The Reason for the Season
I was recently sitting with friends discussing life and love, when invariably the subject of religion came up. This was not the usual “so, you don’t believe in god?” religion speak that I am so used to. No, in this room sat four educated adults each in their own stages of non-belief (or at least very liberal belief by most standards) where my atheism would neither be a shock nor a reason of concern for anyone present. Honestly, I doubt religion would have come up at all if it weren’t for the fact that we were listening to Christmas music in a room decked for the holidays. A discussion started on our love and/or disdain for these holiday jingles when someone jokingly said “well, Jesus is the reason for the season”. That phrase lingered in the back of my mind the rest of the night. Is Jesus really the reason for the season? In America Christmas is a large part of our culture. It drives our retail economy and gives most of us a chance to see our extended family at least once a year. It encourages giving and makes hot chocolate a romantic alternative to cheap beer on a blustery December night. Personally, these are the things that make me enjoy the holidays and I think that when it really comes down to it, it’s what rings true for most other Americans as well. But Jesus? Really?
Technically, I would argue that the reason for the season is the Winter Solstice. This is simply the shortest day of the year, where the sun is at its furthest possible point from the Earth. This cosmic occurrence happens to fall right around December 25th and has been celebrated by civilizations across the globe from as early as the Neolithic period. In most cultures the solstice tends to signify the renewal or rebirth of the crop cycle. There is no doubt that the renewal of the crops would be a worthwhile reason for celebration to any agrarian society, so it easy to see why these cultures would celebrate for weeks on end. Later this celebration would be adopted by any number of Pagan cultures and elaborate myths would be created around it to give their particular gods and goddesses of choice an active role in the process.
In Egypt (around 2500 BCE) the birth of Osiris was celebrated during the Winter Solstice. Osiris was the son of the god of Earth. He was born of a mortal virgin, died at the brutal hands of the state and was resurrected three days after his death to judge all of mankind in the afterlife. Osiris was one of the few “resurrected” Egyptian gods and many scholars believe that it was added to the story to help re-edify the significance of the oncoming harvest. This story seems vaguely familiar to me for some reason.
In Greece (around 600 BCE) Dionysus was the winter solstice god of choice. He was seen as the son of Zeus who miraculously died and was “born again”. He was commonly known as the god of wine and was noted on multiple occasions for turning water into this intoxicating substance making him a very special deity indeed. At this point I am assuming that most of you are noticing a pattern here.
The Persian god Mithras is quite possibly my favorite god born during the winter solstice mostly because he was present around 100BCE and was a major competitor to a new Jewish godman who stumbled onto the scene around the same time (some of you may be familiar with his work). Mithras was very popular in the Roman Empire during the First Century CE, because of his Zoroastrian concepts on good and evil. He too has a questionable birth that was prophesized by an unexplainable astrological event and was commonly celebrated by the drinking of wine to symbolize blood.
I use these examples only to argue that each of these gods should be recognized as at least part of the “reason for the season”. I mean they have just as much to do with it as Jesus right? Now assuming that most Christian apologists would read this and dismiss these “fake gods” just as easily as they would dismiss Islam and Scientology I am going to explain this from the only angle that will truly speak to their Christian sensibilities, through the use of scripture.
Believe it or not, the New Testament is basically the only “historical source” on earth that talks about Jesus. Sure there are a couple of early Roman historians that briefly mention things that could be construed in a way that may allude to Jesus, but the validity of these writings is questionable. For this reason, if you wish to learn about Jesus you basically have to look at the 27 books in the New Testament, most notably Paul’s letters and the four canonical gospels, to come away with a coherent understanding of the most influential human ever to exist (there are more if you want to count the one’s that various politicians decided to delete throughout history, but that’s another issue entirely). Since for this occasion we are talking about the birth of Christ our list of references is going to be narrowed quite considerably. We basically have the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke to shape our entire understanding of the Christmas Story. I find it quite interesting that Mark’s gospel would leave out the birth of Christ entirely, especially considering that it was the first gospel written, of which the other gospels borrow heavily from its contents. If Mark didn’t know about it or didn’t think it was important enough to mention, how exactly do the writers of Matthew and Luke justify their points of view from decades later? Either way, if we put the historicity issue aside, one could imagine that by using the two separate references we have (assuming that they are both historically accurate) we should be able to come away with a pretty coherent understanding of the Christmas story. Or can we?
The first thing at issue here is that Matthew and Luke tell what should be the exact same story (if historically accurate) with completely different details and in some instances these details directly contradict one another. For example, they both have the virgin birth happening in Bethlehem, but Matthew says it happened during Herod’s reign, while Luke contends that it happened while Quirinius was the governor of Syria. We know this cannot be correct because all historical data from the period shows that these men ruled at least ten years apart from one another and Herod was actually dead when Quirinius took office. Logically speaking, both of these accounts cannot possibly be correct. It can be one or the other or niether, but in any instance at least one of them is completely false.
Another slight discrepancy between these two accounts is where the three leading characters (Joseph, Mary and Jesus) go after Jesus’ birth. In Matthew they flee to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod, but in Luke they go directly to their family home in Nazareth to register for Caesar Augustus’ census. So, did they run to Egypt and stay for months or did they go directly to Nazareth to begin their magically eventful lives? Again, logically the two accounts cannot both be correct because they contradict one another entirely. In all actuality this a moot point because historically there is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that Herod was slaughtering babies or that Augustus ordered a census, but that doesn’t change the fact that the two accounts contradict each other, therefore deeming at least one of them completely false.
So why exactly are a couple of slight discrepancies so damning to this whole Christmas story anyway? Well, like I said earlier if Jesus has more of a right to be the “the reason for the season” than does Osiris or Dionysus, then he better have some concrete evidence to back it up. If that evidence is solely relegated to the Christian Bible (which it is) and more importantly the validity of his story as told by Matthew and Luke, then showing that one or the other is completely false might actually be saying something significant. If anything it proves that the supposed divine book is flawed logically as well as historically. If nothing else Matthew and Luke’s accounts are irreconcilably different in at least a couple of ways, which should make any logical reader question either of them as an authority on the subject.
In short, I contend that the reason most people give for this season isn’t reasonable at all. We in civilized society don’t tend to worship sun gods on New Years Eve or crop cycles during the solstice. We don’t think that ancient Egyptian Gods are saving us from damnation or that the Greek God of Wine deserves even an hour of thought, let alone an entire season. The fact that so many people believe in the Christ story over the multitude of other possible deities lends nothing to its validity. Although, the Jesus story may have ended up being more significant to Western culture, that fact alone does not make it any less of a myth. So, if you still feel that Jesus is your reason to celebrate this season, I ask that you at least acknowledge the fact that history may not be on your side and then attempt to be intellectually honest about the whole thing. As for me and my “reason for the season”….I’ll stick to food and drink with friends, decorating trees and kissing under mistletoe because those are the kind of Pagan traditions I can reasonably get behind.
December 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Good article. We don’t get into the tree and decorations or the credit card busters of gift giving either.
When you look at the dates of the different rulers, governors, and Jesus Christ, it can be confusing. So I went to Wikipedia and found these dates.
Herod Antipas, Ruler of Galilee 37-4BC
Caesar August, Emperor of the Roman Empire 27BC-14AD
Quirinius, Governor of Syria 51BC-21AD
Jesus Christ 4BC-30AD
Hope that helps on the date confusion.
As far as going to different cities. How old was Jesus in Matthew 2:13? Probably 2 years old. Maybe the family went home after the birth. I know I would want to. Luke suggests that is what happened in Luke 2:39.
Enjoy the hot chocolate, don’t spend your life saving on little sis, and we will not meet you under the mistletoe (a fungus animal killer?), instead will settle for a handshake.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“We know from a range of historical sources including writings by the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish historian Josephus that Quirinius did not become the governor of Syria until 6 CE, 10 years after the death of Herod.” – Quote from Roman historian and New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman’s book “Jesus Interrupted”.
Ehrman contends that these are not controversial subjects in the fields of New Testament History and textual critique, but actually common knowledge in the field over. I don’t know….i’m not the Ph. D. and I don’t read Greek.
How do you explain the differences in the genealogies contained in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? Read them side by side. They are different. Not much else to say there. They can’t both be right….also, they are clearly trying to draw a blood line from Jesus through Joseph back to David to fulfill Jewish prophecy….how does that work exactly in a virgin birth? Maybe the people making this stuff up should have waited until we understood genetics a little better?
Why would Herod be killing 2 year olds in Matthew unless Jesus had already been born for awhile? Jesus had to have been monthes old or even older by the time the wise men arrrive on the scene for this to make any sense. That means he is still in Bethlehem well past a month. Luke (2:27) they return to Jeuruselm according to “gods law” referencing Leviticus 12 which states that they have one month to bring offerings to the temple….the time line just doesn’t add up any way that you slice it.
……and a handshake will always do.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Don’t you think when they said, “Jesus is the reason for the season.” they really meant that they were trying to find a deeper meaning other than stress, materialism, long lines, fighting with family and all the other things that bother people about the holidays? If this person is as you said they were they are not condemning, they are not hurting anyone, they are not asking you to find the same meaning they do. So my question is, what’s the big deal?
If the people in the room with you, and specifically the person who made the offensive comment, were really as you described them I doubt they would debate any of the issues you raised in your article. Most people know that Jesus was not really born on December 25th (I asked a class full of 60 teenagers yesterday and only one thought that he was) and most who have done any investigation at all know the Christmas holiday is an adaptation of other older holidays. An act done by the Roman Catholic church, a fact that they will admit to, just go ask your local priest.
The point is regardless of the truth-fullness of all the facts, the story still has meaning. Even if some of the details were borrowed from other stories, it still has meaning, in fact it may have more meaning, because it means these stories have survived and impacted culture for four or five thousand years rather than just two. Ancient historians were not interested in facts. Read any ancient history and you will discover this. They were interested in what meaning could be derived from a story. The records of all the Caesars are recorded this way, the Jewish histories, and Greek histories. Only since the enlightenment and the dawn of the printing press have we read books in the way we do, judging them the way we do. The point is we cannot judge ancient history by modern standards. Were we to apply this rule to all history we would be forced to conclude that all known history is potentially false. This is why the vast majority of historians, while being completely aware of contradictions do not questions the historical Jesus. A huge project existed for the entire decade of the 1990’s called the Jesus Seminar and the conclusion of the project was, that there is a historical Jesus.
If the meaning this woman finds in the story inspires her to go buy Christmas for some kids who cannot afford it, or to volunteer at a soup kitchen, why does that bother you so much?
December 17th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I’ll take my personal stab at why these types of casual religious sayings irk me a bit.
For me, it’s a simple problem of hearing the same ignorant statement so frequently that everyone just assumes it’s true. It’s much like the annoying emails that go around with zero fact-checking regarding some political rant attributed to the wrong person, or the tired claim “there are no transitional fossils”.
On one hand, if you’re a believer, Jesus (as God) is the reason for everything. No one walks around saying “Jesus is the reason for coconuts” – probably because it’s not cute and rhymey.
On the other hand, if we removed Jesus from Christmas, there really wouldn’t be much of a hole left. Sure, “Silent Night” and some of our other carols would be gone, and churches would be less inclined to spend ridiculous amounts of money to cover their building in glass bulbs, but we would still have Santa, gifts, food, Rudolph, egg nog, Frosty, decorated trees, etc. You know, the fun stuff.
I actually agree with you. The god-man sacrifice and resurrection stories are important parts of our heritage. The problem is most of the faithful believe it to be absolutely factual and feel it appropriate to tell others that it is. If we were all intellectually honest about it being an ancient repeated story and not getting stuck on trying to uniquely apply it to our lives, we’d be better off.
I can’t say I’m that knowledgeable about the Jesus Seminar, but I believe they are still around and never really questioned the existence of Jesus. They assumed a historical Jesus and were then interested in trying to figure out what he was like and what he probably said.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Tom, thank you for contributing to the conversation. First of all I would say that I wasn’t offended by the fact that Jesus was mentioned as the “reason”, it just got me thinking about how little most people know of the historical Jesus. I agree that stories, even if not “true” can still give meaning and hope to a person’s life. After all, isn’t that exactly what film and literature are intended to do? The problem is if or when a person takes a completely erroneous story and turns it into a social or political reality. Take for example Charles Manson and his belief that the Beatles White Album was written directly to him, asking him to start a revolution. I would never say that the White Album is harmful to humanity, however in the hands of a fanatical nut-job it provided reason for a man to do horrible things ….and a seemingly rational person would never have come to a similar conclusion. This is exactly the way I feel about issues like abortion, stem cell research, sex education etc. where an uninformed and uneducated populace shape political realities based on myths and fairy tales.
As for the Jesus Seminars, I am well aware of their findings. It is true that the vast majority of New Testament Scholars believe that a historical Jesus did exist, but this historical Jesus is nothing like the person you read about in the gospels and certainly not the Jesus most Christians believe in. I have heard Tom Flynn speak on this issue in depth (he was a founding contributor to the Jesus seminar) and he contends that roughly 12% of the sayings and stories held in the new testament COULD be attributed to a historical Jesus figure. That means that his supposed life has been lambasted by textual criticism and expert analysis, eventually finding the majority of it utterly false. With that said, I never meant to imply that the man never existed…just that he shouldn’t be held up higher than any other pseudo fictional character in any other work of literature.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Tom your points in your response were very nice and fluffy. However, this meaning has been perverted to cause millions of deaths, has caused the persecutions of untold numbers of “sinners”, and has stopped many scientific advances. Trying to define modern day morality with a two thousand year old fairy tell has shown itself to be very dangerous. I am not offended by the woman making the comment. I am offend by your ability to look beyond all the harm your religion has caused and only see the happy and fluffy Joel Osteen layer on the top.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
John V, Joel Osteen was probably a bad example for Tom’s “religion”. I have read that he doesn’t believe the gospels. I think Tom does.
Derek, I am pasting a great read that was researched b Dennis McCallum. Sorry for borrowing, but it is good, with historical backup.
Author: Dennis McCallum (http://www.xenos.org/classes/chronc.htm)
The Birth of Christ
1. Luke 2:1 mentions that Christ’s birth was during the reign of Augusts Caesar. Augusts Caesar reigned from 44 BC to his death in l5 AD The method of measuring time in the ancient Roman world was based on the reigns of the Emperors. Thus the early Church fathers dated the birth of Christ according to the accepted method used by the Romans, Arriving at the following figures:
Irenius: states that it was in the 41st year of Augustus’s reign, which would place it at 4/3 BC depending on how you date the beginning of Augustus’s reign.
Clement of Alexandria: dates it Nov. l8, 3 BC
Tertullian: 3/2 BC
Julius Africanus: 3/2 BC
Eusebius of Caesarea: 3/2 BC
Hypolotus of Rome: 3/2
Epiphanius: 3/2 BC
However all of these people are wrong – see Matthew 2:1
1. Matthew 2:1 says that Christ’s birth was in the time of King Herod the Great. We know about King Herod from the writings of the Jewish Historian Josephus, who wrote in the 70’s AD. He states that Herod died 37 years from the time the Romans declared him King, and 34 years from the time he actually became King. Both these figures arrive at a date of 4 BC
2. Shortly before the death of Herod, Josephus says there was an eclipse of the Moon. This is the only mention that Josephus makes of an eclipse in his entire volume of History (thus demonstrating that he was not fanciful about omens in this area like other historians of the period). Through astronomical calculations we find that a lunar eclipse occurred on Mar.l2/l3, 4 BC We also know that no lunar or solar eclipse occurred in either 3 or 2 BC
3. Shortly after his death the Jewish Passover occurred (which in that year should have occurred on April 11, according to astronomical calculations). Therefore, Herod’s death occurred between March l2 and April 11, in 4 BC Since Christ’s birth occurred during his reign, it would must have occurred prior to the period from March l2 to April 11,4 BC
4. Matthew 2:l also states that, “certain Magi came from the East.” Matthew 2:11 states that they came and saw the child. Matthew 2:l6 notes that King Herod ordered all male children under two years of age be slain. Considering the paranoia and brutality that are known to have been a part of Herod’s character, we can be sure that he had good reason to limit the killing to less than two years old. The time that the Magi arrived was prior to the death of Herod, possibly very shortly before his death. Thus Christ was probably born no earlier than 6 BC which would be 2 years prior to Herod’s death (Note that Herod had ascertained from the Magi the time that the star appeared, and apparently based his decree upon this information.) This line of reasoning will not give us an exact date for the birth, it only shows that he was likely born later than 6 BC, and earlier than 4 BC.
5. Luke 2:l,2– At approximately this time a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken. We have no record of this census from secular Roman sources. However, there is indication from Egypt that a census was taken approximately every 14 years, and that a census had been taken shortly after 20 BC
6. Likewise, Luke says that this census was during the time that Quirinius was governor of Syria. We have no record of where Quirinius was at this time, but prior to 6 BC we know that he was fighting a war in Macedonia. Thus we know that the census referred to had not taken place prior to 6 BC Further, we know that in the early AD years Quirinius was Governor of Syria, and during the years 6-3 BC he was somewhere “in the East,” (a passing comment in Tacitus). Syria was, of course, considered an Eastern Province by the Romans. He could have very easily been Governor of Syria at this time, there being no evidence to the contrary.
7. Justin Martyr and Tertullian say that this census can be verified in the archives in Rome. Even though these archives no longer exist, the fact that these contemporaries appealed to them suggests that they did exist at the time. In the l00’s AD these men and others had access to this information and their writings could easily have been refuted if it were not so.
These considerations leave us with the following scenario:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I agree Olsteen was a bad example, I read many think he does not even believe in the divinity of Jesus, now that is a christianity I can get behind.
December 19th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Go for it John. Pretty fluffy though :-)
December 19th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I assume I am supposed to continue commenting on what was said. I am not sure I have anything worth adding but I will give it a shot.
Clint,
You wrote…
“On the other hand, if we removed Jesus from Christmas, there really wouldn’t be much of a hole left. Sure, “Silent Night” and some of our other carols would be gone, and churches would be less inclined to spend ridiculous amounts of money to cover their building in glass bulbs…”
I agree that the amount some churches spend, like Rhema for example, on their light displays is bordering on insanity (although I know of no other churches other than those huge charismatic churches that do that). But I don’t agree that if we removed Jesus from Christmas that there would not be a hole. The fun stuff about the holidays are great, but what makes it worth keeping is the fact that for whatever reason people decide to do a lot to help others this time of year. I have not done a lot of research on this, but my experience is that most do this because of some type of faith response. While not speaking at all of Christmas I believe the it applies, Karen Armstrong wrote in the History of God, “A deity which is utterly remote from humanity, such as Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, cannot inspire spiritual quest. As long as this projection does not become an end in itself, it can be useful and beneficial. It has been said that this imaginative portrayal of God in human terms has inspired a social concern that has not been present in Hinduism. All three of the God Religions have shared the egalitarian and social ethic of Amos and Isaiah. The Jews would be the first people in the ancient world to establish a welfare system that was the admiration or their pagan neighbors.” (48 bottom of the page). What could represent God as being present, and not remote, more than one who becomes a baby and entrusts himself to a poverty stricken teenager? I am suggesting that the story provides a motivation that would be lost if all we had was Santa and Rudolph.
John, I agree religion has caused a lot of harm, and I am glad you acknowledge that is was “perverted” to do so. Atheism has also caused a lot of harm (Stalin) But I think the case is actually that there are some who call themselves religious who have done lots of bad things, and there are some who have called themselves atheists who have done lots of bad things. The reality is that human beings in general are capable of both violence and moral excellence regardless of their beliefs or world views. This is not really a pleasant insight, but one that I think can be backed up with history. History also teaches us the danger of identifying one group (in your example Christians like myself) as the source of violence and the ills of humanity. This leads to “scapegoating” and was the cause of the deaths of millions in the last century.
The fact is religion, the search for meaning, and desire for more beyond the here and now, has been with us for as long as humanity has existed. I believe it will be us as long as we will exist. We are better off if we like Armstrong seek to find the true intentions of the religions founders and promote that so perversions do not take place.
And I have no idea what Joel Osteen believes other that whatever it is it makes him a lot of money.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Tom I find it interesting that your response to Clint is “my experience is that most do this (good) because of some type of faith”. Your response to me is that “The reality is that human beings in general are capable of both violence and moral excellence regardless of their beliefs or world views”. Don’t you see the inconsistancey of your thought process. It seems no matter the situation you will find the good in faith and the bad in the lack of faith, even if you need to complete oppose your own previous argument to do so.
I am sick of people bringing up Stalin. I read recently that an evil man will always do evil, but it take religion to make a good man do evil. Do you think if Stalin were a christian that would haved stayed his hand? No, it would have given him different reasons to justify his evil deeds. Suck on that Dahlman!!
December 20th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
If you’re around religious people, you will notice that the people around you claim to do things for reasons of faith. To throw in my anecdotal evidence, I have seen quite a few non-religious people participating in substantial charity with no apparent distinction other than they might not include a Bible with every gift.
As Derek mentioned in the article, this isn’t a novel story in any way. For god-impregnation stories, I’ve always preferred the Greek over the Hebrew.
Not believing in something doesn’t motivate like faith does.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Olsteen might be slightly left of center, but let’s remember that the current evangelical movement is incredibly wishy-washy in general relative to most any other time in history.
Who’s to say the Spanish Inquisition was wrong if it kept people from going to hell? It gets a bad rap just because Yahweh didn’t have someone write it down in a testament for future Christians to justify with arguments about context, judgement, and how God’s ways are higher and mysterious.
I would argue that modern Christians as a whole are as luke-warm as you can get, and Olsteen is just capitalizing on it.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:22 am
I’m a bit late to the conversation, but…
Perhaps we can simply say that the Jesus story adds meaning to the season for some, while for others it does not. Clint and Derek will be familiar with my position that a construct need not be objectively true in order to be metaphorically meaningful. (After all, Frosty, Santa and Rudolph would have to banished by these standards — as well as countless other figures.)
In this sense, I can agree with Tom’s position that the Jesus story can provide motivation to find and act on the good within ourselves — though I would qualify that, as always, by saying the motivation holds “for some, but not for all.” The same thing can be said of the other mythological figures that Derek presents in the entry — which for me only add depth and meaning.
For those who take some offense at the mainstream Christian approach to Christmas, I would ask two questions: 1) Is your objection to the story itself, to the uncritical way in which it is afforded the status of truth, or other? and 2) If we concede that the Jesus story is a myth (in the broad anthropological sense of the term), then might it have a valid place amongst the cultural elements of the season, or is it somehow still objectionable?
I would also encourage everyone to consider their basis for including or excluding holiday elements/trappings. Perhaps there are philosophical reasons behind these choices, and/or mere habits based on cultural and family traditions.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I’m not offended by the story itself, or any other story I can think of. For me it’s that intelligent, rational people confidently tell others it’s true.
Oh, it absolutely has a place. If people viewed it the same way we appreciate the St. Nicklaus story it would be completely acceptable: an old story that might have some seed of historical truth that’s been embellished to the point of fantasy.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
That’s why you’ll see me use the adjectives “meaningful” and “useful” quite a bit. I reserve the adjective “true” for things that are objectively verifiable — essentially synonymous with words like “factual” and “accurate.” I know we’ve discussed this before. I get a bit hung up on semantics, but it’s helpful to keep the mental bins straight.
I find inspiration in all the tinkering and embellishment, which illustrate human creativity at work.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I’m not at odds with traditions and/or “meaningful” experiences by any means, but when it comes to things like the annual “war on Christmas” sentiment espoused by any number of FOX News pundits (coupled with just about every social and political view they attempt to cover) it makes me wonder how much the people who hold these views really do KNOW. I would contend that any fundamentalist view, religious or otherwise, cannot stand up to scrutiny simply because this world is not black and white. So be it neo-conservative propaganda or conveniently overlooking the history of the Christian church, open and honest discussion is really the only way I am going to find a middle ground with those on the other side of the spectrum. “The Reason for the Season” was only an attempt to bring more information to the table and hopefully spark some discussion as to why “we” collectively celebrate the holidays. That and to justify the day off I will be taking despite my complete disbelief and sheer contempt for most aspects of the holiday.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
The words in this song is a great middle ground for all…Christian to atheist.
Happy Xmas (War Is Over) Lyrics
Artist(Band):John Lennon
So this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
A new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear ones
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas (War is Over, if you want it, war is over now)repeat with verse
For weak and for strong
The rich and the poor ones
The road is so long
So happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let’s stop all the fight
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas (War is over, if you want it, war is over now) repeat with verse
And what have we done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
And we hope you have fun
The near and the dear ones
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear
War is over, if you want it
War is over now
Merry Christmas
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
love that song (there is a cover by the band paperchase out of dallas that is great)….it and most of the Sufjan Stevens christmas box set are my holiday back ground music of choice.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I will check it out. Stay out of trouble, enjoy your day off, and we will see you next week.
April 29th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Brilliant report,You learn new stuff every day.
May 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 am
That was a useful post,You gain knowledge of new things each day.