I believe in Santa Claus

[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.

[PairTheBoard]

Quoted by einbert:
PTB: "When I say I believe in Santa Claus I'm not lying. I DO believe in Santa Claus.

Einbert:"Okay."

Quoted by einbert:
PTB:"If an exhastive expedition were sent to the North Pole do I think Santa would be found? No."


Einbert: "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."

Either you didn't read carefully or purposely chose to ignore the sentences I wrote immediately following the one you just quoted, where I said that I went along with the Santaology which says Santa lives at the North Pole. The fact that an expedition would not find him does not disuade by belief in Santa any more than the lame observation by the Soviets that they couldn't find god in outer space disuaded believers in god. You just don't get what it means to have a mature belief in Santa.

You have also become argumentative and abrasive.


Quoted by einbert:
PTB: "And when it comes to matters of faith there are many adults who understand their faith like the 3 year old kid understands Santa."

einbert: "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)."

I am not at all being contrarian to logical reasoning by believing in Santa. That is exactly the point of this thread. My belief in Santa is born out of a spirit of whimsy. Whimsy is neither logical nor illogical. It's whimsy. And, my rational mind tells me that this belief is a good thing. It stimulates all sorts of child like good will and generousity within me. I like it. I will even prosylatize a little and encourage you to endulge in a little whimsy and believe along with the rest of us Santa believers. Take a spin outside your logic box. You might enjoy it.

Faith in a religion like Christianity touches much deeper chords than the whimsical of course. Take a read of the book, "On Being a Christian" that I mention in another post. You will find your logical arguments are about 100 years out of date.

Quoted by einbert:
PTB:"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."

einbert: "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?"

Now you're just being an ass. That's the cheapest shot in the book. And I'm not claiming Christianity as my faith. I'm acting as Christianity's Advocate here. If the devil deserves one certainly Christianity is entitled as well.

Quoted by einbert from a dictionary I assume:
"metaphysical- beyond what is perceptible to the sense"


einbert:"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."

Not at all. As I mention above Santa is a Whimsical Concept much like God is for lack of a better word a Metaphysical Concept. In your dictionary quote on the meaning of "Metaphysical" it mentions "the senses". To be more specific, I believe it is talking about the 5 senses along with sensing devices produced by science. That does not mean that the metaphysical cannot be sensed by human beings. We possess possibly infitely many ways of sensing or experiencing reality. The sense of Awe. The sense of Beauty. The sense of Truth beyond logic. The sense of Whimsy if you will. The sense of spirituality.

Once you start talking about God you are in the realm of the Metaphysical. All discusion thereafter is essentially metaphysical. When you say God is All Powerful, "All Powerfull" becomes a metaphysical concept. To attack it with mundane logic is as silly as your attack on my whimsical belief in Santa - he's not logical. Really.

"The Son of God" and the "Immaculate Conception" are metaphysical concepts. To attack them from the mundane by assuming they must mean that God magically inseminated Mary is just as silly. Of course there are Christians who insist that this is what they mean. You can attack them if you like. Or you could take a more mature enlightened view by informing yourself of the Big Picture of Christianity by studying the Modern Theology that has been developed over the last 100 years. Maybe you don't like their arrogance. Maybe you should take a look at your own. Maybe you should treat them like you treat a 3 year old child who exitedly tells you all about Santa. Give them a few generations to grow in their understanding.

Unfortunately some of these Christian 3 year olds have gained political power in parts of the country and want to shove their naivety down my mature child's throat. I'm totally with you in opposing these people. But aside from that, why not let The Christian Church worry about the Christians in it?


Quoted by einbert:
PTB:"If a person's understanding is from a mundane perspective, the Church does not discourage it."


einbert:"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."

Maybe you should be the next Pope. For hundreds of years the mundane was practically the only way the vast majority of the faithful were capable of understanding their faith. This is still largely true today. Of course you don't care about the Faith. But the Church does. They consider it a matter of life and death. It was only 100 years ago, as a reaction to the Logical Positivism that was taking over Philosophical Thought that Modern Theology was dared to be attempted. Modern Theology was developed to allow modern thinking people like yourself access to the Faith. As was mentioned upon the Popes recent death; Christianity is still a young faith. That is if it is allowed to continue development into the future. Those who hang on to their mundane understanding of the Faith will always be embraced by the Church imo. But as time goes on I see the Fundamentalist who are yelling the loudest and getting the most attention as diminishing while the Moderns - who are perfectly compatible with your ways of thinking - will increase. Only time will tell of course. It may be the mundane will come to dominate in which case Chistianity will become like the "salt that has lost it's flavor" and slowy die out. jmo.



einbert:"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."

I think it's you who are itching for a fight. I don't want to give you one. And even if you can't believe in Santa the way I do I hope I have convinced you to at least believe that I believe.

PairTheBoard

[Little Fishy]

[ QUOTE ]
You just don't get what it means to have a mature belief in Santa.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the best comparison that you can come up with to relate to people's beliefes in a god, than I don't think you know what it is to have a mature belief in anything related to the topic.

From what you are saying, You DON"T Believe in the existence of Santa. You DO Believe in the Ideals that it represents...

You believe in Santa as a Unitarian believes in the Catholic Eucharist. You Believe that Other People believe in IT, and you believe in it's ideals, so every 1st sunday of a month you'll break bread as well. but you Don't believe that that bread you (or the Roman Catholics) are breaking is the actual encarnation of the body of Christ.

your annalogy just sucks. relating a belief in Santa to a belief in a higher power is a travesty, and seems to either show a lack of thought put into the idea, a lack of understanding of what some people's faiths actualy are, or worst of all a lack of caring.

[reubenf]

I believe money grows on trees. I am not lying to you. I am not being illogical. If someone told me the odds against this are a zillion to one, it would be in naivete. If you say I am either lying or illogical, you are wrong. You just don't get it.

See, when I say "money" I really mean "leaves"! I believe leaves grow on trees!

[Little Fishy]

one day when my brother sister and I were little, my dad helped lead a field trip for my sisters class into a local woods... earlier in the day he had gone into the woods with a couple bags of gumdrops and stuck them all over a tree that he had picked out. He then led his group through the woods and showed them his magic gumdrop tree... as the story goes they were all amazed and estatic. I wonder if any of them became botanists in the hope of rediscovering such a tree...

[PairTheBoard]

With the price of Avocados what they are I've always thought of Money growing on Avocado Trees.

PTB

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe money grows on trees. I am not lying to you. I am not being illogical. If someone told me the odds against this are a zillion to one, it would be in naivete. If you say I am either lying or illogical, you are wrong. You just don't get it.

See, when I say "money" I really mean "leaves"! I believe leaves grow on trees!

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome. just truly awesome.

[PairTheBoard]

Why do you say "money" when you mean "leaves"?

PairTheBoard

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say "money" when you mean "leaves"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say "Santa Claus" when you mean "the spirit of Christmas"?

[PairTheBoard]

Quoted by Reubenf:
PTB: "Why do you say "money" when you mean "leaves"?"

Reubenf: "Why do you say "Santa Claus" when you mean "the spirit of Christmas"?"

You're answering my question with a question. What does your answer mean? Was that the purpose of your post? To basically ask that question? Why didn't you just ask the question then? Why the need for the ridicule and scorn?

I say Santa because Santa is what I mean. You say money when you "mean" leaves. It's not analogous. When I say Santa that does not compute for you because you do not join in my Spirit of Whimsy. So YOU insist on "Santa" being translated into words that better fit YOUR understanding. But that's YOUR translation based on YOUR perspective locked inside your mundane logic box. When I see an Avocado Tree I DO see a money tree. That's poetic language. When I view the Picaso Abstract painted on the eve of WWII I see the Brutality of and Insanity of War. That's language of Art. When I deliver presents from Santa I'm delivering presents from Santa. That's whimsical language. When I say I believe in Santa I'm saying exactly what I mean. If I were to settle for the Translation you insist on Dictating to me it would not have the same meaning. Open your mind.

PairTheBoard