Christmas and Easter are Pagan holidays. Get over it.

[porkrind]

Actually, "Christmas" and "Easter" have nothing to do with christianity. They are attempts by the early church to undermine pagan religions by usurping their nature-worship holidays, winter solstice (mid-winter), and spring equinox. In fact, Easter is the name of a pagan goddess (Eostre), and Santa / Saint Nick, well, you can guess he's not exactly christian (it's Norse). Attempts to place events in Jesus' life at these times are really revisionist political machinations. This stuff is well known.

All this fake indignity by the christian-right is stupid, when, in fact, it was all really just propaganda and lies by the early church. The real irony is that christianity, which always claims the moral high-ground, never failed to take the historical low-road. (and currently, commonly travels the lowest of roads)

Christmas and Easter are Pagan holidays. Get over it.

[RevolutionaryActs]

1. You make me happy

:7

[CaptainCorc]

2. Well posted. n/t

[Garbo 2004]

3. Away with ye, ye heathen bunnies.... ;-)

[Mr_Spock]

4. Funny thing is - I think most "thinking" people know about the truth

For some reason those monkeys that cover their eyes, ears and mouth seem to represent religion in general, and Christianity specifically in this country. Heck, I'm a Christain though I haven't read anywhere that Jesus wanted me to be a closed-minded moron with delusions of grandeur. In fact I think he wanted to stimulate more people to become enlightened by stopping their trivial persuits and asking questions about what is really important. Too bad the "new Jews" aren't really any different than the old. In fact I find that the old Jews seem to have a better sense of community than these new Jews (or Christians if you wish). Oh, well, you can lead a horse to water...

[porkrind]

7. Jesus' teachings in the New Testament

seem to bear little resemblance to the actions of right-wing christianity. To read the New Testament, you would probably conclude that Jesus was thoughtful, liberal, humanitarian, compassionate, peaceful, forgiving, non-materialistic, giving, and accepting. He would immediately recognize the christian-right of today as Pharisees, and they would condemn him as an unpatriotic hippie peacenik.

[Mr_Spock]

17. Your statement is 100% right on!

I couldn't have said it any better myself. I believe with all of my heart that these people ARE the wolves in sheep's clothing that Jesus warned us about. There is so little that is "Christian" about these modern day Pharisees. I'd like to see the faces of these people when they realize that the Rapture is actually a way that God will cleanse the earth of the "Christians in name only" so that us who live by the principals taught by Jesus can live on without being attacked by the hypocrites.

[norml]

20. The "Conservative" Sermon On The Mount

After I read this,I believe last Wednesday afternoon on 1110 KFAB Omaha,the host said, "Well,I guess Jesus must be a Republican". I said,"Must be". I would be gratified to see this make the e-mail rounds on the internet. Please use.norml
The "Conservative" Sermon On The Mount


Blessed are the rich for all good things trickle down from them. Cursed are the poor for poverty results from their moral failings. Blessed are the war makers for they keep freedom on the march. Cursed are the peacemakers for they shall be called appeasers. Blessed are those who inflict harsh punishments for they maintain law and order. Cursed are those who forgive for they shall be called soft on crime. Blessed are those who pray loudly standing in the churches and on the corners sounding the trumpet before them. Cursed are those who shut the closet door and pray in secret for their prayers are not heard. Blessed are those who cast the first stone for the sake of sexual morality for that is the only morality that matters. Cursed are those who see sexuality as a private matter for marriage must be defended against them.

[porkrind]

25. Right on.

This is great, I'll have to copy and save it.
:)


It's kind of like Al Franken's "Supply Side Jesus". (If you have never read this, it's hysterical. Just Google for "Supply Side Jesus".)

[hollowdweller]

28. Pagans? Why aren't you demanding equal time on this Holiday? Pentagram

on courthouse lawn. Charge of the Goddess posted in schools!

[shadowknows69]

30. We tried in Watertown NY a few years

Just a very non-descript nature-inspired sigil, not even a pentagram on it. Got the usual uproar about it. Local church group, (whose leader was later indicted in a money corruption scandal) lead the ight against us "satan" promoting heathens. Never mind we tried to explain to a town hall meeting about it that we didn't believe in satan, that was their boogey man. As it stands today: Christian 1, Jewish 1, pagan 0

[BlueJazz]

5. You got it. Religion and Country Music have never had an......

original idea in the whole time-line of their existence.
All they do is steal other ideas and act like they invented them....

[shadowknows69]

29. yeah,

everyone knows that mid The Eagles invented modern country music. Don Henley even apologized for it once ;O)

[Celeborn Skywalker]

6. A question

I realize Christmas is based on a pagan holiday, but isn't Easter also the time of passover, which was when Jesus was supposedly crucified?

[kayell]

51. You are correct in that case about the date being based on Passover

right down to the complicated dating system that makes those holidays float. But easter does incorporate a lot of pagan symbols and customs, particulary the centering on eggs, a very old symbol of rebirth common to a variety of very old religions. In fact, its outward observation has much more to do with older north european pagan celebrations that with Passover. When Christianity moved into an area, it often incorporated symbols that the local people used into the new Christian observances. Spring festivals based on celebrating rebirth are common world wide, and so easter attached itself very neatly to them.

Religions throughout time have done this. I am quite sure that there are traces of the original earth based or pagan (non-monotheistic) religions of the ME incorporated in various Jewish and Muslim holidays.

[lgardengate]

8. Actually,

For many of us the Holidays have been "Christianised" (although we know they were once pagan Holidays). For us they are not pagan any longer.

So to quote yourself, "Get over it".

[AllyCat]

9. Groundhog Day is...

...midwinter feast, Feast of Brigid, or Candlemas. And lo and behold! it falls exactly 6 weeks before the start of spring. That rodent will predict 6 more weeks of winter accurately every time.

May Day (May 1st) is Beltane.

[lgardengate]

10. ahh,yeah, so...

was there a point?

[AllyCat]

12. Replied under wrong thread...or maybe not n/t

[JVS]

11. Seriously

The fact that the description "pagan" must be used to describe the religions that celebrated these holidays shows that the religions that once celbrated them are dead. Saying "I'm a pagan" is similar to saying "I'm not Asian", both statement are defining yourself as not belonging to something.

[porkrind]

15. Saying "I'm a pagan" is similar to saying "I'm not Asian"

This is such a stultifyingly ignorant comment, I honestly don't know how to reply, other than to suggest that a few hours of research on the internet might help. You been given propaganda and pablum instead of enlightenment. You can do better.

[JVS]

16. Pagan is an entire category of often unrelated religions.

Look at the definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pagan

Or if you'd like to take a stab at it tell me the beliefs of paganism

[shadowknows69]

33. technically right

it pretty much was just meant to describe non-christians, literal meaning was something like "from the country" if I remember correctly.

[JVS]

45. By the narrowest definition possible it means...

people who believe in gods or a god that is not the god of Abraham. (in other words people who aren't Jews, Muslims, or Christians or who have no religion whatsoever) That is still a huge number of very diverse religions. It covers modern Hindus, pre-Columbian Aztecs, 9th century Vikings and there is frequently no link at all between their religions.

[porkrind]

13. You are entitled to your own opinion,

but not your own facts.

Whatever these holidays personally mean to you, this is the historical context.

Happy Holidays.

[lgardengate]

14. So what?

I said i KNOW the historical context.So does everyone else i know.
Years and years ago people who were once pagan became christians and carried the celebrations over,with Changes made to them and it has continued on.

That is also a fact.

[Bigmack]

18. The days of the week...

are pagan. Sun, Moon, Tiu, Woden, Thor, Fraya, Saturn.

[porkrind]

19. Good point.

Why do they hate America?

[Blind Tiresias]

21. who cares

why do liberals make a big deal about this?? There are far more important battles to fight than to let these fascist conservatives whine about this crap like little babies. I personally dont care if these holidays are christian, pagan, buddha-inspired or inherited from aliens. what i care about is that our current leaders are stripping our civil liberties, raping our treasury and environment, undermining the strength of our military, and sapping our prestige amongst nations that ought to respect us. As nativity scene in some state during christmas time honestly does not concern me. Let the fascist christians have unimportant shit like this, it may shut them up so we can kick their nuts when it comes to more important affairs of state!!!

[porkrind]

23. Of course everybody knows this whole christmas non-issue is tactic

by the right wing to stir up their base into a frenzy and give the press something to talk about, all the while they are plundering the treasury and building empire. Most lefties, Me included, know that there are more pressing issues than the origin and fate of Christmas. Still, it pisses me off to hear lies repeatedly stated as truth. We can fight all these battles at the same time. If we don't we're in trouble.

[Blind Tiresias]

26. my point

is that we should just let them have their nativity scenes in their small town courthouses. That forces these creeps to shut up about how 'liberals are stealing christmas away from us jesus-fearers' and instead force them to debate about our stolen treasury and their tragic war.

lemme also say that I am committed to keeping religion out of the public square, but putting up a scene depicting a holiday that everyone observes in some way is not really that contreversial. Putting up giant monuments to bibilical scripture in major courthouses like in alabama is wrong. I am a hindu but i gladly take the day off i get for christmas and good friday!

[Bridget Burke]

32. The liberals aren't making the "big deal"

The whole controversy was manufactured by the "Christian" right. Look for links in any of the other 5 dozen threads started on the subejct.

[stackhouse]

22. please help send dr peggy whitson to her iss home.

please help send dr peggy whitson to her iss home. e-mail nasa asking please please send dr peggy whitson to her iss home.

thanks

[porkrind]

24. ???

Are you lost?

[InvisibleBallots]

27. Amateur neo-pagan revisionism?

"Actually, "Christmas" and "Easter" have nothing to do with christianity. They are attempts by the early church to undermine pagan religions by usurping their nature-worship holidays, winter solstice (mid-winter), and spring equinox. In fact, Easter is the name of a pagan goddess (Eostre), and Santa / Saint Nick, well, you can guess he's not exactly christian (it's Norse). Attempts to place events in Jesus' life at these times are really revisionist political machinations. This stuff is well known."

I'd love to see some primary historical evidence for all the neo-pagan revisionism I see on the internet. As to revisionist political machinations - there's more of that in history than you know I would think.

When you're interested in a serious study - and not neo-pagan triuphalism or victimization - have a look: http://www.revisedhistory.org

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Oh yes, a very serious study, that

If the whole world was in a conspiracy theory, does that mean the truth never happened?

Exactly why would all the countries of the world labour so hard to create a completely false, but consistent, history? Think of all those buildings and tombs they'd have had to fake - while preventing everyone from ever recording the massive building works going on all around them. And all the archaeologists are now in on the scam, are they? All the scientific dating methods like carbon dating and dendrochronology are falsified, are they?

Those pages take 'paranoid' to a whole new level.

[InvisibleBallots]

39. yes, a very serious study

Perhaps for the first time, the same sort of higher criticism we've done to Christian sources used on classical and humanist sources. Now as to your points:

"Exactly why would all the countries of the world labour so hard to create a completely false, but consistent, history?"

The motivations are spelled out pretty clearly in Machiavelli, and it's generally assumed that Vatican writers did. Why are the others not up to the same scrutiny? Of course, the history is NOT in any way shape or form "consistent".

"Think of all those buildings and tombs they'd have had to fake - while preventing everyone from ever recording the massive building works going on all around them."

What? Who said anything about faking buildings and tombs? Perhaps you need to re-read.

"All the scientific dating methods like carbon dating and dendrochronology are falsified, are they?"

Who said that, aside from you? As for the carbon dating of various artifacts, okay, let's see them? Where? Are you referring to carbon dating done of classical writings? Okay, have any carbon dating of Dante texts? Or carbon dating of Homer manuscripts? Let me know...

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. This is the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever seen

"in the 13 – 14th centuries of our era, the first world war in history broke out. It ended with the formation of a colossal empire with a capital in Istanbul, which at that time was called Jerusalem. Its territory included a large part of Europe, Asia, all of the civilized regions of Africa and Japan. There is basis to say that the Aztec civilization also was included in the Empire’s composition.

Its subjects named their country Israel and practiced a religion which approximately is set forth in the Old Testament. They named their faith catholic. "

Yes, this ignores all evidence of books, papers, buildings, coins and more. All the histories, with names corresponding in different countries, linked with inscriptions on buildings. There's thousands of examples all over the world. England has taxation records going back to 1120; the Doomsday book from 1089. Documents show Offa and Charlemagne corresponding. These kind of things exist all through European countries, and further - and they tie together.

There is, however, no evidence that Istanbul was called Jerusalem, or that it controlled an empire stretching to Japan.

What you haven't given is any motivation for all countries, now rivals, to fabricate their entire history in a consistent whole, and then bury things like coins for future generations to discover.

The website is only for the terminally gullible.

[InvisibleBallots]

46. you didn't read any of what Fomenko wrote, huh?

"Yes, this ignores all evidence of books, papers, buildings, coins and more. All the histories, with names corresponding in different countries, linked with inscriptions on buildings. There's thousands of examples all over the world."

I guess you didn't read past the opening paragraph - a speculative reconstruction based on the chrnology worked out by Fomenko. If you had read a bit, you'll see that they in fact take into account all of the books, papers, buildings, coins, and the history. Where you got the idea that they ignore this - when of course, the entire site and the related works go over all this evidence extensively, I don't know.

"England has taxation records going back to 1120; the Doomsday book from 1089. Documents show Offa and Charlemagne corresponding. These kind of things exist all through European countries, and further - and they tie together."

Yes. Did you read Fomenko's investigation into the English dating? That's one of the major works on the site. Any comment on it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. It's complete bollocks

It has no understanding of British history (eg which Roman emperor conquered Britain; how many anglo-saxon kingdoms there were; the relation between the Scots and Ireland - the misconceptions of these are all central to its hypothesis); the knots it ties itself in trying to match Byzantine and English kings reigns are farcical (it ignores some rulers, swaps others, combines others, and still ends up with 16=9, and other stupid fudges of the arithmetic); and it still pretends that the documentation of England up to Edward III is just a list of kings, rather than financial and church records from all over the country.

Von Daniken is more convincing. So is Tolkien.

[InvisibleBallots]

53. well so far you have offered zero refutation

to anything, other than blanket statements like "it's all bollocks".

"It has no understanding of British history (eg which Roman emperor conquered Britain; how many anglo-saxon kingdoms there were; the relation between the Scots and Ireland - the misconceptions of these are all central to its hypothesis);"

Of course, each of these points are discussed, so by "has no understanding" I suppose you just mean another blanket statement of "it's all garbage" without any sort of evidence or logic.

"the knots it ties itself in trying to match Byzantine and English kings reigns are farcical (it ignores some rulers, swaps others, combines others, and still ends up with 16=9, and other stupid fudges of the arithmetic);"

As farcical as the as the conventional chronology resting on numerology and "theories of history" like cyclical dynasties that match each other by some magical number? I would suggest reading it again. As far as "stupid fudges of the arithmetic" well, Fomenko is one of the foremost mathmaticians of our time. Again, perhaps you should study it a little more.

"it still pretends that the documentation of England up to Edward III is just a list of kings, rather than financial and church records from all over the country"

Sure, let's see all of these financial and church records. Then let's look and see if they fit in with the conventional chronology, or Fomenkos. A link would work. Thanks in advance.'

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. What I mean is that he doesn't even understand the 'conventional' history

so his analysis of it is rubbish.

Here's some descriptions, and links where stuff is available on the Internet, to early English tax records.

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/guide/feu.shtml

"it was assumed that "written" English history starts from 60 B.C. when Julius Caesar conquered the British islands"

No. Julius Caesar invaded Britain twice, in 55 and 54 BC; on both occasions he withdreaw before the end of the year. Britain was conquered by Claudius (though not personally) in 43 AD.

From 445 A.D. we see six kingdoms on the English land. Each of these kingdoms has it's own dynastic stream of rulers. Namely they are

Brittany = Britain,
Saxons = Kent,
Sussex = South Saxons,
Wessex = West Saxons,
Essex = East Saxons, Mercia.

These six kingdoms exist up to 828 A.D. when they all are destroyed in a war and instead of them one kingdom is established - the kingdom of England. It is the time of Egbert, who becomes the first king of united England. The time of about 830 A.D. could be called, following <6>,<7>, as the end of Six Kingdoms.

Rubbish. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms developed gradually, and merged and fell at different times; Brittany is not Britain, though the words derive from the same root; he has left out East Anglia and Northumberland, from the major kingdoms, though these had divisions at times too.

Look at his 'parallelism tables' for English 640-830 (rounded down):

English reigns  Byzantine
29              16 
2               13 
12              42
2               7
39              17 
13              0    (Leo II, who he misses out)
14              17
0               27
30              9
16              38
38

See? Those are more like random numbers than anything. He has to insert blanks, and miss out 1 emperor, to try and get them to match - and that still relies on "16=9" etc.

These dynasties do not 'duplicate' each other; his theory, and math, is bunk. Fomenko has either lost his mind, or is a con artist trying to sell a book, like von Daniken.

[InvisibleBallots]

58. what are you basing your claims on? Did you read you link?

"The first land tax, the geld, began in the late 10th century to raise tribute money for the Danish invaders, and continued until the mid 12th century. However, few records of the geld survive, and none is earlier than the Norman conquest. In the late 12th century, the geld was replaced by another land tax, the carucage, initially levied to pay the ransom of Richard I. Some records of the carucage survive, but in the early 13th century it in turn was succeeded by taxes on moveable goods and, later by alternative taxes on landed income (see subsidies and other taxes)."

So - we have lots of records from the late 10th century. Interestingly enough, this of course fits in with Fomenko's chronology.

"Those are more like random numbers than anything. He has to insert blanks, and miss out 1 emperor, to try and get them to match - and that still relies on "16=9" etc."

The records themselves do not match each other, the lengths of the reigns of various monarchs are different from one source to another. And of course I notice that you ignored all of the astronomical data as well.

For you to shout "rubbish" after what - one days of research? - is patently unconvincing. Fomenko is one of the world's foremost mathmaticians. Arguments from authority are of course meanlingless - but are you a published mathmatician?

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Fomenko claimed the history was invented up to the 13th century

so tax records from the 11th century do not fit with that at all.

[InvisibleBallots]

63. no, he did not

Your claim is simply false.

"Fomenko claimed the history was invented up to the 13th century so tax records from the 11th century do not fit with that at all."

Utter nonsense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Here's the utter nonsense:

As a resume we present the follows hypothesis.

1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved in (other Fomenko essays) that Roman history of that time reflects real events from 9-13th cc. A.D.

2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.

3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th cc. in Byzantine empire.

4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)

5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch before the beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc. Roughly speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to England and then modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in England.

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm

He claims that the accepted English history, un to the 13th century, was made up. Plain. Simple. Rubbish. Hadn't you read this before?

[InvisibleBallots]

69. rubbish is a good word to describe your counter argument

"He claims that the accepted English history, un to the 13th century, was made up. Plain. Simple. Rubbish. Hadn't you read this before?"

He claims that the accepted English history, up to the 13th century, is a mishmash of real history, mistaken history, and mythology.

Now, please explain, how would the fact that we have all these financial records from the 11th century prove that the accepted history of England up to the 13th century is not mythological? It doesn't, and your claiming it does is rubbish. That's like saying, since we have financial records from 1984, this proves that "Empire Strikes Back" is real history - rubbish.

[InvisibleBallots]

59. and for the record, your link to Encyclopedia.com has ZERO evidence

Encyclopedia.com is doing exactly what 90% of "historians" have done - take existing sources - twice or thrice removed from the actual historical evidence - and simply rewriting the words. This is "social science" - NOT Science.

Your _entire_ "evidence" regarding the English kingdoms is this paragraph:

"(hĕp´tärkē) , name traditionally applied to the kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England in the period prior to the Danish conquests of the 9th cent. The term was probably first used by 16th-century writers who believed that in those early years England was divided into seven kingdoms— Northumbria , East Anglia , Mercia , Essex , Sussex , Wessex , and Kent . Actually the political and geographical divisions were neither so orderly nor permanent. At one time (c.600) there appear to have been as many as 12 independent states, but the number of kingdoms, their boundaries, and their political status shifted constantly throughout this period."

Not ONE reference to any historical document either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. I'm not showing you evidence

I'm showing you what the accepted history is. Fumenko doesn't even understand that. He then attempts a series of increasingly forced claims that his version of the 'normal' history is a metaphor for something else. But since his version is wrong, his metaphors are wrong too.

[InvisibleBallots]

64. Well we can agree on this

You aren't showing me any evidence. And I don't think you really understand what Fomenko is saying - nor Morozov, nor Hardoin, nor Newton. I also don't think you have done any research into the traditional chronology and Scaliger either. :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Fomenko doesn't show any evidence

and you ought to make an effort to explain what Fomenko is saying. I would summarise it as "most of accepted history was made up; my proof for this is a few pretty pictures that don't have any nubmers to back them up. I claim that all the documents found are forgeries, based on my pretty pictures."

Go on, give us a bit of Fomenko's "new chronology", and his evidence for it. Tell us a date he accepts, and which agrees with the accepted history; then give us an earlier event, and why his evidence for it is more reliable than the accepted history.

[InvisibleBallots]

68. yes, he does, you are simply wrong

Did you even READ the article, or did you just copy and paste that one list of numbers, then go on the "disprove" it because you didn't understand the basic mathematics behind it, and assumed that Column A and B were supposed to match ;)

Now you're going to claim that Fomenko doesn't show any evidence. I still doubt that you even read the whole article, or anything at all by Fomenko, Morozov, Isaac Newton, Scaliger, or any of them, have you?

Heh, whatever. Most Fundamentalist Christians won't read any criticism of their Bible either, why would humanists/historicans be any different?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. I have read so much of the crap on that website

that I want to punch someone. The 'basic mathematics' are that the numbers have (a) been changed to try to provide evidence for his ideas (b) not evidence for normal history being wrong anyway.

Fo the last fucking time: WHAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE CLAIMS TO BE REAL HISTORY?

[InvisibleBallots]

71. Wow! Evidence that is contrary to your beliefs makes you violent?

Sounds like fundamentalism to me! ;)

Whatever, you don't seem to understand Fomenko's work. Please, continue to dismiss it. You'll be hearing a lot about his theories in the next few years. Just put your fingers in your ears and try to ignore it.

And please, don't hit anyone!

P.S. -

"The 'basic mathematics' are that the numbers have (a) been changed to try to provide evidence for his ideas (b) not evidence for normal history being wrong anyway."

Are you trying to imply that small differences in the range of a function significantly changes it's statistical similarity to another? Fascinating.

As for "normal history" being wrong - hell, give us some proof that "normal history" is now or has ever been right? You can't can you? :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Your inability to give a single example of Fomenko's history is noted

as is your inability to explain his hypothesis by doing anything than linking to someone else's website. I don't think you understand what he's claiming at all. You still haven't explained why it's allowable to lie about the data that he uses to support his theory.

I think you're just trying to sell his book. That's why you started a brand new thread pointing to a page selling it.

[InvisibleBallots]

73. for the record, I am not selling his book

nor do I have any financial interest in its sales, nor am I Russian. The only reason I'm responding is your attempts to smear me. Bye now. Next time I'll hit the Alert button.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. You still have not given a single date of an event

that Fomenko proposes, or attempted an explanation of what his theory is, apart from "it's not what all the historians say". You obviously don't understand it.

[mmonk]

31. Correct except for the St. Nick angle

Named after St. Nicholas of Turkey.

[catbert836]

60. Armenia, actually.

n/t

[RUDUing2]

65. St. Nikolaus was a 4th century bishop of Myra, in Asia Minor...,

now Demre Turkey.

http://christmas.com/pe/880

http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/nikolaus.htm

http://lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/santafaq.htm

[Jawja]

34. Well said.

And their support of Jesus W. Bush is also stupid.

[mmonk]

36. Many religions took

parts of the nature religions and seasonal rituals that came before it or coincided with it to gain more adherents. They relaced the original intents with feast days to honor different parts of their own belief.

[kayell]

37. Put Saturn back in Saturnalia! Put Sol back in Solstice!

Time to go wish all my fundie coworkers a happy Solstice.

[tx_dem41]

38. And what of the Christian left? How should they accept your denigration ..

of their sacred holidays?

[kayell]

40. What is denigrating about stating historical fact?

Most theologians recognize that the early Christian church chose to schedule their religious festivals at the same time as older pagan festivals as a practical way of switching peoples allegiance over to the new religion. People were fond of those celebrations- they were fun, and the church recognized that asking people to give that fun up would work against them. So they simply co-opted the holidays. No one really knew when Jesus was born (although spring seems likeliest) or when he was crucified, so popping those celebrations on top of pagan holidays with roughly similar meanings was completely a practical matter. Christians weren't even the first to do this, other religions throughout time have built on the backs of previous religions.

What is offensive and seriously hypocritical is for certain christians to whine and wimper because other religions and secular traditions have their winter celebrations at the same time as the early church chose for Christmas.

[tx_dem41]

41. And what is factual about stating that someones religious obsrevance...

is pagan? Who cares what happened in the 4th Century AD or at other times. I am talking about what is happening NOW, and how millions of Christians observe Christmas and Easter.

If you want to go on nitpicking go right ahead. Just realize that there are many Christans and non-Christians (including myself) on this forum that consider such arguments as nitpicking.

If you want to talk about the separation of church and state, you can find lots of intellectual ways to talk about it. This isn't one of them.

[InvisibleBallots]

42. there is no proof of what you are saying

Just for the record - your repeating a story that's been around for a hundred years. It's mythological. First of all - "theologians" are not historians. Second of all, if you define "pagan" to mean "anything and everything except Judaism and Christianity" than of course, everything can be "pagan" to one degree or another.

"What is offensive and seriously hypocritical is for certain christians to whine and wimper because other religions and secular traditions have their winter celebrations at the same time as the early church chose for Christmas."

WHAT other religions and secular traditions? Neo-pagans have been celebrating their holidays since the 1950s, not since ancient times.

[kayell]

50. What other religions? Umm, Judaism, Zoroastriasm, Islam, Wiccans,

Druid reconstructionists, lots of pagan traditions. I used pagan in my original post to encompass a broad range of non-monotheistic religions. (this is a correct definition) Lots of secular agnostic and atheist people celebrate winter holidays of various sorts also. Sorry if it annoys you that Christians don't have a patent on winter holidays. Perhaps you should research Saturnalia.

Incidentally, I am not attacking your religion by stating that its holiday celebration observations are based on top of other older holidays. I am stating that the church at that time found it convenient to do so for practical reasons. I truly have no problem with Christians who do not try to force me to conform to their beliefs. You can celebrate your holidays any time you choose to and it is fine by me. Winter holidays are fun, so why not.

I do find Christians determined to hold onto a persecution complex that was justified only in the first few centuries CE extremely annoying.

----------
Oh, and by the way, it does your arguement little good to say that neo-paganism has been around only since the 1950s right after you state that the belief in the dates of Christian holidays being the same as older pagan holidays is several centuries old. Might want to think about that a bit more.

[InvisibleBallots]

54. I think you misunderstood the question

""What is offensive and seriously hypocritical is for certain christians to whine and wimper because other religions and secular traditions have their winter celebrations at the same time as the early church chose for Christmas."

I meant "WHAT other religions and secular traditions? " are Christians complaining about holding their holidays near Christmas?

As to the rest - I know a bit about paganism. I know a bit about Star Trek too. I don't really buy your version of the history of Christianity or paganism. I've heard to repeated often enough - I've heard all sorts of Christian history repeated a lot too. I think your history of the celebration is about as off as the Christians are, that's all I'm saying.

"you state that the belief in the dates of Christian holidays being the same as older pagan holidays is several centuries old"

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

[RUDUing2]

43. got some anger there dont you? Christmas and Easter are christian holiday

that incorporate earlier pagan traditions..which is not the same thing as saying they are Pagan holidays.

The early church was smart enough to know that you cant force converts...well you can force them to *pretend* to convert, but you have to actually win them over for them to be real converts. And they understood how important some traditions were to those early converts. Instead of just getting rid of them, they incorporated them into the church. This way they still had their celebrations, just now those celebrations reflected beliefs of the christian church instead of celebrating beliefs of different pagan religions.


They incorporated sammhain into all saints day/all hollows eve, they incorporated Mithros into Christ Mass/christmas..etc..

So while easter and christmas have ties to and have incorporated pagan beliefs into them, they are now christian holidays... Get over it..

[Cheswick2.0]

47. the OP would have a point if

Christians were worshipping Trees, burning logs and eggs.

Ah, the joys of internet pop theology.

[RUDUing2]

48. exactly.

good way to put it into perspective.

[JVS]

52. Yeah, if the old gods had not been abandoned by their societies, then...

these holidays would be "pagan", but those gods have been abandoned and now their holidays are not observed.

[AgadorSparticus]

55. All this talk is very interesting to me as I was not aware of just how

much Christmas and Easter were piggybacked off of Pagan holidays. I wish I knew this a couple weeks ago when I talked to a friend of mine going off about Christmas being a christian holiday and blah blah blah. I blew it off. But I would not hesitate to tell the next person telling me about Christmas being about the birth of Jesus and how it is strictly a christian holiday.

[nemo137]

57. The placement of Christmas and Easter in the liturgical year

are piggybacked from Pagan holidays (Easter somewhat less so, as Jesus was crucified during Passover week). Some of the iconography and tradition (yule logs, Christmas trees, Easter eggs) are Pagan in origin. The theology of those holidays, however, (a man born who is both True Man and True God, who then died and rose again to cleanse the world of its sin) is Christian.

[trotsky]

75. Actually...

the theology of a man/god who died & rose again is not Christian. Those ideas predate Christianity by centuries. See Zoroastrianism for example.

[nemo137]

78. fair enough

We did near eastern religions and how the diffused into eachother in history earlier this year. My point was that although the timing and rituals were pagan inflected, the theology is, I guess the word I'd use is, consistent with Christian theology, whichever source or sources one believes that comes from.

[davidinalameda]

76. those who are offended need to relax

why should I really worry about offending others with my beliefs

are they worried about offending me with their beliefs?

didn't think so

[kcr]

77. Thats a really odd statement

The idea that the holidays somehow belong to one group over another is the same kind of nonsesne that O'Reilly and the Save Xmas brigade are pushing. The fact that you do not realize that the holidays -- even if the dates are not historically accurate -- have deep and rela meaning to Christians becasue of the what they represent suggests you have a poor understanding of human nature.

That bit of pshycological blindness is bad enough, but this is just ridiculous:
"The real irony is that christianity, which always claims the moral high-ground, never failed to take the historical low-road. (and currently, commonly travels the lowest of roads)"

If you can look at the Moral majority and Liberation theology and see the same thing, hen, well you are blind. One might as well suggest that since the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century was an aethist and working within an aethisitc system, that aetheism has historically lead to death and destruction. Neithe rpositon is morally or intellectually defensible.