Christmas without Ikkle baby Jesus?

[L00b]

Christianity in no way holds the monopoly on Christmas

It does culturally in most societies historically strongly influenced by Christianity, e.g. most of Western Europe and the US. Although that monopoly is being rapidly eroded these days, and that erosion is the very point raised by the OP.

Of course I'm aware of Saint Nicholas, what's your point?

Your own words:

I don't think Christmas has ever really been about Jesus.

 

-Wasn't his birthday

-Santa's nothing to do with the Bible

-Neither are Christmas trees

The inspiration behind modern-times 'Santa' (in common terms and imagery as per in e.g. the night before Christmas) who visits at Christmas and distributes presents to good kids and coal pieces to bad kids is St Nicholas.

 

Who, as a Saint historically celebrated in Wintertime as a gift-giver from a very (very, really very-) long time, has a lot to do with Christian celebration indeed.

Coming back to this post, I find it sits oddly for several reasons;

 

- You make it sound like it's the logical or normal position, to believe in Jesus, what reason would anyone have in the first place to believe

a) in any deity?

b) in Jesus, out of all of them?

That was absolutely not the intention.

 

But with the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong in using the word 'faith', I should have used 'reference'

- Why would such a belief be associated with validity or reason for anything?

That, again, was not the meaning or message, as I am well aware that 'religion' and 'reason' do not make good bedfellows

- Christmas is only about Jesus to those to whom it matters, being without belief in deities, Jesus in particular, does not invalidate other peoples' reasons for celebrating Christmas.

I don't dispute that at all.

 

The (IMHO very simple-) point which some of you don't seem to get, or feel like challenging for reasons best known to you, is that abstracting all references to the birth of a kid allegedly called Jesus around 2000 years ago from 'Christmas' (the point of the OP) removes the very point of celebrating 'Christmas', since this alleged birth is the fundamental basis for this celebration in our social history/organisation/cultural references/calendar as a result of celebrating that alleged birth on 25 December for the past 10+ centuries.

 

You can argue the point on atheistic or pagan grounds until you are blue in the face if you please, it isn't going to change the facts underpinning the point, which is not so much religious as cultural - and will remain valid until such time as Western society has eventually done away with, if not religion altogether, then at least Christianity or, at the very least, the theistic concept of the Holy Trinity (...and I use capitals out of respect, not belief).

[RootsBooster]

It does culturally in most societies historically strongly influenced by Christianity, e.g. most of Western Europe and the US. Although that monopoly is being rapidly eroded these days, and that erosion is the very point raised by the OP.

Can you explain, exactly (bearing in mind the points I raised from your own link), how Christianity culturally holds the monopoly over Christmas?

Your own words:

-Santa's nothing to do with the Bible

The inspiration behind modern-times 'Santa' (in common terms and imagery as per in e.g. the night before Christmas) who visits at Christmas and distributes presents to good kids and coal pieces to bad kids is St Nicholas.

 

Who, as a Saint historically celebrated in Wintertime as a gift-giver from a very (very, really very-) long time, has a lot to do with Christian celebration indeed.

So how does that link Santa to the Bible?

I don't dispute that at all.

You did though, explicitly, in post #6...

"No faith in baby Jesus anymore = no valid reason whatsoever to celebrate Xmas anymore"

The (IMHO very simple-) point which some of you don't seem to get, or feel like challenging for reasons best known to you, is that abstracting all references to the birth of a kid allegedly called Jesus around 2000 years ago from 'Christmas' (the point of the OP) removes the very point of celebrating 'Christmas', since this alleged birth is the fundamental basis for this celebration in our social history/organisation/cultural references/calendar as a result of celebrating that alleged birth on 25 December for the past 10+ centuries.

 

You can argue the point on atheistic or pagan grounds until you are blue in the face if you please, it isn't going to change the facts underpinning the point, which is not so much religious as cultural - and will remain valid until such time as Western society has eventually done away with, if not religion altogether, then at least Christianity or, at the very least, the theistic concept of the Holy Trinity (...and I use capitals out of respect, not belief).

...except the link you provided earlier doesn't agree with much of this.

[L00b]

Can you explain, exactly (bearing in mind the points I raised from your own link), how Christianity culturally holds the monopoly over Christmas?

So how does that link Santa to the Bible?

You did though, explicitly, in post #6...

"No faith in baby Jesus anymore = no valid reason whatsoever to celebrate Xmas anymore"

...except the link you provided earlier doesn't agree with much of this.

I think you might have missed this important mea culpa bit of my post:

But with the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong in using the word 'faith', I should have used 'reference'

Hopefully it's just an oversight on your part?

 

Otherwise, considering you left it out of your quoting, I might have to deduce that you're showing a bit of bad faith here.

Edited December 4, 2014 by L00b

[charmer]

 

Can I ask? What is it about Christianity that makes you feel so threatened by it? After all, you do seem to be getting rather het up about it.

 

You absolutely may ask, otherwise what is the point of a discussion forum?

 

I find it offensive that children are taught this rubbish as historical fact. If your children came home from school saying they have learnt about how Henry 8th flow into battle on a dragon, would you be annoyed?

[Chelle-82]

You absolutely may ask, otherwise what is the point of a discussion forum?

 

I find it offensive that children are taught this rubbish as historical fact. If your children came home from school saying they have learnt about how Henry 8th flow into battle on a dragon, would you be annoyed?

 

What!!!!! do you mean to say this is a lie!

 

You'll be telling me there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy next!!

[barleycorn]

It does culturally in most societies historically strongly influenced by Christianity, e.g. most of Western Europe and the US. Although that monopoly is being rapidly eroded these days, and that erosion is the very point raised by the OP.

Your own words:

The inspiration behind modern-times 'Santa' (in common terms and imagery as per in e.g. the night before Christmas) who visits at Christmas and distributes presents to good kids and coal pieces to bad kids is St Nicholas.

 

Who, as a Saint historically celebrated in Wintertime as a gift-giver from a very (very, really very-) long time, has a lot to do with Christian celebration indeed.

That was absolutely not the intention.

 

But with the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong in using the word 'faith', I should have used 'reference'

That, again, was not the meaning or message, as I am well aware that 'religion' and 'reason' do not make good bedfellows

I don't dispute that at all.

 

The (IMHO very simple-) point which some of you don't seem to get, or feel like challenging for reasons best known to you, is that abstracting all references to the birth of a kid allegedly called Jesus around 2000 years ago from 'Christmas' (the point of the OP) removes the very point of celebrating 'Christmas', since this alleged birth is the fundamental basis for this celebration in our social history/organisation/cultural references/calendar as a result of celebrating that alleged birth on 25 December for the past 10+ centuries.

 

You can argue the point on atheistic or pagan grounds until you are blue in the face if you please, it isn't going to change the facts underpinning the point, which is not so much religious as cultural - and will remain valid until such time as Western society has eventually done away with, if not religion altogether, then at least Christianity or, at the very least, the theistic concept of the Holy Trinity (...and I use capitals out of respect, not belief).

Which is all nice and dandy. Unfortunately it is totally irrelevant. The Christmas celebrations we have to day bear little resemblance to those found 500 years ago, a thousand years ago or even further back to the pagan festivals from which it evolved. The only common theme is that of celebrating through means of eating, drinking and getting together with friends, relatives and the local community.

The important point to note here is that the festival has evolved over the years and continues to evolve now. If that evolution means that the religious element is removed then so be it. The festival however will remain, as it did before Jesus's time and as it will when his influence is removed.

 

jb

[RootsBooster]

I think you might have missed this important mea culpa bit of my post:

Hopefully it's just an oversight on your part?

 

Otherwise, considering you left it out of your quoting, I might have to deduce that you're showing a bit of bad faith here.

 

No, I was talking inclusively of your amendment, I just hadn't altered the quote.

 

Changing it thus...

 

"No reference to baby Jesus anymore = no valid reason whatsoever to celebrate Xmas anymore"

 

...still explicitly disputes this (also altered in accordance)...

 

"Christmas is only about Jesus to those to whom it matters, being without belief in reference to deities, Jesus in particular, does not invalidate other peoples' reasons for celebrating Christmas."

[alchemist]

If your children came home from school saying they have learnt about how Henry 8th flow into battle on a dragon, would you be annoyed?

 

Is that likely to happen? I dont think I would be annoyed no, I wouild correct them and possibly contsct the school asking why. But I would not find it so threatening and intimidating that I would go on a forum specifically to attack those who did honestly believe that

 

---------- Post added 04-12-2014 at 14:37 ----------

 

Which is all nice and dandy. Unfortunately it is totally irrelevant. The Christmas celebrations we have to day bear little resemblance to those found 500 years ago, a thousand years ago or even further back to the pagan festivals from which it evolved. The only common theme is that of celebrating through means of eating, drinking and getting together with friends, relatives and the local community.

The important point to note here is that the festival has evolved over the years and continues to evolve now. If that evolution means that the religious element is removed then so be it. The festival however will remain, as it did before Jesus's time and as it will when his influence is removed.

 

jb

 

So surely the logical approach is then to campaign for the festival to be renamed to more accurately reflect your opinion of what it is, rahter than complain about or malign those who would rather that the festival itself reflect its name

[L00b]

No, I was talking inclusively of your amendment, I just hadn't altered the quote.

 

Changing it thus...

 

"No reference to baby Jesus anymore = no valid reason whatsoever to celebrate Xmas anymore"

 

...still explicitly disputes this (also altered in accordance)...

 

"Christmas is only about Jesus to those to whom it matters, being without belief in reference to deities, Jesus in particular, does not invalidate other peoples' reasons for celebrating Christmas."

Bit in bold: it doesn't.

 

And, with respect, that green sentence is somewhat incorrect: Christmas is unconcerned with 'deities' in general terms as you wrote, only with Christian dogma and the infant Jesus (and the rest of the Holy Trinity of course, but no others) in that.

 

Christmas is by definition a celebration of the birth of Jesus. Whether you believe in it or not, whether you are religious at all or not, is irrelevant. It is an undeniable fact that the ordinary meaning, signification, definition <etc.> of "Christmas" is "the birth of the infant Jesus" and, by supranational consensus going back centuries, that it falls on 25 December every year. That is the cultural and factual yardstick, it's not open to conjecture at all. The theological nature and significance (and actual date) of the event is open to conjecture, absolutely.

 

So, anyone who is celebrating on 25th December without any reference to the birth of Jesus (let it be belaboured: however much in passing that reference be, and without necessarily believing in any of it at all), is not celebrating Christmas, but a "family gathering" or some other unspecified or otherwise-badged "occasion" that happens to fall on 25th December.

 

The least atheists and other non-Christians could do, besides maybe expressing a little charitable spirit at that time and so not mock Christians for their beliefs at that time, is thank "ikkle baby Jesus" for the lay in

Edited December 4, 2014 by L00b

[barleycorn]

So surely the logical approach is then to campaign for the festival to be renamed to more accurately reflect your opinion of what it is, rahter than complain about or malign those who would rather that the festival itself reflect its name

 

It's OK, I'm happy to keep the name, just as Christianity was happy to keep the name for Easter.

 

jb