namelesstavern.net

Martrae wrote:I had the Happy Holidays discussion with my MiL while she was here. To me it's always meant Hanukkah, Christmas and New Years. If other people see it as including Kwanzaa or any Winter Solstice or other holiday they like I don't care. It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form.

We've actually been using it in Canada since I was little to mean Christmas and New Years. It isn't until all this secular crap that people here have gotten all uppity about it.

I keep telling people it has nothing to do with slighting Christianity, and more to do with including people. Why be exclusive if you don't have to be.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/


Fascinating site.

That is a really interesting site, Mart. The only thing that's a little meh for me about it are some of the quotes that are pretty obviously opinion that they're calling people liars on as if they're fact.. I saw one on there that even said "I think" in the sentence, but I reckon it's all a matter of perception

Either way though, definitely a good site

I agree...they really stretch for some of those.

i find kwanza offensive personally. it was created by some asshat black professor who hates white people.

people could say the same about any holiday, that it was invented by someone who hates x group

i find it hard to find offense in any of them really.. in the end they all bring families and friends together around the holiday time and more power to them.

Gypsiyee wrote:people could say the same about any holiday, that it was invented by someone who hates x group

i find it hard to find offense in any of them really.. in the end they all bring families and friends together around the holiday time and more power to them.

The stark difference being that Kwanza was created not based on religion, but based on race, not to to be accepting of all people but to be divisive. Ron Karenga who created the holiday is not only a segregationist turned Marxist but also a convicted felon. His felony convictions were not for actions taken in pursuit of an ideological civil rights cause, but for the brutal torture and beating of two black women who he thought might be trying to kill him. In short it is a holiday created by a scumbag bigot not to bring people together, but to separate them by the color of their skin.

The Christmas holiday as originally created by Christians, while being time framed to mirror pagan holidays was not instituted in an effort to exclude, but to bring people together. While those who were instrumental in the creation of the holiday likely held no love loss for paganism, celebration of the holiday was exclusionary only on religious beliefs that can be changed, and not on a physical characteristic that is completely exclusionary.

If Kwanza were an actual African Tribal holiday in it's origin, and not something created by a militant 60's black rights group, I'd look at it the same as I do Hanukkah or the winter solstice, but the fact of the matter is , at it's root it isn't anywhere near a winter celebration of peace and love.

If someone by chance wished me a happy Kwanza, chances are they would likely be ignorant of it's true origins and it's founders intended purpose of separation and division, and so I'd likely wish them a Merry Christmas in kind, but no it's not just like any other of the multitude of religiously origin based holidays.

Actually, the original reason for Christmas was to supplant a pagan festival, the Feast of Mithras. Indeed, all biblical evidence available points toward Jesus being born nowhere near December. However, the early church didn't have a holiday celebrating his birth, so they invented one, and deliberately set it in opposition to the previously existing holiday, to try and wipe out the older festival.

So most assuredly, Christmas as originally created WAS meant to be exclusive. Sorry to burst your illusions.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:Actually, the original reason for Christmas was to supplant a pagan festival, the Feast of Mithras. Indeed, all biblical evidence available points toward Jesus being born nowhere near December. However, the early church didn't have a holiday celebrating his birth, so they invented one, and deliberately set it in opposition to the previously existing holiday, to try and wipe out the older festival.

So most assuredly, Christmas as originally created WAS meant to be exclusive. Sorry to burst your illusions.

-Arlos

I guess I didn't make it clear, yes the time frame was chosen to mirror the pagan festival. Part of the reason this was done was because former pagan converts were still celebrating the pagan holiday. When you have short days and cold weather, in the bleak of winter, a grand celebration is kind of a pick me up. You can call it an opposition holiday or an attempt to win converts easier through familiarity, regardless that does not change my point. The creation of that holiday was not exclusive to a group of people based on a physical characteristic, and exclusionary to all the rest. Christmas like every other holiday I can think of that falls in that general time period except Kwanza was born out of a religious celebration, Kwanza was born out of a desire to celebrate ethnicity, fueled by a man and an organization who's goal was divide people, not mix them.

Arlos wrote:Actually, the original reason for Christmas was to supplant a pagan festival, the Feast of Mithras. Indeed, all biblical evidence available points toward Jesus being born nowhere near December. However, the early church didn't have a holiday celebrating his birth, so they invented one, and deliberately set it in opposition to the previously existing holiday, to try and wipe out the older festival.

I've yet to find anything that supports this, nutjobs aside. The closest, is...

A winter festival was traditionally the most popular festival of the year in many cultures. Reasons included less agricultural work needing to be done during the winter, as well as people expecting longer days and shorter nights after the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere.[10] In part, the Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations.[11][10] Certain prominent gods and goddesses of other religions in the region had their birthdays celebrated on December 25, including Ishtar, Sol Invictus and Mithras. Various traditions are considered to have been syncretised from winter festivals including the following

Celebrating someone's birth at another time than their real birth is nothing new, ESPECIALLY in religion. Your hate for Christianity however makes you froth at the thought of a chance to demonize it. While this holiday falls on December 25th, it was hardly "made up" as you so badly want people to believe.

The specific date of celebration for Jesus' birth is traditional, and is generally believed to have been influenced by the dates of pre-Christian festivals—usually the Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti[2]—rather than having been based on historical data or reference.

That is much more accurate and less froth-filled spew.

*sigh* Your own links support exactly what I said, but I figured I would supply some others:

Jesus was most likely born in late September. (though some early Christians also said April): http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

The early Church picked December 25th to supplant the already celebrated Pagan festivals: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/96/story_9604_1.html

Those are directly from RELIGIOUS websites, hardly any ones dealing with frothing hatred.

As I said, your own links support what I said:

In part, the Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations.[11][10] Certain prominent gods and goddesses of other religions in the region had their birthdays celebrated on December 25, including Ishtar, Sol Invictus and Mithras.

The specific date of celebration for Jesus' birth ... is generally believed to have been influenced by the dates of pre-Christian festivals ... rather than having been based on historical data or reference.

Want more evidence?

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol VI Pg 945; Vol 7 Pg 202: "The myth of Mithra formed the origin of the cult of Mithraism, which flourished in the Roman Empire and was for a time the chief rival of Christianity.... One of be most well known festivals of ancient Rome was the saturnalia, a winter festival celebrated from December 17-24. Because it was a time of wild merry making and domestic celebra6ons, businesses, schools, and law Courts were closed so that the public could feast, dance, gamble, and generally enjoy itself to the fullest. December 25, the birthday of Mithra, the Iranian god of light and the contract and the day devoted to the invincible sun, as well as the day after the Saturnalia, was adopted by the church as Christmas, the nativity of Christ, to counteract the effects of these festivals."

From: http://www.bible.ca

3. Day: We have absolutely no idea

a. Dec 25 was birthday of Mithra, Iranian "GOD OF LIGHT"

b. Liberius, Bishop of Rome, ordered adoption of Dec 25 in 354 AD

c. Jesus birthday was celebrated as the "LIGHT OF THE WORLD"

d. He felt this would turn the pagan feast into a "Christian" feast

So lets look back at what you quoted. I claimed:

1) The original Christians had no major festival for Christ's birth.
Seeing as how Christmas was created over 300 years after he died, I'd say this is accurate, yes?

2) Biblical evidence points to Christ being born nowhere near December
Well, I guess late September is KIND OF close, so I may be a bit wrong, but it certainly is NOT December. The opposing idea, Aprilish, is likewise not December. They know it could not possibly BE December, because no shepherds had flocks out at that time, because it was too cold. Flocks were brought in sometime in early October, and the bible clearly states that angels appeared to the shepherds in the fields.

3) The church wished to supplant existing pagan festivals, and picked having Christmas on December 25th in order to do so.
Every single piece of items posted supports this, including your own! The church DID invent a major festival on December 25th, claiming it to be celebrating Christ's birth, and DID do it to supplant the older festivals.

So lets see, I made 3 claims, and have supported them all from biblical or religious websites, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Care to explain how my position is not well-supported?


Now, do YOU have any proof that celebrations of the births of messiahs on dates OTHER than when they were born is common in religions? You might find that hard to prove, given a distinct lack of true messianic figures in major religions, but by all means, I'd love to see your evidence.

In any case, a mere statement of historical fact is hardly "froth-filled spew". It WAS intended to drive followers away from the other festivals, and thus by its very nature was excluding all non-Christians, since it is, of course, religion-specific, and had a specific intent to try and convert people.

Lastly, how many times do I have to explain that I do not in any way hate Christianity? What I hate are the dogmatic institutionalized CHURCHES, not the faith itself. If you actually read the teachings of Jesus himself, there's some amazing stuff in there, that is about impossible for any reasonable person to disagree with. It is the independent-thought-stifling hierarchical dogma of major church organizations that I object to.

Anyway, how about some support for YOUR contentions, given that I've proved mine, and shown how ridiculous your personal diatribe against me was?

-Arlos

Current Affairs is such a fucking whinefest. I cant stop singing that one Justin Timberlake song when I read these threads rofl

Arlos & Harrison are both consistent, though!

Imagine that, people didn't have electric Christmas Lights in front of their house and Best Buy Gift Certificates 1700 years ago.

*shrug* Every argument I make on this board, I have support to back up, and have provided it whenever necessary. Harrison, on the other hand, talks out his ass.

Ultimately, as I said, Christmas is not an all-inclusive holiday. Inclusive to various Christian denominations, sure, but Christians are a minority on this planet. Given the growing multiculturalism and cross-pollination of ideas and beliefs spawned by the greater ease of travel and by the internet, it only makes sense for retailers to be as inclusive as possible, and say "Happy Holidays", as it encompasses everyone who's celebrating this time of year, regardless of denomination.

It's not an attack on faith, it's not an attack on Christianity, it's being inclusive. If recognizing faiths other than your own offends you, that's hardly everyone else's problem.

Beyond that, I don't like being characterized as something I am not, which I am sure people can understand. Of course, given the source IS Harrison, and he's pretty much wrong about everything, I suppose it shouldn't bother me.

-Arlos