If I'm going to use a word like hypocrite I really should learn to spell it correctly.

Sorry, just read this after my last post.

in the 90s in Australia government departments became very PC about Christmas and careful that the cards they sent out at that time didn't mention the "C" word. I found it ironic that government departments in China at the same time sent us cheery cards with "Merry Christmas" all over them.

Some of the largest Christmas decorations I've seen were in Shanghai.

Is it still legal in the West to give Christmas presents? Shouldn't they be Holiday presents?

I love your sarcasm!

in the 90s in Australia government departments became very PC about Christmas and careful that the cards they sent out at that time didn't mention the "C" word. I found it ironic that government departments in China at the same time sent us cheery cards with "Merry Christmas" all over them.

I'm not sure if anyone should give presents at Christmas unless they have a genuine desire to do so at that time, but Atheists might be happy to give "Christmyth" ones.

We have been using "Season's Greetings" for a couple of years now. Never mind what is PC, I just feel that it is more appropriate.

"Christmyth" is a funny word creation, but at some time a boy called Jesus, who later became to be the Christ, was indeed born, so this is not a myth. The myth is that presents have to be given on Christmas Day. The Three Wise Men gave presents on 6 January (if we can believe the Church about that date). In fact, in some Christian countries the children received their Christmas presents on 6 January rather than 25 December but it was easier for the international business world to unify this.

I was using Seasons Greetings years before PC was around. Just because there several holidays around that time and it kind of encompasses them all.

The reason why some celebrate on Jan 6 and others on Dec 25 is the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The Russian Orthodox Church for example still follows the old calendar that's why they celebrate later on Jan 6th. The old Russian Empire followed it too that's why in Soviet times the Great October Revolution was celebrated on Nov 7th.

If I were athiest I wouldn't give presents. It's just a matter of principle.

Atheist, Koheesti, not athiest (I thought it was just a typo the first time)(unless of course you're on about something quite different, and we've all misunderstood you!).

I could afford principles like that.

Oh, God (not saying he exists), now the spelling police are out in force again? I can hammer anyone on here for spelling just as good as the next guy but don't because it's stupid.

Sorry about the spelling correction, Koheesti. I usually force myself to overlook these... but since you repeated the mistake after everyone else had got it right, I thought it was necessary here

And (I know it's a bit early, but I'm sure the department stores are already playing Jinger Ben) Happy Christmas, all! Or Happy Winter Solstice or Happy Hogmanay, or Happy Anything-you-like Day. But I'm not handing out presents Outside the Box.

It doesn't matter how he spells it, it's a troll post anyway.

He is trying to get non-religeous people to admit that they give xmas presents so he can label them hipocrites.

Those of us with a brain know who the real hipocrites are.

For the record, this atheist loved receiving presents as a kid (without any religious overtones), doesn't particularly recognise xmas now, although I am probably going to tolerate my budhist GF putting up tinsel in the house and buying presents.

I have always taken every religeous (and any other) holiday off from school or work and enjoyed the break without once thinking of some bloke called heysous. It's not like I was ever given a choice anyway.

For me the most henious crime around the world in this day and age, is the domination of state by religion, whether it be muslim ayatollahs or nut case fundamentalist (teaparty) christians in the US or Australia.

Koheesti is not in the habit of making troll posts. Your criticism is out of line.

Your statement is laughable about those of YOU with brains knowing who the real hypocrites are. With one wide ranging sentence you seem to have plastered up to 90% of the known world as being hypocritical, simply because they believe in a supreme being and do not adhere to your view on the subject.

Atheism is as much a religion as...well...religions. Now that's a concept you might have trouble digesting.

I do notice you have no trouble accepting the benefits of religion, which in itself might be considered hypocritical by some. Even though you claim you had no choice you could always go to work during the holidays or refuse the presents being offered.

There is nearly always a choice and you have proven that by making your own choice about religion. Why not allow others to make their own choices without the attendant criticism?

It doesn't matter how he spells it, it's a troll post anyway.

He is trying to get non-religeous people to admit that they give xmas presents so he can label them hipocrites.

Those of us with a brain know who the real hipocrites are.

For the record, this atheist loved receiving presents as a kid (without any religious overtones), doesn't particularly recognise xmas now, although I am probably going to tolerate my budhist GF putting up tinsel in the house and buying presents.

I have always taken every religeous (and any other) holiday off from school or work and enjoyed the break without once thinking of some bloke called heysous. It's not like I was ever given a choice anyway.

For me the most henious crime around the world in this day and age, is the domination of state by religion, whether it be muslim ayatollahs or nut case fundamentalist (teaparty) christians in the US or Australia.

Koheesti is not in the habit of making troll posts. Your criticism is out of line.

Your statement is laughable about those of YOU with brains knowing who the real hypocrites are. With one wide ranging sentence you seem to have plastered up to 90% of the known world as being hypocritical, simply because they believe in a supreme being and do not adhere to your view on the subject.

Atheism is as much a religion as...well...religions. Now that's a concept you might have trouble digesting.

I do notice you have no trouble accepting the benefits of religion, which in itself might be considered hypocritical by some. Even though you claim you had no choice you could always go to work during the holidays or refuse the presents being offered.

There is nearly always a choice and you have proven that by making your own choice about religion. Why not allow others to make their own choices without the attendant criticism?

Thankyou for spelling out what I knew the OP was really saying.

Incidently, I was too young to understand the religious connotations of present giving when I was a child. (Still don't really know how the whole xmas festival thing fits into a 2000 year old birth of a mythical prophet). I don't receive presents now and haven't for a long time.

When I said I had no choice about attending work I wasn't bullshitting! Office buildings are shut down on these days and people you would normally do business with are unavailable.

However, I did work shift at airports for many years and I was the guy who always worked on xmas day, and similar, because others wouldn't. (And I got few thanks, and no presents, from the christians whose shifts I filled in for)

I despise atheists unless they keep it to themselves. Otherwise they are no better than the religious nuts who try to push their religion on you. This time of year with all their anti-Christmas crap, is the same as them pushing their views on people.

Now don't get upset with a little atheist bashing. There has been plenty of Christanity bashing around here and even some Islam bashing. What's wrong with taking your atheists taking their fair share?

Some strange statements here from the guy who started the atheists bashing thread.

The only group I know who despise atheists are the Jews. They'll take a muslim any day in preference to a godless person!

I once had a neighbor who was a German orthodox Jew. We had many a philisophical discussion over a bottle of wine or two until his Rabbi told him to stop socialising with me.

I think there's enough doubt now cast on the historicity of the gospel narratives and Paul's Christ to suggest that, if there was an original historical figure on whom the Jesus story was based we'll never know anything about him.

Some scholars, e.g. Joseph Hoffman ("Sources of the Jesus Tradition"), argue that we'll never know if there was an historical Jesus or not. Others, like Robert Price ("The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man") and Earl Doherty ("Jesus: Neither God Nor Man") argue that Jesus is purely a literary construct, put together as midrash, constructed from Old Testament materials (especially the prophets and Psalms) by Mark, whose text was built on and adapted by Matthew and Luke to suit their communities. (John is a different story; like Paul he was not really interested in a flesh and blood Jesus.)

I think "Season's Greetings" is apt. You're right, "Christmyth" would not really enter into the spirit of the season. Actually, especially with Christian friends I'm quite happy to wish people a Happy or Merry Christmas.

I thought it was a historical fact that Jesus was born and lived and preached. I thought the only dispute was whether he was the Messiah. Or a prophet. Or not.

This is the first time I hear that his very existence has been doubted. Hm, I believe there are always people who doubt what they didn't see with their own eyes. Now I have to say: I believe that he lived. Very much like Gautama the Buddha lived and Mohammad the Prophet lived. Are the lives of the latter two also in doubt?

I don't know how marginal or widespread the "Jesus as myth" hypothesis is. You can imagine that it wouldn't get a very sympathetic hearing in theological colleges, but I don't know. Some of these are pretty open-minded, but the myth hypothesis is somewhat undermining of the whole Christian narrative, if not of the ethos.

One problem with Earl Doherty's work having impact on the scholarly discussion is that he is not generally accepted into the scholarly discourse (the "big D discourse" as some have called it) because he doesn't have a doctorate, publishes independently, and is rather secretive about his educational background and qualifications. I don't like his secretiveness either (or accept his rationale for it), but his 800 page magnum opus is, in my view, a force majeure that simply can't be ignored. Of the two other scholars I referred to, Price respects Doherty's work, but Hoffmann seems to have no time for him. Some of Doherty's (and Price's) inferences, e.g. sources of gospel quotes placed in the mouth of Jesus and his followers) seem a bit far-fetched at times, but so many of them seem valid that their overall case looks strong (to me).

The historian G. A. Wells was the frontrunner for the mythicist view in the 1970s. Doherty takes a different and more radical position, but acknowledges his debt to Wells (who has since modified his position, I believe). Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy popularized the mythicist view in 1999 with their book "The Jesus Mysteries". This was not well received by the academic community, but then it wouldn't be, would it. Still, this was a fairly shallow book, not to be compared with Price's or Doherty's work.

A non-historical Jesus - Jesus as a purely mythic, midrashic and literary construct - seems a much more plausible character to me than a flesh and blood Jesus. And the contradictions, inconsistencies and implausibilities that face us when trying to make sense of the gospel biographies are wiped away if we see Jesus not as an historical figure, but as a personification that enables the early teachings from different sources and to different audiences to take on a dramatic and memorable form.

With respect to the Buddha and Muhammad, these men taught for relatively long amounts of time - 40+ years in the case of the Buddha and about 20 for Muhammad, and left a significant body of work based on their teaching (and Muhammad's revelations). If Jesus existed he is said to have taught between one and three years, the lesser time having more support from the gospels, and to have left only some sayings (the "Q" source) that were fitted into Mark's fictional narrative, later absorbed by Matthew and Luke with some adaptations and additions.

We know of Muhammad through some early biographies and the Hadiths. The biographies are given credence by non-Muslim scholars, but the hadiths are treated with caution (they were written generations after Muhammad died).

I don't think there is much doubt that someone corresponding to the Buddha as recorded in the Pali scriptures actually lived and taught in 5th century BCE India, but the Siddharta story is a fiction. In fact the same narrative is attributed to earlier Buddhas. Richard Gombrich, a highly respected scholar, dates the Buddha's death at 408 BCE, much later than conventional accounts. This would make him a contemporary of Socrates, Pericles and (though rather late) of Heraclitus - the philosopher of "flux" and impermanence. How much cross-fertilization there was between Greece and Northern India at that time I'm not sure, but there would have been some. The Buddha referred to the Greeks ("Yona" - Ionians) on at least one or two occasions. It's possible that, as a wealthy young man, the Buddha attended Taxila University and would have come into contact with some Greek ideas.

St. Nickolaus was a man who lived sometimes in the Middle Ages. He gave small presents to children (I think he put them into their shoes, at least according to German folklore), but not on Christmas Day either.

If he did that today he'd be arrested.

St. Nickolaus was a man who lived sometimes in the Middle Ages. He gave small presents to children (I think he put them into their shoes, at least according to German folklore), but not on Christmas Day either.

If he did that today he'd be arrested.

And what about the Pied Piper of Hamelin? Another clearly perverted German! (which is a completely unwarranted slur on Germans, Naam)

Christianity has persisted in some strength for 2000 years; to suggest it is founded on a myth seems rather perverse to me. Being a Christian, I am of course biased.... but then so is everybody one way or another.

I too respect genuine atheists, much more indeed than I respect Jews (they've had their chances, and bungled them). However, most people who call themselves atheists have not really put much thought into the whole matter, and these I do not respect. TV is full of that type of atheist.

I respect genuine Muslims too (couldn't define that though), and indeed Hindus, alien though their ideas seem to me. One of the most genuinely virtuous people I know is a Brahmin Hindu. And, to get back to the theme, she would give anything to anybody, bless her.

I too respect genuine atheists

i don't respect anybody who is advertising or pushing his faith or non-faith down the throat of others. and of course i don't respect but dislike those who make derogatory remarks about other people's faith or religion.

personally i have a few acquaintances who are atheists and a few who are agnostics. none of them ever made a single derogatory remark about God or religion. from my experience it's always the other way round.

Another clearly perverted German! (which is a completely unwarranted slur on Germans, Naam)

not to worry IB! i am flexible. when it suits me i put my German passport away and reach into my left pocket where i carry my Swiss passport. can't however reveal my third citizenship because it neither conforms with Swiss nor with German law.

Another clearly perverted German! (which is a completely unwarranted slur on Germans, Naam)

not to worry IB! i am flexible. when it suits me i put my German passport away and reach into my left pocket where i carry my Swiss passport. can't however reveal my third citizenship because it neither conforms with Swiss nor with German law.

You may not have noticed, put the passport picture you use as an avatar is giving your third citizenship away.

I thought it was a historical fact that Jesus was born and lived and preached. I thought the only dispute was whether he was the Messiah. Or a prophet. Or not.

This is the first time I hear that his very existence has been doubted. Hm, I believe there are always people who doubt what they didn't see with their own eyes. Now I have to say: I believe that he lived. Very much like Gautama the Buddha lived and Mohammad the Prophet lived. Are the lives of the latter two also in doubt?

(...)

A non-historical Jesus - Jesus as a purely mythic, midrashic and literary construct - seems a much more plausible character to me than a flesh and blood Jesus. And the contradictions, inconsistencies and implausibilities that face us when trying to make sense of the gospel biographies are wiped away if we see Jesus not as an historical figure, but as a personification that enables the early teachings from different sources and to different audiences to take on a dramatic and memorable form.

While the gospel biographies, or the scriptures that made it into the Bible, are contradictory, you know well that they were written generations after Jesus died, and chosen to make it into the bible (or not) a millennium later. I still believe (!) that the person actually lived, but I don't believe that what we read in the bible is necessarily true.

With respect to the Buddha and Muhammad, these men taught for relatively long amounts of time - 40+ years in the case of the Buddha and about 20 for Muhammad, and left a significant body of work based on their teaching (and Muhammad's revelations). If Jesus existed he is said to have taught between one and three years, the lesser time having more support from the gospels, and to have left only some sayings (the "Q" source) that were fitted into Mark's fictional narrative, later absorbed by Matthew and Luke with some adaptations and additions.

We know of Muhammad through some early biographies and the Hadiths. The biographies are given credence by non-Muslim scholars, but the hadiths are treated with caution (they were written generations after Muhammad died).

I don't think there is much doubt that someone corresponding to the Buddha as recorded in the Pali scriptures actually lived and taught in 5th century BCE India, but the Siddharta story is a fiction. In fact the same narrative is attributed to earlier Buddhas. Richard Gombrich, a highly respected scholar, dates the Buddha's death at 408 BCE, much later than conventional accounts. This would make him a contemporary of Socrates, Pericles and (though rather late) of Heraclitus - the philosopher of "flux" and impermanence. How much cross-fertilization there was between Greece and Northern India at that time I'm not sure, but there would have been some. The Buddha referred to the Greeks ("Yona" - Ionians) on at least one or two occasions. It's possible that, as a wealthy young man, the Buddha attended Taxila University and would have come into contact with some Greek ideas.

Points about the length of teaching of these three men taken, as I don't know about that.

I never heard about Gautama the Buddha having studied in Greece, interesting.

Have you heard that the reason we don't read anything about Jesus between his infant years and re-appearing as an adult is that he was taken to the Middle East (Arabia? India?) by the Three Wise Men for education? The theory says that's why he came up with ideas like "love thy neighbour" and "forgive your enemies" as opposed to "an eye for an eye".

Very much like the Beatles (no, I didn't say that.)

St. Nickolaus was a man who lived sometimes in the Middle Ages. He gave small presents to children (I think he put them into their shoes, at least according to German folklore), but not on Christmas Day either.

If he did that today he'd be arrested.

Mainly for breaking & entering, as people tend to keep their shoes inside the house these days.

Atheist display: Skeleton Santa nailed to a cross

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9247743-atheist-display-skeleton-santa-nailed-to-a-cross

I never heard about Gautama the Buddha having studied in Greece, interesting.

Not in Greece, Tom. Taxila was in Northern India (now Pakistan). It's only a hypothesis that the Buddha studied there - can't be verified at all. Stephen Batchelor ("Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist") has suggested it as a plausible hypothesis.

I never heard about Gautama the Buddha having studied in Greece, interesting.

Not in Greece, Tom. Taxila was in Northern India (now Pakistan). It's only a hypothesis that the Buddha studied there - can't be verified at all. Stephen Batchelor ("Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist") has suggested it as a plausible hypothesis.

Ah, this makes sense to me.

While the gospel biographies, or the scriptures that made it into the Bible, are contradictory, you know well that they were written generations after Jesus died, and chosen to make it into the bible (or not) a millennium later. I still believe (!) that the person actually lived, but I don't believe that what we read in the bible is necessarily true.

The Gospels were written within about 40-50 years after Jesus died. The New Testament as we have it now reached this form in the 3rd century A.D. (not a millennium later)

While the gospel biographies, or the scriptures that made it into the Bible, are contradictory, you know well that they were written generations after Jesus died, and chosen to make it into the bible (or not) a millennium later. I still believe (!) that the person actually lived, but I don't believe that what we read in the bible is necessarily true.

The Gospels were written within about 40-50 years after Jesus died. The New Testament as we have it now reached this form in the 3rd century A.D. (not a millennium later)

Luther, however, had grave misgivings about the inclusion of the Epistle of James, calling it "an epistle of straw", and of Revelation, which he felt showed no indication of having been inspired by the Holy Spirit. He also added the word "alone" to a key text in Romans, in support of his theology.

I wonder if Tom is referring to the time it took for our current bibles to take the shape they do. The Catholic and Orthodox bibles include the apocryphal books, i.e. those written in Greek and, hence, not part of the Jewish scriptures. Protestant bibles have the apocyphal books in a separate section. In the Catholic and Protestant churches these decisions were taken in the 16th and 17th centuries, following the invention of printing and the emergence of authorized versions of the Bible.

A young Catholic Priest was sent to the Vatican. When he arrived he was given the job of checking the translation into English of the original manuscripts of the Bible.

After several days, a Cardinal entered the young Priests office and found him at his desk, sobbing.

The Cardinal asked, "What is it, my son? What has caused you to become so distressed?"

The young Priest, still sobbing, looked up and said..."The word was 'celebrate'!

While the gospel biographies, or the scriptures that made it into the Bible, are contradictory, you know well that they were written generations after Jesus died, and chosen to make it into the bible (or not) a millennium later. I still believe (!) that the person actually lived, but I don't believe that what we read in the bible is necessarily true.

The Gospels were written within about 40-50 years after Jesus died. The New Testament as we have it now reached this form in the 3rd century A.D. (not a millennium later)

Luther, however, had grave misgivings about the inclusion of the Epistle of James, calling it "an epistle of straw", and of Revelation, which he felt showed no indication of having been inspired by the Holy Spirit. He also added the word "alone" to a key text in Romans, in support of his theology.

I wonder if Tom is referring to the time it took for our current bibles to take the shape they do. The Catholic and Orthodox bibles include the apocryphal books, i.e. those written in Greek and, hence, not part of the Jewish scriptures. Protestant bibles have the apocyphal books in a separate section. In the Catholic and Protestant churches these decisions were taken in the 16th and 17th centuries, following the invention of printing and the emergence of authorized versions of the Bible.

Thanks for the credits, but I do not have knowledge as deep as yours.

I was right about a few generations, but extended a few centuries to a millennium. Technically wrong, but I have made might point.

We were all being so learned that we didn't see the obvious point. The date of Christmas Day ( a commemoration, not an anniversary) was fixed in 440 A.D. Quite apart from commemorating Christ's birth, it was intended to replace the Saturnalia, possibly the most riotous of Roman festivals, which lasted from December 19-25. It seems to be reverting to Saturnalia-mode, though.

At the Saturnalia, houses and temples were decorated with greenery, and this seems to be where the holly and the ivy come from. Mistletoe of course is Druid in origin. That lovely reference book, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (you may not find what you want, but you're bound to learn something), says that Christmas trees were used for decoration in Roman times (no date, and no note of what they were called then). The modern introduction of Christmas trees, Christmas cards, and Santa Claus can be attributed to German influence, the Prince Consort, in the 1840s.

The posts about the Bible seem to forget the difference between the Old and New Testaments. I have no knowledge of the development of the OT, but the NT was already fixed by the time of the Codex Sinaiticus (C.4 A.D.) at the very latest. Luther is, as in most things, a very red herring.

We were all being so learned that we didn't see the obvious point. The date of Christmas Day ( a commemoration, not an anniversary) was fixed in 440 A.D. Quite apart from commemorating Christ's birth, it was intended to replace the Saturnalia, possibly the most riotous of Roman festivals, which lasted from December 19-25. It seems to be reverting to Saturnalia-mode, though.

At the Saturnalia, houses and temples were decorated with greenery, and this seems to be where the holly and the ivy come from. Mistletoe of course is Druid in origin. That lovely reference book, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (you may not find what you want, but you're bound to learn something), says that Christmas trees were used for decoration in Roman times (no date, and no note of what they were called then). The modern introduction of Christmas trees, Christmas cards, and Santa Claus can be attributed to German influence, the Prince Consort, in the 1840s.

The posts about the Bible seem to forget the difference between the Old and New Testaments. I have no knowledge of the development of the OT, but the NT was already fixed by the time of the Codex Sinaiticus (C.4 A.D.) at the very latest. Luther is, as in most things, a very red herring.

Interesting post, Isanbirder. I didn't know about the role of Albert in sprucing up Christmas (pun intended).

Yes, the focus has been on the NT because we've been discussing Jesus and the celebration based on his [alleged] birth. The OT is relevant to that via back-formation, i.e. the gospel writers looked back to OT prophecies in Isaiah and other places as evidence ("it was foretold") for the birth of the Christ who is the subject of the NT.

The way in which the OT (Hebrew Bible/Tanakh) developed from oral transmission to text and further editing isn't really relevant to this topic. Nor, as you say, is Luther, except to the extent that he was the first translator of the Greek Bible into German, some 1200 years after the [Greek] Codex Sinaiticus. (Is there a loose kind of relevance?) Despite his misgivings, he didn't discard any parts. I guess I just included him as one of those contributing to the final phase of New Testament development - its translation into the vernacular - a development that accelerated the shattering of Christendom.

Do Atheists Give Christmas Presents?

Yes , absolutely . Christmas stems from ancient festivals celebrating the winter solstice, Usually Dec 21, when evergreen boughs were brought in to the homes to symbolize everlasting life and the long days of winter woud be ending. That is how the church appropriatied it , and spring equinox fests., too ( Easter ) in order to further their mandatory one god thing.

They never touched Lammas, the mid summer fest, it remains pagan ..

Do Atheists Give Christmas Presents?

Yes , absolutely . Christmas stems from ancient festivals celebrating the winter solstice, Usually Dec 21, when evergreen boughs were brought in to the homes to symbolize everlasting life and the long days of winter woud be ending. That is how the church appropriatied it , and spring equinox fests., too ( Easter ) in order to further their mandatory one god thing.

They never touched Lammas, the mid summer fest, it remains pagan ..

I've heard this more than once so I guess atheists are actually pagans and worship pagan gods and observe pagan festivals. Well why don't they just call themselves pagan then? I had always thought they just didn't believe in some higher power.

Atheists are not pagans.

Atheists are non-believers in any god.

Pagans have their beliefs, as do Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahai, Zoroastrians, Hindus and a host of other religions.

Atheists are without belief.

Atheists are not pagans.

Atheists are non-believers in any god.

Pagans have their beliefs, as do Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahai, Zoroastrians, Hindus and a host of other religions.

Atheists are without belief.

Except for their belief that there is no supreme being.

Atheists are not pagans.

Atheists are non-believers in any god.

Pagans have their beliefs, as do Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahai, Zoroastrians, Hindus and a host of other religions.

Atheists are without belief.

Except that some celebrate the pagan holiday instead of Christmas as an excuse to give presents. Do these guys know that there is a secular aspect to Christmas they can celebrate without feeling guilty or looking stupid by bringing up ancient pagan holy days?

BTW - Happy Orthodox Christmas everybody!

Atheists are not pagans.

Atheists are non-believers in any god.

Pagans have their beliefs, as do Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahai, Zoroastrians, Hindus and a host of other religions.

Atheists are without belief.

Except for their belief that there is no supreme being.

This is the same kind of rigid, in the box thinking that has all " feminists" thinking and acting exactly the same.

What if one believes the planet is the " supreme being" After all she is actually real which is more than can be said for that nasty, sexually repressed head patriarchal " God". And one needs no excuse to give presents, well, ever, does one?

I'm very suspicious of folk who need some kind of threat or fairy tale to make them behave decently.They call themselves Christians, Jewish and Muslim.