• expired

Road To Bethlehem (Free Christmas Event)

1131

Bring your family, friends and colleagues to experience an outdoor walk-through theatrical presentation that brings to life the true story and meaning of Christmas. The evening begins in our waiting area, where you'll find all kinds of food, children's activities and music to keep you entertained. As you take part in this outdoor-promenade theatrical adventure with your group, you'll be stopping at several drama presentations.
Some 15,000 travellers each year are led around the Christmas story by character guides (in groups) - making ROAD to BETHLEHEM one of Australia's biggest free Christmas events. You’ll encounter all manner of characters along the journey, from the jealous royalty, down to humble shepherds, to majestic angels, to bantering Roman soldiers.

This a great free Christmas event. I've only been to the Melbourne one and it gets packed every year. Obviously, it is a Christian story of Christmas with angels and what not. However, Christianity is not pushed on people who attend - so if you're like me and don't like that kind of thing being pushed on you, it's not a problem. Highly recommended for children as there is face painting, food and other entertainment. Plenty to enjoy for adults too. Attendees usually get a free showbag which in the past has had food and toys.

Related Stores

roadtobethlehem.org
roadtobethlehem.org

Comments

  • +22 votes

    thanks djtranny

  •  

    Already been to Melbourne

  • +1 vote

    None in Sydney :(

  • +5 votes

    Jesus Christ

  • +1 vote

    Is anyone having luck booking Brisbane? I get a weird video that I can't get past

  • +2 votes

    Are Youse Trina convert me

  • +10 votes

    I was not expecting this post from DJ Tranny

  • +1 vote

    Oh yes the famous Christmas tradition of the bantering Roman soldiers. An essential part of any nativity scene.

    • +9 votes

      I feel like roman soldiers did banter a lot. Between endless wars and enemies everywhere you gotta find humor somewhere.

  • +7 votes

    Great annual event!

  • +1 vote

    True story? Isn't it just "story"?

  • +1 vote

    interesting that all the actors seem to be dressed as what we attribute to arabs/muslims.

    • +7 votes

      Umm that's because they are all Semitic people from the Middle East. There's only so many types of practical attire one can wear in that hot dry climate.

          • +3 votes

            @ifreddo: I don't have any issue with religious expression and don't consider it homophobic to be disapproving of homosexuality. People can be as disapproving and unhappy as they want, and they are free to express that all they want. People have different opinions. Live and let live.

            But I also don't consider marriage to be in any way religious for a non-religious person. So my main disagreement with the actual campaigning against gay marriage was that it was went beyond an expression of personal views (which was and still is fine), to have the inappropriate aim of preventing other people from living freely because of those personally-held views.

            And so, you suggested looking up the definition.
            homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
            prejudice: harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgement.

            A legal judgement (or lack of) that limits their personal freedoms seems to be pretty much covered.

            Having said that, I dunno what the 7th Days did that has jumpjim all riled up.

            • +7 votes

              @crentist: People forget that "Marriage" is also a legal act primarily intended to protect the creation and welfare of families.

              That is why incest; marrying a minor; polygamy etc. are all illegal practices - irrespective of "Love is Love" which seems to be one of the main rationale's for those who voted yes.

              I for one opposed gay marriage for this very fact - not because of any religious beliefs or personal views towards homosexuality. Hence your argument about how by opposing gay marriage it goes beyond an expression of my personal view and prevents other living freely is in my humble opinion flawed.

              • +1 vote

                @ev3nfl0w:

                People forget that "Marriage" is also a legal act primarily intended to protect the creation and welfare of families.

                Are you talking about creating families as in procreation? Producing children? Which does not require marriage, nor is a requirement of marriage. Two different things.

                And as a legal act protecting families in general, marriage and de facto relationships are pretty much the same. They have pretty much the same tax obligations, child care responsibilities etc. A legal family can be two adults, married or not, with or without kids, who may or may not be biologically related to both, one, or neither parent.

                Which makes marriage a largely ceremonial difference, but one that happens to be incontrovertible in law.

                That is why incest; marrying a minor; polygamy etc. are all illegal practices

                Irrespective of moral judgement, I think the first two are more to do with potential for abuse of power (and the health risks of inbreeding maybe). The third might be the same, and/or because it makes it messy to determine any standard for legal expectations of care and responsibility of people in those families, or even just taxes that they should pay. Which would make expanding legally recognised marriages to multiple people a hefty task logistically, at the very least.

                So I don't think any of those examples, nor whatever flimsy difference to family protections a legal marriage offers, are relevant to the difference it makes when two otherwise normal adults start a family together despite having the same bits.

                •  

                  @crentist:

                  Are you talking about creating families as in procreation? Producing children? Which does not require marriage, nor is a requirement of marriage. Two different things.

                  I think humans had that figured out, but it's good for the children to have their parents in a committed relationship. Having kids outside of marriage was previously(and still in some communities) frowned upon.

                  Many children now grow up without a father or mother.

                  Is that what they were saying? Or were they saying marriage is between a man and a woman and the gays should stay out of it?

                  That is what they were saying. They didn't want to redefine marriage. Any person was able to get married before they changed it. Everyone just had to follow the same requirements, one of which that involved only one man and one woman.

                  •  

                    @ozhunter:

                    Many children now grow up without a father or mother.

                    Okay? Blame the mother and father then? Unrelated to same-sex marriage, kinda seems to highlight an issue with heteros.

                    Any person was able to get married before they changed it. Everyone just had to follow the same requirements, one of which that involved only one man and one woman.

                    The mere existence of a requirement doesn't make it justified. Otherwise that would make the No Homers Club an inclusive group for everyone.

                    • -3 votes

                      @crentist:

                      Okay? Blame the mother and father then? Unrelated to same-sex marriage, kinda seems to highlight an issue with heteros.

                      Heteros did diminish the value of marriage. The lgbt want are trying to destroy it completely by making it meaningless.

                      It's like have a girls only school or sport and allowing boys to participate.

                      The mere existence of a requirement doesn't make it justified. Otherwise that would make the No Homers Club(youtube.com) an inclusive group for everyone.

                      Lol, marriage doesn't have a first come first serve requirement. It wasn't dependent on who was already married.

                      • +2 votes

                        @ozhunter:

                        Heteros did diminish the value of marriage. The lgbt want are trying to destroy it completely by making it meaningless.

                        Marriage isn't valuable, the relationship between two people is. But only as valuable as the two of them feel. If a gay couple feels that their relationship is highly valuable, then it is. If a straight couple thinks that their own relationship is now worth less because gays can also get married, that's up to them.

                        Lol, marriage doesn't have a first come first serve requirement. It wasn't dependent on who was already married.

                        You might have missed the discrimination that took place in that clip though, which wasn't actually because he was second. Nor is being second a fair reason anyway.

                        But whatever. Agreed. Gay people getting married has no effect on others who have and will get married.

                        • -1 vote

                          @crentist:

                          the relationship between two people is. But only as valuable as the two of them feel. If a gay couple feels that their relationship is highly valuable, then it is

                          If that actually were true, they wouldn't have pushed so hard to redefine marriage. They wanted validation and forced acceptance of their relationship by society. The term civil unions wouldn't have given it to them.

                          Gay people getting married has no effect on others who have and will get married.

                          I wouldn't say it has no effect on society. It butchers the term marriage for one. It's like calling a steak an apple and offering it to a vegan. The vegan would eat if when she realises it actually a steak. Using the same term for multiple things makes it confusing and difficult.

                          Also says that gender is irrelevant in an institution that strengthens the nuclear family.

                          • +1 vote

                            @ozhunter:

                            If that actually were true, they wouldn't have pushed so hard to redefine marriage. They wanted validation and forced acceptance of their relationship by society.

                            No, they wanted to fix legislated discrimination that prevented them from giving their relationships the same legal title as a straight couple. It doesn't matter whether the term civil union would amount to the same thing, because there was no reason to deny them from calling it a marriage.

                            Other people can still refuse to accept their relationships, but that kind of judgement has no reason to be in legislation.

                            It's like calling a steak an apple and offering it to a vegan. The vegan would eat if when she realises it actually a steak.

                            Not really. The implication of this analogy would be that someone might almost be tricked into marrying a same-sex partner because they truly didn't consider the possibility that their partner wasn't the opposite sex.
                            It also rests on the assumption that a same-sex marriage is as grossly misrepresentative of the definition of marriage as mislabeling vastly different food groups. Which may be true for some people, but it also happens to be the exact detail that was changed because enough others did not agree that it was a misrepresentation at all.

                            Also says that gender is irrelevant in an institution that strengthens the nuclear family.

                            But marriage doesn't only exist to serve the nuclear family. It's a legal union between two people who may never intend to have children, even if they can. Whether it helps or harms those who want kids is incidental.

                            •  

                              @crentist:

                              because there was no reason to deny them from calling it a marriage.

                              The terminology alone should be enough, even if civil union had the same rights. It confuses the English language. I think they just didn't like that it was a term that was pretty exclusively used to define a man and woman relationship. It's like calling removing boy and girl from the English dictionary and just calling everyone humans, as if there is no difference between them.

                              Other people can still refuse to accept their relationships

                              Not without potential legal issues

                              But marriage doesn't only exist to serve the nuclear family. It's a legal union between two people who may never intend to have children

                              I'd say it was it's primary reason. It wasn't a requirement. No other reason for the government to care who loves who.

                              •  

                                @ozhunter:

                                It confuses the English language. I think they just didn't like that it was a term that was pretty exclusively used to define a man and woman relationship.

                                Was it really a gender-exclusive word? I think a lot of people didn't agree that it ever really was, and felt it had just sorta ended up that way out of convention and outdated ideas. Which meant that the legal definition did not match what they already thought the word meant, and that created confusion. From that perspective, it's fixing an incorrect legal definition, not changing an English one.

                                Before the vote I had even been to a few weddings in which the couple had asked the celebrant to state that they believed marriage was not exclusively between men and women, and that they disagreed with the legal definition of the word that was required to be read as part of the ceremony.

                                Which, to go back to your point about how same-sex diminishes the value of marriage for some people, means that the previous legal definition was already doing that for some hetero couples. They were literally announcing in the middle of their own weddings that they disagreed with the institution they were entering into.

                                Not without potential legal issues

                                How so? You can think whatever you want without legal issues. Just like you can think whatever you want about people based on their race, religion, job title, whatever. No one is forcing you to accept anything you don't want to. You can still sneer at them all you like.
                                You just don't get to express your disapproval of other people in society in ways that are harmful to them. Applies to everyone equally.

                                • -1 vote

                                  @crentist:

                                  Was it really a gender-exclusive word?

                                  How it was written in legislation before John Howard changed it? No. Though it such an obvious and common understanding that it was between a man and woman that there wasn't even a need to be explicit about it. It was in 2001 was when the first country legalised ssm, and to this date, only 30 have done so.

                                  the couple had asked the celebrant to state that they believed marriage was not exclusively between men and women

                                  That's just strange. I mean I can disagree with a contract morally and still sign it at the same time.

                                  No one is forcing you to accept anything you don't want to.

                                  The cake baker, the ssm wedding farm, and Christian artist incidents in the US say otherwise. At least here for the most part, people seem to be more respectful of each other.

                                  You can still sneer at them all you like.

                                  Why would I sneer at them just because I think it's wrong?

                                  You just don't get to express your disapproval of other people in society in ways that are harmful to them.

                                  That's saying I have to encourage and support anything someone chooses to do. What is harmful is subjective. I don't disapprove of any person, but I do disapprove of some lifestyle choices. There's been hetero couples in church who think sex before marriage is fine even when the pastor and senior ministers strongly disagree. They still come and are welcomed into the church. In the end, it's their choice.

                •  

                  @crentist: Then why did we need to change the marriage act (and I explicitly state the legislation, not the act of marriage itself) when in your own words - it is a matter of moral judgement and de facto relationships pretty much provide the same rights as marriage?

                  Why make it an issue of religious belief, equality and/or discrimination when clearly, there have been logical arguments set forth that this is not the case? By painting one side of the picture black,are you not discriminating against the 40% (who voted no) who clearly think otherwise?

                  • +2 votes

                    @ev3nfl0w:

                    Then why did we need to change the marriage act (and I explicitly state the legislation, not the act of marriage itself) when in your own words - it is a matter of moral judgement and de facto relationships pretty much provide the same rights as marriage?

                    Because why should a piece of legislation prevent same-sex couples from the act of marriage? The fact that it doesn't change much is more reason to make it equal. Otherwise it's just legal discrimination for no practical purpose, not even a bad one.

                    I didn't say anything about same-sex marriage being a moral judgement though. I only mentioned moral judgement regarding the other relationships you mentioned, and only to specifically dismiss the topic of moral judgement without comment and go straight to the other reasons.
                    So, in my own words, I did not say that anything is a matter of moral judgement because there are better discussions to have.

                    Why make it an issue of religious belief, equality and/or discrimination when clearly, there have been logical arguments set forth that this is not the case? By painting one side of the picture black,are you not discriminating against the 40% (who voted no) who clearly think otherwise?

                    I'm not sure what you mean by any of this? What logical arguments? What's being painted black?
                    And who do you think made the same-sex debate an issue of religious belief? Legal marriage and the legislation has nothing to do with religion, unless you are religious. So who brought the concerns of religious groups into that whole debate, other than themselves? Their approval was never sought nor required.

                    •  

                      @crentist: No need to further a debate when the opposition does not understand points you raise.

                      Thanks for sharing your opinion about such a sensitive topic and although I disagree with a few points you have outlined, I do respect your views.

            • +4 votes

              @crentist: I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint. We could go back and forth regarding the origins of marriage. Truth is for thousands of years it has been linked to religion (not just Christians) and it has been part of Australia's identity whether you are religious or not. Changing the definition of marriage is no simple thing. What you see as a denial of a human right (which is a very strong statement btw), religious people see a valuable institution which has existed for a long time and needs to be protected. To change the definition is to de-value marriage as it has been known for millennia. If marriage were simply about 'love' then should 3 ppl be allowed to marry? What about marriage to animals? Or marriage to 15 year Olds? How deep does the rabbit hole go? No one knows..

              •  

                @ifreddo: To correct what you said, marriage has been defined many ways by many cultures and religions over millennia. The idea that the term has been so strictly defined over millennia is clearly not factual unless you only examine a small bubble.

                Around the world marriage can encompass one man with many wives, can be pre-arranged by families, can be performed by celebrants, priests or rabbis. Marriage has been used to settle disputes elevate familial statuses or for financial gain. To suggest that the allowing of two consenting adults to marry somehow taints the word is absurd. Has Britney Spears not done more damage with her flippant approach? Barnaby Joyce?

                You may also want to look into the "slippery slope fallacy", your last point is a textbook example.

                • -1 vote

                  @todayssawyer: I was talking about ancient, major religions of Australia, you know, Judeo-Christians? Muslims? Who make up a large portion of our population? You can "correct" me all you like but how about you refrain from taking my comments out of context? Also if you're too lazy to present your opinion by suggesting that I myself should go and look up arguments against my own opinions - then I won't bother responding to yours.

              • +2 votes

                @ifreddo: True, but I don't think of this as simply being about "love" of any form. This isn't even about being especially morally supportive of homosexuals. The polygamy and bestiality and pedophilia arguments are completely separate things with their own range of reasons not to be part of the debate.

                The most significant reason being that the legal status of two adult individuals is unrelated to their gender, and the changes to their legal status after marriage would also be unrelated to gender. Which makes it a somewhat arbitrary point to base any distinction.

                Obviously I'm speaking entirely in legal terms here, which is also why I don't think there should be any conflict with religion. If I were to get married, it could be only in the eyes of the law, not any church, and so the approval or disapproval of a church should be irrelevant unless I want to do it inside a church. In which case they I think I think they should be able to deny it if they want.

                I think it would make more sense if churches were opposed to the legal co-opting of the word/concept of marriage for people outside the church, than on the specifics of how the law applies it. If the law stole marriage from the church, then the church should be upset at ALL atheist marriages. To only disapprove of the ones that wouldn't be allowed by it's own members suggests that they think that they are involved in all legal marriages, which isn't really the case.

                • +2 votes

                  @crentist: The change to the marriage law is not designed to achieve a freedom, but an endorsement and acceptance. Same sex couples are already free to live together, free to adopt children, free to be acknowledged in wills. They have equality in civil law. This change is about same sex couples being accepted as equals with male-female marriages. But a change in the law will not achieve that as it does not address the reasons people reject same sex couples as equivalent to male-female marriages. Those reasons are not only religious. Some have a deep commitment to family and to children without any religious motivation. Others have a respect for the wisdom of past centuries. None of these reasons are addressed in a change in the definition of marriage. And many will still consider same sex sexual activity as sin, and therefore relationships, however longstanding, that are built on same sex sexual activity as sinful. A change in the legal definition will not address that. And so for acceptance to be achieved, and that is the goal, it is logical that this change will be accompanied by restrictions on the expression of disapproval, and an attempt to prevent the transmission of world views that do not endorse same sex marriage.

                  •  

                    @ifreddo: The expected outcome of same-sex marriage is not some kind of overnight universal acceptance as equals. Homosexuals are pretty well aware that some people will disapprove of them no matter what. But the same goes for basically any group of people anyway, so it's fairly condescending to think that they are naive enough not to realise this will never happen.

                    But even that wouldn't mean that making things even just a little more equal is therefore pointless, because it won't go all the way to achieving that unrealistic goal. Because you are suggesting that the acknowledgement of inequality is reason for it to remain entrenched in this highly visible form, which would prevent things from improving even a little bit.

                    But none of that matters at all, because the bigger issue is that this bit of law discriminated against people who had since developed a voice and gained community support (among some people). Which means it was no longer a question of why we should expand the definition of marriage, but why the definition should remain restricted.

                    Saying that it's because some people will consider them sinners and unequal no matter what is not a good reason, because they can still express those views, and homosexuals can still ignore them, just like any other opinion in the world. But if the law sides with a personal opinion that treats others as unequal, that is a problem.

                    You are looking at it as seeking justification for making a proactive change to the law, but the other side was seeking justification for not correcting an error. Which is quite a fundamental difference in viewpoints from the outset, hence the debate I suppose.

              •  

                @ifreddo: The Marriage Act only needed to be changed because John Howard changed it to exclude same-sex couples in 2004. People don't campaign against infertile couples getting married, so why same-sex couples for not being able to have a shared biological child? Consenting adults should be allowed to get married, it's a legal act, not a religious one so a religious person has no business deciding who can or can't get married, hence why no-one else is excluded from marriage based on archaic religious beliefs. Also, perhaps people should mind their own business and not try to get involved in the sex lives of other consenting adults, unless they're invited. The rubbish about children getting married because same-sex couples do is a bit rich coming from religious people when it has been common in religious cultures for children to be forced to marry. They also have a history of polygamy, which is another thing you bring up, though I have no issue if they're all consenting adults.

                •  

                  @Miss B:

                  The Marriage Act only needed to be changed because John Howard changed it

                  Could call it common knowledge that it was to be between one man and one woman.

                  People don't campaign against infertile couples getting married

                  Because normally, women can still have children.

                  Consenting adults should be allowed to get married

                  As previously said, any adult has always been able to, everyone just had to follow the same requirements.

              •  

                @ifreddo: Slavery has been around for a long time too. Doesn't mean it's good or needs to be protected.

                It's a joke that people feel that their religious beliefs give them the right to decide what other people can and can't do. The whole "slippery slope" argument is tired and stupid.

                •  

                  @hcca:

                  It's a joke that people feel that their religious beliefs give them the right to decide what other people can and can't do. The whole "slippery slope" argument is tired and stupid.

                  It's a joke that non-religious people think that others can't form an opinion of their own on what is good for society.

    • +4 votes

      It would be good to understand why people disagree. For the record, I don't stand with any religion - I am just curious at the apparent double standard here.

      • +9 votes

        Christianity is probably more familiar to the majority of Australians than Islam or Sikh religious activities.

        • +6 votes

          Sure, that's fair enough. But does that mean only Christian-related posts should count as deals? Seems like it, as the threads I linked above (which are related to the Muslim faith) were quite controversial.

          The logic against the Islam-related deals were "keep religion off OzBargain" or "This is a political stunt" (literally quoting comments here). But this Christian deal is OK?

          All I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways. And if you do want it both ways, then you're discriminating. Don't hide it, own it.

          • +1 vote

            @yoshi864: I agree with you. If there is a free event, an accepting society that stands for freedom would not downvote free events irrespective of which group is behind them.

            There are plenty of people who trash Christians as can be seen under this post but I think the people who are disagreeing with you are doing so because Christmas has become more of a cultural event to many Australians rather than a religious one. It is seen as a time for families to get together and promote peace and goodwill. They don't want to throw that out even if they are not particularly religious.

  • +1 vote

    food

    is it halal. asking for a friend

    • +3 votes

      Probably not, even though 7th Day Adeventist are generally vegetarian. They hate pork and food from unclean animals too, but it wouldn’t have been “blessed?” by a Muslim cleric so it’s not halal.

      • +1 vote

        Vegetarian food and fish is automatically halal. Halal meat just has to be from a permissable animal and slaughtered in the correct fashion (doesn't need blessings from a cleric)

      •  

        technically it is halal. Misconception that the meat needs to be blessed by a Muslim a Rabi or a christian (that kills the animal by hand (no stunning)) would be halal.

        Muslims are allowed to eat the meat served by the people of the book. All Muslims will happily eat Kosher, the debate is if we can classify current Christians as following the same principles. This is most now stun the animal redering it unconcius before the kill and thus not halal.. However, if say I know you are a christian and you say you killed the animal by hand with no stun then I would happily eat.

  •  

    No tickets left online

  • -3 votes

    Does this story include the part where it was stolen from the Pagans ?

    • +1 vote

      Not stolen, replaced. Just like churches replaced other areas of workshop, Christianity replaced other religions, dating system replaced other dating etc etc

    • +1 vote

      Curious to know the basis of the downvote CanadaBoy

      • +2 votes

        In this instance, to use the word 'stolen' implies a deliberate appropriation of ideas with no regard to the original source, and also indicates a general ignorance on the part of CanadaBoy regarding the development of established religions as we know them today. UberlsCool alludes to this in his post - it was more about using the familiar religious mores of various communities of the time to make new religious conceptions more acceptable.

  • +6 votes

    'true story' lol

  •  

    "The true story and meaning of Christmas"

    I take it this means nuts. https://imgur.com/a/4GGrIkE

  • -2 votes

    Scam

  • -3 votes

    I wonder if they do an interactive event like this at Easter time too. It would be fun to whip Jesus.

  •  

    Road to Bethlehem Sydney will not be running in 2019 however an alternative program will run on Sunday 1 December. Please www.mvac.adventist.edu.au/events for more details. We look forward to seeing you in 2020 for Road to Bethlehem.

  • +1 vote

    I definitely recommend this if you can get tickets.

    I went for the first time to the Melbourne one last year. Was one of the best events I have ever been to.
    Walking down the "road" between the performance sites really adds to the atmosphere. The quality of the performances are amazing and clearly the performers are enjoying themselves. Its very humorous at times, especially the banter between the Romans, I wont give the jokes away but it was hilarious.

    For some context I am an atheist but respect the family/social benefits of religion and enjoy Christmas, went with some religious family. OP's comment that the "Christianity is not pushed on people who attend" is very true, in fact I probably found some of the jokes and events that unfold that much more enjoyable because of my views. My Kids loved it, loved being able to run around between sites and of course love the frisbee and card game they received in their show bags.

  •  

    I love how scared all you ozbargainers are of using that little red minus button (i mean, unless it's on an "offensive" comment like this one of course)

  • Top