Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages!
 


       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Culture
André in Zuid-Afrika

Christmas

Christmas is only a few weeks away. How will you be spending it?
Porthos

In Mexico! It's going to be weird spending time in the hot region of Mexico during Christmas, when you normally associate Christmas with cold winter.
Tiffany

I'm going to Miami. I might go to the beach.
Benjamin [inactive]

Oh no, it's not almost Christmas already, is it?

On Christmas Eve (24th December), I'll go to sing Christmas carols on the green with lanterns, accompanied by the carillon (bell tower) in the evening. Unfortunately, our church won't be having a service on Christmas Day (25th December), but I'll be spending that day at home. My grandparents will come to our house for Christmas Dinner, and we will eat turkey, amongst other things. Various other aunts, uncles and cousins will arrive later.

Actually, I wanted to have a more 'German' sort of Christmas this year... until I realised that it would be almost exactly the same, since most of the so-called 'English' Christmas traditions were borrowed from Germany in the 19th century.
Loic

Write a letter to Father Christmas. I want an expensive new toy this year.

On a more serious note, I really look forward to Christmas Eve and attending midnight masses and looking at baby Jesus in the crib at the Nativity Scene. Christmas is after all, celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.
patriccke

Thanks for reminding me I have to make plans in order to escape from the boring meals, stupid songs and endless shopping days associated with this most hated period of year
KSa

I also look forward to Christmas. Every year, on Christmas Eve all my close family gathers together and we enjoy our traditional meatless meal, sing christmas songs, children are happy to find gifts under the christmas tree, and after that most of us go to church to attend midnight mass. Next 2 days (yes, we have 2 days of Christmas, we call them "1st day of Christmas" and "2nd day of Christmas") we spend visiting each other, going to church, ralaxing, watching TV, going for a walk, and... eating of course!
Walker

It hasn't yet been decided where we're going to be. But I'll be with my family and my dad's side of the family. We'll eat and have *fika, sing a couple of songs, and my grandfather will probably read a passage from the Bible. We'll open presents, watch some TV (there are a couple of shows they air every year that you "have to" watch) and just sit and talk.

*Fika means that you sit down and have coffee or tea and maybe something to eat, like biscuits or pastries.

What are you going to do, André? Last year you were with your siblings and their families, right? I recall you bought some good toys for their kids.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Walker wrote:
It hasn't yet been decided where we're going to be. But I'll be with my family and my dad's side of the family. We'll eat and have *fika, sing a couple of songs, and my grandfather will probably read a passage from the Bible. We'll open presents, watch some TV (there are a couple of shows they air every year that you "have to" watch) and just sit and talk.

*Fika means that you sit down and have coffee or tea and maybe something to eat, like biscuits or pastries.

What are you going to do, André? Last year you were with your siblings and their families, right? I recall you bought some good toys for their kids.


Same thing as last year, except we'll go down to Jeffreys Bay this year. So I'll spend Christmas on the beach!
André in Zuid-Afrika

KSa wrote:
Next 2 days (yes, we have 2 days of Christmas, we call them "1st day of Christmas" and "2nd day of Christmas") we spend visiting each other, going to church, ralaxing, watching TV, going for a walk, and... eating of course!


We have two days as well. The official name of the second day is Family Day (Gesinsdag), but it is often referred to as Second Christmas Day (Tweede Kersdag).
Walker

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Walker wrote:
It hasn't yet been decided where we're going to be. But I'll be with my family and my dad's side of the family. We'll eat and have *fika, sing a couple of songs, and my grandfather will probably read a passage from the Bible. We'll open presents, watch some TV (there are a couple of shows they air every year that you "have to" watch) and just sit and talk.

*Fika means that you sit down and have coffee or tea and maybe something to eat, like biscuits or pastries.

What are you going to do, André? Last year you were with your siblings and their families, right? I recall you bought some good toys for their kids.



Same thing as last year, except we'll go down to Jeffreys Bay this year. So I'll spend Christmas on the beach!


Wow, sounds like fun!
André in Zuid-Afrika

Jeffreys Bay





Loic

Do you have barbecue and play beach cricket over the Christmas season? When I was in Australia, I was told that spending Christmas in this way is a typically Aussie affair.

When Christmas approaches, do you see legions of Salvation Army do-gooders thronging the streets? I always do not know what to do when I see them ringing their bells wretchedly at some street corner. Do I dig into my pockets for the umpteenth time or do I put on an austere expression and just walk by?

Patriccke: It's a shame that you have to feel about Christmas this way. The Grinch has certainly stolen Christmas for you!
Uriel

Our Belgian buddy's Christmas spirit is definitely 2 sizes too small!

I LOVE Christmas -- it's my favorite time of year. I'll be going to Georgia to spend a week with my Mom, as always (the only time I see her). This year various other relatives will be converging on her house. Not so excited about that, since I don't know them very well, and spending a week with a bunch of strangers -- no matter how much DNA we have in common -- ain't such a thrill for me. Especially when it's supposed to be VACATION.

I make almost all of my own Christmas presents, so I'm already busy doing that. Once I get my full weekends back, I'll be doing nothing but for the next month!

When it comes to the Salvation Army, I give if I have change, or don't if I don't (and I live by my debit card, so usually I don't. I actually kind of enjoy being charitable, especially in very small monetary amounts (conscience is salved, bank account hardly suffers). And I don't know about yours, but our SA'ers don't pester -- they just ring.
Deborah

Uriel wrote:
Our Belgian buddy's Christmas spirit is definitely 2 sizes too small!

Like mine, alas.

Quote:
I make almost all of my own Christmas presents, so I'm already busy doing that.

Sherri reminded me that it was just a year ago that we met you in Las Cruces. As I recall, you were making a set of Nutcracker-themed figurines (were they Christmas tree ornaments?) for your mother. Do you have any similar projects this Christmas?
patriccke

Am I the Belgian buddy you're talking about?

Well, I don't really care about not having a christmas spirit. I celebrate about 300 non-christmas days a year, going out with friends, doing what we feel like doing when we feel like doing it, which makes me very happy. Why should I wait a particular date that has no meaning to me, get stuffed eating turkey for 5 hours and get a headache drinking too much wine, queue for hours in the shops, and then waste all January at home because I'd have spent too much money?

Anyway, I guess I've never had a christmas spirit. It must be written in my genes. When I was 5 my parents had organised a wonderful christmas and bought nice gifts. I didn't want to get up and collect them. They insisted so much that I finally got up, unwrapped the gifts, ate the chocolate balls that were hanging on the tree and immediately went back to bed
patriccke

Uriel wrote:
I make almost all of my own Christmas presents, so I'm already busy doing that.

That's very nice. It makes your gifts so meaningful and full of love. People must be very happy to see you've been spending time thinking of them.
André in Zuid-Afrika

patriccke wrote:
Am I the Belgian buddy you're talking about?


With or without Christmas spirit, I'm glad to see our huggable Belgian buddy around again!
André in Zuid-Afrika

loic wrote:
Do you have barbecue and play beach cricket over the Christmas season?


Hmmppff, trust the Aussies to claim it for themselves! Of course we do. Christmas lunch (on Christmas Day itself) is a formal affair, and will never be a barbecue (braai). But we usually have a braai on Christmas Eve, and another one on Second Christmas Day. Very much a SA tradition. And if you're at the beach, you'll certainly play beach cricket (or beach soccer or beach {touch] rugby)
Deborah

Yes, it's great to have our multinational friend back!
patriccke



I'm also happy to be able to talk with you again. And glad to meet some new members that sound friendly and interesting
Uriel

Quote:
Sherri reminded me that it was just a year ago that we met you in Las Cruces. As I recall, you were making a set of Nutcracker-themed figurines (were they Christmas tree ornaments?) for your mother. Do you have any similar projects this Christmas?


The whole frickin' 12 Days of Christams, That woman's out of control -- next year, I'm insisting that she pick something simpler!

Quote:
People must be very happy to see you've been spending time thinking of them.


Tney'd better! Yeah, they're usually a pretty big hit, even when they're just something small. I don't think enough people make handmade things any more (well, sometimes that's a blessing, right -- pink bunny suit, anyone?)

Quote:
Am I the Belgian buddy you're talking about?


We ain't exactly swimming in Brussels sprouts, since Mathijs disappeared again -- of course it's you!
Elaine

Re: Christmas

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Christmas is only a few weeks away. How will you be spending it?


Well, I haven't been giving Christmas much thought because I've been busy preparing for Thanksgiving. My bf and I have so many single friends who won't be flying home for Thanksgiving this year so we decided to have them over my house for a lovely (I hope!) dinner.

I'll probably spend Christmas with family. My little niece already asked me to make tamales with her and to go shopping with her to pick out a Christmas outfit. Isn't that cute? She's like my own mini-me.
Porthos

Many of you might be suprised to know that Christmas is not even a Christian holiday, but has its roots in pagan tradition. It was however, given a Christian name, and the Pope pulled this date out of the sky for the birthdate of Christ. Coincedentally, it also convineantly coincided with the Roman pagan festival of Saturnalia. The Pope assigned this date to Christ's birth (although, the Bible does not specify any date for Christ's birth) in order to attract many pagans who were devoted to this holiday to the Christian faith.

<<There is a theory that Christians in the fourth century assigned December 25th (the Winter Solstice on the Julian calendar) as Christ's birthday (and thus Christmas) because pagans already observed this day as a holiday. This would sidestep the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday while Christianizing the population.

It is also possible to see it as early Christians replacing the Pagan celebration in an act of triumphalism. However, others claim that early Christians independently came up with the date of December 25th based on a Jewish tradition of the "integral age" of the Jewish prophets (the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception), and a miscalculation of the date of Jesus' death. It is even sometimes claimed that Aurelian moved the feast of Sol Invictus to December 25th to co-opt the Christian celebration.

The Romans also practiced many traditions similar to Christmas; specifically the "Christmas tree", though the Christmas tree itself is a later development in the celebration of Christmas (having its origins in Germany, possibly during the Reformation). The Romans often cut down evergreens and decorated them to pay homage to Saturn, the god of farming. This was to honor the fact that the evergreens remained alive during the harshness of winter. It was also traditional for Romans to exchange gifts during this holiday. These gifts were customarily made of silver, although nearly anything could be given as a gift for the occasion. Several epigrams by the poet Martial survive, seemingly crafted as riddling gift-tags for gifts of food. The medieval celebration of the Feast of Fools was another continuation of Saturnalia into the Christian era.>>
Fredrik

Nice to hear that most of you are looking forward to Christmas. With me living alone away from home as a student, I too sense that I am really looking forward to Christmas, to the Nordic lysfest = light feast that Christmas is to us:

Subconsciously I have already started humming those dear, old Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Christmas carols:
Da tenner moder alle lys,
sĺ ingen krok er mřrk;
hun sier stjernen lyste sĺ
i hele verdens řrk.
=
Then mother lights all candles,
so no corner remains dark;
she says the star shone so
in the desert of the world.


Porthos:
When you mention the pagan origins of Christmas, I have to tell something i heard about IKEA in Denmark. They were considering dropping all Christmas celebrations for the employees, as it was a Christian holiday. But Danish experts pointed out that a Danish Christmas was inherently pagan! So they kept it.
Loic

Christmas might have pagan roots. It is not a fact, however, that any scholar would like to bet their life on. The form of Christmas which we known today is essentially Christian and I would like for it to be kept this way.
Fredrik

Ah, yes. Personally I love the mixing of Christian and pagan traditions at Christmas: The celebration of light in the darkness, the worshipping of the evergreen Christmas tree, the feasting, the belief that animals can talk on Christmas night as a legacy of their presence in the stable of nativity and the belief that the creatures of the otherworld are active that night, in particular that gnome/dwarf/goblin known to Anglophones as Santa Claus.
Elaine

Fredrik wrote:
Ah, yes. Personally I love the mixing of Christian and pagan traditions at Christmas...


Or how about the mixing the Resurrection with cute little bunnies that deliver painted eggs...
Benjamin [inactive]

Fredrik wrote:
Ah, yes. Personally I love the mixing of Christian and pagan traditions at Christmas: The celebration of light in the darkness, the worshipping of the evergreen Christmas tree, the feasting, the belief that animals can talk on Christmas night as a legacy of their presence in the stable of nativity and the belief that the creatures of the otherworld are active that night, in particular that gnome/dwarf/goblin known to Anglophones as Santa Claus.

Interestingly, I usually think of 'Santa Claus' a more American term. I've always called him 'Father Christmas'.

Actually though, I don't think that Santa Claus and Father Christmas were originally the same character — they just sort of merged somehow.
Fredrik

Yes, Wikipedia proves you right, Benjamin*!
Father Christmas is British, originally perhaps even a British political writer, just look at this:
Quote:
A book dating from the time of the Commonwealth, The Vindication of CHRISTMAS or, His Twelve Yeares' Observations upon the Times involved Father Christmas advocating a merry, alcoholic Christmas and casting aspersions on the charitable motives of the ruling Puritans.


* Writing your name reminded me of that poor Benjamin bloke stranded at his hygiene-obsessed, frog-loving uncle and aunt in Royston Vasey, if you know the BBC's League of Gentlemen. They always pronounced his name so solemnly and dignified before they did something completely whacky, mostly involving frogs and nudity.
Uriel

Animals talk on Christmas? That's a new one on me.

Santa Claus is properly a Dutch-American hybrid, Benjamin. We stole cookies and Santa from the Dutch. And the front stoop. Not much else, as it turns out.
Fredrik

er...and New York? But that's negotiable quantity, of course....

Yes, at least in Scandinavia the animals talk on Christmas Eve. They feel safe and among themselves, as no-one is out and about on Christmas Eve. And it's morally banned to kill animals on Christmas Eve.
Deborah

Uriel wrote:
We stole cookies and Santa from the Dutch. And the front stoop. Not much else, as it turns out.

Waffles, I think.
Uriel

Quote:
er...and New York? But that's negotiable quantity, of course....


I meant culturally and linguistically. And in NY, the actual Dutch imprint is largely limited to a few placenames and not much else. They were sort of a flash in the pan in terms of their North American involvement and influence.

Quote:
And it's morally banned to kill animals on Christmas Eve.


I guess you wanna get that turkey plucked ahead of time, then.

Quote:
Waffles, I think.


I thought waffles were Belgian.
Fredrik

Ah, But I meant that you also actually took/stole/snatched the city and state of New York from the Dutch.
I think that if I had been American, I would have been the Batavophile equivalent of an American Anglophile, with a house decorated in the Dutch style, strict Reformed leanings and a Dutchified version of my Norwegian name: Frederick Houtman van den Bergen.

We don't have to worry about plucking the turkey, as we have lamb (W Norway), pork (E Norway) or cod (N Norway) for Christmas. Only a few eccentric Americanophiles have turkey.
Benjamin [inactive]

Fredrik wrote:
Ah, But I meant that you also actually took/stole/snatched the city and state of New York from the Dutch.
I think that if I had been American, I would have been the Batavophile equivalent of an American Anglophile, with a house decorated in the Dutch style, strict Reformed leanings and a Dutchified version of my Norwegian name: Frederick Houtman van den Bergen.

Lol, that sounds great! Are there many American Batavophiles about? I wonder how they'd be perceived by Dutch people. I have to say that I usually find eccentric American Anglophiles to be laughably silly.

Quote:
We don't have to worry about plucking the turkey, as we have lamb (W Norway), pork (E Norway) or cod (N Norway) for Christmas. Only a few eccentric Americanophiles have turkey.

Actually, I think that she was referring to Thanksgiving. It was my understanding that Americans do not generally have turkey at Christmas — right?
Uriel

Quote:
Ah, But I meant that you also actually took/stole/snatched the city and state of New York from the Dutch.


Oh gosh, no. That was the British. America didn't exist until 1776, remember -- we're not responsible for anything that happened before then!

And apparently the whole New Netherlands thing (which only lasted 50 years) ended through a confluence of several factors -- an unpopular Dutch governor, lots and lots of British settlers, and an apathetic (or prudent) colonial population:

From www.u-s-history.com/pages/h561.html

Quote:
In 1647, Peter Stuyvesant was sent to New Amsterdam to replace an unpopular governor, but his dictatorial style proved to be equally distasteful. Meanwhile, English settlers were expanding into the New Netherland, forcing the Dutch out of New Hope in the Connecticut Valley and establishing new settlements on Long Island. In 1664, James, Duke of York and brother to King Charles II, asserted his claim to the entire region between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers. English troop ships arrived in New Amsterdam harbor and prepared for battle. Stuyvesant bellowed orders to the citizens to defend the colony, but could not motivate them. The New Netherland became New York without a shot fired.


Quote:
Are there many American Batavophiles about?


Uh ... no.

Quote:
Actually, I think that she was referring to Thanksgiving. It was my understanding that Americans do not generally have turkey at Christmas — right?


Why not? I've had turkey plenty of times at Christmas, too. The idea behind serving turkey is that turkey is a bitch to cook -- it takes all day, it's fraught with danger, they cost a pretty penny, it takes a lot of people to eat one, and it's pretty much required that you accompany them with plenty of side dishes -- so it's are appropriate for any major occasion where you're going to have a lot of people gathered around that would warrant you going to all the trouble and effort. But since turkeys are generally slaughtered in the fall, that means they get eaten at Thanksgiving and Christmas.

But it's not as de rigeur for Christmas as it is for T'giving, true. Ham is also big. Or whatever other special, time-consuming dish your family likes.
Porthos

In my family, we eat tamales for Christmas, and every baby breeding machine in the family makes batches of hundreds of tamales, while the men in the family do the heavy lifting (washing the tamales in giant pots in the backyard, etc.) while we then retire to a nice football game and beer, or a boxing fight.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Porthos wrote:
In my family, we eat tamales for Christmas, and every baby breeding machine in the family makes batches of hundreds of tamales, while the men in the family do the heavy lifting (washing the tamales in giant pots in the backyard, etc.) while we then retire to a nice football game and beer, or a boxing fight.


Baby breeding machine? " alt="" border="0" /> What's that? And while the baby breeding machines and the men are doing all these things, what are the women doing? Having a well deserved rest, and being treated, I hope.
Elaine

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Porthos wrote:
In my family, we eat tamales for Christmas, and every baby breeding machine in the family makes batches of hundreds of tamales, while the men in the family do the heavy lifting (washing the tamales in giant pots in the backyard, etc.) while we then retire to a nice football game and beer, or a boxing fight.


Baby breeding machine? " alt="" border="0" /> What's that? And while the baby breeding machines and the men are doing all these things, what are the women doing? Having a well deserved rest, and being treated, I hope.


They're all over at my house getting plastered and getting lapdances from hunky male strippers.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Elaine wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Porthos wrote:
In my family, we eat tamales for Christmas, and every baby breeding machine in the family makes batches of hundreds of tamales, while the men in the family do the heavy lifting (washing the tamales in giant pots in the backyard, etc.) while we then retire to a nice football game and beer, or a boxing fight.


Baby breeding machine? " alt="" border="0" /> What's that? And while the baby breeding machines and the men are doing all these things, what are the women doing? Having a well deserved rest, and being treated, I hope.


They're all over at my house getting plastered and getting lapdances from hunky male strippers.


Really? I'll be right over....
Uriel

Quote:
They're all over at my house getting plastered and getting lapdances from hunky male strippers.


Oh, is that at YOUR house this year? I'll bring the chocolate martinis....
Fredrik

Uriel wrote:
Quote:
Ah, But I meant that you also actually took/stole/snatched the city and state of New York from the Dutch.


Oh gosh, no. That was the British. America didn't exist until 1776, remember -- we're not responsible for anything that happened before then!

Hehe, we Norwegians use exactly the same excuse about the negative stuff in our own history: Was Norway a mean colonial power? Nooo, the slavery-based sugar plantations in the Danish West Indies (today: US Virgin Islands) were an entirely Danish phenomena, of course. We were a Danish colony ourselves! (Never mind the Norwegians that participated in the slave trade and plantation system).

Sigh....the problem with you Americans is that you don't realize how Dutch you are deep down: A gang of rebel provinces that stand up against a distant tyrant and form a federation headed by a charismatic commander-in-chief. Sounds like the United Provinces, the Spanish and the Stadtholder all over again, Yankees, or should I say: Jan Kees!
Porthos

Fredrik wrote:
Uriel wrote:
Quote:
Ah, But I meant that you also actually took/stole/snatched the city and state of New York from the Dutch.


Oh gosh, no. That was the British. America didn't exist until 1776, remember -- we're not responsible for anything that happened before then!

Hehe, we Norwegians use exactly the same excuse about the negative stuff in our own history: Was Norway a mean colonial power? Nooo, the slavery-based sugar plantations in the Danish West Indies (today: US Virgin Islands) were an entirely Danish phenomena, of course. We were a Danish colony ourselves! (Never mind the Norwegians that participated in the slave trade and plantation system).

Sigh....the problem with you Americans is that you don't realize how Dutch you are deep down: A gang of rebel provinces that stand up against a distant tyrant and form a federation headed by a charismatic commander-in-chief. Sounds like the United Provinces, the Spanish and the Stadtholder all over again, Yankees, or should I say: Jan Kees!


No, we don't like to have a smoke and a pancacke.
Porthos

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Porthos wrote:
In my family, we eat tamales for Christmas, and every baby breeding machine in the family makes batches of hundreds of tamales, while the men in the family do the heavy lifting (washing the tamales in giant pots in the backyard, etc.) while we then retire to a nice football game and beer, or a boxing fight.


Baby breeding machine? " alt="" border="0" /> What's that? And while the baby breeding machines and the men are doing all these things, what are the women doing? Having a well deserved rest, and being treated, I hope.


It's a pun on Mexican women, who usually have lots of children, and always seem like they're pregnant every year. They have one still sucking on the titty, and another on the way. :q32:
André in Zuid-Afrika

So, boys and girls, what are you hoping to get for Christmas?



Elaine

World peace and a peaceful and immediate end to the Iraq war. Other than that, I'd love to get a Sidekick 3, a PowerMac for my home, and a new pair of Jimmy Choo's. Thanks for listening, Santa.
Deborah

To Elaine's first 2 requests, I'll add a new pair of retinas for my roommate's cat (hers recently detached ).

For me personally, a new job. Other than that, anything except wearing apparel of a sort that I never wear, given to me in hopes that I will change the way I dress.
Benjamin [inactive]

Elaine wrote:
World peace and a peaceful and immediate end to the Iraq war. Other than that, I'd love to get a Sidekick 3, a PowerMac for my home, and a new pair of Jimmy Choo's. Thanks for listening, Santa.

Lol, that reminds me of a few years ago when the main ambassadors to the European Union from all the member states were asked what they wanted for Christmas. The French one asked for world peace, the German one asked for a solution of the problems of climate change, and the British one asked for a pair of slippers.

Personally, I'll hope for lots of books about languages.
Porthos

It would be something of a miracle if I got a car, but it doesn't hurt to wish.

As long as I'm at it, a new i-pod, since mine is as ancient as the stone age. A book on advanced Spanish grammar. A new bottle of L'EAU D'ISSEY. A blue armani suit, a season pass to Six Flags, an unlimited beach parking pass, and a copy of Vini Vidi Vicious. Oh, and I almost forgot about an X-Box 360 or Playstation 3 or Nintendo Wii. But, as I usual, I'm sure I'll be on the "naughty list".
Joanne

Oh...just three things, really, Santa:

1) I'd like a new pair of Manolo Blahnik leather knee boots in size 7.5, and
2) an additional 15 feet of length to my living room so I can properly watch
3) this without eyestrain

Please, please, please? I swear I've been an angel this year...
Loic

Dear Father Christmas,

Do not take me to the Test, but deliver me from Australia.

Amen, I mean, thank you.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Chirstmas is less than two weeks away, and I think it's time that we start getting into the real spirit of Christmas...

André in Zuid-Afrika

And since we had a discussion on Silent Night on another thread, the real South African version...


Walker

Hello, all! I'm just dropping by to say...



I meant to say...



I wish I had more time but I can only sneak away for so long here at work. Have a good one!
Joanne

Happy Christmas to you, too, Walker. And a Happy New Year!
Walker wrote:
Hello, all! I'm just dropping by to say...

That's wonderful. Just lovely, Walker. How am I supposed to drive to my in-laws' place for the weekend, now that I've doused my eyes with gasoline and set them on fire?
André in Zuid-Afrika

Just popped by to write you all a Christmas message...



May this be a blessed Christmas for all of you, a Christmas of love and happiness.


Uriel

Oh, that was unnecessary, Walker!!

But God Jul to you, too.

I was hoping to make the naughty list this year, but I didn't find much opportunity (pesky uncooperative men!), so I suppose I won't be getting any coal in my stocking after all.....
Loic

As we all take time to reflect upon our (mis)deeds of the past year, I feel a sudden surge of goodwill and kindness towards my fellow men and women of Langcafe.

Merry Christmas, everyone! A King was born last night.

Porthos

Quote:
Merry Christmas, everyone! A King was born last night.


If you wish to be historically accurate than actually, he was not born on December 25th.
Shouga

Porthos wrote:
Quote:
Merry Christmas, everyone! A King was born last night.


If you wish to be historically accurate than actually, he was not born on December 25th.


But let's not be historically accurate
Porthos

Shouga wrote:
Porthos wrote:
Quote:
Merry Christmas, everyone! A King was born last night.


If you wish to be historically accurate than actually, he was not born on December 25th.


But let's not be historically accurate


I just think it's kind of silly when you think about it. That would be like pretending that a president was born on another day than his actual day of birth. What for? The idea is absurd. All the more so, when we are speaking of the person who many believe to be the son of God.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Porthos wrote:
Shouga wrote:
Porthos wrote:
Quote:
Merry Christmas, everyone! A King was born last night.


If you wish to be historically accurate than actually, he was not born on December 25th.


But let's not be historically accurate


I just think it's kind of silly when you think about it. That would be like pretending that a president was born on another day than his actual day of birth. What for? The idea is absurd. All the more so, when we are speaking of the person who many believe to be the son of God.


The fact is, we don't actually know exactly on which day Jesus was born. And it doesn't matter. The point is that we are celebrating the reason why He was born, rather than a mere birthday celebration.

And BTW, the official birthdays of kings and queens are often celebrated on a different day that their actual date of birth. For example, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands' official birthday is celebrated on 30 April, while she was born in January. Queen Elizabeth's birthday is also officially celebrated on another day than her real birthday.
Loic

That is a very good riposte, Andre. The date is not as important as the celebration of his existence.

But now that Christmas is long over and Boxing day just over, the next big milestone of the year is New Year's Eve, surely!
Shouga

André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Porthos wrote:
Shouga wrote:
Porthos wrote:
Quote:
Merry Christmas, everyone! A King was born last night.


If you wish to be historically accurate than actually, he was not born on December 25th.


But let's not be historically accurate


I just think it's kind of silly when you think about it. That would be like pretending that a president was born on another day than his actual day of birth. What for? The idea is absurd. All the more so, when we are speaking of the person who many believe to be the son of God.


The fact is, we don't actually know exactly on which day Jesus was born. And it doesn't matter. The point is that we are celebrating the reason why He was born, rather than a mere birthday celebration.

And BTW, the official birthdays of kings and queens are often celebrated on a different day that their actual date of birth. For example, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands' official birthday is celebrated on 30 April, while she was born in January. Queen Elizabeth's birthday is also officially celebrated on another day than her real birthday.


Yes, precisely
Porthos

Then who is to say that Jesus even wanted his birthday celebrated? And what connection does modern Christmas (primarily of pagan origin) really have with Jesus' birth? Don't you think he would be offended if someone decided to dedicate a pagan holiday to him, with some bogus date, and then claim it was in his honor? I know I would be offended. But the fact is, most of us don't really give that any consideration. We just want to pass around presents, and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so we ignore the historical realities of the situation for the sake of personal gratification and holiday comfort. I just think that it's all so superficial and blasphemous if you really think about it.
Shouga

Porthos wrote:
Then who is to say that Jesus even wanted his birthday celebrated? And what connection does modern Christmas (primarily of pagan origin) really have with Jesus' birth? Don't you think he would be offended if someone decided to dedicate a pagan holiday to him, with some bogus date, and then claim it was in his honor? I know I would be offended. But the fact is, most of us don't really give that any consideration. We just want to pass around presents, and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so we ignore the historical realities of the situation for the sake of personal gratification and holiday comfort. I just think that it's all so superficial and blasphemous if you really think about it.


Why shouldn't Christians celebrate the arrival of their Lord on Earth? I don't think He would be 'offended' at people celebrating this, even if, because of being unsure of His actual date of birth, they celebrate it on the 'wrong date'. If a friend gave me a birthday present on the wrong date, and accidently believed that my birthday was on a different date, I wouldn't be offended; I would be pleased and delighted that they would give me a present and care about my birthday at all.
Yes, many people treat Christmas as a Christian holiday, and many do not. That's not going to change anytime soon. The primary reason for this is of course, that many people are not Christians; just as many other celebrations have changed their meanings over years, so too has Christmas. Christmas is not primarily about presents; one of the most important aspects of Christmas is, as I realised more than ever this year, family. There are so many other reasons for having Christmas, and for why people continue to celebrate it; it is also about having landmarks through time, and for making sense of the world that we live in. Humankind is all about making sense out of chaos, and Christmas is one celebration that is ALWAYS there; a landmark, marking out our lives, truly making sense out of chaos.
Maybe many people do celebrate Christmas as nothing more than a chance to grab some presents, and give presents out without any feeling. But this is reserved only for the most arrogant of mankind, and for those that still haven't grasped the basic concept of love. Christmas, for both Christians and non-Christians, is about FAMILY. Whether it be only reserved for the 'family' between humankind and God, for the family that exists here on Earth, or for a combination of both, I am yet to meet someone who treats Christmas as less than this, and only as an opportunity to 'pass around presents' and 'feel all warm and fuzzy inside'.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Porthos wrote:
Then who is to say that Jesus even wanted his birthday celebrated? And what connection does modern Christmas (primarily of pagan origin) really have with Jesus' birth? Don't you think he would be offended if someone decided to dedicate a pagan holiday to him, with some bogus date, and then claim it was in his honor? I know I would be offended. But the fact is, most of us don't really give that any consideration. We just want to pass around presents, and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so we ignore the historical realities of the situation for the sake of personal gratification and holiday comfort. I just think that it's all so superficial and blasphemous if you really think about it.


Don't traditional scripta depict the character of Jesus as a Pagan lover (at least not a Pagan hater) ? Didn't he found what Christians call la religion du cœur ? Judging from what Jesus is supposed to have done during his short life, individual mercantilism and outward rigorism were closer to blasphemy than Paganism as such.
Porthos

Shouga wrote:
Porthos wrote:
Then who is to say that Jesus even wanted his birthday celebrated? And what connection does modern Christmas (primarily of pagan origin) really have with Jesus' birth? Don't you think he would be offended if someone decided to dedicate a pagan holiday to him, with some bogus date, and then claim it was in his honor? I know I would be offended. But the fact is, most of us don't really give that any consideration. We just want to pass around presents, and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so we ignore the historical realities of the situation for the sake of personal gratification and holiday comfort. I just think that it's all so superficial and blasphemous if you really think about it.


Why shouldn't Christians celebrate the arrival of their Lord on Earth? I don't think He would be 'offended' at people celebrating this, even if, because of being unsure of His actual date of birth, they celebrate it on the 'wrong date'. If a friend gave me a birthday present on the wrong date, and accidently believed that my birthday was on a different date, I wouldn't be offended; I would be pleased and delighted that they would give me a present and care about my birthday at all.
Yes, many people treat Christmas as a Christian holiday, and many do not. That's not going to change anytime soon. The primary reason for this is of course, that many people are not Christians; just as many other celebrations have changed their meanings over years, so too has Christmas. Christmas is not primarily about presents; one of the most important aspects of Christmas is, as I realised more than ever this year, family. There are so many other reasons for having Christmas, and for why people continue to celebrate it; it is also about having landmarks through time, and for making sense of the world that we live in. Humankind is all about making sense out of chaos, and Christmas is one celebration that is ALWAYS there; a landmark, marking out our lives, truly making sense out of chaos.
Maybe many people do celebrate Christmas as nothing more than a chance to grab some presents, and give presents out without any feeling. But this is reserved only for the most arrogant of mankind, and for those that still haven't grasped the basic concept of love. Christmas, for both Christians and non-Christians, is about FAMILY. Whether it be only reserved for the 'family' between humankind and God, for the family that exists here on Earth, or for a combination of both, I am yet to meet someone who treats Christmas as less than this, and only as an opportunity to 'pass around presents' and 'feel all warm and fuzzy inside'.


Now which is it? Is this holiday about celebrating Christ' birthday, or is about family? Which one? It seems your primary focus is on family, while Jesus birthday is only a second thought. Besides the fact that his birthday is not mentioned in the bible, you must also not forget that Christmas is entirely of pagan origin. It's a pagan holiday, given a Christian name, and sugercoated under the guise of Jesus' birthday. Besides, who is to say Jesus even wanted his birthday to be celebrated. The ancient Jews did not celebrate birthdays. And the only two instances of birthday celebrations in the bible are spoken of in a bad light, such as the birthday celebration at Herod's home, where John the Baptist was beheaded as a birthday present.
Shouga

Porthos wrote:
Shouga wrote:
Porthos wrote:
Then who is to say that Jesus even wanted his birthday celebrated? And what connection does modern Christmas (primarily of pagan origin) really have with Jesus' birth? Don't you think he would be offended if someone decided to dedicate a pagan holiday to him, with some bogus date, and then claim it was in his honor? I know I would be offended. But the fact is, most of us don't really give that any consideration. We just want to pass around presents, and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so we ignore the historical realities of the situation for the sake of personal gratification and holiday comfort. I just think that it's all so superficial and blasphemous if you really think about it.


Why shouldn't Christians celebrate the arrival of their Lord on Earth? I don't think He would be 'offended' at people celebrating this, even if, because of being unsure of His actual date of birth, they celebrate it on the 'wrong date'. If a friend gave me a birthday present on the wrong date, and accidently believed that my birthday was on a different date, I wouldn't be offended; I would be pleased and delighted that they would give me a present and care about my birthday at all.
Yes, many people treat Christmas as a Christian holiday, and many do not. That's not going to change anytime soon. The primary reason for this is of course, that many people are not Christians; just as many other celebrations have changed their meanings over years, so too has Christmas. Christmas is not primarily about presents; one of the most important aspects of Christmas is, as I realised more than ever this year, family. There are so many other reasons for having Christmas, and for why people continue to celebrate it; it is also about having landmarks through time, and for making sense of the world that we live in. Humankind is all about making sense out of chaos, and Christmas is one celebration that is ALWAYS there; a landmark, marking out our lives, truly making sense out of chaos.
Maybe many people do celebrate Christmas as nothing more than a chance to grab some presents, and give presents out without any feeling. But this is reserved only for the most arrogant of mankind, and for those that still haven't grasped the basic concept of love. Christmas, for both Christians and non-Christians, is about FAMILY. Whether it be only reserved for the 'family' between humankind and God, for the family that exists here on Earth, or for a combination of both, I am yet to meet someone who treats Christmas as less than this, and only as an opportunity to 'pass around presents' and 'feel all warm and fuzzy inside'.


Now which is it? Is this holiday about celebrating Christ' birthday, or is about family? Which one? It seems your primary focus is on family, while Jesus birthday is only a second thought. Besides the fact that his birthday is not mentioned in the bible, you must also not forget that Christmas is entirely of pagan origin. It's a pagan holiday, given a Christian name, and sugercoated under the guise of Jesus' birthday. Besides, who is to say Jesus even wanted his birthday to be celebrated. The ancient Jews did not celebrate birthdays. And the only two instances of birthday celebrations in the bible are spoken of in a bad light, such as the birthday celebration at Herod's home, where John the Baptist was beheaded as a birthday present.


Not really. I was trying to put into context what non-Christians think, and what non-Christians are taught in England.
As December 25th isn't Jesus' birthday, I don't think it matters too much. Besides, we are joyful at his birth, not celebrating his actual birthday in the way people celebrate it (an increasement of years), which I think is an emotion that happens at most every birth, despite whether or not the culture in question celebrates birthdays or not.
I don't know. How can any human alive today say whether or not Jesus wanted His birth to be celebrated? It's an impossible question to answer. So either you celebrate it for what it is, a day of worship for the day that Jesus Christ first arrived on this earth, or you don't bother celebrating it at all.
Uriel

What exactly does one do on Boxing Day, loic? (Since we don't have it here.)
Shouga

Uriel wrote:
What exactly does one do on Boxing Day, loic? (Since we don't have it here.)


(Answering because we have it too)
Nothing much, nowadays. Shops typically start their sales on Boxing Day, so many people go shopping. Other people visit their families.

There's some more information here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_day
André in Zuid-Afrika

Porthos wrote:
Shouga wrote:
Porthos wrote:
Then who is to say that Jesus even wanted his birthday celebrated? And what connection does modern Christmas (primarily of pagan origin) really have with Jesus' birth? Don't you think he would be offended if someone decided to dedicate a pagan holiday to him, with some bogus date, and then claim it was in his honor? I know I would be offended. But the fact is, most of us don't really give that any consideration. We just want to pass around presents, and feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so we ignore the historical realities of the situation for the sake of personal gratification and holiday comfort. I just think that it's all so superficial and blasphemous if you really think about it.


Why shouldn't Christians celebrate the arrival of their Lord on Earth? I don't think He would be 'offended' at people celebrating this, even if, because of being unsure of His actual date of birth, they celebrate it on the 'wrong date'. If a friend gave me a birthday present on the wrong date, and accidently believed that my birthday was on a different date, I wouldn't be offended; I would be pleased and delighted that they would give me a present and care about my birthday at all.
Yes, many people treat Christmas as a Christian holiday, and many do not. That's not going to change anytime soon. The primary reason for this is of course, that many people are not Christians; just as many other celebrations have changed their meanings over years, so too has Christmas. Christmas is not primarily about presents; one of the most important aspects of Christmas is, as I realised more than ever this year, family. There are so many other reasons for having Christmas, and for why people continue to celebrate it; it is also about having landmarks through time, and for making sense of the world that we live in. Humankind is all about making sense out of chaos, and Christmas is one celebration that is ALWAYS there; a landmark, marking out our lives, truly making sense out of chaos.
Maybe many people do celebrate Christmas as nothing more than a chance to grab some presents, and give presents out without any feeling. But this is reserved only for the most arrogant of mankind, and for those that still haven't grasped the basic concept of love. Christmas, for both Christians and non-Christians, is about FAMILY. Whether it be only reserved for the 'family' between humankind and God, for the family that exists here on Earth, or for a combination of both, I am yet to meet someone who treats Christmas as less than this, and only as an opportunity to 'pass around presents' and 'feel all warm and fuzzy inside'.


Now which is it? Is this holiday about celebrating Christ' birthday, or is about family? Which one? It seems your primary focus is on family, while Jesus birthday is only a second thought. Besides the fact that his birthday is not mentioned in the bible, you must also not forget that Christmas is entirely of pagan origin. It's a pagan holiday, given a Christian name, and sugercoated under the guise of Jesus' birthday. Besides, who is to say Jesus even wanted his birthday to be celebrated. The ancient Jews did not celebrate birthdays. And the only two instances of birthday celebrations in the bible are spoken of in a bad light, such as the birthday celebration at Herod's home, where John the Baptist was beheaded as a birthday present.


1) You're confusing Jesus with an ordinary person, which He wasn't.
2) Christmas is not about celebrating a birthday, it's about celebrating why He was born, as I've already said.
3) It doesn't matter whether it used to be a pagan holiday. It's about the meaning given to it today. Christians give one meaning to it, non-Christians another. It doesn't matter. What's important to me is what it means to me (and byme I mean every person who celebrates it.
4) People are all one family, with God as our Father, is what Christians believe. Therefore Christmas is a family holiday as well, and if non-Christians celebrate it as a family day, it's great. "Family" today means a lot of things, and could even be your close friends, anybody you love.
Loic

Uriel: For Singaporeans, nothing. Boxing Day was a public holiday but it has since been struck off the list by over-zealous civil servants who were concerned about the loss of productivity.

For many of us, though, it is time to catch some live football action in the pubs or at homes although this is more of a reflection of a football culture than anything else. For the rare breed like me, I am the beneficiary of SkyTV's Boxing Day cricket Test coverage live from Melbourne.

Porthos: Have you ever attended catechism classes? I'd have thought that the Roman Catholic identity is firmly intertwined with being a Hispanic-American. I think you have more in common with the Jehovah's Witnesses, really.
Porthos

loic wrote:
Uriel: For Singaporeans, nothing. Boxing Day was a public holiday but it has since been struck off the list by over-zealous civil servants who were concerned about the loss of productivity.

For many of us, though, it is time to catch some live football action in the pubs or at homes although this is more of a reflection of a football culture than anything else. For the rare breed like me, I am the beneficiary of SkyTV's Boxing Day cricket Test coverage live from Melbourne.

Porthos: Have you ever attended catechism classes? I'd have thought that the Roman Catholic identity is firmly intertwined with being a Hispanic-American. I think you have more in common with the Jehovah's Witnesses, really.


Yes. My family is firmly Roman Catholic. But I'm open minded and don't always follow the herd. Personally, (although having absolutely no prejudice toward individual Catholics) I am disgusted with the church of Rome. Very few institutions have commited as many atrocities over the centuries as the Catholic Church. The sickest part is that they commited these acts in the name of God. On theology, I do tend to agree with a lot of what the witnesses say, because based on my research, they are correct. I take offense when people make radical claims about them and other smaller Christian denominations like the mormons. I've had very close friends who were mormon and they were great people. I think their beleifs are way off the mark, but they are by no means part of the "occult". I'd like to make it clear however that I am in no way trying to force my views on anyone else here. I'm merely expressing my views.

I think it's cool if people want to celebrate Christmas. It's a time when my family gets together and spends quality time, and it's part of family tradition. But I just feel that Christ should be left out of it, as to me, it seems as if it's a hypocritical slap in the face. But everyone of course is free to do as they please.
Loic

No worries, Porthos. Everyone is entitled to their prejudices although I do take umbrage at the criticism which you have levelled against the Catholic church. Not to take cheap pot shots here, but maybe it's the Catholic church in the USA that has problems. I assure you that the Catholic church in Asia is as white as snow.

Jehovah's Witnesses are banned in Singapore. Really! To cut a long story shot, a mate of my mate (complicated, I know) was jailed for 2 years for refusing to serve in the army. It seems that they are hostile towards any trappings of the state and that includes singing the national anthem.

PS: I don't know why you have failed to recognise the contributions of the Church, but over here, the early Catholic missionaries were the pioneers in education. If I am not mistaken, Notre Dame University is a Catholic university. Go get one for the Gipper!
Uriel

Tee hee -- I actually went to Jesuit university for 2 years (Santa Clara U.)! A very good school indeed, and you hardly even noticed it was Catholic if you weren't religious yourself (the only religious requirement: 3 religion courses, and they could be on Buddhism or nonviolence or anything else besides Christianity).

Mormons aren't the same thing as Jehovah's Witnesses, by the way. Completely different denomination.
Shouga

Uriel wrote:
Mormons aren't the same thing as Jehovah's Witnesses, by the way. Completely different denomination.


People tend to define them both as 'cults' as they have similar 'cultish' behaviour, so they are usually both shoved under the same category. But yeah, they have very different beliefs.


loic wrote:
I assure you that the Catholic church in Asia is as white as snow.


Really? I have to admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the Catholic church in Asia. I know that here in the United Kingdom, and also in places such as Australasia and North America, that the Catholic church are very infamous for cases such as priests being discovered to be child-abusers.
Porthos

Quote:
Really? I have to admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the Catholic church in Asia. I know that here in the United Kingdom, and also in places such as Australasia and North America, that the Catholic church are very infamous for cases such as priests being discovered to be child-abusers.


Yes, and it does seem to be rather prevalent. The Catholic Church supported Hitler in his persecution of the Jews and other minorities. The Catholic Church was responsible for the horrors of the inquisition. The Church discouraged indepenent thinking and innovation for over a thousand years, thus stifling the chances for European progress. The Church supported the ethnic cleansing of "heretics" and infidels on countless occassions. The church enslaved millions of indigenous peoples in the Americas during the Spanish/Portuguese conquest of modern Latin America. The Church has impoverished people who were already beyond poverty in order to finance its opulent luxury and material excesses. The Church burned people at the stake merely for trying to publish the bible in the vernacular speech of the common people. And most recently, there has been child molestation amongst priests of epidemic proportions. This is certainly not a recent phenomenon, but it has only recently been brought to light more so than before, due to media attention. The Church supports these monsters with its money, and often, when fully aware of the priests' problem with children, simply hush it up, and move them to another parish.

I don't have anything against Catholics themselves, because if that were the case, I couldn't love about 95% of my family. But I do, as you can tell, have a problem with the Church and its horrific history of apostasy.
Uriel

I have a hard time believing any church is lily-white! Tell me: what forcefield is protecting the one in Asia?

Quote:
People tend to define them both as 'cults' as they have similar 'cultish' behaviour, so they are usually both shoved under the same category.


Cults, eh? I have a hard time seeing them as being any weirder than Baptists or Mennonites (or any other Christian denomination).
Deborah

Uriel wrote:
Cults, eh? I have a hard time seeing them as being any weirder than Baptists or Mennonites (or any other Christian denomination).

My sentiments exactly.
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
I have a hard time believing any church is lily-white! Tell me: what forcefield is protecting the one in Asia?

Quote:
People tend to define them both as 'cults' as they have similar 'cultish' behaviour, so they are usually both shoved under the same category.


Cults, eh? I have a hard time seeing them as being any weirder than Baptists or Mennonites (or any other Christian denomination).


There is a lot of propoganda about JWs and Latter day saints due to the fact that they tend to be more "serious" in their worship, in that, the degree of deviation from church prinicple is not tolerated to the same extent as it might be in a typical evangelical or Catholic church. But that being said, they are in no way cults.

Among mormons however, there are minority sects which are not endorsed by mainstream mormons, who are in fact, cults. But most mormons do not condone such sects.

The mormons are generally good law-abiding people, but they seem to focus almost soley on the book of mormon, and sort of sidestep the bible when it contradicts the doctrine found in the book of mormon. The JWs seem to always be capable of giving answers to questions straight from the bible, that explain their beliefs.

If any Christian deonomination is cult like, it's the red neck, white supremacists who feel that they are ordained by God to wipe out "inferior" races, and homosexuals, among others. They kind of missed the part when Jesus said to love your neighbor, and love your enemies, and learn war no more. lol
Uriel

Uh, they missed the part where the whole religion was invented by Middle Eastern goatherders, who would certainly not be eligible for induction into the Klan (although "guest-of-honor" status is still available -- don't bother bringing a necktie; one will be provided).
Benjamin [inactive]

I have to agree with loic that Porthos' views seem to be broadly in line with those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that Christmas may have 'pagan' origins is a major concern for them also.

Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses, along with Seventh-Day Adventists and Christadelphians can be grouped together in the sense that they are all Restorationist movements within Christianity. This means that they arose in the 19th century and attempt to restore Christianity to what they perceive to be its original form.
Loic

Porthos, I think you are being extremely prejudiced against the Roman Catholic church. Since you are a Hispanic-American, this has to be the unkindest cut of all.

Besides, you confuse the wanton actons of the Spanish conquerors with those of the Spanish Catholic church. For your information, the missionaries were usually the sole voice of moderation in a sea of cruelty and racism towards the natives. You conveniently chose to forget the numerous Catholic families in Europe who took in Jewish refuges at a personal risk during WWII.

It must be an intellectual fad to express anti-Catholic sentiments without being prosecuted for it. I'd like to see you making the same pitch against the Jews without being labelled as an incorrigible anti-Semite. You hurt my feelings with your gross caricature of a church which you loathed and which ironically, is the wellspring of your family. Just as Shylock lamented pitifully in The Merchant of Venice, I'd like to know if you are aware that hath not a Catholic eyes?

Recognise the achievements of the Church. Deplore the errors of individual men who have gone astray but do not extend the same damning label to the entire organisation. This is not fair. The Church has erred, but she has done more good than bad.

I am reminded of a story which was told to me back in school. During the Fall of Singapore, the Japanese soldiers went amok in the city and started killing, raping and plundering the City. Even nuns were not spared. They came to a nativity church: Brother Victorinus -who used to teach in my Alma Mater- came out to stop the marauders. He was instantly felled and as he lay dying, his lips were mumbling in a silent prayer, beseeching God to forgive the Japanese for they did not know the sins they were committing.

The point I am trying to make here is that the priesthood or the clergy is not an ordinary profession for any larrikin who wants a job. It is a calling; a lifelong vocation. People who are steered towards such a vocation are not ordinary men or women, but people whose lives are filled with the love of God. They have an extraordinary sense of duty and mission. Their values are faith, hope and charity. They devote their lives to the service of humanity.

It is sad that a handful of paedophiles have tarnished the entire priesthood with this brush. They are certainly not a credit to their parents who have brought them up nor to the church which has accepted them. But to err is human and to forgive, divine. Remember this, wouldn't you?
Benjamin [inactive]

I have to say that I absolutely agree with loic that the actions of a few members of a church should not be seen to represent that church as a whole.

Joseph Chamberlain was an ardent imperialist and, as Colonial Secretary, he was a major orchestrator of Britain's land-grab in Africa. He was also a Unitarian. The vast majority of Unitarians today, however, would condemn his pro-imperialist attitudes. Interestingly, although Unitarians often seem to be obsessed with emphasising famous and influential people who are/were Unitarians, we tend to be mysteriously quiet about the Chamberlains.

On the other hand, one could also argue that Joseph Chamberlain did many good things for Birmingham, of which he was the Lord Mayor at one time. I suppose one could say that although he did uphold Unitarian social principles, he only really applied them to white people — something which would probably have been quite typical at the time.
Shouga

Quote:
Interestingly, although Unitarians often seem to be obsessed with emphasising famous and influential people who are/were Unitarians, we tend to be mysteriously quiet about the Chamberlains.


As I mentioned to you on MSN, Benjamin, I think this is universal for any church!

I too agree with loic and Benjamin. Every church has its stains and tarnishes. But because the Catholic church is such a huge part of practically every culture, and because the media are constantly targetting it, waiting for an opportunity to once again 'expose the lies of the Catholic church', it has become more famed for its crimes, than for its good deeds.
Uriel

loic wrote:
Porthos, I think you are being extremely prejudiced against the Roman Catholic church. Since you are a Hispanic-American, this has to be the unkindest cut of all.

Besides, you confuse the wanton actons of the Spanish conquerors with those of the Spanish Catholic church. For your information, the missionaries were usually the sole voice of moderation in a sea of cruelty and racism towards the natives.


'Fraid that's not actually true, though, loic. You forget that the Catholic Church of today is not philosophically the same as the Catholic Church of the 15th and 16th centuries. The Catholic Church was part and parcel of everything the Spanish did in the Americas; it cannot be considered a separate issue.

You can start with the fact that it was the Catholic Church that brokered the Treaty of Tordesillas; by papal proclamation the New World was divided up between the Spanish and the Portuguese, without any regard for the property rights of its native inhabitants. The Church did not recognize them as having any.

Remember that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain were designated "Catholic" rulers by the pope, charged with making Spain (and its colonies) a Catholic country, and given papal authority to back their own. Remember that in was under these auspices that the Spanish Inquisition -- also initiated by a papal bull -- was introduced to Spain -- largely to persecute Jewish converts to Catholicism. And remember that it was the policies of the Spanish inquisition that formed the basis for Spain's policies for the treatment of native Americans, since the conquistadors were operating in that same time period. The teachings and policies of the Catholic Church were very much used to officially justify such practices as slavery, murder, and theft -- just as the Southern Baptist Church officially justified and condoned slavery in the 19th century US.

Quote:
The Encomienda and the Requirement

Two features of conquest emerged to maintain a religious air to the temporal act of conquest: the encomienda system, and the Requirement.

The encomienda was in theory a system where a Spaniard was entrusted (encomendado) with a number of natives whom he was supposed to teach proper Christian doctrine. In return they would provide for his support. In practice this operated as a kind of slavery, and in 1511 priests the Dominican Antonio de Montesinos denounced the system from the pulpit.

The Requirement was a statement that was to be read to native people that informed them that they must acknowledge the dominion of the Catholic Church, the Pope, and the King, and must permit the preaching of Christianity. Failure to do so would justify forcible conquest, the enslavement of women and children, and seizure of property. The Requirement was established as a prerequisite for conquest, but was not usually read in good faith. It was based on the ideas of Martin Fernandez de Encisco, who wrote in 1513 that "the king might very justly send men to require these idolatrous Indians to hand over their land to him, for it was given him by the pope. If the Indians would not do this, he might justly wage war against them, kill them and enslave those captured in war, precisely as Joshua treated the inhabitants of Jericho."


http://faculty.smu.edu/RKEMPER/cf...vey_religion_Spanish_conquest.htm

Missionaries were often at the heart of the problem, no matter how much they might have abhorred physical brutality; they still practiced religious and cultural intolerance, branding all native practices as devil worship; they still treated the Indians as less than human until they had converted, and less human than Europeans afterward, and they were still an arm of the Spanish Crown and its policies.
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
loic wrote:
Porthos, I think you are being extremely prejudiced against the Roman Catholic church. Since you are a Hispanic-American, this has to be the unkindest cut of all.

Besides, you confuse the wanton actons of the Spanish conquerors with those of the Spanish Catholic church. For your information, the missionaries were usually the sole voice of moderation in a sea of cruelty and racism towards the natives.


'Fraid that's not actually true, though, loic. You forget that the Catholic Church of today is not philosophically the same as the Catholic Church of the 15th and 16th centuries. The Catholic Church was part and parcel of everything the Spanish did in the Americas; it cannot be considered a separate issue.

You can start with the fact that it was the Catholic Church that brokered the Treaty of Tordesillas; by papal proclamation the New World was divided up between the Spanish and the Portuguese, without any regard for the property rights of its native inhabitants. The Church did not recognize them as having any.

Remember that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain were designated "Catholic" rulers by the pope, charged with making Spain (and its colonies) a Catholic country, and given papal authority to back their own. Remember that in was under these auspices that the Spanish Inquisition -- also initiated by a papal bull -- was introduced to Spain -- largely to persecute Jewish converts to Catholicism. And remember that it was the policies of the Spanish inquisition that formed the basis for Spain's policies for the treatment of native Americans, since the conquistadors were operating in that same time period. The teachings and policies of the Catholic Church were very much used to officially justify such practices as slavery, murder, and theft -- just as the Southern Baptist Church officially justified and condoned slavery in the 19th century US.

Quote:
The Encomienda and the Requirement

Two features of conquest emerged to maintain a religious air to the temporal act of conquest: the encomienda system, and the Requirement.

The encomienda was in theory a system where a Spaniard was entrusted (encomendado) with a number of natives whom he was supposed to teach proper Christian doctrine. In return they would provide for his support. In practice this operated as a kind of slavery, and in 1511 priests the Dominican Antonio de Montesinos denounced the system from the pulpit.

The Requirement was a statement that was to be read to native people that informed them that they must acknowledge the dominion of the Catholic Church, the Pope, and the King, and must permit the preaching of Christianity. Failure to do so would justify forcible conquest, the enslavement of women and children, and seizure of property. The Requirement was established as a prerequisite for conquest, but was not usually read in good faith. It was based on the ideas of Martin Fernandez de Encisco, who wrote in 1513 that "the king might very justly send men to require these idolatrous Indians to hand over their land to him, for it was given him by the pope. If the Indians would not do this, he might justly wage war against them, kill them and enslave those captured in war, precisely as Joshua treated the inhabitants of Jericho."


http://faculty.smu.edu/RKEMPER/cf...vey_religion_Spanish_conquest.htm

Missionaries were often at the heart of the problem, no matter how much they might have abhorred physical brutality; they still practiced religious and cultural intolerance, branding all native practices as devil worship; they still treated the Indians as less than human until they had converted, and less human than Europeans afterward, and they were still an arm of the Spanish Crown and its policies.


Very good reply Uriel. Good girl!
Porthos

Quote:
Since you are a Hispanic-American, this has to be the unkindest cut of all.


Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You are acting as if I'm a traitor to my people and my heritage just because I refuse to swallow the garbage being shoved down our throat? Because I'm Hispanic, I have to automatically fall line and step with the crowd and be Catholic or forver be held accountable??? It is a ridiculous assertion that you are making. And you are trying to stereotype me, and you are intentionally discouraging me from being an independent thinker.

Very little of what the Catholic Church has done is Christian in any true sense of the word. Their doctrine itself is riddled with paganism in almost every facet. From early times, it has acted as the political instrument of Rome firstly, and later, of individual kingdoms, encouraging warfare between nations, and the brutal persecution of poor and powerless and of religious and ethnic minorities. Hypocrisy traditionally knows no bounds within the Church as well. It sickens me, and I call it out for what it is.
Deborah

loic wrote:
Porthos, I think you are being extremely prejudiced against the Roman Catholic church. Since you are a Hispanic-American, this has to be the unkindest cut of all.

It shouldn't be such a surprise. All of the most virulently anti-Catholic people I've met were raised as Catholics. After all, who would know it's faults better?
Benjamin [inactive]

Josh, what exactly is 'paganism', in your view?

Uriel makes a good point that the Roman Catholic Church is not philosophically the same today as it was 400-500 years ago, and its behaviours then should not be associated with the church today. By the same token, I fully accept that Unitarians today are not philosophically the same as Unitarians of 200-300 years ago — it would be a very big mistake to assume that the overall views of people like Thomas Jefferson were particularly similar to the views of mainstream contemporary Unitarians in the United States and elsewhere, despite perhaps some similarities in theology and religious practice.

Deborah wrote:
It shouldn't be such a surprise. All of the most virulently anti-Catholic people I've met were raised as Catholics. After all, who would know it's faults better?

LOL — that reminds me of how many of the most anti-Unitarian people I've come across were raised as Unitarians — including the Evangelical Congregationalist minister who conducted my Godson's baptism, which was rather embarrassing as purely by coincidence he turned out to be the cousin of one of my Unitarian friends. I hope I wasn't being too contentious by wearing my Unitarian tie to the baptism service, where I had to state my belief in the Trinity... lol.
Uriel

Paganism in Porthos's context would most likely refer to the pre-Christian religions of Europe, many of whose holidays and practices were adopted and adapted by Christianity when it arrived.

It is actually very, very common in the US to profess a belief in Christianity, but not be too stuck on doctrine. Many Protestants shop around for a church they like, and try out several denominations over time. They aren't tied to the one they grew up with. Catholics are very similar. American Catholics are always being denounced by the Vatican as "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which bits of doctrine they like and don't like and act accordingly. They respect and revere the Pope, but rarely toe every official line. Hispanics are just as likely to do this as any American Catholic. Trust me; I've dated plenty of them, and they are perfectly happy to have premarital sex, extramarital sex, live together out of wedlock, have children out of wedlock, use birth control, date and marry outside the faith (which means it won't be a church-sanctioned marriage) -- but they'll wear those crosses, cross themselves outside cemeteries, light candles to saints, and drag themselves to mass and confession.
Fredrik

Very interesting debate so far, guys!

Porthos wrote:
Quote:
The sickest part is that they commited these acts in the name of God.

This used to gross me out too, but after having studied history and the endless list of actions performed in God's name I have realized that this is a very human way of showing how nobody, with the possible exception of the smallest and weakest among us, those who seldom invoke the name of God, can exercise any divine mandate. When man, created in God's image, says something is done in God's name, he is ultimately refering to himself, unless he is Jesus, the only human who also was God.
Porthos

Quote:
unless he is Jesus, the only human who also was God.


So I take it you are a devout trinitarian, set in your ways, with no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Porthos wrote:
Quote:
unless he is Jesus, the only human who also was God.


So I take it you are a devout trinitarian, set in your ways, with no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.


So I take it you are a devout NON-trinitarian, set in your ways, with no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.
Porthos

Quote:
So I take it you are a devout NON-trinitarian, set in your ways, with no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.


So I take it you are correct in your assumption, and do not deserve to be corrected.
André in Zuid-Afrika

Porthos wrote:
Quote:
So I take it you are a devout NON-trinitarian, set in your ways, with no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.


So I take it you are correct in your assumption, and do not deserve to be corrected.


Likewise.
Benjamin [inactive]

Just of interest, Josh, have you ever considered joining the Jehovah's Witnesses, or attending one of their services? It certainly sounds as though you might get on rather well there. Do you have friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses?

As one might expect, there are people within my denomination who would have similar theological views to Josh. The difference would be that they would probably not be interested in attempting to 'disprove' other forms of Christianity. For you, Josh, how important is it to you that you feel convinced that your religious views are 'right', and that those who believe differently are 'wrong'?
Loic

Is Porthos even a Christian? He sounds strongly hostile towards any notion of an organised religion.

       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Culture Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum