>
> Well, I suspect that somewhere in that timeline, the Christians
> accepted the new version of the holiday *as* a religious holiday
> before it eventually became secularized and they accepted that
> secularized version as well.

You would be wrong, then. If you research the history of customs related to
the holiday called "Christmas", you will note that the ONLY religious
connection is the nativity scene. At least, the only Christian religious
connection. There are some customs associated with Christmas that can be
traced to ancient non-Christian religious beliefs Everything else
associated with "Christmas" has origins that can be traced to customs so old
that some of them pre-date written historical records. For just one
example, the evergreen tree cut down, brought inside and decorated. In
certain religions that pre-date Christianity, evergreen trees were thought
to be good luck, and so were brought into the home and decorated. It was
believed that these trees would ward off evil spirits, and they also
reminded people of all the plants that would return to life in the Spring.
Eventually some German Christians started decorating their evergreens with
apples (the forbidden fruit), which were eventually replaced with ornaments.
The practice spread to England, and eventually the whole world, and was
included in what became the Christmas celebration. Thus, we have what is
generally referred to today as the Christmas tree. Ironically, the
inclusion of the celebration of the birth of Christ is what turned many
people (including many Christians at the time) AWAY from the Christmas
celebration.


> As far as that goes, would it really be accurate to say that (modern)
> Christians accept the "new" version of Christmas (that celebrated on
> Dec. 25th) as a *non*-religious holiday? It seems much more likely to
> me that to true Christians, it retains all the religious significance
> it ever had -- even if they celebrate it in modern fashion with the
> tree, lights, gifts, commercialism, etc.

Here you are really confused. TRUE Christians loudly DENOUNCE the practice
of celebrating the birth of Christ on "the 5th and 20th of December". Oh,
and again, it never had any religious significance, especially CHRISTIAN
religious significance, as it was initially rejected by many Christians as
too far separated from the official canon. Even today many Christians are
****ed that the birth of Christ is associated with a pagan holiday at all.
Oh, and "tree, lights, gifts, commercialism, etc." are not modern fashion .
.. . that is the OLD-FASHIONED version of the celebration that is currently
called Christmas. The modern version of the holiday that includes the
nativity is the version that many Christians object to, and they rightly
SHOULD object to it. If they want the celebration of the birth of Christ to
have religious significance, they should move the date of the celebration
closer to Easter, and keep Christ out of the pagan holiday celebration of
what is called Christmas. In a real sense, the birthday celebration of
Christ has been ruined by being associated with what was (and still is) a
pagan holiday for many centuries before Christ was born. But the religious
significance has not been removed from the holiday, it was unsuccesfully
mixed with the holiday.

> A simpler (and therefore more likely) explanation is that if they know
> this at all, they simply don't think it's relevant. Why should they
> care what people of an earlier era felt about it? I don't see that
> modern Christians are somehow obligated to follow suit, just for the
> sake of obsessive, misguided historical consistency.
>
> The emphasis I discern from Christians isn't to make Christmas *only*
> about Christ, but that the holiday's religious significance should be
> borne in mind. To "keep Christ in Christmas," to quote an old bumper
> sticker.
>

Misguided historical consistency? I'm not talking about old news here,
there are still many Christians who refuse to celebrate Christmas for the
specific reason that the holiday now includes a sacrilegious celebration of
the birth of Christ on December 25th. It is the wrong date, and mixed up
with a pagan holiday much older than Christ. What could be worse for the
Christians? If they really want to keep Christ in Christmas, they should
move the date of the celebration into the Spring sometime.

The winter Celebration known currently as Christmas pre-dates the Christian
"Christ" by many centuries. Christians hated this winter celebration for
many years and tried to kill it by outlawing it. Just like prohibition,
that didn't work. People still needed (what we now call Christmas), even
though it had NOTHING to do with Christ. Declaring the 25th of December as
Christ's birthday was a final desperate attempt by Christians to do away
with the holiday forever, and it almost worked. Many people (including
Christians) refused to celebrate the ******* mix of a pagan holiday that was
suddenly mis-associated with the birth of Christ.

Keep Christ in Christmas? It makes just as much sense to say Keep the
Easter Bunny in Kwanzaa. Before you flame me for saying that, keep in mind
that many Christians do not celebrate Christmas as that's EXACTLY how they
see it, also. The only confusing thing is, that we currently use the name
"Christmas" to refer to a celebration that forever has had NOTHING to do
with CHRIST. It would be more accurate to say, "Keep your Christ out of our
Christmas". Only it is unfortunate that the pagan holiday is named after a
Christian symbol, which ****ES OFF A LOT OF CHRISTIANS, by the way.

If you say "Keep Christ in Christmas", you are trying to add Christian
religious significance to a pagan holiday. It didn't work for Julius I, so
why should a bumper sticker have better luck???? -Dave