What happens when you strip a religious holiday of its spiritural message? It necessarily becomes a material holiday. Worshippers at the Church of Flat Screen Television reverse the Christmas message of giving, charity, and sacrifice to the XMas message of gimme, gimme, gimme. A holy day about giving becomes a holiday about taking. Bombarded with colorful missalettes displaying consumer goods alongside numbers and dollar signs, Americans aren't allowed discussions in public places of God sacrificing his Son to save humanity. This has consequences for Christmastime behavior. The fruits of a materialist holy day were on display on Black Friday at a WalMart outside of New York City, where a stampede of barbarians killed a seasonal employee and knocked a pregnant woman to the ground. Stand between a mob of pilgrims, in Mecca or WalMart, and the objects they worship at your own risk.

I just recently purchased an xbox 360. It's quite a machine. The hype is well justified.

This is really terrible. I though it was bad that people were willing to camp out on the doorstep of a Wal-Mart, but breaking down the doors and trampling someone to death? Who are these people? Hopefully, the catch every single one of them.

By the way, 'Xmas' is a suitable abbreviation of 'Christmas.' The 'X' is the Greek letter Chi which is the first letter in the Greek word for Christ (transliterated 'Christos').

The mentality of the Nation in 2008. Religion and civility have taken a back seat to 'wants' and $$$. Oh well. As a great philosopher once said: people $uck!

Must be a generational thing but today's video games are just a fancy electronic way of playing with oneself.

Interesting definition of Xmas. I always though it was just lazy slang way to shorten the 'Christ' part.

Video games are a great way to remain entirely unaware of your idleness.

In all fairness, Muslims do not worship the Kaaba. Though, it does look like a big XBox.

Webster is jealous of my xbox 360.

Dan, you know I revere your work, but this post leaves me with a whole bunch of "meh."

People do not "take" Christmas presents unless they are "given." Taking entails giving.
(Were you talking about people who buy themselves gifts?)

As for Americans not allowed to discuss "God sacrificing his Son to save humanity," what do you mean by "allowed"? Boo hoo. It's not like we actually know this "sacrfice" happened anyway.

Meh.

That's why it's called 'Faith' Andrew.

ASDF:

What, exactly, do you mean by faith?

What do you think that Faith means?

People often use it in different ways. That's why I asked you what you meant, since you are the one who used the word. Although, you seem to think that it is at least different than "actually knowing."

We have well-documented eyewitness accounts to the incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection of the Lord. And as to the second, hardly anyone of any stripe denies the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion. So, we have great reason substantiating our faith, even if reason alone does not constitute the relational trust in the Lord and His promises that the Bible defines at "faith."

"We have well-documented eyewitness accounts to the incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection of the Lord."

This is a matter of much dispute amongst scholars and historians.

Yeah, sure - among a cadre of deliberate skeptics, such as the Jesus Seminar (which does not dispute the bare fact of the crucifixion, btw).

But the fact of the matter is that we have more reason to take seriously the historical accounts of the New Testament than anything else in ancient history, if for no other reason than the voluminous source materials and manuscripts that sruvive compared to anything else.

This video is a bit hokie, but it substantiates the point I just made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9y8yp8S3x4

I do not contest that the crucifixion happened.

"But the fact of the matter is that we have more reason to take seriously the historical accounts of the New Testament than anything else in ancient history, if for no other reason than the voluminous source materials and manuscripts that sruvive compared to anything else."

That's ridiculous. We have much more reason to believe Ceasar's crossing of the Rubicon. Christians sure do seem to love hyperbole - and the same sort!

There is a section here on it:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

There are ten copies of the writing of Ceasar - from 1000 years after the fact. We have many, many fold more of the gospel accounts - even from within decades of Jesus' death. In terms of abundance of manuscripts and their proximity to the event then, at least,we have much mnore reason to trust the accuracy of the former than the later. (I trust both).

Interesting article there, with very mcuh I would dispute (esp. the conclusions, obviously). But I'm not going to have that debate here, nor now.

sorry, should be "...latter than the former..."

There certainly are different levels of faith - such as driving through a green light.
I think the people with the most faith are those people who believe in a hypothesis that is circular in argument, that cannot be replicated even with the most sophisticated of laboratory toys, and somehow, through some magical hoodoo, produced you and me. Now that's faith.

Carrier: "the names now attached to [the gospels] were added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after they were actually written."

This is standard Carrier, he doesn't document this, just suggests that it is "more likely" to have occurred. And that there are a lot of level-headed people who would agree with him. But if that would do it, that would support a valid form of argumentum ad populum.

And you have to love this exchange:

Dan: "Americans aren't allowed discussions in public places of God sacrificing his Son to save humanity."

Mr. Meh: "It's not like we actually know this "sacrfice" happened anyway."

Implying that regardless of the cultural tradition of the holiday, you should only discuss things you know to have occurred. Well, it's not like people are that happy during the holidays, so let's put that aside. And why is it that we only greet people in one season? That doesn't have any corroborating evidence. Sure we know that it's a season and people greet each other with it, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Really, it's not like we've seen Peace on Earth--or even have established that people are equal in any sense, for that matter. Happy Meh, everyone!! (Or don't be happy, it's not like there's a clear consensus that there is anything objective to be happy about.)

Have a documentable day, anyway.

"Christians sure do seem to love hyperbole - and the same sort!"

Andrew, why do you care? Is it religion or just the Christian Faith that bothers you and keeps you up at night?

I can't help but think that if Christians were bombing buildings and shooting up hotels that people would handle them with kit gloves as well.

But, they don't. And it's convenient for those who are unhappy with themselves to bang away at a relatively benign faith.

Eric:

Perhaps this is a good point to pick up our e-mail conversations. I hope to e-mail you later this week on this matter.

ASDF:

I care because I once was a born again Christian. As I began studying history and philosophy, I changed my mind. I am young (23) and still have much to learn. Currently, during non-business hours, I am voraciously reading scholarly essays and books, debates between scholars – as much as I can get my hands on. From a purely educational point of view, the subject is extremely interesting to me. Further, the conclusions I draw from the discussion have implications for how to actually live my life. Rather than keep me up at night, my study excites and energizes my life.

I look forward to it, Andrew. :)

Sea King:

It appears to me that Carrier does provide justification for this claim. He references his own lengthy summary of Bruce Metzger on The New Testament Canon, plus much more:

“[3] Besides my summary of Metzger on The New Testament Canon, cf. R. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (1992); H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (1990); W. Lane's New London Commentary on the New Testament (1974); and also Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (1993).”

I may be mistaken. If not, you appear guilty of dishonesty or laziness in your reading of Carrier in this respect.

As for my exchange with Dan, perhaps I should have been clearer. My point is that if people are going to celebrate an occurrence, perhaps they should make sure that it actually occurred. Most Christians I know say that they celebrate Christmas to celebrate the gift of salvation – which supposedly exists only because of Christ’s alleged resurrection. I maintain that we do not actually know this happened, and it is not only a “cadre of skeptics” that hold this viewpoint. So, if the “true” meaning of Christmas gets zapped by consumerism, I say “meh.”

"But, they don't."

Hitler and the third reich were Christian.

Based on your comments, it sounded to me like you'd already made up your mind.

So if your mind is still open: keep studying, take the comments of others for what they're worth and come to your own conclusions whatever they may be and be content about your decisions.

In the meantime, being insultingly critical serves no real purpose. Unless it makes you feel better about your quest.

If that's the case, I don't get your logic.

The bottom line is that it's real simple: you either believe; or you don't. All else is mental masturbation.

Hitler was a pagan, and deliberately so, Horse. Your badly misinformed polemics convince no one, though they perhaps tickle your own ears.

Yeah horse, and so is The Messiah. ;-|~

Or, so he says.

Eric,

really, where did you hear that, because according to Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) he was very much so a christian.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

Your badly misinformed polemics convince no one.

He was a savvy pol appealing to the predominant culture. Read his other writings and it is clear he differs with every essential doctrine of the faith, and holds to all sorts of pagan superstition and cultist practice.

Was Hitler a Christian? by John Baskette

"The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

"The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

"All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

"Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

"10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

"14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

"19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

"21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

"13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

"14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

"9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

"27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

"He was a savvy pol appealing to the predominant culture."

Hmmmmmm. Don't we have a guy who will soon take an oath as President who fits that description?

So you see, Hitler was no more than a Christian than Hussein was a devout muslim, even less so. Both twisted the predominant culture for their own political gain.

It is noteworthy to that end that most all of Hitler's apparantly pro-Christian remarks came very early on in his political career as he was grasping after power. What he said and did after he cemented his power is another thing altogether. Here's some more quotes with citations:

"[Making peace with the church] won't stop me from stamping out Christianity in Germany, root and branch. One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." (J. S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, quoted in "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin W. Lutzer, pp. 113-114.)

"One cannot break the Church over one's knee. It has to be left to rot like a gangrenous limb...but the healthy youth belong to us." (Quote of Hitler in Lutzer, p. 130.)

And here's what Dr. Hans Kerrl, Hitler's Minister for Church Affairs, said:

"The [Nazi] party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and Positive Christianity is National Socialism ...God's will reveals itself in German blood...Dr. Zoellner and Count Galen have tried to make clear to me that Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the Son of God. That makes me laugh...No, True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially by the Fuehrer to a real Christianity...The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation."

And finally, a longer quote from Alfred Rosenberg, the man Hitler appointed as the philosophical guiding light in the Nazi party and to establish plans to form the "National Reich Church" (as documented in William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," pps.332-333):

The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year of 800.

The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.

The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer's Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It...not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of saints.

On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.

Case closed.

Well argued, Eric.

"Don't we have a guy who will soon take an oath as President who fits that description?"

Don't we have a guy who will soon leave the office of President who fits that description? rhetorical questions are fun huh?

It's nice to see that at least one of you maroons will finally admit that Bush is a savvy pol appealing to the predominant culture.

Now you're getting it.

So if 'The [Nazi] party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity', and positive christianity= national socialism, and religion and national socialism can't mix, then the 'The National Church' was an oxymoron, and they eating their cake too.

I bet he prayed to God right before killing himself, you know what they say, there's no athiests in fox holes.

Andrew, apparently you live a world where "justify" (your word) = "document". Document doesn't even equal "reason", because if you reason that something is the case, that's not as effective as documenting.

Carrier demands documentation, however offers no documentation himself, just conjecture--perhaps footnoted conjecture is a better way to say it.

Horse, if you had one iota of understanding about the nihilistic, materialistic Volkisch movement, you might make a better point.

It's also funny that you rely on the honesty of Hitler in order to make the case that that speech represents his "true belief". This is a man who wrote chapters on the necessity of propaganda in motivating a nation. How many Christians do you know that thank "the Goddess" of x for things? If you had more than re-chewed tidbits of Mein Kampf, then you would know that this is the case.

By the way, that was a very shallow ana-lysis of Hitler's text. (BTW kudos for pulling out one of the two most-common Hitler-was-a-Christian saws, the other one is the end of MK Chapter 2) Hitler saw Jesus greatest accomplishment as a fighter. How so, is getting crucified by your opposition that inspirational? Yet isn't that the source of the significance of Jesus as Savior? Was rising from the dead and flitting here and there until you evaporate into heaven fighting?

The only instances Hitler gives anywhere is that 1) Jesus railed against the Pharisees (miraculous?) and 2) He knotted up cords from the temple drapes and chased money-changers out of the temple. Of course, this all was in response to somebody criticizing his plans as non-Christian. Hitler rarely raised "faith" first he was more likely to cite the way of "Nature" in his own rationale.

Also about a deathbed prayer by Hitler: it is said that Jean Paul Sartre had a deathbed conversion. If this is true, what somebody does before they die is not indicative of the rationale under which they lived their life.

On a related note, Andrew, it might interest you to know that the same Richard Carrier has argued that everything Hitler says that is anti-Christian as recorded in Table Talk is unreliable simply because the author is anti-Christian and Carrier reasons that it is a projection upon Hitler of his own anti-Christian feelings. Thus the only thing you can go on is the public statements of a guy who advocated propaganda as a method to move the masses.

Sea King,

I think you are conflating Horse and Andrew here. Andrew wasn't making any claim of Hitler having Christian faith. Only Horse made such a ludicrous charge.

Eric, I addressed Andrew and Horse. I addressed Andrew's claim that I was talking about "justification" despite that I used the word "document".

I then began the bulk of the post by addressing Horse.

After that I briefly brought it back around to Andrew's appreciation of your argument that Hitler was not a Christian, and just wanted to mention that the same Carrier, that he references, has expended thousands of words to argue that very thing.

I addressed Andrew when commenting about what Andrew had written; I addressed Horse at the start of commenting on Horse's context-less regurgitation. The only link is Carrier, referenced by Andrew.

Follow up, I see now that I was ambiguous when I wrote: "Thus the only thing you can go on is the public statements of a guy who advocated propaganda as a method to move the masses." It is not clear that I am using what I call you-hypothetical the casual equivalent of "one" which I find too stilted in most discussions. However I have found it can lead to unnecessary confusion. The idea is that if one cannot use the main source of behind-the-scenes quotations of Hitler, then one seems to be left to the public orations of an advocate for propaganda to sway the public.

Sea King,

Thanks for the clarification. And good points.