Thank you Jesus; come again!
Some of my best friends are Christians. I'd let my sister marry one. (In fact, my sister is one, of the rather right-wing Evangelical kind. So is my brother, for that matter, although he is more of a mainstream Methodist.)
Sadly, some of my best friends are also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and god (God?) knows what else; at least one seems to be disturbingly devoted to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Making things more complicated is that some of the Christians I know are--yikes!--liberals. They have actually stated controversial things, such as being in favor of peace, being against racism, sexism, homophobia; they have even (probably when drunk) spoken of the "preferential option for the poor."
I think it is clear that during a time when West Africa is wracked by civil wars, tens of millions of people are in imminent jeopardy of dying of AIDS, there is the threat of a pandemic flu, where children die of starvation in a world where there is enough to feed them, where the ecosystem is being degraded at an alarming--and perhaps irreversible--rate, where species go extinct for no obviously good reason, where American politicians debate the meaning of "torture" and whether it should be permitted, where women are killed for having sex outside of marriage (as in being raped by relatives, which is not exactly "cruising"), and a couple of other problems, that we have a fundamental problem:
Commercial ventures aren't using the word "Christmas" with sufficient frequency in ads and store greetings.
When I read the Bible, particularly the Christian "New Testament" (a.k.a. "The Sequel"), it becomes more and more obvious that this is the fundamental Christian kerygma. Luke, John, Mark, Matthew, Paul, Peter, and Christ himself obviously think that the way to salvation fundamentally rests on forcing marketers to use the word "Christmas."
My own spiritual mentor, Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, has specifically identified (one might say "targeted") Target, as a culprit in this war on all things Christian.
I must admit that the image of someone sitting down and doing this statistical analysis of Target's ads is a bit amusing. Would it have been better had they only used "holiday" 30 times? Should they use "Christmas" an equal or greater number of times than "holiday"? Would they object to an ad that said "Jesus would shop at Circuit City"? What would their reaction be if one updated an old strategy, showed a long-haired bearded man and an empty cross, and the ad copy read "Buy at K-Mart or we will crucify this guy"? They might think it in bad taste, I suppose. But my own view is that the very issue of "taste" is long gone when one attempts, through boycotts (and a rather concerted campaign headed by Bill O'Reilly) to force people to say "Merry Christmas."
Target, Sears, K-Mart, Circuit City, Lowe's, Nordstrom's--and others--have all been targeted for having "banned" the word "Christmas" from store ad copy or as something to be said by employees. Personally, I tend to distinguish between "not including" and "banning," but that's a picky point. If I'm a manager at Lowe's, and someone asks me where the pink aluminum Christmas trees are (a deeply spiritual way of using a pagan ritualistic symbol to commemorate the birth of the Savior), I think I'm probably not going to reprimand that customer by saying "Huh? All we have are 'holiday' trees." On the other hand, if I have some guy show up at my cash register wearing a yarmulke and a t-shirt with Ariel Sharon's picture on it buying duct tape, I might not wish him a Merry Christmas.
I don't think multi-national corporations really have much to do with the genuine "meaning" of Christmas, and I would think devout Christians would find it a bit embarrassing to see some knucklehead writing petitions saying "You use the word 'Christmas' or we will boycott your store."
What exactly does forcing someone to mouth empty platitudes, so folks will buy your toasters, have to do with the redeeming power of the Savior's blood to expiate the sins of humanity?
The same point holds for public schools, of course: kids who are forced to pray, or say "Under God," or sing Christian Christmas carols, may not be getting the point of the message of Christ. Rather, by repeated inculcation they are somehow, I guess, going to receive salvation. But wouldn't Christians prefer that people came to the message voluntarily (not to mention the non-Christian parents--and, yes, there are a few out there--who don't want their kids singing about Jesus and worry [as did the Founding Fathers] about the tyranny of the majority)?
A rabbi I know once told me--and I've subsequently heard this view from a number of other people, theistic and not--that he thought religion was far too important to let government, schools, or corporations have anything to do with it.
My reader(s?) will be glad to know that most of these businesses have knuckled under. The Lord's message is saved, by Sears et al. putting "Christmas" back in ad copy, Lowe's referring to "Christmas trees," and other deeply pious responses to the message of Christ.
Others, on the other hand, have suggested that anyone who thinks buying shit has much to do with Christmas doesn't really get the point; for example, this guy refers to materialism as "spiritual pollution." I wonder if Donald Wildmon would start a petition saying that this message, as a direct attack on the real GDP of the US, is a profoundly anti-Christian view?
My favorite thing Wildmon suggests, by the way, is writing letters to heads of corporations to complain about their lack of piety (assuming that forcing the use of "Christmas" constitutes piety). I was thinking about how dim one is who writes the following letter:
I'm out of here, off to go shop at stores that don't pretend that their profits have much to do with prophets, and that the path to the Kingdom of Heaven may really not be obstructed by whether one shops at a store run by Christians, or Jews or Muslims (who might not really promote Christmas, the goddamn heathens), and not at a store that refuses to let its workers join a union or doesn't pay a living wage.
Where would Jesus shop?
Sadly, some of my best friends are also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and god (God?) knows what else; at least one seems to be disturbingly devoted to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Making things more complicated is that some of the Christians I know are--yikes!--liberals. They have actually stated controversial things, such as being in favor of peace, being against racism, sexism, homophobia; they have even (probably when drunk) spoken of the "preferential option for the poor."
I think it is clear that during a time when West Africa is wracked by civil wars, tens of millions of people are in imminent jeopardy of dying of AIDS, there is the threat of a pandemic flu, where children die of starvation in a world where there is enough to feed them, where the ecosystem is being degraded at an alarming--and perhaps irreversible--rate, where species go extinct for no obviously good reason, where American politicians debate the meaning of "torture" and whether it should be permitted, where women are killed for having sex outside of marriage (as in being raped by relatives, which is not exactly "cruising"), and a couple of other problems, that we have a fundamental problem:
Commercial ventures aren't using the word "Christmas" with sufficient frequency in ads and store greetings.
When I read the Bible, particularly the Christian "New Testament" (a.k.a. "The Sequel"), it becomes more and more obvious that this is the fundamental Christian kerygma. Luke, John, Mark, Matthew, Paul, Peter, and Christ himself obviously think that the way to salvation fundamentally rests on forcing marketers to use the word "Christmas."
My own spiritual mentor, Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, has specifically identified (one might say "targeted") Target, as a culprit in this war on all things Christian.
Target refuses to use the word "Christmas" in any of their corporate advertising. Their latest 36-page ad insert did use the phrase "holiday" 31 times.
I must admit that the image of someone sitting down and doing this statistical analysis of Target's ads is a bit amusing. Would it have been better had they only used "holiday" 30 times? Should they use "Christmas" an equal or greater number of times than "holiday"? Would they object to an ad that said "Jesus would shop at Circuit City"? What would their reaction be if one updated an old strategy, showed a long-haired bearded man and an empty cross, and the ad copy read "Buy at K-Mart or we will crucify this guy"? They might think it in bad taste, I suppose. But my own view is that the very issue of "taste" is long gone when one attempts, through boycotts (and a rather concerted campaign headed by Bill O'Reilly) to force people to say "Merry Christmas."
Target, Sears, K-Mart, Circuit City, Lowe's, Nordstrom's--and others--have all been targeted for having "banned" the word "Christmas" from store ad copy or as something to be said by employees. Personally, I tend to distinguish between "not including" and "banning," but that's a picky point. If I'm a manager at Lowe's, and someone asks me where the pink aluminum Christmas trees are (a deeply spiritual way of using a pagan ritualistic symbol to commemorate the birth of the Savior), I think I'm probably not going to reprimand that customer by saying "Huh? All we have are 'holiday' trees." On the other hand, if I have some guy show up at my cash register wearing a yarmulke and a t-shirt with Ariel Sharon's picture on it buying duct tape, I might not wish him a Merry Christmas.
I don't think multi-national corporations really have much to do with the genuine "meaning" of Christmas, and I would think devout Christians would find it a bit embarrassing to see some knucklehead writing petitions saying "You use the word 'Christmas' or we will boycott your store."
What exactly does forcing someone to mouth empty platitudes, so folks will buy your toasters, have to do with the redeeming power of the Savior's blood to expiate the sins of humanity?
The same point holds for public schools, of course: kids who are forced to pray, or say "Under God," or sing Christian Christmas carols, may not be getting the point of the message of Christ. Rather, by repeated inculcation they are somehow, I guess, going to receive salvation. But wouldn't Christians prefer that people came to the message voluntarily (not to mention the non-Christian parents--and, yes, there are a few out there--who don't want their kids singing about Jesus and worry [as did the Founding Fathers] about the tyranny of the majority)?
A rabbi I know once told me--and I've subsequently heard this view from a number of other people, theistic and not--that he thought religion was far too important to let government, schools, or corporations have anything to do with it.
My reader(s?) will be glad to know that most of these businesses have knuckled under. The Lord's message is saved, by Sears et al. putting "Christmas" back in ad copy, Lowe's referring to "Christmas trees," and other deeply pious responses to the message of Christ.
Others, on the other hand, have suggested that anyone who thinks buying shit has much to do with Christmas doesn't really get the point; for example, this guy refers to materialism as "spiritual pollution." I wonder if Donald Wildmon would start a petition saying that this message, as a direct attack on the real GDP of the US, is a profoundly anti-Christian view?
My favorite thing Wildmon suggests, by the way, is writing letters to heads of corporations to complain about their lack of piety (assuming that forcing the use of "Christmas" constitutes piety). I was thinking about how dim one is who writes the following letter:
Dear Mr. Abdullah Mohammed:
How come you hate Christmas? etc..
I'm out of here, off to go shop at stores that don't pretend that their profits have much to do with prophets, and that the path to the Kingdom of Heaven may really not be obstructed by whether one shops at a store run by Christians, or Jews or Muslims (who might not really promote Christmas, the goddamn heathens), and not at a store that refuses to let its workers join a union or doesn't pay a living wage.
Where would Jesus shop?
posted by kmosser | 9:33 AM
18 Comments:
Another nice post. I wish I could consistently score with my own blogs.
I've been trying really hard to actually finish a story for once. This one is called Merry Krismus, and its about a society that celebrates Xmas all year round. The ads come earlier and earlier every year and finally it's all the time.
I've done some research into this jolly time of year and it seems the Victorian age is what brought about the big commercialization of this super holiday. Shortly after the Civil War in the states did all the really big department stores start popping up along with their widespread marketing of Xmas.
Here is one of the great doublethinks of this holiday: Market to the widest possible target so that your profits are the highest they can be...all during a period of generosity(?). So i guess you can profit off of the holiday as long as you kiss stupid xians' asses by lickin the lord's ass? And this whole business of boycotting. Aren't you supposed to love your enemies? I won't shit on religion anymore than i have to, but wow, it seems to do all the shitting itself. And the pope warning about the materialism surrounding xmas? Look at your church buddy! All that gold isn't matter? What about all the high cathedrals slaves died making? Or the silk dresses/robes you guys wear? I've never met a materialistic atheist with a bigger hat than the pope! I've noticed that all the cultural materialists tend to be believers of some superstition or other while materialists tend not to be so much. I have no numbers to back this one up, but i'd imagine those assholes who bring down their corporations with scandal and throw their wives and/or mistresses multi-million birthday parties are good ole god fearin xians.
Anyways, around a hundred and fifty years after the rise of what we understand as modern xmas here in the states you got good christians beating each other up for Tickle Me Elmo dolls. I love it! Too bad there are so many Bibles. Who wouldn't like seeing masses of people ripping each other to shreds for the good book? Sorry, but that shit makes me laugh.
~The Heathen
I think what's going on with the outrage over Christmas v. Holidays is Christians' perception that the culture-at-large is being made hostile to Christianity via certain governmental actions, e.g., disallowing prayer in school, public displays of nativity scenes, and taxpayer-subsidization of anti-Christian art.
The idea is not so much that without any of these things Christianity will die, but rather that the governmental sanction against these things, in a nation that formerly allowed them, will precipitate a general undermining of Christian norms and attitudes.
BTW, it could be that these various governmental actions, starting from the '60s on, were what helped inspire the emergence of the religious right in the first place. So it could be that anti-Christian people have a lot of reason to just ignore these legal manueverings by the religious right in the first place.
After all, there's famine, the environment, AIDS, etc. to worry about.
"a general undermining of Christian norms and attitudes."
What are these? Most Christians don't seem to agree on much beyond the idea of Jesus being the Son sent to redeem. Beyond that, good luck.
"Christians' perception that the culture-at-large is being made hostile to Christianity via certain governmental actions, e.g., disallowing prayer in school, public displays of nativity scenes, and taxpayer-subsidization of anti-Christian art."
Perhaps; certainly the perception is there, but in this case it is the majority insisting on religious messages; do we really want Miss Thistlebottom leading 3rd graders in a prayer so utterly innocuous that some (including the various Christians mentioned above) aren't offended? Public displays aren't illegal; public subsidies and/or endorsed displays are. Most "anti-Christian" art I've seen and read about tends to be from Christians or former Christians.
Leaving religion out of it altogether isn't "hostility" toward the dominant ideology (whatever that may be, in the details); it is recognizing that these beliefs are so important and precious to those who hold them that imposing them on others is wrong, and demeans the message they convey for those who do hold them.
"Most Christians don't seem to agree on much beyond the idea of Jesus being the Son sent to redeem. Beyond that, good luck."
I disagree. There are surely a wide variety of issues on which we can predict the views of most members of certain denominations. Many observant Catholics (as opposed simply to nominal Catholics), for instance, are pro-life, as are many Southern Baptists, and "evangelicals" generally. Again, most observant Catholics and evangelicals are against allowing gay marriage (this isn't to say, though, that they're correct in their beliefs, or even correct in how they interpet Scripture and Christian tradition). A lot of self-identified Christians who self-identify as being very devout will also be against pornography, and are critical of a lot of the fare on television.
"certainly the perception is there, but in this case it is the majority insisting on religious messages"
True, it's the majority insisting on religious messages, but more to the point, it's the majority insisting on retaining religious messages. It's one thing to assert public religiosity in a way in which it's never been asserted; it's another thing to try to keep a form of public religiosity that, until recently, was constantly asserted and never challenged.
"Most 'anti-Christian' art I've seen and read about tends to be from Christians or former Christians."
Maybe that describes the art you've seen or read about, but popular shows like Friends or Seinfeld had contents that struck many religious people (or would have struck them, had they bothered to watch) as quite profane. Granted, this isn't government-subsidized--it's the private sector. And I certainly wouldn't deny that the private sector is to a large part, perhaps even primarily, responsible for the denigration of some traditional religious views (assuming you agree that there has been any denigration). But the private sector's role has been noticed, to a certain extent, by the religious right (here I'm thinking about Hollywood, rather than, say, the fact that businesses are open on Sundays and that so much of an American worker's time is spent working rather than spending time with her or his family).
"Leaving religion out of it altogether isn't 'hostility' toward the dominant ideology (whatever that may be, in the details); it is recognizing that these beliefs are so important and precious to those who hold them that imposing them on others is wrong, and demeans the message they convey for those who do hold them."
It's surely hostility sometimes. How much, I don't know. More often, I suspect it's discomfort with public displays of religiosity. Regardless, just because religious beliefs are important and precious to those who hold them, it doesn't follow that imposing them on others is wrong. Indeed, some might draw the opposite conclusion: I should impose my religious views on others precisely because they're so important. (This is certainly my view with regard to some moral issues: I view murder as an awful thing, and I feel perfectly comfortable imposing this view on other people.)
Just for the record, I happen to think that giving public preference for, say, Christianity over other religions might be the very worst thing you could do to Christianity; the more entangled Christianity gets with a particular culture, the harder it is to see what's distinctive about it, and the less ability it has as a vehicle for cultural change (and this goes for any religion).
Just to keep it within a reasonable scope:
"There are surely a wide variety of issues on which we can predict the views of most members of certain denominations."
Of course; most Seventh Day Adventists will believe x, and most Mormons will believe y. I said "most Christians," and identifying what Greek Orthodox, Copts, African Methodist Episcopalians, Christian Scientists, Roman Catholics, foot-washin' Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and whatever other denominations you wish to include--and I won't even consider the views of such "Christians" as those who advocate Christian Identity, or The Sword, the Arm, and the Covenant of the Lord--believe in common will be the challenge.
Forgive me for taking up more space than i already have, but i found some of the comments too enticing.
First off, i have to agree with the statement, "Most Christians don't seem to agree on much beyond the idea of Jesus being the Son sent to redeem. Beyond that, good luck."
I would point out that you have some christians who love their enemies and you have those who kill their enemies. Depending on which part of the bible you're reading you can find support for either behavior. Think of the vast array of behaviors observed by various xians. There are people who don't murder, pay their taxes, are generous to others and don't support mass killings, aka wars. Bush is supposedly xian but has let many die when he didn't give them clemency from execution. Many were mentally retarded and criminally insane i might add (I once spoke to a catholic priest and he said he didn't believe those sorts of individuals were acting under free will when they murdered someone else...would this be a way out for Bush? He's pretty damned near retarded, but i won't claim it lest i offend retarded people). Then you have the BTK serial killer who was a rather devout follower it would seem. He attended his church regularily. On a catholic university that shall go unnamed, you hardly see any pregnant students. Does this mean that the student population doesn't engage in acts of procreation? Hardly. You can always say those people aren't true catholics or xians, but then who is? And what becomes the criteria for saying person A is a xian and person B is not?
Next point: Retaining traditions, not insisting that we start inserting new xian ideas. I would point out that Xmas as we living in the USA now understand it is a rather new phenomenon. During certain parts of history it was banned. And for good reasons too when you find out how the holiday was celebrated back then. I would refer anyone reading to the following link. Free lectures on the rise of modern Xmas. ( http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/HolidayLecture2005.aspx?ai=20092&pc=Campaign )
I find the argument that since these people (the ones gettin pissy for saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Xmas) simply want to retain the tradition with which they're familiar some what troubling. Like i mentioned before, xmas as we know it is a rather new phenomenon. It wasn't always like this. And it wasn't even a national holiday until the late 1800's (1890 i think, but don't hold me to that). It's like the insertion of 'God' into the Pledge of Allegiance. It was never originally part of the pledge. So to say it's unamerican (or whatever the dumbasses like O'Riley say) is to mislead a bit i think. These people probably aren't too aware of anything other than what supports their belief though i guess. Point is, it was never part of "traditional" xmas celebrations. It was added a relatively short while ago.
I understand this argument isn't the best (if an argument was even made). You could use that same line of reasoning to conclude that we shouldn't have the freedom of speech. Since it was developed recently and wasn't always allowed, taking it away is simply putting things back to the way they were. I would argue against this but shall not do so here for space concerns.
The last point i'd like to touch on is this: "Just for the record, I happen to think that giving public preference for, say, Christianity over other religions might be the very worst thing you could do to Christianity; the more entangled Christianity gets with a particular culture, the harder it is to see what's distinctive about it, and the less ability it has as a vehicle for cultural change (and this goes for any religion)."
I find that very troubling indeed, but as you can guess, for diferent reasons. What is it that makes xianity so distinctive? If culture only clouds its true appearance we're left with some head scratching to do. Whenever the church has changed it has been because it had to or it wouldn't have survived. If the church could still be in power, as it very much would like to be, then it'd be a different beast altogether than what it is today. Every time society has made progress the church has had to make some concessions lest they go broke and actually have to do something useful for society. Separation of church and state...who's idea do you think that was? How about equal treatment of women? This arguing and fighting over homosexuality is just the latest. If reasonable people win the masses over then the church will have to allow it or their profit margin drops. If you think culture has made it hard to see what true xianity is i'd have to agree with you, but it was for the better! Before the church was infested and changed by such things as civil rights and freedom of speech it was quite bloody and ruthless. This again brings up the point that could be made; they're not true xians. But if they were the ones that started the whole damned thing (as i understand it, Jesus wasn't a fan of churches. We will never know what he taught since it's all second hand stories written decades after his death and has been retranslated and changed to suit the political powers at the time) then aren't they the ones who have dibs on what xianity is? The church is the organization that canonized the bible after all, the book and dogma of xianity. If so, then it's bloody and intolerant.
I don't feel bad telling others not to kill. But xianity does tell people to kill. If it doesn't, then why hasn't the church done away with the Old Testament altogether? Is it because of the accurate account of Genesis in the beginning? Leviticus is full of bloody and horrendous treatments for violators of the legal code pushed forth by the bible.
I don't have a problem with anyone telling me Merry Christmas. I don't have a problem with someone saying Happy Holidays either. I'm well aware that Christmas is a hodgepodge of various traditions anyways. Many of the traditions we associate with Xmas were incorporated by the church so that it could pull in all those pagans with their silly winter solstice traditions. Xmas was never even that big of a holiday for the xians!
I'd like to finish on what i saw last night on the Daily Show. It showed O'Riley talking about how he thought you had to be insane to be offended by Merry Xmas. But then what does he say? That xians are offended by hearing Happy Holidays. Double standard? Me thinks so. Maybe he meant Xians are crazy! Now there's an idea! He wouldn't be so bad if no one listened to him. Just another town idiot. Somehow he found the flute which leads all the idiots in unison though...amazing.
Happy Winter Solstice!
The Heathen
P.S. I think Jesus wouldn't shop anywhere. Why would you buy stuff when you could just wish it to be? Water to wine, yeah! He'd just perform a miracle and break all the laws of physics by creating something from nothing...but then again, what do physicists know?
The whole nonsense of war-on-christianity is surreal. It is another big lie spouted by the propaganda mass media machines. They just keep repeating the same message like chicken little, Bill 0'Rielly and FAUX News leading the charge.
It's the same as the other pathetic big lie propaganda: "ALL OF THE PRESS IS LIBERAL" we have been hearing this from the mass market media. They just keep wailing and wailing and wailing ad-infinitum. Until the population just says ok shut the heck up, we get it, the press is liberal I heard you the first 50,000 times, that was the worst and then the 50,000 times after that, that was the worst too. There are no points of view from the far left or the medium left or just left wing, its extremist right wing nut job, or extremist religious right wing nut job take you pick we have all flavors in the todays fair and balanced media.
My personal fav is the problems of this country today can be traced back to those damned dirty apes, er hippies of the 1960’s, with their sex and drugs and rock and roll and sex.
I said that twice cause I like that one. It’s thrown out there so often from the media talking heads it must be true I’ve heard Reverend Bill O’Really repeat it over and over….
So now the new big lie is there is a war-on-christianity and we are loosing everything! Hold on, quick recount, reality face slap, the christian right has the Repuglicans in a head lock, the Democracks kissing up to the religious right, the White House, Senate, Congress, Supreme Court (stacked to the extreme-right). And at last count the only liberal media TV, newspaper, magazine not owned by conservative war-hawks is... ummm,... none, zero, nada, nothing owned, run or edited by the left.
So they have run the table in every category. But we are loosing the war-on-christianity! The media keeps repeating, christianity is on the run. Poor true believers have to practice their beliefs hiding in basements, secret prayer meeting by candle light because the anti-christians will come get you!!!
How do they keep the ignorant population in a frenzy long enough to vote against abortion one more time? The liberal media is out to ruin poor poor Judge Alitos chances, how dare that liberal anti-christian media. I guess Goebbels was right if your going to lie to the masses (ignorant masses if you can keep the education budget in the red) LIE BIG! Make it a HUGE LIE, sooooo big they have to say, holy cow that's too amazing, it must be true our own government wouldn't lie to us that badly. Tatterball down the middle WMD. SMACK, its outta here, another big lie homerun!
All that seriousness aside, I am a catholic my holy life and I always laugh whenever anybody Catholic or non-Catholic says, "Well Catholics believe.... (fill in the blank with the sin of the month)" Because we don't! American Catholics are the most non-conformist pack of dogs that exist. This is why I like it. If the pope says (and he did) "Hey United States Catholics NO BIRTH CONTROL pills for you!!!" As a group they said (and again I’m quoting here) "If I have 7 kids like my folks we’ll end up in the poor house, fa-get-about-it Pope dude! I'm taking the pill." Insert you favorite religious zealot idea for what you want the pope to say and American catholics are the last to agree with him.
So I gotta believe too when anybody likes to pretend he knows what ALL methodist think they all march lockstep too, So I always try to speak for my people, we at the church of the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster never ever eat meat during lentil seasoning and we know when to Passover the wine before passing out into the afterlife, say amen and pass the Christians I’m a hungry man, Mmmm this Christian tastes like soylent green. I can’t wait for the Flying Spaghetti monster to run into the flying saucers of scientology cause that’s a blockbuster movie waiting to happen.
Arkady, Frodo: don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.
This just in:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43438
Lead me not to temprest stations.
but deliver us to carnivals tonight
'Jesus Saves ... at Taverstock County Trust!'
Okay, lame. But not as geeky as:
'Jesus Saves ... everyone else takes 6d6 damage.'
Alright, alright, enough of the bad jokes ...
Of course, the irony in all this is that the holidy that we celebrate as 'Christmas' is the PRODUCT OF MARKETING!
Christ was born in October. The reason why we celebrate his birth in late December is that here was once a popular Roman holiday -- Saturnalia -- at that time. This Roman holiday was quite popular with the pagans, as it involved the exchange of gifts, etc. So when the Roman Empire became Christianised, it was decided that, in order to promote the new faith, Saturnalia would be transformed into 'Christmas'.
So Christmas had its origins in marketing...
BTW, I find arkady's pseudonym far to similar to my own. Please make him stop.
Happy Saturnalia!
"Of course; most Seventh Day Adventists will believe x, and most Mormons will believe y. I said 'most Christians,' and identifying what Greek Orthodox, Copts, African Methodist Episcopalians, Christian Scientists, Roman Catholics, foot-washin' Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and whatever other denominations you wish to include--and I won't even consider the views of such 'Christians' as those who advocate Christian Identity, or The Sword, the Arm, and the Covenant of the Lord--believe in common will be the challenge."
I concede the point: most Christians, even most American Christians, don't believe any set of beliefs S. However, I think we can divide Christians into three groups: right-wingers, moderates, and left-wingers. Right-wingers will generally be more literalistic in their Bible-interpretation (if they're evangelical) or "traditional" (if they're mainline Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox). They will generally think gay marriage to be prohibited by the Bible and homosexuality to be sinful, they will be pro-life, they will vote Republican, they will think Jesus literally rose from the dead, they will think the Gosepls fairly reliable biographies of Jesus, etc. Left-wingers will vote Democrat, will be pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-war, etc. They will be significantly less likely to believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, to believe in miracles, to believe in the afterlife, or to believe in a personal God. The left-wingers, no less than the right-wingers, will think their interpretation to be the correct one of the Bible (read Marcus Borg or John Dominic Crossan).
Obviously, there are political left-wingers who are literalists (25% of evangelicals vote Democrat--not that voting Democrat has much to do with being left-wing, but it's hard to imagine an extreme left-winger voting for Bush) and right-wingers who are liberal in their Bible interpretation, but these are just generalities.
Akrasia, I'm always baffled by what point people think they're scoring when they point out why Christians celebrate Jesus' birth in December. Any insight here?
"We are all such Narcissists. As if anyone cares what we believe or don't believe."
First of all, I'm a FABULOUS narcissist.
Second of all, should I care whether you believe I'm a narcissist? Or not?
"Akrasia, I'm always baffled by what point people think they're scoring when they point out why Christians celebrate Jesus' birth in December. Any insight here?"
Baffled? Please, bobcat, you're too smart for that.
Christians are celebrating something that is FALSE, and historically shown to be so.
Their holiday is horrifically pagan. Cromwell was right (as much trouble as that might get me into here in Hibernia). Any sensible Christian would NOT celebrate Christmas.
A good point to score, IMO.
Christianity : the world
prom queen : high school
Just because a religion is popular doesn't warrant it's holiday receiving mention in a store promotion in place of the all inclusive term "holiday"
uggs outlet, christian louboutin uk, tiffany jewelry, nike outlet, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp outlet, prada outlet, ugg boots, longchamp outlet, uggs on sale, kate spade outlet, louis vuitton outlet, replica watches, louis vuitton, ray ban sunglasses, polo ralph lauren outlet online, michael kors outlet, louis vuitton, nike air max, uggs outlet, nike free, christian louboutin, oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, prada handbags, tory burch outlet, chanel handbags, oakley sunglasses wholesale, oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet, ugg boots, longchamp outlet, michael kors outlet, gucci handbags, burberry outlet, nike air max, cheap oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet online, tiffany and co, replica watches, michael kors outlet online, michael kors outlet online, burberry handbags, christian louboutin shoes, polo outlet
new balance, hollister uk, timberland pas cher, nike blazer pas cher, kate spade, hollister pas cher, burberry pas cher, michael kors, polo ralph lauren, nike air max uk, nike free uk, nike roshe run uk, sac vanessa bruno, oakley pas cher, guess pas cher, replica handbags, michael kors pas cher, abercrombie and fitch uk, true religion outlet, north face uk, vans pas cher, true religion outlet, north face, air max, coach outlet, true religion outlet, sac hermes, mulberry uk, ray ban uk, michael kors, sac longchamp pas cher, nike air force, michael kors outlet, louboutin pas cher, hogan outlet, nike roshe, polo lacoste, lululemon canada, jordan pas cher, true religion jeans, nike air max uk, longchamp pas cher, coach outlet store online, converse pas cher, coach purses, nike air max, ray ban pas cher, ralph lauren uk, nike free run, nike tn
Post a Comment
<< Home