Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

Don't take the Christ out of Christmas; take out the mass!

K

Keleynal

Jesus Freak
It drives me nuts when I see Christmas abbreviated as Xmas. Let's just throw out the entire reason for the holiday, shall we? Don't give me garbage about the secularization of the holiday or pagan roots that were co-opted by Christians. The holiday was established and is celebrated as a commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ. So just deal with it.

Any angst or drama that is felt by individuals towards Christmas usually isn't a beef with Christ Himself anyway; it's with the church. Specifically, whatever church their parents forced them to go to or treated them poorly when they visited or didn't tell them what they wanted to hear or whatever. I can sympathize with that.

That is why, if you must abbreviate Christmas, leave Christ alone and just take out the mass. Mass is long and boring in my opinion, and really has no meaning for anyone that isn't Catholic anyway. Leave Christ alone and direct any and all angst, subconscious and otherwise, where it belongs.

Merry Christx.
 
Yeah bro... Jesus took over the season, but it really is a pagan holiday. The tree, yule logs, bobbing for apples... All pagan. Also, Jesus wasn't born in the winter, in a barn, with nothing but hay. He would've froze to death. Im not trying to take away people's reason for celebration, I just think people should know the truth, and I personally think its fine that people want to celebrate Jesus's birthday in the winter. I mean, its the best season there is. Give it to the guy, he had a bad enough time here as it was.
 
dainjre said:
Yeah bro... Jesus took over the season, but it really is a pagan holiday. The tree, yule logs, bobbing for apples... All pagan. Also, Jesus wasn't born in the winter, in a barn, with nothing but hay. He would've froze to death. Im not trying to take away people's reason for celebration, I just think people should know the truth, and I personally think its fine that people want to celebrate Jesus's birthday in the winter. I mean, its the best season there is. Give it to the guy, he had a bad enough time here as it was.
Click to expand...


I hadn't thought of that in ages. I might be misremembering this, but wasn't the holiday of Christmas created to overlap a different pagan holiday? They used pagan themes that were similar to whatever the conflicting one was, and then played it as a sort of marketing tool to encourage new followers to join Christianity?
 
dainjre said:
Yeah bro... Jesus took over the season, but it really is a pagan holiday. The tree, yule logs, bobbing for apples... All pagan. Also, Jesus wasn't born in the winter, in a barn, with nothing but hay. He would've froze to death. Im not trying to take away people's reason for celebration, I just think people should know the truth, and I personally think its fine that people want to celebrate Jesus's birthday in the winter. I mean, its the best season there is. Give it to the guy, he had a bad enough time here as it was.
Click to expand...

No one knows when Jesus was born, so they picked a day. They picked one with significance (around solstice) because they figured that Jesus must have been born on an auspicious day (Some even celebrate Christ's conception day on March 25, the spring solstice. I don't have to tell you the chances of that being accurate.). It really doesn't matter if it's the *actual* birthday of Jesus, it's just when it is observed.

And you don't have to worry about baby Jesus being warm. Stables in the area were actually caves. The manger itself was most likely stone. With all the animals and whatnot, it would be quite warm, regardless of the time of year. The smell would probably not be desirable though.
 
Topic said:
I hadn't thought of that in ages. I might be misremembering this, but wasn't the holiday of Christmas created to overlap a different pagan holiday? They used pagan themes that were similar to whatever the conflicting one was, and then played it as a sort of marketing tool to encourage new followers to join Christianity?
Click to expand...

You know, I just reviewed that. It looks like that as Europe was Christianized, different cultures incorporated their traditions and changed some of the meaning. In other words, the holiday wasn't manufactured to overlap. As cultures converted to Christianity, they adapted themselves rather than give up traditions entirely.

Unofficial source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
 
Found it. I don't entirely trust this source, but it's what I was talking about.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...w-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

"The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Christmas, the argument goes, is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. According to this theory, early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.

Despite its popularity today, this theory of Christmas’s origins has its problems. It is not found in any ancient Christian writings, for one thing. Christian authors of the time do note a connection between the solstice and Jesus’ birth: The church father Ambrose (c. 339–397), for example, described Christ as the true sun, who outshone the fallen gods of the old order. But early Christian writers never hint at any recent calendrical engineering; they clearly don’t think the date was chosen by the church. Rather they see the coincidence as a providential sign, as natural proof that God had selected Jesus over the false pagan gods.

It’s not until the 12th century that we find the first suggestion that Jesus’ birth celebration was deliberately set at the time of pagan feasts. A marginal note on a manuscript of the writings of the Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi states that in ancient times the Christmas holiday was actually shifted from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus holiday.5 In the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible scholars spurred on by the new study of comparative religions latched on to this idea.6 They claimed that because the early Christians didn’t know when Jesus was born, they simply assimilated the pagan solstice festival for their own purposes, claiming it as the time of the Messiah’s birth and celebrating it accordingly.

More recent studies have shown that many of the holiday’s modern trappings do reflect pagan customs borrowed much later, as Christianity expanded into northern and western Europe. The Christmas tree, for example, has been linked with late medieval druidic practices. This has only encouraged modern audiences to assume that the date, too, must be pagan."

edit// Site seems legit. Founder/Editor Hershel Shanks, biblical scholar/academic.
 
Like i said... Im all for people believing what they want... As long as they know that Jesus wasn't American... Or white. Cause he definitely wasn't either of those things.








'Murica.
 
Topic said:
Found it. I don't entirely trust this source, but it's what I was talking about.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...w-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

"The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Christmas, the argument goes, is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. According to this theory, early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.

Despite its popularity today, this theory of Christmas’s origins has its problems. It is not found in any ancient Christian writings, for one thing. Christian authors of the time do note a connection between the solstice and Jesus’ birth: The church father Ambrose (c. 339–397), for example, described Christ as the true sun, who outshone the fallen gods of the old order. But early Christian writers never hint at any recent calendrical engineering; they clearly don’t think the date was chosen by the church. Rather they see the coincidence as a providential sign, as natural proof that God had selected Jesus over the false pagan gods.

It’s not until the 12th century that we find the first suggestion that Jesus’ birth celebration was deliberately set at the time of pagan feasts. A marginal note on a manuscript of the writings of the Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi states that in ancient times the Christmas holiday was actually shifted from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus holiday.5 In the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible scholars spurred on by the new study of comparative religions latched on to this idea.6 They claimed that because the early Christians didn’t know when Jesus was born, they simply assimilated the pagan solstice festival for their own purposes, claiming it as the time of the Messiah’s birth and celebrating it accordingly.

More recent studies have shown that many of the holiday’s modern trappings do reflect pagan customs borrowed much later, as Christianity expanded into northern and western Europe. The Christmas tree, for example, has been linked with late medieval druidic practices. This has only encouraged modern audiences to assume that the date, too, must be pagan."
Click to expand...

The wikipedia source puts Christian celebration on Dec 25 as early as 354 AD. It notes that a celebration was held concurrently in more Western areas on Jan 6. As tradition evolved, the "12 Days of Christmas" was established, bridging the two together.

I don't think most consider Jan 6 to be of importance anymore, but it isn't the case that Jan 6 was the first Christmas and it was moved to Dec 25.

I do think that there's something to be said about the Sol Invictus. It does appear that as the Roman Empire Christianized, the feast was adapted.
 
I belong to the great Church of Science, Logical Thinking, and Common Sense. The common sense that religions are a crutch that weak minded people use because they fear the unknown or the currently unexplained. Sorry I can't help myself when it comes to religious discussion.

As for Christmas, and really all holidays...they are times to be spent with family and friends above all else. Religion, material gifts, and other stupid bullshit is a waste of time. Do I give gifts and receive them? Sure, but too many people get caught up in that stuff like its the only reason for the season.
 
God still loves you Zakis.

Now, I think it is still funny that there is such a great deal out here that is being presented. Eternal life. Wow. For you "logical" minded fellas I thought you would jump at this opportunity. It is common sense. Hmm a few years on Earth and eternal life or nothing. That's a pretty good bargain if you ask me. I mean what do you so called atheists have to lose really? In the end you can have eternal life or say oooooooo we got you we were right and there be nothing. I think I will take my bet with my so called "weak" mind and see who really wins out in the end. :)
 
We die and become part of mother earth again. Does our energy linger somehow? Possibly. Also I thought about it later. Weak minded was a poor choice of words. I didn't intend for it to insult people.

A better phrasing would be that people use it to try to explain what to them seems unexplainable or the remarkable. Still many others use it as an excuse to persecute others in the name of their gods.

Honestly I genuinely wish everyone would look past such thinking and unite under the banner of science to further humanity.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
You do realize that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and that the Greek word for Christ starts with X, right? I presume you also realize that the X is one of basically only two letters that visually resemble a cross.

Doesn't get much more religious than that.

Baldoraxx said:
God still loves you Zakis.
Now, I think it is still funny that there is such a great deal out here that is being presented. Eternal life. Wow. For you "logical" minded fellas I thought you would jump at this opportunity. It is common sense. Hmm a few years on Earth and eternal life or nothing. That's a pretty good bargain if you ask me. I mean what do you so called atheists have to lose really? In the end you can have eternal life or say oooooooo we got you we were right and there be nothing. I think I will take my bet with my so called "weak" mind and see who really wins out in the end. :)
Click to expand...

The thing that consistently blows up this old hat argument is the fact that there are other religions besides Christianity and most of them have different terms and conditions as far as an afterlife is concerned. Hell, even Christianity itself isn't always terribly consistent going from one denomination to the next. So, logically speaking, how does abiding by one set of beliefs give you an advantage after you die? If there is a god and you chose the right religion, then you're rewarded straight up. If there is a god and you chose the wrong religion, then you've potentially dug yourself into a bit of a hole by explicitly siding with a false god. If there is no god, then obviously nothing happens and the universe moves on. This is overly simplistic, of course, but it does illustrate the fact that the choice is not a simple binary pitting potential reward against no reward.

To a completely open-minded individual without strong pre-existing religious convictions or influences, there's a near infinite number of possible outcomes when you pick a side. There's also a very distinct possibility of penalty for making an incorrect choice which cannot be ignored. That's why a lot of people ultimately choose not to pick a side at all. Instead, they prefer to just try and live their lives in the manner they feel is right and are comfortable enough within themselves to just hope for the best when the time comes.

Besides, isn't turning to religion just because you want to hedge your bets a bit of a scumbag move? Don't you think that an all-powerful deity would see right through you and realize that, at least in this one respect, you were less good than extremely self-interested?
 
Vitriolic said:
Besides, isn't turning to religion just because you want to hedge your bets a bit of a scumbag move? Don't you think that an all-powerful deity would see right through you and realize that, at least in this one respect, you were less good than extremely self-interested?
Click to expand...

Not to get all "religious" on people, but in Christianity, this is the amongst the biggest sins, if not the biggest. You also see this as evidenced in Dante's Inferno. At some point if you are honest with yourself and are looking to repent, god will always forgive.
 
Vitriolic said:
You do realize that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and that the Greek word for Christ starts with X, right? I presume you also realize that the X is one of basically only two letters that visually resemble a cross.
Click to expand...
This is also rather interesting. Recent studies have tried to re-act Jesus' crucifixion and they have basically deemed it almost impossible for the "cross" to be as depicted in modern day. I don't know how much weight I put on this, but they are now saying that a cross in an x shape is significantly more reasonable, if you are playing by the doctrine that Jesus was to suffer a long and harsh death. Given the way Jesus was described as being nailed, its just not physically possible for him to be on your typical cross. I'm not sure where this was changed in history though.

Vit is also correct, in that Jesus Christ in Greek is symbolized with Chi-Rho, which is an X and a P overlapping. Some have speculated that this is actually the symbol that represents Jesus' crucifixion with the x being the cross and the P representing the body.

I am Christian born and raised, so I think there is more to it than just aligning for a sense of support. I will save that non sense because there is nothing worse than someone trying to argue religion on to others. :)
 
Spaghetti Monster[DOUBLEPOST=1419320271,1419319486][/DOUBLEPOST]My thought on the matter: If we heathens shouldn't stop you from doing your religious stuffz then you shouldn't stop us from abbreviating. Though I don't use xmas myself, since as an atheist the christ- portion holds no meaning to me, I think it's important to not hypocratize things christians qq about all the time, like oppressing their right to basically do what they want in both public and private sectors.

Oh how I've missed the Kel rants
 
Keleynal Who brings your Christmas presents on Christmas? Is it Santa Clause? If yes, you already took out Christ out of Christmas. In Germany we get the presents from the "Christkind" which means baby jesus.
Also: Is the present you get on Christmas Jesus? If it´s normal gifts, you´ve again taken Christ out of Christmas.
 
Euchale said:
Keleynal Who brings your Christmas presents on Christmas? Is it Santa Clause? If yes, you already took out Christ out of Christmas. In Germany we get the presents from the "Christkind" which means baby jesus.
Also: Is the present you get on Christmas Jesus? If it´s normal gifts, you´ve again taken Christ out of Christmas.
Click to expand...
Crake, as well.

The origin of Santa Clause (one of them anyway) is that he is based on St Nicholas, an actual person who gave gifts to the poor to help them in times of need. Santa is a symbol of Christian generosity. Other cultures represent this generosity in slightly different ways, but the spirit is the same in most cases. My children know that Santa is not real and gifts come from Mom and Dad, but we still talk about Santa, track Santa on NORAD, and read books about Santa. Because it is fun. There is not reason to have an all or nothing attitude about both the religious and material joys of Christx; it's all part of the whole.

Jesus is the Gift that we receive at Christx. The gifts we give each other commemorate that wonderful gift and serves to fulfill John I's admonition to us "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love" (I John 4:7-8). If you want to be technical, I think Good Friday and Easter are more about celebrating Christ's actual gift to mankind- His death for the forgiveness of sins, and Christx, for me, is more about celebrating the life of Jesus and the fact that He showed up at all.

Back to my original point, take religious belief out of it for a moment. The origins of Christmas as celebrated in the United States has its roots firmly in celebrations of Jesus' birth. If the word Christmas must be shortened, I argue that the "Christ" portion is more pertinent to the meaning and history of the word and concept than the "mass". Mass is meaningful only to Catholics and does not capture as much of the meaning an intent of the word "Christmas." Therefore, it is more appropriate to use Christx as an abbreviation.

(I missed you guys, too! I was on the Debate a Christian forum on reddit for a bit. That was like trying to hold a conversation with mentally retarded sharks)
 
Baldoraxx said:
God still loves you Zakis.

Now, I think it is still funny that there is such a great deal out here that is being presented. Eternal life. Wow. For you "logical" minded fellas I thought you would jump at this opportunity. It is common sense. Hmm a few years on Earth and eternal life or nothing. That's a pretty good bargain if you ask me. I mean what do you so called atheists have to lose really? In the end you can have eternal life or say oooooooo we got you we were right and there be nothing. I think I will take my bet with my so called "weak" mind and see who really wins out in the end. :)
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick a fellow brother in Christ, but I think that if we promote Christianity in terms of obtaining eternal life or as fire insurance avoiding hell, then we are missing the true meaning and benefits of Christianity.

Being a Christian is about having a personal relationship with God, which has just as many great things to say about it here and now as in the the thereafter. I don't see eternal life as the goal of Christianity. The relationship is the goal and an end unto itself. Eternal life is a side effect. God loves us so much; He never intended to be without us. By restoring our relationship to God, we also reinstate His original intent and live with our eternal family forever in peace and love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom