Thursday, December 6, 2012

The Origin of Christmas

I hear people all the time getting offended and political about "Happy Holidays" and other affronts to Christmas. Christmas is predominately a Christian (religious) holiday, but in the US (and other parts of the world) it has taken on a culture of its own. As much as it is a religious holiday, it is a cultural holiday. But, in the effort to not offend the minority that do not celebrate it, the malls and retail stores go out of their way to say they include everyone with their "Happy Holidays" greeting. I don't care so much for it, but I won't go out of my way to yell and scream about an attack on the Christian faithful at Christmastime. Christmas itself is a bastardization of many traditions and holidays that includes so much, saying "Merry Christmas" should be all that you need.



The Faith

As I wrote last year on the subject, Christmas is the celebration of God becoming a man in Jesus Christ. As I wrote then, such as now, the believability of the event is questioned by some.

"some cannot believe a being will give up Godly powers in order to become a lowly man, subject to the whims of nature...They simply do not believe Jesus was God and man."

Regardless of the believability, there are those that have faith in this story and celebrate it as the first coming of their Lord and Savior into the world to save them from their sins. If you didn't already know, I am one of them.

Showing that faith in celebration of the Christmas holiday, we give gifts to one another to show that Christ is the ultimate gift to us from God. We decorate with lights and candles to show that Christ is the 'light of the world'. We sing songs and gather with family to celebrate the most important things in life. By faith we believe that Christ came to save us from damnation for our sins.

Therefore, Christmas is very much a joyous occasion and one that is central to the Christian religion. Without the virgin birth of a son conceived by the Holy Spirit to a descendent of David (the king of Israel a thousand years prior, as well as a man blessed by God) then there is no Christianity. Sure, he could have gone on to do miracles. But the story behind his coming, and his fulfillment of prophecies (which I spoke about last year) make Him the savior of the world. Even if you can't accept that, you should at least accept that when people are celebrating Jesus' birth that they might be offended if you don't share their enthusiasm... or in a greater sense of arrogance or insensitivity, get offended yourself when you are wished a "Merry Christmas".

The Weird

The traditions of celebration brought out at Christmastime are in many ways pagan and inclusive of the practices of cultures/religions not of Christian origin. For instance, the date of Christ's birth has been debated for centuries. Most people think it was actually in the fall, but no one can know for sure. Even when counting the census (spoken of most extensively in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2) the date and time of year hasn't be reliably determined.

The date of Christmas (December 25) coincides with the date of a feast in the Roman religion at the time of Jesus. It was called natalis Invicti or 'the festival of the unconquered sun'. It was also considered the birthday of the sun - dies natalis solis invicti. This was a festival like others in ancient Rome, with parties, gift-giving, wine, singing, and dancing.

Some have postulated that early Christians chose to celebrate Jesus' birth because of the name of the celebration (Unconquered 'Son' rather than 'sun') and as a direct conflict with the festival. They wanted to replace it in importance. With the festival being held even after the Christian religion became the official religion in the empire, it was undoubtedly an important cultural celebration.

Other Christmas traditions and folklore have their origin in surprising places. The Christmas Tree has its origin in Germanic tribes bringing green branches into their homes in the hope that spring would come soon.

Called the 'Yule Tree' it was brought into the house during the 2 month festival of Yule, which began in November. This festival (and ones like it) tried to capture the last bit of life from the dead world of winter. Candles on the tree (as well as the modern day electric lights) symbolize the effort to light up the world during the darkest months of the year.


The legend of Saint Nicolas, if you don't already know from some Christmas carols, is the inspiration for Santa Claus. In fact, the idea was almost completely translated from St. Nick's Greek origins to the Dutch Sinterklaas. A 4th century saint (and real life Bishop of Myra), he gave gifts to the less fortunate.


Christmas: The Cultural Holiday



Whether you celebrate Christmas or not, it is important to know that the traditions and spirit of Christmas is very much inclusive and multicultural. Just covering a couple traditions of Christmas (the day, the tree, Santa) I've brought in ideas from the Roman Empire, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, and the early Christians. The Spirit of Christmas is found in the Christ child, in the giving of St. Nick, in the Christmas tree, and in the lights that brighten the darkness of the winter. In these things, we find the origin of the holiday we call Christmas.

~ Buzz

For further reading/searching:

Christmas Element Have Pagan Roots - Discovery Video
Searching for the Real Birthday of Jesus
Christmas' Origins in Faith


Friday, August 3, 2012

Eternity, Time, and God

I enjoy watching shows on the Science channel, specifically 'Through the Wormhole' and not just because Morgan Freeman is the perfect narrator for everything... It's because of the really far-out-there questions the show asks of scientists and by extension, their viewers. In one of the recent episodes, astrophysicists and other scientific minds were working on measuring time and eternity, asking the question, "Does Eternity End?" Basically, the show finds scientists arguing their beliefs based on various methods of measurement and observation, and therefore drawing their own conclusions to the question at hand.

Most of the people on the show tend to be astrophysicists, meaning they work on the physical interactions of the bodies in the universe, such as stars and planets. They will sometimes work with subatomic particles in space and in stars. These subatomic particles are named so because they are smaller than an atom(the building block of all matter) and therefore exist in the atom or between atoms (Ex. Electrons and Protons you probably heard about in chemistry class or astronomy class).
 To save time and my fingers, I'll refer to astrophysicists as just 'scientists' throughout this post.

A scientist will argue that Newton's laws of motion (the foundation of physics) should apply to all things, including time and eternity. One of those laws states that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, if there was nothing at the "beginning" of time, then there could never be something out of that nothing, disproving the 'big bang theory' (not like the tv show, which is a favorite of mine). I put "beginning" in quotes because scientists are finding it hard to quantify (measure) time when going back to the big bang/beginning or going forward to the theoretical end of time/existence.

In our society, we've segmented time into equal measures, second, minutes, hours, etc. to help us interact with one another and make plans. In a more cognitive approach, we've symbolized time as a line, moving in one direction (not like the band) from the past to the future. We, as a society, have an abstract idea of time, going in an order and allowing ourselves to be nostalgic and remember our lives in the past. When we think about our lives, time stretches from our birth to our death on a timeline like a facebook page.

But scientists turn that idea on its head, because if time were on a line, then time would have had to begin and that means that time would have to end...but with the theory of quantum mechanics (the study of the movement of the subatomic particles) shows that scientists can never be certain of the location or interaction of subatomic particles because they don't have solid walls. Meaning that scientists cannot say if the particles touched each other, or a particle could be there or not there at all at the same time. If you apply quantum mechanics to larger objects such as people or planets, then you can say you were sitting on the couch now and you say you weren't sitting on the couch at the same time. This uncertainty is ludicrous to normal physics and observation, but with quantum mechanics, it's important enough to basically through time out the window.
Time doesn't exist, we as a people made it up to measure our world. BUT, if it is made up by humans, then does it mean all existence always was? And are the predictions or calculations giving basis to theories of beginning and end just foolish?
Albert Einstein believed space (matter, stars, energy) is intertwined with time. So then when space began in the big bang, time began also (quantum theory allows for a spontaneous existence of a particle out of nothing - another post perhaps sometime in the future). So maybe Einstein was right, or could he be wrong in his understanding of space-time? Because time (as far as we know) hasn't changed, but it's clear according to the big bang theory, space has changed. This scientist argues that perhaps time existed outside of space/matter and therefore, time will be here for eternity...

Another scientist in the show believes that, if given enough time, all things will happen. The quantum theory, as I said before, allows for spontaneous particles to become real out of nothing. So if the observations and theories say that space will eventually be eaten up by black holes and all matter will disappear, then (because dark energy will still be there in a small amount) eventually a particle will appear and continue for infinity... until a new big bang begins the universe again and there would be a new YOU, which would make your life now add up to nothing.

Another scientist believes there is what's called a multiverse, which means we can only see so far to the edge of our universe (where light shows us) and there are other multiverses exist outside of us. Using some complex mathematics and the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, the theory works out to say that eventually our universe will decay just like the others in the multiverse and there is nothing we can do about it. Although this theory doesn't address the problems brought up in the first theory (if time began, where did it come from?) it's an interesting thought. So, according to this one scientist, the universe will end and time will end (as we know it in our observable universe.)

Yet another scientist gives the theory that our universe is like a holographic projection far away from us. We are traveling towards an existence that has always existed, but our observation of time is as if we are far away from the universe and we cannot see all things. So our observations would travel closer to the true universe, and time is a measure of distance from the holographic projection. It explains how our universe came from nothing, because we would be so far away from the projection to see anything, but it was still there (just out of sight).

Finally, we get down right weird...What if the future determines our present along with our past? Another scientist does tests on particle behavior, measuring them and observing them. With quantum mechanics, there is the uncertainty again. Scientists cannot accurately measure where a particle is at any one time. When they looked at particles at 2o'clock and measured only a couple at 2:30, they found that those they measured at the beginning corresponded to particles behaving in the same manner at 2. Therefore, saying that because they saw the particle at 2:30, those particles acted in a certain way at 2. Basically, proving that the future decision of observing those particles would determine how they acted in the present. Freaky! But applying anything from quantum mechanics to the larger world has problems, but this proves that the future decisions can influence the present just as much as the past. So, time has a destiny and so we have a destiny...

The last scientist covered in the show calculated the most information humans could ever learn or obtain. It was a large number, 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 90. That's 10 with 10 zeroes times 90 zeroes. He calculated the theoretical size of the universe and the measurement of how much we would have to know to a number of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. If we had a machine to measure this information, we could only get to the first number, leaving out a very, very large number. If you tried to write out that number, writing a zero every second, you would run out of time. The laws of physics prevent us from measuring everything, because the machines necessary to measure it all would be so massive that it would collapse the universe into a black hole. So, he says why bother trying? Haha...

Now to my real purpose for this post...My belief in God allows for a few of these theories to work. For instance, the measurement of all knowledge shows us how far away we could ever be from knowing everything. So how could we know all that God knows?
Working backwards, the theories on the future and the past working together in the present makes me think of how God orders our steps. Our present is affected by the future we are meant to live.
The theory about the holographic projection, meaning that the universe always existed and our observations of it exist in time, allow for God to exist, because no one ever created Him.
The second and third theory talking about all of the time in eternity creating all possibilities (and possibly multiverses), no one can disprove it. We can never know if there are other universes because we cannot obverse them (at least, with scientific instruments). And since it's theoretically possible because of quantum physics, it's a mathematically sound theory. But, as I said, the theory about all time existing into eternity and the multiverse theory don't answer the question of where time began. Where did the multiverse come from? When did it start? Time, and by extension, God can exist outside of these theories.

The best theory I see is the first theory. Even though it disproves Einstein, theoretically, if time and space are intertwined, then time must have changed along with space, and there is no evidence of that. Time can go on forever, because I know there is another plane of existence outside of the observable universe, and God exists there as well as here in our world (through experience, and only in the physical for about 33 years). God orders our steps, affecting our present and leading us toward our future.

~ Buzz

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Dear Editor

I wrote a response to a nationally syndicated columnist, lecturer, and TV commentator tonight. Cal Thomas, a conservative writer by what I can determine through his articles, was talking about Evangelical pastors endorsing Rick Santorum for President, even though he is Catholic. The article is titled, 'Not by Sight, but by Faith' but I'm not sure if you can find it anywhere on the internet.
Mr. Thomas' article quickly degenerated into an attack on Evangelicals, for whatever reason, and included Tim Tebow because he is an out-spoken Christian athlete. He used several scriptures to back up his points that the Kingdom of God is best when hidden or invisible, that Christians should not pray or display their faith in public, and that Christians are insecure about their faith because they want a Christian president.

God forbid that we as Christians would want a Christian leader for our country.

Anyway, I decided that since I argued so well against his column, nearly point for point, that I should share it with anyone that's out there to read it. Cheers!



"Dear Mr. Thomas,
I have read your articles for several years and I have enjoyed them for the most part. You tend to write about controversial topics, so I imagine you get some hate mail. This email is an attempt to correct you, much like a newspaper lists corrections after a date or time gets misreported. I say these things with respect and hope you will take them to heart.

I am afraid that aside from your reference to Matthew 6, you have grossly missed the meaning behind the scripture verses you quoted in your most recent article. Those scriptures you used to back up your point that the kingdom of God is best when invisible or hidden are not talking about the Kingdom being hidden at all. Being a writer, I am sure you know what a simile is... Here's the one scripture:

Matthew 13:44, "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field." NIV

The kingdom is "LIKE a treasure hidden in a field." Emphasis of course, in the word 'like' which designates the use of a literary term known as a simile. Jesus was talking about the extraordinary worth of the kingdom, hence the man buys the field in which the kingdom resides. It's valuable. Jesus makes the point to cherish it more than all of your possessions. He says to value it and be joyous in finding it...Your possessions are made meaningless next to the Kingdom of Heaven.
You miss the meaning again with your reference to Mark 4:30-32:

30 Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. 32 Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.” NIV

The point is not that the Kingdom is best small "like a mustard seed" (another simile)...On the contrary, it grows to become massive and becomes the largest of all garden plants. Using these verses without context and against what they mean is misleading and dangerous to those who read your column. But I suppose it may not be your fault:

Mark 4:33-34

 33 With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything. NIV


I suggest that when using Scripture that you pray about it's usage and it's meaning before using it to attack the faithful... speaking of which...

Tim Tebow is just doing what he would normally do by praying before, during, or after a game...it's the media who publicize it. As a Christian, I should be happy that Tim Tebow is taking his time in the spotlight to serve God's purposes (that is, "19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20).
In the interviews and press conferences, Tim is just living up to what Jesus has told him to do,
8 “I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God." (Luke 12:8) 
I assure you, that's said with the context to support it. With your use of Matthew 6 talking about the hypocrites, it is a mistake to apply that to Tim Tebow because the scripture is talking about motivation, not action. It's as if you were saying that all people who pray in a church are automatically hypocrites, because others can see them do it. The scripture is meant for those that seek for others to see them, to show off basically (showing pride, selfishness, etc.). They get their reward because what they are seeking is not the answer to their prayers; it is the attention, pride, and satisfaction they get by being watched while they are supposedly being 'holy'.

When Tim Tebow has doing things to bring awareness to the Christian faith, and to Jesus Christ, he is doing what we all should do. It is not insecurity for which we cheer him on. Christians seek to have their faith in the public eye because that's where it should be! It's a mistake to put your faith in some locked-away cabinet of your life, only to be shown on Christmas and Easter. Your faith defines you, whether it is a strong faith in Jesus Christ or a strong faith in science, human nature, etc. It penetrates every facet of life, so why not when you are put on display? Tim Tebow is turning an overly selfish, greed-driven sport into a testament of his own faith, and I can't help but appreciate and support that. His football team beat my favorite, the Pittsburgh Steelers, so maybe my comments about him should have more meaning with you knowing my loyalties... As an Evangelical Christian, it is his duty to live up to what Jesus says in Matthew 28. We as Christians are supposed to share our faith with others, so they might see how Jesus is the savior and the only one, the only idea/thing/being, worth following.
As a Christian, it is his duty to pray for those in power to use it as God wills. I haven't seen him make any public endorsements of candidates, and I don't think he ever will. What Christians want is for our country's leaders to reflect Jesus as the idea that drives us to work, supports our laws, and enacts justice. It is not an easy task, for any man to be asked to do that, but Christians hope for a man in the highest office in the land to have his moral center resting in Jesus Christ. We would like to avoid repeating the mistakes of all of those self-indulgent empires that have failed in the past. That failure would not be possible if Jesus Christ was the greatest adviser to our president. I've prayed for President Obama, and all elected officials (as has my church and all my Christian friends), but that doesn't mean I don't want someone else in office who more accurately reflects Christ's mission on our planet and in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a theocracy established in America...forcing my faith on others would miss the point and block the ability of the Holy Spirit to work in people's lives in order to help them to have a conversion of heart. No one does anything for the goodness of God by forcing someone to believe in something they do not believe. As I said, that misses the point. For it is God who saves our souls, not the missionary. I can force someone to say they believe in God and force them to follow His commands, but if they do not believe, then they are not saved. As I said before, what good is that?
I've started to ramble to make my point, so I'll stop here and hope you'll forgive me. To take Scripture out of context to serve your own purposes is a mistake, and I pray that you can correct it. For if you believe that Jesus is your Savior, then you have brothers and sisters of faith in the evangelical churches. I hope you have taken this email to heart, and if you have read it with an open mind, you can come to understand how the Kingdom of God is meant to be wonderful, huge, and valuable beyond measure.

God Bless you,

Michael Schellhammer"

Emphasis added for the blog, cause I like it that way. . . The Truth is Out There.