Jesus and Santa Claus: A Comparison

[Pontifex Maximus]

Happy New Year everyone!

I've recently read a book regarding the psychology of faith and it was very interesting. Essentially, children tend to piggyback on the beliefs of their parents, which makes perfect sense and is common knowledge. Chances are that once an adult, his or her religious views will not be very different from their parent's at the time they were being raised. That is to say that most likely, if one was raised a Christian, one will subscribe to many Christian beliefs later on in life at least, even if church isn't attended every Sunday, or no affiliation to an organized church exists.

Well recently at a Christmas party my mother (A Catholic) was discussing the powers of the Holy Spirit with her friend. Now, to me it all sounds very fantastic and ludicrous to be honest, much like two adults discussing, and quite seriously, the nature of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. It was then I drew an interesting parallel between the two.

Children arguably cease to believe in the existence of Santa Claus, the easter bunny, or what have you when the parent admits that they are fictional. That was the case for me and all my siblings, and I realize I can't speak for everyone, but I think the point is still valid. Parents influence their children about matters of faith constantly through childhood. Belief in Santa is a delusion, a belief in something provably false (Santa does not fly around on Christmas Eve and deliver gifts to all the good boys and girls of the world).

So what is belief in Jesus? Speaking for myself (and probably most others in similar circumstance), I was introduced to the concept of the Christian view of Jesus at an early age and taught by my parents that Jesus' immaculate birth and resurrection were facts of life, just as Santa Claus delivering gifts to the children of the world was a fact. Years later, Santa became a factual falsehood in my life when my parents conceded that they were Santa. This is quite a deception to a child who has believed in Santa for years and looks forward to the magical event for months! (comparisons can be drawn to the easter bunny, tooth fairy, what have you)

Which brings us to the point of Jesus (Mohamed, Isiah). How is it any different than belief in Santa? the only difference I can see is that the theological 'truths' Jesus hasn't been declaimed as fictional or false.

Additional comparisons: Scriptural support, separating facts from fiction.

Historical Jesus and Santa Claus (Kris Kringle I think it was) were real people. We have documents and histories that prove it. They are both alleged to have done fantastic, superhuman feats, for which there is also written evidence. The tales of Jesus' doings are widely accepted on faith, but those of Santa Claus are not. Why? What makes Jesus more credible than Santa? Of course, that is not my angle of argument since I have faith in neither. the point is that just because you have been taught to believe something for which there is evidence doesn't mean that anything clearly exaggerated should be taken as truth. If parents didn't make Christmas happen each year for their children it wouldn't happen, similarly unless somebody fabricates the second return of Jesus, it ain't happenin', no matter how much we want presents for the north pole or a fiery apocalypse. So really, if you are willing to believe in Jesus, why not Santa? I hope I can say that most adults are 'Santa Atheists' in that they do not believe Santa will be breaking into their home to deliver presents to their kids (weird?). Well, some of us are Jesus Atheists because we don't think that Jesus rose from the dead or was conceived immaculately. Is there any doubt Jesus existed? Absolutely not. That he was a religious man? None whatsoever. That he fed 5,000 people by miraculously multiplying food, rose from the dead, and cured the blind with mud and spit? Mhmm...I don't think so.

Well that's about it I suppose, I'll be interested to hear your responses!

[cfmonkey45]

Happy New Year everyone!

I've recently read a book regarding the psychology of faith and it was very interesting. Essentially, children tend to piggyback on the beliefs of their parents, which makes perfect sense and is common knowledge. Chances are that once an adult, his or her religious views will not be very different from their parent's at the time they were being raised. That is to say that most likely, if one was raised a Christian, one will subscribe to many Christian beliefs later on in life at least, even if church isn't attended every Sunday, or no affiliation to an organized church exists.

Well recently at a Christmas party my mother (A Catholic) was discussing the powers of the Holy Spirit with her friend. Now, to me it all sounds very fantastic and ludicrous to be honest, much like two adults discussing, and quite seriously, the nature of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. It was then I drew an interesting parallel between the two.

Children arguably cease to believe in the existence of Santa Claus, the easter bunny, or what have you when the parent admits that they are fictional. That was the case for me and all my siblings, and I realize I can't speak for everyone, but I think the point is still valid. Parents influence their children about matters of faith constantly through childhood. Belief in Santa is a delusion, a belief in something provably false (Santa does not fly around on Christmas Eve and deliver gifts to all the good boys and girls of the world).

So what is belief in Jesus? Speaking for myself (and probably most others in similar circumstance), I was introduced to the concept of the Christian view of Jesus at an early age and taught by my parents that Jesus' immaculate birth and resurrection were facts of life, just as Santa Claus delivering gifts to the children of the world was a fact. Years later, Santa became a factual falsehood in my life when my parents conceded that they were Santa. This is quite a deception to a child who has believed in Santa for years and looks forward to the magical event for months! (comparisons can be drawn to the easter bunny, tooth fairy, what have you)

Which brings us to the point of Jesus (Mohamed, Isiah). How is it any different than belief in Santa? the only difference I can see is that the theological 'truths' Jesus hasn't been declaimed as fictional or false.

Additional comparisons: Scriptural support, separating facts from fiction.

Historical Jesus and Santa Claus (Kris Kringle I think it was) were real people. We have documents and histories that prove it. They are both alleged to have done fantastic, superhuman feats, for which there is also written evidence. The tales of Jesus' doings are widely accepted on faith, but those of Santa Claus are not. Why? What makes Jesus more credible than Santa? Of course, that is not my angle of argument since I have faith in neither. the point is that just because you have been taught to believe something for which there is evidence doesn't mean that anything clearly exaggerated should be taken as truth. If parents didn't make Christmas happen each year for their children it wouldn't happen, similarly unless somebody fabricates the second return of Jesus, it ain't happenin', no matter how much we want presents for the north pole or a fiery apocalypse. So really, if you are willing to believe in Jesus, why not Santa? I hope I can say that most adults are 'Santa Atheists' in that they do not believe Santa will be breaking into their home to deliver presents to their kids (weird?). Well, some of us are Jesus Atheists because we don't think that Jesus rose from the dead or was conceived immaculately. Is there any doubt Jesus existed? Absolutely not. That he was a religious man? None whatsoever. That he fed 5,000 people by miraculously multiplying food, rose from the dead, and cured the blind with mud and spit? Mhmm...I don't think so.

Well that's about it I suppose, I'll be interested to hear your responses!

Interesting, but cliche.

Santa Claus is based off of Saint Nicholas, a bishop from Anatolia who is the patron saint of children for his philanthropic works in the Early Church. Saint Nicholas is traditionally celebrated on his feast day, which is earlier than Christmas. The feasts, masses, and prayer night vigils were originally implemented as alternatives to Pagan festivals. When paganism ultimately died out, the feasts remained.

The actual concept of Santa Claus evolved from the Dutch celebration of the feast. Santa Claus is derived from Sinterklaas, who is aided by Zwarte Piet. It was first brought to the Americas--which is where Santa Claus originated--by the Dutch. However, it was by no means official, nor widely accepted. Christmas was originally heavily looked down upon by Protestants (to the irony of the movement to "Keep Christ in Christmas"), specifically because it was accompanied by festivals of drunkeness, and by the United States, who viewed it as a thoroughly British holiday. The ultimate conjuring of the Santa Claus character, woven as a composite of Christian and Pagan historical ideals during the Romanticism movement, became widely accepted. The Santa Claus we know was actually heavily designed by the marketing team at Coca-Cola, if I'm not mistaken.

While in the abstract, it's quite humorous to draw significant parallels between fables and religious icons, in the practical its much more distinct. Santa Claus was a complete remolding of character over the period of hundreds of years to the point that it completely lost its original value as a Christian figure. The myth itself, that of reindeer, presents, and stockings, originated in the United States and spread elsewhere with the a priori knowledge that it was false, and "all in good fun."

This is a stark contrast to Christianity, where relatively soon after Christ's crucifixion, his disciples and apostles were overcome with a belief that he had in fact been resurrected. They believed this thoroughly, despite being heretical to their original beliefs, and continued to formulate their faith and spread their gospels under pain of loss of life and limb. While it is fanciful to believe that people can spontaneously resurrect, perform miracles, and do all other sorts of "neat stuff", it seems much more complex when you consider that rather than spontaneity, it was in fact the divine transcending the material world and directly intervening. Thus, in order to disprove religion, which believes in God, you would have to disprove God, which would leave you within a paradox.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I was thinking of replying...but Cfmonkey did it far better than anything I could write. Good show sir, rep given.

[boofhead]

Which brings us to the point of Jesus (Mohamed, Isiah)

It's insulting that you would type them in the same breath.

Look, I was raised as a Christian but went haywire for a fair while, denied God and all that. But the thing is I returned to the fold later in life, so the influence of my parents had a lot to do with my ''return''.

I'm in a position where I'm currently dealing with questions about Santa and God with my kids.

I have to admit, I'm quite vague in response, because I'm not a liar.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Santa Claus is based off of Saint Nicholas, a bishop from Anatolia who is the patron saint of children for his philanthropic works in the Early Church. Saint Nicholas is traditionally celebrated on his feast day, which is earlier than Christmas. The feasts, masses, and prayer night vigils were originally implemented as alternatives to Pagan festivals. When paganism ultimately died out, the feasts remained.

Jesus is based off a Galilean who was born in Judea around 3 BCE. He is traditionally celebrated on Saturnalia, a pagan holiday the church wanted to cover up with a holiday of its own.

he actual concept of Santa Claus evolved from the Dutch celebration of the feast. Santa Claus is derived from Sinterklaas, who is aided by Zwarte Piet. It was first brought to the Americas--which is where Santa Claus originated--by the Dutch. However, it was by no means official, nor widely accepted. Christmas was originally heavily looked down upon by Protestants (to the irony of the movement to "Keep Christ in Christmas"), specifically because it was accompanied by festivals of drunkeness, and by the United States, who viewed it as a thoroughly British holiday. The ultimate conjuring of the Santa Claus character, woven as a composite of Christian and Pagan historical ideals during the Romanticism movement, became widely accepted. The Santa Claus we know was actually heavily designed by the marketing team at Coca-Cola, if I'm not mistaken.

I think its all a matter of separating myth from reality, fact from fiction, regarding all the stories behind each character.

While in the abstract, it's quite humorous to draw significant parallels between fables and religious icons

Not if you consider religious icons to be fables.

in the practical its much more distinct. Santa Claus was a complete remolding of character over the period of hundreds of years to the point that it completely lost its original value as a Christian figure. The myth itself, that of reindeer, presents, and stockings, originated in the United States and spread elsewhere with the a priori knowledge that it was false, and "all in good fun."

Don't get so caught up in the history aspect of the remodeling of Santa Claus fro a religious to secular individual, but rather the psychology of faith behind it.

This is a stark contrast to Christianity, where relatively soon after Christ's crucifixion, his disciples and apostles were overcome with a belief that he had in fact been resurrected. They believed this thoroughly, despite being heretical to their original beliefs, and continued to formulate their faith and spread their gospels under pain of loss of life and limb. While it is fanciful to believe that people can spontaneously resurrect, perform miracles, and do all other sorts of "neat stuff", it seems much more complex when you consider that rather than spontaneity, it was in fact the divine transcending the material world and directly intervening. Thus, in order to disprove religion, which believes in God, you would have to disprove God, which would leave you within a paradox.

But if the bible wasn't actually compiled for centuries afterwards, who is to say that some of the accounts, which were not firsthand, were exaggerated, fabricated, or modified to satisfy someone's agenda? The 'miracles' of Jesus cannot be disproven, but they cannot be proven either, but this renders that faith is acceptable. My aim here is not to disprove god, as that is impossible, but rather to draw a parallel between something everyone acknowledges as a falsity and something widely accepted by a majority of the human population. Its more of an observation than an argument now that I think of it.

[cfmonkey45]

Not if you consider religious icons to be fables.

I think I would do well to identify this as the central thesis and primary presumption of both this thread and that post.

Jesus is based off a Galilean who was born in Judea around 3 BCE. He is traditionally celebrated on Saturnalia, a pagan holiday the church wanted to cover up with a holiday of its own.

Perhaps. You already believe God to be fiction and fantastic, so you already have a bias towards interpreting this. I as well.

[QUOTE=Pøntifex;6527385]I think its all a matter of separating myth from reality, fact from fiction, regarding all the stories behind each character.

Don't get so caught up in the history aspect of the remodeling of Santa Claus fro a religious to secular individual, but rather the psychology of faith behind it.

My intention was to draw a distinction where you drew a parallel.

But if the bible wasn't actually compiled for centuries afterwards, who is to say that some of the accounts, which were not firsthand, were exaggerated, fabricated, or modified to satisfy someone's agenda?

Firstly, define "Bible." Secondly, the synoptic gospels, to which I believe you are referring to, were written circa 70-100, with sources, perhaps the alleged "Q Document" or "Sayings Gospel" being written even earlier. Moreover, as they were written, they weren't intended to be wholly accurate, and were written to the best of their author's ability.

Mark, and later Matthew, were written as evangelical tracts to various audiences, so some significant features are stressed, while others aren't. Moreover, since they aren't intended to be historical, first-hand accounts, it makes it entirely difficult to analyze critically. Even still, the narratives could suffer from observational bias as well as misinterpretation. When Jesus "cast out demons," did he really just heal schizophrenics? Did his temptation really happen climactically with a physical Satan, or was it just a literary narrative? Did Jesus really feed five thousand with the bread, or was it just a parallel drawn between him and Elisha?

Nevertheless, it is worth considering that these might potentially be based on historical events, if one supposes the existence of an omnipotent being. How difficult is it for an all-powerful God to turn water into wine, or multiply food?

Even still, Apostolic Succession is still substantially useful here. Initially, we have the disciples of Christ, the twelve, plus the other followers whom were appeared to after his crucifixion (such as Mary, as well as at least forty others). Even among them, we have relatives of Jesus there, people who knew him better than any, and close students and disciples of his followers. And yet, there is little to no conflict when the gospels appeared. So, while the possibility of them being delusional or wrong is still on the table, it's unlikely to say that these writers completely rewrote and misrepresented Jesus.

The 'miracles' of Jesus cannot be disproven, but they cannot be proven either, but this renders that faith is acceptable. My aim here is not to disprove god, as that is impossible, but rather to draw a parallel between something everyone acknowledges as a falsity and something widely accepted by a majority of the human population. Its more of an observation than an argument now that I think of it.

Not really, children believe in Santa Claus because they cannot comprehend things as being "imaginary", and are deceived into believing it when they discover presents there with a semi-plausible backstory. The parallel to Christianity or religion is typically a slippery slope, because it relies on establishing a number inherently fallacious deductions into a conclusion.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Not if you consider religious icons to be fables.

So this is your premis as well as your conclusion?

Not exactly a reliable, objective method.

[Helm]

Santa Claus for adults, that Jesus in a nutshell. Though instead of a sack full of presents you get eternal life if you've been really good.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Though instead of a sack full of presents you get eternal life if you've been really good.

It has nothing to do with being good.

We could argue denominations for a long time, but I would simply clarify that I'm not going to try to defend positions of what I consider empty religions; sorry.

[Helm]

It has nothing to do with being good.

We could argue denominations for a long time, but I would simply clarify that I'm not going to try to defend positions of what I consider empty religions; sorry.

Being good in this case involves worshipping the Christian God.

[Dayman]

Right, it has everything to do with just pledging allegiance to Jesus and then whatever happens afterwards is A-OK with the big man.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Let me offer a question that I hope will serve to guide the debate. How is faith in Santa Claus different than faith in Jesus?

[Helm]

Well we have an explanation as to who delivers the presents at Christmas but we have no explanation for the universe or what happens to us after we die.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Well we have an explanation as to who delivers the presents at Christmas but we have no explanation for the universe or what happens to us after we die.

So if a present appeared on your desk, and you didn't know where it came from, you would instantly attribute it to Santa since you don't know its origin?

[Helm]

So if a present appeared on your desk, and you didn't know where it came from, you would instantly attribute it to Santa since you don't know its origin?

You know the present had to have come from somewhere, but without evidence you only have rumours and imagination to go on.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Not really...most people will attribute it to their parents, spouse, or a freind.

Exactly! Because that is the logical conclusion to come to, right? Just as the logical conclusion to draw about the human species is that we evolved, since we have the evidence, not that god put us here 6,000 years ago.

You know the present had to have come from somewhere, but without evidence you only have rumours and imagination to go on.

But you can't actually be sure of the present's origin, so any amount of speculation could in fact be wrong?

[Helm]

But you can't actually be sure of the present's origin, so any amount of speculation could in fact be wrong?

Someone could always make a lucky guess, I wouldn't put money on it though.

[Hiero of Syracuse]

Exactly! Because that is the logical conclusion to come to, right? Just as the logical conclusion to draw about the human species is that we evolved, since we have the evidence, not that god put us here 6,000 years ago.

But you can't actually be sure of the present's origin, so any amount of speculation could in fact be wrong?

But we're not talking about Evolution vs. Creationism, are we. We are discussing the logic of believing in Jesus but not Santa.
First, we must define what Jesus we are discussing, if you wish to talk about his divinity than your point makes perfect sense, if you're talking about the man than we have records to validate his existance...all though we have no first person accounts, we can put two and two together by deducting that Paul has met a brother of Jesus so if Paul met his brother than we know that a historical Jesus could of existed.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

So if a present appeared on your desk, and you didn't know where it came from, you would instantly attribute it to Santa since you don't know its origin?

Incomplete analogy, but not bad. See, it would be more accurate to suppose that the sender had included a note. Santa Claus never contacts little kids or leaves them any record; God has.

Of course, being that both your premis AND your conclusion are that God is a myth, this entire scenario is based upon the given that the Bible is just as made-up as Santa Claus stories.

This will, of course, lead to considerable debate as to the authenticity of the Bible...

People would generally rather be told what they should believe in and do rather than have to think about it themselves...

Very much agreed. The vast majority of religion () is simply a control mechanism.

[Arch-hereticK]

Incomplete analogy, but not bad. See, it would be more accurate to suppose that the sender had included a note. Santa Claus never contacts little kids or leaves them any record; God has.

I agree the analogy is incomplete, but there would not be a note with the present, there'd be thousands of notes all claiming to be the source. But some people will still assume it's the sende that they're familiar with that is the sender, not an honest or respectable assumtion if you ask me.