Proselytism

[BashfulAnthony]

Outrider,


"Maybe that mantra has something in it you should try to understand? What you think Christmas is about isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks Christmas is about.

If I walked through a church you wouldn't presume I was a Christian, why does the fact that I live through Christmas make you presume that I think I am?"

I think Christmas is about the celebration of Jesus' birth.  Full-stop.  There is no other Christian way of seeing it'

Your second point is unclear.

[Outrider]

"Maybe that mantra has something in it you should try to understand? What you think Christmas is about isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks Christmas is about.

If I walked through a church you wouldn't presume I was a Christian, why does the fact that I live through Christmas make you presume that I think I am?"

I think Christmas is about the celebration of Jesus' birth.  Full-stop.  There is no other Christian way of seeing it'

That's fine, that's your Christmas, that's what you do with it. That's not my Christmas, at least in part because I'm not a Christian.

Your second point is unclear.

Christianity, as I understand it, isn't in the actions. I'm not a Christian because I kneel in church, I'm a Christian if I accept the idea that Jesus is real. I'm not a Christian if I try to be a good person, I'm a Christian if I try to be a good person as Jesus instructed.

The reasons you do things are what makes you a Christian, not the things that you do. I partake in Christmas celebrations for many reasons, but none of them are because I think Jesus was born then, or indeed because I think Jesus was born at all, or because I think of Jesus at all. I didn't choose to call it Christmas, just like I didn't choose to name days after Thor and Odin - I've inherited those cultural tropes, and I accept that are part of my history.

Christians never owned midwinter, never owned the concept of giving gifts, never owned the idea of celebrating with family and friends. That we call one particular time-based instance of that 'Christmas' because Christians long ago wanted to co-opt pagan midwinter festivals doesn't mean only Christians can do anything at the end of the year.

O.

[Shaker]

Bashers:

Are my lovely Hindu neighbours hypocrites for sending (extremely nice, with thoughtful personal messages) cards to everyone at this end of my street at Christmas?

[BashfulAnthony]

Bashers:

Are my lovely Hindu neighbours hypocrites for sending (extremely nice, with thoughtful personal messages) cards to everyone at this end of my street at Christmas?

Hindus tend to be gentle and caring people. If only they knew you better!  I wonder what they would think of some of your diatribes on forums such as this?

[floo]

Bashers:

Are my lovely Hindu neighbours hypocrites for sending (extremely nice, with thoughtful personal messages) cards to everyone at this end of my street at Christmas?

They sound like lovely people.

[Shaker]

Hindus tend to be gentle and caring people

These certainly are.

If only they knew you better!

They've been neighbours and friends for many years.

I wonder what they would think of some of your diatribes on forums such as this?

They wouldn't give a Hanuman's*, as they're not religious.

In the meantime you appear to have forgotten to answer my question. Are they or are they not hypocrites for sending Christmas cards?

* Look it up, if need be.

[BashfulAnthony]

Hindus tend to be gentle and caring people

These certainly are.

If only they knew you better!

They've been neighbours and friends for many years.

I wonder what they would think of some of your diatribes on forums such as this?

They wouldn't give a Hanuman's*, as they're not religious.

In the meantime you appear to have forgotten to answer my question. Are they or are they not hypocrites for sending Christmas cards?

* Look it up, if need be.

If they're not religious, then they are not hypocrites, since they are not pretending to be something they're not. I would take a bet, though, that they are a deal more sympathetic to others' beliefs than you are, having lived among them for many years.

[Shaker]

If they're not religious, then they are not hypocrites, since they are not pretending to be something they're not.

This also goes for the atheists here, however, as explained repeatedly by various different people and perhaps best of all by Outrider in his most recent post (#408). Nobody is pretending to be anything they're not.

[ippy]

By the way B A, I hope you have a verry merry christmas and a good and prosperous new year.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

If they're not religious, then they are not hypocrites, since they are not pretending to be something they're not.

This also goes for the atheists here, however, as explained repeatedly by various different people and perhaps best of all by Outrider in his most recent post (#408). Nobody is pretending to be anything they're not.

I'll take that as a kind thought even if you are still trying to make a point.

[Nearly Sane]

Can I just check, is everyone who uses January as the title of a month and doesn't worship Janus a hypocrite? Like those non worshipping Woden, Wednesday users?

[Nearly Sane]

And while we are at it, would someone worried about the derailing of threads, talking about what atheists do at Christmas on this thread be a hypocrite?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Maybe that mantra has something in it you should try to understand? What you think Christmas is about isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks Christmas is about.

If I walked through a church you wouldn't presume I was a Christian, why does the fact that I live through Christmas make you presume that I think I am?"

I think Christmas is about the celebration of Jesus' birth.  Full-stop.  There is no other Christian way of seeing it'

That's fine, that's your Christmas, that's what you do with it. That's not my Christmas, at least in part because I'm not a Christian.

Your second point is unclear.

Christianity, as I understand it, isn't in the actions. I'm not a Christian because I kneel in church, I'm a Christian if I accept the idea that Jesus is real. I'm not a Christian if I try to be a good person, I'm a Christian if I try to be a good person as Jesus instructed.

That still makes Jesus merely another lawgiver IMHO.

[Outrider]

That still makes Jesus merely another lawgiver IMHO.

Quite possibly, it wasn't supposed to be a complete description of the religious view(s) of Jesus, but to demonstrate that performing rituals isn't what makes someone a Christian in most understandings.

O.

[jeremyp]

Ha. I just started Mary Beard's book SPQR ...

Off-topic but I have to ask: I saw that on Amazon a couple of days back - worth getting hold of?

I'm not very far into it, but it is good so far.

[jeremyp]

The starting point being the entirely different etymology of Easter - the term used in English and Pascha (and its derivatives), used almost everywhere else. Pascha etc clearly derives from a Jewish root (as you say), but Easter doesn't. So the question then arises to its origin and there is evidence, both direct and indirect, that it relates to a spring deity, variously referred to as Eostre, Ostara, Austro etc etc.

And there is direct evidence from Bede who refers specifically to the derivation of Easter as a term relating it to Anglo Saxon festivals during Ēosturmōnaþ (Eastro's month) in honour of the goddess. And don't forget that Bede was writing very soon after the Christianisation of Anglo Saxon England, so very close to the actual events. Indeed when Bede was born Anglo Saxon England was still ruled by a pagan worshiping King and it is likely that at the time of writing pagan festivals would still have been very much in evidence even if Christianity was taking an increasing hold. And also in terms of partiality, don't forget that Bede was a Christian so there isn't any reason why he would create 'histories' that aren't actually very favourable toward Christianity (i.e. borrowing a pagan name for their most important festival) if there wasn't truth in them.

Sure there is controversy over the writings of Bede, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence, merely that not everyone agrees on the significance of that evidence, as is pretty well always the case for historical evidence from such a long time ago.

But what we can be sure of is that there is nothing in the etymology of Easter that is remotely Christian - which is of course why most other languages uses a completely different term (e.g. Pascha, Pasches, Pasen, påske, påsk, páskar etc). Spot the odd one out.

Prof, you are confused about the difference between a name and the thing. The festival is the Christian festival that clearly derives from events that are alleged to have occurred during the Jewish Pesach, hence the outrageous (to our Gregorian perspective) calculation of its date each year. There is no evidence at all that Christians appropriated any festival other than Pesach for Easter. Easter originates in the second century CE, which was a few hundred years before there were any Anglo Saxons never mind Christian ones.

The name we give it is another matter. There is mention of it, as you say, in Bede, but the connection is really that the Christian festival happened in the same month as the the festivals for Eostre (named after her). There's no evidence that Christians hijacked any of those festivals in the way they probably hijacked some Winter solstice festival. All we get from the Anglo Saxons is the name.

[ippy]

If you receive or send only one card with any definite religious word or picture, then you are practising a Christmas celebration

I don't - all the cards I send and receive are for the most part of the kind Prof. D has mentioned; snowy fields, robins and the like - but it must have escaped your attention that while people are in control of the cards they send, they have no control over the cards they receive. I would expect to receive a religiously-themed card from a religious person, if I knew any (I don't) - the idea that to receive such a card entails that one is thereby participating in a religious practice is one of the most astoundingly stupid things I've ever heard you come out with, and that's given some stiff competition in that regard.

The atheists on here  denigrate religion, often in the most base manner, yet are prepared to join in the Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus.

That's not what they're doing though, as you well know.

If repetition bothers you, why do we have to keep repeating this same simple point over and over again even though you're intellectually hobbled to the extent that you can't take it on board?

I had a christmas card from my brother in law, with a picture of father christmas laying down on a psychiatrists couch with a large cartoon bubble of his thoughts, it was a picture of FC's viewpoint while driving his sleigh in the sky, the picture was showing details of the various working parts of the rear end of two reindeer, not a pretty sight and father christmas was saying, "I can't get it off my mind", to the psychchiatristst.

I've hated my brother in law ever since he sent us that card, because I don't know how to top a card of such obvious quality, the bastard lives in NZ, it didn't occur to me at first how much he has annoyed me because I was laughing too much at the time to have worked out the implications of recieving such a card.

Off topic I know, but I thought it funny.

ippy   

[Owlswing]

The starting point being the entirely different etymology of Easter - the term used in English and Pascha (and its derivatives), used almost everywhere else. Pascha etc clearly derives from a Jewish root (as you say), but Easter doesn't. So the question then arises to its origin and there is evidence, both direct and indirect, that it relates to a spring deity, variously referred to as Eostre, Ostara, Austro etc etc.

And there is direct evidence from Bede who refers specifically to the derivation of Easter as a term relating it to Anglo Saxon festivals during Ēosturmōnaþ (Eastro's month) in honour of the goddess. And don't forget that Bede was writing very soon after the Christianisation of Anglo Saxon England, so very close to the actual events. Indeed when Bede was born Anglo Saxon England was still ruled by a pagan worshiping King and it is likely that at the time of writing pagan festivals would still have been very much in evidence even if Christianity was taking an increasing hold. And also in terms of partiality, don't forget that Bede was a Christian so there isn't any reason why he would create 'histories' that aren't actually very favourable toward Christianity (i.e. borrowing a pagan name for their most important festival) if there wasn't truth in them.

Sure there is controversy over the writings of Bede, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence, merely that not everyone agrees on the significance of that evidence, as is pretty well always the case for historical evidence from such a long time ago.

But what we can be sure of is that there is nothing in the etymology of Easter that is remotely Christian - which is of course why most other languages uses a completely different term (e.g. Pascha, Pasches, Pasen, påske, påsk, páskar etc). Spot the odd one out.

Prof, you are confused about the difference between a name and the thing. The festival is the Christian festival that clearly derives from events that are alleged to have occurred during the Jewish Pesach, hence the outrageous (to our Gregorian perspective) calculation of its date each year. There is no evidence at all that Christians appropriated any festival other than Pesach for Easter. Easter originates in the second century CE, which was a few hundred years before there were any Anglo Saxons never mind Christian ones.

The name we give it is another matter. There is mention of it, as you say, in Bede, but the connection is really that the Christian festival happened in the same month as the the festivals for Eostre (named after her). There's no evidence that Christians hijacked any of those festivals in the way they probably hijacked some Winter solstice festival. All we get from the Anglo Saxons is the name.

This is NOT one of the Pagan "festivals" appropriated by Christianity. It cannot be because, unlike Samhain and Beltaine, it is NOT a festival at all, it is a celebration of a way-point in the year half-way between mid-Summer and mid-Winter, the Spring Equinox, one of the Quarter Days.

This is why many pagans object to it being referred to as Ostara. As has been pointed out before the only refernce to this so-called Pagan Goddess, either as Ostara or Eostre, is by Bede. The Chritians have their Easter, we Pagans have our Spring Equinox!

Peace, please. 

[OH MY WORLD!]

My number 1 fan Matty,
What do you mean with that ridiculous "peace, please"? Your celebrations ARE open for all to post about or not, and all can write what they want. You are the last person around one should go to for answers on the pagan subjects. You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.

[Shaker]

You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.

I'm not a pagan but as far as I'm aware the only thing that corresponds to a Wiccan creation story was written by someone not generally taken seriously or lent much credibility by many, indeed most British pagans.

[BashfulAnthony]

You were telling us there is no wiccan/pagan creation story, and the fact is there very much IS A WICCAN CREATION STORY. "peace please", No, how about you being not so all over the map.

I'm not a pagan but as far as I'm aware the only thing that corresponds to a Wiccan creation story was written by someone not generally taken seriously or lent much credibility by many, indeed most British pagans.

Been busy googling again!   You don't know anything about it:  rather like your "grasp" of Christianity!"

[Shaker]

No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.

How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.

[BashfulAnthony]

No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.

How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.

You are simply trying to curry favour with the resident pagans  -  both of them!  -  by pretending to be sympatheic, whereas you are merely being pathetic!       I'm not hoodwinked by your insincerity, and I'd be surprisedif they are, one of them at at any rate.

[Shaker]

No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.

How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.

You are simply trying to curry favour with the resident pagans  -  both of them  -  by pretending to be sympatheic, whereas you are merely being pathetic!   

You're repeating yourself, something that consistent with your rank hypocrisy you criticised Floo for earlier - you've already said this yesterday afternoon and you were wrong the first time, true to form.

[BashfulAnthony]

No, it's called "having read around the subject" again. You know, books.

How would you know how much I know of paganism? You would need to have at least an equal level of knowledge to be able to tell, and it's abundantly clear that you don't.

You are simply trying to curry favour with the resident pagans  -  both of them  -  by pretending to be sympatheic, whereas you are merely being pathetic!   

You're repeating yourself - you've already said this yesterday afternoon and you were wrong the first time, true to form.

Sometimes it's necessary to be repetitive, to accomodate the hard of understanding.