donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Dec 22, 2005 10:40:19 GMT -5
A better history of the holiday commonly called "Christmas": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#The_origins_of_ChristmasAs well as the Roman festival Saturnalia that it's mostly based on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaturnaliaAbout the only Christmas traditions that are actually "Christian" in origin are Nativity Scenes and Caroling. Just about everything else - gift giving, mistletoe, evergreen trees, even the man now called "Santa Claus" - have completely pagan origins in which there's honestly nothing Christian about the creation of any of them. And as a non-Christian myself, I now prefer to call the holiday the "Yuletide" because it's the only commonly used name that actually acknowledges in any way the holiday's true pagan roots, without which, we wouldn't have this great holiday: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YuletideAs for the whole "Happy Holidays" controversy. First, the word " Holiday" is a contraction of the words "Holy" and "Day" so it's not anti-religious as blowhards like Bill O'Reilly seem to think. And it's a much shorter greeting to simply say "Have a Happy Holidays" instead of saying "Have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Yuletide, or Happy Solstice" so just as a convenient cover-every-holy-day greeting, there's nothing wrong with it. However, I don't like the Political Correctness of forcing people to use it either and think people should say whichever greeting is appropriate to his/her own beliefs or celebration. So anyone hearing any holiday greeting (such as "Merry Christmas") shouldn't be knee-jerk offended by it - that's what being "tolerant" actually means: "tolerating" things you don't agree with or believe. If the person hearing the greeting isn't Christian - big deal, he/she should just reply in a greeting appropriate to what he/she believes. (For example, when people say "Merry Christmas" to me, I just say "Happy Yuletide" in response). This P.C. side is hardly new, though. South Park's 1997 Xmas episode was about this very same issue, and I remember when I worked at Disney during December in 1987 - almost 2 decades ago - we were told to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". This corporate practice is not something new at all, as Bill O'Reilly makes it out to be. So due to the timing, I think Bill O'Reilly and other Right-Wingers have brought up this campaign against "Happy Holidays" as way to just blow smoke in order to get people riled up over what's actually a rather minor issue so that the people don't think about more important issues of the day, like the costly mess the Bush Administration has made in Iraq. Anyway, that's my view and let me wish a Happy Yuletide to everyone!
|
|
|
Post by CBG on Dec 22, 2005 10:51:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 22, 2005 13:32:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the input, Don. Opinions like yours are why I started this thread. I wanted to hear where people are at on this whole thing.
While I'm normally a stickler for history and origins, I fail to see how they lessen the importance of the Christmas holiday or why Christians celebrate.
If I understand the argument correctly, it says to pro-Christmas folks, "why are you whining about the secularization of Christmas when it's been secular (pagan) all along?"
The problem is that while the origins may be pagan, the reason is still central to the Christian faith, and the above argument does nothing to speak to that.
The disconnect occurs because the attacks on Christmas (however widespread or intentional they may be*) aren't against Santa or Herbie the misfit elf or mistletoe or any other secular traditions. They're against nativity scenes, religious carols, the word "Christ" (see also "Xmas"), and the decidedly non-pagan elements of the holiday**. So the reasoning of "it's all pagan, get over it" simply makes no sense.
*admittedly, probably much less widespread and intentional than Gibson & O'Reilly want to believe.
**since I know someone (mummi) will probably ask for evidence of such attacks, I refer you back to previous pages, especially the educational double-standard of religious tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by In_Stereo on Dec 22, 2005 15:10:22 GMT -5
And as a non-Christian myself, I now prefer to call the holiday the "Yuletide" because it's the only commonly used name that actually acknowledges in any way the holiday's true pagan roots, without which, we wouldn't have this great holiday: No, you "wouldn't have this great holiday" without Christ... you get it? Christ? Christmas? Without the Christian holiday, the pagans would be long forgotten. You could have made your point without pissing on my religion and saying it's not really our holiday.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 22, 2005 15:28:00 GMT -5
And you could have made your point without the name calling.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 22, 2005 18:53:55 GMT -5
So in the midst of all this polarizing talk, where do I fit in? I'm a Christian, I celebrate Christmas for its Christian significance. But I also recognize the historical mix of it as a tradition. But like Mr. A says, I don't really see that as a problem. Our history is mixed with all kinds of traditions. Look at the way the early Christians employed Greek philosophical terms and other pagan ways of thought to explain their tradition. It also obviously depends on earlier Judaic writings and theology. So the mix can be there, but it isn't a challenge. But by the same token, you don't have to defend its purity, since the holiday tradition was never anything "pure" at any point.
In other words, I just don't understand that part of the argument as it's been presented from either side.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Dec 22, 2005 19:50:03 GMT -5
And as a non-Christian myself, I now prefer to call the holiday the "Yuletide" because it's the only commonly used name that actually acknowledges in any way the holiday's true pagan roots, without which, we wouldn't have this great holiday: No, you "wouldn't have this great holiday" without Christ... you get it? Christ? Christmas? Without the Christian holiday, the pagans would be long forgotten. You could have made your point without pissing on my religion and saying it's not really our holiday. Asshole. Your obxious tone is pissing on religion that predates your own. The fact is, this holiday wouldn't exist without the ancient pagan religions. The Christian church tried to stamp this annual festival out for over 300 years before finally giving up and declaring it "Jesus' birthday". The attempt to completely Christianize it failed, though - for instance, how many people celebrating the holiday actually go to church on Dec. 25th (i.e. the "Mass" part of the name Christ mas)? A distinct minority, that's who. The pagan traditions are like the voodoo practices that persist in Christianized countries in the Caribbean - they just get mixed in with the new religion, but they don't go away. Any Christian unwilling to accept the pagan origins of the vast majority of the Christmas traditions should stop celebrating the holiday, just like a lot of Christian denomations already refuse to do. (Jehovah's Witnesses, for one, who refuse to celebrate the holiday because it's "pagan".)
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Dec 22, 2005 20:04:34 GMT -5
If I understand the argument correctly, it says to pro-Christmas folks, "why are you whining about the secularization of Christmas when it's been secular (pagan) all along?" The problem is that while the origins may be pagan, the reason is still central to the Christian faith, and the above argument does nothing to speak to that. The disconnect occurs because the attacks on Christmas (however widespread or intentional they may be*) aren't against Santa or Herbie the misfit elf or mistletoe or any other secular traditions. They're against nativity scenes, religious carols, the word "Christ" (see also "Xmas"), and the decidedly non-pagan elements of the holiday**. So the reasoning of "it's all pagan, get over it" simply makes no sense. Christmas has been secularized for a long time, even when people are unaware of the true roots of the holiday. However, Xmas, contrary to some opinions, is not an attempt to "X" out the name "Christ". It's an abbreviation of the name, from the original Greek, that was used in the early church: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas(I've also heard the "X" represents the cross, tilted over, but this Wikipedia article says that's an unsubstantiated claim.)
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 22, 2005 22:02:43 GMT -5
While what you say about the Greek "X" or chi is true, many people, incorrectly, still use "X-mas" so that they don't have to invoke the religious meaning. They're facts are wrong, but the intention can still be there.
(By the by, I used x-mas in my temporary name because the full word won't fit...and the word mummifiedstalin is obviously more important than the word "Christ"...obviously)
I think part of this discussion is difficult because individuals can celebrate the holiday for all kinds of good and bad reasons. The question, I think, is how it's starting to be seen by the culture as a whole. And even there, we can be talking about majority viewpoint, the media, the *vocal* majority viewpoint, etc.
You can find examples of people complaining that Christmas has lost its original meaning whenever. Dickens even wrote a story about it. It's nothing new. What might be new is the scope or the reason: For a long time, people complained that it was too commercial or materialistic. Now, I think the issues have more to do with diversity and the perceived attack on it in the name of diversity. That, I think, while not necessarily new, certainly has more emphasis lately.
And, don, I don't think people have to stop celebrating Christmas if they don't do full historical research on it and acknowledge all its permutations. Obviously, the Bible doesn't mention Christmas trees or Santa Claus. But I don't think many people think that all of the traditions are original to the birth of Christ. After all, if people celebrate it with the goal of celebrating the birth of Jesus, then no matter what traditions they're borrowing, they're still celebrating the birth of Jesusif they're doing it in his name.
Christmas in different countries is different, anyway. The way we celebrate is different from much of Latin America, different from how it's celebrated in Christian Asia, different even in parts of Europe. So it's not the particular traditions that are really the issue. I don't think that showing that it's borrowed from other traditionsmakes it somehow insincere.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Dec 23, 2005 11:35:43 GMT -5
And, don, I don't think people have to stop celebrating Christmas if they don't do full historical research on it and acknowledge all its permutations. Obviously, the Bible doesn't mention Christmas trees or Santa Claus. But I don't think many people think that all of the traditions are original to the birth of Christ. After all, if people celebrate it with the goal of celebrating the birth of Jesus, then no matter what traditions they're borrowing, they're still celebrating the birth of Jesus if they're doing it in his name. Christmas in different countries is different, anyway. The way we celebrate is different from much of Latin America, different from how it's celebrated in Christian Asia, different even in parts of Europe. So it's not the particular traditions that are really the issue. I don't think that showing that it's borrowed from other traditionsmakes it somehow insincere. Don't misunderstand me, I have no problems with how people choose to interpret traditions, whether in new ways or old ways. I'm just saying the pagan roots of the holiday traditions are a given fact, and any Christian who doesn't like that fact should stop celebrating the holiday, plain and simple. Denying these facts does not make them any less true. So for someone to claim that mentioning the facts about the origin of the holiday is "pissing on Christianity" is someone who is in denial - not a good thing when you don't live in Egypt - and is someone who obviously has problems when facts conflict with his world view.
|
|
|
Post by In_Stereo on Dec 23, 2005 12:27:12 GMT -5
No, you "wouldn't have this great holiday" without Christ... you get it? Christ? Christmas? Without the Christian holiday, the pagans would be long forgotten. You could have made your point without pissing on my religion and saying it's not really our holiday. Your obxious tone is pissing on religion that predates your own. The fact is, this holiday wouldn't exist without the ancient pagan religions. The Christian church tried to stamp this annual festival out for over 300 years before finally giving up and declaring it "Jesus' birthday". The attempt to completely Christianize it failed, though - for instance, how many people celebrating the holiday actually go to church on Dec. 25th (i.e. the "Mass" part of the name Christ mas)? A distinct minority, that's who. The pagan traditions are like the voodoo practices that persist in Christianized countries in the Caribbean - they just get mixed in with the new religion, but they don't go away. Any Christian unwilling to accept the pagan origins of the vast majority of the Christmas traditions should stop celebrating the holiday, just like a lot of Christian denomations already refuse to do. (Jehovah's Witnesses, for one, who refuse to celebrate the holiday because it's "pagan".) I see, so what you're saying is that even if Jesus never existed, this holiday would still be intact. Why? Have you heard from any ancient pagans recently?
|
|
|
Post by In_Stereo on Dec 23, 2005 12:34:28 GMT -5
And BTW, as for "how many people celebrating the holiday actually go to church on Dec. 25th," you'd be surprised. There are many Christians who never go to church except on Christmas and Easter. On a normal Sunday, you could safely herd elephants through a church, but at all six Christmas masses it's standing room only. Swear.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 23, 2005 14:14:20 GMT -5
And BTW, as for "how many people celebrating the holiday actually go to church on Dec. 25th," you'd be surprised. There are many Christians who never go to church except on Christmas and Easter. On a normal Sunday, you could safely herd elephants through a church, but at all six Christmas masses it's standing room only. Swear. I can vouch for that. In the business, we call them "Cheasters" (pronounced keisters), and we always look forward to Christmas and Easter services because we know we'll have Cheasters in the seats. Those services have anywhere from a 25-50% increase in attendance.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 23, 2005 16:23:26 GMT -5
And BTW, as for "how many people celebrating the holiday actually go to church on Dec. 25th," you'd be surprised. There are many Christians who never go to church except on Christmas and Easter. On a normal Sunday, you could safely herd elephants through a church, but at all six Christmas masses it's standing room only. Swear. I can vouch for that. In the business, we call them "Cheasters" (pronounced keisters), and we always look forward to Christmas and Easter services because we know we'll have Cheasters in the seats. Those services have anywhere from a 25-50% increase in attendance. Do they always put a little extra in the basket out of guilt?
|
|
|
Post by In_Stereo on Dec 23, 2005 17:06:09 GMT -5
I can vouch for that. In the business, we call them "Cheasters" (pronounced keisters), and we always look forward to Christmas and Easter services because we know we'll have Cheasters in the seats. Those services have anywhere from a 25-50% increase in attendance. Do they always put a little extra in the basket out of guilt? These people come to church so rarely that when someone hands them the basket, they say, "Oh, no thank you, that's awfully nice of you."
|
|