# Believing in Santa. Believing in God/Satan. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544 "2003-12-22T22:47:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/262 "2004-01-01T22:08:23Z")
Now why doesn’t your disagreement surprise me? Did you check the link? There’s an exception clause in Scripture, the lineage can be through the female and yes Mary’s bloodline does matter if she fulfills the exception loophole given in the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/263 "2004-01-01T22:16:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lynn73 \* > Remember, I said that not all prophecies’ time has come yet. Is there prophecy for one person, uh…G-d, dropping in for two separate visits. I honestly feel like I could take anyone, for example, the disciples or some other well known Bible personality and go back to the OT and fit scripture to describe what we know of him. I believe I might also be able to make a case for some really ancient aliens. I’m not trying to be flip. Okay, a little. But can’t you see how easy it is to fit the scripture to your doctrine, if the motivation is there? And it is. I have the perspective of having been where you are and also now, looking at the scriptures a little more rationally. When you tell me to look at say, Psalms 22. It is still a kind of jolt to me. I can see why it makes sense to you. Then I read it without trying to see Christ in every word and it’s different. It’s not obvious at all. I can’t see it and I think it’s because it’s not there. As far as the bloodline thing. Tracing lineage is different than making rules for inheritance, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/264 "2004-01-01T22:18:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Once again, you’re posting a link to a site with bogus prophesies and specious associations. > > Since Jesus has so far failed to fulfill _any_ prophesies (with the exception of being Jewish) There is no reason to think he was the Messiah. Saying that he’s going to fulfill prophesies _later_ is truly begging the question, especially since the guy has been dead for 2000 years. \*\* That is your opinion in spite of the evidence. You choose not to believe it, you don’t want it to be true is what I’m getting. The link lists the scriptures and the fulfillments. Look them up. And Jesus isn’t dead. He rose the third day after being crucified according to the Scriptures which you don’t believe. > [@](#): > > 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 > 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. The truth is there, you simply choose not to believe God’s word and that’s your privilege. When you stand before Christ, don’t forget to remind Him that He’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/265 "2004-01-01T22:42:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lynn73 \* > **There’s an exception clause in Scripture** No there isn’t. Not when it comes to royal bloodlines. Inheritence has nothing to do with the argument. Besides which, the NT makes no claim that Mary was descended from David. > [@](#): > > **That is your opinion in spite of the evidence.** What evidence? > [@](#): > > **You choose not to believe it, you don’t want it to be true is what I’m getting. The link lists the scriptures and the fulfillments. Look them up. And Jesus isn’t dead. He rose the third day after being crucified according to the Scriptures which you don’t believe.** You posted to a link that takes oT gragments out of context and looks for nebulous associations with the Gospels. The fact is that most of it does not constitute “prophesy” at all, much less Messianic prophesy and much, _much_ less prophesies of Jesus. > [@](#): > > **The truth is there, you simply choose not to believe God’s word and that’s your privilege.** I’m still waiting for you to show me some truth, and could you please stop linking to websites and answer the questions for yourself? Show me a specific OT prophesy which you think is a prediction of Jesus. Asking someone to debunk an entire site is a cheap debating tactic. I don’t have the time or inclination to go point by point down one of those ridiculous lists. make it easy for me. Show me your best stuff. > [@](#): > > **When you stand before Christ, don’t forget to remind Him that He’s dead.** I’ve said nothing on this board that I would not say directly to God (if he exists). ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/266 "2004-01-01T22:48:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Show me a specific OT prophesy which you think is a prediction of Jesus. If I did, you’d debunk it the same way you do everything else I or other Christians say. I’m done for today. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/267 "2004-01-01T22:51:38Z")
_Shrug_ ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/268 "2004-01-01T23:20:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lynn73 \* > \*\*If I did, you’d debunk it the same way you do everything else I or other Christians say. I’m done for today. \*\* I don’t debunk _everything_ Christians say, only that which is debunkable. I think Jesus was probably the greatest ethical teacher who ever lived. I also think he would be mortified by his own deification. I just wish that some Christians would pay more attention to what Jesus actually taught instead of fixating on his death and a salvation theology which he did _not_ teach. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/269 "2004-01-01T23:24:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*I don’t debunk _everything_ Christians say, only that which is debunkable. > > I think Jesus was probably the greatest ethical teacher who ever lived. I also think he would be mortified by his own deification. > > I just wish that some Christians would pay more attention to what Jesus actually taught instead of fixating on his death and a salvation theology which he did _not_ teach. \*\* hear! hear! But, I think Jesus did more than teach ethics. He taught us the meaning of life, and the fulfillment thereof. Love ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/270 "2004-01-02T00:14:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > I think Jesus was probably the greatest ethical teacher who ever lived. I also think he would be mortified by his own deification. > > I just wish that some Christians would pay more attention to what Jesus actually taught instead of fixating on his death and a salvation theology which he did _not_ teach. What would we argue about then? Seriously, I don’t think we were meant to all agree. We were meant to be continuously challenged. What we see as someone not following G-d’s plan, is really just us not understanding the plan. He is a clever G-d too. Or someone’s wrong and they’re screwed. I like my version best, of course. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/271 "2004-01-02T00:37:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > > I think Jesus was probably the greatest ethical teacher who ever lived. I also think he would be mortified by his own deification. > > \*\* He knew He was God, and that he came to die as a sacrifice for our sins. You cannot understand this, I don’t expect you ever to. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/272 "2004-01-02T01:39:40Z")
> [@](#): > > I think Jesus was probably the greatest ethical teacher who ever lived. How so? Some things Jesus had to say were interesting. Some were objectionable. Some were just plain ambiguous. But few of the important teachings were original, and he provided almost nothing in the way of an overarching system or justification for what were basically orders rather than guiding principles. I appreciate that Jesus is an extremely important figure in terms of Christian theology, but my sense is that his teachings are then retroactively annointed as singular and special in light of that importance rather than in the other way round. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/273 "2004-01-02T03:08:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > But, I think Jesus did more than teach ethics. He taught us the meaning of life, and the fulfillment thereof. So did Neitzsche, Voltaire, Meredith Willson and Homer Simpson. And they are considerably more original. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/274 "2004-01-02T03:23:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*How so? > > Some things Jesus had to say were interesting. Some were objectionable. Some were just plain ambiguous. But few of the important teachings were original, and he provided almost nothing in the way of an overarching system or justification for what were basically orders rather than guiding principles. > > I appreciate that Jesus is an extremely important figure in terms of Christian theology, but my sense is that his teachings are then retroactively annointed as singular and special in light of that importance rather than in the other way round. \*\* I believe you are wrong. Early Christians understood the teachings and followed them as best they could. While now Jesus’ teachings are seldom discussed in church. No, they are not original, most of these teachings have been around since the beginning of history. That is because they accomplish so much for the individual following them with so little effort. They are the path to freedom, love and joy. As Jesus said: “I come to bring you life, abundant life.” This is one of those things you must do in order to understand its value. Kinda like putting wood on the fireplace before you can feel the warmth. Love ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/275 "2004-01-02T03:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Musicat \* > \*\*So did Neitzsche, Voltaire, Meredith Willson and Homer Simpson. And they are considerably more original. \*\* Very humorous post, I laugh. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/276 "2004-01-02T03:30:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rotting Christ \* > \*\*I just wanted to let you know that this thread and the other one…"I would like someone here to prove the idea that I am not God. " are hilarious. \*\* Not sure what you are saying Rotting, But how could anyone prove you are not God when it is obvious that you are. Love ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/277 "2004-01-02T03:42:06Z")
God doesn’t sin and I’m sure Mr. Rotting has. Not that that will make sense to you. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/278 "2004-01-02T03:52:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > I appreciate that Jesus is an extremely important figure in terms of Christian theology, but my sense is that his teachings are then retroactively annointed as singular and special in light of that importance rather than in the other way round. How can you term it “retroactively annointed” when his teachings have been important on a continuous and consistent basis for 2000. You gotta hand it to the guy, he’s never really had an ebb in either popularity or nortoriety. Those guiding principles, oops, I mean orders just have never become obsolete. I can’t deny that it’s religion that kept him alive, but how does that diminish it, since religion has always been such a large part of most cultures. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/279 "2004-01-02T03:54:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Musicat \* > \*\*So did Neitzsche, Voltaire, Meredith Willson and Homer Simpson. And they are considerably more original. \*\* Well I am familar with that last guys work. Fox network, right? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/280 "2004-01-02T03:55:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*How so? > > Some things Jesus had to say were interesting. Some were objectionable. Some were just plain ambiguous. But few of the important teachings were original, and he provided almost nothing in the way of an overarching system or justification for what were basically orders rather than guiding principles. > > I appreciate that Jesus is an extremely important figure in terms of Christian theology, but my sense is that his teachings are then retroactively annointed as singular and special in light of that importance rather than in the other way round. \*\* What was objectionable? I think you have to separate the core of authentic sayings from the bulk of mythological nonsense that was overlayed later. The authentic stuff would include the beatitudes, the parables and a few other sayings. I think that Jesus’ teachings have to be understood in the context of the culture he lived in. A lot of what he said was more radical than is commonly realized. Jesus was operating in a highly stratisfied class system similar to the caste system of India, and this system was attended with much attention to rules of ritual purity. Certain people simply did not associate with certain other people without becoming “unclean.” It was shocking for Jesus to “heal” (a ritual act, not a literal curing) a leper becaues healing involved touching and touching a leper made one unclean. It was also believed that lepers, blind people, “cripples,” etc. were being punished by God and that they needed to be isolated from the rest of society. They were a class that was someone akin to the pariahs of India. Jesus’ ministry to them was not just a blandly nice thing to do, it was considered morally shocking. The same can be said of dining with all those drunkards and prostitutes. Dining carried a whole set of protocols all its own. Who you ate with affected your spiritual purity. John Dominic Crossan wrote extensively about this stuff in his book, _Jesus: A Radical Biogrphy_. In that book he describes the two primary features of Jesus’ ministry as what he calls “radical egalitarianism,” and “open commensality.” Crossan argues that Jesus was trying to revolutionize his own culture and create a “Kingdom of Heaven” on earth by overthrowing legalism, ritual purity, and even the need for a “brokered kingdom” via the Temple. By replacing legalism with compassion, by disavowing ideas of class and tribalism and teaching that access to God was open to anyone without the need for sacrificing at the temple he hoped to create his new “kingdom of Heaven.” Crossan says that Jesus actualized his ideals through the practice of open commensality. Common dining between a diverse group of people was a way to ritualize the 'kingdom" and to strengthen a sense of community. It sounds somewhat utopian, that’s true, but because he took his ministry to the most outcast in his society, the most alienated, the most despised he must have had enormous populist appeal. In any case, a lot of what sounds like platitudes now were anything but in that time and place. “Love your enemy” would have sounded like complete nonsense. So would “Turn the other cheek.” The Good Samaritan is not just about doing good deeds, it subverted tribalistic ideas of us and them by redefining “us” as whoever had compassion. My favorite parable is the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats because it synthesizes a new ethos in a simple way and because, once again, it was subversive. I think that the fixed cultural ideas that Jesus overcame himself and then subverted with his ministry make him an outstanding philosophical and ethical figure. I haven’t mentioned his rhetorical strategies but he was brilliant at those too. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544/281 "2004-01-02T13:14:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*He knew He was God, and that he came to die as a sacrifice for our sins. > You cannot understand this, I don’t expect you ever to. \*\* You’re absolutely right, **vanilla.** Many people won’t or can’t understand and the Bible does say “ **for the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.** ” 1 Cor. 1:18 It simply states that those who think the preaching of the cross is foolish or unaccceptable are perishing. Of course, to those who refuse to accept the Bible’s authority as God’s word, it’s not going to mean a thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believing-in-santa-believing-in-god-satan/220544.md?page=15)