How could they be so wrong on what’s really the biggest myth about Christmas, that a supernatural being was born about 2,000 years ago and we all need to swear allegiance to it or we’ll spend eternity in a bad place (as opposed to spending eternity praising a very, very needy god).
That myth has cost a lot of people a lot of money and many, many people their lives and it still costs people money and a few lives every year.
So let’s all reassure a friend that they have nothing to worry about if they don’t happen to believe the Christian myths.

I’m wondering why you even bother coming here, nnmns.

Guess we all have our ‘gods’ Nate. Maybe I’ll go over to ‘disbeliefnet’ and ridicule nonbelievers. Seems as though on the surface our contemporary really believes in his cause. I’ve a friend who’s what one might term an ‘evangelical’ atheist. He writes books that no one ever buys or reads and carries them around along with Dawkins and others. I’d guess he’s driven more people to faith in God than he’s lured away with his grossly inadequate misconception of faith and how one comes to believe.
Still, it never ceases to amaze me how some of these militant atheists equates the Nativity scene with hate speech, yet in a nutshell Dan Barker believes what our contemporary believes.
On the topic of the article, even though suicide may not spike during Christmas, there are lonely people (elderlies, widowers, loners, etc)who don’t have the benefit of companionship that the rest of us seem to take for granted, and they could use a phonecall or neighborly visit from time to time so they don’t feel invisible or forgotten by the rest of us.
Merry Xmas everyone!

If you find it reasonable that a god, described as a loving god, would set the universe up so that people who believe in one or more of the hundreds of other gods other people believe in, or who believe in no god, should roast in hell forever or, depending on your variation, spend eternity sadder than necessary (this is my understanding of the newer, more understanding Catholicism; correct me if I’m wrong) then the usual Christian mythology is your cup of tea.
But I’m hoping to help a few folks who may be worried about their original sin or worried that the whole thing just doesn’t make sense to them or disenchanted for some other reason. It all really doesn’t make sense and you’ll be fine if you leave it behind. We change our minds about lots of things and often it works out for the better.
Oh, and Tom had a good idea about helping out a neighbor.

Nate,
The same could be said to you. Why not simply go to a site where everyone agrees and the fine points of theological minutae are discussed and harumphed upon with eager and earnest intensity? I suspect you are here for the same reason we all are, to enjoy the give and take (without spit and vinegar, I hope). This is the only religious website I truly enjoy because of the diversity. Try reading beyond the surface of some of the remarks and you may learn something useful. Try this, consider yourself a 21st century Paul, working with all manner of gentiles, pagans, and I-don’t-cares. What would you say to convince them that you are not selling more ideological snake oil? I will give you a clue, “Because God said so” will not work any magic. A kind heart, a sense of justice, and some good home made humility will go further.
Stick around, you already know how much fun it is!

“Maybe I’ll go over to ‘disbeliefnet’ and ridicule nonbelievers.”
Tom, I’m a believer; I believe there’s no god and the universe is ruled by natural laws somewhat known now but partially yet to be discovered. And I didn’t ridicule you, just some of your beliefs.

Good comeback, nnmns. A little delayed but rather well-constructed.

Tom,

No, jestrfyl, the same could not be said about me. This isn’t about “diversity” or the absence of it. This is about having the basic decency not to take cheap shots at other people’s beliefs when the context simply doesn’t call for it. I could just as easily have taken cheap shot against, say, the Jews and all their “myths”, but I didn’t, because that would be out of line. There’s simply no good reason to do that, and if I were to do that, the Jews wouldn’t have anything to learn from me other than how not to act like a troublemaker.
There’s no “beyond the surface” to this. He doesn’t like Christianity one bit, and I get that. What I don’t get is why any well-functioning person would feel the need to express that when the context doesn’t call for it in any way, shape, or form.

Not quite right Nate. Based on the Christianity I grew up near I didn’t like it one bit but I’ve met people here, jestrfyl being one, who seem to represent a version of Christianity one could share a world with. But that doesn’t mean he and I agree on theology, just that his bunch would seem to leave the rest of us alone, religionwise (at least in the near future, till bad branches developed) and probably make the world a better place.
As far as cheap shots, the writer took a cheap shot at Santa Clause and a lot of people believe in him; why aren’t you berating the writer? But anyway talking about the biggest myth of the Christmas season without mentioning Christianity and its myths begs for a response. Surely you can see that.

Nate,
We are all – ALL – guilty of the occasional cheap shot. Some of us take more than others is all. Granted, I am no Biblical literalist in any sense of the word. But some of the Christmas story has all the hallmarks of Classic legend material. Facts and truth cover different ground, but they do overlap once in a while. the stories are about the truth of Jesus effect on lives, they are not – and I am sure were not – intended to present any factual representations. That many of the story elements were borrowed and adapted fro other sources well known to the writers does not make them any less True – simply a tribute to humanity’s great imagination that has been employed to emphasize the very best that can be imagined. It is all well and good to lay a layer of “this is what happened” when speaking with kids – the stories help them understand the hushed voices and shout of joy for someone they do not know and cannot see. But as we mature we recognize the value of the stories as poetry, not history. Accept for the value they have and do not disfigure them by making them more than they are. This is true not only with Christianity, but all religion. A wise rabbi will talk about the truth of Abram, not the history, the truth of David v. Saul, v. Nathan, v. himself, and not get so worried about the history.
As to the myth of holiday suicides – I am willing to accept the newer, factually established report. I do think the suicides that happen are reported more over the holidays, simply because they are in such harsh contradiction to the expectations of the season. Facts are one thing, but truth – the truth of the increased sadness that prevails for the family of a person who dies over a holiday (by their own hand or for any of the many usual reasons) is worthy of some note. That is why some churches offer “Blue Christmas” services.

jestrfyl,
I’m not sure where you’re going with that. Nnmns was clearly not making a claim about how to best interpret the Bible, he was taking a shot at core of the Christian religion itself, belief in God and in God’s saving presence in Christ.
What baffles me even more, though, is the fact that you call yourself a Christian but won’t ever speak a word of defense on behalf of the faith you supposedly profess. Someone could be nailing Jesus to the cross and you’d just be trying to tell all his disciples how much we can learn from his executioners if we just look below the surface of things. Perhaps that’s why nnmns seems to like your brand of Christianity so much, because it has so much to “learn” from the cheap shots of bad critics but so little to teach anyone about the mystery of the Creator who became a creature like us and for our sake.

“Nnmns was clearly not making a claim about how to best interpret the Bible, he was taking a shot at core of the Christian religion itself, belief in God and in God’s saving presence in Christ.”
Oh, more than that I’m taking a shot at the need to be “saved” and the point of the whole thing. It’s silly to think a god capable of creating this incredibly majestic universe would be so petty as to set it up so the default case for humans is that we burn forever (or for the more modern Catholic, that we exist forever in the absence of that god and its presumed infinite entertainment value), not to mention the depravity of worshiping such a god. And of course we don’t have forever to worry about. We have our lives and however we are remembered to worry about.

Where are you getting you info on the “modern Catholic” viewpoint? It’s wrong. Modern Catholicism, and most major branches of Christianity, are not teaching damnation, in any form, as some kind of “default” state for human beings.

OK, Nate – the core of Christianity? So what is it? Is it the narratives so carefully crafted to provide a framework for the sayings? Is it the sayings that were woven into the framework by Mark, Mathew & Luke, or John? Or is it the core sayings, preserved by the problematic “Q”, collected by Mark, and a few others?
What is the core of Chrstianity? I believe it was summed up in the parable of the Good Samaritan – who is my neighbor? The person who has an immediate need – regardless of their political, religious, or personal history. Who is blessed? The meek, the poor in Spirit, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the mourners – powerless people. I see in nnmns and others those attributes. They seek to live worthy lives, not lives of simple adoration of an ancient celebrity. Christmas is not about the birth of Jesus barJoseph (or barYahweh). It is a story told to help us prepare for the greater lessons that will come in only a few short weeks, the lessons there are carried by the story arch of Jesus ministry and the passion narratives. They simply are not so focused on the narrative structure that has become and idol as solid and stoney as any fertility figure from ancient Mespoptamia. I teach the narrative to children to help them learn the core, the lessons. When working with adults, I try to help them see how the narratives enhance their appreciation of the lessons, the core. But requiring adoration of the varying narratives helps no one and only establishes walls and obstacles. I am quite willing to let the story be powerful as a story. But the greater message is about that faith awakening in people’s lives.
O, and I think nnmns was refering to the allegiance to the notion of “Original Sin” – one I have heard professed as recently as last week. Have there been developments at the Vatican that have set that idea aside? I must have missed them – Christmas, after all, is a busy season.
Wow, this is along way from the article’s subject.

This “security” system is driving me to fits!!!!! That posting from 12:21 was mine – jestrfyl. I think the security ought to be more like the cursing from Sargent Snorkle of Beetle Baily fame, “%#$!@#&*^%” !

“Modern Catholicism, and most major branches of Christianity, are not teaching damnation, in any form, as some kind of “default” state for human beings.”
Oh, so no shot of “Jesus” is needed to be “saved”? We all default to eternal life in heaven? I was under the impression if you didn’t achieve the right relationship to “our savior” we didn’t get “saved” so the default state would be going to Hell, whatever that entailed.
I think a lot of other people think that too; they’ll be glad to hear they are wrong. Well, most of them probably will; some will be sorry to hear a lot of other people aren’t damned.

jestrfyl,
The strong dichotomy between the “sayings” and the “narratives” doesn’t really reflect what’s going on in scholarship, as I understand it. The gospels aren’t simply inventing narratives to give context to otherwise disembodied sayings. They’re already working with narratives, even though they cast those narratives differently in their different contexts to express different theological/apologetic/pastoral points.
You’re not going to find the core of Christianity in some kind of disembodied sayings; if you think that, you might as well give up the “Christian” title altogether, since you can find similar teachings in sources from all around the world. The sayings are vital, but they take on a special significance because of who is saying them. Jesus is speaking those works as a Spirit-led prophet of God, and as the early Christians soon came to realize, as God incarnate. He’s not just teaching some nice lessons, but at the same time he’s altering reality itself so that those lessons can be lived out with a deeper, richer meaning. He’s preaching the reconciliation of God and humanity, which spills over into reconciliation among all people(s); he himself is the coming God into human history, so that human history can be drawn up into God; he becomes a creature so that creation might behold its Creator and worship and adore him. All that’s part of what’s going on, and it’s all pretty essential. If you want to reduce it to some moral core, then all you’d do is give me and countless others a good reason not to give a darn about the whole thing. If I just wanted morality or practical wisdom, I’d go read Socrates or an ethicist or a self-help guru. I’m a Christian because I want a morality that is at the same time the adoration of God, and there are countless others who feel the same.
How sad it is that you care more about learning from and meeting the needs of those who mock and deride the Christian faith, but you have no interest in the concerns of those who care about anything that resembles orthodoxy, or of those of us who actually think that Christianity is actually about loving God and not just about some kind of therapeutic relief.

nnmns,
I believe I’ve mentioned this a thousand times here before, usually when someone tries to ignorantly bash the pope, but I’ll say it again: in modern Catholicism, you don’t need to be a Christian to go to heaven. You need to know anything about Jesus to go to heaven. And the majority of major Christian denominations wouldn’t disagree, including a growing number of evangelicals.
The “original sin” taught by Roman Catholicism and many traditional Protestant groups is a bit more complicated than just saying that damnation is our “default” state. In most cases, I’m not sure that it’s proper to say that there’s a default state at all.

Well Nate I hope you are right (in your interpretation of various religious interpretations, (and some polls indicate it), but somehow I’m sure I could still find radio or tv preachers who say they are right and those other folks are wrong. And I don’t see the Pope or much of anyone else saying people can go where they want or stay home instead of going to their church.
And those are the ones I grew up with and think of as representing Christianity despite the fact I know it contains better people like Henrietta and jesterfyl and some of my relatives.

The fact that the pope isn’t telling people to stay home from church has nothing to do with this, nnmns. Christian inclusivism about salvation isn’t the same thing as do-whatever-you-feel-like relativism, and it’s not complacent secularism. For the church or any other pastor to be telling his congregants not to go to church and not to take their religion seriously is for him to fail as a leader.

“in modern Catholicism, you don’t need to be a Christian to go to heaven. You [don't??] need to know anything about Jesus to go to heaven. And the majority of major Christian denominations wouldn’t disagree, including a growing number of evangelicals.”
but
“Christian inclusivism about salvation isn’t the same thing as do-whatever-you-feel-like relativism, and it’s not complacent secularism.”
So what about the person who stays home and reads the paper or watches the talking heads shows or gets newsed up via the Internet? Think that’s serious enough?

Nate,
I am with you for most of the extensive 2nd paragraph in your response to me. Well, I might have left out some of the accusatory stuff, but that’s just me.
Here’s the deal — while in a New Testament class (one of several over the years – I truly enjoy Bible study) – working through all the details of the sotry, the parallels between the Gospels, and the development of Paul’s response to Christ I had this thought. It was summed up by a Garfield the Cat poster, where G. looks out and says, “B.F.H.D.*”, with the asterisk at the bottom translating it to “Big Fat Hairy Deal”. Essentially, I was trying to sort through, why all the miracles? The reason was to give credence to the unique message Jesus was preaching.
As an example of my frustration, I offer Jesus at Mary & Martha’s house. I understand the lesson to Martha, but I really want to know the “good portion” that Mary was soaking in. So I go through the Gospels treasuring the sayings that are about about life, not discarding or discountig the rest, but setting them to one side.
These are not simple philosophical moral messages, but they do in many ways serve as the parabolic reflection of life. The narratives without the message are mere magical stories. The messages without the narrative hang loosely without purpose, interesting but without authority. I seek the balance, or better still, the imbalance between the two. That imbalance throws me off enough that I can go lurching through life open to every support and encouragment I can get.

nnmns wrote: “I believe there’s no god and the universe is ruled by natural laws somewhat known now but partially yet to be discovered.”
You write this as if the two beliefs are mutually incompatible; they’re not. In fact “ruled by natural laws” is something of an anthropomorphism, and didn’t the concept of “natural law” originate in a theistic environment?

Well I used “natural laws” in, I think, a different sense. I should have been more careful to not use a term so prone to misunderstanding in this group, though. How about scientifically discoverable laws. Some of the so called natural laws from religion are probably anything but scientifically discoverable, being the result of wishful thinking by popes and theologians and such.

Interesting article. I think they’re wrong about a person not losing heat through their head, since adopting a little dog I now have to go out with my little buddy who has to be bundled up in his sweater, and I first went without a hat, didn’t take long to feel the heat leaving my body, while he selects just the right tree, bush, or bunch of grass! This happens at least five times a day, rain, sleet, snow, or sun. Yes they are wrong on this.;) It is good the medical world hops in occ. to set the record straight, such as this with the error in looking for more suicides during the holidays. They should be so “out there” with the questions about Homosexuality, and lead the unleadable to more understanding of the GLBT.

nnmns wrote: “Well I used “natural laws” in, I think, a different sense.”
No, we’re talking about the same thing. My point is that the belief that a rational Creator would create a universe with a rational structure which can be investigated by rational creatures, that is, human beings created in God’s image, is part and parcel of classical theism. You seemed to be making the point that a belief in the efficacy of the scientific method precludes a belief in God, and I’m disagreeing with that point. There may be a problem for those who insist on a literal reading of certain pre-modern texts, but this is a different issue than whether or not one can believe both in God and “natural laws”.

A person stays home from Church, let’s say, he’s tired physically after working all week, his wife is tired after working all week, the kids have running noses. They haven’t been to church for months, for the same reasons. But let’s see what they might have incountered on their sunday of rest. Once they saved a neighbors dog from being chewed up by another neighbor’s dog. Once they helped an elderly lady who stumbled going down a curb, and took her to the emergency room. Another time they were home to answer a phone call from a friend who needed help. These things all happened between 10:30 A.M. and 12:30 P.M. If they hadn’t been home they couldn’t have helped all these people. Think of all the people in Church who weren’t home to help real people or animals in need? Gods world is unfathomable and our part in it is also unknowable. People need to take care of their own lives, and we shouldn’t be judging them against our lives. They are different. The greatest gift is love, some of the best church goers I know don’t show this gift at all. Some of the compassionate people I know don’t go to Church, and they do show love. God knows who they are.

“My point is that the belief that a rational Creator would create a universe with a rational structure which can be investigated by rational creatures, that is, human beings created in God’s image, is part and parcel of classical theism.”
I can’t argue against the possibility of that. If the rational structure part is fully adhered to it would preclude the miracles most religions depend on.

nnmns,
I don’t usually disagree with you, but assuming a “rational” Creator discounts the resulting platypus. (OK actually, he platypus is an amazingly complex creature that is specially suited to their environment – but that ruins the joke, don-cha-think?)
Seriously, none of the religious Creation stories makes any point for a dispassionately rational creation, it is all very subjective – making the storyteller’s people the best possible creation. It would be a curious task indeed to debate what purely rational would look like. I believe Mr Spock might be available to moderate the discussion.
But then, I favor evolution over any poetic Creation epic – I find the elegance of the whole span of development as beautiful as any iambic verse.