'Tis the Season

[woodchip]

Well with the PC crowd trying to remove the word "Christmas" and replace it with "holidays" as Christmas has religious connotations, have seemingly forgot that the whole season's existance is based on religion. Chrismas is the reason for the "holiday" tree, it is the reason for the giving of gifts (and the whole retail business plan). Chrismas Eve is based on the christian religion's birth of christ. Not the j
Jewish religion, not the Muslim religion, nor the Hindu religion. Not any other religion. So to rename Christmas as "Holiday" shows a certain disrespect to the christian faith as though the whole event is nothing more than a trip to Disney World.. I can only imagine if Christmas was based on Ramadan and we tried to call Ramadan the holiday season. Imagine the hue and cry. How about we call the Jewish Menorah a holiday candlestick?

Those who use Holiday instead of Christmas, do so to not offend a certain segment of our population. They forget that using the word "holiday" alienates many christians. Merry Christmas and happy New Years are now to be lumped in as one vast "Holiday", as though a drunken right of passage into the next year has any similarity with Christmas.

So for all you thrill seeking PC'ers, go ahead and put up your holiday tree and decorate your house with hoilday decorations hoping the holiday man will be coming to visit with his holiday sleigh pulled by holiday deer. Look forward to the holiday gifts and people singing holiday songs. Turn on T.V. and maybe you might catch a revised Charles Dickens classic movie called "A Holiday Carol". On holiday eve, mothers and fathers will recite "Twas the Night Before Holiday" to their children before tucking them into bed. Afterward they will go and drink a little holiday cheer. As Aldous Huxley wrote, it's a "Brave New Holiday".

[Testiculese]

Christmas was created by Christians to replace the pagan holiday of the winter solstice in order to more easily persuade the pagans to convert.

(If 'Holiday' alienates Christians, then good, I'll be sure to use it. )

[Zuruck]

slap

[dissent]

and since the root of "holiday" is from "holy day", then that will eventually have to be purged as well.
*sigh*

[Stryker]

I have no problem with people using "holiday" either, as dissent said--its root is from "holy day". Christmas has some very interesting mixed roots. What I DON'T like is the rabid commercialization of the Christmas holiday.

Retailers nowdays are advertising along the lines of "get something for yourself when you get a gift for person x", and that, to me, is one of the stupidest, most inane advertising techniques known to mankind. It's a day of giving, but it's rapidly being turned into a day that produces more stress and bad feelings than the day of rest and charity it was intended to be.

[Money!]

I'm Jewish. I celebrate Chanukah, which can be considered a holiday. You get gifts and choclate every day for eight days. It is always around the time of the "holiday season" (actually this year it starts on Christmas). So tell me again how holidays isn't referring to my holiday?

To be crude, I take offense from this post.

[TigerRaptor]

Personally I don?t care if people have a problem with the word Christmas. It?s my right to say Marry Christmas regardless if someone takes offence to it. To damn bad, I don?t go around knocking down other holidays of different religions, and I damn well respect other religious holidays even if it isn?t one of my own. Yes Christmas is one of the biggest holidays around, and I blame the commercial industry for destroying its true propose. But trying to take the word Christmas, out of Christmas and replace it with Holiday. Well I?m going to be pissed off about this. I?ve gotten so tired of these commercial Holidays; I simply won?t take any part in most of them. Except Halloween, Valentines those I?ll go along with. Other Holidays like Sweets Day for example I won?t take any part in. Up until this year I?ve never heard of Sweets Day. Just another commercial Holiday made up by Hallmark. I guess my point is too much of what I grew up with is turning to fake for me, and to much of it keeps changing

[Top Gun]

Christmas was created by Christians to replace the pagan holiday of the winter solstice in order to more easily persuade the pagans to convert.

The actual idea of the Incarnation, which Christmas celebrates, has nothing at all to do with the Roman Saturnalia. The whole idea of it being "created" to replace a pagan holiday really has to do with the time of year at which it is celebrated, not the existence of the holiday to begin with. The early church decided to celebrate Christ's birth at the time of the Saturnalia as an alternative to that holiday and as a celebration of joy during the dark days of winter; it's not like any of the Gospels gave an exact time and date of Christ's birth, so the celebration could have occurred at just about any time of the year. This is a different situation than Easter, which according to the Gospel accounts occurred at the time of the Jewish Passover, just as the modern celebration of Easter usually does. This may seem like a minor distinction, but the implication that Christmas is somehow a "fabricated" holiday tends to annoy me.

[Ferno]

this thread sucks.

[Shoku]

This may seem like a minor distinction, but the implication that Christmas is somehow a "fabricated" holiday tends to annoy me.

Actually it is a fabricated holiday. No where in scripture are Christians told to celebrate Jesus' birth (Faithful Jews living in the first century did not celebrate birthdays). All the "christmas" customs stem from traditions originally associated with pagan religions, like the Saturnalia; the "12 days of Christmas" are a direct product of that ancient Roman holiday, as are the giving of gifts and parades.

[Flabby Chick]

To be crude, I take offense from this post.

Typical Jewish response. Some tribe in Outer Mongolia gets taxes raised and they cry anti-semitism.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Saturnalia (from the god Saturn) was the name the Romans gave to their holiday marking the Winter Solstice. Over the years, it expanded to a whole week, the 17 December to 23 December. It also degenerated from mostly tomfoolery, marked chiefly by having masters and slaves switch places, to sometimes debauchery, so that among Christians the (lower case) word "saturnalia" came to mean "orgy".

It was traditional for Romans to exchange gifts during this holiday. These gifts were customarily made of silver, although nearly anything could be given as a gift for the occasion. Several epigrams by the poet Martial survive, seemingly crafted as riddling gift-tags for gifts of food.

The customary greeting for the occasion is "Io, Saturnalia!" ? io (pronounced "yo") being a Latin interjection related to "ho" (as in "Ho, praise to Saturn").

It has been postulated that Christians in the fourth century assigned December 25th as Christ's birthday (and thus Christmas) because pagans already observed this day as a holiday. This would sidestep the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday while Christianizing the population. It created other problems because of the coexistence of the two feasts: see Bishop Asterius of Amasea's New Year's sermon in AD 400, discussed at the entry Lord of Misrule. The medieval celebration of the Feast of Fools was another continuation of Saturnalia into the Christian era.

Seneca the younger wrote about Rome during Saturnalia around AD 50:

It is now the month of December, when the greatest part of the city is in a bustle. Loose reins are given to public dissipation; everywhere you may hear the sound of great preparations, as if there were some real difference between the days devoted to Saturn and those for transacting business....Were you here, I would willingly confer with you as to the plan of our conduct; whether we should eve in our usual way, or, to avoid singularity, both take a better supper and throw off the toga. ? From Epistulae morales ad Lucilium

Interesting when you notice the "Ho" as a greeting. Now we know where the "Ho Ho Ho" came from. I guess a lot of people are having trouble accepting the fact that Christians "adopted" a pagan holiday in order to make it easier to convert others to Christianity. As I was saying before, there isn nothing really Christ related about Christmas at all. Everybody is starting to realize that except the members of Christendom. Or perhaps it's a lack of humility that won't allow them to see "The Truth".

[woodchip]

So I guess we should really be celebrating a drunken orgy? Maybe instead of saying "Ho Ho Ho" we should be saying "Toga Toga Toga" as someone made up to look like John Belushi is floated in the Macy's parade on a bed pulled by a bunch disheveled frat boys.

[Pandora]

Typical Jewish response. Some tribe in Outer Mongolia gets taxes raised and they cry anti-semitism.

ROFL!! that cracked me up...

[Testiculese]

Sounds good to me, Woodchip! Actually, that IS about what I'll be doing

[Ferno]

as long as you give lots of money, i'm all over that.

[Duper]

It's interesting that there is concern about being PC except for in the case of Christians.

[Top Gun]

This may seem like a minor distinction, but the implication that Christmas is somehow a "fabricated" holiday tends to annoy me.

Actually it is a fabricated holiday. No where in scripture are Christians told to celebrate Jesus' birth (Faithful Jews living in the first century did not celebrate birthdays). All the "christmas" customs stem from traditions originally associated with pagan religions, like the Saturnalia; the "12 days of Christmas" are a direct product of that ancient Roman holiday, as are the giving of gifts and parades.

Um...so just because the New Testament doesn't mention a necessary celebration of Christmas, then the early church shouldn't have established one? I don't follow your logic. Since the Incarnation of Christ is one of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, isn't it not only sensible, even appropriate, to commemorate it in some way?

Thrawn, I see nothing in your quote that contradicts what I said. In fact, it actually backs me up. The Roman celebration of Saturnalia was largely devoted to drunken revelry; the gifts given were usually satirical in nature. Besides, buying a gift for someone really doesn't have anything to do with the Christian celebration of Christmas; it's a secularized tradition stemming from commercialism and (most likely) medieval practices of some of the aspects of Saturnalia. I have no idea what "truth" you're referring to; to me, Christmas will always primarily be about acknowledging Christ's coming into the world. Like your article said, that was the reason for its original establishment; at the time when others were going all frat-party, Christians were able to celebrate something important and precious to them.

As a side note, I highly doubt that Santa's favorite catchphrase stems from a Roman greeting. Think about it: what other type of a sound could a belly-laughing fat guy make?

[Shoku]

Um...so just because the New Testament doesn't mention a necessary celebration of Christmas, then the early church shouldn't have established one? I don't follow your logic.

The logic is quite simple. Every custom associated with Christmas is of pagan religious origin - even the date (Jesus was not born in December, based on the chronology of the New Testament he was probably born in late September or early October). Christianity was founded on truth, not falsehood. Jesus said that those who worship God are to worship with spirit and "truth." A faithful Christian should reject the religious falsehood of Christmas. The only event Jesus commanded his followers to remember was his death. And that event was to be more of memorial than a fun-filed, self-gratifying celebration. It was to be a time to contemplate what he did for us by sacrificing his life. He said, ?Keep doing this in REMEMBRANCE of me.? I think if he returned today he would be appalled by what Chistendom has allowed to soil the truth.

Even the Apostle Paul expressed dissatisfaction with the first century Christians in Galatia, who wanted to continue to celebrate Jewish festivals based on the Law of Moses. He said to them:

?You want to return to the weak and beggarly things of the world, and want to slave for them all over again. You are observing days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that I have toiled for no purpose respecting you."

The Galatians wanted to continue to observe festival days based on the Law; the Law that God had given to Israel. These observances were no longer necessary, because Christ's sacrifice made the Law no longer necessary. Now, if Paul chastised the Galatians for wanting to hold on to festival days that God once commanded them to observe, how would he have felt if they wanted to observe festival days that God had NEVER commanded and that were pagan in origin? He would have been outraged!

[Top Gun]

I think you're missing my point. Christ may have commanded His followers to remember His crucifixion, death, and resurrection, but at no time did He ever prohibit anyone from the celebration of His birth, nor was that ever mentioned in any of the epistles. In my mind, if Jesus or the apostles never said, "Don't celebrate my/Christ's birth," what is the problem with the early Church establishing a day to remember it? It doesn't matter that the date of said remembrance was chosen to coincide with a hedonistic pagan festival; what matters is what Christmas is meant to celebrate. I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no contradiction of "truth" there, nor do I see how celebrating Christ's birth is in any way pagan in origin or has anything to do with prohibitions against celebrating ancient Jewish holidays. As for the date, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it not being the exact day that Christ was born; as I said, while we may conjecture at what time of the year it was, it's not as though we have the exact date. It's the same reason why the feast of the Immaculate Conception is celebrated on March 25; no one really thinks that Jesus' gestation time was nine months to the day, but it's a convenient date to celebrate that particular Christian belief.

[Lothar]

Paul would have been outraged? Not the Paul I've read...

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' " So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Paul seemed quite content to have people celebrate various days for whatever reason, as long as they did so "to the Lord". The only people he condemns in this passage are those who do things they think are sinful and those who condemn others.

What you've presented is a distorted view of half the picture. Paul chastized the Galatians because they tried to attain righteousness through celebrating various holy days and doing all the other things required by the Law. Paul wasn't criticizing them over holidays; he was criticizing them because they wanted to re-adopt the entire system of Law they'd been freed from.

Read this selection of quotes from the above passage (which, by the way, is the passage your quote comes from):

Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God?or rather are known by God?how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

The whole point of the Galatians passage is to criticize those who are trying to become righteous by following the Old Testament Law. The fact that it mentions celebrating holidays is not a condemnation of holidays; it's a condemnation of those who adopt certain holidays as part of a legalistic effort to become righteous. It's a condemnation of those who think the holidays they celebrate (and the foods they eat) are what justify them before God. It's a condemnation of those who think "I'm righteous because I celebrate the feast of tabernacles, the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of [blah blah blah]" or those who think "I'm righteous because I celebrate Christmas and Easter".

That's what Paul is upset about... not that people would dare celebrate holidays, but that they would dare try to become righteous by celebrating holidays. He had similarly harsh words in Romans 14 for those who would dare declare others unrighteous because of the holidays they celebrated.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Your first quote, Lothar, deals with people being overly self righteous and looking down upon others who these people may feel are "not as strict", but this is dealing more with the members of the religion being overly righteous and judgemental rather than the issue of true worship, it's merely a matter of warning people against being overly righteous. This would be a good scripture for those fanatics who think that having an occasional beer every now and then is a bad thing and chastises others who drink it.

As far as the holidays, let's take it even further back.

THE Christmas spirit is not Christian, because it did not originate with Christ. It predated the Christian era by many centuries. Shortly after the Flood the spirit and the whole celebration of Christmas had its beginning. It began with Nimrod, grandson of Ham the son of Noah, a wicked, ruthless dictator, responsible for the great organized worldly apostasy from God that continues to this day. In contempt for God and all decency Nimrod married his own mother, Semiramis. After his untimely death, his mother-wife, Semiramis, taught the lie that her husband-son was a spirit god. She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth to new life of the dead Nimrod. She taught that on the anniversary of his birth, which was December 25, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. The historian, Professor Hislop, says: ?Now the Yule Log is the dead stock of Nimrod, deified as the sun-god, but cut down by his enemies; the Christmas-tree is Nimrod redivivus?the slain god come to life again.??The Two Babylons, pages 97, 98

When we look later on in history, Nimrod became worshiped as the ?divine son of heaven,? ?the Messiah, son of Baal the sun-god.? For those of you who are familiar with the bible, BAAL worship was among the most HATED by God.

And then there's this right smack from the Roman encyclopedia...

?Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their list of feasts.? When apostate Christians began to fall away to pagan practices, Tertullian complained: ?By us, who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia [and other pagan feasts] are now frequented, gifts are carried to and fro, . . . and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar.?

So, we've established this so far...

Christmas and it's traditions started with Baal Worship. Long before Christ was even upon the earth.

The Church adopted it into Christianity and called it Christmas.

We know that this religion has pagan origins.

So okay, what does this have to do with Christians and why should they be concerned about it. Some of you Christians think it's just another day, and Lothar seems to think that it's okay as long as "They do so in the Lord". Here's the problem with that.

Let's take a look at a few scriptures.

(Jeremiah 10:1-3) . . .Hear the word that God has spoken against YOU people, O house of Israel. 2 This is what God has said: ?Do not learn the way of the nations at all, and do not be struck with terror even at the signs of the heavens, because the nations are struck with terror at them. 3 For the customs of the peoples are just an exhalation, because it is a mere tree out of the forest that one has cut down, the work of the hands of the craftsman with the billhook. . .

(Exodus 23:24) 24 You must not bow down to their gods or be induced to serve them, and you must not make anything like their works, but you will without fail throw them down and you will without fail break down their sacred pillars. . .

(Deuteronomy 7:16) 16 And you must consume all the peoples whom your God is giving to you. Your eye must not feel sorry for them; and you must not serve their gods, because that will be a snare to you.

14 Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Be´li·al? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God?s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: ?I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.? 17 ??Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,? says God, ?and quit touching the unclean thing??; ??and I will take YOU in.?? 18 ??And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,? says the Almighty.?

Also, Compare Exodus 32:4-10. Notice that the Israelites adopted an Egyptian religious practice but gave it a new name, ?a festival to God.? But God severely punished them for this. Today we see only 20th-century practices associated with holidays. Some may appear harmless. But God observed firsthand the pagan religious practices from which these originated. Should not his view be what matters to you Christians? Not because it's "Tradition" and you, as imperfect men, see nothing wrong with it?

Also, take note that the bible "interestingly" does not mention Christians celebrating birthdays? Why is that? Oh yea! Because it has pagan origins. The bible only makes two references to birthdays

Gen. 40:20-22: ?Now on the third day it turned out to be Pharaoh?s birthday, and he proceeded to make a feast . . . Accordingly he returned the chief of the cupbearers to his post of cupbearer . . . But the chief of the bakers he hung up.?

Matt. 14:6-10: ?When Herod?s birthday was being celebrated the daughter of Herodias danced at it and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, under her mother?s coaching, said: ?Give me here upon a platter the head of John the Baptist.? . . . He sent and had John beheaded in the prison.?

Not that the bible doesn't talk about birthdays in a pleasing manner. And here's some additional info

?The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea. . . . This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint. . . . The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks. . . . Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis]. . . . Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes. . . . Lighted tapers and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods. The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune. . . . Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday. . . . Originally the idea was rooted in magic. . . . Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this day.??The Lore of Birthdays (New York, 1952), Ralph and Adelin Linton, pp. 8, 18-20

Hmmm, sounds pagan to me. Now, this post isn't a personal attack on the "Christians" here. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the religions of Christendom and the fact that they are contradicting the teachings of their bible.

I do believe in God and that he created the earth and the universe, but I will have absolutely nothing to do with these hypocrytical religions that do nothing but twist everything around in order to subdue their people. They truly have gone corrupt.

[woodchip]

Well dang, I guess I'm just a pagan after-all. I can't wait to see Lothars response to Thrawn. Pop-corn, pop-corn for sale...

[Lothar]

Compare Exodus 32:4-10. Notice that the Israelites adopted an Egyptian religious practice but gave it a new name, ?a festival to God.? But God severely punished them for this.

Let's look a little more closely at that passage:

When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."

Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'

"I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

Your description above is misleading. They didn't take a foreign religious practice or festival and rename it; they took an idol and said it was their god and was responsible for leading them out of Egypt. They were taking something that was not God and worshipping it.

That's the problem the Israelites had, constantly, throughout their history. They built altars to foreign gods and made offerings there. They served foreign gods and idols. They worshipped at temples devoted to the Baals, Ishtar, and so on. They rejected Yahweh and replaced Him with other gods.

I don't see anything in Christmas that's even remotely similar. We don't bow down to the Christmas tree and say it was responsible for our salvation; we don't worship Santa and proclaim him as Lord; we don't pretend Rudolph led the people out of Egypt with his bright shiny nose. (If you do any of these things, I strongly encourage you to stop!) So, I refer you back to Romans 14... if I choose to eat meat and I do so to the Lord, it doesn't matter *at all* if that meat was sacrificed to an idol; if I choose to regard one day as special (be it Christmas, a birthday, or whatever) and I do so to the Lord, it doesn't matter *at all* what that day may have signified to other people in other cultures. What matters is what I do with it -- am I bowing down to an idol, or am I worshipping the one true God?

Some would argue that, by setting up a Christmas tree, I'm implicitly worshipping Baal or whoever because that's what the tradition originally implied. Would you also argue that if I called someone "gay" I was merely implying they're happy and festive? Would you argue that, if I said the words "OH HELL" in English, I was really referring to a tent in Hebrew? Would you argue that, if I ate meat that had been offered to an idol, I was worshipping that idol because that was the original purpose of that meat? Hopefully not; hopefully you recognize that what matters is not how my own practice superficially (or even historically) resembles some sinful practice in ages past, but whether or not I use the practice to worship the one true God.

[Flabby Chick]

It's not pronounced like that at all. (More like "Oil" ) Funny to think that's what the kids spend the night in in the summer though.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Hopefully not; hopefully you recognize that what matters is not how my own practice superficially (or even historically) resembles some sinful practice in ages past, but whether or not I use the practice to worship the one true God.

Funny, that's EXACTLY what this discussion is about. Christians taking a pagan celebration and "calling it theirs" even though the bible speaks against doing these things as illustrated in the scriptures I mentioned earlier. But Christendom "justifies" it by saying they are doing it to worship god. So if I stole money so I can donate it to the church, does that make it right? Of course not! Why? Because it's not something God would approve. Why should worship be any different? What you're saying is that you could celebrate ANYTHING despite the fact that it's origins oppose the bible's teachings because you're now doing it "For God". Hmmmm, interesting.

[Gooberman]

If you can't get behind a time of year, where people are trying a little harder to be nice to eachother...a time of year where people are going out and giving gifts to each others, the community, the poor, etc. Then something is wrong with you and your religion.

[Admiral Thrawn]

If you can't get behind a time of year, where people are trying a little harder to be nice to eachother...a time of year where people are going out and giving gifts to each others, the community, the poor, etc. Then something is wrong with you and your religion.

hehe, something is wrong with your religion if your only doing it at a particular time of the year. You would think people should be in this mode all year long.

[Sarge]

Look!

This Right HERE is the true meaning of Xmas!

CAUTION! 52MB Download, but worth it.... until my ISP (or the RIAA) yanks it off!

[Kilarin]

I agree completely that Christmas is a celebration based largely on symbols that were originally pagan. But I don't mind the celebration of Christmas because I don't believe in magic. I don't believe that symbols have any power in and of themselves. They are just shapes, and pictures... symbols. Their power lies in what images they evoke in your mind. And that means the power behind a symbol can change across time and space, and even from individual to individual.

Almost no one nowadays remembers what the ancient symbols meant. It would have been a problem way back when, and I would have objected then, but now? A Christmas Tree doesn't have some magic power to invoke pagan meanings in the minds of people who know it only as a Christmas Tree.

The cross was also the hammer of Thor. And to take it to something more directly applicable, the cross was a symbol of, well, to quote the old hymn, "Shame and reproach" in Roman society. Only criminals hung on crosses. The early Christian church taking the cross as its symbol was the equivilant of taking a hangmans noose or an electric chair as a symbol of Good.
The symbol of the cross isn't something NEW that slipped in under the door during the dark ages. It's as old as the crucifixion, and the people who adopted it knew exactly what it meant. They took the old symbol and made it mean something new. We do that with symbols all the time.

As a Christian, I have no difficulty with the cross. And I'm actually much more worried about the comercialization of Christmas than the ancient (and largly now forgotten) symbolism of the winter solstice. I'm much more uncomfortable with Holloween. Here the symbols still have their old meanings (mostly), and I've made a decision to be less involved.

Kilarin

[dissent]

Hey Wood Chip, I think this may go on yet for a while. Can I please get some Milk Duds and a large Coke too?

Thanks.

* munch munch munch *

[Duper]

Merry Christmas everyone.

[fyrephlie]

would anyone like to discuss the number of reglious icons that appear in christianity that are strictly pagan in origin? perhaps we can also get into the retranslation of the bible for political means throughout the centuries?

i think the original intent of this post was to say, hey? why do we gotta change everything for everyone unless they are chrisitan. my only response would be that this country (and many others) were founded on chrisitanity, and have more or less developed into literal melting pots (in complete disregard for our 'forefathers' plans), this has led to a feeling of 'religous' tolerence required for everyone to get along. when the us was founded, they really didnt think there would be anything but christians here, because christianity is right, and everyone else is just wrong. over the years that opinion changed and reformed and instead of people coming to this country and getting their I AM A CHRISTIAN I.D. card, they aren't even being required to learn the language adequately, which is the case in almost every christian based devoloped country on the planet it seems. so now because everyone is forced to live together, it has apparenlty become necessary to try and make everyone happy. thus p.c.

p.c. may be a little over the top now days, but it's certainly better than 'broads' in the kitchen and 'niggers' on the plantation. but lets be honest, if you haven't noticed that there are people of other religions and colors walking around with you, then you really ought to look more carefully. is it right to take the 'christmas season' and call it a holiday season? i think so, because other religions have celebrations this time of year (which is not a conincidence btw) it certainly seems fair not to lump everything under the name christmas season, and say christans get top billing, whether there are more christians running around (or i should say christian based people, as it seems very few people these days are actually christians).

i aplogize for my incorrect use of capital lettering for those that notice and may take offense, i type one handed, and rarely use them, its not meant as disrepect.

[Kilarin]

...this country (and many others) were founded on chrisitanity, and have more or less developed into literal melting pots (in complete disregard for our 'forefathers' plans), this has led to a feeling of 'religous' tolerence required for everyone to get along. when the us was founded, they really didnt think there would be anything but christians here

While early America certainly did not achieve perfection in it's high ideal of religious liberty, it can not be denied that it was the founding fathers intent to establish a nation where the government stayed out of religion. The idea that the fathers meant to establish a "Christian Nation" is a common misperception propagated by the religious right. And quite foolishly since the founding fathers attempted to keep the government out of religion specifically to PROTECT conservative Christians (like the religious right AND myself) who wish to worship in their own way without interference from anyone else. Religion is SAFEST without the governments fingers stuck in to it anywhere.

A few quotes from the founding fathers to support this:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, negotiated under George Washington and ratified by the Senate under John Adams

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802.

"t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.... Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
-James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785

"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Dr. Price

And just to show that the idea of Religious Liberty was still going strong 100 years later:

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate."
-Ulysses S. Grant, Speech at Des Moines, IA 1875

[fyrephlie]

which is great on paper, but when you see these founders at church on sunday... to say for political reasons is one thing, to do is another entirely.

[woodchip]

but lets be honest, if you haven't noticed that there are people of other religions and colors walking around with you, then you really ought to look more carefully. is it right to take the 'christmas season' and call it a holiday season? i think so, because other religions have celebrations this time of year (which is not a conincidence btw)

Well let those others celebrate however their beliefs require. I'll not call their festivities a "holiday". Let them not call mine a holiday either.

[Kilarin]

which is great on paper, but when you see these founders at church on sunday... to say for political reasons is one thing, to do is another entirely.

I don't think I'm following you. For one thing, many of the founders were lousy church goers, but some were most certainly devout. But that is beside the point. Why is there any conflict between someone attending church on a regular basis, and still believing that others should be free to choose how they wish to worship?

My freedom to worship God as I believe is right, is EXACTLY as safe as my neighbors right to worship in a different way. (or not to worship at all)

Note, I'm not saying everyone is right. This isn't any namby pamby nonsense about all religions being the same and everyone's version of truth being just as valid as another. I'm a Christian, and therefore I believe that the Hindu's, the Moslems, the Buddists and the Atheist have got it dead wrong in all the places where their religion disagrees with Christianity.

I come from one particular sect of Christianity and therefore I believe that all the other sects are WRONG where they disagree with my interpretation of the Bible. Thats not being hard headed, its being rational. If I didn't believe I was right, I would change my beliefs. (And DO so on occasion)

So yes, I think everyone else is wrong, but in America, you have the RIGHT to be WRONG. As long as you don't hurt anyone, or infringe on anyone elses rights, you can go right on believing and worshiping however you wish. And every time that right slips a little bit, it comes closer to the day when someone else decides that the way *I* worship is wrong and needs to be stopped.

And that's why it is VITAL for conservative Christians to go out of their way to defend the rights of people who belong to religions we disagree with. It's all about the golden rule. And someday, we will be in the minority again, and will get back what we gave.

Kilarin

[Kilarin]

Sorry, the response time was so slow I clicked submit twice!
Kilarin

[Lothar]

Hopefully not; hopefully you recognize that what matters is not how my own practice superficially (or even historically) resembles some sinful practice in ages past, but whether or not I use the practice to worship the one true God.

Funny, that's EXACTLY what this discussion is about. Christians taking a pagan celebration and "calling it theirs" even though the bible speaks against doing these things

The Bible speaks against worshipping other gods. It doesn't speak against having a Christmas tree or celebrating birthdays.

It speaks against adopting pagan holidays in order to worship pagan gods (possibly changing their names so as to be more "acceptable"), but it doesn't speak against worshipping the one true God using methods others might have used to worship other gods in the past. Every passage you brought up -- as well as the hundreds of other stories of the type -- fit into the same common theme: the Israelites kept worshipping other gods. Their problem wasn't that they liked to plant trees on hilltops; their problem was that they planted trees on hilltops as part of their worship of other gods. There's nothing inherently wrong with planting a tree on a hilltop, and you can even do it to worship the one true God... but the problem for them was that they were doing it to worship false gods.

if I stole money so I can donate it to the church, does that make it right? Of course not! Why? Because it's not something God would approve.

Agreed.

I just disagree with your point that God wouldn't approve of people celebrating Christmas, birthdays, etc. I think I explained why I don't find your argument convincing, but if you want me to try to explain again, I can.

What you're saying is that you could celebrate ANYTHING despite the fact that it's origins oppose the bible's teachings because you're now doing it "For God".

No... I'm not saying you can celebrate "anything". You can't, for example, celebrate murder or rape.

Rather, what I'm saying is that you can celebrate on any particular day, and using any method of celebration that isn't itself inherently wrong, to worship God. It doesn't matter if that particular day or that particular method was once used to worship Ishtar, Baal, Buddha, or Birdseye. As long as there's nothing inherently wrong with the action itself (which is where the "stealing" example fails) there's nothing wrong with using the action as part of a celebration. (You might, however, want to abstain from certain types of worship that will be misinterpreted by others.)

You and I seem to disagree on whether or not the particular methods are "inherently wrong". You view their historical origins as permanently tainting them and making them inherently wrong, while I view them like meat sacrificed to idols -- because the idol they were used to worship was nothing, they're not tainted as long as I'm using them to worship God. There's nothing inherently wrong with a Christmas tree; it's just a tree, and while the symbol might have meant something bad a thousand years ago, it doesn't mean that today so I'm not going to worry about it.

---

As for the original post: I don't mind if people call this the "holiday season" out of recognition of the fact that there are numerous celebrations going on for various different reasons. I do, however, mind if people try to treat specific days or celebrations as if they're just "holidays" without their own names. Call it the "holiday season" if you want, but don't tell me I'm celebrating "holiday" on December 25.

If I have a display on my lawn that's a manger scene, that's a "Christmas" display. If I have a big menorah and a star of David, call it a "Hannukah" display (spelled however you prefer.) If I have Santa, a menorah, a manger, a "happy new year" sign, and a dozen other random symbols from various holidays, that's a "holiday" display. I think that's a reasonable middle ground -- if you're celebrating "the holidays" in general, let's call it that, but on the other hand, let's not go forbidding people to talk about specific holidays just because it's not PC to talk about the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus, etc.

[Admiral Thrawn]

(Exodus 23:24) 24 You must not bow down to their gods or be induced to serve them, and you must not make anything like their works, but you will without fail throw them down and you will without fail break down their sacred pillars. .

Nuff Said.