Atheists: How do you feel during the Christmas season?
22 Oct 2013, 5:48 am
You are confused, Saturnalia says nothing about what I am saying. If you want to stick to Occam's razor then try this:
What is more logical:
1 - That ancient people suddenly adopted a holiday on 25th Dec because of some story they were told about a child born in a stable who was said to be their savoir?
or
2 - Ancient people celebrated the 25th Dec because its the first day a noticeable change in the sun's movements herald the return of the warmth necessary to grow their crops. But later they called it Christmas because the Roman authorities told them to after deciding to adopt a new religion called Christianity?
Ok, let's go with Occam's razor on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation
The Annunciation date was believed by the early Christians to have occurred on March 25. What's nine months after March 25? Exactly! December 25.
So your limiting two options is just a false dilemma.
Now I did mention Occam's razor.
Well, you answer the following then:
What did Christmas borrow from Sol Invictus that should render it pagan?
If the evidence suggests it did borrow (not just share something all or most holidays share [like feasting], but actively borrow) stuff to render it no longer Christian but pagan in essence, then Occam's razor would seem to (as far as the evidence goes) suggest that Christmas is pagan in origin.
But if there's no such evidence, then Occam's razor is in favor of Christmas not being of pagan origin.
If you have the evidence, time to let it out.
22 Oct 2013, 6:43 am
Lets see: In scandinavian christmas is still called "Jule"...maybe its an accident, but maybe its because of the on that date before celebrated "Jule"-festivity that was about the sunchange. Just like in german christmas is called Weihnachten = former pagan festival of "wihen naht". When the christian romans started missionating the more north living pagans, they integrated their fesitivities to make it easier for people to let go of their pagan festivities. Thats why in middle-eruope and scandinavia, where the sunchange was on of the biggest celebrations, christmas was set around the 25th. (24th for some regions), while in other areas as example it was set later (6th January = Horus festival in egytian dominated areas), because of them having their important pagan festivity later.
The light, the candles, have been symbol of the return of the sun.
Evergreen plants like mists and needle-trees were symbols of the eternity of life.
Even the catholic-christian church has no problem accepting, that the certain date of Jesus birth is not exactly known, but its simply the day that you should think of him and remind yourself of him. The chosen date, simply were according to actual habbits of people, this is why they are differently in different regions. If you would have chosen another date, people simply would have celebrated the christmas AND additionaly the pagan celebration they knew. So to replace pagan believing, replacing festivities on the same date, was working better. Thats as well pretty well documented by roman church, because of in middle europe and scandinavia, that happened around the 8th century after christus birth. So there was tons of time between, in which the celts were celebrating their festivities, just as the converting of these regions was done by plan, and not with some monks suddenly tumbling around and praying.
Just like it is documented that the germanes tribes had the habbit of writing spells at the sunchange festival upon their doors, that were to prevent evil ghosts from poisoning the new year. ^^ Or the habbit of baking sweet "sacrificing"-breads, as an offer for the gods, that you were allowed to eat afterwards, if the gods didnt eat them themselves. ^^ Just like richer ones offered the gods and ghosts real animals - poorer families not being able to afford so, offered small sweet breads in animal forms instead. ^^
I dont get why you are so angry about it, its simply an historical and traditional mix of tradition. Just like the easter-rabbit, definitly has nothing to do with Jesus ressurection, but both festivities (spring fest, where rabbit was because of his "fruitful" conceivement a sign of growing life).
I mean it isnt really that hard to see, as well as there is nothing horrible about it, that northern needle trees, mists that are not growing in Israel, or a guy in an red coat with northern rendeers, hardly can have any connection to a boy being born in Nazareth/palestina. Just as there are no rabbits or painted eggs mentioned in Jesus ressurection story. Just like palestinian shepherds used to stay with their herds from srping to autumn, but not in winter.
I mean there are documents about a pagan fetivity around the same date, that was about mists, needle trees, cookies, sweetbread, writing spells upon the door, lights and candles and those fest was called Julfest or wihen naht. And now there is around the same date a festivity that is about mists, needle trees, cookies, sweetbread, writing the names of the holy three kings upon the door, lights and candles... and having accidently the same names, like the pagan festivals before.
And in general I dont see the sense about that discussion. All of that is only the external decoration of the festival, so it doesnt matter. The christian tradition in Japan is as well mixed with buddhistic elements and so on. There is nothing bad about that, because nothing of that changes, that christian people are thinking about christus on christmas. (Or at least should be doing so.) That there isnt any sense in adding in palestina non existing rendeers, needle trees, rabbits or painted eggs into it...who cares? There is nothing bad about that. In my country the festival of Sankt Nikolas has been mixed with those of the winter ghosts, with Sankt Nikolaus now actually going around with devils as his servants, that are scaring and punishing the bad people. XD Doesnt keep anyone from thinking about Sankt Nikolaus, if he wants to.
22 Oct 2013, 7:18 am
Already addressed this. They came much later as part of Christmas (from what I keep reading at least).
Also, not angry about the possibility of Christmas being pagan in origin. Just frustrated that historical information is being twisted to suit one's political view about Christianity (which is what Robdemac is doing).
22 Oct 2013, 8:25 am
I am not twisting anything. What I have said is fact and everyone on Earth (provided they go to a point more than 30 degrees either north or south of the equator) can observe for themselves.
Christmas is really a celebration of the new solar year, the rebirth of the sun. All societies knew this thousands of years before the tale of Jesus was dreamed up. What Christians call Christmas is an original pagan celebration of the sun's resurrection, not that of a fictitious character. It is tragic that the story of Jesus gained so much of a following that all these years later people like you (MCalavera) are convinced it is real. People like you will be arguing in future that Harry Potter was the incarnation of the Goddess J K Rowling and that her sacred texts have been read and studied for thousands of years.
22 Oct 2013, 8:56 am
As mentioned, the germanics were convinced to christian believing around 8th century. So these habbits did not come afterwards for them, but with them. ^^
And there can be only few christians, for whose these habbits entered afterwards, because until 4th century, Jesus birth wasnt celebrated at all. It was during the 4th century, that church officials decided, that they wanted to do so, and it was simply decided on which date this shall happen.
To prevent their followers to celebrate both festivals, the roman sun festival and the birth of christus, it was decided to do so on the same day. In the end it got mixed up, specially, because of the early christian believing still not being related to jewish habbits in some cases, and the jewish chanukka = as well an lightfestival is as well dated on the end of november or start of december, while the roman light festival started with decembre. There is nothing to whonder about, that it got mixed up a bit. In 8th century, when christianity sperad into northern europe, because of christmas already having those "light" and redemption tendencies, which were as well similar to the northern sunfests, that where about celebrating life and the comeback of the savior, the sun, it was as well easy again to mix it up.
And the more interaction we had with each other, the more all of that mix was spreaded, bringing the theatre-games (that were typical for roman ligth fest) of "Telling Jesus story." into north, bringing northern habbits into south and so on. In the end it created the christmas we know.
As long as people dont forget, whats the purpose of it, adding some pagan mists, and evergreen trees and cookies and candles, doesnt kill someone.
22 Oct 2013, 9:48 am
From Wikipedia on Christmas:
The Chronography of 354 AD contains early evidence of the celebration on December 25 of a Christian liturgical feast of the birth of Jesus. This was in Rome, while in Eastern Christianity the birth of Jesus was already celebrated in connection with the Epiphany on January 6. The December 25 celebration was imported into the East later: in Antioch by John Chrysostom towards the end of the 4th century, probably in 388, and in Alexandria only in the following century. Even in the West, the January 6 celebration of the nativity of Jesus seems to have continued until after 380. In 245, Origen of Alexandria, writing about Leviticus 12:1–8, commented that Scripture mentions only sinners as celebrating their birthdays, namely Pharaoh, who then had his chief baker hanged (Genesis 40:20–22), and Herod, who then had John the Baptist beheaded (Mark 6:21–27), and mentions saints as cursing the day of their birth, namely Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:14–15) and Job (Job 3:1–16).[110] In 303, Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, a passage cited as evidence that Arnobius was unaware of any nativity celebration. Since Christmas does not celebrate Christ's birth "as God" but "as man", this is not evidence against Christmas being a feast at this time. The fact the Donatists of North Africa celebrated Christmas may indicate that the feast was established by the time that church was created in 311.
Many popular customs associated with Christmas developed independently of the commemoration of Jesus' birth, with certain elements having origins in pre-Christian festivals that were celebrated around the winter solstice by pagan populations who were later converted to Christianity. These elements, including the Yule log from Yule and gift giving from Saturnalia, became syncretized into Christmas over the centuries. The prevailing atmosphere of Christmas has also continually evolved since the holiday's inception, ranging from a sometimes raucous, drunken, carnival-like state in the Middle Ages, to a tamer family-oriented and children-centered theme introduced in a 19th-century reformation. Additionally, the celebration of Christmas was banned on more than one occasion within certain Protestant groups, such as the Puritans, due to concerns that it was too pagan or unbiblical.
Emphasis mine. Feel free to read the rest of the quote, but the key is the bolded.
22 Oct 2013, 9:49 am
Christmas is really a celebration of the new solar year, the rebirth of the sun. All societies knew this thousands of years before the tale of Jesus was dreamed up. What Christians call Christmas is an original pagan celebration of the sun's resurrection, not that of a fictitious character. It is tragic that the story of Jesus gained so much of a following that all these years later people like you (MCalavera) are convinced it is real. People like you will be arguing in future that Harry Potter was the incarnation of the Goddess J K Rowling and that her sacred texts have been read and studied for thousands of years.
So you can't beat Occam's razor and now you'll just resort to either personal remarks about me or just ridicule and exaggerate.
22 Oct 2013, 9:57 am
Christmas is really a celebration of the new solar year, the rebirth of the sun. All societies knew this thousands of years before the tale of Jesus was dreamed up. What Christians call Christmas is an original pagan celebration of the sun's resurrection, not that of a fictitious character. It is tragic that the story of Jesus gained so much of a following that all these years later people like you (MCalavera) are convinced it is real. People like you will be arguing in future that Harry Potter was the incarnation of the Goddess J K Rowling and that her sacred texts have been read and studied for thousands of years.
So you can't beat Occam's razor and now you'll just resort to either personal remarks about me or just ridicule and exaggerate.
I think you are confused by what Occams Razor is. It states that the simplest theory is given most weight, even if not accurate. Your theory is not simple, it requires an elaborate and nonsensical idea of a messiah born incarnate of god in a stable to a virgin??? Nothing could be more far fetched. My theory is much simpler, it is based on plain observable facts about the solstice (which you can't seem to understand).
22 Oct 2013, 10:05 am
You are confused, Saturnalia says nothing about what I am saying. If you want to stick to Occam's razor then try this:
What is more logical:
1 - That ancient people suddenly adopted a holiday on 25th Dec because of some story they were told about a child born in a stable who was said to be their savoir?
or
2 - Ancient people celebrated the 25th Dec because its the first day a noticeable change in the sun's movements herald the return of the warmth necessary to grow their crops. But later they called it Christmas because the Roman authorities told them to after deciding to adopt a new religion called Christianity?
Ok, let's go with Occam's razor on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation
The Annunciation date was believed by the early Christians to have occurred on March 25. What's nine months after March 25? Exactly! December 25.
So your limiting two options is just a false dilemma.
Now I did mention Occam's razor.
Well, you answer the following then:
What did Christmas borrow from Sol Invictus that should render it pagan?
If the evidence suggests it did borrow (not just share something all or most holidays share [like feasting], but actively borrow) stuff to render it no longer Christian but pagan in essence, then Occam's razor would seem to (as far as the evidence goes) suggest that Christmas is pagan in origin.
But if there's no such evidence, then Occam's razor is in favor of Christmas not being of pagan origin.
If you have the evidence, time to let it out.
This is from Wikipedia too:
The idea that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December because this was the date of an already existing festival of the Sol Invictus was expressed in an annotation to a manuscript of a work by 12th-century Syrian bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi. The scribe who added it wrote: "It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." [39]
This idea became popular especially in the 18th and 19th centuries[40][41] and is still widely accepted.
You haven't proved me wrong, you are just selecting the bits of texts that suit you and the christians. Christians will defend their so called god to the death even though they are deluded. Their texts and assertions don't hold any scientific weight. Observations of the sun's cycle hold a lot of scientific weight.
22 Oct 2013, 10:10 am
You are confused, Saturnalia says nothing about what I am saying. If you want to stick to Occam's razor then try this:
What is more logical:
1 - That ancient people suddenly adopted a holiday on 25th Dec because of some story they were told about a child born in a stable who was said to be their savoir?
or
2 - Ancient people celebrated the 25th Dec because its the first day a noticeable change in the sun's movements herald the return of the warmth necessary to grow their crops. But later they called it Christmas because the Roman authorities told them to after deciding to adopt a new religion called Christianity?
Ok, let's go with Occam's razor on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation
The Annunciation date was believed by the early Christians to have occurred on March 25. What's nine months after March 25? Exactly! December 25.
So your limiting two options is just a false dilemma.
Now I did mention Occam's razor.
Well, you answer the following then:
What did Christmas borrow from Sol Invictus that should render it pagan?
If the evidence suggests it did borrow (not just share something all or most holidays share [like feasting], but actively borrow) stuff to render it no longer Christian but pagan in essence, then Occam's razor would seem to (as far as the evidence goes) suggest that Christmas is pagan in origin.
But if there's no such evidence, then Occam's razor is in favor of Christmas not being of pagan origin.
If you have the evidence, time to let it out.
This is from Wikipedia too:
The idea that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December because this was the date of an already existing festival of the Sol Invictus was expressed in an annotation to a manuscript of a work by 12th-century Syrian bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi. The scribe who added it wrote: "It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." [39]
This idea became popular especially in the 18th and 19th centuries[40][41] and is still widely accepted.
You haven't proved me wrong, you are just selecting the bits of texts that suit you and the christians. Christians will defend their so called god to the death even though they are deluded. Their texts and assertions don't hold any scientific weight. Observations of the sun's cycle hold a lot of scientific weight.
Correlation not equal causation. Whoever inserted that citation gave it his/her own interpretation of it which is not necessarily true. And the only thing that match is the date.
Also, remember this:
What did Christmas borrow from Sol Invictus that should render it pagan?
If the evidence suggests it did borrow (not just share something all or most holidays share [like feasting], but actively borrow) stuff to render it no longer Christian but pagan in essence, then Occam's razor would seem to (as far as the evidence goes) suggest that Christmas is pagan in origin.
But if there's no such evidence, then Occam's razor is in favor of Christmas not being of pagan origin.
If you have the evidence, time to let it out.
22 Oct 2013, 10:37 am
I feel hijacked and coerced into participating in belief systems I don't agree with (materialism & Christianity).
I wish Christmas would just go away.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Do not feel like talking |
03 Apr 2024, 1:04 am |
| Should I feel bad for having few friends |
Yesterday, 12:43 pm |
| I feel so invisible |
11 Apr 2024, 10:04 pm |
|
I feel embarrassed
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
31 Dec 1969, 7:00 pm Guest
|
