:
Okay Bm, this is for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree.
Read it and weep, one of the sourches says PRE Christian! Older (and better) religions have already used a tree before. Yggdrasil for example, the tree that binds the nine worlds in Norse cosmology together. The tree was invented far after writing the bible.
"One Strasbourg priest, Johann Konrad Dannerstuart, complains about the custom as distracting from the Word of God."
Hows that? Some Christians were against the tree. My grandfather (ironicly strict Christian) refuses to have a Christmas tree in the house, saying it's anti Christian. Now you. |
Yeah, I know that. That was my point- the conflicting interpretations and actual text of this one trivial passage that there is so much contention over.
In fact, the actual passages in the Bible themselves say that it is a pre-Christian custom, so don't go telling me that it is like it's some grand revelation. There's been some sort of misunderstanding here because your post, for its intended purposes, is somewhat redundant. I was playing off of Sticker's "But the tree? Heathens!" quip, kinda assuming that everyone had heard that there were Christians opposed to the idea.
The main point I was highlighting was the differences between the texts in English translations, which begs the question as to how any fundamentalist Christian could possibly believe every word of a
translated sacred text. For some, I know the answer. There are many fundies who believe (astonishingly) that the KJB is the true book and that the "Original Hebrew" (their words, too!) is a derivative work. I've heard some calling for all other translations to be banned because of the errors that will occur in translation, demanding that all Christians read the English version.
When you encounter fundamentalists like that, you run. Just run.