Didn’t watch the video, but clicked on the account page and all of their videos are nuts…
Pagans worshipped evergreens long before Christianity was invented.
The biggest argument that they’re not pagan is “German Christians did it…” Which completely ignored they didn’t start doing it as Christians, they just never stopped once they became Christian
Obviously a bunch of religious people are going to make up illogical excuses about how it’s not just a ripoff.
That doesn’t we listen to them anymore than Scientologists.
The reason I link that is because the other sources are books. I’ve provided evidence for my claims while you haven’t. Since you refuse to read the evidence you are not interested in learning, only preserving your own worldview. You are not worth my time.
You’re right that I care, otherwise I would not have made my initial comment. I apologise for being rude, I just didn’t have the time to write a proper response.
The reason I commented is because I think that it’s important that the discussion about what is pagan and what is not is taken with all the facts in mind. It just so happens that I watched a video where an expert explains that, although many people think so, there is in fact no evidence that Christmas trees are a pagan tradition appropriated by Christianity.
The reason I made my rude comment is that you dismiss the evidence I provide for my claim. I am very aware that people might not believe me at face value, which is why I provide evidence for my claim. I am making the, to your eyes “fucking ridiculous and wrong”, claim, so to you the burden of proof is on me. I then provide proof. The reason i got frustrated is that you refuse to even engage at the evidence. At first you decice that you won’t watch the video. I assume this is because you prefer to read instead, which is fair.
You take a cursory look at the channel and deem it “nuts”, instead of looking into who the author is, what his credentials are and most importantly, you don’t look at the sources for the video which are books and other material written by other scholars. I link the blogpost because I assume you don’t care enough about this issue to read several books on the topic, and you dismiss this as well because it “has screenshots from twitter”. The whole point of the blogpost is the same as my initial comment; to correct a longstanding myth, which is why it “responds” to twitter-posts. The blogpost is written scolar, although, I will admit, not an expert in early christianity like Dr. Mark Henry of Religion For Breakfast.
I am not trying to defend Christianity; I’m not even religious. All the video points out is that Christmas trees were likely a recent invention, and that we have no evidence to suggest that they were appropriated from a pagan religion.
Again, sorry for being rude in the previous comment. I hope you now understand why your behavior made me upset now, and I hope you will engage with the provided sources now. If you won’t, then I stand by my original comment.
Christmas trees are not a pagan invention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m41KXS-LWsY
Didn’t watch the video, but clicked on the account page and all of their videos are nuts…
Pagans worshipped evergreens long before Christianity was invented.
The biggest argument that they’re not pagan is “German Christians did it…” Which completely ignored they didn’t start doing it as Christians, they just never stopped once they became Christian
Obviously a bunch of religious people are going to make up illogical excuses about how it’s not just a ripoff.
That doesn’t we listen to them anymore than Scientologists.
Religion for breakfast channel is nuts? How about you look at the description or just watch the video cause he does cite sources
I mean, the first thumbnail was something about how you can become immortal thru a religion…
I didn’t look much deeper than that, if someone has an article, I’ll read that.
But I’m not going to watch a random YouTube video
You can read this if you want. It’s one of the sources for the video. Religion for Breakfast is a scholar with a PHD in religous studies; hardly nuts.
Well…
I know why you hide the link:
https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2018/12/concerning-yule.html?m=1
It’s a blog that has screenshots from twitter…
None of that changes anything I’ve already said.
The reason I link that is because the other sources are books. I’ve provided evidence for my claims while you haven’t. Since you refuse to read the evidence you are not interested in learning, only preserving your own worldview. You are not worth my time.
Well, yeah…
If one guy told me the sun was coming up tomorrow morning, no one would ask for sources.
If one guy said tomorrow James Madison would rise from the dead and lead an army of vampires against the unicorn oppressors …
Well. People might not just take their word.
Now, here’s where I might lose you:
You don’t know how fucking ridiculous and obviously wrong what you keep saying is.
Obviously I am, or you wouldn’t have hit send after typing that shit.
You’re right that I care, otherwise I would not have made my initial comment. I apologise for being rude, I just didn’t have the time to write a proper response.
The reason I commented is because I think that it’s important that the discussion about what is pagan and what is not is taken with all the facts in mind. It just so happens that I watched a video where an expert explains that, although many people think so, there is in fact no evidence that Christmas trees are a pagan tradition appropriated by Christianity.
The reason I made my rude comment is that you dismiss the evidence I provide for my claim. I am very aware that people might not believe me at face value, which is why I provide evidence for my claim. I am making the, to your eyes “fucking ridiculous and wrong”, claim, so to you the burden of proof is on me. I then provide proof. The reason i got frustrated is that you refuse to even engage at the evidence. At first you decice that you won’t watch the video. I assume this is because you prefer to read instead, which is fair.
You take a cursory look at the channel and deem it “nuts”, instead of looking into who the author is, what his credentials are and most importantly, you don’t look at the sources for the video which are books and other material written by other scholars. I link the blogpost because I assume you don’t care enough about this issue to read several books on the topic, and you dismiss this as well because it “has screenshots from twitter”. The whole point of the blogpost is the same as my initial comment; to correct a longstanding myth, which is why it “responds” to twitter-posts. The blogpost is written scolar, although, I will admit, not an expert in early christianity like Dr. Mark Henry of Religion For Breakfast.
I am not trying to defend Christianity; I’m not even religious. All the video points out is that Christmas trees were likely a recent invention, and that we have no evidence to suggest that they were appropriated from a pagan religion.
Again, sorry for being rude in the previous comment. I hope you now understand why your behavior made me upset now, and I hope you will engage with the provided sources now. If you won’t, then I stand by my original comment.