Christmas without Christ? Huh?

[John in Covina]

The claim our founding fathers were not religious is actually not true, most were, some were not.

The 50's is when "Under God" went into the pledge.

In God We Trust has been on coins for a long time, and during one of the gold or silver rushes was removed because a certain president did not want it on coins ($1-20 coins) to be used to pay for the services rendered at brothels out west!

 

[Mr. Lucky]

The claim our founding fathers were not religious is actually not true, most were, some were not.

The 50's is when "Under God" went into the pledge.

In God We Trust has been on coins for a long time, and during one of the gold or silver rushes was removed because a certain president did not want it on coins ($1-20 coins) to be used to pay for the services rendered at brothels out west!

The term was first minted onto coins during the Civil War by the Union in an attempt to further differentiate itself from the South. It remained there until 1883, then left (no mention of brothels) and was returned to coinage in 1938 and paper money for the first time in 1956.

One point here - It says in GOD we trust. It doesn't say what God and it certainly doesn't say in Jesus We Trust. Again, these man were quite particular in every word placed - or omitted. If they had wanted to reference the USA as a Christian nation, they would have mentioned Christ somewhere along the way.

 

[Viola]

I'm blushing that I mixed up the coins and the Pledge.

 

[Mr. Lucky]

I'm blushing that I mixed up the coins and the Pledge.

Don't be, it's not something most people even have a hint of. But did you know why the term "under God" was added to the pledge?
(see below)















To differentiate our society from Communist Russia! True story!

 

[Viola]

I knew it was about the Red Scare...of course I attributed that to the freakin' coins. Argh. History, its full of inconvenient "facts" and "dates"!

Viola

 

[deanglen]

***********
It's all Greek or Hebrew to me!

John, I had to edit my post you quoted; for the term "Hermeneutics", in error, I gave the definition for "homiletics", :eusa_doh: which is the application of the text in a sermon. "Hermeneutics" refers to priniciples of interpretation, "Exegesis" is a particular interpretation of a text. And "esoteric" is a good word for all three terms when it comes to the issue of Christmas with Christ. As for that issue, I am biased in favor of Christ.

dean

 

[carebear]

The proper term to refer to the majority of the founding Fathers is "Deist".

They believed in a personal and good divine (far more defined than what is usually meant by agnostic) but weren't all of any particular denominations.

Their deism is why they refer to men as "created" equal and "endowed by their creator" with inalienable rights. It wasn't purely secular "natural law" they referenced.

The variation in types of belief is why they were so adamant, not that religion be kept out of public life (they would have seen that as impossible, if not foolhardy), but that the government, acting on the will of the majority (the tyranny of the mob, the great weakness of democracy), not establish an official state religion and deny the right of worship to other sects. The example of Europe's wars and Puritan's intolerance gave that great significance.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I have known for a very long time that Chanukah is hardly marketed as it is seen. Christmas is such a largely marketed holiday that the only reason any other celebrations are travelling is because either people get angry because their holiday isn't marketed or that there is a hiding market for such holidays as Kwanza, Chanukah, etc. Holidays are not about the marketing, but at this point they really are. No matter how much you believe in the story of Christ or follow it in your celebration, Santa does, in a sense, away with his image. I'm not much of a participant when it comes to being Jewish. I believe that the purpose of all holidays is to be around those who you care for. The reason they exist is different and should be included.

You go to a Christmas Party, and for that one part of the year, you bring the best joy you can bring. Any other time of the year, you are not as considerate. Holidays bring the generosity in a lot of people, but also bring greed and selfishness. Santa's image has a marketing strategy that Jesus just seems to lack, but has no reason not to. The image of Santa could or could not be real.

Chanukah is marketed, from what I have seen, only with the menorah, the dreidel, and the star of David. The story of the Maccabees, is not (Hebrew school comes in handy I guess). At the table my family does tell this story, though in the business world, they do not.

Whereever you go, you're bound to find Christmas lights. This has stretched towards most American holidays including Thanksgiving, Halloween, and the Fourth of July. They all have lights. Chanukah now has lights as well. When me and my parents first moved to the neighborhood we live in now, this was the center of the Christmas light community and still is. We never put up lights because we are Jewish. We just don't do that. This neighborhood however brought us to doing so because they are THE neighborhood to see these lights.

So I believe that the mass production of marketing a holiday has turned it into a mass production of marketing a holiday. I also believe that this is not everywhere. As Mr. Chevalier has stated, Chile gives word to Christ. I am sure they are not the only ones. You can spend $1,000 on decorating your house and buying presents and wrapping paper, or you can appreciate the story of the holiday you are celebrating, and get a couple friends and/or family for free. I'll take the second .

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux]
1. Central London.
A man with a megaphone stands at Piccadilly Circus every day, exhorting people with the catchphrase "Be a winner, not a sinner!" He used to stand at Oxford Circus, but was finally complained about enough that he was banned from that location. Somebody else stands there now. The disturbing thing is that I have heard reports of him making inappropriate comments to young ladies walking by if their outfits were not modest enough to suit his taste, which was apparently what led to the complaints.[/QUOTE]

fftopic: I did not know about the inappropriate comments, but I had heard Sinner Winner Man got an ASBO. Mind you, at least he was something of a minor celebrity, now we have Monotone Man and Shrill Girl instead.

 

[Fletch]

SIN and Evil pervade our society!!

What else to expect in a culture that condones birth control for pre-teens, abortion on demand, and "anything goes" sexuality?

Is there a Moral Majority? What is that?

Our society is going to Hell in a hand basket.

You, Sir, need to get the hell out of the Bay Area.
Or take a street corner and start yelling.

Cool avatar, BTW. What part of the plane is that? Throttle? Hmmmm...

 

[Samsa]

How about we close this thread?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

After all the dissection...tireless study..interpretations...dogmas...expounding on favored rituals and rules...amazingly Christ's message does turn out to be quiet simple when realised. So much so that it is often and easily overlooked. Mainly because,it seems,it's in our nature to always think we must earn our way. Be good enough. This leads to confusion about..just how does one do that? Which way? Then...after one might earn it..how does one maintain "It"? Call it old age...years of study...sudden enlightment...or maybe just out of beating one's head against the wall...that vail of confusion can be lifted. Why does it seem so difficult. Again..simple. We,unintentionally,make it that way. Glossing over the "gift" "price payed in full". Maybe that is one of the great "lessons"to finally appreciate. To get beyond "self"...the effort that we must do something to earn "it". Intellectually..physically..or any way you want to look at it. Just perhaps it was earned and payed for by a genuine friend...true love innocent enough to better qualify and cared to accomplish that for us. Perhaps we should relax and concentrate more on what Christ said to uncomplicate it. However it still requires an open mind...for many do insist that it surely must be more involved.
I often wonder if many of the secularists have disdain for our natural hypocrasy in the effort to be religiously "good enough"....or just fear the power of the simple truth that might be revealed within that struggle.
In any event...unfortunately,some do demand you keep it to yourself...and your kind,these days. More and more out of public view....
HD

 

[Fletch]

As a churchgoing secularist myself, I see the problem as not the avoidance of truth, but the insistence on one truth, one path, one way. We're not the homogeneous nation we used to be. And that's not a weakness – it's a strength if we know how to draw on it. A good start would be if more secularists got the courage to thinkwritespeak to the ethical vacuum in everyday life.

As for hypocrisy – that's as good a definition as any of "original sin." Part of the human condition. [huh]

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Gee..I just wanted to take the narrow path leading directly to where I want to go..and who I care to be with forever. I've heard of other paths leading to other places,tho. Oops...I think..I may have just played right into your hand....!
HD

 

[Marc Chevalier]

If we can have (and I have no problem with) other overt religious iconography, then we can have a creche and a cross and "Silent Night".

Rather unsporting to display a cross at Christmas. About 33 years too early.


.

 

[Twitch]

Marc we can thank the ACLU style thinking and political correctness for it all. While attempting not to offend some minority (I don't mean racial) we offend a segment nevertheless- those who enjoy or at least don't mind seeing religious iconography of any kind during the holidays.[huh]

 

[carebear]

Rather unsporting to display a cross at Christmas. About 33 years too early.
.

Without the cross the creche has no meaning.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Well, yes ... but seeing the baby in the manger near his happy, hopeful parents doesn't bring that baby's future crucifixion to my mind, and I'm kind of glad that it doesn't.


(That said, I reckon that some alternative artist will make a work showing the baby Jesus being crucified, as some sort of 'hip ironic statement'. Unless it's been done already ...)


.

 

[carebear]

Well, yes ... but seeing the baby in the manger doesn't bring that baby's future crucifixion to my mind, and I'm kind of glad that it doesn't.

(That said, I'm still waiting for some alternative artist to make a work showing the baby Jesus being crucified, as some sort of 'hip ironic statement'. Unless it's been done already ...)


.

Well, I wouldn't put one IN the manger scene. That is a bit offsides. But allowed, as a symbol, somewhere in the same store window or display is what I was getting at.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Rather unsporting to display a cross at Christmas. About 33 years too early.


.

Man...there's a jewel of a statement..in more ways than one! Certainly the heart of the matter. I must apologise for getting so fftopic: . I fear that those temptations only fuel the need for controversy. Thanks,Marc!
HD