And Merry Christmas isn’t even necessarily christian so the connotation shouldn’t even be there.
Technically the word "Christmas" means Christ Mass and it (the word) is nothing BUT christian.
quote:Christ·mas -noun 1. the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts.
Or that we can’t use a greeting with a religious connotation.
So you DO agree that it is a religious greeting and has not been secularized as the rest of your rant suggests. You can't have it both ways, as that is the logical fallacy of equivocation.
It is either devoid of all religious connotations or it is a religious greeting.
Its impractical because it’s a greeting . they aren’t there to have a conversation with you to determine your religious beliefs.
Which is precisely WHY saying "happy holidays" is a preferable greeting, it covers all the bases and doesn't offend anyone -- except those that want to force people to use "merry christmas" ... and that take offense at not being recognized for being the blatant on-the-sleeve christian they want everyone to see.
If Wal*Mart forced their employees to say “Merry Christmas” then that would be fucking retarded too.
I'm not talking about walmart but Bill O'Riley and his ilk that have created this whole false "war" by playing up every little slight to christians they can find (walmart being one, the Daily Show being another) whether factual or not (Bill O'Riley has never been hampered by facts before, why start now?).
It's the old poor martyred christian guilt trip passive aggressive non-sense, and it is being repeated year after year NOT because of "politically correct" leftwing "nutjobs" but because of certified nutjobs like O'Riley and his ilk that want to feel smug, secure and superior about being poor persecuted christians.
It is happening every year NOT because people are "outlawing" celebrations of christmas but because people like O'Riley want to make "merry christmas" with all it's religious connotations (and false christian baggage) the "greeting" of record (not choice).
Why do you see it that way? I don’t see how this is forcing religious views. If a Mexican says “Hola” to me am I suppose to get offended because he is forcing his language on me?
"Hola" is hello. Secular. It is not "have a merry christ mass" - a wishing of a merry time at a specifically christian religious ceremony in honor of a specifically christian icon.
AND because it is just one more example in a LONG line, where christianity has tried to take over celebrations of other cultures and other religious celebrations and bury them while pretending to be the reason for celebrations that are going on.
It's more like white folk complaining of discrimination than any real "war" on "christmas" imh(ysa)o.
(to schraf) How many non-christians celebrate christmas every year? Lets just say ”lots’. You don’t have to be christian to celebrate christmas so there is no assumtion necessary in the greeting.
What non-christians celebrate is family and feasts, and exchange of gifts and good wishes ... things that "belong" to no religion, but to friendship, sense of community, and (real) family values.
What many non-christians celebrate is a yule time festival with a yule tree, mistletoe, wreaths and decorations ... these things are NOT christian, and have nothing to do with christianity (but calling this celebration "christmas" is trying to force a christian patina onto a non-christian celebration - the proper name is yuletime).
What some non-christians also celebrate is a myth about an elf king and magic flying reindeer, another childhood story, much like Hansel and Gretal, that we outgrow as we become older, more educated and more aware of the realities of the world. The name of this "king" is Santa Claus - a name derived from the dutch colonists Sinter Klaus, or Saint Nick, a mythological character from pre-medieval (greek) christianity, but "Santa Claus" has evolved\morphed over the years to be a not-necessarily-christian mythology of magic and wonder. Recent additions are "Rudolf" - a reindeer that not only flies, but has a curious mutation on his nose that makes it glow like a run-away nuclear reactor. These elements of elfs and magic are decidedly NOT christian eh?
What exactly does this holiday have to do with christianity?
(1) Celebration of the birth of christ?
Christ (if a real person) was born in late march or early april, based on "evidence" in the bible. Is "celebrating" it on the 25th of December just an arbitrary thing to do with no basis in reality?
No. NOBODY celebrates a birthday 3 or 4 months out of synch with reality. The real reason to celebrate at that time is to "cover" (ie wage war) on the existing yule time celebrations.
This is part of the "war" that christianity has waged on other beliefs for many many centuries. There are many examples of this kind of thing. Bill O'Riley is just a more recent example of the "war" being waged BY christianity.
Conclusion: December 25th has NOTHING to do with christianity. NADA. ZILCH. ZIP. ZERO.
So don't tell me that a greeting wishing me to hold a mass in honor of christian icon that has been set up specifically to subvert a winter holiday has anything to do with these elements of yule time celebrations, when it is really part of the christian "war" on yuletime.
That this holiday has anything to do with christianity is a lie. Let's be honest about it and lose the false greeting as well. Merry Yuletime. Happy Holidays. Joyous Solestice. Whatever.
I don’t see how this is forcing religious views.
If you still think that then you are blind, deaf, in denial, and willfully ignorant.
Personally I think the "holiday" has become a celebration of american crassness, ignorance, hypocrisy, corporate greed, blatant consumerism, and one-up-manship displays.
If you want to say that christianity = crassness I won't stop you, but I would think that honest christians would (a) stop telling the lie that "christ" was born on dec 25th and (b) stop complaining about some false "war" on christianity.
My point is that having citizenship does not automatically mean having patriotism, or following the law of the land does not force a person to admire the morality of a law.
I've read a number of your posts on this thread about citizenship, patriotism and the "in god we trust" issue.
Do you think that person {A} is a {better citizen \ more patriotic} if they support the original values and ideals of the founding fathers, as expressed in the constitution and the declaration of independence above ALL other values for the running of their country, ...
... or that person {B} is a {better citizen \ more patriotic} if they put their religious views first and the original values and ideals of the founding fathers second for the running of their country, willing to sacrifice both the constitution and the declaration of independence whenever it conflicts with their religious views?
Message 34 I just like insulting liberals. I think its fun and its easy to get a rise out of them. Some of the stuff I post on the internets is total bullshit. Semi-trolling, engaging people. I hope you can tell when I’m being serious and when I’m not, but probably not always.
This is such a good basis for honest debate. I guess this means we can't really trust a thing you say as being an honest statement of your personal position eh?
Can you demonstrate that anything you say should be taken as an honest position?
I do find liberals to be really annoying though.
Especially when they are right and you just can't admit being wrong.
No wonder the RW NJ’s want to “take back” christmas. At least it might become respectable again.
December in reality has nothing to do with the christian "celebration" mythos to begin with, so there is nothing to "take back" - if you disagree, then show me the evidence: historical documentation of some part of the "christmas story" that shows actual records with correlations to some december date.
Why should there be "respect" for a mythos adapted, altered or made up to cover the hi-jacking of some other cultural celebration(s)?
If you want respect for a christian celebration then stop spreading falsehoods and start basing it on reality: stop telling kids (etc) that december 25th is when christ was born, because that certainly is not so.
No, not when they think government should be run to their religious views over and above those of the founding fathers and that the constitution and declaration of independence should be abandoned or revised when they are in conflict with the religious views.
You are perfectly within your rights to lead YOUR LIFE according to your religious beliefs, but you are NOT within your rights to subvert this country to them, whatever they are.
Subversion of the constitution is treason eh?
That is the essence of reason for the separation of church and state.
For example, Martin Luther King Jr.
I am not aware of MLK advocating running the country according to his religious beliefs above those of the constitution or declaration of independence, but rather of running it according to those ideals being applied to all people: the ideals of equality, liberty, justice and freedom.
Of course you could correct me with specific quotes. Try the "I have a dream" speech.
It is IMO an admirable thing also to adhere to a moral standard that you feel is important in spite of ANY constitution or declaration.
Now we move from "war" on christmas past the issue of which values are and are not {patriotic\citizenship} ones to the issue of what is morality and where does it come from.
Given that all people have morals, no matter what culture they come from and what their beliefs are, there is no possible claim for any religious (or non-) set of belief to have any significant increment of an iota of moral superiority to any other group.
But even if there were, this would still only be a basis for personal behavior and NOT for forcing this country to conform to it whether people wanted to or not - it is not a basis for running this country in conformance to those {undefined "moral" value) views over and above those of the founding fathers or that the constitution and declaration of independence should be abandoned or revised when they are in conflict with the {undefined "moral" value) views.
Personal values are the basis for personal behavior.
Public values are the basis for the population as a whole, with ALL the different personal values involved, to run their governments.
Thus the values of the public as a whole are the basis of govenrment, and in America, those values are freedom, equality, justice, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc: the ones this country were founded on.
Included in that is the freedom (dragging this discussion kicking and screaming back to the topic) to discuss the falseness of the christian "mythos" having any real relationship to december (to say nothing of the 25th) and to point out that it is christians waging a "war" on other cultural beliefs and traditions and trying to make these other cultural beliefs and traditions become subverted by christianity.
Again, you can show I am incorrect by showing some real connection between this christian "mythos" and december. Try the date of a real possible birthday for starters, use whatever source you think is appropriate.
If a person is lucky enough to live in a country which upholds these values and if he is able to take the oath of office in good conscience, I can't conceive of any reason why he would subvert a nation to a relgious view.
If a person is elected or ascends to a position where the laws he will be upholding deny the above values, he may be wise to refuse the office or yes, monstrosity of all monstrosities, take some steps to revising the institution.
Neither of these are person {B}
This is what MLK did. His views may not have been contradictory to the constitution, but he did point out the discrepencies in the values of this country and the personal values of the founding fathers.
So MLK is not a person {B} either.
You have not refuted the point that person {B} is willing if not happy to commit treason (subvert the constitution) to advance his religious beliefs.
This country has always been about seperating church and state. There are a few elected officials who feel they must put personal views aside when it comes to things like abortion or cloning.
And there are those that don't. Like schwubbia putting his beliefs regarding stem cell research above the liberty and freedom of families to let doctors do research with fetal stem cells rather than be thrown out.
If we chose to take God out of the equation,
Why do christians always use this phrase? It seems like they are unable to pour a glass of milk without having god IN the equation.
The declaration and constitution are very clear that this is a government "of the people by the people for the people," that when a government is unjust that it is the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Nowhere does it say "and by the way, here are some religious beliefs that must be included" - the constitution itself is totally silent on the issue of god, and verbose on the running of government.
I don't think there are very many people who actually think Jesus was born on December 25. Even as a little girl I asked my mom 'how do we know'? Who cares? Things evolve. If people want to get all steamy about a 'war' that was over for the most part 1600 years ago, fine.
The point is that it is christians that are the {edit} perpetrators {/edit} if there is any "war" on culture here, and that when it comes to complaining about it they don't have a leg to stand on -- there is nothing that ties christianity to december - it is wholely a christian imposition.
Who cares? I would think anyone interested in the truth would care. Do a google and see what you find -- year and month.
quote:One problem with December is that it would be unusual for shepherds to be "abiding in the field" at this cold time of year when fields were unproductive. The normal practice was to keep the flocks in the fields from Spring to Autumn.
A more probable time would be late September, the time of the annual Feast of Tabernacles, when such travel was commonly accepted. Thus, it is rather commonly believed (though not certain) that Jesus' birth was around the last of September.
So, why was December 25 chosen to remember Jesus Christ's birth with a mass (or Communion supper)? Since no one knows the day of his birth, the Roman Catholic Church felt free to chose this date. The Church wished to replace the pagan festival with a Christian holy day (holiday). The psychology was that is easier to take away an unholy (but traditional) festival from the population, when you can replace it with a good one.
quote:Allowing two months or more for the events between the birth of Christ and the murder of the Innocents by Herod, the Nativity must be put back at least to February or January, 750 AU (or 4 BCE), if not earlier.
After the Solistice, the days begin to get longer ...... and pagan peoples thought that was an indication that the Sun was getting stronger.
Thus, the Winter Solistice became the "birthday" of several gods: Attis, Frey, Thor, Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, Mithra, Tammuz, Cernunnos and so forth. It is a "solar holiday," marking the time that the sun becomes apparently stronger day by day.
Mithra, by the way, was born on December 25, of a virgin. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and magicians [magi]. Mithra raised the dead and healed the sick and cast out demons. He returned to heaven at the spring equinox and before doing so had a last supper with his 12 disciples (representing the 12 signs of the zodiac), eating mizd, a piece of bread marked with a cross (an almost universal symbol of the sun). Any of that sound familiar?
The Christian holiday was not always celebrated on December 25th, however.
For the first three hundred years of the current era, there was no festivity of the birth of Jesus. Some churches celebrated Jesus' birthday in the spring time and some celebrated it on January 6 (Epiphany).
Early in the fourth century, the Roman church decreed that December 25 would henceforth be recognized as the birthday of Christ.
The evidence is that december 25th was intentionally chosen by the leading christian church (catholic) in order to subvert a pagan celebration. One that involves yule trees, yule logs, mistletoe, family feasts, etcetera.
Our laws currently allow for the practice of Saturnalia, Yule, Solstice, or none at all. I have been to Yule celebrations and I see no reason why they can not be celebrated as complimentary to each other.
Good for you, but don't try to tell me that december 25th has anything to do with christianity.
And the values of freedom, equality, liberty and justice have nothing to do with continuing to spread a falsehood eh?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : corrected word
Edited by RAZD, : changed "protagonists" to "perpetrators"
quote:pro·tag·o·nist -noun 1. the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work. 2. a proponent for or advocate of a political cause, social program, etc. 3. the leader or principal person in a movement, cause, etc.
vs
quote:an·tag·o·nist -noun 1. a person who is opposed to, struggles against, or competes with another; opponent; adversary. 2. the adversary of the hero or protagonist of a drama or other literary work: Iago is the antagonist of Othello.
A protagonist is usually seen as the good guy and an antagonist is usually seen as the bad guy (connotations for the words, synonyms), so that makes for problems using these terms here.
You have not refuted the point that person {B} is willing if not happy to commit treason (subvert the constitution) to advance his religious beliefs.
Perhaps I don't care to. Maybe commiting treason is not the biggest crime in the world. If this answer is not a propo, then please rephrase to be more specific.
Previously you said:
Message 67 There is still something to be said for person B.
The question was:
Message 54 Do you think that person {A} is a {better citizen \ more patriotic} if they support the original values and ideals of the founding fathers, as expressed in the constitution and the declaration of independence above ALL other values for the running of their country, ...
... or that person {B} is a {better citizen \ more patriotic} if they put their religious views first and the original values and ideals of the founding fathers second for the running of their country, willing to sacrifice both the constitution and the declaration of independence whenever it conflicts with their religious views?
I will also note that several christian "leaders" like Pat Robertson have advocated ammending the constitution to put the christian religion (their version) in.
I realize these people do not represent all christians.
You have implied or stated that you felt that (all) christians were better citizens or patriots.
What I am showing you is that when they choose their religion over the values of the constitution and declaration of independence for the running of this country that they are NOT being good citizens or patriots.
... especially since most of the earlier celebrations were about the solstice, and science has now proven that to occur on the 20 or 21 of the month on our current calendar.
The current calendar that has been adjusted how many times in the last hundred years? Please. The year also used to start with the spring equinox.
It is interesting and all that good stuff to do the research, but still, who cares?
Yes, because it has become traditional for women to earn less than men for doing the same job, so why should we care about changing that? It's nice to do all that research into the differences in pay scales, but still, they both make money after all eh? Who cares eh?
It is common knowledge that Christmas wasn't in December.
So stop celebrating in december, and tell O'Riley to stuff it with his fake "war" on christmas while you are at it.
... and that some celebrate it on January 7. If it will make you happy I will use that date henceforth.
As long as you find a date that is based on some reality associated with christianity (and has nothing to do with other culture celebrations) I won't fuss. That is my point after all: get it right.
I daresay they could have kept their gods to go along with them if they had wanted.
Do you have any idea how many "heretics" were executed by christians?
Just for not being christian?
People living in theocracies do not get to believe in other religions freely.
This was also carried to this country by the Puritans, where they quickly showed that the oppressed can become the oppressors when they are in control.
The record of christianity is lethal intolerance of other religions. Even of other types of christianity.
It is the American values of freedom, equality, justice and liberty that provide Americans the tolerance to believe what they want.
It is the American values that make America what it is.
No sir. I said that if a particular atheist feels at odds with what he/she feels is the overly deistic nature of this country, that same person MAY not feel patriotic to the same degree as a deist does.
This is the second time I've seen you misuse deist. What you mean is theist. Look them up. Many founding fathers were deists.
Certainly an atheist will not feel patriotic to the theistic values expoused by christian leaders that try to set themselves above the other citizens, but that is no reason to be less patriotic to the American values of equality, liberty, freedom and justice.
In fact when this president seems bent on waging a holy war on the middle east they may be MORE patriotic than those who willingly go off to fight a "crusade" while misusing the name of america.
The views of our founding fathers regarding Catholicism don't inspire me with much fondness.
The founding fathers new first hand the evils of theocracy and what the (catholic) church had become where it held exclusive sway over countries. That did not set them to outlaw the catholic church in the land, just to set up a country where NO church held exclusive sway or even any preferential treatment.
The pilgrims on the other hand felt no such compunction.
Do you have any idea how many "heretics" were executed by christians
Yes. And I know how many Christians were executed by Christians just for not being 'heretics'.
So that this wouldn't happen here.
I do not know O'Riley personally. For all I know there could be a war on Christmas. I don't care how it started,
You don't seem to care about much.
Bill O'Riley brings it up every year, it's part of his hate america show. He's the one who started using this phrase to divide americans.
No, no, no. This is not going to become a one-size fits all argument. I said 'Who cares what day Christmas is celebrated on'?
So you don't feel past injustices should be rectified, therefore you don't think womens wages should be the same as mens because that is the traditional result.
It follows from your position logically.
I don't care how it started, but if someone doesn't want it here now, they are the perpetrators of THIS day and age.
This also means that anyone that wants to rectify wages is a perpetrator of the war on men's wages.
Or do you just not care when you are a beneficiary?
quote:de·ism n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
quote:the·ism n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
Theist is the more general term, Deist is not. A Deist is a Theist but not all Theists are Deists. A Christian is a Theist, but not all Theists are Christians. A Christian (esp those that believe in revelations) is NOT a Deist and a Deist is NOT a Christian.
You can't use deist to mean theist.
Still curious how the 'American values' are any different from Christian values. Please tell me what some of these other 'christian' values may be.
Tell me where you get liberty, freedom and equality as christian values. We can quibble about justice (being stoned to death etc) later.
A beneficiary of what?
Christian intolerance of any other beliefs. The long history of Christian suppression and destruction of other beliefs and cultures.
... is just not IMO as important as say the injustice of stealing land from the Native Americans.
And their culture, language, traditions, beliefs and celebrations. People force to take their culture, language, traditions, beliefs and celebrations underground, hidden beneath a patina of christian facade to survive.
Things change, they can't all be rectified.
So if we just procrastinate and waste enough time we don't need to worry about changing womens wages to match mens for the same job, is that the solution?
Every morning you get up you make a decision on how to live that day.
It is never to late to stop going the wrong way.
I've said my piece to the point of getting repetitious. Either you understand and accept my view or you don't, but I don't think further discussion will produce much difference.
Have a happy (totally secular) new year (based on a totally arbitrary datum).
I used 'deist' purposefully because it is the appropriate word to describe the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. I think RAZD's point was that deism may not be so offensive to atheists as theism is.
No, my point is that I am a Deist and that you are misusing the term. The way you were using it you MEANT theist.
I would prefer if you also do not use the term 'Judeo-Christian-Islamic God' because to claim that all of those religions worship the same God is clearly false.
LOL. The shoe is on the other foot and thou complainest loudly.
"Judeo-Christian-Islamic" religion is the lump grouping for all jewish, christian, and muslim beliefs, including all the subsects and later beliefs such as 7th day adventists, mormons, davidians, etc.
They have all evolved from the same foundation.
There has only been a different usage associated with them since around the 17 century.
Which is long enough to firmly establish different meanings for the words in the way they are used. Perhaps that is WHY there is a distinction between them in the dictionaries eh?
I may say the concept of deism - a God who takes no interest in the affairs of government- is a convenient one for those interested in creating a government which takes no interest in God,
You are putting the cart before the horse. Deism came first, and yes it was the faith of a lot of founding fathers, but not all of them.
And it is not a matter of deism being a concept that god takes no interest in the affairs of government but that {he/she/they/it} do not take any interest in personally interfering in the affairs of man at all, personal or social or government. People are left to use reason instead of blind faith. Free will with no strings.
Perhaps it was "convenient" because it allowed people to think for themselves. Without that kind of freedom, would the declaration of independence have been written? The constitution? Judging from the comments of christians at the time, the answer would be no.
You know the old saying 'no man can serve two masters'?
Which is exactly why those who think government should be run by religious beliefs are traitors to the ideals of this country, and ultimately to the concepts in the declaration of independence and the constitution.
Deism is one specific form of theism, not theism itself. I honestly cannot understand how you could insist that it is.
Would RAZD agree with this?
Seeing as I have previously stated just what dwise1 said, Yes I would agree with him.
I am insisting about is that both words literally mean the same thing.
The may come from similar roots, but the connotations they have acquired since then give them distinct different meanings.
Definitions are not static, they evolve, like all things in human society.
Including religions - hence the differences between judaism, christianity, islam, protestant, baptist, mormon, etcetera beliefs, all derived from the same base, and why they are all part of the judeo-christian-islam "clad" but different from hindu, buddhist, jain, deist etcetera beliefs.
The issue though was whether people should allow their religious beliefs to control their political behavior, or would they sacrifice the american declaration and constitution for their religion.
Given that some people will vote for or against a politician based on what religion the politician belongs to above all other values, ideas and positions that person has, I think the answer is yes.
Personally, I think these people are traitors to the american values in the process. The constitution specifically says there is to be no test for religion for a person to be an elected official:
(color mine for empHASis)
What this means is that christian values (or any other religious values) should NOT be a basis for choosing our elected leaders, rather we should be concerned with their ideas, their programs, their policies and the rationale they give for them, and what they do.
If those ideas, programs, policies and rationales and behavior happen to align with your personal religious beliefs, then fine, but don't make the religious beliefs the paramount reason for selection.
If that is the case, then why would it even matter if I used one word or the other?
Judeo-christian-islamic-mormonist WASP that you are. Do you need more examples?
Because the definition of words is about the communication of meaning. Your usage does NOT match the definition that the REST of the world uses, therefore YOUR usage is MISLEADING: WRONG.
I specifically said 'deist' to avoid the endless examples of how our nation is not theist.
And this totally contradicts your claim that the two words mean the same thing. Now you are equivocating.
Perhaps I am being dense.
Exceptionally. You don't get to chose new definitions for words in common usage.
Look up the words in your dictionary and try substituting the definitions given in your sentence as see which one means what you are trying to say: that is the way you test word usage.
All {A} is {B} does not mean that all {B} is {A} because {A} is a smaller group totally enclosed within {B}.
Like catholic within christian and christian within judeo-christian-islam-etc.
This is the logical fallacy that you keep tripping over - that all {B} is {A}.
Catholics are not deists last time I checked, nor are other branches of christianity or the wider umbrella of judeo-christian-islam-etc. religions.
You yourself noted you did not like what certain Deists had to say about the Catholic religion, thus you do reali
But catholics and deists are theists. This is consistent with the definitions of the words.
Deists and theists both believe in god/s.
So do hindus and catholics, so that makes them identical too?
and catholics and mormons?
and catholics and protestants? -- the ones that couldn't help killing themselves in ireland over the identical quality of their god ("no my god is more like your god than yours is like mine" - is that what it was about)?
You argument has the logic of a subamarine with screen doors.
To say a deist is a type of theist is denying the differences in usage of the words.
To say a deist is a type of theist is the proper usage of both words, no matter how much you keep denying the matter. That is how the dictionaries define the words and how they are used by the rest of the population - or at least the ones interested in properly communication of the ideas they want to express.
Look them up in wikipedia if the dictionary definitions are not concrete enough for you:
SO both came into general usage in English at about the same time, but NOT with the same meaning.
So, I feel it is the same thing if we reverse the order and say a particular subset of theism is part of a very loose def. of 'deism', literally, 'belief in god/s'. Christianity is therefore a form of 'deism'.
This is so only when you exclude part of the definition of deist. That is not "loose" that is incomplete.
Deism specifically excludes all revelations - input from god directly to man, christianity relies on specific revelations - the bible, and that makes the two incompatable at a fundamental level.
™ Version 4.2
