Posted on 07/17/2009 5:37:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I have an iphone that I patiently waited to buy for two years. Then I got a side job which allows me to afford the iPhone and all the trimmings and fund my hobbies. Actually I gave myself most of the credit for obtaining such a geeky prize.
I have a Christmas tree ball that has a painting of Santa on it...
Called the Fourth Wise Man, Santa is kneeling to the Christ child lying in the manger...
I love it...
Would like to get a sweat shirt made...
Well if you had a personal relationship with Santa, and could feel his power in life, maybe yes.
parsy.
And Santa died for our sins, how?
Parsy, you win!
Thus far in this thread, no one has answered the question posed by the author :
If it appears irrational to ascribe the acquisition of the watch to Santa Claus, why is it not equally irrational to ascribe it to God? In short, what makes the Christian any more rational than Alfred (who invoked Santa as the one who gave him his watch)?
Like children who discover there is no Santa, the atheists try to convince us there is no God.
They do not believe—— a joy has been taken from them and they wish to take this joy from others.
Maybe God is Santa Claus, or vice-versa.
Atheists are ignorant people who, rather than make any real effort to enlighten their ignorance with knowledge (which takes time and effort) decide instead to worship that ignorance and defer to it in all matters. I have no interest in trying to convince atheists of anything. They have their reward and are content with it - even delight in it - and will carry that forward through all their existence. They are like imbeciles squatting in a corner playing with a shiny little top. They can go for a long time like that because they are so enthralled with the little top that nothing else is noticed. Eventually the top breaks or they grow bored with it. At that point they either convert (like C.S. Lewis or Muggeridge) or they simply collapse in a welter of grief and disbelief but with nothing to fall back on for comfort or succor. Poor people.
Santa is helpless to justify this sinner before a Holy God....
Just because you believe in one unprovable concept doesn’t mean that you must believe in all unprovable concepts. You are free to believe in any or all as you see fit. Whatever floats your boat. I just wish that folks wouldn’t spend a lot of bandwidth on a Conservative site expounding on their unprovable beliefs not related to conservatism. I swear I am developing carpal syndrome mousing past those colorful, never-read foot long posts that some drobots post weekly.
What do the True God and the fake Santa have in common? Nothing at all. Indeed, Santa is almost an idol, even though he is not mentioned in God’s Word.
Santa introduces children to a moral basis for living that is below the standard set by the Ten Commandments. And the only role that faith plays is in whether Santa exits or not.
Sheeh...everyone knows that God and Santa Claus are both real. My kids better believe at least until they are seniors if they want any presents that is for sure. Although my oldest is 11 and probably only has another Christmas until he stops believing, I will use the same method my parents used on us kids. If you don’t belive in Santa than the presents stop. It worked very effectively and the younger kids enjoyed believing in Santa much longer.
The reason we are less threatened by an adult invoking God as a reason than Santa is that virtually all of us learn at some point that Santa is our parents or other caretaker. We figure it out or find the presents in the closet or sneek a peek and catch them in the act.
But as we mature, we learn that the more we learn, the more there is to learn, and we will NEVER know all the answers to Life, the Universe, the Human Question, and Everything. We don't even know all of the questions. We do know that some things are out of our control no matter our wealth, power, or social systems, so how do we come to understand them. Everybody experiences this. Some chalk it up to fate, some to God, some to other people.
“So, a person’s FEELINGS determine what is objectively true or not ?”
You’re looking for proof when the kind of proof you want doesn’t exist. What you should be doing is thinking about faith. That is the basis of Christianity.
The Apostle Paul didn’t believe either. It took getting knocked on his *ss (or off his *ss, I guess) before he believed.
If you are not the kind of person who can rely on faith, then don’t. Start off by just admitting that you don’t know everything (which is true) and keep your mind open about the possibility. God has a way of sending people messages, and if your mind is open, you might receive them.
parsy.
Spoken like a true agnostic. I concur.
“nothing to fall back on for comfort or succor” So, that comfort comes from something imaginary?
Why can’t believers admit that there is no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of any god; be it Thor, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Mohammed, Jehovah, Marduk, Zeus, or the other countless gods invented since the dawn of mankind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.