"Christmas" - why do we celebrate it like we do?

Traditions are odd things....

Published on November 30, 2004 By KarmaGirl In Misc

Christmas is an interesting time of year for me. I’m not Christian. I’m not any “religion”. That is not to say that I am atheist, because I am not. I just haven’t decided yet what I should believe. But, with that, I end up questioning everything. One of my biggest questions for winter is: “Why do we celebrate “Christmas” and why do we associate certain things with it?”

This is *not* an anti-Christian article. It’s an article about history and tradition. Many things have evolved over time, and “Christmas” is one of them.

-Jesus was not born on Christmas day, or really even close to it. According to some bible scholars, he was born on September 29th, 4 B.C., others believe he was born in the Spring. It's not believed that he was actually born on Dec. 25th of any year.

-Christmas trees really have nothing to do with Christmas. They have been used as far back as we can tell for Solstice and Equinox celebrations. Many religions used them as a way of praying to the “sun god” as a way of making him feel better. (During the dark times of year, they thought that the god was sick and that evergreens would help the god get better).

-On the Christmas tree note, the trees were not cut down. Branches were removed, or the entire tree was moved. When they started being brought in side, they were planted in planters then brought in. They were used as a celebration of life during the “death” of winter.

-“Yule time” has nothing to do with “Christmas”. It is a Norse tradition that pre-dates Jesus. It was celebrated on the 21^st of December.

-The 12 days of Christmas is from the same “Yule” tradition. They would burn a giant log (Yule log) and feast and celebrate while it burned. This log typically took 12 days to burn.

-It is believed that the Christian church adopted the 25^th as the official celebration date of Jesus’ birth as a way of absorbing the traditions of the Saturnalia festival, which was a pagan festival which honors the God of agriculture “Saturn”. The 25^th is also the day that Romans observed Juvenalia, which is a celebration of the children and the birthday of Mithra, the “god of the unconquerable sun”.

-Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday in America until June 26, 1870

-During the Middle ages, Christmas was celebrated by attending church then celebrating in a drunken fashion, not unlike “Mardi Gras”. (Now, *that* is a tradition we should bring back! )

There are many other traditions surrounding Christmas that are “odd”. If you think of any that you don’t understand, let me know and I’ll see what I can dig up on them. And, if you have some other info on it, reply with it. I’d love to learn more!

Comments (Page 4)

KarmaGirl

on Dec 09, 2004

As a Christian, I disagree with this blanket statement.

Can you be Christian and not accept Jesus?

The word "Christian" comes from the Greek word christianos which is derived from the word christos, or Christ ("anointed one). To be a Christian, one would have to be a follower of Christ. So, if you do not believe that Jesus is your Saviour, how can you truly be Christian?

Dan Kaschel

on Dec 09, 2004

Karma:
I don't know how to respond to the first part in a way that would be anything but futily argumentative, so let's just let those differences rest. Moving on...

1) If a very young woman were to walk up to you today and tell you that she needs your help because she is pregnant but has never had sex, would you believe her? Would you drop everything in your life and do whatever was needed to help her and raise that child even though you did not know her? Could you have blind faith that it was real? Or would you want facts and to have it "proved" to you through some modern technology? Could you believe that the resulting child was divine?

I would immediately dismiss her as crazy. First of all, I can think of no reason for such a person- there is no prophecy to fulfill- but mostly because I am not gullible. Note that nobody was asked to believe that Jesus was anything but a person... the miracles and teachings quickly made that unbearably self-evident. I say unbearably because they killed him.

2) If a man walked up to you and said that he was God's son and he was here to save you. Would you believe him? Would you follow his teachings? Could you have blind faith in him? Or, would you dismiss him as "crazy"?

Of course not. I already have a savior and I don't happen to need another one. But let me try to answer the spirit of your question... my belief in any religion can only be described as reluctant. But I like to think that truth has a distinguishable quality about it, and that it's something ordinary people, like me, can recognise. I believe Jesus was God's son not because somebody told me, but because it is the same color as truth. That may sound shaky to you, but suffice it to say that some things only have evidence after they are believed.

On a more personal note- am I the only one who finds it a bit hypocritical to blacklist somebody yet go to their blog site to comment?

I understand this and will cease commenting should you ever ask. Actually, I don't go to your blog site, and my first comment was written before I knew you wrote the article. In fact, to my shame, I didn't even read the comments given before mine. I was just thinking about Christmas and wanted to throw in my two cents. I apologize for this breach in consistancy, and you may be assured that my comments on your site will restricted to this article. I'll try to look at the author first in the future:)

Shady:

Don't take my answering her first personally. It is, after all, her blog site... ahem... oh never mind. Sorry.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not different entities, any more than steam, ice, and aqua are different entitiesAgreed--but there are times when one of these entities is more appealing than the others, when you'd rather have liquid water than steam? That is my point. The "three persons in one" allows Christians the ability to latch-on to the one that is most appealling.

In that case, I agree, and would only add that the "Latching-on" process cannot involve the denial of the existence of the other two. Also, that process can make it difficult to see God in a decently holistic manner, but that it another discussion entirely.

That's not to say that Judaism is foolish, but it is to say that it's wrong.You, my friend, are a braver man than I. I would never be so bold as to state that another religion is wrong. I may not subscribe to it, I may not believe it is the "right" path, but to say it's wrong? Nope, wouldn't do it.

Well, if I am certain that my own is right (and I am, or I would live a much different life with far fewer inhibitions), and my religion and Judaism are mutually exclusive... well, not saying it outright is at best politically correct, and at worst avoiding the subject. As to being brave... well, I've been verbally beaten for intolerance before, and it's nothing I can't deal with.

If human words have no meaning--what is the point of this discussion? My ability to commune with God has very little to do with the Church I attend. So what if I am communing with Jesus on a daily basis but I have been calling him Allah, or communing with Buddha on a daily basis and calling him Jesus. The point simply is that if you are "touched" by the spirit, you are touched--it doesn't matter which rituals you perform, or what name you give your diety, it is all the same.

Yes and no. Words have no meaning, but the meanings we attach to them do. If you worship Allah and believe that his son Krishnu came to earth and died on a cross to pay your debt of sin and then rose again, and Buddha indwells you when you choose to accept Krishnu's gift of salvation; and further, that the three are an inseparable trinity that describes the nature of Allah, then yes, I believe you as much a Christian as I. But to have all of the beliefs and none of the terminology is, I imagine, somewhat rare.

I found this paragraph to be very interesting and plan to mull it over for a while.

I'd like to, once again, give credit to C.S. Lewis (Samual Clemens Lewis, however that makes sense) for coming up with this idea. Karma, you told me it was incorrect but never gave much of a reason why. If there is a logical refutation, please tell me so I can stop using it... I don't like to be a sitting duck for logical annihilation!

Can you be Christian and not accept Jesus?

No. For all the reasons you mentioned and more. To Heather, I emphasize that the trinity is as much one as it is several. You can't pick a facet and ignore all the others. The ace of spades is my favorite card in the deck, but to ignore all the others is to strip away its importance.

That's all, for now:)

Dan

KarmaGirl

on Dec 10, 2004

I would immediately dismiss her as crazy. First of all, I can think of no reason for such a person- there is no prophecy to fulfill- but mostly because I am not gullible.

What if there is a prophecy and you missed the signs? Should people have dismissed Mary as "crazy"?
The point is that religion is blind faith. You have blind faith in something that already happened, but you can not think that maybe it could happen again, or that *more* can happen. Did God quit communicating with us after the bible was written? Why would He not try to touch us again?

To borrow from CS Lewis: either Jesus was Crazy, a Liar, or exactly what he said he was. His claim to being God's son makes him either crazy or a liar if it isn't true, and if it is... then Jesus is everything I believe him to be. But do Jesus' teachings seem the teachings of a liar, or the ravings of a lunatic? Reject or accept Jesus as you will, but there is no in between.

I did give a reason why, but maybe you didn't understand. You said that there is no in between of accepting or rejecting Jesus. I said that there is. You can believe that he was a great man and a teacher, but not the messiah. You do not have to accept him as your savior or reject him entirely to believe that he taught great things to mankind. *Many* religions believe that Jesus was great, but they don't all believe that he is the messiah or that you have to talk to him, ot directly to God. So, you can believe in what he said, but not believe that he was actually the son of God or the "savior". If Jesus really said that he was the Messiah (which is debatable since the bible was written a few hundred years after he died) then, if you don't believe he is the messiah, then he lied. However, you can still believe in his teachings, therefore he is was not "crazy". It's not an all or nothing issue, unless you are Christian.

Dan Kaschel

on Dec 10, 2004

What if there is a prophecy and you missed the signs? Should people have dismissed Mary as "crazy"?The point is that religion is blind faith. You have blind faith in something that already happened, but you can not think that maybe it could happen again, or that *more* can happen. Did God quit communicating with us after the bible was written? Why would He not try to touch us again?

I have faith, not "blind faith." My faith is well-supported and philosophically sound. As for suggesting that there is a prophecy... well, perhaps there's one that nobody has ever noticed, but every Jew knew there was supposed to be a Messiah coming. Whole different story. And no, God did not quit communicating, he "communicates" with me regularly, although "communicate" is a somewhat distanced way to phrase it.

You've yet to respond to the essential argument, Karma. If you believe the teachings of a man who was lying for power- in which case his teachings are most likely divisive- or the teachings of somebody so deluded he thought he was God, and don't have a problem with that... then I have a bridge to sell you. Don't take advice from dead generals, Karma.

There's plenty of historical proof that Jesus existed, and that he was killed for claiming to be the Son of God. The rest one must depend on the bible, but Roman records confirm that much.

Dan

KarmaGirl

on Dec 10, 2004

There's plenty of historical proof that Jesus existed, and that he was killed for claiming to be the Son of God. The rest one must depend on the bible, but Roman records confirm that much.

Right there is the bit that you are overlooking. You are saying that the bible is truly accurate. I am saying that it is possible that Jesus may have existed, was a great teacher, and was killed. The bible tells you why he was killed, and that he was the son of God.

If you take the bible as a human written account of past life and not the word of God, things look much differently. It is very difficult for a person that was raised a religion that believes in the bible to look at it as literature instead of a religious handbook. Can you *honestly* say that you can remove yourself from your Christian beliefs and look at Christianity with a free mind? Can you view the bible as tales told by men and not the word of God? If not, then you can't say that you can see a different viewpoint.

Historical "proof" is quite weak when talking about things as old as when Jesus was alive. Most of the "proof" is more of an educated guess. Are their written records that show exactly what Jesus said? Or, could you say that he said "I am the son of God" meaning the same as all of mankind are God's children? There is no proof to that. So, one can easily say that we know that Jesus existed, and believe that he was a great teacher, however still not believe that he was the Messiah.

But, here are some other questions: If you learn about Jesus through the bible, and you have to accept Jesus to go to heaven, how do aboriginals who can not read nor have communication with "modern" life get to heaven? If they are not exposed to the bible or its teachings, how can they believe in something that they have never heard of? And, why would God devise a plan that would exclude such people?

Dan Kaschel

on Dec 10, 2004

ight there is the bit that you are overlooking. You are saying that the bible is truly accurate. I am saying that it is possible that Jesus may have existed, was a great teacher, and was killed. The bible tells you why he was killed, and that he was the son of God.

You misunderstand. His date of death and crime are recorded. This isn't a matter of faith, just of history.

Can you *honestly* say that you can remove yourself from your Christian beliefs and look at Christianity with a free mind? Can you view the bible as tales told by men and not the word of God? If not, then you can't say that you can see a different viewpoint.

Yes, I can and have. To the point where for a time I doubted the accuracy of the bible. It took two years for me to decide that it was a reliable source.

Historical "proof" is quite weak when talking about things as old as when Jesus was alive. Most of the "proof" is more of an educated guess.

Now you're just rationalizing. You can discount any sort of proof with enough twisted logic, but Occam's razor will kill you before you get anywhere near discounting Roman crucifiction records.

If you learn about Jesus through the bible

You don't. I would want to know the colors of the United States flag and maybe have a clue who G.Washington was before I met the president, but that doesn't mean it's necessary in the strictest sense of the word. But I agree, it's certainly easier to find him if you know he's in the white house, and where that is. That, of course, is discounting the fact that the president is somewhat difficult to meet even if you do find him, and many would not if they had the chance.

What I'm trying to say is that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that is entirely separate from my intellectual knowledge of Christianity. Others can have the same without that knowledge.

[quoteI]f they are not exposed to the bible or its teachings, how can they believe in something that they have never heard of? And, why would God devise a plan that would exclude such people?

You're speaking of things you don't understand. If you try to cut up the Christian philosophy into tiny chunks, of course it will fail. Everything a Christian believes is interrelated. You must keep in mind that people deserve to die. They are separated from God, and their sin makes them utterly unworthy to enter heaven. Nay, worse than that; they would be dangerous to let in, like a child with dirt on his feet running over white carpeting. God doesn't like dirt. In fact, he's one of the neatest dieties I know. So that's why cleanliness is next to godliness...

So we have two warring principles here. One:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." -2 Peter 3:9

i.e. God doesn't want anybody to go to Hell. Heck, who would?

Two, that he cannot allow the soiled to enter heaven. So those who accept his GIFT of salvation- and if you think I speak untrue, you will see that it waits in every hotel room in America, and in nearly every language known to man- may enter under a blanket of cleansing provided at a dear cost: the shame of God. You won't see it happen again this side of eternity, I expect.

As you see, God is not evil, but protective. Just as a hunter is sad to put down a rabid wolf-hound, so God is sad to damn his beloved- but he will not risk his church by setting loose that rapid dog. Or if you'd rather, think of it as a by-law. Wouldn't want to lower the property value in heaven by having pagans move in next door, now would we! I'm kidding, I'm kidding... well, mostly....

I'm glad you're asking questions though. It's rare that I meet an intelligent person that's knowledgable enough to present a strong case for riding the fence. On the matter of Jesus, I mean. Keep asking away!

Dan

Kobrano

on Dec 10, 2004

Somehow, when I saw this topic, I knew it would ultimately degrade into a anti-jesus/anti-religion thread - which it already has apparently. I'm ascribed to the view that different people believe in god in their own ways, and religion isn't always a requirement to have belief and faith. However, I also acknowledge that our country was founded by people of deep faith, and to neglect that for fear of offending secular people is rediculous - its neglecting our heritage. Can you imagine if you moved to an Islamic country, and started trying to pass laws to ban Islam? Hah!

The extreme minority secularists in this country are getting pretty scary, you know, like how the school bus driver that was fired last week for playing Christmas music on her bus. Or the teacher that has his coursework censored, because it mentions God - that coursework is the declaration of independance I might add. Its sad really, how such a small minority in this country, is making so much noise.

I'm not an overly religious person, but I do believe in god. Its not surprising this country has undergone a conservative revolution based on moral values and god. I think its backlash over the secularist and liberals trying to forcefeed their agenda down everyones throats, then insulting people that don't adhere to their beliefs.

KarmaGirl

on Dec 13, 2004

You're speaking of things you don't understand. If you try to cut up the Christian philosophy into tiny chunks, of course it will fail.

That didn't answer the question at all.

My viewpoint is that there is not only one path to God. You say that there is, and it is through Jesus. I have yet to have a Christian explain to me how people who know nothing of the bible and have never heard the term "Jesus" can get to heaven. If you say that they can believe but call him a different name, then it's back to my original point of many paths and that all religions are pretty much the same, only the names are changed.

There is proof that Jesus existed and that he was killed. I don't dispute that. However, the bible is a different story. If you have never attended church and have never had anyone "interpret" it for you, it looks much different. The "story" of Jesus is in the bible. The proof that he existed is different. The "proof" of dates is also a question, as there is great dispute over when Jesus was actually born. As I said- you can believe that he existed and that he had great teachings without believing that he was the Messiah. He may be the "son of God" in the same sense that all humans are the children of God. You can't prove that the bible is fact, and you can't prove that Jesus is our "Savior".

I don't believe that Christian values are wrong. I also have nothing against people who have strong faith. But, to me, there are way too many unanswered questions like: (of course, my biggest one is the one I already mentioned about people who have never seen a bible), How come the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs? How come the "dates" aren't real dates? In the bible, God put Adam and Eve on the Earth, then there were all these other people- where did they come from? How can you take words at face value that we translated from words that could have more than one meaning (since the Hebrew ('Nephesh') and Greek ('Psuche') words which have been translated 'soul' in the Bible could also mean: Person, Breath, Heart, Creature, Mind, or Himself)? Can you trust a human to interpret God's words? Why would I need a book to tell me to believe in God? If we are made in God's image, why do the people on Earth look so very different from each other?.....etc, etc...

I *wish* that I could believe in Christianity. I have really tried. I have yet to have a Christian give me a good reason to believe- a reason that does not require a reference to the bible. As is, I still stick with my "Buddhism with a Transcendental twist" (that got us into trouble in the past, didn't it?). I believe that there was a creator. I don't know if I believe that there is a "God" that has a magical place called heaven (though I wish I could). I believe that people should lead clean, productive lives that benefit themselves and mankind. And, in the end, our energy returns to an oversoul to be distributed to another living thing.

The extreme minority secularists in this country are getting pretty scary, you know, like how the school bus driver that was fired last week for playing Christmas music on her bus. Or the teacher that has his coursework censored, because it mentions God - that coursework is the declaration of independance I might add. Its sad really, how such a small minority in this country, is making so much noise.

I have to agree. Even though I am not Christian, I don't see anything wrong with christianity. There is nothing "evil" or morally corrupt about it. To some people, it's the only thing that keeps them on the right moral track. Our country was built on Christian beliefs, and it should stay that way. We were also built on a "majority rules" system, and since the majority of the country is Christian, the rest of us should learn to live with it. You don't have to believe in Christianity to tolerate it, just like you don't have to be homosexual to tolerate homosexuality. But, just as I don't believe that our laws and values should change to allow homosexuals to marry, I also don't believe that our laws and values should change concerning "God" and Christianity.

stevendedalus

on Dec 29, 2004

Since Xmas went commercial, it is celebrated not by Christians per se but by giddy consumers!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!