For as long as I can remember the term “Happy Holidays” referred to the time of the year from Thanksgiving through New Years and was an inclusive way of wishing folks well. Somehow “Happy Holidays” has become demonized by those who believe that Christmas and Christianity are under attack in this country.
I say we take “Happy Holidays” back from those who would demean and demoralize its inclusive, hopeful, and true nature. So the next time someone says “Happy Holidays” to you, don’t get offended*, just remember what it actually means.
*Note – I must admit that I find it asinine that there are people who get offended by “Happy Holidays.” In many cases these are the same people who belittle terms like African-American because they think it is political correctness run amuck. While I agree that there are serious problems with political correctness in this country (especially considering what political correctness was supposed to be about but that is a post for another day), this kind of nonsense is just a waste of time and energy.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Personally, I am not offended when someone says Happy Holidays to me.
What irritates the crap out of me is when another person gets offended when I tell them Merry Christmas.
Give me a break...the term is being used by the liberal Christian movement to marginalize Christmas. Pit Bull defenders of the faith like mineself are just reacting to the onslaught.
I am waiting breathlessly for Brad's post on the "legend" of the nativity invented by the catholics to put down pagans and future really smart people. Backed up by solid research and academic excellence of course. Eventually they will be putting believing Christians in jail for "Hate speech crimes" against perverts.
In the beginning God created...
in due time He sent His Son...
that all might have LIFE Eternal.
Merry Christ's Birthday
In response to Blogmaster,
I live in a multicultural world. We're not all Christians. One guy I work with is from Israel. Another is from Idaho. We gots all kinds.
I don't care if people say "Merry Christmas," but to be offended at "Happy Holidays," to call it a term "being used by the liberal Christian movement (?) to marginalize Christmas," sounds incredibly narrow-minded.
did you read my comment
...I am not offended ... just not fooled.
Jesus said He had many sheep not of our fold...I beleive Him.
I read the comment, perhaps I just don't understand.
Where does fooling come into play?
People need to grow up. We have bigger fish to fry.
P.S. Christmas is the merging of Roman (pagan) and Christian holidays. Jesus was not born Dec. 25.
The Catholic church merging of many holidays would be correct. The Catholic church is just one of myriad sincere viewpoints within the brotherhood of the Creator Jesus Christ. Sept. 29 is very close to His birth and that makes Dec. 25 very close to His Holy conception.
But it is ok to worship Him on that day to and we need not your permission for any tenants of our faith. Check out my church site if you envision yourself as some kind of authority. The Book on Christmas listed was written by Dr. McClain before you were born. And others back two hundred years ago. Drink some more Bommagade and relax Comrade.
http://rightdivision.com
Dave,
I apologize that Blogmaster — a.k.a. Jim Martin of Fried Green Onions notoriety — has allowed his personal crusade to expose me as an alleged Christian fraud spill over onto your blog and in this post.
I will say that I wholeheartedly agree with your post. Actually, I have been planning to write on this very topic, but just hadn't gotten to it yet and you've beaten me to the punch. Since you've brought this matter up, I'll post my own thoughts tomorrow morning, referencing this post, of course. That way, Mr. Martin can "breathlessly await" for my answer there instead of airing our "dirty laundry" here.
:-)
Great post.
You love the attention worthy adversary Brad
I wonder if the merging of the celebration of the birth of Christ with the Roman pagan celebration of the winter solstice (I think that was the holiday…I know it has something to do with the Yule log) happened before or after the Great Schism. If it was before, then you can’t really call the church the Roman Catholic Church because at the time there was only one church.
On to some other points –
Blogmaster –
I have to admit that the phrase “the liberal Christian movement to marginalize Christmas” has me a bit perplexed. It sounds to me like there is a belief that there is some organized effort to “marginalize Christmas” by several of the more liberal sects of the Christian faith. That kind of conspiracy talk reminds me of the belief in the organized “liberal media.” Both a farces and fallacies IMHO.
You also mentioned Brad doing a post on the “legend” of Jesus’ birth. This brings up another subject that I’d like to touch on a little bit here (and will post more about in the future) and that is the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is a relatively new phenomenon (it started about 200-300 years ago) and I believe that it degrades the greater message of the Bible. Jesus was a real person, that is a historical fact that can be corroborated through various other historical records, but we will never know exactly what he did or actually said while he lived. The Bible gives us a glimpse into the man, but it cannot be considered a historical document by historical scholarly standards. So we have no way of knowing for sure what he did or did not do, but that does nothing to his greater message. Just look at Jefferson’s Bible. He removed everything that could be considered remotely “supernatural” from the Bible and we were still left with a set of amazing moral and ethical lessons that are universal. The Bible doesn’t have to be literally or historically accurate to have an impact on the world or teach great lessons.
Also, I thought I was your worthy adversary? :-P
SoonerThought –
Good point on the more important things to worry about. I tend to agree, but this is something that seems to come up each year around this time and I thought that I’d weigh in on the matter.
Bard –
I look forward to your post. :o)
Otter –
Have you actually run into people that got upset with you for saying “Merry Christmas?” If you did, were they possibly not Christians? Not that Christmas is just for Christians anymore. I think the holiday transcended Christianity a long time ago.
Danny --
Good points as well. I too was confused by the “fooled” comment. Hopefully Jim (aka Blogmaster) will expand on the idea.
I have to ask Dave. Why do you think that the Bible can not be considered a historical document?
And to answer your question, I personally have never run into anyone that was upset with me for saying Merry Christmas.
Jefferson should have not tampered with the bible...I guess he has been reprimanded by now.
by not fooled...Everyone is aware of the secularization of Christmas and the marginalization of Christian thought vs politically correct dechristianizing Borking of monuments and schools.
It has been in all the papers.
I know you asked Dave and not me, but "Why do you think that the Bible can not be considered a historical document?"
1. Many, many, many impossibilities.
2. Historical record.
3. It's common knowledge that most of that stuff was written way after the supposed fact, by fallible, mortal men.
The "earmarks of historicity" are particular characteristics which indicate the historical authenticity of documents. When scholars examine historical narrative, they took for indicators which point to historical authenticity. There are several examples of these historical characteristics in the New Testament. First, Jesus' sayings bear a literary form that was not used in the early church when the Gospels were written down. The Gospel writers have Jesus speaking in memorizable form common among Rabbis, and they have Him using expressions such as verily, verily (amen, amen, truly, truly). The significance of these characteristics is that these literary forms were not used by writers of the time of the Gospels.[6] One can not explain why the writers have Jesus talking the way He does by claiming that this was the way the writers themselves talked. It was not. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers have Jesus talking the way He does is that He really talked that way.
Second, there is material in the Gospel accounts that was irrelevant to any issues in the early church. For example, by the time the Gospel accounts were written, there were no controversies regarding the Sabbath. One can not explain the content of the Gospel accounts on the basis of the needs of the early church. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers have Jesus discussing the Sabbath with the Pharisees is that He really had these discussions.
Third, there is material lacking in the Gospel accounts that would have been extremely relevant to the needs of the early church. If the Gospels were made up by the writers, one would expect that they would have construed the story in a way that would have been most advantageous to themselves. But this is not so. For example, there is nothing in Jesus' teachings on circumcision, on gifts such as tongues, nor on food laws such as eating meat sacrificed to idols. Surely if the writers were going to fabricate a story about Jesus, they would have had Jesus explicitly teaching on these subjects that were so controversial in their own situation so as to settle them once and for all. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers do not have Jesus teaching on such matters is that He "eyewitreally" never taught on them.
Fourth, there is material in the Gospel accounts that was counterproductive to the purpose of the writings. If one was to make up a story, you would not expect to find features that are embarrassing or that could defeat the purpose of spreading the story. But there are such features in the Gospel accounts. For example, the Gospel writers have women testifying to seeing the resurrected Christ, despite the fact that the testimony of women was not highly regarded in that culture and was not, in some instances, even admissible in court.[7] In addition, some things about Jesus' words and life proved hard to explain, such as His seeming denial of being good,[8] His display of anger,[9] and the unbelief of His own family.[10] Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers included such features is that they really took place.
These and other evidences that could be marshaled make it more than reasonable to believe the historical authenticity of the New Testament. However, the case for the authenticity of the New Testament does not stop here either. Evidence can be introduced from outside the New Testament that points to its historical authenticity.
cut and paste by FGO
Dave:
you posted: Roman Catholic Church because at the time there was only one church.
Not historical: The Greek church, the Ethiopian church and believers in Synagogues were numerous and still are...
Danny:
1. just because you don't believe something, does not make it impossible
2. the bible IS a historical record
3. so was every other historical document that scholars consider to be "historically accurate"
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader...LOL!
Danny:
1. Many, many, many impossibilities.
Impossibilities to a supreme being who made the entire universe out of particulate electricity?
2. Historical record.
Secular history is always under the scrutiny of a ruler...the Bible history has NEVER been shown wrong. Secular history is full of holes.
3. It's common knowledge that most of that stuff was written way after the supposed fact, by fallible, mortal men.
You have to trust in secular biblical antagonistic history to believe that. If fact a lot of the books contain narratives in the present tense.
So we are back to the faith that ALL believers hold in their heart. The faith that those fallible mortal Jews were inspired by the
Creator of all to leave us an infallible record.
Which they most certainly did.
One thing I have going for me at my advanced age and razor sharp mind is:
I have been where you are in my scepticism. I know the path ahead for you as it is a common trek. The fact that you are discussing it means you are all searchers who will most certainly find your niche in believer ship.
We are fallible humans considering eternal questions and we come to different conclusions ... of course. The Most High knows this and each of us personally and gives to each the correct portion of grace.
I pray that all be saved from the curse of eternal nothingness.
Great response from everyone! This is a fun discussion.
Steve (aka Otter) –
You asked why I don’t think the Bible is a historical document. This is something that we have discussed at length, so you probably already know my answer but I shall respond for the rest of the class. The Bible is a religious text that has elements of history to it but in and of itself is not a historical document IMHO. Calling the Bible a historical document almost limits what it is and that is not my intention. It has elements of history but is not a full blown historical text (see my recent post entitled “Why take it so literally?” for more on this topic).
Jim (aka Blogmaster) –
Are you implying that Thomas Jefferson is in hell?
You said: “by not fooled...Everyone is aware of the secularization of Christmas and the marginalization of Christian thought vs politically correct dechristianizing Borking of monuments and schools.”
Do you think that the government shouldn’t protect the religious liberty of those who aren’t Christian?
You said: “Not historical: The Greek church, the Ethiopian church and believers in Synagogues were numerous and still are...”
In the beginning Christianity was a jumble of different groups. Then they were brought together to form the official church and to vote on doctrine, scriptures, and so on. That became the Catholic Church which later split with the Great Schism into the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. That is what I was referring to.
Steve (aka Otter) –
You said: “just because you don't believe something, does not make it impossible”
AMEN!
Jim (aka Blogmaster) –
You said: “Secular history is always under the scrutiny of a ruler...the Bible history has NEVER been shown wrong. Secular history is full of holes.”
That is not entirely accurate. Both history and the Bible have holes. That tends to happen when things are pieced together after the fact.
I’m interested to see what you all think of my other post (which is coming soon).
Otter:
Fine. You can believe in ghost and magic and all that other hogwash that you claim isn't impossible.
I, on the other hand, will remain in the real world.
Historical record. What a fucking joke.
Blogmaster:
I can only laugh.
Danny...the guy who looks like a fifties movie star...
You have just insulted the entire population of Jews and Christians.
The F word really spices up an ignorant post.
Latasha in Baltimore
I will Danny. I will believe what I believe.
One man's "hogwash" IS another man's "real world."
I have seen enough "real world" miracles in my own life (not to mentions others lives) to know that there is something out there that is bigger and better than you or I.
You have the right to not believe in anything and I respect that. I'll ask you to please do the same for me.
Danny –
I know that this is something that you feel passionately about, but we can still be passionate and respectful of one another at the same time. So far this discussion has been civil and respectful (Blogmaster got a bit feisty but he never threw insults or anything). You have many great points to make, but they get lost once the tone turns from respectful discourse to something else.
Any other thoughts on things brought up so far?
Fuck all of that.
Flying sky daddies and guys with white beards parting rivers, telling their followers to murder anyone who doesn't step into a church on Saturday (which includes the vast majority of Christians, by the way)...
It's all a game of make-believe. It's all retarded.
I don't mind being rude or shitty on this one.
Retarded questions deserve retarded answers.
Would that you could share the piece in my heart that comes from knowing Jesus. I will pray for you Danny Boy Child.
Mother Evangeline of Hibachis
Dan...you are so cute.
Freddie
Danny I have some problems with fellow Christians myself but I have to say that you have talking to some interesting ones.
I have never heard a Christian tell someone to murder another person just for not stepping into a church on a Saturday.
The vast majority you say? You are definitely talking to wrong people.
I am sorry that you don't mind being rude or shitty about it. It is just plain disrespectful. Nobody has asked a retarded question. This has been as Dave said above (up to a point) a civil and respectful discussion.
I guess you don't feel like you have to respect those of us with different viewpoints than you and I find that sad. I have never been disrespectful to you and this is the treatment I get in return?
This is exactly what I mean when I say human beings in general are filth and that is the reason (not politics and not religion) why society is breaking down. It is because people are jerks and they don't care about anything or anyone but themselves. Any ideologies that people bring up are mostly just sound bites just to make themselves sound like a better person when in fact they are just jerks.
Post a Comment