Conquer Club

As should be obvious by now, I'm an atheist. Most Christian folk on the fora will know that I like Christianity, but don't think it's above criticism.

This thread, however, is about Christmas- a pagan festival awkwardly co-opted by some branches of Christianity, and rejected by others,

It's kind of awesome.

For me, it's all about food recently. Specifically getting people together to share a meal. That ain't the Christian part, of course, which focuses on gift giving (the Magi) or celebration, or even the ritualisation of a year from birth in darkness.

It does accommodate hospitality though. That's one of my most important virtues. Being a good host. Christmas is tough because you really have to be the best host, and the best guest you can be.

Many religions stress this, and fail throughout the year. I think this is a message that is without religion. It's unfortunate that Christians stress this only in this time, but it's a good message nonetheless.

An atheist Christmas.

Or maybe:

I never saw any Lars Ulrich solo stuff before.

2dimes wrote:I never saw any Lars Ulrich solo stuff before.

He changed his name and now refers to his piano as the "Hetfield".

It's a bit confusing, but he they do Christmas music about Australia now.

Symmetry wrote:Or maybe:

Obviously this guy is having a really bad hair day. LOL.

But what is really terrible is not the song but the fact that no one told him that his hair looks all frizzy and unmanageable. Perhaps a different brand of conditioner would do the trick.

Viceroy63 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Or maybe:

Obviously this guy is having a really bad hair day. LOL.

But what is really terrible is not the song but the fact that no one told him that his hair looks all frizzy and unmanageable. Perhaps a different brand of conditioner would do the trick.

That's his standard doo. Minchin is all kinds of awesome. Well worth a google of his other stuff.

You are right of course. I personally never heard of this guy before now. So you have introduced me to some one new.

I'll Google search him tomorrow. For sure. I'm off to bed now. =)

I fucking hate non-Christians that complain about the "Christ" part of Christmas and want to change it to "Xmas". Get the f*ck over it.

Same with the people who want to take "in God we trust" off of currency. And I'm a fucking atheist too.

Army of GOD wrote:And I'm a fucking atheist too.

lol right, you're a virgin atheist

Army of GOD wrote:I'm a fucking atheist.

Yes, AoG, you're a fucking atheist. Well done, and you've totally convinced all non-fucking atheists that you're having sex. Credulous atheists salute you.

Keep at it AoG. Anonymous sex is the reason for the season.

Army of GOD wrote:I fucking hate non-Christians that complain about the "Christ" part of Christmas and want to change it to "Xmas". Get the f*ck over it.

Same with the people who want to take "in God we trust" off of currency. And I'm a fucking atheist too.

You do realise that the X in Xmas is the Greek letter 'chi',which begins the word Christ,so there is nothing remotely secular or even non-Christian in its usage,they are thus interchangeable and equally Christian.

chang50 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I fucking hate non-Christians that complain about the "Christ" part of Christmas and want to change it to "Xmas". Get the f*ck over it.

Same with the people who want to take "in God we trust" off of currency. And I'm a fucking atheist too.

You do realise that the X in Xmas is the Greek letter 'chi',which begins the word Christ,so there is nothing remotely secular or even non-Christian in its usage,they are thus interchangeable and equally Christian.

It's also key to why the fish symbol is used in Christianity, good call Xang. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's nothing secular or non-Christian- kind of the point originally was to use non-Christian signs to encode Christian messages, but your point still stands.

Bringing this back on topic, Christianity has a long history of co-opting pagan symbolism, often weakly acknowledged.

Symmetry wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I fucking hate non-Christians that complain about the "Christ" part of Christmas and want to change it to "Xmas". Get the f*ck over it.

Same with the people who want to take "in God we trust" off of currency. And I'm a fucking atheist too.

You do realise that the X in Xmas is the Greek letter 'chi',which begins the word Christ,so there is nothing remotely secular or even non-Christian in its usage,they are thus interchangeable and equally Christian.

It's also key to why the fish symbol is used in Christianity, good call Xang.

I thought that was because he was a piece of Cod, I mean God.

jonesthecurl wrote:I thought that was because he was a piece of Cod, I mean God.

Possibly not one for the routine Jonesy.

Yes, it would pass all understanding.

jonesthecurl wrote:Yes, it would pass all understanding.

Better

Symmetry wrote:For me, it's all about food recently. Specifically getting people together to share a meal.

For "religions" that derive from nomadic cultures (which Judaism comes from) the notion of "hospitality" especially in regards to the sharing of a meal is, literally everything! Consider the story of Sodom, which is prefaced by the same angels visiting Abraham and having Abraham rush out to the angels to offer them food and drink as was the proper custom in nomadic cultures.

Of course one does not eat a meal in silence (well my father does but he's old and annoying), but in a social setting of conversation and fellowship. Thus the social implications of the common meal become even more pronounced.

While this is not the "theme" for the Christian celebration (but it is a common theme in Christianity itself) it is a catalyst that causes a reason for a common sharing of a meal by those who do not normally do so on a daily basis.

So to quote a common song from the inhabitants of an insignificant dust speck, "Fah who for-aze!"

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:For me, it's all about food recently. Specifically getting people together to share a meal.

For "religions" that derive from nomadic cultures (which Judaism comes from) the notion of "hospitality" especially in regards to the sharing of a meal is, literally everything! Consider the story of Sodom, which is prefaced by the same angels visiting Abraham and having Abraham rush out to the angels to offer them food and drink as was the proper custom in nomadic cultures.

Of course one does not eat a meal in silence (well my father does but he's old and annoying), but in a social setting of conversation and fellowship. Thus the social implications of the common meal become even more pronounced.

While this is not the "theme" for the Christian celebration (but it is a common theme in Christianity itself) it is a catalyst that causes a reason for a common sharing of a meal by those who do not normally do so on a daily basis.

So to quote a common song from the inhabitants of an insignificant dust speck, "Fah who for-aze!"

I'm sort of glad we don't have to do the bathing guests' feet stuff anymore though. That would be awkward. Perhaps the gift giving of socks has replaced it as a tradition.

Nor do we have to execute our parents in order to take over the clan - this has been replaced by the giving of a tie.

jonesthecurl wrote:Nor do we have to execute our parents in order to take over the clan - this has been replaced by the giving of a tie.

Sure, I guess we don't have to...

Right. But tradition is tradition, yeah? If I'm gonna have a real tree, I'm gonna really murder my father.
Though of course, right afeter that we'll reject these outmoded concepts.
Right, curlson?
Curlson? What are you doing with that...

I'm sort of glad we don't have to do the bathing guests' feet stuff anymore though. That would be awkward. Perhaps the gift giving of socks has replaced it as a tradition.

2000 years ago you wouldn't wash people's feet Symmetry, as a scholar you would have servants and it would be part of their job to wash your feet. Since if a person could afford foot wear it was probably sandals most of the time your feet would be pretty coated in dirt and sand dust.

A lowly worker such as my self likely would be washing my own feet unless I had a wife. It would be super unlikely I would have an important enough guest over that she would lower herself to the point of washing their's.

You might wash the feet of someone who was high royalty of some sort. It would only be because you were groveling.

It would be far far below even a regular working class male person of that time to perform that task. If they had guests who were their approximate equal they would only provide a cloth and vessel of warm water for the guest to wash their own feet.

If you had servants they wouldn't wash everyone's feet as a greeting, it would be something they would do for you or very special guests who would be staying over night but for some reason did not bring their own valet.

You would have it done when you finished work as a luxury, possibly while you ate or likely before bed.

That tradition came out of religion and it's ability to make people do dumb things instead of just treating others with unconditional kindness. People started washing their guest's feet because instead of looking for a deeper meaning or message from the story of Yahushua washing his follower's feet, they just copy it in relative ignorance. Part of the point was it was way below him to do it, possibly to the extent that if it were suggested by one of them the rest of the group would commit violence to the guy who said it.

2dimes wrote:

I'm sort of glad we don't have to do the bathing guests' feet stuff anymore though. That would be awkward. Perhaps the gift giving of socks has replaced it as a tradition.

You wouldn't wash people's feet Symmetry, as a scholar you would have servants and it would be part of their job to wash your feet. Since if a person could afford foot wear it was probably sandals most of the time your feet would be pretty coated in dirt and sand dust.

A lowly worker such as my self likely would be washing my own feet unless I had a wife. It would be super unlikely I would have an important enough guest over that she would lower herself to the point of washing their's.

You might wash the feet of someone who was high royalty of some sort. It would only be because you were groveling.

It would be far far below even a regular working class male person of that time to perform that task. If they had guests who were their approximate equal they would only provide a cloth and vessel of warm water for the guest to wash their own feet.

If you had servants they wouldn't wash everyone's feet as a greeting, it would be something they would do for you or very special guests who would be staying over night but for some reason did not bring their own valet.

You would have it done when you finished work as a luxury, possibly while you ate or likely before bed.

That tradition came out of religion and it's ability to make people do dumb things instead of just treating others with unconditional kindness. People started washing their guest's feet because instead of looking for a deeper meaning or message from the story of Yahushua washing his follower's feet, they just copy it in relative ignorance. Part of the point was it was way below him to do it, possibly to the extent that if it were suggested by one of them the rest of the group would commit violence to the guy who said it.

Interesting, and this does open up some possibilities for the next time Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door.