Well, Christmas is coming again. I wrote about it last year, so I won't rehash what I said then. If you missed it, here's the link: http://randomcontact.blogspot.com/2007/12/christmas-is-coming.html.
I do have one crochet to get off my chest. Why do Christian radio stations play "Christmas" songs that don't mention the birth of Jesus? Aren't Christian radio stations supposed to glorify Him? Some Christmas songs don't even mention Christmas! "Winter Wonderland" and "Jingle Bells" are more about winter than anything. They fit in the middle of January as much as they do in December. Have these people thought about this?
I guess these stations are just going along with what's popular. And that brings me to the next topic I want to talk about: Why is Christmas so popular in America? Is it just due to commercialism?
Many of the colonists that came to America were Calvinists. They wanted to get away from the practices of the Catholic Church that they saw as corrupt and pagan-influenced, and so they did not celebrate Christmas. At the end of the American Revolution, most of the people that did celebrate Christmas were Catholic or Episcopalian. The Catholics included many in Maryland and the Hessian mercenaries that had fought for the British. The Episcopalians were dominant in Virginia and the Carolinas. Somehow, the observance of Christmas spread and became acceptable to groups that once ignored it or outright shunned the practice. How did this happen?
I attribute the change to 2 factors: immigration and literature. Music, movies, radio and television continued and amplified the influence of literature.
During the 1800's as the country expanded West, aided by the increasing speed of transportation brought by the development of railroads, and the by the increased speed of communications brought by the telegraph, the promise of new lands and new opportunties spurred an increase in immigration. Many of these immigrants were Catholics, coming from Catholic lands such as Ireland, Poland, and Italy. This increased the number of people observing Christmas.
The contribution of literature to the popularity of Christmas comes from two sources.
First is the poem, Twas the Night Before Christmas by Clement Moore in 1822. You could probably recite most of it from memory from having heard it so much. This one piece of literature has defined so much of the imagery associated with Christmas. Of course, the sentiment and whimsey make it irresistable! For this reason it has become a tradition no only in many families, but in other places as well. One of the local TV stations every Christmas Eve has their staff, both on- and off-camera personnel, read the poem, one line per staffer in a video presentation.
Charles Dickens was known for the other great piece of traditional Christmas literature, A Christmas Carol (1843). He wrote other works on Christmas, and his novel A Tales of Two Cities (1859), has an important scene take place at a Christmas Eve service. The popularity of these works just added to the popularity of Christmas. Because Dickens was a lifelong Anglican, his works helped make Christmas acceptable to Protestants.
Of course, the popularity of a practice doesn't necessarily justify it. In the case of Christmas, I believe that what you celebrate has more to do with it than anything. Are you celebrating a day, or an event? The Bible doesn't tell us to celebrate Christ's birth, but it doesn't forbid it either. If you're not celebrating His birth, what are you celebrating? Aren't you glad Jesus was born?
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Elections 2008
The elections are 2 weeks away. I've not said much specifically about them, and have made only a few political posts. However, I do realize the importance of politics and voting.
If you are one of those that don't see the point in voting, let me propose a little exercise that will open your eyes. Get out a sheet of paper or a notepad and your wallet/billfold/pocketbook. Make a list of what's in your wallet. Then go over the list and put a mark by any item that is issued by a government entity: money (Dept. of Treasury), driver's license (DMV in most states, DPS in OK), etc. Also put check marks by anything that is government regulated: credit or debit cards (banking), business cards from regulated or licensed operations (plumber, electrician, wrecker), etc. Now count the number of marks, and the number of unmarked items.
Now, if you are one of those who chooses not to vote because, "All politicians are crooks," consider this: Where else do you get to choose your crook? If you didn't have a choice about being robbed, but you could choose which crook, would you choose one who would steal only $10, or one who would steal $10,000? Or, would you let someone else decide? Guess what you do when you don't vote.
Back to this year's elections.
Too many of Obama's supporters think he is some kind of a savior. Well, I hate to disappoint them, but there is only one such position, and the current occupant, Jesus Christ, is not planning on vacating His spot anytime soon. I'm sure He's not too happy that people are trying to replace Him.
Speaking of Jesus and politics, I said in an earlier post that Jesus was probably more conservative than some people think. Consider some of His parables.
Parables are not deeply mysterious. They are illustrations of spiritual principles taken from common experience. The most well-known parable is the one about the Sower. This was something very common in an agricultural society where the work was done mostly by hand, because not many people had animals suitable for plowing and such. When Jesus started by saying, "A sower went forth to sow..." I'm sure more than one listener thought, "Been there, done that, my feet still aching from all that walking!"
I won't go into the spiritual side of the parables, but Jesus gave some parables, that just on the level of human experience, they would make no sense except in a capitalist economy.
The best one of these is in the first part of Matthew 20. A landowner needs to hire some men to harvest his crop. He goes to the village square early in the morning and hires some guys to work for a day's wages. He goes back at 9 AM, noon, 3 PM and 5 PM and hires more men. Each time he does, he offers a full day's wages to each group. When he pays everybody at 6 PM, he pays them all a full day's wages, including the guys that had been there only for an hour. The ones hired first thought they deserved more, because they had been there all day. But the landowner pointed out that they agreed to work for one day's wages, and he paid them what they agreed to. If he wanted to pay the other men the same amount for working a shorter time, that was his business and not theirs. He was paying with his own money, and it was his to do with what he wanted.
Of course, this story wouldn't make sense in a socialist or communist economy. The landowner wouldn't be a landowner, it would all belong to the government. Some bureaucrat would tell him when the harvest had to be finished, and how many workers he would have for the harvest, and how much to pay them.
Now, try telling me that Jesus was a socialist. Jesus flat out said that the kingdom of heaven was like the landowner, the capitalist.
I'll admit that McCain is not my ideal candidate for president. But he is not trying to pass himself off as any kind of savior, because he knows he's not, and presidents are not to be saviors.
Too often I hear or read where people say the president runs the country, or he runs the economy. NO HE DOESN'T!!! THAT'S NOT HIS JOB, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE!!! IF YOU THINK THAT WAY, STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT RIGHT NOW YOU....
Sorry, lost control there for a second. But this kind of ignorance is what gets liberals elected, and leads to the financial problems we are having right now. The government is not responsible for your welfare, you are. We do not have a command economy. No command economy has ever prospered. Communist China is prospering right now, but only because they have adopted limited capitalism. Orientals also have a very strong work ethic, and that is what has sustained them through years of socialism.
For those that doubt Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience, take good look at a map for once. You cannot enter or leave Alaska without crossing an international border or international waters. If you were to take that map, cut out Alaska and place it over the 48 contiguous states, you will see just how big the state is. Even though the population is small, governing that much territory is a challenge.
While I don't agree with all of McCain's positions, I believe he is right about the most important issues, he truly cares about this country and wants what's best for it, and I also like his taste in women.
If you are one of those that don't see the point in voting, let me propose a little exercise that will open your eyes. Get out a sheet of paper or a notepad and your wallet/billfold/pocketbook. Make a list of what's in your wallet. Then go over the list and put a mark by any item that is issued by a government entity: money (Dept. of Treasury), driver's license (DMV in most states, DPS in OK), etc. Also put check marks by anything that is government regulated: credit or debit cards (banking), business cards from regulated or licensed operations (plumber, electrician, wrecker), etc. Now count the number of marks, and the number of unmarked items.
Now, if you are one of those who chooses not to vote because, "All politicians are crooks," consider this: Where else do you get to choose your crook? If you didn't have a choice about being robbed, but you could choose which crook, would you choose one who would steal only $10, or one who would steal $10,000? Or, would you let someone else decide? Guess what you do when you don't vote.
Back to this year's elections.
Too many of Obama's supporters think he is some kind of a savior. Well, I hate to disappoint them, but there is only one such position, and the current occupant, Jesus Christ, is not planning on vacating His spot anytime soon. I'm sure He's not too happy that people are trying to replace Him.
Speaking of Jesus and politics, I said in an earlier post that Jesus was probably more conservative than some people think. Consider some of His parables.
Parables are not deeply mysterious. They are illustrations of spiritual principles taken from common experience. The most well-known parable is the one about the Sower. This was something very common in an agricultural society where the work was done mostly by hand, because not many people had animals suitable for plowing and such. When Jesus started by saying, "A sower went forth to sow..." I'm sure more than one listener thought, "Been there, done that, my feet still aching from all that walking!"
I won't go into the spiritual side of the parables, but Jesus gave some parables, that just on the level of human experience, they would make no sense except in a capitalist economy.
The best one of these is in the first part of Matthew 20. A landowner needs to hire some men to harvest his crop. He goes to the village square early in the morning and hires some guys to work for a day's wages. He goes back at 9 AM, noon, 3 PM and 5 PM and hires more men. Each time he does, he offers a full day's wages to each group. When he pays everybody at 6 PM, he pays them all a full day's wages, including the guys that had been there only for an hour. The ones hired first thought they deserved more, because they had been there all day. But the landowner pointed out that they agreed to work for one day's wages, and he paid them what they agreed to. If he wanted to pay the other men the same amount for working a shorter time, that was his business and not theirs. He was paying with his own money, and it was his to do with what he wanted.
Of course, this story wouldn't make sense in a socialist or communist economy. The landowner wouldn't be a landowner, it would all belong to the government. Some bureaucrat would tell him when the harvest had to be finished, and how many workers he would have for the harvest, and how much to pay them.
Now, try telling me that Jesus was a socialist. Jesus flat out said that the kingdom of heaven was like the landowner, the capitalist.
I'll admit that McCain is not my ideal candidate for president. But he is not trying to pass himself off as any kind of savior, because he knows he's not, and presidents are not to be saviors.
Too often I hear or read where people say the president runs the country, or he runs the economy. NO HE DOESN'T!!! THAT'S NOT HIS JOB, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE!!! IF YOU THINK THAT WAY, STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT RIGHT NOW YOU....
Sorry, lost control there for a second. But this kind of ignorance is what gets liberals elected, and leads to the financial problems we are having right now. The government is not responsible for your welfare, you are. We do not have a command economy. No command economy has ever prospered. Communist China is prospering right now, but only because they have adopted limited capitalism. Orientals also have a very strong work ethic, and that is what has sustained them through years of socialism.
For those that doubt Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience, take good look at a map for once. You cannot enter or leave Alaska without crossing an international border or international waters. If you were to take that map, cut out Alaska and place it over the 48 contiguous states, you will see just how big the state is. Even though the population is small, governing that much territory is a challenge.
While I don't agree with all of McCain's positions, I believe he is right about the most important issues, he truly cares about this country and wants what's best for it, and I also like his taste in women.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Politics and religion
Two topics you should never discuss in bars and at family reunions. But on a blog -- they're in open season. In this presidential election cycle, I've seen more discussion of the role religion plays in politics. Here's a few of my thoughts:
Most say you shouldn't mix politics and religion. If you are talking about basing political decisions on religous affliation, I would agree. The conflict in Northern Ireland is an example of that. When it comes to political positions based on religous beliefs, how can you keep those separated?
Too many people try to make Jesus into some kind of a social or political revolutionary. Sure, He talked about taking care of the poor. But He never said anything about government doing that. He did say we would always have poor people among us. Why do some then try to eliminate poverty by political or government means? I often hear people say the government shouldn't spend money on the space program, the war on drugs, military defense, etc., that the money should be spent on the poor. Yet I never hear anyone say that candidates for political office shouldn't spend millions on TV ads, that that money should go to the poor. (I will probably add another post later, on whether Jesus is a conservative or a liberal, and go more in depth.)
Many of my fellow evangelical Christians are reluctant to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. I do see most Mormon beliefs as false, so I would nver encourage any one to become a Mormon. But does that disqualify him as President? IIRC, President Taft in the early 20th cetnury was a Unitarian. Unitarians' basic beliefs differ from those of most who call themselves Christian. While Taft might not be regarded as a great or outstanding president, he is not considered to be a bad president either. He also served on the Supreme Court after his presidency, and his record as a justice is comparable to his record as president. In light of this, and considering Romney's record, his experience in government and business, and the way he conducts himself, I would have no problems with him as president. Of the candidates left in the race, he appears the most presidential to me.
Most say you shouldn't mix politics and religion. If you are talking about basing political decisions on religous affliation, I would agree. The conflict in Northern Ireland is an example of that. When it comes to political positions based on religous beliefs, how can you keep those separated?
Too many people try to make Jesus into some kind of a social or political revolutionary. Sure, He talked about taking care of the poor. But He never said anything about government doing that. He did say we would always have poor people among us. Why do some then try to eliminate poverty by political or government means? I often hear people say the government shouldn't spend money on the space program, the war on drugs, military defense, etc., that the money should be spent on the poor. Yet I never hear anyone say that candidates for political office shouldn't spend millions on TV ads, that that money should go to the poor. (I will probably add another post later, on whether Jesus is a conservative or a liberal, and go more in depth.)
Many of my fellow evangelical Christians are reluctant to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. I do see most Mormon beliefs as false, so I would nver encourage any one to become a Mormon. But does that disqualify him as President? IIRC, President Taft in the early 20th cetnury was a Unitarian. Unitarians' basic beliefs differ from those of most who call themselves Christian. While Taft might not be regarded as a great or outstanding president, he is not considered to be a bad president either. He also served on the Supreme Court after his presidency, and his record as a justice is comparable to his record as president. In light of this, and considering Romney's record, his experience in government and business, and the way he conducts himself, I would have no problems with him as president. Of the candidates left in the race, he appears the most presidential to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)