Santa, do Christians believe in him? If not, why not.

[dangerdan]

Ok, you're probably wondering what Santa has to do with Christianity? bear with me here....

The topic of Santa was brought up in the thread "Everyone should be agnostic?, and with it brought some interesting topics to do with belief systems, well worthy of a new thread.

Now why is this in a Christianity forum? I think it has some rich insights into Christian epistemology - why they believe in some things and not others. I was pondering putting this in the philosophy sub-forum, but I feel it’s more relating to pure Christian thought (though if moderators feel otherwise then that's ok).

So, let the debate begin! I do not intend the question to be demeaning or disrespectful, but merely a candid enquiry. So with no further ado - Do Christians believe in Santa? If not, why not.

[potwalloper.]

Just for clarification: is this thread a joke... an excuse for an exercise in mental gymnastics? Are the arguments for the existence of Santa Clause serious?
I don't mean to offend- I am curious.

Whilst the responses have, in the main, been tongue-in-cheek the basis of this debate is, in my view, deadly serious.

Christians need to understand that I (and many atheists) perceive Christian arguments for the existence of God in exactly the same way as Christians perceive the arguments in this thread for the existence of Santa.

In my view the Christian myth lies in exactly the same category as Santa, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, the water babies, peter pan, hobbits, ghosts, spirits, curses and all other products of human imagination. Sorry but the bible is neither evidential nor logical.

However if you Christians want to believe in fairies (or a God for that matter) who am I to judge? Go for it - I'll just get back to my studies on alchemy...now where did I put that base metal?

Greenlight311 wrote:

Are you saying that nobody that believes in a god is logical and that the belief is not logical?

Yes

1. Adults really do not believe in Santa today.

Adults do not believe in God today

2. That's because Santa is not real.

That's because God is not real

3. There is no evidence for Santa to exist.

There is no evidence for God to exist

4. There are no non-fiction books that seriously entertain the possibility that he does exist.

There are no non-fiction books that seriously entertain the possibility that God does exist (the bible is a work of fiction)

5. The origin of Santa is completely debatable.

The origin of God is completely debatable

6. The arguments and circumstances between Santa and God are anything but parallel.

The arguments and circumstances between Santa and God are exactly the same.

Sounds like you just argued that God doesn't exist...

[jddlwlr]

hi im new, i believe in santa because my dad is him.

[Arch]

Christmas has everything to do with the birth of Jesus Christ in that it is the day that we celebrate His birth. It may not be the actual day, but big deal. In America, we celebrate the 4th of July... but that's not really the day America became independant.

Santa is intrinsically linked to Christmas. So if Christians don't believe in Santa why do they celebrate his day?

Any one who can read or watch the History Channel knows that the man they call Jesus was not born on December 25.

The same being applied they would also know that the custom, traditions and celebration of Christmas was done thousands of years before Jesus was even born.

The reason this celebration was done before him is that Santa has always existed and has required of us that we celebrate his existence on this day.
Santa is the reason for the season.

It is blasphemous to contribute his day to another god and in truth really can't be done because even if they are non believers they still worship Santa on that day by keeping his customs and traditions.

Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Non Santa believers try to delude themselves into believing that they worship Jesus on that day. Christmas is the celebration of the existence of Santa, even during the time of ancient Babylon, people believed a spirit would come and put gifts under a tree on December 25 during the winter Solstice. Even Jeremiah 10 of the bible notes the tradition of cutting a tree from the forest and decking it with silver and gold. A CHRISTMAS TREE

History and the bible give emphatic proof that Santa does exist and has always existed. His existence can not be denied his traditions have stood the test of times. For longer than people have worshipped Allah and Jesus people have kept the word of Santa and worshipped him on his day.

Even in 2004, christians and even some muslims and others around the world teach their children of Santa and his works. So you can see you can't get around the awesome power of Santa.

His greatness is the reason he is celebrated all across the world by most religions. His does this without threats of hell or promises of heaven. He is worshipped willingly by those who love him. That is true greatness. His works speak for him and people love him. Called by many different names he cares not for sematics and answers the prayers of all his followers no matter what name they call him by.

Surely you can see the salvation power of Santa, so again I ask why do christians celebrate Christmas if they don't believe in Santa

[Osiris Dragonfhain]

Christmas has everything to do with the birth of Jesus Christ in that it is the day that we celebrate His birth. It may not be the actual day, but big deal. In America, we celebrate the 4th of July... but that's not really the day America became independant.

Santa is intrinsically linked to Christmas. So if Christians don't believe in Santa why do they celebrate his day?

Any one who can read or watch the History Channel knows that the man they call Jesus was not born on December 25.

The same being applied they would also know that the custom, traditions and celebration of Christmas was done thousands of years before Jesus was even born.


The reason this celebration was done before him is that Santa has always existed and has required of us that we celebrate his existence on this day.
Santa is the reason for the season.

It is blasphemous to contribute his day to another god and in truth really can't be done because even if they are non believers they still worship Santa on that day by keeping his customs and traditions.

Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Non Santa believers try to delude themselves into believing that they worship Jesus on that day. Christmas is the celebration of the existence of Santa, even during the time of ancient Babylon, people believed a spirit would come and put gifts under a tree on December 25 during the winter Solstice. Even Jeremiah 10 of the bible notes the tradition of cutting a tree from the forest and decking it with silver and gold. A CHRISTMAS TREE

History and the bible give emphatic proof that Santa does exist and has always existed. His existence can not be denied his traditions have stood the test of times. For longer than people have worshipped Allah and Jesus people have kept the word of Santa and worshipped him on his day.

Even in 2004, christians and even some muslims and others around the world teach their children of Santa and his works. So you can see you can't get around the awesome power of Santa.

His greatness is the reason he is celebrated all across the world by most religions. His does this without threats of hell or promises of heaven. He is worshipped willingly by those who love him. That is true greatness. His works speak for him and people love him. Called by many different names he cares not for sematics and answers the prayers of all his followers no matter what name they call him by.

Surely you can see the salvation power of Santa, so again I ask why do christians celebrate Christmas if they don't believe in Santa

I have to say that the last two pages really got my attention exspecally with the pagan gods. I have to agree with the concept of Santa being around before Christianity. Gift giving supposidly came from three wise men when it actually has been part of Pagan tradition for Yule Dec 21st way before Christianity. Holly, Yule log, Green tree decorated (now Christmas Tree) all these things are part of the Pagan Celebration way before Christianity. Once again like many other things Christians took it over and made it fit to their beleifs.

[chrispalasz]

The Santa Argument
(Santa vs Jesus: No Competition)

First of all, Jesus is presented as a historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings and by reputable people in modern times both with secular and religious beliefs and backgrounds. Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character.

Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally and knowing presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.

Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults where as the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.

Fifth, the facts are that parents are the ones who buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth commenting on since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly which further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washing D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.

Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least, that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracts on the roofs of snow covered homes strewn about millions of homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples' homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected -- particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists except in the mind of children.

Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can be reasonably supported to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them that Santa is real.

For any person to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for that person to distinguish between historical verifiable documents and known constructed children's' stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

courtesy of www.carm.org

[bernee51]

First of all, Jesus is presented as a historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings and by reputable people in modern times both with secular and religious beliefs and backgrounds.

I dispute this fact and have asked you have offered on more than one occasion to provide independent contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus. There is none that I know of and would really appreciate you bringing to my notice something, anything, that would meet these criteria.

Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles.

Just because he is presented as same does not make it a fact. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure.

Sure they are....which version of the resurrection do YOU believe.

Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults where as the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children.

How do you know who the gospel writers actually were let alone their intentions?

Fifth, ...

what happened to fourth?

the facts are that parents are the ones who buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. ...

And it is parents, in the first instance, who introduce children to their god. It is parents who perpetuate the myth of your god and jesus.

Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him),

On what do you base this claim?

that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least, that Jesus was an actual historical person.

I claim this is not true and will never be true no matter how many times you say it it.
The existence of an historical Jesus is dubious at best. The existence of a Jesus (and his exploits) as described in the NT is a fairy story equivalent to the Santa Claus story.

Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text,...

Just because people get sucked into a myth doesn't make it a fact. Elsewise normal folk have engaged in all sorts of behaviours based on myth. Like genocides ibased on belief of a ubermensch

....performing miracles, etc.,

yeah right. What 'miracles' are you referring to?

and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists except in the mind of children.

There is no evidence of the existence of Jesus other than in the minds of believers.

Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can be reasonably supported to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus

Repeating an erroneous belief will not make it a fact. (OK OK it works for politicians )
On what do you base the claim that "few people deny the historical reality of Jesus"?

... we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them that Santa is real.

And parents also tell them god is real and Jesus existed.

For any person to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for that person to distinguish between historical verifiable documents and known constructed children's' stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

There you go...making THAT claim again. How many times in this post...but not once have you offered up one scrap of evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Do you have any hard evidence? There is none extant that I am aware of.

[chrispalasz]

bernee51:

This is a discussion forum. It is not a library, and it is not a University. I am stating readily available and attainable facts, I am not making off-the-wall claims about being able to reconcile quantum systems that show correlations over large distances (Quantum Enganglement).

Very little of your last post is actually discussion material. Most of the answers can be easily found by doing a 2 second online search. If you are uneducated on these issues, I can recommend a good book. This information is at your fingertips. If you want a discussion, read up - then post your counter argument, but I don't see exactly how it's fair to try and get me to write a novel here.

Here's some stuff my google search turned up. Happy reading:

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... rical.html

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/hist ... stjesu.htm

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_02.htm

http://www.probe.org/docs/ancient.html

http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/sec6p1.htm

Ancient non-Christian historical writings that mention Jesus:
Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, born in 62 C.E., Tacitus, Roman historian's birth year:64 C.E., Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.)

Sorry, I forgot the fourth. Here it is:

Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit a historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization except to state that there is a north pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.

And parents also tell them god is real and Jesus existed.

How many people born without Christian parental instruction grow into adulthood and come to believe in Christ? How many children born without parental influence regarding Santa Claus grow into adulthood and come to believe in him?

You do not need to respond to these questions. The answer is obvious.

[potwalloper.]

I am stating readily available and attainable facts

You are not stating facts you are stating beliefs.

Fact - an element's physical state varies according to temperature

Assertion - the bible is not a work of fiction

I have repeatedly asked you to provide one single piece of objective evidence to support your assertions over the existence of God. You have singularly failed to do this.

There is not one single piece of objective evidence to support a belief in god and to my knowledge never has been throughout the entire history of mankind.

A belief in god is therefore illogical. Believers in god must therefore also be deemed illogical.

You have a belief - I have no problem with that. Please do not present your belief as a fact - it is not (and yes I know that you feel that you know God exists - this has no bearing on the argument)

Facts are facts. Beliefs are not however many people believe them to be true - the entire population of the western world once believed that the Earth was flat - it ain't).

You do not appreciate, methinks, just how ludicrous arguments based on assertion sound to people like me...

[bernee51]

This is a discussion forum.

Right - and you are making claims that are unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable. I merely ask for your evidence of Jesus and your god, and I am not the only one.

... I am stating readily available and attainable facts...

no - you are quoting apologist scramblings for authenticity.

You claim the bible is historic yet there is no evidence supporting this. Not one contemportary writer mentions any of the so called 'history' in the bible.

For instance, take the alleged 'slaughter of the Innocents'. Here we have a maniacal jealous ruler (Herod) killing every new born boy child in the kingdom. A kingdom, that was actually a roman fiefdom. Not one writer, Roman, Arabic or Jewish thinks to bother mentioning this atrocity. Why could that be? Perhaps it didn't occur?

As to veracity and consistency - I ask you again...which version of the resurrection do you hold to be true. If you take the various resurrection stories and place them in chronological order as to when they were written you find an increasing level of the 'supernatural' creeping into the story. It got more wonderous and awe-inspiring the more it was told.

Chinese whispers.

Can I suggest you have a look here

Very little of your last post is actually discussion material.

If you supply your evidence I am happy to discuss it.

Here's some stuff my google search turned up. Happy reading:

{GL posts list of apologist web sites}

why do you assume I am not aware of these sites? Do you honestly believe that I would make claims without investigating the truth.

Now let's look at some of your evidence...

I note that none are contemporary with the life of the alleged Jesus. They are all writing after the fact.

...but of what do they write?


Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, born in 62 C.E.,
wrote about chriistians - not the christ

Tacitus, Roman historian's birth year:64 C.E.,
ditto

Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.),
doesn't mention Jesus by name, onle a 'wise king'

Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.),
There are no sources for Jesus in the Ignatian epistles other than the New Testament books and the writings of Irenaeus which only use the New Testament. Thus they contain no legitimate evidence of Jesus.

Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.),
Scholars date these epistles over 100 years after the death of Polycarp

Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.),
As sources for Jesus, the Second Epistle of Clement uses the Gospel of the Egyptians, a document which is rejected by even the most fundamentalist Christians, and also the New Testament books which we have shown to be valueless. Thus again we have no legitimate evidence of Jesus.

And so it goes on.

I am surprised that you have not mentioned Josephus.

Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit a historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality.

I dispute this. You have not demonsatrated in the least that this assertion is true.

There is no demonsatreable historical veracity exhibited in the bible. it is and will alwauys remain a 'book of myth'

You do not need to respond to these questions. The answer is obvious.

No I don't need to respond.

I also don't need you to tell me what I need and need not do.

[Arch]

First of all, Jesus is presented as a historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings and by reputable people in modern times both with secular and religious beliefs and backgrounds.

I dispute this fact and have asked you have offered on more than one occasion to provide independent contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus. There is none that I know of and would really appreciate you bringing to my notice something, anything, that would meet these criteria.

I disput it to there is a proven fact that there has been no man in race color or creed by the name of JESUS CHRIST.

Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles.

Santa is presented as a real person, his name has changed over time, but his still presented as real.

These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure.

Since Matthew didn't write Matthew and Mark and Luke didn't even Know the man you call jesus, We are already far from 99.5% accuracy or textually purity.

Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults where as the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children.

The bible is meant to entertain the imaginations of the uneducated and give mythology as answers to questions that currently can't be answered by science. Just as greek mythology and egyptian mythology and everyone elses mythology did in history.

the facts are that parents are the ones who buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. ...

The facts are that when people pray for their loved ones to heal, its the doctors and medicines that are healing them.

The fact of the matter is that when in a burning building praying to be saved it's a fire fighter or some other person who actually saves that person.

The fact of the matter is that when someone is in trouble it is an actual human being who comes to their rescue.

The fact of the matter is when you pray for a job, it doesn't drop out the sky, you have to go look for one and YOU actually do the work to find one.

Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him),

Matthew didn't write Matthew, even your own bible scholars have presented this.

Mark did't know Jesus nor did Luke

All of the gospels were written at least 70 years after the so called death of Jesus. 70 years John the baptist would have been well over a 100 years old he was older than jesus. Plus he was beheaded during the time of acts. So did he come back from the grave to write his gospel.

GreenLight here is how you present unbaised information.....

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

A prime example of this diversity of opinion is represented in the numerous, often contradictory "historical Jesus" books published in the past 25 years (compare, for example, the work of the Jesus Seminar, B. Mack, J. Dominic-Crossan with that of John P. Meier, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright). This has often had the effect of creating reconstructions of Jesus in the images of the particular authors, as opposed to narrating who Jesus really was, what he did, and what he taught. Nevertheless, most scholars are of the opinion that this process of often heated debate has produced viable results.

With that being said, seven of the epistles of Paul have been accepted by most scholars as authentic. The Johannine writings, particularly the Gospel and the first epistle, have been accepted as coming from circles around John the Evangelist, if not literally from his pen. The exact authorship of most other books has not been agreed upon by any measure.

The dominant view amongst recent scholars is that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark, whose author drew upon the tradition of Peter. Little or no direct biographical information about their authors is assumed to be traceable. In addition, many scholars have noted significant similarities between the Synoptics and John. Thus, as the general theory goes, Matthew and Luke used a written version of Mark (along with material from their own traditions, or material they made up themselves,) while John had contact with a "oral" (spoken) tradition of Mark.

According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating.

For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was 1 Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with 2 Peter usually being the latest.

that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least, that Jesus was an actual historical person.

See the info above....