I was asked by an Xtian if I decorated for Christmas.
When I answered "NO" - I got the questions I have heard before.
"Are you against Religion? Are you against Christmas."
(Religion is bad - so yes I am against religion)
Any of you here get these same questions?
How do you handle them?
Sentient - personally, I'm not even convinced that Jesus was an actual person. I've had this argument many times, but it is incomprehensible to me how Jesus - arguably the most important person in the history of mankind (if you buy into that malarkey) - was not even written about until decades after his supposed death and ascention into heaven. In the meantime, much was being written about other figures of far less importance, and any references to this Jesus figures in such historical writings are virtually nonexistent. He is supposedly multiplying fish, turning water into wine, walking on water, curing the sick, defying death, etc. - and nobody is writing about it? I get it that most were unable to read and write, but there were others who were, but chose to write about the mundane experiences of lessors. On the other hand, there is much historical evidence that Muhammed was an actual person, which seems to add a layer of credibility to Islam that Christianity does not have. Not that I care about either, since all religions ultimately lack credibility on a massive scale in my book, but it is strange how the concept of Jesus not even being a real person in history is rarely argued.
In God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens retells a story about the one time in his life that he actually felt physically threatened over religious discussion. Paraphrasing, it was at some political event in the US, and he mentioned this strange dichotomy to a zealous Christian in polite conversation, and the guy reeled back at stopped just short of kicking Hitch in the shins, berating him for his ignorance of the fact that Jesus means more things to more people in this country than anything else in the history of mankind.
I think i can relate to feeling physically threatened. If looks could kill, I'd be dead for sure. I'm already feeling anxious about the family xmas party.
SB, we exchanged ideas on this topic over a year ago in my blog post "There is No There There".
The fable of Jesus runs off the rail with the accounts of his nativity. The account of Joesph and his (mysteriously) pregnant spouse unfolds as:
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
The reason for the trip was for a taxation census ordered by the Roman emperor, Augustus But , there is no evidence that Augustus or any emperor every conducted such a census because the Romans didn't tax people – they taxed property.
There is no record of a city called Nazareth until the 2nd century CE, further, the city is aledged to be in the province of Galilee which was not under Roman occupation and, therefore, not subject to Roman law.
Despite those minor quibbles it's still “take it to the bank” history to Xtians.
Jim, as I get older I find I repeat myself more often.
Also forget what I said before. That's good. It makes each day more interesting and surprising.
What you say here is also my memory of what i've read and heard before, however. I was wondering - never thought about it before - if Mary was asserting virginity, wouldn't her family have been interested in looking "in there" to see if that was true. It sounds invasive and intrusive, and it is, but in some cultures that's done. And the claim is so far fetched..... Just my random neurons misfiring here.
Actually the issue that the Romans taxed property, not people, I had forgotten or not heard before.
Thanks for the reminder. I find that as I get older I repeat myself more often.
I don't know much about censuses (cenci?), but from a purely practical point of view wouldn't it be more practical to send out government census takers rather than have half the population in transit and the country's commerce shut down?
I appreciate all of you for replying and sharing your thoughts.
I am against religion. We decorate for Santa Clausmas, lol. We have nothing religious. Just pretty lights and candles that smell good, cute snowman decorations, etc. We just celebrate fun, good food, and being together. Once when my nephew was about six he told me his Sunday school teacher said xmas wasn't about Santa Claus, it's about jesus. I told him "Not to me! To me it's about Santa Claus!" He just kind of thought about it and didn't say anything more.
No. I love Christmas. Santa is a great guy XD
I'm amazed - I've never seen anything in the American Stinker that had an ounce of common sense or value to it, yet I didn't find that article to be offensive at all. Pinch me.
I've heard the Native Americans had parties where they gave away all their possessions to their neighbors.
The "commercialism" of Christmas is somewhat in the same spirit; it's a time when people are encouraged to think of others' needs and to spend money for them. Not a bad thing! I'm skeptical about the Stinker's approbation of the practice of commerce as such. But a common "giving spirit" is needed much more often.
I've never been much in the habit of giving presents, especially not for predetermined occasions when Everybody Does. I'm too rebellious for that.