Thursday, December 22, 2016

Living Church of God Says There Is Splattered Blood On Christmas Trees



Requested reposting:

The Living Church of God has another ridiculous article up about Christmas.  This time the personalty cult is claiming that the red on Christmas trees symbolizes splatted blood.  Long red ribbons symbolize the "flowing blood of pagan temple priests who ran around slashing their bodies.

The man-god Attis, after an unsuccessful courtship of the goddess Cybele, mutilated himself, “under a pine-tree, and bled to death on the spot. ... After his death Attis is said to have been changed into a pine-tree … [in worship practices] a pine-tree was cut in the woods and brought into the sanctuary of Cybele, where it was treated as a great divinity … Stirred by the wild barbaric music of clashing cymbals, rumbling drums, droning horns, and screaming flutes, the inferior clergy whirled about in the dance with waggling heads and streaming hair, until, rapt into a frenzy of excitement and insensible to pain, they gashed their bodies with potsherds or slashed them with knives in order to bespatter the altar and the sacred tree with their flowing blood.” (The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer, “The Myth and Ritual of Attis” Chapter 34).

Attis’ bloody act under an evergreen tree, along with—as the historical record points out—subsequent duplications by Attis worshippers, has provided paganism with its seasonal red and green motifs.

34 comments:

Black Ops Mikey said...

This conveniently ignores the blood on the hands of the leadership of the LCG.

Isn't that worse?

Black Ops Mikey said...

Please send for our new free booklet: The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy -- the Lost Samaritans!

Byker Bob said...

Oh, I am sure they would prefer that the blood would be from pigs or other unclean animals, too. Anything to just beat thie holiday season into the ground.

BB

Retired Prof said...

Just as you can't depend on the etymology of a word to determine its "true" meaning, you can't depend on some supposed original function of a symbol to determine its "true" meaning. It is the nature of symbols to mean whatever its users (its producers and receivers) agree that it means.

If a symbol has different meanings in different cultures separated by time and/or space, we have to consider the context in which a particular instance of was used. For example, among Navajos, Jainists, Hindus, and the ancient Aryans, the swastika evoked positive attributes. But when the National Socialist Party co-opted the Aryan version, they changed the meaning so thoroughly that hardly anyone recognizes any of the earlier ones.

The same with red on Christmas trees. Nobody even remembers the bloody rituals of Attis any more. Therefore, in their current context, red Christmas ornaments cannot possibly retain the associations Frazer attributes to them in ancient times.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Prof.

These doofuses believe that telling you a "meaning" (and especially from a "respected" source like THE GOLDEN BOUGH) signifies that ANYTHING remotely similar means EVERYTHING described there.

What are they really telling us? "This is what WE take it to mean, so we can feel more righteous than you."

Hey, LCGers! Go ahead. I don't care.

Anonymous said...

I find this association failing on several levels:

There were soooo many other wintertime rituals down through time in cultures all over the world doing something associated with decorated oak trees, evergreen trees, or faux "trees" fabricated out of branches, and more. Attis & Cybele is just one of them.

The cult of Cybele, which had become an official Roman cult lost its official status in 394, whereupon it began to collapse.

According to Wikipedia, "While it is clear that the modern Christmas tree originated during the Renaissance of early modern Germany, there are a number of speculative theories as to its ultimate origin." So there was no such thing as a "christmas" tree for only the first 1200 years of christianity? And when it did finally appear during the renaissance, the inspiration for it was, well, what exactly? Why is the Attis & Cybele myth being so strongly credited? People weren't terribly educated at that time. Is there any evidence that anybody in renaissance-era Germania had ever heard of Attis?

So a lot of very specific claims are being made here, such as the one about the "red" specifically symbolizing the blood of Attis. Well, what the hell are Renaissance-era Germans doing worshiping Attis & Cybele hundreds of years after the cult presumably died out?

Unless these claims and specific links can be shown to have actual historical support, we really should reject them as mere speculation.

I think it's interesting and intriguing that so many cultures decorate trees in the winter. However, to assume that by decorating a tree yourself in the winter, you are unwittingly, by default, worshiping every pagan god that's ever been connected to a tree-ritual seems like a daft conclusion to draw! Sounds like the rantings of the febrile ├╝berfundamentalist mind, so common in Armstrongism.

RSK said...

So.. is this what Abraham did in his grove?

RSK said...

And not to belabor the point, but since the High Priest of Israel would sprinkle blood on the ark of the covenant in the fall, would that make it the precedent to what the priests of Attis did in Phyrigia about 800 years later? Because that's how this sort of reasoning (if you can call it that) works!

Byker Bob said...

RSK: In typical Armstrongite reasoning, if a similar pagan ritual preceded one of the approved rituals of the Israelites, then it was because Satan was familiar with God's ways, and developed his counterfeits in advance. If a pagan ritual came into play after the Israelites were commanded to keep a similar one, then it was because Satan's deceptions and perversions had crept in over time due to mankind's rebellious nature. As with Dana Carvey's church lady character, anything that wasn't part of the Armstrongs' carefully picked and chosen routine was automatically attributed to Satan, and in practice, the offending practices were things that Jesus could not purify, heal, sublimate or protect from. Members were required to constantly seek out and destroy any vestiges of paganism in their lives. And, as we know, the pagans had a long and rich history, and did virtually everything that man does today.

In the Armstrong world view, evolution towards a higher state did not exist. Only degeneracy.

BB

Anonymous said...

The only argument against that RSK, is that since there's no archaeological support for any of the tales in the Torah, or Joshua, or Judges, and only barest glimmer of archaeological support, not for a King David, but for a "house of David," we really have little justification to think we know what the "Jewish" people were doing 800 years before.

In all likelihood they were still worshiping El, head of the Canaanitic pantheon, among others.

We don't even have sufficient evidence that any of the books of the old testament had been written by 600 BC.

Anonymous said...

Well, since humans are derived from homo heidelbergensis and other forms of homo sapiens, the fact that some fairly recent members of the species chose to place significance on pine trees seems rather inconsequential, no?

James said...

If the truth be known, the red on a Christmas tree (if it be ornament or something else) symbolizes the death cult of Armstrongism.

You see, the cult of Armstrongism was about death. To be happy and balanced in this cult was forbidden. You had to hate yourself and your family.

The love of money could not exist because the cult members had none. So they lived in misery and abject poverty in order to maintain the deities love and forgiveness.

So we honor the memory and suffering of these heretics every-time we erect a Christmas tree with red on it.

__________________________

See, even I can make shit up playing their stupid game. And what makes this believable is that Armstrongism is a cult of destruction. That has been documented. Still don't believe me? Ask a LCG member from Brookfield, Wisconsin.

old EXPCG hag said...

Blogger Black Ops Mikey said...

This conveniently ignores the blood on the hands of the leadership of the LCG.

Isn't that worse?

December 17, 2014 at 6:59 AM

hehehehehehe, isn't this the truth!

old EXPCG hag said...

Remember that Tina Turner song..."What's love got to do, got to do with it?"

I think this should be ALL the >splinter's< theme song.

Anonymous said...

In searching for the answers to these questions, why not defer to the source that Jesus trusts- Fox News?
According to Fox News, both Jesus and Santa are Caucasian.

The blondes at Fox News, along with Caucasian Jesus and Caucasian Santa, wish that all your Christmases be white!

So you see a little red on those white balls? No problem. That's just Megyn Kelly's lipstick.
(Sitting in the makeup chair before going 'on-air', Megyn was overheard saying, "No, that's Leviticus 16:15 goat blood red. Give me 'Creamy Lips L101'- that's the Matthew 26:28 Jesus blood color!")

Miller Jones said...

Some thoughts on God's Holy Days and a "Pagan" Holiday:
http://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2016/12/pagan-holidays-or-gods-holy-days-really.html

DennisCDiehl said...

The only way I even know to find out if a pine tree is ticklish is to give it a test-tickle.....

DennisCDiehl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Black Ops Mikey said...

And meanwhile, something new: I'm dreaming of a racially ambiguous holiday!

Connie Schmidt said...

Look, Xmas is not Biblical, and comes from non-Christian sources. Any reading of an encyclopedia will verify those facts, and it is a good enough reason for me to not celebrate it.

People who do celebrate Xmas are not trying to be "wicked" or deliberate in disobeying God. They are simply acting from ignorance or not informed. There is no need to "Hyper Demonize" the participants or the holiday, or to excessively analyze every single trivial fact about it. It is an incorrect observance not sanctioned from the Bible, and that should be the end of it.

Same thing about illicit sex, homosexuality or the like. For some reason , RCM and the LCG , have to really get into the "intimate details" and try to create sensationalized gasps of shock in their audience. No better vehicle than to use sex. I see it as a form of prurient interest, and a weird sort of voyeurism. It just doesn't seem to be enough to say "stay away from such" , but rather , use "shock and awe" psychological techniques to produce feelings of superiority and judgement, beyond just the "entertainment value" of sucking off of others dysfunction.

It is a weird form of "Church Porn" IMHO.

Anonymous said...

LCG is just quoting and referencing factual, secular history, LOL.

Byker Bob said...

Testes, one, two......

Funny thing. When I first saw this on the small screen of my phone, I thought it said "Lying Church of God......." And, of course, that name could be applied to any one of them. LOL!

BB

RSK said...

Although I'm only seeing it two years later, I think you missed the point - which was in regards to claiming two separate practices are related to each other by describing only the relevant part of the practices.

Martha said...

Connie,

I can totally understand your conclusion and decision. It's reasonable.

As for me, anymore, I'd want to take a look at the encyclopedia's sources. Many we've found are circular or quote sources that rely on people like Hislop and the totally un-christian Golden Bough. After my reading this summer, I also probably would be skeptical of anything that came out of post-war Germany. Which is unfortunate, because most everyone agrees Christmas trees are a German tradition and turn to German sources to substantiate their claims. An entire generation of Germans - possibly the sources for the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s encyclopedias we have in our basements - were "re-educated" by the Nazis on the true origins of Christmas...

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-nazi-christmas.html

Trust but verify... and then verify some more... sigh

Anonymous said...


“Living Church of God Says There Is Splattered Blood On Christmas Trees”


I sure hope that this is not a case of Christians slandering pagans, like the way pagans historically slandered Christians and accused them of cannibalism for taking part in the Lord's Supper. In the past, pagans falsely accused Christians of eating real flesh and blood when in fact they really only ate unleavened bread and wine at their annual ceremony commemorating the Lord's death.

Sprinkling blood on Christmas trees might have been the old way of doing things, but times have changed. Nowadays, almost everyone uses catsup instead of real blood. Even most of the modern purists only go so far as to insist on using Heinz Ketchup (instead of other brands of catsup) rather than insisting on using real blood.

Martha said...

I would never waste Heinz Ketchup on my Christmas tree. Heinz is the good stuff. Only off brands for decorative purposes in my house.

RSK said...

I've just been happily informing people that "all holidays matter" and watching the resulting fury. :)

R.L. said...

In all these comments, something seems to be missing.

Years ago I read a child's analysis of candy canes. To him, they symbolized Jesus - white for purity, red for His blood shed for sinners (the reason why He came).

It seemed a bit over-the-top to me. But then again... what about Jesus's blood in all of this?

Steve D said...

I worked in landscaping at AC 71-73. Dave Unfred, a full time landscaper who was a member of the Nazarene Church in Pasadena, was the one who meticulously trimmed the short hedges in the Italian Sunken Gardens. So Dave trimmed the hedges and they were beautiful, as many of you remember. I never saw him worshipping the hedges. The passage in Jeremiah that the WCG used to condemn Christmas trees shows people worshipping the tree. Creating, caring for and admiring a thing of beauty is not worship. If it were, the auditorium that HWA had built would also be considered an object of worship.

Steve D said...

Speaking of symbols . . . What do you think Abraham's reaction was to God's command to be circumcised? "Did I hear you correctly? You want me to cut the end off my penis? Can we talk about this first? How about I just pierce my ear?" Circumcision was not something that was invented at that time. Pagan religions have been performing the rite for years. God was taking a PAGAN practice and applying a new meaning to the symbolic act. Were the tabernacle, temple, animal sacrifices, priesthood, uniforms, etc. all invented by God for His people? Pagans had their own temples, sacrifices, etc. God took what was used by pagan religions and attached new meaning to them. Were the Holy Day celebrations of Lev 23 also copied from pagan religions? So why can't we take a decorated pine tree, Easter eggs, etc. and apply new meaning to them?

xHWA said...

I really don't know how these chumps keep getting away with bastardizing history like they always do. They lie. They lie so much I seriously don't think they can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

As if Attis blood is the only possible blood there is. The Attis/Cybele ritual was a Spring ritual, during the Hilaria in March. It wasn't just that people cut themselves, it was that the males castrated themselves... and it was made illegal even in ancient Rome to do that. How they take that and extrapolate that this is where the red of Christmas comes from is beyond me.

Frazer's ideas aren't even accepted by most historians any longer. It amuses me how Armstrongists can read from The Golden Bough and take chunks of it as gospel truth, but ignore the rest of it.

I agree with Retired Prof:
"The same with red on Christmas trees. Nobody even remembers the bloody rituals of Attis any more. Therefore, in their current context, red Christmas ornaments cannot possibly retain the associations Frazer attributes to them in ancient times."

Black Ops Mikey said...

You know, this wouldn't be a problem if people used the proper safety protocols putting up the Christmas trees, but some people are in a hurry and there are sharp edges and pin like tree needles.

We recommend gloves. This will help you to avoid drawing blood and getting it on the tree and ornaments.

Especially be careful and have appropriate approved devices, such as a solidly American built ladder, to put the angel or star on top of the tree. A nasty fall might not just spill blood on the tree, but may result in broken bones or an injured back.

Also insure that you use only UL approved decorations for lights on the tree because otherwise they may be a fire hazard.

This Christmas, do be sure to put up your Christmas tree safely.

This message was sponsored by OSHA and the Safety Council of America.

Anonymous said...

Connie said,
"People who do celebrate Xmas are not trying to be "wicked" or deliberate in disobeying God. They are simply acting from ignorance or not informed."

Please don't assume too much and lump me into those categories, Connie.

I've studied the subject extensively, and I do celebrate Christmas, although in a secular fashion- as many (or perhaps most?) people do.
For many people, decorating, lights, family reunions, and believing in peace on Earth and goodwill toward all is nice, and has nothing to do with Christmas' "evil" or "pagan" roots.
It's what is is today, and not what it was thousands of years ago.

I wonder if the nutty and [totally non historical] "HWA-Style" Feast of Tabernacles could be now rejected by COG people, because it was a time when HWA doubled-down on raping his daughter and GTA doubled-down on sexually assaulting women- a few scant years ago.

Retired Prof said...

As a teenager in the Radio Church of God I found the release from Christmas frenzy to be liberating, and after walking away from the Church I felt no inclination to subject myself to it. Later, however, to promote smooth relations with my bride's family, I participated in their celebrations.

Then after a few years we had children. It would have served no purpose, in the absence of any religious taboo, to deny them the experiences their peers were enjoying. So we gave them to them, being sure to tell them Santa Claus was only a character in a game we play, not a real person. We told them that both their grandmothers believed Jesus was a real person, and we honored their belief by not challenging or belittling it. The kids were free to make up their own minds.

In other words, like Anon on Dec. 27 at 10:20 AM, we were not simply acting from ignorance.

By the way, Connie, I mean this comment only to broaden the context of the Christmas problem, not to try to one-up you. I admire your ready wit, your analytical ability, and your talent for explaining your points with clarity and force. In spite of the differences in our world-views, I can't help thinking that, if your domestic persona is at all like your on-line one, your husband is a very lucky man.