Originally Posted by amosfella (Post 2368557)

Fall is also likely. It only talks about 3 gifts from the wise men. They could have split into gifts as many as 20 for one gift... They visited a house about 2 years after the birth of christ it would seem from my study...
The 25th of December was a celebration of (IIRC) the sun or some old god's festival. To look like they were participating and to avoid persecution while still looking like they were conforming, Christians said that they were celebrating the birth of Christ on that day amongst each other...
Christians really get up tight if you start talking about this to them though... I personally don't like Christmas, but my reasons are personal...
A fish among fishes type of thing as Chairman Mau would say...

Originally Posted by elchivito (Post 2368759)

I can understand Herod being a despot, but how can a heron be a depot? :)

Originally Posted by Sev (Post 2369207)

christmas is not about the celebration of the birth of jesus, it's about the celebration of the joy of existence. whereas jesus stood for the exact opposite--that existence is a sin (original sin), and that life on earth is not a pursuit of happiness, but the esacape from suffering. metaphysically, that's what jesus stood for--life AFTER death, but not life on this earth. and definitely not celebration of any kind

so I reiterate: bah, HUMBUG

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes (Post 2369215)

Instead of condemning that which you find anathema in organised religion

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes (Post 2369215)

why not take a page from your own book and celebrate what you enjoy now . The main purpose of life is pleasure, however honestly achieved.

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.
“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes (Post 2369215)

I never could fathom why suffering ennobles one. This is the only life I am likely to experience so why not enjoy it and delight all the senses?

Originally Posted by Stoneseller (Post 2369232)

^^ That stuff's just too dark & depressing for the Holiday season, as is this thread. I think I'll unsubscribe & read more happy threads.

Originally Posted by Sev (Post 2369219)

I never said anything about organized religion, i talked about jesus. jesus' lifetime preceded anything even close to 'organized religion' (i.e. organized christianity) by a few centuries. it wasn't until a few centuries after jesus died that christians began organizing into denominations or groups as it were



my own book meaning atlas shrugged? if you think ayn rand advocates the idea that the main purpose of life is pleasure, you are conflating objectivism, the name of her philosophy, with hedonism. but i did note a very astute qualification you made: "however honestly acheived". read on about what AR says about hedonism and you will see that she makes this same qualification in a different way.

here is what ayn rand had to say about hedonism:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hedonism.html





you're right, suffering doesn' ennoble one--it just ensuffers one. lol

this is the only life--it's not a matter of likelyhood. when you die...POOF!...you wink out of existence, and your consciousness ceases to exists. there is no proof to the contrary

bah, HUMBUG

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes (Post 2369251)

Ayn Rand was a left-handed sheeny dyke who saw life as a struggle for material success.
She bought Jo Sternberg's Palisades N.J. house because it overlooked Manhattan and was designed by Dick Neutra, who my Gramps called a
Commie fairy zimmerkunstler.

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes (Post 2369251)

Ayn Rand ...saw life as a struggle for material success.

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.
An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival.
http://cultureofreason.org/style/img/thevirture.jpg “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 16.


There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
http://cultureofreason.org/style/img...tellectual.jpg Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121.

Originally Posted by Sev (Post 2367594)

Bah, HUMBUG

http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/chr...ug-scrooge.jpg

Originally Posted by Sev (Post 2369310)

to correct this factual error, here is what Ayn Rand had to say about "life":



to any rational person reading this, do these quotes, when taken out of their original context, suggest the thought process of someone who believed that 'life was a struggle for material success?' also, success, by what standard?

the questions are rhetorical--no need to answer them