The meaning of "Christmas"

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't like what I perceive to be semi-strawmanning going on here. I do not believe a single person in this thread has tried to tell anyone how to celebrate or not celebrate anything. Nor have I at least said you have to call anything a specific thing. All I have said is it's simply immature to be annoyed by the overwhelming majority in a society celebrating a cultural tradition. I can and have celebrated cultural traditions around the world that are rooted in beliefs I do not hold.

I wouldn't think to assert that I'm not celebrating Zhongqiu when I'm in the home of a Chinese family celebrating just that. Yes, there are Western non-religious autumnal traditions I could say I'm celebrating but that just isn't true in that scenario when I'm engaged in cultural practices and eating foods associated with the Chinese. I do not worship the moon or believe in any of the spiritualism associated with this festival, but it'd be disingenuous in that situation to claim I'm celebrating something else. FWIW the Chinese themselves don't by and large still believe in most of the spiritual aspects of the festival but they don't pretend it is some new holiday. Nomenclature is meaningless, but there is a Christmas tradition very distinct from the Catholic Holy Day celebrating the Nativity, and if you're engaged in those traditions you are celebrating that secular Christmas regardless of what you call it.

[CountDeMoney]

Hell, I had to do that Chinese New Year shit with Dragon Lady and her family.  Little red cards everywhere.

YEAR OF THE MONKEY SPANKING

[Malthus]

Hey, when I was in Tibet I stuck my head in a hollow sculpture of a horse-headed Buddha-protector deamon and had it covered with Yak butter (true story!). When in Rome, I say ... 

[OttoVonBismarck]

To re-address the core of the subject of the thread if not actually what the question was in the first post, Christmas has two meanings.

It's a day of obligation to me, and an important (second most important) holy day on the liturgical calendar. But almost everything else is unrelated to that, and is instead related to a modern, secular celebration that has very little to do with the Holy Day, at least to me as a Christian. I don't particularly know or care why non-Christians think the secular Christmas is intrinsically Christian, because it isn't. But I see no real problem with calling it Christmas since that's basically what everyone does.

[Neil]

What's that "critical mass"? And what is it while it builds to that point? I mean, your own church is considered along the same lines. UU is, afterall, only a few decades old. Before it had more followers, what was it? Less "real"? Worthy of derision simply because it was new?

The critical mass is everyone, or close to it.

At any rate, are you seriously going to try and hold up Unitarian Universalism up as something that isn't worthy of derision?

[garbon]

At any rate, are you seriously going to try and hold up Unitarian Universalism up as something that isn't worthy of derision?

[OttoVonBismarck]

The difference between Unitarian Universalism and Protestantism is one of degree, not kind.

[derspiess]

The difference between Unitarian Universalism and Protestantism is one of degree, not kind.

Let's not ruin a good day, now.

[Legbiter]

'K we get it Meri, you're a special snowflake. 

[Admiral Yi]

Let's not ruin a good day, now.

Biscuit is a follower of the Great Whore of Rome, remember?

[derspiess]

Let's not ruin a good day, now.

Biscuit is a follower of the Great Whore of Rome, remember?

I was aware.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I like to act a pre-Vatican II Catholic from time to time for entertainment value, but I don't have any real issue with Protestants. I think they have an imperfect union with the successor of Peter but are still Christian.

[CountDeMoney]

Meh, some Protestants are worth more than others.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Definitely...the Pope basically said recently that Protestants do not have true church because they do not have a true priesthood nor do they have proper sacraments. Basically he views them as ecclesial communities of Christian lay people operating without proper guidance. In the same declaration he stated Orthodox had true priesthood/sacrament but suffered an imperfection in that they didn't properly acknowledge the authority of the successor to Peter.

I think that's a fair assessment. The only church I can even see having a real beef with that is the Anglicans and Lutherans, who to my mind have what I'd consider a professional priesthood and true sacraments.

I think we can recognize Lutherans, Presbyterians and Anglicans are far superior to Baptists, Pentecostals, Nazarene and etc ilk.

[derspiess]

Not taking the bait.