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.

[Amadeus]

God is justified in His righteous anger. The creator of all things is allowed to destroy what He created.

[ENIGMA]

God is justified in His righteous anger. The creator of all things is allowed to destroy what He created.

I sure hope for your sake that the developer of the radiation shielding of a nearby nuclear reactor doesn't follow that reasoning.

Also, why are you against abortion or infanticide? Shouldn't the mother be allowed to destroy the life that she has created?

[chrispalasz]

I sure hope for your sake that the developer of the radiation shielding of a nearby nuclear reactor doesn't follow that reasoning.

The developer of the radiation shielding of a nearby nuclear reactor is not the same thing. God created everything from nothing. The developer of the radiation shield of a nearby nuclear reactor developed something from pre-existing materials. He did not build it himself, and he did not even conceive of and devise the planning himself. There's really no comparison.

Also, why are you against abortion or infanticide? Shouldn't the mother be allowed to destroy the life that she has created?

The mother did not create the child. God created the child. But with that argument aside... under that reasoning, the father created the child just as much as the mother did. Without the father, the mother could do nothing. So... in that sense, are you saying that if a mother does not want to abort her unborn child, the father should be able to abort it?

[chrispalasz]

mrmuffin wrote: Actually, I really don't understand your position. I think I understand the words and grammar and all... but as to the consistency and/or usefulness of the concepts, I'm sorta baffled.

Well the consistency is explained through the undefiled concept of the nature of God. The nature of God is that He exists, is Good, and is all powerful (the 3 O's). At this point of assumption, is the consistency of the concepts more clear? If it is clear at this level, we can take another step back to where you may question His nature. Right now, for discussion's sake, it is a given.

As for the usefulness... I'm not sure how to help you. I suppose the usefulness depends on who you're talking to. Since you're talking to me, I'll approach it with that angle. It is incredibly useful to me because I see it as being true. Is the truth not useful?

mrmuffin also wrote:
But so dismissed is the, "We can believe it because the data is convincing" circle.

Hahaha - Regardless. We do agree that the statement in a hypothetical circumstance that data exists that is convincing. That's the key point here. Let's remain positive. 8) Besides... I'm convinced.

mrmuffin kept writing: Do I follow the commandment or the example? Perhaps the example causes me to question the integrity of the commandment...

You absolutely most definately follow the commandment, since it is not possible to follow the example. In order to successfully follow the example, you would have to recreate a situation with the similar conditions. You would have to know what a person is thinking, what they have done, and what they will do. This is not possible.

Similarly, if we are going to say, "let's follow God's example" - then I'm going to have to say... "okay. Follow His example. Let me know when you create your own universe, world, and life."

We are men. We follow the example that God in the flesh set for us. That example is Jesus Christ - and we are to live our lives as Christ lived His. I hope that's been cleared up, now. At least to the point where you realize that people who see the world through Christianity are justified in their acceptance of God's wrath.

[mrmufin]

Actually, I really don't understand your position. I think I understand the words and grammar and all... but as to the consistency and/or usefulness of the concepts, I'm sorta baffled.

Well the consistency is explained through the undefiled concept of the nature of God. The nature of God is that He exists, is Good, and is all powerful (the 3 O's).

First, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by an explantion through the undefiled concept of the nature of God. How can you demonstrate that any of the gods exist or do not exist? To understand the nature of anything (gazelles, thorium decay, volcanoes, whatever) with any sense of clarity, you just can't beat good ol' fashioned observational data. I'm curious about what observational data --if any-- you have used to conclude that a particular god exists.

Without any observational data, how could one determine that the particular god is good, bad, or indifferent? Even if you define good as the stuff that God says (or does, depending on apologetic strategy), the short supply of empirical data of a particular, discernable god doing or saying anything at all leaves good open to very broad interpretation. Defining good as what God says or does is not only unpopular in more contemporary discussions, but pretty much meaningless given the short supply of evidence..

At this point of assumption, is the consistency of the concepts more clear?

Nope, sorry. For me, assumptions are not-so-tacit statements of uncertainty, not consistency.

If it is clear at this level, we can take another step back to where you may question His nature. Right now, for discussion's sake, it is a given.

The clarity is no more a given than (and trying to swerve this back toward the topic) "Santa exists, is Good, and brings toys to all the Good boys and girls each year." There are very few Good boys and girls; and I think we agree on that. You suggest that because we're all sinners, I suggest that at some point in each calender year, that few --if any-- boys and girls who live up to Santa's Law. That's not to say that they don't get presents, they just don't get 'em from Santa. Further, Santa can be met in person and everybody knows that the Santa at Rockefeller Center is the One True Santa the Claus.

Let's remain positive. 8) Besides... I'm convinced.

Yeah, the positive, warm, fuzzy, turn the other cheek, poetical and gentle is generally a better apologetic strategy with me. I get kinda defensive if someone starts tellin' me that I deserve to get it good, like the Amalekites got theirs.

Do I follow the commandment or the example? Perhaps the example causes me to question the integrity of the commandment...

You absolutely most definately follow the commandment, since it is not possible to follow the example. In order to successfully follow the example, you would have to recreate a situation with the similar conditions. You would have to know what a person is thinking, what they have done, and what they will do. This is not possible.

Ah, but several times throughout the course of history, individuals (from Moses, to Samuel, to Hitler, to Andrea Yates) have all claimed to be fulfilling the Will of the Lord. How could I consistently and effectively discern the honest ones from the posers? How could Samuel know whether to follow the commandment or God's (alleged) will?

We follow the example that God in the flesh set for us. That example is Jesus Christ - and we are to live our lives as Christ lived His.

And how was that? What documents --if any-- did Christ author? What contemporary, non-biblical accounts of the first century --if any-- mention Jesus? Could JC read and write? Could he do long division? Would there be any way to find out? To the contrary, you could take the next bus to Rockefeller Center, meet Santa, and test his long division capabilities. You could prob'ly even get you're picture taken with the Jolly One for a souvenir. Wish I had that kind of observational data of the gods at my disposal.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ENIGMA]

I sure hope for your sake that the developer of the radiation shielding of a nearby nuclear reactor doesn't follow that reasoning.

The developer of the radiation shielding of a nearby nuclear reactor is not the same thing. God created everything from nothing. The developer of the radiation shield of a nearby nuclear reactor developed something from pre-existing materials. He did not build it himself, and he did not even conceive of and devise the planning himself. There's really no comparison.

What about the person who wrote the computer program that regulates the core energy output so that the reactor doesn't either blow-up or cause a brown/black-out? Should they be entitled to wipe the program from the computer since:

a) They designed it and coded it.
b) It was not designed from pre-existing materials, but rather written purely by that programmer.

[chrispalasz]

Enigma wrote:
What about the person who wrote the computer program that regulates the core energy output so that the reactor doesn't either blow-up or cause a brown/black-out? Should they be entitled to wipe the program from the computer since:

a) They designed it and coded it.
b) It was not designed from pre-existing materials, but rather written purely by that programmer.

How do you know if one person did all that? I'm skeptical that what you claim here is true. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a team of people doing those things. If you can remove my skepticism by showing it was one person, you may have a valid point.

[ENIGMA]

Enigma wrote:
What about the person who wrote the computer program that regulates the core energy output so that the reactor doesn't either blow-up or cause a brown/black-out? Should they be entitled to wipe the program from the computer since:

a) They designed it and coded it.
b) It was not designed from pre-existing materials, but rather written purely by that programmer.

How do you know if one person did all that? I'm skeptical that what you claim here is true. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a team of people doing those things. If you can remove my skepticism by showing it was one person, you may have a valid point.

You know what, this is rather nitpicky, but I'll address it anyway:

There is inevitably some function or series of functions run by the program that, once removed ensures that the program either:

a) Doesn't compile
b) Compiles but behaves erratically (Values completely off, Segfaults, Crashes, etc)
c) Compiles, has no erratic behavior, but does effectively squat concerning the problem that the program is trying to resolve.

I know this is the case because I'm currently in finals week at Georgia Tech. and I have just finished all the lectures/projects/programming etc. that is done in my Computer Science courses. With this in mind, I am quite confident that people do not split up writing one line of code which calls some vital function without which the program will end up as above. Now, lets say that whoever it was who wrote the line of code calling a vital function decides to follow through on your proposed principle:

In all three of these cases the end result is the same, that the reactor either brown/black-outs or the core overheats, explodes, and becomes another Chernobyl. Still care to defend your principle?

[chrispalasz]

Still care to defend your principle?

I had to think for a minute to remember why we were talking about this in the first place. hah 8)

I realize it may have sounded nitpicky - but I brought it up because I don't know. I don't program.

Regardless, I would care to argue the point in another fashion. If that person wants to take away his code... who cares. There's always going to be somebody to fill his shoes. We can get code from somewhere else. But everyone needs God. Nothing and no one can take His place.

[Nyril]

Regardless, I would care to argue the point in another fashion. If that person wants to take away his code... who cares. There's always going to be somebody to fill his shoes. We can get code from somewhere else. But everyone needs God. Nothing and no one can take His place.

Actually, no.

The code he wrote is impossible to replace. As he didn't keep good records (or any for that matter) and the other records were destroyed, it was impossible to tell precisely what he had written, and as no general fault shows up (it's a really obscure change), it's impossible to pinpoint.

The reactor is currently running, and removing the code will cause it to meltdown a period of 30 seconds after it's removed, removing any chance of them entirely replacing the code, or possibly finding the sections he removed, as the program takes longer then 30 seconds to compile.

Can he then remove it?