Entry 661, on 2007-12-26 at 21:17:36 (Rating 2, Comments)
What sums up Christmas for most people today? A poll in one of New Zealand's leading newspapers asked this question and the results were about what I expected. The top reason was listed as family. Next was commercialism, and Christianity was only listed third, closely followed by holiday.
Of course, the exact meaning of these words and the self-selecting sample don't necessarily make the results scientifically valid, but I think this is a realistic indicator. No one I know speaks of Christmas as a religious celebration. They talk about a break from work, a time to spend with their family, and a time to get cool gifts. So that covers the holiday, family and commercialism aspects fairly well.
It seems to me that spending time with family has got to be a good thing. I don't like commercialism much but I like religion even less, so I suppose the reasons are reasonable to me. As I have said before, Christmas was a celebration of mid winter long before it was hijacked by the Christians, so I think its reasonable to celebrate Christmas while ignoring the religious interpretation.
So I'll finish this blog entry now and continue to celebrate mid winter (mid summer in New Zealand) with my family.
I assume the poll you refer to is the one you pasted into a comment on another thread. As such I have responded and I think it is key to point out that it was a multiple tick-box poll. If it was (and I stand to be corrected) then you have misrepresented the facts on this occasion.
I am also disappointed (but not surprised) that you blatantly admit to preferring commercialism over the true reason for Christmas. Your jealousy knows no bounds, and your ignorance fails to recognise the positive message of Christ's birth. You don't have to be a believer but when you take such a ridiculous hard line, it really is difficult to treat you seriously. Sorry, but you went to far this time. Not in an offensive way, just pathetic.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-02-12 at 05:27:08:
No, this was a different survey - I think it was at the NZ Herald web site - and it didn't allow multiple choices. I honestly don't have any religious connection with Christmas at all, and neither does the majority of New Zealanders, and it seems to me that is supported by the stats. I can't see what is pathetic about that.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2008-02-12 at 23:06:10:
Yet again, a link would be useful. NZ Herald links do not change over time, so if you are going to blog on it, then why not provide the source? Then we can all have the same info by which to debate from? Surely you would prefer a balanced debate...? Let's see it!
OJB - I know you don't have a religious connection with Christmas, that is why I said "You don't have to be a believer...". So why don't you put aside your hardline opinions and think why it is that you prefer the commercialism of Christmas where struggling parents are under pressure to meet the expectations of children vs the true message of Christmas which is to celebrate the birthday of a man who purported love, compassion and forgiveness. You may not believe in him personally but if you choose materialism over his message then you are betraying the socialism values you have spoken of in previous posts. You put your anti-Christian view ahead of anything else. That is why the comment is pathetic.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2008-02-13 at 10:21:34:
The link to that poll seems to be gone. The old polls list only goes back about one month, so I can't find the results any more. I did report the results accurately though.
Yes, I take your point that me supporting commercialism ahead of anything is perhaps an untenable position for me. If the good parts if Jesus' (alleged) message were accepted and the superstition and bad stuff was ignored, and if positive messages from other religions and philosophies were also taken seriously I would be a lot more positive about it.
The problem I have is the unthinking acceptance of religion and the rejection of alternatives. This is perhaps even more negative than rampant consumerism. However, this is something which I am more ambivalent about. I really dislike superstition but I really dislike out of control consumerism too!
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 02:09:21:
"Jesus' (alleged) message" Alleged? Read the new testament. You don't have to believe in him to agree with the message.
"superstition and bad stuff was ignored" - whatever that means but in the end a relationship with God is an individual, personal relationship. You don't have to agree to the "bad stuff" some others believe in.
"and if positive messages from other religions and philosophies were also taken seriously I would be a lot more positive about it."
Well, get started, no-one is holding you back. Stop taking the collectivist view and become an individual. Have you read Orwell's "Animal Farm"?
"The problem I have is the unthinking acceptance of religion and the rejection of alternatives. " And this differs from your belief system how? Actually quite a broad stroke here. Again you group all religions as unthinking acceptance, but history tells us this is not the case. There are many different beliefs and may have changed over the years, many have split and gone in different directions. Belief systems, including religious and atheism is ALL ABOUT thinking (though not all groups refer to themselves as intellectuals though!).
Comment 6 by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 10:05:55:
I use the word alleged because I'm not convinced Jesus even existed, and even if he did exist I'm not convinced the message has survived multiple re-tellings.
OK, here's an example of superstition. You said "a relationship with God is an individual, personal relationship". That's the sort of superstition I object to. If you are the member of a religion shouldn't you agree with everything it says? is is OK just to pick the bits you like?
I am an individual, to a large extent because I don't let other people tell me what to think (I don't belong to any religion). I read Animal Farm many years ago. Your point is?
Err, excuse me. What planet are you from? You say "Belief systems, including religious and atheism is ALL ABOUT thinking". You're wrong on two counts. First, don't try to imply atheism and religion belong in the same category - they don't. And second, religion (in any recognisable form) is all about being told what to think by old books and dictatorial leaders.
Could I still be a Catholic (for example) if I rejected most of the Bible and ignored the Pope? No, I don't think I would be one then. So where does this thinking come form?
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 23:03:03:
Yes I know, but I thought I was obvious the term 'alleged' referred to the term 'message', not 'Jesus'.
"agree with everything it says" - simplistic view. As we know there are many factions under the Christianity umbrella. Disagreement on specific aspects define the factions. I wouldn't call this 'picking the bits you like'
Point being you join the crowd and ignore the specifics of a belief system. In fact you ignore all aspects - agreeable and disagreeable! Basically, a single minded view.
Oh yes they are. Both are belief systems. Accept it. On second point, "is all about being told what to think by old books and dictatorial leaders". Well wake up. As I mentioned before, the umbrella of Christianity is very diverse based on differing views on certain aspects. Hardly I would say all 2 billion Christians follow the same interpretation of old book and (so-called) dictators? Dictator like Mugabe? Please be measured and fair OJB.
Last comment - silly and extreme.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2008-03-01 at 12:57:02:
The word alleged refers to both the existence of Jesus and the accuracy of the message, as described above.
We seem to disagree on whether atheism is a belief system. Look at it this way. Consider political parties. Is a member of a socialist party or a member of a right wing party really the same as someone who doesn't belong to any party at all because he sees they are all wrong?
OK, so what's your opinion on the (alleged) virgin birth, the (alleged) trinity, and other doctrine? Do you think the darkness and rising of the dead after Jesus' (alleged) crucifixion really happened? Do you think the Pope has the right to tell people not to use contraception?
Comment 9 by SBFL on 2008-03-10 at 02:18:06:
So do you generally support the message or not?
Your example doesn't resonate, particularly since I believe you to be a socialist! but belief that all established groups don't tickle your fancy is a belief in itself I guess.
You know my beliefs on those matters because you asked me directly if I was a Catholic and I answered you. On the last query, of course he does! And you have the right to say the opposite.
Comment 10 by OJB on 2008-03-10 at 09:19:10:
Generally I support the message, but not all of it, and I reserve the right to support other messages as well.
Well you have entrenched beliefs in religion so I had to move to another area, but maybe politics also has some inherent biases on both our parts, but that doesn't mean the comparison is invalid. I'll try to think of something which is less emotionally charged but when we are discussing beliefs maybe that's inevitable.
Is there anything the Pope doesn't have the right to tell you to do? And what about the other doctrinal matters I questioned you about?
Comment 11 by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 02:13:50:
I still struggle to see the parallelism. To answer your question from your comment on 01.03.08, no I guess not. And? Are you now claiming you don't take a stand? Or maybe your view simply doesn't fit within the established parties. Can't see the point sorry.
I don't understand the last para either. He and you and me have the right to put our views across - either for or against and issue. Something wrong with that? Are we moving into a free speech argument?
Comment 12 by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 10:35:34:
I'm a bit lost with the comments going backward and forward here. One problem i have with Catholicism is this: it seems that whatever the Pope says Catholics must obey. Theoretically if you disobey the Pope there are repercussions, right? Or is it just a confession here, a small payment there, or a couple of Hail Marys and its all fixed?
Comment 13 by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 22:45:28:
Listen OJB, if you're going to send tidal waves of critical posts on the church, then at least try to understand the subject material you criticise. The Pope is merely a servant of God, just like me, but the Pope probably gets a better performance review ;-) Confession is to God only and always has been. Catholics have always seen the Pope as human, and there is not one Catholic in the world who fears repercussion from the Pope if they do not follow his advice. We fear God only. We must worship God only.
Comment 14 by OJB on 2008-03-22 at 15:55:40:
I don't think I have really been overly critical of the Catholic Church. There have been a few issues recently involving the Church which I have commented on and have made positive comments as well as negative. For example, I commended the idea of the new sins and rated the previous Pope fairly highly. The Catholic Church is the world's biggest and is in the news the most - also I have continued to comment in response to replies you have made on the subject.
I am an atheist and don't rate superstition very highly so I am inevitably going to be critical of organisations where superstition and supernaturalism are an important factor. But I do appreciate that Catholicism is more realistic, more moderate, and more positive than many other belief systems.
You can say things like confession is to God, but that means nothing to me. I'm talking about reality and since all evidence indicates there is no God I prefer to debate what's real, not what your belief system imagines is true.
Comment 15 by SBFL on 2008-03-30 at 22:41:06:
On your last paragraph you have missed my point. You said "Theoretically if you disobey the Pope there are repercussions, right?" and I corrected this viewpoint with my following comment.
On the first two paragraphs, well, I think you are being a bit generous to yourself. I wouldn't allude to any balanced viewpoints "have made positive comments as well as negative." but hey, you have your view/bias "I am an atheist" and I have no problem with this. I have my own bias, and obviously I realise you don't believe in God.
And yes you do make some positive comments (which you summarise above) but often I feel as if I have to squeeze them out of you ;-) Afterall you did just say recently "While I am deliberately contentious in this blog..." ['Deadly'].
I guess I would like to see the balanced argument in the post initially, even if you do tend in one direction. At least I wouldn't hassle you as much then ;-)
Comment 16 by OJB on 2008-04-03 at 09:49:41:
From what I understand the Pope is God's spokesman on Earth and is infallible. Is this correct? If that is the case then its really the Pope you are obeying because whether his instructions really come from God or not is unclear - we only have his word or the assurance of religious dogma on this. Even if you believe the repercussions come from God, it is as a result of disobeying the Pope in the first instance, right?
Could you clarify this? I admit I'm not that clear on Catholic religious practice because I have mainly debated with more fundamentalist cults in the past. I have only ever been to one Catholic service: a funeral, and I didn't have the slightest idea what was going on. I felt like an explorer who had stumbled across a long lost tribe in the middle of a primitive ritual!
Comment 17 by SBFL on 2008-04-13 at 23:09:47:
No, quite incorrect, the Pope is not God's spokesman in my view. He is seen by Catholics as the head of God's Church, but I don't think many see him as a spokesman for God per se. Muslims believe God spoke directly to Mohammad and that the Koran is the literal word of God. But Catholics don't see the Pope as being in this capacity and most Christians don't see the Bible as the literal word of God. This should answer the 'repercussions' query.
Comment 18 by OJB on 2008-04-14 at 22:30:18:
Well it sounds like he effectively is: "In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error..." [Wikipedia, Papal infallibility]
Comment 19 by SBFL on 2008-04-16 at 00:27:25:
Papal infallibility is certainly a controversial subject, but I understand it refers to specific teachings of the Pope, rather than the more generic sense you referred to in your earlier comment.
To explain better I quote from your Wikipedia link "According to The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism: "In reality, the pope seldom uses his power of infallibility......rather than being some mystical power of the pope, infallibility means the church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the church." Since the 1870 solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I, this power has been used only once: in 1950 when Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics."
Comment 20 by OJB on 2008-04-16 at 14:25:53:
The problem with religion is that everything is open to subjective opinion and varying interpretation. There's a good reason for this: the whole thing is fiction. If there is no reality involved in a subject then you can't establish what's true. Maybe that's why there are tens of thousands of different Christian sects around all believing slightly different things. When the whole belief system is nonsense its easy to change the story around to whatever suits your purposes.
Comment 21 by SBFL on 2008-04-17 at 23:29:14:
Bit of a generalistic digression, but if you want to take that approach, then I'll leave it with you.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE