Christmas needs to be more commercial

[AnthonyByakko]

Every year, we hear from airhead culture warriors about the commericality and avarice of "christmas."

Well I've got news for you: Giftmas (as I prefer to call it) should be more commerical. "Christmas" as it is today is a uniquely American invention rooted in Paganism; and with the exception of church plays and nativity scenes, has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. The date is not the day of his birth, and nothing about the holiday's traditions have any basis in Christian ideaology.

Giftgiving, tree trimming, decorations, reveling, eating lavish food; these are all pagan celebrations that go back to the solstice holidays of yore. Yuletime is not religious. It never has, and it never should be.

The industrial revolution created wealth and abundance unheard of in human history, helping define Giftmas as a time to share the prosperity with all others. It is not a message of religion or even of spirituality. Santa doesn't exemplify christian ideals - he gives gifts to all children, not based on their need, but on justice - whether they were good or bad. Giftmas is a celebration of our creation, of our pride in our accomplishments as a nation and as human beings.

If you think Christmas is a time for reflecting on your god or your savior, well - you're wrong. Keep your religious hands off of our holiday. You stole the idea of the winter solstice holiday to corrupt and convert the pagans of the day; stole their signs and symbols, usurped their celebration and tried to pervert it into your ideas of sacrifice, renunciation and repentance, when in fact it has always been about the end of winter, the lengthening of days and the hope of prosperity. You have Easter, and that's more than enough. All this crap that's going on about equality of religious expression on Christmas is bogus - A menorah or Kwanzaa symbol has just as little place in Christmas as a nativity scene. Why depict a scene of the birth of Christ when it isn't even close to the day Christ was born? Besides, what place do idealogies that reject the worldly and embrace the end of it have celebrating life? Giftmas is about materialism, and all the good things surrounding it.

In short, Christians have no business in Christmas.

{EDIT: Mods, feel free to move to Religion forum if deemed more appropriate.}

[Dr. Mobius]

Hm, the History Channel had a history of Christmas thing the other day. Coincidence? I think not.

[AnthonyByakko]

I work nights; the opportunity to watch TV is a rare one for me. If you must, check out capitalism magazine, which is where the idea (for me) began.

EDIT: the most important part of your post for people to remember is that last bit; "I think not."

[Jebus]

I enjoyed reading that a lot.

[AnthonyByakko]

I enjoyed reading that a lot.

Well, f*** you to Jeb-... oh. Nevermind. Carry on.

[lyons24000]

Actually, Anthony, you're wrong.

Easter is not Christian.

Jesus Christ commanded us to remember his death because that had the true meaning, not his birth or resurrection-those did nothing for us as humankind.

"As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sin."-Matthew 26:26-28

Paul even talks about this event when he says:

"For I received from the Lord that which I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in yout behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”-1 Corinthians 11:23-25

There is no other command in the Bible to celebrate Christmas or Easter (birth and resurrection) because those meant nothing to us. We know exactly when Christ died Nisan 14, 33 C.E. and yet we don't know the day he was born. The Bible leaves the date out of there for his birth because it's not important to remember it.

Now the reason I put all of this down is because you said that Christians have Easter. Well, that's pagan, too.

“Easter is a word of Saxon origin; and imports a goddess of the Saxons, or rather, of the East, Estera, in honor of whom sacrifices being annually offered about the passover time of the year (spring), the name became attached by association of ideas to the Christian festival of the resurrection which happened at the time of passover; hence we say Easter-Day or Easter Sunday, but very improperly; as we by no means refer to the festival then kept to the goddess of the ancient Saxons."

(Much information about who wrote this is missing but we know that it was written by a Catholic Monk.)

The egg is associated with Easter because:

“The custom may have its origin in paganism, for a great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of spring, gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early spring.”-The Catholic Encyclopedia

And therefore, we have the rabbit:

“The Easter Rabbit lays the eggs, for which reason they are hidden in a nest or in the garden. The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility."-The Catholic Encyclopedia

So, no, Christians do not have Easter, either. It's all pagan. But I did appreciate everything else you wrote because it's all true.

[Jayelle]

Wow. I've never heard this before. Christians picked pagan festivals for their holidays? I can't believe it. What a shock. Everything I've ever been told is a lie.


...oh wait.

[fawkes]

I've always thought this was true. It just drives me crazy how people celebrate a pagan holiday, but when you tell them, they go nuts and call you a heretic or something. People are sheep. Stupid, stupid sheep. Because they've been told for years that Christmas was the day of the birth of Christ, anything else you tell them is a lie. There are hints in the bible, for crying out loud! The shepherds were out with their flock, which they wouldn't be if it was the middle of December, Israel or not. There were others, but they slip my mind at the moment.

[Eaquae Legit]

Jesus Christ commanded us to remember his death because that had the true meaning, not his birth or resurrection-those did nothing for us as humankind.

"As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sin."-Matthew 26:26-28

Paul even talks about this event when he says:

"For I received from the Lord that which I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in yout behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”-1 Corinthians 11:23-25

Those quotes aren't what Jesus or Paul said. Jesus said "this is my body." Paul said "this is my body." You can argue that what they meant was "means," but that is not what they said. I hate it when people mess around with translations to this extreme - keep the interpretation out of the text you translate.

I admit, this is one of the reasons in my private heart of hearts that I can't give much credibility to Jehovah's Witness theology - I can't even trust the integrity of the translation, so how on earth am I supposed to trust the interpretations?

If we want to play the "this is what the passage means" game, I contend that the Last Supper was not Jesus commanding his disciples to celebrate Easter, it was the institution of the Eucharist. And so his disciples understood it and did it, from the earliest beginnings of the church.

You've posted three proofs why Easter is pagan, but none of them mean anything. "Easter" is the word in English. It's "Pascha" in Greek, meaning "Passover," which was not a pagan celebration. It's "Pascua" in Spanish, "Paques" in French, and "Pascha" in Latin as well.

Anglos call is "Easter" because, and follow closely here, we speak an Anglo-Saxon based language, not a Romance. Bede offers to us: "Eosturmonath, which is now interpreted as the paschal month, was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, and has given its name to the festival." That is to say, having no native word for the feast, when the Anglo-Saxons converted, they just used the name of the month in which is commonly fell. It's like you're saying Thursday isn't a Christian day, because it was named for Thor. It's just our linguistic inheritance.

As to your other two "proofs," they're not a part of the religious observance. They're secular traditions. They have nothing to do with the religious festival.

Christians have celebrated Easter since long before they ever encountered the Anglo-Saxons. They held the vigil, baptised new members on that holiest feast. They shared the Paschal feast and celebrated their saviour's rise from the dead.

As to Christmas, well, you'd have a much stronger case for arguing Christmas as pagan. And in any case, lyons, links would be greatly appreciated, especially since you are quoting outdated and anonymous sources.

***

And with my mod-hat, I'm going to move the thread, yeah.

[Jebus]

Wow. I've never heard this before. Christians picked pagan festivals for their holidays? I can't believe it. What a shock. Everything I've ever been told is a lie.

I don't think it was meant as a revelation, my dear. But I understand why you would be defensive about such a thing.

[hive_king]

Wait. I'm confused. Why should materialism be encouraged, especially in small children?

[jotabe]

Anthony... so much for your belief in freedom and individualism...

"Everybody should be free... to do as i say!"

So, we christians aren't allowed to make your celebrations whenever we see fit? We aren't allowed to make public display of it? We aren't allowed to be preachy to other people about how they should live these holidays?
Maybe it would be better if we all would go back to the catacombs, right?

But don't worry you are not the only defender of freedom who is afraid of liberty. Actually, it's quite common.

[Young Val]

I've always thought this was true. It just drives me crazy how people celebrate a pagan holiday, but when you tell them, they go nuts and call you a heretic or something. People are sheep. Stupid, stupid sheep. Because they've been told for years that Christmas was the day of the birth of Christ, anything else you tell them is a lie. There are hints in the bible, for crying out loud! The shepherds were out with their flock, which they wouldn't be if it was the middle of December, Israel or not. There were others, but they slip my mind at the moment.

only want to say that most people celebrating christmas aren't celebrating the pagan holiday. the christian celebration was moved to coincide with the pagan holiday, for a variety of reasons, and that is nothing if not clever. but just because the christian celebration was moved doesn't mean that people are not celebrating what they say they are.


that could be worded better.


anyway. christmas is hellish for me. but even before that, it's been mostly about family, with no religious currents, the way that i've been brought up celebrating it. although i know that it was moved to coincide with Yule many many many years ago, and i know that christian religions use that day to celebrate the birth of christ, despite knowing that it wasn't his true birthday.

personally, i don't see anything wrong with any of it.

[lyons24000]

Those quotes aren't what Jesus or Paul said. Jesus said "this is my body." Paul said "this is my body." You can argue that what they meant was "means," but that is not what they said. I hate it when people mess around with translations to this extreme - keep the interpretation out of the text you translate.

I admit, this is one of the reasons in my private heart of hearts that I can't give much credibility to Jehovah's Witness theology - I can't even trust the integrity of the translation, so how on earth am I supposed to trust the interpretations?

I was using those as a point, not a topic for debate. The point is, whether Jesus and Paul meant "is my body" or "means my body", it is the only thing he told us to continue to celebrate and remember-his death, not his birth or resurrection.

And I continue to contend that Easter is pagan and what I quoted is correct.

(But I do give you the "means" v.s. "is" argument.)

[Rei]

You stole the idea of the winter solstice holiday to corrupt and convert the pagans of the day; stole their signs and symbols, usurped their celebration and tried to pervert it into your ideas of sacrifice, renunciation and repentance, when in fact it has always been about the end of winter, the lengthening of days and the hope of prosperity. You have Easter, and that's more than enough. All this crap that's going on about equality of religious expression on Christmas is bogus - A menorah or Kwanzaa symbol has just as little place in Christmas as a nativity scene. Why depict a scene of the birth of Christ when it isn't even close to the day Christ was born? Besides, what place do idealogies that reject the worldly and embrace the end of it have celebrating life?

Listen, just because you're a poor loser is no reason to keep griping.

And, to be honest, your idea of giftmas is just as much a corruption of the pagan feast as the Christian one. Actually, it's an even bigger corruption because at least the Christians maintained the religious aspect of that time of year.

That aside, I have no issues with what Kelly said. If you don't want to think about the religious aspects, see the decorations as a way to mark time to spend with family celebrating because you can and just enjoy it as well as you can.

And Lyons, just because the etymology of a word comes from something pagan does not mean that the celebration is pagan. Would you say that we are wanna-be Jews if we had used any of the other words from other languages which derive their word for Easter from "Pesach"?

[fawkes]

that could be worded better.

Yeah, I know, I have a hard time saying what I really mean. Sorry

[Young Val]

ha. i meant my post could be worded better.

[zeroguy]

Wait. I'm confused. Why should materialism be encouraged, especially in small children?

Because throwing money at them takes less time for the parents than paying attention to them. Everyone wins.

[hive_king]

My childhood suddenly makes so much more sense!

[eriador]

...People are sheep. Stupid, stupid sheep...

And that's why I don't respect most people.

[Matty]

[Obviousman]
All Christians with any education know that no one has any idea what time of year Jesus was born. The end of December was picked to coincide with pagan holidays to make conversion easier for pagans. The date doesn't matter -- Christians* have just agreed to celebrate something very important to them at the same time.
*Except Greek Orthodox and such.
[/Obviousman]

[AnthonyByakko]

Actually, Anthony, you're wrong.

Easter is not Christian.

Jesus Christ commanded us to remember his death because that had the true meaning, not his birth or resurrection-those did nothing for us as humankind.

Thanks. I was unaware of the Easter stuff since I've never really cared to check up on it, but it's good to know.

[AnthonyByakko]

For Rei

Listen, just because you're a poor loser is no reason to keep griping.

Poor loser? I really don't understand. Are you saying that I am "poor", as in, lacking in material wealth? Or that I am a "poor" loser, in that I have a bad attitude towards losing - in which case, what have I lost? Really Rei, maybe you should switch from decaffe.

And, to be honest, your idea of giftmas is just as much a corruption of the pagan feast as the Christian one. Actually, it's an even bigger corruption because at least the Christians maintained the religious aspect of that time of year.

Proof please.

--------------------------------------

For Jota

Anthony... so much for your belief in freedom and individualism...

"Everybody should be free... to do as i say!"

So, we christians aren't allowed to make your celebrations whenever we see fit? We aren't allowed to make public display of it? We aren't allowed to be preachy to other people about how they should live these holidays?
Maybe it would be better if we all would go back to the catacombs, right?

But don't worry you are not the only defender of freedom who is afraid of liberty. Actually, it's quite common.

Maybe your straw man would look better in a cornfield.

You're allowed to celebrate whatever you want, whenever you want. However, if you wish to not be a f***ing hypocrite in the process, you and your religion might want to check yourselves. You're allowed to make public displays - on your own f***ing property, and nowhere else. You're allowed to be preachy - to people that want to hear it. Maybe your definition of freedom is broken. Don't question my allegiance to liberty when the only ammo you've got is that I don't like to hear a bunch of BS about fake Christian holidays.

-----------------------------------

For those who question why commercialism/materialism should be encouraged...

The pagan roots of the solstice season were a time for celebrating hope - the hope of prosperity in the coming year, and for reveling in the abundance of what one had, in the pride and product of one's environment. The modern American tradition is rooted in the industrial revolution that brought prosperity that had never been seen before in human history.

From Leonard Peikoff's capmag article: "In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest nation in history. The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading American outlet for this feeling. {...} the major developments of 19th-century capitalism: industrialization, urbanization, the triumph of science -- all of it leading to easy transportation, efficient mail delivery, the widespread publishing of books and magazines, new inventions making life comfortable and exciting, and the rise of entrepreneurs who understood that the way to make a profit was to produce something good and sell it to a mass market. {...} Early Christians denounced gift-giving as a Roman practice, and Puritans called it diabolical. But Americans were not to be deterred. Thanks to capitalism, there was enough wealth to make gifts possible, a great productive apparatus to advertise them and make them available cheaply, and a country so content that men wanted to reach out to their friends and express their enjoyment of life. The whole country took with glee to giving gifts on an unprecedented scale. {...} All the best customs of Christmas, from carols to trees to spectacular decorations, have their root in pagan ideas and practices. These customs were greatly amplified by American culture, as the product of reason, science, business, worldliness, and egoism, i.e., the pursuit of happines."

[Rei]

For Rei

Listen, just because you're a poor loser is no reason to keep griping.

Poor loser? I really don't understand. Are you saying that I am "poor", as in, lacking in material wealth? Or that I am a "poor" loser, in that I have a bad attitude towards losing - in which case, what have I lost? Really Rei, maybe you should switch from decaffe.

That comment was more facetious than anything.

And, to be honest, your idea of giftmas is just as much a corruption of the pagan feast as the Christian one. Actually, it's an even bigger corruption because at least the Christians maintained the religious aspect of that time of year.

Proof please.

The purpose of the pagan tradition was not to use up as much of their resources as possible. As you said, it is a time to celebrate hope and prosperity. Materialism undermines prosperity by negating it and putting people into debt, plus the constant greed making a perpetual circle of wanting more. The Christians also believe in hope and a further future prosperity, that is, Salvation. Either way, materialism is no closer to the original intent of the pagan traditions than Christmas. It makes no sense to say that the Christians should stay out of Christmas.

[Eaquae Legit]

And a Merry Dies Natalis Solis Invicti to All!

However, in my perfect world, where all faiths come together in a glorious orgy of tacky decorations, where light-up Baby Jesus rides light-up reindeer and light-up Isaac Newton bears gifts to light-up Kwanzaa something or other and the light-up Solstice Chicken flies over head bearing a menorah and we find some form of light-up Ramadan thing that doesn't violate the rules about idols and everybody's faith or complete lack thereof is utterly degraded by cheap merchandising and we all come together to bitch about how commercial it all is and how we shopped for hours and the kids are playing with the bubble wrap, for god's sake, and thus are unified in a glorious, pan-religious celebration of our mixed feelings for the season--in this perfect world, there is a light-up plastic white bull, with red christmas lights wrapped tightly around its neck, spilling light-up gore onto the snow. And perhaps a small hamster with a butcher knife.

[AnthonyByakko]

For Rei

Listen, just because you're a poor loser is no reason to keep griping.

Poor loser? I really don't understand. Are you saying that I am "poor", as in, lacking in material wealth? Or that I am a "poor" loser, in that I have a bad attitude towards losing - in which case, what have I lost? Really Rei, maybe you should switch from decaffe.

That comment was more facetious than anything.

And, to be honest, your idea of giftmas is just as much a corruption of the pagan feast as the Christian one. Actually, it's an even bigger corruption because at least the Christians maintained the religious aspect of that time of year.

Proof please.

The purpose of the pagan tradition was not to use up as much of their resources as possible. As you said, it is a time to celebrate hope and prosperity. Materialism undermines prosperity by negating it and putting people into debt, plus the constant greed making a perpetual circle of wanting more. The Christians also believe in hope and a further future prosperity, that is, Salvation. Either way, materialism is no closer to the original intent of the pagan traditions than Christmas. It makes no sense to say that the Christians should stay out of Christmas.

I never said the purpose of the pagan tradition was to use up their resources. Secondly, I think you need a refresher - materialism =/= putting people into debt; materialism =/= greed. Materialism is believing that the material/products/services available for mankind can improve man's quality of life. It makes perfect sense than, that a holiday originally celebrating earthly, worldly life would become a holiday celebrating materialism - the idea that life on earth can be fulfilling, satisfying and worthwhile. Christians believe the only fulfillment, the only satisfaction one can have is in death - in the possible life after this definite one. It follows logically then, that Christianity has no business in a worldly, earthly holiday.

[Eaquae Legit]

Christians believe the only fulfillment, the only satisfaction one can have is in death - in the possible life after this definite one. It follows logically then, that Christianity has no business in a worldly, earthly holiday.

This Christian believes that the mortal life can be quite fulfilling indeed. If God created matter and said it was good (not to start the "creation" debate again), then who am I to argue? I have a good life, I can't lie, and I don't think God expects me to go live in the desert and be a flagellant.

The afterlife is one I expect to be quite good, but that doesn't mean this one can't be good, too. When I die, God will be calling me to him. Seeing as he hasn't done this yet, I expect I'm still supposed to be here. And here ain't too bad. I'm pretty satisfied as I am.

And if that makes me materialist, I don't particularly care.

And I want a light-up Mithrain bull.

[Rei]

Christians believe the only fulfillment, the only satisfaction one can have is in death - in the possible life after this definite one. It follows logically then, that Christianity has no business in a worldly, earthly holiday.

Okay, I think we have some mis-communication here. Since when are all Christians nihilists? Last I checked we were supposed to serve God as well as we can here, which is what we will do in Heaven, only better. Instead we, Christians, are called to be stewards of God's creation (this goes into taking care of the earth, including gathering plants and animals for food, but not to excess). That means we should enjoy what we have been given and thank God for it. That is far different than the gnostic view you just offered, which is indeed heterodoxical.

And I would argue that greed and debt are inevitable when materialism in our society is praised. Just look at any advert which says that what you have is not good enough and shows you what you lack, and how this is the basis of most adverts. Maybe the ideal does not require greed and debt, but the reality can not escape it, least of all when it is celebrated.

[AnthonyByakko]

And I would argue that greed and debt are inevitable when materialism in our society is praised.

You would - and you would be wrong. Again, materialism =/= greed. Greed = the irrational pursuit of the accumulation of wealth/property in the false belief that it will make one happy. Materialism = the collection of useful/necessary goods and services to make life more comfortable, easier and more enjoyable; also, the idea that man's material (his creations) have great importance to human life. Just because advertising preys on the stupid and weak-minded that will purchase something because they say to purchase it does not derail the good of materialism. They are making a profit from people that would have foolishly (i.e., greedily) spent their money on something they didn't need anyways. That's being clever and knowing your demographic, not being greedy. If companies weren't making money, we wouldn't have jobs. We wouldn't make money. We wouldn't be able to buy what we needed, let alone what we wanted, in addition to what we want to give to others. Christmas is a thoroughly materialistic holiday, and it shouldn't be perceived as anything else.

[AnthonyByakko]

Christians believe the only fulfillment, the only satisfaction one can have is in death - in the possible life after this definite one. It follows logically then, that Christianity has no business in a worldly, earthly holiday.

This Christian believes that the mortal life can be quite fulfilling indeed. If God created matter and said it was good (not to start the "creation" debate again), then who am I to argue? I have a good life, I can't lie, and I don't think God expects me to go live in the desert and be a flagellant.

I for one don't think there was ever a debate about creation in the first place. Those who believe a god created all life and those who believe life evolved from inorganic material, which was created in a cosmic explosion, are not in opposing camps. The former simply think they are - and are being oppressed or stifled by the latter. Evolution is fact, and creation stories as interpreted literally are fairy tales (as bizarre and absurd as any tribalistic creation story). The protracted forms of creation - that god acted through the scientific processes we know - have no conflict with the said processes. They merely seek to ask "why" and "who", whereas the scientific facts address the "how", "when", and "where."

As for the whole unconquered sun thing, I really don't care which pagan holiday the idea of Christmas is based on - just that it's not Christianity, and that it currently is a modern American ideal that has nothing to do with religion.

[Eaquae Legit]

I for one don't think there was ever a debate about creation in the first place. Those who believe a god created all life and those who believe life evolved from inorganic material, which was created in a cosmic explosion, are not in opposing camps. The former simply think they are - and are being oppressed or stifled by the latter. Evolution is fact, and creation stories as interpreted literally are fairy tales. The protracted forms of creation - that god acted through the scientific processes we know - have no conflict with the said processes. They merely seek to ask "why" and "who", whereas the scientific facts address the "how", "when", and "where."

That works for me. I forgot who was arguing what in that other thread, so I figured I should qualify my statement. For once I think we might actually agree on something. (I think I need another drink now...)

As for the whole unconquered sun thing, I really don't care which pagan holiday the idea of Christmas is based on - just that it's not Christianity, and that it currently is a modern American ideal that has nothing to do with religion.

And I was just being humorous.

Seriously though, I think a lot of the problem here is that we're talking past each other. Working from entirely different definitions of the word "materialism." Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying it is "The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life," right? Whereas most of the other people on this thread are using the definition "Preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values."

As you define it, the word carries no stigma, especially if you believe in the definition. Those arguing in the latter definition find the "preoccupation" to be less healthy. And since we're using different definitions, we'll never agree.

I don't see why Christians need to give up public celebration, simply because Christmas has evolved into a secular-friendly celebration. Freedom FROM religion I can understand - no one should be forced to celebrate a religious holiday (or any holiday, for that matter). But they shouldn't be forced to give up their celebrations either. Neither should Jews or Muslims or whoever. Everyone's entitled to their display of tacky light-up religious symbols.

I suppose when I think about it, I almost celebrate Christmas in two entirely separate ways. There's my religious celebration, which begins four Sundays before the actual day and continues roughly two weeks after, and there's the warm-fuzzy family celebration that carries little religious significance. The religious celebration is quite a big deal to me - I love Advent, it's possibly my favourite time of year. Christmas mass is joyful in a way I can't adequately describe. The "material" celebration with my family is also joyful, and we do it because it's the season and why shouldn't we? I don't think there's an automatic connection for me between the religious and the not-religious celebrations, except that they happen to fall on the same day.

I don't have any problem with non-Christians celebrating on that day with their non-religious celebrations. Peace, family, and a good turkey dinner are good things.

And now I'll be honest and say it's late and I've had way too much caffiene and I've entirely lost my train of thought. Maybe I can pick it up again later.

[AnthonyByakko]

I for one don't think there was ever a debate about creation in the first place. Those who believe a god created all life and those who believe life evolved from inorganic material, which was created in a cosmic explosion, are not in opposing camps. The former simply think they are - and are being oppressed or stifled by the latter. Evolution is fact, and creation stories as interpreted literally are fairy tales. The protracted forms of creation - that god acted through the scientific processes we know - have no conflict with the said processes. They merely seek to ask "why" and "who", whereas the scientific facts address the "how", "when", and "where."

That works for me. I forgot who was arguing what in that other thread, so I figured I should qualify my statement. For once I think we might actually agree on something. (I think I need another drink now...)

It's funny. I found myself a lot more agreeable (if that's possible) when I quit drinking.

Seriously though, I think a lot of the problem here is that we're talking past each other. Working from entirely different definitions of the word "materialism." Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying it is "The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life," right? Whereas most of the other people on this thread are using the definition "Preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values."

That seems to be correct. A preoccupation with something is usually never healthy. I would posit that a healthy person would have well rounded interest in materialism, intellectual enrichment and personal spiritual enlightenment.

I don't see why Christians need to give up public celebration,

They can celebrate if they wish, as they wish - I would never contest their right to do so. But their displays have no place on public domain. If they want to delude themselves (speaking to the general congregation and not the enlightened few who understand the distinction we agreed upon regarding creation) into celebrating a birthday on the wrong day, they are welcome to do so. I do not dispute that Jesus was a real person, who was physically born, and that people have the right to worship (however wrong they might be) his birth on the day they choose (even if it's not the day of his birth.)

Freedom FROM religion I can understand - no one should be forced to celebrate a religious holiday (or any holiday, for that matter). But they shouldn't be forced to give up their celebrations either. Neither should Jews or Muslims or whoever. Everyone's entitled to their display of tacky light-up religious symbols.

Of course. Gaudy displays of one's religious affiliations are a centerpiece of religion. I mean, how will anyone know you're a Christian if you don't have a 500 watt light-up baby Jesus? I mean, it's not like you can just life a life exemplifying the ideals of the real person Jesus of Nazareth, spreading the same kind of message he did, and showing people you are Christ-like, right?

The point is that people will do what they want - regardless of the absurdity of the notion; I just refuse to accept all this "reason for the season" tripe, and belief that no one else should be duped into believing it either. I believe in the nobility of the true reason for Christmas - materialism, as I have defined it, including rational self-interest in one's own personal life, and the lives of the people they care about and are integral to their own life.

{...} The "material" celebration with my family is also joyful, and we do it because it's the season and why shouldn't we?

Exactly. I respect those who can draw distinction between their religious/spiritual ideals and the secular common-traditions. Giftgiving ala Christmas reinforces the Western ideals of sharing abundance, and revelling in the existance of abundance. It is not a celebration of greed, but a festival of Western accomplishment.

I don't have any problem with non-Christians celebrating on that day with their non-religious celebrations. Peace, family, and a good turkey dinner are good things.

The only difference then, between yourself and I, is that I believe the non-Christian tradition to be the "reason for the season", and the most integral part of the spirt of the day, and you believe that your religious holiday (as you mentioned, an almost "seperate" concept entirely) is such.

[Eaquae Legit]

It's funny. I found myself a lot more agreeable (if that's possible) when I quit drinking.

I'm a happy drunk. Actually, I'm not drunk. But if we're... agreeing... I think I might need to be.

That seems to be correct. A preoccupation with something is usually never healthy. I would posit that a healthy person would have well rounded interest in materialism, intellectual enrichment and personal spiritual enlightenment.

Sounds like an okay balance. I like this world. Material things are good to appreciate. Bad to fixate on, but good to appreciate.

They can celebrate if they wish, as they wish - I would never contest their right to do so. But their displays have no place on public domain. If they want to delude themselves (speaking to the general congregation and not the enlightened few who understand the distinction we agreed upon regarding creation) into celebrating a birthday on the wrong day, they are welcome to do so. I do not dispute that Jesus was a real person, who was physically born, and that people have the right to worship (however wrong they might be) his birth on the day they choose (even if it's not the day of his birth.)

I don't find anything wrong with people being able to celebrate publicly. As long as no one gets told they can't celebrate their "reason for the season" publicly. You let me put up my light-up mithras bull, and I let you put up whatever display you might want to celebrate the success of capitalism and materialism. (As an aside, here's an interesting theory as to why we celebrate on the day we do - and it's not just because it was the feast of Mithras. I have to do a bit more research before I can be totally satisfied with the arguments, but it's worth checking out.)

Of course. Gaudy displays of one's religious affiliations are a centerpiece of religion. I mean, how will anyone know you're a Christian if you don't have a 500 watt light-up baby Jesus? I mean, it's not like you can just life a life exemplifying the ideals of the real person Jesus of Nazareth, spreading the same kind of message he did, and showing people you are Christ-like, right?

Of course!

The point is that people will do what they want - regardless of the absurdity of the notion; I just refuse to accept all this "reason for the season" tripe, and belief that no one else should be duped into believing it either. I believe in the nobility of the true reason for Christmas - materialism, as I have defined it, including rational self-interest in one's own personal life, and the lives of the people they care about and are integral to their own life.

If that's your reason for the season, go right ahead. I'm secure enough in my own celebration to not care if someone else celebrates for a different reason. My Christmas is the "Christ Mass," and for me, that's the nobility of the season. Presents and such are a nice addition, though I don't celebrate them for themselves.

Exactly. I respect those who can draw distinction between their religious/spiritual ideals and the secular common-traditions. Giftgiving ala Christmas reinforces the Western ideals of sharing abundance, and revelling in the existance of abundance. It is not a celebration of greed, but a festival of Western accomplishment.

Well, I celebrate the fun of making my friends and family smile - a lot of my gifts this year were handmade. I guess I can go with the "sharing abundance" thing, though I don't really celebrate Western accomplishment in itself.

The only difference then, between yourself and I, is that I believe the non-Christian tradition to be the "reason for the season", and the most integral part of the spirt of the day, and you believe that your religious holiday (as you mentioned, an almost "seperate" concept entirely) is such.

Pretty much, yep.

[jotabe]

For Jota

Maybe your straw man would look better in a cornfield.

You're allowed to celebrate whatever you want, whenever you want. However, if you wish to not be a f***ing hypocrite in the process, you and your religion might want to check yourselves. You're allowed to make public displays - on your own f***ing property, and nowhere else. You're allowed to be preachy - to people that want to hear it. Maybe your definition of freedom is broken. Don't question my allegiance to liberty when the only ammo you've got is that I don't like to hear a bunch of BS about fake Christian holidays.

How does celebrating something in the day we want makes us hypocrites? Good PR is hypocrisy now? The only reason you have to say Christmas is fake holiday is because we celebrate "the coming of God to Earth" in the wrong day? What about the celebration of his resurrection? We celebrate it every single sunday!

When has anyone violated your property to preach you, whitout you allowing them to? Saying your oppinions in public display is freedom of speech, you know. Not only in our private property, but also in the public areas: like streets, squares, etc.
And excuse me if i offended you, but i will question your allegiance to liberty whenever you appear to defend a totalitarian model of society. Totalitarianism takes several shapes, be very aware of it.

Preach and celebrate Giftsmas all you want; it is your right as citizen. But don't tell us we don't have the right to do exactly the same thing.

In short, Christians have no business in Christmas.

Because that's what you were saying, no strawman here.

[Locke_]

People can look at Christmas however they want. As a Christian, although I do the gift-exchange and less religious things, I look at Christmas as the annual celebration of one of the wonderful moments that forms the basis of my faith.