It looks so freaking cheesy, loaded with overacting and over the top wanna-be Hallmark moments. Even Cenk thought so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l4n2dPT5JI&feature=sub
Hate to say it, but Christmas isn't just for Christians. There are quite a good number of non-Christian people who still celebrate it and still call it Christmas.
I'm a Christian myself, and when I watched that trailer, I thought it was a joke. This is kind of ridiculous.
Watch, Baldwin is gonna be converted at the end of the movie.
Lo Saturnalia!
Do look it up.
I think "This is kind of ridiculous" is an understatement.
shareSo you watched the trailer and posted a criticism? And your prediction is wrong.
shareI don't think any Christian is saying that non-Christians cannot celebrate Christmas. However, just know that to celebrate it while dismissing Christ from the holiday is much like celebrating St. Patrick's Day while ignoring Ireland. In other words, you'd be missing the point.
My history forum @http://www.westerncivforum.com
Except that it was a pagan holiday chrisitanity incorporated into its ritual in order to win over more converts and make those pagans forcefully converted feel less rebellious. Everything from the tree, the presents, the feast, to the colors red and green pre-date christ. So yeah... What do you know?
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
I don't think it's a stretch to say that without the centrality of Christ in Christmas, no one today would be sitting around on December 25 celebrating pagan trees or red and green. Yes, Christians appropriated pagan elements into Christmas, but the fact that Christ was/is the reason for the celebration makes a heck of a lot of difference.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
Of course it's a stretch. Christianity only got popular by converting the pagans at swordpoint. And [among the reasons besides not getting killed] they only accepted it because they kept the holidays. It is an amazing stretch you are making, something clearly only statable by someone with a christian bias.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
You honestly think that people all over would stop their activities to celebrate December 25th because of its pagan associations without Christ? No, of course they would not.
And please provide evidence that "Christianity only got popular by converting the pagans at swordpoint" or that pagans "only accepted it because they kept the holidays". You use sweeping generalizations, so I'm calling you out on this one.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
1) Yes, they would, because they never stopped in the first place. The tradition predated Christ and still goes on now. For many people it's about the tradition, not the faith. For example: Christmas is very popular in Japan, even though people are mostly Shinto.
2) Google it yourself. Throwing your ignorance at me and asking me to do your homework does not constitute a counter-argument.
1) So you think that Japanese people celebrate pagan Christmas? That does not make sense. What *does* make sense is probably that Japanese people celebrate the social, gift-giving aspect of the Christian religious holiday but that they do not really celebrate the underlying religious feast. This hardly means that they are celebrating any ancient events. Quite the opposite - it's a modernist event!
And do you know what exactly was celebrated pre-Christ? Can you name the pagan holiday off the top of your head? The bottom line is that while there was a pagan holiday that pre-dated Christ around the time of December 25, it would have been relegated to the annals of history but for the emergence of the Christian religion. It is beyond argument that Christmas is popular because of Christ, not because of any pagan holiday.
2) You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. You have the responsibility to support it, not me.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
You really aren't understanding. The social, gift-giving part CAME FROM THE PAGANS. The red and green came from the pagans. The tree: Pagans. The feat: Pagans.
It's called Yule. The Yule log was originally lit on the solstice (23rd) and burned for 13 days - it's where we get our 13 days of christmas from.
Literally everything is hijacked from way before Christ's time.
Since I cannot put you in a time machine, providing evidence is easy: Google some history, the same way I did. Except I learned this before the internet.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
Yes, I realize that there are elements that originated in pagan use/culture in the current Christmas holiday. What you need to realize, however, is that none of these would be known by the masses today but for the CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Historically, appropriation/adoption of cultural traits of one group by another has been done over and over again. It's hardly the Christians who were the only ones who did it. The Akkadians adopted Sumerian culture after conquering them. The Romans adopted Greek culture after the latter fell as a collection of independent city-states. And the Christians adopted aspects of pagan practice and transformed them into Christian practice. The result was that the Christians had produced something which became far greater than what the pagans produced on their own.
You can't take bits and pieces of history and make overly-broad generalizations or draw wrong conclusions from them.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
The celebration successfully survived every culture that claimed it. This survival is based on the merit of the celebration itself. It is not based on whoever stole it last. It would have continued without christianity. Great credit-taking you are attempting on Christianity's behalf, though.
You can't take bits and pieces of history and make overly-broad generalizations or draw wrong conclusions from them.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
Using your logic, perhaps the Christians stole things such as meals, festivals, the wheel, and everything else that came before them as well. Of course, this is absurd. EVERY culture draws upon cultures that come before to greater or lesser degree.
I know of no one who celebrates the pagan feast of Sol Invictus, but I know plenty of people who celebrate Christmas. To claim that Sol Invictus would have "continued without [C]hristianity" is completely unfounded. You are attempting credit-taking here without historical evidence.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
Sol Invictus would have continued without christianity. You see, when a culture genocides another, it changes the course of history. Things that would have continued cease to, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD.
We still celebrate May Day/Beltane (barely) because of paganism too. And don't forget halloween/samhain. Halloween is especially interesting, because it faces christian backlash, is called Satanic, and worked against by the christian community YET STILL IS CELEBRATED.
Which I think seals my points. Even those pagan holidays not popular with christians are still perpetuated despite their efforts.
As for meals - The credit for agriculture goes to whatever culture first created it, not the christians. Which is in line with all my other logic: The entity who started something still going on today gets credit for it, not the entity who continued an existing practice.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
So now the Christians are responsible for "genocide"? The word "genocide" was not even invented until the twentieth century.
I know of no one who celebrates anything called "Beltane". Even Halloween/"samhain" was a mixture of Celtic and Roman traditions which was then appropriated by Christians, coinciding with All Saints' Day (Nov. 1), from which it gets its name. To claim that "those pagan holidays not popular with christians are still perpetuated despite their efforts" is wrong since it was actually the Christians who promoted the celebration of All Saints' Day, appropriating some aspects of the pagan event.
Paganism in its ancient form disappeared either virtually or completely over the 1500+ years after Christ. Yes, Christians continued to celebrate holidays which may have their origin in pagan events, but they were TRANSFORMED into events which existed apart from their pagan origins.
You're making it sound like pagan events were celebrated by the masses continually since the time of antiquity. I don't know of evidence for this. While pagan events provided the origin of some events, it was Christianity which was the vehicle that transformed them and popularized them. We live in Western Civilization, which became virtually synonymous with Christian Civilization over the course of time.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
You cloud your arguments with too much b.s.
What relevance is there in bringing up the history of the word genocide? Was there no such thing as food until someone came up with the word "food"? Was there no such thing as murder until someone came up with the word "murder"?
I've never known anyone to celebrate All Saints' Day. I know several who celebrate Beltane and Samhain.
Christianity only "popularized" these holidays in the same sense that christianity "popularized" prayer. If one people replace another people, they "popularize" everything that was already popular [by your logic]. It's quite circular.
"Christianity popularized food, man! It was here before us, but now most food in America is eaten by Christians! They transformed it! Prove me wrong!!!"
You have a bias against truth. Sign of a True Believer if I've ever seen one.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
Where is your evidence that Christians engaged in genocide against pagans? This is another claim of history that you're throwing out there without evidence. Show me the evidence if you can.
I'm not really following your argument about the "popularization" of prayer or food. I repeat my earlier point that Christianity appropriated non-Christian events so that they became new events. Without Christianity, the events would either have died out a long time ago or would be very minor celebrations for a very small set of people.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
"Without Christianity, the events would either have died out a long time ago or would be very minor celebrations for a very small set of people."
Wrong. The set of people would have been very large, because Christianity founded itself by replacing paganism. What, you think everyone else would have become Muslim (which didn't exist until 600 years later) or Jewish (which peaked a long, long time ago)? No. They were a people with an identity and would have perpetuated that identity for a long time, the same as any other people. And as Europeans, they would have eventually populated North America the same as the christians, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE THE SAME PEOPLE.
You seem to have a problem understanding causality. It's surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance
And don't you dare say "it's wikipedia, anybody can say anything", because Wikipedia cites its sources.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
Wrong. The set of people would have been very large, because Christianity founded itself by replacing paganism. What, you think everyone else would have become Muslim (which didn't exist until 600 years later) or Jewish (which peaked a long, long time ago)? No. They were a people with an identity and would have perpetuated that identity for a long time, the same as any other people. And as Europeans, they would have eventually populated North America the same as the christians, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE THE SAME PEOPLE.
Speaking of Christian genocide, Catholocism is largely responsible for legitimizing the genocide of native americans. The native american community knows this and has demanded apologies. I think they may have finally gotten one in the past 5 years. Specific pope edict/fatwa/whatever catholics call it specifically saying - north america is ours, kill all the natives you want, after all, they're just heathens.
Wow, that's a lot of FUD. Now you want to backtrack and change the definition of paganism because you're losing. Hilarious.
The papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the "Christian Powers," or "different States of Christendom," viewed indigenous peoples as "the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors."
Perhaps you should go talk to some Native Americans? I have a feeling you don't know any.
http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
No, I'm not changing my definition of paganism at all. It always has been the same - an umbrella term which describes many groups/tribes.
The papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the "Christian Powers," or "different States of Christendom," viewed indigenous peoples as "the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors."
It's amusing how your capability for logic degrades with each response. You want "evidence" to prove something that happened in the 1400s (as if you can't google it yourself), but then reject evidence for being too old? How does that work again? Does every historical fact have to be reverified and republished within a timespan that you find acceptable for you to consider it "evidence"? Do you think the Papal Bulls did not happen?
You've really painted yourself into a corner.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
When you're using a secondary source to discuss a primary source, and that secondary source is 150 years old, then yes, I'm going to question it. This is not "degrading logic". No legitimate scholar of history is going to appeal to secondary sources which are 150 years old for factual matters, unless those facts have later been corroborated by subsequent scholarship or if a historical argument is being traced (historiography). I could go into reasons for questioning such a source, but this seems to be even further outside the scope of this thread.
Well, I realize this conversation is not really making much progress. I respect your right to your opinion and mean you no harm. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
http://www.westerncivforum.com
So what primary source would i look up for Papal bulls? Wikipedia has a list. The same edicts are in it.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
No, I'm not changing my definition of paganism at all. It always has been the same - an umbrella term which describes many groups/tribes.
The papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the "Christian Powers," or "different States of Christendom," viewed indigenous peoples as "the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors."
Coming in this late but:
"Is Catholicism really "largely responsible for legitimizing the genocide of native americans"? That is a serious claim which merits proof. I suspect that if you look closer, you will find that the term "genocide" doesn't fit with actions you are referring to, and I also suspect that you will find that there are no tenets of Catholicism which "legitimized genocide"."
You gotta be kidding, right? Catholicism, up until a few hundred years ago was all about killing whoever got in their way, holding inquisitions, burning folks at the stake, supporting invasion of lands inhabited by less advanced cultures where natives were either converted or killed/imprisoned/or otherwise confined.
And as to Christmas...true, it might not be called Christmas now, but there would still be some sort of "harvest festival/celebration around the same time of year even if by some blessed chance (and the RCC burning the opposition) Christianity never got a foot hold. There'd be parties, gift-giving, decorations, traditions, singing, movies, etc. Consider how big New Years is...do you, for a moment imagine that DEPENDS on Christmas and especially the "religious" aspects of Christmas? Given the tendency of people to commercialize, there'd be celebrations...businesses...toy makers, card makers, food producers, clothing manufacturers, electronics producers, folks in the entertainment industry, would be encouraging celebration (because of the profits). Look how many movies focus on ANYTHING but Jesus and his fanatics. There's magic snowmen, santa clauses, elves, talking animals, romcoms, all centering on and taking advantage of the commercial/traditional and quite NON religious aspects of the Holiday we call Christmas. Consider how many NON-religious Christmas songs...some of the most beautiful music written, IMHO. Do you imagine for a minute that would NOT have occurred if Christianity had not serendipitously flourished? Of course it would have.
Not sure if you're still hanging around, but you owe US some evidence that there would NOT be a similar NON-religious season/time of year where folks celebrated the harvest...turning it into/continuing the tradition of getting together, sharing food, giving gifts, singing, etc.
Incidentally, I'm basing this off historic facts, so I have a bias toward truth. The question is - do you?
http://www.westerncivforum.com
Speaking of Christian genocide, Catholocism is largely responsible for legitimizing the genocide of native americans. The native american community knows this and has demanded apologies. I think they may have finally gotten one in the past 5 years. Specific pope edict/fatwa/whatever catholics call it specifically saying - north america is ours, kill all the natives you want, after all, they're just heathens.
...And if the christians had decided teepees were really cool houses, you'd probably be arguing with me that teepees wouldn't exist anymore if not for christians.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl