More inaccuracy!

 An article in today's Independent newspaper was produced by "Our writer on Pagans"!!  It makes quite interesting reading {http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/katy-guest-we-wish-you-a-merry-solstice-or-whatever-2164292.html} but, like so many of these newspaper articles, has its misleading aspects!  At the beginning, the picture that is drawn is, to my mind, of a couple of Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses to whose call at the door, the author suggests, the response should be "... invite them in, brew up some hot mead, and explain to them patiently about a time 2,000 years ago when early Christians went in search of an arbitrary date on which to celebrate an event of middling theological importance in their fledgling religion."  Go for it, my pagan friends.  You would be doing the Gospel no dis-service!

However, it was a later comment that led me to write in to the forum thread associated with the article.  Again, I reproduce my comments here:

"... a man was born of a virgin, died and then rose again to teach us all to hate gays;"

Sorry to butt in to all of the 'pro-pagan' complimentary posts, but while accepting much of what the article says, the last part of that particular comment is simply, and demonstrably, untrue! Jesus of Nazareth did not teach us to hate anyone. In fact, He taught nothing but love (the Greek agape, not eros) and forgiveness. Even a cursory reading of the Gospel records should make that abundantly clear. What He did clearly condemn was hypocrisy - and yes, I am fully aware that the visible church has got more than its fair share of that human characteristic - and exploitation. Of course, He did, implicitly if not explicitly, condemn homosexual activity, recognising it as both perverse and unproductive. As it used to be said, He "hated the sin, but loved the sinner". That is why there is always hope for even the homosexual (or lesbian). Paul, in his first Letter to the infant church in Corinth - a contemporary hot-bed of lust and licentiousness - makes it clear that some of the members of that church had once been active homosexuals, but that they had been "... cleansed; ... made holy; ... made right with God by calling on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (I Cor 6:11; NLT)

Of course the church eventually 'took over/converted' an existing pagan festival and used it to celebrate the birth of the Christ (which, according to the internal evidence was much more likely to have taken place in the early Spring, or early Autumn). No apology is made for that - others may continue to celebrate their own non-Christian festivals as they wish. The major difference, I would respectfully suggest, is that the Incarnation (which is what disciples of Jesus are celebrating) led to the Crucifixion - He was the Child born to die. However, the belief of the Biblical church, in whatever age, is that He did, indeed, rise from the dead; return to a dimension that is outwith the four physical dimensions of the time-space continuum that is our human experience; and that He will return - not, next time, as a helpless Babe, but as the One at Whose Name "... every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and [that] every tongue [shall] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:10-11; NLT).

Whether, or not, any individual accepts that is a personal matter - but I am one who is not ashamed to proclaim that I do!