[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say I believe in Santa Claus I'm not lying. I DO believe in Santa Claus.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay.
[ QUOTE ]
If an exhastive expedition were sent to the North Pole do I think Santa would be found? No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, so I guess you think he lives in the South pole?

Wait a second, I get it. You really DON'T believe in Santa Claus, you just felt like claiming that you did for whatever reason. Okay, I get it now.

[ QUOTE ]
And when it comes to matters of faith there are many adults who understand their faith like the 3 year old kid understands Santa.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that faith is not based on logical reasoning. Belief in a specific God is usually not based on logical reasoning either.

However, by claiming to believe in Santa Claus you are basically being as contrarian to logical reasoning as you possibly can be. There's a huge difference between a belief in something that's not logical but MIGHT exist (the Christain God) and something that's not logical and it's pretty easy for a logically thinking person to see that it doesn't exist (Santa Claus).

[ QUOTE ]
Matters of Faith involve, for lack of a better word, METAPHYSICAL concepts; like God, the Word of God, the Son of God, the Emaculate Conception, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's immaculate. You should learn your own faith a little better--that's one of the principle foundations of your faith and you can't even spell it correctly?

[ QUOTE ]
metaphysical- beyond what is perceptible to the sense

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's the definition you were referring to. And fine, belief in God can go beyond the senses (this includes logical, rational, empirical thinking in my opinion). But there is a difference between going beyond empiricism and simply spitting in empiricism's face. The difference is as key as the difference between stating "the big bang might not have happened" (which is a very real possibility) and "evolution does not occur in biological life forms" (which is definitely not a possibility, you can see this by examining the scientific evidence). Belief in God is not specifically supported by empirical thinking, but the absence of a God isn't really supported by it either. However, the existence of Santa Claus is something that logic can easily put away as being not true.

Logic can't disprove the Immaculate conception, it can't disprove that Jesus was the son of God, it can't disprove that he was crucified and was resurrected after three days. It doesn't necessarily support these concepts, but it certainly can't disprove them. It can, however, prove that there isn't a Santa Claus. This is a big distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
If a person's understanding is from a mundane perspective, the Church does not discourage it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the Church should. If someone wants to participate in something like a religion, they should at least try to understand the important concepts behind that religion. But if you would prefer to simply claim to belong to a given religion without investigating its foundations and principles, that's your own choice. I don't think the church should encourage this kind of thinking, but more membership implies more money so it's easy to see why they would.

It's obvious you're just blatantly exaggerating to the point of getting attention or starting a fight. We both know you don't really believe in Santa Claus, it's obvious from the context of your last post.