quote:Originally posted by BluesScale: Ok, so the Christians think that Pagans are odd. I don't mind. I think that they are odd. However, we can co-exist. I am fine with the idea that their god can exist although creating the universe sounds like advertising to me. They should be fine with the idea of other gods - it only says "Thou shall have no other gods before me " which is a long way from "I am the only god and don't forget it, Mister!"
Blues
I suggest before commenting on what ideas Christians "should be fine with", you first need to find out what are Christianity's (and Judaism's) most basic claims. Relying just on one verse in the archaic language of the King James Bible won't help you much. It's "except", not "before". You have the same problem the ancient polytheists did. They had no problem accepting that there is just one more god, and couldn't understand why Christians and Jews insist their God must be the only object of worship. They failed to grasp that "God" and "a god" are two vastly different concepts. Co-existence? - no problem. Incorporating polytheism into Christianity? - impossible.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BluesScale: Ok, so the Christians think that Pagans are odd. I don't mind. I think that they are odd. However, we can co-exist. I am fine with the idea that their god can exist although creating the universe sounds like advertising to me. They should be fine with the idea of other gods - it only says "Thou shall have no other gods before me " which is a long way from "I am the only god and don't forget it, Mister!"
Blues
I suggest before commenting on what ideas Christians "should be fine with", you first need to find out what are Christianity's (and Judaism's) most basic claims. Relying just on one verse in the archaic language of the King James Bible won't help you much. It's "except", not "before". You have the same problem the ancient polytheists did. They had no problem accepting that there is just one more god, and couldn't understand why Christians and Jews insist their God must be the only object of worship. They failed to grasp that "God" and "a god" are two vastly different concepts. Co-existence? - no problem. Incorporating polytheism into Christianity? - impossible.
So does your reading of (paraphrased) "No Gods except me" indicate to you that God is saying he is the one true God and that no other Gods exist? Or is he saying that there are other Gods out there but if you want to hang out with him you've gotta make sure he's the only one you worship?
I'm not sure if I've explained that terribly well. Hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to say. The former is what I thought was the correct interpretation, the latter would be extremely interesting if that's how some people view it.
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooh, interesting territory and I would love to discuss this in a spirit of friendly exploration. If you find my views offensive and feel that a dogmatic position is the only one for you then please take no offence and just regard me as an ignorant heathen and pass onb by. Not looking for a flame war here.
I couldn't find an "except" version from a mainstream bible. The Torah says "And I am YHVH your God from the land of Egypt; and you know no god. except Me, and no savior besides Me." and the Koran says "There is no god except Me; you shall worship Me ALONE." (21:25) and since all 3 recognise Moses as a true propher, I hope that you will forgive me for linking them. By the way, the word is "before" in the King James Authorised, "but" in the King James simplified.
It seems to me (and I am not a bible scholar) that there are 3 christian positions.
1. Fundamentalist: Every word of the bible is true. Ok, that means that every word of every translation is valid or that the KJA is the sole true version depending on which fundamentalist you talk to. If we take the literal word, polytheism is cool. 2. Catholic. Three gods as aspects of one god and lesser gods (once human saints) who can be asked to intercede with the the one triple god. That seems pretty much much a pantheon there already. 3. Protestant and Catholic both. Worshippers are called on to worship God and ignore the rival offers of Lucifer, a powerful and tricky opponent. Lucifer or Satan (and it doesn't actually say that these are one rival - we could be talking about two) does things that look like miracles to the Christian God. If that isn't a rival god (or gods) then I don't understand how else to understand the account. Also, all version of Christianity have angels - although some think it is a corruption of "messenger". In any case, all versions have immortal avatars of the Christian God.
So, my perspective (and feel free to disagree) is that the bible doesn't deny the existance of other spirits than the main Christian god. Exorcism is a tacit admission that not all of these are avatars of that god.
I would welcome your thoughts
BluesScale
Posts: 207 | From: Woolhampton, Berks, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[to steal* a phrase...]Oooh, interesting territory and I would love to discuss this in a spirit of friendly exploration. If you find my views offensive and feel that a dogmatic position is the only one for you then please take no offence and just regard me as an ignorant pCm and pass on by. Not looking for a flame war here.
This is an interesting hijack. Whether you are fundy or not, there is also that bit in the New Testament where Paul went and sat at the market place and based his evangelical campaign on the idea: "See this monument to the god that is unknown? Well, I know who that is..."
So, polytheism with a big boss God is potentially not a problem in the New Testament, either.
*hmmn, in fact, I might even go so far as to steal steal it - s'alright?
-------------------- Windows cannot open this file. To open this file correctly, defenestrate, then try running the file again... Posts: 5383 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: Well no. Xmas has been associated with "peace on earth" almost since its inception. And the idea that it should be a time when workers are given time off with their families is almost as old.
That's not quite what I said. I said that that wasn't the focus of Christmas celebrations. Here
quote:In 1843, Charles Dickens wrote his famous book titled A Christmas Carol. The publication of this book changed the entire view of Christmas from that point on. Until then, Christmas was seen as a time to drink in excess and gorge on food. Dickens’s story, however, painted the holiday as one of a time of giving to loved ones and the importance of bringing family together. Soon, Christmas became a world-wide holiday synonymous with love, compassion, and sharing.
quote:UL or not, the problem is that so many people seem to BELIEVE that they will get into some sort of trouble if they publicly celebrate Xmas in even the most trivial way without secularising it or associating it with various other celebrations. So the trend snowballs. [/QB]
Then it seems like educating those people who have their knickers in a twist about the supposed "War on Christmas" would be the correct course of action, no?
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: So does your reading of (paraphrased) "No Gods except me" indicate to you that God is saying he is the one true God and that no other Gods exist? Or is he saying that there are other Gods out there but if you want to hang out with him you've gotta make sure he's the only one you worship?
I'm not sure if I've explained that terribly well. Hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to say. The former is what I thought was the correct interpretation, the latter would be extremely interesting if that's how some people view it.
Very few Christians take the view that Christianity is a matter of just reading a Bible and coming up with "interpretations". (And even the few who do so usually deny that they do it.) And to a Christian or a Jew the belief "there are other Gods out there" is an absurd contradiction. God is the basis of all existence, God is existence itself. By definition, there can be only one God.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that I may understand better, could you please explain if this position is explicitly stated in the bible or is an interpretation from the priests?
Thank you
BluesScale
Posts: 207 | From: Woolhampton, Berks, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BluesScale: Oooh, interesting territory and I would love to discuss this in a spirit of friendly exploration. If you find my views offensive and feel that a dogmatic position is the only one for you then please take no offence and just regard me as an ignorant heathen and pass onb by. Not looking for a flame war here.
Not offended by your ignorance. I suggest you start with a good encyclopedia and look up "Christianity", "Catholicism", "Protestantism" and "Fundamentalism". "dogmatic" "flame" you? Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the Virgin Marrya: Whether you are fundy or not, there is also that bit in the New Testament where Paul went and sat at the market place and based his evangelical campaign on the idea: "See this monument to the god that is unknown? Well, I know who that is..."
So, polytheism with a big boss God is potentially not a problem in the New Testament, either.
As mentioned earlier, this was a case of Paul making himself "all things to all men". Even without knowledge of any context, you would have to be contrary to read Paul's letters and conclude that he was a polytheist.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: [qb]Well no. Xmas has been associated with "peace on earth" almost since its inception. And the idea that it should be a time when workers are given time off with their families is almost as old.
That's not quite what I said. I said that that wasn't the focus of Christmas celebrations. Here
quote:In 1843, Charles Dickens wrote his famous book titled A Christmas Carol. The publication of this book changed the entire view of Christmas from that point on. Until then, Christmas was seen as a time to drink in excess and gorge on food. Dickens’s story, however, painted the holiday as one of a time of giving to loved ones and the importance of bringing family together. Soon, Christmas became a world-wide holiday synonymous with love, compassion, and sharing.
That's the sort of thing you might expect from a site trying to flog you stuff to show how much you love people at Xmas, but don't expect historical accuracy.
quote:
quote:UL or not, the problem is that so many people seem to BELIEVE that they will get into some sort of trouble if they publicly celebrate Xmas in even the most trivial way without secularising it or associating it with various other celebrations. So the trend snowballs.
Then it seems like educating those people who have their knickers in a twist about the supposed "War on Christmas" would be the correct course of action, no?
Well I'm only one widdle person and it's not something I think is important enough to march in the streets about, but it would help if you stopped denying that the phenomenon exists.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: That's the sort of thing you might expect from a site trying to flog you stuff to show how much you love people at Xmas, but don't expect historical accuracy.
That was just the first cite to hand. The Reformation and Dickens' role in the shaping of modern Christmas was something that I didn't think was in much dispute. Try the Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts' account. His doctorate is in "New Testament and Christian origins".
quote:Well I'm only one widdle person and it's not something I think is important enough to march in the streets about, but it would help if you stopped denying that the phenomenon exists.
Are you saying that there is a "War on Christmas"? Or do you think that I'm denying that there are those who say that there is? Because, either way, you're wrong.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phaedra: Do you mean Abraxas BlueScale?
I did and I thank you for the correction.
PeterK, thank you for the suggestion but it seems that there are multiple definitions out there. Would you be willing to share yours, please?
[ETA] I am sorry if you were offended by my use of the words "dogmatic" and "flame". They were not aimed at anyone and perhaps "strictly adhering to a conventional line" would have been a better way of putting it.
Thank you
Blues
Posts: 207 | From: Woolhampton, Berks, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: Very few Christians take the view that Christianity is a matter of just reading a Bible and coming up with "interpretations". (And even the few who do so usually deny that they do it.) And to a Christian or a Jew the belief "there are other Gods out there" is an absurd contradiction. God is the basis of all existence, God is existence itself. By definition, there can be only one God.
Okay so when He is saying that, He is meaning "I'm the only God in existence". Right? That's what I thought it meant.
For a moment, the wording of it was sounding like it might've left room for... hmmmm... an intellectual acknowledgement that there are other Gods, just that as a Christian you are to put Him as your one and only. Or put it in rather crass terms, it'd be like the fanatical Holden gearhead acknowledging that while there are Toyotas, Fords (the debil!), Mazdas, etc out there, the "one true car" can only ever be a Holden.
I'm probably making no sense.
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug4.7:
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: But many are annoyed by the way that, increasingly each year, public celebrations and even the mention of the word Christmas are deemed "offensive to those of other religions" unless one either includes other non-Christian festivals in the same statement/sign/celebration etc or else neuters it to something vague and secular.
I would just as well see NO "public" displays of Christmas. Usually the ones that are there are such a distortion of the "reason for the season", that I would rather them not be there. YMMV, of course.
I was going to quote your first post and agree completely, Doug, except substituting "beliefs" for "Christianity". I was also going to say that I don't understand why some Christians are so adamant that the holiday (for want of a better word) is called "Christmas" everywhere.
I call it Christmas and I'm an atheist - I would have thought that that would be more offensive to actual Christians than it would be to call our family day of giving presents and eating too much the "Winter Party" or something. Surely my calling it Christmas just dilutes the idea, and plastering "Buy Tat For Jesus!" all over the shops is even more distorting.
So basically I completely agree with both your posts, even from the opposite side of the religious fence.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
To a Christian or a Jew the belief "there are other Gods out there" is an absurd contradiction.
Really? That's not what my boyfriend says, but then coming from an atheist Jewish family he's not actually that good on his own religion
In any case, a quick skip through the bible reveals a large number of verses talking about 'other gods', the most interesting of which is Numbers 33:4 'Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.' Hard to execute judgements on things wot don't exist.
In any case, this is all a little beside the point. If, as you state, a basic tenet of the Christian religion is an inability to accept other gods, then I fail to see how you can claim that Christians co-existing with other faiths is 'no problem'.
In fact, bitter experience suggests it's often quite a lot of a problem.
-------------------- "For God has seven thousand names, and one of them is bastard" Posts: 420 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: That's the sort of thing you might expect from a site trying to flog you stuff to show how much you love people at Xmas, but don't expect historical accuracy.
That was just the first cite to hand. The Reformation and Dickens' role in the shaping of modern Christmas was something that I didn't think was in much dispute. Try the Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts' account. His doctorate is in "New Testament and Christian origins".
A very cleverly worded post, but I'm not buying. Your cite has nothing to do with the New Testament and Christian origins, nor does Roberts even hint that it does. His point is that Dickens helped restore to popularity some traditional aspects of Christmas celebrations which had been suppressed in England (not elsewhere) by the depredations of Puritanism and capitalism. It's absurd to suggest Dickens invented them. And IIRC you were the one who walloped me for saying my point was "something that I didn't think was in much dispute".
quote:Are you saying that there is a "War on Christmas"? Or do you think that I'm denying that there are those who say that there is? Because, either way, you're wrong.
It's silly to call it a "War", and just as silly to try to deny that there is a lot of pressure both applied and felt in the direction I stated, of privatizing not just Xmas, but any public manifestation which can be characterised as "religious".
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilBunny: In any case, a quick skip through the bible reveals a large number of verses talking about 'other gods', the most interesting of which is Numbers 33:4 'Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.' Hard to execute judgements on things wot don't exist.
You're trying to wind me up right? You've set as new stanard in taking out of context only HALF of a verse. REead the first half. God punished the Egyptians for worshipping other gods instead of Him.
quote: In any case, this is all a little beside the point. If, as you state, a basic tenet of the Christian religion is an inability to accept other gods, then I fail to see how you can claim that Christians co-existing with other faiths is 'no problem'.
In fact, bitter experience suggests it's often quite a lot of a problem.
"Accepting other gods" is a totally different thing from "accepting people who believe in other gods". Christians generally have had no problem co-existing with polytheists. Unfortunately the reverse has often not been the case.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilBunny: In any case, a quick skip through the bible reveals a large number of verses talking about 'other gods', the most interesting of which is Numbers 33:4 'Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.' Hard to execute judgements on things wot don't exist.
You're trying to wind me up right? You've set as new stanard in taking out of context only HALF of a verse. REead the first half. God punished the Egyptians for worshipping other gods instead of Him.
Uh...I think He/She/It was punishing the Egyptians for not letting His/Her/Its people go.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BluesScale: PeterK, thank you for the suggestion but it seems that there are multiple definitions out there. Would you be willing to share yours, please? Blues
If you've bought an encyclopedia which says that any major branch of Christianity worships multiple gods , you have wasted your money. You should also look up "Saint", "Devil" and "Lucifer".
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemi: Depends on your point of view I guess. The symbols and some of the traditions got appropriated centuries ago by Christianity and much more recently by neo-paganism so there's little that I can do now. I like the fact that they have remained popular and common because it makes it easier for me to find stuff for myself without having to go anywhere special (beyond wanting to get a goat ornament) and it's my Lokian side that thinks the idea the symbols are still so popular regardless of the origins is a bit funny.
Noemi
Exactly. I told you the big chuckle I got one time about the secretary in my department while I was in grad school who wore a button stating "Jesus is the reason for the season". It was festooned with holly. I found this hilarious, but couldn't bring myself to telling her why I giggled a little everytime I saw it.
I think there is something, forgive me, but magical, about this time of the year and it is no wonder that the Christians were able to co-opt it so easily.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemi: Depends on your point of view I guess. The symbols and some of the traditions got appropriated centuries ago by Christianity and much more recently by neo-paganism so there's little that I can do now. I like the fact that they have remained popular and common because it makes it easier for me to find stuff for myself without having to go anywhere special (beyond wanting to get a goat ornament) and it's my Lokian side that thinks the idea the symbols are still so popular regardless of the origins is a bit funny.
Noemi
Exactly. I told you the big chuckle I got one time about the secretary in my department while I was in grad school who wore a button stating "Jesus is the reason for the season". It was festooned with holly. I found this hilarious, but couldn't bring myself to telling her why I giggled a little everytime I saw it.
I think there is something, forgive me, but magical, about this time of the year and it is no wonder that the Christians were able to co-opt it so easily.
I'm pretty sure she would have been quite able to cope with you telling her (if she didn't know already) that holly had been used for pagan solstice celebrations long before Christianity. I'm sure every Christian I've ever met would be equally unperturbed. Some non-Christians seem to think that Christians are all terribly insecure and ignorant people who think that Christianity arose in a cultural vacuum. Whilst I'm sure there are ignorant people among every religion, your smug giggles say more about your ignorance of Christianity than about the general ignorance of Christians.
Posts: 670 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: It's silly to call it a "War", and just as silly to try to deny that there is a lot of pressure both applied and felt in the direction I stated, of privatizing not just Xmas, but any public manifestation which can be characterised as "religious".
You might want to clafify what you mean by public. By public do you mean "done in public" or "sponsored or endorsed by the government"? Because if the former, I do certainly deny that there is any pressure to remove Christmas from being done in public. If the latter, then I say it is good that government sponsorship or endorsement of one particular religious holiday is being pressured.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: I'm pretty sure she would have been quite able to cope with you telling her (if she didn't know already) that holly had been used for pagan solstice celebrations long before Christianity. I'm sure every Christian I've ever met would be equally unperturbed. Some non-Christians seem to think that Christians are all terribly insecure and ignorant people who think that Christianity arose in a cultural vacuum. Whilst I'm sure there are ignorant people among every religion, your smug giggles say more about your ignorance of Christianity than about the general ignorance of Christians.
Do you truly not see the delicious irony in the pin though? Seriously?
A pin that declares that the only reason we should be celebrating is because of an event that happened within their religious mythology, which was rearranged to tack onto older religions to make it easier to swallow, with a symbol of one of those celebrations on the button proclaiming that we only should be celebrating Christ's birth?
As far as me "not understanding Christianity", I did not understand the pagan symbolism in many Christian holidays until I read about it in a Jehovah's witness tract talking about why we should not celebrate Christmas or Easter, because of the huge pagan symbology.
And quite frankly, I think anyone who is smug and superior enough to wear a button to work to tell the rest of us what we should be celebrating would not be very receptive if I told her what I found was funny. I didn't do so out of respect for her beliefs, when she was being blatantly disrespectful of mine by telling me what I should be celebrating.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: I'm pretty sure she would have been quite able to cope with you telling her (if she didn't know already) that holly had been used for pagan solstice celebrations long before Christianity. I'm sure every Christian I've ever met would be equally unperturbed. Some non-Christians seem to think that Christians are all terribly insecure and ignorant people who think that Christianity arose in a cultural vacuum. Whilst I'm sure there are ignorant people among every religion, your smug giggles say more about your ignorance of Christianity than about the general ignorance of Christians.
I try to avoid religious discussions away from the Pagan board I attend, but I just wanted to say something.
My former neighbors were the type of Christians who did not believe anything other than what their version of the Bible and their church told them.
I was raised in a Christian home. My parents were Protestant while I was growing up- they are now Lutheran. However, most Christians I've come into contact with have never made an effort to learn anything about Pagan traditions and get downright defensive when you point out the symbols that were Pagan in origin. I have a cousin who will argue with anyone about religion- no matter if you are Christian or any other religion because unless you (general "you") believe what he believes, then you are just wrong.
We had a huge debate a couple weeks ago on the Pagan/Witch board where I help admin. A Christian person came to our board preaching her ways, telling us what we believed was all lies and "mythology from a book". When presented with well-thought out replies and questions, she took things out of context and either ignored our questions or recited the whole "mythology from a book" argument.
If anyone would like the link to the two threads on that board, PM me, I'm willing to share them.
-------------------- "Is it ME? Am I a MAGNET for these idiots?"~Pearl Forrester MST3K Die-Hard Engineers, Big Red One my Dad's website "Must be a 'snopes' thing..." ~my entire family when I try to explain something. Posts: 4524 | From: South of Madison, Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're trying to wind me up right? You've set as new stanard in taking out of context only HALF of a verse. Read the first half. God punished the Egyptians for worshipping other gods instead of Him.
Other gods, you say? Thought they didn't exist?
As it happens, I did read the entire verse. It goes: 'For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.'
Can you explain to me which bit is the magical modifier that changes the meaning of the word 'gods'?
(I actually largely don't give a toss about whether the Bible admits of other gods existing or not, by the way, I'm just enjoying Devil's-Advocating this part of the debate)
Christians generally have had no problem co-existing with polytheists. Unfortunately the reverse has often not been the case.
Can you provide evidence for both sides of that statement, please?
I'm pretty sure she would have been quite able to cope with you telling her (if she didn't know already) that holly had been used for pagan solstice celebrations long before Christianity.
If she did, it would show a fascinating disconnect between her views (as stated by the badge, that there would be no seasonal festival without Christ) and her knowledge (that, well, there blatantly would be, if by a rather different name).
Your smug giggles say more about your ignorance of Christianity than about the general ignorance of Christians.
Six years of Catholic secondary school says I'm not ignorant of Christianity. I am, however, giggling. Your serve
-------------------- "For God has seven thousand names, and one of them is bastard" Posts: 420 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PeterK: [QB]Your cite has nothing to do with the New Testament and Christian origins[...]
It's about the origins of a Christian tradition.
quote:His point is that Dickens helped restore to popularity some traditional aspects of Christmas celebrations which had been suppressed in England (not elsewhere) by the depredations of Puritanism and capitalism.
Did you read the cite?
quote:In part, the continued influence of conservative Reformed Christians–who believed that people should do only what the Bible commands, and therefore should not celebrate Christmas, especially given its popular excesses–meant that for many in England Christmas was not a valid holiday
[...]
Moreover, in the cities, bosses weren’t inclined to encourage a holiday that meant a day off from work, especially a day of paid vacation. (Ebenezer Scrooge’s reticence to give Bob Cratchit a holiday on Christmas wasn’t that unusual in his day.)
[...]
Because our own celebrations of Christmas have been so strongly influenced by Dickens, we can easily overlook his special contributions to our traditions, such as:
• Christmas as a one (or two) day celebration rather than the traditional twelve.
• Christmas as an occasion for family and close friends to gather for luscious food, singing, dancing, and games.
• Christmas as a time for being generous to the poor.
[Emphasis mine]
quote:It's absurd to suggest Dickens invented them.
I didn't say that he did. I said that he was a large part in the shift from Christmas being an occasion for excesses of eating and drinking into something more charitable and family-orientated. And my sources back me up.
quote:And IIRC you were the one who walloped me for saying my point was "something that I didn't think was in much dispute".
I don't recall walloping you. I was just surprised that someone who claims to be as knowledgeable about the subject of Christianity as you do hadn't heard of the Reformation, or of Dickens' role in the shaping of the modern idea of Christmas.
quote:It's silly to call it a "War", and just as silly to try to deny that there is a lot of pressure both applied and felt in the direction I stated, of privatizing not just Xmas, but any public manifestation which can be characterised as "religious".
Where are you talking about? I can't speak for Australia, but there certainly seem to be as many Council-sponsored "Merry Christmas" signs around as I ever remember here in England.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, PeterK, Blessingd of the season upon you and yours.
In the spirit of seeking greater understanding, may I point out that it is not terribly helpful to reply to a request for your opinion with a suggestion that I seek the opinions of others. Since I am trying to understand your point, your opinion has unique value to me here.
However, I will try to find common ground all the same. You say
quote:If you've bought an encyclopedia which says that any major branch of Christianity worships multiple gods , you have wasted your money. You should also look up "Saint", "Devil" and "Lucifer".
American Heritage dictionary. Saint. Noun. Abbr. St. or S. Christianity A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth.
As I understand "interceding", it means that people pray to the saint and they ask your God to do something for them. That implies that the saints are powerful spirits capable of actions independant action. I call powerful spirits capable of independant action by a different name - if they are powerful enough, I might call them gods.
Same source to be consistant. Devil. In many religions, the major personified spirit of evil, ruler of Hell, and foe of God. Used with the. A subordinate evil spirit; a demon.
Rules multiple lesser spirits, eh? It doesn't say if the lesser spirits will intercede. I have to say to me that this sounds like another God to me, albeit one diametrically opposed.
Same source. Lucifer. The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan
Literally Lightbringer, of course. The same dictionary defined Satan as the power of darkness opposed to the light of Christ; he is thus sometimes referred to as the Prince of Darkness. I think that there has to be some doubt that the lightbringer and the Prince of Darkness are one and the same.
Looking up Christianity gets us in to more trouble stiil. 1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches. 2. Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought. 3. a particular Christian religious system: She followed fundamentalist Christianity. 4. the state of being a Christian. 5. Christendom. 6. conformity to the Christian religion or to its beliefs or practices.
Point 6 is interesting. If I follow the practices but not the belief, I still qualify?
Catholicism. Roman Catholic Church The branch of Christianity headed by the pope. The Roman Catholic Church is governed by a hierarchy with the pope at the top and, at the lower levels, bishops and priests. The sacraments of Communion and confession are especially important in the Roman Catholic Church; Catholics also differ from most Protestants in emphasizing veneration of the saints, especially Mary, the mother of Jesus, and seeking the intercession of the saints (praying to them so that they will in turn pray to God).
Again, a heirarchy of spirits. Interestingly, the Pope seems to have a position at the head rather than your God but maybe that is a mistake. One thing that it doesn't mention but which I though was important was the holy trinity.
Definitionas are so important. Do you like these? We can use these as the basis of the discussion if you like.
To contine DevilBunny's point, there several mentions of other gods in the bible
Deu17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
There are dozens more but this one is an interesting one. Let us consider what it means. Not "or any of the host of heaven because there are no others" but "which I have not commanded". This is clearly saying "Do not worship gods which are not under my command". It also explicitly states that Sun and Moon are not under the command of your God and explicitly recognises other gods.
As I read the references, Christians are not supposed to like worshippers of other gods but it doesn't say that there are no other gods for the others to serve.
Is it so impossible that we can agree terms? It is not as if we pagans were worshipping the enemy god :-)
BluesScale
Posts: 207 | From: Woolhampton, Berks, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christians generally have had no problem co-existing with polytheists. Unfortunately the reverse has often not been the case.
I'm a little baffled by this statement, so before I go off half-cocked sharing my many experiences of people proclaming Christianity who did have problems co-existing with me, please clarify. Did you mean in the general, historical sense; or did you mean "the majority of Christians, everywhere, today."?
-------------------- "He feeds the sparrows of the field, but He doesn't sit there and cram worms into their mouths." -- Mouse Posts: 396 | From: Pasadena, CA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug4.7: I am secure enough in my Christianity to let others celebrate what they want. It ain't gonna change what I do.
Amen!!! Preach it Doug!!! I've found those who complain the loudest are usually the ones who could have the shakiest faith. If your faith is threatened by someone saying 'Happy Holidays' how strong is it to begin with?
Which is why I get consistently annoyed with the people who scream about the fake War On Christmas. But, but, Faux News said it was true, so it MUST be true! And, and, if those damn pagans get their way, I won't be ALLOWED to say Merry Christmas, or celebrate Christmas, or celebrate Baby Jesus's birth!
I love my dad, but he employs the same arguments on me, and really hates it when I tell him, "Nobody is saying you can't say Merry Christmas. Businesses are trying to make more money by being more inclusive with Happy Holidays. If you want to wish somebody a Merry NFBSKing Christmas, NOBODY CARES."
Dad's still a little bent out of shape with me over that. That, and when he tried to tell me that Wal-Mart employees are not allowed to say Merry Christmas, so I shouldn't shop there, I shot him down with, "First of all, you don't know if that's true or not. YOU don't go to Wal-Mart, MOM goes to Wal-Mart. Secondly, where you live? They're still saying Merry Christmas, and nobody gives a rat's ass, and there's no threat of "I'm gonna call the ACLU on you."
Look, if you want to have a Nativity scene, with the creche, Baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the whole kit and caboodle, I don't care, as long as you do it on YOUR property, or your church does it on THEIR property. It's when you try to encroach on MY property, or try to put up a religious-themed decoration on TAXPAYER funded property that I get a little irritated.
Want to put up a Christmas tree in the town square? Go right ahead. It's not a religious symbol to most people, so there's not the separation of church and state argument.
And if your faith is so shaky you can't handle a challenge to your God-given right to put up a Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, sucks to be you, but that Nativity scene will come down. The state of your relationship between you and whatever god you choose to worship is your business, and doesn't belong in a taxpayer-funded Christmas decoration.
-------------------- Beware corporate zombies! They will purchase your brain on E-Bay! Posts: 2310 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
"flame" you? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, you have wasted your money. You should also look up "Saint", "Devil" and "Lucifer".
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
