EUOLogy #16

[EUOL]

Reference to the article:

http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=935

[House of Mustard]

What you forget, EUOL, is that the commercial insanity is relatively new to Christmas.  The holiday IS about the birth of Christ, and recently (relatively) that became commercialized.

I don't see why we should remove the primary purpose to make room for the secondary purpose.  No matter people's current reasons for celebrating Christmas, it IS a religious holiday.  I don't see why religion should run and hide from secularism.

If I was having a quiet party with friends, and a bunch of drunk guys came and crashed it, who should be asked to leave?

[EUOL]

Because that's the Christian way, HoM.  Turn the other cheek.

Plus, Christmas has always been a secular holiday.  It's the celebration of the winter Solstice, a day of feasting--and that was the medieval equivalent of our commercialism.  Christians moved THEIR holiday on top of already-established secular holidays.  I say let them have it back.  

Christmas is not a religious holiday.  It has religious roots, but so does Halloween.   The holiday is what most people consider it, and the majority of the time, energy, thoughts, and intentions are centered around things unrelated to the birth of Christ.  

[MsFish]

Christmas is a commercial holiday.  It is also the time of year when lots of people actually give to charity, stop to think about the needs of others before their own, and spend time with family.  Not everyone does these things at Christmas; some people do these things throughtout the year.  Yet, there's alot more of these things going on at Christmas than any other time of the year.  I don't think that's a bad way to celebrate Christ's birth, and I also think it means that the holiday hasn't gone entirely commercial.  That is yet to come, I am sure.  

I'm not saying that commercialization is the way to celebrate Christ's birth.  Nor am I saying that we necessarily celebrate Christ's birth the way he would want us to, lest I be accused of that.  I am saying that I think there are more ways to celebrate the birth of the savior than "solemnity and piousness."  I mean really.  There is a place for quiet, solemn worship, and then there is a place for having some fun and making some noise and both things when done at the appropriate time and place can be forms of worship.  

Is this the kind of stir you were looking for?

And where is my Roy picture?

[42]

I kind of agree with Stacer that solemnity and piousness may not be the way to celebrate something.

Though I agree that in English speaking coutnries, Christmas is very commercialized. Though, it is a religious event for those practitioners of the Gospel of Wealth.

It seemed to me, that when I was in Portugal, things were less commercial there at that time. Course gifts were still given, but it was a huge day for churches. Particularly the Catholic Church. In case you didn't know, Portugal isn't too far away from being a complete theocracy (more so than Utah ever will be).

[MsFish]

*Fish wonders if she sounds like Stacer

[Fellfrosch]

I think the root of this rant is aimed more at whiners than at Christians, so it's hard to get offended (unless you're the type of person who whines about people forgetting the "true meaning of Christmas," I guess). The two meanings of Christmas seem to coexist just fine, and most Christian churches I'm aware of have "better" ceremonies at Easter anyway (more sermons on the mission of Christ, with less pomp and fewer musical numbers). It's when you try to blend the pagan/commercial elements of Christmas with the Christian elements that really ticks me off--you know that poem/essay thing about a teary-eyed Santa beggin you to "teach the children" that the various Christmas staples like mistletoe and evergreen trees and ribbons and bows are actually Christian symbols? That makes me want to punch people.

The thing is, for me, celebrating the birth of Christ is, while not actually silly, kind of...extraneous. Being born was one of the simplest, least-impressive things Christ ever did, and throwing Him a birthday party every year is both respectful and beside the point. Compare the "meaning" of his birth to the "meaning" of his death and resurrection, and you start to feel pretty embarrased that we make such a big deal out of Christmas while letting Easter pretty much slip by unnoticed. I see no reason to stop celebrating Christ's birth on Christmas, but nor do I see any reason to make a really huge deal out of it.

Christmas is, primarily, a convenient opportunity for families to get together and corporations to contribute to charities. I'm cool with that.

[Prometheus]

Fellfrosch seems fairly accurate here. I don't think we should go about excising references to Christ from Christmas because however it started and whatever it has become, it's there and it's a good thing. At the same time, Christmas isn't (or shouldn't be) the ultimate holiday of the Christian faith, and the commercialization of it isn't the worst thing that's ever happened.

[stacer]

/me wonders if Fish was channeling her while she was chasing nephews on Christmas Eve.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Ah, but the birth has a lot of significane, Fell. I've wondered where our priorities have been when we make a much bigger deal out of Christmas than we do Easter for several years now. (note that Easter is ALSO moved to a formerly pagan holiday, so if you're going to level that charge at Christmas, don't say we should turn to Easter instead)

But when I look at the great spiritual leaders who also make this big deal out of Christmas (the conference center and tabernacle are decorated, for example, on Christmas but not so much for Easter), and I recognize the spirit that is felt among the fairthful, and the general goodwill that comes out, I can't think that making a big deal out of Christmas is a bad thing. After all, the birth of Christ was celebrated by choirs of angels appearing in the sky and singing. There's no such equivelent for the resurrection. Thing is, the birth of Christ was a confirmation that the promises made to the spiritual for thousands of years were finally being fulfilled.

I agree, the resurrection/atonement directly affects me much more closely, but there's no problem with celebrating his birth, since the reason we do is because he's the one who made those things happen.

On the other hand, I don't have the big problem with the whole commercial hoopla. It makes a lot of people feel good and it's good for the economy. Who can begrudge that?

I do dislike that poem/essay thing too, fell, but rather than make me violent, it makes me laugh. It's funny the efforts people go through to legitimize their position.

[Mistress of Darkness]

I think it is better that the "hoopla" celebrate Christ's birth, rather than his death.  There is something morbid about colored lights and carols to celebrate the fact that the Son of God suffered agony beyond reckoning for the children of men, and then was put to death by the will of his own people. Christ's resurection and atonement was very important, but I'm just as glad that our "Winter Festival" aspects of the holidays fall around Christmas, Christ's birth, the fulfillment of thousands of years of prophecies, rather than His death.