to wonder why non-Christians celebrate Christmas

[MissMashMissMash]

Am not trying to offend anyone here but am interested to know what others think.

I often think that if I wasn't a Christian I wouldn't celebrate Christmas as it wouldn't mean anything to me. I just don't really why people spend so much time, money and stress on something which is meaningless to them.

As it is I don't actually spend much money at Christmas as it isn't about that for me. If it was completely meaningless for me I would just treat it as any other day I think, not sure though what do others think?

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

No SBD you miss the point. I don't mind at all that people can 'put together a world view that includes kindess and fairness without any benefit of a particular myth system' - I am very happy to hear it and would rather live in a society with those people in it over fundamentalists of any religious type any day.

What I do object to though is your repeated and mistaken insistence that Christianity is inextricably linked to the misogyny/whatever other dodgy bits you deem to attribute on the day. I mean it is as if you think it has never occurred to the theologians who debate this kind of stuff for a living, with full knowledge of all the difficulties of the gospels in terms language and ownership and the rest.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

SGB even.

[BonniePrinceBilly]

And you don't think that some theologians agree with that point of view? You'd be wrong there then.

You talk as if any of this is fact. Its ALL debatable, all of it. Fact just isn't possible when you are talking about religion.

And even the most cursory reading of christian texts show rather a lot of misogyny and heretic bashing, and a vast number of "dodgy bits". Now we can discuss why that is, much of which would be about the sensibilities of the times of writing, but to suggest that christian theology does not contain such dodgy bits is quite frankly ridiculous.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

I'm an agnostic Bonnie. Of course I am aware that some theologians are atheist, if that is what you mean.

Yes well it is the cursory readings of christian texts that are rather the problem. You should be aware as a holder of a diploma in christian theology, that misogyny is quite startlingly absent from Christ's teachings even through the mouths of his disciples. I'm sure you are also aware of the misogyny of St Paul and the Old Testament, both over which Christ had little control.

Everything that cannot be empirically proven is debatable. Doesn't mean that there are not right answers.

[Snakeears]

because it's fun... people are all on national or bank holidays and like to spend time with family and friends...durrr

[freerangeeggs]

Speaking as an atheist, the cheese, puddings, mountains of Quality Street and opportunities for rampant consumerism are the big draws.

Yay for Jesus

[Oldjolyon]

"Perhaps it is because Christ was the only one to preach the revolutionary power of social justice, unconditional love, forgiveness and tolerance SGB, but don't let that little fact muddy your stereotyped crap that you spout repeatedly here."

Err, what about Siddhartha Gautama? He was the Buddha who lived approx 500 years before Jesus, and this was precisely his message!

"I never said Christ wrote the gospels, thanks. But a linear picture of his teachings arises from the gospels, as you should know."

Really? I know I did my theology degree a long time ago now, but I seem to remember that academic theologians only agree on about 10 'facts' on Jesus' life. Given the fact that we no longer have 'Q', Proto mark or Proto Luke etc, then all we have are texts taken from older texts that no longer exist. How can that be enough to establish 'a linear picture' of Jesus' life. I thought one of the basic premises of academic theology is that the gospels do not give us a clear understanding of Jesus' life. Or at least, that is what I was taught on my theology degree!

I agree that Jesus does seem to do a lot to promote women in the gospels, not sure though that you can isolate Jesus from the rest of the Bible though.

[BelleDameSansMerci]

Oldjolyn, for my interest only (and maybe not entirely relevant to this thread) I'm not really aware of Jesus particularly promoting women but I've got some vague memory of someone called Martha but I don't know why. Otherwise, to me, there is the bizarre stuff around Mary Magdelene; the Virgin Mary; and I can't think of any more major players. Perhaps that's not relevant to his teachings. I just don't remember any particular promotion of women but that may be because of how I was taught - not because it's not here.

I should add that the last time I thought about the actual content of the Bible in any way other than to query it would have been in Scripture class in about, ooh, 1973.

[BelleDameSansMerci]

Sorry - "not because it's not there".

[TheFeministParent]

It's about a lovely festival mid winter that involves family, father christmas and food!!

[AbsofCroissant]

I'm not Christian (Jewish), and do my very bestest to not celebrate xmas in any way, shape or form. But, I live in a country where it is celebrated, so, at work done Secret Santas in the past, had tinsel (note had - I didn't do it) put around my screen, gone to team xmas lunches, drinks, parties. Some of my family are Christian/secular so they celebrate it, which means you end up going to dinners, being told to bought gifts, been given gifts etc. etc.

It is very difficult to stay totally away from it, as it is part of the culture in the UK - a HUGE part of the culture.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

'I'm not sure you can isolate Jesus from the rest of the bible though'

Well you can. If you look at his teachings in each gospel, a consistent picture emerges. I am not talking about 'facts' about his life, I am talking about his teachings as represented in the gospels. There is a great deal of theology on the subject.


As I said earlier, had Christ known about Siddartha Gautama and buddhism, he would have found he had alot in common with them. But I cannot agree with the issue that Siddartha put as much emphasis on social justice as Christ did. And the probem of karma is that there is an inherent belief that people are in their position in life because of sins/deeds committed in a previous life, which is problematic. I said earlier too that I like the theory that Christ was trained in buddhism in the period of his life that is unaccounted for and this explains his dramatic new teachings which departed from the Old Testament. There is certainy a huge amount of fantastic stuff in Buddhism - and the 'do unto others as you would do unto yourself' thing is there 500 years before, absolutely [though not in Christ's society]

The other obvious difference is that Christ depicted a God full of love, unconditional love, a God for everyone. And there is no God in Buddhism. that is not a criticism, it may well be an asset, but it is a difference.

[StuffingGoldBrass]

Po, for an agnostic you do seem to have an odd obsession with the idea that 'Jesus' was an actual person, when there is very little evidence for this. What's the big deal with it? 'Christianity' only survived as long as it has done because it seems to lend itself really well to power junkies and control freaks who want to surpress other cultures. Luckily with the advances of technology and general human progress, all the superstitions are steadily losing their power and relevance and not before time.

[TheCoalitionNeedsYou]

POFAKKKEDDthechair - Unfortunatly what Jesus may or may not have said is a lot less important than what Christians have actually done and do.

Christianity is a lot more usefully defined by the actions and opinions of Christians than the actions and opinions of Jesus.

[BelleDameSansMerci]

And, surely there is no more "proof" that Jesus spent time training in Buddhism than there is in the myth that he visited "Albion"/UK? Sorry, and I'm not trying to be rude, but I think that speculating about the childhood of a man of whom we know very little (in factual terms) is a bit pointless.

FWIW, I do think it's probable that Jesus existed but that doesn't mean he is/was/ever will be the son of God (if God or some Universal Deity exists) or that he was preaching anything unique.

[PrematureEjoculation]

Perhaps it is because Christ was the only one to preach the revolutionary power of social justice, unconditional love, forgiveness and tolerance SGB, but don't let that little fact muddy your stereotyped crap that you spout repeatedly here."


Jesus probably did exist - but he was the student (if extant at all!) of Rabbi Hillel - a Hebrew revivalist, so although definitely a unique individual in many ways (if close to as described in the synoptics) not the bearer of a completely new message.

personally i think the Jesus did live, there are some written records that are very suggestive of it, outside the bible. But that has bugger all to do with Xmas.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

Ofcourse there is no proof that Jesus studied Budhhism. I said I liked the theory. I gave no weight to it whatsoever. I said some of his teachings were similar to Buddhist teachings.

And er, yes, what he was preaching was incredibly unique for his society and his time.

'Unfortunatly what Jesus may or may not have said is a lot less important than what Christians have actually done and do.'

But there are many Christians who fight within the church against bigotry and corruption. It is important to stand up for what Christ actually taught and many people do this. Doesn't make what is right less important than what is wrong.

SGB, it seems to be with you the obsession. I just question your rhetoric. Christianity does not lend itself to anything. It has been carefully corrupted by those who wanted to use it for their own means. As have many other religions. Christ himself was subversive and revolutionary.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

Certainly Premature Christ was a product of the teachings around him, like Rabbi Hillel. But he went further than Rabbi Hillel in his political and social commentary, and in the equality with which he treated women in a spiritual sense, and by actually contradicting certain laws in the OT.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

And also in making clear that God was a god for all, not just for one race of people.

[TheCoalitionNeedsYou]

"
'Unfortunatly what Jesus may or may not have said is a lot less important than what Christians have actually done and do.'

But there are many Christians who fight within the church against bigotry and corruption. It is important to stand up for what Christ actually taught and many people do this. Doesn't make what is right less important than what is wrong.
"

err, no obv not. But bigotted and corrupt Christians are still Christians and as are Christians who fight within the church against bigotry and corruption.

So both there actions come under the heading of "what Christians have actually done and do."

Which IS more important than what Jesus may or may not have said as it is what actually effects peoples lives.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

Why is it more important, because you say so?

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

I could just as well say that it is more important that atheists have implemented genocide in certain countries that that many atheists live good lives. It is nonsense.

[TheCoalitionNeedsYou]

No it's simple maths. Jesus was one person. Christians are millions of people.

[TheCoalitionNeedsYou]

Nothing Jesus did or said can have ANY possible effect on me. Christians can have an effect on me. So I care quite a lot about what Christians do, and not at all about what Jesus did.

[POFAKKEDDthechair]

But what is right has nothing to do with numbers. Look, I am the first in the queue when it comes to any one of any religion using said religion to justify their own bigotry and hate. I have lost friends to the evangelical church [yes I know you're supposed to say to Jesus] I've seen at close hand the damage that the evangelical church can do. But if people hijack something for their own ends, it does not make it more important than the original teachings which preached something very different. It can make them louder in your face than the work done by many so quietly, but it doesn't make it more important.