When I first heard that Fox News anchor/Rottweiler Bill O’Reilly and others were up in arms about the “war on Christmas,” I was ready to pen an angry, hate-filled screed about separation of church and state, multiculturalism, and American culture. Oh, it would have been fantastic — a rhetorical thunderbolt delivered from the heights of Mount Blog. But answering charges of a war on Christmas by … um … going to war on Christmas isn’t productive, is it?
So let’s stay positive and productive. First, I’m glad that certain people are observing the traditional Airing of Grievances. But holiday traditions aside, I’d rather not see Bill O’Reilly wrestle anybody. I want to keep my holiday eggnog down.
And that’s the nub, apparently. The evangelicals are upset because people say “holiday” instead of “Christmas,” unfairly traipsing on the tender sensibilities of those who are quietly celebrating the birth of Christ while American parents try to find creepy simulacra at bargain-basement prices.
But since these the faithfuls’ feelings are so deeply hurt, I’m not going to worry them further with rhetorical slings and arrows. I’ll just ask a few questions.
]]>< 
But, if they want to say “Happy Holidays” versus “Merry Christmas” to their customers then the only logical conclusion ( at least in my book) is that they are denying their own faith in Christ and are afraid to profess it to the world. And that’s pretty sad when you get right down to it.
There is another logical conclusion. They mean Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. It’s easier to say happy holidays. Or does brevity deny Christ too?
But, if they want to say “Happy Holidays” versus “Merry Christmas” to their customers then the only logical conclusion ( at least in my book) is that they are denying their own faith in Christ and are afraid to profess it to the world. And that’s pretty sad when you get right down to it.
You’re talking about Nordstrom’s right? How does a corporation, comprised of thousands of people, have a “faith”?
Merry Christmas, even to liberals!
Thanks, Peter, you too.
Oh, and by the way, today we celebrate the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
Such a strange idea…the whole sexless conception of Jesus thing. Interesting how the biological role of sex was removed from the whole ordeal, eh?
I’m just sayin…
Ryan the immaculate conception is the birth of Mary, mother of Jesus, without the stain of original sin. It is very commonly thought to be the birth of Jesus, but no.
I’ve always wondered if, since Mary was as pure as the pre-fall Adam and Eve, does that mean she had no shame in her nakedness? Was Mary a nudist?
Since the subject came up though, do you know who else believes in the virgin birth of Jesus? Muslims.
Er, sorry, not birth of Mary, her conception, which was the product of good old fashioned dirty human sex, but apparently God purified the sperm just at the moment it burrowed into the egg. Tricky fella he is.
Chris, I’ll consider that you may not know me well enough to know that I wouldn’t say that without some basis. “Kwanzaa” is actually a word derived from Swahili, but the word itself is even a “made-up” term. Here are some quotes from the man himself, Ron Karenga:
On “Ujamaa” (one of the Seven Principles of Kwanzaa)
And Frank J. has a pretty humorous look at the “holiday” here, if you’re interested.
Kwanzaa was nothing more than the creation of a militant black separatist who wished to change the fact that so many of “his people” were involved in “spookism” (Christianity).
mantis, I didn’t miss your question:
A Christian is a believer, a regenerate being, not simply someone who practices Christian rituals.
I may offend some here by saying such, but the regenerate believer will not (neither has the desire nor the ability to) leave the faith. It’s a concept called the “perseverence of the saints,” not to be confused with its twisted cousin, the “eternal security of the believer.” A denial of the Christian faith indicates the lack of previous regeneration.
In short, I don’t have any way of knowing if you are or if you’re not, but I’m certain that if you ever really were, you still would be.
And I apologize for delving so deep into theology here…
Since the subject came up though, do you know who else believes in the virgin birth of Jesus? Muslims.
Didnt know that. I just see a connection between that idea and some of the ideas about sexuality and the role of women.
Er, sorry, not birth of Mary, her conception, which was the product of good old fashioned dirty human sex, but apparently God purified the sperm just at the moment it burrowed into the egg.
Wait, are you saying that it’s about the conception of Mary herself, or when Mary conceived Jesus?
And I always understood the whole virgin birth thing as just that…birth from a virgin, hence, the elimination of sex. Is there some sexual reference in the Bible that I havent heard of?
I always interpreted the whole virgin birth as a projection of restrictive ideals upon the creation story…it kinda diminishes the female sexual role, if you know what i mean.
tangental, i know…
And I apologize for delving so deep into theology here…
No need, that’s what I was hoping for. I guess, in that case, that either I never was a true Christian through my upbringing, or I am still a Christian and just confused. Or something.
I dig Jesus (the man) and all, I’m just not keen on the whole God bit.
Anyway, I think I recognize that regeneration bit from reading Jonathan Edwards in my undergrad days. I was raised Catholic, though, so I don’t always pick up on the Calvinist stuff.
Thanks for clearing up my status though! 😉
Ryan,
The virgin birth is the birth of Jesus to Mary. No sex, you got that bit.
Immaculate conception is when God removed original sin from Mary at the moment of her conception, but with regular sex with some Canaanite (Joachim? -Apocrypha) or something. It is widely misunderstood.
Told you I was a Catholic.
Is there some sexual reference in the Bible that I havent heard of?
Oh there’s some sex, but not with Mary (except maybe after Jesus, but that’s apocrypha).
I always interpreted the whole virgin birth as a projection of restrictive ideals upon the creation story…it kinda diminishes the female sexual role, if you know what i mean.
I don’t know about that. I think the virgin birth is just about the “mother of God” not being tainted by dirty evil sex. The immaculate conception is just Catholic silliness because they insist on believing in original sin and feeling guilty from birth for some idiot eating a piece of fruit a few thousand years ago (When dinosaurs ruled the earth!).
n/p, mantis
No, Calvin isn’t typically very well-respected in Catholic circles–usually right up there with Luther (I’ve heard that the Catholic Church detailed how demons were seen fleeing Luther’s body upon his death).
I personally think the lack of teaching about the true character of God is the weak point in modern Christianity. Without the foundational knowledge of the Old Testament, the New Testament is fairly weak. It also makes the Revelation essentially impossible to understand.
Something I’ve always wanted to ask someone who was raised Catholic and didn’t continue: Assuming you were catechised pretty thoroughly, do you think it added to your understanding of the theological principles of the Church, or was it just so much memorization? I catechise my kids to some degree, but it consists of a very simplified version of Westminister, with a lot of explanatory scripture. Amongst those who either have always been Catholic, or converted later in life, there’s usually a moment where they essentially say, “now that makes sense.” Frequently, they are much older, though. I suppose I wonder whether the catechisms to young children are more of an obstacle than an aid.
I will say in addition, that I haven’t been a regular and active church member for some time now. Where I live, the choices are pretty clear-cut: rampant legalism or rampant “feelgoodism.” As a Calvinistic Semi-Charismatic Postmillenialist, I don’t have a lot of options anyway.
Bit o’ Mary Trivia:
The Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary are the only two infalliable teachings in the Catholic Church.
Just thought I’d share that.
(I’m in the midst of reading and studying about the infalliable and falliable teachings in the Church (I’m a catechumen), and talk about a high concept, wow. I can’t even get my brain wrapped around it yet to even comment on it.)
BoDiddly:
Calvinistic Semi-Charismatic Postmillenialist
That sounds complex.
Assuming you were catechised pretty thoroughly, do you think it added to your understanding of the theological principles of the Church, or was it just so much memorization?
I was not catechised as thoroughly as some, especially older, Catholics, but for me it was more memorization. Ironically, I didn’t become interested in learning the precise teachings of the church until well into apostasy. As a kid I just wasn’t interested, until I became a skeptic in my teens and started exploring other religions.
I can understand the aversion to legalism, especially for a (semi-?)charismatic. I’m curious about which demoninations you consider “feelgoodism”.
ryan, you don’t know the half of it–I don’t know of a single denomination that does any better than 2/3 of those.
Peter F., you’ve struck upon one of my only hangups with the Catholics–a greater focus upon Mary than upon Christ.
Bo:
I wouldn’t so much call it a “greater focus” as I would a pronounced and deliberate emphasis to honor her and her importance to Christ and her role in His life and the existence of the Church.
Personally, I’ve not experienced any teachings that emphasized Mary more than Christ.
That’s gonna be a tough one: explaining Christ and God to kids. Most adults can barely fathom it themselves!