What don't you like about Christmas?

[Robert Maxwell]

Because tolerance is not important. It would be obscene for a feminist to demand to be tolerated by men, it's a matter of legal rights, economic exploitation, raw power and so on.
What's the point of tolerating Blacks / women / homosexuals when they are still overrepresented in the prisons / suffer from wage discrimination / are forbidden to marry?

I am not saying that Christian morals are universal, there are all kind of Christians. What I am saying that the idea of universality exists in the Gospels and existed during the beginning of Christianity, after Paul opened it up to Gentiles. Who joined this strange Jewish sect? The excluded, the poor.
After three centuries it became a state religion and a pretty nasty institution and the idea was lost.

So what I am saying is not that Christianity is universal but that the idea of universality exists, among other spaces, in Christianity. Another space in which it exists is e.g. Star Trek with United Earth and the United Federation of Planets. There exist probably numerous more incarnations of universality.

I'm sorry, but an argument like, "Christianity is universal, therefore non-Christians should embrace its values" is not going to fly. Christians may want their religion to be the "one true way," but it isn't, not in a pluralistic, diverse world.

If you mean that there are places where we can find common ground between Christians and non-Christians, I would agree. However, the values that make this possible are only coincidentally Christian in nature--values like mercy, brotherhood, and charity did not originate with Christianity, and it is dishonest to claim that their universality originated with the Gospels. This would also imply non-Western religions can't have those concepts, since Christians invented them and spread them around.

And claiming "tolerance is not important" tells me you must live in quite a privileged circumstance. It's easy for people who don't suffer intolerance to believe it's not a big deal.

So you don't embrace the emancipation of Black folks and workers`?

Wow, really? I'm trying to respond to your posts rationally and sincerely and you're going to come at me with that?

You said that not everybody should embrace the values of Martin Luther King. Pretty natural that I ask then whether you don't embrace them.

What the fuck does Martin Luther King have to do with any of this?

 

[Kestra]

^^^Whoever mentions MLK the most wins!

So you don't embrace the emancipation of Black folks and workers`?

Wow, really? I'm trying to respond to your posts rationally and sincerely and you're going to come at me with that?

You said that not everybody should embrace the values of Martin Luther King. Pretty natural that I ask then whether you personally don't embrace them.

No, no I didn't. I was referring to your advocacy of vague "Christian values."

 

[horatio83]

^^^Whoever mentions MLK the most wins!

Wow, really? I'm trying to respond to your posts rationally and sincerely and you're going to come at me with that?

You said that not everybody should embrace the values of Martin Luther King. Pretty natural that I ask then whether you personally don't embrace them.

No, no I didn't. I was referring to your advocacy of vague "Christian values."

I did not write about "vague Christian values", I distinguished between Bill O'Reilly and MLK and said I embrace the values of the latter.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^^^Whoever mentions MLK the most wins!

You said that not everybody should embrace the values of Martin Luther King. Pretty natural that I ask then whether you personally don't embrace them.

No, no I didn't. I was referring to your advocacy of vague "Christian values."

I did not write about "vague Christian values", I distinguished between Bill O'Reilly and MLK and said I embrace the values of the latter.

Do you embrace his values because they are Christian, or because you believe them to be right? That is the key difference that I think you keep missing.

 

[Kestra]

sdfasfasfaasdf


aaaaaaah

I embrace things like tolerance and respect for others and do not consider them solely Christian values.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Horatio's reasoning is intrinsic and he stays within Christian logic.

Sure, some Christians define their religion as inclusive. It's their construction of reality.

That doesn't mean that it actually IS inclusive from an outsider's perspective. In any case we're not talking about that type of Christian anyway. Like I said in an earlier post I have no problem with those Christians wishing me Merry Christmas.

The problem is that the religious aspect of the social environment in the US is in large parts NOT inclusive and is using the Merry Christmas thing as a way to push their agenda. I suppose I'm becoming repetitive but hey, if you work in academia you tend to enjoy lecturing people.


Also: MLK.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Horatio's reasoning is intrinsic and he stays within Christian logic.

Sure, some Christians define their religion as inclusive. It's their construction of reality.

That doesn't mean that it actually IS inclusive from an outsider's perspective. In any case we're not talking about that type of Christian anyway. Like I said in an earlier post I have no problem with those Christians wishing me Merry Christmas.

The problem is that the religious aspect of the social environment in the US is in large parts NOT inclusive and is using the Merry Christmas thing as a way to push their agenda. I suppose I'm becoming repetitive but hey, if you work in academia you tend to enjoy lecturing people.


Also: MLK.

Yeah, I think you get the situation perfectly.

 

[horatio83]

Because tolerance is not important. It would be obscene for a feminist to demand to be tolerated by men, it's a matter of legal rights, economic exploitation, raw power and so on.
What's the point of tolerating Blacks / women / homosexuals when they are still overrepresented in the prisons / suffer from wage discrimination / are forbidden to marry?

I am not saying that Christian morals are universal, there are all kind of Christians. What I am saying that the idea of universality exists in the Gospels and existed during the beginning of Christianity, after Paul opened it up to Gentiles. Who joined this strange Jewish sect? The excluded, the poor.
After three centuries it became a state religion and a pretty nasty institution and the idea was lost.

So what I am saying is not that Christianity is universal but that the idea of universality exists, among other spaces, in Christianity. Another space in which it exists is e.g. Star Trek with United Earth and the United Federation of Planets. There exist probably numerous more incarnations of universality.

I'm sorry, but an argument like, "Christianity is universal, therefore non-Christians should embrace its values" is not going to fly. Christians may want their religion to be the "one true way," but it isn't, not in a pluralistic, diverse world.

If you mean that there are places where we can find common ground between Christians and non-Christians, I would agree. However, the values that make this possible are only coincidentally Christian in nature--values like mercy, brotherhood, and charity did not originate with Christianity, and it is dishonest to claim that their universality originated with the Gospels. This would also imply non-Western religions can't have those concepts, since Christians invented them and spread them around.

And claiming "tolerance is not important" tells me you must live in quite a privileged circumstance. It's easy for people who don't suffer intolerance to believe it's not a big deal.

I would appreciate if you did not distort my points.
I have not said that Christianity is universal but that the idea of universality is present in the Gospels and early Christianity.
Take a look at the guys Jesus hang out with. Tax collectors, people who suffered from lepra, basically pariahs. Same with early Christian communities, these guys probably did not label themselves Christians as this exclusive word, we Christians vs. them whatever, was antithetical to everything their "open for everybody" community was about.
Same with Martin Luther King, he wanted America to be a decent place for workers and blacks.
Rare instances by the way, most of Christianity is simply screwed up. That's why I am not a Catholic but an ex-Catholic.

About tolerance, just go over some of his speeches and seek the word tolerance. MLK did not fight for tolerance but against economic exploitation, for electoral rights of Blacks and so on.
As I tried to illustrate via my example of a slaveowner who tolerates or perhaps even loves his slaves changing the power structure matters, not tolerance.
Think about the "war on Christmas" folks, it would be obscene for us to claim we tolerate them, we don't. It would also be obscene for us to demand that they tolerate us a little bit more. It's a matter of taking power away from them.

Do you embrace his values because they are Christian, or because you believe them to be right? That is the key difference that I think you keep missing.

I embrace these values wherever I find them, be it in the origins of Christianity or in Trek.

 

[Broccoli]

What the fuck does Martin Luther King have to do with any of this?

Everything. He freed the slaves after he became the first Christian to spread Christmas to everyone because of their universal values such as disavowing tolerance. Don't you read history books?

 

[Owain Taggart]

- lack of cold weather for Christmas down here. *sigh*

Have lots of cold weather here that I could send your way, but then you'd feel it in your bones like I do right now.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Because tolerance is not important. It would be obscene for a feminist to demand to be tolerated by men, it's a matter of legal rights, economic exploitation, raw power and so on.
What's the point of tolerating Blacks / women / homosexuals when they are still overrepresented in the prisons / suffer from wage discrimination / are forbidden to marry?

I am not saying that Christian morals are universal, there are all kind of Christians. What I am saying that the idea of universality exists in the Gospels and existed during the beginning of Christianity, after Paul opened it up to Gentiles. Who joined this strange Jewish sect? The excluded, the poor.
After three centuries it became a state religion and a pretty nasty institution and the idea was lost.

So what I am saying is not that Christianity is universal but that the idea of universality exists, among other spaces, in Christianity. Another space in which it exists is e.g. Star Trek with United Earth and the United Federation of Planets. There exist probably numerous more incarnations of universality.

I'm sorry, but an argument like, "Christianity is universal, therefore non-Christians should embrace its values" is not going to fly. Christians may want their religion to be the "one true way," but it isn't, not in a pluralistic, diverse world.

If you mean that there are places where we can find common ground between Christians and non-Christians, I would agree. However, the values that make this possible are only coincidentally Christian in nature--values like mercy, brotherhood, and charity did not originate with Christianity, and it is dishonest to claim that their universality originated with the Gospels. This would also imply non-Western religions can't have those concepts, since Christians invented them and spread them around.

And claiming "tolerance is not important" tells me you must live in quite a privileged circumstance. It's easy for people who don't suffer intolerance to believe it's not a big deal.

I would appreciate if you did not distort my points.
I have not said that Christianity is universal but that the idea of universality is present in the Gospels and early Christianity.
Take a look at the guys Jesus hang out with. Tax collectors, people who suffered from lepra, basically pariahs. Same with early Christian communities, these guys probably did not label themselves Christians as this exclusive word, we Christians vs. them whatever, was antithetical to everything their "open for everybody" community was about.
Same with Martin Luther King, he wanted America to be a decent place for workers and blacks.

About tolerance, just go over some of his speeches and seek the word tolerance. MLK did not fight for tolerance but against economic exploitation, for electoral rights of Blacks and so on.
As I tried to illustrate via my example of a slaveowner who tolerates or perhaps even loves his slaves changing the power structure matters, not tolerance.
Think about the "war on Christmas" folks, it would be obscene for us to claim we tolerate them, we don't. It would also be obscene for us to demand that they tolerate us a little bit more. It's a matter of taking away power from them.

Bottom line: the Christian notion of "universality" means precisely fuck all to whether or not saying "Happy Holidays" is somehow offensive to Christians. Christmas was not the first holiday to be celebrated around the winter solstice, nor will it be the last, and not everyone celebrates it. Acknowledging this fact diminishes no one.

Everything else you brought into this discussion is a distraction from that basic point, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I have not said that Christianity is universal but that the idea of universality is present in the Gospels and early Christianity.

This is the type of intrinsic reasoning I was talking about. We call that intellectual laziness. You reason from within Christian logic saying it's universal.

Yes, sure... Christianity is universal in that all its principles are valid for everybody according to Christians.

But there are many aspects of Christianity many people don't agree with (treatment of homosexuals, sex before marriage, sins,...) which makes Christianity exclusive from my point of view.

Christianity embraces EVERYBODY..... who agrees with its basics. Therefore it is not really inclusive. It's only open to those who agree with it.

And again: This has nothing to do with the question anyway. But you conveniently ignored those points again anyway.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

- lack of cold weather for Christmas down here. *sigh*

Have lots of cold weather here that I could send your way, but then you'd feel it in your bones like I do right now.

I remember the thundersnow we had last year. I think once is enough for now.

 

[RoJoHen]

What the fuck does Martin Luther King have to do with any of this?

Everything. He freed the slaves after he became the first Christian to spread Christmas to everyone because of their universal values such as disavowing tolerance. Don't you read history books?

I'm pretty sure there's a claymation film about this.

 

[horatio83]

I have not said that Christianity is universal but that the idea of universality is present in the Gospels and early Christianity.

This is the type of intrinsic reasoning I was talking about. We call that intellectual laziness. You reason from within Christian logic saying it's universal.

Yes, sure... Christianity is universal in that all its principles are valid for everybody according to Christians.

But there are many aspects of Christianity many people don't agree with (treatment of homosexuals, sex before marriage, sins,...) which makes Christianity exclusive from my point of view.

Christianity embraces EVERYBODY..... who agrees with its basics. Therefore it is not really inclusive. It's only open to those who agree with it.

And again: This has nothing to do with the question anyway. But you conveniently ignored those points again anyway.

How can I reason from within Christian logic if I am a hardcore atheist? I like universality wherever I find it, be it in religion or in a sci-fi series.

In early Christian communities women had more rights than in Israel or later in Rome. It was a community open for everybody, Gentiles, women, poor, sick. In other words, these Christians probably did not call themselves Christians because their community was an open space for everybody. They were the very opposite of contemporary Christian fascists who exclude Muslims, homosexuals and so on.

It was only a short-lived emancipatory project, when it became Roman state religion and Orthodox Christianity in the fourth century it became basically antithetical to its emancipatory roots. I'd go so far and say that Orthodox Christianity is evil. At leas it has done far more bad than good things.
But sometimes, e.g. during the middle of the last century with MLK and liberation theology, some Christians go back to their roots. Over the course of history it is of course nothing but a little flickering in the deep night.

I fail to see why it is so hard to understand that one can appreciates these ingredients of Christianity as a hardcore atheist, I fail to see why it is controversial to say that this is the Christianity one should strive for, I fail to see why it is so controversial to claim that one can fight against Christian fascists from an atheist position but also from inside Christianity, from the position of the Christian left ... or as I would call it, the real, original, pre-Orthodox Christianity which incidentally has quite some things in common with Trek.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So you are not for the emancipation of Black folks and workers? That's what MLK fought for.

Could you please dial back the hostility and stop misrepresenting what other people are saying?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

What is so hard to understand about appreciating values because they are right, not merely because they are Christian?

Your POV seems to essentially be that if a value didn't come from Christianity (such as tolerance for other belief systems), it's not worthwhile. Well, fuck that.

 

[Kemaiku]

 

[Miss Chicken]

What do I hate about Xmas?

I hate the fact that my sons seem to hate Xmas when it is a day I love and want to enjoy.

One of my sons put up a comment up on Facebook that said

"Christmas is just another day to me and I will be glad when its over"

I was upset when I saw that and replied

"Maybe I shouldn't prepare Xmas dinner nor give you your presents, if eating a good meal and unwrapping gifts is such a chore for you"

He has removed his comment and my reply from Facebook but I am hurt. All their lives I have always tried to give my sons the best Christmas possible and it is upsetting that they don't appreciate my efforts.

 

[RoJoHen]

He has removed his comment and my reply from Facebook but I am hurt. All their lives I have always tried to give my sons the best Christmas possible and it is upsetting that they don't appreciate my efforts.

I'd smack 'em.