• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

Yeah, I hope its fake :shock:

Hell no! It's twice as funny if it's real.

"Atheism.... It starts in your brain, then moves to your heart, then goes back to your brain again and then it enters your mind"

:rofl :mrgreen:
 
You could choose just about ANY date and it would have conflicted with SOME pre-existing holiday. Did you notice that the December 25th date is exactly NINE MONTHS after the Annunciation? Didn't think so. Ever heard of Hannakuh? Next, you are going to tell me that Easter is pagan in origin too.

Look up the solstices. Furthermore, your argument fails to deal with the issues of the catholics trying to convert huge masses of pagans.

Care to elucidate on the traditions that were "stolen" and explain the alleged religious significance of said traditions?

1) Christmas trees are either Pagan Roman or Druid in origin as is decorating them
2) Mistletoe is a pagan dutch symbol for fertility as it represents the testicles of a Verile bull
3) Presents originated from Pagan Russia
4) Santa comes from the Pagan Russia character of similar nature
5) Bell ringing came from pagan rituals to expel evil spirits

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

WHat are we celebrating on December 25? The birth of the Son of God. The traditional date for that celebration is exactly nine months after the Annunciation to Mary. Hint - It is generally held that a woman's normal term is about nine months.

Nevermind the Church's desire to covert the masses of pagans who were celebrating their holidays during the same time and did so well before Christanity came around (or Judaism for that matter).

I could say the same of you.

All you have is scripture. I actually have history. Along with the context of what the Church was trying to do at the time.

So? Average high temperature in Jerusalem in December is the upper 50s. Not cold. If it wasn't winter, why was field labor suspended?

Uh, field labor wasn't suspended. What are you talking about?

Why do I care what a bunch of bigoted, intolerant Puritans did?

So now their views as Christians don't matter?

Apparently Christians in power in history don't matter when they don't agree to your view points. lol.
 
John the Baptist was actually the individual born in March, not Jesus. Biblical and historical record places Jesus's birth sometime in Fall , most likely September.

What Biblical record? There is no date given in the Bible. What historical record?

Remember, Catholics don't place great importance on the actual date, but the date wasn't chosen at random. The Annunciation is on March 25 (a date with some Biblical support) and Christmas is celebrated nine months later. The CCC does not mention a date, indicating that the actual date is NOT important. The reason and message are what IS important.

Shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at night at the time of Jesus' birth [Luke 2:7-8].
As temperatures become freezing in Judea in the winter time and weather is quite harsh at times shepherds are in shelter and not out grazing their flocks in the dead of winter. It is more likely that Jesus was not born in the winter taking this fact into consideration.

It isn't THAT cold in Judea in December. The average high temperature in Jerusalem in December is in the upper 50s and the low is in the lower 40s. Remember, low temperatures are typically in the half hour after dawn, so that the temperature in the early evening would be considerbly warmer than the lower forties. Also, we don't know the temperature that particular year. It could have been even warmer. The argument that it was freezing and the actions of shepards aren't consisent with such weather does not wash.


Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census [Luke 2:1-4].
Though no census is ever recorded by Roman historians the Romans would have most likely not called for such a census during the winter, forcing thousands of people to traverse the lands in harsh and deadly weather when they could do so in the summer.

On what basis? Did the Romans have a history of considering the needs of subject peoples, especially one they rather despised? Also, again, the weather isn't THAT bad.


We know Mary was in her sixth month of pregnancy when John the Baptist was born to Elizabeth and Zacharias [Luke 1:24-36].
So if we figure out when John was born we can find the month Jesus was born in. John's father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah [Luke 1:5] and it was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that his wife Elizabeth would have a child and after his service he traveled home and conceived John [Luke 1:8-13;22-24]. Historical calculations indicate this course of service corresponded to June of that year (late Sivan/early Tammuz). So if we take into account Zacharias did indeed return home right after this service then John was most likely conceived end of June/early July, so John was most likely born in March. Adding another six months, as Mary was 3 months pregnant at John's birth, Jesus would have been born in September.

I can also quote Iranaeus (disciple of Polycarp) and Eusebius ("father of Church history") as placing Jesus's birth in the Fall. But I think you get the point.

The fact is the Council of Nicea moved Jesus's birthday to December 25 to easy the conversion of Roman Mithraists to Christianity.

Remember, Catholics don't hold the date to be of vital importance. Christmas is about remember why we celebrate our faith and remembering the birth of He who founded it. It isn't even our most important holiday. I present the argument below not as a validation of the date being important, but as an academic exercise. As I have said before, scholars are not in unanimous agreement.

The Gospel According to Luke gives us the most information regarding the Birth of Jesus. In Luke 1:26, it says "In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, (27) to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David." Measureing the Jewish Calendar from Rosh Hoshanna, the sixth month frequently falls in March in the modern solar calandar. This is the time we celebrate the Annunciation.

Luke 1:31: "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus." It says WILL conceive. The conception has not happened yet. If we assume that the conception occurred shortly thereafter, it would be safe to assume that the birt occurred approximately nine months after the Annunciation. That would put the date of the birth of Christ in mid to late December.

I am not presenting this as authoriative, merely another interpretation. Frankly, once again it is not important to me the actual date of the birth of Christ. We simply do not know. What IS important, is to celebrate our Faith. We also need to remember the importance of not only Faith, but Love and Charity. This is the true meaning of the Christmas season. We should practice it year-round, but Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter provides us cause to remember what we should truly practice as Christians.
 
I am not sure I understand what is so offensive about the sign. Here is what it reads:

At this season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail.​

There are no gods.
no devils. no angels.
no heaven or hell.
There is only
our natural world.
Religion is but
myth and superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.​

Though it disagree with the message, it isn't offensive to me. What IS offensive is that they are specifically targeting our second most importand holiday, putting it beside nativity scenes, and putting them near churches. Spread your message - I have no problem with that - but remember I will also spread mine and I have an equal right to do so.


As for the offensiveness of the nativity scene: It is. It represents the manipulative story of Christ. This story's subject is only necessary in the event that humankind is corrupt. So, tied up in the nativity scene is the insult that I am corrupt along with the rest of humankind. It is likewise condescending.

The Christian display is sneaky, because it conceals it's message behind the cloak of a peaceful scene with charming baby.

The Atheist sign is more direct, and so what?

SAdly, mankind IS corrupt. I see evidence of it each and every day. If you don't, you must be suffering from Ostrich Syndrome.
 
Look up the solstices. Furthermore, your argument fails to deal with the issues of the catholics trying to convert huge masses of pagans.

Catholics were trying to convert people, so?!?!? Mormons try to convert people every day. Fortunately, they have met with much less success than the Catholics have.

1) Christmas trees are either Pagan Roman or Druid in origin as is decorating them

When did Christmas trees enter the celebration? Try 16th century! What is their liturgical purpose? Are they used universally?

2) Mistletoe is a pagan dutch symbol for fertility as it represents the testicles of a Verile bull

Same as one.

3) Presents originated from Pagan Russia

Wrong, it originated with the wise men giving gifts to JEsus.

4) Santa comes from the Pagan Russia character of similar nature

Wrong. It is a reference to Saint Nicholas, a real man who lived in 4th century Asia Minor who was noted for his generosity.

5) Bell ringing came from pagan rituals to expel evil spirits

Bell ringing has a long history of use in Jewish traditions. That is silly. Many different cultures use bells for different reasons. Just because Pagans use them, that means no one else can?

Care to try again?




Nevermind the Church's desire to covert the masses of pagans who were celebrating their holidays during the same time and did so well before Christanity came around (or Judaism for that matter).



All you have is scripture. I actually have history. Along with the context of what the Church was trying to do at the time.



Uh, field labor wasn't suspended. What are you talking about?



So now their views as Christians don't matter?

Apparently Christians in power in history don't matter when they don't agree to your view points. lol.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Look up the solstices. Furthermore, your argument fails to deal with the issues of the catholics trying to convert huge masses of pagans.



1) Christmas trees are either Pagan Roman or Druid in origin as is decorating them
2) Mistletoe is a pagan dutch symbol for fertility as it represents the testicles of a Verile bull
3) Presents originated from Pagan Russia
4) Santa comes from the Pagan Russia character of similar nature
5) Bell ringing came from pagan rituals to expel evil spirits

That's just the tip of the iceberg.



Nevermind the Church's desire to covert the masses of pagans who were celebrating their holidays during the same time and did so well before Christanity came around (or Judaism for that matter).



All you have is scripture. I actually have history. Along with the context of what the Church was trying to do at the time.



Uh, field labor wasn't suspended. What are you talking about?



So now their views as Christians don't matter?

Apparently Christians in power in history don't matter when they don't agree to your view points. lol.
Simple question: If you could end the Christian celebration of Christmas, would you?

Yes or no
 
So athieism in not a belief system to you, yet here some of them are acting like it is.... go figger....

I act like weed is legal. Doesn't mean it is. What exactly is your point here? Somebody 'acting' whatever the hell that means, proves something? If I act like there is no God does that prove there is no God? Get to the point 'Rev'.

"baptists" funny, most "baptists" I know believe no such thing., were you lying and going for shock value or were you being ignorantly bigoted?

:roll:

Oh so your experience voids what is basically the unspoken status quo? Alright then I guess the voices of talking heads like Jerry Falwell who command then attentions of millions of religious people in this country mean nothing then :

Really?

Jerry Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Falwell said on The 700 Club, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Fellow evangelist Pat Robertson concurred with his sentiment.[35] After heavy criticism, Falwell apologized,[29] though he later said that he stood by his statement, stating, "if we decide to change all the rules on which this Judeo-Christian nation was built, we cannot expect the Lord to put his shield of protection around us as he has in the past."[30]
 
I am not presenting this as authoriative, merely another interpretation. Frankly, once again it is not important to me the actual date of the birth of Christ. We simply do not know. What IS important, is to celebrate our Faith. We also need to remember the importance of not only Faith, but Love and Charity. This is the true meaning of the Christmas season. We should practice it year-round, but Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter provides us cause to remember what we should truly practice as Christians.
That's quite a contradiction from your last post. You seemed quite adamant that Jesus was conceived in March and born on December 25. If you truly believe it doesn't matter then I won't respond to your rebuttal as it would be a pointless tangent to the discussion.

I share the opinion the date really doesn't matter. I also don't have a problem with the Council of Nicea moving the birth to December 25 to help convert Roman pagans. It was a smart move and a requirement to transition Rome from paganism to Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Look up the solstices. Furthermore, your argument fails to deal with the issues of the catholics trying to convert huge masses of pagans.


:lol: my wifes family is Catholic, i have not seen them try to convert anyone. Hell they are more inclined to not include you than to convert you.


Are you making things up again? :lol:
 
I act like weed is legal. Doesn't mean it is. What exactly is your point here? Somebody 'acting' whatever the hell that means, proves something? If I act like there is no God does that prove there is no God? Get to the point 'Rev'.


I think you need to put down the bong for once. your drug use is not a badge of honor pops.



Oh so your experience voids what is basically the unspoken status quo? Alright then I guess the voices of talking heads like Jerry Falwell who command then attentions of millions of religious people in this country mean nothing then :


Not really. Falwell has no affect on me, my ordination, my family, or anyone I know.... you seem to let him get to you......






Really, you act like the bigot when you infer that these guys speak for all of baptists.....


Jeffrey Dahmer blamed his athiesm for his crimes. does he speak for you? :roll:
 
Simple question: If you could end the Christian celebration of Christmas, would you?

Yes or no

Do you mean end of Christians celebration of Christmas like they do now or the end of Christians celebration of Christmas like they should be?

I would think any Christian would be supporting of ending the celebration of Christmas like it is now because of all the commercialism and the detraction of what Christmas is supposed to be to them.

That is why I think it is hilarious that Christians want to boycott stores that say Happy Holidays. It's not like a store says Merry Christmas because they believe in Christian values, they just want your money.

Same goes for atheists that try to make a store say Happy Holidays, it's silly because the stores won't do it because they believe in the same values the person boycotting it does, they just want your money.
 
That's quite a contradiction from your last post. You seemed quite adamant that Jesus was conceived in March and born on December 25. If you truly believe it doesn't matter then I won't respond to your rebuttal as it would be a pointless tangent to the discussion.

I share the opinion the date really doesn't matter. I also don't have a problem with the Council of Nicea moving the birth to December 25 to help convert Roman pagans. It was a smart move and a requirement to transition Rome from paganism to Christianity.

I was merely pointing out that the date was not primarily for the purpose of converting pagans. There is solid basis for the date having no relationship with that. I did not assert that this was the date of his birth.
 
Do you mean end of Christians celebration of Christmas like they do now or the end of Christians celebration of Christmas like they should be?

I would think any Christian would be supporting of ending the celebration of Christmas like it is now because of all the commercialism and the detraction of what Christmas is supposed to be to them.

I am in complete agreement with this. I love Christmas, but I am very said at what it has become - something underscored by what happened at that Wal Mart in Long Island.
 
I was merely pointing out that the date was not primarily for the purpose of converting pagans. There is solid basis for the date having no relationship with that.

If Jesus was not born on December 25 what solid basis is there for celebrating his birth on December 25 other then to convert Roman pagans (who already celebrated the birth of Mithra (the unconquered sun) on December 25)?

I did not assert that this was the date of his birth.

The below seems like an assertion to me.

Did you notice that the December 25th date is exactly NINE MONTHS after the Annunciation? Didn't think so.
WHat are we celebrating on December 25? The birth of the Son of God. The traditional date for that celebration is exactly nine months after the Annunciation to Mary. Hint - It is generally held that a woman's normal term is about nine months.
 
Last edited:
That is why I think it is hilarious that Christians want to boycott stores that say Happy Holidays. It's not like a store says Merry Christmas because they believe in Christian values, they just want your money.

You're simply presuming that those who do advocate boycotting those stores are shopping at stores that continue to use "Merry Christmas" because they believe that those stores are reflecting some preference of Christian values.

It's a presumption that's only useful in caricaturing Christians as dopes.

I know I prefer stores that continue to use "Merry Christmas" because they have not bowed to public pressure to rid the public square of religion. That's why I am frustrated by Amazon's "Merry Holiday" nonsense. It's not because I think Amazin has now jettisoned what I perceived to be its faith or preference for Christian values. It's because I will support retailers that resist attempts to erase religion from the celebration of Christmas.
 
You're simply presuming that those who do advocate boycotting those stores are shopping at stores that continue to use "Merry Christmas" because they believe that those stores are reflecting some preference of Christian values.

It's a presumption that's only useful in caricaturing Christians as dopes.

I know I prefer stores that continue to use "Merry Christmas" because they have not bowed to public pressure to rid the public square of religion. That's why I am frustrated by Amazon's "Merry Holiday" nonsense. It's not because I think Amazin has now jettisoned what I perceived to be its faith or preference for Christian values. It's because I will support retailers that resist attempts to erase religion from the celebration of Christmas.

They aren't erasing religion at all. They are opening it up because Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the holiday season like they seem to think they do. It's not about being politically correct, but being open to the myriad of cultures and traditions that we have in this country.
 
They aren't erasing religion at all. They are opening it up because Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the holiday season like they seem to think they do. It's not about being politically correct, but being open to the myriad of cultures and traditions that we have in this country.


Not erasing? I would characterize the elimination of Christian language and symbols as erasure. Wouldn't you? What would you call it otherwise?

And how does using "Happy Holidays", that would not be celebrated now anyway except for Christmas, constitute to being open to cultures and traditions?

It doesn't. What it represents is the continuing attack of Christianity on those seeking to eliminate it from the public square.
 
Not erasing? I would characterize the elimination of Christian language and symbols as erasure. Wouldn't you? What would you call it otherwise?

They aren't eliminating anything. Do you seriously think that embracing all cultures will somehow make Christmas cease to exist?

And how does using "Happy Holidays", that would not be celebrated now anyway except for Christmas, constitute to being open to cultures and traditions?

I've always thought that Happy Holidays works even for Christians because it covers all of the late year - new year holidays (Thanksgiving - New Years). However, it can even cover the holidays celebrated by other religions and cultures. How is that a bad thing?

It doesn't. What it represents is the continuing attack of Christianity on those seeking to eliminate it from the public square.

:roll:

It isn't attacking Christianity at all. Just because Christians are starting to be taken away from the limelight and are no longer holding a monopoly on the holiday season doesn't mean that it's trying to attack or eliminate it. If you really think that the foundations of Christianity are so weak that embracing all religious holidays is a bad thing then you obviously have very little faith in Christianity.
 
Do you mean end of Christians celebration of Christmas like they do now or the end of Christians celebration of Christmas like they should be?

I would think any Christian would be supporting of ending the celebration of Christmas like it is now because of all the commercialism and the detraction of what Christmas is supposed to be to them.

That is why I think it is hilarious that Christians want to boycott stores that say Happy Holidays. It's not like a store says Merry Christmas because they believe in Christian values, they just want your money.

Same goes for atheists that try to make a store say Happy Holidays, it's silly because the stores won't do it because they believe in the same values the person boycotting it does, they just want your money.
Yes or no is a hard thing to comprehend isn't it? I wasn't asking for nuance.
 
Not erasing? I would characterize the elimination of Christian language and symbols as erasure. Wouldn't you? What would you call it otherwise?

And how does using "Happy Holidays", that would not be celebrated now anyway except for Christmas, constitute to being open to cultures and traditions?

It doesn't. What it represents is the continuing attack of Christianity on those seeking to eliminate it from the public square.

I think it represents companies starting to understand their consumer base a little bit more. And what does it matter anyway? Not everyone is Christian, companies know that now. Companies don't care what religion you are, they merely want your money. So they are obviously going to start moving in ways which are more inclusive of a larger set of people as to not alienate them. I don't get all the hubbub. Things don't stay the same forever, things always change. Stagnation is bad, it's slow death. So companies now are trying to do things which include more of their customer base. Big deal, I'd expect companies to move in that direction. It's not bowing to political pressure or PC crap or any of that. It's private companies changing policy to be more inclusive; that's it.
 
I think it represents companies starting to understand their consumer base a little bit more. And what does it matter anyway? Not everyone is Christian, companies know that now.

Well, I'd say that companies always knew that. It's not like the concept that "Not everyone is Christian" just revealed itself yesterday.

Second, what's it matter if not everyone is not Christian? Is wishing someone a Merry Christmas somehow offensive? Maybe considering how we have had to reform how we speak lest we trample someone's delicate sensibilities.

Companies don't care what religion you are, they merely want your money. So they are obviously going to start moving in ways which are more inclusive of a larger set of people as to not alienate them.

I'm not sure how Target using "Merry Christmas" would alienate someone. Would displaying "Merry Christmas" cause someone to leave their store? Maybe. But what we do know is that large numbers of people are boycotting Target simply for not permitting the Salvation Army to ring their bells outside their doors.

I
don't get all the hubbub. Things don't stay the same forever, things always change. Stagnation is bad, it's slow death. So companies now are trying to do things which include more of their customer base. Big deal, I'd expect companies to move in that direction. It's not bowing to political pressure or PC crap or any of that. It's private companies changing policy to be more inclusive; that's it.

I don't see it being inclusive. People weren't boycotting stores for using "Merry Christmas." It's intentionally excluding the very basis for this season.

But I agree, it's a private firm's private decision. However, that doesn't immunize them from criticism.
 
BTW - I love the Holiday that shall not be named these so many have adopted at this time of year. I mean, if not celebrating Christmas, then what the heck is being celebrated?

What do the American people say?

Well, in 2005, according to CNN: 69% of Americans now prefer "Merry Christmas," to just 29% who prefer "Happy Holidays," with 61% of Americans saying the use of "Happy Holidays" in stores and public institutions represented a change for the worse.

In 2007, according to Rasmussen Reports : 67% of American adults like stores to use the phrase "Merry Christmas" in their seasonal advertising rather than "Happy Holidays." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 26% prefer the Happy Holidays line.

So much for the argument that using "Happy Holidays" is just being more inclusive. :roll:
 
Well, I'd say that companies always knew that. It's not like the concept that "Not everyone is Christian" just revealed itself yesterday.

Second, what's it matter if not everyone is not Christian? Is wishing someone a Merry Christmas somehow offensive? Maybe considering how we have had to reform how we speak lest we trample someone's delicate sensibilities.

While it has been known for quite some time, I think maybe we're just getting out of a time when Christianity is considered dominate and the only religion in this country worth acknowledging. As I said, things change. I think people have become well more open to the concept of differing religions, and more so than just the different flavors of Christianity which already existed. People have become well more tolerant and aware. And as people's perception changes, the stores whom cater to them change as well to reflect that change in perception.

I don't think people were necessarily offended by Merry Christmas even if not Christian. I think that people just thought it'd be nice to include everyone, since you can't tell religion (usually) by external appearances, they've decided to adopt rhetoric that is more inclusive to the whole. I don't think any of this is forced. I think it's just that society and people have changed, and in a capitalistic nation; business will always change to reflect that.

I'm not sure how Target using "Merry Christmas" would alienate someone. Would displaying "Merry Christmas" cause someone to leave their store? Maybe. But what we do know is that large numbers of people are boycotting Target simply for not permitting the Salvation Army to ring their bells outside their doors.

I doubt many would boycott over the use of Merry Christmas. I'm just saying, I don't think this to be a forced decision. I think companies reviewed their policy and changed it. I'm sure that if for some reason our society as a whole was very hostile towards all other religions except Christianity, that you'd never hear a store say Happy Holidays or whatever, it'd always be Merry Christmas. But we're a rather open and tolerant people, and as such the companies have looked at what they had been doing and decided that it would be better to change it. There's nothing really wrong with what they did.

I don't see it being inclusive. People weren't boycotting stores for using "Merry Christmas." It's intentionally excluding the very basis for this season.

But I agree, it's a private firm's private decision. However, that doesn't immunize them from criticism.

Maybe you don't see it as being more inclusive because you were in a group that was already included. People may not have been boycotting, but I think it's a bit nicer to wish all people well, regardless of religion. And the companies just adopted rhetoric that didn't speak to specific religion but still portrayed the overall feeling. There wasn't anything wrong, and I don't see anything forced. I am usually set well against the PC movement, but I don't particularly see their fangs in this specific issue.
 
I've heard some folks say there should be an aetheist holiday that they can celebrate however they like and leave CHRISTMAS alone.

Their day could be April 1st.

I agree with both ideas.
 
So much for the argument that using "Happy Holidays" is just being more inclusive. :roll:

I think a lot of resistance comes from the group which was already acknowledged having a problem with other groups being promoted to their circle. I'd like to see how that poll broke down across religious lines and if it took account of that as well.

In terms of inclusiveness, Happy Holidays is of course more inclusive than Merry Christmas; as Happy Holidays can encompass all religions where as Merry Christmas encompasses only one. It doesn't have to mean that everyone would necessarily like being more inclusive; which is what your poll shows. Not that Happy Holidays isn't more inclusive, but rather that some would rather it not be more inclusive.
 
Back
Top Bottom