Strangetalk

by **daoist** » Dec 19 2007 01:38:59 am

Crossposted from http://www.bellybuttonporn.com/wiki/Xmas_or_not

Okay Atheists, now's the time for the big question: Christmas or not?

First, let me dispel one silly notion often propagated during the holiday season. Folks, there is no "War on Christmas". There just isn't. There's no big Atheist conspiracy trying to remove your holiday from you and stamp out the good times like a heathen, hellbound, Scroogy, Adolf Grinchler.

The fact is, Christmas gets bigger and bigger every year. More and more spending is done every season to placate the consumerist fallacy that presents = love. When was the last time you saw thanksgiving decorations? Yeah, exactly.

Christmas ceased being about December 25th and now takes up a good 2/12ths of our calendar, with no signs of abating. Hy Vee started staging their christmas candy and other seasonal items a week or so before Halloween, and I'm sure they're no exception. The silliness grows.

So, what are we, dyed in the black-sheep wool atheists, to do? On the one hand we hate God, Jesus, sunny days, and kittens. On the other hand, our families might be a little upset if we don't participate in their consumer-driven pagan-borrowed not-actually-religious traditions.

The standard atheist screed against Christmas goes as such:

We shouldn't participate in Christmas because it's a Christian holiday. Christians constantly try to force it into the public square by many means. Some of them are innocent enough; wishing everyone "Merry Christmas" regardless of their beliefs. Some are an insidious co-optation of public funds for sectarian purposes; public displays of blatantly Christian nativity scenes. Most are in-between; the over-abundance of Christmas decoration in our neighborhoods, work, and commercial areas. At the very least, Christians beat their religious holiday into everyone at every turn.

So there's plenty to be mad about. So this war on Christmas business? Still, not happening. Arguing that you should tone it the hell down isn't the same as trying to take your holiday away. We just wish you'd simmah dahn nah.

===Merry Christmas===

With that introduction out of the way, let's get this War on Christmas started in earnest, shall we?

Why do we fault Christians for saying "Merry Christmas"? I don't understand it. It's their holiday, and they have freedom of speech. Why get huffy about it, and why only about Christmas? If a Christian says "God bless you!" when you sneeze, do you get bent out of shape? No? Why not?

Now, suppose a Muslim says "God is great!", do we fault him for not saying "God is great, Jesus is great too, and no god at all is also great!" Obviously we don't fault the religious for expressing an honest thought they have. So why isn't "Merry Christmas" the same?

It sure as hell should be. If a Christian tells me "Merry Christmas" it's because she wants me to have a merry Christmas. Nothing more or less. That's not so bad at all. People can say what they want.

There's something to be said about being exclusionary. "Merry Christmas" excludes non-christians. Well, you might have a point that I can't readily address right now. However, as I was getting at in the previous few paragraphs, people say religious things all the time without us taking them as exclusionary. If "Praise be to Allah!" isn't exclusionary (I don't think it is), then why is "Merry Christmas!"? I don't see it, the mere phrase used as a season's greeting, as exclusionary.

Finally, and I think this might just be an aesthetic thing, I'm offended at these ridiculous multi-phrased "inclusive" cards. I find them more exclusive than anything. When someone sends a card that says "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Kwanzaa, and Happy Solstice!" it doesn't mean that they actually want you to have a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, joyous Kwanzaa, and a happy solstice all at once.

That'd be patently ridiculous! Only if you were a Jewish Christian African (I really have no idea wtf Kwanzaa is) secularist/wiccan would you truly have all those at once. What they really mean is "Merry Christmas! Also, stop whining you fucking whiners!"

Why can't people just have different religions and admit that? Christians want you to have a merry Christmas. Jews want you to have a happy Hanukkah (not really, since it's not a happy holiday, but whatever), and Atheists want you to have a happy Tuesday.

===Overt Religiosity Sucks===

So here's a bit of the normal argument against public celebration of Christmas:

Christmas is a religious holiday. As such, it shouldn't be propped up by our government. It shouldn't be paid for by non-Christians. And by all means, Christians shouldn't be forcing the rest of us to participate in their sectarian celebration.

Certainly governmental support is right out; public lands, money, or effort (paid for by all and representing all of us) shouldn't be used for religious displays such as nativity scenes. The argument is sometimes extended to things like Christmas Trees. I disagree with that, but I'll explain more about that later. I think since you're reading my weblog we can pretty much agree on that one core point: Public money/land/etc should never go for private religious practice.

But what about stores? What about private people expressing their beliefs? Well, it's not very cool to try to force your beliefs on others, right? Suppose a bunch of Muslims started pushing you around, trying to get you to pray 5 times a day and not eat for a whole month? That'd be ridiculous. Sure, Christmas isn't that bad, but there are still some pretty deep social pressures that you might not experience living within the Christian viewpoint.

When everyone around you is talking about Christmas, and everywhere is decorated for Christmas, it makes anyone who doesn't celebrate that holiday or isn't Christian an outsider. The things a community chooses to do together help define it; Boone has Pufferbilly days, Pella has a tulip festival, Chicago dyes the whole damn river green for St. Patrick's day, etc.

The United States celebrates Christmas. If you're not down with Christmas, get the fuck out!

===It's Commercialized Anyhow===

Besides, our learned Atheist friends remind us, Christmas isn't really a religious holiday anyhow. So you shouldn't get all worked up celebrating it. It's a pagan ritual to begin with, you shouldn't take my bah-humbuggery as a direct affront to your lord and savior, lord baby lord jesus laying peacefully in the manger, lord, amen.

This is true, for two reasons.

First, Christmas is really an amalgam of pre-Christian rituals and marketing. The tree is from pagan fertility rituals. A common practice for religions trying to gain converts is to take over or coopt the local holidays to make the new religion seem more familiar to the converts. To be fair, this isn't just an "ooooh you sneaky Christians!" thing: Pretty much all religions do it. But anyhow, there's almost no chance that Jesus was born on December 25th. No pregnant woman would be walking around at that time of the year, and likewise no herdsman worth a damn would have animals out to pasture in the winter like that; the story doesn't add up. Still, being infinitely generous, there's a 1/365 chance Jesus was born on Christmas. Wouldn't that suck anyhow? You're going to be crucified in 33 years and every year you get screwed out of gifts. "This frankincense is for your birthday ''and'' Christmas!"

Santa Claus is a newly-improved and updated version of Sinterklaas and didn't even wear a red suit until Coca Cola started using him for an advertising campaign. Why red? To match their corprate logo, of course! I'd go on, but you're a big kid and perfectly capable of reading that wikipedia article yourself.

Now, look what Christmas has become (been all along?): It's brazenly used as a general-purpose advertising platform by any retailer with half a brain. They don't even hide the fact; retailers calculate how much they're likely to make in the upcoming holiday season and then plan on that income. They carefully consider advertising campaigns to divorce consumers (that's us...everyone) from their dollars, and Christmas is the lever they use for that. Every possible consumable item from baby clothes on up to Lexuses are touted as the "perfect" christmas gift for your loved one! They can't all be perfect gifts. Well, this one is, but that's about it. From the plain view of what all this means, there's nothing religious in how we (as Americans) celebrate Christmas.

At its very heart and origins (as we now know the ritual) Christmas is a blatant power-grab designed to fool natives into joining Christendom, festooned in great swaths of corporate branding. What room is there for something as humble as the Son of God in all that unabashed cynical manipulation to liberate pagans from their pantheon and consumers from their cash?

So doesn't it make sense to just do away with it?

===Wait, back up===

No, it doesn't make sense. Let's put it all together.

A. Christmas is a religious holiday and thus shouldn't receive the attention it gets in the public square.

B. Christmas as celebrated today by the vast majority is completely commercial and secular, so Christians shouldn't be personally upset if a few people sit it out.

Can you see the contradiction there?

The argument simply doesn't hold water as a general-purpose indictment of Christmas. I think the second argument can be switched around to be used in favor of public celebration of Christmas; that it's a secular holiday (much the same as Thanksgiving) and thus is a-ok for public celebration.

Just because this line of argumentation doesn't work to bah-humbug Christmas as a whole doesn't mean that everything overzealous Christian merrymakers do is kosher. While I don't have a problem with christmas trees (secular) we still have the problem of them trying to shoe-horn nativity scenes into public lands (sectarian). That's still bad. Officially recognizing christmas as a holiday? That's fine, but couching it in religious language isn't cool.

Just because the event itself is secular (the purchase and exchange of gifts near a pine tree) doesn't mean that everything you do during that event is secular. It's obviously possible to inject sectarian nonsense into any secular activity; witness any kid praying before a math test in public school. So long as we take a reasonable and pragmatic approach to it, I see no problem with the public celebration of Christmas. Not just "Happy Holidays", but honest-to-whatever Christmas.

So instead of fretting over what you, a fine updating Atheist brimming with moral character, should do, rather, enjoy the fruits of the season. If you really want to celebrate Christmas go right ahead. If you'd rather not, then that's fine too. After all, that's what we're really after, right? The freedom to do and believe what we want?

And this atheist wants the freedom to get a fat bag of loot on the morning of the 25th.

by **themadninja** » Dec 19 2007 02:10:20 am

I'm fine with celebrating the pagan and cultural aspects of the holiday. I don't care if someone says, "Merry Christmas", hell, I'll probably say it back. I don't care if someone says, "Happy Holidays". I like visiting family and friends, good food, and presents. And I like being alive another year.

You've got some good thoughts in there, but I'm a little curious why you think it's worth so much attention at all.

by **gonzo** » Dec 19 2007 02:18:11 am

themadninja wrote:I'm fine with celebrating the pagan and cultural aspects of the holiday. I don't care if someone says, "Merry Christmas", hell, I'll probably say it back. I don't care if someone says, "Happy Holidays".

ditto. and having the day off with pay is fine with me too.

by **Dragon** » Dec 19 2007 08:18:51 am

being an atheist, i don't see christmas as a religious holiday anymore. i see it as a time of year to get together with the ones you love (family/friends) and enjoy everyone's company during the usually crappy weather and short days. also, presents rock. who doesn't like presents?

my only annoyance is people who insist on putting forth the whole "i'm putting christ back in christmas' shtick.

by **PaulMuaDib** » Dec 19 2007 09:06:52 am

i like the futurama way of it, xmas. and pronouncing it as such. i'm not so down with the super evil murdering santa, but a holiday like the futurama xmas is totally okay in my book. hell i'm gonna start pronouncing christmas as "ex-mas".

by **servotron** » Dec 19 2007 10:15:18 am

I enjoy the spirit of christmas...I enjoy the spirit of the Dune novels... I know it's not based on anything real, but hey if it's fun it's fun!

by **Mr. F** » Dec 19 2007 12:24:33 pm

Is this a formal declaration of war? Someone alert Bill O'Reilly!

by **Reagraham Lincool** » Dec 19 2007 03:59:44 pm

Not celebrating Christmas because Christians also celebrate it is as stupid as those Christians who don't celebrate Halloween because Satanists do.

by **Duffman** » Dec 19 2007 04:15:00 pm

I never saw Christmas as a religious holiday. While growing up the only time we would attend church was on Christmas Eve, but that is about as religious as we got (I also never paid any attention while in church, ever, so I never caught on to the connection between Christ and Christmas). Before finding out about the Christ part of Christmas I just thought it was a holiday made so we would have a good break in the middle of winter. After reading about the origins of Christmas I wasn't too far off with my assumption.

Now I just think Christmas is a time to hang out with family and friends and get a good, long break from work/school. Oh, and the consumerism thing, that too.

by **KGBCarrie** » Dec 19 2007 04:23:34 pm

Christ has never been a part of my Christmas.

by **Reagraham Lincool** » Dec 19 2007 04:25:59 pm

Jesus is the reason for the season!

by **daoist** » Dec 19 2007 04:59:15 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the only thread in the history of the R&P forum where there's 100% agreement!

I posted this hoping to drum up some discussion. Doesn't anyone disagree with anything I've said?

by **MarcusAurelius** » Dec 19 2007 05:58:58 pm

i think even the dumb/religious in this country realize that christmas is ridiculously commercialized, and very few people celebrate it as a serious religious holiday.

did you suggest we shouldn't have government-mandated vacation days on christmas? i only skimmed your omg-long-and-boring post.

by **Russ** » Dec 20 2007 02:02:53 am

1. "Don't blow a blood vessel over someone saying 'Merry Christmas'" - I agree. Someone wants to tell me Happy Kwanza or such, that's fine. It's not going to offend me. "Have a good end of year time"? Fine.

2. Govt. funds paying for Christmas stuff: Nativity scenes, I'll agree are probably beyond the limit. A decorated tree on city property? That's fine.

3. It's overcommercialized and drowns out any sort of "real meaning" - agreed as well. Though I work with that by focusing on what it's about, not the "BUY BUY BUY" message.

So... in short, I think even I agree with daoist on this one for the most part.

-=Russ=-

by **MarcusAurelius** » Dec 20 2007 02:18:30 am

are cities actually funding nativity scenes somewhere? never heard of that.

and i'm not jewish, but i regularly have cousins saying "happy hanukkah" to me around this time of year, and not once has it miffed me in the least.

by **daoist** » Dec 20 2007 02:27:42 am

MarcusAurelius wrote:are cities actually funding nativity scenes somewhere? never heard of that.

It does occasionally crop up, but usually gets quickly nipped in the bud.

by **BethComesFromAbove** » Dec 20 2007 04:12:34 am

PaulMuaDib wrote:i like the futurama way of it, xmas. and pronouncing it as such. i'm not so down with the super evil murdering santa, but a holiday like the futurama xmas is totally okay in my book. hell i'm gonna start pronouncing christmas as "ex-mas".

I've taken to calling it "Giftmas".

by **Reagraham Lincool** » Dec 20 2007 09:38:26 am

daoist wrote:
MarcusAurelius wrote:are cities actually funding nativity scenes somewhere? never heard of that.

It does occasionally crop up, but usually gets quickly nipped in the bud.

If you want to hear about examples of it, set your radio to 99.3.

It's the "faith and freedom network."

by **Uncle Sherm** » Dec 20 2007 01:37:06 pm

daoist wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the only thread in the history of the R&P forum where there's 100% agreement!

I posted this hoping to drum up some discussion. Doesn't anyone disagree with anything I've said?

You didn't really say anything worth disagreeing with, much less discussing. Reading that was like hearing a Barack Obama speech. On the surface, it sounds quite intelligent and agreeable, but after doing some actual thinking, you realize there is no substance to it.

Of course Christmas is a largely secularized holiday that anyone can enjoy if they want to. Who would disagree with that?

by **daoist** » Dec 20 2007 01:43:09 pm

Uncle Sherm wrote:
daoist wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the only thread in the history of the R&P forum where there's 100% agreement!

I posted this hoping to drum up some discussion. Doesn't anyone disagree with anything I've said?

You didn't really say anything worth disagreeing with, much less discussing. Reading that was like hearing a Barack Obama speech. On the surface, it sounds quite intelligent and agreeable, but after doing some actual thinking, you realize there is no substance to it.

Of course Christmas is a largely secularized holiday that anyone can enjoy if they want to. Who would disagree with that?

A lot of confused atheists.

by **daoist** » Dec 20 2007 01:44:09 pm

Also, this guy:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/20/roland ... index.html

by **themadninja** » Dec 20 2007 01:54:59 pm

"that guy" is kind of a tard

by **BethComesFromAbove** » Dec 20 2007 01:59:30 pm

Yeah, even most of the commentary on that article is confirming that he's a moron with no knowledge of history whipping up a non-issue.

by **Skip** » Dec 20 2007 11:35:34 pm

You can't take Christ out of Christmas

by **BethComesFromAbove** » Dec 21 2007 01:52:26 am

Skip wrote:You can't take Christ out of Christmas

What do you think was just pasted a couple of posts above?

by **Dr. Faustus** » Dec 21 2007 12:45:21 pm

There's no dodging that Christmas was at one point and still is in many ways a Christian holiday. It's interesting living here, because you'll see Hanukkah candles in as many businesses as Christmas trees. I'm not coming back home for the holidays, my folks are coming out here on the 3rd. Basically, my plan is to try an find an open bar in the East Village somewhere so I get good and loaded with total strangers. Just like Thanksgiving. I spent most of that night flirting with a 31 year old Puerto Rican woman from East New York. I totally would have hit it, she looked way younger. She left with some guy who may or may not have been romantically involved with her...I didn't even get a number.

More of the same, followed by the out and out circus the West Village will be during New Years Eve.

Basically, I agree. There's no harm in keeping Christmas alive as a custom. It's grown out of it. I generally say "happy holidays" or "seasons greetings" if I think about it. Force of habit is always "merry Christmas."

by **themadninja** » Dec 21 2007 04:56:45 pm

There's also no dodging that it was pagan before it was Christian...

by **Dr. Faustus** » Dec 21 2007 09:53:39 pm

Touche'

by **Lars** » Dec 22 2007 10:19:20 am

As a Christian, I hate Christmas. Doesn't that just bake your noodle?

by **daoist** » Dec 22 2007 12:44:43 pm

Lars wrote:As a Christian, I hate Christmas. Doesn't that just bake your noodle?

by **nippletwister** » Dec 23 2007 12:37:47 am

Hi. As an atheist who was raised strictly Catholic with an also strict Lutheran mother, I have these points to add:

1) There are some people who take Christmas very seriously with deep religious meaning. These are the people who go to chruch every single Sunday, and who find it within their budgets to literally tithe with every week. They have their children baptized and celibrate events like confirmations and first communions and weddings.

There are a lot of these people still in America today. When you're not exposed to them, it's easy to forget that there actually are a lot of people who actually take their religion very seriously, but they're out there.

2) The actual date of the birth of the actual person that Christians believe is Jesus Christ is pretty irrelevant. The holiday had to happen at some point in the calendar year, and it makes sense that it sort of absorbed so many other holiday traditions to become what it is today.

Pointing out facts like "The birth of Jesus probably wasn't on December 25th" and "Christmas is really a derivate of pre-Christian holidays" is sort of like pointing out that retarded people have mental retardation. It's obtuse and obvious and willingly missing the whole point, anyway. Christmas is a symbolic holiday in a religion where too many symbols are taken at literal face value. Of course you're right when pointing out the flaws of a holiday based in beliefs that we all pretty much agree are flawed to begin with.

The basic question is this: What's the point in arguing historically and factually with a group of people who have a set of beliefs that pretty much defy history and fact?

3) The concept of an actual "War on Christmas" is the biggest straw man argument I've ever seen, and it infuriates me. Stupidly right-wing pundits found pure gold when they realized that they could polarize anyone even a little religious by making them think that people with opposing political views are also attacking their belief system. They invented this boogeyman WAR with very little specific evidence (other than people not wanting nativity scenes and prayers on public grounds) and now they're using it to galvanize stupid people who love to feel persecuted.

4) You can't blame businesses for trying to cash in during the holidays. It's how the economy operates.

Also, you can't blame Christians for having their holiday hijacked by businesses who are trying to cash in. I suppose you can blame the consumer. I'm not really sure who's to blame, really. There's a lot of pressure to spend this time of year.

5) I like Christmas, in theory. It doesn't ever work out how it should, but at least it's a time where individual traditions shine through all of the other crap, and people are more likely to come together with family and friends, just once a year. Even if you hate it, I think it's a good thing to maintain that familial connection, and Christmas is just how it seems to happen. At least in my family, it is.

by **MarcusAurelius** » Dec 23 2007 07:37:39 pm

daoist wrote:Santa Claus is a newly-improved and updated version of Sinterklaas and didn't even wear a red suit until Coca Cola started using him for an advertising campaign. Why red? To match their corprate logo, of course! I'd go on, but you're a big kid and perfectly capable of reading that wikipedia article yourself.

This is false. History channel just now discussed a "standardized" red santa claus that predates the coca-cola ad campaign by 50 years, wikipedia article or not.

by **daoist** » Dec 23 2007 11:42:15 pm

MarcusAurelius wrote:
daoist wrote:Santa Claus is a newly-improved and updated version of Sinterklaas and didn't even wear a red suit until Coca Cola started using him for an advertising campaign. Why red? To match their corprate logo, of course! I'd go on, but you're a big kid and perfectly capable of reading that wikipedia article yourself.
This is false. History channel just now discussed a "standardized" red santa claus that predates the coca-cola ad campaign by 50 years, wikipedia article or not.

Before coca cola's influence, santa claus usually wore red or green outfits. After their advertising campaign, he almost exclusively wears red.

by **MarcusAurelius** » Dec 23 2007 11:48:05 pm

daoist wrote:
MarcusAurelius wrote:
daoist wrote:Santa Claus is a newly-improved and updated version of Sinterklaas and didn't even wear a red suit until Coca Cola started using him for an advertising campaign. Why red? To match their corprate logo, of course! I'd go on, but you're a big kid and perfectly capable of reading that wikipedia article yourself.
This is false. History channel just now discussed a "standardized" red santa claus that predates the coca-cola ad campaign by 50 years, wikipedia article or not.

Before coca cola's influence, santa claus usually wore red or green outfits. After their advertising campaign, he almost exclusively wears red.

are you basing that on anything other than the wikipedia article, and things referencing it? just curious.

the history channel thingy showed green and red suits on him yes, saying that his image was pretty inconsistent. until the late 19th century (i think, was flipping) when a famous cartoonist drew what we now know as the standard red-suited santa, with no mention of coca-cola.

edit: cartoonist was thomas nast.

that picture dates from the civil war, supposedly encouraged by abe lincoln to bolster union support.

by **Russ** » Dec 24 2007 12:11:15 pm

nippletwister wrote:...and who find it within their budgets to literally tithe with every week. They have their children baptized and celibrate events like confirmations and first communions and weddings.

Minor nitpick, for those who tithe, that comes first, and the rest of the budget is filled in after that.

And, wow, celebrating events like weddings. Yea. Weeeeird crazy religious thing, that.

-=Russ=-

by **themadninja** » Dec 24 2007 06:05:54 pm

nippletwister wrote:The basic question is this: What's the point in arguing historically and factually with a group of people who have a set of beliefs that pretty much defy history and fact?

I don't know about anyone else, but my reason for pointing out the pagan roots is to emphasize the fact that I can and do celebrate the winter holidays without celebrating Christ or anything Christian.

by **Mr. F** » Dec 25 2007 12:16:26 pm

daoist wrote:Also, this guy:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/20/roland ... index.html

I like how he wants Christmas to be about Christ and for people to stop saying things like "season's greatings". It leaves us non-believers in a rather ackward position.

by **gonzo** » Dec 25 2007 01:21:19 pm

I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a rat's ass about us non-believers. he probably thinks along the lines of the first George Bush, that atheists shouldn't even be US citizens

by **servotron** » Dec 26 2007 02:32:16 pm

I don't think that Roland Martin article is too bad really.. I mean with a few exceptions (solstice, etc) we are indeed celebrating Christmas... in our society, wether you're a christian or not, it's Christmas season... this to me is no different than giving a gift to someone for, as an example, their confirmation. I may not believe in what they're doing but hey, they are celebrating, and I like to celebrate... why not join in? I don't need to believe in order to celebrate and share happiness.

by **nippletwister** » Dec 27 2007 01:57:23 am

Russ wrote:And, wow, celebrating events like weddings. Yea. Weeeeird crazy religious thing, that.

Yeah, sorry. What I meant was "weddings (in churches with a minister of the family faith, and before living together, before spending a night together, and before having any sexual contact whatsoever with each other or anyone else at all, ever)."

by **Charlie Foxtrot** » Dec 27 2007 09:29:59 pm

Does anyone have any analysis to offer on when Christmas became so commercial? I honestly don't know that I heard the phrase Black Friday before maybe 5 or 6 years ago, and the earliest I remember the day after Thanksgiving being a big shopping day is when I was 16 working for my dad's retail store. Was it like that when we were little kids?

by **themadninja** » Jan 02 2008 11:59:52 am

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:Does anyone have any analysis to offer on when Christmas became so commercial? I honestly don't know that I heard the phrase Black Friday before maybe 5 or 6 years ago, and the earliest I remember the day after Thanksgiving being a big shopping day is when I was 16 working for my dad's retail store. Was it like that when we were little kids?

It's just part of the commercialization of reality. Welcome to the world of tomorrow! :wave:

by **THW** » Jan 07 2008 05:49:20 pm

Actually, Jesus was thought to be born in the spring sometime. I don't think it's any new revelation that OMG Dec 25 really isn't jesus day!1

by **Coffee** » Jan 11 2008 07:13:10 pm

PaulMuaDib wrote:i like the futurama way of it, xmas. and pronouncing it as such. i'm not so down with the super evil murdering santa, but a holiday like the futurama xmas is totally okay in my book. hell i'm gonna start pronouncing christmas as "ex-mas".

One of my friends is in seminary right now and called Christmas x-mas. I called him out on it and his response was "the "x" in xmas is the greek letter chi, which is the first letter of "Christ" in greek. So, my Christmas credentials are still firmly in tact--and probably better than yours, given my allusion to the language of the NT...Yes, I only read the bible in the original languages now." He was joking of course.

by **daoist** » Jan 11 2008 08:59:39 pm

Coffee wrote:
PaulMuaDib wrote:i like the futurama way of it, xmas. and pronouncing it as such. i'm not so down with the super evil murdering santa, but a holiday like the futurama xmas is totally okay in my book. hell i'm gonna start pronouncing christmas as "ex-mas".

One of my friends is in seminary right now and called Christmas x-mas. I called him out on it and his response was "the "x" in xmas is the greek letter chi, which is the first letter of "Christ" in greek. So, my Christmas credentials are still firmly in tact--and probably better than yours, given my allusion to the language of the NT...Yes, I only read the bible in the original languages now." He was joking of course.

That isn't common knowledge?

by **Russ** » Jan 13 2008 01:03:02 pm

nippletwister wrote:
Russ wrote:And, wow, celebrating events like weddings. Yea. Weeeeird crazy religious thing, that.

Yeah, sorry. What I meant was "weddings (in churches with a minister of the family faith, and before living together, before spending a night together, and before having any sexual contact whatsoever with each other or anyone else at all, ever)."

... I see nothing wrong with that. At all. Unless you consider "50% divorce rate on marriages" progress.

-=Russ=-

by **themadninja** » Jan 13 2008 01:20:52 pm

Russ wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
Russ wrote:And, wow, celebrating events like weddings. Yea. Weeeeird crazy religious thing, that.

Yeah, sorry. What I meant was "weddings (in churches with a minister of the family faith, and before living together, before spending a night together, and before having any sexual contact whatsoever with each other or anyone else at all, ever)."

... I see nothing wrong with that. At all. Unless you consider "50% divorce rate on marriages" progress.

-=Russ=-

Given that divorce rates are much higher in the devout evangelical south than the heathen north, I don't think you've really proved your point.

Plus the common sense idea that trying some things out to determine compatibility can help avoid situations that just aren't going to work out in the long run.

by $/ » Jan 13 2008 02:03:20 pm

Is the divorce rate higher amongst evangelicals? And it's also common sense that winning the lottery will make you happier and that having more choices will leave you in the end with a more satisfying decision.

by **daoist** » Jan 13 2008 02:47:13 pm

themadninja wrote:Given that divorce rates are much higher in the devout evangelical south than the heathen north, I don't think you've really proved your point.

The reason that atheists are so grouchy when it comes to dealing with people like Russ isn't that ultraconservatives are wrong about a few things. It's that they're 100% absolutely wrong on nearly everything. Science, marriage, basic human rights, women's rights, history, childcare, individual liberty, etc. I cannot think of a single plank of the traditional conservative christian worldview that isn't simply flat out wrong.

by **Talenos** » Jan 21 2008 04:44:08 pm

What about giving to those less fortunate?

by **Russ** » Jan 21 2008 06:52:10 pm

themadninja wrote:Given that divorce rates are much higher in the devout evangelical south than the heathen north, I don't think you've really proved your point.

Plus the common sense idea that trying some things out to determine compatibility can help avoid situations that just aren't going to work out in the long run.

Correct for "Living together instead of getting married" rates.

If people would actually get to know the other person instead of the facade that most people use in normal dating relationships, it would be a lot easier to find out about long-term compatibility issues.

-=Russ=-

by **Russ** » Jan 21 2008 06:56:20 pm

daoist wrote:The reason that atheists are so grouchy when it comes to dealing with people like Russ isn't that ultraconservatives are wrong about a few things. It's that they're 100% absolutely wrong on nearly everything. Science, marriage, basic human rights, women's rights, history, childcare, individual liberty, etc. I cannot think of a single plank of the traditional conservative christian worldview that isn't simply flat out wrong.

I'm glad the feeling is mutual.

-=Russ=-

by **daoist** » Jan 21 2008 07:03:34 pm

Talenos wrote:What about giving to those less fortunate?

okay. there's one.

by **daoist** » Jan 21 2008 07:04:04 pm

Russ wrote:
daoist wrote:The reason that atheists are so grouchy when it comes to dealing with people like Russ isn't that ultraconservatives are wrong about a few things. It's that they're 100% absolutely wrong on nearly everything. Science, marriage, basic human rights, women's rights, history, childcare, individual liberty, etc. I cannot think of a single plank of the traditional conservative christian worldview that isn't simply flat out wrong.

I'm glad the feeling is mutual.

-=Russ=-

I can back up my claims.

by **J-Dogg** » Feb 14 2008 12:01:52 am

daoist wrote:
themadninja wrote:Given that divorce rates are much higher in the devout evangelical south than the heathen north, I don't think you've really proved your point.

The reason that atheists are so grouchy when it comes to dealing with people like Russ isn't that ultraconservatives are wrong about a few things. It's that they're 100% absolutely wrong on nearly everything. Science, marriage, basic human rights, women's rights, history, childcare, individual liberty, etc. I cannot think of a single plank of the traditional conservative christian worldview that isn't simply flat out wrong.

Unfortunately, science and history are the only objective items in that list.

But I agree.

by **ridler2012** » Sep 15 2008 07:24:48 pm

Dec. 25 is not really the day when Christ was born... I think its around Oct...

by **Talenos** » Sep 15 2008 10:38:41 pm

thanks for the pre-spam insightful post?

by **gonzo** » Sep 15 2008 10:53:39 pm

ridler2012 wrote:Dec. 25 is not really the day when Christ was born... I think its around Oct...

no shit Sherlock.
read the fucking thread

by **Santa** » Sep 17 2008 10:28:38 am

Russ wrote:
Correct for "Living together instead of getting married" rates.

If people would actually get to know the other person instead of the facade that most people use in normal dating relationships, it would be a lot easier to find out about long-term compatibility issues.

-=Russ=-

You know what's the best? The relative who was vocal about how wrong it was for Lauren and I to live together before marriage is now in jail for defrauding investors.

His second/thirdish trophy wife left him as a result. Goood stuff.

by **parsnips** » Sep 17 2008 10:57:47 am

I'm more of an Easter fan.

by **Santa** » Sep 17 2008 11:01:13 am

I am also a fan of Zombie Jesus.

by **Talenos** » Sep 17 2008 12:10:10 pm

I hate Easter because everyone always make ham. I'm a roast turkey fan so thanksgiving and X-mas are the best.

by **Santa** » Sep 17 2008 12:20:04 pm

Well, count your stars because if it wasn't for Jesus, you wouldn't even get to eat Ham.

by **TeleportThis** » Sep 17 2008 05:43:35 pm

My family has sloppy joe's for christmas and easter.

by **themadninja** » Sep 17 2008 06:38:34 pm

My family plays cards and does tequila shots for easter.

Strangetalk

Who is online