genesis? I'm not surprised, though because of all the dumb stuff they have taught: "Dinosaurs are most assuredly extinct" "Dinosaur and human footprints are all fakes" "You can be a Christain and deny his word/believe in evolution". Not to mention they never rebuke teachers or call them out to false teachers, they say be careful around him but he has done good and he is a Christian still. Really?
-
What do you mean they doubt Genesis?
By using versions that contain error, they are not only doubting Genesis, but the entire bible's authority comes into question. If there is found a clear error, who decides which parts are correct? The pope? The fact is that God's word is preserved and can be read in the KJB. That is the only way that scripture can have ultimate authority.
-
Thanks, I misunderstood you a little. They also bow under the rule of Catholics and defend them when they have a chance.
-
I'm confused when I find new age bible versions in their teachings.
They use the ESV when quoting 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Note the differences:
ESV: 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
KJV: 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
-
I first heard of Creation.com while searching for articles for my Counterfeit Christian Cinema (https://youtu.be/4eCFjk86CSU?t=11m28s) series. I made a note that I only supported one particular article they wrote in opposition to the God's Not Dead film, and that I was concerned about their merchandising. It's sad that while they rightly oppose that film, they support pagan holidays like Christmas. I will have to look elsewhere in the future for Christian articles.
-
Aren't all creationist organizations like that? They may say one or two things "good" but they are so full of leaven.