Well said, Jitka. You get an honorary Best Debator & Forum Fambly Award from me.
| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Christmas: A stolen holiday? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6406 |
Page 2 of 6 |
| Author: | DeathlyPallor [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Admittingly so, but generally in typed debate, it's good to be short and sweet with them, then follow them up with the hardcore facts. Let's face it, a lot of people won't want to read something that long on a forum. I read it, though. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Look, what we know as "Christmas" was derived from Pagan tradition and whether or not you put your religion into it doesn't change anything. When you celebrate Christmas you may celebrate the birth of Christ but you celebrate Pagan traditions aswell. Since different gods were honoured around the Winter Solstice it's not inappropriate to worship yours. But never claim Christmas as a Christian holidy unless you throw out your tree, mistletoe, Yule log, and refuse to send or recieve any gifts. I mean, what do the majority of Christians really think of at Christmas? |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We think of giving gifts because gift-giving is a reminder of God's gift to the world: His Son! |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IantheGecko wrote: We think of giving gifts because gift-giving is a reminder of God's gift to the world: His Son!
No, you think of giving gifts because Christmas is an insitution celebrated by people of varying religions and cultures which includes the concept of giving gifts. Unless you go all Ultimate Marvel on the world's history, you really have to be realistic with these things. |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's just rude; I was just trying to get back on topic, but nooooo! |
|
| Author: | Einoo T. Spork [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IantheGecko wrote: That's just rude; I was just trying to get back on topic, but nooooo!
I agree. Rose, I agree with you oftentimes, but you are one angry, angry person. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Einoo T. Spork wrote: IantheGecko wrote: That's just rude; I was just trying to get back on topic, but nooooo! I agree. Rose, I agree with you oftentimes, but you are one angry, angry person. I wonder why... |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wonder why you were nominated for Best Debator. Rose, do you have to see the bad side of everything? What void in your life are you filling with being angry at people? Now, I suppose you have no problem with Halloween. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IantheGecko wrote: I wonder why you were nominated for Best Debator. Because of the fact that I go up against an overwhemling majority of people who can't get their facts straight let alone present a reasonable argument; throwing a fit when I point out the flaws in their reasoning, often totally alone in my efforts? Plus, I don't like when people take things I've said and turn them back on me without little regard for what they mean.. It's stupid and old and makes you look silly and incapable. Quote: Rose, do you have to see the bad side of everything? What void in your life are you filling with being angry at people? I see the bad side of bad things. Quote: Now, I suppose you have no problem with Halloween.
You mean Samhain? |
|
| Author: | Trev-MUN [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Christmas Rose wrote: Because of the fact that I go up against an overwhemling majority of people who can't get their facts straight let alone present a reasonable argument; throwing a fit when I point out the flaws in their reasoning, often totally alone in my efforts?
You still haven't gone through my post, looked at the facts I researched, and contested them. You have only done so on the concept of the Christmas tree and nothing else. You'll also note I didn't "throw a fit" in response to your reply. Not that I wasn't really happy with your implication that I'm intolerant to pagans just by questioning the belief that Christmas is lifted wholesale from pagans. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: You still haven't gone through my post, looked at the facts I researched, and contested them. You have only done so on the concept of the Christmas tree and nothing else. Quite frankly, there wasn't enough worth in that post to bother replying. Redo it in a much shorter fashion, trimming out the fat. Then I'll reply to it. From what you're saying now though, I personally think you're far too illusioned to set straight on this matter. Quote: You'll also note I didn't "throw a fit" in response to your reply. That's because I didn't tear it apart point by point for once. Quote: Not that I wasn't really happy with your implication that I'm intolerant to pagans just by questioning the belief that Christmas is lifted wholesale from pagans.
Well, I'm not very happy about it being lifted wholesale from pagans and then having someone defend it even though just about every resource online says you're wrong. |
|
| Author: | lahimatoa [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quite frankly, there wasn't enough worth in that post to bother replying. Redo it in a much shorter fashion, trimming out the fat. Then I'll reply to it.
Weak weak weak. If you recall, you did the exact same thing to my Michael Moore post. Seems to me that if someone makes a strong, well-researched post you can't "rip apart", you dismiss it offhand as "not worth replying to". Pathetic. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lahimatoa wrote: Quote: Quite frankly, there wasn't enough worth in that post to bother replying. Redo it in a much shorter fashion, trimming out the fat. Then I'll reply to it. Weak weak weak. If you recall, you did the exact same thing to my Michael Moore post. Seems to me that if someone makes a strong, well-researched post you can't "rip apart", you dismiss it offhand as "not worth replying to". Pathetic. The last word describes, down to a T, your very existence on these boards. I love how wonderfully selective your... everything is. I do indeed tear apart 90% of all long, tedious posts, but I have my limits. The Michael Moore post was because I simply didn't respect your methods enough to engage in debate with you. And no, your methods aren't on an equal level to mine. Your insistance to push everything up alongisde everyone else's better efforts(Trev-Mun included) is proof enough that you're compensating for something. While I may be angry, I still have respect for the people of this board elsewhere, and I don't troll everything up like you do. If you presented yourself in a more reasonable manner instead of an annoying little thing that takes everyone else's arguments and uses them against them in the most irritating manner possible, I might respect you. Until then, I'm strongly thinking of ignoring all future posts made by you. Nobody really likes you, anyway. At least I have a personality. |
|
| Author: | Trev-MUN [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: That's because I didn't tear it apart point by point for once. Uh-huh. Take a look at this thread a bit closer and say that again with a straight face. The purpose of this thread was to find out the truth and hard evidence as far as what I see widely claimed about Christmas. That means I wanted to see people bring forth more information that would either support or dismantle what I had researched. I didn't get much of that. Several posts which complained of its length and detail, and conclusions that such detail (as you've just said) is "mere fat" and that I'm terrible at debating for doing so, or that the entire thread is completely faulty in its reasoning without even giving it a good look to support that stance. Yet ... let's see ... you posted that bit from Religious Tolerance.org and, if you saw my response, I didn't throw a fit. I looked through the website and saw it interesting. It helps to support the idea that the Christmas tree is lifted from pagan traditions, but it also goes to list so many differing cultures who did so, and for different reasons. Oh, and the deal with Cobalt, presenting the concept as far as Mithraism and Christianity being connected, or at least Christians being inspired by Mithraism ... not JUST the celebration of Christmas, really, though he did focus on common concepts for that, on top of Gregory I. Yet, I didn't go sit in the corner and weep over that. I contest his points and I'm going to post a spinoff thread to debate the whole deal with Mithraism and Christianity at a later date, but still. Did I cry over his presenting a challenge to my findings? No. What's driven me batty, in reality, were the attacks on my character--claims I'm an egoist, I "debate dirty," that I'm intolerant of pagans, and so on. Quote: Well, I'm not very happy about it being lifted wholesale from pagans and then having someone defend it even though just about every resource online says you're wrong.
One of the major sources for my research was Wikipedia, and I confirmed a lot of what I was researching through it. I also quoted Wikipedia several times in that opening thread. If the rest of the internet says I'm wrong, Wikipedia must be a pretty faulty resource, even though it's an open-source dictionary patrolled for vandalism and bad information. I mean, Cobalt used it to bust me on one such item. But then, you haven't even really presented a point by point rebuttal of my findings. You've only made any sort of attempt at doing so over the Christmas tree. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you want me to go through your points, shorten it. I don't feel like breaking the Quote system and I really think there's a lot of stuff you don't need there. Part of being a good debater is being able to put across concise points that people can relate to. Christian sites, btw, don't count because they are biased compared to the sites showing otherwise, as it's very doubtful that those sites are run by Pagans, but it's pretty obvious who Christian sites are going to be run by. It's pretty hard to find specific resources because of all the Christian "rebuttals" which are more in number than the original and all of them missing the point entirely, but there are some interesting ones; " Alexander Hislop confirms this, adding: That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin. " http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/christmas2.shtml And that appears to even be coming from a Christian resources, which is interesting. http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm http://paganwiccan.about.com/cs/aboutyu ... anxmas.htm http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/christmas.asp Provide plenty of information. Here are (apparently) both Christian and Pagan says on the matter: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p235.html http://www.denofheathens.com/2004_nov.html Sine you refuse to cut down your original post, I don't think it's too much to ask you to skim through these. But honestly, you're looking for every opportunity for me to slip up so you can declare a nice little victory, rather than dealing with content itself, desptie the hefty amount(quantity over quality) you provided. Quite frankly rubbish like this - "Also, Constantine's conversion happened around 313 AD--and early Christians had already taken stock in the concept of Jesus's birthday being December 25. For me, that is more than enough to sink Misty's ship. BATTLESHIP--SUNK! " makes it even more difficult to bear. Not only do most of your Wikipedia quotes contain irrelevant evidence which doesn't really contradict anything I've said, they're pretty hard to read through when you can't turn your ego down a notch. But most of your argument seems to be based on the fact that people decided the birth of christ around the 300s originally; err, you do realise that these pagan traditions long predate Christianity? They weren't "alongside" it. Plus, whatever reasons are down on paper do not necessarily represent intent. You claim that Christianity took nothing from pagan celebrations and that everything else is "too similiar to be anything but coincidence", which is dirty, filthy rubbish, as I'm sure you'll see when you read the above resources. Even the opening paragraph on Wikipedia on Christmas tends to go in my favour - "Christmas is a holiday observed in much of the world on 25 December (or on 7 January in most Eastern Orthodox Churches). It is celebrated by most Christians to mark the birth of Jesus, although in the U.S and Europe it has slowly become more of a secular holiday. Jesus is believed to have been born around the period of 1 BC, in Bethlehem, Jerusalem in an old stable alongside his mother Mary and her husband Joseph. Quote: Most Christmas traditions originated with pre-Christian observances that were syncretized into Christianity. Examples of this process are the Roman Saturnalia, the northern European Yule, and the Winter Solstice celebration found in many older as well as recent pagan celebrations. Christmas is also a significant secular holiday celebrated by many non-Christian people."
There you haven't. Not some, most, and they were indeed lifted and not just ridiculously impossible coincidences as you seem to want to believe. |
|
| Author: | lahimatoa [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rose wrote: If you presented yourself in a more reasonable manner instead of an annoying little thing that takes everyone else's arguments and uses them against them... You mean like this? Rose wrote: The last word describes, down to a T, your very existence on these boards. Hypocrite. Rose wrote: I love how wonderfully selective your... everything is. No idea what you're talking about here. Trying being more vague. Rose wrote: And no, your methods aren't on an equal level to mine. I should hope not. Mine are vastly superior. Rose wrote: I still have respect for the people of this board elsewhere, and I don't troll everything up like you do. Respect. Interesting thing, isn't it? Rose whatever wrote: So your "Opinion" is wrong. Suck it and deal with people that are different to you. Rose wrote: If you presented yourself in a more reasonable manner... By this, you mean "in a way that I agree with..." I don't find that very tolerant of you. But that's okay. You're free to discriminate any way you choose. 3rd Grade Rose wrote: Nobody really likes you, anyway. At least I have a personality.
Wait, how old are you again? "No one likes you... people like me!" is something that sounds like it would come from an insecure pre-teen. In conclusion, I'll let you know when I care about being universally liked. Also, I know you avoid topics you can't win by arguing against, whether you'd admit it or not. And that's good enough for me. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Will you please just go away? I don't like anyone who thinks that provided retorts 1/4 of the length of what he's quoting constitutes a proper "reply". If you want to see why I'm avoiding arguing with you, read over your own posts and it's obvious. Quite simply, I really, really, don't like you. You seem to set out entirely to frustrate me and never bring a single thing to a debate. So get lost, please. |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Christmas Rose wrote: Quite simply, I really, really, don't like you. You seem to set out entirely to frustrate me and never bring a single thing to a debate. So get lost, please. And you don't bring enough to validate your points. Oh, and disrespecting people doesn't give you any respect back.
|
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For gods' sake, he's trolling, not debating, why are you defending him? You wonder why I'm so angry, and then you say things like "OH ,. It's plainly obvious I do and you know it; I provide far more than anyone else; it's the people I argue against that tend to provide nothing to back up their arguments except "God says so", utterly circular arguments, or Red Herrings of evidence, which is why your current statement drives me absolutely MAD, and I provided 3 links that back up my points that you didn't even care to read. You say things without giving a care for their meaning, just to degrade me and make you feel good about yourself for putting down an angry person. THAT is the essence of what makes me angry. If you don't want me angry, don't say stupid things like that. How I treat other people is a reflection of how people treat me. So think before you type next time, or you have no right to question why I seem so angry. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For gods' sake, he's trolling, not debating, why are you defending him? You wonder why I'm so angry, and then you say things like "OH YOU DON'T BACK UP YOUR POINTS!?!:". It's plainly obvious I do and you know it; I provide far more than anyone else; it's the people I argue against that tend to provide nothing to back up their arguments except "God says so", utterly circular arguments, or Red Herrings of evidence, which is why your current statement drives me absolutely MAD, and I provided 3 links that back up my points that you didn't even care to read. You say things without giving a care for their meaning, just to degrade me and make you feel good about yourself for putting down an angry person. THAT is the essence of what makes me angry. If you don't want me angry, don't say stupid things like that. How I treat other people is a reflection of how people treat me. So think before you type next time, or you have no right to question why I seem so angry. |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Treat other people the way you want to be treated, then they'll do the same. Once again, Toast Paint. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IantheGecko wrote: Treat other people the way you want to be treated, then they'll do the same.
Once again, Toast Paint. You need to brush up on your human nature, dude :/ |
|
| Author: | Cobalt [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Trev-MUN: i would like to reiterate that i found nothing objectionable about either your original post (i don't consider "this has too many words in it so it must be wrong" kind of anti-intellectualism and laziness to be particularly helpful in establishing truth claims) or about your style of argumentation. and i look forward to continuing to debate you when you create the spinoff thread. Christmas Rose: i don't think your style of argumentation is helpful, even though you and i are ostensibly on the same side here. it's more constructive to leave emotion out of it when you're trying to establish a truth claim, and certainly not to engage in ad hominem attacks -- even when others are resorting to insults and anger. it reduces the degree to which people take you seriously, even when your actual arguments are perfectly valid (which many of them are, here). IantheGecko: Quote: Treat other people the way you want to be treated, then they'll do the same.
not actually the case, but treating people as if they're actually people and not just things is still the right thing to do, even if it's not reciprocated. |
|
| Author: | Dark Grapefruit [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Christmas Rose wrote: IantheGecko wrote: We think of giving gifts because gift-giving is a reminder of God's gift to the world: His Son! No, you think of giving gifts because Christmas is an insitution celebrated by people of varying religions and cultures which includes the concept of giving gifts. Unless you go all Ultimate Marvel on the world's history, you really have to be realistic with these things. Rose, if you don't know why people here don't like you, I feel this post is a perfect example. You just told Ian why he gives gifts at Christmas. He told you why he does it, and you told him he was wrong. How can you possibly justify saying this? |
|
| Author: | DeathlyPallor [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: We think of giving gifts because gift-giving is a reminder of God's gift to the world: His Son!
All right now... before you start defending fellow Christians and ganging up on people... well... I've got one thing to say about this particular post... it sounds like he is insinuating that this is the reason why everyone gives gifts. So, put the torches away. |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, as I see it, that is the basic reason for giving gifts on Christmas. |
|
| Author: | Jitka [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I always thought the gift giving commemorated the Wise Men's gifts to Jesus, the gold, frankincense and myrrh. That's what I was told. Not really sure. I will say this, though: There is no denying that some Christmas traditions have been adapted from paganism or what have you by Christians. However, that was a long time ago. They are no longer pagan traditions. They are now Christian traditions. They've been given new meaning beyond the original pagan reasons in order to jive with the stories of Christianity. In 2000 years, when everyone belongs to the First Conglomerated Church of Interruptor Jones, people will give gifts on Jonesmas. There will be Jonesmas trees in every house. They will have become Jonesian traditions. The point is, it doesn't matter where the customs came from. It's what you're celebrating them for. I don't especially care that some Christmas traditions were adapted from paganism, because I don't follow the traditions for pagan reasons. I follow them for Christian reasons. If you want to keep the old pagan aspects of the traditions, fine. |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well said, Jitka. You get an honorary Best Debator & Forum Fambly Award from me.
|
|
| Author: | DeathlyPallor [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
IantheGecko wrote: Yes, as I see it, that is the basic reason for giving gifts on Christmas. An uneducated one... Denying it's pre-Chrsitian origins is like saying puff daddy writes his own music. See a similarity? Quote: I will say this, though: There is no denying that some Christmas traditions have been adapted from paganism or what have you by Christians. However, that was a long time ago. They are no longer pagan traditions. They are now Christian traditions. No, they aren't. No matter how many times Christianity uses them, they won't be Christian. Did if stem from Christianity, no?. Many can say that Christianity's method of spreading could be the inspiration for the world's cutthroat corporations...but that's just me. Not so. I still know plenty of people who still use the old time traditions. In fact, one of my friend's whole family is traditional Druidic. Not only Christmas was stolen... so was Easter - Originally derived from the month dedicated of Eostre, Anglo-Saxon pagan Goddess of fertility. In fact, according to some texts from the Venerable Bede, the Easter Bunny (a common tradition within that holiday) and Easter Eggs are hold overs from the older traditions. And I've nary met a christian family that didn't give easter baskets and have egghunts. And I've met hundreds of them. Quote: I don't especially care that some Christmas traditions were adapted from paganism, because I don't follow the traditions for pagan reasons. I follow them for Christian reasons. If you want to keep the old pagan aspects of the traditions, fine.
Much like the rebellious child... they do not appreciate from whence their knowledge and being came. |
|
| Author: | Kittie Rose [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Rose, if you don't know why people here don't like you, I feel this post is a perfect example. You just told Ian why he gives gifts at Christmas. He told you why he does it, and you told him he was wrong. How can you possibly justify saying this? I was saying "you" as Christians in general. Ian may do, but the majority of "Christians" think of pressies and trees and mistle toe at least as much as they think of Jesus' birthday. I think that some people here do like me and that's enough. Quite frankly this bible thumping attitude has made both me and DP reach breaking point. I am only what you make me. I pointed out you have no right to criticise how "Nice" I am when you continue to do things I've pointed out do nothing but frustrate me. Do you know how little room there is for me to BREATHE here? I've been curteous enough not to be overly Pagan to the point where some think I'm an atheist just for not flaunting and shoving my believes in everyone's faces. But all around I see "Jesus is the reason for the season"(which, as we've shown, is false on a global scale), bible quotes, and other such flauntings of the Christian faith. I like some of the people here a lot, but all the flamboyant Xianness is really choking me. Would it hurt to leave your beliefs out of something for ONCE? Yes you are meant to be able to distinguish between religious beliefs andn on religious beliefs if you have a glimmer of sanity and yes that's what people like me have been doing. I've been curteous enough not; why do the Xians not extend some level of Curtesy to me? Quote: I will say this, though: There is no denying that some Christmas traditions have been adapted from paganism or what have you by Christians. However, that was a long time ago. They are no longer pagan traditions. They are now Christian traditions. They've been given new meaning beyond the original pagan reasons in order to jive with the stories of Christianity.
How dare you. I can't believe how much you people scream tolerance whenever I have the slightest problem with anything I do, then you have the absolute nerve to tell me, a pagan, that the traditions that I follow are no longer mine or my ancestors, they belong to someone else. Because they adapted them, they Why are you even arguing that this is not stealing!? No doubt you'll have some utterly contrived and ridiculous technicality to wiggle yourself out with, but I'm not letting go of this so easily. I can say these things because I am reaffirming history that already exists, you cannot tell me my customs are now Christian because you say so. Like DP pointed out, your actions are like that of a rebellious child; which is fine, as long as you don't do the things that you're "Rebelling" against in the first place and claim it's somewhat different because you're spanking your kids for "different reasons". That's what you're doing now. |
|
| Page 2 of 6 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|