The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

 We were arguably more knowledgeable in 450 BC or 100 AD than we were in 1400. The history of knowledge does not work how you describe, upon a straight chronological trajectory from ignorance to enlightenment. Rome resisted Christianity for Christianity's first 300 years. When Rome suddenly started ceasing (to persecute Christianity) did it then pass into ''enlightenment, knowledge''? Your entire theory falls flat on its face because of its inert chronological silliness.

But I wasn't comparing 450 BC to 1400 AD. I was comparing 2000 years ago with today! And I haven't argued that "the history of knowledge work […] upon straight chronological trajectory"! You are still not responding to what I write but to nothing but strawmen  It is just incredible.

 

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But I wasn't comparing 450 BC to 1400 AD. I was comparing 2000 years ago with today! And I haven't argued that "the history of knowledge work […] upon straight chronological trajectory"! You are still not responding to what I write but to nothing but strawmen  It is just incredible.

 

I was demonstrating the irrelevancy of putting a chronological date upon knowledge, and regarding that date with a sort of arrogance which comes naturally to you. So you deem our society, 2018,  more capable of withstanding religion - or what you term, ''theisms'' - than yesteryear? Why then is Christianity picking up converts in China and South Korea? China has a space program!!

And are you going to ever answer my question whether or not Romans suddenly had some dramatic dumbing down of education and knowledge in 313?

Edited December 11, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

For Soul's theory to work, man would have had to have been at his most stupidest when Christianity first flourished, and intellectual when Christianity was at its most marginalized. This is the inherent logic of the point Soul is making. 

Literally everything we know about the history of Christianity contradicts this!

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I was demonstrating the irrelevancy of putting a chronological date upon knowledge, and regarding that date with a sort of arrogance which comes naturally to you. So you deem our society, 2018,  more capable of withstanding religion - or what you term, ''theisms'' - than yesteryear? Why then is Christianity picking up converts in China and South Korea? China has a space program!!

And are you going to ever answer my question whether or not Romans suddenly had some dramatic dumbing down of education and knowledge in 313?

But I haven't put a chronological date upon knowledge, just stated the obvious fact that we know a lot more today than we did 2000 years ago! Stop fantasizing about what I argue, start relating to what I write! You are not this stupid!

Yes, I deem our society more capable of withstanding religion than the societies of the iron age because we know more than what they did about the natural world. That doesn't mean that we can't have theisms today, or that specific theisms may not still gain in popularity in certain regions  It is not like religiosity is only a function of how knowledgeable we are.

You are asking me if Romans had some dramatic dumbing down of education and knowledge in 313 when they formally adopted christianity? What an odd question. Eh, no? Why would they? Despite christianity being a more moronic theism than the complex belief systems they had, it did offer certain advantages, especially the fact that their emperor had converted (!). You basically seem to think I have argued that the only thing that determines whether a religion proliferates is how intelligent it is and how knowledgeable the recipients are. Again, that is you not understanding what I write.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

For Soul's theory to work

What theory would that be? I haven't presented a theory  I have stated five simple facts. Here they are again:

1. We ARE a lot more knowledgeable today than 2000 years ago. I shouldn't really have to emphasize this because it should be obvious to anyone, but you have such an antipathy for modern society and such an infatuation with the classical period (even to the extent of once arguing that people in the Roman Empire was better off than humans in the 21st century) that I wouldn't be surprised if you would emphatically argue that people knew more in the iron age than they do today.

2. Theism, and other forms of supernatural beliefs, does not thrive in enlightened societies. That is why there is a positive correlation between how educated one is, and how likely one is to be an atheist. That is why there is an inverse positive correlation between GDP and religiosity. That is why there is an inverse correlation between Nobel laureates and religiosity. Etc. If you happen to be very knowledgeable about the world, then it is less likely you are very religious. Not necessarily because wise people see through the nonsense of theism, but because they happen to have good, natural alternative answers to many of the supernatural answers provided by theisms.

3. So yes, if you want to be a theist it really does help to be ignorant or unintelligent. Not saying it is a prerequisite, just that it helps.

4. Theisms HAVE exploited our lack of knowledge. One might argue that religions were developed to provide us with answers to questions that gnawed us but for which we had no other answers. God would be a go-to explanation for everything that was mysterious. Of course, our scientific efforts have chipped away at that, repeatedly presenting entirely logical, natural alternative explanations, and hence there are fewer places for god to hide. The gaps are closing in. And less and less people believe in gods.

5. And christianity wasn't an intellectual reformation. Christianity didn't make any more intellectual sense than its predecessor, judaism, or pagan theisms that christianity would out-compete. Christianity really isn't a religion that is known for its internal logic. As quite a few church fathers have said, and I paraphrase, it really helps if one doesn't think too much about it  The main difference was that christianity opened up for gentiles, it was socially inclusive, and that it was a religion aimed at social reform. But there was many other reasons why early christianity grew rapidly, some of which we have touched upon before like what it offered to its followers and the fact that it became persecuted.

Which one will you now mangle?

[Iron MikeyJ]

I would argue Theology is one of, if not THE most intellectual of all of the "ologies." It requires intellegince and wisdom to properly grasp. Most other "ologies" can be grasped with just intelligence, even similar ones such as Psychology and Sociology. Yes, to really master them you need a fair amount of wisdom. But you can get a piece of paper (degree) saying you have mastered them (doctrate) and have very little, if any real wisdom. 

Without wisdom you will be LOST in theology. Without intelligence you wont be able to understand it. You really need both.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Sosso]

The most important discipline of philosophy is Ontology @Iron MikeyJ

"Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

[EvanG]

50 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is just incredible.

But why do you keep falling for it? This is what he does... and I'm not saying this to take a shot at him, because I don't know if he does this on purpose or if he simply doesn't get it, but I've seen him do this to other people in a discussion/argument many times as well, but especially with you. He starts assuming things or arguing something you have never said, and you keep reacting to it and repeating yourself.

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, Sosso said:

The most important discipline of philosophy is Ontology @Iron MikeyJ

"Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

While that's true, it doesnt really mean anything. Knowledge and intelligence is know facts, learning information, etc. Wisdom requires applying that knowledge and discerning what is true and false. 

So somebody can still just learn ontology and regurgitate that information, without any real sense of wisdom. Now obviously there are tons out there with both, I'm not saying there isnt. But there are also tons of people with psychology degrees that have the wisdom of a fly (I've met some).

Yes the same could be said about theologians (hence why 30,000 Christian denominations exist). But to truly master theology, you HAVE to have wisdom. Not just Christian or Catholic, but look at the Buddhist monks, they have a STRONG theological understanding, hence why people go to them so often.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, EvanG said:

But why do you keep falling for it? This is what he does... and I'm not saying this to take a shot at him, because I don't know if he does this on purpose or if he simply doesn't get it, but I've seen him do this to other people in a discussion/argument many times as well, but especially with you. He starts assuming things or arguing something you have never said, and you keep reacting to it and repeating yourself.

I find some entertainment in it, but I have no idea why.

[EvanG]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I find some entertainment in it, but I have no idea why.

Haha... well, that's fair. When I'm having a discussion and someone repeatedly puts words in my mouth that I haven't said or argues things I've never implied, I'd be done with it rather quickly. But each to his own!

Carry on...

 

[DieselDaisy]

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What theory would that be? I haven't presented a theory  I have stated five simple facts. Here they are again:

1. We ARE a lot more knowledgeable today than 2000 years ago. I shouldn't really have to emphasize this because it should be obvious to anyone, but you have such an antipathy for modern society and such an infatuation with the classical period (even to the extent of once arguing that people in the Roman Empire was better off than humans in the 21st century) that I wouldn't be surprised if you would emphatically argue that people knew more in the iron age than they do today.

2. Theism, and other forms of supernatural beliefs, does not thrive in enlightened societies. That is why there is a positive correlation between how educated one is, and how likely one is to be an atheist. That is why there is an inverse positive correlation between GDP and religiosity. That is why there is an inverse correlation between Nobel laureates and religiosity. Etc. If you happen to be very knowledgeable about the world, then it is less likely you are very religious. Not necessarily because wise people see through the nonsense of theism, but because they happen to have good, natural alternative answers to many of the supernatural answers provided by theisms.

3. So yes, if you want to be a theist it really does help to be ignorant or unintelligent. Not saying it is a prerequisite, just that it helps.

4. Theisms HAVE exploited our lack of knowledge. One might argue that religions were developed to provide us with answers to questions that gnawed us but for which we had no other answers. God would be a go-to explanation for everything that was mysterious. Of course, our scientific efforts have chipped away at that, repeatedly presenting entirely logical, natural alternative explanations, and hence there are fewer places for god to hide. The gaps are closing in. And less and less people believe in gods.

5. And christianity wasn't an intellectual reformation. Christianity didn't make any more intellectual sense than its predecessor, judaism, or pagan theisms that christianity would out-compete. Christianity really isn't a religion that is known for its internal logic. As quite a few church fathers have said, and I paraphrase, it really helps if one doesn't think too much about it  The main difference was that christianity opened up for gentiles, it was socially inclusive, and that it was a religion aimed at social reform. But there was many other reasons why early christianity grew rapidly, some of which we have touched upon before like what it offered to its followers and the fact that it became persecuted.

Which one will you now mangle?

I'd say I have shown that the first one is completely irrelevant, and 2-3 demonstrably incorrect - I don't set everything out in baby bullet points. I don't agree with 5 either. I'd say religion is inherently extra-intellectual as it seeks something that is beyond the knowable material world, but religions have been transmitted to intellectual societies. Pertinent to Pauline Christianity it was passed to bilingual-literate groups who had a thorough grounding in Graeco-Romano culture and philosophy. 

[soon]

30 minutes ago, EvanG said:

But why do you keep falling for it? This is what he does... and I'm not saying this to take a shot at him, because I don't know if he does this on purpose or if he simply doesn't get it, but I've seen him do this to other people in a discussion/argument many times as well, but especially with you. He starts assuming things or arguing something you have never said, and you keep reacting to it and repeating yourself.

It doesn't bother you that a great number of Souls points posted in this thread are erroneous assumptions?

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, soon said:

It doesn't bother you that a great number of Souls points posted in this thread are erroneous assumptions?

I wasn't commenting on the discussion itself. 

[Len Cnut]

I love Soul, he's can be quite trying, can't he?   Not to put too fine a point on it but he could get on Mother Theresas tits...actually, hers more than anyones   

Edited December 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[OmarBradley]

 

On 12/11/2018 at 9:30 AM, Iron MikeyJ said:

I have a question for (nonChristians) here, not judgemental or arguementive, but rather out of curiosity... Why do you feel the need to celebrate Christmas and Easter? 

I'm sure many of you will point to the secular traditions, but even those secular traditions date back to Christian traditions. Also (before someone mentions Saturnalia and Yule) I am FULLY capable of debunking incorrect information that is being spread in regards to those (like Adam ruins everything is NOT factually correct).

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for EVERYONE celebrating the birth and death of Christ (Christmas and Easter), after all he is your savior as well. I guess my issue is secular society seems to really trying to pervert those holidays and turn them into something else. Which as a Christian I find offensive. Secular society couldn't pervert Hannuka or an Islamic holiday (forgive me I dont know any by name), without some sort of backlash. Yet the Christian holidays are very much under attack, and most dont even bat an eye. 

I welcome and encourage everyone here to celebrate Christmas. But I find atheists and others that do, somewhat hypocritical (not trying to fire anyone up, just being honest here). No matter how you try, you cant take CHRIST out of Christmas, you just cant do it, its IN the name CHRIST'S MASS. I'm not saying its inappropriate for you to celebrate something during the holiday season or buy and exchange gifts. But the putting up a Christmas tree or Christmas decorations, etc... See my point? You are STILL celebrating Christ whether you like it or not. Which is great, he is your savior, but yet you claim to not believe in him. I just dont really understand why you do it then? Tradition? Well it is a CHRISTIAN tradition. So again...

I guess my point is, as we near Christmas, I hope you all keep that in mind when you open up your presents under your Christmas tree. You are still celebrating Christmas, a Christian holiday. I dont think nonchristians have any right to put expectations on Christian's during a Christian holiday (which IS going on right now). 

I guess in the spirit of fairness, if nonChristians still want to celebrate something during the holidays, Seinfield already gave you an idea. Put up your festivus pole, and put your gifts under that. Make up your own holiday to celebrate. But I'm sorry, you cant have Christmas. You are more than welcome to celebrate it, but be respectful to those of us that ARE actually celebrating the birth of Christ. Just a thought...

On 12/11/2018 at 10:20 AM, Iron MikeyJ said:

My point was NOT to turn people off from celebrating it, because yes the more people celebrating it the better. The hypocrite comment (was a bit harsh, and for that I apologize). You just dont see nonJews lighting the menorah, so why do nonChristians feel the need to celebrate Christmas? That's kinds my point. Why do you celebrate something you dont believe in? That's what I dont understand. 

On 12/11/2018 at 3:56 PM, Iron MikeyJ said:

I would argue Theology is one of, if not THE most intellectual of all of the "ologies." It requires intellegince and wisdom to properly grasp. Most other "ologies" can be grasped with just intelligence, even similar ones such as Psychology and Sociology. Yes, to really master them you need a fair amount of wisdom. But you can get a piece of paper (degree) saying you have mastered them (doctrate) and have very little, if any real wisdom. 

Without wisdom you will be LOST in theology. Without intelligence you wont be able to understand it. You really need both.

Okay, this is a big string of nonsense. Due to geopolitical/historical reasons, Christianity has infused itself with American/Western culture and unfortunately, politics to a degree as well. Christmas is not just a religious celebration, it is a cultural event. Non-believers and folks from other religions participate in Christmas because that is what the Western world does every December 24/25th (not to say there aren't Christians residing in the East). Entire industries come to a halt for the holiday and the government closes - are industries or the government religious? No, at least they're not supposed to be. But culture dictates this is what happens. Christmas is also a business. Billions of revenue dollars are generated every year by companies intending to either profit directly on Christmas/Christmas-related products or by offering discounted services/products for the holiday season. These companies don't care if you're Christian, atheist, Jewish, Hindu, etc. - they want your cash. And companies are really good at coming up with ways to get cash from your pocket to theirs - again, they don't care which religion/race/ethnicity you are, if they market something and people will buy it, the company will sell it.

You can't shove Christmas in peoples' faces and then get upset when they want to participate too. The holiday has been commercialized and culturalized. The technicality that some atheists or non-Christians are still celebrating Christ by having a tree and putting presents under it, well they don't care because they don't believe in that. But when you take a religion/holiday and force people to endure it year after year regardless of their faith, people seem to want to get in on it (I'm overgeneralizing, but the point stands) 

What do you mean by "the Christian holidays are very much under attack"? While I jokingly consider myself a lieutenant in the army that wages the "War on Christmas," I have a hard time believing the the US' dominant religion is facing a legitimate threat. Are you someone who gets upset when "happy holidays" is said instead of "Merry Christmas"? If so, you are perpetuating the culturalization of Christmas.

Are you expert on other "ologies"? Are you even expert on "theology"? By expert, I mean you've studied the topic at an academic/research setting (at the least that is, preferably you'd hold a degree in the subject) - not Googling and reading random books from your church's library. I am not implying you don't have knowledge about this subject, but to claim expertise is different discussion. And this nonsensical claim that theology is unique in its requirement of wisdom is unfounded. It's insulting honestly.  And then you criticize the "piece of paper" to say those who are awarded "doctrates" (whatever that is) lack wisdom? I'm sorry Mike, but this is ridiculousness of frightening levels. Of everything you've said on this forum that I disagree with, that last paragraph is probably the most blatant offender (to me at least ).

On 12/11/2018 at 9:46 AM, soon said:

In the modern context, Christian holidays being observed universally has a lot to do with Christianity's role in establishing the 5 day work week and other wins against Capitalism. Christians and Jews worked closely with the marxist and anarchist in these labour battles (or were already both Christian and Anarchist or whatever). Its no coincidence that the weekend is the Sabbath and Sunday service. And by the work day ending at 5, Jewish people have a chance to make the Sabbath preparations before sundown. The people united around shared interests and put forward arguments for 40 hour work week, sick days, holidays, etc. And the united people were able to win a Christmas Statutory holiday for everyone.

This is partially true, but there was also a major labor/populist movement in the US which started in the 19th century and culminated in the first half of the 20th century. This movement was the direct cause of labor reform (in the US at least), not religious reasons. I'm not familiar with how other countries' labor conditions progressed though, so if you were referring to elsewhere, I can't comment on that.

On 12/11/2018 at 10:41 AM, Len Cnut said:

I would've thought that a society that had all the greek thinkers in place already wouldn't look twice at something like Christianity.

Most of the famous Greek thinkers and playwrights (Socrates, Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc.) predate Christ by about 300-600 years. I haven't studied Rome or the Hellenistic Period much, but the only philosopher I'm familiar with from that time is Plutarch. He unfortunately didn't say much of anything about Christianity, though if I recall correctly he did believe in a natural deity. Oh right, I think Epictetus would have been first or second century AD actually, I have read his piece. Never found stoicism interesting though, reeks of complacency. Don't think he talked about Christianity either.

On 12/11/2018 at 3:22 PM, DieselDaisy said:

For Soul's theory to work, man would have had to have been at his most stupidest when Christianity first flourished, and intellectual when Christianity was at its most marginalized. This is the inherent logic of the point Soul is making. 

Literally everything we know about the history of Christianity contradicts this!

That's just not what he said. You took his premise and decided to reinterpret it. He was clear in differentiating intellect vs. knowledge. Smart people have always existed. Smart people who know that atoms are made up of many subatomic particles (the Greeks sort of got this one actually, but not anywhere near the level of detail we have today) and that the universe is an expanding void, well they have not always existed. Humanity in the modern era has really started to harness the power of the knowledge acquired over the past ~5,000 years. Sure, there was a bit of a downturn during the Middle Ages (in the West at least), but no one claimed it was a perfect increasing slope correlation between time and knowledge. Certainly there seems to be a correlation, but the graph would look fractaly with uptrends and downtrends, if such a thing could be accurately charted.

Edited December 12, 2018 by OmarBradley

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

 

That's just not what he said. You took his premise and decided to reinterpret it. He was clear in differentiating intellect vs. knowledge. Smart people have always existed. Smart people who know that atoms are made up of many subatomic particles (the Greeks sort of got this one actually, but not anywhere near the level of detail we have today) and that the universe is an expanding void, well they have not always existed. Humanity in the modern era has really started to harness the power of the knowledge acquired over the past ~5,000 years. Sure, there was a bit of a downturn during the Middle Ages (in the West at least), but no one claimed it was a perfect increasing slope correlation between knowledge and time. Certainly there seems to be a correlation, but the graph would look fractaly with uptrends and downtrends, if such a thing could be accurately charted.

I didn't decide to reinterpret anything. 

[janrichmond]

I fucking love christmas 🎄🎅🏻🎅🏼🎅🏽🎅🏾🎅🏿🎄

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'd say I have shown that the first one is completely irrelevant, and 2-3 demonstrably incorrect - I don't set everything out in baby bullet points. I don't agree with 5 either. I'd say religion is inherently extra-intellectual as it seeks something that is beyond the knowable material world, but religions have been transmitted to intellectual societies. Pertinent to Pauline Christianity it was passed to bilingual-literate groups who had a thorough grounding in Graeco-Romano culture and philosophy. 

So point 1 is irrelevant to the you? Well, it was very relevant to the argument I was making. Sorry about it not being relevant to your misinterpretation of what I wrote! 

And you disagree with 2, that "theism, and other forms of supernatural beliefs, does not thrive in enlightened societies" and that "if you happen to be very knowledgeable about the world, then it is less likely you are very religious"? I think this is rather well substantiated through empirical data. There is a strong inverse correlation between religiosity and things like average education level, GDP, number of peer-reviewed publication produced per capita, etc. Why do you disagree with this? 

And you don't agree with 5, that christianity was more of a social reform than an intellectual reform. Okay, care to elaborate?

7 hours ago, soon said:

It doesn't bother you that a great number of Souls points posted in this thread are erroneous assumptions?

What points are based on erroneous assumptions?

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I love Soul, he's can be quite trying, can't he?   Not to put too fine a point on it but he could get on Mother Theresas tits...actually, hers more than anyones   

The only reason I have to repeat my arguments again and again to the point of it becoming annoying is that Dies is repeatedly misinterpreting what I say to go off on irrelevant tangents. He reads something I write, doesn't get it, or chooses not do, and then posts a long semi-relevant post that only works at refuting his misinterpretation of what I said while claiming I was wrong. I would say such failure to discuss honestly is more trying than anything.

[SoulMonster]

This is actually not form the onion, it is a real newsstory:

 

Quote

Satanic statue on display in Illinois Capitol rotunda for the holidays

A statue from The Satanic Temple-Chicago is now featured in the Illinois Capitol rotunda for the holiday season. 

The display, which features a woman's hand holding an apple as a snake wraps around her forearm, joins a nativity scene to honor Christmas and a menorah to honor Hanukkah.

Lex Manticore, a spokesperson for the city's Satanic Temple told The State Journal-Register that the statue represents a Biblical Eve eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. "We see Satan as a hero in that story," he said. 

The group doesn't believe in anything supernatural, Manticore told the Journal-Register, but sees Satan as a symbol of "rebellion in the face of religious tyranny.”

The statue, known as "Snaketivity" from a crowdsourcing campaign, displays a plaque saying "Knowledge is the greatest gift."

Because the Capitol rotunda is a public place and the display wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars, Illinois Secretary of State spokesman Dave Druker said the group has the same rights as other religious organizations to put a display there. 

In the past, the Capitol has featured other displays challenging religion, including a sign from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation declaring religion a "myth" and an aluminum Festivus pole installed by a Springfield resident. 

Source: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/06/satanic-statue-display-illinois-capitol-rotunda-holidays/2223852002/

This, though, is the onion commenting upon it: https://www.theonion.com/satanic-statue-on-display-in-illinois-capitol-building-1831023227

 

[Iron MikeyJ]

@OmarBradley,

You entirely missed my point. My point was... most if not all of those that celebrate Christmas probably have some ties to Christianity historically (not because that's what society does, but rather their own families). You are not going to see a lot of Jewish and Muslim families celebrating Christmas, yet atheist and agnostics are perfectly happy to join in the celebration. Why? Because somewhere in their family line, they were more than likely Christian at some point. 

While I DO feel it is everyone's right to celebrate Christmas, I'm just simply posing the question why do you feel the need to celebrate birth of Christ if you are atheists? Because its secular? Or because its tradition? Dont you see the problem of cherry picking what you like and dont like from Christianity? So belief in Christ, that's nonsense? But celebrating his birth? You are all for that? Where is the logic in that? If you are truly strong in your convictions, then you should stand on them ALL the time, including during the Christmas season. Surely you are above silly things like "because its secular or tradition" at this point I would wager. 

So as you gather around your tree on December 25th, and open presents, just remember YOU are still participating in a Christian holiday. It doesnt matter how much secular society has tried to steal it, all of its history is traced back to Christianity (as I've pointed out in this very thread). So just keep that in mind, that everything you dislike or even hate about Christianity or religion as a whole, you are a willing participant on December 25th. Dont you see irony there???

As for my discussion on Theology, for one that's just my opinion, but it's a field of study I've spent more time on than you have I'd wager. So maybe you should actually give it a go before you get all twisted about it. My point in bringing it up was because Soul was saying "theists are stupid" more or less. I was pointing out that THEOLOGY is one of the most advanced fields of thought one can study. (Notice I said ONE of).

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So as you gather around your tree on December 25th, and open presents, just remember YOU are still participating in a Christian holiday. 

It depends to what extent the way you celebrate Christmas incorporates christian themes. I mean, my Jul celebration is an amalgam of pagan, secular and christian traditions, combined into a new entirely secular holiday. There is definitely remnants of pagan traditions there. Like hanging out food for the birds. Or secular traditions with our Jule beer. Or christian traditions with the stars in the windows. So I wouldn't say I am participating in a christian holiday, I am participating in Jul, which is a remnant of the merging of pagan and christian holidays with secular traditions added on top of it.

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It depends to what extent the way you celebrate Christmas incorporates christian themes. I mean, my Jul celebration is an amalgam of pagan, secular and christian traditions, combined into a new entirely secular holiday. There is definitely remnants of pagan traditions there. Like hanging out food for the birds. Or secular traditions with our Jule beer. Or christian traditions with the stars in the windows. So I wouldn't say I am participating in a christian holiday, I am participating in Jul, which is a remnant of the merging of pagan and christian holidays with secular traditions added on top of it.

Based on what you said here, it sounds like you might actually be standing on your convictions, for that I can respect. Do you have a tree or images of Saint Nicholas? 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

Based on what you said here, it sounds like you might actually be standing on your convictions, for that I can respect. Do you have a tree or images of Saint Nicholas? 

What convictions?

Yes, jule trees are important. Last year we invested in plastic one. No images of Saint Nicholas, but a few images and sculptures of his secular derivative, Santa Clause.