Does Japan have a holiday similar to Christmas for non-Christians?

[Roger Triton]

And specifically, since I'm no expert on Shinto, is there such a holiday in the Shinto religion?
Topic.

[Zarode]

Yes, most Japanese celebrate Christmas incorrectly, too. As does most of the Western-touched world.

[Sinue_v2]

Christmas in Japan is pretty much a commercial holiday wherein some of the nobler secular portion of Christmas (peace on earth, goodwill towards men, etc) are paid lip service for the sake of boosting commerce.

You know, pretty much exactly like how it's celebrated in the West... except without Fox News throwing a shit-fit about local commerce saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" constituting a war on baby Jesus.

[yoshiblue]

Yet are fine with celebrating a "pagan" holiday that is Halloween and a few other holidays.

[Kent]

Christmas in Japan is pretty much a commercial holiday wherein some of the nobler secular portion of Christmas (peace on earth, goodwill towards men, etc) are paid lip service for the sake of boosting commerce.
It's funny how similar this is to the situation across all of the US, even in the redneck zealot states like Mississippi and Alabama, the commercial appeal of Saturnalia Christmas weighs roughly equally to its retrofitted religious signifigance.

Of course, this is probably related to the fact that, as far as the US Government is concerned, Christmas is a federal holiday, rather than one limited to a specific religious group.

[NoiseHERO]

What? what is all of this?

I thought xmas was a business holiday that was so awesome and overrated that everyone went to the party.

I just like the snow and pretty lights and the happy non-parent/guardian people.

Nobody cares about the actual story behind cool holidays anymore hohohoho... Thanks Giving probably has the worst anyway.

How Christmas spread to the rest of the world does pique my curiosity though...

[Sinue_v2]

Nobody cares about the actual story behind cool holidays anymore hohohoho... Thanks Giving probably has the worst anyway.

Well, if you're a Native American anyhow.


How Christmas spread to the rest of the world does pique my curiosity though...

I think the first time Christmas was spread to Japan, it was introduced by Portuguese Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries where it became wildly popular along with the faith that celebrated it. Then the Christians got a bit too rowdy amongst each other and decided to stage a rebellion over some little piddly shit like oppressive taxes and the occasional crucifixion. After which the Tokugawa Shogunate decided to deport Christmas along with the Christians en-mass.

A small contingency of underground Christians kept the celebrations alive (athough very quietly) until the Meiji Restoration. But nobody really gave a shit until post-WWII American occupation forces brought some good ole' American Christo-capitalistic Christmas festivities with them. Upon which the Japanese thought it was pretty cool happy fun time, stripped out the few remaining silly religious meanings, and continued on with it as an excuse to get drunk and eat holiday cakes.

Also, I heard that because of the annual KFC Christmas dinner meals, a lot of Japanese people carry the misconception that a fried chicken dinner is a traditional Western holiday meal. Which is kind of cool, since it's like the opposite of Jews in America going out for the traditional Christmas Chinese dinner.


BTW: Did you know that Shingō village in Aomori prefecture is the last resting place of Jesus? True story yo. Apparently Jesus came to Japan to gain enlightenment, then he went back to Judea to spread the awesomeness... until, that is, the joooze got all jealous at the massive amounts of weeaboos he was attracting and tried to have him killed. But his brother Isukiri dressed up like Jesus and got crucified in his place though. Jesus then absconded away back to Japan where he became a rice farmer, got married to a hot little piece named Yumiko, and started a family.

Jesus's descendants still live in the area, and as direct blood relation to Christ are, as you would expect, Buddhists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing%C5%8D,_Aomori

[Ark22]

Yes. Case closed. Now who wants a present?

[NoiseHERO]

I do.

AND JESUS IN ToKYO NEW ANIME NEXT YEAR. (Not really)

[Ark22]

ANIME JESUS!

[Kion]

Yet are fine with celebrating a "pagan" holiday that is Halloween and a few other holidays.

Lol. Halloween is a Christian Holiday. It was spread by the Romans who adopted pagan traditions into Christianity. Christmas is also that way.

As for Christmas in Japan, the tradition is to eat fried chicken. When I asked my coworker what was so special about fried chicken, he looked at me surprised and asked, "that isn't how you celebrate it in America!!!??".

[NoiseHERO]

he looked at me surprised and asked, "that isn't how you celebrate it in America!!!??".

YES!!!

[Split]

The Christmas holiday is Pagan, not religious, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's derived from Saturnalia, an ancient Roman festival where people used to celebrate the winter solstice (which is when Saturn becomes visible in the sky, hence the name) by drinking, sacrificing, giving each other gifts, and fucking each other. Not a joke.

My roommate is an exchange student from Japan, and celebrates it in spite of the arbitrary meaning Christianity attempted to impose on it (and in spite of his family not being of any particular religion). Hell, my family are atheists, and we still celebrate it.

[Zarode]

by drinking, sacrificing, and fucking each other. Not a joke.

Good to see nothing has changed.

[Sinue_v2]

Lol. Halloween is a Christian Holiday. It was spread by the Romans who adopted pagan traditions into Christianity. Christmas is also that way.

Halloween isn't, but All Saint's Day & All Souls Day (Nov 1 & 2) are. In the Eastern Orthodoxy, it was celebrated on the Sunday after the end of Pentacost to commemorate the martyrs. In the Western Orthodoxy it was celebrated in early May, until about 120 years after it's inception when Pope Gregory III moved the date to coincide with the Celtic festival of Samhain. Still, many of the traditions of Halloween have uniquely Christian roots. For example, Trick or Treat going back to the tradition of Prayer Cakes... which was kind of like unofficial indulgences using biscuits instead of money to garner prayers for your living and deceased loved ones.


The Christmas holiday is Pagan, not religious, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's derived from Saturnalia, an ancient Roman festival where people used to celebrate the winter solstice (which is when Saturn becomes visible in the sky, hence the name) by drinking, sacrificing, giving each other gifts, and fucking each other. Not a joke.

But does it really matter? Nobody aside from sporadic groups of kooks still celebrate Saturnalia (and they do it badly at that). While the history of your traditions and beliefs is important to know; symbols lose their meaning when you no longer recognize what those symbols are supposed to mean. They don't have some innate and objective meaning on their own, but only carry the meaning we give them by our beliefs about them. Transposing a new meaning over those symbols similarly overwrites their old meaning to the new form. There is nothing non-Christian about decorated trees and holly - provided Christians believe there is a Christian meaning to them.

So there is nothing pagan left about the modern traditions and iconography of Christmas. They are symbols of what Christmas has become - simutaniously a Christian and a Secular holiday.

[Ark22]

So I been celebrating it wrong this entire time?! Better get my swords, and a whoolllee lot of girls.

[Split]

But does it really matter? Nobody aside from sporadic groups of kooks still celebrate Saturnalia (and they do it badly at that). While the history of your traditions and beliefs is important to know; symbols lose their meaning when you no longer recognize what those symbols are supposed to mean. They don't have some innate and objective meaning on their own, but only carry the meaning we give them by our beliefs about them. Transposing a new meaning over those symbols similarly overwrites their old meaning to the new form. There is nothing non-Christian about decorated trees and holly - provided Christians believe there is a Christian meaning to them.

So there is nothing pagan left about the modern traditions and iconography of Christmas. They are symbols of what Christmas has become - simutaniously a Christian and a Secular holiday.People don't really celebrate "Saturnalia" and call it that, but that doesn't change the well-documented fact that Christmas is pagan in nature and roots.

I mean sure, if you're Christian and you want to say Christmas is the celebration of when Christ was born, far be it from me to stop you. I really don't care. But historically, factually speaking, Jesus was not born then, nor was he resurrected on Easter in a literal sense.

For Easter, the apostles who wrote the New Testament simply used the symbolism of the Spring Solstice to decide when, in their story that they were writing about a century after Jesus' death (in an age where historical documents were not made public/compiled as assiduously as they are today), Jesus would be resurrected - spring being the season where flowers grow, leaves sprout on trees, and life begins anew.

For Christmas, its Christian meaning was actually determined nearly three hundred years after Saturnalia's initial introduction to the people of Rome. In its latter days, Saturnalia had become so popular that it had grown from being a day long celebration to a week (long oneI think, it may have been longer than that). Rome had recently come under the rule of Christian leaders, and seeing that Saturnalia had no Christian meaning but not wanting to get rid of it because of its popularity, they officially declared that the final day of the celebration was Jesus' birthday as an excuse. His actual birth date is unknown except for educated guesses about the year.

Believe what you want, and interpret symbols how you want, it's still not going to change unequivocal truth, empirical data. This is not exactly obscure knowledge, either.

So all I'm saying is if you want to celebrate Christmas in the context of Christianity, that's fine, I don't care; however, if you aren't Christian and are an atheist/agnostic or don't belong to a religion that has a holiday at that time of the year, celebrating Christmas is completely acceptable because it is far more pagan in nature than not, once again despite the meaning that Christians (who are only 30% of the world and decreasing) impose upon it.

Therefore, to stay on topic, my Japanese-exchange roommate celebrates Christmas in spite of being secular. In fact, the holiday is nearly as heavily celebrated in Japan as it is in North America, but in a specifically secular manner because there are very, very few Christians there.

EDIT: @Ark22: Swords? :-o

[Retehi]

ANIME JESUS!



http://apocalypse-tribe.com/rdfox/kickassjesus2.jpg

[Sinue_v2]

People don't really celebrate "Saturnalia" and call it that, but that doesn't change the well-documented fact that Christmas is pagan in nature and roots.

But again, Christmas is not an artifact existing in objective reality. It is a collective belief, and as such it's meaning derives from the beliefs held about it. Whatever it's historic roots may be, if the current beliefs surrounding it's celebration and iconography do not reflect pagan belief, then it is not a pagan holiday.


But historically, factually speaking, Jesus was not born then, nor was he resurrected on Easter in a literal sense.

Factually and historically speaking, there is no evidence that Jesus even existed. There is only circumstantial evidence that a historical figure even existed, and everything beyond that is purely based on conjecture.


For Easter, the apostles who wrote the New Testament simply used the symbolism of the Spring Solstice to decide when, in their story that they were writing about a century after Jesus' death (in an age where historical documents were not made public/compiled as assiduously as they are today), Jesus would be resurrected - spring being the season where flowers grow, leaves sprout on trees, and life begins anew.

This is patently false, as Easter has only ever been an extension of the Paschal holiday... and the symbolism it's derived from comes not from "spring and rebirth", but from the slaughtering of the passover lamb. Jesus is often described as the "lamb" of god; the final and ultimate sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The reason why Easter is not celebrated on the same date as passover is because of the early Chruch's reluctance to place their celebration of Jesus's sacrifice based on a calendar system used by the Jews. Many of these early writings still exist, and you can read them for yourself. Constantine's letter to the absent bishops on the matter is positively dripping with anti-semitism.

No matter how you slice it, it originates and derives from Judaism, not Paganism.


Believe what you want, and interpret symbols how you want, it's still not going to change unequivocal truth, empirical data.

Though I would question the source of your emperical data, I still fail to see where establishing the historicity of a belief fundamentally changes the current expression of a modern belief.


however, if you aren't Christian and are an atheist/agnostic or don't belong to a religion that has a holiday at that time of the year, celebrating Christmas is completely acceptable because it is far more pagan in nature than not

This doesn't make much sense either, since if you're an Atheist/Agnostic, why would it then be acceptable to engage in pagan festivities which celebrate ancient gods? Why wouldn't it be just as acceptable to engage in a holiday celebrating currently worshiped gods? Isn't it all equally fictional? Further, this ignores the "Cultural Christians" - Atheists/Agnostics who don't believe in any of that stuff, but still attend Church and observe holy days for the community and culture generated.

Ironically, the word "Atheist" was popularized as a way to describe Christians who rejected the Hellenistic pantheons of Greece and Rome. It wouldn't take on it's current definition of rejecting claims about all gods until about the Age of Enlightenment. The idea that there are no gods of any sort didn't really exist until modern times... so by your reasoning, if you proclaim yourself to be an Atheist, does that mean you still believe in a god - but merely rejecting the popular local conceptions about God? Simply because that's the origin of the word? Or do you reject the root meaning and usage of the word in favor of the modern conventions?

How do our beliefs and conventions on modern vs. archaic usages of language differ from our beliefs and conventions invested in symbols vs. their archaic forms?


Anime Jesus!

Rofl, but it's not too far off. He's apparently the "Black King" in Hirano's Drifters, and he's a villain who is pissed off over being rejected by mankind, so now he's the savior of orcs and trolls and shit.

[spoiler-box]
http://i32.mangareader.net/drifters/20/drifters-2051795.jpg
http://i38.mangareader.net/drifters/12/drifters-1324994.jpg
http://i33.mangareader.net/drifters/12/drifters-1324995.jpg
Mmmm.... delicious sacrilege.
[/spoiler-box]

[Ark22]

http://apocalypse-tribe.com/rdfox/kickassjesus2.jpg

You just made my day. Was he in some type of game?

[NoiseHERO]

Guess it was too late for this?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmuurghZ6o1qeitya.jpg

[Split]

Caution: Essay-sized post incoming.


Though I would question the source of your emperical data, I still fail to see where establishing the historicity of a belief fundamentally changes the current expression of a modern belief. Oh, that is hilarious. Remember that time you tried to leverage my spelling against me in an argument, and not only was spelling completely irrelevant to the argument but your spelling was incorrect? And you didn't check to make sure you were right even though you're on the internet and stuff and there is a bright red underline under "emperical" even as I type it right now? I quoted it above in case you forgot, and just FYI my source is my theology professor, who's currently wrapping up one of the two 300-level religion electives I'm taking this semester, called RTS336: Christianity in Dialog w/ World Religions.


But again, Christmas is not an artifact existing in objective reality. It is a collective belief, and as such it's meaning derives from the beliefs held about it. Whatever it's historic roots may be, if the current beliefs surrounding it's celebration and iconography do not reflect pagan belief, then it is not a pagan holiday.I think I was a bit unclear in using the term 'Christmas' in my post, because I didn't want to sound like an asshole and replace it with 'Xmas' everywhere the way some schools are starting to replace gender specific words and pronouns with...less gender specific ones. Judging from my first paragraph in this post, though, I guess I don't care about sounding like an asshole anymore :razz:. Basically, when I say "Christmas is pagan in nature and roots," the simplest way to put it is that I'm referring to 'Xmas' the widely celebrated secular holiday (the one that Japan commercially celebrates nearly as aggressively as the U.S. does); what you're referring to (and understandably thought I was referring to as well, since I used the same term) is 'Christmas,' the construct that Christians have built up around 'Xmas' what was originally a celebration of the Winter Solstice. I already told you the origin story, that really is empirical data. Yes, lots of symbolism (and iconography, as you say) has formed around this Christian construct over the years, but that stuff does not relate to 'Xmas,' the winter solstice celebration that millions of people who either wish to remain secular or don't belong to a religion with a holiday at that time of the year observe. Also, speaking of iconography, most of Christmas' iconography (aside from nativity scenes) actually is Pagan. The word 'Yule,' (as in 'Yuletide') originally referred to the Pagan winter holiday, and Christmas trees were once referred to as 'Yule trees.'

Here's a good analogy for what I'm talking about: imagine Coca Cola. It already exists. It's popular. It tastes good (some people think, myself included, not that it fucking matters). Now imagine that the Catholic Church steals its recipe from the company, starts making Coca Cola themselves, and begins to put it in cans covered in religious imagery and adorned with a logo that reads "Christ Pop" or something like that, and that gets mass-produced. People drink it and say "Hey, this tastes exactly like Coca Cola!" because it is. Sure, the "iconography" has changed; it's got a new can, a new name that doesn't even have the words Coke, Coca, Cola, or any derivatives of them in it, and even a new manufacturer. HOWEVER, it is still Coca Cola, the soda, even if it is not Coca Cola, the brand name.


Factually and historically speaking, there is no evidence that Jesus even existed. There is only circumstantial evidence that a historical figure even existed, and everything beyond that is purely based on conjecture.Ummm...and if there is no evidence that he existed, there is therefore certainly no evidence that he was born on Christmas or literally resurrected on Easter, which is what I said. Not sure why you felt the need to tell me this.




This is patently false, as Easter has only ever been an extension of the Paschal holiday... and the symbolism it's derived from comes not from "spring and rebirth", but from the slaughtering of the passover lamb. Jesus is often described as the "lamb" of god; the final and ultimate sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The reason why Easter is not celebrated on the same date as passover is because of the early Chruch's reluctance to place their celebration of Jesus's sacrifice based on a calendar system used by the Jews. Many of these early writings still exist, and you can read them for yourself. Constantine's letter to the absent bishops on the matter is positively dripping with anti-semitism.

No matter how you slice it, it originates and derives from Judaism, not Paganism.Hold the phone! Did I say that Easter was Pagan? No! I said that Christmas was Pagan. When I was talking about Easter, I was comparing the way Jesus' resurrection became associated with it in the New Testament with the way his birth became associated with Christmas. Nowhere did I say it has Pagan origins, because I know full well it doesn't; and as for the symbolism, yes, the slaughtering of the Passover Lamb symbolizes his sacrifice, but the Spring Solstice and the idea of rebirth symbolizes his resurrection. Two different things. We're both correct about them.




This doesn't make much sense either, since if you're an Atheist/Agnostic, why would it then be acceptable to engage in pagan festivities which celebrate ancient gods? Why wouldn't it be just as acceptable to engage in a holiday celebrating currently worshiped gods? Isn't it all equally fictional? Further, this ignores the "Cultural Christians" - Atheists/Agnostics who don't believe in any of that stuff, but still attend Church and observe holy days for the community and culture generated.

Ironically, the word "Atheist" was popularized as a way to describe Christians who rejected the Hellenistic pantheons of Greece and Rome. It wouldn't take on it's current definition of rejecting claims about all gods until about the Age of Enlightenment. The idea that there are no gods of any sort didn't really exist until modern times... so by your reasoning, if you proclaim yourself to be an Atheist, does that mean you still believe in a god - but merely rejecting the popular local conceptions about God? Simply because that's the origin of the word? Or do you reject the root meaning and usage of the word in favor of the modern conventions?

How do our beliefs and conventions on modern vs. archaic usages of language differ from our beliefs and conventions invested in symbols vs. their archaic forms?It makes more sense than Christianity! Zing!!

...sorry...

Anyway, here is the fundamental difference. The Pagan celebration is of the Winter Solstice; for Rome, the planet Saturn, whom they revered as a god, appears in the sky then. They see their God climb into the sky and change the season to winter, and they celebrate it by boozing it up, sodomizing each other, and giving each other gifts, which I mention in anticipation of the flawed argument that the spirit of giving is some sort of Christian-only virtue that only relates to Christmas. Anyway, this still makes mechanical sense; the only difference is that now we know that Saturn isn't a god that we should be making sacrifices to, but a planet, and its appearance is not causal to the Winter Solstice, but merely coincides with it (I don't think it even does appear in the sky of East Coast U.S.A., where I currently am, but I could be wrong about that). It's ultimately a celebration of autumn giving way to winter, we just now know that this change is caused by various meteorological and astronomical factors; I don't see how it isn't, as I said, "perfectly acceptable" to observe a secular holiday that celebrates this change and the spirit of giving, based on the original and widely popular existing holiday that also celebrates those things. Makes perfect sense to me...

And the term Atheist makes just as much sense there as it does applied to me. The real story is that the Hellenists called the Christians atheists and the Christians called the Hellenists atheists. Each believed the other's 'god' was completely made up, which therefore would mean that the one with the made-up god actually has no god at all. The one with the made-up god is "without god," which is the literal Greek meaning of the word 'atheist.' The Christians believed the Hellenists were "without" god then, and they would surely believe I, who reject their God along with any other god, am one-hundred percent without god. One hundred percent 'atheist.' The actual meaning of the word has never actually changed, so it is very much dissimilar to what we're talking about.

And so, with everything I have just now said, I unwaveringly stand by my original statement:


The Christmas holiday is Pagan, not religious, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

And no, this is not anti-religion hate speech, and I sincerely hope no one takes it as such. I admit I have a habit of being blunt when I'm trying to make a forceful point, but I'm not a militant atheist who goes around trying to get people to give up their religion, because those people are no better than missionaries. However, I believe very firmly in fact, and I will therefore never shy away from expressing fact, especially when it is contested.

[Mike]

In Japan, Jesus and Budha eat cake together.

http://www.pso-world.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1789&pictureid=23958

Sure beats what the cake does in Soviet Russia.

[NoiseHERO]

I haven't had cake in a while.. I could go for some cake.

[Kent]

http://apocalypse-tribe.com/rdfox/kickassjesus2.jpg
Jesus confirmed for DFO Priest class evolution.

[ShadowDragon28]

I'm not an atheist, but as an Eccletic Wiccan Neo-Pagan for 16 years, I 100% agree with Split's post on the subject matters he speaks on in this thread. I celebrate Yule/the Winter Solstice and also participae in a qausi-secular "Christmas" celebration with family.

[Sinue_v2]

Oh, that is hilarious. Remember that time you tried to leverage my spelling against me in an argument, and not only was spelling completely irrelevant to the argument but your spelling was incorrect?

No, I can't say that I do. Usually I don't bang on somebody over spelling errors unless their post is unintelligible. I don't make a habit of it using it as a way to try to wrangle the upper hand in an discussion.


and just FYI my source is my theology professor, who's currently wrapping up one of the two 300-level religion electives I'm taking this semester, called RTS336: Christianity in Dialog w/ World Religions.

That's nice, but unless you can cite a source which anybody can investigate on their own, it doesn't really help an argument.


I think I was a bit unclear in using the term 'Christmas' in my post, because I didn't want to sound like an asshole and replace it with 'Xmas' everywhere the way some schools are starting to replace gender specific words and pronouns with...less gender specific ones.

It wouldn't matter. The usage of "X" in Xmas is not a secular attempt at making the word more friendly for non-Christians anyhow. X (or Xp) has been used as shorthand for Χριστος (Christ) for over a thousand years. It's no more offensive or "PC" than "ΙΧΘΥΣ" which commonly accompanies the Jesus fishes.


I already told you the origin story, that really is empirical data.

No, or at least, I don't think you provided a satisfactory link. So far as I can tell, the earliest attempts to link Christmas to the pagan festival of Saturnalia come from Isaac Newton (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16878/16878-h/16878-h.htm). However, the first written record of commentary on the birth of Christ coinciding with the winter solstice comes from 2nd century bishop Cyprian (De pasch. Comp.", xix). However, even up until the writings of Tertullian there is no mention that I've found of feasts or festivities.

It seems that, rather than trying to absorb pagan festivities into their tradition in an effort to keep people from sliding back into paganism, the early Church was trying to do exactly the opposite. By the time of Theodosius I at the end of the fourth century, paganism in the Hellenistic world was being exterminated and citizens forcibly converted to Christianity. So it seems unlikely that the Church would have tried to co-opt the various winter solstice traditions at that point.


Yes, lots of symbolism (and iconography, as you say) has formed around this Christian construct over the years

But most of that stuff was introduced and popularized fairly recently. At least since the late Renaissance and Enlightenment onward.


Also, speaking of iconography, most of Christmas' iconography (aside from nativity scenes) actually is Pagan. The word 'Yule,' (as in 'Yuletide') originally referred to the Pagan winter holiday, and Christmas trees were once referred to as 'Yule trees.'

Yes, the Yule season was originally a reference to the Germanic and Scandinavian winter celebrations. However, I still don't see where this fact indicates a modern worshiping (or even presence of mind) of the divine Matrones.


Here's a good analogy for what I'm talking about: imagine Coca Cola. It already exists. It's popular. It tastes good (some people think, myself included, not that it fucking matters). Now imagine that the Catholic Church steals its recipe from the company.

Your analogy is flawed. Coca-Cola exists in objective reality, beliefs and the meaning behind symbols do not. This is the crux of the main point I'm trying to get across.


Hold the phone! Did I say that Easter was Pagan? No! I said that Christmas was Pagan. When I was talking about Easter, I was comparing the way Jesus' resurrection became associated with it in the New Testament with the way his birth became associated with Christmas.

You minimized it as post-hoc revisionism of the resurrection story to fit with local pagan conceptions about spring and rebirth. So, yeah, you did.


but the Spring Solstice and the idea of rebirth symbolizes his resurrection. Two different things. We're both correct about them.

The resurrection of Christ has more to do with reinforcing the idea of attaining everlasting life by following Christ's example, a return to the state of paradise prior to the fall - because it was not until Adam & Eve ate of the fruit that they became mortal and knew death. To Jews at the time, when you died, you simply went to the grave. Further, it was an insult and defeat to have your messiah crucified and put to death. There were many Jewish messiahs around this time who were put to death, many of whom were far more popular than Jesus, and upon their death - people stopped believing in them as messiahs. (Menahem ben Judah, Simon of Peraea, Simon bar Kokhba, etc) The reason why Christ's tale "survived" is because of the resurrection which provided a slippery "He's no really dead; He got better!" excuse.


Anyway, here is the fundamental difference. The Pagan celebration is of the Winter Solstice; for Rome, the planet Saturn, whom they revered as a god, appears in the sky then. They see their God climb into the sky and change the season to winter, and they celebrate it by boozing it up, sodomizing each other, and giving each other gifts, which I mention in anticipation of the flawed argument that the spirit of giving is some sort of Christian-only virtue that only relates to Christmas.

This still ignores the fact that Christians didn't celebrate "Christmas" until several centuries after the supposed events. There wasn't even a widely agreed upon date (Dec 25) for Christ's birth until John Chrysostom in 386. Before that, dates for Christ's birth ranged from May through January in our modern calendars depending on your local church. By this time, dies natalis solis invicti (which was also on Dec 25) was more of an influence on early Christmas celebrations than Saturnalia.


I don't see how it isn't, as I said, "perfectly acceptable" to observe a secular holiday that celebrates this change and the spirit of giving, based on the original and widely popular existing holiday that also celebrates those things. Makes perfect sense to me...

It is perfectly acceptable for a secularist to celebrate a secular holiday, regardless of it's roots. It doesn't make any sense for a secularist to celebrate a pagan holiday.


And the term Atheist makes just as much sense there as it does applied to me. The real story is that the Hellenists called the Christians atheists and the Christians called the Hellenists atheists. Each believed the other's 'god' was completely made up, which therefore would mean that the one with the made-up god actually has no god at all. The one with the made-up god is "without god," which is the literal Greek meaning of the word 'atheist.' The Christians believed the Hellenists were "without" god then, and they would surely believe I, who reject their God along with any other god, am one-hundred percent without god. One hundred percent 'atheist.' The actual meaning of the word has never actually changed, so it is very much dissimilar to what we're talking about.

But this ignores the context in which it was used. Both the Hellenists and the Christians understood that the others worshiped different gods than they. To believe in no gods at all, as is currently the usage, never entered into people's minds. Belief in other "false" gods =/= Belief in no gods. Yes, you would have still been considered an Atheist by the Christians and Hellenists... but modern day Christians and Hellenists no longer consider each other Atheists, because the the definition has changed and narrowed. The old definition no longer sufficiently describes your position.

-------------------

Lastly, it seems futile to me to argue for paganistic roots to Christianities holy days due to the fragility of symbols and meaning which change and evolve over time to represent completely different (and at times even opposite) propositions. A more fruitful criticism of pagan influence on Christianity (and by extension it's holy days) would come from critiquing the influence of (for example) Neoplatonism, which has been woven into the early theological arguments. Unlike the transitory nature of symbols, fixtures like the Trinity have become established as doctrinal law, and are integral to most modern forms of formal worship.

[Angelo]

Discussing religion on a gaming forum?

Wow, wonder what direction this could have gone.

[Split]

No, I can't say that I do. Usually I don't bang on somebody over spelling errors unless their post is unintelligible. I don't make a habit of it using it as a way to try to wrangle the upper hand in an discussion.Oh, you don't? Because I do. Here, let me quote it again.


Though I would question the source of your emperical data, I still fail to see where establishing the historicity of a belief fundamentally changes the current expression of a modern belief.There it is. Does that jog your memory?


That's nice, but unless you can cite a source which anybody can investigate on their own, it doesn't really help an argument.Look it up yourself asshole, I've got two research papers due before my Thanksgiving break, I'm not about to sit here and MLA cite my fucking PSO-World posts. Also, where are your citations, if you're gonna be the one playing that card?!


It wouldn't matter. The usage of "X" in Xmas is not a secular attempt at making the word more friendly for non-Christians anyhow. X (or Xp) has been used as shorthand for Χριστος (Christ) for over a thousand years. It's no more offensive or "PC" than "ΙΧΘΥΣ" which commonly accompanies the Jesus fishes.Once again, you choose a small, inconsequential semantic and try and use it as leverage! The idea was that I was trying to differentiate between the term 'Christmas' and 'a secular winter solstice celebration,' without having to type out 'a secular winter solstice celebration' every time. While I admittedly didn't know the origin of the term 'Xmas,' that doesn't matter, because in this case the term was used as a placeholder for 'a secular winter solstice celebration,' the way 'Pi' is used as a placeholder for '3.14087356076137624987556341etc.' You had to have known what I meant in that argument.


But most of that stuff was introduced and popularized fairly recently. At least since the late Renaissance and Enlightenment onward.They still are not necessarily relevant to Christianity. That's the whole point.


Yes, the Yule season was originally a reference to the Germanic and Scandinavian winter celebrations. However, I still don't see where this fact indicates a modern worshiping (or even presence of mind) of the divine Matrones.We're not talking about Matrones or Matres! Once again, the point I was trying to get across was that these symbols do not belong to Christianity, or really any other religion, therefore it is justified to use them in a secular setting. Which people do, alllll the time.


Your analogy is flawed. Coca-Cola exists in objective reality, beliefs and the meaning behind symbols do not. This is the crux of the main point I'm trying to get across.No, that's exactly why the analogy is perfect!!! The soda itself is objectively the same, no matter what beliefs or symbols (which are represented by the Catholic Church's re-branding and re-naming of it) you dress it up with. Those beliefs and symbols represent Christmas in the analogy.

Can't you see that we're agreeing here? We're both saying that Christmas is an alternate meaning imposed by Christianity (a minority of the world's population) upon an already existing celebration of the Winter Solstice.


You minimized it as post-hoc revisionism of the resurrection story to fit with local pagan conceptions about spring and rebirth. So, yeah, you did.Um, no, I didn't! I said that's the reasoning THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT had for choosing the Spring Solstice to be the time when Jesus was resurrected. Were Matthew and Mark Pagan? I don't believe they were. You're definitely not fully reading my posts.


The resurrection of Christ has more to do with reinforcing the idea of attaining everlasting life by following Christ's example, a return to the state of paradise prior to the fall - because it was not until Adam & Eve ate of the fruit that they became mortal and knew death etc. etc. etc.This is all completely inconsequential to the argument! I'm not speaking to what his resurrection symbolized! I'm simply saying that the writers of the New Testament, who didn't actually know when/if Jesus was resurrected or even, as we've established, when/if he existed at all but who had nonetheless been commissioned to write a holy book, decided the beginning of spring would be a fitting date for a resurrection (because of spring's symbolism, not the symbolism of the resurrection itself), and wrote it into the bible. This is all that I was saying, and I'm not wrong about it.




This still ignores the fact that Christians didn't celebrate "Christmas" until several centuries after the supposed events. There wasn't even a widely agreed upon date (Dec 25) for Christ's birth until John Chrysostom in 386. Before that, dates for Christ's birth ranged from May through January in our modern calendars depending on your local church. By this time, dies natalis solis invicti (which was also on Dec 25) was more of an influence on early Christmas celebrations than Saturnalia.Don't bullshit me here. Saturnalia was given religious context in 4 C.E. when the Christian government of Rome couldn't quell the popularity of the holiday enough to eliminate it, but also wanted it to have Christian significance, so they declared that the last day of the celebration, which goes from Dec. 17-25, was the birthday of Jesus Christ. You really want a source for this?

Section II, letter D on this site: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

"The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday."

Also, apple+F (or ctrl F, or whatever) the quote written below on this site: http://thetruthandlight.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/saturnalia-the-real-roots-of-christmas/

The problem was that there was nothing in relation to Christianity concerning Saturnalia. To remedy this, these so called Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th to be Jesus’ birthday.

So yeah...you're wrong. Saturnalia officially took on religious meaning in the year 4 C.E., end of story.


It is perfectly acceptable for a secularist to celebrate a secular holiday, regardless of it's roots. It doesn't make any sense for a secularist to celebrate a pagan holiday.For the last goddamn time, as an Atheist, I AM NOT CELEBRATING SATURNALIA!! I literally said this in the part of my post that you quoted! I said:


I don't see how it isn't, as I said, "perfectly acceptable" to observe a secular holiday that celebrates this change and the spirit of giving, based on the original and widely popular existing holiday that also celebrates those things. Makes perfect sense to me...And you're trying to say I'm celebrating a Pagan holiday, right after you say that it's perfectly acceptable for "a secularist to celebrate a secular holiday, regardless of its roots." Well guess what? That's exactly what I celebrate! That's exactly what most of Japan celebrates, including my native Japanese roommate (which is what this thread was about in the first place). It's a secular celebration of the winter solstice, with roots in Saturnalia, just like Christmas is a religious celebration of the winter solstice, with roots in Saturnalia.


But this ignores the context in which it was used. Both the Hellenists and the Christians understood that the others worshiped different gods than they. To believe in no gods at all, as is currently the usage, never entered into people's minds. Belief in other "false" gods =/= Belief in no gods. Yes, you would have still been considered an Atheist by the Christians and Hellenists... but modern day Christians and Hellenists no longer consider each other Atheists, because the the definition has changed and narrowed. The old definition no longer sufficiently describes your position.The use of the word was meant to imply the other party's god doesn't exist, not that said party doesn't "believe" in that god. The idea was that Christians believed Hellenists (and vice versa) were worshiping a god that did not actually exist, and that they were therefore "without god" which was the literal definition of the word "atheist." In not believing in any god whatsoever, I'd say that I, also, am pretty "without god," wouldn't you?


Lastly, it seems futile to me to argue for paganistic roots to Christianities holy daysStop right there. We are talking about one holiday. Singular. We're talking about Christmas. Easter has no pagan roots at all, and at no point did I argue that it does. Okay, continue.


due to the fragility of symbols and meaning which change and evolve over time to represent completely different (and at times even opposite) propositions. A more fruitful criticism of pagan influence on Christianity (and by extension it's holy days) would come from critiquing the influence of (for example) Neoplatonism, which has been woven into the early theological arguments. Unlike the transitory nature of symbols, fixtures like the Trinity have become established as doctrinal law, and are integral to most modern forms of formal worship.Okay, you are arguing against the world here. The evidence that Christmas is firmly rooted in the ancient Pagan celebration of the winter solstice is overwhelming. There is nothing futile about arguing this; it is established fact, and that's all there is to it! Bringing Neoplatonic philosophy into this discussion is vastly over-complicating things.

Seriously, I'm done with this. If you won't be convinced by what appears to be pure, unadulterated common sense, can we please just agree to disagree or something? Or at the very least wait till my uni's Hell Week is over?

[Retehi]

oh dear

[ShadowDragon28]

FYI there are roughly about a million to two million modern day pagans across the world.
I am one of them, and we all celebrate our respective Winter Solstice time, and many DO honor/revere/worship goddesses and gods of whatever our respective pantheon is; FYI.

BTW, Please don't dismiss my and all other modern day pagans like we don't frakkin' exsist, because we do.

[Kion]

Oh rite. Actually getting back on topic. Replying to the OP, for Japan there's the emperors birthday which is on December 23. I guess that counts as Shinto. There's not much fanfare as far as I know, it's pretty much just a day off to kick-start winter holiday.

Christmas is celebrated as a commercial holiday here. Since only about 1% of the population or less is actually Christian (i do run into a ton of Mormons over her though) damn you church of latter day saints, I move to the other side of the world and you still annoy me, so it' mostly a holiday adopted from American media. More than family gifts are pretty much exchanged casually between friends. But Japan does go all out with lighting displays in Shinjuku and Tokyo Disney Land.

The focus is generally on New Years. Again Shinto-wise there's the culture of going to a shrine and "praying" for a good new year. Also end of year parties for companies are pretty common. I work at a bar here, it gets damn busy. We'll get 4-5 groups of 30 people or so stumble in with out reservations. Also business make packages of "lucky bags" where they put random items into bags and sell them for less than the value of what they cost. It's a deal because you can buy a bunch, take what you like and sell the rest on ebay.

Edit: And as far as any pagan versus Christianity stuff. Christianity is polytheistic. The other gods were edited out of the religion and everythign was credited to one supreme being. That's why the Jewdeo-Christian god suffers from a ton of personalty disorders.

[Sinue_v2]

There it is. Does that jog your memory?

No, but that's also not the intention I had in mind. It wasn't a jab at your spelling, it was meant to indicate that I had doubts as to accuracy of the source of your data. Most people find secondary and tertiary sources acceptable, whereas I tend to find fault in sources which aren't primary. Sometimes primary sources aren't available, and that's fine, but the certainty to which an assertion is made should at least scale inversely to the degree from which your source is removed from primacy.

Sorry for the miscommunication.


Also, where are your citations, if you're gonna be the one playing that card?!

While admittedly, my posts haven't been fully annotated, I have provided some links (where available) and source material.


While I admittedly didn't know the origin of the term 'Xmas,' that doesn't matter, because in this case the term was used as a placeholder for 'a secular winter solstice celebration,' the way 'Pi' is used as a placeholder for '3.14087356076137624987556341etc.' You had to have known what I meant in that argument.

Actually, I was more concerned with you calling me on my own argument from tradition, since (in America at least) the usage of "X" as shorthand for Christ has become seen more and more in the last few decades as a secular removal of Christ. As per my argument, the historical meaning of the term is secondary (and ancillary) to it's current meaning in popular use. The meaning has changed, you were most likely in the right to avoid it's usage.

I don't think you still really get the point I'm trying to make here.


They still are not necessarily relevant to Christianity. That's the whole point.

They are relevant if Christianity/Christians deem them relevant. That's the point.


We're not talking about Matrones or Matres! Once again, the point I was trying to get across was that these symbols do not belong to Christianity, or really any other religion, therefore it is justified to use them in a secular setting. Which people do, alllll the time.

Why is it justified to use pagan symbols in secular settings, simply because Christianity does not claim origin over them? Why would it be unjustified to use Christian symbols in secular settings? Are the Red Cross and Red Crescent any less secular humanist organizations because they use Christian and Islamic icons as their logos?


No, that's exactly why the analogy is perfect!!! The soda itself is objectively the same, no matter what beliefs or symbols (which are represented by the Catholic Church's re-branding and re-naming of it) you dress it up with. Those beliefs and symbols represent Christmas in the analogy.

Traditions and the meaning behind them do not exist in objective reality. We make them up. They are figments of our imagination. Once we stop believing in them, or start believing different things about them, they disappear or change. A better analogy would be the Catholic Church stealing the Coca-Cola logo and rebranding it as a Christian icon... then letting it go through about two millenia worth of revision and integration. Then coming back two thousand years later and claiming that it's anything but a Christian icon.


Um, no, I didn't! I said that's the reasoning THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT had for choosing the Spring Solstice to be the time when Jesus was resurrected. Were Matthew and Mark Pagan? I don't believe they were. You're definitely not fully reading my posts.

No, you're just suggesting that Matthew and Mark were using pagan ideas and conceptions. But that's obviously not the case since the reason for the dating of the crucifixion and resurrection were determined by the date of the Jewish passover. The early Christians were Jewish. Secondly, we don't even know who authored the Gospels, but it's certainly not the actual apostles. There is no way of knowing what their actual intentions were when writing them, aside from what is evident by their origin and contents. (Matthew writing for a more Jewish community putting much greater emphasis on creating parallels between Jesus and Moses, John originating in a predominantly Gentile community is loaded with anti-semitism, etc)

And this also ignores the fact that there are over 30 gospels - many of which are radically different than the Cannonic/Synoptic gospels which made it into the New Testament.


but who had nonetheless been commissioned to write a holy book, decided the beginning of spring would be a fitting date for a resurrection (because of spring's symbolism, not the symbolism of the resurrection itself), and wrote it into the bible. This is all that I was saying, and I'm not wrong about it.

Yes, you are. You're arguing for a conspiracy/collusion among the writers of the bible, and you're not even apparently aware (or not factoring in) how the Bible was even written and put together. The BIBLE as we know it wasn't even fully canonized until centuries after the first ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325.


Don't bullshit me here. Saturnalia was given religious context in 4 C.E. when the Christian government of Rome couldn't quell the popularity of the holiday enough to eliminate it, but also wanted it to have Christian significance, so they declared that the last day of the celebration, which goes from Dec. 17-25, was the birthday of Jesus Christ. You really want a source for this?

So, you're using blogs as your source material?

4th century Archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom (whom I already mentioned) wrote in his del Solst. Et Æquin "Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris. Sed et Invicti Natalem appelant. Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster? Vel quod dicant Solis esse natalem, ipse est Sol iustitiæ." Or "But the month of December and our lord is born. But appelant Natalis and unconquered. Who so invincible unless of course, my lord? Or that they say to be the Sun's birthday, he is the Sun of justice."

But even before that, before a solid date of Dec 25. was agreed upon, other church fathers like (whom I already mentioned) 3rd century Bishop Cyprian had independently arrived at a date of Dec 25 to celebrate Christ's birth. He writes in "De pasch. Comp, Vol. xix" - "O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol, nasceretur Christus." or, "Oh, how excellently that providence which he was born that day is the sun, the Christ should be born."

(Translations from Latin by Google Translate.)

Furthermore, even the Holy See in Rome admits that it was Dies Natalis Solis Invicti which Christmas supplanted, with no mention of Saturnalia.

"In Christianity Christmas party took a definite form in the fourth century, when it took the place of the Roman feast of "Sol Invictus," the invincible sun and emphasized that the birth of Christ is the victory of the true light on the darkness of evil and sin." ~ Pope Benedict XVI Wednesday December 23, 2009. (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20091223_sp.html&ei=1xnDTqCQLYq62wXy9-nTDg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20091223_sp.html%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1263%26 bih%3D641%26prmd%3Dimvns)

Further, Saturnalia apparently did not overlap the date of Dec. 25. It was typically a week long festival starting Dec. 17 and ending Dec. 23.

"In the Julian calendar, the Saturnalia took place on Dec. 17; it was preceded by the Consualia (Dec. 15) and followed by the Opalia (Dec. 19). The celebrations typically lasted for a week (Dec. 17-23), ending just before the (late imperial) festival for Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun) on Dec. 25." ~ http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Saturnalia.html

And lastly, there is already good substantive evidence that early Christians were already incorporating aspects of the Solar mystery cults into their religion as early as the 3rd century. Take, for example, the Christ as "Apollo-Helios" mosaic discovered in the catacombs below St. Peter's Basilica.
[spoiler-box]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/ChristAsSol.jpg
[/spoiler-box]

However, it wasn't until the 4th century that we find the first concrete evidence of the feast of Sol Invictus on Dec 25th, via the Chronography of 354.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chronography_of_354_06_calendar.htm
(Scroll to the bottom of the page and note that on day 25 you find "N·INVICTI·CM·XXX", with N denoting a birthday (natalis) - and INVICTI denoting "The Unconquered", or Sol.

However, that's all in objection to a claim that is altogether ancillary to my main point.


For the last goddamn time, as an Atheist, I AM NOT CELEBRATING SATURNALIA!!

No more than Christians who decorate trees, put candles in the window, and exchange gifts are. If you are not celebrating a pagan holiday, why do you insist that their celebration of it is?


Bringing Neoplatonic philosophy into this discussion is vastly over-complicating things.

But Neoplatonic philosophy is the only thing which still ties current Christian beliefs and practices to actual pagan ideals and beliefs. The symbols are just decorative tinsel, and can be rearranged, adapted, and even dropped out altogether with no real harm to the holiday. Mistletoe, Yule Logs, Wreaths, Trees, Presents... that's all cheesecake. Doctrinal law isn't, and it forms the very core of the religion. What is the point of celebrating Christ's birth if he were only the "Son of Man" (as he apparently claimed) who only ever did things any of us could do (were we to have even the faith of a mustard seed) - and not the only begotten "Son of God" who preformed miracles and offered salvation that we alone could not attain? But then you run into the problem of polytheism in a strictly monotheistic religion. Pagan philosophy and Neoplatonism offered a (very bad) solution... and it has to stay intact or else the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

This is part of why there is no hint of Christmas in Islam, despite the fact that they revere Jesus as the Messiah just like Christians do.


Seriously, I'm done with this.

If you want. I don't see this exchange as an argument or a pissing match, so if you do and are annoyed by it, then by all means you're free to discontinue it. If you want to pick it up at a later date, just let me know.

I just want to close on the note that what a lot of people think is common sense, is really just common knowledge, and common knowledge is most often wrong to very startling degrees of error. If you want to convince me, you're going to need more than "Just-So-Stories". I am a skeptic, and my skepticism doesn't end at the satisfaction of my prejudices. I don't buy stories of Pagan survivalism over two millenia without evidence of a continuity of tradition. It can't just be dropped a century or two after and then revived over a thousand years later in a radically different form.

What the evidence indicates to me is that yes, ancient festivals like Saturnalia and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti were probably incorporated into early Christian observances - not as an overt action by the church to squelch a pagan holiday, but as a bottom up (as is often the case) adoption of local customs by converts and missionaries alike. Customs that were weeded out over time. Later, similar, customs were developed either on their own with unique Christian reasoning, or from far distant observers of history during the Renaissance/Enlightenment who had no real connection or knowledge of their original meaning - and gave them uniquely Christian raison d'être. And their connection to Paganism reinforced, or invented out of whole cloth as a form of propaganda, by pious reformers like the Puritans who wanted to abolish the holiday and what they saw that it was becoming. This is perhaps why you only start seeing major polemic works denouncing Christmas as pagan in the 15th century onward... usually by members of reformation denominations.

From this vantagepoint, Christmas does not appear to be in any manner a pagan holiday, even though you can see traces of pagan ancestry.


BTW, Please don't dismiss my and all other modern day pagans like we don't frakkin' exsist, because we do.

I don't deny that modern day Neopagans exist, but they are hardly relevant to the current world religious spectrum. Perhaps slightly moreso than Deists (which I am), Shakers, Zoroastrians, and followers of the Urantia book. Many of who are good people, and the ones I've met I have a lot of respect for (particularly Zoroastrians). But they don't have any real influence on culture and beliefs, and generally are only important to know about in relation to history. So yeah, I tend to speak of them in the past-tense.

The only Pagans I have a problem with are some of the "plastic shamans" that have sprouted up in the 60's and in the reverberating wake of the counter-culture revolution we're still experiencing today. Those who have a very shallow spirituality rooted more in attention grabbing, rebellion against societal norms, and personal profit. I am not suggesting you are one of these, hell I don't even know you, but Neopaganism as a whole has been infested with this breed of narcissistic asshattery in the past few decades... and I have to admit, it does make it harder for me to take self-proclaimed Pagans as seriously as some of them deserve to be treated.

I also have some issues/questions regarding the historicity of Wicca and it's connection to classical paganism via the Witch-Cult Hypothesis... but that's a discussion best saved for another thread or PMs.

[ShadowDragon28]

I go by what Professor Ronald Hutton wrote in his book "Triumph of the Moon" ( http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryOther/HistoryofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780192854490 ).

I highly doubt there was ever any "witch cult". I know Wicca (and any of it's variants) are **Not** "thousands of years old" with some unbroken lineage going back thousands of years. Such is ususally the belief of hardline "British Tradtionalist Wicca" and a few other Traditions.

I know where Wicca/Wica came from and how it was developed.
But that doesn't change it's signifigance to me spiritually, no more that the awesomeness of the Universe and nature itself is to me.
I don't buy into the plastic dumbed down crap of what i refer to as "neo wicca" or "fluffy bunny shit" from many of the authors currently published by Lllwellen(sp?). I'm a pragamatic pantheist ecclectic Wiccan, and i don't follow shit blindly.

Anyways, I'm not going to argue your other points, because it's just not worth my time and energy. Because, your opinion is just like, your opinion, man.

[Sinue_v2]

I go by what Professor Ronald Hutton wrote in his book "Triumph of the Moon" ( http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryOther/HistoryofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780192854490 ).

Well, a quick search on Wikipedia turns up no real significant academic objections to his work, and Google Scholar has an impressive list of his papers with respectable citations. I might check that book out at a later date, since it seems worth the time to read.

I'm just not too keen on trudging through reams of speculation and unfounded assertions by this guy:

[spoiler-box]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Fuzzypeg_mad_in_temple.jpg[/spoiler-box]


I know where Wicca/Wica came from and how it was developed. But that doesn't change it's signifigance to me spiritually, no more that the awesomeness of the Universe and nature itself is to me.

And that's perfectly fine. I really have no qualms with whatever form of worship one wants to partake in, and the antiquity/modernity of the practice is really of no consequence. I only really have a problem with people who treat their religion as if were an article of clothing, to be shown off in public and then changed/modified with the popular fashions.

That doesn't seem to be the issue here so far as I can tell. You seem to have looked into it, saw it for what it was, and still accepted it warts and all for your own reasons. At least to me, that indicates an authenticity and sincerity in belief, which I have no issues with.

-------------------------------------------

Also, on the topic of this thread:

Merii Kurisumasu!; メリークリスマス!

http://news.3yen.com/wp-content/images/japanese_christmas_card_engrishimg_assist_custom.j pg