Pericles

I must take you up on your understanding of encounter. Encounter is the mystery of the Resurrection whereby across the millennia persons in every era experience the encounter with the Risen Lord. Paul was a faithful Jew who was a witness to the stoning of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. He must have been affected by the experience. Travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus is quite a journey and time for much reflection. Along the way he experienced an encounter that changed his whole direction.

Please let me quote Pope Benedict XVI from the opening paragraph of is first Encyclical Deus est Caritas ( God is Love)/ " Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction."

In the days after the third day those fearful disciples in the upper rooms with closed doors and windows encountered the Lord in their presence. He was encountered on the shore whilst Peter was fishing. He is encountered today out of those times of pain, anguish, sorrow and even joy when one prepares the way to become attuned to his call. There is no encounter unless there is a response. There can be no encounter without the Resurrection.

This is far removed from sentimentality of silly little elves and santas running around in some Council park. But then again if it is shared, even for a moment, then it is a good thing”

Chrys

In amongst all the debate I feel the conclusion of your article is getting lost. Your conclusion seems to me to be that we (christian, atheist, buddhist, zoroastrian, whatever...) should be thankful that we live in a safe, first world country, and that christmas serves a purpose to all of us as a timely reminder to hold our loved ones close.

I couldn't agree more.

@Pericles

How very unchristian of you, Pericles.

I was understanding it as an English noun, boxgum.

>>Pericles I must take you up on your understanding of encounter<<

My reference material says:

encounter n.
- A meeting, especially one that is unplanned, unexpected, or brief: "a chance encounter in the park".
- A hostile or adversarial confrontation; a contest: "a tense naval encounter".
- An often violent meeting; a clash.

Even a careful scouring of the thesaurus fails to bring out anything even remotely connected to your interpretation.

>>Encounter is the mystery of the Resurrection whereby across the millennia persons in every era experience the encounter with the Risen Lord<<

Leaving aside for a moment the obvious circularity in your explanation, if this is the case, then any description of Paul's experience should be couched in these terms. Hijacking a perfectly innocent, straightforward, uncomplicated noun from the dictionary, and twisting it to your unique will, is an act of definitional desperation.

But maybe you can shed some more light on all this.

>>In the days after the third day those fearful disciples in the upper rooms with closed doors and windows encountered the Lord in their presence.<<

Using your definition, they only imagined he was there. He didn't actually appear amongst them. Would that be correct?

And, changing the subject back to the original topic for a momant - if this is indeed the case, Chrys, then please accept my apologies for suggesting otherwise.

>>Pericles The events all happened as described.<<

But what is the real reason you cannot tell us the important details?

>>I have no intention of publishing either the name of the town or of the church involved - both to protect my privacy and theirs.<<

After all... "Despite its name, Christians don’t own Christmas and it’s high time we non-theists contested them""

Hiding behind an assumption of privacy is not a particularly strong opening to that contest, is it.

My concern is actually a very simple one.

Why do you find it necessary to attack someone else's beliefs in this manner?

It is this sort of unnecessary flummery that gives atheism a bad name.

Pericles, I agree so far with the comments of talisman and gothesca and I like much of what you have written up to page 4 of these comments. But I am a bit disappointed now to see that you have become a little nasty. I am not sure why it is so important that Chrys reveal the name of the church and location of the carols - both of these details are irrelevant to the content and message in her article. If you had just kept to your argument then you have some great points, but you have now accused Chrys of telling lies. This only makes you appear juvenile, picky and unfair. I have been following this thread of comments and have appreciated your feedback but I certainly draw the line at your accusation that Chrys has made things up to suit some agenda. I have no doubt that the events she described are real and it matters zilch what church it was and where it happened.

Anyhow...am pleased so many people cared to read and comment!

"Merry Christmas" from a non-celebrating Atheist.

Thanks for sharing your views Chrys and go easy people!

We love the Sunshine Coast and here is the Carols by Candlelight fare for 2010,
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/12/03/carols-candlelight-guide-sunshine-coast/

Small centres cannot afford the big entertainers and it is usual (and much fun) that local performers donate their services. There are church choirs, which is fortunate because the farmers, lifesavers and firemen don't always hit the high notes, or any notes at times.

Can't say I have ever known anyone to admonish 'Christians' over Carols by Candlelight, but I guess there has to be a first for everything.

We just love it all and come away with our faces beaming like children - many of whom are carried sleeping to waiting cars.

Anyhow, here is a carol by the magnificent Chloe Agnew - "O Holy Night"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ-8jYpa1-o&feature=related

Couldn't resist, here is another, just to prove there are angels on Earth,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtQr81k3TSk&feature=related