Atheist Fundamentalists

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why? Because that is it's name. If I turned on the BBC news tomorrow and found that they had started referring to Ireland as 'The Green Isle' because some unionists didn't wish to be associated with the Republic, I would be miffed. This despite the fact that I'm not greatly nationalistic. In like manner, I wouldn't see any point in changing the name of the World Cup because there so happens to be a tennis championship on at the same time.

That is a rather peculiar analogy. The Irish people get to name Ireland because they live in Ireland.

You seem to be saying that any winter holidays belong to Christians, as if no one else has ever had a holiday around this time or has any right to.

You do realise that there were holidays around this time before Jesus was born. Christians took the dates and festivals of previous holidays and made them their own. And there will probably be holidays around this time long after Christianity is a peculiar side note in the history of humanity (say in another 2,000 year from now)

No serious Biblical historian even thinks Jesus was born anywhere near the 25th of December!

InFront

Wicknight wrote: »

No serious Biblical historian even thinks Jesus was born anywhere near the 25th of December!

Just to focus in on this part (not wanting to get involved in the rest of the debate really), when do they think he was born then?

My understanding has always been that in fact the Christian historians do think it was within the December period or thereabouts... in other words near the 25th of December. Just curious.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a rather peculiar analogy. The Irish people get to name Ireland because they live in Ireland.

I object to this. That might have been true a few years back when there where no significant numbers of non-irish here. Calling this country Ireland implies that it is somehow only for the Irish.
I propose we rename it to 53º00N8º00W which is a fully inclusive name and insulting to no-one.

Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I object to this. That might have been true a few years back when there where no significant numbers of non-irish here. Calling this country Ireland implies that it is somehow only for the Irish.
I propose we rename it to 53º00N8º00W which is a fully inclusive name and insulting to no-one.

I'm frankly appalled. Basing the name on the latitude system is a clear acceptance of Eurocentric, even Anglocentric, imperialism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Not to mention the fact that the all-important domain name has already been taken by one of those bastions of winterval consumerism - a shop.

philologos

pH wrote:

How you find this in contradiction with "Christians celebrating Christmas" I don't fully understand. People in general don't find *Christians* celebrating Christmas offensive, however many non-Christians find Christians forcing *them* to celebrate Christmas offensive.

I have never heard of a case of a Christian forcing someone to celebrate Christmas in any shape of form. Nobody drags anyone to church, nobody forces them to go to Christmas dinner, (and God forbid) eat something perhaps.

You know and I know, people celebrate Christmas because they want to celebrate Christmas.

Care to explain this?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I have never heard of a case of a Christian forcing someone to celebrate Christmas in any shape of form. Nobody drags anyone to church, nobody forces them to go to Christmas dinner, (and God forbid) eat something perhaps.

You know and I know, people celebrate Christmas because they want to celebrate Christmas.

Ahahaha. You're not serious, are you? Pretty much every child in the Christian world is forced to go to Christmas mass. Lets not be naive here; they're in it for the presents. Even the adults usually go out of a vague sense of guilt or obligation. I honestly have never encountered a person who wanted to go to mass rather than felt they ought to go.

Their real motivation is the opportunity to spend quality time with friends and family, swap gifts, eat great food and get drunk together. None of that really has anything to do with Christianity exclusively. What a shame that our winter festival has become so clouded with a layer of mystical claptrap.

EDIT: My little rant aside, i think Scofflaw was referring to the fact that people like having a winter celebration. Having Christians dominate it with their version is somewhat annoying. My celebration of the ressurection of the Sun-God gets kind of shoved to the side when Christians insist that the holiday has the objective identity of "Christmas".

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

I have never heard of a case of a Christian forcing someone to celebrate Christmas in any shape of form. Nobody drags anyone to church, nobody forces them to go to Christmas dinner, (and God forbid) eat something perhaps.

You know and I know, people celebrate Christmas because they want to celebrate Christmas.

Care to explain this?

Have you not been reading Fanny's posts?

Fanny doesn't think that schools should be free *not* to have a nativity play.
Fanny doesn't think that a non-Christian should call this time of year anything but Christmas - even the ancient 'Xmas' is an attack on Christmas!

The fact remains that a lot of people want to have a winter break,some food and drink and a holiday with friends and family. Christians seem to be clinging to the idea that this has to be about the baby Jesus and Christianity.

If *secular* organisations (by that I mean non-religious ones) like states, companies, hospitals, courts etc. organise a religious themed event they are forcing people who are there for legitimate non-religious reasons to participate or feel ostracised.

Now many atheists and theists of other faiths don't really mind if there's a nativity set-up in their local hospital, or their company sends out 'Christmas cards' in their name, but some do, and those that do tend to be those of other faiths (not fundamental atheists - see the OP). These people would rather their children were not forced to participate in a nativity play, that cards sent in their name said "seasons greetings", all the while without restricting Christian's rights to put on their own plays and greet each other any way they want.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

I have never heard of a case of a Christian forcing someone to celebrate Christmas in any shape of form. Nobody drags anyone to church, nobody forces them to go to Christmas dinner, (and God forbid) eat something perhaps.

You know and I know, people celebrate Christmas because they want to celebrate Christmas.

Care to explain this?

Are you trying to be funny? Because anyone, and I do mean ANYONE born in this country, who attended school in the 80's and 90's will have been forcibly marched to a church to attend some ludicrous ritual under penalty of "eternity in the fires of hell".

Children ARE forced into celebrating christmas, in a catholic household with vested beliefs, exactly which other options are they given (in general?) Moreover, in schools and the homes of their friends they are given a choice between celebrating christmas and not fitting-in.

These days people are celebrating christmas more for personal reasons than under the direction of the Church but to suggest that this was always the caase or that it doesnt still continue is indicative of either wilfull ignorance or or intellectual deceit.

philologos

pH wrote:

The fact remains that a lot of people want to have a winter break,some food and drink and a holiday with friends and family. Christians seem to be clinging to the idea that this has to be about the baby Jesus and Christianity.

That's because the day is regarded to be honouring the coming of the Messiah to the earth it is rather important that it be that way. It is Christmas after all.

If anyone wants to have "Wintermas", they can have it on any other date.

pH wrote:

If *secular* organisations (by that I mean non-religious ones) like states, companies, hospitals, courts etc. organise a religious themed event they are forcing people who are there for legitimate non-religious reasons to participate or feel ostracised.

I must say that I felt ostracised when Jews celebated Hannukah or when Muslims celebrated Eid al Adha earlier this month. Facts are they have their own festivals, and people should respect the fact that Christianity is our one, and it's going to be prevalent in a Christian majority state. If I went to Israel surely Hannukah would be rather major? Or Purim etc when the time comes?

^^ This may be of note to Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be saying that any winter holidays belong to Christians, as if no one else has ever had a holiday around this time or has any right to.

I'm sure many religions do. As I've just mentioned Islam and Judaism had theirs.

Hivemind187

InFront wrote: »

Just to focus in on this part (not wanting to get involved in the rest of the debate really), when do they think he was born then?

My understanding has always been that in fact the Christian historians do think it was within the December period or thereabouts... in other words near the 25th of December. Just curious.

The dates for the supposed birth of the supposed man-god of the Christian religion varies by account, certainly it makes little sense to assume it as actually the 25th of December due to the various changes in the Calendar since the supposed event.

Historians can't even agree whether this individual did exist or not so the details themselves are a bound to be even more circumspect.

The choice of the 25th of December is peculiar though, but it is generally within a few days of the Winter solctice which likely stems back to the pagan festivals which it is intended to replace - much like Halloween.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

The choice of the 25th of December is peculiar though, but it is generally within a few days of the Winter solctice which likely stems back to the pagan festivals which it is intended to replace - much like Halloween.

I don't see how it's like Halloween at all. As far as I know that has no Christian significance. All Saints Day, which is on November 1st however does. Also may I add that the festival of Christmas was created after Christ also. I must say that I'm glad it is utilised to honour the birth of the Messiah.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

That's because the day is regarded to be honouring the coming of the Messiah to the earth it is rather important that it be that way. It is Christmas after all.

If anyone wants to have "Wintermas", they can have it on any other date.

"No, NO you can't have it! It's MINE! - I mean Jesus's"

Thats a little possessive dont you think? Surely there is more to the methodology behind choosing important religious dates than "The Jews and Muslims don't use this one yet!"

As for the rest, there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that Christ was born at all let alone on the 25th of December 32bc.

Jakkass wrote: »

I must say that I felt ostracised when Jews celebated Hannukah or when Muslims celebrated Eid al Adha earlier this month. Facts are they have their own festivals, and people should respect the fact that Christianity is our one, and it's going to be prevalent in a Christian majority state. If I went to Israel surely Hannukah would be rather major? Or Purim etc when the time comes?

^^ This may be of note to Wicknight

Sooooo ... the Jews and Muslims had their party and you felt left out. I'm probably pointing out the obvioous but you dont seem to be much for sharing.

You felt left out, which means you wanted to be part of their celebrations. In other words, you want what they have but you dont want to share yours (see above). If this is the level of argument that Christianity has used for 200o years its hardly surprising that they are resorting to semantics to fend off rational secularism.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how it's like Halloween at all. As far as I know that has no Christian significance. All Saints Day, which is on November 1st however does. Also may I add that the festival of Christmas was created after Christ also. I must say that I'm glad it is utilised to honour the birth of the Messiah.

Um, no you may not.

The pagan cultures which were conquered or infiltrated by the christians had there own celebrations during the winter period, generally focussing on the Solctice. Yule and Saturnalia are prime examples.

In fact, until about 300AD Christians didnt celebrate "Christmas" or the nativity until sometime in March which was in keeping with the standard Jewish conmcept of prophets living a symetrical lifespan (dying on the same date that htey were born).

Both Halloween and Christmas are merely corruptions of previous pagan festivals, often hijacked by missionaries etc in order to maintain the holidays themselves but change their meanings to suit their own theological concepts.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

"No, NO you can't have it! It's MINE! - I mean Jesus's"

Thats a little possessive dont you think? Surely there is more to the methodology behind choosing important religious dates than "The Jews and Muslims don't use this one yet!"

You have to realize that you are complaining that we are celebrating the worshipping of Christ upon this day. We welcome absolutely everyone to partake, and I'm sure that all of you have availed of this, and you are now saying that we abuse children into being part of the Christmas ritual? Most children enjoy the Christmas time as far as I'm concerned anyway. I don't mind anyone of any creed and nationality taking part and enjoying our religious traditions and ritual but to say that it's "child abuse" after that is really a blow below the belt don't you think?

Hivemind187 wrote:

As for the rest, there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that Christ was born at all let alone on the 25th of December 32bc.

Theres historical sources which suggest his existence however. Are you claiming that Christ had existed as man already without being born. I didn't think that atheists believed in miracles

Hivemind187 wrote:

Sooooo ... the Jews and Muslims had their party and you felt left out. I'm probably pointing out the obvioous but you dont seem to be much for sharing.

Apologies. Sarcasm. I meant that the Muslims and the Jews are fully entitled to their festivals without the sheer level of abuse that we get for having Christmas. (And by your definition, poor little Jewish and Muslim children are being "abused" during those dates as well). I'm afraid you haven't a leg to stand on in relation to this argument.

Hivemind187 wrote:

You felt left out, which means you wanted to be part of their celebrations. In other words, you want what they have but you dont want to share yours (see above). If this is the level of argument that Christianity has used for 200o years its hardly surprising that they are resorting to semantics to fend off rational secularism.

Sarcasm Hivemind187, I don't really feel the need to take part in Hannukah or Eid-al-Adha one bit. Christmas however is the chance I get to worship the coming of Christ. "Rational secularism" we'll hold our differences in relation to what is rational.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

If anyone wants to have "Wintermas", they can have it on any other date.

No, we can have it whenever the hell we want. You don't own the 25th of December.

With mounting disbelief,
Zillah

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

You have to realize that you are complaining that we are celebrating the worshipping of Christ upon this day. We welcome absolutely everyone to partake, and I'm sure that all of you have availed of this, and you are now saying that we abuse children into being part of the Christmas ritual? Most children enjoy the Christmas time as far as I'm concerned anyway. I don't mind anyone of any creed and nationality taking part and enjoying our religious traditions and ritual but to say that it's "child abuse" after that is really a blow below the belt don't you think?

Rather than hoist you by your own petard I will point out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

I didnt complain that Christians celebrate christmas - that is your implication, not mine. My opinions on such a festival however might be that it is a nonsense, a hijack and a ridiciulous ritual similar to nearly all elements of this particular faith.

You further attempt to change the crux of your own argument to evade the failure of your argument. Alas, you have failed to do even that. You said that you had never heard of a scenario in which children were being "forced" to do xy & z. I pointed out that they had.

Yoour mistake was to attempt to say that such "child abuse" (your words not mine) were unfair. I would suggest that it is a article of opinion as to whether it is a fair judgement or not, however I would indeed agree with you - it is child abuse.

Finally, your claim that anyone is entitled to celebrate the birth of your ficitional man-god is laughable. By the standards of Christianity one would have to first "believe" that he was a man-god then they would have to "believe" that he was born on these dates and that this is not contrary to their own faith (which in the other two Abrahamic religions it is). In other words, you are saying they can join in if they pretend to be good little christians like the rest of your lot.

Jakkass wrote: »

Theres historical sources which suggest his existence however. Are you claiming that Christ had existed as man already without being born. I didn't think that atheists believed in miracles

The bible doesnt count. The Census is irrelevant. The testimony of various other "holy men" is biassed.

Exactly which sources would these be? Are they relevant? If you have actual archaeological evidence of the biblical jesus I'd love to see it (I'll stop here on this one).

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies. Sarcasm. I meant that the Muslims and the Jews are fully entitled to their festivals without the sheer level of abuse that we get for having Christmas. (And by your definition, poor little Jewish and Muslim children are being "abused" during those dates as well). I'm afraid you haven't a leg to stand on in relation to this argument.

Hiding behind sarcasm now is it? Funny how that doesnt fly elsewhere. Ah well, back to whre you went wrong.

Firstly, I never said that Christians shouldnt celebrate Christmas - they have every right to indulge in whatever revelry they so choose. Moreover, they shouldnt have to be bothered with all of this "no nativities" nonsense - thats nothing more than pseudo-liberal pandering to people terrified of offending even the folks who are actively seeking something to be offended by.

I consider the indoctrination, manipulation, emotional blackmail or deliberate lying to children to be abhorent in any form whether it is from the Christian nutters, the Islamic nutters or the Neo-Nazi nutters.

The problem is Jakkass that you demanded that other faith not have their festivals on the same date as yours, yet you asked to be allowed to join in their "reindeer games". Sarcasm or not, you cant then say that my argument is flawed simply because it flies in the face of your ritualised shenanigans.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sarcasm Hivemind187, I don't really feel the need to take part in Hannukah or Eid-al-Adha one bit. Christmas however is the chance I get to worship the coming of Christ. "Rational secularism" we'll hold our differences in relation to what is rational.

Feeble.

You worship whatever you want to. Feel free to remain deliberately ignorant of the various festivals hijacked to provide your little revelry. It doesnt bother me. However, your perception that it somehow does is very interesting. Persecution complex much?

As for rationality. I believe in evidence, testable hypothises and facts.

You believe in a woman who became pregnant without sexual activity (2 millenia before the development of IVF), a man capable of raising the dead and walking on water, who was the son of a god and that you can eat his body and drink his blood for real every Sunday wihtout being a cannibal.

Seriously? You want to play that card?

JC 2K3

@Jakkass
Wait, am I getting the wrong end of the stick here or are you trying to say that Atheists shouldn't eat a traditional Christmas dinner or exchange presents on Chrsitmas, but it'd be fine if they did it on any other day besides the 25th or december and didn't call it Christmas?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

That's because the day is regarded to be honouring the coming of the Messiah to the earth it is rather important that it be that way. It is Christmas after all.

If anyone wants to have "Wintermas", they can have it on any other date.

Because Christians own 25th of December ... they did after all invent that day, it used to just go 24th and then straight into 26th for Christmas.

And its certainly not like anyone else ever had winter celebrations on that day


... oh wait ...

Jakkass wrote: »

and people should respect the fact that Christianity is our one

I'm perfectly respectful that Christmas is your one ... but it ain't mine.

The idea that no one else can have a holiday around the same time as your holiday is, to put it simply, ridiculous. I celebrate the holidays around this time. So do most of my family. My dad is Catholic, he celebrates Christmas, as in the birth of Christ. The rest of my family aren't. We celebrate having everyone in the house and having a few days off work and the start of a new year.

As an atheist I get a lot of slack for being a "hypocrite" and celebrating a religious day that I don't believe has much significance. And I explain I'm not celebrating a religious day. I'm celebrating a whole load of other stuff that falls on and around a religious holiday because of history.

As a Christian you should know all about that.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

@Jakkass
Wait, am I getting the wrong end of the stick here or are you trying to say that Atheists shouldn't eat a traditional Christmas dinner or exchange presents on Chrsitmas, but it'd be fine if they did it on any other day besides the 25th or december and didn't call it Christmas?

They are welcome to in my humble opinion. However they should also recognize that this is a Christian festival and to be respected as one. And if one is going to partake in it, I think it's a bit below the belt to suggest that Christians are orchestrating mass child abuse.

Hivemind187 wrote:

The bible doesnt count. The Census is irrelevant. The testimony of various other "holy men" is biassed.

Exactly which sources would these be? Are they relevant? If you have actual archaeological evidence of the biblical jesus I'd love to see it (I'll stop here on this one).

I wasn't going to mention the Bible. I think however you should consult Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews perhaps, among other works of Pliny the Younger, and Tactius. And hang on you said that he didn't exist? The statement you said was not about the existence of a Biblical Jesus, it was about the historical Jesus as all. Let me refresh your memory.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Historians can't even agree whether this individual did exist or not so the details themselves are a bound to be even more circumspect.

Quite clearly Josephus did, and he is considered a historian.

Wicknight wrote:

Because Christians own 25th of December ... they did after all invent that day, it used to just go 24th and then straight into 26th for Christmas.

And its certainly not like anyone else ever had winter celebrations on that day

I still can't help thinking that the concept of Wintermas would only be on the 25th because the Christians honour Christmas on that day. Why would you not take Hannukah from the 4th to the 12th of December (subject to change these are 2007's dates but you get the idea)?

Wicknight wrote:

As an atheist I get a lot of slack for being a "hypocrite" and celebrating a religious day that I don't believe has much significance. And I explain I'm not celebrating a religious day. I'm celebrating a whole load of other stuff that falls on and around a religious holiday because of history.

As a Christian you should know all about that.

You are perfectly entitled to celebrate Christmas as you wish, as I've said to JC 2K3. It is however a day of Christianity and hopefully the secularization of Christmas will stop at some point.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Finally, your claim that anyone is entitled to celebrate the birth of your ficitional man-god is laughable. By the standards of Christianity one would have to first "believe" that he was a man-god then they would have to "believe" that he was born on these dates and that this is not contrary to their own faith (which in the other two Abrahamic religions it is). In other words, you are saying they can join in if they pretend to be good little christians like the rest of your lot.

You don't have to believe anything if that is your choice. However people should not be trying to change Christmas into something that it blatantly isn't.

Hivemind187

Wait, now I get it. You're trying to wind us up right?

Nice one, a Christmas jape. Should have seen it coming.

Tzetze

@Jakass. You want us non-christians to reserve a day other than the 25th for our celebrations. The thing is, you see, I celebrate (as Zillah does) the fact that our Sun-God resurrects after 3 days of death on the 25th, as it has done since the earth was fully formed.

So, you see, it's you guys that have hijacked our festival.

The difference between us, though, is the fact that we don't demand exclusivity (unlike yourself). Funny how the non-christians seem to be exhibiting the christian goodwill here and not yourself!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I still can't help thinking that the concept of Wintermas would only be on the 25th because the Christians honour Christmas on that day.

Of course it is! People have been celebrating on that day for thousands of years. What other day would we pick?

I celebrate on that day because that is the day that has been traditionally celebrated in this tradionially Christian country for hundreds of years.

And Christians originally only celebrated their new holiday on that day because the Romans and Greeks celebrated winter on that day for hundreds of years before Jesus.

Tradition dictates that holidays fall on the days of older holidays. If I was going to celebrate any day for what ever reason I would celebrate on the day everyone else is celebrating

That is the way it has always been. That is the way it works.

Christians have no right to say "Ah now hold on. I know we did it, but now we have done it everyone else has to stop doing it and go and find a different, new day, to celebrate on, this day is fixed forever"

pH

Do we have to keep posting the same stuff?

The winter Solstice was December 25th until Gregory realigned the Calendar in 1582 and the solstice moved to (around) the 21st, however traditional celebrations that had always been on the 25th 'stuck' to that date and didn't move. Things like claiming a date was someone's birthday obviously couldn't move

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice wrote:

Christmas or Christ's Mass is one of the most popular Christian celebrations as well as one of the most globally recognized midwinter celebrations. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of the God Incarnate or Messiah, Yeshua of Nazareth, later known as Jesus Christ. The birth is observed on December 25, which was the winter solstice upon establishment of the Julian Calendar in 45 BC. Banned by the Catholic Church in its infancy as a pagan practice stemming out of the Sol Invictus celebrations, Christians revitalized its recognition as an authentic Christian festival in various cultures within the past several hundred years, preserving much of the folklore and traditions of local pagan festivals. So today, the old festivals such as Jul, Коледа and Karácsony, are still celebrated in many parts of Europe, but the Christian Nativity is now often representational of the meaning. This is why Yule and Christmas are considered interchangeable in Anglo-Christendom. Universal activities include feasting, midnight masses and singing Christmas carols about the Nativity. Good deeds and gift giving in the tradition of St. Nicholas by not admitting to being the actual gift giver is also observed by some countries. Many observe the holiday for twelve days leading up to the Epiphany.

Dades

Does anyone (non-religious) actually celebrate anything at Christmas? Or do we just enjoy the season that has in catholic/Christian countries evolved into a holiday period where merriment and goodwill occurs?

I don't see why non-belief means the good elements of the Christmas holiday season have to be abandoned. Baby, bathwater and all that.

Some things are worth hanging on to even if the origins of them become clouded.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I have never heard of a case of a Christian forcing someone to celebrate Christmas in any shape of form. Nobody drags anyone to church...

Good heavens, yesterday PDN says that no churchman ever said that Jesus was born on the 25th of December, and today Jakkass says that nobody was ever forced to go to church.

Why do religious people, even the well-educated intelligent ones, forget the history of their chosen ideology so fast?

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

Have you not been reading Fanny's posts?

Fanny doesn't think that schools should be free *not* to have a nativity play.
Fanny doesn't think that a non-Christian should call this time of year anything but Christmas - even the ancient 'Xmas' is an attack on Christmas!

I'm sorry pH, but it seems as if you are wilfully misrepresenting me. Despite your portrayal, I'm not of the mind to remove freedom from others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think it preposterous that the term Xmas could be anything but a abbreviated version of Christmas, linked with the ancient Greek letter chi. If this is the case, I would find it difficult to argue that space in advertising and the letters of the alphabet have become so scarce that people have to resort to getting rid of Christ from Christmas. I would also think it highly unlikely that there is a significant amount of people out there who are aware of the origin of the X in Xmas to claim that it's usage is in anyway linked with Greek.

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would also think it highly unlikely that there is a significant amount of people out there who are aware of the origin of the X in Xmas to claim that it's usage is in anyway linked with Greek.

Be that as it may language changes and evolves.

I think it’s safe to say that at this stage when anyone sees xmas they associate it directly with the word Christmas and not with nonsense like winterveil.
Strangely enough people protesting against winterveil are the ones largely pushing the word into the popular lexicon.

In fact the first I'd seen of the word was in World of Warcraft and assumed it was a makey up thing for that (yes yes I am that which has no life).

5uspect

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

In fact the first I'd seen of the word was in World of Warcraft and assumed it was a makey up thing for that (yes yes I am that which has no life).

Wintereenmas is coming! I wonder will you have to play video games to enjoy it?

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Be that as it may language changes and evolves.

I think it’s safe to say that at this stage when anyone sees xmas they associate it directly with the word Christmas and not with nonsense like winterveil.
Strangely enough people protesting against winterveil are the ones largely pushing the word into the popular lexicon.

Indeed, fanny means something completely different in the US. However, the fact that language evolves is not my issue here.

I don't see the need for Xmas if people associate it with Christmas. Certainly the notion of it as a handy abbreviation or relating to Greek doesn't stand up. It seems quite clear to me that it's an attempt to secularise a Christian tradition.