While this only very tangentially addresses the topic, in the sense that part of the power of myth and metaphor rest in the ways that their words and images resonate in our minds, causing sympathetic vibrations in similar words and images and drawing our attention to those and what, if any, relevance they might have to what set them humming, I just have to say that I love the English language. Consider the similarity in sound and structure of immanence and imminence.
What a horrible injustice to a very, very, very old tradition.
Just more of the creepy christianisation of the whole feast.
Replacing Odin with Nicholas of Myra wasn’t enough for you christian lot?
You twist and turn everything in your path, don’t you?
You put up Nicholas, a christian saint as the original. But Nicholas wasn’t the original, as you probably well know. He was only the replacement for Odin, celebrated for centuries before that.
Jeez, why can’t you just admit it. Christmas, in its origin, has nothing to do with your god. It’s much, much, much older than your god. It’s even older than Odin.
I come from one of those countries that have continued the feast of ‘Saint Nicholas’, over the centuries. In our form, Nicholas (Sinterklaas) rides a white horse over the rooftops, before he climbs down a chimney. He has a servant, Black Peter, who metes out the punishment to the bad kids. They get whipped with a bundle of wicker, put into a sack and shipped off to Spain, where Sinterklaas lives.
This is the Character, celebrated in Holland, Belgium and parts of Germany, is what the modern (US) version of Santa Claus(e), oops I’m in for it now, is based on. Which is the christianised version of Wodan/Odin, riding the rooftops on his white horse, called Sleipnir, with his faithful servant Nissi. It is even a Prostestanised version, as Sinterklaas is dressed as a bishop.
Now, Black Peter is interesting. It is generally assumed that he is black because he is Nicholas’s Moorish servant. But Nissi turns out to be black because he was a giant of the underworld, bested by Odin and made his servant.
In Indo-European mythology giants, usually, are the Gods that were worshipped before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. This would make Nissi a very, very, very old character indeed!!!
It is a shame that he has been replaced by elves in the US version.
Santa Claus is an ode to tradition. How it has survived, in many forms and attires is truly amazing and wonderful. This is a tradition that stretches way, way, way back into the mists of prehistory.
Please, Poly, don’t ruin it for me.
Prostestinised?
Hmm, Protestantinised, err… whatever. You get the meaning, I hope.
I don’t get it. How is Poly ruining it for you?
Well, the way I read it, he’s using Santa/Sinterklaas/etc… to twist it into being God/The Father who loves you.
That is not the ‘true meaning’ of christmas.
Couple of points:
-
You can’t twist a metaphor because metaphors are independent of truth/fiction values (That’s what this debate was all about IMHO).
-
Everyone has a different idea of what the “true meaning” of Christmas is ( I subscribe partially to the “economic force” model). Are you willing to presume yourself to be the final arbiter of what is and what isn’t Christmas?
-
Sure you can change a metaphore or create one where non was.
-
Is Poly the final arbiter then? (this is a [i[debate*, remeber)
- In this particular thread, yes, since Poly was trying to make a point about how metaphors and mythologies work.
Obviously noone could ever be the final arbiter of what Christmas is and isn’t.
First, I don’t consider myself the final arbiter of anything but the meaning that I put into the content of what I type – what you get out of it is your problem, not mine, but if you get upset by what I say, I reserve the right to reword, clarify, or otherwise try to make sure that what you’re upset by is what I intended to say, not what my lack of clarity made it seem like I said.
As the rest of this post does…
Second (and Bryan, this is for you), what I did was to take the fact that many people working on a refutation or putdown of religious faith take the Santa story as an apposite analogy, then look at the Santa myth (and I did acknowledge a pagan source, you’ll note, though I’d lay odds that the majority of people who know anything about the origins of the Santa story know the St. Nicholas part and not the pagan part), and then illustrate the fact that myths can have meaning and applicability to everyday life without being anything like the literal truth by (accurately) painting Triskadecamus into the Santa role. Because how I described Santa above describes Tris accurately, insofar as my own writing skills or lack thereof permit.
I gave an accurate account of a Dopefest I attended in the literary style of myth.
Then I played off that story to indicate that while the Great Sky Pixie may not be an accurate representation of God, and the stories about him partake of mythicality, nonetheless He is quite as real as Triskadecamus. And illustrated the appositeness of Jesus’s favorite metaphor for God with the truth about Santa.
Does that help clarify what my convoluted prose was trying to do?
So, in a nutshell, you were trying to make a point about how metaphors and mythologies work. 
That, and illustrating that attempting to taxonomize God and determine His specific gravity is the wrong way to go about evaluating whether and who He is and how He goes about getting His will done.
ok, trying to figure out the sketch of the OP
1)Santa was once believed to be real
2)God was once believed to be real
3)Santa (as was believed) was found out not to be real
4)God would likely follow Santa’s path
5)Santa is reborn solely in ideological terms
6)History of Santa’s “transmogrification” from Pagan roots to present day embodiments.
7) Present day embodiments “thusly equate to”
And that, my friends, is how literal truth becomes myth.
8)God is real and loves you and is embodied in Himself and others so God is the literal truth and myth in one.
So if I summed up what you said correctly (concision, dagnabit, concision). Since Santa still exists in the realm of a living a myth, thusly God exists as well. Am I on base here?
So, in a nutshell, you were trying to twist Santa into the ‘Father who loves you’
Wow, I sat on God’s lap at the mall 3 years ago! Cool! He knew that I was 16 trying to pass for 10 or 11, but He also saw my inner child and wouldn’t turn me away just because I’m supposedly too old for “childish fantasties.” God is nice like that.
Anyway, interesting point, Polycarp.
sings
Santa loves me, yes I know
For the Dope thread told me so…
All right, so I’m Wiccan, but even though I figured the whole “Santa” business out when I was 7, my parents still set a stocking out for me. So I guess there’s this whole “child of God” metaphor going on. Right.
I always thought my dad was Santa (and I was right!). I also think of the Santa figure as the elder aspect of the God. As such, I see no twisting in thinking of Santa as “Father who loves you”.
But that, of course, is just me.
Well, the point I’m trying to make is that Santa is indeed a god. However, not the judeo-muslimo-christian god. The ‘twist’ is in trying to make him thus.
Hey, agentfroot, you didn’t need to deal with that subordinate Claus at the mall. You know Jesus quite well – He lives inside that crazy lady!
But Latro, nobody was trying to turn Santa into the Christian God. Re-read the OP. He’s being used as an example of what happens with mythological constructs, based on OTHER people’s pre-established claim that the CG is like Santa. like, not the same.
Sorry to be stubborn, but how is that “twisting” the god form? Unless of course you see the judeo-muslimo-christian faiths as completely invalid (in which case we will have to agree to disagree).
OK, see, I am not really Santa Claus. In fact, I am not really all that much like any of the many possible personages upon which the various Santa Claus personifications are based. I am not even really all that much like the almost entirely American creation of Santa Claus. But it pleases people to see me that way. And that implies a decision on my part, every time it happens. Belch and drink beer, and tell them to fuck off, or try to avoid deliberately stepping on the image of an archetype.
Now I will admit that in a few cases, the first option does have a certain appeal. But if there are children under about ten or so in the area, I don’t like that one. So, I try to live up to the image. All it really requires is being nice, and listening to kids. I like kids, so it’s not a problem. Oddly enough there is also another constituency that seems very strongly inclined to expand on the pretend game that I am Santa Claus. Young women seem to find Santa to be a completely safe target for flirtatious behavior, including at times a fairly bold physical expression of affection. Well, I can deal with it. But there’s a catch. Even the pretended belief of these young women seems to me to deserve sincerity in return. Santa doesn’t hit on young girls, however forward they might be. So you see, the personality of an entirely fictitious character takes on a reality of it’s own.
I won’t pretend to be Jesus. I ain’t that good.
But I am a Christian, and faith demands that I make that fact a part of my life. So, I must act as a Christian should act. That isn’t about being sinless, as I see it. It’s about responding to everyone as the role of Christian demands. I must act as Christ. It ends up being a lot like acting like Santa Claus. And if I am wrong, and there is no God, and no Christ, still I would act the same way. And just as the personality of Santa Claus takes on reality, so also it is with Christ. Even if there is no Christ, then I must act as if there was, so that there might be, anyway.
Ghandi new it, too. He said “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” Lao Tsu knew it, as well. He said “Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage.” A lot of people have seen this truth. Love is a very powerful thing. Is it real? I have no doubt. And if it is not, I can make it real myself, by loving.
I don’t think that all this time bound chicken and egg stuff is relevant in thinking about God. God is. God always was. Or, rather, as He put it, “Before Abraham was, I am.” And He became a man, and made a sacrifice for the sins of men. And that includes all the sins of men, ever. Any part of that that is not logical is miraculous.
Anyway, the being that is God transcends our perception. It is meaningless to say this god, or that god. What you see is your perception of God. That does not constrain God to be as you see Him. But it does constrain you to be what you see Him to be. See, He became real, again.
Tris