How do pagans celebrate Christmas?

[Huntster]

A Note to Huntster:

Isn't it amazing that Jesus could do so many contradictory things? He praises family and then says that one must hate them. He praises Jews, then he denigrates them. He denigrates Gentiles, but helps one or two on occassion. He hates his Apostles and he loves them. He brings a sword and a dove. He is black and he is white......

Indeed, He is all of the above and much, much more.

He illustrates the complicated reality we live.

During the Consecration at Mass, the priest recites a prayer (seldom out loud) while mixing the water and wine:

...Through the Mystery of this water and wine, we hope to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled Himself to share in our humanity....

...This is what happens when a story is written by at least several authors supporting each of their group's views at various times - a muddled mess that requires acrobatics beyond the greatest circuses on Earth to reconcile...

That's what I like the most; flexibility. By consuming scripture without trying to reconcile the various passages with each other, and by refusing to allow someone else to interpret it for me if I don't agree with their interpretation, I'm living the best of all worlds.

I simply won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I like babies.

...I can have Jesus preaching only to Gentiles if I extract the correct sources (and there are a couple)....

Yup. And I can counter your "having" with other scripture passages.

Won't that be fun!

...Good luck in your faith under the big top...

Thanks! I'm already having fun!

 

[Ducky]

No.

Where in your link does it imply anything about "ignorance of religion"?

Ok, I'll spell it out. You were making an adhom attack on people who debate against religions as having an ignorance of religion. I'll quote that link now for you, since you seem to miss it:

I would also like to point out that many like to condemn religion and spirituality in the same breath, and while doing so illustrate their ignorance of the subject.

Those are your words.

Yet you didn't know anything about the topic at hand in this thread, and dismissed it as garbage out of hand despite being shown the evidence that it is indeed a true statement.

So you are a hypocrite. No worries, that's par for the course with you prosletyzers.

 

[kuroyume0161]

The problem is that, had Christianity remained the Greek mystery cult that Paul intended, it would be interesting (but probably long extinct like the rest of them). The spiritual messages were revolutionary in many ways for the time (and the usual in others). But the entire tie in to Judaism (which was inevitable since much of the revelation was pulled from their religious texts) and the constant battle over doctrine has made it into a mess.

The idea of having a mystery religion without the requirements (celebacy, castration, social status, wealth) opened up these ideas to the masses. But the differences in 'denomination' turned most of the NT into a war of ideas rather than a coherent doctrine.

Christianity spent many centuries becoming somewhat coherent - and it required many councils and real massacres in order to drive them together in a semblence of coherency. There were still Gnostics and other sects running around. And not long after seeming coherency, more splits (Greek orthodoxy, protestants, puritans, and so on since).

If you take it on the personal level and leave it there, I cannot argue about it. When religion becomes organized and institutionalized and proclaims rights to tradition and law and morals, then it deserves to be ridiculed and disassembled piece-meal. If you believe that this is your path to enlightenment and salvation, so be it. But do not tell me mine! I will seek it out for myself.

 

[kmortis]

I can have Jesus preaching only to Gentiles if I extract the correct sources (and there are a couple). Good luck in your faith under the big top.

Yup. And I can counter your "having" with other scripture passages.

Won't that be fun!

And now you might be able to see why we ask for extra-biblical, independent sources to corroborate the stories told in the Bible. It is notoriously incorrrect, inaccurate and, as you say, flexable. The intervening 2000+ years have not been kind to a book that is allegedly so important to a goodly number of people.

ETA:And Hunster, Catholic creeds and Catechisms are not independant extra-biblical sources. Give it up.

 

[Z]

That's what I like the most; flexibility. By consuming scripture without trying to reconcile the various passages with each other, and by refusing to allow someone else to interpret it for me if I don't agree with their interpretation, I'm living the best of all worlds.

Translation: As long as I remain willfully ignorant, I'm happy.

He's not a GIGO machine, he's a AIGO machine. ANYTHING in, garbage out.

This is precisely why your opinions are meaningless, Hunt - the obvious contradictions and flaws in a story are just ignored or glossed over, so that you can happily continue to believe whatever nonsense you like. I notice you didn't give a reference to the passage above, that you feel contradicts my understanding of the historical Jesus. It is Matthew chapter 8, I believe, a passage that seems to contradict Romans chapter 11. Seeing as how the generally held theory today is that Matthew is based upon another Gospel, and was therefore written by gentiles, it is entirely reasonable to assume that a passage was inserted (whether by the author of Matthew or by an earlier non-judaic author is irrelevant) to shift Jesus' attention to the non-jews as well.

Of course, since these earlier sources are lost to us, we can only speculate based on what we have. Since it seems to me (and here I could be wrong) the majority of writings condemn non-Jews until the formation of Christianity (when books would have been written by non-Jews or Jewish Christians), the evidence definitely leans to this general acceptance of non-jews as being a later edit into the older traditions. Certainly the Pauline epistles seem to indicate that all of Israel was going to Heaven! This would clearly contradict the passage in Matthew.

As for non-Jews and their place in Heaven, this remains even today a rather contraversial issue. And now the RCC has removed limbo (what wonderful powers Rome has, huh?), so who knows where all of THOSE souls are now! Combine this with the stories (I'm uncertain of the source/s involved) that Jesus emptied Hell (perhaps of all souls, perhaps of only the faithful (which would have meant Jews, of course)... Well, the afterlife is more a mystery now than before the Scriptures were published, eh?

 

[Roadtoad]

Okay, wait.

Huntster is not a troll in the mold of KK and CD. I don't completely agree with him, and yes, there is an ad hom we're discussing, but let's back up a bit. We generally give folks a chance around here, (KK and CD got one and blew it), so unless there's something I've missed, give the man a moment or two.

Carry on...

 

[kmortis]

Okay, wait.

Huntster is not a troll in the mold of KK and CD. I don't completely agree with him, and yes, there is an ad hom we're discussing, but let's back up a bit. We generally give folks a chance around here, (KK and CD got one and blew it), so unless there's something I've missed, give the man a moment or two.

Carry on...

We did...back in october. Hunster likes to quote the Catechism and dictionary at us. Not actually discuss much, just little quotes.

i'll admit that he seems to have gotten slightly better, but I'd imagine that his old habits will reappear here soon.

 

[Roadtoad]

We did...back in october. Hunster likes to quote the Catechism and dictionary at us. Not actually discuss much, just little quotes.

i'll admit that he seems to have gotten slightly better, but I'd imagine that his old habits will reappear here soon.

Ouch.

Ooooohhh, boy. I don't mind being wrong, but I'd like to think that I can help give a guy a break when he's earned it. Hadn't realized.

Thanks for the 411, Mort...

 

[kmortis]

Ouch.

Ooooohhh, boy. I don't mind being wrong, but I'd like to think that I can help give a guy a break when he's earned it. Hadn't realized.

Thanks for the 411, Mort...

I'll give him this tho. When he breaks out of that mold, he can discuss. He seems to be going down that path here. Belz and I ran in to him earlier and we both tired of having the Catechism quoted at us. Not even to us.

I'm willing to give the proverbial grain as he seems to be behaving himself, but there is that irritating side.

Not that I don't have, mine, you understand, but I'm just an idiot masquerading as an engineer.

 

[Huntster]

Ok, I'll spell it out. You were making an adhom attack on people who debate against religions as having an ignorance of religion. I'll quote that link now for you, since you seem to miss it:

I would also like to point out that many like to condemn religion and spirituality in the same breath, and while doing so illustrate their ignorance of the subject.

Those are your words.....

Indeed they are. Thanks for the pointer.

Perhaps "ignorance" is the wrong word.

Please replace "ignorance" with "one-sided hostility", and see where that takes us.

...Yet you didn't know anything about the topic at hand in this thread, and dismissed it as garbage out of hand despite being shown the evidence that it is indeed a true statement....

Well, the topic of the thread is "How do pagans celebrate Christmas?". I think the garbage I so labeled was the result of this post:

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 :
...And it is to be noted that he does not preach to a single Gentile....

...Acceptance of Gentiles into Christianity was almost solely the enterprise of Paul....

I quoted scripture to show that wasn't true, and the point was made back that other scripture could be quoted to support the allegation.

I acknowledged that, and let it rest at that. If you wish to continue the citation exchange, please continue. I love exchanging citations!

...So you are a hypocrite. No worries, that's par for the course with you prosletyzers.

So how does any of that make me a hypocrite?

 

[Huntster]

...If you take it on the personal level and leave it there, I cannot argue about it. When religion becomes organized and institutionalized and proclaims rights to tradition and law and morals, then it deserves to be ridiculed and disassembled piece-meal....

No argument from me there. In fact, I like that statement.

But don't stop with the church. Let's admit that every institution of man, whether it's religious, government, religious, special interest, etc. get flocked up by the very people in it, who behave as humans do, and the greed, envy, ego, etc take over.

So shall we dismiss them all?

Think the church is the only one who'll burn you at the stake (or proceed with similarly fun measures to make you toe the line)?

...If you believe that this is your path to enlightenment and salvation, so be it...

Thanks!

...But do not tell me mine! I will seek it out for myself...

Fair enough. And good luck to you with it.

But when you (or others) use words harshly and/or falsely to ridicule, condemn, belittle, etc the institutions, faith, or ideals I endear, don't be surprised when I (and others so inclined) write back.

And when I berate science for it's weaknesses, and those within science (or who think or behave like they're good scientists), I expect words back.

Fair?

 

[Huntster]

Translation: As long as I remain willfully ignorant, I'm happy....

Incorrect.

I'm happy, I'll listen and read whatever, if it conflicts with my previous beliefs or knowledge, I may adjust, and I go on in my happiness.

...He's not a GIGO machine, he's a AIGO machine. ANYTHING in, garbage out....

Correct. Everything I can consume goes in, and the garbage goes out.

That's what you do with your garbage, isn't it? Throw it out?

Or do you keep it piling up?

...This is precisely why your opinions are meaningless, Hunt - the obvious contradictions and flaws in a story are just ignored or glossed over, so that you can happily continue to believe whatever nonsense you like...

First, they may be meaningless to you, but they have great meaning to me.

Secondly, I don't intend to ignore or gloss contradictions and flaws. I may appear to do that when I defend the overall concept or ideal, but I am very aware that all ideologies and beliefs have holes that authorities have plugged with various things.

Again, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm patient. I'll wait and look for the rest of the story. I may never be able to tie up all the loose ends, or find my way beyond the lies and tricks of others.

But, overall, with regard to my religious views, I have found (after extensive reading and comparison) that I believe in Monotheism, and the Christian tradition fits me best.

...And now the RCC has removed limbo (what wonderful powers Rome has, huh?)...

Yes, indeed.

Matthew, 16:13-19

..."Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."...

Peter was the fisherman who was to deny even knowing Him during times of trouble, illustrating human weakness.

If you seek perfection, you're in the wrong world.

...so who knows where all of THOSE souls are now!...

I don't know.

...Well, the afterlife is more a mystery now than before the Scriptures were published, eh?...

I don't believe any of us will know much before our own physical deaths. But, apparently, somebody needs to try addressing these issues for folks like yourself, who want precise, perfect details about everything, even if it's obvious that those answers aren't available.

 

[Huntster]

...Huntster is not a troll in the mold of KK and CD....

This troll business is interesting. Often in forums, trolls are illustrated as those ugly, short midgets that lived under bridges in fairy tales.

I initially imagined the internet term "troll" was more akin to one of the things I really like to do;

fish (like St. Peter, "the fisher of men").

Although I usually prefer to catch fish through the ice, or simply scoop them out of the water with a dip net in summer, I occasionally "troll" for salmon and trout.

We drag a baited hook and line through the water at slow speed until a fish can't take the temptation, and takes the bait.

I must admit, I can get lots of bites like that around here. Lots of aggresive fish, they seem to be dumb enough to bite anything you put on the hook, and your hook doesn't even have to be very sharp; they never seem to let go.

Too bad they're all sucker-fish in these waters. Nothing with good taste, like a salmon, or pretty, like a trout. Gotta throw all these fish back.

Never seen sucker-fish with so many sharp teeth before. These are, indeed, interesting fish.

But they're fun to play with, anyway.

 

[Huntster]

...Hunster likes to quote the Catechism and dictionary at us.....

I sure do. You seem to need lots of it.

...i'll admit that he seems to have gotten slightly better, but I'd imagine that his old habits will reappear here soon...

"Are we there yet?"

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Too bad they're all sucker-fish in these waters. Nothing with good taste, like a salmon, or pretty, like a trout. Gotta throw all these fish back.

Never seen sucker-fish with so many sharp teeth before. These are, indeed, interesting fish.

But they're fun to play with, anyway.

You know, I was actually starting to read your posts and consider that you may have had something of value to add but when you started on the arrogant, superior, condescending tripe quoted here I dumped you into the same bucket as the CDs and KKs of the world.

Definitely the way to get your message across!

 

[Huntster]

...I'm willing to give the proverbial grain as he seems to be behaving himself, but there is that irritating side.

Not that I don't have, mine, you understand, but I'm just an idiot masquerading as an engineer.

I'm an idiot masquerading as an engineer, too!

Maybe that's why we're both a$$holes!

BTW, I'm also a jokester. I know some engineer jokes.

 

[CapelDodger]

But that discusses praying and how you should show your 'piety', not how to go about 'recruiting'. I'm not on my Mac so I don't have the direct reference, but doesn't Jesus at least several times command his Apostles to proselytize (make fishers of men and go spread the good news, etc.)?

Our views coincide, but just a little background : Roman personal religion was very private, based on household shrines. The public religion, magnificent and organised, demonstrated the state's power and the Roman people's unity. Romans and Greeks found the open religiosity of some Jews irritating, if not offensive. This, I think, is relevant to Matt 6.

The "pearls before swine" speech is one of those uncomfortable (for Pauline Christianity) elements that rather persuades me that there was an historical Jesus. The logic being that such sayings, attributed to a Jesus character, were already too famous to be swept under the carpet when Pauline Christianity came along. Instead, Matt 6 puts it into a new context.

 

[MLynn]

This thread is kinda interesting, but after the first 4 pages I decided I didn't have much if anything to contribute. I hope the Catholic Church had a very happy Saturnalia...

 

[kuroyume0161]

Our views coincide, but just a little background : Roman personal religion was very private, based on household shrines. The public religion, magnificent and organised, demonstrated the state's power and the Roman people's unity. Romans and Greeks found the open religiosity of some Jews irritating, if not offensive. This, I think, is relevant to Matt 6.

Yes, I agree with your assessment completely. Roman citizens prayed to their 'local' gods (as it were) and the state upheld a 'state religion'. Was it not Constantine's decree that made Christianity the 'state religion' of Rome?

The "pearls before swine" speech is one of those uncomfortable (for Pauline Christianity) elements that rather persuades me that there was an historical Jesus. The logic being that such sayings, attributed to a Jesus character, were already too famous to be swept under the carpet when Pauline Christianity came along. Instead, Matt 6 puts it into a new context.

I'm still not certain (I'm still open to the possibility of historicity, mind all of you - just more skeptical thereby). These could just as well be post-prescribed words attributed to Jesus by one faction or another. That this and other anacronisms survived the 'unification' of Jews and Gentiles, speaks volumes of the value of saying over original intent. The meaning might be reinterpreted so as to ally a more general interpretation, but the roots speak of something different. To be equivocable, yes, it does possibly bely a real Jewish person (the one that was considered the self-appointed messianic prophet that arranged to go to Jerusalem and construct the actions that lead to martyrdom). But there are still these inconsistencies that nag continuously. That most of the Gospels can be considered fabrication fosters doubt on the reliance on a historical figure. The other is the lack of reification in later writings (the Acts and Epistles).

The main fatality of historicity is the lack of any tangible, well, anything. We have no 'real' artifacts. We have no real records (only mostly established interpolations). We have no original documents. We have no writings of Jesus himself (only supposed second-hand testimonials - which are considered to be at least third-hand or worse). We have the dilemma of early symbology inconsistent with the 'human Jesus' (the fish, lamb, basic crucifix). I do not say that no human was the inspiration of the movement. I say that no human was the actual Jesus of scripture. That is difficult for many to dissect.

 

[Roadtoad]

All things considered, two weeks after Christmas, Kurious Kathy's little spewing did nothing more than irritate some very thoughtful people. Thanks for the info, all.

Kathy: Too bad. All you did was drive people further away. So much for winning people to Christ. Then again, maybe that was your goal.