during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion

An association that was forced on people by the Catholic Church.

Keep up the good work;)  As a former post of mine says that atheist advertisements have the positive affect of getting people thinking and talking about God:

 http://people.bakersfield.c...

Actually, no.  The "traditional religion" involved predated the Catholic Church by centuries.

"Gimme that *OLD-TIME* religion..."

Buffoo, when people start *THINKING* about god the atheists start getting converts.  That's why thinking isn't a major part of most organized religions.

The "traditional religion" involved predated the Catholic Church by centuries

Paganism can hardly be considered "traditional" in the traditional sense.  ;)

The intent of the group was to use "traditional" to mean the American version of the holiday, which points to the Catholic church.

I saw this earlier today~ Goodness is always in short supply.

The intent of the group was to use "traditional" to mean the American version of the holiday, which points to the Catholic church.

 Actually, the American version of the holiday appears centered on one Santa Claus and on retail sales.

Would such an ad draped over a camel passing by have shaken the rationalism exhibited by the Three Wise Men? I doubt it.

By the way, here's the atheists' version of the Three Wise Men:

Don't bother yourself TsM.  Rf doesn't really know what traditional religion is and he is an apostate from the Roman Catholic Church.  The original Church founded by the Apostles is the Orthodox Church.  The Roman Catholic Church adopted errors that made it confess differently than what the Apostles taught and it left communion with the rest of Orthodox Christendom in 1054 AD.  You are right in what we call paganism now a days is actually a modern invention of the Romantics.  Like I keep saying read your history;) 

Way,

you're wrong. There's actually an excellent history of the Christian church.

The split between orthodox and roman Christianity was a cultural thing manifested in many bloody feuds culminating in the council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicene Creed) which sets the christian theistic formula of god we know today.

www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

Although the council of Nicea represents a unification of sorts, it was merely a political expedient for the Emperor Constantine who sided with the western bishops on how to think  about the nature of god -man-jesus ( remember "not one iota" uttered by Anathasius?).

It all came down to the philosophical notion of substance.

At the time the big question was whether jesus was of the "same" substance, or "like" substance, with god which amounted to one iota ( greek character). The words in question were Homouisia and Homoousia...seriously.

To some, thinking about one iota was worth death - at that ttime, to some an iota could mean an unfortunately bad and gruesome death.

The formal political and military split was in 1054.

--virgil

What Would Jesus Do?

Actually, I've been living my life this way for years, and I didn't know there was an actual philosophy about it.  My college philosophy class was a paint-by-number waste of time, though, so it's no wonder.  There's nothing new under the sun, I guess.

What Would Jesus Do?  

Weep. 

Oh, come now, Random.  Jesus had a better sense of humor than all that.

He's probably up in Heaven right now, telling Wayfarer jokes.

Besides,

he's already weeped.

--virgil

Sorry Virgil but the original Council of Nicaea occurred long before the great schism and actually concerned itself with the Arianimist hearsay that said that Jesus was not the Son of God ,but merely a creature.  The great schism itself occurred because the Franks occupied Rome and held the Pope of Rome hostage.  Charlemagne wanted to be crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.  This the Pope of Rome could not do as the capital of the Roman Empire had moved to Constantinople under the Emperor Constantine.  So Charlemagne forced the Patriarchy of Rome to adopt a claim that the Pope of Rome had precedence over all the other Christian Bishops.  This was a radical departure from the Christianity the Apostles founded that said no Christian Apostle or their appointed Bishops has precedence over any other.  This consummated in the Roman Catholic Church separating itself from Orthodox Christendom in the year 1054 AD.  As you can see that is 729 years later than you claim.  Check the link you gave Virgil.  Even though it was written from the West's point of view it shows your history to be a bunch of hooey. 

"He's probably up in Heaven right now, telling Wayfarer jokes."

Catherine, now you went an' gave me the gigglies.  :)

Approximately 100,000 religions have been born during man's tenure. Hundreds of differing Christian Sects.

But only MINE is the correct religion.

Tomorrow I'm going to win the lottery while being bitten by a great white shark in the Gobi desert and simultaneously being struck by lightning and speared by a micronesian warrior. Mathematically speaking, the odds are the same as my beliefs, or any of yours, being THE correct one.

If your religion offers unchanging dogma, that *AUTOMATICALLY* makes it less likely to be correct. 

In response to those who can only answer serious arguments with black humor.  Of course the Lord is weeping over my sins and yours.

+Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God have mercy on us sinners+ 

"The formal political and military split was in 1054."

1054?  Blame it on the supernova.

anti~ where do I tithe? I have seen the great white shark of the gobi,the bolt of insight thrust by a small esian (groan )warrior and i believe. ;-)

There is a Roman Catholic saying "To the Protestants every one is infallible, except the Pope."  This can further be applied to this blog "To Rf everyone is fallible except him." 

Way,

No worries.

Like I posted, the political split happened in 1054 but it was a long time in coming.

It basically had everything to do with theology; and, the difference between the East and West were philosophical ( cultural, too) when it came to interpreting Christianity.

At the Council of Nicea 325, the Arian idea of Jesus was the main issue ( substance of god: if he's man, how do you intellectually reconcile it to the spiritual reality of an incorporeal god?)... Constantine wanted unification. The Eastern Bishops were in the majority, and mostly Arian. Constantine's imperial influence forced a compromise that literally amounted to one iota.

--virgil  

"To Rf everyone is fallible except him." 

Not infallible, just really, really right.  Almost as good.

Well Sage. My first experience with a Shark in the Gobi desert occured in my previous life as a famous World War II pilot in China.

Why is that everyone that claims a previous life was always famous, and why are they so odd in this life?

I've never heard anyone claim that they cleaned the stables of an insignificant Regent in North Germany in their previous life.

In response to those who can only answer serious arguments with black humor.

Show us some serious arguments, then you can claim that.

Oh Wayfarer--lighten up.  Just because Random's really, really right doesn't necessarily mean you're really, really wrong.

And I only tease because you have exhibited a real talent for turning the other cheek in the past.  There are SOME people around here who can't take a joke.  I hope you're not becoming one of them.

Virgil you are wrong once again.  There were only three Bishops that were Arian at the First Council of Nicea.  You are not accounting for your mispost in saying

"The split between orthodox and roman Christianity was a cultural thing manifested in many bloody feuds culminating in the council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicene Creed) which sets the christian theistic formula of god we know today."

As you yourself have confessed that it culminated in the Great Schism of 1054.

Hey Way,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

--virgil

Well anti~ I do not like to talk about it much,but in a past life I was a horse in those stables.....I told you I have done a lot of personal work ,it shows...now  I am human...sort of.LOL

Hey Virgil, your link doesn't prove me wrong.  It only add's to your mistake. 

well Way,

I wasn't trying to prove  you wrong..

I thought we were talking about the history of christian thought. 

--virgil  

Way,

You know the apostles did not think about god in  a theistic way. Their god was Hebrew - remember Paul struggling with the christian idea about what that meant to be christian...?

Thinking about what it means to be christian did not stop with Paul's death either.

--virgil

Sorry Virgil ,but your misstatement of historical facts  doesn't give me confidence that you are knowledgible of the history of Christian thought.  If you check the favorites on my profile you will find links to enlighten you of true history. 

Way, 

It's there for you to read.

 Confidence in Virgil Anderson  is not required...

--virgil

Buffoo, *YOUR* misstatements of historical facts don't exactly fill us with confidence.  And your misstatements about fellow bloggers still less.

Oh boo, hoo! Rf said something mean about me again and you know his opinion means the world to me;(