Would you ban Christmas

Christmas is meant to be a celebration of Christ’s birth and his teachings. To respond to human need through love and service. To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence and to pursue peace and reconciliation. To safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth. To teach these things to others. To love one another.

Why would anyone want to ban that?

What is has become is not what it should be, but banning isn’t the answer, in my opinion.

Arise said:

Christmas is meant to be a celebration of Christ’s birth and his teachings. 

There are 2 issues I see around this statement.

1 - the bible (ie the source of stories about Christ) was mostly written between 50 and 90 years after he died.

Even if the eyewitnesses were 20 at the time he died, then they would be between 70 and 110 years old when their memories were written down. Do you think people of this age bracket are likely to have an accurate and unbiassed account of events?

When I speak with elderly aquantancies then they tend to give a very selective edit of events from their side that tells it how they want it to come across. I highly doubt there is much accuracy in these tales.

2 - the stories have been edited by committee countless times over the millenia. Lots of problematic parts have been edited out through the years (see the King James edits for an idea of how much was modified to suit the agenda of the time) and much of the earlier fire and brimstone prose has been softened by the church to make it more appealing.

While the values preached are noble in intent, I think they are much better taken in a non-denomenational context and the religion removed completely.

Arise said:

Christmas is meant to be a celebration of Christ’s birth and his teachings. 

There are 2 issues I see around this statement.

1 - the bible (ie the source of stories about Christ) was mostly written between 50 and 90 years after he died.

Even if the eyewitnesses were 20 at the time he died, then they would be between 70 and 110 years old when their memories were written down. Do you think people of this age bracket are likely to have an accurate and unbiassed account of events?

When I speak with elderly aquantancies then they tend to give a very selective edit of events from their side that tells it how they want it to come across. I highly doubt there is much accuracy in these tales.

2 - the stories have been edited by committee countless times over the millenia. Lots of problematic parts have been edited out through the years (see the King James edits for an idea of how much was modified to suit the agenda of the time) and much of the earlier fire and brimstone prose has been softened by the church to make it more appealing.

While the values preached are noble in intent, I think they are much better taken in a non-denomenational context and the religion removed completely.

Arise said:

But the book doesn’t need to be a manual for life for it to still have value, nor does its history weaken the central message and wisdom of that faith, in my opinion. 

I wholeheartedly agree with this point and would like to add my tuppence as below;

A typical Bible translation runs to roughly 800,000 words.

The number of "typical Bible translations" runs into the dozens and some vary greatly in their inclusions, exclusions, interpretations and particular wording.

Based on these two facts alone, I am always surprised and confused by folk who suggest that either;

a) "The" Bible is a manual.  [My opinion = no useful manual can be 800,000 words long and I can't understand the conceptual basis of saying "The" before the word Bible in that context.]

b)  Minuscule extracts are used (invariably, no more than a few hundred words - ie 0.003%(ish)) to suggest that ALL of the words (and their purpose or meaning) are somehow fairly represented by that surgically selected and minuscule percentage.

The sheer volume of words, surely, preclude simple proclamations of "this or that."

Just my opinions - and hopefully not too contentious for any school of thought on these matters?

IrishInManchesterUK said:

if only humanity would folllow His Teachings as laid down in this rule book

To take a famous quote from the West Wing (some references to locations changed for the UK):

You mean Leviticus 18:22 (That verse, by the way, reads: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such thing is an abomination.")

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Cambridge University graduate, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"

"Some admins on this, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says they should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill them myself or is it okay to call the police?"

"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Premier League team still play football? Can Acrinton Stanley?

"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

"Think about those questions, would you?"

I very much see the Bible as the Word of God, regardless of how it is rewritten and translated, used by earthly kings and as a rule book and if only humanity would folllow His Teachings as laid down in this rule book, there would be far less problems in this world, where following His Rules, not ours, is a far better course to follow, as mankind is fundamentally flawed without God’s Divne Guidance and Divine Assistance - it is therefore not for us to question any of this, which is also why I’ve come to realise that attempting to understand God through science, such as in the Reformation and the Renaissance, was hugely misguided and was in grave error - I absolutely believe that the Bible must become a manual for life, coming from God, our King, our Divine Magistrate and our Divine Commanding Officer, as we are Soldiers of Christ on earth and we are Commanded to spread His Message 

And that’s of course entirely up to you, which is kind of the point. Tolerance. None of us have to follow a religion to appreciate the wisdom of Christ’s teachings. I think all the major religions have, at their core, some fundamentally wise teachings. I don’t have to follow the religion to follow the message. 

I know a few Bible scholars who would take issue with your comments about the Bible’s authorship. I won’t start an argument about veracity because I agree that since those accounts were written down, it’s been messed around with over the centuries by Kings and translators and subverted as a tool to manage the masses during less scientifically enlightened times. Even without the tampering, it’s a hard read full of stories that use phraseology of the time, some of which convey different or no meaning today. Many, taken literally today, sound ridiculous. But the book doesn’t need to be a manual for life for it to still have value, nor does its history weaken the central message and wisdom of that faith, in my opinion. 

I think that trying to separate the teaching from the teacher would be a bad idea. Without a movement, some kind of label or name, no one would pay attention to those teachings. I take your point though: precious few pay any attention anyway.