Is Christmas Celebration Bad for Christians? part 3

Hello everyone,

Thanks Maurice for the two feed-backs by our two friends. Since they seem to have a beef with what was posted - somehow - I'll be delighted to interact with them for as long as they are willing to continue this
conversation.

This is why, i hate to give generalized observation, people have too much leeway to accuse me of almost anything they want. But if i decide to go back in my point to point answer, which i decided not to do during this December Holiday, people tend to get a little more upset at me. So what should I do?

So i decided to keep the Christmas mood and still keep avoiding to be adversarial in my responses even though i was already coined 'defensive'.

So I'll start with the anti-Christmas friend then I'll follow suit with our historian pro Christmas lady.

@ anti-Christmas friend

"Would you please wish him/her a Merry Sweet Christmas from me?"

Thank you! Merry Christmas to you too! ;)

"Maurice I think this person isn`t objective enough,"

Well, i re-read my post and i haven't seen where i failed on "enough objectivity". So maybe you could be kind enough to pin point for me that!? And i'd also love to hear how you define objectivity and then how you justify that definition. I guess then we can start talking about that post lacking of enough objectivity.

"... instead of trying to understand what the author said, he/she`s going on the defensive, assuming that the author is a non-Christian resisting to the Gospel."

With respect to the first part of this quote, i should mention that because someone rejects a view or defends an alternative concept does not necessarily mean that that person does not understand what he is rejecting. I very well understand what i reject. I HAVE TO understand it before i give my sentence. Because we are not acquainted (yet), i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant well and that you were not trying to use a hand-waving argument.

With respect to the second part of the quote above, i duly recognize that it is dangerous indeed to make assumption about what someone else motivation is. That is why i tried not to make this grievous error by categorizing those who attack Christmas in three categories: Secularists, Sectarians, and Christians. This can
be seen in this quote from my previous post:

"Now the non-christian resisting to the gospel will use the latter one as a launch pin of their argument. However the sectarians within Christianity or the Christians who are over-sensitive to the concept of purity will use the former one to launch their criticism against the rest of Christendom by making a case for the necessity to return to absolute holiness and purity for the sake of our spiritual safety."

So i deny any charge that my prejudice pushed me to assumed that the author was a non-Christian. I know better than to make this elementary mistake.

"But I understand him/her perfectly, he/she doesn`t want Christmas to be taken away from him/her... "Christmas is such a beautiful feast, let`s not listen to what people are saying, let`s keep celebrating our biggest feast.""

I am afraid that you DO NOT understand me PERFECTLY not even PARTLY for that matter. I am not defending the value of Christmas because it is a beautiful feast or the biggest feast. My reason can be found in what I've already posted!

"Sincerely, and let him/her know that no one is ever take away "his/her" Christmas , no one can do that !!!"

This is one true statement and i guess also one of the few that I agree with you.

@ Pro Christmas historian lady

This deserve to be posted wholly!

"I would note, however, that when writing an argument, it is best not to cite Wikipedia as someone above did. The server can be tampered with by non-scholarly sources." I asked if she was referring to me and then she responded: "Maurice, I was thinking about the guy before--not you who used wiki. You were confirming a definition and they were whomever it was) was discussing events and historical things (hence why the historian in me panged to see it used as a source)."

This strikes me as an important point as well as a very bizarre one. The important point is that to bolster an argument one should look for stronger sources and it is known that Wikipedia is not one. Good point. But at the same time, i don't see how this is relevant to what i wrote. I did not edify any of my arguments from Wikipedia. The only time i made mention of Wikipedia was not even in an attempt to make an argument from its content.

Here is what is found in my post at the second quote:

Here was what the anti-Christmas friend sent:
"So why do we celebrate Christ's birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th? The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas" And here is what I answered:

"Let us even grant him that, despite the possible options laid at Wikipedia, let's just stick with that."

Does this sound to anyone as if i was using Wikipedia contents in making my argument? To the way i read it, and I'm sure other could reach the same reading conclusion as mine, is that, even if there may be other POSSIBLE options in explaining the Christmas origins as the ones collected in Wikipedia, i am willing for the sake of argument to ignore them all and stick with the one presented by the opposing view.

Therefore, i find all the comment directed to me as being for the least weird, but .. hey, it's Christmas season, people can at time react or be weird. And as for the subsequent letter sent to Maurice, well, let say we are moving away of the Christmas topic to the guy issues with Catholicism. I have found some point in his post that i would love to challenge him on, but I'll wait that this Christmas issue get out of the way, then if he still wants to discuss his views on Catholicism, I'll be glad to stand up to him as his challenger!

And as for this: "You don`t believe in the Assumption of Marie because it lacks evidence? That`s right, but how about December 25th? Is there any evidence in the Bible that I'm not aware of?"

I guess we have already made that point clear that even though the birth of Christ is a biblical fact, the date chosen to celebrate that is arbitrary (not to be confused with random). No one is saying that the bible says that this is indeed THE date of Christ birth. So it is unnecessary to request evidence where no one made the claim that there is one.

For the rest, i'll stay tuned to the evolution of this multilateral exchange.

May God bless you all in Jesus name and May you all have a EARLY MERRYCHRISTMAS!!!!