Christmas = Sex Magic!

[zDom]

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.

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]

-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]

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??

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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."

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.



*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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.