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.]

tcay584 wrote

Was the purpose of this post to encourage a genuine discussion of Christianity, or simply to rudely belittle us Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Jesus Christ believing people?

I respect your belief in Christianity just as you should respect my belief in Santa

One fantasy is as good as the other...

[Amadeus]

How has Snta affected your life?

[dangerdan]

Was the purpose of this post to encourage a genuine discussion of Christianity, or simply to rudely belittle us Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Jesus Christ believing people?

As I said in my first post, I do not mean this to be a degrading question, but merely a candid one. I wish to discuss the reasons why Christians believe some things and not others, Santa just seemed like a good place to start. Though I get the impression some merely think “Santa?! That’s ridiculous. This thread is silly.”

I feel the issues lying underneath are somewhat important.

[dangerdan]

Cute, huh? How this topic went on so long is very curious.

Corvus, I sense and inimical tone.

[illuminatus]

Well... just to throw something else out here. In Russia Christmas is also celebrated. However, there is no Santa Clause. Presents are still given but they are given by Father Cold (literal translation). People know him to have a fictional presense but still believe in his existance in an abstract metaphorical sense.

[mrmufin]

Because if they had [bothered to truly seek Him or know Him], they would be as I am today: A Christian.

Only if the data is convincing.

I can't make any mistakes at being mrmufin, either. In fact, nobody does mrmufin better than me. No matter what I do, I'll always be mrmufin, so there's no possible way that I can ever make a mistake being mrmufin. Right?

Exactly! Thank you! You have cleared my frustration. That's my point.

Yes! Super! We agree that it's nonsensical!

Right, but Christians have been redeemed. Having Faith in God, we are no longer skeptical (unless we are sinning). If there is something else you meant to point out, I didn't catch it, sorry.

'cept fer Santa, right? You can be plenty skeptical about Santa Claus without sinning, yes?

The point I had in mind when asking that question was that my definition of cruelty is based upon God's definition. If something is not sinful, it isn't cruel, therefore I don't see an act by God as being cruel.

But God doesn't define cruelty, at least not with any consistency. God says, "Don't kill" and then orders killing, without any apparent or described justice system. It was pretty much, "Kill 'em all, even the kids, even the feeble, spare not the livestock, nor the rhubarb. Pulverize that town, kids." Isn't there just a smidgen of inconsistency between God's commandment and God's actions?

I was wondering by what criteria you define cruel.

A situation where unnecessary, unjustified pain or torment is inflicted.

For example: If an entire village of Amalekites (men, women, and children) consented to, collaberated, marched out and slaughtered a peaceful neighboring village of theirs for no reason what-so-ever, would it then be cruel for the Israelites to go and kill them all, in this hypothetical situation?

Yep.

[...]I do have compassion for non-believers, even ones that go to Hell, but I believe that compassion stems from a lack of understanding. If I knew everything God knows... I really have no idea if I would be so compassionate. That's all I'm saying.

Or maybe you'd be even more compassionate. If I was all-powerful and I cared about what I created, I'd be doing everything possible to minimize the amount of suffering that my creation would have to endure. That's all I'm saying.

I am not positive what God's reasoning for doing everything is.

So this might all be a prank? Maybe Hell and Heaven have been swapped?

Sorry. I understand, but you and others ask for justification to events that require such an answer. If we changed subjects to something more pleasant, I'm sure you will find warmth and compassion and love in my character.

Yeah, but the whole, "Just be glad yer not gettin' stuffed up like the Amalekites, buddy!" philosophy seems kinda inconsistent with the warm, lovey, fuzzy, "Jesus loves you and so do I" bit.

Let's assume God exists and is perfect, always good, and righteous.

Those are some enormous assumptions... But then again, I exist, and I am perfectly mrmufin. Since nobody does mrmufin quite as good as me, it's safe to say that I'm good at it. And I'm feelin' pretty righteous today, indeed. And when I feel righteous, so does mrmufin, 'cause nobody does mrmufin quite like me, and that's why I'm perfect at it, 'cause I exist. Got change for a thirty dollar bill?

With that as a given, what is wrong with my belief?

Regards,
mrmufin

[chrispalasz]

I am going to answer some of your questions with questions. I think it will help you to understand my perspective. Please don't think I am dodging your questions by doing this. I just feel it will better provide an understanding.

Unless, you fully understand my position and are just playing the devil's advocate. Is this the case? Because if it is, we don't need to discuss anything. Right?

GreenLight311 wrote:
Because if they had [bothered to truly seek Him or know Him], they would be as I am today: A Christian.

Only if the data is convincing.

I agree! Woohoo! Check one. We've settled this one.
1. If the data is not convincing, one will not believe.
2. If the data is convincing, one will believe.

There are other options, but we both agree that these two statements are true.

But God doesn't define cruelty, at least not with any consistency. God says, "Don't kill" and then orders killing, without any apparent or described justice system. It was pretty much, "Kill 'em all, even the kids, even the feeble, spare not the livestock, nor the rhubarb. Pulverize that town, kids." Isn't there just a smidgen of inconsistency between God's commandment and God's actions?

Why does God order killing, do you think?
To answer your second question: No. I do not see any inconsistency between God's commandment and His actions.
Assumed given: God exists and He is all powerful, and perfectly benevolent.
1. Does God know the future?
2. Does God know everything everyone will do?
Jesus says that it is what is within us that defiles us, not what comes out of us. If this is true, and God knows everything, does He need to wait for somebody do do something before He punishes them?
And on top of that, everyone is born sinful and deserving of death.

GreenLight311 wrote:
I was wondering by what criteria you define cruel.

mrmuffin wrote:
A situation where unnecessary, unjustified pain or torment is inflicted.

GreenLight311 wrote:
For example: If an entire village of Amalekites (men, women, and children) consented to, collaberated, marched out and slaughtered a peaceful neighboring village of theirs for no reason what-so-ever, would it then be cruel for the Israelites to go and kill them all, in this hypothetical situation?

mrmuffin wrote:
Yep.

I did not say that the Israelites would torture the Amalekites for their deed. I said the Israelites would simply put them to death. In your definition you say "unnecessary, unjustified pain or torment" (either one) are conditions for cruelty. Are you saying that in this hypothetical situation, the Israelites' actions would be unnecessary? What if the Amalekites attacked THEM next? Are you saying that the Israelites would be unjustified in putting to death a town of people that slaughtered an innocent and peaceful neighboring town? Your definition does not agree with your answer.

Or maybe you'd be even more compassionate. If I was all-powerful and I cared about what I created, I'd be doing everything possible to minimize the amount of suffering that my creation would have to endure. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, well... you're not God. If you were, you'd agree with Him.

GreenLight311 wrote:
I am not positive what God's reasoning for doing everything is.

mrmuffin wrote:
So this might all be a prank? Maybe Hell and Heaven have been swapped?

I am not positive what God's reasoning for doing everything is. But I am positive that what God tells me is true. The reasoning I am not positive about is the reasoning God does not share with me at this time. God says it's right and I have full confidence and Faith that He is truthful.

mrmuffin wrote:
Yeah, but the whole, "Just be glad yer not gettin' stuffed up like the Amalekites, buddy!" philosophy seems kinda inconsistent with the warm, lovey, fuzzy, "Jesus loves you and so do I" bit.

Yeah. I agree. And I'm so annoyed with those churches. The ones where you walk in and they're nothing but, "Jesus loves you and me and everyone and everything and..." yada yada:roll: . They have this attitude like Jesus wouldn't squash a fly or that He spent His time walking in fields of flowers reading books to children and picking daisies. Ridiculous! Jesus is Love... but He is also the Judge. His is compassionate... but He is also Powerful. I am highly annoyed with the 2nd bit you mention.

mrmuffin wrote:
Those are some enormous assumptions... But then again, I exist, and I am perfectly mrmufin. Since nobody does mrmufin quite as good as me, it's safe to say that I'm good at it. And I'm feelin' pretty righteous today, indeed. And when I feel righteous, so does mrmufin, 'cause nobody does mrmufin quite like me, and that's why I'm perfect at it, 'cause I exist. Got change for a thirty dollar bill?

With that as a given, what is wrong with my belief?

So you ARE simply playing devil's advocate. This entire time... I thought you just weren't getting the points I was making. You could have told me... that would have saved us time. I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me, I am explaining to you my perspective and asking you: if you had my perspective, wouldn't these things be justified?

To answer your question:
With this as a given, nothing is wrong with your belief. If your given is assumed to be true... if I thought it were true... I would not disagree with you at all.

Okay. Now, go ahead and tackel my question again! 8)

[Corvus]

Cute, huh? How this topic went on so long is very curious.

Corvus, I sense and inimical tone.

Hah, not towards you, dangerdan. I just think it's an overly simplified concept that we probably shouldn't beat people around their heads with. I'm still reeling from the fact that this was nominated for best debate topic!

[mrmufin]

I am going to answer some of your questions with questions.

Yay. I do that quite a bit myself....

Unless, you fully understand my position and are just playing the devil's advocate. Is this the case?

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.

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

Why does God order killing, do you think?

I have no idea why an all-powerful god would need to outsource the killing of an entire group of people and all their livestock, especially when the alleged god had already allegedly dictated a commandment against murder. Or killing. Whatever; it seems inconsistent. Conflicting. Do I follow the commandment or the example? Perhaps the example causes me to question the integrity of the commandment...

To answer your second question: No. I do not see any inconsistency between God's commandment and His actions.

I do. So there.

Assumed given: God exists and He is all powerful, and perfectly benevolent.

Those three assumptions are enormous. So enormous that even if I was to agree to a concept of a god, that drescribing its properties without a significant amount of observational evidence could be a very tedious task.

1. Does God know the future?
2. Does God know everything everyone will do?

The answers usually depend on who you ask. How could we find out?

Jesus says that it is what is within us that defiles us, not what comes out of us. If this is true, and God knows everything, does He need to wait for somebody do do something before He punishes them?

Well, gosh, even if the gods allegedly know the outcome, we might stand a better chance of learning the boundaries if we're allowed the opportunity to see how things play out.

And on top of that, everyone is born sinful and deserving of death.

Then why is it wrong to murder, say, teenagers? Lather, rinse, repeat previous question.

I did not say that the Israelites would torture the Amalekites for their deed.

I know. You said they would kill 'em all. I think that's cruel because I don't consider the hypothetical acts of the Israelites as justified or necessary.

I said the Israelites would simply put them to death. In your definition you say "unnecessary, unjustified pain or torment" (either one) are conditions for cruelty. Are you saying that in this hypothetical situation, the Israelites' actions would be unnecessary? What if the Amalekites attacked THEM next?

Unnecessary, yes. Is death the only way that you can think of to prevent attack?

Are you saying that the Israelites would be unjustified in putting to death a town of people that slaughtered an innocent and peaceful neighboring town? Your definition does not agree with your answer.

Yes; in fact, it does.

]Yeah, well... you're not God. If you were, you'd agree with Him.

And God is not mrmufin, either. 'Cause if he was, he'd agree with me, 'cause I'm perfectly mrmufin and there's no way I can screw that up.

I am not positive what God's reasoning for doing everything is. But I am positive that what God tells me is true.

What does God tell you? And how would you know if it wasn't true? Or is this another one of those circles: it's true because true is defined by what God tells me, even if he tells Samuel something different from what he told Moses, they've both gotta be true because it was God sayin' it?

The reasoning I am not positive about is the reasoning God does not share with me at this time. God says it's right and I have full confidence and Faith that He is truthful.

In other words, you really wouldn't know if God was fibbing a bit becuase you're already confident that his word is already right and truthful? If I make up my mind that everything our teenage nephew says is a lie, than nothing he says could ever be true because we've ruled out a priori all possibility of truth. See?

Yeah. I agree. And I'm so annoyed with those churches. The ones where you walk in and they're nothing but, "Jesus loves you and me and everyone and everything and..." yada yada:roll: . They have this attitude like Jesus wouldn't squash a fly or that He spent His time walking in fields of flowers reading books to children and picking daisies. Ridiculous!

Yeah, bring back the fire and brimstone, baby! There needs to be more killing and violence. This mushy-lovey-friendly stuff is such a drag! We need to remind people that everyday that God doesn't send outsourced thugs to your town to mess up your stuff, your parents and your children that you're the luckiest person alive! Mo' killin'! Mo' killin'!

Jesus is Love... but He is also the Judge. His is compassionate... but He is also Powerful. I am highly annoyed with the 2nd bit you mention.

Yeah, those sick SOBs; spreadin' their peace and compassion all around like some kinda hippie love-in where everybody's smokin' grass and listening to Donovan albums. Sure can't let that talk of Jesus is Love get all outta hand or next thing you know people all be all happy and pleasant and havin' a good time an' drinkin' root beer sodas and that'd really suck.

I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me, I am explaining to you my perspective and asking you: if you had my perspective, wouldn't these things be justified?

I'm sure your perspective seems justified to you. But it's far too thick a stack of assumptions for my tastes.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Gaunt]

Jesus says that it is what is within us that defiles us, not what comes out of us.

If you are thinking of the same verse I'm thinking of (and I unfortunately forget which chapter or book it is in), as I recall he said something more along the lines of "it isn't what you put in yourself that defiles you, but what you allow to come out." He was referring specifically to washing your hands or some such thing before eating. The words that come out of our mouths come from our hearts, and it is those that can truly defile someone, rather than having a bit of dirt on a carrot.