Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?

Originally posted by trevor33
they will aways celebrate chrismass - is it right? well it really depends on the way its celebrated. quite dinner with family who excange few gifts, go to church and pray for the birth of the son of their god - then i think thats ok but if its just an excuse to drink, eat a lot and receive gifts from others - then no (also they should stop the stanta crap)

I got hammered on egg nog last year, but I dedicated every one of 'em to our great savior, Jesus, so it's all good.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You obviously do not understand the ways of the true Christian. Through the action of the Holy Spirit, the true Christian knows exactly how to interpret those sections of the Good Book that merely ostensibly present problems for him. For example, when God says in Leviticus that we ought to put gay persons, adulterers, and sassy children to death, you do ...[text shortened]... slated in true-Christianese as 'God loves a cheerful giver and a good strong cup of eggnog'.

I think there is a theorem somewhere that goes as follows:

Theorem
While being a True Christian does not necessarily imply that one always knows the right way to interpret a difficult passage, not being a True Christian necessarily implies that one always misinterprets a difficult passage.

The theorem above allows for two True Christians to disagree and supports the fact that non-True Christians always distort, lie, or read out of context when interpreting the Bible.

The proof goes something like this

Proof
For any one of your Biblical arguments, your argument is wrong. You are a not a True Christian. Every non-True Christian is the same (all lying heathens). Therefore every non-True Christian's Biblical argument is wrong.

There is also a corallary that is very useful in practice.

Corallary
A True Christian's interpretation of a difficult passage is always more correct than the interpratation of one who is not a True Christian.

The proof of the corallary follows the proof of the Theorem.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Everything else we put into that holiday is just
human trappings.

Ahh but the point is that the "everything else" that you refer to are not just human trappings that we just happened to have put in there but are in fact pre-Christian ("Heathen"😉 folk customs and holidays that have survived long after the conversion of Europe. It was Christianity that was "put in".

Originally posted by telerion
I think there is a theorem somewhere that goes as follows:

Theorem
While being a True Christian does not necessarily imply that one always knows the right way to interpret a difficult passage, not being a True Christian necessarily implies that one always misinterprets a difficult passage.

The theorem above allows for two True Christi ...[text shortened]... e who is not a True Christian.

The proof of the corallary follows the proof of the Theorem.

True Christian

I beat ya to registering True Christians®; so unless ya wanna face a law suit, ya'll have to use another term. 😛

Originally posted by LemonJello
You obviously do not understand the ways of the true Christian. Through the action of the Holy Spirit, the true Christian knows exactly how to interpret those sections of the Good Book that merely ostensibly present problems for him. For example, when God says in Leviticus that we ought to put gay persons, adulterers, and sassy children to death, you do ...[text shortened]... slated in true-Christianese as 'God loves a cheerful giver and a good strong cup of eggnog'.

You really are insisting on characterising Christians as if they're Old Testament Jews, aren't you?

If you want to read a Bible passage, try Acts 10:9-16. Then come back here and tell me again why I'm supposed to follow every obscure law in Leviticus to the letter.

Originally posted by orfeo
You really are insisting on characterising Christians as if they're Old Testament Jews, aren't you?

If you want to read a Bible passage, try Acts 10:9-16. Then come back here and tell me again why I'm supposed to follow every obscure law in Leviticus to the letter.

Matthew 5:17-18

If you're going to adopt completely arbitrary belief systems, at least try to make them internally consistent.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Matthew 5:17-18

If you're going to adopt completely arbitrary belief systems, at least try to make them internally consistent.

There is no inconsistency. If you read the rest of the New Testament, you would discover that because Jesus fulfilled the Law, I am free from it.

Off the top of my head Romans, Galatians and Hebrews would probably be good starting points.

Originally posted by orfeo
There is no inconsistency. If you read the rest of the New Testament, you would discover that because Jesus [b]fulfilled the Law, I am free from it.

Off the top of my head Romans, Galatians and Hebrews would probably be good starting points.[/b]

Exactly! And this is one reason why your God is such a schmuck. What did Jesus do? He mandated that us sinners do not throw the stones -- we do not fulfill the law. Nevertheless, the law is fulfilled down to the last tittle -- God fulfills it. So, the gay persons, the adulterers, the sassy children -- they will all get their comeupance straight from the hands of God. So you still have plenty of internal inconsistency to deal with -- in particular, your God is purportedly good and loving, and yet He is clearly morally repugnant and hateful. The nonsense about contingent absolution from punishment if one spouts some arbitrary incantations and does the hokey pokey is irrelevant BS -- God holds a gun to your head and gives you an ultimatum. There's really no way around it Orfeo: as Twain said, your God is a 'malign thug'.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Exactly! And this is one reason why your God is such a schmuck. What did Jesus do? He mandated that us sinners do not throw the stones -- we do not fulfill the law. Nevertheless, the law [b]is fulfilled down to the last tittle -- God fulfills it. So, the gay persons, the adulterers, the sassy children -- they will all get their comeupance straigh ...[text shortened]... ltimatum. There's really no way around it Orfeo: as Twain said, your God is a 'malign thug'.[/b]

We're getting onto all sorts of new topics here. Suffice to say you appear to be asserting that, assuming for the purposes of argument there ARE laws established by God:

- God should not enforce them
- people created by God are entitled to tell HIM what the rules should be, ie God's morality is incorrect and yours is correct.

I'm reminded of a story that was related in the General forum of a person who, rather than seeking to have a traffic ticket set aside because of the circumstances, simply refused to pay the ticket and decided unilaterally that it shouldn't have been issued. She ended up in jail.

Do you think the judge was a malign thug in that situation?

You, as part of the creation, don't get to decide what the rules are and whether you face consequences for breaching them. The creator makes those decisions. The loving part is where he provided an opportunity to ask for mercy.

All of this presupposes that God actually exists, of course. But if he does exist, then the position you're presenting is very odd. Yes, God presents an 'ultimatum' if you like. He's in charge, so it's his job. What's so offensive about that?

If you decide to refuse to recognise his authority and secede, do you think that will help? Declaring your own independent principality and issuing homemade stamps and passports is all very amusing, but I think you'll find the legal systems of most countries take a dim view of that sort of thing. Why should God be any different?

Originally posted by orfeo
We're getting onto all sorts of new topics here. Suffice to say you appear to be asserting that, assuming for the purposes of argument there ARE laws established by God:

- God should not enforce them
- people created by God are entitled to tell HIM what the rules should be, ie God's morality is incorrect and yours is correct.

I'm reminded of a story th t countries take a dim view of that sort of thing. Why should God be any different?

You, as part of the creation, don't get to decide what the rules are and whether you face consequences for breaching them. The creator makes those decisions.

Absolutely wrong. We're talking here about morality. Go read the Euthyphro Dilemma. This is the source of your misconception. And this misconception is why you are willing to dance for God whenever He commandeth. Educate yourself on this matter, and foster some self-respect. As a moral agent, I ought to do what is right. Contrary to your misconceptions, this is not determined merely through fiat. It might well be the case that I have no choice concerning the consequences that God will inflict based on his arbitrarily established rules -- that is completely beside the point.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]You, as part of the creation, don't get to decide what the rules are and whether you face consequences for breaching them. The creator makes those decisions.

Absolutely wrong. We're talking here about morality. Go read the Euthyphro Dilemma. This is the source of your misconception. And this misconception is why you are willing to dance for ...[text shortened]... ill inflict based on his arbitrarily established rules -- that is completely beside the point.[/b]

Define 'right' - it is SUCH a value laden idea.

I've read the dilemma on a couple of sites. Looks to me like Thomas Aquinas was onto something.

What is a person to do when they believe a law is wrong? There are two competing ideas. One is adherence to the rule of law and a belief in lawful authority. The other is a personal assessment of whether a law is correct or not.

A person who believes a law (whether God's or anyone else's) to be WRONG can place greater value on adherence to the rule of law, and continue to obey the law they believe to be wrong while seeking to get the law changed.

Or, they can place greater value on their sense that the law is wrong, and choose to disobey the law, embarking on a campaign of civil disobedience. They will of course be aware that they are likely to be punished for this, unless and until the law in question is changed.

Either option could be viewed as 'right', depending on which idea you value more highly.

I am not blindly willing to dance for God. I make and remake the choice. The same way that I choose each morning whether or not to obey the speed limit, even on the stretch of road where I think it has been set too low. Every now and then, I choose to disobey the speed limit. Don't be silly enough to think I am some blind automaton who doesn't struggle with obeying!

You are perfectly free to place more value on your own assessment of the goodness of the law. All I am saying is that - assuming God exists - I think your choice is mad given the stakes.

Yes, when God puts a gun to both our heads, you will be able to hold your head high, your sense of pride intact, as you are led to your punishment for civil disobedience. And I will be shamed and humbled and a 'coward'.

And I will be alive, and you will be dead.

Which of us is right?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]True Christian

I beat ya to registering True Christians®; so unless ya wanna face a law suit, ya'll have to use another term. 😛[/b]

Oh if only I knew how to make that cool trademark symbol. 🙁

Originally posted by aspviper666
http://www.sovereigngrace.net/should.htm

I came across this as I was trying to find a biblical reference to the Christmas tree.I am not sure if this was discussed here before and I am interested to hear the comments from Christains here and non Christians also.
I think the author makes a good arguement for not celebrating Christmas for Christians.
...[text shortened]... y are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities"
(Jer. 10:2-4, 8).

All should cekebrate this great day. He who was born of a virgin on Dec 25 and arose into the heavens while still alive. His immortal quote, "Unless you eat of My flesh and drink of My bloof you will not be with Me in the next world ", can be found on a wall at the Vatican ftom ancient times.
I am speaking of the great God Mithras.
The Vatican sits on the site of a Mithran temple.
You silly, silly Christians are the holiday stealing heathens.

Originally posted by orfeo
Define 'right' - it is SUCH a value laden idea.

I've read the dilemma on a couple of sites. Looks to me like Thomas Aquinas was onto something.

What is a person to do when they believe a law is wrong? There are two competing ideas. One is adherence to the rule of law and a belief in lawful authority. The other is a personal assessment of whether a la ...[text shortened]... nd a 'coward'.

And I will be alive, and you will be dead.

Which of us is right?

So, God thrusts existence on a bunch of unwitting minds. Then he stipulates that these minds love and glorify Him; else they will be tossed in a lake of fire. And you don't see any problems here? First, playing by such a set of arbitrarily determined rules may be fine if the players involved give assent; I don't know about you, but I never agreed to be subjected to God's selfish, stupid ultimatum. Second, this primary commandment/punishment scheme would only be just and fair if some conditions are satisfied. For instance, if loving and glorifying God were a necessary condition for the avoidance of committing some act; and further if by committing this act the agent is morally deserving of such torment and punishment. But this is clearly not satisfied. In fact, whether or not I love/glorify God is completely irrelevant with respect to the moral permissibility of any act I may commit. Further, I have never seen any argument that demonstrates that one may be morally deserving of eternal punishment. Maybe it's not eternal torture; maybe He just kills you quickly in accordance with His morally arbitrary commandment. Either way, it's clear that your God is a classic example of an oppressor.

The problem if He exists is that He is an omnipotent oppressor. Regardless of how unjust His methods, we don't have any chance of overthrowing Him. So now, you're saying that perhaps it is right to abide by His arbitrary commandments in light of the certain consequences. Basically, in Braveheart you think it would have been better for William Wallace to have kissed the royal emblem and spared himself from being gutted and decapitated. One problem is that I simply don't see how I could ever actually fulfill God's selfish commandment; how could I ever display genuine love for such a megalomaniac (this being, after all, the greatest commandment -- that we love Him without reservation)? I could fake it, but how could I hope to outwit an all-knowing being? If you are actually able to delude yourself into the state of possessing genuine love for this God, then that is the dance you dance for Him. Personally I think it's pathetic. And this reeks of a Pascal's Wager type mindset, which is just an incredibly sad way to build beliefs -- basically an epistemic abomination.

If some creator exists and I happened upon Him, I would probably thank Him for my existence, which I rather enjoy. Then I would get on, in accordance with the best ways I know how, with this existence he thrust on me. That does not include deluding myself into a state of love for Him. Maybe He and I could get to know each other better and He could charm me, woo me, and give me good reasons for loving Him. Otherwise, my best attempts at living by standards I view as correct (which have absolutely nothing to do with God or any sort of relationship with God) will have to suffice.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Otherwise, my best attempts at living by standards I view as correct (which have absolutely nothing to do with God or any sort of relationship with God) will have to suffice.

Nice. Epistemic abomination, indeed.