An earlier comment by me was censored due to having in the same sentence the words grovelling and insipid concerning a response by the author to an earlier comment by Pericles. As someone who has witnessed the unrestricted commentary abuse to contributors such as Peter Sellick I wonder at the rigour of contributors in the narky world of atheists.

In her article, Chrys Stevenson, shows herself to be a stranger to reality, truth, beauty and justice. And its banality is offensive to Christians.

Concerning reality and truth, she expresses surprise and dismay that the sacred took precedence over the secular within the context of a traditional religious celebration. In an endeavour to diminish the sacred dimension she expounds the pagan precedents of seasonal ritual festivities to create some sort of atheist abstract. Atheists are a different category to believers, Christian and pagan, and hence cannot absorb, or render anything fuller, to the prior sacred belief expressed in the stories within the rituals; the Christian Christmas message being of Divine gift and relationship.

Does not Ms Stevenson deny beauty with her preference of discordant " wobbly warbles" over a well practiced and presented choral performance singing both sacred and popular Christmas? Perhaps sentimentality, a coin currency of secularist goodness, plays a role here.

Ms Stevenson is most unjust in her assertion that Christian faith is separated from reason and that it celebrates unreason. Catholic Tradition places faith and reason as standing side by side, informing each other in the fullness of truth in life and death. They extend and restrain each other.

In the one paragraph where she intimated the position that Jesus of Nazareth never existing, and later backtracked on, Ms Stevenson adds further intolerant offence. She reduced the Christian story to a by product of pagan mythology and happily subscribed to the Jesus Myth that the Jesus legend was concocted and is of itself a result of plagiarism.

All up it is a narky contribution driven by a partisan atheism that delivers nothing of itself to the common good.

Well folks, it really is not a first order issue anymore.

I have some good news, or should that be Good News?

Yes, Jesus was real, and He so loved the world that he is returning, next year in fact, on 21 May 2011.

Isn't that jolly?

But wait, there's more!

Yes, so much more.

After Jesus returns, to save us 'all', but clearly not Ms. Chrys, his ever loving Father will destroy the world on 21 October 2011.

Which is also Good News for Xtians, is it not?

At last, their hero returns, as the Bible tells us so, and in just a few months after His return, the entire world will be blown apart by the ever-loving Father of Jesus, God.

Amazing isn't it?

And yet, I bet there are doubters out there who call themselves 'Christian'.

At least there will be no more angry penguins to complain about Chrys's comments on the need to share-the-world on December 25, because there will be no more world to share.

Exciting isn't it?

It's what all Christians long for, the Rapture, the return of Jesus, and the smithereens end to the world.

How satisfying it must be to know 'it's time' at last.

But, I cannot speak for others here, it seems just a tad over-the-top to me, and on a par with an act of terrorism, rather than the boundless LURV of a father towards his children.

Still, we all know that God moves in mysterious ways, and surely, nothing can be more of a mystery than to blow the world apart, after spending an entire week putting it together, so few years, 6000, ago.

suzeonline, "I would be happy to see everyone celebrating Christmas joyously, no matter what they believe in."

Since when did anyone need an explanation or permission to enjoy Christmas and will they similarly be entreated to a similar article to 'explain' other religious and cultural festivals? It is highly unlikely that you or anyone else has been knocking back the holidays or pay loadings or the chance for a knees-up over your lifetime while waiting for this 'explanation'.

Fortunately in Australia there is choice, as is evidenced by the abundant multicultural audiences at Carols by Candlelight events around the country. Witness Carols by Candlelight at the Domain or in the smallest town and it is the same, people from all cultures, all walks of life and all ages enjoying the occasion. Similarly, if one went into private homes over the festive season and on Christmas day there would be very few lemon-sucking Grinches about.

Since Carols by Candlelight has been the Aunt Sally of the few who would try to embarrass a large section of the population over Christmas - so much for religious and cultural tolerance - it is worth looking into the origin of Carols by Candlelight in Melbourne around seventy years ago and the money it has raised for charity.

http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=1209

However as I have already pointed out in an earlier post, none of the critics who cleverly flaunt their religious intolerance here (any excuse is a good excuse) are gracious enough to acknowledge the many enduring socially positive and charitable aspects of Christmas.

I think maybe some people have missed the point of the article written. I know I struggled myself with the article as I disagreed with it and I did find it condescending and patronizing in parts.

This is not a discussion about atheism or Christianity as such, it appears it is about plain and simple a person who just happens to celebrate a little differently to the mainstream of society.

I do not have an opinion of how a person chooses to celebrate or not celebrate. I felt the article opened itself up to comments of different opinions and not really a discussion. The author felt attacked, as I have stated before maybe the author need not have come back and commented. It appeared as if they tried to hard to convince others that what they had said was correct. I found the article attacked peoples ideas it did not provoke thought just more ridicule as we are seeing now. As an atheist my opinion was the article did target Christians and their belief in parts. This is why many have commented not so favorably. When people feel attacked they will do exactly what has occurred here.
Maybe the intention of the article was not to do this however this is what has appeared to have occurred here

So you have been told the truth about Santa Claus, well here's the truth about the supposed birth of mythical cult idol JeSUS and the original christmyth nativity story!
Tonight look up at the constellation Orion, the three stars (the belt) have been known as the three Kings since primitive times. The three great pyramids in Egypt are modelled and aligned with them as the Nile river is the milky way.
The three Kings follow the star of the east "Sirius the brightest star in the sky", on the winter Nth hemisphere solstice, they point to where the Sun will rise to begin the new Solar year is born. The three kings follow the star of the East to see the birth of the new(son) sun. Now where did you all hear this story before it was plagiarised for the christian cult to fullfill prophesy "all sons of gods" must be born on the 25th the date of ancient solstice?

HFR

if you read Matthew's birth story you'll see there is no reference to three kings. Modern translations generally prefere to cite "wise men" or magi. Their number is not given - the tradition that there were three arose from the fact that three gifts are mentioned.