A post of mine to this thread was removed because it responded to a post by a suspended individual. It seems curious to me that it was expunged without a trace, since normally a record of deletions remains. Since I have not offended against OLO, but only against sensibilities I have little respect for, I want to leave a marker, a "flag of rememberence". The tendency of my thinking was (in the deleted post):
What I object to about these “romantic” historicisations of events is not the fantasies in themselves—harmless delusions after all are to be pitied—but the way these seemingly innocuous inventions breed, colonise and tend to maintain the ideological world as it is (the real world is of course unaffected). The fact that combatants on both sides may have been seduced by a song, simultaneously, is not so remarkable; indeed in a pitched battle, during a lull, between brothers in all else but nationality and ideology, it’s surely all but predictable that the preoccupations on either side would tend to passivity, and to coalesce, on such a date, and that insanity would call an unreal interregnum. One need only read of Pierre’s exploits in “War and Peace” to see that war and imminent mortality breed reverie--indeed pathetic, full-tilt-retreats back into the more innocent cogitations of youth—suspension of disbelief. Such yearning naivety should give us pause to reconsider the susceptiveness of feeling--and thought that follows blindly. Do we romanticise the Diary of Anne Frank? But rather than hanging the head, unscrupulous institutions (I don’t buy their naivety), like the church and the state (inseparable), see it all as grist to the mill, pennies for the plater, easy votes and bums on pews—a resource to be tapped and drained.
So what does Warwick draw from his lovely little parable? What is his complementary sermon? Let’s have it? Or do we just enjoy the tears for tears’ sake? Perhaps the lesson is too solemn to be understood, and tears will suffice..?
Well stuff that!

"As far as I know nobody ever claimed it did. What stops it being true is a complete absence of independent corroborative evidence, and a good strong dose of inherent improbability."

Ah but the Bible has more historical evidence to back it than most historical occurences that are taught as fact in schools! Even Historians don't dispute the Gospel story is true but only some believe in its message for them.
That's what the carol Silent Night is about - the message of Jesus coming as hope for the world . Just like the historians you can choose to not believe as in some posts above, but the message is there for everyone no matter what you have done.
To me Silent Night had humble beginnings just like Jesus but its wonderful message has spread across the world & has been translated in many languages because of its message of hope - just as Jesus gives us. So yes the music is beautiful but without the message as well it loses its impact .

Ausjude:

"Even Historians don't dispute the Gospel story is true..."

The ones I read do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

But there's only about forty listed there. Go on with your happy delusion by all means.

As a life “sojourner” with many ND experiences, I have developed a meaningful association with a personal God , a God I firmly believe exists.

The article was a moving account of a forgotten but relevant and timely historical event that rekindled the memory of my much loved Grandfather who faught in the same trenches: Well done.

Squeers:

Obviously you correspond from the planet “utopia”. Sure some priest in the Catholic Church, for example, stand accused of crimes unmentionable, but on the whole what matters are the parishioners and their faith in their God, not the Church. Turn the coin over!

Church and State! Where here is the crime? You act like a silly duffer Squeers, In the eyes of many, Church and State are a comforting combination of morals and practical rule; I vote for the more of it not the less of it, as imperfect as the rule is.

diver dan:
<Obviously you correspond from the planet “utopia”>

It never ceases to amaze me that fruitcakes who believe in heaven and hell won't have a bar of utopia. But then, it just doesn't hit the "Right" note of jouissance, does it? I mean, the ego is a sensitive fish and earthly paradise just don't cut it..

<on the whole what matters are the parishioners and their faith in their God>

Ah yes, the flock--the sheep, that is. We mustn't forget them.
It's not enough that the silly twerps enjoy the high life with all the mod cons (without a pang of conscience), they have to bask in the glory of God too, and have eternal life (eternal schadenfreude) into the bargain.
They are a precious little flock after all and there's nothing quite so comforting as the highest microgram of woolly thinking.. except perhaps a few bars of "Silent Night", or better still:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqVKvRTmbj0

<Church and State! Where here is the crime? You act like a silly duffer [at least I don't "kid"nap or proselytise sheep] Squeers, In the eyes of many, Church and State are a comforting combination of morals and practical rule; I vote for the more of it not the less of it, as imperfect as the rule is>
I bet you do.. There's nothing like a good shepherd!

..But then, we were not all born to be sheep to be sheep, ol' chap..