Jesus vs Santa or visa versa

[EdwardAbbey]

Wouldn’t it be a kick if millions of adults believed Santa Claus was a literal historical person who lived at one time?

 

But not only that but actually and literally exists today and has a magic sleigh pulled by flying reindeer that travels all around planet earth once a year on Xmas day?

 

They would all be dragged off to the insane asylums.

 

But with Jesus that doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

Jesus is treated as if he was a true historical person who actually lived thousands of years ago and to add insult to injury, millions of Christians today actually believe he is still alive in the form of an invisible man.

 

They also actually believe that he exists in invisible form sitting on a cosmic easy chair in the sky somewhere and that he is going to return to planet earth on a white horse and literally levitate them off of planet earth and up into heaven some time soon.

 

There is no historical evidence the biblical Jesus ever lived and if it were ever officially revealed and proved I just have to wonder how Christians would react.

 

Would they continue to believe and live in denial that he never existed? Or would they face up to the truth and forsake their beliefs in such an obvious myth?

 

It just goes to show you that when millions believe in a myth as if it is literally true, it’s amazing how it can be believed to be true no matter how much proof that it is not.

 

When I look back on my former Christian beliefs I’m amazed that I allowed my mind to surrender to such a religious belief system.

[MQTA]

what's really funny is they make fun of ALL other absurd beliefs but defend this one. They don't even really fully understand their beliefs, it's so fucked up they just HAVE to ignore the shit.

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm this page really shows all the Good Jesus has done. Santa is more honorable. The worst Santa has done is a lot sweeter than the best Jesus is claimed to have done.

[willybilly30]

I have actually argued with adults over the existence of Santa clause.

Its supposing the spirit of Christmas and if you get a special gift or wish come true it means Santa came.

Its just dumb.

[Amethyst]

I have actually argued with adults over the existence of Santa clause.

Its supposing the spirit of Christmas and if you get a special gift or wish come true it means Santa came.

Its just dumb.

 

Willy,

 

It doesn't sound to me like they literally believe in Santa. It sounds to me like they're saying they believe it's just a metaphor for kindness and that the season is supposed to be about giving and being nice to people, which are my own thoughts on the subject.

[Antlerman]

I have actually argued with adults over the existence of Santa clause.

Its supposing the spirit of Christmas and if you get a special gift or wish come true it means Santa came.

Its just dumb.

 

Willy,

 

It doesn't sound to me like they literally believe in Santa. It sounds to me like they're saying they believe it's just a metaphor for kindness and that the season is supposed to be about giving and being nice to people, which are my own thoughts on the subject.

Exactly my thoughts about it. The same thing applies to Jesus. The difference though, and why Jesus is so much more popular, is because it's an overall better story line. It has more plot details. More drama: Act 1, Act 2, and Act 3. The writer of Mark had a great model of metaphors to work off of with Homer's Illiad and the Oddessy in creating the story line. With a masterpice like that to work from, no wonder it sold so many copies!!!

 

Santa Clause is fun, but all in all, it's just a cute little short story for once a year.

[highvoltage]

There is no historical evidence the biblical Jesus ever lived and if it were ever officially revealed and proved I just have to wonder how Christians would react.

 

Would they continue to believe and live in denial that he never existed? Or would they face up to the truth and forsake their beliefs in such an obvious myth?

 

It just goes to show you that when millions believe in a myth as if it is literally true, it’s amazing how it can be believed to be true no matter how much proof that it is not.

 

I was riding in a van with christians once and one of them made a statement that I found interesting (and a little appalling.)

 

"Even if God were proven to not exist I would still believe"

 

I wanted to say "You're an idiot," but I held my tongue. The other Christian commented on how wonderful that was or some such nonsense.

 

So what would christians do if god were shown not to exist? I honestly don't know that much would change, really. The fundies will continue to believe no matter what.

[Amethyst]

So what would christians do if god were shown not to exist? I honestly don't know that much would change, really. The fundies will continue to believe no matter what.

 

The Christian god has already been shown not to exist. And yet they still believe. Just goes to show how deeply brainwashed many people are.

[white_raven23]

Actually, there's LOTS of evidence for Santa Claus.

 

http://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/santafaq.htm

 

And one has to wonder why the christians have a problem with the guy. After all, he's patterned after a Saint that has more evidence for having existed, than Jesus does!

 

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=35

 

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=37

 

At the very least, St. Nicholas's birthplace actually existed! More than can be said for "Nazareth" the supposed hometown of Jezuzz.

[Checkmate]

I was riding in a van with christians once and one of them made a statement that I found interesting (and a little appalling.)

 

"Even if God were proven to not exist I would still believe"

 

I wanted to say "You're an idiot," but I held my tongue. The other Christian commented on how wonderful that was or some such nonsense.

 

So what would christians do if god were shown not to exist? I honestly don't know that much would change, really. The fundies will continue to believe no matter what.

This sad state of affairs should not surprise anyone on this forum. ALL of the Christians who post among us, adhere to this close-minded theology. No matter WHAT evidence, proof, reason or logic we bring to bear on their "faith", they will NOT be convinced. They WANT to believe, and therefore they do. "Faith" is the blindfold over the eyes of Reason. The ability to believe the "foolishness of God" is considered to be a "blessing". Doubting and questions are viewed as "sins" of a "carnal mind", ensnared by "Satan."

 

I don't know whether to laugh or rage at such obtuseness.

[willybilly30]

If they had put it that way, I would have understood it better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Willy,

 

It doesn't sound to me like they literally believe in Santa. It sounds to me like they're saying they believe it's just a metaphor for kindness and that the season is supposed to be about giving and being nice to people, which are my own thoughts on the subject.

[Antlerman]

This sad state of affairs should not surprise anyone on this forum. ALL of the Christians who post among us, adhere to this close-minded theology. No matter WHAT evidence, proof, reason or logic we bring to bear on their "faith", they will NOT be convinced. They WANT to believe, and therefore they do. "Faith" is the blindfold over the eyes of Reason. The ability to believe the "foolishness of God" is considered to be a "blessing". Doubting and questions are viewed as "sins" of a "carnal mind", ensnared by "Satan."

 

I don't know whether to laugh or rage at such obtuseness.

I'm coming to understand much better these days how that the reality of the bible stories is non-important to most Christians. The fundie’s however are a different animal, and I completely agree that the blinders and head in the sand analogy definitely applies. But when someone wants to believe in a system of symbols as idealisms, or as a cultural identity, it's about those things, not whether Jesus actually walked on water, or even existed. It’s unimportant to them.

 

Are they lying to themselves, or are “facts” a non-issue when it comes to a mythology in peoples lives, like Santa Clause? For them, I would say it’s not “believing in a lie” – as such. It’s embracing a mythology, and that’s different.

 

Anyone’s thoughts?

[Amethyst]

Are they lying to themselves, or are “facts” a non-issue when it comes to a mythology in peoples lives, like Santa Clause? For them, I would say it’s not “believing in a lie” – as such. It’s embracing a mythology, and that’s different.

 

Anyone’s thoughts?

 

 

I would say they are both lying to themselves and making facts a non-issue. It's one thing to enjoy a particular story, like Lord of the Rings. It's quite another to claim that it was literally true without any proof and then insist that everyone else believe it.

[Checkmate]

I'm coming to understand much better these days how that the reality of the bible stories is non-important to most Christians. The fundie’s however are a different animal, and I completely agree that the blinders and head in the sand analogy definitely applies. But when someone wants to believe in a system of symbols as idealisms, or as a cultural identity, it's about those things, not whether Jesus actually walked on water, or even existed. It’s unimportant to them.

 

Are they lying to themselves, or are “facts” a non-issue when it comes to a mythology in peoples lives, like Santa Clause? For them, I would say it’s not “believing in a lie” – as such. It’s embracing a mythology, and that’s different.

 

Anyone’s thoughts?

You make an excellent observation, Antlerman. I would suggest, however, changing one word..."mythology". I think it more fair to say they embrace an IDEOLOGY. "Jesus" does not need to be "real", or even a myth. It's the idea of "Christ", "god with us", etc., etc. to which they cling. It's a "spiritual" thing.

 

And if this were ALL Christianity were about, then I daresay that none of us would have a problem with it. But as you say, "the fundies are a different animal." A breed of trouble makers.

[Ssel]

"the fundies are a different animal." A breed of trouble makers.

Someone is catching on.

 

But I would quickly add that the exact same "trouble" is being created and used by their opponents. Their opponents have a "fundy - Santa Claus class as well. All religions and major organizations do. This happens for a reason. And it causes the same results regardless of which organization started it. The interesting question is, "How do you create a large organization without creating a fundy class of pseudo-worshippers. Science has the same class already formed. So,

 

How do you prevent fundamentalist insanity?

[Checkmate]

But I would quickly add that the exact same "trouble" is being created and used by their opponents. Their opponents have a "fundy - Santa Claus class as well.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? I could guess, but then I could be wrong and just create confusion.

All religions and major organizations do. This happens for a reason. And it causes the same results regardless of which organization started it. The interesting question is, "How do you create a large organization without creating a fundy class of pseudo-worshippers. Science has the same class already formed. So,

 

How do you prevent fundamentalist insanity?

Fundamentalist insanity. Interesting. Maybe we have been fighting the symptoms and ignoring the disease? The disease being a rigid, literalist mindset, incapable of tolerating free thought and different conclusions/directions?

[white_raven23]

Fundamentalist insanity. Interesting. Maybe we have been fighting the symptoms and ignoring the disease? The disease being a rigid, literalist mindset, incapable of tolerating free thought and different conclusions/directions?

 

I propose the idea that everyone living in small town USA be treated to "foreign" exchange programs in Mid-size to large cities towards the end of high school. Not in a country overseas, just right here in the USA.

 

Why?

 

Because from my own observation of my small town family members, I've learned that the "my WHOLE world is high school" mentality cannot be recovered from living in a small town. It becomes firmer, more "set", becoming what we know as small town mindset. This includes a deep fear of anything not local, and terrified grasping for the percieved "control" religion offers as a substitute parent figure. Isolation and fear are compounded by the "us" and "them" concepts being encouraged from the pulpit.

 

By the time these people are aged (can't really say adult....can we?), they have a firmly set "I know everything" mindset with their belief system weaved through it. Thus everyone "outside" is not only wrong they are demonically, grossly, stupidly WRONG!! AND MUST BE CORRECTED!

 

No wonder they are so rabid. After all....they know everything.

[Ssel]

But I would quickly add that the exact same "trouble" is being created and used by their opponents. Their opponents have a "fundy - Santa Claus class as well.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

If you look around at any and all of the religions, you can see that the largest group of believers or followers have only a cartoon concept of their religion. But this aspect of large organizations is not restricted to religions. Very many engineering and science organizations have the exact same thing going on. The largest class of people who adhere to a discipline have accepted a great deal of thought without totally understanding it. This is an easy effect to understand. How many people can actually watch for themselves every scientific demonstration?

 

If it was required that every single member of a group watch for themselves every precept, then the group could never grow very large. Not growing is a sure danger of becoming extinct.

 

In the case of the group called believers in "science". I have pointed out how the 2LoT not only has no proof but more than 100 years ago was proven to be incorrect, but it is still argued to be a "law". Those who have accepted this "law" have never, EVER seen any proof of it, because there isn't one. This is a sure sign of a fundy class of followers. These are the people who argue the truth of something that they have never really understood properly. Eventually, in a society, these are the people who create trouble for anything new because they do not want to see that they have been wrong in any way. If they are proven wrong, they lose confidence in their lives because they have attached themselves to a mainstream flow for the sake of security.

 

This attaching is indeed wise, but it also creates the problem later. There is a solution, but it requires serious courage and dedication - not something easily found these days.

 

Maybe we have been fighting the symptoms and ignoring the disease? The disease being a rigid, literalist mindset, incapable of tolerating free thought and different conclusions/directions?

Exactly, exactly exactly.

 

 

Isolation and fear are compounded by the "us" and "them" concepts being encouraged from the pulpit... Thus everyone "outside" is not only wrong they are demonically, grossly, stupidly WRONG!! AND MUST BE CORRECTED!

I agree completely, although I would warn that the greater inspiration of fear is not really coming from the "pulpit".

 

The "hell fire and damnation" type of preachers are seriously in violation of their own religion, but even at that, they are still not the real culprits, they are merely the ones that you can see. The greater wisdom from very long ago was to never, EVER allow your instigating to be seen as coming from yourself, that way the victims will always assume and point to whoever they can see. Families can be easily broken as spouses blame each other for their troubles because the real cause is beyond their sight. It is a very old formula and has been worshipped as a "god" when fully established. (invisible and all powerful)

[highvoltage]

In the case of the group called believers in "science". I have pointed out how the 2LoT not only has no proof but more than 100 years ago was proven to be incorrect, but it is still argued to be a "law".

This is a little of topic, but I'm curious about how the 2LoT has been proven to be wrong. For the record, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states:

 

As two interacting macroscopic systems approach equilibrium, the changes in the system variables will be such that the number of states available to the combined system increases.

 

I was wondering how this is known to be incorrect, or in what cases it is not applicable.

[Ssel]

As two interacting macroscopic systems approach equilibrium, the changes in the system variables will be such that the number of states available to the combined system increases.

Wow, that is an extreme change in wording of the law from the late '60s. I knew they have changed the wroding many times more recently to try to make it sound valid. If I had my old text books, I would be glad to show the the original wording. This wording is a new one on me. I'll have to think about that version for a while, shouldn't take long..

 

I'm not a fan of web site sources, but while I'm examining this wording, you might look at the following. I argued with CT on the ID thread about the issue a bit. You can see what we were talking about there.

 

In 1868 J.C. Maxwell proved that a perpetual motion machine of the second kind would become possible, if the equilibrium temperature in a vertical column of gas subject to gravity were a function of height.

 

from http://users.aol.com/atrupp/loschmid.htm

 

Wikipedia states it as the following;

The most concise statement of the second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

Something to note is that in this wording the word "tends to" is used. This makes it more valid. As I stated in the other thread, it is only a rule of thumb, not a law. What other law in physics says that something "tends" to happen rather than "must" happen. The older wording stated it as a "always" thing, not a "usually" thing.

 

Off the top of my head, it appears that the wording you have presented would imply the exact opposite of the law. I'm not certain about that yet. Removing the concept of entropy from the law makes it very easy to misunderstand or misrepresent. The basic idea was that entropy (the useable energy) of a system, once randomized, can never be recovered. Any system at a uniform temperature, can not seperate cold from hot without adding work into the system to do so.

[Ssel]

As two interacting macroscopic systems approach equilibrium, the changes in the system variables will be such that the number of states available to the combined system increases.

Well, I think I can already determine that this version is necessarily incorrect.

 

My reasoning would be that I can produce 2 systems where in one the temperature differential decreases to a uniform state and in the other, the temperature differential increases. The fact that I can produce both says that a law can not require that either be always true. The wording in this version is, to me, very vague and dependent on perspective, but regardless, it is saying that only one direction of entropy can occur. I can provide examples (as noted on the other thread) which allow for either an increase or a decrease to occur. Thus no law can be made.

[Antlerman]

"the fundies are a different animal." A breed of trouble makers.

Someone is catching on.

 

But I would quickly add that the exact same "trouble" is being created and used by their opponents. Their opponents have a "fundy - Santa Claus class as well. All religions and major organizations do. This happens for a reason. And it causes the same results regardless of which organization started it. The interesting question is, "How do you create a large organization without creating a fundy class of pseudo-worshippers. Science has the same class already formed. So,

 

How do you prevent fundamentalist insanity?

Fundamentalists, ultra-right wing conservatives, ultra left wingers, are all part of the bell curve that makes up society. The main stream is the real force. The extreems are a necessary component of society that defines the middle. It will never go away. Whether it's in religion, or the flaws of the scientific community you like to point out. The point is, that Christianity in the general sense is not fundamentalism, nor is science, and therefore not to be whole distrusted as I sense is being inferred in these comments - however that should be a topic for a different thread, along with the 2LoT topic with is going on elsewhere already, if I recall correctly.

 

Back to mythology: Idealism as was pointed out could be a different word to use for the main stream religious mindset, but I would still say mythology is the better word. Mythology encompasses religious symbols. Idealism is part of it, but it's much more. It's symbolisms of the divine. As far as it being lying to one's self, it's a difficult concept to grasp how it's not. I've struggled for a long time to understand how millions of Hindu's believe in their gods, but would they really say yes, they all really existed? Yet those questions of "fact" are irrelevant to the issues. It's not about fact, it's about symbols.

 

This whole concept has been perhaps my greatest struggle to understand since leaving fundamentalism. Literalism is a mind set difficult to shake, and in one sense fundamentalism has come with me. One Christian I know once said to me, "Whenever I hear them say 'this is the truth' in church, it just makes me shudder'. Church for them is not about "facts" or "truth". Yet this person is far from unintelligent or intellectually dishonest. It's about "idealism" and "spirituality" through a system of mythological symbols. For me to insist that their approach to religious beliefs be rooted in verifiable facts, is in a sense being a fundamentalist again. Jesus is Santa Clause, execpt divine and more personal. He is a symbol.

 

Sorry for the rant. I've been processing this a very, very long time and this thread about Santa got me working this out.

[Ssel]

Jesus is Santa Clause, execpt divine and more personal. He is a symbol.

 

Sorry for the rant. I've been processing this a very, very long time and this thread about Santa got me working this out.

I wondering if your working from the perspective of seeing only 2 views of the religion. One being the mythological/idealsm and the other being a symbolism.

 

My understanding of it would be neither of those. My understanding of it is from the view that events represent real and relevant facts but they are written in a mystical language such as to appear, on the surface, as magical. But the event are real events, not mere symbols. The people are real people. In an abstract sense, it wouldn't matter if they were real because the concepts would be the same either way. But is this a third point of view from what you have been studying?

[Antlerman]

Jesus is Santa Clause, execpt divine and more personal. He is a symbol.

 

Sorry for the rant. I've been processing this a very, very long time and this thread about Santa got me working this out.

I wondering if your working from the perspective of seeing only 2 views of the religion. One being the mythological/idealsm and the other being a symbolism.

 

My understanding of it would be neither of those. My understanding of it is from the view that events represent real and relevant facts but they are written in a mystical language such as to appear, on the surface, as magical. But the event are real events, not mere symbols. The people are real people. In an abstract sense, it wouldn't matter if they were real because the concepts would be the same either way. But is this a third point of view from what you have been studying?

From a certain perspective you are right, and in part this is what I am saying. The "people" or "figures" are real in the sense of they are caricatures of a variety of ideals or principles, or even actual humans, that are what I would call the embodiments of the fears and aspirations of human beings. They are symbols of these things given the clothing of transcendence, making them powerful representations. In the strictest sense, Brahma, or Vishnu, or Jehovah, or Krishna, or Jesus, or William Tell in most likelihood were/are not "real" in the temporal sense as things that can be tested and verified as you or I, but are "real" as living symbols created by us - mythologies.

 

Now the trick to the power of these living symbols, as I think I'll start calling them, is that for them to work as such in peoples lives, they need to operate on a different plane of existence then temporal creatures, so they have to be placed where they can escape the rules of human existence being applied to them. If people turn on the same criteria for evaluating these "beings", as they do everything else in interacting with their earthly existence, they will fail to work as powerful symbols anymore. If they don't transcend our worldly experiences, then they become a different creature like us. They become like evaluating whether ETs or Bigfoot exist, and using scientific, or logic, or any other sort of rational approach to them will show them to be "questionable" beings who probably don't really exist. But if the rules don't apply to them, then people can accept them as trascendent beings, so they can continue to fulfill the role of symbols for them.

 

Fundamentalism is religions worst enemy in the sense that it tries to do just this, and make them logical and rational, verifiable, provable, rather then being transcendent and symbolic. Since they are creations of us, and are "real" as a projection of our collective selves, they have to be able to change with us. Mainstream religious "believers" (adopters would be a better word) do not care much for the extremists in their belief system because they make the power of those symbols less accessible to them, by making them less transcendent and more temporal.

 

I fairly positive most mainstream believers would not be able to articulate this. It's just what I've seen through observation and consideration. They just try to avoid examining their beliefs with scrutiny because they know that they can't do that. They want the symbols, not the temporal. It's not intellectual dishonesty, is embracing mythologies for what they offer that transcends mortality.

[Amethyst]

Because from my own observation of my small town family members, I've learned that the "my WHOLE world is high school" mentality cannot be recovered from living in a small town. It becomes firmer, more "set", becoming what we know as small town mindset. This includes a deep fear of anything not local, and terrified grasping for the percieved "control" religion offers as a substitute parent figure. Isolation and fear are compounded by the "us" and "them" concepts being encouraged from the pulpit.

 

I have family members in small towns. I also have family members not in small towns who think that way, although I do think they grew up in small towns. But you have a point, and having been an exchange student when I was in high school, I would agree with you. A required short-term exchange in the US would be a great idea. Even if they only lived with that family for say, a week, in a family that was not like theirs, they would learn a lot. It would also do a lot to break down stereotypes.

 

Of course, the fundies would never go for it and would probably take their kids out of public schools in order to avoid it, so the very kids who need it the most won't get it.

[Ssel]

I think you're accurately expressing 2 types of fundamentalism. In contrast, the non-fundamental understanding is represented in a very brief form here http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=114695

 

 

My earlier question was, "how do you prevent fundamental classes from forming?" It would appear that every member of a society would have to be exactly and highly trained in order to prevent corruption of any discipline or a caste system would have to be created so as to create a sign of irrelevance concerning those not trained. This would be similar to gaining a college degree. Of course the problem then becomes evident simply by looking around. How many people argue about things they really know very little about? Should they be disallowed? Should privilege be granted to only the upper class (properly trained) so as to ensure that the lower class didn't get authority and create "trouble"?

 

None of those sound like acceptable solutions to me