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

dangerdan · Post by **dangerdan** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:48 pm

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.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:18 pm

foshizzle, You said this:

How is believing in a higher power "not having a life"? According to you, your life has no meaning and purpose (seeing as you accidentally evolved from ooze)...that seems like less of a life than mine.

You said it. Not me, and now you dont take responsibility for what you said? Cheezes.

foshizzle · Post by **foshizzle** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:23 pm

I would honestly rather debate factual topics, rather than individual opinions and beliefs...

Instead of going back and forth between purpose, ooze, weakness, etc., can we stick with history (and the original purpose of this thread)?

Notice my use of the word 'we', as I aided in the offtopic-ness (if there exists such a word).

So, can you answer my previous posts, now?

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:33 pm

LillSnopp wrote:

Im in pain at th moment, so im not going to waste my time with you, i almost pitty you, seriously, you are so afraid of Death that you need to create some sort of afterlife for yourself, sure, this is ok, but atleasat admit you are weak instead of trying to act like like its commonsense. Get a life, seriously.

LillSnopp, if you think personal attacks like this reinforce your arguments in any way you are seriously mistaken. They are against the rules and won't be tolerated in a civil forum such as this one. Please tone down your language or you will receive a formal warning.

Post by **otseng** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:48 pm

LillSnopp wrote: Im in pain at th moment, so im not going to waste my time with you, i almost pitty you, seriously, you are so afraid of Death that you need to create some sort of afterlife for yourself, sure, this is ok, but atleasat admit you are weak instead of trying to act like like its commonsense. Get a life, seriously.

Please avoid making any comments about other posters. Also, avoid suggesting what other people should do, like "get a life". No matter how you feel about a poster, it is not appropriate to post such comments on this forum. Thanks.

rapture101 · Post by **rapture101** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:34 pm

Santa Clause is not real.I really don't understand what this has to do with Christianity.no offense.

foshizzle · Post by **foshizzle** » Sun May 01, 2005 12:23 am

I'm not sure if the point of this thread was to compare God to Santa, or Jesus to Santa.

Which was it?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sun May 01, 2005 12:32 am

foshizzle wrote:I'm not sure if the point of this thread was to compare God to Santa, or Jesus to Santa.

I thought Jesus and God were supposed to be the same guy.

Have you changed your mythology?

foshizzle · Post by **foshizzle** » Sun May 01, 2005 12:58 am

Well, in that case...

What's the point of this thread? You can make every asinine argument against the existance of Caeser, Aristotle, Socrates and every other 'ancient' historical figure.

The fact that the vast majority of scholars believe Jesus Christ existed (the same ones that believe the aforementioned people) would lead me to believe he did, seeing as they know how to accurately determine these things.

What is your reason for believing in the existance of Aristotle? Socrates? Herodotus? Homer? Julius Caeser? Thucydides?

If you don't believe they did, then there's no point in the conversation continuing, because you're denying the validity of what scholars, historians, archaeologists and more accept as fact.

If you do, why would you possibly believe they existed, but hold a double standard criteria to the Bible?

What's your criteria for determining the validity of ancient historical documents, because to deny the existance of Jesus is to hold a criteria unlike any scholar held in esteem by the historical society.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Sun May 01, 2005 1:12 am

foshizzle wrote:What's your criteria for determining the validity of ancient historical documents, because to deny the existance of Jesus is to hold a criteria unlike any scholar held in esteem by the historical society.

Easy now...
Who's questioning Jesus' existence? Not me. I just don't think he was god. (or is god, or whatever).
What "historical society" are you referring to? Any "scholar held in esteem" would know better than to consider the gospels "historical"in the sense you imply.

foshizzle · Post by **foshizzle** » Sun May 01, 2005 1:26 am

What "historical society" are you referring to?

Historians, overall.

Any "scholar held in esteem" would know better than to consider the gospels "historical"in the sense you imply.

The Gospels were accounts of the 3 year ministry of Jesus. They are not, however, the /only/ historical documents dealing with his existance. As i mentioned earlier, Jesus is also written about in the works of Thallus, Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Hadrian, Suetonius, Phlegon, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapoion and the Jewish rabbis at the time.

Most historians wouldn't maintain a job if they accused every aforementioned author of lying.

As for believing the accounts of the Gospels, there is no real reason not to. There was nothing to gain by writing of Jesus (11 of his disciples were killed in horrible ways...doesn't sound like something I'd lie to be a part of).

There's also no reason to doubt them being the authentic authors (i.e. no reason to think someone wrote the accounts and lied about the authorship to gain credibility). They were unlikely, pointless people; there was no reason to "lie" and say you were them. Much more prominent were Mary, Peter and James, but Mark and Luke weren't even among Jesus' twelve. Matthew was, but he was a former tax collector (absolutely abhored by the people at the time). After Judas Iscariot, he would have been the most infamous person to claim authorship over. There's simply no reason to assume the authors lied.

John is the only exception (and interestingly, the only gospel who's authorship is questioned). It's a question of whether it was John the apostle, or John the Elder (both mentioned by Papius in his writings). Granted that exception, the early testimony is unnanimous that it was in fact John the Apostle that wrote it.

Concerning how we know it was them, again, the oldest and most important author to take into consideration was Papius. (125 AD). He specifically affirms that Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations. He even says "Mark made no mistakes and didn't include any false statements." He said the same of Matthew.

(most of what i just wrote was from my post on the previous page).

There's also no reason to believe the Gospels weren't written with true accounts. Luke, for example, mentions hundreds of cities (all of which have been verified historically).

Now that the subject of the historical proof is out of the way, it's necessary to head to the actualy truthfullness of Christ's teachings.

There's no reason to think he's lying.
There's no reason to think of him as insane.

You may not believe that he is the Son of God, but understand that it goes against every bit of evidence that history and accounts of his time have to offer.