Christmas Unwrapped - The History of Christmas

I have just watched a very informative documentary about the history of Christmas, and learnt a lot of interesting stuff about the origins of the many traditions in modern Christmas celebrations:

• the spherical ornaments on the Christmas tree is supposed to represent the Apple from the Tree of Knowledge from the Garden of Eden

• Christmas was not celebrated by Protestant Christian Church until the 1800's, and was in fact not even an official holiday in the USA until 1870. 

• The tradition of giving gifts and having a family feast was actually started by Charles Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol" first published in 1843.

• The Christmas tree was introduced into England when Queen Victoria married Prince Albert, who was a German, and the Germans celebrate their Christmases with the Christmas tree. Prior to that, Christmas celebrations in England and USA do not include a Christmas tree.

• Santa Claus was invented by the American bishop Clement Clark Moore in 1823 when he wrote a children's poem called "A Visit from Saint Nicholas", nowadays more famously known as "Twas the night before Christmas", where he first introduced the character of "St Nicholas". This is the poem that starts:
  
  'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house 
  Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
  The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, 
  In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;
  
  The success of the poem made "Saint Nicholas" - soon corrupted to Santa Claus - a Christmas character that is now even bigger than the baby Christ.
  
  Interestingly, if you read the whole poem ( http://poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/19286 ), you will see that in the 8 reindeers, mentioned, the name Rudolf does not come up:
  
  Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! 
  On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!
  
  
  
  

• Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer was a character invented by Robert L May for the Montgomery Ward departmental store in 1939 to be Santa Claus main sidekick. The promotion of this departmental store character is so successful that nowadays, most people only remember the Rudolf reindeer and not the other 8.
  
  Interestingly, the character of Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer is not a public domain character and is subject to copyright, so if you publish a work involving Rudolph, theoretically you need to pay royalties to the company "Character Arts LLC" and "The Rudolph Company LP", which owns the rights to the character.
  

Christmas UnWrapped - The History of Christmas

#1 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5T5ibb2E9I

#2 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZDGKSveD8

#3 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ3BvK1R6hI

#4 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvopeBfS89w

#5 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqjQpu3cctk


Regards,
NJ

***********

P.S. The character of Saint Nicholas/Santa Claus is of course based from the Catholic Christianity's patron saint of children, "Nicholas of Myra" ( http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-nicholas-of-myra/ ).

However, I was quite surprised that the Catholic Church has created an entire catalogue of patron saints for each and every conceivable occupation and activity you can think of. I was absolutely astonished to see this list:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron00.htm

In fact, they even have a patron saint for the Internet (Isidore of Seville) and Roller Skating (Lydwina of Schiedam)!

In Catholic tradition, a person can only be recognised as a saint When at least 2 miracles are verified by the Vatican to have been performed by the person POSTHUMOUSLY (ie. the 2 miracles have to be performed after the person had died).

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question6191.htm

Hell Awaits You!

A humorous article from Yale's University Yale Daily News:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/12/04/evangelist-causes-stir/

According to Jesse Morell,  the list of people destined for hell are:

• Fornicators
• Homosexuals
• Liars
• Thieves
• Masturbators
• Obama Voters
  
• Buddhists
• Dirty Dancers
• Hindus
• Gangster Rappers
• Muslims
• Drunkards
• Feminists
• Immodest Women
• Democrats
• Liberals
• Evolutionists
• Atheists
• Potheads
• Sodomites
  

When one sees a placard like this, we can tell immediately that the person carrying it must be an Evangelical Christian of the most devout persuasion. Because only Evangelical Christians, in their zeal to spread their religious faith, will denigrate every one else who do not believe what they believe.

Indeed. And why is "Obama Voters" on his list? Is that a synonym for black people?

I am sure that any rational person seeing this sign will deem the person a fringe element, or a loony. But this is exactly what religious indoctrination does to people.

It would be interesting if other Christian groups who do not share the same views as Jesse Morell start criticising him and his ministry, and debate him on what exactly the bible is teaching. If Morell loses such a debate, would he then add "Christians" to his list?

--------------------------------------------------

The problem with Christianity is that besides extreme cases like Morell, the more moderate ones like Catholicism and Anglicanism are also indoctrinating people into hating people, specifically homosexuals, simply because of bible passages.

Science has already shown that it is biological reasons that determine if a person is born heterosexual, homosexual, male, female, or transgendered. Your genes also determine the colour of your skin, and perhaps the capabilities of your brain. The church does not denigrate people who are born of the wrong colour (why do Christians think that Jesus is a white Caucasian with blue eyes?), or because they were born retarded. And yet, the church continue to vilify homosexuals who are born the way they are, simply because the bible tells them to do so.

It is a fact that the bible encourages the slavery of people. It is a fact that the bible teaches that women are inferior to men, and that women should always be subservient to men. It is a fact that the bible teaches that the Earth is the centre of the universe and that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that humans were created 6000 years ago along with all the other animals. In modern societies which have benefited from the advances of science, and the societal liberation of the enlightenment, all these bible teachings have been examined, studied, questioned, and discarded. And yet, Christianity still clings on to a bigotry on homosexuality when that too should be discarded, along with the teachings on slavery, male superiority, and bad science.

So why does the church not do so? One possibility could be that as more and more parts of the bible are shown to be wrong and are discarded, Christians worry that soon, even their concept of god will be found to be wrong and flawed. An ideological line has been drawn to state that they have ceded much to science and knowledge, and that they will cede no further. Hence, the church will not cede the fact that the bible is wrong in saying that gays are sinners and bad people. Admitting the bible is wrong on this remaining few straws may lead to the slippery slope to admitting that the existence of god is probably wrong too. And hence the resistance.

Society should not let religions determine what is morality. We do not derive our morality from religions. Our morals are innate in us, as it is innate even in animals. Animals do not need to pray to imaginary deities, and yet respond with goodwill when treated with goodwill. Animals do not need religions to show love, or even exhibit altruism, to others of their own kind. Yet, here are religions proclaiming that only believers (and specifically, believers of their own god) are good people, and non-believers (and all other people) are evil people. This is not right, and atheists should stand steadfast against letting religions have their sway on societal matters.

Anglican Church "Mainstream" Values

The following is a Straits Times Forum letter about some comments made by Dr John Chew from the Singapore Anglican Church and that was reported in the Straits Times. In the original ST article, it was reported that John Chew urged Anglicans to unite against single motherhood, homosexuality, and atheism, saying that these were non "mainstream" values. I am very pleased that Harvey Neo responded with such an eloquently written letter:

Respect those outside traditional family

I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Unite against alternative values, Anglicans urged'. Do people actually marry in the belief they will be divorced some years down the road? Who chooses deliberately to be a single mother? Who wants to be a homosexual and be vilified as an enemy of 'mainstream values'?

For many divorcees, ending the marriage is the only way to continue to lead a fulfilling life. In many such cases, love and support from family members and friends are precisely what is needed to get them through difficult times.

A single mother often needs the help of her extended family and friends to raise her children. Love for a child born out of wedlock is no less than that for one born within the 'classical' family structure.

The gay man can be a filial son, a loving uncle, a steadfast friend, a doting godfather and an accommodating colleague.

If there is to be any consensus on 'mainstream values', it must be built on respect, empathy, compassion and tolerance. The family should reflect such values and not be used to draw divisive lines.

Harvey Neo

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_460985.html

Religious leaders have the most obnoxious views when it comes to pre-judging people who are not from their group. People like John Chew frequently denigrates others who do not accept his own superstitious beliefs. What is remarkable is that while some Christian sects reject homosexuality as a sin against god,there are other Christian sects that actually ordains gay priests, and it's supposed to be the same god that they all worship!!! This just goes to show that the Christian religion is entirely based on interpretation of the mythical stories written in the bible, and has got nothing to do with the bible being a sacred or an inerrant book dictating what humans should be.

It would be great if more Christians read the actual bible on their own, and not get their bible education from bigots like John Chew. Many people who left Christianity are actually ex-Christians who finally read the bible for themselves, and realised that the god that is actually described in the bible is actually a cruel and evil character, and is really not worthy of worship. I was really surprised that many of my more devout Christian friends do not know many of the horrible, cruel, and sexually audacious stories that is written in their own bible. It was very obvious to me that my devout Christian friends have been shielded by their church from knowing about the non-"mainstream" stories that is written down in their holy book.