# Christmas = Sex Magic!



## Makalakumu (Nov 21, 2006)

Who'da'thunk that most of our favorite christian christmas traditions are actually sex magic rituals.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7951618892821637153&q=Christmas+Unwrapped

Christmas is now my favorite holiday...


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 23, 2006)

Interesting....

I always wondered why Santa shouts "Ho, Ho, Ho!!!!!!!!.......Mmmmeeerrrrryyyyyy Christmas!!!!!!!"

It's all coming together now.....

Santa sliding down the chimney.....

Yes, very suspicious if you ask me.......


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 23, 2006)

Why do you think the cartoons in the Playboy December issues were always funny?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2006)

My personal favorite is how they claim that the Yule log is a tradition to venerate the Norse god Jule and that the log traditionally took the form of a 16 foot log carved in the shape of a phallus.

Roman Christmas is also very interesting...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 24, 2006)

This is fascinating!


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 24, 2006)

I'm surprised that it isn't more widely known that Christmas is merely a corrupted version of earlier pagan ceremonies and celebrations.  A similar hi-jack occurred of what we now treat as Easter, with the Morris Men and the Maypole in particular having the roots cut from underneath them (that quaint dance is all that remains of a grand combat for the chance to take your pick of the village maidens).

I guess that's just proof of how good a "hatchet job" the 'church' finally managed (tho' it did take them quite a few centuries to oust the earlier belief systems from Britain).

I wish I could have a watch of the video linked to but works Net Nannie prevents access so I'll just have to watch as peoples comments accrue and garner my assessment from there .


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 24, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> My personal favorite is how they claim that the Yule log is a tradition to venerate the Norse god Jule and that the log traditionally took the form of a 16 foot log carved in the shape of a phallus.
> 
> Roman Christmas is also very interesting...


 

I'm thinking Chevy Chase "yule log" comments from "Christmas Vacation" here..... 

I love that movie. 

".....and when Santa squeezes his fat white *** down the chimney, we're gonna be the jolliest bunch of ********....."

Ho, Ho, Ho


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 24, 2006)

This is old news.  Most Christians I know are well aware of the pagan roots of most 'Christian' holidays and you will find as many opinions on what to do about it as you find Christians.  Everything from "Christian's shouldn't practice Christmas" to "It's ok, the original symbolism has been replaced"

As a  Christian myself, I just view Christmas and Easter as secular holidays anway.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> > This is old news. Most Christians I know are well aware of the pagan roots of most 'Christian' holidays and you will find as many opinions on what to do about it as you find Christians. Everything from "Christian's shouldn't practice Christmas" to "It's ok, the original symbolism has been replaced"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 25, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I strongly disagree with this.  I think that most Christians are completely in the dark regarding the pagan roots of not only their holidays but their entire religion.  I grew up Roman Catholic and very very few people I knew had any idea regarding this.  The majority of people grow up believing this or that and basically doing what they are told.



Probably a frame of reference.  I grew up RC as well before converting to 'evangelical' and in the RC church it isn't mentioned much I remember it come up every single christmas and easter once I became evangelical and is usually a topic of conversation when talking to other families about 'plans for the holidays'  I no longer consider myself an evangelical Christian but it's still something pretty regularly discussed with the Christian families I know.  Perhaps the circles one trravels in, but it['s no great secret or mystery or surprise to many Christians..including most that I know.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Nov 25, 2006)

thanks for sharing this. there is alot of good work going on, if you look for it, about just what constitutes the historical traditions of our culture. i am of the mind that most people, and many who proclaim themselves christians, don't know the history of the pagan traditions like christmas and easter.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 25, 2006)

So, the question is, as a christian, do we play the game and maintain the tradition, or quit christmas?  

When I was about 12 years old, my father had done this sort of research and found the same things as in the clip, so he took Christmas away from us kids.  There were four really, really, really, unhappy kids, who didn't understand why we couldn't have christmas.  We spent the day like any other, and didn't even have a special meal together or anything...no tree, gifts, etc.  It was a most memorable experiance, and not necessarily a good one for us.  

I think it's important to understand the history, but also that we don't do christmas to honor the pagens, or even the birth of Jesus.  It's all about family, and loving each other.  At least, that is what it means to me.  We are greatful for the birth of Jesus, but we also recognize that Dec. 25th is not his actual birthday.  

Anyhow, just my opinion.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 25, 2006)

It was explained to me once that the garland is actually derived from the practice of hooking a captured enemy's entrails to a tree branch. The soldier would march himself around the tree until dead. It is my understanding they would gladly do it as a show of bravery to his capturers. This is ken to the Samurai, whom would forcibly cut a square in their abdomen during ritual suicide.
Sean


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 25, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I strongly disagree with this.  I think that most Christians are completely in the dark .



Yah wee r awl stoo pid.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Yah wee r awl stoo pid.


 


Arizona Angel

I think you bring up a good point.  What do you do?  Years ago, when I first started reading about this stuff I felt very despondent.  I felt like none of the traditions that I practiced as a child had any historical roots and that religion, as a whole, was completely contrived.  This was one of the factors that contributed to my slow conversion to atheism.

Now that I have children of my own, I find myself faced with the same dilemma.  I could just go along with everyone else and put up the lights and the trees and the other stolen pagan symbols and pretend that I don't know what any of this really means.  Or I could try and invent something new.  Whatever I do in this regard isn't going to be understood by very many people however because the majority think Christmas and Easter are exactly what they have been exclaimed.  Heck, most people in my frame of reference and I think most people in our culture as a whole think these traditions are as old as dirt.

Anyway, I just don't know what to do.  This is my sixth Christmas as a family and I have a hard time with this every year...


----------



## crushing (Nov 25, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> This is old news. Most Christians I know are well aware of the pagan roots of most 'Christian' holidays and you will find as many opinions on what to do about it as you find Christians. Everything from "Christian's shouldn't practice Christmas" to "It's ok, the original symbolism has been replaced"
> 
> As a Christian myself, I just view Christmas and Easter as secular holidays anway.


 
I thought most Christians were aware of the pagan roots of the holidays too.  I didn't find anything surprising, or new in the posted video.

Maybe they aren't?  I don't really know for sure.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 25, 2006)

There are probably plenty of open-minded Christians out there that do know. I doubt these types of stories bother them at all. Then again, there are Christians out there that would get "the vapors" over such things. That's what I get a chuckle about. If someone has a well established faith, this type of stuff rolls off their back without consequence.

I grew up around "the vapors" type where it was all "You're going to hell for this, you're going to hell for that, and I'm the only one who can save your eternal soul because I'm the only one in the world that can talk directly to God...your prayers mean nothing..." Bleh....

I figure that if I'm already damned because some preacher figures my prayers mean nothing, but he'll communicate with God on my behalf (so long as I fill up the donation tray with $$$), I may as well go out laughing about it.  

Honestly, I love and respect Christmas and I think Santa is great.  How he and Mrs. Claus fill the North Pole with all those Elves is still a mystery to me.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 26, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> How he and Mrs. Claus fill the North Pole with all those Elves is still a mystery to me.



Come on, where DID you think all the elves from middle earth actually sailed away to?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 26, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Come on, where DID you think all the elves from middle earth actually sailed away to?



You mean Elrond is now busy making PS3s?


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 26, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Come on, where DID you think all the elves from middle earth actually sailed away to?


 
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! Nice.....vvveeerrryyyy nice..... 

So, if one wanted to get in touch with Frodo and see how the finger is doing, they'd write to: Frodo Baggins - C/O - Santa Clause - North Pole?

Dear Frodo,

I was wondering about the reasoning behind the number of endings to your story...........


----------



## zDom (Nov 27, 2006)

Arizona Angel said:


> So, the question is, as a christian, do we play the game and maintain the tradition, or quit christmas?
> 
> When I was about 12 years old, my father had done this sort of research and found the same things as in the clip, so he took Christmas away from us kids.  There were four really, really, really, unhappy kids, who didn't understand why we couldn't have christmas.  We spent the day like any other, and didn't even have a special meal together or anything...no tree, gifts, etc.  It was a most memorable experiance, and not necessarily a good one for us.
> 
> ...



When I was about the same age, my parents and their friends wrestled with the same issues.

My parents' friends went the route of disavowing Christmas and "Satan Claus" while my parents decided to continue to observe Christmas while educating us and stressing the same things you mention above: family, loving each other, and being grateful for the birth of the Christ while being aware that he was not born on Dec. 25.

As for my family now that I have one, I try to do the same. It is hard for kids to not have Christmas.

As for Easter, I prefer to call it "Resurrection Day." THIS should be the most important holiday for a Christian, IMO.

Now, the holiday I REALLY have problems with is Halloween. Glorification of fear and fearsome things along with the ingestion of obscene amounts of sugar seems to have no redeeming qualities at all ... and yet, I still bend and fork out the money for costumes (sigh) although I try to go more the "princess" and "Cookie Monster" route as opposed to dressing my children up like witches and the undead.

Back to the Christmas topic: anyone seen the movie trailer for that new Nativity flick? They cast what to me look like Hebrews (as opposed to Caucasions). I wonder what they are going to do about the "wise men."

As I understand it, the wise men actually showed up several years later  NOT in Bethlehem gathered around the manger like commonly thought and depicted. I wonder which version the movie will go with.

I was very disappointed when Mel Gibson went with traditional images for his movie instead of how historians believe it went down. I would have preferred a realistic version  especially since he went through the trouble of having the characters actually speak in Aramaic.

I think that's enough tangents for one thread


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 27, 2006)

-Oh where to begin? I used to love Christmas as a child. My parents were divorced when I was quite young. Simply realized that they were no longer meant to be together. Amicable breakup. My brothers and I stayed with my father at the house while my mother moved out. Both remarried. Spent alternating holidays. Went to a Methodist Church with my mother and step-father. So far so good. At home, regardless of which one I was at during the holiday season, we celebrated Christmas, with little to no emphasis on Christ. We did the tree and lights and presents and big turkey dinner, and the emphasis was placed on being together, as a family, and just like Thanksgiving, being thankful for what you had. Makes sense to me to follow that up with New Years, as in hopes/wishes/plans for a better year.

-I stopped going to church years ago. Gave up my faith in God and Christianity, although I do believe Jesus existed. Certainly not all the stories surrounding him. Anyways, Christmas no longer seems to be celebrated as much as it is practiced. Its a routine. Something that has been drilled in by years of religion and Its a Wonderful Life. The last several years have had me rather annoyed with the holiday. A lot has to do with the non-required but obessed about need/obligation to buy things for other people. The commercialism is way out of control. Materialism at its worst. Excess. And the one day where everyone is supposed to be nice to everyone else. Shouldn't we do that everyday? 

-I stopped by my father's house today and saw that the decorations, while modest, where up and running. Christmas lights. Which are beautiful. Although, my brother mentioned that this would be the last year my parents would get a real tree. That sucks. And I was hit with a moment of sadness, cause that feeling of what it should be about is lost to me. I know what it was but its not there anymore. I derive very little pleasure during this time of year. Rather jump right to New Years. However, I have found ways of dealing with it, like limiting my list of people to buy for. Having talked with other people, many of them are in the mindset of keeping things simple this year, which is a good sign. 

-As an aside, that video mentioned parents giving their kids presents, even if they were bad that year, cause they didn't want the kids to feel left out. Suppose there are other ways to punish a kid during the year, maybe only get them a few gifts. Kids need to learn about doing right from wrong more so than getting presents. If they're young and you reward them for doing wrong, it will screw them up. No worse than spoiling a child. Santa's not bringing you that bike and neither am I!!! Hahahaha!!!

-Back to the video, they went on about how the neo-pagans were coming back with the raunchy behavior, drugs, orgies, blah, blah, blah. Total B.S. Another effort at labeling a group of people as evil simply because they're not doing the same as others. Well I'm not pagan. I'm a goth, which often times has me associating with people who walk a different path. Chances are, we're all headed to the same place, but who really knows. I have long known that its the individual that can be good or evil; judging a whole group is just silly. Yet we see it constantly. When you want to control citizens in your country, whats the best way? Divide and conquer. Scare them into believe that people who are different are dangerous. Keep them at eachother's throat while you swindle them from behind.

-Anyways, one last thing and I shall end this. I was part of a drum circle a few years ago that also had some pagan members. These members were part of another organization, a universal pagan group that worked to promote and educate. Well this group had collected canned goods and food and whatnot to be donated to the needy. Via the Salvation Army. Guess what happened? The S.A. refused to accept it because the donation was coming from a pagan based group. The group found another way to donate the stuff. Now that decision may have only been made by one person in charge of that part of the S.A., not reflective as a whole, I'm not sure. However, I don't think hungry people care where their next meal comes from.

-Christmas should be about celebrating life and family, and in my opinion, in regards to Jesus, should be about accepting everyone. We are all brothers and sisters.

A--->


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 28, 2006)

I find this persnicketty attitude some Christians have about Christmas to be quite amusing.

I mean, come on. This is Christianity we're talking about here. You're going to complain about Christmas being "Pagan" but still believe in the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Communion with a straight face?? Christianity, as a whole, is simply a Pagan Mystery School with Jewish names and faces plastered on to give it the illusion of continuity with Temple Judaism.

If people want to celebrate Christmas, I say let 'em. Christianity has its roots in Pagan religion, so why selectively pick and choose which aspects are un-Christian millenia after the fact??



zDom said:


> Back to the Christmas topic: anyone seen the movie trailer for that new Nativity flick? They cast what to me look like Hebrews (as opposed to Caucasions). I wonder what they are going to do about the "wise men."
> 
> As I understand it, the wise men actually showed up several years later  NOT in Bethlehem gathered around the manger like commonly thought and depicted. I wonder which version the movie will go with.
> 
> I was very disappointed when Mel Gibson went with traditional images for his movie instead of how historians believe it went down. I would have preferred a realistic version  especially since he went through the trouble of having the characters actually speak in Aramaic.


 
*shrug* The whole story is mythological --- beginning to end --- so I can't see how one version is any more "realistic" than another.

Laterz.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 28, 2006)

zDom said:


> Now, the holiday I REALLY have problems with is Halloween. Glorification of fear and fearsome things along with the ingestion of obscene amounts of sugar seems to have no redeeming qualities at all ... and yet, I still bend and fork out the money for costumes (sigh) although I try to go more the "princess" and "Cookie Monster" route as opposed to dressing my children up like witches and the undead.


 
Yeah, Halloween still gives me the creeps...but I take my kids trick or treating as that was not something I was allowed to experiance as a child.  We always had fall festival instead.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 28, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> *shrug* The whole story is mythological --- beginning to end --- so I can't see how one version is any more "realistic" than another.


I think he means...biblical instead of realistic.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 28, 2006)

Arizona Angel said:


> I think he means...biblical instead of realistic.


 
Well, in the Biblical story --- at least in some of the Gospels --- the Holy Family had to flee to Egypt in order to avoid Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents. Curiously enough, there is no historical record of such an event. You'd think people would notice their newborn being murdered by Roman legionarres all of a sudden.

Of course, both the Slaughter of Innocents and the Out of Egypt themes are mythological motifs derived from the Old Testament stories about Moses and the "first" Jesus, Joshua. It's all part of the narrative.

Laterz.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 29, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Arizona Angel
> 
> I think you bring up a good point. What do you do? Years ago, when I first started reading about this stuff I felt very despondent. I felt like none of the traditions that I practiced as a child had any historical roots and that religion, as a whole, was completely contrived. This was one of the factors that contributed to my slow conversion to atheism.
> 
> ...


 
I think that knowing is a good thing, but things change.  Words change.  Remember when gay ment happy?  Now it's meaning has changed.  I think the same with symbols and traditions.  They change and grow as life contiues.



heretic888 said:


> Well, in the Biblical story --- at least in some of the Gospels --- the Holy Family had to flee to Egypt in order to avoid Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents. Curiously enough, there is no historical record of such an event. You'd think people would notice their newborn being murdered by Roman legionarres all of a sudden.
> 
> Of course, both the Slaughter of Innocents and the Out of Egypt themes are mythological motifs derived from the Old Testament stories about Moses and the "first" Jesus, Joshua. It's all part of the narrative.
> 
> Laterz.


 
It was a pretty common and acceptable thing to kill babies back in those days.  If they had a newspaper, it probably wouldn't have even made the front cover.  For years the Chinese culture accepted the killing of females.  Just happens in history.  Besides that Bethlahem was a tiny unknown town.  Not too many people cared about what happened to them.  Just my two cents.  Don't have concrete history to back me up.


----------



## Ray (Nov 29, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Well, in the Biblical story --- at least in some of the Gospels --- the Holy Family had to flee to Egypt in order to avoid Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents. Curiously enough, there is no historical record of such an event. You'd think people would notice their newborn being murdered by Roman legionarres all of a sudden.


What likely was the number of infants slaughtered and was it a newsworthy event to the contemporaries of that time?


----------



## Ray (Nov 29, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Now that I have children of my own, I find myself faced with the same dilemma.  I could just go along with everyone else and put up the lights and the trees and the other stolen pagan symbols and pretend that I don't know what any of this really means.  Or I could try and invent something new.  Whatever I do in this regard isn't going to be understood by very many people however because the majority think Christmas and Easter are exactly what they have been exclaimed.  Heck, most people in my frame of reference and I think most people in our culture as a whole think these traditions are as old as dirt.
> 
> Anyway, I just don't know what to do.  This is my sixth Christmas as a family and I have a hard time with this every year...


When I was not a theist, I celebrated xmas and told my children that these (trees, eggnog, etc) were traditions of the American xmas celebration that no longer have the meanings they once did (kind of like the origins of a handshake).  I also explained to my children of the birth of Christ so that they would have a better understanding of what it was supposed to be.

Now that I am follower of Christ, I celebrate xmas and I tell my children and grandchildren that these (trees, eggnog, etc) are traditions of the American xmas celebration that no longer have the meanings that they once did, having not much to do with remembrance of the birth of Christ.  I also tell them about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 29, 2006)

Arizona Angel said:


> It was a pretty common and acceptable thing to kill babies back in those days. If they had a newspaper, it probably wouldn't have even made the front cover. For years the Chinese culture accepted the killing of females. Just happens in history.


 
The Chinese are not the Romans.

Regardless of what is thought of Romans today, decrees calling for the murder of all newborn was in no way commonplace and there is no way such an event would have escaped the notice of Jewish historians like Josephus, Justus, or Philo.

Of course, as I said before, the whole _point_ of that part of the story was to tie Jesus Christ with Moses/Joshua in the Old Testament. The Gospels as a whole can be seen as a Pauline midrash on Old Testament stories.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 29, 2006)

Ray said:


> What likely was the number of infants slaughtered and was it a newsworthy event to the contemporaries of that time?


 
Its unlikely that any of it happened at all. The story, as I said before, is sheer mythology.

The Gospel narrative is concerned with associating Jesus Christ with Old Testament prophets, most notably Moses and Joshua (who collectively led the Jewish people "out of slavery"). Paul laid the groundwork for this when he describes Jesus as a "second Moses" in his letters, which predate the Gospels by decades.

This is why you see a lot of the same motifs repeated from the Old Testament --- escaping a Slaughter of Innocents, leading Out of Egypt, Wandering in the Desert for 40 X, and even having Jesus quote Pslams when he's on the Cross. A curious occurence, given that Jesus' apostles had abandoned him and therefore none of them were around to "eyewitness" what he was saying while he was dying.

The Gospel authors were simply trying to draw a connection with previous Jewish prophet figures with their Jesus character. That people are trying to approximate history from what is clearly poetic literature is astounding.

Laterz.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 29, 2006)

Arguing religion and history is futile.  People believe what they believe because that is what they feel to be the truth.  I hate to see someone come away with bad feelings.  Especially since Christmas is a season of fellowship, love and peace reguardless of it's roots.


----------



## Ray (Nov 29, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Its unlikely that any of it happened at all. The story, as I said before, is sheer mythology.
> 
> The Gospel narrative is concerned with associating Jesus Christ with Old Testament prophets, most notably Moses and Joshua (who collectively led the Jewish people "out of slavery"). Paul laid the groundwork for this when he describes Jesus as a "second Moses" in his letters, which predate the Gospels by decades.
> 
> ...


Well, okay for you.

Half the fun for me is to consider the possiblilities of other beliefs and viewpoints. Kind of like a "thought experiment." 

It just seems so unfortunate that some would just repeat what they were fed in schools and what they've read rather than excercise what might eventually be a brillaint mind. 

Your certain and authoritativly way of declaring what truth is...well, it reminds me of...what's the word? Oh, yes, "dogma."


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 29, 2006)

Ray said:


> Well, okay for you.
> 
> Half the fun for me is to consider the possiblilities of other beliefs and viewpoints. Kind of like a "thought experiment."
> 
> ...


 
If that is what you need to tell yourself, then be my guest.

I should point out that your accusation of "dogma" is rather ironic, given that belief in a Historical Jesus is more or less axiomatic in Biblical research even today. The idea that you believe any of this is "fed in schools" is in itself extremely telling.

Of course, these thinly veiled ad hominems really add nothing to the discussion other than your aversion to having one. Once again, extremely telling.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 29, 2006)

Well, 

"We" have one piece of information that make us think it could have occured, (the story that it happened)

You have one that makes you believe that there is no way it could have, (the lack of a supporting story to say it did) 

And all it does is come down to which way you want to believe it.  

My question for you, is: *Why are you so adamant about attacking the Christian faith?  So you don't believe it, big deal.  Whats with your holy crusade to make others not believe it either?*​


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 29, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Well,​
> 
> "We" have one piece of information that make us think it could have occured, (the story that it happened)​
> You have one that makes you believe that there is no way it could have, (the lack of a supporting story to say it did)​
> And all it does is come down to which way you want to believe it.​



That's not quite true. I would never proceed on the basis of "negative" evidence alone. There is also substantial "positive" evidence (i.e., the literary correlations with the Old Testament) to support my position, as well.



Cryozombie said:


> My question for you, is: *Why are you so adamant about attacking the Christian faith? So you don't believe it, big deal. Whats with your holy crusade to make others not believe it either?*​



*chuckles* 

I'm sorry, but I can't help smiling whenever I read comments like this, probably because they are leveled _every_ time Christian mythology is fundamentally questioned. It is as if the faithful are actually afraid of discussing the historical foundations of their religion.

To answer your rather inflammatory question, it is not my "holy crusade" to do anything. I have started maybe three threads about this subject in the four or so years I have been a member here. I am merely giving my position on a subject matter that has been initiated by others, it's that simple. In that regard, I am no different than 90% of the members of this site.

Also, I don't know how you come away with the perception that I am "attacking" the Christian faith. In fact, I regularly cite Christians writers like Meister Eckhart or St. John of the Cross or St. Dionysius in defense of my own spiritual views. An odd habit for one who has such antagonism toward Christianity, no?

However, I am attacking Christian mythology. There's a difference. The mythology is part of but not equivocal to the religion itself. Even then, it's not as if I'm singling out Christianity. I see mythological constructs in Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and even Atheism/Scientism. They're all free targets as far as I'm concerned.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Also, I don't know how you come away with the perception that I am "attacking" the Christian faith.
> 
> Laterz.



It just _seems to me_, perhaps incorrectly, that whenever the subject of christianity comes up you are right there pointing out why it _cannot_ be true...  So my comment was not based soley on this thread, but what I percieved to be a pattern from you.


----------



## PeaceWarrior (Nov 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> That's not quite true. I would never proceed on the basis of "negative" evidence alone. There is also substantial "positive" evidence (i.e., the literary correlations with the Old Testament) to support my position, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe the defence was raised because of your rather pretentious dismissal of all things biblical, plus any time you reference Christ or Christians, it seems to be in a somewhat snide manner, as if you just couldnt in a million years understand why anybody with half a brain cell could actually _believe _this crap (see where Im going with this) 

So of course by "attacking Christian mythology" you are in essense attacking some of our core beliefs (i.e. that Jesus is a real Person who is God incarnate), which myself personally I see no problem with because I believe our faith needs to be tested and challenged - it makes us stronger - but perhaps you could be a little more tactful in your judgements.

I would also like to point out that when searching the Biblical texts, you find what you look for; that is, if you go to the Bible with a closed heart, looking for errors and 'un-truths' you will never find anything good in it, only what you percieve as "bad."  This, in my opinion, is a rather myopic mindset and will only result in rejection.  Keep in mind that an open heart is different than an open mind; the open mind can only discern what it deems intellectually feasible, but the open heart can accept things with faith.  Faith, it turns out, is the very basis of my spiritual standpoint.  Faith is the abandonment of intellectual reasoning, thus most intellectuals simply dismiss individuals who believe such things as "ignorant of the facts" or "just plain stupid."

The truth is, no matter how well we defend our Book, you will always find ways to pick it apart, because you are so high in your intellect you cant bring yourself to believe what I believe, in your mind there is just no way.  You will always see it from one angle, and it may be diametrically opposed to my angle. 

And thats fine, thats your right and I respect that, it just means that I have to work harder and study more to find out what I really believe.  And I guess in that respect I should thank you 

So thanks!

Peace

Keith


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 30, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> It just _seems to me_, perhaps incorrectly, that whenever the subject of christianity comes up you are right there pointing out why it _cannot_ be true... So my comment was not based soley on this thread, but what I percieved to be a pattern from you.


 
Well, the mythology cannot be true because it was never intended to be taken as history. The Gospel authors were learned men (or perhaps women) and they knew what they were doing was _midrash_, the traditional Jewish practice of creative exegesis on Biblical text.

But, to address your concerns, I do not believe in Special Pleading. What you are suggesting is, essentially, that we do not criticize or scrutinize Christian mythology because, well, its Christian mythology. This is intellectual favoritism and is a dishonest way of engaging in discourse.

Seriously, though, if you guys are sincerely having problems with this discussion, then simply don't read the thread. No one is forcing you to have this discussion if you are not comfortable with it.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 30, 2006)

PeaceWarrior said:


> I believe the defence was raised because of your rather pretentious dismissal of all things biblical, plus any time you reference Christ or Christians, it seems to be in a somewhat snide manner, as if you just couldnt in a million years understand why anybody with half a brain cell could actually _believe _this crap (see where Im going with this)



Your accusation that I am impugning the intelligence of others is baseless. It is the product of reading intention into an admittedly ambiguous medium. 



PeaceWarrior said:


> So of course by "attacking Christian mythology" you are in essense attacking some of our core beliefs (i.e. that Jesus is a real Person who is God incarnate), which myself personally I see no problem with because I believe our faith needs to be tested and challenged - it makes us stronger - but perhaps you could be a little more tactful in your judgements.



With all due respect, if you don't like what I am saying then don't read my posts. 

I have not resorted to personal attacks or unreasonable requests in this discussion. Therefore, the call for exercising more tact is simply a case of Special Pleading. I sincerely doubt you would be having these issues if we were discussing a faith other than your own.



PeaceWarrior said:


> I would also like to point out that when searching the Biblical texts, you find what you look for; that is, if you go to the Bible with a closed heart, looking for errors and 'un-truths' you will never find anything good in it, only what you percieve as "bad."



Yet again, we find the call for Special Pleading and intellectual favoritism.

To be perfectly blunt, historiography is not a matter of "faith" or an "open heart" or whatever other Red Herring you would like to introduce to the conversation. Historiography is a social science, it is solely a matter of critical methodology and verifiable evidence. No matter how much "faith" you may have in the truthfulness of the text, the reign of King Herod and the census of Governor Quirinus could not have happened at the same time. An "open heart" will not change this historical fact.

You also seem to make the curious association between historical accuracy of the text and the perceived spiritual value of the text. Given the traditional nature of Biblical exegesis, this is a rather anamolous position to take. Most of the early Church fathers were allegorists, not literalists.



PeaceWarrior said:


> This, in my opinion, is a rather myopic mindset and will only result in rejection. Keep in mind that an open heart is different than an open mind; the open mind can only discern what it deems intellectually feasible, but the open heart can accept things with faith. Faith, it turns out, is the very basis of my spiritual standpoint. Faith is the abandonment of intellectual reasoning, thus most intellectuals simply dismiss individuals who believe such things as "ignorant of the facts" or "just plain stupid."



Faith, in this context, simply refers to a fallacious Appeal To Authority. This is not what I would consider an desirable quality.



PeaceWarrior said:


> The truth is, no matter how well we defend our Book, you will always find ways to pick it apart, because you are so high in your intellect you cant bring yourself to believe what I believe, in your mind there is just no way. You will always see it from one angle, and it may be diametrically opposed to my angle.



With all due respect, this is a Red Herring. You can invoke all sorts of subjective and undemonstrable qualifiers if you wish, but that is not an honest way of conducting a debate. The basis of good discourse should be evidential, not axiomatic.

Laterz.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 30, 2006)

*Mod Note

Please return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Moderator*


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Your accusation that I am impugning the intelligence of others is baseless. It is the product of reading intention into an admittedly ambiguous medium.



Heretic, I agree you do not overtly attack the intelectual ability of most posters, however you do, and the post I quoted from is a pristine example, tend to post in a very authoritarian and sesquipedalian manner which lends a semblence of superiority to your posts, and that, I believe is what people are responding to.  Thats one of the main reasons no one got along with Robert here.  You are an inteligent and learned guy, but you don't need to laud that over the masses.

I have never asked for "Special Pleading" just an explanation from most folk why they can rally when a Christain Attacks say, a Muslim belief, or a Pagan one, but then be the same people who attack the christian ones.  It is, in my mind, Biggotry at its finest.

And Mod Team, is this off Topic?  My understanding of the topic from the original poster, was to demonstrate how dum r us chriss tee ins because we dunno wat da oreegeens uf r holy daze is:



upnorthkyosa said:


> I strongly disagree with this. I think that most Christians are completely in the dark regarding the pagan roots of not only their holidays but their entire religion.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 30, 2006)

Well, this doesn't tie directly to Christmas so perhaps we should begin another thread....


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> My understanding of the topic from the original poster, was to demonstrate how dum r us chriss tee ins because we dunno wat da oreegeens uf r holy daze is:


 
I still would say that my thesis has merit.  I believe that most Christians (and Americans in general) are ignorant of the origins of Christmas.  One look at popular culture and the general Zeitgeist will inform you in this.

Take a look at this new movie...

The Nativity

This movie is reinforcing the popular cultural mythology surrounding Christmas.  And, it wouldn't have been made if the marketing people in Hollywood didn't think that most people actually believed this stuff.

Look, I realize that this just may be a matter of who you know, but in the devout Roman Catholic circles in which I grew up, this was not discussed.  Not by the preists, not by the nuns, not by the monsignors, etc.  

Where this personally causes problems for me is that I just don't know how to even think about Christmas.  This holiday is about as Christian as Mayday and really had nothing to do with the nativity story.  Its a confusing mishmash of traditions that is really hard to explain...especially this kids...my kids.  

Imagine trying to answer this question now that you know the truth regarding the origins of Christmas...

"Daddy, why do we celebrate Christmas?"


----------



## Ray (Nov 30, 2006)

I suppose I should watch the video that was referenced in the starting post of this thread. I would agree that most of what is done to celebrate Christmas has origins in other religions.

I believe that Christ was born of a virgin; that he lived, taught and died pretty much as the NT says. I believe that he bore the sins of mankind, was resurrected and lives today. ((Even if some of those thing bear a resemblance to parts of other religions)).


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> "Daddy, why do we celebrate Christmas?"


 
One of my thoughts about a solution to this problem is to teach Christmas as a multicultural holiday.  How cool would it be to strip the Christian veneer off and put into its proper context and then to teach about how many other cultures are touching our lives?

Sure, this doesn't answer the question as to what the meaning of the holiday is...unless the meaning is the multicultural celebration???

Hmm.  Interesting thoughts...


----------



## bydand (Nov 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> "Daddy, why do we celebrate Christmas?"



Because this happens to be the day that was set aside to honor Jesus' Birthday.  Is it really his Birthday, most likely no, but because nobody knows for sure, people long ago chose December 25th.  

At least that is what I tell my kids.  I don't expect anybody else to agree with it, but it happens to be the main reason we celebrate Christmas in our house.  The other symbolism involved is just that, holiday traditions.  Kids don't need to know, and at least mine don't care what the tree, or lights, or anything else meant long ago.  To them, and me, it all wraps up to adding to the Holiday feeling and breaks up a bleak, cold landscape during the longest dark period in the year.  

I did know where most of the traditions came from, and personally don't give a rip.  What was meant years ago, changes and evolves into what we have now.  I would expect in a couple of hundred years our ancesters will be discussing how bizarre the "rituals" were in 2006 on their version of the internet.  What something means to us, probably will not mean the same thing to them; just as some of the symbolism now doesn't mean what it did years back to our ancesters.   Just my 2 cents, and that is about what it is worth.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2006)

bydand said:


> Because this happens to be the day that was set aside to honor Jesus' Birthday.



Yes, and the masses who are not Christian still wish to celebrate it, which is fine, and I dont care if they want to celebrate it as Santa, or as the Pagan Solstice, or anything else... but a lot of folk would take a Page from Larry the Cable guy and have us Rename it "A Non-denominal Winter Holiday".

Like I said before... Its Ok to Be Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Wiccan, A member of the Golden Dawn, a Taoist... 

But Damn those Christians, how dare THEY do somthing as silly as celebrate _*CHRIST*_mas with a manger and a star and a cross.

Ya know for my part, **I** have never made them remove a Santa, Menorah, or Pentagram from a public place... BUT HOW DARE WE HAVE A NATIVITY.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 1, 2006)

bydand said:


> Because this happens to be the day that was set aside to honor Jesus' Birthday.  Is it really his Birthday, most likely no, but because nobody knows for sure, people long ago chose December 25th.



I heard once that the date was chosen because Dec. 25th is when the days start getting longer again (read:light entering the world), and that whatever date in June when the days start getting shorter is known as John the Baptists birthday. I don't know if this is true or not. I did a search and could not find anything to confirm it but I did find this.



> The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen's concern about pagan gods and the church's identification of God's son with the celestial sun. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman "birth of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.


Full article.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 1, 2006)

Exactly, Jade Tigress.

That is also why the Church authorities moved the Jewish sabbath (which is on Saturday) to Sunday. Because *SUN*day is the day the Hellenistic Romans celebrated their solar deity (Apollo, I believe) on.

That is also why the solar "Cross of Light" was chosen as a religious symbol for the new faith. We do not find any iconography of Christ Crucified until well into the late fifth to early sixth centuries. There is no association of Christianity with the Cross, either, until at least the fourth century.

The earliest depiction of Christ's death is in the Pauline Galatians. He is described as "hung from a gibbet". There is no mention of a cross.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Exactly, Jade Tigress.
> 
> That is also why the Church authorities moved the Jewish sabbath (which is on Saturday) to Sunday. Because *SUN*day is the day the Hellenistic Romans celebrated their solar deity (Apollo, I believe) on.
> 
> ...


 
This is why I think that religion is completely contrived.  I has less to do with the devine and more to do with what it means to be human.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> One of my thoughts about a solution to this problem is to teach Christmas as a multicultural holiday.  How cool would it be to strip the Christian veneer off and put into its proper context and then to teach about how many other cultures are touching our lives?



Here, Lemme get you started:

[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]Please accept with no obligation,
        implied or implicit our best wishes for
        an environmentally conscious,
        socially responsible, low stress,
        non-addictive, gender neutral,
        celebration of the winter solstice
        holiday, practiced within the most
        enjoyable traditions of the religious
        persuasion of your choice, or secular
        practices of your choice, with respect
        for the religious/secular persuasions
        and/or traditions of others, or their
        choice not to practice religious or
        secular traditions at all ...[/FONT]
             [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]and a fiscally successful,
        personally fulfilling, and medically
        uncomplicated recognition of the onset
        of the generally accepted calendar
        year _______, but not without due respect
        for the calendars of choice of other
        cultures whose contributions to
        society have helped make America great,
        (not to imply that America is necessarily
        greater than any other country or is
        the only "AMERICA" in the western
        hemisphere), and without regard to the
        race, creed, color, age, physical ability,
        religious faith, choice of computer platform,
        or sexual preference of the wishee.[/FONT]
             [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]- DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTABILITY -[/FONT]
             [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono](By accepting this greeting,
        you are accepting these terms.
        This greeting is subject to
        clarification or withdrawal. It is freely
        transferable with no alteration to the
        original greeting. It implies no
        promise by the wisher to actually
        implement any of the wishes for
        her/himself or others, and is
        void where prohibited by law, and is
        revocable at the sole discretion of
        the wisher. This wish is warranted
        to perform as expected within the
        usual application of good tidings
        for a period of one year, or until the
        issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting,
        whichever comes first, and warranty is
        limited to replacement of this wish
        or issuance of a new wish at the
        sole discretion of the wisher.)[/FONT]


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Here, Lemme get you started:
> 
> [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]Please accept with no obligation,[/FONT]
> [FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]implied or implicit our best wishes for[/FONT]
> ...


 
How does this relate to celebrating "Christmas" as a multicultural holiday?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> How does this relate to celebrating "Christmas" as a multicultural holiday?



I did what you suggested, I saw "How cool would it be to strip the Christian veneer off"

Not impressive to me, I think Id ignore that holiday message of... well, what would the message be?  Lemme re read that... oh here we go the message that its a holiday about nothing.  My bad, someone already suggested we celebrate the made up Seinfeld Holiday.


----------



## Darksoul (Dec 8, 2006)

-I would say we can either argue the reason for the season, or, celebrate the spirit of the season; goodwill towards all mankind. But I admit to being an idealist;-)

A--->


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> I did what you suggested, I saw "How cool would it be to strip the Christian veneer off"


 
Actually, what you did was create a xenophobic straw-man of my suggestion.  Instead of celebrating the diversity that the "Christmas" Holiday could be, you have chosen to mock acknowledging other traditions with your post.  

The problem with the thought behind this post is that it assumes that your beleif regarding the truth of the Christian roots of the holiday of Christmas is true.  This is demonstratably false...and until you accept this, you'll continue to treat others in this xenophobic and ultimately bigoted fashion by mocking them.

Let me repeat myself in order to make myself clear...the Christian STORY regarding Christmas has just as much validity as any other tradition's story.  They are all contrived creations that reflect more of what is inside us then anything approaching something that could be called reality.  

Thus the celebration of the true multicultural origin of our christmas holiday is rationally sound.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Thus the celebration of the true multicultural origin of our christmas holiday is rationally sound.



Actually knew most of the info in there from religious studies. It's quite well known...

I agree with you in part. However, individuals are not typically multicultural, and neither are families. Coming from a somewhat atypically multicultural family, I can tell you that while such celebrations are possible, they also can incvariably lead to conflict. While my father the minister and I had numerous friendly discussions on just such matters, especially in regards to Christianity and the early church (and you should really look at the ties between Mithraism and the Nativity story-Mithras's birthday was Dec. 25 long before Jesus's, and that's why we celebrate Christmas on that day...) there have been others for whom such discussions are impossible. Ditto the marriage (almost a certainty) of the person called Jesus, church teaching to the contrary notwithstanding. 

As far as the whole "Christmas=Sex Magic" thing goes, I'd have to answer, "to whom?" Why in the world should any of the world's Christians have to accept this, or celebrate it? Religion in such matters as their mythology are a thing of faith. Suggesting that people change their traditions in the name of diversity, at least where they cause no one harm, is almost as silly as suggesting that we all should celebrate Kwanzaa-a holiday more ridiculous than Festivus.

It's interesting to me that the video is a Christian, anti-celebration of Christmas propaganda screed. 

The persepective some people have on the Church co-opting pagan and other religious holidays is actually somehwat skewed as well, though it's worth a whole other thread...

By the way, if you really want to blow your mind, google:
"Santa Claus, mushroom."  :rofl:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

elder999 said:


> I agree with you in part. However, individuals are not typically multicultural, and neither are families. Coming from a somewhat atypically multicultural family, I can tell you that while such celebrations are possible, they also can incvariably lead to conflict.


 
As I have noticed...and this usually increases proportionally to the amount of ego a person has invested into this fantasy.



> While my father the minister and I had numerous friendly discussions on just such matters, especially in regards to Christianity and the early church (and you should really look at the ties between Mithraism and the Nativity story-Mithras's birthday was Dec. 25 long before Jesus's, and that's why we celebrate Christmas on that day...) there have been others for whom such discussions are impossible. Ditto the marriage (almost a certainty) of the person called Jesus, church teaching to the contrary notwithstanding.


 
Jesus = Mithras.  Constantine unites the empire.



> As far as the whole "Christmas=Sex Magic" thing goes, I'd have to answer, "to whom?" Why in the world should any of the world's Christians have to accept this, or celebrate it? Religion in such matters as their mythology are a thing of faith. Suggesting that people change their traditions in the name of diversity, at least where they cause no one harm, is almost as silly as suggesting that we all should celebrate Kwanzaa-a holdiday more ridiculous than Festivus.


 
I would never force in on anyone, however, for the sake of intellectual honestly in presenting a worldview that was rationally sound and grounded in actual historic fact, I would make sure that my progeny knew source of this holiday.  I would also make sure that they knew that the current chic religions were nothing but bastardizations of the old religions.



> It's interesting to me that the video is a Christian, anti-celebration of Christmas propaganda screed.


 
Screed indeed.  This video is a sad attempt to reframe the whole Christmas debate.  This attempt comes in response the the acknowledgement by the Christians that the society they participate is inheritly immoral...aka materialism, violence, nationalism/golden calf, and ultimately the American trinity of Greed, avarice, and Rapaciousness.

Thus, the video has little to do with Christmas.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> As I have noticed...and this usually increases proportionally to the amount of ego a person has invested into this fantasy.


 
Your use of the word "fantasy" indicates a prejudice on your part.




> Jesus = Mithras. Constantine unites the empire.


 
Yes, and no. Constantine was actually a member of the Sol Invictus cult- and his conversion story shows elements of the Sol Invictus mythos,disguised as Christ,  though he may also have been (as were many Roman soldiers) a Mithraist. However, the co-opting of the Mithrais nativity for Jesus is one of those two-way early church syncresis that are so interesting. It isn't as though the church simply co-opted Mithrais; it was also dependent upon the simple fact that a large portion of the membership (and not all) weren't willing to give elements of their Mithraism up, in spite of its being otherwise virtually eradicated in the rising power of the one, true state sanctioned religion, Christianity. The same sort of thing can be seen with Obeah practicing Africans disguising their gods as Christian saints, thus we have voodoo. Or the Church building sanctuaries on previously pagan places of worship and sacred sites throughout Europe. Or in the indians of Mexico disguising tha Aztec goddess Tonantzin as the Virgin of Guadelupe.

In fact, for the most part, if you scratch a Catholic saint hard enough in the place of his birth,  invariably you'll find that underneath he's some forgotten local god.





> I would never force in on anyone, however, for the sake of intellectual honestly in presenting a worldview that was rationally sound and grounded in actual historic fact, I would make sure that my progeny knew source of this holiday. I would also make sure that they knew that the current chic religions were nothing but bastardizations of the old religions.


 
Not bastardizations at all. There's a legitimate, scientific word for it, in the anthropological study of religion, and it's called syncreticism. It's always happened and I think always will. Again, because of my rather atypical heritage, I have a somewhat unique perspective on this, in that my family-at least, on my father's side-has a rich syncretic tradition that has Indian, African, Polynesian and Christain elements....

Great how your going to teach your kids, btw. Somewhat better than the simple default to teaching nothing that I've seen in many agnostic/atheist/ambivalent families.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

elder999 said:


> Your use of the word "fantasy" indicates a prejudice on your part.


 
I would argue fervently that it is not.  The usage of the word "fantasy" describes the fact that all of the mishmash human mythology is nothingbut the Old Stuff Reborn.  However, if you were to draw a line from the length of my breastbone to the tip of my finger and then quantify history of human religions within that matrix, it could all be scraped away with the scrape of a nail file.



> Yes, and no. Constantine was actually a member of the Sol Invictus cult- and his conversion story shows elements of the Sol Invictus mythos,disguised as Christ, though he may also have been (as were many Roman soldiers) a Mithraist. However, the co-opting of the Mithrais nativity for Jesus is one of those two-way early church syncresis that are so interesting. It isn't as though the church simply co-opted Mithrais; it was also dependent upon the simple fact that a large portion of the membership (and not all) weren't willing to give elements of their Mithraism up, in spite of its being otherwise virtually eradicated in the rising power of the one, true state sanctioned religion, Christianity. The same sort of thing can be seen with Obeah practicing Africans disguising their gods as Christian saints, thus we have voodoo. Or the Church building sanctuaries on previously pagan places of worship and sacred sites throughout Europe. Or in the indians of Mexico disguising tha Aztec goddess Tonantzin as the Virgin of Guadelupe.


 
Here is an interesting movie that should be view in the context of the information provided in the above movie and the information about Mithras...aka...Jesus.

The God Who Wasn't There



> In fact, for the most part, if you scratch a Catholic saint hard enough in the place of his birth, invariably you'll find that underneath he's some forgotten local god.


 
Absolutely.  I see no difference between the saints and the kami of Shinto religion or of the Spirits of other Animistic religions.  All of this serves an evolutionary purpose...



> Not bastardizations at all. There's a legitimate, scientific word for it, in the anthropological study of religion, and it's called syncreticism. It's always happened and I think always will. Again, because of my rather atypical heritage, I have a somewhat unique perspective on this, in that my family-at least, on my father's side-has a rich syncretic tradition that has Indian, African, Polynesian and Christain elements....


 
Bastardization

I would say that my intitial characterization is correct.  When one denounces the multicultural heritage of these holidays, one is reducing human history and the human experience into one narrow worldview.  This is akin to putting on one giant burkha.

The mother or all burkhas.



> Great how your going to teach your kids, btw. Somewhat better than the simple default to teaching nothing that I've seen in many agnostic/atheist/ambivalent families.


 
Thanks.  This is all new to me.  I've stepped out of the circle in which I grew.  The apple tree over yonder.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I would argue fervently that it is not. The usage of the word "fantasy" describes the fact that all of the mishmash human mythology is nothingbut the Old Stuff Reborn. However, if you were to draw a line from the length of my breastbone to the tip of my finger and then quantify history of human religions within that matrix, it could all be scraped away with the scrape of a nail file.


 
_Almost all_ Old Stuff Reborn-not all, though. In any case, taken in the right context, it's also (mostly) *good* stuff, which makes it *real*, if only to the believer, and not a fantasy, something the nonbeliever is almost continually unable to grasp. I'd be the last person to characterize your lack of belief in any way-do with it what you will. I don't even think (as smoe might, wrongly I might add) that it makes you a bad person or a good person who's damned to hell. Somehow, though, it's perfectly okay for you-who haven't one iota of knowledge about my religious beliefs and practices-to use the blanket characterization of "fantasy" for them...

Based upon a lifetime of experience with it, it sounds an awful lot like prejudice to me.......


----------



## elder999 (Dec 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Thanks. This is all new to me. I've stepped out of the circle in which I grew. *The apple tree over yonder.*


 

Oh God, not a _Mending Wall_ reference! You evil bastard!!:wink1::lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2006)

elder999 said:


> _Almost all_ Old Stuff Reborn-not all, though. In any case, taken in the right context, it's also (mostly) *good* stuff, which makes it *real*, if only to the believer, and not a fantasy, something the nonbeliever is almost continually unable to grasp. I'd be the last person to characterize your lack of belief in any way-do with it what you will. I don't even think (as smoe might, wrongly I might add) that it makes you a bad person or a good person who's damned to hell. Somehow, though, it's perfectly okay for you-who haven't one iota of knowledge about my religious beliefs and practices-to use the blanket characterization of "fantasy" for them...
> 
> Based upon a lifetime of experience with it, it sounds an awful lot like prejudice to me.......


 
I see your point and I apologize for my offense.  I can only offer that I did not mean it in an offending manner.  I do find value in religious beliefs because I think that they reflect alot of what is inside us as humans.  I do not, however, think that religious beliefs offer us a veiw on reality.

This, IMHO, was never their purpose.  It wasn't the reason they evolved.

"Christmas" is just an extension of something that is important for humans.  It is something that we need, no matter what form it comes.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> "Christmas" is just an extension of something that is important for humans.  It is something that we need, no matter what form it comes.



I'd argue that Christmas... (ya know, _*CHRIST*_-MAS) is well, you know, a CHRISTIAN HOLDIAY about a celebration of Christs birthday, PERIOD.  That other traditions had been introduced into what was designed as a celebration of his birth are largely irrelevant to the REASON for the holiday... and only applied or ignored as applicable by the practitioner...

What makea YOU feel that YOU have the right to tell us what we should do with our holiday????  Why should a Christian Holiday be stripped of Christ because you say so?  I got one for you... the Celebration of Martin Luther King day is a celebration of a great american, so lets remove Martin Luther King from it and use that day to multi-culturally celebrate all great americans... or Better yet... Veterans Day is a celebration for all americans fighting men and women, we should just make it "Day" and celebrate all americans... Independance Day, can be World Day, and instead of celebrating our independance we can celebrate being joined with the world...

If ANY OF YOU are gonna make us take christ out of CHRISTmas and not be a ****ing hypocrite about it, you better take the Jewish out of Chanukah, The African Culture out of Kwanzaa, Islam out of Ramadan, Satanism out of your Birthday, etc etc etc.

And please, before you start up again, Let me remind you of my point above... 

*Its a CHRISTIAN HOLDIAY about a celebration of Christ's birthday, regardless of the fact that other traditions had been introduced into it.

*Period.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> *Its a CHRISTIAN HOLDIAY about a celebration of Christ's birthday, regardless of the fact that other traditions had been introduced into it.*


 
This is demonstratably untrue and if you took the time to go and look at the video and even one peice of evidence, you'd discover this for yourself.  

"Christmas" is an amalgamation of pagan traditions that stretch far back before the birth of Christ (if such a being even existed).  Christianity was painted over these deeper traditions in an attempt by the Church to make their contrived religion more palatable to the pagans.

Thus, what you have been told is a Christian holiday truly is not.  

Watch the video.  Wade through the fundamentalist screed and pick the diamonds from the dross.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This is demonstratably untrue and if you took the time to go and look at the video and even one peice of evidence, you'd discover this for yourself.


 
It's not demonstrably untrue, any more than your use of "bastardized" was in any way accurate. 

Let's say you have a pot, an old, but quite servicable cast-iron pot, only the wire handle-thingy for hanging it over the fire in the fireplace is gone, as well as the lid. 

I come along, and say, "Geez, that's a nice pot, but it really needs a handle." So I make one for it. Then, sometime later, someone else does the same for the lid, only they give it a nice, shiny, stainless steel lid. Then someone else comes along, and plates your pot with stainless, so that its lid matches. Then a jeweler comes along and decides it really needs some stones set in it, and some gold quilding. After all that, it's not the same pot anymore, is it? And yet,*it is.*

Of course, if all this happened in your lifetime, and you were to die, and your kids inherit the pot, but can barely remember the jeweler, let alone all the other _modifications_, and they die and pass it on to their kids, and so on for about 45 generations or more, well-it becomes "Upnorthkyosa's Stainless Steel Pot with Jewels and Gold Plating," instead of just some crummy cast-iron pot. In fact, no one even knows about the cast iron, though some may wonder at the thickness of the thing....



> "Christmas" is an amalgamation of pagan traditions that stretch far back before the birth of Christ (if such a being even existed). Christianity was painted over these deeper traditions in an attempt by the Church to make their contrived religion more palatable to the pagans.


 
Well, see above. Also, reference your parentheses back to my post on your prejudice. (While the debate about a historical Jesus is an interesting and valid one, the validity of the Christ, Christ-consciousness, and other related matters of _faith_ is simply true for believers-something which has nothing to do with *fact*. As a scientist, I can tell you that there is a demonstrable difference between *fact* and _truth_)

As for Christianity being painted over those deeper traditions in an attempt by the Church, you shouldn't sell those pagans short-in many instances such things continued because the pagans deliberately disguised them as something palatable and acceptable to the church.



> Thus, what you have been told is a Christian holiday truly is not.


 
And I say it is, and yet it is not-both cast-iron and stainless steel adorned with jewels.....


----------



## elder999 (Dec 9, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> *<snip!.* The African Culture out of Kwanzaa *<snip!>*


 

There is no "African Culture" in Kwanzaa....


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> "Christmas" is an amalgamation of pagan traditions that stretch far back before the birth of Christ (if such a being even existed).  Christianity was painted over these deeper traditions in an attempt by the Church to make their contrived religion more palatable to the pagans.



Upnorth, do you _*not*_ read what I write, or just ignore what you dont want to hear?

Hold on... lemme restate myself, Ill change the ephasis... 

Its a CHRISTIAN HOLDIAY about a celebration of Christ's birthday,* regardless of the fact that other traditions had been introduced into it.  

*John, dont make me dumb it down for you.  I *KNOW* you know the meaning of the word REGARDLESS. I *SUSPECT* you know that Christmas is a Christian Holiday and not a pagan one, just one which has had some pagan traditions *blended into it*... Or are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me, that CHRISTmas is a pagan holiday named after their Holy Earth Goddess named Christ?   Now, if you are trying to argue for the SEPERATE holiday of the winter solstice which occurs around the same time and shares some of the traditions that have been incorporated into Christmas, fine, but... thats a seperate holiday... its NOT CHRISTMAS!!!

Please, man... I KNOW you are smarter than this, so I can only assume you are TRYING to stir up **** on purpose like a common forum Troll.

What part of CHRIST in CHRISTMAS are you missing man????


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 9, 2006)

elder999 said:


> There is no "African Culture" in Kwanzaa....



Well its SUPPOSED to...



> Kwanzaa is a celebration of life and the up life of human beings based on the principles of African culture. It is celebrated by some African Americans between December 26 and January 1, and is a week long celebration. Kwanzaa was created in 1966 by Dr. Mulana Karenga



I mean it seems to be a "created" holiday by a College Proffessor from Cali which just happens to share the same basic season as Christmas... Much in the Same way Christmas Happens to share the same basic season as Solsitce, but is still a seperate holdiay from both... 

What I am saying is that Kwanzaa is neither Solsitce  or Christmas, its just celebrated at the same time of year and shares a few traditons with Chanukah, (such as lighting the Kinara) Christmas, (gift giving) and yes even Solsitce (feasting).


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Upnorth, do you _*not*_ read what I write, or just ignore what you dont want to hear?
> 
> Hold on... lemme restate myself, Ill change the ephasis...
> 
> ...


 
Elder999 seems to be arguing your point quite well.  I'll address his post in an attempt to address you both.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2006)

elder999 said:


> It's not demonstrably untrue, any more than your use of "bastardized" was in any way accurate.


 
Bastardization

Why do we put up Christmas trees?  Why do we put up mistletoe?  Wreaths?  How about lights?  Who is this Santa Clause?  How about his reindeer?

All of these symbols and much more about Christmas had FAR more meaning long ago then the do now.  These symbols were part of traditions and were intricately tied into sincere worship of others gods.  Now, the symbols meanings are largely forgotten or they are part of a simple folklore tale that was invented in the last 120 years in an attempt to create a Christian Holiday.

Thus, to say that Christianity bastardized pagan symbols, is wholley correct.  The meaning of these symbols has been lowered and in many cases debased.



> Let's say you have a pot, an old, but quite servicable cast-iron pot, only the wire handle-thingy for hanging it over the fire in the fireplace is gone, as well as the lid.
> 
> I come along, and say, "Geez, that's a nice pot, but it really needs a handle." So I make one for it. Then, sometime later, someone else does the same for the lid, only they give it a nice, shiny, stainless steel lid. Then someone else comes along, and plates your pot with stainless, so that its lid matches. Then a jeweler comes along and decides it really needs some stones set in it, and some gold quilding. After all that, it's not the same pot anymore, is it? And yet,*it is.*
> 
> Of course, if all this happened in your lifetime, and you were to die, and your kids inherit the pot, but can barely remember the jeweler, let alone all the other _modifications_, and they die and pass it on to their kids, and so on for about 45 generations or more, well-it becomes "Upnorthkyosa's Stainless Steel Pot with Jewels and Gold Plating," instead of just some crummy cast-iron pot. In fact, no one even knows about the cast iron, though some may wonder at the thickness of the thing....


 
This is a wonderful analogy regarding the sexing up of various old symbols.  However, this isn't what what done in regards to the symbols that are part of the Christmas holiday.  The pagan significance of all Christmas symbols has been degraded and replaced with a chincy folklorish tale about Santa Clause flying through the air and visiting all of the little children while they are sleeping...which somehow ties to the Jesus/manger/wiseman folklore.  

It is as if you took upnorthkyosas stainless steel pot with jewels and gold plating and stripped all of that off...right down to the plain old steel pot and then attempted to call the pot something else.



> Well, see above. Also, reference your parentheses back to my post on your prejudice. (While the debate about a historical Jesus is an interesting and valid one, the validity of the Christ, Christ-consciousness, and other related matters of _faith_ is simply true for believers-something which has nothing to do with *fact*. As a scientist, I can tell you that there is a demonstrable difference between *fact* and _truth_)


 
Hmm.  I know a great many scientists, including myself, who would vehemately disagree that there is a difference between fact and truth.  If there was, what would be the point of science?  

This is a debate for another thread, however.

Regarding the debate about the historical Jesus.  This debate takes personal significance, because I am skeptical regarding the existance of Jesus.  I have seen enough evidence in the form of research that casts a long shadow on this fundamental Christian belief and I am rather confident in saying that Jesus probably didn't exist and was a work of liturature.  With that being said, if I don't believe that Jesus ever walked this Earth and that Christianity is just another contrived religion in a long line of contrived religions, why favor one tradition's interpretation of these symbols over another?  Especially when the old meanings of these symbols held far more significance then the meaning that Christians attach to them today?

I, personally, do not see any reason to favor one tradition over another.  If someone else wants to celebrate the traditional Christian Christmas, fine.  If I came over to their house, I would be completely respectful of that and I would participate in all of rituals like any knowledgeable and greatful guest.  

Much of this thread revolves around what I will do in MY home...



> As for Christianity being painted over those deeper traditions in an attempt by the Church, you shouldn't sell those pagans short-in many instances such things continued because the pagans deliberately disguised them as something palatable and acceptable to the church.


 
It was either that or be burned at the stake.  Which brings up a point regarding persecution and various symbols that is valid and is not addressed in the movie originally posted.  



> And I say it is, and yet it is not-both cast-iron and stainless steel adorned with jewels.....


 
And I say it is like trying to call a pot a cat.

A pot is a pot.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Upnorth, do you _*not*_ read what I write, or just ignore what you dont want to hear?
> 
> Hold on... lemme restate myself, Ill change the ephasis...
> 
> ...


 
Pagan traditions were not blended into a Christian Holiday.  Pagan traditions became a Christian Holiday.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/crt/index.htm



> This is a study of the origin of modern Christmas in ancient pagan traditions, how the festival was adopted by Christianity, and its evolution through history. Miles includes descriptions of folk-lore related to the Christmas season from a wide range of European countries, including an extensive collection of folk songs. It is important to learn about these traditions to remind ourselves that before Christmas became a hyper-commercialized festival of consumption, it was a joyous celebration of renewal and friendship.


 
Very interesting stuff.  Lots to think about...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Bastardization
> 
> Hmm. I know a great many scientists, including myself, who would vehemately disagree that there is a difference between fact and truth. If there was, what would be the point of science?
> 
> ...


 
Well, no it's not.

Those scientists, yourself included, would be wrong, BTW.

My house in the mountains of New Mexico is quite cool, most summers. Some days, though, it gets close to 100 F, which is pretty warm for some.

Of course, I like it like that, so when I come home and the wife has the very rarely used air conditioning going, with the thermostat set at 68 F, I find the ouse quite chilly, and go and turn it up to a far more reasonable 74 F. _It's cold inhere,_ I say to the wife, who promptly sets the thermostat back to 68 F and says, _It's hot, what's the matter with you._. I point to my goose bumps, she points to her sweat, and the thermometer on the thermostat points to about 70 F.

So, the fact:it's 70 F.
*My* truth: It's cold.
My wife's truth:It's hot.

All equally valid, one fact and two truths.

I'll address the rest of your excellent but flawed (by prejudice, insistence, or a lack of study?)  post a bit later. Do yourself a favor, though, go back to the dictionary and look up syncreticism. Remember, Scott, I'm not a Christian in any but the most remote sense of the word anymore. I don't have a particular dog in this hunt other than your use of the facts around the pagan elements is just a little _less twisted than the "Christian" anti-Christmas screed's_

IF you're really going to educate your kids about religion and the traditions of all us crazy believers, you need to properly educate yourself-and I don't mean trying to imvalidate whatever religious indoctrination it is that you've rejected, _if any_, or trying to poke holes in the various religions traditions, but look at the works of people who have undertaken a serious, _scientific_ anthropological study of religion, people like Mircea Eliade,  just for starters. I might go a long way towards establishing some understanding of how these things came to be, rather than simply enforcing your hostility-whatever the reasons for it, and you may well be entiltled to them (no one knows better than I how religion can be used to abuse people, or how many of the world's ills it's  been directly involved in) in the end your insistence on your interpretation of the *facts* (and, in this case, lack of scholarshp in the area) being everyone's _truth_, rather than simply _*your truth*_ only come across as agenda driven, rather than trying to simply share some interesting facts...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2006)

elder999 said:


> Well, no it's not.
> 
> Those scientists, yourself included, would be wrong, BTW.
> 
> ...


 
Semantics aside, I think this example confuses truth with interpretation.  I guess it all comes down to whether or not you believe that their is a greater, wider and _singular_ world out there that we can sense.



> I'll address the rest of your excellent but flawed (by prejudice, insistence, or a lack of study?) post a bit later. Do yourself a favor, though, go back to the dictionary and look up syncreticism. Remember, Scott, I'm not a Christian in any but the most remote sense of the word anymore. I don't have a particular dog in this hunt other than your use of the facts around the pagan elements is just a little _less twisted than the "Christian" anti-Christmas screed's_


 
*http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Syncretism*

*



Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. It is especially associated with the attempt to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity. 

Syncretism is also common in literature, music, the representational arts and other expressions of culture. (Compare the concept of eclecticism.) There also exist syncretic politics, although in political classification the term has a somewhat different meaning.
		
Click to expand...

 
I think I see where you are going with this...*



> IF you're really going to educate your kids about religion and the traditions of all us crazy believers, you need to properly educate yourself-and I don't mean trying to invalidate whatever religious indoctrination it is that you've rejected, _if any_, or trying to poke holes in the various religions traditions, but look at the works of people who have undertaken a serious, _scientific_ anthropological study of religion, people like Mircea Eliade, just for starters. I might go a long way towards establishing some understanding of how these things came to be, rather than simply enforcing your hostility-whatever the reasons for it, and you may well be entiltled to them (no one knows better than I how religion can be used to abuse people, or how many of the world's ills it's been directly involved in) in the end your insistence on your interpretation of the *facts* (and, in this case, lack of scholarshp in the area) being everyone's _truth_, rather than simply _*your truth*_ only come across as agenda driven, rather than trying to simply share some interesting facts...


 
I've read books by Mircea Eliade, Josef Cambell, and Carl Jung on religions and symbols, so I'm not completely in the dark on some of this stuff.  If I come off as hostile towards this or that belief it is because I just recently woke up and realized that I didn't believe in any religion and now I'm stumbling around like a bumbling fool attempting to reconcile this.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> If I come off as hostile towards this or that belief it is because I just recently woke up and realized that I didn't believe in any religion and now I'm stumbling around like a bumbling fool attempting to reconcile this.


 

I want to address this real quickly, Scott, in part because I've been where you are, and I sympathize-I don't completely disagree with you about the "historical Jesus," for example, or even your _interpretation_ of the facts relating to Christmas celebrations.In your "stumbling"' though, you might not recognize your hostility. As an example, your use of the word "bastardization," not that it's altogether incorrect-though some might argue (myself included) that changed meaning still has meaning-though, from my educated one-time Christian perspective, neither Christmas trees, yule logs, Santa, candles or even Christmas is essential or central to Christianity in any way.

Getting to the point:would you say that your Tang Soo Do hyungs are "bastardizded Shotokan?"


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2006)

elder999 said:


> Getting to the point:would you say that your Tang Soo Do hyungs are "bastardizded Shotokan?"


 
Actually, yes, I would.  Just I would say that shotokan is a bastardized form of Okinawan Karate.  In both translation, critical knowledge of bunkai was lost and it was not replaced.

However, that is neither here nor there.  I look forward to your response to my previous post...


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Pagan traditions were not blended into a Christian Holiday.  Pagan traditions became a Christian Holiday.



So... wait... then you admit it IS a CHRISTIAN HOLDIAY?  I won't argue that it has pagan traditions blended in, and yes they are* blended in*, unless celebrating the birth of Christ is a Pagan tradition that BECAME christian, in which case Christians just took the holiday over.

But thank you, finally for the admission that this is a Christian holiday...  Now quit trying to tell us how Christians should celebrate it without the "Christian Veneer" in it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> So... wait... then you admit it IS a CHRISTIAN HOLDIAY? I won't argue that it has pagan traditions blended in, and yes they are* blended in*, unless celebrating the birth of Christ is a Pagan tradition that BECAME christian, in which case Christians just took the holiday over.


 
If you are saying that Christmas is just a bunch of pagan and Christian traditions mixed together, then I would agree.

However, if *blended in* implies that the Christmas traditions celebrated by Christians came before the traditions celebrated by the pagans, then you are incorrect.

And consequently, the birth of Jesus is a pagan tradition.

Mithras was born of a virgin in a manger on Dec. 25th.  He was visited by three wisemen and pronounced that he would become king.  Mithras eventually died in order to save us and he will come back in order to judge the living and the dead.  Sound familiar?



> But thank you, finally for the admission that this is a Christian holiday...


 
Jesus = Mithras.
Sol Invictus = Christmas.



> Now quit trying to tell us how Christians should celebrate it without the "Christian Veneer" in it.


 
Celebrate it as you wish.  If it harm none, do what thou wilt.  I'm not going to tell anyone how they need to worship.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Actually, yes, I would. Just I would say that shotokan is a bastardized form of Okinawan Karate. In both translation, critical knowledge of bunkai was lost and it was not replaced.
> 
> However, that is neither here nor there. I look forward to your response to my previous post...


 

But it is. Why not just "strip the veneer" of those false Korean bunkai away, and go practice Okinawan karate, or Shotokan. Would you say, then, that the practice of Okinawan karate is the most pure-the others being bastardizations-and therefore most valid, that Shotokan, Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do, etc. all are invalid becasue they are "bastardizations?"

Would it then follow that Okinawan karate is a bastardization of Chinese martial arts, that all karate practitioners should really "strip the veneer away" and practice gung fu? 

WHich of these is the proper and valid _celebration_-er, practice, of the form? 

Or do they *all* have validity?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 10, 2006)

elder999 said:


> Or do they *all* have validity?


 
Yes, but it depends on the context.

In 1945, Hwang Kee founded the Moo Duk Kwan.  He originally called his art Hwa Soo Do, but soon changed this to Tang Soo Do at the advice of Wan Kuk Lee.  Hwa Soo Do originally contained techniques from Tae Kyun and Yang Style Tai Chi, both of which Hwang had had some training.

Upon switching to Tang Soo Do, or Way of the China Hand, Hwang found himself learning an entire curriculum from one of Gichin Funakoshi's books.  From that point on, forms were collected, but not studied.  Some of the moves were preserved, but others were changed at a whim.

Eventually, gaps appeared.  Striking alone did not seem to solve all problems when it came to self defense.  Thus kata lists from various aikijutsu and jujutsu systems were imported and eventually the origins of these lists were blurred so that they seemed "korean."

Finally, the art of Tang Soo Do has come to a point where it is like too little butter spread over too much bread.  Too much material has been shoved under one umbrella and the overall character of everything has suffered.

Thus we find our parellels with Christian Christmas.

The *people* who designed this holiday attempted to spread the Christian Mythology over too many things.  And, in the end, I beleive that it has become bastardized.  The original meaning of all of these symbols had far more depth...more cultural richness...more meaning then they do now.  

In closing, I would like to state that there is value in understanding this.  I think that seeing this provides insite into the creation of one of the first McChurches....a squeazing of all these different tribes under one umbrella.  

The bottom line is that there is so much more out there.  The human trait of religiosity is just like any other trait.  Our common ground lies under the peak of the bell curve, while the differences lie in the wings.  It all evolved like anything else.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 10, 2006)

It&#8217;s important that both sides try to realize that people did, over time, create Christianity. Over the years, it has evolved-just as people, over time, created paganism and other religions.

Getting back on topic, while the information Scott initially posted is interesting, some of it is questionable. The idea that Santa Claus came from the Siberian shaman is a good example of this. While there are parallels-and parallels can actually be drawn from many cultures around the world, some as far away from Europe as Afghanistan, there are several distinct threads that knotted together to become the figure known as _Father Christmas, Saint Nick_ and, ultimately, _Santa Claus._ Many of them Christian.

The first of these is Saint Nicholas of Myra, a 4th century Christian bishop of Myra in Lycia, a province of Byzantine Anatolia, now in Turkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor, in particular presenting the three impoverished daughters of a pious Christian with dowries so that they would not have to become prostitutes.

Prior to the Germanic peoples' conversion to Christianity, Germanic folklore contained stories about the god Odin (Wodan), who would each year, at Yule, have a great hunting party accompanied by his fellow gods and the fallen warriors residing in his realm. Children would place their boots, filled with carrots, straw or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat. Odin would then reward those children for their kindness by replacing Sleipnir's food with gifts or candy This practice survived in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands after the adoption of Christianity and became associated with Saint Nicholas. Children still place their straw filled shoes at the chimney every winter night, and Saint Nicholas (who, unlike Santa, is still riding a horse) rewards them with candy and gifts. Odin's appearance was often similar to that of Saint Nicholas, being depicted as an old, mysterious man with a beard. (Other features, like the absence of one eye, are not found in Saint Nicholas.) This practice in turn came to America via the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam prior to the British seizure in the 17th century, and evolved into the hanging of socks or stockings at the fireplace.

Saint Nicholas-Sint Niklaus in Dutch-à_Santa Claus_. 


Interstingly, Sint Niklaus/Father Christmas, etc. actually rode a white horse, and sometimes a goat, and rarely a single reindeer-all on the ground. He didn&#8217;t actually fly in a sleigh drawn by eight reindeer until Clement Moore wrote _
The Night before Christmas_, based on his own Germanic heritage, in 1823.


Getting back to Odin, and the Germanic people, it might be good to talk about Vikings, an excellent example of the syncretism I brought up earlier.
The Vikings came into contact with Christianity through their raids, and when they settled in lands with a Christian population, they adopted Christianity quite quickly. This was true in Normandy, Ireland, and throughout the British Isles. Although contemporary accounts say little about this, we can see it in the archaeological evidence. As pagans (for lack of a better word, for now) the Vikings had many gods to pick and choose from, and it was a simple matter for them to have Jesus alongside all their other gods.

We know almost nothing about pagan religious practices in the Viking Age. There is little contemporary evidence, and although there are occasional references to paganism in the Viking sagas - mostly composed in Iceland in the 13th century - we have to remember that these were written down 200 years after the conversion to Christianity. We know that chieftains also had some sort of role as priests, and that pagan worship involved the sacrifice of horses, but not much more Pagans buried their dead with grave goods, but Christians normally didn't, and this makes it relatively easy to spot the change in religion. Some graves even have-and this was a common Viking pagan-Christian motif-both Thor&#8217;s hammer and a cross


As well as conversion abroad, the Viking Age also saw a gradual conversion in Scandinavia itself, as Anglo-Saxon and German missionaries arrived to convert the pagans. By the mid-11th century, Christianity was well established in Denmark and most of Norway. Although there was a temporary conversion in Sweden in the early 11th century, it wasn't until the mid-12th century that Christianity became established there. As part of the process of conversion the Christians took over traditional pagan sites. A good example of this can be seen at Gamle Uppsala in Sweden, where the remains of an early church stand alongside a series of huge pagan burial mounds.


The raids on the Frankish kingdoms and the British Isles brought increased contact with Christianity. Although Vikings often seem to have maintained their beliefs throughout the periods of their raiding, there was considerable pressure to convert to Christianity if they wished to have more peaceful relations with the Christians. This could happen on a political level, as in the Treaty of Wedmore in 878. The treaty bound the Viking leader Guthrum to accept Christianity, with Alfred of Wessex as his godfather, and Alfred in turn recognised Guthrum as the ruler of East Anglia.

Another more or less formal convention applied to trade, since Christians were not really supposed to trade with pagans. Although a full conversion does not seem to have been demanded of all Scandinavian traders, the custom of 'primsigning' (first-signing) was introduced. This was a halfway step, falling short of baptism, but indicating some willingness to accept Christianity, and this was often deemed to be enough to allow trading.

Further pressure came as Viking raiders settled down alongside Christian neighbors. Although scholars disagree on exactly how extensive the Scandinavian settlement was in different parts of the British Isles, few people would now accept that the Vikings completely replaced the native population in any area. In particular, the settlers often took native wives (or at least partners), although some settlers apparently brought their families over from Scandinavia. The children of these mixed marriages would therefore grow up in partially Christian households, and might even be brought up as Christians. Further intermarriage, coupled with the influence of the Church, gradually brought about a complete conversion. Thus a family might be largely Christian, but put up a tree for the toothless old grandfather each winter, ultimately forgetting why as they became more and more Christianized. That the practice also worked the other way, with the Church absorbing pagan practices, also goes without saying. Considering the age, it was only natural: you&#8217;re a lone friar, or small group of clergy, and you&#8217;re charged with spreading the faith, and you&#8217;re very, very far from any authority-or your home. It&#8217;s  only natural (and the technique is still utilized by missionaries) that you draw parallels to establish understanding with the populace, and gradually convert their native practices to Christian ones.

The peaceful co-existence of pagans and Christians is suggested by some of the coinage of Viking York. One coin type carries the name of St Peter, rather than the ruler. This seems very obviously Christian, but on many of the coins, the final 'I' of 'PETRI' takes the form of Thor's hammer, and some of these coins also have a hammer on the reverse. These coins seem to carry a deliberate message that both paganism and Christianity were acceptable.






More to follow, but here's the St. Peter coin with Thor's hammer:


----------



## elder999 (Dec 10, 2006)

Getting back to my pot analogy, if you think of CHristianity as the pot, and one of the jewels-once a rough stone, but whittled away at by that jeweler so that it was beautifully faceted-as Christmas, it might be a little more apt. And, getting back to the whole Siberian shaman/Santa Claus thing, some of that richness you spoke of in your last post, Scott, jsut might not be valid..though the parallels are thought provoking, it's the sort of thing we'll never really know-though we do know that there was a St. Nicholas.

Religions, once they leave their area of origin, are always colored by the culture they are in. 

Religions always evolve-thus we have many, many forms of Buddhism, some a far cry from what we can surmise Buddha himself  (if there was such a person) had in mind. 

Missionaries always change things to suit the culture, thus we have things like 
 the Jesus Sutras-7th century Christian texts found in China, that were formulated by Persian missionaries to China to a form that suited the populace.

Syncretism is a two way street, especially in the history of Christianity. The Church did absorb native practices-pagan and otherwise-and the natives often disguised their practices as Christianity, perhaps most notably in the case of the Aztec godess Tonantzin becoming Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico-something the Bishop of Mexico city (name escapes me) at the time almost recognized, wrote troubled letters to Rome over, and could do nothing about-the natives (and Our Lady of Guadalupe was the result of a vision reported by an Indian, and was first worshipped by natives converted to Christianity) were, as far as Rome was concerned, praying to the Blessed Virgin, and that was okay.

Sometimes, like the real reasons punches are &#8220;chambered,&#8221; knife  hands are brought to the hip , and arms are crossed, things get changed, and what comes afterward-no matter how another can perceive or interpret the *facts* of it-is the _truth_ for another, and serves them well. The mechanics of how it came to be so (concealed by Okinawans from Japanese, taught by Japanese as gospel, or  absorbed by the church, or layered onto the church by pagans) really doesn&#8217;t matter to the person&#8217;s belief system, it is only historical&#8230;.we can&#8217;t all be scientists, and most people don&#8217;t really care to be-they need their _truth_ to get through life, and the *facts*-while interesting to some-are completely irrelevant to their beliefs. There is no &#8220;Christmas&#8221; without &#8220;Christ.&#8221; That it was something else, that the entire Nativity story was grafted from Mithraism (there are other elements of Mithraism not present in Christianity, and crucifixion and resurrection are common motifs in religions going back to the Egyptians-you can&#8217;t just say &#8220;Mithras=Jesus&#8221;; it&#8217;s not that simple.) are immaterial-it&#8217;s become something else. It&#8217;s not Yule, or a solstice celebration, any more than it should be the crass, material circus that it&#8217;s become-and yet, like  your pot-*it is* Just like your hyungs, the interpretation and validity depend upon the context. For the anthropologist or historian, Christmas is an interesting conglomeration, and that's with the exact mechanics notwithstanding, Scott;you keep trying to fix blame on "the church" for stealing Christmas like some sort of Grinch, when it really did work both ways over the years. For the Christian, though, especially in this modern age  of electric light, where we pay little attention to shortening and lenghtening of the day, apart from how it inconveniences us as individuals, for the most part, for the Christian, Christmas is the birthday fo the little baby Jesus.

What it is for you, is entirely up to you-that would be your truth, and perhaps, for you, it will exactly match the facts as we know them. Truth, though, as I posted earlier, is relative-open to interpretation if you wish, but truth nonetheless.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2006)

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts.  I think I see the point you are trying to make.

However, here is something that sprung to my regarding syncreticism.  What if there was not equal parity between the parties involved?  What if the power difference on one side was so great that it force the issue?

I can definitely see an interflow of cultural memes, but I also sense that there was also a frantic effort to cover up what was being done by a people who were being persecuted for what they believed.

Perhaps this is another reason behind the thinly-veiled paganism that became Christmas.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> .
> 
> However, here is something that sprung to my regarding syncreticism. What if there was not equal parity between the parties involved? What if the power difference on one side was so great that it force the issue?
> 
> ...


 
Well, it certainly _could/i] be, though I've always liked to play the little thought game: what if that speculative blending, Chritianity and Paganism side by side, had become the prominent form of Christianity-or, at least, Protestanism? Would we now see Jerry Falwell rockin' to Ozzy? Pat Robertson's Halloween Special? What sort of world might that be?

Of course, it's not that way-and we're not going to change any of those people with *facts*, because they'll cling to their truth-like the excrable King James translation of the Bible being the unerring word of God-something I laugh at almost every day.

The fact is you're probably right-though it probably started out as benignly as I said.It probably worked both ways-at least that's what I think. Of course, I don't have some chip (however small-certainly not a Sequoia) in my shoulder for Christianity. It's easy to "fix blame" when you've already convicted-no matter how rightly-the party you're blaming.

So, getting back to the whole syncretism thing- fact is, all religions show elements of syncreticism, whether theyve adapted -for whatever reason, elements of other religions or cultural elements. Islam-which Mohammad either made by conflating the existing faiths of the time with some distinctly Arabic cultural beliefs, or received as a direct revelation from the Archangel Gabriel-is a good example, and somewhat less mysterious than others, where it's pretty hard, especially after hundreds or even thousands of year, to say "ths is how it happened." Forms of Buddhism in Korea show distinct elements of Buddhism, as well as Koreas native bon shamanism. Christianity, it has been argued, shows distinct elements of the Mystery schools-and its true; numerous papers have been written on the subject, including one famous (and remarkably plagiarized) one by Dr. Martin Luther King in college. The gospels, especially those of Paul, show elements of Greek Mystery Schools, Gnosticism, and Judaism. Speaking of Judaism, some have argued that Christianity is just a form of Judaism, or that Jesus intended to bring his message to the Jews, and it was chiefly about being good Jews -and, indeed, the Gospels show evidence of contemporaneous arguments to this effect. And, speaking of Judaism, it too has been influenced over the years by numerous external elements, not the least of which was cultural: the Jews of Jesuss time were Hellenized themselves, and their Judaism had also been indelibly influenced by their exile to and subsequent release from Persia. The Temple position of High Priest was imposed upon the Hebrews (since they werent really "Jews" until after the fall of Jerusalem and the advent of rabbinical Judaism) by their former Persian oppressors.

Of course, Jews dont have a High Priest or  sacrifice animals any more, or have groves of sacred trees, and neither do most Christians (though there is a retention of some of these practices within the Coptic church) and couldnt even tell you when they stopped doing them, or why they were done in the first place. Religions, whatever the reasons, evolve. Some just die out, some died with their people, some become something else, or part of something else. 
_


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm not going to tell anyone how they need to worship.



As long as that worship is free of "Christian Veneer" you mean.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> As long as that worship is free of "Christian Veneer" you mean.


 
Oh?  Not once have I said that you couldn't _believe_ in Christ or Christianity or whatever you want.

Of course your beliefs may not be supported by fact, but that should have little bearing on what you consider to be _truth_...which is kinda what Elder999 is saying.

If it harm none, do what thou wilt.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2006)

One of the interesting things about syncreticism is that I can totally see the connection to our biology.  This interflow of cultural memes is just like any other trait with a range of biologic variability.  The things that we share are the things that reflect upon the majority of homo sapians.  While the things that are different represent the evolution of these memes in different environments.  

The big religions, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, in order to assimilate all of the different peoples also had to accomodate.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 20, 2006)

Cryozombie said:
			
		

> But thank you, finally for the admission that this is a Christian holiday...


 
Is it, now?? Really??

When I mentally recall all the images we associate with "Christmas" in the United States --- the multitude of songs, movies like _The Christmas Story_, the familiar literature featuring the Grinch and Mr. Scrooge --- I see very little in the way of Jesus Christ or Christianity. In fact, I was raised in a conservative Christian household and we only gave passing reference to Jesus on Christmas day. 

I honestly think upnorthkyosa's concerns are interesting but not really bothersome. Christianity may have been a Christian holiday once upon a time, just as Western society as a whole had more or less theocratic rule, once upon a time. But today, Mr. Scrooge and the Grinch and Santa's elves and some glasses-wearing kid pining for a toy rifle have more relevance to Christmas for most people than Jesus.

I'm no Christian. Christmas, to me, has always been about friends and family. That's good enough.

Laterz.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 20, 2006)

Well! How unfair is it to have a title "Christmas = Sex Magic" and to click on and find you all discussing religion... again!! I thought I was going to get something a little saucier!! > goes away disappointed and untittilated<


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 20, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> But today, Mr. Scrooge and the Grinch and Santa's elves and some glasses-wearing kid pining for a toy rifle have more relevance to Christmas for most people than Jesus.



Yes, its amazing what marketing can do to a society. Theres a big difference between "Truth" and "Marketing Truth", I think you are smart enough to realize that.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 20, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Well! How unfair is it to have a title "Christmas = Sex Magic" and to click on and find you all discussing religion... again!! I thought I was going to get something a little saucier!! > goes away disappointed and untittilated<


 
Allright here is something a little saucy for you.  

_**image removed (oversized) to comply with size restrictions - see Rules**_
(relax it is not what it might seem)


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 20, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Yes, its amazing what marketing can do to a society. Theres a big difference between "Truth" and "Marketing Truth", I think you are smart enough to realize that.


 
I'm not so sure that Charles Dickens and Dr. Seuss are the best examples of mass marketers (unless you mean posthumously), but the point remains that Christmas has been moving away from an overt Christian association for the past two hundred years or so.

This isn't necessarily a product of "marketing". Rather, I think it is a commentary on the sociopolitical evolution that has occured in the West since the Age of Reason. The "secularization" of Christmas mirrors the parallel "secularization" and "democratization" of society as a whole.

It ain't the Dark Ages anymore, folks.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 20, 2006)

Cirdan..erm...thank you.... I think! 

Most northern hemisphere countries have always a midwinter festival. Where it's dark and cold (where I live the days are very short, it's freezing and very, very miserable) there's nearly always a 'festival of light' of some sort. It was also a time to kill some of the livestock and use the fruit etc that wouldn't last much longer. Life was very harsh in most countries so a knees up in the middle of winter was probably a sanity saver if not life saver.  What people make of the midwinter festival is up to them. Though lying on a beach in the southern hemisphere sounds very attractive at the moment.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2006)

And then there is the fact that any excuse to "shack up" with your significant other is usually a good one...


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 20, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I'm not so sure that Charles Dickens and Dr. Seuss are the best examples of mass marketers (unless you mean posthumously),



I hardly think things like the Cocacola santa image, doorbuster gift sales, candy canes, and the like are the results of Dickens Chirstmas story or The Grinch.  Those are two books, popular yes, but not the whole of the christmas image.

When I talk about marketing, Im talking Santa, Elves, Reindeer, Jinglebell Rock, Santa baby, Ticke me Elmo, 2000.00 PS3 Ebay ripoffs and Wal Mart killings over CD players etc... not two Christmas stories by a couple of writers.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> And then there is the fact that any excuse to "shack up" with your significant other is usually a good one...


 
Absolutely! I think that's part of the problem, humans being always manage to feel guilty (or have some one making them feel guilty) about enjoyment and fun so turning the fun into a religious 'duty' makes it seem 'proper'! It gives people something to look forward to and to work for. If your lifes pretty well bollocks a celebration/festival is a small bright part of the year!


----------

