To wonder why people who appear to dislike religion enjoy Christian celebrations

[Cupcake1985]

I know that most people enjoy Christmas, Easter etc with no regard for the actual Christian basis and meaning of the celebration, but aibu to think that those people should then not get all offended by the religious aspects and sometimes be downright rude about it?? The nativity play, spreading the word of god through carol singing etc..... Dare I mention operation Christmas child?! If you enjoy Christmas then at least try to accept it is actually about the birth of Christ or at least respect that others will celebrate this fact and may try to share that with those around them with the best intentions.

Basically cheer up, be accepting, be kind.

"Jumping into a religion as and when it suits in order to be able to swap chocolate Easter eggs or whatever does come across as hypocritical though, however much you beg to differ."

Uh..... really? You decided easter eggs was the best example?

Isn't everyone just jumping on the bits that suit them, though? I mean, it says you sacrifice goats in the old testament.

And how are you supposed to both turn the other cheek and seek an eye for an eye at the same time?

It's not just OK to take the piss out of superstitious delusions, but it's actually quite important to do so. Because if you start insisting that superstitious delusions need to be respected then you have a situation where people who do, or want to do, really horrible things to other people are able to claim exemption from prosecution on the grounds that their imaginary friend says it's OK for them to do things like mutilate their children's genitals.

Ah, Knight, most of the contradictions can be easily understood if you realise that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, except when it doesn't. Because Christians make it up as they go along.

So for example, menstruating women don't have to stay indoors and not touch anyone for seven days (Leviticus 15:19-28 - Christians spend a lot of time worrying about menstruation). Women (and pigeons and tutles) will be even more pleased at not having sacrifice pigeons or turtles after a particularly heavy period (Leviticus 15:29) because, well, Leviticus isn't part of the new covenant.

So Christians are quite relaxed about not following this sort of iron age nonsense:

19 “When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. 20 And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. 21 And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 22 And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. 24 And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.

But Leviticus 18:22 is important, and isn't overridden by the same new covenant that means you don't need to sacrifice turtles and shit, because the queers are especially bad. So the reasons that Christians make up for not following Leviticus 15 ("new covenant") don't apply to Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.") because hating gays is the real core stuff and much more important.

And so, Christians make it quite clear that what God says about their period can safely be ignored, but it's important to get on with the important Christian task of hating gays, because, well, just because, right?

The Christian celebratinos of the birth of Jesus and his resurrection weren't derived from paganism. The life of Jesus was independent of anything pagan. However these celebrations ended up being superimposed on the pagan celebrations at the same time of year, and adopting some of the pagan customs. Superimposing one thing on another isn't the same as both things coming from the same origin.

Er, Coupon, the story of 'jesus' was derived from the stories of Osiris, Mythras and even older Celtic myths about the Corn King. All these stories are an agricultural society's pet metaphor for the way the crops grow, get cut down and eaten and then grow again, bascially.

Jump in and out when it suits. That's life.

The life of Jesus was independent of anything pagan.

Nonsense. It's more than possible that there was a roving preacher in Palestine around 20CE who was executed by the Romans; although the evidence is sketchier than apologists make out, it's certainly not completely absent. However, all the fairy story parts (Virgin Birth and Resurrection,in particular) are taken straightforwardly from Egyptian myth, specifically the story of Isis, Osiris and Horus. The iconography of Isis holding Horus is massively influential on early Christian images of Mary and Jesus. Resurrection was the sine qua non of any self-respecting figure of worship, and Christianity was never going to flourish without something to show it was as powerful as previous belief systems.

Do you realise, Coupon that 90% of the things you think you know about Jesus & his life are known and accepted to be mythical?

Nonsense. It's more than possible that there was a roving preacher in Palestine around 20CE who was executed by the Romans; although the evidence is sketchier than apologists make out, it's certainly not completely absent

Don't agree with you here, Friday. There's actually NO evidence that any Palestinian preacher called Jesus ever existed - none. There's a few references to Christians written in the 2nd century that Christians clutch at as proof, except it's nothing of the kind.

Jesus might have existed, of course, but there's no evidence telling us that he did.

I do think that many people enjoy the Christian aspects of the festival such as carol services, nativity plays and angel decoration...itscalso a time for charity and giving based on the story of the three eise men which is biblical...it also has become a bit of a time for excess and glutony but hey...its great fun!

I thought Tacitus was seen as sound-ish?

Tacitus was writing in the 2nd Century and never mentions Jesus by name. It's clear that he's passing on something that he's heard, rather than sharing direct knowledge, so it's hearsay. Problem one. Problem two, he's talking about Christians in relation to a story about Nero that we know now didn't happen (so the credibility of the whole thing drops). There's also clear evidence that the word "Christians" was changed from "Chrestians". This might be irrelevant, it might be hugely relevant, we don't know, but any forging brings credibility back into question. Finally, the whole passage simply confirms the probable existence of early Christians & a hint about what they believed. Does nothing to prove that what they believed was true or that this man Jesus actually existed.

It's something, but it's not much. But of course, to Christians, every little helps, eh?

Presumably, given Tacitus was writing in Latin, it wasnt actually the word "Christians" at all? What was the Latin form?

There's so much speculation around the historical jesus but even those who write about it for a living don't say that the version that is popularly accepted today is actually what happened.

"Christus" is Latin for Christ/Messiah - and Tacitus does use this word. He also says that the Christians/Chrestians (or whatever, I can't recall exactly) were followers of Christus who was put to death by naughty Pilate.

So, we shouldn't dismiss the reference out of hand. As I said, it's something, it's just fairly useless if we're trying to get down to the bare bones of an existent Jesus. If Tacitus does anything, he confirms that early Christians existed - but we already know that from the NT, so he doesn't add much.

The word "Christus" though has lead us down the garden path in other ways, as well. Seutonius is another so-called "proof" of Jesus - he talks about groups of Jews kicking up a stink in Rome at the behest of "Chrestus". They've always claimed he meant Christus.

Well, firstly "Chrestus" was a very common name, so it isn't necessarily a mistake on Seutonius's part. Secondly - did Jesus really get groups of Jews to riot in Rome? Doesn't sound like Jesus, and when the hell was he in Rome?

The evidence that wasn't - that's how we best sum up the "evidence for Jesus".

Christos is the Koine Greek translation of mashiah, the Hebrew word which has made its way into English as messiah.

And yes, Christos becomes Christus or Chrestus in Latin.

Great POVs, from some very knowledgeable ladies :)

I'm an atheist, we celebrate the solstice as its also the day I found out I was pg with DS, it just so happens that this coincides with school holidays, time off work, so we have no option to join in the spirit of the season, and look forward to the new year.

I look forward to Spring, think lamb's & bunnies are cute and see eggs as a symbol of new beginnings. Not my fault Christians hijacked the whole egg thing & cadburys turned it into an industry.

I've been on a thread here wrt the 'historical Jesus' before and have a busy day so can't post much, but am still not convinced by people who think that potential sources of evidence for the historical Jesus written by people who believed he was the Messiah are automatically invalid, thus the only potential sources of evidence must come from people who didn't believe he was the messiah. As if bias can only be present among believers. Yet the propaganda and historiography of the Roman Empire was just as deeply invested with social, political and religious significance and meaning-making as anything the Jesus people wrote. In fact much of what the Jesus people wrote was in response to the rhetoric of the Empire. In the first and second centuries, no neutral writings wrt anything at all exist.

Even if I were not a Jesus person myself, I wouldn't be convinced that this approach of trying to find neutral evidence works for this period of history. It's like trying to find dust from Mars on an English beach then saying 'well Mars clearly doesn't exist.' We live on a different conceptual planet to Greco-Roman-Jews (or any combination thereof) of the 1st c.

I've been on a thread here wrt the 'historical Jesus' before and have a busy day so can't post much, but am still not convinced by people who think that potential sources of evidence for the historical Jesus written by people who believed he was the Messiah are automatically invalid, thus the only potential sources of evidence must come from people who didn't believe he was the messiah

No, agreed. Nothing is "invalid". But lack of bias is important when truth seeking - that's not to say that "biased" accounts are useless. You just have to cast a closer eye at the biased accounts. In the same way as a neutral observers testimony in court is more valuable and more telling than that of the defendants loving mum, right? Not because mum is automatically an outright liar, but because of how we know human nature works.

History is precisely that..... HIS STORY. We need to know who the "his" is, and what his motivations are for writing things down, as a matter of some importance. And that goes for anyone, no matter what they've written.

So, I agree with you. But you're arguing against a position no one has taken.

But all accounts are biased when it comes to the various groups within 1st c Judaisms, and the atonal Empire, that's my point. The bias is different, obviously, if you are a member of a small Jesus-believing 'ekklesia' or are writing as an obedient Roman citizen, but it's all biased.

Good! Glad no-one's said that then, as it is very lazy thinking. So if we agree that all sources are biased, then Paul is as valid as Tacitus.

SGB - I know you're no dan of religion but your post made me slightly uncomfortable given the huge amount of killings of Xhristians around the world today and real persecution (I'm not talking about anything in the uk here, more Syria, Egypt, N Korea, Iran etc). It's also v nearly the 75tg anniversary of Kristallnacht. I'd hope that the fluoride of your robust piss taking of religion would he an utter 100% commitment to the human rights of those practicing the religions you despise.

No fan! Typing too quickly on phone

Holo: I support people's right to hold whatever silly beliefs they like and not to be killed, imprisoned or discriminated against for those beliefs (unless such beliefs lead them into unacceptable acts such as violence against others). Don't you find it slightly more uncomfortable when, in a world where some people are being imprisoned or executed simply for preferring their own imaginary friend to someone else's, homophobic bigots and dimwitted busybodies whine loudly about 'persecution' when what they mean is they have been forbidden to annoy or discriminate against other people ie simply refused extra privieges on the grounds of their superstitions.