Is Jesus Invited to His Birthday Party?

Oh thou CCNL

Have you ever been in love? I have been! I certainly have no photographs/recordings as evidence to prove HOW and WHY I felt that way about a particular man and not about the ? 3 billion other men.

Maybe you should spend a little time reading up the writings of Christian mystics. Restricting your reading to Crossan & Co is a bit too limited.

Happy New Year 2008! May the new year find you more open to new ideas and perceptions and more respectful of others who happen to believe in things you don't happen to understand.

Best wishes
Soja

Soja,

So you are saying you have seen "tinker bells" or demons during your higher level of consciousness? You know someone who has? You have photographs/recordings of said encounters?

Oh thou CCNL

There are more things in this world and beyond that your unenlightened mind is unable to grasp, at this point in time. Do respect the experiences of others who have been just as sincere in their search (if not more) of higher levels of consciousness and realities not immediately visible or tangible to the senses. Would you be annoyed if a blind man didn't understand your description of the rainbow? Neither am I suprised that everything you don't understand or have experienced seems like tinker bells to you. Blame your perception CCNL, not the genuine experience of others.

Merry Christmas to you once again!

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Bobby -

I had one more thought about what constitutes evidence.

The OT (Deut.) is very clear that the word of two or three eyewitnesses is enough evidence to start an investigation of a crime.

The problem with this is that two or three eyewitnesses' word is no guarantee that they are being truthful. In fact, it only insures that if somebody wants to wrongly accuse another of a crime, they need only get two or three people together who are willing to tell the same lie.

Case in point: the two false witnesses at Jesus' trial.

It follows that the bar is set pretty low when one considers what amounts to Biblical "evidence." It's not really the fault of the writers of the Bible. They had no concept of forensic evidence or the other tools modern science has developed to parse the truthfulness of evidence in question.

But we now live in a scientific age where forensic evidence trumps circumstantial and eyewitness evidence at every turn, no more so than one considers the big questions in life - like, does god exist?

I, for one, am glad for that.

Anonymous -

You ask a fair question, and one that could be more clearly explained by a fully enlightened practitioner of the 'subtle art' of meditation and illumination.

What we have is basically what they have told us in the aftermath of their long practice over many years (and to a greater or lesser degree, the word of all of the mystics through the ages).

These practices are aimed at breaking down all individual (ego) resistance to perceiving our own natural mind and fundamental nature - Buddhism has as it's goal the end of suffering through self-awareness of that nature, and the naturally arising empathy for all 'unenlightened' sentient beings that inevitabley results from this 'revelation'. But the mystery continues - I may have quoted Huang Po when he said that 'in reality, there are no Buddhas and no sentient beings to be saved'.

I do think you have to have some familiarization with the metaphysics of Buddhism and the concept of reincarnation - nothing is achieved in a single lifetime in this view.

When full enlightenment comes, one sees into one's own nature and the nature of all things. With all barriers finally broken down, pure awareness recognizes itself as the sole undivided reality residing in a transparent, ever-changing universe that is void of objective existence.

Perception occurs, and the phenomenal world arises - even in our present state, we can see very clearly that nothing exists but the present instant as it continues to pass into infinity.

We just don't think about the implications of this very obvious fact (we're also very aware of the fact that we only live for a few years, and for that reason many of our observations are ignored and go unnoticed - we cling to transient solutions, in my opinion).

In the same way, most quantum physicists don't think about the implications of their own discoveries regarding the tenuous nature of matter - it does not exist as we imagine it, and any quantum physicist will agree with this notion - and then go to lunch.

Time is an illusion, and despite all of our after-the-fact evidence, there is in reality no past or future (since neither can coexist with the ever-present instant). Therefore, Emptiness with the appearance of infinite activity is also the true nature of all existence. The masters are very clear however - Reality is beyond words, descriptions, and definitions and these are all relative terms.

As the realized masters say, until you can clearly observe Samsara (our phenomenal universe) and Nirvana as mutually co-existing for all time, you have not seen reality as it truly is.

This is my very unenlightened understanding -

Soja,

In many respects in all comes down to "pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingies". Stop and think how many religions are dependent on these "tinker bells".

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Excuse me, my last comment should have been addressed to Terry, not Soja.

Teery--Are you suggesting that there is no objective truth or falsehood, that all is equally ´good´ and equally ´real´?

Soja --Are you suggesting that there is no objective truth or falsehood, that all is equally ´good´and equally ´real´?

Soja -

Thanks for your response and excellent grasp of
other religions. Would that other Christians were so well educated with regard to other metaphysical points of view - I'm afraid that applies to the Pope himself, who at one point in his earlier career referred to Buddhism as
'mental masturbation'. Of course he believes in the ultimate superiority of Catholicism, otherwise how could he be the Pope??

Christianity would do well to re-gain it's ecumenical spirit. Christians believe in one God and the divinity of Jesus, whereas other religions may prefer to believe in one Reality while declining to believe in avatars and other divine humans. Other folks survive just fine without any metaphysical or religious orientation whatsoever.

You can argue all day long about who's right and who's wrong, but at the end of the day you have to sleep in your own bed and be comforted by your own beliefs.

Contemporary Dzogchen master Rinpoche Norbu says this - 'There is no concept that can define the condition of 'what is', but vision nevertheless manifests; all is good'.

Best wishes in the coming year!

Moderate --That was pretty funny...yet eerily on the mark with how some of these christianity bashers reason. I couldn't have made the point better.

I wonder to what extent they are even aware of it.

CCNL

So a rehash of NT, NT which is the closest account we have from people who knew Jesus in His lifetime, is NOT good enough? Scholarly work, which could even be a clever stretch of the imagination, is supposedly better?

You seem to be a non-believer in all religions. Are you an atheist, agnostic or what? What point might you then be trying to make by saying that the founders of all religions were illerate...? That exposes your ignorance about spiritual matters in general. By your definition, does someone with a PhD from Harvard Divinity School become the most spiritual person? Most of the spiritual greats of Hinduism and Buddhism have no formal education at all and scholars are hard pressed to understand the spiritual depth and wisdom contained in their teachings.

Pope Benedict wanted Christians to get back to basics. He has done a great job of it in his book. We live in an age where there seems to be as many denominations are there are number of churches, so I am glad that Pope Benedict decided to find common ground for all Christians to be united. We need it so desperately these days, even before we think in terms of inter-religious dialogue. First must come unity in spirit among Christians of all denominations based on the basics of our Christian faith.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Terry

Buddhism as it evolved in Tibet, Sri Lanka and other Far Eastern countries have their own regional flavours and many other beliefs and rituals were integrated into them. Similarly Chan in China which became Zen in Japan are all locally modified forms of Buddhism.

In Zen (whether the Chinese or Japanese version) one learns more about the teachings of the masters of their particular lineage than the teachings of Buddha himself, although of course reference is made to the teachings of Buddha.

After his englightenment, Buddha spent 40-45 years walking up and down India with a band of followers teaching Buddhism. Ashoka, the Indian Emperor, after his conversion to Buddhism, sent out Buddhist monks as far wide as he could. That is how Buddhism spread to the Far East. (Most of the large Buddhist community in India was reconverted to Hinduism in the 7/8th century by the work of Shankaracharya, originally a Nambudiri Brahmin from Kerala, who in his turn walked the length and breadth of India preaching a kind of Hinduism that integrated Buddhist thought, arriving at it through his own spiritual work and not learning from any Buddhist.) The original Buddhist teachings are based on Buddha's teachings, not his silence. It is true that sometimes Buddha chose to remain silent as a way of communicating some truth, but that should not be interpreted as him teaching ONLY through silence.

Best wishes
Soja
--------------

Soja,

B16's book is nothing more than a rehash of the NT. A better book with Catholic Church validation is Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament. He also has a larger section of commentary about groups like the Jesus Seminarians.

As noted by many on these threads, we believed the earth was flat for over a 1000 years. Ditto for believing Earth was the center of the universe. And some of us believed Catholic priests could no wrong.

And then there are those "pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingies" and their ugly counterparts aka "the demons of the demented".

Moderate,

References????? And a list of your "scriptural scholars???

Dear Lepidopteryx

Thank you for your wishes. I'm so touched that you would raise a cup to me at your celebration of Solistice! Of course I know that pagans gave some really beautiful customs to Christianity, or rather Christians in Europe adopted many beautiful pagan customs and integrated Christian festivals to pagan ones adapting the symbolic meaning. Christmas being celebrated just after the longest night is one of them, the symbolism being that Jesus came as the light in the darkest night of winter.

Best wishes
Soja

CCNL

Scholarship can be carried to any extreme you know. You quote a handful of authors over and over again to make your point, forgetting Christianity is two thousand years old and there are literally thousands and thousands of priests and scholars who have spent whole lifetimes on reading, praying and writing and have had different things to say.

Pope Benedict wrote in the introduction to his book, 'Jesus of Narareth' that he wrote the book precisely to clear some of the confusion that has arisen due to the kind of scholarship that you mention.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Concerned Christian Now Liberated:

When Mary and Joseph fled into Egypt they went to Alexandria, which had a large and sophisticated Jewish community, where there was construction boom and carpenters could find work.

Jesus read the scriptures there, and encountered Jewish Rabbis and Hellenistic philosophers. He was a young genius and learned his lessons well. Later, he returned to teach with authority.

We took a vote among a community of scriptural scholars. So we know this to be true.

Other anonymous --Tony Blair is not the only convert to have been wrong about many things.

Consider Paul of Tarsus' conversion. He was obsessed with killing Christians.

Anonymous -- thanks for posting that. I'm happy to see these kinds of Anglicans find another church. As the article states: "In recent years a growing number of Anglicans, opposed to the ordination of women and gay bishops, have asked to convert to Catholicism."

Now that Tony Blair has converted will anyone
follow?? He was wrong about so many things -

E Favorite: Perhaps that is why Anglicans are converting to Catholicsm.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=11a04fce-9757-463d-b965-936ff16534ca&k=41623

Soya -

In my comment I was referring to Huang Po's elucadation of (6th patriarch) Hui-neng's comments on The One Mind - 'all Buddhas and all ordinary (sentient) beings are only The Mind itself, and nothing whatsoever exists objectively apart from this Mind'. (the Mind being merely a convention referring to the One Substance which neither speaks nor hears).

'From the first, nothing is' sums up Hui-neng's point of view. In a similar manner, the Buddha is said to sum up the mysterious essence of Buddhism in his comment,' I truly gained nothing from Complete and Unexcelled Enlightenment'.

As to Enlightenment itself, Bodhidharma (the first Patriarch of Zen) is quoted, 'The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the 'substance' which constitutes reality may truly be said to
baffle description'.......

Huang Po further summerizes that although the Buddha preached continuously for 50 years, not a single word was spoken.

The Tang Dynasty Zen (chan) masters were quite amazing and may represent the zenith of Chinese Zen in the 8th and 9th centuries - they led the way to the development of the Rinzai (sudden enlightenment) and Soto (gradual enlightenment through sitting or zazen) schools of Zen.

Was that more than anybody wanted to know about Zen??

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!

This just in: the Archbishop of Canterbury said on the BBC yesterday that the three Kings are legend, that stars “don't behave” the way the star of Bethlehem supposedly did and that you don't have to believe in the virgin birth to sign up with the anglican church. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3076008.ece

This info is not news to anyone with seminary training, but I may come as a surprise to the people in the pews.

Here's another link to a story in the Australian press: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/three-wise-men-just-legend-archbishop/2007/12/20/1197740452480.html

Concerned:

Jesus demonstrated having read the scriptures in more than one place (e.g. regarding divorce, David eating sanctified bread, etc.)

Yet, even if it had been in only 1 place, that would be sufficient. There is an infinite difference between 0 and 1.

Concerned:

Jesus demnstrated having read the scriptures in more than one place (e.g. regarding divorce, David eating sanctified bread, etc.)

Yet, even if it had been in only 1 place, that would be sufficient. There is an infinite difference between 0 and 1.

Soya,

I did not say Buddha was illiterate. As per Terry's comments above, however, "As vast as the sutras may be, we can be certain the Buddha never wrote a single word. In truth, the Buddha never spoke a single word either (Hui-neng, 8th century CE)."

With respect to the illiteracy of Mohammed, see the books and studies of Karen Armstrong one of the contemporary experts about Mo.

With respect to the illiteracy of Jesus, see any book or on-line encyclopedia written by a contemporary NT exegete on the historical Jesus. Examples:See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Also, there is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors.

See also Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

Paganplace --

I believe that all touches the spiritual plane, whether one, or any entity, is aware of it or not. God is spiritual so it is impossible for anything to not be in some way spiritual. I sort of look at it like Teilhard de Chardin, a pan-en-theist (not a pantheist). All that is created is a small circle within God, the larger circle, Being Itself. Some non monotheistic religions (i.e. buddhism, hinduism) believe that one can, by one's efforts, attain an enlightened state, or even God-consciousness, consciousness of being God. I believe that is a partial delusion, resulting when a person confuses his own soul, full of God, with God. Christians and monotheistic religions mark a distinction between one's soul and God. The former is contingent on the latter, the former created, ther latter not.

The Christian accepts God's preeminence, and that 'salvation', that is, living in the presence of God, is the result of God's initiative with us (grace), and our acceptance (or rejection) of it. Nothing can happen unless God initiates.

Buddhist or Hindu experience involves, in my view, an acceptance of God's grace, yet they are under the (vain) delusion that it is due to personal effort. For the Christian, personal virtuous effort is evidence that one is in God's grace, not the price one pays to attain it. No price would be high enough.

I believe I've addressed your main concern, the others were offshoots. I hope I have been sufficiently clear.

Soja,

My sarong is not in a twist over Christians using Pagan symbology, nor do I get offended when people wish me Merry Christmas. What pisses me off is when certain obnoxious groups of Christians start sccreaming that they are being persecuted and marginalized when Pagans claim those same elements, or when other groups have the gall to celebrate holy days in December. I know those folks don't represent all Christians, but they are the ones that cause so much trouble for non-Christians.

A Merry Christmas to you and yours, and I will lift a cup in your honor when I attend a Solstice service tonight.

Dear LEPIDOPTERYX

O please don't get your sarong into a twist about something so silly! Christmas is a ?worldwide holiday, and in the US where the majority are Christians, you should not be offended that everybody doesn't remember you are a pagan who takes offence at being mistaken for a Christian. Forgive your enemies, I say! ;)

About the social customs associated with Christmas, I can assure you that each country has evolved its own variety. Don't take offence at that. My parents never kissed under the tree (I have never seen them kiss in public anyway); we didn't even have a Christmas tree in the first place, (until we decided to imitate the Anglo-Indians, putting cotton to remind us of snow in England!). The Germans, Swiss and Austrians have customs that are somewhat different from the Anglo-Saxon ones. So why the fuss about nothing, about what people do to have a good time? Relax and untwist your sarong (which by the way is worn only by men in my native state of Kerala, India and NOT by women)!

Merry ?Solistace to you!

Best wishes
Soja

CCNL

I can't help noticing that you go on and on about the illiteracy (?sp) of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad.

Buddha was a prince. He left home only after he was married and had a child. So it is hardly possible that he was illiterate. Buddha studied under many Hindu sannyasis before he decided to set out on his own in search of liberation. He was enlightened only after several years of intense meditation. If you were to read how Hindu rishis came to their spiritual experience you would know that they also spent many years in solitary meditation. There is even a legend about a rishi who meditated unbroken (in complete stillness of body)for so long that honey bees treated him like a tree and went about their business of building a hive!

In Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism the work towards salvation is very hard, involving several lifetimes. Self-purification must be completed first (that is one must become pure like God) through hard work before God-realisation can occur. Buddhists later began to believe in grace that is transmitted by Bodhisattvas, the merit of whose spiritual work is sometimes passed on to their followers. When one comes to think of it, that is the essence of Christianity, the grace which comes through Jesus Christ as the result of His work.

There seem to be those who claim that Buddism is not a religion. I wonder why. Ever heard of atheists believing in reincarnation etc? A belief in reincarnation is integral to Buddhism, so how it possibly be not a religion? Buddha explained God in negative terms, that is all. His description of God is not foreign to Hindus or mystics of all religions, who claim that God is beyond any image that a human being could conceive. Does any particular image appear when one thinks of YHWH? God the Father is just a way of describing God in way that a human being finds easy to understand.

Jesus was considered a Rabbi by the Jews. He could not have taught in the synagogues as He did, with the permission of the Pharisees of His day without being familiar with Jewish Scripture. Unless one is prepared to say that it was normal custom for Jewish Rabbis to be illiterate, I don't know how one comes to the automatic conclusion that Jesus must have been illiterate.

Similarly Mohammad was not born poor, even if he was not born rich. He was a merchant who travelled frequently. He attracted the attention of his boss, a woman who would propose marriage to him. It is hardly possible for Mohammad to have been completely illerate and a successful merchant at the same time. It is quite possible that he did not know Hebrew to read Jewish Scripture by himself, nor the translation of the Coptic Bible at the time. It is clear that he must have learnt about Judaism from the many Arab Jews he had dealings with, and Christianity from Christians he associated with. It is likely that he knew more Jews than Christians. But one cannot jump into the conclusion that he was illiterate for that reason.

Merry Christmas to you and to all who visit this page! To those who take offence at being wished Merry Christmas - Merry Whatever! Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year 2008! (Sorry the New Year is according to the Christian calendar!)

Best wishes
Soja

Dear OKDW -

Sorry to see you've fled the field.

You're really hung up on this religious holiday thing, aren't you? I wonder, do you rail at people who say "Happy Halloween" if they don't believe in its religious underpinnings (All Hallows Eve)? How about those who celebrate Valentine's Day shorn of its Saint? What of corporate managers who celebrate Labor Day?

Seems to me that you're going out of your way to find offense.

Mr Mark,

Hate to put a plug in your drain, but I dont observe Easter, either.

This is applicable to my point. You presume things about people as well as presume there is not a creator God. Guess what? Presumptions can put mud on your face.

BTW..Jesus gave instruction on new symbols for the the Passover. 'Easter' was injected in scripture where the greek 'pascha' had been. Just FYI. All part of the religious deceit on this world that scripture foretold...whether any wish to admit it or not. Its there.

Easter is religious error. Christmas is religious error. Sunday keeping is religious error.

>>That IS the fuller view of the logic behind your rant, isn't it?

No, it is not. To tie in names of days of the week in comparison with observances that are not scripturally backed is a feeble attempt at nothing and does not apply to the discourse here on religious observance at all. Grade schoolers know that every day of the week is not a religious observance. FYI..there were original days of the week long before the Romans...we just adopted there names and calendar. Another part of the grand scheme of things...but we'll save that one for later.

Perhaps you can go to your holiday parties and debate with individuals on 1) Why they believe in Jesus or 2) how intelligent you all are to not believe in Jesus, yet you will enjoy a festivity with His name on it.

All the best, and so long.

Dear OKDW -

May I ask you a question? What greeting do you offer to your fellow Xians on Easter Sunday? Would it happen to be, "Happy Easter?"

I ask because the word "Easter" is derived from the old Anglo-Saxon names for the pagan Goddess of the Dawn, ie: Ēaster, Ēastre, or Ēostre. In German, that goddess' name was Ostara. The word "Easter" has NOTHING at all to do with Jesus, Christ, crucifixions, resurrections etc. Yet this now-very-Christian holiday draws its very name from a pagan goddess.

It's the equivalent of Christmas being re-named Saturnmas.

I think that the answer for why you go about saying Happy Easter while I go about saying Merry Christmas has to do with tradition and popular convention and has nothing to do with the etymology of the respective words. The difference between us is that I would never make a mountain out of a molehill by accusing you of uttering blasphemy against your Xian god when you speak the word "Easter" and honor the memory of a pagan goddess.

Of course, the simple response to your not-well-argued point is that Christmas is just one of the many words we use in our modern day that find their base in the names of imaginary gods. Following your logic, I should refused to use the imaginary-god-derived names we have for the days of the week and the months of the year. That IS the fuller view of the logic behind your rant, isn't it?

CCNL - you have a point. As vast as the sutras may be, we can be certain the Buddha never wrote a single word. In truth, the Buddha never spoke a single word either (Hui-neng, 8th century CE).

Do not, under any circumstances, vote for Romney.

Happy meditations in the coming year and may we all see more humor in 2008!!

" Anonymous:

"Paganplace -- Therefore your spirituality hinges on your world view and not vice versa. That is precisely where Catholics and persons like you differ."

In that you insist no one else's worldview has anything to do with Spirit, a priori, if they don't profess Christianity?

You might well think that. Doesn't make it so.

"For Catholics who truly believe, it all starts with revelation, with an opening of the heart, of the eyes, of the ears, to the living Christ who pours consolation and life upon our weary souls."

For Catholics, it seems to mean beating yourself up, or submitting to beatings, until you think someone else's 'revelation' overrides your own experience, cause they *beat into you* the idea that your own experience has nothing sacred or spiritual to it.

I say, no. Ain't so.

"Faith, as philosopher-methodologist Bernard Lonergan SJ expresses in one of his works, is what happens after one experiences God´s love, not vice versa."

If that's so, I'm afraid you're just gonna have to accept that my *faith* has nothing to do with your *religion.*

Happy holidays.

Terry,

Actually when using names like Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed et al, we should always note the critical importance of the scribes of the time period. I doubt there is enough history to determine if Buddha was literate but both Jesus and Mohammed were both illiterate.

What we have then are the musings of the scribes of said historical figures. As noted by many contemporary NT exegetes, the historical Jesus can be found in the difference in the stories related by the scribes of Jesus i.e. Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, James and another John. Comparing these stories (attestations) and time of publication (stratums) leads to the conclusion that only 30% of the sayings and ways of Jesus in the NT were historical. And what is left was probably borrowed by Jesus from the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Unfortunately the same historical analyses of the koran has not been done because of the punishment of those who dare question the authenticity of the ways and sayings of the warmongering and hallucinating Mohammed and his scribes.

Considering the same holds true for the Jewish scribes who filled the OT with myths and significant embellishments, one can only conclude that Buddha's scribes were more important than Buddha himself.

>>Why would I believe "what the Bible has to say"

>>And, Merry Christmas!

Just curious, Mr. Mark...why do you celebrate Christmas...or more specifically, why do celebrate something with Christs name on it, yet you dont believe in Him?

I also wonder if it would bother you to tell people you dont celebrate Christmas because you wouldn't be 'included', or you would feel 'left out' or perhaps others would 'belittle' or 'mock' you and make an example of you. Sort of like...if I dont join in the crowd...wow, Ill look different. Inquiring minds would really like to know your view on this very interesting dichotomy.

Personally, I see someone as yourself as the one who very confused or delusional. You vehemently cast down in your own way any person who even hints of belief in Jesus Christ, yet out of your own mouth you utter a greeting with the name of Christ as a part of it. Some go so far as to say that doing so is, well, basically ...hypocracy.

And now, a little test:

Secular holiday + pagan origin + atheists joining in something with Christ's name on it + too many other aspects of mankinds devices to name here = _________________ (fill in the blank)

You may begin testing. I will grade what you fill in later.

Ah, but a confused and deceived world we live in, dont we?

And by the way, I cannot return your greeting. I dont celebrate the holiday.

But, I wish you well.

CCNL - it's always the message that matters, whether or not you choose to give credit to the messenger. As for myself, having been raised a Catholic, I never found satisfactory answers to my particular (metaphysical) questions. At the age of 17 I was done with it. About 7 years later I ran across Zen Buddhism and have been hooked on Buddhism and the study of religion ever since - even returning for a second look at esoteric Christianity and Gnosticism.

The Buddha was of course a Hindu steeped in Vedanta philosophy before he made his departure as a wandering mendicant....as you point out, the caste system may have been a motivating factor. The heart of Vedanta is not so very different from Buddhism, but many commentators have further elucidated both the similarities and differences over the centuries.

Fantasic stories abound and the man who was Gautama has been revered for his spiritual discoveries, but the man has never been mistaken for the truth behind his message by practitioners of Buddhism - such is not the case with the man Jesus, and Christianity. A certain Zen master advised his followers to 'kill the Buddha if you should meet him on the road' - clearly a warning against being distracted by a revered personality.

The Buddha shared a similar historical time frame with Pythagorus, Zoroaster, Confucious, Lao Tzu and Patanjali (the early master of yoga) - interesting times.

Christ = Buddha ..... role models and figureheads for Perfect Wisdom if you follow the esoteric practices & tradition in both religions.

Humans capable of altered states of consciousness
(true spirituality) and transpersonal experiences (mystics) surely have been around for a very long time. Shamanism preceeded all forms of organized religion by many thousands of years (perhaps back to Neanderthal) and shamans continue putting themselves in trance states even today. Are they having mystical experiences?? Mysticism is too broad a topic for this discussion but worth exploring by all means!

Even though we all love celebrities, admittely
no human is more divine than the next.

Occasionally Christian mystics ran afoul of the Church if their 'experiences' didn't match with & support prevailing Church doctrine including confirming the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity.

The 14th century mystic priest/monk Meister Eckert is one such well documented example, and both St. Francis of Assisi and later, St. Theresa of Avila were politicized figures that reportedly walked a fine line when commenting on their own mystical experiences - a wrong comment could get you burned at the stake quite easily, as it did Giordano Bruno, also a Catholic priest and
not far removed in time from both Theresa and her fellow mystic St. John of the Cross.

Now we begin to see that it's hard to honor our ancients and their various roles in our evolving spirituality without actually naming names, but that's hominid history for you.

Dear AYK -

I use the word "deluded" purposefully. To delude means, "to mislead the mind or judgment of ." That misleading need not be intentional, it just needs to exist.

Depending on where one was standing, one could be deluded into believing that Ransom Stoddard shot Liberty Valance when, in fact, Valance was shot by Tom Doniphon. Certainly, Stoddard believed that he was The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, as did the whole town.

Same with belief in the supernatural. Ancient man didn't set out to intentionally delude himself into believing in gods, he just misinterpreted the world around him. The very stars and the sky misled his mind into arriving at a fallacious judgement.

I'll stick by my use of the word "deluded."

"At one point in man's history, everyone believed the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. At one point, everyone on earth was deluded in their belief that the sun orbited the earth, not the other way 'round. If you can agree that people were deluded about such things for "millenia upon millenia," then why can't you imagine that the same is true of belief in the supernatural?"

Mr Mark,

I agree completely with this.

Only a hundred years ago, the general public was largely unaware of the existence of germs. They believed that disease rose from miasmas. Only a few hundered years ago people believed in witches. Only 500 years ago many people believed that tomatoes were poisonous (the acidic tomatoes leeched the lead from their pewter cookware).

I don't think these people were deluded (I also don't think you were saying that), but I won't pretend that they were CORRECT either!

OKDW's post is trite.

"This is a statement with 2 stories to it. Yes, I would have to concur...billions on this planet are deluded. The bible, though, uses the word deceived. Delusion, deceit has become and is mans realm. He does a good job at it...even at this time of year."

Paragraph 1: Yes billions of people are deluded, but when I use the same reasoning I am not. I am the one who is correct.

Reasoning: The Bible is true. I know it is true because IT says it is true.

"But the other story is the uncanny presumption this person applies to billions of people - that billions, for millenia upon millenia, have been deluded about their personal beliefs that there is a God? Not only uncanny, or weird, but a bit presumptuous."

Paragraph 2: Though done through implication, arguing tradition as proof of something is a fallacy. Arguing that something is true because any number of people believe it is also a fallacy. The total number of people that could simultaneously be wrong about something is the number of the total world population at the time. Even if EVERYone agrees on something, it is no guarantee that EVERYone is not wrong.

Dear OKDW -

Your post has the effect of giving the word "delusion" a bad name.

At one point in man's history, everyone believed the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. At one point, everyone on earth was deluded in their belief that the sun orbited the earth, not the other way 'round. If you can agree that people were deluded about such things for "millenia upon millenia," then why can't you imagine that the same is true of belief in the supernatural?

In fact, is not the pomposity and presumption on YOUR side of the ledger? After all, it takes a high level of presumption (defended from attack by the high dungeon of all-too-human pomposity) to believe that man's corporate knowledge set of the world and the cosmos has increased over the centuries on just about everything imaginable...EXCEPT when it comes to belief in the existence of supernatural beings, where the knowledge set reached its absolute apex a few thousand years ago.

You write:

"Yes, I would have to concur...billions on this planet are deluded. The bible, though, uses the word deceived."

You are trying to use the argument from authority to make your point, that authority being the Bible. Yet 2/3's of the world's population does NOT believe in what the Bible has to say, so what kind of authority is that? On the other hand, if you wish to argue from the minority position of the one having "real" knowledge, then I can go you one better there as well by citing the simple fact that atheists are out-numbered by Xians by 2 to 1. For our minority, what "the Bible says" carries less truth than what the phonebook says.

Why would I believe "what the Bible has to say" on who's deceived and deluded when the Bible gets it so wrong on so many other things - simple-to-understand-with-man's-increasing-knowledge-set things! - it "explains" about our universe?

Thanks for the chat.

And, Merry Christmas!

>>Well, there you have it. Yes - you ARE deluded, as are billions of others on this planet.

This is a statement with 2 stories to it. Yes, I would have to concur...billions on this planet are deluded. The bible, though, uses the word deceived. Delusion, deceit has become and is mans realm. He does a good job at it...even at this time of year.

But the other story is the uncanny presumption this person applies to billions of people - that billions, for millenia upon millenia, have been deluded about their personal beliefs that there is a God? Not only uncanny, or weird, but a bit presumptuous.

I take that back.....highly presumptuous, and pompous, I might add.

Terry,

You noted: "The Buddha allowed that with correct practice, the individual could at some point in their 'individual' existence (perhaps many lifetimes in the making) see all of this clearly for themselves. This moment of clarity in self-awareness is called Enlightenment - and known by many other names. This is the transformative moment when perception changes forever - this is the Nirvana moment - and then life goes on. There is no nihilism here whatsoever."

Historically there is a problem with "The Buddha" and what are historically his comments.

"Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life."

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line question: What did Buddha borrow/plagiarize from other ancient "mystics"? We probably will never know?

So honor our ancients giving credit to the continuing evolution of the "good side" of hominids and not its specific representatives like Moses, Buddha, Jesus et al and their scribes.

Seeing as how Buddhism is kind of under discussion in a few of these posts I will weigh in for a moment - in my great fondness and respect for this view.

While Buddhism does not support the concept of a personal creator God as the origin of all things, it's philosophy is not materialistic in any sense.

For example - Buddhism does not support the idea of a 'beginning of the universe' but rather a perpetually recycling universe that has always existed in one form or another (therefore no Creator is needed). This eternal recreative process may even include dieties and other planes and dimensions of existence, but none are eternal and ever-lasting.

All things in existence are inter-dependent, co-existing and mutually determinent - and ever-changing. The phenomenal world is apparently real, but is not absolutely real in the sense of objects existing autonomously as individual entities (all things are mutually coexisting).

What allows this all to happen?? Emptiness, the ultimate nature of all existence and all things.
What allows perception?? Self-existing Pure Awareness as forever coupled with Emptiness causes the entire phantasmagoria of the apparent universe to arise. We are both Emptiness and Pure Awareness ourselves - this is our true nature (individual consciousness is a 'lower' manifestation of pure awareness as complicated by ego, self-identity, and self-reflective thought processes). We all believe we are individual, self-existing entities and act accordingly.

In recent years there have been any number of interesting discussions between quantum physicists and practising Buddhist philosophers as to the similaties and differences in these cosmologies and theoretical paradigms. There are many points of commonality.

The Buddha allowed that with correct practice, the individual could at some point in their 'individual' existence (perhaps many lifetimes in the making) see all of this clearly for themselves. This moment of clarity in self-awareness is called Enlightenment - and known by many other names. This is the transformative moment when perception changes forever - this is the Nirvana moment - and then life goes on. There is no nihilism here whatsoever.

I'm hoping this is an accurate summation of the core of Buddhism, but if others want to add or subtract, please do so!!

Angela B,

Au contraire!!! K-12 Catholic schools with the best and the brightest of the Franciscan Order as teachers.

And the real Catholicism/Christianity as being taught in graduate theology courses at many large Catholic universities:

excerpts:

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums. e.g. Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

Shemhazai,

You noted:

" - First of all, there is no historical evidence, beyond the four gospells, that Jesus was ever born, or lived, so I'm thinking that evidence of his death/whatever happened afterwards isn't going to be forthcoming. "

Is countered with:

Besides the Josephus reference (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html)and the Tacitus reference (see below), NT exegetes use the attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

"Therefore to scotch the rumour, Nero substitured as culprits and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of the procuator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out again in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find vogue." (Tacitus, Annals 15:44; Moore & Jackson 4.282-283)

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus

And

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened. While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

I wrote:

"It comes down to your beliefs which are pure beliefs, ie: beliefs held in absence and defiance of evidence"

Bobby replies:

"Nonsense. I have plenty of evidence left and right.(I have a memory of discussing them at a previous WaPo post with yourself present)."

Now I understand completely that may not consider that evidence as evidence but for honesty's sake, you must change your statement to : Christian belief due to evidence that they only see."

No, not really. If one "must" be "honest," then the most-honest response to your position is that you hold the conceit that you are allowed to redefine what words like "evidence" mean to support your position. Evidence is "1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof." For that proof to be valid, it MUST exist outside the sphere of mere opinion and enter the realm of provability or, at the very least, high probability.

Using your definition of evidence, being "honest" would mean believing that the demons imagined by a certified madman were real even if "only he" could see them. Or, being "honest" would mean believing and continuing to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded Iraq because gw bush and his minions "believed" that he had them IN SPITE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE.

"Ergo, either Im deluded or Im do indeed see something that you do not, but please dont claim that I (and other believing Christians) believe in things in the absence of evidence."

Well, there you have it. Yes - you ARE deluded, as are billions of others on this planet. That said, I have no doubt that you do see something I do not. I know this because I suffered under the same delusion as do you for many years, and my mind (coupled with a religion-fueled lack of understanding of the world around me) was more than able to create its own "evidence" for god's existence, even if that evidence was the most-easily impeached sort of evidence imaginable.

As a religionist, you offer special pleading for what constitutes evidence that you would not extend to, say, powering your refrigerator. In fact, your standard of what constitutes evidence is much higher for simple things like knowing when it's time to refuel your car at the gas station than it is for what constitutes evidence for the existence of god.

Think about it.

Thanks for the chat.

Pointtomake posted: "Websters defines a fortune, in the way you utilized the word, as 'destiny' or 'fate'."

I used the word "fortune" in two ways. One that implies wealth, and one that refers to the contents of a fortune cookie.

My point was that in hindsight, a current situation can be claimed as fulfillment of a prediction when the original predicition is non-specific to begin with. That's the primary "trick" in horoscopes ,and fortune telling.

For example, you post the following quotes:

2Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

I cannot imagine a time since this was originally written that people could not look around them and find "evidence" of being in the last days as they are described.

My prediction is that in another hundred years there will be another person just like you claiming the exact same thing about living during the "last days" and having no idea that you were here on this post doing the same a hundred years earlier.

ANONYMOUS writes:
"Mr. Mark --I assume that when you write that the resurrection of Christ is not true, you understand that this is your opinion, not a fact, right?"

No, it's a fact to an extremely high degree of probability. Consider the lack of evidence for the existence of Jesus to begin with and one has an incredibly long way to go to get to him dying, let alone his being resurrected.

My "opinion" that Jesus wasn't resurrected is as sure a fact as is my "opinion" that human beings are not presently living on the moon. Your opinion that jesus lived, died and resurrected has as much factual basis as does belief in Santa Claus.

Amazing that neither you nor anyone else can prove to even a 10% chance of probability that Jesus even existed, yet you extend your delusion to include resurrection from the dead.

As we used to say in NYC, that - and a subway token - will get you downtown.

Mr. Mark --I assume that when you write that the resurrection of Christ is not true, you understand that this is your opinion, not a fact, right?

Shemhazai: While the Buddha was a great man, he was just a man, and that is why there is nothing to convert to. While I believe that God can manifest in any religious form, including Buddhism, Buddhism does not recognize God. It is a non-deistic (not atheistic) religious way of life, founded on a human attempt to reach enlightnment, not on a humble acceptance of one´s creature condition in the face of an all merciful God who (Christians believe and in varying degrees experience) has definitively revealed himself in human form, that is, in Jesus Christ. Revealed means that this person Jesus Christ communicates with some of us after having been cruxified dead on a cross circa 33 AD.

You are right, that is, you did not say all 'catholics´, and so indeed, you did not generalize from particulars. You wrote: "I have yet to meet a Catholic for whom that transcendent experience happened." What did you want to mean by that? Might anything change for you if you met a Catholic mystic? How would you evaluate if he or she was authentic and his or her faith based on what is most fundamentally real? Would you not need to first experience something yourself? Christ's love perhaps?

One is obligated to honor the dignity of each human being whether one is Christian or not, if we are to civilize society. If that is what you mean in your nest paragraph, and I believe it is, we agree. That does not mean
one has to honor their beliefs. The distinction between person and a person's beliefs can be tricky and in the attacks on Christianity that I see come from many here, it is not always that clear. From the Christian end, we need to learn to offer our truth to others, and if they do not want to hear it, we should not press. How about from the non-Christian pole?

Another point to make:

And a very positive fortune you received, indeed.

Websters defines a fortune, in the way you utilized the word, as 'destiny' or 'fate'.

Still, there is another proverbial fortune cookie that was baked around about the middle of the first century. Inside that proverbial cookie was a long "fortune" written by a man named Paul.

Part of it reads:

2Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

>>Waiting for rapture are we??-

The rapture is not backed up scripturally.

To: The Concerned Christian Now Liberated.

I am sure without a doubt that you have never been a Christian which is someone who is considered a "false convert". You probably had this "God has a wonderful plan notion" and when things didn't go the way you felt they should; you turned your back on the one who gave you life. God is not the clay and you the Potter. You should get on your knees and asked the Lord to show you mercy for your continued blasphemous comments on this website and may you do it before your physical death; as "Once to die and then comes the judgment". I will pray for you to bend your knee in submission or else YOU will remain under his wrath. This is in the spirt of truth and love.
LOVE in Christ (as in CHRISTmas)!

Pointtomake posted: " Interesting how the bible foretold that it would be this way just prior to the return of Christ."

Last week my horoscope said, "A great fortune will befall you".

Yesterday, at the Chinese buffet, I opened my fortune cookie and it said, "Your friends are as plentiful as your charms".

What a great fortune!

Interesting how the horoscope foretold that it would be this way!

ANONYMOUS writes:
"What if it could be proven that Jesus resurrected from the dead? Physically resurrected and his body glorified. Would that change anything for non-believers, for those who insist that he is a myth, like Krishna, just a myth?

Somehow I think not. For many of these it would just be one more iota of information to consume. They woulkd not see more for they have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit, they have not been touched by supernatural grace."

Absolute sophomoric pap.

What if it could be proved that the Apollo space flights were manned not by men, but by giraffes? It can't be proved 'cause it ain't true, just like the resurrection from the dead of Jesus - or anyone else, for that matter - ain't true.

Anon - I never made the claim that the gospells were historical. They aren't. You also apparently glossed over my retort that since there's historical evidence that the Buddha lived, why aren't you converting? I'm guessing because you feel that your faith is strong/correct in whatever you believe. Same for the rest of us.

I never said all Catholics, so don't put words into my mouth. I merely stated observations based on the fact that I was raised Catholic and the majority of people I interacted with until 16 or 17 were also Catholic. But even then, I did not extrapolate that all of them where any one way. Nor did I say any of them were phonies.

You're right, no one is screaming in my ear to convert, and I want to keep it that way. However, many of the comments I've read on here have not been "anti catholic," nor can you make the judgement that we all want to get rid of the catholic church. Isn't that what you just accused me of? As a non-Christian, I'm here to try and foster discussion, so that we can move into a society that values each individual and their beliefs, as opposed to JUST the Christians and their friends.

If all you're going to do is misread and not follow the rules of logic that you have set up for yourself/me, then why are you here?

Shemhazai --

Thank you for recognizing the 4 gospels as historical evidence. I would at least add the letters of Paul, some of which were written even earlier (50 AD). However, if you read my first comment, I am not arguing that Jesus existed historically, even though I obviously believe this is established historical fact. I am suggesting that even if we could prove he resurrected from the dead, most non-believers would not believe.

I don't know the catholics you have met but it's a philosophical fallacy to generalize from particulars. That is what you do when you argue something like: "I´ve met 10,000 catholics and all were phonies. Therefore all (1 billion) catholics are phonies." Do you understand why that is a fallacy?

No one is screaming views in your ear. Indeed, we are writing comments on the internet. No one is arguing that all religions except the catholicism should be outlawed. Yet, there are 127 comments on Father's Reese essay, and most are from non-catholics and are quite negative, even insulting. It would seem more reasonable to conclude on the basis of this forum that many would want catholicsm outlawed.

Otherwise why do any of you bother?

Angela..
Say Merry Christmas! I will say it with you..I am as Pagan as can be and I have been into a church a few times..and the roof did not fall in. I have even clapped and enjoyed some of the gospel music.

Say Merry Christmas..Pagans do not care. It is the Christians wanting to stir up dollars for Ideology. There are Christians that are sick of the way this holiday has been celebrated and are rebeling. But Pagans do not mind it..heck, from Eostre to Yule we all share the light.

terra

Anonymous - First of all, there is no historical evidence, beyond the four gospells, that Jesus was ever born, or lived, so I'm thinking that evidence of his death/whatever happened afterwards isn't going to be forthcoming. On the flip side, there's evidence that prince who became the Buddha really did live. Are you going to change faiths?

As for Catholics, I have yet to meet a Catholic for whom that transcendent experience happened. Most were raised by their parents and do little more then parrot what the Church tells them too. At least, that's what they do in Church. Now, I saw less evidence of this for people who converted, but I suspsect that's a thing among a majority of people who convert from one religion to another. Else, why change? I know that's what happened to me, and why I am firmly rooted in the pagan community and can never return to my parents Christian upbringing. I've experienced too much. I found that I don't have to keep atoning for things I never did, or could never control.

But, you're free to view that as you wish. Just don't go loudly screaming your views in my ear, or trying to make your view the only legal one, and we'll be fine.

Paganplace -- Therefore your spirituality hinges on your world view and not vice versa. That is precisely where Catholics and persons like you differ.

For Catholics who truly believe, it all starts with revelation, with an opening of the heart, of the eyes, of the ears, to the living Christ who pours consolation and life upon our weary souls.

Faith, as philosopher-methodologist Bernard Lonergan SJ expresses in one of his works, is what happens after one experiences God´s love, not vice versa.

Have to say, Anonymous, that, no, it probably wouldn't make a whole huge lot of difference, cause a lot of us don't *hang* our spirituality or worldview on believing one, and only one 'miracle' happened.

Christians say it's not about 'proof,' anyway, cause no such proof is forthcoming.

It's certainly no basis to go around claiming no one else has been 'touched by supernatural grace.'

Which goes right to that whole Christian supremacist thing, with people claiming they have some exclusive right to the public square and human dignity.

What if it could be proven that Jesus resurrected from the dead? Physically resurrected and his body glorified. Would that change anything for non-believers, for those who insist that he is a myth, like Krishna, just a myth?

Somehow I think not. For many of these it would just be one more iota of information to consume. They woulkd not see more for they have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit, they have not been touched by supernatural grace.

An equivalent problem exists in the natural world. William Carlos Williams once wrote something like: Poetry is that of which most die because of lack of.

Hmmmm - it appears the number 3 is looming large in this religion discussion. Trinities? Triangles?? You find trinities everywhere and in every philosophy from Pythagorus (the original numbers guy) to George Gurdjeiff, with Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and the Kaballah somewhere in between. Every one of them makes a big deal out of 3, has one or more triads playing very large roles in their various religious paradigms. You even find trinities in the world of cooking - as in the Holy Trinity - of many different seasoning combinations.

On the other hand, you also find that in some philosophies the triad is, in the end, only an illusion. Hinduism says that despite the pantheon of gods, only Brahman is real - everything manifest is merely 'layla' or the Godhead's dream fantasy (I'm partial to this one). Buddhism says the same - one taste, one reality and one substance with infinite and quickly fading forms - an essence beyond words, descriptions or definitions.

The Kaballah says God cannot be known - Ain Sof is Unmanifest and beyond the ken of all created/emanated forms forever - even the highest divine forms cannot comprehend It (I tend to believe this one).

I think humans like balance and nothing is more balanced than a triangle - so psychology plays a role here. On the other hand, triangles can be enclosed by a circle, thereby making the circle superior in the Pythagorean world.

The circle represents either 1 or infinity, your choice. And it goes round, and round, and round.

Pointomake,

You noted:

"The true Church of God is small, scattered and holds to the laws and commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus."

And you are a member of this small church of god?

Waiting for rapture are we??-

And in case you missed it:

A synopsis of current thinking about Christianity,

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Hey, Jacob, did you find your essay???

Bobby writes:

"I have a PhD in microbiology...Many true scientists believe in God, many non-scientists dont."

It comes as no surprise to anyone that people can compartmentalize things, including scientists.

The more-interesting point is how and why they do so.

The primary error of the Nicene council was/is in the proclomation of a triune God. It is not scriptural. John 10:30 backs this up. There is no reference to the Holy Spirit included in 'are one', the Holy spirit was sent later as the comforter.

Error also lies in using I John 5:7 to validate a triune God. Texts (margin references, commentaries) clearly show that the latter of the verse..'and these three are one' is an addition to the original inspired Greek text, as well as the majority of texts following.

Mans proclimations from a group of clergy clearly steered by the errors of paganism are not justified in their decisions, not recognized by God and Jesus Christ and not to be recognized by man, since their convergence was never foretold in scripture nor sanctioned to be included in any form in the canonized compilation of scripture we have at this time. It was, in fact, the beginning of a majority of the deceit this world has experienced, as foretold in Rev 12:9, and thus the religous confusion that follows.

As scripture states in Rev 12:9 - Satan has deceived the whole world. The world as a whole. This portrays widespread deceit as the actual fact. The true Church of God is small, scattered and holds to the laws and commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus.

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rockn Roll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 08 YEA!. Thank You ALL. ))))))))))

"It's meant to be a wedge issue for more church-state encroachment, can't you see?"

No, O Master Seer tells us impressionable, naive folk...

". I am very saddened by the fact that we can't even say Merry Christmas without offending someone;"

Well, don't be, Angela, this is largely how 'Culture warriors' *characterize* the largely-imaginary 'opposition' in their 'War on Christmas' mirage... when they try to insist people should *only* say 'Merry Christmas,' or when they say the holiday should only be interpreted as *for Christians only,* ....or else they'll turn the whole thing into more culture war, exclusion, and further disenfranchisement of minorities.

It's meant to be a wedge issue for more church-state encroachment, can't you see?

"The core change to our modern Christianity, though, came through the error introduced by Constantine and the Nicene council. Most all of what they introduced and indoctrinated into the church was not scriptural and sanctioned in theory by neither God the Father or Jesus Christ, as well as scripture itself."

The Nicene Council and the corresponding Nicene Creed were done to oppose the Arian heresy that taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally, as well as the belief that the Son is inferior to the Father. Jesus's own words (in the Gospels) as well as the Epistles do not agree to that. Ergo, the necessity of the Nicene Council.

As per many NT exegetes to include Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists, there is "No Historic Reason for the Season".

There was no Virgin birth. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/026_Jesus_Virginally_Conceived

And there was no Star of Bethlem. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/369_Star_of_Revelation

excerpts:

"Gerd Lüdemann

Commenting on the infancy narratives overall, Luedemann [Jesus, 124-29] concludes that Luke and Matthew represent "two equally unhistorical narratives." He cites the occurrence of a miraculous heavenly sign at key points in the life of Mithridates VI in a history written by Justinus (active in the reign of Augustus, 2 BCE to 14 CE). "

"John P. Meier

Meier [Marginal Jew I,211ff and 376] considers these traditions to be "largely products of early Christian reflection on the salvific meaning of Jesus in the light of OT prophecies" and concludes that their historicity is "highly questionable."

So nativity scenes on government property in the UK or the USA or wherever are basic representations of fiction and are equivalent to having representations of Santa Claus and his reindeer and/or Yule trees. No harm, no foul!!

And Merry Reality to All!!!

Bobby,

Yes, the early church had its own dilema with those who understood the Saviour and those who didnt believe in him or specifically beleive He was indeed the Saviour. That division still exists to this day with regard to Christianity and Judaism.

The core change to our modern Christianity, though, came through the error introduced by Constantine and the Nicene council. Most all of what they introduced and indoctrinated into the church was not scriptural and sanctioned in theory by neither God the Father or Jesus Christ, as well as scripture itself. Thus, this is where religious confusion of our modern day was born.

Something that few know...is that there has always been a remnant church that followed Christ, kept what are regarded today as old covenant Holy Days, yet now kept in a New Testament light (ie the Passover is still kept, with Christ now being the Passover lamb. The Day of Atonement is still kept, with instead of sending the 2 goats out, it pictures the time when Satan will be put away following the return of Christ. Additionally, the Feast of Trumpets..where Israel blew the trumpets as a memorial of their freedom..today, observed when the trumpets will blow at Christ's return bringing freedom from Satan's influence into the Kingdom of God that will be set up on this earth. Others Holy Days, too, apply today)

This is what I was referring to earlier. Certainly, with Jesus Christs life, ordinances and symbols of Gods Holy Days have changed, but they are still there- in a New Testament light, with the life of our Saviour central to all.

All others, Christmas, Easter and the like are counterfiets crafted by men thru the auspices of the adversary. They are error and are not able to be justified before God. He clearly warned of their types of 'worship'.

The only thing I have to say is "May the Lord have Mercy on all of us". I am very saddened by the fact that we can't even say Merry Christmas without offending someone; I'm not offended by Ramadan, Passover or whatever. I know what I believe and will share it whenever I can but the offensiveness, blasphemous comments on this website consistently bring me to my knees in prayer for the unbelief and sheer self-deceived notions of mankind. Forgive them Father as they know what not they do!

"Ironically, your quote of the prophetic passage of 2 Tim 2:4 also tells the story of our modern age of religion, with distinct respect to the holiday at hand:

>>4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

Our modern age of religion is no different than the Early Church in the days of Paul and right after. There were various sects (e.g those that claimed that the hebrews were the correct precursors to following Christianity, repudiated by Paul in his letter to Ephesians-I think).

In the times of Eusebius and St Augustine there were those who thought that baptism is useless, there were the Manichees, the Arians, etc etc.

There will always be those who focus on the truth (Jesus being the Son of God, our Savior) while still able to discuss theology and doctrine (the law). Then there are those who focus solely on the law, ignoring Christ.

To Bobby,

Additional thoughts:

Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, to expound it. (A physical example for making the point: Most all keep the law of stopping at a stop sign. And many do so out of respect or concern or even love of their fellow man. In other words, Jesus gave us the understanding of writing the law on our hearts also, as well as physically keeping it. This is something that Christianity in general fundamentally misunderstands completely) The law and ordinances are two different things. Gods laws (10 commandments) are still in effect. Sadly, man has watered them down or disregarded some. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Heb 13:8) He was the logos (word) at the time of creation. Gods laws do not change. Man changes them. The result is religious confustion, with the supreme leader of the same at the helm, currently (Rev 12:9), but not forever.

Ironically, your quote of the prophetic passage of 2 Tim 2:4 also tells the story of our modern age of religion, with distinct respect to the holiday at hand:

>>4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

To Pointtomake:

Mark 7:6-8 (New International Version)

6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[a] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

Jesus said that to compare with those who seek to follow the law blindly without having a spiritual relationship with the fulfillment of the law (Jesus).

Yet the NT is not against promoting Christian doctrine:

1 Timothy 4:16 (New International Version)

16Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 (New International Version)

2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Titus 2:1 (New International Version)

1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

"I think that my kids stopped taking "because I said so" as a valid explanation a lot earlier in life than do most others their ages."

Profound point. Especially since it can also apply to those who believe in Christianity regardless of any perceived attempts at indoctrination by their parents.

If I could even half-dare to put myself in the shoes of Jesus Christ at this very moment, reading all the entries on this very thread...I would have to logically ask myself...is He saying 'I guess they didnt believe me when I stated ''dont do as the heathen...'' or perhaps when I said ''..in vain do they worship me..teaching for doctrine the commandments of men'''....or is he saying 'Im know that Rev. 12:9 was added to scripture for a reason...it sure tells the story here. But do any of them see it?'

Certainly, a deceived and confused world we live in. Interesting how the bible foretold that it would be this way just prior to the return of Christ.

Brambleton writes:

"It's also sad to hear your comments about Christ. I grew up in a home where my parents didn't believe in Christianity, yet they weren't in any hurry to demonize or ridicule people that did. They told me what they knew about Christianity and let me come to my own conclusions."

Like your parents, I tell me kids "what I know about Christianity" and I let them come to their own conclusions. Perhaps my knowledge of what is false and myth-based about Xianity is deeper than that of your parents. Are you advocating special pleading for Xianity that wouldn't apply to, say, Zorastorism? Am I supposed to tell them that Zeus wasn't a real god but Jesus/Yahweh is (or might be) when my knowledge says neither has any basis in reality? Am I supposed to LIE to them for the simple reason that the religions-du-jour have billions of adherents in the modern world while Mithrasism doesn't? Should I present the myth of creationism as an equally valid explanation for the world as evolutionary theory because Mike Huckabee and a few million others think that crackpot religious myths have equal standing with incontrovertible scientific fact? Why would I do that? Am I to check my brain at the door when instructing my kids? If I check my brain on religion, do I also check my brain when I see them about to ingest the drain cleaner?

Like your parents, I'm not in a hurry to demonize or ridicule or demonize the religious, but their strange beliefs are fair game, be they the beliefs of Xianity or Scientology. Both have equal standing as viable beliefs, which is to say, "not so much." And, yes, it takes a little bit of extra explaining (and reminding) to tell them that holding religious beliefs doesn't mean that the person holding those beliefs is silly or any lesser of a person than anyone else.

Yes, I believe that I'm giving my kids a general instruction in all religions, which is a much bigger job than teaching them that the faith of their fathers is the one true religion and leaving discussion of those phony religions for a later date. My kids are taught that all religions are equally valid, but that the measure of that validity to truth is along the lines of belief in Santa Claus. I wonder if there are any Xians out there who teach their kids that the religious beliefs of the American Indian tribes are/were just as valid as their beliefs in Jesus, or that the beliefs of Islam are just "as true" as those of Christianity. I kinda doubt it.

My kids well understand the difference between opinion and evidence, and I can tell you as their father that my parenting skills have more than once been tripped up in the snare of evidence v opinion. I think that my kids stopped taking "because I said so" as a valid explanation a lot earlier in life than do most others their ages.

Thanks for the chat.

"CATHOLICS 1st, since they are the richest of them All on Earth"

Sounds just like the Fuhrer's canards against Jews...

"PAGANism" is not a Religion.." said by our Prez, Mr. G.W. BUSH, from the Executive Branch. But on the Other Hand,

The Local Fed Court(s) only see Wiccaan(s) in 'Sincerity' form and thus must be 'nice' in respect of the Pagan(s) trying to put "the People' to a 'religious Test' of the Provoking kind!

Amrica & this 'Holy Cosmic Space-Ship, of which Momma Poppa NEBULAE begott Us & U.S. et al, and so [today!, aka APOCALYPSE now, ya ya.] needs less RELIGION , un Sweet Sweet U.S. of A., and thus more APOCALYPTARIAN HUMATES that 'must-replace:

ALL, EVERY & ANY "Pre-Apocalyptic Ancient Religions & of their Man made old folk Lores & man made [zero Fiat-Lux made] EPOCHS!

ABOLISH, All Forighn 'Stae Sponsored Religions in Sweet Sweet U.S. of A.!

EMBARGO, ALL Greek & Roman "Ancient State-Religions" [i.eg., PAGANism, Catholicsm, Protestantism, Pentecostism, CHARISMATICS? etc..!]

WE "the People" need LESS foriegn Religion in AMERIC, never More!

WHEEREFORE: For same reason The U.S. Gov can restrict & minimized the Holyt Cosmic American Cosnstitutional right to file for a "HUMATE WRONGS against a HUMATE RIGHT via the 'HABIUS CORPUS"

Then the U.S.A. Government 'shall restrict & lessen respect for Imported & Forign "NOT MADE IN AMERICA , as RELIGION (system(s)!

Kick or Abolish-out all foerign Religions on Space Ship & start in Sweet Sweet America 1st!

CATHOLICS 1st, since they are the richest of them All on Earth, & the biggest MURDERERS of Earth!

HISTORY isd O.U.R. JURY! Ya Ya! Do not be in denial!

"Well, my wife's side of the family isn't at all religious. Her dad was a scientist."

Um...OK.

I have a PhD in microbiology, my thesis advisor too (orthodox practising Jew), as well as my awesome collaborator also who happens to be a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator (look it up-its the creme de la creme of scientists) and a Baptist Sunday School Teacher (who just got recruited to head a $500 million biomedical Research Medical Center at a big-name university). I wont even mention Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project.

Many true scientists believe in God, many non-scientists dont. Its an irrelevant point.

Jim,

This isn't just a Christian or non-Christian issue. Based on personal experiences and those of others, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who feel that "Merry Christmas" is rather exclusionary and that "Happy Holidays" would be more appropriate. I would happily tell both sides to let it go.

Mr. Mark,

It is a shame that you do not get to see your family more often than you do. While most of my family lives in the midwest, and I on the east coast, we always find time to see each other. I guess family was always extremely important to us, even during the most difficult times.

It's also sad to hear your comments about Christ. I grew up in a home where my parents didn't believe in Christianity, yet they weren't in any hurry to demonize or ridicule people that did. They told me what they knew about Christianity and let me come to my own conclusions. I give my parents a lot of credit for also deciding to send myself and my siblings to private high school. While they knew we would receive a much better education, they also felt it was important to get the opportunity to understand religion and Christianity.

Rich blessings and Merry Christmas.

The point is being made that Santa isn't Jesus, and that the whole tree, gift Santa thing isn't the celebration of his birth in the first place, though christians cleverly wrapped themselves in it, sort of like earmarks in an omnibus appropriations bill, but I digress. Apart from the fact that Santa says Merry Christmas, there would be no necessary connection, and were it not for the etymology of the word, no necessary religious connotation (and I suspect most who use it are talking about Santa and the trees anyway, but I digress again). Its sort of like Huckabee denying the cross in his ad. Christians bemoan the commercialism of Christmas in their pulpits, but when in public they act as if attacking them means attacking Santa. If I'm Santa, I'm saying "what do you mean, we?"

WG writes:
TO: Norrie Hoyt, Mr Mark, any other atheists out there--

"...t has got me thinking about what I want to do when I get older and probably married with a brood (okay, I just threw up a little in my mouth, but I'm only 24, so this will probably pass). Assuming I settle down with another non-believer, I'd like to cut Christmas out of my agenda as well as that of my new nuclear family. I know it will be difficult to get my extended family to respect this.

"Did any of you atheists choose to make this kind of break from religious holidays? How did you do it? What was your family's response? Do you have any tips."

Our family celebrates Xmas as a secular holiday. That doesn't mean that we don't tip our hats to the religious aspects. We 'll play Xmas carols and other music - the Messiah, Bach's Xmas music, etc. However, my kids have learned that the Jesus Xmas story is just as much a myth as are the Halloween stories they heard about ghosts and goblins. I don't see any reason to avoid telling them about either (certainly, they're going to be confronted with these things by general society), but I make sure that I keep it in perspective for them.

Here's something that will make the Xians cringe: we were fine with our kids believing that Santa Claus was a real person while we made it very clear to them from the get-go that Jesus was not. That made for some very enjoyable discussions early on in their lives about Winter celebrations in general. They see the Xian celebration of the imagined birth of Jesus as just another one of these birth/rebirth myths that are common to most religions.

They also were clued in early to the mileage Xianity gets out of the "poor little innocent baby Jesus sent to die for us" mythology. I didn't realize how tuned in the kids were to this until we rented the Will Farrell movie "Talledega Nights," and we viewed the scene at the dinner table wherein racer Ricky Bobby offers grace, "to the baby Jesus...not the grown-up Jesus, the little baby one." The kids were howling at the perfect send-up of the all-too-familiar sophomoric religious imagery.

The families' response? Well, my wife's side of the family isn't at all religious. Her dad was a scientist. My family, on the other hand, are a bunch of Bible-thumpers to one degree or another. They are wasting a lot of time and energy praying to the empty ether that we'll be saved. We haven't spent a Xmas with my side of the family in many years, but that's got to do with distances as much as anything else (they're all 2500 miles away). They send their Jesus Loves You Xmas cards every year and we file them along with the rest of them.

BTW - don't get bent out of shape about having kids. They're really wonderful, even if they're the toughest job you'll ever have (I'm put in mind of the scene in the movie "Parenthood" where Steve Martin quits his job and comes home to find that his wife is expecting their fourth child. As he gets ready to head out to coach his son's final Little League game of the season, his wife says to him, "Do you have to?', to which Steve replies, "My whole life is about 'have to.'" Every parent can relate to that statement!)

Good chatting.

Since when doesn't the first amendment give us the right to celebrate holidays any way we care to? This means I can say Merry Christmas any time and any where I want

Since when doesn't the first amendment give us the right to celebrate holidays any way we care to? This means I can say Merry Christmas any time and any where I want

Since when doesn't the first amendment give us the right to celebrate holidays any way we care to? This means I can say Merry Christmas any time and any where I want

When I was a Christian it never bothered me to hear Happy Holidays. And as a present day agnostic, it doesn't bother me to hear Merry Christmas.

The only people I really ever hear squawking about this issue are Christians, who apparently believe that a non-sectarian greeting signals the coming Apocalypse. Christians are now competing with Muslims for having the world's thinnest skin.

Get over yourselves.

And Happy Holidays!

SOJA:
**Why can't all non-Christians be gracious enough to let Christians celebrate what is important enough to them in the religious sense?**

No one is trying to stop you. Why can't all Christians acknowledge that they don't hold a monopoly on winter holy days? THAT'S what gets this little Pagan's sarong in a twist.

**While in India, we were happy to join in the celebrations of Hindus, Muslims etc who celebrated their festivals at different times (it meant more public holidays and more sweets to eat!), even though we didn't share the religious convictions; Hindus and Muslims were happy to share in the joy of Christmas even if it didn't have any religious significance for them.**

And that's wonderful. Again, the problem in America is that certain groups of Christians, often with funds from religious corporations such as AFA or Focus on the Family to back them up, are insisting that Christmas be the ONLY holiday acknowledged.

**The excess consumerism is distressing of course, but to abolish celebrations altogether for that reason is throwing the baby out with the bathwater! I do hope that non-Christians would understand that.**

We understand that perfectly. No one wants to take away your Christmas. If you want to decorate your church with holly and an ornament-laden evergreen, and kiss under a sprig of mistletoe, and call it Christmas, go for it. Just don't btch when everyone doesn't call it that.

I personally agree with what was just said above. I do not take offense when someone wishes me Happy Holidays even though I consider myself to be a Christian. I merely return the consideration by saying Merry Christmas or whatever I think is appropriate for that person at the time. We should all be free to choose the greeting we prefer regardless of reglious beliefs. This holiday is to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and as such we should remember and be thankful. Again,I appreciate the above comments.

Atheism is merely the absence of theism (belief in dieties) and nothing more nor less. To equate crimes against humanity with atheism in any context is simply a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the concept (other than as an attempt to support your own position, that is).

While it may be that a variety of assorted totalitarian criminals, mass murderers, and psychopaths claimed to be non-believers in the midst of their depravity, most probably never gave a thought to either divine beings or 'eternal rewards' (both being equally essential to theism) - I'm willing to bet they lived in the here and now, period - and took no philosophical position one way or another - power and control being their only goals. Religious fanatics through the ages were and are generally more specific in their reasons for murder and mayhem - based on an assortment of religious beliefs and/or the glory of God/Allah.

Blaming atheism for anything is pretty much like blaming humans for human behavior, including human atrocities - you couldn't possibly be more generic if you tried.

'Merry Christmas' is now also so completely generic in it's connotation that I feel perfectly safe in using this expression with anybody from atheists to born-again check-out cashiers. After all, it was a Pagan celebration before becoming a Christian celebration (historically speaking)

Re-birth has many meanings to many people and that's what we're about to celebrate - what could be more human??

I personally agree with what was just said above. I do not take offense when someone wishes me Happy Holidays even though I consider myself to be a Christian. I merely return the consideration by saying Merry Christmas or whatever I think is appropriate for that person at the time. We should all be free to choose the greeting we prefer regardless of reglious beliefs. This holiday is to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and as such we should remember and be thankful. Again,I appreciate the above comments.

Mr Reese said:
"The desire to erase the role of Christianity in history is offensive and at times absurd. For example, the European system of dating years as “BC” and “AD” was established by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 with the birth of Jesus as the hinge date (again, they got the year wrong). This system has been adopted by the rest of the world. Why change it?

If the objection is that it is “religious,” then you need to be consistent and remove the religiously connected names for the months of the year, the days of the week and the planets in the sky, most of which are named after pagan gods. One of the ironies of the English language is that on the day Christians celebrate the Resurrection, we wish each other “Happy Easter,” a name that is derived from the Anglo-Saxon goddess of the dawn. Christians have a right to ask, if we can live with Easter, January, Thursday and Jupiter, why can’t we live with Christmas and BC? Why is Christianity singled out for historical cleansing?"
---------------------------
Mr. Reese: you are misrepresenting the objection to "Merry Christmas." Nobody is suggesting that Christians should be singled out for religious "cleansing," historical or contemporary. What we are suggesting is that saying "Merry Christmas" to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, and having "Christmas" parties while ignoring the other holiday that occurs at around the same time of year, is rude and disrespectful of minority religious beliefs. You are offended that people are cleansing Christmas- so why don't you recognize the offense when Christians cleanse Hanukkah?

Norrie:

"... Rudolph was never the inspiration for torture and genocide throughout the ages."

But Atheism was. And on the largest scale of any such crimes. Ever. On this the historical record is clear.

Religion is not perfect, but Atheism is not either. It is even worse if you use body count as your measurement. So what is your alternative? Oh... You don't have one? You just love throwing insults around? Have fun, but just do not pretend to being rational.

BTW, I notice that you got civil for a moment on Rev. Thistlewaite's blog, when you didn't go on the Jacoby hate farm for a while. Then you get frantic and hateful when you check in there. That should tell you something. Hate is not good for you, or your neighbors.

Alan is the only one here making the point that needs to be made:

"Personally, I don't say Merry Christmas to someone until I know that they believe in the Christmas story. I'm not going to say Merry Christmas to a Taoist or a Hindu."

That's all we're asking. If you just finished paying for your groceries, don't wish the cashier a "Merry Christmas" unless you know that they celebrate Christmas!

"Happy Holidays" isn't meant to replace "Merry Christmas" entirely, certainly not among family or friends, only when you're addressing someone who you don't know to be a Christian. All we ask as non-Christians is that you respect our beliefs (or lack there of) by NOT ASSUMING THAT WE CELEBRATE YOUR HOLIDAY!

It's just good manners.

All this trouble about Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas occurs because retailers don't want to discourage sales and athiests want to be paid for not working on December 25. If you hate Christmas so much, don't celebrate it. Work on a full day on December 25 and refuse to give or receive gifts. Be true to your beliefs.

Dear Fr Reese

Thank you for your thoughtful essay.

As to the exact date on which Christmas is celebrated, Eastern Churches do it on different days - 6th and 7th January. As a child I remember Christmas day in Kerala, India, 25th December was celebrated almost like a normal Sunday, whereas 6th January was the day of grand celebrations (according to Syro-Malabar Catholic custom). But in the end what matters is that one day in the year is chosen for the family and community to get together and remember that Jesus was born as Saviour of the world. In Europe (and anywhere else in the world where the longest night falls at that of the year) it makes good sense to celebrate Christmas on 25th December because it comes shortly after the longest night of the year on 21 December - Jesus who comes as the light in the darkest part of the year. It is wonderful that all Christians around the world get to celebrate Christmas at the same time of year.

Why can't all non-Christians be gracious enough to let Christians celebrate what is important enough to them in the religious sense? While in India, we were happy to join in the celebrations of Hindus, Muslims etc who celebrated their festivals at different times (it meant more public holidays and more sweets to eat!), even though we didn't share the religious convictions; Hindus and Muslims were happy to share in the joy of Christmas even if it didn't have any religious significance for them.

The excess consumerism is distressing of course, but to abolish celebrations altogether for that reason is throwing the baby out with the bathwater! I do hope that non-Christians would understand that.

I wish you a wonderful Christmas season and a Happy New Year 2008!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Oh, and Alan:

"Personally, I don't say Merry Christmas to someone until I know that they believe in the Christmas story. I'm not going to say Merry Christmas to a Taoist or a Hindu."

In my book, I swear, all you have to do is *mean* it.

This culture war *ahem* is just so much religious-conservative exclusionary nonsense. Don't let these 'Culture Warriors' tell you it's all about 'PC intolerance' or any such canard.

It's not a 'War On Christmas,' ...it's some people using Christmas as reason for a 'war on everyone else.

I wish *you* a merry Christmas, too.

We're all alive that day. All humans. Blessed be.

OK?

But, you raise a valid point, Trippin:

" trippin:

It just occurred to me: the people crusading against "Happy Holidays" are putting their emotional capital into what they perceive as a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with respect to faith. And they're about apoplectic over it.

You folks can now appreciate how gays in the military must feel. "

Hadn't seen it quite like that, tonight, when a casual friend downtown asked 'What are you doing for Christmas.'

I said, 'Thankfully, I'll be at home, ...planning to visit this old lady next door who'll be stuck at home alone.'

Didn't tell *him* what I was doing for Yule, or, for that matter, the old lady in question that we're Pagans.

Hrm.

Bobby:

"Intolerant Christian extremists can accept either the greeting "Happy Holidays" or or the greeting "Go f*ck yourself." Their choice.

"Tsk Tsk, where's all that tolerance for other viewpoints that Christians are being berated for constantly."

Oooooh, I dunno, maybe in the 'Happy Holidays' some Christians will throw back in your face?

It just occurred to me: the people crusading against "Happy Holidays" are putting their emotional capital into what they perceive as a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with respect to faith. And they're about apoplectic over it.

You folks can now appreciate how gays in the military must feel.

Or, rather, you SHOULD be able to do that, if you were the tolerant victims of others intolerance that you proclaim yourselves to be.

It just occurred to me: the people crusading against "Happy Holidays" are putting their emotional capital into what they perceive as a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with respect to faith. And they're about ap

You folks can now appreciate how gays in the military must feel.

Or, rather, you SHOULD be able to do that, if you were the tolerant victims of others intolerance that you proclaim yourselves to be.

Bobster effuses in response to: "It's just been trumped up by political zealots who abhor a pluralistic society to be misinterpreted that way" in the following sequence:

Bob: That would be true if the norm was always Happy Holidays ...

Bobster, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to tell you. It *was* the norm to say "Happy Holidays" as it was "Merry Christmas" until zealots (if the shoe fits, by all means) trumped it up into a faux culture war issue. As a subsequent poster pointed out, unless you think singers of the 50s were part of the great big War on Christmas conspiracy too.

Bob: "A pluralistic society is fine and dandy only when other viewpoints are tolerated openly (and not just leftist positions but even those of conservative Christians)."

Bobby, you're fighting a war but there's nobody fighting back. Bobster and Bill O'Reilly, taking on the entire imaginary secular boogieman universe! Well, son, have at it! Whatever floats your boat.

Merry Christmas, Bob. And Happy New Year.

It's a hell of a lot easier to say "Happy Holidays" but you wouldn't understand. Your great big pluralistic heart would take affront.

Roy wrote:

Intolerant Christian extremists can accept either the greeting "Happy Holidays" or or the greeting "Go f*ck yourself." Their choice.

Tsk Tsk, where's all that tolerance for other viewpoints that Christians are being berated for constantly. Imagine if someone wrote:

Intolerant ATHEIST extremists can accept either the greeting "MERRY CHRISTMAS" or the greeting "Go f*ck yourself." Their choice.

I can just imagine the angry vitriol. But when an anti-Christian basher does it, he/she is hailed as the voice of reason and truth that rightfully is not yielding to politically correct niceties.

Whats the word Im looking for..??? Oh ,yes: HYPOCRISY.

Hi, J. :) Maybe you can attest that I'll surely question Muslim rule as I feel qualified to, just as much as Christian rule, while, I hope, also supporting both when it comes to people actually having faith and freedom.

Unfortunately, in America, it's become a measure of Christian piety to both attack any appearance of other-belief or non-belief, and then trot out the Christian majority's nonsensical percecution complex to defend *their* aggressive, defamatory, and intolerant moves.

The reality is, of course, that America *is* a religiously-diverse community whose religious and spiritual bent is *entirely the result* of our religious *freedom.*

Even our 'American' celebrations of the winter solstice holiday *is of itself a multicultural celebration.*

You can't 'put the Jesus back' in a 'Christmas' tree, because it has *nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus.*

It actually has to do with the things our European cultures shared and have *come* to share.

It's Christian groups who want to, who irrationally feel *entitled to* *religiously polarize* the cultural holiday, who are being the 'Grinches' and 'Scrooges' here.

These things are *not meant to exclude.*

I think what terrifies some Christian radicals is the idea that these things are *not* Christian, but rather, things *of the people, meant to be shared, as they were once shared by Pagans with Christians.*

This is different from putting religious icons in the public square as part of a 'culture war' and excluding all others... Others who are just as American and often just as faith-filled as they.

Some will say, 'It's better to have no religious content at all...' There's some merit to that.

I tend to lean toward, 'We should be mature enough to be able to deal with the *community* celebrating together in all our diversity. '

It's gonna take some work.

Christians will put up an elaborate and expensive and overtly-religious nativity creche, ask for the others in the community to put up their own holiday displays to make it legal, and then tear down the non-Christian things as if a *wreath and a star were so Mother-lovin *bizarre* to the holiday.

But.

These things are offered in a *spirit of community,* not *attack,* ...attacking is what some Christians do when they are reminded they don't own the world. Or our America.

Someone:
~After reading essays and comments on OnFaith for about a year now, I have yet to see ANY Atheist, Pagan, Agnostic, Islam, etc. admit any wrong doing by their religion (this does not mean one can't be found.~

Well as a Pagan I guess we could have gotten more lions.

terra

Intolerant Christian extremists can accept either the greeting "Happy Holidays" or or the greeting "Go f*ck yourself." Their choice.

JW wrote:
In 425 AD the Catholic church tried to stop the pagan traditions but the people loved them and in order to keep the populace in the church once converted, they called for Dec. 25 to be Christ's birthday (even though they know he was not born in the winter) and instigated a mass for Christ (thus Christ's mass or Christmas) and continued to allow them to keep their pagan traditions only now they are attributed to the Son of God instead of the Sun god (Sol Invictus).

Oh, so these were the same pagans the Christian Church had to appease in Antioch (Syria), Constantinople(Turkey), Jerusalem (Palestine), Alexandria (Egypt).

Christianity wasnt a religion that spread by war or imposition in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. It was persecuted for 300 years. At the time, nobody got into this religion unless they really believed.

Donttypelies,

Hello. I like your handle - Don't type lies.

You stated: " Oh look at all the anti Christian biggots and hypocrits!! The secular humanists and athiests are a bunch of culural terrorists.

You all are shameful for attacking Christians but you are silent whence time to criticize yourselves or Islam."

They do criticise Islam and Muslims. In fact, on all religious beliefs. No partiality and selectivity in their criticisms of religious beliefs and religious believers. Perhaps you don't notice their criticisms on Islam and Muslims as you're busy doing likewise, don't mind them doing that as they are seen as to be on your Christian side in criticising Islam and Muslims.

I tease and josh atheists back on some of their more interesting and excessive pronouncements on believers. They do take it in stride and with good humour too. How could one not respect them for that? Atheists are not the enemies in "culture wars". The excesses of some "organised" religion and extremism of some of our faith's adherents are. Nothing wrong with atheists pointing these out. It never stop me from believing in God or practicing my faith. If you think some atheists are being irrational on Christmas and Christmas greetings, just say so and why.

Merry Christmas to you.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

With a little break in the action, maybe it's time for a little Randy Newman in "God's Song":
...
The Jews and the Christians were havin' a jamboree.
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV.
They picked the four greatest priests,
and they began to speak.
They said
"Lord a plague is on the world"
"Lord no man is free"
"The temples that we build to you,
have tumbled into the sea"
"Lord if you won't take care of us,
won't you please, please let us be."
And the Lord said,
And the LORD said,
"I burn down your cities, how blind you must be.
I take from you your children,
and you say 'how blessed are we'.
Y'all must be crazy, to put your faith in me.
That's why I love mankind.... you REALLY need me.
That's why I love mankind."

Jealous? What of, Anonymous?

Now your holiday inspires you guys, who apart from attacking others, pretty much stand around whining you don't have total power and helplessly-lamenting your own consumerism.

There's not much to envy, there, I think.

Pagans are jealous!

Oh look at all the anti Christian biggots and hypocrits!! The secular humanists and athiests are a bunch of culural terrorists.

You all are shameful for attacking Christians but you are silent whence time to criticize yourselves or Islam.

TO: Norrie Hoyt, Mr Mark, any other atheists out there--

I personally hate this time of year and find Christmas to be consumerist bilge. I have no religious affiliation with it, so I would rather not practice it. I prefer "Bah Humbug" to "Merry Christmas".

However, if I refuse to celebrate at this point all of my family will go into conniptions. But this has got me thinking about what I want to do when I get older and probably married with a brood (okay, I just threw up a little in my mouth, but I'm only 24, so this will probably pass). Assuming I settle down with another non-believer, I'd like to cut Christmas out of my agenda as well as that of my new nuclear family. I know it will be difficult to get my extended family to respect this.

I don't mean to get all Ann Landers here, but Mr Mark mentioned he was a parent, so I thought I would ask. Did any of you atheists choose to make this kind of break from religious holidays? How did you do it? What was your family's response? Do you have any tips?

I appreciate any feedback.

"The choice of December 25 for Christmas is it self an act of calendar cleansing. Historically, there were lots of pagan feast days that clergy converted to saints' days."

Actually the choice of December 25 was because this was the official birth of Mithras, the sun-god that was widely worshipped in Rome about the same time as the rise of Christianity. Mithras was born to a virgin in a cave on December 25. The actual choice of the date was imposed by Emperor Aurelian. The Sun god was said to be born on the Winter Solstice, but there were disputes as to the actual date. Celebrations would go on from December 20 through December 25. So the Emperor acted and set the date as December 25 in order to routinize the celebrations (and no-doubt to make sure that everyone took the same day off from work!).

There are many parallels between the god Mithras and Christ. Although Mithras is considered the "soldier's god" he stood for temperance and compassion. Like Christianity, Mithraism, offers salvation to its adherents. Mithras was born into the world to save humanity from evil. Both figures ascended in human form, Mithras to wield the sun chariot, Christ to Heaven.

Mithraism was way more popular than Christianity at one time, which probably explains why the Christians co-oped December 25 for the birth of their savior.

So, the date has little to do with Druids or other northern religions who were having their Yule (winter solstice) celebrations according to their own calendars. The actual provenance of the December 25 date is Roman, not Druid.

So, happy dies natalis solis invicti everyone. (Translation: Birthday of the Invincible Sun)

PS quit bickering. We all part of the same great western civilization and these holidays are a part of our collective history.

Just as Easter is derived from the pagan godess of fertility, so are all the traditions and rituals of Christmas derived from a kalidescope of pre-Christian pagan festivals (Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, Kalands etc). Even "peace on earth good will toward men' is taken from the pre-christ era pagan festival of the Saturnalia. So to get all upset because someone wants to say Happy Holidays instead of Happy Christmas or vise versa is truly absurd. It's all pagan.

In 425 AD the Catholic church tried to stop the pagan traditions but the people loved them and in order to keep the populace in the church once converted, they called for Dec. 25 to be Christ's birthday (even though they know he was not born in the winter) and instigated a mass for Christ (thus Christ's mass or Christmas) and continued to allow them to keep their pagan traditions only now they are attributed to the Son of God instead of the Sun god (Sol Invictus). That is clearly not what the old testament teaches in so far as not mixing the One True God with any pagan gods. But the Catholic church was a political body by this time and more interested in the numbers and not what God wanted. So those who celebrate Christmas celebrate paganism and they don't even know it.

More for Allison to bakc up my words:

1 Samuel 12:7
Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence before the LORD as to all the righteous acts performed by the LORD for you and your fathers.

# Acts 11:23
When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.

2 Thessalonians 1:5
All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.

"So to be of the Christian "Faith," you can't have evidence. Thems the rules."

Believing only by first seeing evidence is against the so-called rules.

But believing in a loving God and seeing evidence of that love all around you is well within the so-called rules.

Here's a parable I just thought of:

father, I will believe you love me only when you buy me something nice. Otherwise, I wont.

VERSUS

father, look at the wonderful things you do for me, these things I see you do for me are evidence of your love.

peace.

Bobby:

"A couple of rebuttals are in order:

"It comes down to your beliefs which are pure beliefs, ie: beliefs held in absence and defiance of evidence"

Nonsense. I have plenty of evidence left and right.(I have a memory of discussing them at a previous WaPo post with yourself present)"

Faith = belief without evidence. So to be of the Christian "Faith," you can't have evidence. Thems the rules.

Father, I'm sure you are well aware that Christmas is mostly a secular celebration, coming from northern European latitudes with Santa, Father Frost, and other gift givers filling shoes and spaces under trees. Constantine never had a Christmas tree nor did the christianized Romans under Constantine go Christmas shopping. But as Christianity was spread by Constantine's sword, christianity was imposed with local celebrations merged into christianity's celebrations. Gift giving spread from those northern latitudes as they christianized other peoples and migrated to new worlds.

Father, I guess we should not be surprised that you do not like Rudolph or the retail binge, all of which is secular in nature. But your Christian forefathers merged the secular celebration under European christianity.

Maybe what bothers you more is that christianity, in its original form, was never really adopted by our ancestors. They hung onto their secular traditions and continue to demand them. Well, maybe you should live with what the church has sown out of necessity at the time to spread christianity. Just what is so bad about Santa and Rudolph anyway? I remember priests telling me that gift giving came from the wise men giving christ the three gifts. Just more of the church merging its religion with pagan tradition.

And when you are at mass on Christmas morning, think about just why you are kneeling there to celebrate a birthday that no one can verify but is instead a day that was picked to celebrate that birth to win over pagans. Consider who adopted who's tradition.

A couple of rebuttals are in order:

"It comes down to your beliefs which are pure beliefs, ie: beliefs held in absence and defiance of evidence"

Nonsense. I have plenty of evidence left and right.(I have a memory of discussing them at a previous WaPo post with yourself present).

Now I understand completely that may not consider that evidence as evidence but for honesty's sake, you must change your statement to : Christian belief due to evidence that they only see.

Ergo, either Im deluded or Im do indeed see something that you do not, but please dont claim that I (and other believing Christians) believe in things in the absence of evidence.

Therein also lies another problem: the continuation of making claims about Christians that Christians themselves deny espousing. i.e. Saying:"Christians believe in X" Christians respond :we dont believe in X we believe in Y".

Second, I have expanded your Biblical quote (that perplexedly enough you use to dismiss theism). It discusses the limitations of man and the spiritual maturity in being with God and the meaning of true knowledge and revelation:

1 Corinthians 13:

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Quoting half verses takes away from the true message.

Peace.

Father Reese sounds like he has his head screwed on right. So, although I am totally ambivalent about organized religion and its semi-organized religionists, I do not disagree with what he's written. So, I'm sacrilegious and politically-incorrect. I can live with that!

With that having been said, please have a blessed Eid al Adha, a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Holidays and a great New Year! Take whichever applies to you, pleases you or just puts a smile on your face, and discard or disregard any that offend or annoy you. The religious-cum-secular seasons of Christmas and Easter are all like "31 flavors"... you pick the ones you like and leave behind the ones you don't.
And, either way, everyone will get through them all just fine.

Enjoy!

Dear Bobby -

Thanks again for your response and for keeping it civil.

It comes down to your beliefs which are pure beliefs, ie: beliefs held in absence and defiance of evidence. I believe that I do "criticize Christianity using points valid to the teaching of Christ," as evidenced in my criticizing - and citing - his "love me, hate your family" rhetoric. One need not invent reasons to criticize Xianity. Both Jesus and Paul provide ample opportunity to legitimately criticize what I would call the half-baked tenets of your faith (as in half is good, half is bad). Their religion is, as it were, condemned by their own words.

Back to the free will concept, I believe that Hoobar's post was on the money on this one. As far as your CS Lewis quote, that's a totally UNPROVEN and UNPROVABLE OPINION. Everyone has their opinions, and I don't find Mr Lewis' opinions at all compelling. In fact, I find it to be sophistry of the most-rank order.

Perhaps that's because the one Bible verse I've taken to heart is that to, "put away childish things," the main childish thing being all unsubstantiated beliefs in supernatural beings and their myriad agents here on earth.

Again, thanks for the chat.

Few questions that have baffled me over the years.
1. Why face the Kaa'ba during prayers? Is n't Allah everywhere?
2. Why the orientation changed from Jerusalem toward Mecca.
3. What is so special about this particular place called Ka'aba? There are many holy places around the world. Could it be because of the nearby tomb.
4. What is the significance of those black pebbles stuck in the wall?
5. Why non- Muslims cannot visit the area even for filmong a documentary. What are they afraid of?
6, What is the philosophy behind declaring the following Haram or sinful
1, Urinating or passing stool in a position with the Qiblah in front or at the back.
2. Passing urine or stool at a place where the 'Satr' is exposed to one's view.
3. Urinating in a standing position

4. Urinating or passing stool in a pond, canal, or a well.
5. Urinating or passing stool at the bank of a canal, pond etc.
6. Urinating or passing stool near the wall of a mosque.
7 Urinating or passing stool in a graveyard.
8. Urinating into a rat's hole or any other hole in the ground.
9. Talking, while urinating or passing stool.
10. Aiming the urine, from a lower place towards a higher surface.
11. Urinating or passing stool at a public resort or pathway
12. Urinating or passing stool at a place which is meant for Ablution or bath.

Hoobar:

Free will is not that hard to understand. You make it a MUCH harder issue than it really is. Replace "free will" with "choice."

God has a set of laws He demands us to follow, and if we disobey, we are punished. There is no difference between that and obeying our parents. Our parents demand of us not to steal that cookie, but gives us a choice. Just because that say we are not allowed to steal that cookie, and demands my obedience, does not mean we CANT disobey. Its really simple, and your thinking too much...lol.

Contrary to the *whinings* of Christians who feel 'oppressed' if someone says 'Happy Holidays,' most people of other religions aren't offended by a 'Merry Christmas,' unless it's being used as a 'religious test' to see who to exclude, or call a 'PC oppressor,' or maybe attack in a mob like happened to a Jew on a New York subway who returned the greeting with a 'Happy Hannukah.'

What's offensive is when Christians claim *public property and public holidays, and even people's *speech itself* to *attack and exclude others from their *own* holidays, and the public ones.*

You have plenty of churches.

There's no need to get hateful about others existing in American life. No, 90 percent of America are not practicing Christians. Before the Bush/Gore elections, they were lamenting how a *majority* considered themselves 'spiritual not religious,' and then turned around and used the same poll data to imply, 'Almost everone believes in God. It must mean *my* God, and now, 'It's a Christian Nation! (But Christians are still an oppressed minority under 'attack' by our own consumerism and anyone that's not Christian or maybe Jewish...

This 'PC oppression' is a *mirage* used to agitate Christians against anyone else having a voice.

Not only that, but it spoils the holiday. This used to be the time of year when you were *nice* to people, ...it's turned into one where there's a minefield of vitriol out there and minorities feel beseiged.

Nice going.

I enjoyed this. I am a Christian and I tire of
all the "who shot John" and your argument is a
good one. In comparison, we still want to
say in this country "Id God We Trust"..do
we really???

I have always favored if you don't serve him
then don't call on him...(especially on his day)

This world is in bad need of reformation!

Dear MrMark,

Thank you for responding and I respected your opinion by prefacing all my statements that what I am explaining does not require belief to understand its points. However, you wrote:

"There can be no free will when there is really only ONE choice offered, at least a choice that doesn't damn one to eternal hell."

Nonsense. Many use their free will to ignore and reject Christ. Moreover, Hell is at the very least, an eternal separation from a relationship with God. If one chooses a lifetime of separation from God on earth why would he want a relationship in the eternal hereafter? To quote CS Lewis: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"

"the ideas you present are - IMHO - a sad and simplistic mix of self-loathing coupled with ego-centric fantasies (ie: self loathing for humanity and the self-centered-ness of believing you'll live forever)."

First, a Christian only suffers from what you describe as "self-loathing" only when they are steeped in sin. Repentance and resurrection through Christ leads to a new life (Look up the prayer: Create a new spirit in me O Lord!). Second, Jesus instructed us to hate sin not ourselves (Love thy neighbor as THYSELF). (Psalm 126: The LORD has done great things for us, and we are filled with joy.)

It is not self-centerdedness of believing I will live forever, it is Christ-centerdedness.

Again, you can claim this is all fantasy but then I kindly ask (for the sake of consistency) that you criticize Christianity using points valid to the teaching of Christ. Its akin to ignorant proponents of intelligent design who criticize the science of evolution by twisting valid scientific data and quoting half-truths and irrelevant accounts.

I wish you too a Merry Christmas but something tells me you wont find the celebration of Christ's birth very merry. There is always hope though...

Bobby - Enough with the "free will" baloney already. The inability of Christians to explain the "free will" concept is one of the main reasons I quit the religion altogether.

You keep talking and talking about "free will" - it's a damn lie! How can it be free will when (a) God demands that we do a certain thing then (b) Tells us that, of course, we don't HAVE to do his bidding and then (c) Tells us that if we DON'T do his bidding, we are punished by an eternity in hell.

Free will cannot and does not coexist with Christianity. If you will be punished if you don't do what the imaginary sky daddy tells you, then how is that free will? Ridiculous.

The Christian God is cruel, sadistic, and is obviously not much of a god since he DEMANDS respect and worship. If he were really all-powerful, he wouldn't need us groveling at his feet.

Bobby - Enough with the "free will" baloney already. The inability of Christians to explain the "free will" concept is one of the main reasons I quit the religion altogether.

You keep talking and talking about "free will" - it's a damn lie! How can it be free will when (a) God demands that we do a certain thing then (b) Tells us that, of course, we don't HAVE to do his bidding and then (c) Tells us that if we DON'T do his bidding, we are punished by an eternity in hell.

Free will cannot and does not coexist with Christianity. If you will be punished if you don't do what the imaginary sky daddy tells you, then how is that free will? Ridiculous.

The Christian God is cruel, sadistic, and is obviously not much of a god since he DEMANDS respect and worship. If he were really all-powerful, he wouldn't need us groveling at his feet.

There's some terrible irony in this whole debate. In years past I would routinely wish people "Merry Christmas" because, after all, there are some really important sentiments included in the Christmas spirit. Now, I really can't say it without appearing to take sides, since some Christians have turned it into a political statement. They've used the phrase to divide rather than unite us. Maybe that was the intention, I don't know.

We realize the other gods and godesses you mention are myths. Most people don't recognize that Jesus is also a myth - once that realization also occurs, "Merry Christmas" will assume its rightful place among the archives of human spiritual evolution.

I don't mind about the political correctness of it all... I just want people to get their facts straight before they start blabbing what they think they know or what they googled.

Personally, I don't say Merry Christmas to someone until I know that they believe in the Christmas story. I'm not going to say Merry Christmas to a Taoist or a Hindu.

Point of fact, Leni:

"FYI, the ire over saying "Merry Christmas" was not because it was being forced...but because it was being banned by some stores; their employees were being forbidden from using the phrase."

Actually, in the big Wal-Mart controversy, the Christian radicals were all upset that employees weren't *forced to say 'Merry Christmas,' as I recall.

Which in the same mentality as makes people think it's an 'attack' if others have a holiday display near theirs, or that it's *forcing gay marriage on people not to *ban* gay marriage, became *construed* to mean people were *forced to say Happy Holidays,* when in fact the radical Christians were trying to force a reference to Christ and the Christians who own Wal-Mart thought that'd be bad business.

Thomas Reese SJ. Thank you yet again. You have made these clowns try to think beyond their noses....like Jesus, who according to Luke began his public life reading from the book of Isaias in a synagogue in Nazareth, where he declared:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the contrite of heart, To preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward. ......"

So let us tear down that border wall. Free the world from the slavery of free market economics, racism, and reductionist materialist science. Tear down that wall... The Kingdom of the living holy God is here and visible in the risen Christ ...let the deaf learn to listen and the blind to see.

Let us rejoice that there is yet hope for the multitude of lost souls in this world.

Look, heres the issue, and its very sad to NOT see anyone admit this. 1st of all, I am a NON-CATHOLIC Christian. There is a HUGE difference between Catholicism and Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists (whatever you prefer), and maybe I will write an essay on that one of these days. Anyways, I am going to admit to everyone that Christians are not innocent. We have our fair share of mistakes...but we are not the only ones guilty.

There are some radical Christians who will whine and cry when someone says "Happy Holidays", or anything other than "Merry Christmas." Well, honestly, they are IDIOTIC RELIGIOUS BIGOTS, and should not be taken seriously. (NEWS FLASH!!! Just in case this has never occurred to you. EVERY religion, including Atheism, have IDIOTIC RELIGIOUS BIGOTS) BUT, there are also the radical non-Christians who say "Happy Holidays" ONLY to tick off a Christian. They don't like the fact that the holiday mentions Christ, so they act like that school bully who always picks on other people and laughs when they become angry. No one here can dispute that this happens, and a Christian has every right to be mad, as would an Atheist if I degraded their beliefs.

The fact is thus: No one side is totally innocent, nor totally guilty. There is NO Atheist or Pagan in this forum, and any other for that matter, who can honestly say their party is innocent regarding this "Christmas" issue. And I include myself in that. There are some egotistical, idiotic Christians in this world who abuse their religion, and put a bad name on the majority of Christians who do not act like a narcissist. But the same goes for every Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Islam, etc. here. (I only list those because they are the most predominant who post). I could list COUNTLESS names of famous people from those religions who led a life that does not coincide with their religious affiliation.

After reading essays and comments on OnFaith for about a year now, I have yet to see ANY Atheist, Pagan, Agnostic, Islam, etc. admit any wrong doing by their religion (this does not mean one can't be found. Maybe I was in the wrong place at the wrong time). Does that mean they are innocent? ABSOLUTELY NOT. So lets stop blaming Christians for all the problems, because its not their fault. Yes, they have made their mistakes, but so have you, and instead of trying to blame your mistakes on someone else, be honest with yourself, and change YOUR life, not mine. You are no more innocent than I, or any other Christian, am. But on the contrary, you are also no more guilty either.

Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year. God bless!!!

Dear Bobby -

Thank you for responding to my last post.

No, I don't for an instant believe the religious mumbo-jumbo about sin and separation from god. As others have pointed out, the idea that an all-powerful god has created us imperfectly and commanded us to be perfect is ludicrous. Also ludicrous is the Xian idea of "free will." There can be no free will when there is really only ONE choice offered, at least a choice that doesn't damn one to eternal hell.

Again, I thank you for the response, but the ideas you present are - IMHO - a sad and simplistic mix of self-loathing coupled with ego-centric fantasies (ie: self loathing for humanity and the self-centered-ness of believing you'll live forever).

Merry Xmas!

FYI

You forget to mention why Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on December 25th when the exact date of his b-day is not known... it has everything to do with Pagan celebrations.

In fact, much of the traditions of Christmas have roots in Paganism - the Christmas tree as just one example. The 25th has more to do with Pagan celebrations then the birth of Jesus Christ. To erase this history is offensive as well.

Celebrate Christmas as you see fit but do not tell others how.

If we consider nativity scenes as just more fictional accounts about good people and myths (e.g. Santa Clause and his elves, Gabriel, Moroni et al), "do no harm to such scenes" or to the associated commentary. Even pagans have their fictional accounts to celebrate on their hallowed day of Halloween.

from: http://members.tripod.com/~TaraMiller/halloween.html

"Halloween: The Pagan Festival of Samhain

Paganism, and Druidry especially, recognise eight feasts durring the yearly cycle or the Eight Fold Year. These celebrations are based upon a deep and mysterious connection between our individual lives and the source of this planet’s life. Like any other religious ocassion, these Pagan holidays are marked by special observances.

The most popular festival, in ancient times as well as modern Pagan society, is Samhain or Samhuinn, (pronounced Sou’in) the Celtic new year.

Halloween Myths

1) The pumpkin God, Samhain ( pronounced Sam’hane) DOES NOT exist.

2) Pagans DO NOT sacrifice babies or animals on Halloween. The Wiccan Rede states "Do what thou wilst, but harm none."

3) Pagans DO NOT worship the Devil or Satan on Halloween.

4) PAGANS ARE NOT SATANISTS.

These myths have been perpetuated by people who have seen too many horror movies and the Christian idea of horrific and mythical forms of Satanism. "

And contemporary Wiccan witches (commentators?) note:

And contemporary Wiccans note:

"Also, some Wiccans feel that the tradition is offensive to "real witches" for promoting stereotypical caricatures of "wicked witches".[45] However, other Neopagans, perhaps most of them, see it as a harmless holiday in which some of the old traditions are celebrated by the mainstream culture, albeit in a different manner

Hi, Tom.

I hope that you are well.

This article, as with all of your articles that I have seen, is clear and to the point. As importantly, I agree with you.

Did you ever finish your thesis on how law is made? I remember many conversations in the back of the Ways and Means Committee room in 1975-6.

Regards,

Mike

The BC/AD system was not created by Pope Gregory in 1582, but around the time of the Council of Nicaea, 1200 years earlier. Gregory only reformed the Calendar slightly by advancing it 10+ days and removing a single leap year day (almost) every century.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Anonymous:

I was talking about the Catholic term mass = church service... Get your terms right before you start calling people illogical. The post after yours correctly explains it. Know the game before you start playing... sorry try again... Anonymous.

"Christmas" is just the English word for the traditional Midwinter holiday. Its etymological roots are only important to those who attach a particular religious significance to the day. The celebration with the tree and the lights, of family by the hearth giving gifts to each other in this season, long predates the founding of the Christian religion."

-----------------
"The word Christmas originated as a contraction of "Christ's mass". It is derived from the Middle English Christemasse and Old English Cristes mæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038"
above quote taken from Wikipedia.
see Wikipedia on the history of the word but the word did not come before the Christian religion. After all, Christ is in the word Christmas. Two different words, see the links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Matt

"Christmas" is just the English word for the traditional Midwinter holiday. Its etymological roots are only important to those who attach a particular religious significance to the day. The celebration with the tree and the lights, of family by the hearth giving gifts to each other in this season, long predates the founding of the Christian religion."

-----------------
"The word Christmas originated as a contraction of "Christ's mass". It is derived from the Middle English Christemasse and Old English Cristes mæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038"
above quote taken from Wikipedia.
see Wikipedia on the history of the word but the word did not come before the Christian religion. After all, Christ is in the word Christmas. Two different words, see the links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Matt

Does anyone even bother with acknowledging that there are Non-Western churches that have nothing to do with European practices (not everyone in the known world followed Saturnalia or whatever??)and celebrate Christmas on dates other than Dec 25????????

Lets ignore them because they don't fit into our happy lets-attack-Christmas-As-pagan view of things.

It never ceases to amaze me how Western-centric thinking still pervades!!

NEWSFLASH: Christianity and Christian Churches are not WESTERN things!

The choice of December 25 for Christmas is it self an act of calendar cleansing. Historically, there were lots of pagan feast days that clergy converted to saints' days. X-mas was devised to substitute the pagan rites of winter solstice. Oddly, the rite of tree worship survived the priestly efforts. How Saint Nicholas morphed into a cookie-holic, who lives with elves, and loves to stuff kids' stockings is another quandary.

Does it bother the Rev. Reese that most Christmas prayers are probably to Santa Claus or that the measure of good works appears to be the shopping and gift giving?

I'm sure the Rev. Reese smiles warmly and reciprocates when neighbors wish him a Happy Wiccan Solstice or when invited to a party to celebrate the end of Ramadan. It always charms to stroll through a shopping mall or super market and hear Hindu holiday jingles and choirs of children praising Buddah.

Like it or not, we are a Christian nation, governed in a Judeo-Christian tradition, by men and women who largely (90+%) adhere to that tradition. It makes sense to have Christmas and Good Friday as federal holidays because 90+% of the federal workforce observes these holidays. There is a certain element of pragmatism involved.

As for saying "Merry Christmas"...I agree with Father Reese: I say it as a genuine wish of goodwill towards those I encounter. I wish my Jewish friends a Happy Hannukah, and my Muslim friends a Blessed Ramadan (and yes, I have both).

I find it amusing that there are people who will put up a Christmas tree or lights or other decorations, but get mad that someone would then wish them a Merry Christmas. Stop being so sensitive and enjoy the season!

Dude, while we are in the process of stomping out silly political correctness and substiting common sense and common courtesy, isn't the correct phrase. "Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Men"? Clearly, "men" in this case is a standard substitute for "all mankind" i.e. "all people everwhere"

As for Christmas, it is a festive holiday taken over by christians (a good time to celebrate the birthday of their guy while converting a few pagans with partying on thier minds) whose roots are in mankind's natural tendency (especially in higher latitudes) to celebrate the passing of the winter solstice and the eventual return of the sun (for christians, a logical progression to Easter). It is a perfect time for all cultures and all faiths to celebrate all that is good in mankind and to affirm there is nothing better than "Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards Men"

Dickens captured it wonderfully well in a theologically generic way in his much beloved story of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Merry Christmas to All!!

Mr Reese asks:

Is Jesus invited to his birthday party?

Mr. Reese,

Nowhere does scripture, let alone Jesus Christ himself, tell us to celebrate Christs birth. Mankind has 'added' to the book (by promoting this error-filled 'holiday' (by no means a Holy Day as you erroneously refer to it) when the book tells mankind not to add to it.

In vain do you worship Him...teaching the commandments of men as doctrine.

The Creators of our universe do not condone the counterfeit 'celebrations' that man puts God and/or Christs name on and his (mans) stamp of approval on. And that, Mr. Reese, is the truth.

In the immortal words of Rodney King, "can we all get along?"

Let's agree to disagree on the words involved in sharing holiday greetings and then let's agree that it is a good thing to greet people with friendship and good cheer.

I went to a Jesuit college and I'm embarrassed by Christian Privilege rearing its head in this opinion piece. I'll just make one point: What's wrong with B.C.? Father, you should ask archaeologists and historians who feel B.C.E. and C.E. are far more appropriate terms. But I doubt you will, and I doubt you'd care. Shame on you.

Fr. Reese,

I am a Georgetown graduate student and discerning a call to the priesthood and, perhaps, the religious life. I have never once agreed with any of your columns presented here, but I am glad to say that has changed. Well said.

God bless, Father, and Merry Christmas!

Look at all the anti-Christian biggotry on this blog. All of you are hypocrits. You admonish Christians for tiny little things and have no criticism of yourselfs, Islam or Muslims.

Your relatives and ancestors are Christian.

You are traitors and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

There are too many crazies, both religious and secular, who make trouble by making mountains out of molehills. You don't have to believe Jesus was the Son of God to say Merry Christmas. And what is so holy about Hanukah, the celebration of the victory of Taliban-like Jewish fundamentalists over civilized Hellenized Jews?

Wish everyone a good holiday however you want to phrase it. It doesn't make you a bigot or unconstitutional or an ally of bigots.

lepidopteryx:

Bobby,
Sinatra was crooning "Happy Holidays" back in the 50's.

Yes. Nowhere did I write that that term was invented recently. I just stated that the traditional greeting during this season was Merry Christmas.

MrMark:

"What's the big deal about Jesus giving his life to save mankind? Did you ever think about it?

Personally, I have a lot more respect for and belief in parents who tough it out raising their kids and loving their kids than I ever could for the "love" of some god who shows his love for my kids by killing his own child. If god was god, he could save mankind with a simple thought. Why the need for a horrible death in the equation?"

Here's the the explanation regardless of whether you believe in it or not:

The big deal was that sin separates humanity from eternal life with God. Sin and God are like oil and water, they are incompatible. God=Life, Sin=Death (and not the whole body rotting kind).
Since, according to the way God made the world and the very nature of His relationship with humanity, the wage of sin is death there had to be a sacrifice to atone for our sins. Because God wanted to save us all he incarnated in the form a sinless, blameless human who took upon himself all the sins of the world. This was done out of love for us.

If you read the Bible Jesus suffered physically, emotionally and spiritually because he was God and human simultaneously. Only a supremely loving Father would humble himself and sacrifice himself (in the form of His Son) for humans who continue to sin and reject Him. Through Jesus we are given a chance (if we choose it) to redeem ourselves and receive eternal, joyous life.

You charge that God could've fixed everything with a thought. But then what about our free will? What about God's incompatibility with sin? God is all-powerful but He cannot go against who He is.

You charge that God is committing a de-facto infanticide by killing His own child when indeed Jesus IS God in human form. This was the way it is from the beginning (Read John 1:1). Jesus Christ is nothing more than the manifestation of God's love for us.

The beauty of the Resurrection is not that it was a convenient way out for Jesus dying but rather the way that sin (aka death) was defeated. From darkness there sprung light. This gives hope to all. No matter what, as long as you are with Christ, you cannot be defeated. Even death cannot defeat you.

You don't have to believe in it to take it seriously and deeply study it. Again, whether you believe in Jesus being who He says He is or not, His IS a beautiful message.

"Christmas" is just the English word for the traditional Midwinter holiday. Its etymological roots are only important to those who attach a particular religious significance to the day. The celebration with the tree and the lights, of family by the hearth giving gifts to each other in this season, long predates the founding of the Christian religion. This is the primary way most Americans, Europeans, and others celebrate the day, without the religious overlay.

I slightly object to the crass and insensitive commercialization of the holiday, but one can say the same for Hallowe'en or Cinco de Mayo. As long as people respond to messages based on guilt, shame, or scorn, that's what businesses will give us.

Wow, when I read Fr. Reese's piece I thought "right on" for enlightened reasonableness. The comments here strike me as bitter and meanspirited. FYI, the ire over saying "Merry Christmas" was not because it was being forced...but because it was being banned by some stores; their employees were being forbidden from using the phrase. "Hi, I see you are buying tinsel, ornaments, Santa wrapping paper and some stuffed reindeer and a manger set but I can't wish you a Merry Christmas..." yeah. Sure, I would love it if everyone was better educated in all the different religious traditions in this country...Hello, schools! but we have come a long way since I grew up and no one knew anything about Hanukkah or Rosh Hashanah or Ramadam. I think all Fr. Reese is saying is lighten up. When I wish my Christian friends Merry Christmas its not a sign that I've suddenly converted. And to all those who see only the letter of the law in having Christmas as a Federal holiday...with 80% or more of the population Christian, just how would you determine the unlucky few forced to work on their holy day? I wouldn't want to be stuck at work as the only person on duty while everyone else had the day off.

Seriously, anybody knows if Buddhists celebrate Christmas?

Thank you Father Reese for your level headed comments. I might go even further. Christmas is not Christ's birthday; he was probably not born in Dec. The early Christians hijacked the pagan festival of Saturnalia, wch was a big celebration of sex and alcoholat this time of year, bcs too many of the true believers were participating in it. So the pagan aspects of the celebration of the winter solstice, are quite appropriate, and predate the Christian celebration that has taken over some aspects. Let freedom ring, and with it, Santa Claus and chrismas trees and even a little Saturnalia, if you're so inclined. The fact is, with the days so short and cold this time of year, we just need an excuse to party! Merry Christmas, to one and all! And God Bless you, Father Reese!

Father Reese asks: "[I]f we can live with Easter, January, Thursday and Jupiter, why can’t we live with Christmas and BC? Why is Christianity singled out for historical cleansing?"

This question rhetorically elides one significant difference between Christianity and the other religions to which he alludes: Anglo-Saxon and Roman paganism are not in any historically continuous sense still in practice. Is it irrational to have differing standards for labels that (on one hand) call to mind religions for which people still actively proselytize, and in whose names people sometimes still act imperialistically (e.g. Christianity), and those that (on the other hand) are effectively dead (e.g. Anglo-Saxon or Roman paganism)?

Would it be OK if I just wished you peace, or would that offend, as well? Peace! Peace to all, without regard to race, religion, political or sports-team affiliation.

Lepidopteryx:

You raise good objections to what could be construed as government endorsement of Christianity.

There are several overt endorsements taken by governments, such as the creche on the Courthouse Lawn, that are nonsense. The role of our government is to provide represention, security/defense, and order for the people while not infringing on the liberties of those same people (at least that's my read of it).

And while the First Amendment does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it also restrains the government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, while the creche on the courthouse lawn would be an outright violation of the establishment of religion, establishing Christmas Day as a Federal Holiday is not.

Why?

Because the creche on the courthouse is nothing less than the State exercising a religious belief.

However, the Federal Holiday is an acknowledgement that, like it or not, the United States is largely "culturally" Christian (culturally, as opposed to Observant). Logistically speaking, most Federal Employees would request Leave on days like Christmas, and it just makes sense to close the offices in toto for the day, rather than have 90% of the employees out. It's an accomodation, not an endorsement.

BUT, even if the USA is Culturally Christian, I believe it to be changing, and becoming less and less so. So, while it makes logistical sense to make widely-observed Holy Days complete Federal Holidays, I do believe that others should be given flexible holidays to accomodate their Holy Days that are not chargeable as leave.

The reason that we don't do this, I suspect, is that people like Wiccans would end up with more days off every year than others (such as Christians or Jews).

But I can live with that because fair doesn't always mean equitable. And in a growing pluralistic society, we have to think about fairness and not about equity.

My goodness, Christians are a bunch of whining self-centered zealots. And I am one. Let's see, in spite of the fact that virtually all the key players in the formation of the nation except Sam Adams were at best Deist and in several key instances Atheist, Mr. Adams and the Puritans managed to get God inserted in the Declaration and Constitution over the objection of the "founding fathers" as normally pictured. So we imbedded ourselves in founding documents. We have our Saviour's birthday recognized as a National Holiday. The Muslims don't get off on their saviors birthday. The poor Jews don't even have a savior yet. Since the founding father's with even Sams approval managed to seperate church and state, we got God thrown into the pledge in the good old 50s when we were fighting the Godless Communists. We got it imbedded in our money. Every national and 99% of all local politician must worship at our church and pay it homage in every speech. We receive deference in Taxes. Hell, we even have our "day of rest" as the universally recognized day off. Short of branding everyone, i don't know what more you could want.

And you still whine if we can't put up a 12 feet tall stone "10 Commandments" on the courthouse lawn. Take a brake. We ARE the dominent religion. We rule the country. I mean, if your really worried the agnostics are going to take over let more illegal latin americans in...they are all really good christians compared to the sanctamonius hypocrites we see on TV every day.

i am weary. Some of you Christians really ought to read the bible. I don't recall Christ needing neon signs, stone monuments, his name carved into money (he actually kind of objected to that sort of thing), a test for who got to vote, who his friends would be, who he would help. Pretty darn nice guy. he's why I'm a christian.

As for all of you "holier than thou" types. You make me waver.

My goodness, Christians are a bunch of whining self-centered zealots. And I am one. Let's see, in spite of the fact that virtually all the key players in the formation of the nation except Sam Adams were at best Deist and in several key instances Atheist, Mr. Adams and the Puritans managed to get God inserted in the Declaration and Constitution over the objection of the "founding fathers" as normally pictured. So we imbedded ourselves in founding documents. We have our Saviour's birthday recognized as a National Holiday. The Muslims don't get off on their saviors birthday. The poor Jews don't even have a savior yet. Since the founding father's with even Sams approval managed to seperate church and state, we got God thrown into the pledge in the good old 50s when we were fighting the Godless Communists. We got it imbedded in our money. Every national and 99% of all local politician must worship at our church and pay it homage in every speech. We receive deference in Taxes. Hell, we even have our "day of rest" as the universally recognized day off. Short of branding everyone, i don't know what more you could want.

And you still whine if we can't put up a 12 feet tall stone "10 Commandments" on the courthouse lawn. Take a brake. We ARE the dominent religion. We rule the country. I mean, if your really worried the agnostics are going to take over let more illegal latin americans in...they are all really good christians compared to the sanctamonius hypocrites we see on TV every day.

i am weary. Some of you Christians really ought to read the bible. I don't recall Christ needing neon signs, stone monuments, his name carved into money (he actually kind of objected to that sort of thing), a test for who got to vote, who his friends would be, who he would help. Pretty darn nice guy. he's why I'm a christian.

As for all of you "holier than thou" types. You make me waver.

The whole 'War on Christmas' really boils down to this: Either the people who refuse to say anything but "Merry Chirstmas" are too daft to realize that not everybody celebrates Christmas (making 'Happy Holidays' just plain good manners) or they're making a conscous descision to imply that by the single act of being in America, you SHOULD be a Christian who celebrates Christmas.

Think about it - either the person doesn't realize they're being rude or they're saying "I don't know if you celebrate Christmas but I do and so do most of my neighbors so I'm just going to go ahead and tell YOU to enjoy MY holiday because it makes me feel good and reminds you that your religion is a tiny minority and doesn't really matter."

I grew up in the 60s in a mostly Jewish part of New York City. My parents are Jewish and Presbyterian; we celebrated Christmas, Easter, and Passover. We said Merry Christmas or Happy Hannukah or Happy Holidays at random. We had a Christmas party at school, but it was a party during the Christmas season rather than a party celebrating Christmas itself. People's specific religions were irrelevant in school. Religion was seen as a function of your family and kept within the family sphere. Saying Merry Christmas or Happy Hannukah was not politically charged. Seriously, no one cared. You could say one or the other, and they meant the same thing, namely, that holidays were coming up and we got time off from school and that we hoped the person we said that to had a good time. A person's religion was irrelevant compared to the more important question of whether that was someone you liked and trusted -- and religion had NOTHING to do with that.

Sometimes getting older and more sophisticated is not a benefit.

"Merry Christmas" has obvious Christian connections. If you do not believe that Jesus is the Lord and Savior, then you do not celebrate his birthday. Your approach--that we are just announcing an upcoming day--would require greater political correctness. One would be similarly obliged to say "Happy Hanukkah," as well as commemorate all other religious, political and cultural celebrations.

Our calendar and solar system were named after gods, but long-forgotten ones. Ancient Greek and Roman polytheism is dead as a religion. More over, those followers are not in a position of power, forcing their beliefs on the minority populations.

Christmas is not "celebrated" by everyone, rather it's a day off work. It would cost too much economic and professional confusion for everyone to take off their own religious holidays, so the religious minorities accept that their vacation schedule ("winter" and "spring" break) revolves around Christmas and Easter.

"But Rudolph was never the inspiration for torture and genocide throughout the ages.

Blessed be gentle Rudolph."

Amen to that!

BOBBY writes:
"He that loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

And what a beautiful, serious quote it is. The love of God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to wash away our sins. If you think good ol' Mom or Pop love you more then you are NOT worthy of him.

You may not believe in him, but if He was who He said He was, it indeed makes sense that He be loved more than anyone else."

What's the big deal about Jesus giving his life to save mankind? Did you ever think about it? The guy supposedly died at 3pm on a Friday and was resurrected before 5am on Sunday. What's that, a total of 38 hours? Under gw bush, people are tortured for that amount of time just so Cheney can get his jollies. More importantly, the guy was god, and he knew, KNEW that he wouldn't stay dead that long. Or are you suggesting that Jesus could very well have LOST the battle in Hades and mankind would not have been redeemed? No way. It was pre-ordained that he wouldn't. Insider trading at its Biblical worst.

I'm a parent myself. If there was some god around who could give me the absolute assurance that my death followed by my quick resurrection to immortal power would assure that my family and every other family on earth would be better off, I'd take that bargain in an instant.

Seems to me that unless there was a chance that Jesus could have died and not been resurrected that the whole thing is as much a show as was the trial that condemned him.

Personally, I have a lot more respect for and belief in parents who tough it out raising their kids and loving their kids than I ever could for the "love" of some god who shows his love for my kids by killing his own child. If god was god, he could save mankind with a simple thought. Why the need for a horrible death in the equation?

Sick stuff that "beautiful" Jesus story.

Bobby,
Sinatra was crooning "Happy Holidays" back in the 50's.

"It's just been trumped up by political zealots who abhor a pluralistic society to be misinterpreted that way."

That would be true if the norm was always Happy Holidays and so-called zealots are trying to replace it with Merry Christmas. Unfortunately, reality dictates that the reverse is true. A pluralistic society is fine and dandy only when other viewpoints are tolerated openly (and not just leftist positions but even those of conservative Christians).

When I grew up, "Happy Holidays" was commonly used among the devout to connote the proximate holidays of Christmas and New Years. As commercialism encroached on Thanskgiving, the phrase grew to refer to all three.

Point being: "Holidays" is plural even within a single faith, and does not necessarily connote disrespecting one religion in deference to another.

It's just been trumped up by political zealots who abhor a pluralistic society to be misinterpreted that way.

Mass is any Eucharistic celebration in a Christian Church.The term is derived from the late-Latin word missa (dismissal), a word used in the concluding formula of Mass in Latin: "Ite, missa est" ("Go; it is the dismissal").

In Arabic churches the word for Mass is Qoddas, derived from qudus aka Holy. It has nothing to do with the Catholic terminology.

PS Not everything us derived from the Catholic Church. Orthodox Churchs have liturgies and traditions dating back to the Apostles.

Alan

"Christ's-mass" or the mass (worship) of Jesus? Talk about unclear and illogical. The 'mass' of Christmas does not equate to 'mass' worship, or were you just being unclear?

I am very surprised this is coming from a priest. Reese's logic is unclear and cluttered. It is after all the Catholic Church who coined the phase, "Christmas" as "Christ's-mass" or the mass (worship) of Jesus. It IS a theological statement. To acknowledge Christmas is to acknowledge Christ's birth. Although, it does have pagan roots, (as most Christian holidays do) in its current form it is regarded as the celebration of Christ's birth and not just some shopping holiday. Secular society has made it into a non-religious holiday, but you cannot make Christmas non-religious. That is like making Hanukkah just about 8 nights of gift giving and games.

Let's not muddy the waters here.

"He that loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

And what a beautiful, serious quote it is. The love of God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to wash away our sins. If you think good ol' Mom or Pop love you more then you are NOT worthy of him.

You may not believe in him, but if He was who He said He was, it indeed makes sense that He be loved more than anyone else.

Maybe it's the walls people like Fr. Reese seek to build *within* our borders we ought to be looking to tear down.

Thanks Thomas J. Reese SJ. You could not have said it better.

Indeed, the most Christian way to celebrate might just be to boycott ´Christmas´, and to do so in an imaginatively significant way, like when Jesus healed on the Sabbath.

Maybe we should all go the border and knock the wall down...and celebrate.

Not a bad effort by Father Reese, at least until he ran out of interesting things to say and fell back on the Xian-as-victim strategy. There's no amount of lipstick that will pretty up that pig.

BTW - I don't see the pagans complaining that Xianity usurped their Winter Solstice party by deliberately imposing Jesus' birthday on their holiday.

I've got a thought - how about the Xian scholars get together and to the best of their abilities, decide on which day Jesus was *most likely born*. IIRC, most bets put it in February or August. I'm guessing they won't do so because February is such a drab month and any Jesus-centered celebrations in February would pale in comparison to what would amount to now-recently held Santa-centered "Christmas" festivities. August doesn't work because its summer vacation...and because one doesn't "launch products" in August, be they holidays or illegal wars.

Still, it would be amusing to watch as the nutty Xians complained that Valentine's Day or August's back-to-school sales were destroying the true meaning of the day of Jesus' ACTUAL birth. :)

When you think about it, December is probably the least-likely month for Jesus' birth. Having lived in Las Vegas, I can tell you that any shepherd watching his flock by night in a desert in the midst of winter would freeze his ass off, not to mention those of his sheep.

Seems like a lot of angst over the birthday of an imaginary character who so famously said, "He that loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Merry Xmas!

Anyway, it's not Pagan religious observance to have the days of the week named as they are, nor is Christianity the religion being erased by Christian appropriation of the Easter holiday (in fact, they often then turn around and claim the Pagan-derived traditions should be abolished, while wanting to keep the name out of the context of that Goddess or the turning of the Wheel.)

In fact, Pagan holidays are often a time when Christians go out of their way to attack Pagans for honoring the ways of our ancestors, (such as we have left after all that appropriation, destruction, and recontextualizing.)

Christians aren't being 'singled out for erasure' when *you're* the ones allowed to make religious statements of your own, (even *demanding* these cultural holidays be about nothing but your religion, even as you push these religious observances on our secular public square,) ... while, of course, taking Pagan holidays out of their original religious contexts and saying they're exclusively about your own, Fr. Reese.

No one really begrudges this: Easter was a holiday long before Christianity came along, as was Yule, as was Samhain: all holidays Christianity took in large measure from Pagan traditions, then removed much of their original meanings.

Solstice blessings, too. :) We're gonna put the Sol back in Solstice, the Wheel back in Yule, and Eostre back in Ostara. You don't have to. :)

I'm not offended at 'Merry Christmas,' ...or at least I wasn't, until some people turned it *into* an attempt to impose religious dominance in the life of our nation. Now I often resent the tone. Not always or even usually, when it's sincere well-wishing. But the aggressive politically-religious elements have kind of spoiled it. Will someone turn around and try to beat me up if I don't give the right response? Will they vandalize Pagan symbols in interfaith displays? Will they claim to be 'under attack' and use that as an excuse to try and take more of my freedom away?

Will they channel the usual holiday stresses toward conveniently-provided 'villains,' ie, me?

Is that any way to have a happy Christmas, anyway?

I say 'C.E.' rather than A.D. a lot, because to say AD would be inaccurate, (not 'my Lord,' as it's taken to mean: I like B.C.E, but don't fuss about it, "B.C." just isn't that loaded, to my mind.)

When people *make* a simple thing like "Merry Christmas" a theological and political statement, when they start saying uninvolved Pagans and secularists are 'oppressing' them whenever someone *doesn't* say, specifically, 'Merry Christmas,' (or, say, when Wal-Mart doesn't *force* people to say 'Merry Christmas,' )

...that's when it turns into something not-very-merry.

I consider Nativity creches on public property of a different order from, say, five-ton engraved religious *commandments* telling me who to worship in my own courthouse... but these, too, have become a territorial marker for political Christians who want exclusive religious influence over our secular government, (And, besides, isn't this the kind of thing that churches can handle?)

...But it's not very 'merry' when people make them interfaith in order to make them legal, and then some merry ol' Christian conservatives vandalize the non-Christian religious symbols.

Which may expose why these public religious displays just aren't a good idea in the first place, but it's not like the displays themselves are *that* big a deal. They've been *made* a big deal by people who claim to be the ones being oppressed cause they can't claim our nation for just themselves.

This stuff is turning really really ugly. Maybe a little scary, if you happen to be a religious minority.

Merry Christmas.

"As a Christian, I would be just as happy if Christmas became a day celebrated only by Christians as a holy day of prayer and good works.

"I could do without the retail binge."

"But if it is going to be celebrated by everyone, then I object to Jesus being banned from his own birthday party.

"I object when Rudolph replaces Jesus on his birthday."

But Rudolph was never the inspiration for torture and genocide throughout the ages.

Blessed be gentle Rudolph.

Fr. Reese,

While you are correct in your statement that the months and days of the week are named after Roman gods, there is a difference. You don't see re-enactments of the birth of Janus on the courthouse lawn ever year. No one is trying to make every Thursday a national holiday in honor of Thor.
I have no objection to Christians decorating their homes and lawns with creches, and I don't get upset if someone greets me with Merry Christmas.
However, I do object to Christmas being a federal holiday. It is the ONLY religious holiday that is a federal holiday, and that strikes me as a First Amendment violation. I object to the fact that, as a non-Christian government employee, I am given the day off for Christamas Day and Good Friday, without it being charged to my leave, but if I wish to take off for one of MY holy days, it is deducted from my leave. Again, this strikes me as a state endorsement of Christianity. I have submitted a proposal to the last three administrations that every employee simply be given x days of discretionary leave which will not be deducted from their annual leave balance. This would allow people to take their own holy days off, whatever their faith. I have yet to receive any reply at all.