It is likely that the consensus conception of Santa changes as culture changes. It is also likely that Santa's personality and behavior changes with time, because most people change. But how much change is plausible?what if changing ideas about Santa are evidence of Santa’s awesomeness? He is so beyond our comprehension that different ideas are just an example of human inability to fully comprehend him?
If I was the Great Pumpkin I would be a little annoyed about this thread too. This is October - not December.Sorry, Cloudy, that would be legit and great to ponder over IF the OP creator would have really meant what he said, but as you've probably seen clear evidence of, he wasn't TRULY interested in any thing we could historically surmise about dear ol' Santa. I don't know. Maybe he's "got it in" for Santa because in years past his stocking, which I'm assuming was hung by the chimney with care-----or maybe it wasn't since one can never be too careful with the use of a Christmas stocking, either was full of coal or apparently empty.
And if a person doesn't get a stocking full of candy and gifts, I can very much understand the grievance one might have with the jolly old elf. Darn you, Santa!
If I was the Great Pumpkin I would be a little annoyed about this thread too. This is October - not December.
If I was the Great Pumpkin I would be a little annoyed about this thread too. This is October - not December.
I just need you to make coherent points. If you want to mock me, and Christianity, at least be coherent about it.Why don't you sleep on it. It may come to you. Or perhaps you can pray about it.
What is amazing is that your epistemology was abandoned in the 60's and you are still using and defending it like it is a hill to die on while claiming we are the ridiculous ones. That is what is amazing.I can’t tell if you’re joking or being serious. Amazing conclusion
Nice try, but no. The point isn't that science isn't useful, it's that the scientific method is not the only means by which we can know things. Are you going to actually try to defend your position or not?
Nicely said, but I still want to know what those other ways are.@BigV , perhaps the point just needs rephrasing.
How would you feel about this:
"While there are many ways of gaining knowledge about things, which we can then say we "know" to be true (with varying degrees of reliability), if we want to test the truth of something, the scientific method has been demonstrated to be the most reliable method for ascertaining truth".
Or, putting it more simply: there may be many ways to know if something is true, but the scientific method is the best one.
Ok, so why not just leave it there? We do not understand. Lets wait until we have more info. Why jump to "God must have done it" conclusion?
How did you come to realization that God was the Creator? Is it possible for God to exist but someone else to be the Creator?
And what is the purpose? Lets see... Before Christianity, what was the purpose of humanity then? Afterall, the Hebrew God Yahweh, El, Elohim, etc... were only concerned with the Jews, no? So what was the purpose of a Gentile $2,500+ years ago?
Reading the Bible I can take a guess. The purpose was to give birth to virgins, so that Moses and Joshua could keep them after they kill all the men, children and non-virgin women.
And how would you tell the people about you? Would you use anonymous sources who would hallucinate messages from you to the rest of us, humans?
Science is science. We have scientific evidence. We may not have the abiogenesis nailed down, but evolution is pretty much slam dunk now. Maybe there is no skipping, and instead, we like to talk about things we have evidence for?
There is no reason to posit God for anything, other than the very first life forms. After that first life form, we come from our ancestors.
I would suggest that the scientific method is, in fact, the only way we know things. The scientific method is simply, IMHO, what it is humans do all the time to know things albeit with typical mistakes compensated for. That is, for example, when we want to know if our partner loves us we define our terms, we categorize behavior patterns, we define our error tolerance, we assess the behaviors of our SO, and we draw a conclusion. The scientific method compensates for mistakes like confirmation bias, e.g., "He/she/it didn't really mean that bad thing. He/she/it actually does love me."
Nicely said, but I still want to know what those other ways are.
I would suggest that the scientific method is, in fact, the only way we know things. The scientific method is simply, IMHO, what it is humans do all the time to know things albeit with typical mistakes compensated for. That is, for example, when we want to know if our partner loves us we define our terms, we categorize behavior patterns, we define our error tolerance, we assess the behaviors of our SO, and we draw a conclusion. The scientific method compensates for mistakes like confirmation bias, e.g., "He/she/it didn't really mean that bad thing. He/she/it actually does love me."
The scientific method is what humans actually do (not what they claim to do) codified and enhanced.
Claims like "I know, by faith, that Nirvana is a thing" none of us in this thread (so far) would accept that they have actual knowledge.
Besides, I'm not going to leave it at that because I personally am enough convinced, that I don't want to take the chance of going to hell by taking the "wait to be sure" stance.
Bingo. I think you nailed the nail on it's head. It's easy to convince anyone of anything if you have a big stick and are willing and ready to use it.
What would you think of anyone believing in Santa because Santa was beautiful?The Beauty of Jesus.
What would you think of anyone believing in Santa because Santa was beautiful?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?