Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays

[AvalonXQ]

The workman is specifically part of the cutting down of the tree with the axe, though.

That's true. But, again, they're talking about the making of idols. Here's the whole passage:

2 Thus says the LORD:
“ Do not learn the way of the Gentiles;
Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven,
For the Gentiles are dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the peoples are futile;
For one cuts a tree from the forest,
The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.
4 They decorate it with silver and gold;
They fasten it with nails and hammers
So that it will not topple.
5 They are upright, like a palm tree,
And they cannot speak;
They must be carried,
Because they cannot go by themselves.
Do not be afraid of them,
For they cannot do evil,
Nor can they do any good.”
6 Inasmuch as there is none like You, O LORD
(You are great, and Your name is great in might),
7 Who would not fear You, O King of the nations?
For this is Your rightful due.
For among all the wise men of the nations,
And in all their kingdoms,
There is none like You.
8 But they are altogether dull-hearted and foolish;
A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine.
9 Silver is beaten into plates;
It is brought from Tarshish,
And gold from Uphaz,
The work of the craftsman
And of the hands of the metalsmith;
Blue and purple are their clothing;
They are all the work of skillful men.
10 But the LORD is the true God;
He is the living God and the everlasting King.
At His wrath the earth will tremble,
And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation.

Again, the passage is contrasting idols, which are made by humans and cannot move or act on their own, with YHWH, who is the living God. Because the "workmen" is the only mention in that set of versus to carving, it's at least possible that the idol in question was a decorated tree -- but there's no reason to believe that that's what the idol looked like, and the passage doesn't require it. Wooden idols were carved out of trees, which was the point that the Scripture was making. The point is addressed directly in verse 8 before he moves on to make a similar point with metal idols (verses 9 and 10).

 

[quarky]

I'm not certain.

Well, at some point in history; somewhere, this has surely happened.
I didn't mean 2000 years ago.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's true. But, again, they're talking about the making of idols. Here's the whole passage:



Again, the passage is contrasting idols, which are made by humans and cannot move or act on their own, with YHWH, who is the living God. Because the "workmen" is the only mention in that set of versus to carving, it's at least possible that the idol in question was a decorated tree -- but there's no reason to believe that that's what the idol looked like, and the passage doesn't require it. Wooden idols were carved out of trees, which was the point that the Scripture was making. The point is addressed directly in verse 8 before he moves on to make a similar point with metal idols (verses 9 and 10).

So what you are saying is that it is really against crosses and crucifixes and not Christmas trees then.

 

[pgwenthold]

That's true. But, again, they're talking about the making of idols.

Yes. Making an idol out of a tree by cutting it down, affixing it in place and decorating it with silver and gold.

The bible says, "Don't do that."

 

[AvalonXQ]

So what you are saying is that it is really against crosses and crucifixes and not Christmas trees then.

The passage is against creating any likeness of a god to worship -- because, as this passage and other passages say, idols are made by humans, but YHWH God is alive and not made by humans.
Crucifixes, trees, human or animal statues, anything that is worshipped as though it were a god is bad.

 

[pgwenthold]

The passage is against creating any likeness of a god to worship

God is a tree decorated in silver and gold?

 

[AvalonXQ]

God is a tree decorated in silver and gold?

That's my point. The whole passage is talking about making idols. Because the process involved chopping down a tree, using workmen to make the tree into the likeness of a man/animal, then adorning the likeness in cloth and precious metals, this is almost certainly what the passage is talking about here. It's very unlikely that what the heathens were doing didn't involve carving up the tree.

 

[pgwenthold]

That's my point. The whole passage is talking about making idols. Because the process involved chopping down a tree, using workmen to make the tree into the likeness of a man/animal,

IT DOES NOT SAY THAT

When it refers to the work of workmen, it most certainly does not say anything about making the tree into the likeness of a man/animal.

for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe

It refers to the cutting a tree out of the forest as "the work of the hands of workman." How dare you stoop to doing the work of mere workmen?

Actually, if you look at the passage, it could refer to the forest as being "the work of the hands of workmen."

It's more like it is saying, "Workmen built the forest, and heathens are chopping it down"

 

[AvalonXQ]

IT DOES NOT SAY THAT

When it refers to the work of workmen, it most certainly does not say anything about making the tree into the likeness of a man/animal.



It refers to the cutting a tree out of the forest as "the work of the hands of workman." How dare you stoop to doing the work of mere workmen?

Actually, if you look at the passage, it could refer to the forest as being "the work of the hands of workmen."

It's more like it is saying, "Workmen built the forest, and heathens are chopping it down"

Again, you're trying to parse the wording of an outdated translation into English of an ancient Hebrew scripture, and apparently unhappy because the dependent clause isn't coming out as cleanly as you want it to.
I'm telling you what the passage, from context, is very clearly talking about -- the making of a wooden idol. Now, it's possible (but very, very unlikely) that the idols being described were tree-shaped, because as you point out, it doesn't explicitly say "carving the idol into a non-tree shape". It's far more likely that the wooden idols were more conventional human/animal shapes, which fits every reference and all the history on the subject that we have.
But trying to force the passage so that it MUST describe a modern holiday tree is silly.

 

[cwalner]

Because the "workmen" is the only mention in that set of versus to carving, it's at least possible that the idol in question was a decorated tree -- but there's no reason to believe that that's what the idol looked like, and the passage doesn't require it.

You sure about that?

5 They are upright, like a palm tree,

 

[AvalonXQ]

You sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure about that. Have you actually read the chapter, or do you really prefer Scripture OUT of its context?

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes, I'm sure about that. Have you actually read the chapter, or do you really prefer Scripture OUT of its context?

Forgive us, we actually read what the bible says, and don't make stuff up.

You have based your interpretation on "It's very unlikely that what the heathens were doing didn't involve carving up the tree."

It's wishful thinking, and not based on anything in that passage or in the bible.

 

[cwalner]

Yes, I'm sure about that. Have you actually read the chapter, or do you really prefer Scripture OUT of its context?

Sorry, I was only using the quote you provided, which specifically compares the finished product to a tree, and yet you claim that there is no reason to believe that it looked like a tree.

No I have not read the passage, but if my interpretation is based on taking it out of context, then the fault lies with you who provided the only context I had to evaluate it on, and which seems to contradict your conclusion.

I will not explicitly state what my preference for scripture is as you would likely find it to be exceedingly offensive.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Forgive us, we actually read what the bible says, and don't make stuff up.

You have based your interpretation on "It's very unlikely that what the heathens were doing didn't involve carving up the tree."

It's wishful thinking, and not based on anything in that passage or in the bible.

No. It's based on reading the passage and understanding what it was talking about.
The passage compares YHWH God to the construction of a wooden idol, and then compares YHWH God to the construction of a metal idol. If you want to claim that you believe that the wooden idol in question looked like a tree, that's fine. If you want to REQUIRE that the wooden idol they're talking about MUST look like a tree, then you're wrong.
That's really all there is here.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sorry, I was only using the quote you provided, which specifically compares the finished product to a tree, and yet you claim that there is no reason to believe that it looked like a tree.

Well, yes. The bible in several places refers to something as standing upright, or having other qualities, like a tree.
Not once does it refer to a tree as having a quality like a tree. That would be redundant.
The very fact that the author compares its upright stance to that of a tree implies that the idol almost certainly looked like something other than a tree. That, and the facts gleaned from the rest of scripture that when people cut down trees to make idols, they didn't leave the idols looking like trees; they carved them.

 

[BTMO]

I like "Merry Christmas". Let's not dance around the obvious - it is Christmas time where I am. And small groups of vocal immigrants aren't going to change that.

Also, I am violently opposed (but not to the point of offence) to PC-anything - but most especially PC language.

Similarly, BCE / CE just annoy me (and I am a evolutionary marine biologist-in-training) because they use the same datum point as BC and AD - they just take away ... well, I am not actually sure what.

IF I say "Merry Christmas" to someone and it offends them (and they tell me), I do two things - firstly, I give them a Look (you know the one I mean), then I give them a culturally appropriate greeting - if I know it. If I don't I just let the Look merge into an uncomfortable smile and back away.

Funny thing is... no one I know or have greated in this way ever seems to be offended by "Merry Christmas", any more than I am offended by (for example) muslim friends observing Ramadan, or Indian friends Diwali, or whatever.

I think the person up-thread who said that such greetings as the obnoxiously bland "Happy Holidays" came out of some HR office striving to be inclusive (and catering to the lowest common denominator) was right.

So Merry Christmas, mo-fo's.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So Merry Christmas, mo-fo's.

Just never stop wishing people a merry christmas, you can't be more than 6 months early or late.

 

[BTMO]

Just never stop wishing people a merry christmas, you can't be more than 6 months early or late.

It is the way the shops and the greeting card manufacturers would have it.

Personally, my favourite holiday is "summer"....

 

[quarky]

I don't mind seeing the manger scene, even at a post office.

I just want the placenta to be part of it, and i wouldn't mind having Mary breast-feeding the wee-lad. Post-birth virgins have the best hooters imaginable.

 

[Aitch]

Personally, my favourite holiday is "summer"....

Ahh, a closet Cliff Richard fan!