Atheists: How do you feel during the Christmas season?

Post Reply New Topic

It looks like you didn't pay attention much to what you quoted. It's saying that Christmas itself is not influenced by pagan traditions, so the Christians had to "paganize" it by changing the date and having it coincide with the pagan holidays.

You must have a reading comprehension problem.

Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth.[5] The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus, the "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," on December 25.[6]
The popularity of Saturnalia continued into the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and as the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, some of its customs may have influenced the seasonal celebrations surrounding Christmas and the New Year.[7]

I know when the solstice is,I am a heathen.And I doubt that Jesus was born in December,because the shepherds were out in the fields.
Seems to me they were trying to "Christianize"a old holiday.
There is also in Jeremiah the reference to "Learn not the ways of the heathen,they take up a tree,they deck it in silver and gold."That may not be exact,I don't feel like dragging out the bible.Sounds like what's now known as a Christmas tree,maybe not.Just speculation here.
Mistletoe,evergreen boughs and the Yule log were around before Christmas.Seems like the Christians are taking over all the good holidays.
And of course there are Christians that don't celebrate Christmas,they say it's a heathen holiday
There is some interesting reading about the saturnalia in Frazer's book.

Yes, so where does it say that Christmas itself is pagan? All it says is some elements of Christmas may have been influenced by pagan holidays. And if you think gift-giving is an element worth demonstrating that Christmas, therefore, must be pagan, then, wow, you have definitely made a strong case. Might as well add handshaking as well.

As for the date, read the exchange above.

That's irrelevant.



No, the only thing that changed was the date. They were trying to compete with the pagan holidays. Not the same as copying.



Irrelevant.



Again, irrelevant. Christmas is not defined by trees. The Christmas tree thing actually started much later.



And some Christians who celebrate Christmas on other dates.

"It seems likely that Christmas has origins in ancient winter solstice celebrations expressing a longing at the darkest time of year for the return of the light,as in the case of the Roman festival of Sol Invictus.There may also be a source in the celebrations of the Iranian Zoroastrian solar deity Mithras,who according to some sources,was born at the winter solstice and whose birth shepherds attended."
Thy Oxford Companion to World Mythology
David Leeming

Well, David Leeming is just wrong then. As I keep saying, Christmas has nothing to do with the sun.

The Mithras tradition of shepherds is from after the publication of the new testament by over 100 years. And Mithras was supposedly born before man, emerging from a rock, so it shepherds concept seems to be just an interesting translation.

http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/ ... ras-redux/

So you are more knowledgable than a professor?What are your credentials?

He is not a historian. He is a professor of English literature, it seems.

My credentials are unimportant. I am just going along with what the relevant experts say, and clearing some misconceptions.

Yes,and he has published several books on mythology.Are you a historian?

So does Acharya S. Does this mean she must be correct?

Anyway, historians disagree that Christmas is based on the sun, and that's what matters at the end of the day.

Upon rereading, I have to be fair by saying that he may not have even said that Christmas itself was based on the sun. If that's the case, he's not exactly wrong in saying that it's likely some trivial elements of Christmas have their origins in pagan holidays.

No one ever pretended that there was ever any evidence that christ was actually born that day.


Its a pagan festival of lights that the early church tacked christ's name onto for PR.

Next.

As already stated the ancients did not know the solstice as a single day or instant of time but had to observe sunrise/sunset positions for several days (at least 2) in order to ascertain the solstice had passed and the sun was reborn. As the solstice occurs on the 21st or 22nd Dec it would not be until 24th or 25th until it could be seen the solstice had come and gone.




Sol Invictus was celebrated by the Roman's on 25th Dec, Sol Invictus means "the unconquered sun". It was the Romans who later decided to use 25th as the birth of Christ.




So you lose your own argument that 25th is about the birth of Christ?




The word Christmas may refer to it, but so what. We are arguing about the 25th, regardless of what some people decide to call it.



I don't think any Christians consider Jesus as a sun god.



True, but the 25th Dec has solar significance. And the sun is a more likely candidate as the "savior of mankind", "the bringer of light" than a character in a book.

Irrelevant



No, it's not. Christmas is a separate holiday for which some later Christians had its mainstream date coincide with those of the pagan holidays. It's not based on prior pagan holidays.