The War on Christmas

[sojourner]

UltraViolet,
You must have been a flower child in the 60s, at least you'd have made a good one. I actually mean that rather kindly. You always make me chuckle.

I appreciate your observation stated above. I don't mean to sound like a dictator. Let me try an analogy to see if I can get you to see my point of view (to see it—not necessarily to agree with it, ok?)

Have you ever seen the movie "The Thing" starring Kurt Russell (not the original black and white movie). A monster from outer space invades a person's body and slowly duplicates all their cells, until the person becomes 100 percent alien.

That is how I perceive the Christian invasion of the poor unsuspecting Yuletide Festival. All the original parts of the original festival were invaded, taken over, and replaced with foreign (alien) parts, until the original had a new alien form—a new identity.

Now it's not a perfect analogy, because the alien is a perfect facsimile of the original host, whereas Christmas is a rather poor copy of the original. Nevertheless, the point is that the death of the original host was an outright planned assault by the alien—not a benign, gradual evolution into something else.

The Yuletide Festival suffered the same type of deliberate takeover. The Christians could easily have picked a day of the year in the fall, a time more in keeping with when the Bible suggests the baby-god was born. They could have created their own symbols and traditions as well, rather that take over the existing ones and reassign their own meaning to them.

Then we'd have two festivals each year, each with its own unique traditions and symbols. But one was the victim of a hostile take over, and it bothers me that so few realize what happened and that even fewer even care.

It's not dead. Pagans are more than welcome to celebrate in any way they see fit (and I'm sure they do!)

 

[McBell]

I wonder how an atheist could usurp an obviously theist festival and call it his own, then decry the Christian-Pagans for doing the same thing?

Simple.
They do not humor the theistic part(s) of it.

 

[sojourner]

Interesting that you have now moved to masturbating your ego.

Gawd! What a dreadful thought! I can almost hear Hank Hill saying, "God-dang it! Put that thing away, Bill! I don't wanna have to see that!"

 

[sojourner]

I have.
Of course, they define pagan as anything that is not their own particular belief.

Usually, they're ultra-conservative, militant Christians. They also like to sling around the term "heathen," when we all know that heathenry is a religion wherein Norse and Saxon gods are worshiped.

 

[Luminous]

Because, in America, the state has no jurisdiction over religious observances.

however, christmas is a federal holiday and the federal government can do anything it wants to its authority. so can businesses. the state has all jurisdiction over religious observances as it see's fit, unless otherwise contradicting with federal rights and laws. The Nation has a first amendment clause of freedoms, which implies that the government must allow reasonable freedoms to the people. Thus freedom of religion does not imply freedom of religious observances. freedom of religion simply means the NATION cannot establish an official belief for its people. The fourteenth ammendment establishes that states may not establish official beliefs for its people either.

 

[sojourner]

Anti-thesisofreaon
Your reference only serves to support what I have been repeating over and over, that the word pagan is ambiguous and very accommodating of other interpretations. It can't be nailed down to one.

"Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.)."

So now I'm a civilian, incompetent soldier.

This is a silly game. I can find all kinds of reputable sources to support my use of this vague word. Here's one that should make us both happy:
"1 : heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods: an irreligious or hedonistic person. [There!]
(pagan - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Dear andys:

Give it up, dude! Everyone here can see you're bullsh****** your way out of a deception. "I made a mistake." It's not hard to say, and will go miles toward redeeming your tarnished reputation here.

 

[McBell]

Usually, they're ultra-conservative, militant Christians. They also like to sling around the term "heathen," when we all know that heathenry is a religion wherein Norse and Saxon gods are worshiped.

Actually, heathen started out as "one who resides upon the heath".

What is a heath?

this is:

​

So back then, it made absolutely NO DIFFERENCE what your beliefs were, if you lived on a heath, you were a heathen.

 

[sojourner]

however, christmas is a federal holiday and the federal government can do anything it wants to its authority. so can businesses. the state has all jurisdiction over religious observances as it see's fit, unless otherwise contradicting with federal rights and laws. The Nation has a first amendment clause of freedoms, which implies that the government must allow reasonable freedoms to the people. Thus freedom of religion does not imply freedom of religious observances. freedom of religion simply means the NATION cannot establish an official belief for its people. The fourteenth ammendment establishes that states may not establish official beliefs for its people either.

Curtailing legitimate religious practices is an act of establishing "an official belief."

 

[sojourner]

Actually, heathen started out as "one who resides upon the heath".

What is a heath?

this is:

​

So back then, it made absolutely NO DIFFERENCE what your beliefs were, if you lived on a heath, you were a heathen.

I've eaten Heath bars...does that count?

 

[McBell]

I've eaten Heath bars...does that count?

Heath bars?

Is this what you are talking about:

HEATH toffee bar - HERSHEY'S
​

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Anti-thesisofreaon
Your reference only serves to support what I have been repeating over and over, that the word pagan is ambiguous and very accommodating of other interpretations. It can't be nailed down to one.

"Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.)."

So now I'm a civilian, incompetent soldier.

This is a silly game. I can find all kinds of reputable sources to support my use of this vague word. Here's one that should make us both happy:
"1 : heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods: an irreligious or hedonistic person. [There!]
(pagan - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

I love games!

Heathen: O.E. hæðen "not Christian or Jewish," merged with O.N. heiðinn. Historically assumed to be from Goth. haiþno "gentile, heathen woman," used by Ulfilas in the first translation of the Bible into a Gmc. language (cf. Mark 7:26, for "Greek"); if so it could be a derivative of Goth. haiþi "dwelling on the heath," but this sense is not recorded. It may have been chosen on model of L. paganus (see pagan), or for resemblance to Gk. ethne (see gentile), or may in fact be a borrowing of that word, perhaps via Armenian hethanos. Like other words for exclusively Christian ideas (e.g. church) it would have come first into Gothic, then spread to other Gmc. languages.

 

[Luminous]

Curtailing legitimate religious practices is an act of establishing "an official belief."

however, deciding which practices are legitimate is not. being as the state must determine their legitimacy. the Supreme Court established that states MAY [but do not have to] accomidate illegal religious practices. plus, we have an official believe, its called we cant have an official belive [aka secularism] and we must follow civil law. because we are majority christians, Slavery was allowed and so was discrimination of blacks, women, gays, nontheists, and polythiests, ect. but because we are secular we have been able to move away from that ugly past, closer and closer to the best laws based on the most civil liberties and an understanding by the State of the agnosticism inherent to The People. There are four branches of government not three.
Plus your logic does not make sense. you are calling for anarchy. the believes of the religious are not to be allowed to influence the believes of others through use of the state. Thus religious activities can be made illegal if they are disruptive to the state or civil liberties. in any case, secularism is NOT a religion. I guess our founders had nothing against an "official believe" and neither do i. official belives such as inherent human rights and so forth. BUT religion is a powerhungry faction which wishes to squelsh opposition. that is why congress is not allowed to establish a religion becuase that would be a faction. Anyway: i guess the point is that the government doesn't have to sponcer religion if it doesn't want to. Christmas is not a religious holiday it is a federal one and thus it cannot celebrate the divinity of baby jesus it just celebrates Christmas. if the government came out and said that Christmas was a federal celebration of jesus of nazareth's birth that would be un-American. or would have been, based on our once Deist principles, in The Current Constitution. but i dare christians to ammend the constitution to limit the rights of un-monotheists. many conservatives in Faux News seam to think our Founders established a Reign of Terror.

 

[andys]

Gnomon,

Well, I see my suspicion that your interest was not genuine and that sarcasm was indeed your intent. No matter.
How odd that you ask me to provide evidence for what is a historical fact and is readily verified by any source you care to examine. Yet, you, out of left field, postulate a wild hypothesis, in your own words:

"Modern pagans today are actually more guilty of 'making up' traditions and calling them old and then pointing a damning finger at Christians out of sheer ignorance..."

Talk about the cart pulling the horse. I hardly know where to begin with you.

I suppose for starters, I'll remind you of the fundamental rule of argument, that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. So I invite you, wholeheartedly, to kindly comply. Do tell. Let's hear all about the Modern Pagan Conspiracy to overthrow Christmas. This should prove most amusing.

 

[andys]

Sojourner,

In light of all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in making such remarkably ill informed assertions:

"I wonder how an atheist could usurp an obviously theist festival and call it his own, then decry the Christian-Pagans for doing the same thing?"

And here's an amusing one,

"Pagans are more than welcome to celebrate in any way they see fit..."

How generous of the thief to allow the victim to play with the stolen goods.

And I could hardly believe my eyes when you actually redefined the word heathen:

"Usually, they're ultra-conservative, militant Christians. They also like to sling around the term "heathen," when we all know that heathenry is a religion wherein Norse and Saxon gods are worshiped."

Here I go again having to educate you about every day words...

"Heathen:
1. an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan. 2. an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person. Synonyms:
irreligious
pagan
idolatrous
skeptic
nonbeliever
profane
barbarian

(Heathen Definition | Definition of Heathen at Dictionary.com)

Finally, of all people, you offer this (crude) advice to me,

"Dear andys:
Give it up, dude! Everyone here can see you're bullsh****** your way out of a deception."

Astonishing. Look who;s talking.

 

[sojourner]

however, deciding which practices are legitimate is not. being as the state must determine their legitimacy. the Supreme Court established that states MAY [but do not have to] accomidate illegal religious practices. plus, we have an official believe, its called we cant have an official belive [aka secularism] and we must follow civil law. because we are majority christians, Slavery was allowed and so was discrimination of blacks, women, gays, nontheists, and polythiests, ect. but because we are secular we have been able to move away from that ugly past, closer and closer to the best laws based on the most civil liberties and an understanding by the State of the agnosticism inherent to The People. There are four branches of government not three.
Plus your logic does not make sense. you are calling for anarchy. the believes of the religious are not to be allowed to influence the believes of others through use of the state. Thus religious activities can be made illegal if they are disruptive to the state or civil liberties. in any case, secularism is NOT a religion. I guess our founders had nothing against an "official believe" and neither do i. official belives such as inherent human rights and so forth. BUT religion is a powerhungry faction which wishes to squelsh opposition. that is why congress is not allowed to establish a religion becuase that would be a faction. Anyway: i guess the point is that the government doesn't have to sponcer religion if it doesn't want to. Christmas is not a religious holiday it is a federal one and thus it cannot celebrate the divinity of baby jesus it just celebrates Christmas. if the government came out and said that Christmas was a federal celebration of jesus of nazareth's birth that would be un-American. or would have been, based on our once Deist principles, in The Current Constitution. but i dare christians to ammend the constitution to limit the rights of un-monotheists. many conservatives in Faux News seam to think our Founders established a Reign of Terror.

I'm not calling for anarchy. I'm calling for the gov't. to keep its fingers out of the religious pie.
Christmas is a religious holiday. Christ-mass. the founders understood and accepted the religious nature of Christmas, and they celebrated it anyway. Same with Thanksgiving. It's OK for the gov't to recognize the religious nature of holidays. It's just not OK for them to dictate how the days are to be celebrated.
Christians (as a whole) don't seek to insert their beliefs into the Constitution, nor do they seek to limit the rights of other religious folks. You're equating the normative Christian stance with the radical stance of the Religious Right.

 

[sojourner]

In light of all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in making such remarkably ill informed assertions:

"I wonder how an atheist could usurp an obviously theist festival and call it his own, then decry the Christian-Pagans for doing the same thing?"

The evidence is this:
1) Christmas derived from the celebration of the birth of the god Mithras.
2) You are not religious.
3) You (an atheist) have claimed ownership (as a "Pagan") of the Mithras celebration
4) Your deception in this regard is worse than what the converted Pagans did with their own traditions.

"Pagans are more than welcome to celebrate in any way they see fit..."

How generous of the thief to allow the victim to play with the stolen goods.

There is no "thief" and there are no "stolen goods." Christmas is a different celebration than the Pagan celebration.

"Heathen:
1. an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan. 2. an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person. Synonyms:
irreligious
pagan
idolatrous
skeptic
nonbeliever
profane
barbarian

(Heathen Definition | Definition of Heathen at Dictionary.com)

I don't care what the dictionary.com definition is (as if it carries any authority). You might want to take a look at the heathenry section here and converse with some real-life heathens to see what they think about the "synonyms." I have known a few heathens. Without exception, they have been as (or more) religious as most Christians I know.
Your "education" is obviously not up to the task here.

"Dear andys:
Give it up, dude! Everyone here can see you're bullsh****** your way out of a deception."

Astonishing. Look who;s talking.

Still talking about the "deception" of "Christians stealing Christmas?"
Whatever.

 

[gnomon]

Gnomon,

Well, I see my suspicion that your interest was not genuine and that sarcasm was indeed your intent. No matter.
How odd that you ask me to provide evidence for what is a historical fact and is readily verified by any source you care to examine. Yet, you, out of left field, postulate a wild hypothesis, in your own words:

"Modern pagans today are actually more guilty of 'making up' traditions and calling them old and then pointing a damning finger at Christians out of sheer ignorance..."

Talk about the cart pulling the horse. I hardly know where to begin with you.

I suppose for starters, I'll remind you of the fundamental rule of argument, that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. So I invite you, wholeheartedly, to kindly comply. Do tell. Let's hear all about the Modern Pagan Conspiracy to overthrow Christmas. This should prove most amusing.

Correct.

The burden of proof is on those claiming that the Christians "took" the pagan traditions. Since you claim this is such an obvious fact then it should only take a small moment to provide mountains of evidence.

What's amusing is you think I assert that there was a modern pagan conspiracy to overthrow Christmas. The funny thing is I never said any such thing.

Pay attention.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Again, there is absolutely no historical evidence that the birth of Mithras was celebrated on December 25th.
The birth date of the Aurelian Sol Invictus was celebrated on December 25, some writers have confused this with the Mithras Sol Invictus, of which there is little known.

 

[imaginaryme]

It really is funny how people need to "own" stuff so badly.

Sure. Own your Life! Carpe diem.

Seize your day. Be alive in it.

Each day is your 'present day'.

Pick, pluck and gather your meaning & decorum.

Adorn the tree of your Life as you see fit.

Light the candles of your own intent.


Every life... each person... is their own unique statement.

Why is this so hard to appreciate.


Our christmas spirit has come in the form of a Bunny this year.
Warm, white, cuddly, fuzzy, cozy love.

I wonder what Easter will bring.......

It is merely a way to "justify" the triumph of Western civilization - that it was "alright" to slaughter the indigenous people in America because they didn't "know well enough to own things." I'm no better. I "own" a piece of Gwyneth Paltrow - sold to me by Miramax - now currently residing on my arm. I'm just a little more evolved, in that a tattoo is all I own - and all I ever will own.

Happy Mithras Day.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

gnomon-

RE: Who prays for Satan? Pray for sinner who needs it most.

Satan is guilty of the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32.
(Hebrews 6:4-6) So, prayers won't do him any good.