The Real Meaning of Christmas

[Sigurd]

You really have to wonder why it is called Christmas and not FamilyMeetingmas in English.

I know you guys call it Weihnachten, but sometimes lose the h as in Weinachtsbaum.
My German is not good enough to understand the root meaning of the words. But something along sanctification night? and when dropping the 'h' becomes Wine night?

Here in the North we use the old form: Jul which should translate to Yule in English.
The use of Xmas is IMO a deliberate anti Christian term. Why not just use Yule which is the old term?

And since we are discussing the topic:
What is the root meaning of Noël and Navidad?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Actually, Xmas is short for Christmas. The letter X comes from the greek letter chi, which is the first Greek letter in Kristos. Χριστος (Greek for "Christ")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas#History

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


Christ has been abbreviated thusly for millennia. It is not part of ANY deliberate attempt to take the Christ out of Christmas, which I'm sorry to say, is an imagined plot. Any concerted effort to take Christ out of Christmas would fail, as there are a billion Christians on the planet who might care about it, and far fewer atheists and non-theists who find Christ offensive (the insignificant minority of them).

Most of us non-theists actually appreciate and admire Christ, as a leader, philosopher, and spiritual man. The bottom line is that we just don't think he's God incarnate, or that there is one. That doesn't mean we hate him. In fact, I've made it my personal duty to be more informed about Christ than the average Christian. I have several Bibles and am aware of cross-cultural and non-Christian perspectives on Christ. You'd be surprised how many non-Christian groups think Christ was a damn swell guy.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yule was, interestingly enough, originally a pagan holiday which has nothing to do with Christmas, Christ, or Christianity, other than western Christians borrowing from pagan traditions of Yule, such as the Yule log, and the christmas ham or Yule Boar.

[Sigurd]

Christ has been abbreviated thusly for millennia. It is not part of ANY deliberate attempt to take the Christ out of Christmas, which I'm sorry to say, is an imagined plot.

Nice...

What is funny then, is that those who use X-mas as a deliberate removal of Christ (I know this firsthand) is in fact subscribing to an ancient tradition where Christ is very present in the word.
I must convey this to those involved.

Thank you for the heads up pizzaguy.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Nice...

What is funny then, is that those who use X-mas as a deliberate removal of Christ (I know this firsthand) is in fact subscribing to an ancient tradition where Christ is very present in the word.
I must convey this to those involved.

Thank you for the heads up pizzaguy.

If you see anyone deliberately trying to remove Christ from Christmas, send them to me.

Even from a non-religious standpoint, Christ wasn't a bad guy, and his life inspired people for thousands of years, great men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, who both also are important to MY life. I'm totally non-religious and I deeply respect the man for his overwhelmingly positive influence on the world.

I give the militant anti-Christians a good smack upside the head and I say "no non-theist that's a bad non-theist. No, non-theist this is my Pot Pie! Get out of here! Bad non-theist!". And then they go away and worship themselves, which doesn't hurt anyone.

Though rumor has it your palms get hairy and then you go blind.

[Megas Methuselah]

That's an interesting viewpoint, Pizza. Just out of curiosity, what do you have to say about the Crusades?

[Askthepizzaguy]

The crusades were a direct contradiction of the message Christ spread before his death.

That's irrefutable; Jesus was a pacifist. He fought no battles, raised no swords, and allowed himself to be captured without resistance and died for a cause. He refused to murder anyone for power, land, resources, or any other reason. It says in the Bible that you should not murder, and the crusades were mass murder sanctioned by the Pope, in direct violation of Christian teachings.

I suppose he thought it was OK to ignore the "word of God" if a few thousand Muslims got slaughtered in the process. I do not defend the Muslims either, their conquests were brutal and unnecessary.

Fortunately the Pope does not speak for all Christians. Orthodox, Protestant, and Nontrinitarians alike as well as some Catholics do not consider the Pope to be the sole representative of thier God, fortunately. My opinion of the current Pope is higher than some previous ones, but I still oppose the Papacy quite vehemently.

" I give you a new commandment,
that you love one another.
Just as I have loved you,
you also should love one another.
By this everyone will know
that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another."

John 13:34-35

The crusades had nothing to do with love, and everything to do with politics, racism, xenophobia, ignorance, and unjust warfare.



This is why I contradict and challenge every single so-called Christian who takes up arms to invade a foreign land. Jesus would be furious. The so-called church and many of their followers are hypocrites for spreading this message, but then going against it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You anti-papists are missing the point.

It's best explained by Vice-Pope Eric (Number 2 at the Vatican) in conversation with Brian Stalin:

Of course people accuse us sometimes of not practising what we preach, but you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful, authoritarian organisation to do it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Christ has been abbreviated thusly for millennia. It is not part of ANY deliberate attempt to take the Christ out of Christmas, which I'm sorry to say, is an imagined plot.

This is true, and it's why many Christians historically did not celebrate Christmas.

[JAG]

To see family and friends but, clearly, far more importantly, it is for big stores to sell loads of stuff - stuff we really need.

[Husar]

I know you guys call it Weihnachten, but sometimes lose the h as in Weinachtsbaum.
My German is not good enough to understand the root meaning of the words. But something along sanctification night? and when dropping the 'h' becomes Wine night?

Here in the North we use the old form: Jul which should translate to Yule in English.
The use of Xmas is IMO a deliberate anti Christian term. Why not just use Yule which is the old term?

We do not take the h out of anything, the real word is Weihnachtsbaum, anything else must be a typo or lack of knowledge. Your translations however are correct, where Weihnachten really comes from I'm not one hundred percent sure but I suppose it's the same thing as Jul or Yule.

Weihnachten would mean something like sanctification night(s) which could be either pagan or christian I guess, it would be too cheesy to look it up on wikipedia however and might spoil the nice ambiguity where I can see it anyway I want.

And Pizza, I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you say about Jesus and the Pope, it's completely beyond me how someone who read the bible could think the Pope is God's legitimate representative on earth or something like that, it already starts with elections where they may even not arrive at a conclusion, show me a story in the bible where God had people vote for a prophet or king and they didn't arrive at a conclusion or maybe God couldn't decide, yeah, sure... it's just laughable.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I can accept a laughable idea.

Look, scientists currently think there are how many dimensions? And that there are alternate universes, wormholes, etc. To me, these things are laughable, and beyond my comprehension. That doesn't mean they could never be true.

What I cannot accept is the blind, unwavering, devotion to an untested and theoretically untestable assumption, making it part of your rational thought processes, accepting it wholesale as fact, never questioning it, never doubting it, and harassing those who do not accept it.

What I can accept is when more rational, provable sciences contradict a laughable idea, but people still believe in it. Hey, some people believe in Santa Claus, even when faced with proof that he's a myth. However, there are people, dressed as Santa Claus, and there is gift-giving, and there are deer, and there are sleighs. So parts of it are true, and the "spirit" behind the fable is contained within a bit of truth all its own.

What I cannot accept is someone risking their lives to swim to the North Pole to visit Santa Claus, in spite of the freezing temperatures and real risk of death.

_____________


The idea is to separate in your mind what we know from what we believe, and to rationally decide from what we know, and to consider as a possibility but not let dominate our lives that which we believe. A separation of church and state, a separation of reason and faith. When we cannot do that, then faith is dangerous and should be destroyed.

However, imagination, creativity, hope and inspiration, all flow from the less rational part of our minds. That is why, although I am HIGHLY critical of faith, I can coexist with people of faith. There can be a place for it, if we are mature enough to handle it and rational enough to keep it in perspective.

When my parents are on their deathbed, and they ask me to pray with them, I will. I am not closed to ideas. I just do not rely solely on prayer, nor do I pin rational hopes on it's success. That, and when I see plain contradictions in faiths, church doctrine, teachings and actions, I point them out. I am critical and skeptical of everything. Not everyone is like me and I can accept that.

Faith and reason, both have their uses, but keep them separated and both in perspective.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The worst thing I ever did in my life was to trust in my own logic and reasoning, it kept me in the dark for a long time. They're fine for day to day tasks and decisions, but when it comes to the big issues they simply can't begin to comprehend them by themselves. We need guidance on those. As Martin Luther said (according to a M2TW loading screen), "faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding".

[Lord Winter]

@ Pizza good post.

The worst thing I ever did in my life was to trust in my own logic and reasoning, it kept me in the dark for a long time. They're fine for day to day tasks and decisions, but when it comes to the big issues they simply can't begin to comprehend them by themselves. We need guidance on those. As Martin Luther said (according to a M2TW loading screen), "faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding".

True you need faith, but theres a fine line between being open to the idea of a God and blindly accepting everything. If your fate can't be tested then whats the point of having it?

On the other hand how should you translate fate to action? The bibles only so good as a source of truth; its gone through multiable versions and translations and even contrdicts at some parts. Taking an absolute reading from the text is impossiable to any degree. Can reason not be used to apply faith?

[Sigurd]

We do not take the h out of anything, the real word is Weihnachtsbaum, anything else must be a typo or lack of knowledge.

Good to know. My German dictionary lists both Weihnachtsbaum and Weinachtsbaum as a translation to Juletre or Christmas tree.

I can accept a laughable idea.
...

What I cannot accept is the blind, unwavering, devotion to an untested and theoretically untestable assumption, making it part of your rational thought processes, accepting it wholesale as fact, never questioning it, never doubting it, and harassing those who do not accept it.

What I can accept is when more rational, provable sciences contradict a laughable idea, but people still believe in it. Hey, some people believe in Santa Claus, even when faced with proof that he's a myth.

Most orgahs know I subscribe to agnosticism as a general rule. This is not to say I detest truth or evade all questions of knowledge or faith and sit quietly on the fence on the big questions.
But it will shine through in my debates.

I realize that I can't make a truth claim that there is no Santa. It would be impossible to prove that Santa does not live in our universe. And this is also true with God. But I have the right to claim that I don't believe in either. I do however not lock myself into an inescapable position by making a truth claim without leaving open the back door.
As you note, many do on both sides of the big questions.

The idea is to separate in your mind what we know from what we believe, and to rationally decide from what we know, and to consider as a possibility but not let dominate our lives that which we believe.

Good points, but I have a feeling people have trouble discerning what they know and what they believe. Many do not have an intimate knowledge of how science works or even how to construct an argument. They simply do not know that many of the ideas they treat as fact or knowledge are erroneous. You meet them every day. Just take the example with Xmas a few posts ago.
I was wrong in thinking that those who use Xmas instead of Christmas are deliberately being anti Christians. I made this judgment call based on perception and personal experience (this is one definition of knowledge ).
When you made the correction, I accepted it right away. I didn't put up a big fight because I realized that my knowledge was lacking. But I also realize that many of those who use Xmas does not know this either.
It would have been interesting to do a research on this. Let's say we went to a large mall with a questionnaire, asking random people if they use the term Xmas and why.
Let's say we got 1000 people to answer. 50% of them use the term Xmas.
How many of the 500 use this term knowing that the X stand for Chi, the first letter of Christ in Greek? How many of them are oblivious or don't care and how many use it as a demonstration against Christendom?

But again, I believe most people don't know what knowledge is and will mistake it for belief everyday. As you said in the other thread; knowledge and truth are companions.

... The bibles only so good as a source of truth; its gone through multiple versions and translations and even contradicts at some parts. Taking an absolute reading from the text is impossible to any degree. Can reason not be used to apply faith?

The problem with the Bible is and has always been that it is all that they have. They use it as their source of authority, priesthood and gospel doctrine. Without it they have nothing. To even suggest that this record is faulty would destroy this authority, priesthood and teachings.

I had a heated debate a few weeks back with a born again Christian on the subject of the Bible.
He claimed the bible was flawless, infallible and all the other synonyms describing a perfect book. He quoted scripture as they always do; out of context and even parts of the whole scripture. The scriptures was predictable and I believe he really quoted some evangelical manual on how to argue the infallible bible.
Many of the arguments were IMO dishonest, especially those that claim that the canon is complete. You don't have to know much about the history of the compilation of the Bible before you realize that the revelation of John does not claim that the Bible with its 66 books is complete, that adding or taking away from it [the full 66 books] will damn you. John is only talking about his book: the revelation of John. The fact that John wrote this testifies that he was worried about someone tampering with his book. And if we should believe he was divinely inspired, he knew it would happen. And I have to ask, didn't John seal his book in this way because it was common practice to tamper with biblical texts?

[CountArach]

The worst thing I ever did in my life was to trust in my own logic and reasoning

[Watchman]

We need guidance on those.

And what proves whatever source of "guidance" is sought out knows its arse from its elbow...?
Its say-so ?

As Martin Luther said (according to a M2TW loading screen), "faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding".

And after Marty's hammer-work Europeans spent a round century straight massacring each other horribly and on a large scale over doctrinary issues, so yeah. Maybe not exactly the soundest approach to life and things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And after Marty's hammer-work Europeans spent a round century straight massacring each other horribly and on a large scale over doctrinary issues, so yeah. Maybe not exactly the soundest approach to life and things.

It was politics and not religion directly that was behind the killings of the Reformation. Luther preached a strict doctrine of non-resistance, so did Calvin later, although for different doctrinal reasons. It was purely out of the power politics of the princes of the HRE that any conflict arose, and even then it was only due to the complications of the authority of the Emperor over the princes and in particular whether the princes had a duty to protect their citizens from the Emperor.

Religion is rarely behind the atrocities it is accused of (yes there are atrocities directly caused by religion, but I mean the big things). Was religious fervour the main factor in the launch of the crusades, or was it due to the stifling social situation in Europe (the fact that the majority of participants were the lesser sons of nobles and not fanatical peasants as is stereotyped gives us a clue)? Did the English civil war really happen because the Puritans and Anglicans wanted to massacre each other, or was it because of the political associations each happened to be tied to, and the fact that England could have beaten France to adopting an absolutist monarchy?

OK, but you did take my words somewhat out of context. Who believes they can work out things like the meaning of life using their own logic and reasoning?

[rory_20_uk]

Turn things on their head. Would people get the mass support for a cry of "I'm pissed off with having no land or power being a second son. Let's pop accross to the Middle East and have a barny and come back with loads of dosh"???? I think not.

Religion allows one to take one's petty prejudices, failures or whatever else and wrap it with a pious message that it's a sacred message from God. Suddenly it's not the slaughter of people, it's saving their souls - so you're not being a cruel evil sadist, but a soldier of the Lord.

[Watchman]

It was politics and not religion directly that was behind the killings of the Reformation. Luther preached a strict doctrine of non-resistance, so did Calvin later, although for different doctrinal reasons. It was purely out of the power politics of the princes of the HRE that any conflict arose, and even then it was only due to the complications of the authority of the Emperor over the princes and in particular whether the princes had a duty to protect their citizens from the Emperor.

Uh-huh. I'll give you that the Peasant Wars would have happened sooner or later even without the Reformation, but that doesn't mean religion didn't play a rather major role too.

Similarly, to claim that there weren't real and powerful enough confessional passions involved in the French Wars of Religion, the more or less continent-wide Catholic-Protestant skirmishing, the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil War etc. is patently absurd and not a little dishonest. Religion was Serious Business those days. Not that any number of quite base and earthly disputes and ambitions weren't also involved, of course; when weren't they anyway ? But the religious angle did add a whole another level of pitiless savagery to the proceedings.

Was religious fervour the main factor in the launch of the crusades, or was it due to the stifling social situation in Europe (the fact that the majority of participants were the lesser sons of nobles and not fanatical peasants as is stereotyped gives us a clue)?

Yet quite a few senior barons also took part, and returned to their European domains afterwards; as did many of the humbler participating warriors. And you're going to have a very hard time denying a major component of religious hysteria in the "Peasants' Crusade" or the Childrens' Crusade.
Religious issues were Serious Business back then too, and categorical absolution of your sins a very strong incentive for many.

Did the English civil war really happen because the Puritans and Anglicans wanted to massacre each other, or was it because of the political associations each happened to be tied to, and the fact that England could have beaten France to adopting an absolutist monarchy?

And yet the battlelines were by and large drawn along the religious divides. Again, Serious Business.

Merely because other disputes are involved does not exorcise the religious factor from the hostilities, you know.

Also, you entierly missed the main point I was making. Namely, that if and when people actually start going by "faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding" very bad things start happening to people, because whatever now passes for ethics and morals in the context just got put out to pasture. That is the dogma of the fundamentalist and the fanatic; and those are people you Do Not Want Around any more than can be helped, as they are capable of any horror in their firm belief in the divine legitimacy of their causes and actions.

[CountArach]

OK, but you did take my words somewhat out of context. Who believes they can work out things like the meaning of life using their own logic and reasoning?

Existentialism has provided me with a meaning for my life - whatever I want it to be. As long as I try to do the right thing within my own moral compass and am not unfaithful to myself I feel that I can live a fulfilled life.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The worst thing I ever did in my life was to trust in my own logic and reasoning....

What you're saying here was that at one point, your logic and reasoning were flawed. So therefore, you decided not to trust them so much. But how did you decide to do that? With logic and reasoning. Specifically, yours.

You cannot escape from your own reasoning, because it's how you decide how to escape from your own reasoning. Therefore, I suggest you may be fooling yourself when you say you distrust your own logic. You may have doubts about yourself, but you still live your life based on your own reasoning, and you cannot escape from that fact. Therefore, the rational thing to do is to make certain your logic and reason are as free from error as you can make them, rather than attempt to abandon them.

That is why you must make room for logic and reason in your life, no matter how much faith you have, and keep them separate, I contend.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What you're saying here was that at one point, your logic and reasoning were flawed. So therefore, you decided not to trust them so much. But how did you decide to do that? With logic and reasoning. Specifically, yours.

You cannot escape from your own reasoning, because it's how you decide how to escape from your own reasoning. Therefore, I suggest you may be fooling yourself when you say you distrust your own logic. You may have doubts about yourself, but you still live your life based on your own reasoning, and you cannot escape from that fact. Therefore, the rational thing to do is to make certain your logic and reason are as free from error as you can make them, rather than attempt to abandon them.

That is why you must make room for logic and reason in your life, no matter how much faith you have, and keep them separate, I contend.

Don't get me wrong, logic and reasoning have a very big place, I'm using it to write this after all. I tend to be pretty systematic in my approach to things. However, I wouldn't say I used my own logic to make any decisions about God. It's a matter of doctrine that not all Christians agree upon, but I would say that God made the decision for me, because being born sinners we are incapable of coming to God ourselves.

I know you maybe weren't looking for a theological answer, but that's what appears to be the case to me having applied my logic with hindsight.

[Mangudai]

I can accept a laughable idea.

Look, scientists currently think there are how many dimensions? And that there are alternate universes, wormholes, etc. To me, these things are laughable, and beyond my comprehension. That doesn't mean they could never be true.

What I cannot accept is the blind, unwavering, devotion to an untested and theoretically untestable assumption, making it part of your rational thought processes, accepting it wholesale as fact, never questioning it, never doubting it, and harassing those who do not accept it.

However, imagination, creativity, hope and inspiration, all flow from the less rational part of our minds. That is why, although I am HIGHLY critical of faith, I can coexist with people of faith. There can be a place for it, if we are mature enough to handle it and rational enough to keep it in perspective.

Well said!

[rasoforos]

How did you guys manage to turn this thread into an existential dilemma?

[Askthepizzaguy]

When one has a thread about meaning of a religious holiday, such things are bound to happen.

Death is the only escape from the dilemma of our existence.