Is Christmas a Christian or a pagan ritual?

T-1111111111111

I'm also interested in knowing how the celebration of the Christmas day actually got known to Christians. Is this something that was practised from the very early days of Christianity and why? Where and what are the roots of this?

Is this true or not?
Babylonian ritual celebrating the "rebirth" of the sun god Baal (Tammuz) after the Winter Solstice.

MOGSA

Christmas is as far removed from Christianity as satan is removed from Jesus - it is a pagan ceremony brought in by the church of Satan.

However ... it is not necessarily a bad 'evil' time like halloween. There is a demonstrable goodwill between people of all kinds and religions at this time and that alone defeats Satan's objectives.

As a Christian I dont celebrate Christmas, I do celebrate the goodwill of all men towards each other as we are all children of God and this time provides an ideal opportunity to prove it.

T-1111111111111

MOGSA wrote:

Christmas is as far removed from Christianity as satan is removed from Jesus - it is a pagan ceremony brought in by the church of Satan.

However ... it is not necessarily a bad 'evil' time like halloween. There is a demonstrable goodwill between people of all kinds and religions at this time and that alone defeats Satan's objectives.

As a Christian I dont celebrate Christmas, I do celebrate the goodwill of all men towards each other as we are all children of God and this time provides an ideal opportunity to prove it.

Appreciate Ur answer.

Zombrex

What appears to have happened is that the early christians hi-jacked the pagan festivals around the Christmas period as a celebration of their religion, though Christmas started off as a very small celebration, with easter being far more important. The Romans celeberated the winter solstice on the 25 of December, and the 25 is also 9 months (female pregnency) from March 25 which held large meaning around the time of Christ as it was believed to be the equonix.

The most likely reason for doing this was to make the Christian religion seem less strange and foreign to those in the general population they were attempting to convert since they would be celebrating anyway, while also associating the birth of Jesus with speciall significant days. They didn't just do this with Christmas, there is a long list of things the early Christians did to present their religion in a more acceptable light and to increase worship numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Zombrex

MOGSA wrote:

However ... it is not necessarily a bad 'evil' time like halloween.

Bit off topic, but the only people who think halloween is a celebration of a "bad evil time" are those who don't understand the history or purpose of halloween.

Halloween, or All Hallows Eve, is based on the old Samhain winter festival (festival of the dead), which was a celebration of the passing of summer and the coming of winter, it is a festival to celebrate the passing of the dead as a natural part of the cycle of life.

The people believed that the after life was closer on that day than any other, and the original reason people hung and decorated their homes with scary figures was not a celebration of things like demons, but to scare away any demons that might be around on that day.

metrovelvet

The mexicans have - Dia de los Muertos - same prinicipal as Samhain. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rjsalvad/scmfaq/muertos.html

Does anyone know how these two festivals emerged in two completely different parts of the world?

T-1111111111111

Bottom line - it can be concluded - based on the information we have presented here (although might not be also the official Church view) is that Christmas is a pagan and not Christian ritual?

If that is true, then I wonder why Christians follow something which is of pagan origins?

That also raises a question - is there a possibility that God is not pleased at all by celebrating the Christmas?? Would that not make sense?

Asiaprod

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Bottom line - it can be concluded - based on the information we have presented here (although might not be also the official Church view) is that Christmas is a pagan and not Christian ritual?

T-111...ect, if we includes you, then we have presented nothing.
As I see it, we, excluding you, have indeed presented something.
You presented nothing, you asked a question.

T-1111111111111

Asiaprod wrote:

T-111...ect, if we includes you, then we have presented nothing.
As I see it, we, excluding you, have indeed presented something.
You presented nothing, you asked a question.

I believe we would be extremely glad to hear something useful on this thread from Tokyo.

Be my guest.

BTW, I - as me, myself, indeed presented nothing but question. I/me/myself/myownself want to hear Christians to explain this to me, I/me/myself however already have a view on this. But I want Christians to explain sth so that I can understand their belief regarding this matter.

Nevyn

The pagan festivals were co opted in order to convert the masses.

I never understood why such a fuss was made about christmas by christains where surely it is the Death and Resurection of Christ which should be the focal point of the year for them.

Many of the so called christmas traditions are pagan,
from the evergreen advent wreath,
the brining of holly into the house,
the yule log,
the giving of presents,
the feast to celebrate the return of the sun.

Many of these things have pagan meanings but some of them are just practical things.
The feast was also to use up the remaining meat and food stuffs that would go off unless consumed,
the large gatherings were also to conserve heat and engery and the giving of presents was bartering for goods and clothes that people spent the winter working on as they were not hunting tending the land.

Zombrex

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Bottom line - it can be concluded - based on the information we have presented here (although might not be also the official Church view) is that Christmas is a pagan and not Christian ritual?

No Christmas is a Christian festival. You asked how it came about, that is how it came about, and why it happens when it does.

Pagans don't celebrate the birth of Jesus.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

If that is true, then I wonder why Christians follow something which is of pagan origins?

Why wouldn't they?

Most religions have origins in other old "pagan" religions, including the Hewbrew religions which Christianity and your Muslim religion are based upon.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

That also raises a question - is there a possibility that God is not pleased at all by celebrating the Christmas?? Would that not make sense?

God doesn't ever seems pleased, so it wouldn't surprise me

Dades

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Bottom line - it can be concluded - based on the information we have presented here (although might not be also the official Church view) is that Christmas is a pagan and not Christian ritual?

How can 'Christmas' be a pagan ritual?

The celebration of Christmas may coincide with other celebrations for perhaps ulterior reasons, but no one belief system has the monopoly on a time of year that is more to do with astronomy than anything else.

T-1111111111111

Thaedydal wrote:

The pagan festivals were co opted in order to convert the masses.

I never understood why such a fuss was made about christmas by christains where surely it is the Death and Resurection of Christ which should be the focal point of the year for them.

Many of the so called christmas traditions are pagan,
from the evergreen advent wreath,
the brining of holly into the house,
the yule log,
the giving of presents,
the feast to celebrate the return of the sun.

Many of these things have pagan meanings but some of them are just practical things.
The feast was also to use up the remaining meat and food stuffs that would go off unless consumed,
the large gatherings were also to conserve heat and engery and the giving of presents was bartering for goods and clothes that people spent the winter working on as they were not hunting tending the land.

Interesting thoughts. I was thinking, would not celebrating Christmas (if that is a pagan ritual, just slightly modified and adapted to cover Christian needs maybe) and assuming that the 1st generations of Christians never celebrated such a ritual (but maybe it was added into Christianity somewhat later?) mean that a Christian celebrating Christmas is actually following some ancient pagan belief and not his own?

PS When is the birthdate of Jesus BTW and how certain we can be about his actual birthdate?

T-1111111111111

Wicknight wrote:

Most religions have origins in other old "pagan" religions, including the Hewbrew religions which Christianity and your Muslim religion are based upon.

I'm not discussing Islam here. If you want to discuss Islam, you're welcome on Islamic forum.

PS Paganism has its roots in original God's Religions, not the vice-versa. Pagans invented worshipping of statues (which were originally statues of good and pious people, and they made those statues in order not to forget those good people, however over time, later generations started worshipping them thus making them gods of their own forgetting about Almighty God).

But that's another subject and should not be discussed here.

Zombrex

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Interesting thoughts. I was thinking, would not celebrating Christmas (if that is a pagan ritual, just slightly modified and adapted to cover Christian needs maybe) and assuming that the 1st generations of Christians never celebrated such a ritual (but maybe it was added into Christianity somewhat later?) mean that a Christian celebrating Christmas is actually following some ancient pagan belief and not his own?

It depends on why he is celebrating what he is celebrating.

If he is celebrating the 25th December in the worship of pagan Roman Gods then He clearly isn't worshiping Jesus and vice-versa

T-1111111111111 wrote:

PS When is the birthdate of Jesus BTW and how certain we can be about his actual birthdate?

It isn't his actual birthday. No one knows his actual birthday. It is the Roman winter solsitce. If you were a Christian in 2nd century Roman can you think of a better day to celebrate??

Asiaprod

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I believe we would be extremely glad to hear something useful on this thread from Tokyo.

You did.

Zombrex

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I'm not discussing Islam here. If you want to discuss Islam, you're welcome on Islamic forum.

The point I'm making is why do you think it is strange that Christianity co-opted ideas from the pagan religions?

Most of the ideas of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths were co-opted from other older "pagan" religions. It should only surprise you if you are not aware of the history of your own religion.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

PS Paganism has its roots in original God's Religions, not the vice-versa.

That isn't true.

Most of the concepts in the Abrahamic religions originally appear in older religions, both monotheist and polytheist religions, concepts such as heaven and hell, judgement and prophets.

Every religion takes aspects of older religions changes them around and adapts them to their own specific set of beliefs. Be that something as simple as a small religion choosing to celebrate in a similar manner to a large religion, or something more fundamental as a shift from polytheist belief to monotheist belief.

mountainyman

I think that Christianty attempted to co opt and Christianise existing festivals pretty much everywhere, indeed in India it continues to do so.
Isn't it wonderful that a religion can spread its message and respect indiginous traditions.

All religions derive part of their cultural reality from underlying cultural tradition. After all look at the way the Muslims adapted the moon worship of the Arabian peninsula to create their moon god Allah.

It would be surprising if true religion hadn't done something similar.

MM

T-1111111111111

mountainyman wrote:

All religions derive part of their cultural reality from underlying cultural tradition. After all look at the way the Muslims adapted the moon worship of the Arabian peninsula to create their moon god Allah.

It would be surprising if true religion hadn't done something similar.

MM

Why are you insulting Islam? If your nature just have to insult Islam or Allah, then please explain why do you say moon god?

I as a Muslim know that moon has nothing really to do with Islam. Let me hear your expert opinion on this.

PS If you like to insult further, go ahead, I won't mind. I'll take it as your nature.

robindch

> Isn't it wonderful that a religion can spread its message and respect indiginous traditions.

I'm sure the extinct civilizations in Central America would disagree.

mountainyman

Your understanding of the nature of culture and civilisation is flawed if you think a civilization can have an opinion. Civilizations are composed of individuals.

Central American catholicism has obvious syncretism with pagan tradition.

MM

Zombrex

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Why are you insulting Islam? If your nature just have to insult Islam or Allah, then please explain why do you say moon god?

I as a Muslim know that moon has nothing really to do with Islam. Let me hear your expert opinion on this.

PS If you like to insult further, go ahead, I won't mind. I'll take it as your nature.

History is hardly an insult T-111

"Allah" was the name of a moon god worshiped by arabian pagan tribes.

Mohammands father was called Abdullah, which basically means "slave of Allah", referring to the older pagan god, not the "Allah" used by Muslims (since Islam didn't exist yet), demonstrating that the name "Allah" existed long before the creation of the Islamic religion

This name was co-opted by the early Muslims when they need a name for "God" for their religion. And why not pick a name that is already in common usage. After all if I started a new religion I would probably call my god "God", even though "God" is the name Christians use for God in English.

Nevyn

Well you have to consider that all of christainity was at one stage catholic before the revformation.

cath‧o‧lic  –adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.

2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.

3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

Inclusive and liberal is pretty much key word there.
The reformation was when things changed and for those who follow post reformative christainty which has many forms, a lot of l the "pagan" practices were removed from thier whorship.

BrianCalgary

Hey T-1111111111111

It all depends on where your heart lies. What is the purpose of the celebration?

If you are celebrating Dec 25 as the birth of the saviour Jesus Christ, Immanuel, God with us, then it is not pagan.

It may come at a time of a pagan festival, and that is fine and dandy.

Some of the tradition come form pagan origins, but are now used to expalin Biblical truths. That is fine also.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Isn't it wonderful that a religion can spread its message and respect indiginous traditions.

I'm sure the extinct civilizations in Central America would disagree.

Which civilaizations are you speaking of? And who extincted them?

hairyheretic

Presumably the ones encountered by the Spanish and Portugese in the 1600s or so. The likes of the Incas / Aztecs and similar in south america.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

The mexicans have - Dia de los Muertos - same prinicipal as Samhain. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rjsalvad/scmfaq/muertos.html

Does anyone know how these two festivals emerged in two completely different parts of the world?

As far as I know celebrations or festivals for the dead are common across the world (wikipedia seems to confirm, but like everything pinch of salt on the details)

The South American Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) has Aztec origins, but similar festivals are found in Europe and Asia (in China the seventh month is known as Ghost Month)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dia_De_Los_Muertos

It seems to be more the Christian religions, with the idea of strict seperation between this life and the after life, and the idea that some people will be saved but others won't, that added in later years a very somber sense to the treatment of the dead, and any form of celebration was seen in bad taste, or celebrating the darker sides of human nature. Even today you will get Christians opposed to the idea of halloween as seen as unGodly.

Blame the christians! ruining all the fun ... sorry BC!

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote:

a lot of l the "pagan" practices were removed from thier whorship.

Um, did you deliberately intercollapse two words or was this a total Freudian typo?

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

Even today you will get Christians opposed to the idea of halloween as seen as unGodly.

Blame the christians! ruining all the fun ... sorry BC!

Yeah only the crazy ones. Oddly one could say that Christianity is what has kept these traditions going.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Yeah only the crazy ones. Oddly one could say that Christianity is what has kept these traditions going.

Well that assume they would have died off naturally anyway. I would imagine that if Christianity never happened we probably would be still celebrating them in their pagan original state. And most people would be pagans to start with

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote:

Um, did you deliberately intercollapse two words or was this a total Freudian typo?

Oops !
Thaedspeak strikes again.

Excelsior

Thaedydal wrote:

Well you have to consider that all of christainity was at one stage catholic before the revformation.

Is this a new conspiracy theory that says the Copts and Orthodox traditions are modern invaders?

In reality, the Roman Catholic Church can't really claim to be much more than 1000 years older than the Lutherans. The term "Catholic" applied in a broader theological sense is sufficiently defined as universal.

Can I just point out to the OP that Christmas, whatever role it has in paganisms, is not a ritual for Christians.

Jibreel

Wicknight wrote:

History is hardly an insult T-111

"Allah" was the name of a moon god worshiped by arabian pagan tribes.

Mohammands father was called Abdullah, which basically means "slave of Allah", referring to the older pagan god, not the "Allah" used by Muslims (since Islam didn't exist yet), demonstrating that the name "Allah" existed long before the creation of the Islamic religion

This name was co-opted by the early Muslims when they need a name for "God" for their religion. And why not pick a name that is already in common usage. After all if I started a new religion I would probably call my god "God", even though "God" is the name Christians use for God in English.

Completely wrong about the moon god. Did you know that Arabic version of the Bible uses Allah for God?

Please explain to Christians that their God is the moon god.


First, "Allah" was not one of the 360 idols which were in the Ka'abah, although Morey has claimed this without evidence. When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) entered Meccah victorious he went into the Ka'abah and broke the idols therein.

Second, the word "Allah" has been used all along for the name of "God" in the Arabic Bible for Jews and Christians alike. The proof is easy to verify; simple go to any hotel or motel on the earth and look in the drawer next to the bed and take out the complimentary Bible, placed there by the Giddeons and then look on page 5 or 6 where they list the examples of translations they have made into other languages. The second example given is for Arabic speakers. The verse is from the Gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 16. Everyone knows this one; "For God so loved the world..." and the word in Arabic for "God" is "Allah." Then if you have a Bible in Arabic, look on page one in Genesis, and you will find the word "Allah" fourteen times.

Next, the word for "God" to the Arabs, ever since the time of Abraham, peace be upon him, has been "Allah" and He is to them, the Lord of the Ka'bah (the black box in the center of the Holy Sanctuary in Makkah). He was the unseen God whom they would call upon when in distress. Yes, they worshipped the true God but their worship was not purely for Him. They also worshipped other gods thinking that they would act as intermediaries between them and the true God Allah.

The Arabs know of Allah because Abraham visited Meccah and together with his son Ishmael laid the foundation of the Ka'abah. The descendants of Ishmael retained some of the worship rites and beliefs from Abraham. This included their knowledge of the true God Allah.

Elsewhere we have shown conclusively that the true god, "El" of the Bible is the same as "Allah" of the Quran.

To prove this, here's Matthew 5 Verse 8.

For those who know how word Allah in written Arabic, they can see it easily below.
For those who don't, here it is: اللهَ

طُوبَى لأَنْقِيَاءِ الْقَلْبِ، فَإِنَّهُمْ سَيَرَوْنَ اللهَ .

The NIV, same chapter and verse:

8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Puck

Pagan festivals, Christian festivals, Pagan traditions, Christian traditions. It's all rubbish! Festivals aren't Christian, people are! It matters what's in your heart. Anyone who argues that just because a certain date or tradition has pagan ties it should be abandoned should take off their pants immediately - pants being a pagan invention.

Excelsior

See that children? That right up there? Post of the freaking year!

Nevyn

Excelsior wrote:

Can I just point out to the OP that Christmas, whatever role it has in paganisms, is not a ritual for Christians.

Christmas doesn't have a role in paganism, Yule and the Winter solastice does.

Wibbs

Jibreel wrote:

Completely wrong about the moon god. Did you know that Arabic version of the Bible uses Allah for God?

Of course it does. I'm sure any translation of the Bible anywhere uses the local term for God. Not exactly an argument. In any case what about wicknights point about Mohammed's father being called Abdullah? How would he have the name of God if he was a polyathiest? What about Mohammed's name itself. It loosely means anointed or exalted one. How did he get that name at birth? A bit presumptuous one would think? In fact is taking the webname of Gabriel not up there too. Kudos. I'm waiting for a Christian to give himself the username of HolySpirit. Only kidding

First, "Allah" was not one of the 360 idols which were in the Ka'abah, although Morey has claimed this without evidence. When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) entered Meccah victorious he went into the Ka'abah and broke the idols therein.

Then why did he leave the stone? Why leave something that had the taint of the pagan on it? Because the stone was thought to have fallen from the moon(probably a meteorite anyway). Which brings us back to the OT about pagan rituals in modern day religions. Endlessly circling and hoping to kiss touch a holy stone in a onetime Pagan site kinda defines it really.

"For God so loved the world..." and the word in Arabic for "God" is "Allah." Then if you have a Bible in Arabic, look on page one in Genesis, and you will find the word "Allah" fourteen times.

Same reason as my first point.

Next, the word for "God" to the Arabs, ever since the time of Abraham, peace be upon him, has been "Allah" and He is to them,

can you cite historical references for this?

the Lord of the Ka'bah (the black box in the center of the Holy Sanctuary in Makkah). He was the unseen God whom they would call upon when in distress. Yes, they worshipped the true God but their worship was not purely for Him. They also worshipped other gods thinking that they would act as intermediaries between them and the true God Allah.

...or you could say he was the highest in the pantheon of Gods. Just like Zeus to the Greeks or the moon God in that part of the world.

The Arabs know of Allah because Abraham visited Meccah and together with his son Ishmael laid the foundation of the Ka'abah.

Again what historical foundation is there for this belief?

The descendants of Ishmael retained some of the worship rites and beliefs from Abraham. This included their knowledge of the true God Allah.

Partially true. the Arabs of that part of the world were a mishmash of various creeds. Judging from the extant Greek records of the time they varied all the way from Judaism, Christianity, Coptisicm(sp) and paganism. Some would argue all of the former are to be found as elements in the religion that superseded them all in that region, namely Islam. Like a wedding a new religion often brings something old, new and borrowed to the table. The something blue I'll leave to history to work out.

Elsewhere we have shown conclusively that the true god, "El" of the Bible is the same as "Allah" of the Quran.[/i]

Eh, you haven't. Not even close beyond modern translations of the Bible/Gospel into the vernacular. The God of the bible(old testament) is mostly referred to as Yahweh or more properly yod-Heh-Vav-Heh/YHWH, Jehovah in European translations. El is a part of a descriptive term, the He as it where, not the name of God itself. So gods and a god not the "God". Elohim is used in the earliest texts as a name for God and gods. It's both a singular and plural word, not the actual name of God which was a special word with certain limits on it's use(I refer you to the stoning scene in the life of Brian...). Slight problem there with semantics and linguistics in that argument you have there.

To prove this, here's Matthew 5 Verse 8.

For those who know how word Allah in written Arabic, they can see it easily below.
For those who don't, here it is: اللهَ

طُوبَى لأَنْقِيَاءِ الْقَلْبِ، فَإِنَّهُمْ سَيَرَوْنَ اللهَ .

The NIV, same chapter and verse:

8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Yet again not really and yet again back to the first point I made.

Excelsior wrote:

See that children? That right up there? Post of the freaking year!

I'm sure Pigman beats that somewhere but here it's comin close.:D

Thaedydal wrote:

Christmas doesn't have a role in paganism, Yule and the Winter solastice does.

I get your point but I suspect in this case "Paganism" is a (often pejorative) catch all for non Abrahamic religions, not what people who consider themselves "Pagans" would hold sacred, so the Roman feast of Saturnalia would fall into that category.

Excelsior

Thaedydal wrote:

Christmas doesn't have a role in paganism, Yule and the Winter solastice does.

Well why don't you explain that to the OP! It would make everything so much simpler.

Jibreel

Wibbs wrote:

Of course it does. I'm sure any translation of the Bible anywhere uses the local term for God. Not exactly an argument. In any case what about wicknights point about Mohammed's father being called Abdullah? How would he have the name of God if he was a polyathiest? What about Mohammed's name itself. It loosely means anointed or exalted one. How did he get that name at birth? A bit presumptuous one would think? In fact is taking the webname of Gabriel not up there too. Kudos. I'm waiting for a Christian to give himself the username of HolySpirit. Only kidding

What about the name Abdullah? I'm well aware what is the meaning of the name. Arabs did believe in Allah, the problem is that they added those idols in their belief, hence polytheism, but if you ask them who created them, they will say Allah. So name Abdullah proves nothing in your point.


And if thou ask them who created them, they will surely say: Allah. How then are they turned away?
43:87

And he saith: O my Lord! Lo! those are a folk who believe not.
43:88

Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know.
43:89

Here's Allah's answer to the moon and sun problem.


Surah/Chapter 041 - Fussilat. Verse 37.

And of His portents are the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Adore not the sun nor the moon; but adore Allah who created them, if it is in truth Him whom ye worship.

Wibbs wrote:

Then why did he leave the stone? Why leave something that had the taint of the pagan on it? Because the stone was thought to have fallen from the moon(probably a meteorite anyway). Which brings us back to the OT about pagan rituals in modern day religions. Endlessly circling and hoping to kiss touch a holy stone in a onetime Pagan site kinda defines it really.
Same reason as my first point.

Which stone do you mean? The black stone?

Even if you mean the black stone, a stone is just a stone, there's a Hadith confirming that there's nothing special about the stone except the angels brought the stone from Eden. That's pretty much all.

Wibbs wrote:

can you cite historical references for this? ...or you could say he was the highest in the pantheon of Gods. Just like Zeus to the Greeks or the moon God in that part of the world.
Again what historical foundation is there for this belief? Partially true. the Arabs of that part of the world were a mishmash of various creeds. Judging from the extant Greek records of the time they varied all the way from Judaism, Christianity, Coptisicm(sp) and paganism. Some would argue all of the former are to be found as elements in the religion that superseded them all in that region, namely Islam. Like a wedding a new religion often brings something old, new and borrowed to the table. The something blue I'll leave to history to work out.
Eh, you haven't. Not even close beyond modern translations of the Bible/Gospel into the vernacular. The God of the bible(old testament) is mostly referred to as Yahweh or more properly yod-Heh-Vav-Heh/YHWH, Jehovah in European translations. El is a part of a descriptive term, the He as it where, not the name of God itself. So gods and a god not the "God". Elohim is used in the earliest texts as a name for God and gods. It's both a singular and plural word, not the actual name of God which was a special word with certain limits on it's use(I refer you to the stoning scene in the life of Brian...). Slight problem there with semantics and linguistics in that argument you have there.

Yet again not really and yet again back to the first point I made.

I'm sure Pigman beats that somewhere but here it's comin close.:D


I get your point but I suspect in this case "Paganism" is a (often pejorative) catch all for non Abrahamic religions, not what people who consider themselves "Pagans" would hold sacred, so the Roman feast of Saturnalia would fall into that category.

Loooking at some of your posts, you have a serious problem with Islamic tradition and history recorded by Muslims. You do not accept any of those texts. Any historical reference that even has a capital M inside.

So what's the point giving you something you don't accept?

On the other hand, you have no historical references outside those written by Muslims, so how I am suppose to accept that foggy stuff written by non-Arabs/non-Muslims?

Who would you trust more about ancient Egypt history for instance - Egyptians or some westerners (read foreigners) who showed up centuries later to get some bits of Egyptian history and then they think they know it all and what's even worse, they do not accept a single bit of Egyptian records from Egyptians themselves.

List your references, I'll be happy to go thru the list and I promise I won't discredit them immediately, I'll let them shine for a few seconds.:rolleyes:

I'll catch you later on the Gods names and show you that YHWH has the same root as ALLAH.

Zombrex

Jibreel wrote:

Completely wrong about the moon god. Did you know that Arabic version of the Bible uses Allah for God?

You are not getting the idea of co-opting ideas from other religions.

I'm not saying Muslims worship a moon god. But Mohommad took the classification used by his tribe when inventing his new religion. He incorportated the idea because it is easier to explain a new religion in terms of the older religion.

"Allah" in the pre-Islamic society referred to the highest pagan god for that tribe or sect of the different pagan religions. Mohammads fathers tribe this referred to a specifically pagan moon god, Hubal, who was considered the head god.

When Mohammad tried to convert his people he started with something they already understood. He combined the pagan gods into one, but continued to use the term Allah since it referred to the head god.

This is common through out accient times. "Jupiter", (Zeus in Greek) is derived from the Latin word for god father, or father of the gods. When early Christians were attempting to influence the Romans they adopted the image of Zeus for their own god, which is why nearly all images of God displayed in the western world look almost exactly like images of Zeus before BCE. It was easier to explain the concept of a monotheist god within the framework of the polytheists pagan Roman belief structure. Rather than asking the Romans to throw out all their original religious ideas, the early Christians defined their "God" within a concept the Romans would understand, ie Zeus. That doesn't mean that Christians actually worship Zeus.

When Mohammad started his new religion he would naturally take the same name and concept that the pagans he was trying to convert were using, just as I would use the term "God" if I started my own religion, even if my "God" had nothing to do with the Abramic religions notion of "God". A large number of traditions found in Muslim culture were co-opted from the earlier pagan religions. Both Ramadan and the Islamic call to prayer that happens 5 times a day have roots in pre-Islamic pagan culture (some pagan sects were also expected to stop and pray 5 times a day)

During the time of Mohammad "Allah" was not the arabic word for the Jewish/Christian "God". The original Arabic translation of the Bible from the 8th and 9th century do not use the word "Allah".

Jibreel

Wicknight wrote:

But Mohommad took the classification used by his tribe when inventing his new religion.

Two things:

Muhammed (peace upon him) did not invent Islam. It's God's religion BTW.
I'm not gonna discuss this further (not on this thread) because of the lies like that.


Surah/Chapter 006 - Al-An'âm. Verse 7.

Had we sent down unto thee (Muhammad) (actual) writing upon parchment, so that they could feel it with their hands, those who disbelieve would have said: This is naught else than mere magic.



And secondly, why are you running away from the original subject of the thread? Can you not handle the original questions of the thread? Didn't think so.

Jibreel

Wicknight wrote:

When Mohammad tried to convert his people he started with something they already understood. He combined the pagan gods into one, but continued to use the term Allah since it referred to the head god.

Also this above. Your post is either deliberately lying or completely ignorant. Probably both.

mountainyman

Thaedydal wrote:

Inclusive and liberal is pretty much key word there.
The reformation was when things changed and for those who follow post reformative christainty which has many forms, a lot of l the "pagan" practices were removed from thier whorship.

Not liberal as such, but prior to the reformation there was no need to worry about orthodoxy on a micro level, in western Europe. Basically if you wanted to decorate a tree at Christmas or smear the first pat of butter on the lintel no one cared. There may have been a change of psychology with the beginning of the 'early modern' period in Europe.

MM

mountainyman

Jibreel wrote:

Two things:

Muhammed (peace upon him) did not invent Islam. It's God's religion BTW.
I'm not gonna discuss this further (not on this thread) because of the lies like that.

It is a trick of satan's.
God does not want slaves.
Satan wants slaves.
Allah wants slaves.
At a minimum Allah is not God.
MM

Zombrex

Jibreel wrote:

Muhammed (peace upon him) did not invent Islam.

Funny, I can't find anyone following "Islam" before Muhammed .... :rolleyes:

Jibreel wrote:

It's God's religion BTW.

Christians would disagree. So would Jews. And Hindus. And Buddests. And Scientilogists. And Sikhs. And Atheists. And Zoroastrianists ... I could go on

Jibreel wrote:

And secondly, why are you running away from the original subject of the thread? Can you not handle the original questions of the thread? Didn't think so.

I have already answered the questions of the original post. Twice in fact.

The Christians co-opts a large number of pagan ritual and celebrations, including the Roman winter soltises, and made them into Christian ritual and celebration. This is how events such as Christmas came about the way they did. This is quite common.

This should come as little surprise to yourself, or T-111 since Islam also did this, co-opting and adopting large number of pagan ritual from the Arabian peninscula and incorporating these rituals into the ritual of Islam. Like Christmas, Ramadan was originally a pagan festival.

Just as Muslims using the old pagan term "Allah" to referr to their specific god, or taking the 5 times a day prayer ritutal original used by the pagans, doesn't mean that Muslims are actually celebrating the old pagan gods of the Arabian peninscula, either does Christians taking the old Roman pagan ritual celebrations such as the winter solscitce for their own religion mean they are actually celebrating the old Roman pagan gods

All religions based their inital ritual and practise in some way on older religons.

There are very few truely original ideas or concepts in human culture. Even something quite out there like Scientilogy has ideas based on the more established western and eastern religions, albet give a distinct "sci-fi" twist.

neuro-praxis

Um, this thread has gone to the fairies.

Zombrex

Jibreel wrote:

Also this above. Your post is either deliberately lying or completely ignorant. Probably both.

Its simply history Jibreel.

As I said to T-111 (and to the Christians on this forum), history shouldn't insult you. History is history, it is simply what happened. If you would have perferred that it happen a different way that is up to you.

Wibbs

Jibreel wrote:

What about the name Abdullah? I'm well aware what is the meaning of the name. Arabs did believe in Allah, the problem is that they added those idols in their belief, hence polytheism, but if you ask them who created them, they will say Allah. So name Abdullah proves nothing in your point.

I don't have a problem with that. Indeed within this thread it has much relevance as wicknight has repeatedly pointed out. To which you refuse to acknowledge or debate.

Here's Allah's answer to the moon and sun problem.


Surah/Chapter 041 - Fussilat. Verse 37.

And of His portents are the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Adore not the sun nor the moon; but adore Allah who created them, if it is in truth Him whom ye worship.

Wicknights post after yours puts it better than I could.

Which stone do you mean? The black stone?

Even if you mean the black stone, a stone is just a stone, there's a Hadith confirming that there's nothing special about the stone except the angels brought the stone from Eden. That's pretty much all.

It's a little more than that surely, especially to an outside observer. This is on the outside of the Kaaba, the focus of a pilgrimage that all able bodied believers must take. Do not some think it takes away sin if touched or kissed? Apparently this is why it's black from the absorbtion of all those sins. If walking in procession around a structure while trying to kiss a black stone isn't evidence of an earlier practice, I don't know what is. Not surprising given the Kaaba was also a focus of pagan pre Islamic worship and likely had similar practices. Only likely as we'll never know.

Loooking at some of your posts, you have a serious problem with Islamic tradition and history recorded by Muslims. You do not accept any of those texts. Any historical reference that even has a capital M inside

Actually I don't. I have a problem with non corroboration of some texts. When all we have is one side that has a religious and political slant and nothing from either their enemies or general observers one takes it on board but has to look at the audience it's intended for. As the saying goes the history is written by the victors. That doesn't mean it's "wrong", it just means historically we can't be sure(In fact later Muslim historical scholars are among the best in the world in their references when compared to Christian Europe at the time).

On the other hand, you have no historical references outside those written by Muslims, so how I am suppose to accept that foggy stuff written by non-Arabs/non-Muslims?

In that case if one compares the two accounts the history is more likely to come out.

Who would you trust more about ancient Egypt history for instance - Egyptians or some westerners (read foreigners) who showed up centuries later to get some bits of Egyptian history and then they think they know it all and what's even worse, they do not accept a single bit of Egyptian records from Egyptians themselves.

What? Where do you get that idea from? That may have had some grain of truth to it in the very earliest days of Egyptology, before we could read the Egyptian accounts themselves. Fanciful theories abounded from all sides(inc Muslim and Egyptian scholars), but it's hardly the case for a long time. For a start the history we have today of ancient Egypt has as it's very foundation the texts written by the ancient Egyptians themselves, with corroboration from Arabic(Babylonian etc), Greek, Phonecian, Roman, Jewish and other African sources. The translation of the Rosetta stone and the expertise of the Egyptian Copts(similarities in the language) saw to that. Are you trying to say that the various papyrii and tomb texts etc were written by non Egyptians? BTW A hell of a lot of which have been translated by the Egyptian scholars of today. Eurocentric thinking is bad enough. Paranoia about Eurocentric thinking is worse.*

I'll catch you later on the Gods names and show you that YHWH has the same root as ALLAH.

I await with interest.

Muhammed (peace upon him) did not invent Islam. It's God's religion BTW.

Not this again? look can you even begin to understand and accept that others may not share that view?

I'm not gonna discuss this further (not on this thread) because of the lies like that.

Another one who refuses to "discuss" the very heart of the issue. There's a pattern emerging. Luckily I've met many people of many faiths, including Islam that have a more expansive approach to topics like this.

*BTW If you were talking of the pillage of Egyptian treasures by the "west" you would be on firmer ground. Infact personally I would support giving all of that stuff back(especially the mummies). It's a huge part of the worlds history but it belongs to Egypt.

Wibbs

Ah well looks like he's banned. Bummer I had hoped for some movement of thought.

mountainyman

what is the point of posting verses from the koran to back up arguments, if we think within a Christian point of view the koran is diabloocally inspired and if we think objectively it is mediocre 7th century poetry.

Just stop it.

MM

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Ah well looks like he's banned. Bummer I had hoped for some movement of thought.

T-1111 is also banned, so I would imagine it was his doubt account :rolleyes: