Stringer/Bunch Debate on Christmas

 
 
 Proposition: 
 It is sinful for the Christian to celebrate the holiday known as 
 Christmas, even if they attach no religious significance to it.
 
 Affirmed: Jason E. Stringer
 Denied:   Larry Bunch
 
 
 On to the arguments now:
 
 Larry seems to have a problem with being caught on definitions he 
 accepted as he writes:
 
 I agreed with Jason's definitions and Jason Wrote: <4. Christmas:   
 December 25 of each calendar year, designated by the world as the 
 birthday of Jesus Christ. Jason continues: This is significant in
 that Larry accepts the fact that the "world", meaning a majority
 of people in the religious world who claim to be Christians, 
 accept this date as Christ's birth.
 
 Larry Writes: 
 I am sorry I agreed with Jason's definitions, and surely hope he 
 did not purposely define it as he did with the intent of  
 ~trapping~ me! I do not claim to be a debater but will try and 
 defend what I believe.  I just missed Jason's particular slant on 
 his definition and must disagree with him! Our proposition states 
 that we are debating a holiday irrespective of any religious connotations! 
 
 Jason writes:  
 So apparently Larry has changed his mind about the definition.  
 Well, if he is going to do that he must provide us with a counter 
 definition, which he has not done.  What is your definition of 
 Xmas, Larry?  I did not write the definition to "trap" you as you 
 suggest. I used terms that were simple, easily understood, and 
 made my point!   Since you accepted the definition at first and 
 then recanted your acceptance, but provided us with no better 
 definition, the definition stands.
 
 Larry goes on to write:
 "One brother wrote me, ". . . a court case came down last year 
 when someone objected to Christmas being a holiday because it was 
 'religious,' hence, a violation of separation of church and 
 state.  The judge rejected the case because she determined that 
 Christmas has become a social holiday and is celebrated without 
 the religious implications. 
 
 Jason Writes:
 Regardless of what courts have ruled, a majority of people in 
 this country still view this holiday with religious significance, 
 furthermore, they see the displays that people put up as being 
 religious in nature.  With no explanation what are people 
 supposed to think when they see such displays at your home?
 
 Then Larry writes:
 Regarding other days that were named for religious significance, 
 such as Sunday (Sun god), Jason wrote: Come on, Larry, you're 
 making a non-argument Here, and you know it.
 
 Larry Writes: 
 No, Jason, I don't know it! You seem to be pretty good at putting 
 words in my mouth, knowing my mind, etc. Again, I am not a 
 debater, professional or otherwise, and I do not know that I was 
 making a non-argument nor do I know it yet!
 
 Jason writes:
 OK, Larry, if you believe this, it's fine.  But it still doesn't 
 change the fact that when you display Xmas material, you're 
 putting yourself in the same position as those who celebrate it 
 as the birth of Christ.  You are giving the impression to the 
 world that you agree with them.  A couple of nights ago I was 
 driving through Mart, Texas.  A small town where the highway cuts 
 through the middle of town with a residential section at the end of town.  
Just about every house on State 164 is decorated with 
 lights, etc.  My thought was, as I drove, don't these people 
 realize that Christ's birth could not be on Dec. 25th, given the 
 record we have.  Furthermore, who is to say that the person 
 driving in front or behind me was having such thoughts of how 
 wonderful it is that so many people are celebrating Christ's 
 birth? We must be careful of how we portray what we believe to 
 those around us!
 
 Then Larry writes:
 Jason Wrote: We are talking about a majority of people here.
 
 Larry Writes: 
 Jason, I'm not sure we are and even if we were I don't believe 
 that makes any difference. If someone sees a snowman in my yard, 
 bright lights and an evergreen tree, they may ~not~ -- 
 ~rightfully~ -- ascribe to me as believing in something with a 
 religious significance or engaging in a religious observance of 
 the national holiday of Xmas. However, if I set up a manger 
 scene, then they may rightfully say I observe it religiously.
 
 Jason writes:
 Not all of those houses I saw on 164 the other night had manger 
 scenes, yet this is the thought in my mind mentioned above.  The 
 perception is there Larry, it can't be denied.  Keeping oneself 
 unspotted from the world (Jas. 1:27) means doing everything 
 possible to let people know that you are different from them in 
 what they believe.  That you demand a "thus sayeth the Lord" for 
 everything you do.
 
 Then Larry writes:
 Jason, would you kindly explain to me why I am in reproach 
 because I observe a national holiday on December 25th? Now, if 
 someone saw me going into a liquor store and carrying a brown bag 
 out, this will (should) bring reproach upon me.
 
 Jason writes:
 Suppose you were driving down the road and your car has a flat in 
 front of the Liquor store.  Suppose you need to go to the liquor 
 store to use the phone.  Suppose someone sees you in there and 
 knows you.  Suppose that this person questions you about it.  
 What do you say?  Now, that was purely accidental!  When you 
 display the SYMBOLS the world uses to commemorate the birth of 
 Christ, KNOWINGLY, you are without excuse.  You give those around 
 you opportunity to scoff at your influence on others!  Your words 
 say one thing, your actions say something entirely different!
 
 Then Larry wrote:
 Jason Wrote: I notice you leave my argument about my former habit 
 of smoking alone.
 
 Larry Writes: Yes, and I will continue to leave it alone. An 
 entirely different subject and if it is as you report then folks 
 ought to be withdrawn from for doing it. You are wanting to 
 equate the observance of a national holiday with the doing of 
 something that is evil, wicked, bad, corrupt, morally bankrupt, 
 and whatever. None of these descriptive terms may be attributed 
 to a national holiday.
 :
 Jason writes
 Show me the difference, Larry?  I justified it in my mind just 
 the way you justified celebrating Christmas.  It doesn't hold 
 here.  Christmas is a national holiday only in the sense that it 
 has been designated by the Congress of the United States as being 
 such.  However, where did it come from?  How did it start?  Where 
 does it end?  You see, Larry, it's your influence on those around 
 you that we're talking about, just as it was with my smoking.  
 Whether smoking was right or wrong.  Whether it was nasty, vile, 
 evil, is not the point.  The point is even if it is not those 
 things (which I believe it is now, but didn't at the time), 
 others see it that way and I could not be an influence for good 
 while doing it.  
 
 Larry Writes: 
 If what I do is lawful (scripturally so), it makes no difference 
 what others think about the matter! As long as it does not lead 
 them into that which is sinful. 
 
 Jason writes:
 Herein lies the rub!  Does Christ wish for His birth to be 
 celebrated? Show me a scripture, please, where He does.  Command, 
 example, inference, I'll take any of the three.  You give 
 approval to what they do by what you do.  How do they know, 
 Larry, that you're not going along with them?
 
 Then Larry writes:
 Regarding this matter of example and the fact that someone will 
 object to anything you do, Jason wrote: I agree that there is a 
 limit, but I believe in setting up the displays you put up you go 
 beyond the limit.
 
 Larry Writes: Jason, who determines the limit? Is it arbitrary? 
 Or is it because you ~think~ this is beyond the limit, so be it?
 
 Jason writes:
 No, Larry, here's the limit, it's not arbitrary: Romans 15:2:  
 "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to 
 edification." (NKJV)
 
 How, pray tell, does the celebration of this holiday, national or 
 religious, edify your neighbor?  How does it set the right 
 example?
 
 Paul goes on in Romans 15:3 "For even Christ did not please 
 Himself . . . ." It is self-serving, and men-pleasing to do what 
 many do at this Holiday season.  They have become like Israel of 
 old crying "Give us a king so we may be like the nations around 
 us!"  In a desire to "fit in" we've lost our identity as a 
 "peculiar people."
 
 Larry writes:
 "So, you see, there is no way we can live so as to ~please~ 
 everyone - nor should we try!" To ~answer~ this, Jason wrote 
 about a piano in the auditorium to pitch songs.
 
 Larry Writes: Not a valid argument. We are not talking about 
 putting a tree or a Santa or anything else in the auditorium. I 
 would object to the piano being put there for ~any~ reason! And 
 that is another discussion also!
 
 Jason writes:
 Larry, tell me why it's not a valid argument?  What would be 
 wrong with a piano in the auditorium to play a single note to 
 pitch a song? You don't object to pitch-pipes, do you?  Same 
 thing!  
 
 Then Larry writes:
 Jason wrote: Romans 14 . . . the point I make about Xmas being a  
 "meat offered to idols" is lost on you, I guess.
 
 Larry Writes: Yes, it is lost on me. Romans chapter fourteen has 
 nothing to do with meat offered to idols. If you want to pursue 
 that line, you will have to find a different passage.
 
 Jason writes:
 Compare Romans 14 with I Cor. 8 and 10.  If you're giving the 
 impression to the people of the world that you go along with them 
 then it's the same as eating the meat offered to idols and 
 causing someone to stumble because of it.  To YOU, your Santa Pin 
 and your Xmas Tree may have no religious significance, but to the 
 people who see you, it does!  Just as those who ate the meat 
 offered to idols were accused of idol worship.  Paul's point is 
 that if it causes someone to stumble, or causes someone to not 
 believe the truth of God's word, leave it alone!  This is the 
 point.  Hope it's clear now.
 
 Larry Writes: 
 We do many things that others in the world do and that does not 
 make the doing of those things worldly or wrong! I buy groceries 
 at the same store the atheist buys them. I purchase popcorn on 
 the same isle that beer is sold on, but that doesn't make 
 purchasing popcorn sinful!  It is simply impossible to separate 
 many things from what others do and the doing of them does not 
 automatically make them wrong, sinful or worldly.
 
 Jason writes:
 No, Larry it doesn't make it wrong or sinful because these things 
 are unavoidable.  Is wearing your Santa Pin unavoidable?  Is 
 putting up a tree unavoidable?  Is stringing lights around your 
 house unavoidable?  You are giving up a wonderful opportunity to 
 teach people about the nature of what they're doing. You're 
 giving you approval to what they do.  I like Diet Dr. Pepper.  I 
 drink 2 or 3 of them a day.  The Super Kmart where I buy my Diet 
 Dr. Pepper keeps it on the aisle where the beer and wine are 
 also.  When people see my cart with me behind it coming out of 
 that aisle, all they see in my cart is Diet Dr. Pepper 
 (occasionally a Pepsi One if they're on sale), I have guarded my 
 influence by what I select when I go down that aisle!  When you 
 put up your Xmas ornaments you have said what they do is OK!
 
 Then Larry wrote, and I understand his confusion, it's my fault:
 
 I fail to see what Rom.1:31 has to do with it.
 
 Jason Wrote: 
 No, Larry the connotation is that you are going along with the 
 practice of the rest of the world.
 
 Larry Writes: 
 Rom.1:31 "without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, 
 unmerciful;" Jason, I may be dense, but I can't see what this has 
 to  do with what you are saying! Now, if you are accusing me of 
 being "without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, 
 unmerciful;" then I could see it, but I do not think that is what 
 you are saying. 
 
 Jason writes:
 I meant to put an ff. after the scripture.  Verse 32 is the 
 important point.  "Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, 
 that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only 
 do the same, but also approve of those who practice them."
 
 Approval can be given in 3 ways: verbally, symbolically, or 
 silently.  Larry approves of a sinful practice in 2 of those 
 ways: symbolically by placing the ornaments the world perceives 
 as celebration of the birth of Christ on his home and on his 
 clothing.  And also silently, because he does not do ANYTHING to 
 clear up their misconception.  He lets them go on in their 
 belief.
 
 Larry now writes a lot of anecdotal evidence that I won't bother 
 to quote for the sake of disk space; however, he neglects to 
 answer the anecdote that I give regarding my friend at the end of 
 the second affirmative.  He ignores that.  See, Larry, we're not 
 talking about what our brethren think.  If I drove by your house, 
 and KNEW it was your house (which I have no reason to be in 
 Kentucky, but if I was and knew where you lived) then I would 
 understand that you don't place religious significance on it.  
 What about the person that you may have the opportunity to teach 
 about these things?  What impression do you leave with them?  You 
 leave the impression of APPROVAL.
 
 Larry then writes: 
 Folks, December 25th is a national holiday and a time for 
 families to get together and exchange gifts with no religious 
 connotations whatsoever. One cannot scripturally or logically 
 object to doing this.
 
 Jason writes:
 What's wrong with July 4?  What's wrong with Thanksgiving?  Two 
 holidays that have no religious significance to anyone?  There 
 are religious connotations, Larry. The world sees this as a 
 religious holiday, regardless of what some court says (obviously 
 the courts are out of touch as is seen in the election debacle 
 that we're going through right now).  You can't make this 
 argument until you provide us with a definition of Christmas that 
 is better than the one I give.  And does not the very name 
 Christmas imply religion is involved?????
 
 It's all about the influence you have on others, Larry.  That's 
 my whole point: Where does the edification of your neighbor come 
 in?  Where does the love for his soul come in by giving your 
 approval symbolically and silently to what he practices?  It's 
 not there!
 
 I hope I have not come across as sounding harsh, or hard, but I 
 believe this is something that a lot of people are going to have 
 to answer for.  "We are the only Bible the careless world will 
 read.  We are the sinner's gospel, we are the scoffers creed.  We 
 are the Lord's last message given in deed and word. WHAT IF THE 
 TYPE IS CROOKED, WHAT IF THE PRINT IS BLURRED?"
 
 Quit blurring the print!  Take a stand and let people know that 
 this practice is not approved by God.  Are you willing to let 
 them go on practicing something NOT authorized by God?  If you 
 are you may as well let the Methodist go on sprinkling and not 
 say a word.  You may as well let the social gospel types go on 
 providing fun food and frolic.  
 
 Brotherly,
 
 Jason E. Stringer