Pagan and Christian Holidays: The Discussion (Child of the Happy Yule thread)

[Harlequin]

@ Harlequin

Considering it came from a left handed witch, the 'witch cult' part was meant as a compliment. As long as you ask me Wiccans should do less Goddess worship and more jerk cursing, but that's just me.

Fair enough and I appreciate it. Forgive if it seemed I was talking down I get so used to go into 'teach' mode it almost is a habit at this point. LOL

BB

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

So let me get this strait (and this is the crux of my issue) you take issue with the corps 'hijacking' xmas from the church but its ok that the church hijacked it itself? This double standard by the xians is my real issue. THEY stole it themselves but apparently because they stole it for so long the statue if limitations kicks it it seems so its all good. Who cares they used torture, murder, mock trials and intimidation to do so to 'convert' non xians. Seems the argument is 'we stole it for so long its ours now, so tough'

i never said i was having an issue with the corporate hijackign Christmas.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

But churches in most xian faiths claim it IS the birth. Factually. I went to mass for 20 years I know. When I see one minister or priest admit in front of the altar during xmas mass/service that this is a symbolic holiday/date then I will have no issue with it. But in my 40 yrs on this planet yet to see that. What they do state is his birth and alleged rising from the dead is fact on those dates. So you can't have your cake and eat it to and I am simply calling foul.

4. Please don't quote the bible to make a point. It is a mistranslated, contradictory, man made/edited book put together during the first council of nicaea. IMO you might as well quote the great pumpkin to 'prove' something. Remove the bible from you discussion, put in a real history book and then we can have a nice conversation. I don't debate fiction and pretend its fact.

What business would they have to state such a disclaimer while conducting the mass, you can't be serious? They're priests, they're not theologians, they don't have to put this at the forefront. They're there to help people to enter in communion with God. It doesn't mean that they're deluding themselves that this is factually correct. I've been involved in church communities for most of my life and I've never seen someone state that this date was literal. Saying things like "on this day Christ was born" isn't an attempt at deceiving anyone, simply a way of telling the story of His birth.

And not, the Bible is not fabrication, it is a result of men moved by the Holy Spirit itself. And it wasn't put together in the council of Nicea, all the canon already existed in Christian tradition. The apocryphal Gospels were not discarded there and then. The council was simply to put some order in the budding and sparse Christian communities, and agree on some questions of semantics, it wasn't a ploy in any way.

I'm sorry, but I will quote the Word if I feel it is relevant to the discussion at hand. I did it to explain why the birth of Jesus Christ not being literally on the 25th mattered according to the tenets of Christian faith. I didn't do it to be a Bible thumper, I respect your rights to have your beliefs, even if I'll admit that it sounds too granola to me. If you got them because you had a fallout with Christianity at some point though, I would advise you to give a chance to the Lord once more, and attempt to start a relationship with Him.

 

[Harlequin]

Duh, do you think you're making a point here that supports anything being discussed?



Awesome, wild generalizations and personal anecdotes used to characterize a billion+ strong religion with hundreds or thousands of sects.

Does it help for me to point out that I've never run into any student of the religion who claims that? Not really. How about this: Do you whine about President's Day or MLK Day the way you whine about Christmas?




God forbid somebody express his faith—you have to stamp that shit out.

Politely, where the Hell do you think the belief system you practice came from? It isn't a man made and edited set of teachings and writings? Are your spiritual teachings histories?

1. He said 'our' and I was making the point of not forcing/including your religion on me. Not only is that insulting its just simple bad tact. I am sorry if that concept eludes you.

2. I can only speak about MY life experiences. If I have yet to see it, hear it or read about it then I can not speak to it's existence can I?

3. Those who celebrate those holidays you mention do not try to shove said holidays down my throat walking down the street. Or tell me I am going to burn in hell. Or tell me I am evil. etc

4. He can express it, and I can express my factual issue with it and why his argument holds no water. Did I say anything that is not factually accurate? Or are you just pissed I called out him using fiction as fact? Not once have I used my beliefs or spirituality to make a point. Everything I have said is part of secular history that can be researched. Because faith is not fact thus why I do not use it to 'prove' anything and I expect the same.

If that's the case then I will just say 'The goddess told me so' to make my points. I'll play the game too. So which seems more productive in a discussion using facts everyone can research or faith to make a point? *shrug*

 

[Skittles]

1. He said 'our' and I was making the point of not forcing/including your religion on me. Not only is that insulting its just simple bad tact. I am sorry if that concept eludes you.

'Our' doesn't necessarily mean 'you and me,' you condescending jackass. You're just flaming because somebody poked fun at you, now.

2. I can only speak about MY life experiences. If I have yet to see it, hear it or read about it then I can not speak to it's existence can I?

Exactly! So why are you making claims that extend so far past your own experience?

3. Those who celebrate those holidays you mention do not try to shove said holidays down my throat walking down the street. Or tell me I am going to burn in hell. Or tell me I am evil. etc

No, but they try to get you to buy mattresses and used cars, which is probably more offensive.

4. He can express it, and I can express my factual issue with it and why his argument holds no water. Did I say anything that is not factually accurate? Or are you just pissed I called out him using fiction as fact? Not once have I used my beliefs or spirituality to make a point. Everything I have said is part of secular history that can be researched. Because faith is not fact thus why I do not use it to 'prove' anything and I expect the same.

If that's the case then I will just say 'The goddess told me so' to make my points. I'll play the game too. So which seems more productive in a discussion using facts everyone can research or faith to make a point? *shrug*

You were a jackass to somebody because of some awful, unjustified superiority complex, that's what's wrong. I don't agree with him, but I don't act like a twelve year old bully.

You use your faith as justification for your revival and celebration of an ancient holiday, yes? Despite the fact that you aren't part of an unbroken or 'original' tradition, it has meaning for you. Then you turn around and attack other people for their faith.

Believe what you want, but don't be a condescending, hypocritical asshole to other people and their beliefs.

 

[Harlequin]

'Our' doesn't necessarily mean 'you and me,' you condescending jackass. You're just flaming because somebody poked fun at you, now.



Exactly! So why are you making claims that extend so far past your own experience?



No, but they try to get you to buy mattresses and used cars, which is probably more offensive.



You were a jackass to somebody because of some awful, unjustified superiority complex, that's what's wrong. I don't agree with him, but I don't act like a twelve year old bully.

You use your faith as justification for your revival and celebration of an ancient holiday, yes? Despite the fact that you aren't part of an unbroken or 'original' tradition, it has meaning for you. Then you turn around and attack other people for their faith.

Believe what you want, but don't be a condescending, hypocritical asshole to other people and their beliefs.

1. Let us ask him then in the content he meant it as and that will settle it. If I am wrong then I have no issue admitting such and giving him a apology.

2. ermmm I think you need to re-read that part of the convo as you are making my argument for me heh. I said I have yet to see a xian minister admit it is not a factual date, you retorted there are many churches, people in the faith implying not all imply it is fact, I then said I can only respond to what I have heard/seen/read. So.. exactly not sure how your reply fits in.

3. LOL indeed!

4. I think you are misunderstanding me I am not trying to be a jackass at all. I don't subscribe to pretend fiction is fact. He does by using the bible when secular history has proven otherwise where it came from, etc. So I called him out. Now if he wants to ignore historical fact and live in unicorn land (Glee reference meant as a joke not a insult) I say all the power to him if it works for him. However I am not going to pretend his argument holds any factual water just to be polite. *I* didn't bring my faith into the debate to make a point. If I did and someone wanted to do the same to me I would expect that. If he brought up a point of his faith that secular history/science has not disproved or proven then that's fine (ie like a battle or someones existence). That is a unknown and sure could go either way. But do not bring up a something as fact to me that has been proven false and expect me to jump on the unicorn land bandwagon. That is not me. History/science/facts comes first, faith comes second in my book not the other way around.

 

[Skittles]

Just to be clear, this is what he said:

The holiday has become the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and is fine for what it is. That it isn't perfectly historically accurate doesn't matter, because we are not to be bound to customs in and of themselves; it's the spirit that matters.

What followed were excerpts from the holy text of his faith saying, if I may paraphrase, "haters gonna hate, let's celebrate, motherfuckers."

He didn't use the Bible to 'prove' anything. He makes the lucid point that the celebration of the holiday is about faith, not the history of the holiday. He uses religious texts to talk about his values—nothing about factual historical claims.

And then you respond by attacking him.

That's what I mean, dude. You're way out of line there. And you're still at it in your most recent post!

As for your second point… You're talking about "the Christians" and making claims about the faith based on your experience, even while ignoring posters of that faith making reasonable, but contrary, points and while acknowledging that your experience in the matter is very limited. I bring this up because you're just seeing what you want to see to support a bigoted position ITT and, I suspect, in life if you're happy making sweeping generalizations like that.

EDIT: Also, the expression "our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ" is a common epithet. Don't play dumb. That's like being offended because somebody says "the President" because it might imply that there aren't dozens. Nobody takes it that way who isn't trying to.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Wow, thanks Skittles, i doubt we could have explained our position as eloquently as you did. Much appreciated.

 

[blatantninja]

2. I choose to believe in the historical Jesus not the fictional biblical one.

You should leave out the fictional part of that since you cannot prove it either way.

3. But churches in most xian faiths claim it IS the birth. Factually.

I challenge you to find ONE mainstream Church that teaches that. Link please.

4. Please don't quote the bible to make a point. It is a mistranslated, contradictory, man made/edited book put together during the first council of nicaea. IMO you might as well quote the great pumpkin to 'prove' something. Remove the bible from you discussion, put in a real history book and then we can have a nice conversation. I don't debate fiction and pretend its fact.

While it has its flaws, it was NOT put together during the first council of Nicaea. It was codified. The list of books that was codified was widely accepted (though certainly not solely accepted) a century before that council. Additionally while there are various mistranslations and contradictions, the text has remained largely unchanged since the earliest physical writings that have been found (late 1st, early 2nd century).

There are a lot of problems with modern Christianity, but if you are going to harp on it, at least get your basic facts straight.

 

[Harlequin]

Just to be clear, this is what he said:


What followed were excerpts from the holy text of his faith saying, if I may paraphrase, "haters gonna hate, let's celebrate, motherfuckers."

He didn't use the Bible to 'prove' anything. He makes the lucid point that the celebration of the holiday is about faith, not the history of the holiday. He uses religious texts to talk about his values—nothing about factual historical claims.

And then you respond by attacking him.

That's what I mean, dude. You're way out of line there. And you're still at it in your most recent post!

As for your second point… You're talking about "the Christians" and making claims about the faith based on your experience, even while ignoring posters of that faith making reasonable, but contrary, points and while acknowledging that your experience in the matter is very limited. I bring this up because you're just seeing what you want to see to support a bigoted position ITT and, I suspect, in life if you're happy making sweeping generalizations like that.

EDIT: Also, the expression "our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ" is a common epithet. Don't play dumb. That's like being offended because somebody says "the President" because it might imply that there aren't dozens. Nobody takes it that way who isn't trying to.

Why didn't he just say what you said then? a LOT more succinct. When I see quoting from the bible I just tune out to be honest. If that is the only way to make a point that is pretty poor IMO. Also IMO I feel his point like others of his kind is to ram his bible down peoples throats. That's the reason he did so rather then make the point the way you did. He just can't make a point without doing so, jumping up and down on his soapbox screaming 'see, see this is what my bible says so it must be true!!!!!11' . I know, I know you are going to get all up in arms at that. But I am entitled to that opinion.

All that fluff aside, getting back to the main topic, I agree with both you and his core point. In fact if you read this thread I never said otherwise. While factual dates are nice certainly not required. My issue once again, is the pretending they are.

I was a Catholic for 20 yrs I wouldn't say my experience with xian beliefs is 'limited'. I discovered they stole so much from the pagan religions before them that I felt why not go right to the source. Their entire religion is based mostly off the pagan religions before them. Holidays, rituals, stories in the bible, etc. Yet they don't acknowledge it and that again is my crux of the issue.

I 'attacked' him? By using facts to back up my stance? Really? So if a church forms and preaches the sky color is red and a member part of that church posts such I am attacking him if I post to the contrary using accepted facts? You are just splitting hairs now.

Let us cut down to the nitty gritty and stop ignoring the 800lb ape in the room. Why you are upset? Because rather then jump on the bible is fact PC bandwagon I called a spade a spade. Was it the most tactful thing to do when discussing religion? Prob not but it was the truth using accepted facts. Again nothing I said was in error about the bible. Yet I am the bad guy for breaking that 4th wall of illusion most xians live by. That there bible wasn't written by some guy in the sky, history can trace most of its sources to people. Many of them not the ones credited for even writing it in the first place vs what xian dogma states. So if you want to get on me for my approach, fine. Go at it. But in this entire discussion I do not see one person disputing the facts of why I said what I said. At least no one that does not use the xian get-out-of-jail-card free card excuse of 'because god said so' or 'the holy spirit did it' or 'the bible says it so it has to be true' etc.

As for your last point every time someone said 'our president' when bush was in office my retort was 'your president not mine, I didn't vote for him'. If he said 'jesus my lord and…' then it wouldn't have been a issue. Making that point to show my consistency on the matter.

But that aside I certainly see your point, all I said was rather putting words or intent in his mouth why doesn't he just clarify then it will be a non-issue. As you can't say for certain his intent no more then I can. And for the record I even said I would apologize if I was in the wrong and apparently that is still not good enough for you. You are making a mount from a molehill out of what is really a minor issue where I already admitted possible error on my part.

 

[Harlequin]

You should leave out the fictional part of that since you cannot prove it either way.



I challenge you to find ONE mainstream Church that teaches that. Link please.


While it has its flaws, it was NOT put together during the first council of Nicaea. It was codified. The list of books that was codified was widely accepted (though certainly not solely accepted) a century before that council. Additionally while there are various mistranslations and contradictions, the text has remained largely unchanged since the earliest physical writings that have been found (late 1st, early 2nd century).

There are a lot of problems with modern Christianity, but if you are going to harp on it, at least get your basic facts straight.

Like a lot of the major religions what they say in the fine print and what is preached can be very different.

The priests of my old church would state, as if fact, he was born on the day of the xmas mass. I seen and heard it with my own eyes and ears plenty. However if approached and questioned (most but not all) they would begrudgingly relent that its doubtful he was.

I am not talking about what the pope says is the official stance, I am talking about what matters, how the local ministers or priests relay said teachings. So yes buried in the footnotes of the Vatican website it states it is not the factual date. However that does not mean a whole lot if what is preached is otherwise.

Also I have heard this on xian radio shows, tv shows and the like. So it is not very hard to see them factually stating one thing while the 'official' stance is another. I find it hard to believe you went to a service or mass during the holiday and never had them state the nativity story it as fact? Or heard it as fact via other methods?

Now let me say I have not been to mass in 15+ yrs so things may have changed, if so great. But what I saw and heard it is as I stated above.

I do not recall stating anything about the bible text except it is contradictory and been mistranslated. However if you want to get specific we can discuss the outright edits made to the king james version.

As for the council, true I was a bit to broad in my statement. But my point was there was more then one view of Jesus and many more books and 'bibles' floating around. And that was one of the steps by a group of men simply deciding what was cannon and what was not. Making my point the source of the book was influenced by men who had their own views they wanted put forth.

 

[Khor1255]

the bible is fact PC bandwagon

And I thought I lost a great source of unintetional comedy.

 

[Skittles]

'Scuse the snipping.

Why didn't he just say what you said then? a LOT more succinct.

He said that in two sentences. Well, two sentences of his words and two bolded selections from the Bible. That's a lot more succinct than anything I've posted on this topic.

When I see quoting from the bible I just tune out to be honest. If that is the only way to make a point that is pretty poor IMO. Also IMO I feel his point like others of his kind is to ram his bible down peoples throats.

You're admitting to not paying attention to his post even as you make claims about what he is and isn't saying? This is obviously flaming, dude.

He wasn't ramming anything down anybody's throats. He didn't say anything about your or your beliefs, he didn't say anything about what people should or shouldn't believe or think or do. He didn't raise a finger against anybody here.

That's the reason he did so rather then make the point the way you did. He just can't make a point without doing so, jumping up and down on his soapbox screaming 'see, see this is what my bible says so it must be true!!!!!11' . I know, I know you are going to get all up in arms at that. But I am entitled to that opinion.

How can you say that you're entitled to an opinion on something you just admitted to not bothering to read? You're attacking somebody who made a thoughtful, respectful post. BTW the above is clearly an attack and an insult.

While factual dates are nice certainly not required. My issue once again, is the pretending they are.

Right, as posters like…

Like….

Actually, I can't find anybody claiming that in this thread.

Their entire religion is based mostly off the pagan religions before them. Holidays, rituals, stories in the bible, etc. Yet they don't acknowledge it and that again is my crux of the issue.

You claim that you were a Catholic, but it's clear that you've never read any of the Church fathers. That's not required for faith, certainly, but that's another sign that your exposure is limited.

And again, you were making claims about all Christians that aren't supportable. Yes, your exposure is too limited to make those claims, even if you were the Pope for twenty years.

I 'attacked' him? By using facts to back up my stance? Really? So if a church forms and preaches the sky color is red and a member part of that church posts such I am attacking him if I post to the contrary using accepted facts?

First, you're claiming factual accuracy that I think you lack. But whether you're right or wrong has nothing to do with the 'attacking.' You called one of his major religious figures fictional and compared him to a Peanuts character, for starters. You're also making personal attacks on him as a poster, calling him essentially a crackpot and crusader.

You are just splitting hairs now.

You're just disgusting, I guess we're at an impasse.

Why you are upset? Because rather then jump on the bible is fact PC bandwagon I called a spade a spade.

No, because you're a condescending douchetard who knows nothing and can't interact civilly with people who are essentially backing you up in this thread, because you don't have the reading comprehension required to determine that, and you crow about the fact that you don't understand!

Again nothing I said was in error about the bible.

Huh.

As for your last point every time someone said 'our president' when bush was in office my retort was 'your president not mine, I didn't vote for him'. If he said 'jesus my lord and…' then it wouldn't have been a issue. Making that point to show my consistency on the matter.

ENGLISH LESSON!
My = first person singular
Our = first person plural

If you're not a Christian, you're not one of the first person plural. Shut up, you insufferably arrogant ignoramus, you failed your literacy skill check.

But that aside I certainly see your point, all I said was rather putting words or intent in his mouth why doesn't he just clarify then it will be a non-issue.

You're still doing it. Why hasn't he clarified? Maybe he's not on. Maybe he knows that you're a hideous troll and not worth the time, which is more than I can say of myself.

 

[Khor1255]

So, did anyone ever get around to posting a valid link about 'xian' being a term in use by the Christian Church for hundreds of years? I mean, as long as we're all trying to have a 'fact based debate' is there any source that even remotely makes this claim. I saw the ones that BC posted and unless I seriously misread them they said nothing about how long the term has been in use and both were from a source called Wictionary or somesuch. So, is that the 'best' source?

 

[Corwin]

A most interesting discussion and a relatively polite one. Well done guys and gals, keep it up!!

 

[Wicked Witch of Loliland]

So, did anyone ever get around to posting a valid link about 'xian' being a term in use by the Christian Church for hundreds of years? I mean, as long as we're all trying to have a 'fact based debate' is there any source that even remotely makes this claim. I saw the ones that BC posted and unless I seriously misread them they said nothing about how long the term has been in use and both were from a source called Wictionary or somesuch. So, is that the 'best' source?

Well, you have…

http://scripophily.stores.yahoo.net/16xpdo16.html

"Old English Document dated 1691. Starts out " To all the Xpian People to whom…shall come I Thomas Ayloffe …of Timity Ralt? ,,,,of Cambridge…..Lillingston Lovell? in the family of Ogon Esg….."

This document is dated 1691 and if over 318 years old and is in excellent condition."

And…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas#History

"Early use of "Xmas" includes Bernard Ward's History of St. Edmund's college, Old Hall (originally published circa 1755).[9] An earlier version, "X'temmas", dates to 1551.[9] Around 1100 the term was written as "Xp̄es mæsse" in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[2] "Xmas" is found in a letter from George Woodward in 1753.[10] Lord Byron used the term in 1811,[11] as did Samuel Coleridge (1801)[5] and Lewis Carroll (1864).[11] In the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used the term in a letter dated 1923.[11] Since at least the late 19th century, "Xmas" has been in use in various other English-language nations. Quotations with the word can be found in texts written in Canada,[12] and the word has been used in Australia,[7] and in the Caribbean.[13] Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage stated that modern use of the term is largely limited to advertisements, headlines and banners, where its conciseness is valued. The association with commerce "has done nothing for its reputation", according to the dictionary.[11]"

"The word "Christ" and its compounds, including "Christmas", have been abbreviated in English for at least the past 1,000 years, long before the modern "Xmas" was commonly used. "Christ" was often written as "XP" or "Xt"; there are references in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as far back as AD 1021."

That's about all I can find in five minutes of googling.

 

[Khor1255]

Cool, thanks a lot. The first links were rather ambiguous as to how long the term was in use and of dubios objectivity. But the ones you just posted are just fine. Thanks again. I always thought it was a rather new term and it is almost always used (at least n the internet) by people trying to dismiss or belittle the religion.

 

[Baron Sukumvit]

A local xian church leader here in Salem sat down with the Pagan/Witch leaders and apologizes for the atrocities committed in the past.

Why would he feel the need to do that?

If he/she was apologizing for early church atrocities against ancient roman or greek or whatever polytheists, why do so to followers of a movement which began in the 20th Century?

If he was apologizing for the Salem Witch Trials, surely the victims of that mess were just unlucky Christians? Also nothing to do with y'all.

 

[Skittles]

Will the abuses of the church never end?

 

[Thoth]

Why would he feel the need to do that?

If he/she was apologizing for early church atrocities against ancient roman or greek or whatever polytheists, why do so to followers of a movement which began in the 20th Century?

If he was apologizing for the Salem Witch Trials, surely the victims of that mess were just unlucky Christians? Also nothing to do with y'all.

Yeah, I never got that argument and I once read a rant from a Wiccan chastising other wiccans about including "witches" as their forebears.

They were actually extremely devout Christians, so devout that they refused to admit to something they didn't do even though it would save their life. Pretty hardcore.