Texas Town to Ban Christians From Christmas Parade

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think government, atheists and other non-Christians should be banned from celebrating Christmas, which is a religious celebration.

Its religious origins predate Christianity.

And midwinter and midsummer have long been considered to have been important for ancient agricultural communities.

[One Bad Pig]

Its religious origins predate Christianity.

Well, no.

And midwinter and midsummer have long been considered to have been important for ancient agricultural communities.

Christmas is merely close to the winter solstice, not on it. The builders of Stonehenge would have considered the date laughably imprecise.

[rogue06]

Its religious origins predate Christianity.

And midwinter and midsummer have long been considered to have been important for ancient agricultural communities.

So you finally ready to read my takedown of that false claim? Or are you going to yet again summarily dismiss it without reading it?

This will be your third opportunity and I'll even it post it here

In the 19th cent. everyone was sure that the Christians borrowed heavily from the pagans wrt to Christmas, even co-opting December 25th from pagan celebrations -- Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). But as time went on and scholarship improved it became increasingly apparent that most of the "borrowing" was going the other way. It was, far more often than not, the pagans who were incorporating Christian ideas and practices.

The Saturnalia festival was traditionally celebrated sometime between December 17th and 23rd. Christmas is on December 25th. If you're going to co-opt a holiday you generally don't want them taking place on different days. It kind of destroys the whole purpose

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire^[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th^[2] -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Back then it was assumed that truly great and righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He therefore, or so it was thought, must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

Likewise, this demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established in the middle of the 3rd cent. by a Roman emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

This clearly shows, that contrary to popular belief, that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around since Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day several decades prior to the Romans appropriating the day.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)^[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.





1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. See Irenaeus' (c.130 – c.202) Adversus Haereses for instance and Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) both of whom listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well, no.

Christmas is merely close to the winter solstice, not on it. The builders of Stonehenge would have considered the date laughably imprecise.

So you finally ready to read my takedown of that false claim? Or are you going to yet again summarily dismiss it without reading it?

This will be your third opportunity and I'll even it post it here

In the 19th cent. everyone was sure that the Christians borrowed heavily from the pagans wrt to Christmas, even co-opting December 25th from pagan celebrations -- Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). But as time went on and scholarship improved it became increasingly apparent that most of the "borrowing" was going the other way. It was, far more often than not, the pagans who were incorporating Christian ideas and practices.

The Saturnalia festival was traditionally celebrated sometime between December 17th and 23rd. Christmas is on December 25th. If you're going to co-opt a holiday you generally don't want them taking place on different days. It kind of destroys the whole purpose

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire^[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th^[2] -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Back then it was assumed that truly great and righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He therefore, or so it was thought, must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

Likewise, this demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established in the middle of the 3rd cent. by a Roman emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

This clearly shows, that contrary to popular belief, that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around since Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day several decades prior to the Romans appropriating the day.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)^[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.





1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. See Irenaeus' (c.130 – c.202) Adversus Haereses for instance and Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) both of whom listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

I suggest that one of you starts a new thread on this topic.

I have twice made that suggestion to rogue06 but he has never taken it up.

[One Bad Pig]

I suggest that one of you starts a new thread on this topic.

I have twice made that suggestion to rogue06 but he has never taken it up.

If you're so keen on discussing it, start a thread yourself.

[rogue06]

Its religious origins predate Christianity.

And midwinter and midsummer have long been considered to have been important for ancient agricultural communities.

Apparently you forgot that the Winter Solstice takes place between December 20th and 23rd. Now, what dates does Christmas fall on?

Pretty lousy job of co-opting someone else's festival if you miss it like that.

[Cerebrum123]

But doesn't that just make the point that what one culture sees as absolutely outside God's will wrt marriage can be seen as God's solution to a very difficult circumstamce by another.

What it really does is point out the inconsistency in your reading with regards to polygamy. Homosexual sex is denounced thoroughly and in the harshest terms whenever it is referenced in the Bible, polygamy is given the same treatment that divorce and slavery were. Technically allowed in the OT, but a lot of passages point to it being a bad thing, and not intended as part of the created order.

Most arguing against polygamy today in our culture will say it was never ok and was one of those things God 'winked at' before Christ came.

Those including yourself. But the full context of as to why our culture is that way now, is because people finally started to put the pieces together, just as they did with slavery. Slavery, polygamy, and divorce were all shown in a negative light.

i disagree. When we knowingly engage in risky behavior that has a strong potential to become a conduit of disease to someone else, especially someone we have promised to love and protect, it becomes immoral to the degree it constitutes negligence. This is of course one of those Grey areas where the magnitude of the danger does play a factor. But I think that at least with respect to heterosexual intercourse, there is also the issue of children formed by the union and what happens to them.

The former falls under "knowingly infecting someone else with a disease" to me. For many diseases you can spread them without knowing you have them, you risk getting them by merely going outside, etc. If you just go as vague as "risking getting someone else sick", then there goes most human activity.

True, anal sex comes at significantly increased risk. But in our world that is increasingly becoming common in heterosexual relationships as well, and i did read a study that said it is less than half of male same-sex couples do that. So in many ways the issue is narcissism and an overall focus on self and pleasure. Theoretically, setting up cultural boundaries that are safe and adhered to by both heterosexual and homo sexual marriages could go a long way to reducing both disease and the extreme sense loneliness that comes from meaningless sexual encounters outside a committed relationship.

Given the massive increase among heterosexual couples with regards to that I highly doubt it is "less than half" of male same sex couples engaging in it. Especially given how deceptive many "studies" regarding such issues are. Alfred Kinsey is just one of many who collected cherry picked "data" to support their conclusions, but somehow are still regarded as "scientists".

What you say is true, but again tends to point to sexual morality being highly dependent on culture and the frameworks set up to reduce disease and provide for the welfare and nurturing of children. There are overall good frameworks, and frameworks that tend to be disruptive. Historically, the best dynamic for all those things is a committed two parent heterosexual family. The children have role models for both sexes in that culture, they know who they are, where they came from, and are raise to function in that society in a responsible way. This is the ideal. But as we all know, children can be raised better in a less than ideal circumstance and come out better than those in the 'ideal' setting. It depends mostly on how much love and guidance is present in their family and the surrounding community.

I'm surprised you are even willing to admit this. Right now on the left it is verboten to bring any of this up, and if you do you are just a homophobic bigot. You are accused of oppressing people, of supporting "the patriarchy", "heteronormativity" and all sorts of other things. This includes the "affirming" Churches.

Your reading of the Bible comes from people who had an explicit intention in undermining the cultural framework of the West regarding sexual immorality. As such the reason to prohibit things like polygamy is lost in the process.

Yes, and excellant example of why the Christian community needs to remain focussed on being the light of love and grace and mercy in whatever comminuty they are in, whatever culture they find themselves in. The law always carries with it a curse. When we live as if under the law, we can easily become judgemental and hateful to others. But neither is grace license for sin. We are set free from the law so that we are then free to live in the light of Christ's love, not so that we can pursue selfish interests.

That's what I try to do, although admittedly I have fallen far short of that goal.

Finding out I have Autism, and what that means has been very eye opening. I've also been hyper focusing on psychology lately, and have learned a lot with regards to that as well. It's part of the reason I've been pushing back against some of the more hostile posts against people with Gender Dysphoria.

I agree - and it is similar sorts of reasoning that are used to justify a form of monogamous marriage with same-sex couples. I cant track with all of them, but some good points are made. David Gushee's 'changing our minds' is one book that is helpful at least in understanding some of that reasoning

The problem being that homosexual relationships were seen at minimum as bad as "porneia". It also goes against the foundations of what a marriage is, and what it was for. The reading can't be used consistently without throwing all of what is considered "sexual immorality" today out the window, and that is what we see happening more and more.

Again, this is taking the general principles of scripture to move beyond what scripture says or advocates for or against. And I don't think that is a bad thing, but it is not something one can do with a focus on strong literalism. Indeed, the southern Baptist denomination formed with the belief slavery was justified by, not condemned by, the Bible.

Most of the Abolitionist movement was also following a more literal reading of the Bible. It's quite easy to get an anti-slavery reading of the Bible within a literal reading, you just have to look at all of the Bible instead of cherry picking and read them in context. The groups that tried justifying slavery did so by flat out ignoring a lot of verses, and often had to intentionally twist them into false meanings such as the "Curse/Mark of Ham" being dark skin. Some of them even made their own Bible IIRC. Statements like yours above are very likely alienate people who would agree with you on many things. I take a much more literal reading than you as a YEC for example, and your hostility on any issue even remotely perceived to be like that is palpable.

I was thinking more of how Paul's writing about grace are problematic in terms of seeming to say we can just do anything we want. That has been an issue since he was alive. When he says 'all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable ...' that sort of thinking can both free us and create chaos in hearts not truly given over to Christ.

That's part of why we have verses like.

1 Timothy 2:12
But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

The statement you mention, taken out of context, alongside a female supremacist mystery cult led to women trying to domineer the church in that area. They were trying to claim that women were formed first, were more intelligent etc., and thus had the right to rule over men.

1 Timothy 2:¹³ For it was Adam who was first ^[a]created, and then Eve. ¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was ^[b]deceived and ^[c]became a wrongdoer. ¹⁵ But ^[d]women will be ^[e]preserved through ^[f]childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation.

He's pointing out that the actual account was different, and that Eve was deceived by the serpent. Which undermines what the cult in the area was teaching. He also points out that women do have something important men don't, the ability to give birth.

Agree 100%

I think it is across the board. But what I do see is that on the right, principle has been almost completely abandoned, wheras principle is still a significant part of what drives the left.

When people are driven by principle, the important thing is finding the right principles. But when people are simply given over to what is expedient, what serves their personal best interests in the moment, it is chaos.

Back to the "us vs. them" mentality. The leaders of the left don't have such principles, and the average person seems to be abandoning those more and more on the left in favor of tribalism hence stuff like Cancel Culture. The leaders run entirely on what they think will get them power, and allow them to keep it. Groups like the WEF, of whom people like Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and many other well known left wing politicians are members of, are actively trying to divide and polarize the West, as well as actively trying to spread despair and depression* among the populace at large. They are funding far right nut jobs because they think they will be easier to defeat in an election. That, among other things, is how Trump got elected in the first place.

The more you continue doing this, the more we are going to see polarization, division, and more people like Trump come to power as people go further and further to their "side". The more you ignore the nuance behind things like this, and the swinging of the pendulum, the more you will perpetuate it.

Agreed

Infiltrate, divide, and conquer has been the intent of elitists Marxists on the left(and some pretending to be on the right) for a long time. It's only going to get worse if people don't stand up for freedom, and right now much of the left only cares about freedom for protected classes, and among those only those that agree with them. The moment said groups disagree with left wing viewpoints you will hear the worst racist, sexist, and bigoted rhetoric hurled their way.

*It's not even something kept secret, they publish this kind of stuff publicly, but I don't think any major news outlet has ever reported on it.

[Cow Poke]

I suggest that one of you starts a new thread on this topic.

I have twice made that suggestion to rogue06 but he has never taken it up.

So, you're not the social influencer you wish to be?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you're so keen on discussing it, start a thread yourself.

I am not the one[s] trying to contend that prior to Christianity there were no religious celebrations on and around 25 December.

[Cow Poke]

I am not the one[s] trying to contend that prior to Christianity there were no religious celebrations on and around 25 December.

Wow, way to misrepresent what was said by one[s].

[One Bad Pig]

I am not the one[s] trying to contend that prior to Christianity there were no religious celebrations on and around 25 December.

You are the one trying to contend that Christmas has pagan antecedents. Others were contending otherwise in response to your initial assertion.

I also note that you are not accurately representing what others are trying to contend. As I recall, you get rather upset when people allegedly do that to you.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are the one trying to contend that Christmas has pagan antecedents.

Of course its date has non Christian antecedents. There were mid-winter festivals long before Christianity came along.

Originally the most important festival for Christians was Easter, yet in western [nominally Christian] societies today that celebration pales in comparison to Christmas.

[Cow Poke]

Of course its date has non Christian antecedents. There were mid-winter festivals long before Christianity came along.

Originally the most important festival for Christians was Easter, yet in western [nominally Christian] societies today that celebration pales in comparison to Christmas.

Feel free to move on to Halloween.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Feel free to move on to Halloween.

Again that time of the year is linked to non Christian and much older festivals.

Christianity not only suppressed old Celtic celebrations, but replaced them with Christian festivals. If we look closely, it is not difficult to see that All Souls’ Day (November 2nd) is a continuation in a Christian form of the older Pagan practices of Samhain. This is a time when on the continent Catholic families will visit the family tomb, say prayers for the dead, light candles and even picnic at the graveside. Just as their Pagan ancestors did, they are communing with the dead.[see R Hutton, Stations of the Sun, OUP, 1996]

[Cow Poke]

Again that time of the year is linked to non Christian and much older festivals.

Christianity not only suppressed old Celtic celebrations, but replaced them with Christian festivals. If we look closely, it is not difficult to see that All Souls’ Day (November 2nd) is a continuation in a Christian form of the older Pagan practices of Samhain. This is a time when on the continent Catholic families will visit the family tomb, say prayers for the dead, light candles and even picnic at the graveside. Just as their Pagan ancestors did, they are communing with the dead.[see R Hutton, Stations of the Sun, OUP, 1996]

Sill me! I should have added "in another thread".