Wow. Something from Ry I actually take exception with.
Ry wrote:
Well first of all, no wars have been fought in the name of Santa.
Did Jesus instruct His disciples to wage aggression against innocents in His name? Or is war in the name of Christianity the making of states and evil church leaders who only claim to be living out Jesus' teachings?
Ry wrote:
In fact, in WWI there was an unofficial truce, a moment of peace time occurred in the
Xmas 1914 where troops exchanged presents.
True, but were they celebrating the birth of Santa Claus, or the birth of Christ? Did they say they were celebrating the goodwill passed down and embodied in the traditions of "Santamas"?
Ry wrote:
Just think of Xmas morning verse going to an xmas mass, case closed.
Not so fast. Believe it or not, Mass is no less voluntary than rising in the morning and exchanging gifts and drinking hot chocolate. Which one is more fulfilling (or fun) depends on the values instilled in upbringing, as well as individual taste.
Ry wrote:
Which mythology is healthier?: the man demanding worship and obedience whose has multitudes of sects arguing about the volumes of what they think he may have said or the cookie loving guy that lives with elves whose entire moral philosophy has been summed up in two words, “be good.”
Again: Worshiping Christ is a voluntary act. Did Jesus demand that wars be fought to make people worship Him? Or is that the making of states and nefarious church leaders?
Ry wrote:
The Santa Vs Jesus proves that it is much more fun to give than to just talk about it. Everyone enjoys the Santa mythology more than the Jesus myth. (Including most Christians thought they won’t admit that). It’s far better to thank and love your living family than a man who died to protect you from his father (also himself, so long as you believe in his masochistic tantrum).
"Masochistic tantrum" eh? Well, not that you believe it happened or anything, but...
I remember one "tantrum" from the New Testament where Jesus kicked the money-changers' asses and threw them out. It was anything but "masochistic"; in fact, was it not for the least of His people? Perhaps you sense that He was doing it all for show; but tell me, did He not put His life on the line? Is that not an inspiration for the actions of our anti-fed, anti-state luminaries of today like Ron Paul (who is a devout Christian himself)?
Also: I am not what you would call a devout Christian, but I was born and raised Catholic. And I have no trouble admitting that the "magical" feeling derived from the Santa, Rudolph, candy canes, stocking-hanging, Christmas lights, gift-giving, etc., was always "more fun" than the going-to-church part.
But I, personally, find
no fun in incessantly defaming others for their (and their) religious beliefs — no matter
how fantastical they may seem. But that's just me.
Ry wrote:
A tree is a lot happier than a cross: a device of torture. And a jolly fat man with toys is a lot more appealing than a skinny dead dude on a stick. A wreath is much merrier than a bloody crown of thorns. Christmas cookies taste a lot better than holy wafers pretending to be pieces of somebody’s body.
Here, you're just jabbing away at Christians for their use of symbolism. Many religions use dark symbolism to forge a resolve in their believers toward overcoming despair toward salvation and so forth (thus, the winter solstice, etc.); why single out Christianity? Oh yeah. It's Christmastime. Never mind...
Ry wrote:
But I will say in general wine wins over eggnog, so I’ll give one point for Jesus there.
I like egg nog more myself (wine gives me headaches), but oh well. To each his own (or should I rephrase that for your sensibilities — something like "to each his own stupid beliefs"?
).
Ry wrote:
Believing in Santa is happy, believing in Jesus is an escape from punishment and laced with constant guilt and worry. Discovering Santa is not real is a bummer, learning Jesus was not real either is a relief.
Not necessarily. When a believer is convinced (or "learns," as you term it) that Jesus didn't exist, it can destroy their world. Some will react positively and move on with their lives; but for others, it can bring them down so hard that it turns their life upside down. I've seen it in my life and it is tragic when that person never recovers — never gets that "relief."
Ry wrote:
Despite is stalker like powers and total disregard for trespassing; Santa is far more friendly and lovable than Mr. Walking dead man.
You're wrong on Santa here. He is welcomed into people's homes. That's why we put out cookies and milk and clean out our chimneys extra nice, man!
Mr. Walking dead man, eh? Jab away, Ry.
I agree that religion is a problem, but only when it is used by the state, charaltan and criminal church leaders, or zealous individuals, to violate others' rights by forcing it upon them. The mere existence of religion neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (to paraphrase Jefferson, I believe, on another subject).
No hard feelings, Ry; but just remember that to some people, religion is pretty much all they have.
Would you defame the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus to a group of Palestinians in Gaza who have nothing left in their life but faith in God and the prophets?I love ya, man; just remember that there are more-ominous enemies to life, liberty, peace, etc., out there than peoples' religious beliefs. They're known as governments.
Remember, also: Jesus was an enemy of the state, perhaps the biggest enemy of state tyranny in history. That ought to count for something amidst your anti-Christianity rants.
Ry wrote:
Merry Christmas every one.
That should be "Merry Santamas" from you, my friend.
Also, I think maybe MY copy of Twas The Night Before Christmas also had Santa in a red suit. But, in 1820 the guy prolly didn''t have a drawings with the poem. Maybe...