In this part, I'll be tackling Centuri0n's conclusion:
*** Centuri0n's Conclusion, including embedded quotations ***
It is your answer to that question, and the ones above it, which leads me to accuse you of mopery. So when you say this:
Your assertion, sir, that: "You are, in fact, wanting mopery in order to avoid popery. You want no sign that we smile, and no opportunity by which we can show people something they can taste and see as goodness -- especially if it's a time when they would have been enjoying themselves."That's very daunting language, I am sure – the problem is that you do advance mopery – you advance the elimination of all kinds of cultural and social means of interaction in order to do what Jesus told us to do.
is false. I repudiate that sentiment, and if you continue to repeat your assertion that such is my position, you are illustrating that you are not hearing what I'm saying.
I'd encourage you to reconsider putting words in my mouth, let alone avatars in my avatar window.There's no need to put words in your mouth: you say everything that needs to be said in order to discredit your view. The clowning merely points out that you are unwilling to see how bad your logic works out in real time and space.
Happy New Year – unless the Catholics are having mandatory mass tomorrow, in which case forget I said anything. We don’t want to be confused with them, right?
*** End of Conclusion ***
I'll break it down line-by-line, this time:
1. "It is your answer to that question, and the ones above it, which leads me to accuse you of mopery."
There's simply no connection between any of the foregoing discussion and mopery. There's no support to the charge. Christian liberty is not mopery. Avoiding confusing the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Rome is not mopery. Griping that someone is not joining you in your artificial holiday is the closest we come in the discussion to mopery, but that's not from my side of the aisle, Centuri0n!
2. "the problem is that you do advance mopery – you advance the elimination of all kinds of cultural and social means of interaction in order to do what Jesus told us to do."
That simply is not true. It might be true if I suggested that we should all become hermits and live in caves far from other people, but of course I do not. Simply holding that it is permissible not to celebrate Christmas is in now way equivalent to or convertable to "eliminat[ing] all kinds of cultural and social means of interaction." Furthemore, suggesting that there may be some value in exercising that freedom is likewise not equivalent or convertable to such nonsense.
This can be seen from the facts that:
a) religiously celebrating Christmas requires no or little cultural/social means of interaction with our unconverted neighbors ("I'm headed to church for Christmas," provokes no reaction from the crowd); but
b) contrariwise "I'm going to go into the office/out to my field/to open my shop on Christmas" does tend provoke a crowd reaction and provide a starting place for conversation.
Thus, in fact, going with the flow does not provide much opportunity for meaningful social interaction, whereas bucking the flow does.
And of course, Jesus did not tell us to celebrate his birth, or to celebrate the holidays of our society. So the "Jesus told us to do" line is just rhetorical puffery.
3. "There's no need to put words in your mouth: you say everything that needs to be said in order to discredit your view."
If that were true, one would expect you to simply post what I said without further commentary. But, of course, my actual position is not self-discrediting. In fact, my position is simply Paul's position in the Epistle to the Romans.
4. "The clowning merely points out that you are unwilling to see how bad your logic works out in real time and space."
The clowning is a substitute for reasoned argumentation, and useful in situations (unlike this one) when reasoned argumentation is unnecessary. The idea of "logic work[ing] out in real time and space" is a confusion of doctrine with practice. Regardless, however, the way the doctrine is practiced is simple, we celebrate if we want to, and we don't if we don't want to. We're not obliged either to celebrate (even if there are salutory reasons for doing so) and we're not obliged to abtain (even if there are salutory reasons for abstaining, such as those I presented).
5. "Happy New Year – unless the Catholics are having mandatory mass tomorrow, in which case forget I said anything. We don’t want to be confused with them, right?"
I do often celebrate a feast on the New Year, and I give God thanks, but I don't suggest that it is obligatory for anyone else. Doing so in my cultural environment (which is well post-pagan and post-Jewish) doesn't seem to be likely to confuse my celebration with religious observances of a false religion.
But you weren't really worried, you were mocking.
As demonstrated above, however, your mockery is crockery.
But Happy New Year to you too, Centuri0n, may God bless you and all who pass by,