Santa's evolution began in the 4th century with the story of St. Nicholas; the Germanic people coopted the St. Nicholas story and blended it with Germanic paganism and it's in this period that St. Nick took on his supernatural powers. Santa continued to evolve until we have the modern Santa image invented and propagated by the Coca Cola company in the 1950's. The fact that there are parallels between Santa and God is irrelevant given that there are possible parallels between any two purportedly supernatural beings and that Santa is derivative - derived from a hagiographic account and so bound to reflect at least some Christian concepts. The more significant distinctions between Santa and God lie in their respective functions and the verifiability of their roles in fulfilling these functions; we can easily fully account for the appearance of presents under the tree in non-Santa terms but can't account for the existence of the Universe in non-God terms with anything approaching the same degree of certainty. It's unreasonable for an intelligent modern adult to believe in Santa as anything more than an extremely remote possibility; it's not unreasonable for an intelligent adult to believe in God as more than an extremely remote possibility. Stu: It isn't that I haven't thoroughly reviewed your last post addressed to me; I have, and although I found it very intelligently presented, I disagree with at least one of your key suppositions. In particular I disagree with your extrapolation from science's record of demystification of the world as a reason to reject the possibility, no matter how remote, of there being that which can affect our world but never be accessible to science. The possibility that accepting the possibility of the extra-natural opens the door to virtually anything as possible is logically irrelevant.
Seeing how it is Christmas you are pardoned for the sorry ass "dog ate my homework excuse" in response to my previous. Yes, Santa was evolving pretty much at the same time along with Jesus. Two mythical figures evolving through lore and contrivances.. Again yes, as Christianity is bound to, and does strongly reflect and resemble, the Coptic Church for one example And exactly the same goes for God / Jesus / Santa / Greek Gods. They all can be seen to reflect previous or similar or same idealizations. I'm sorry Hans, but I do not think you can do all that so easily as you say. You are applying some reasoning to verify and account for those presents, whilst you apply no reasoning to verify and account for the Universe. If you apply whatever "the Supernatural" is, equally to both presents and Universe, you can account for both. .Please consider my response following below You brought Santa to less than "an extremely remote possibility" by rationalizing the appearance of presents . You left God "as more than an extremely remote possibility" by not rationalizing anything. to do with It. Claims made for God are extravagant and often preposterous. 'Outside time / separate from any known reality' etc etc. And so they are for Santa in exactly the same way. Santa does not want grown ups to know he brings presents. And He wants adults to put childish things behind them so they may deal with the real world for the sake of the children. He makes adults think they do the present buying. Unlike God, Santa wants children to be good and happy and proves it every Christmas. When He is pleased, He rewards them with presents not empty promises and threats like God... Santa wants grown ups to experience their childrenâs happiness in the way they couldn't otherwise do were they still holding the real knowledge of Santa.. That's why you cannot believe He is real or that He exists. Now to my mind, that leaves "the Supernatural" exactly where it always is. Something unreasonable for an intelligent modern adult to believe in. Science does not reject possibility, what makes you think that? Many possibilities eliminate themselves from ever being possible.. I really do not think you can say Possible without there being potential for it The unconditional Impossible has no potential to be Possible. Because possibilities require a semblance of discernment to give them the value of being possible, that does not however make a rejection of them. 'Anything as possible' is not logically irrelevant. Hans, it is logically contradictory. The Impossible is not Possible - if it is , then it was never actually Impossible . Likewise there can be no Supernatural, because if there is, then it was actually always Natural. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Merry Christmas! stu
Paul favored Genesis pov with somewhat of a split mind. His amalgam of teachings included concepts he heard from those teaching "The Way", and those teaching Genesis, which greatly differ. The Way, which Paul persecuted, explains that the world consists of an exchange of "natural" for "unnatural". Paul parrots this idea, but does not understand it. What is "natural" is the Son of God, as spirit, as he was created. The "unnatural" is the Son of God transforming himself into man, and all sorts of "creeping things" of form and physicality. But the former student of Gamaliel, Paul had not completely disinvested in the idea that God, our Father, made this world, as it is rooted deep in Jewish folklore. He continued to promote this false concept, hardly comprehending that by doing so, he promoted the very "god of this world" that is disparaged by the Way. And in this way, he continued to promote what can only be a cruel God, for God would be cruel had he made this world. Paul needed such a God that his sacrificial ideology might make sense. Sacrifice makes no sense to the true, living God, our Father. Paul was confused on this matter. That I am included in such a collection of scrolls does confuse the issue. It seems that I am being used to endorse Genesis. But you really won't find an endorsement among my sayings. Read one way, it may appear that the following saying endorses Genesis: "I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them". But the meaning of this is more like: 'I have not come to find and burn every last Torah scroll as a worthless use of skin and ink. Rather, I have come to reinterpret the scrolls so that they might actually be useful for your salvation, where before they were not useful at all'. I could also interpret the Harry Potter series so that the parables contained therein might be useful for salvation. I don't endorse book-burning at all. Jesus
Not quite. rcanfiel and Cache Landing are also good actors. Are you implying that those who study their ways are dummies? Does not the book linked actually explain their ways? Jesus
No way. Never. No need for sorry ass excuses at this end. The ET dog did eat my homework. I'm not sufficiently experienced with ET code to know how to deal with " Your post is too long. Please reduce your post to less than 10,000 characters." ( or words very much to that effect ). You can check with a moderator if you think I'm just telling a big fib to get out of a sticky logical wicket. Now to respond to the rest of your post. Hm. There seems to be some sort of mysterious malfunction with my monitor...
Ironic perhaps, but entertaining nonetheless. And that's better than boring, yes? Ok, maybe I was a little rough on shoe. But I'm getting better. I haven't called anyone a "whitewashed tomb" in 2000 years! It's getting close to Christmas, so I'll be nice to shoe more than usual. The good news is that no matter how shoe acts, his salvation is guaranteed by God. He is an indespensible part of Christ, and God would not be complete without him. I just find it odd that Christianity is now defined by, and as, those who abjectly deny they are Christ. My, things have changed since I was Christ. Jesus
JohnnyK: >The good news is that no matter how shoe acts, >his salvation is guaranteed by God. The way Shoe acts is not the problem. JB