My position on ‘Christmas’

I regard King Solomon to be the only Desire of Nations to have existed – the anointed one of God. I regard Jesus and Mohammed to be Messiahs and Sons like Solomon, but neither managed to become Desire of Nations.

On this basis I will not be celebrating Christmas for religious purposes. I will only celebrate in when in the presence of children, for who I think the fantasy of Christmas should be an important part of the innocence of childhood. Therefore I will only be sending Christmas Cards and Presents to children, such as my nieces and nephews, and my own children eventually.

Any presents I’m given for Christmas when I’m not in the company of children I will open on New Years’ day, which is more significant to me. I tend to keep all my New Year resolutions, and as the person I judge myself against and compete is myself in the previous year(s). For example, 2008 was a rubbish year compared to 2007, as in 2007 I became an LLM and Chartered IT Professional and other than gaining public office, nothing much happened in 2008. 2010 was a good year, I got my first paper on law, and I became a Fellow of BCS. 2011 was reasonable, getting my MScEcon from Aberystwyth. I hope 2012 will be even better, where I aim to complete a doctorate, become a Chartered Scientist and gain Chartership of CILIP, among others.

I don’t mind people sending me Christmas Cards and Presents or saying ‘Happy Christmas’ or any translation into their own language – I’m not too keen on ‘Merry Christmas’, because Solomon as Desire of Nations was a King also and should therefore not have drank because he could lose track of his responsibilities and obligations.  I will however respond to these cards with New Year Cards, and open the presents on New Years’ Eve, so they can be used in the New Year. Anyone I buy presents for that isn’t a child will receive their present in the New Year.

20 thoughts on “My position on ‘Christmas’”

  1. ” I’m not too keen on ‘Merry Christmas’, because Solomon was a King and should therefore not have drank because he could lose track of his responsibilities and obligations.”

    Any plans to have this printed on a t-shirt? I would honestly buy it.

    If not, could I ask your permission for the right to use it for a t-shirt? I will undertake not to use it in any other form.

    1. Sure if you want – you can find the exact quote in the Bible of your choice at Proverbs 31:4-5. This is what the NIV version, which I use says:
      31:4 It is not for kings, Lemuel— it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,
      31:5 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.

      Sounds like a good reason to get rid of the bar out of the House of Commons don’t you think?!

      By the same gesture – Can I quote some of the posts of yours I have not published as exemplary examples of trolling?

  2. Jesus is not a descendant of Solomon. Check your bible. Matthew 1 – 16:

    1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, 4 and Ram the father of Ammin’adab, and Ammin’adab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Bo’az by Rahab, and Bo’az the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uri’ah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehobo’am, and Rehobo’am the father of Abi’jah, and Abi’jah the father of Asa, 8 and Asa the father of Jehosh’aphat, and Jehosh’aphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzzi’ah, 9 and Uzzi’ah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezeki’ah, 10 and Hezeki’ah the father of Manas’seh, and Manas’seh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josi’ah, 11 and Josi’ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni’ah was the father of She-al’ti-el, and She-al’ti-el the father of Zerub’babel, 13 and Zerub’babel the father of Abi’ud, and Abi’ud the father of Eli’akim, and Eli’akim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eli’ud, 15 and Eli’ud the father of Elea’zar, and Elea’zar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

    Joseph, Mary’s wife, is descendant of Solomon, not Mary. Jesus is not born of Joseph but of god. (Solomon is at 6 and 7)

    Sorry to break one of your beliefs with proof,

    Steve

    1. I’m sorry, you have done nothing to break my beliefs only demonstrate that I have a greater commend of the Bible than you! I regard Joseph to be Christ’s biological father and not God! This is based on the Old Testament 1 Kings 2:45 reading that says David’s line will always be King. Christ could not be king unless Joseph was his father. Sorry to disappoint you! I think you should read your Bible! 🙂

      1. I figured you would say that, so continue reading matthew….

        18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

        20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

        22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23”The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”– which means, “God with us.”

        24When Joseph awoke, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

        Ie, Joseph not jesus’ father

        A couple more:

        Matthew 12:42
        “the queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”

        Luke 11:31

        The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”

        I suppose your next move will be to reject the gospels

        Steve

        Steve

        1. So you are saying that Christ had no rights to call himself King? The Old Testament says that David’s line shall always be King and that Solomon’s thrown shall be considered the most important. This is why I call him the Messiah. Why does the Gospel of Matthew supersede Kings? Why does this matter to you being an Atheist?

          So the choice one has to make is:

          1. Christ was son of God through the Holy Spirit and not King of Israel. Solomon’s thrown is therefore not sacred and Christ is therefore the Messiah as the anointed one of God.

          2. Christ was son of Joseph and therefore was the rightful heir to Solomon’s thrown as King of Israel. He was of Solomon’s line and therefore not more sacred than King Solomon, so not the Messiah.

          I choose 2, and you call yourself an Atheist, so surely neither of them do it for you?!

          If you consider that I regard Mohammed as equal to Christ, and the Quran as one of the Three Testaments, then you will see why you have difficulty accepting my opinion when yours is based on the prototypes imposed on your by society, and not ones you have though through to the extend I have.

          I am still a confirmed member of the Anglican Church, and I attend Church nearly every week, and also Bible cafe workshops every month. I think you have a lot of catching up to do!

          1. In what regard you hold the texts is irrelevant. They contradict each other so cannot be held as truth. You are cherry picking the parts to give relevance to suit your belief structure, which as I see it, is bad science. It’s of no consequence to me who anyone regards as the king of kings, as the concept is completely flawed. You, however, present this as a valid outlook on the world, and as a scientist, I believe you’d want to be made aware of fallacies in your belief structure.

            Steve

          2. You may be unprincipled an not follow rules, but don’t expect that everyone does.

            In what regard I hold the text is the only relevant thing. I have the final say on what I believe regardless of others own beliefs. If you can’t cope with that then don’t live in a post-modernist democracy. You may not have been as privileged as me in growing up digital – but you’d better get used to people like me, because all under 20 year olds are going to be as confident in their individual identity and right to their own opinion as I am. I look forward to a future when today’s young people are older – they are a lot like me when I was their age. Maybe the reason you did not enjoy university as much as you’ have liked was because you weren’t as individual a learner as today’s students and myself?

            I regard my word as Gospel. I will not change my opinions base on any claims to authority by others. If people can’t convince me to change my views then I will not be doing so. And I am not afraid to my views know to anyone.

            Who are you to tell me how to construct my own religion. If you are as educated as you claim then your structuralism is no more valid than mine. Maybe if you were to actually read the premises of my religion, you’d see on what basis that I – regardless of anyone else – interpret the Bible through the eyes of science. It does not matter what you believe in so far as my religion, as it is mind and not yours. You should be tolerant of my religion and not seek to force your religious beliefs onto me. Atheism is not the same as science. Atheists are not open mined about the existence of God or any other ‘creator’ therefore they are not scientific. The questions of whether God does or does not exist are alternative hypothesis, and as neither are proven, but as there is no clear null hypothesis then you’re going to have to wait until the future for scientists to define one. I have faith any question that can’t be answered today can be answered by scientists tomorrow. As an Atheist you have not faith, so more fool you.

            If you cared at all about my religion, then you would not commit any of my 6 deadly sins as you all too frequently do.

            I am a post-modernist. I assume the same authority to my own identity that Solomon did. You have no authority to tell me what to believe, nor expect me to adopt your belief or value system. If you can’t deal with people like me who are individuals and not clones, then maybe you need to get with the 21st century. What sort of 30 year old today recognises others’ irrefutable beliefs as any more credible than their own? Why is your unproven religious belief as an Atheist that there is no God in the form of a deity any more valid a concept of God than mine that God should be defined as all knowledge not yet known?

            I went through a behaviour modification for 8 years when I was a child – it didn’t change my self-righteousness to my beliefs – what makes you think you can?

  3. What staggers me is how quickly you jump to conclusions. Why do you assume I didn’t enjoy university? Why do you assume I did no independent learning? Your tendency to jump to conclusions which are inaccurate, and then defend them aggressively, is infuriating in someone who represents people in my area.

    1. You told me in an email you went to some bad universities and implied that I had. How many people would enjoy being at a bad university? How come you are not answering the substance of my post and instead pursuing with a red herring? Seems to me if you can’t argue against the consequent you attack the antecedent! Logical fallacies seem to be order of the day with you.

      1. My masters is from glamorgan… And mediocre is the word I used.
        My undergraduate degree is from Cardiff. Not mediocre.
        I enjoyed both.

        1. And the substance of your post is defending he right to hold whatever religion you want. Can’t disagree with that. The problem is that your religion of choice is mental, absolutely mental. It follows scripture that contradicts itself, has no adherents, and no proof. It is your own mental construct which you then believe dogmatically.

          1. It’s not, that’s the problem. The difference is that yours is unique…. Think David icke, and peple’s reaction to him, an you might understand why people think it’s mental.

          2. We’ll have this discussion again in 20 years time shall we? I’m confident that by then it will be fashionable to have one’s own religion. This will be driven by technology which like it did to me will make people more heterogeneous and less homogeneous.

            10 years ago, I was one of the few people in the world who bought Apple products and now many do. Around 15 years ago I was picked on for having a laptop in lectures – now everyone does. Around the same time lots of people were offended by my mobile phone going off and it was rude for me to answer it – now everyone does that. 20 years ago I was a problem child for wanting my own opinions, thinking my view was equal to the teacher, and not doing anything if I thought it was unfair. This according to Don Tapscott was due in part to having access to the technology I had since my youth.

            So I’d say the reason I have the attitude I have is because I’m part of the Net Generation, and the reason you have the attitude you have is because you’re Generation X. Rather than wait 20 years, speak to some of today’s young people. I think you’ll find they have very similar values to me and knowing this I look forward to the future when ironically there will be more people like me who by virtue of that fact are very different from me!

  4. Just read Steve’s posts with interest.

    Jonathan, I must say I believe that he is correct.

    The discussion here stems from the bible regardless of Steve’s atheism or otherwise.

    The fact is that the bible states that only the line of David will be King and that Christ was not the son of Joseph and not part of Joseph’s line. Indeed it states that Christ was greater than Solomon (i.e. not the same as).

    The problem here is that you equate being king with holiness which says much about your whole outlook on life (status appears to mean a lot to you).

    You have simply decided that in order for Christ to be King he has to be Joseph’s biological son. Why contradict the bible like that? The old Testament states that Solomon’s line will be King, but it does not state that Christ will be King. There is every reason to suggest that Christ, as the Messiah, is intended to take over the title of King from the line of David, through his association with Joseph which would reconcile the differences between the texts rather than make them load of nonsense as Steve points out. Rather than go to the logical explanation you construct an explanation which 2000 years of biblical scholarship has missed, largely because noone is that deluded.

    The issue which Steve has is that you construct a perception on life with rules and morals which you actively, through this website and other forays into print, seek to impose on others. The problem is that when presented with the inconsistencies on which you base your belief system you then react defensively and fail to justify them.

  5. So you will be proved right if people are like you or aren’t like you. Again, you’ve made a statement which isn’t falsifiable, therefore invalid. As I’ve urged you before, read popper.

    I’m confident in twenty years no one will be following you, same as now.

    1. Steve, that is your philosophy – and I have mine. I do not regard an opinion as invalid just because it is not falsifiable. If you were to read this post I wrote on DNA Regression, then you will see that I believe that the things which are not falsifiable today, will be falsifiable by science tomorrow. Science does not stand still. You agree with the concept that there is a force called gravity don’t you? Yet that is not falsifiable by today’s science.

      Simply put Steve, you are an empiricist and a positivist, who adheres to materialism and essentialism, and I am a constructivist and constructionist who adheres to idealism an nominalism – We will never agree – but it does not make either of us wrong – so deal with it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *