The Grinch as Hero

posted by Peter Rothberg on 12/09/2008 @ 6:27pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (90)

Subscribe Now

My blogging has been off lately as I've been recuperating from my first-ever bout of food poisoning. Nasty thing. If you're ever so unlucky, check here.

But I'm healthy now and find myself suddenly confronted with holiday shopping so I've decided to embrace the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood's Guide to Commercial-Free Holidays.

Not that I'd play grinch to my two little kids but there is something about the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression that makes this season's rampant commercialism seem more off-key than usual. (Concerns about the economy are so great that experts predict far less spending on presents this year. Reports indicate, however, that spending on advertising will not reflect the downturn.)

Moreover, new scientific research cited in Yes magazine says what spiritual traditions and common sense have told us all along: that happiness, even during the holidays, does not come from spending, buying, and gift giving.

That's where the CCFC's practical tips for reducing commercialism in family celebrations this holiday season is particularly welcome.

"Marketing to children is a problem for all of society, all year long," said CCFC's director, Dr. Susan Linn, author of The Case for Make Believe: Saving Play in a Commercialized World. "But even as CCFC works for social change, we want to provide direct help for families under siege from the stepped up barrage of holiday commercialism."

Along with the guide, the CCFC site has collected some good ideas for combating radical consumerism from its members:

From Andrea Mills of Stonybrook, NY
"Establish holiday rituals that don't involve buying lots of stuff. Baking cookies, doing a craft, reading a special book (my own family read A Christmas Memory by Truman Capote every Christmas Eve in my childhood; it is one of my fondest memories)"

From Simeen Brown in Salem, MA
"A few years ago my sister decided we should take the money we would spend on gifts for each other, pool it and donate it to a charitable organization. It works out great. In my own family my husband and I have stopped buying gifts as well. My husband finds things at yards sales in the summer for "Santa" to give. We bake goodies together and give these out as our family presents. People now look forward to our treats and have stopped extravagant spending on us."

From Kelly Thomas of Bloomington, IN
"Get your kids outside in nature as much as possible. Going to the woods/forest/some beaches/nature in general is one of the only activities you can do these days that won't assault you with consumerist propaganda and advertising."

Download the Commercial-Free Holidays Guide here; learn how CCFC members coast to coast are coping with excessive holiday commercialism, and add your name to the CCFC's letter writing campaign to major toy marketers urging them to target parents, not children, with their millions of dollars in advertising lucre.

Happy holidays!

Comments (90)

You want to not be a part of the problem? - don't buy anything.

If you're religious - go to mass, help out at a food shelter, etc. Cleave yourself from the commercialism that sucks the life out of the true nature of giving and sharing and loving.

If you're not - what are you doing exchanging gifts with family/friends/coworkers to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ?

Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:17pm
So...I definitely buy a lot of Peter's point, but...the Grinch? I'm pretty sure that guy (until his heart grew) was actually anti-all things Christmas (from gifts to being happy). Not sure that's the model we want...even though the title is funny and attention-getting.

Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2008 @ 7:36pm
To me we're not grinches for not spending. But people like spending and getting. But especially getting. And if you don't spend for someone else - they won't spend to give to you.

A Christian holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus is, and has been for a long time, a big peer pressure game to see who can be happiest with the most stuff.

Dialing the spending back a little does not make liberals pure.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:41pm
PETER

glad you survived your food poisoning. i'll still not eat mahi mahi nor rat fried rice ever again...

but i 've gotta say that i've been a happy grinch for years now. i jumped off that hamster wheel and never looked back...

i even started an xmas tradition of my own. i give to all my friends an invisible, incorporeal "get out of giving me a gift for free" card. you don't buy me a gift, i don't buy you a gift, and we both go spend half what we would spend for each other on ourselves.

we get exactly what we want, and if we wait til after xmas can get some serious steals on crap and stuff...

here, peter, here's an e-"get out of giving me a gift for free" card from me to you.

keep up the good work and happy xmas!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 8:28pm
Bah! Humbug!!!

Posted by syfriendly at 12/09/2008 @ 9:49pm
Hmm...

I stopped celebrating Christmas quite a while ago.

I still hang with the fam, maybe exchange some really light gifts, but generally I make it a well known rule I don't want presents for Christmas or on birthdays.

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/09/2008 @ 9:58pm
i say we give each other cdo's, siv's and mbs's!

ho ho ho!

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2008 @ 10:14pm
is this your house, peter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szLmAPW39uE&fmt=18

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2008 @ 10:15pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/09/2008 @ 10:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

happy xmas!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 10:18pm
Yes, yes, PETER....we go through this every 25th of December (to paraphrase Scrooge).

"We need a less commercial Christmas!", refrained from the Hard Left and Religious Right and Left.

And every year, retail sales go up and good thing too, since that means that folks who SELL stuff get to eat and pay their rent/mortgages.

So what's up next? "Recycle Your Gift Wrapping" appeal?

Posted by Mask at 12/09/2008 @ 11:09pm
Overeating processed carbohydrates on Thanksgiving, feeling nasty in an insulin crash... Salivating over sparkly plastic boxes, vaguely disappointed once the last gift's opened... That's the American Way.

Posted by winyahn at 12/09/2008 @ 11:34pm
The unsunn'd heaps of miser's treasures. John Milton

Re-gifting is the answer. We've all got tons of treasures locked away, in attics & in our drawers. Think of a worthy recipient!

Posted by Sorelish at 12/09/2008 @ 11:51pm
there's old mask - being a scrooge at a grinch party!

we've got to support the retailers who are selling us stuff we don't need! if we don't the horrifying trickle down effect will send ripples through the christmas morns of poor working clerks!

mask sounds like g.w.b. - nothing's wrong - keep spending!

Posted by urmygyro at 12/10/2008 @ 12:35am
Economic downturn or not, it wasn't enough to prevent the trampling death of a Wal-Mart employee on Black Friday.

Every year there are at least a few shameful incidents related to Christmas shoppers gone too far.

Posted by koroviev at 12/10/2008 @ 01:49am
I'm with Mask on this one. While I personally believe that you don't need THINGS to be happy, rabid American consumerism during the holidays assures that someone gets to feed their kids.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/10/2008 @ 06:59am
PETER ROTHBERG,

Certainly a list of great ideas above put forward by admirable people. And if thats what they prefer then more power to them. But don't be so quick to dis a mainstream attitude towards Christmas. The person who stand in long lines on Sat afternoons in Dec to pick up a gift for someone special just to see them smile, or the parents who struggle through the hype because they believe, and take great joy in, watching their kids on Christmas morning are just as admirable as those who have "risen above" all that commercialism.

Remember, mainstream people make cookies and look at the flowers too, old boy.

Actually, even more admirable are those who still remember the REAL reason for all of it, but thats a discussion for another blog.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 08:04am
"we've got to support the retailers who are selling us stuff we don't need!"

Stuff that was manufactured in China, Indonesia, Thailand, etc., ad nauseam. Who are the real losers in this transaction?

Most people I know are too broke to buy anything this year anyway. I'm even forgoing Christmas cards. Bah! Humbug.

See you next year after Obama and Co. have an opportunity to restore our manufacturing base and bring back some jobs nationwide.

Murray Christless

Posted by jackwells at 12/10/2008 @ 08:27am
Oh, and thanks to the Nation IT people for fixing the italics insanity from yesterday.

Posted by jackwells at 12/10/2008 @ 08:29am
Peter, in case no one has told you, THANK YOU, for all that do for this magazine. You are truly the brightest star here.

So, in spite of the economic slowdown (and the Grinch/Scrooge hybrids on this thread), may this holiday bring much joy and happiness and keep you close to your family.

Best Wishes, Anna

Posted by ACook at 12/10/2008 @ 08:39am
Posted by urmygyro at 12/10/2008 @ 12:35am

Not "scrooge" (odd application)...called "reality", which good or ill I prefer to fancy bread. (Merchant of Venice)

Basic unvarnished reality. Everybody goes out and does what Peter wants?....retail sales plummet. Ergo, people who might pick up a few extra shifts at the mall or, yes, Wal-mart....don't. Ergo in a faltering economy, that "end of the year" bit of extra cash, that many of them might need to pay off debt incurred from just living (not even consumerism) doesn't get paid off and they lose their truck or even house.

You guys want to bemoan the "American consumerism culture" fine...but RIGHT NOW it's what drives our economy and that's not much, thanks to the idiocies and negligence of Dubya.

It's like talking about vegetarianism when 1000s of cattle farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. Save it for the "good times" or until Obama's infrastruture plan can replace those Wal-mart, Costco, JC Penney jobs with good paying construction jobs or auxilliary jobs.

Posted by Mask at 12/10/2008 @ 09:07am
when 1000s of cattle farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. Save it for the "good times" or until Obama's infrastruture plan can replace those Wal-mart, Costco, JC Penney jobs with good paying construction jobs or auxilliary jobs.

Posted by Mask at 12/10/2008 @ 09:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

hard to argue with that. as much as i hate the consumerist bullshit, if we all cease spending completely bad things will result.

i hate to say this, but if you are the gift buying type...buy some gifts.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 09:20am
Best Wishes, Anna

Posted by ACook at 12/10/2008 @ 08:39am | ignore this person | warn this person

back at ya...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/10/2008 @ 09:21am
Hey Peter sorry to hear about the food poisoning. Been there myself. That crap can kill ya. Commercial free holidays are a great idea but not very practical without bruising someones feelings.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:17pm

Celebrating the birth of Christ? I hardly think so. The winter solstice on Dec 21st is and was celebrated by pagans for thousands of years before the time of Yeshua. The December 25th birthday that was assigned to Jesus in the 4th century was co-opted from the legend of Mithras, a Persian God. He was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Sound familiar?

Scholars indicate that the actual birth date of Jesus was in early April. So I think anyone celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th is a bit off the mark.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:08am
Scholars indicate that the actual birth date of Jesus was in early April. So I think anyone celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th is a bit off the mark. Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:08am | ignore this person | warn this person

I wouldn't bet the farm on these revelations. for millennia Jesus was portrayed as a light skinned European.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/10/2008 @ 10:12am
for millennia Jesus was portrayed as a light skinned European.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/10/2008 @ 10:12am

And still is. I haven't seen any recent portrayals in wide circulation that picture him any other way. Although I think it is a safe bet that his skin was quite dark.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:30am
In fact much of the entire mythos of Christ was taken from versions of the legend of Mithras.

Mithras is said to have been born of a virgin in a cave and attended by shepherds. Had 12 companions. Performed miracles. Buried in a tomb and rose after three days. And was called "The Good Shepherd. All sorts of interesting correlations there.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:42am
I think it is a safe bet that his skin was quite dark, and he had a big nose.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/10/2008 @ 10:43am
Posted by emile duBois at 12/10/2008 @ 10:43am |

And was probably smallish in stature and possibly swarthy in build. But this is all speculation.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:47am
Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:42am

There's actually multiple stories the Christ story can be related to. From birth to death the story of Christ shares elements with famous stories from multiple religions.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/10/2008 @ 10:50am
The portryals of the Buddha were mostly of a big fat guy with an enormous gut sitting or standing. But what historical evidence there is suggest that he was emaciated. The fat belly and face were probably suggesting that he was fat in knowledge and an expression of enlightenment. But I always find the historical tidbits more fascinating.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 11:02am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/10/2008 @ 10:50am

Yes, that is true. Most all religions are a compilation of multiple religious influences. I think that is one reason there is so much conflict in the world.

Religion is dangerous.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 11:06am
And those who sell religion are even more dangerous. Like a sociopathic used car or insurance salesman.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 11:30am
Religion is dangerous. Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 11:06am

Belief is dangerous. Better to just have ideas. Much harder to kill people over ideas. Once it's a belief it because the one truth. Once it's the one truth there is competition to proof who's truth is more truthy. Who's right? The Jews? Muslims? Christians? Buddhists? Every single one will tell you they are the right ones and none of them knows more than any of the others. They will kill each other to prove themselves right without ever proving themselves right. It's quite hilarious to me from a scholarly point of view. If they religions were ideas instead of beliefs it could be inclusive instead of exclusive.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/10/2008 @ 11:30am
And those who sell religion are even more dangerous. Like a sociopathic used car or insurance salesman. Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 11:30am

Selling religion is the best business in the world. I would think that the church is probably the longest running commercial entity in the world. It's got businesses set up everywhere and loyal customers. It's got a monopoly on it's product (God, Allah, Nirvana, etc.) because it is the one true path. I wish I had thought up religion. I would be a rich man if I had. Like the pet rock.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/10/2008 @ 11:33am
Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:42am 

Actually, that doesn't seem particularly likely. From what I've seen, Mithraic worship only filtered into the Roman Empire in the first century CE, meaning that the Jesus story probably wasn't copied from it at all (especially because even then, it wasn't an entirely coherent system). In fact, there are allegations that whatever copying happened went the other way, particularly since Jewish culture was not too keen on copying outside religions at that time. To the extent that it WAS, it had substantial differences from what the early Christians taught. In fact, the "virgin birth" claim may not even be what Mithraism claimed:

<<Some authors have drawn parallels between the circumstances of Mithras' and Jesus' birth: Joseph Campbell described it as a virgin birth,[27] and Martin A. Larson noted that Mithras was said to have been born on December 25, or the winter solstice.[28] This theory is in contradiction to the traditional understanding of Mithras' birth. In Mithraic Studies it stated that Mithras was born as an adult from solid rock, "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix."[29]>>

Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2008 @ 11:34am
Sorry for the massive amounts of typos. I have been up for 24 hours straight and have another 6 or more hours ahead of me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/10/2008 @ 11:35am
Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2008 @ 11:34am

Mithras was probably the wrong reference. There is a God with an O name. I can't remember which one. That is the biggest claim to Christians copying the Jesus myth. I think the original was Egyptian or something from that general region. But the claim is that the Jesus story is a mix of multiple older savior tales from other religions that were in the region. If it was later in the day I could find all the info but my head hurts.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/10/2008 @ 11:37am
perhaps you mean Osiris.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/10/2008 @ 11:41am
These facts are well known CHAOSZEN. In fact the early Christians understood it as well and used the date as a bit of subterfuge to cover their tracks. The Anniversary of the event is not as important as the event itself.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 11:51am
Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2008 @ 11:34am

There are quite a few versions of the legend of Mithras. And being born from or rising from whole rock or stone is one of them. That may be the origin of being born in a cave. Hard to say. But the mithraic mysteries popular among and within the military of the Roman Empire from the 1st to 4th centuries of the common era (CE) predated the decision to establish the birth of Christ and the mythos surrounding it in the 4th century at the council of Nicea summoned by Emperor Constantine. Where the christian religion was in large part invented from whole cloth.

In any case much of the Christian mythos including the birth date of Christ and a lot of other christian tenants were established in 325 CE.

Also Christianity resembles in many ways the legends of Horus, Osirus and Isis.

But this is getting to involved.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 11:51am

Mostly the assignment of the December 25th as the birthdate of Christ was an effort to subjugate the long held beliefs of Pagans and to spread Christianity to the countryside. Actually a shamefull thing to do. In my opinion.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 12:15pm
The bottom line is the Christian Religion is a false religion if there ever was one. But a good story. If it wasn't for that epileptic idiot Saul of Tarsus (Paul) a lot of death and destruction may have been avoided. But this is just my opinion.

Believe what you want. As an Atheist I just enjoy the subject matter.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 12:31pm
And no offense intended to anyone who suffers from Epilepsy.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 12:35pm
Get the book "A concise dictionary of Middle Egyptian" by Raymond O Faulkner published by the Griffith Institute. If you can find a copy. Then translate the book "The Egyptian Book of the Dead". "The art of going forth by day".

You don't actually have to translate it yourself as it has already been done. But by doing so yourself it is quite an experience. It took me 3 years to do it. But I was not dedicated to the project.

There is much to learn.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 1:59pm
CHAOSZEN I take no offense as I suffer from nothing, least of all atheism, and I guess I thank God for that.

The activities of man in the years following Jesus's life here are often used to blast the Christian faith, yet to use Constantine's declaration of what is "Christian", set forth as offical doctrine at Nicea (325 AD, I think) or the 13th century's Pope Innocent III, in short man's behavior, as good examples of "Christian behavior" would be to miss the point of it all.

In short, I am no evangelist: If you accept the fact the Jesus is the Son of God, if one's vision is not restricted only by the physical laws as we know them today, then good for you. If not, well,,then good luck to you. One must decide these things for oneself.

I will say that, unless you can prove to me that it is all NOT true, if you can find a negative source that I could not match with a positive one, then referring to it all as a "good story" is a little presumptuous, I think.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 2:04pm
Except there's no positive evidence.

At all.

Unless you consider the bible to somehow be evidence, in which case, I feel bad for you.

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 2:10pm
In fact, after 10 years of catholic school, and constant personal fact finding missions since, I have yet to see or hear of a single shred of incontrovertible evidence for the existence of the man Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you all could enlighten me?

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 2:33pm
TEXAS:

There are written records and archeological evidence TEXAS although I'm curious as to why the Bible is automatically rejected by you. (To answer your question, yes some of it I do, but don't waste your sorrow on me. Illinois needs all they can get right now :)

Are you familiar with The Secret History of ther Mongols? It is an allegorical, flowery, very positive history of the real life of Chinggis Khan. Written in either 1228 or 1240, it is a model of literary embellishment. Yet it was written by real men, described real events & things that happened in real time. The same may be said of the Bible. Yes, those who honestly believe the Book dropped from the sky on day belong in the nut house with Falwell, Dobson, et al. But because it describes real times written by real men, it has to be included as an historical work. Was the part about the water and wine real or allegorical? I don't know, and if you're honest you will admit that you REALLY don't know either. Even if Jesus didn't do that, would it change so much or be so bad?

Chip

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 2:33pm

There is no real evidence. How could there be? But some evidence outside the bible does exist. The Epistles of Paul might have been written less than 40 years after the death of "Jesus". Since Paul never actually met or knew Jesus it is hard to tell. Paul was very unreliable. But there is evidence that Paul may have known James. And some evidence that when James told Paul to take a hike. That Paul killed James. But who knows.

What is known is that if Jesus existed he would have been a Jew. And maybe even a Zealot. Considering the people he was hanging with this is quite possible.

Who knows? It is a mystery. Which makes it interesting.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 2:50pm
Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 12:08pm 

As a quick overview on the "topicality" question, it doesn't really look like the thread's going anywhere else. There seems to be a general consensus that rampant materialism is probably bad, and that Christmas should probably reflect that. Besides, as it seems you do, I think this is a fascinating array of issues to talk about, whichever side of it one falls on.

I have to take issue with your premise that coherent understandings of Christian doctrine did not exist until Nicea. On the contrary, not only are many of the fundamental ingredients present in Paul's letters, but in 1 Corinthians (I believe that's the right letter) he passes along a creed that by all indications had been used in the early church while (and before) he was writing, and this early creed included many of the foundational empirical claims that Christianity relies on.

I think it's also worth noting the difference between an abstract figure and an actual human being, because this is one clear way in which all of the god-stories mentioned differ strongly from the Jesus narratives. Instead of a narrative whose only events take place in a far distant spiritual realm, these narratives describe a person who was supposed to have (and I think evidence indicates did) live in early first century Judea. That claim alone, and the verifiability of both the stories and the empty tomb, separate out Christianity from these other stories. Finally, I think the insularity of the Jewish religious tradition at the time makes the borrowing hypothesis a rather difficult one.

Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2008 @ 2:55pm
Jesus is said to be descended from the House of David which would have made him the true "King of the Jews". As a rabbi it would have been unusual for him not to have married. Maybe the Magdalene figures in there.

In any case Yeshua ben Joseph if he existed was not a Christian.. Which makes it all the more amazing that somehow "Paulism" transformed itself into Christianity. Amazing.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 3:09pm
Jesus is said to be descended from the House of David which would have made him the true "King of the Jews". As a rabbi it would have been unusual for him not to have married. Maybe the Magdalene figures in there.

In any case Yeshua ben Joseph if he existed was not a Christian.. Which makes it all the more amazing that somehow "Paulism" transformed itself into Christianity. Amazing.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 3:09pm 

Maybe he did marry, I don't know. Frankly, I don't think it really matters all that much one way or the other. That definitely doesn't make the Da Vinci Code anything more than a series of bad historical arguments.

As far as the "Jesus wasn't a Christian" thing...sure? Would him being a Christian mean worshipping himself? This doesn't seem the least bit problematic that he wasn't a Christian, any more than the probable theological claim that God would not be a Christian.

And anyhow...what exactly is Paulism? I'm pretty sure you don't mean worship of Paul, because certainly no one did that. If what you mean then is Paul's understanding of what "Christianity" (not really called that yet) meant, then yeah, Paul's own thought is extremely influential, but I think a lot of people generally won't see it as "completely binding" or anything like that (especially if it appears to be in tension with things Jesus himself said). I, for example, don't really consider his treatment of homosexuality all that crucial for Christianity today (especially given the solid argument that the ancient writers didn't really have a coherent concept of homosexuality as anything other than a specific set of acts). Same with some of his comments about women (though I think some of it is misunderstood).

Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2008 @ 3:36pm
CHAOSEN,

You honestly belive that Jesus did not even exist?

Jeez I've had scientist friend who know he at least lived.

And here's a crazy thing about the CE BCE stuff. If I thought using those designations here in the West was anything more than yet another attempt to take Jesus out of public thought, I'd probably use them myself, since reading about events according to the Moslem and Chinese calenders makes a standardized date system easier. But the fact is, the dates still correspond to one focal point: That of the period before Jesus's birth and +33 for AD: 1206 CE is the same as 1206 AD, so why change on the off chance of offending someone? :)

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 3:38pm
Mask - so you admit W. was right to cut taxes and tell me to keep spending during war. Don't sacrifice - spend, spend, spend!

Mask's message is essentially "bail out" the low level employees who are working for some meager paychecks. They won't get hired or will be laid off - supposedly leading to their losing their homes and transportation.

Ask Mask is famous for - please give us a link to show some evidence for your point. Give us something to hang our hats on.

And, by the way - an even better reason not to indulge in the buying of a bunch of stuff one doesn't need (and for most people - can't afford - as in, they put their purchases on credit cards and don't pay off the balance in full by the next cycle) - is to not enrich the credit card companies who make lots of profit from this time of year. Not only do they make money off people who don't pay balances in full - they make money at many stores on every swipe of the card (they charge the store a per transaction fee).

But Mask wants us to go on the spending orgy (even though most people don't believe in - or even practice at all, or most of the year - the religion that is the purpose of the holiday).

Mask is completely shallow in his argument. Don't believe in Christ? Doesn't matter - spend money in December baby!

No wonder this is such a hollow country in so many ways - it's full of hollow people.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/10/2008 @ 3:48pm
Neat discussion Gentlemen (no ladies-perhaps a poor assumption)

Gotta go till tomorrow-I need to go Christmas Shopping!!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 3:52pm
Mask wrote:

"It's like talking about vegetarianism when 1000s of cattle farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy."

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a market works. I don't buy stuff because the people who make/sell the stuff need me. I buy stuff because I want it. Your analogy above is completely facile.

A vegetarian should eat meat because a cattle farmer needs money? Yeah, right.

You're thinking is exactly backwards.

The cattle rancher needs to get into growing vegetables if people are buying his meat.

Posted by urmygyro at 12/10/2008 @ 3:54pm
But Mask wants us to go on the spending orgy (even though most people don't believe in - or even practice at all, or most of the year - the religion that is the purpose of the holiday).

Posted by urmygyro at 12/10/2008 @ 3:48pm 

I hate to be the obnoxious one clarifying the little subpoint, but...most people in the United States DO affiliate themselves with Christianity (the religion I presume you're referring to). Perfect practicing...well, of course, that's another matter that relates partly to us simply being human beings.

Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2008 @ 4:22pm
Posted by Mask at 12/10/2008 @ 09:07am

This has got to be the strangest brother's keeper argument I've ever read.

If we all decided to bake cookies together, wouldn't grocery or super discount stores selling flour, chocolate chips, butter and so forth still make a sale?

Or I imagine if I wanted to make a shirt instead of buying one, I might buy a sewing machine and fabrics from a craft specialty store.

Or if we check out a book from the library to read to some child in the family - library then has to buy more books.

So forth and so on.

The world isn't going to end if retailers like JCPenney, Macy's, or Wal-Mart make fewer dollars. Same goes for their major vendors - all of which are huge corporations that will likely cut staff anyway and smaller retailers or organizations might be able to hire then to meet the new demand.

Your argument relies on a rather simplistic economic model that doesn't account for alternative spending or the role saving has in encouraging investment.

Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2008 @ 5:01pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/10/2008 @ 2:36pm

You assume I automatically reject the bible...why? Because it's exactly what a previous poster called, a book of stories. Although my rejection is far from automatic.

Not only is it a book of stories, it's a book that was written a couple millennia ago (y'know, by people who didn't even understand that the earth wasn't the center of the universe), and all written at least 40 years after the alleged death of Christ.

Think about what must happen to something that before it was put down on paper, had to have been word of mouth. 40 years, in a time where superstition ran rampant, and before a mass scale recording of history.

NOT TO MENTION, it has been taken apart, censored, and put back together again more than once, by various parts of Christian leadership, when the Christian leadership weren't necessarily the kindest and most honest group of people to exist. Not that they are now, but I'd say it's pretty safe to assume it was at least slightly worse.

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 9:04pm
1. It always saddens me to find people so eager and determined to reject Jesus. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2008 @ 7:56pm

And you make the preposterous, completely arrogant presumption that people are EAGER to reject Jesus. As if those who don't believe in your snake oil couldn't have ever made that decision based on research, or serious contemplation.

Because after all, only "the saved" are the ones that have put any time, energy, or thought into such a gigantic concept.

My biggest argument against Christianity?

It is entirely presumptuous about a topic that IF true, is most likely (and logically) so beyond our comprehension, we as humanity will NEVER understand it. I see no difference between Christ, Horus, Vishnu, Muhammad or any other monotheistic god-head, and in fact see such creations to be more about controlling people than setting them free. I can't think of anything more arrogant than to run around assuring everybody about how YOU have the answers to all the big questions, and everyone else is wrong.

Do I think Jesus Christ was a real person? Nope. Do I believe in a judeo-christian god? Hell no. Do I pretend to have all the answers like "the believers" do? No again!

Did I come to these conclusions because of some agenda against the Christian church and all it's denominations? NO! I'm a confirmed Catholic you pompous blowhard. Do I believe for a second anything that I think will change what you believe in, or would I ever really desire that? NO!

Mmmmm love the assumptions though, keep 'em coming Larry.

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 9:15pm
I suppose Horus and Vishnu aren't monotheistic, but you get the drift, heh.

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 9:19pm
2. Establishing the historicity of Jesus is actually well documented and some of the best legal minds in Western Civilization have done so quite proficiently. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2008 @ 7:56pm |

Yeah that's just what we need to throw into the mix. Get a slew of lawyers to define the legality of the existence of God. Wow! is over the top or not? I had to wipe away tears of laughter and pick myself up of the floor on that one. Thanks Larry. You made my day.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:03pm
Sorry bout the typos. I was incapcitated.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:05pm
happy xmas!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/09/2008 @ 10:18pm

a most merry christmas to thee, patriot.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2008 @ 10:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2008 @ 7:56pm

Curious whether you have ever read Crossan's work?

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 9:19pm

In some expressions of Hinduism, Vishnu is monotheistic.

Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2008 @ 10:15pm
I was imagining Jesus Christ in court. And the prosecutor poses the question. "So you claim to be the Son of Man"? Jesus looks around the courtroom, seeming lost and says: "What the fuck are you talking about?"

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:16pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2008 @ 10:11pm

Merry Meet and Blessed be! Happy Yule! Haven't seen you around in awhile. Been sick?

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:20pm
Rig Veda 1:164:46

ekam sad vipra bahudha vadantya

Truth is One, but sages call upon God by many names.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:36pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/10/2008 @ 9:04pm 

Some very interesting arguments, I think, but ultimately faulty.

I want to first hit the forty-year claim. First, it's factually inaccurate. One, see the "Paul's passed-down creed" example from earlier. Two, there's at least dispute about whether the GOSPELS were written as late as forty years later. Second, though, even if you think no book in the New Testament was written fewer than 40 years after the event, you have to further ask yourself whether that's enough to discredit it. After all, we accept a number of historical works written MUCH later than 40 years after the events they report. Granted, this one involves claims of miracles, but at the VERY least, to say that the person discussed never existed to begin with is a very difficult position to defend. Since other claimed "gospels" have been thoroughly discredited, the subsequent "hand-selected" argument doesn't matter.

Finally, the superstitution point. If you mean that the people then didn't presume that miracles couldn't happen...sure. If you begin with the idea of a God who cares about human history, you have no reason to presume miracles cannot take place. It is only the presupposition that no such God exists which could warrant the conclusion that miraculous claims must simply be superstition. Lack of complete scientific knowledge doesn't change these people's awareness that water doesn't just become wine on its own (in fact, the reporting of these events as meaningful PRESUPPOSES people's realization that things of this kind don't just happen on their own). Lastly...miracles of the kind reported are nothing compared to a universe that most certainly could not have either started itself or existed over an infinite duration of time.

Posted by Thrawn at 12/11/2008 @ 01:04am
Miracles happen every time the sun rises and sets. Just because it happens in every 24hr cycle does not make it any less a miracle. It is not necessary for God to exist for miracles to occur. Why would anyone think it so? Life itself is a miracle. Did it take a God to produce these phenomena? All the pieces and parts of this material expression and illusion of life are part and parcel.

There is no need to worship God. That would be a sort of spiritual masturbation. Granted, something set it in motion. Some event beyond understanding. But that is the ultimate mystery. We live and we die then we live and die again and again and again. This idea seems to have some basis in fact. Even Christianity believed in reincarnation until 325 CE. And many other religions still do. Not to mention modern hypnotic regression. As in case studies between lives like "Journey of Souls" by Michael Newton Ph.D.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/11/2008 @ 01:39am
In some expressions of Hinduism, Vishnu is monotheistic.

Posted by srjenkins at 12/10/2008 @ 10:15pm

Jeeeeez!

You're SUCH an elitist.

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/11/2008 @ 01:52am
Did you ever have a dream. Then you woke up and the dream faded away. You could remember parts of the dream before you were fully awake. Then the memory dissipates. That is what it is like to die and be reborn. The dream is the little death, and a reminder of the permanent death of ego that awaits us all. The soul is eternal, but the ego is transitory.

The ego of who you think you are in life is a subject of humor in death. Don't you remember? I do.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/11/2008 @ 01:57am
A subject of much teasing among your real family.

Posted by chaoszen at 12/11/2008 @ 01:59am
TEXAS,

Believe as you see fit, old boy. One of Christianity's, indeed all religion's problems has been trying to ram thier faiths down others throats. Jesus would never have done that, as the written records of his sermons prove. You must discover, or, thanks to this "enlightened" age, rediscover it yourself.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/11/2008 @ 08:11am
the last that was heard from JC is the grand inquisitor section of "the brothers karamazov".

Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 09:35am
Yes, I'm well aware of lvliberty1. A thoroughly debunked person.

Posted by Crossan at 12/10/2008 @ 10:27pm

Posted by Malcontent at 12/11/2008 @ 09:37am
how many angels dancing on the tip of a pin again?

talking about religion is so Booooring.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 10:11am
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2008 @ 10:11pm Merry Meet and Blessed be! Happy Yule! Haven't seen you around in awhile. Been sick?

Posted by chaoszen at 12/10/2008 @ 10:20pm

nope.

now that i've toppled the bush administration i've taken a bit of a politivacation.

kinda letting mr. obama settle in......

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2008 @ 11:38am
"now that i've toppled the bush administration i've taken a bit of a politivacation."

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2008 @ 11:38am

really?

so. how's that Harper thing working out for you?

no vacations! get to work!

Posted by Benchrest at 12/11/2008 @ 11:44am
shutting down parliament? maybe we should invade and occupy Canada, to install a democratic gov't, which will be an ally in the GWOT.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 11:44am
Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 11:44am

and we wouldn't even have to send the military.

just a couple of Hooters girls with Nerf rifles.

Posted by Benchrest at 12/11/2008 @ 12:07pm
we wouldn't dare send soldiers, they'd all defect

Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 12:30pm
maybe it's because my spirit's been harpooned.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2008 @ 2:08pm
you guys better be careful.

remember, santa lives in CANADA. (yeah, THE POLE'S OURS! (heheh))

and he's watching YOU, list in hand.

Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2008 @ 2:11pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2008 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

this is what you got? piffle.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/11/2008 @ 6:04pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2008 @ 10:27pm

"Much of their reformatted Gospels were based not on any evidence, but their personal feelings about things like judgment, miracles, the resurrection, and His deity."

Pretty much sums up many of the problems of many a Christo-centric religious sect.

But, the real question comes down to what is "debunked", in your view? Is it his dating of the texts? Or in his interpretation after that point?

There was a time when Jesus, himself, was considered a heretic. Same with any variety of Protestant Christianity. And while the Catholic Church has slightly better manners these days, I suspect some of your beliefs (and mine, for that matter) would warrant "heretical" labels from that direction. So, who is a "heretic" all depends on where you sit.

I heard the rebroadcast of The American Life on the topic of Carlton Pearson last week, and I thought of you. I couldn't help but feel that his experiences with the evangelical community showed some deep and serious flaws, particularly how people with different ideas are treated.

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/11/2008 @ 01:52am

Have you ever considered that Jesus might be an avatar of Vishnu? I have no doubt that some followers of Vaishnavism believe that to be the case.

Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2008 @ 6:49pm
Have you ever considered that Jesus might be an avatar of Vishnu? I have no doubt that some followers of Vaishnavism believe that to be the case.

Posted by srjenkins at 12/11/2008 @ 6:49pm 

Forgive me, but I'm...not even entirely sure what that means.

Posted by Thrawn at 12/12/2008 @ 01:36am
Why isn't The Nation reporting on the recent appointment of Steve Chu as Energy Secretary?

This is probably Barack's best appointment to date, as Chu has "scary intelligence" and is precisely the pragmatic and progressive leader that America needs to lead us to an alternative energy future.

Posted by Metteyya at 12/12/2008 @ 12:50pm
I say You Don't Need It, So Don't Buy It! This year would be the perfect year for people to start trimming the fat, so to speak. Seriously if you have kids think about the fact that from the day they are born they are already being marketed to. By the time they are old enough to sit and watch television or look through a picture book, everything is a commercial to buy something, even if it is some sort of an educational tool. Then they grow up from children into consumers. This is a fact from toys to clothing to food, like McDonalds and stuff like that. This year with the economic recession we are facing might be a good time to make the holidays a little more meaningful than going to wal-mart and stocking up on all the latest junk. Your children will grow up to be better people if maybe instead of giving them some plastic junk you actually spend some time with them as a family. Heres an idea just popped in my head, make cards to send and have your children (and if you are without children) have your partner help you. It's creative, more personal and a heck of a lot cheaper. Plus you can use all sorts of materials you already have lying around the house. Spend the holidays enjoying friends and family not sales at oldnavy (where you would be buying products made by people in indonesia making a dollar a week working 12 hour days six days a week). After 9/11 Bush kept saying "shop or the terrorists win" well that's B.S. and we all know it! I say you Don't Need it, So Don't Buy It! Make something this year. Save your money and pay off your debt! Once you are free from the grip of debt, you will be free. And if you have to buy something, look for American Made items! Lets rebuild our industrious productive ways instead of just being CONSUMERS. Thanks. Happy Holidays!

Posted by kristofeR! at 12/12/2008 @ 2:05pm
Posted by kristofeR! at 12/12/2008 @ 2:05pm

My kingdom for a line break!

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/12/2008 @ 11:33pm