djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (05/14/91)
In article <May.10.23.08.26.1991.27025@athos.rutgers.edu> cc5h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles Robert Claydon) writes: >Well, why do people attribute this trait to Christianity? Well, people who >are looking to defame Christians pin this label, along with others, on >Christians (OOOHHH, can you say "stereotype", boys and girls? It is another >trait rather common to people). Some thoughts. There is no need to go looking for anti-Christian malice where none need be present. Bova's law, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity or laziness," is applicable here. The reason that this particular trait is so associated with Christianity *in* *our* *culture* is that Christianity, and in particular the Catholic church, was so imbedded in the power structure of wesciv for so long that it was *the* place for persons seeking power and self-aggrandizement to turn. (This is one of the reasons why an Established Church is harmful to the ends of Christianity.) Thus, the most spectacular abuses through many centuries (e.g., the worse Crusades, the Inquisition, the Klan, and, yes, Virginia, the Third Reich) have been performed by persons claiming to be Christians acting *as* Christians. The AntiChrist, like the poor, we have always with us. Now, this is not to say that there is no anti-Christian bias anywhere. Particularly in some of the intellectual subcultures of our society (including the science fiction subculture, of which I am a member), acknowledged belief in God and/or Christ is a severe social stigma. A number of groups of "neopagans" and "wiccans" have grown up not so much around belief in what they pay tribute to as a goodhearted desire to annoy Christians. Yes, goodhearted. They don't see Christianity; they see Christians, who frankly look to them like hypocrites. But some of them go beyond that and begin seriously worshipping "strange gods," which cannot help but be dangerous (these people just don't *know* what they're messing with!), and many go beyond "goodheartedness" to an active and automatic dislike or hatred for Christians. This expresses itself in any number of ways, of which one of the more obvious is the use of the term "Xian" -- a sad thing, because many people use it *without* intending hatred (as an old Southerner might have used the term "nigger" or "nigra"). These people will point out, quite rightly, that the "X" abbreviation for "Christ" is of "Xian" origin, so why are we offended by it? The answer, of course, is that it is a reminder of the time when our people were persecuted and used the X and the fish as code symbols for what they feared to name openly lest they seek (rather than accept) martyrdom. Another answer is that it is symbolic of the destruction of our religion as shown by the commercialization of "Christmas" to "Xmas." At any rate, it does no good to seek hatred. It will find you anyway, so why look for it where there may be only ignorance? Ah has spoke! -- Pansy Yokum The Roach
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/17/91)
In article <May.14.03.10.28.1991.2968@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
+
+There is no need to go looking for anti-Christian malice where none need
+be present. Bova's law, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately
+be explained by stupidity or laziness," is applicable here.
Why do I bring up the Inquisition in conversation with Christians?
Because it seems to me that many Christians are unaware of some of
the 'real' extensions of some of the beliefs that are passed as
Christian fundamentals. Such beliefs as there is only one 'True'
Christian belief or there is only one 'true' religious expression
directly lead to inquistatorial situations. I believe the current
title of the Roman Catholic office which is the successor to the
Inquistion, is "the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith"(I could
be wrong on certain words here). It's main reason for being is to
determine what is Catholic doctrine and what is not. The previous
incarnation was an attempt to do the same. But unfortunately the
combination of church and state seems to have brought the 'evil'
which is attributed to the 'Inquistion'. I emphasize the
combintation of church and state, since it is of no consequence to
me whether the Catholics include or exclude various classes of
behavior or believes. It is when the state has punishments for
'ecclesiastical' states, i.e. excommunicated or engaging in
non-church approved practices, that the combination become yet
another essentially corrupt earthly power.
As for the abreviation of X for Christ that goes back a long way.
One should not see it as a 'decay' of religion. There are some
Christians who would like to take the 'mass' out of Christmass. It
was essentially the Pagan Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a time of
parties and gift giving.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
[In this context the "X" is actually the Greek chi, the first
letter of Christos. --clh]krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) (05/18/91)
I hope that I am not misunderstanding the point made referring to the abbreviation "Xmas" as being a bad(?) shortening of "Christmas". I am sure that the "X" in "Xmas" comes from the first greek letter in "Christ", namely "chi" which looks a lot like a capital X. Ted -- Be Excellent To Each Other
MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (05/19/91)
When you say some Christians want to take the "mass" out of "Christmas" because it goes back to Roman pagan celebrations you are conflating two issues. The word "Christmas" was originally "Christ's Mass", a Mass specially celebrated to commemorate the birth of Christ. Those Protestants who vehemently oppose the Catholic teaching on the Mass might object to the name for that reason. Some people say that the date of Christmas was set at December 25 because it was the near the date of a Roman celebration. They then go on to draw various erroneous conclusions, such as that Jesus was never born or that Christmas is a pagan feast. If, in fact, the date was chosen to coincide with a pagan celebration the most likely reason is that Christians could celebrate without drawing attention to themselves because everyone else was celebrating. When being a Christian was against the law, it was important to learn how not to be seen. Marty Helgesen
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/22/91)
In article <May.18.22.45.43.1991.14031@athos.rutgers.edu> MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes:
+When you say some Christians want to take the "mass" out of
+"Christmas" because it goes back to Roman pagan celebrations you
+are conflating two issues. The word "Christmas" was originally
+"Christ's Mass", a Mass specially celebrated to commemorate the
+birth of Christ. Those Protestants who vehemently oppose the
+Catholic teaching on the Mass might object to the name for that
These 'protestants' were called Puritans, actually Separatists, who
wanted to purify the church of pagan influences. This was not 20
years ago or so, but in the 16-17 centuries.
There is no reason to beleive that Jesus was born on or around
December. There is no 'Jewish' holiday of religious significance in
December. I have read hypotheses that Spring is more likely the
time, say Passover when all good Jewish families get together for
Sader.
I believe the Christ's Mass began late in 4-6 centuries. I believe
Mithra's birthday was also celebrated on or about 25 December.
You may celebrate what you want when you want as far as I'm
concerned. But when I hear the 'devaluation of the Holiday spirit'
line I usually bring up the Pagan origins of the December Holiday.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edudjdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (05/22/91)
In article <May.18.00.41.50.1991.2939@athos.rutgers.edu> krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) writes: >I hope that I am not misunderstanding the point made referring >to the abbreviation "Xmas" as being a bad(?) shortening of >"Christmas". I am sure that the "X" in "Xmas" comes from the >first greek letter in "Christ", namely "chi" which looks a lot >like a capital X. You aren't...and you are. As Our Moderator (Blessed Be He) observed elsewhere, yes, that is the *source* of the "X." (The Gk letter was also ikonic because it looks kind of like a stick figure of a bent human frame bearing a crosspiece, the part of the cross they actually made the condemned carry.) But *today* and *in*English* (or Merkin, the language we speak here in Merka), "X" does *not* stand for Christ. "Cmas" might be slightly better, in that sense, I suppose. "Xmas," to many of us, carries connotations of pure commerciality; it became supercommon in modern usage as a result of stores trying to shorten the big word to fit more stuff into their "!!!XMAS SALE!!!" advertisements. To which I can only say, Feh, and (though I certainly *do* exchange gifts and put up a tree) that's not Christmas. That's Xmas. Even more to the point, though, the term "Xtian" is used by a subset of "neopagans" and "wiccans" who definitely intend it to be a slam. Note that I am *NOT* saying that *ALL* N's and W's who use this term mean it that way. But the "X" has taken on, for some of us (and especially for some of us who live in places where neopaganism and wiccanism have a strong hold), a feeling of bigotry. >-- >Be Excellent To Each Other Party on, Dude! Dan'l
ipoulin@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (05/23/91)
In article <May.18.22.45.43.1991.14031@athos.rutgers.edu>, MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes: > ... Some people say that the date of Christmas was set at > December 25 because it was the near the date of a Roman celebration. > They then go on to draw various erroneous conclusions, such as that > Jesus was never born or that Christmas is a pagan feast. ... Just as an idea as to the _real_ time of the birth of Jesus Christ, look at scripture" "There were sheapherds abiding in the field keeping their flocks by night" The only time, then and now, that sheapherds bring their flocks into the fields at night is during the lambing season in April and May, so as to use the dark of night to protect the young lambs from predatory animals. :) Ian :)
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/24/91)
One professor of mine suggested that since taxes were normally collected in the Spring, that Jesus was probably born in the Spring. If we can find the time between John B's birth and Jesus' birth, and how long between Zachariahs offering in the temple, and Johns birth, maybe we could narrow it down. Link
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/24/91)
In article <May.22.01.08.55.1991.1993@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >In article <May.18.00.41.50.1991.2939@athos.rutgers.edu> krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) writes: >"Xmas," to many of us, carries connotations of pure commerciality; >it became supercommon in modern usage as a result of stores trying >to shorten the big word to fit more stuff into their "!!!XMAS SALE!!!" >advertisements. To which I can only say, Feh, and (though I certainly >*do* exchange gifts and put up a tree) that's not Christmas. That's >Xmas. Indeed, the abbreviation 'X-mas' has always bothered me. This past year I was also disturbed to find that almost everyone I knew was referring to "ThanksGiving" as "Turkey Day". This suggested to me that the day is no longer celebrated as the day we give thanks, but the day that we eat turkey! (Observational evidence supports this conclusion.) I for one do not wish to be referred to as an Xian. I understand the abbreviation, but with my background, it conjures up things like 'Ngon', (a polygon with N sides). Xian to me seems to mean a disciple of X, where X is an arbitrary teacher. Let it be perfectly clear. The word is Christian. If you wish, you may accuse me of not being a Christian, but please, do not refer to me as an Xian. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/26/91)
In article <May.22.01.08.55.1991.1993@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
+
+Even more to the point, though, the term "Xtian" is used by a subset
+of "neopagans" and "wiccans" who definitely intend it to be a slam.
Usually when writing in groups other than soc.religion.christian I
use the abreviation of 'X-ian' which if one objects to this then one
should on principle object to BTW, IMHO, et al. Pagans feel a
certain amount of animosity towards Christians due to being labeled
'devil worshippers' 'satanists' which have great emotional content
in Christian circles but have very little to do with pagan belief
systems.
This is not to deny that there are groups which have turned
'Chritianity' upside-down and invented some religious 'rituals'
based on such inverse concepts. Furthermore, since Christians as
noted in the 'accept Jesus the only way for savedness' thread feel
that anything outside Christianity is somewhat Satan inspired, the
pagans can only be worshipping these demonic forces.
Also there is a whole sub-culture based on the shock value that the
'demonic' concept induces and uses that to quote "question the
establishment". Being an ancient Hippy I understand the guerrilla
theater aspects of most of this type of activity.
As for the 'criminal' element, there are groups which use the
'demonic' concepts just as the 'wholesome kids but being a little
wild' types do. However, these individuals do not stop at shock
presence, but commit criminial acts. In the '50s such types where
called 'Hell's Angels' or 'Outlaws'. There is no difference between
then and now. Even more ancient than I were the 'Zoot Suiters'. Even
more ancient than that....
The point of this is that many pagan preceive that Christians lump
them in with the last category of criminals using 'hocus-pocus' in
conjunction with criminal acts. If you are of such a mind then don't
be to surprised when you receive forceful negative reviews.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edujclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/26/91)
In article <May.23.23.59.50.1991.22437@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
+
+Indeed, the abbreviation 'X-mas' has always bothered me. This past year
+I was also disturbed to find that almost everyone I knew was referring
+to "ThanksGiving" as "Turkey Day". This suggested to me that the day is
I personally object to the 'lengthing' of the X-mas buying period.
It has nothing to do with a religious feeling but more to do with
what I preceive as an incessant materialism. How does not stop these
things? My personal choice is to avoid shopping at stores which have
X-mas displays up be for Halloween. It is the 'rule' at our house to
not discuss X-mas gift lists until after Turkey-day. There has been
some consideration as to just going to China for December, but we're
not rich enough.
Vote No with your pocketbook.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edudjdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (06/02/91)
In article <May.26.01.38.03.1991.13341@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >Usually when writing in groups other than soc.religion.christian I >use the abreviation of 'X-ian' which if one objects to this then one >should on principle object to BTW, IMHO, et al. Are you familiar with the term "paralogia?" It refers to the process of making a connection which appears logical but is not at all. If there were a person or group of people called By The Way or In My Humble Opinion, who objected to being called BTW or IMHO, then by all means I would object to these terms and eschew their use. (This would *not* apply, btw, to a group of people who took that name *now* for the purpose of objecting to it.) I refuse to use terms like "nigger," "wop," "kike," "faggot," "dyke," "castrating cunt," etc., [note: the previous list was not use but reference; if you don't understand the difference, ask a logician], because there are people whose real feelings are honestly harmed by their use. I'll get to a couple more such terms after this list... >Pagans feel a >certain amount of animosity towards Christians due to being labeled >'devil worshippers' 'satanists' which have great emotional content >in Christian circles but have very little to do with pagan belief >systems. Completely agreed, and I have no patience or tolerance for self-calling "Christians" who call these people such things. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." In some *specific* cases, as I believe I mentioned, I think some of these neo-pagans are not sincere but merely trying to shock and/or offend. That subset should not be upset when people display signs of shock and offense. But most of the neopagans and wiccans I've met (and, as I think I mentioned, I've met quite a few, in Berkeley and in science fiction circles) are quite sincere. I may believe they're *wrong* but that doesn't give me the right to condemn them -- and I don't. I much prefer their attitude to that of self-righteous peole who feel the need to force all others to conform to their belief system! >This is not to deny that there are groups which have turned >'Chritianity' upside-down and invented some religious 'rituals' >based on such inverse concepts. And there are also subsets of the neo-pagan/wiccan "revival" who don't believe what they're doing, but only wish to offend Judeo- Christian believers. I regard these people in much the same light I regard bigots of my own faith: whatever additional animosity I might feel because their bigotry is addressed toward a group I belong to, is balanced by what I feel toward those who pervert what I believe. >Furthermore, since Christians as >noted in the 'accept Jesus the only way for savedness' thread feel >that anything outside Christianity is somewhat Satan inspired, the >pagans can only be worshipping these demonic forces. "Christians feel this" is like saying "whites feel that blacks are inferior." It's a half-truth: which is to say a complete lie. Some members of any group feel that their group is right and everyone else is wrong. Condemning Christianity on this basis is hypocritical, unless one condemns every other belief-group (including neopaganism) on the same ground: *some* members of them all are bigoted fools. >Being an ancient Hippy I understand the guerrilla >theater aspects of most of this type of activity. Being just a *little* too young to have been a Hip, I envy you (Aaagh! Deadly Sin!:*) -- the distinction I draw is between those who do it as guerrilla theatre, which I enjoy even when it's my mind that's being blown, and those who do it as hate. A superannuated Hippy should have no argument with that! >The point of this is that many pagan preceive that Christians lump >them in with the last category of criminals using 'hocus-pocus' in >conjunction with criminal acts. If you are of such a mind then don't >be to surprised when you receive forceful negative reviews. I'm not. I'm not attacking anyone else; I'm defending something dear to me and speaking out against bigotry. Zat cool? Ah has spoke! -- Pansy Yokum The Roach