It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Santa vs God. Two Unnecessary Deceptions

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:31 AM
When my first kid was born and Christmas came around I had to decide if I was going to deceive and lie to my child for probably the next 10 or so years about Santa Claus. This meant also spending my hard earned cash on gifts and giving Santa the credit. This also meant that someday my child would find out about my deception, count me as a liar, and have to come to terms with the fact, a person that they believed was real, admired for years, suddenly vanishing. Some adults have pointed to this time as a negative life changing event in their childhood. My 50 year old sister still harbors ill will towards our parents for this.

I wrestled with it for years until I joined the ranks of other lying parents, and created for my child a fantasy that would only end in crushing disappointment. I hated it every time Santa got to give my kids the largest and most expensive gifts under the tree. (I changed it later, so I gave the good stuff they wanted, and Santa gave a couple of $20 gifts.)

It broke my heart every time one of my kids asked if Santa was real, and I had to come up with an answer that covered up the lie and also didn't dig me in deeper. I usually replied,"Yes, there is a real man named Santa Claus.",2909301

So when it came to telling my kids about a all powerful bearded man sitting on a throne in heaven, I chose wisely, and said nothing. At least Santa didn't have any stories written about how he murders children, levels cities, or wipes out human civilization in a flood. Santa never had a story told of how he instructs his devoted followers to kill their only son with a knife, (Abraham) makes it so all women though out time will have pain in child bearing, or turns someone's wife to salt just for looking in the wrong direction (Lot). Santa never made a bet with the devil and then destroys a man's life to win said bet. (Jobe) Santa never wrote commandments he himself won't obey. Santa never had a son he knew was destined for crucifixion by his own design.

Yes, I lied to my kids about Santa, but I didn't want to try and say to a three year old how great God was, and then have to explain later to a 10 year old why God does these horrible things. Most ten year old kids have already found out about the Santa deception, but a lot of adults struggle with the Bible's version of God their entire lives.

Now my last child is about to be ten and has been all over me about this Santa deception. He'll ask,"Are you sure you and Mom aren't Santa, like yall are the Tooth Fairy?" All I have is,"There is a real man named Santa Claus." I regret have started this lie at all. At least I spared myself more grief from having to explain the Bible's deceptions. Thank GOD!

But wait, there was a real man named St. Nicholas. And there was a man named Jesus. There are stories of Santa visiting all the children of the world in a flying sleigh, sliding his fat butt down small chimneys, and leaving gifts under the tree. The bible says Jesus healed the sick, changed water to wine, revived the dead, and himself rose from the dead. Is it okay to believe any of these stories as being true? The devout always say the Jesus stories are 100% true, pointing to the Bible, and then snicker and wink at Santa's miracles. They both are equally absurd. "But the Bible says it's so!" Google "Santa books" and you come up with 162,000,000 pages, so I would say there is more written evidence for Santa.

In summation, I would rather tell a innocent child the tall tales about Santa than the tall tales about Jesus, or God. I believe it is less detrimental for children to find out the truth of Santa at ten yrs old, than carry the burden of the bible's contradictions all their lives.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:14 AM
Hmmm. Interesting. I think you could also equate with what you said as there is no Good or Evil. That is what God and Satan have become to be known as. Well I do not know about you, but I see evil in this world every day. I also see good every day. That inclines me to believe that they are real. We all have a choice to make. Every day we are faced with different choices. We think about the choices and make those choices usually on personal gain decision. Everything that we do is usually on a personal gain decision. We perceive our surrounding by our senses and yet we overlook them and take them for granted everyday. We create our own future with a series of events. There is no past nor future. We are told that there is so we believe it.

I think that God and Satan are more likely. It makes more sense to me.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

Oh and as for stories of a bad santa clause, google Bill Goldberg Santa Clause. There are stories of his murdering ways. lol.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Conclusion]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

Yes, I lied to my kids about Santa

Out of curiosity...why?

My parents didn't. I remember very clearly when I asked my mother if santa claus was real, she looked both ways with a panicked expression and tried to speak a few times but couldn't bring herself to. Then eventually she explained that some people believed that he was real and some believed that he wasn't, but that I would have to decide for myself because she wasn't going to tell me one way or another.

As I recall, I replied that I didn't believe in Santa but I still believed in the easter bunny. And she said that was ok, hugged me, and that was the end of it. Didn't disrupt christmas at all, and we were still stuffing "santa stockings" 10-15 years later.

Why do people feel compelled to lie to their kids?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by LordBucket]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:32 AM
Why do we lie to our kids about this Santa? Lying is wrong, what the hell are we doing? We fill our kids heads with delusions of a fictitious character for their enjoyment? Let me tell you, seeing the disappointment in your child's eyes when they find out the truth about Santa is proof it wasn't worth it.

Do we even need Santa? I mean, I paid for those gifts, I deserve the credit! I never could get why I should give Santa my credit?

The Santa deception should be revised to exclude the idea of him still existing, but we could keep the part of he once existed and gave kids gifts. So to honor St. Nicholas, we give gifts.

Another point...when your kid realizes you lied to him about Santa, do you deserve to be completely trusted by that child? No.
Then you say, "...but God is real!" and they are thinking,"yea, that's what you said about Santa. I see how that went." You probably just created another atheist.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:46 AM

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
When my first kid was born and Christmas came around I had to decide if I was going to deceive and lie to my child for probably the next 10 or so years about Santa Claus.

It's not about deception. It's about letting kids be kids. About letting their imaginations run wild.

This meant also spending my hard earned cash on gifts and giving Santa the credit.

I thought this was about your kid. Are you sure it really isn't about you? When we give, we give out of the kindness of our hearts. Not for credit and emotional real estate.

This also meant that someday my child would find out about my deception, count me as a liar, and have to come to terms with the fact, a person that they believed was real, admired for years, suddenly vanishing.

You have a flare for the dramatic 12GaugePermissionSlip! I don't know anyone who thinks their parents were dirty rotten liars due to Santa. If anyone holds that type of grudge into their adulthood, they either need to 'man up' and get a grip or seek a psychiatrist for a much deeper set of issues.

Let the kid be a kid for crying out loud. Let them enjoy the magic of Christmas and Easter... like all their friends.

I can imagine how bummed out other parents would be when your child spoils Christmas for their child as well.

But hey... if you're going to be in for a penny, be in for a pound. Remove all forms of fiction from their lives. Remove, Snow White, Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel & Gretel, Sleeping Beauty... Cartoons, Television, Movies, Novels... anything that may be considered a 'lie'.


[edit on 21/12/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:56 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

Let the kid be a kid for crying out loud. Let them enjoy the
magic of Christmas and Easter... like all their friends.

As someone whose parents didn't lie about santa, I don't feel like I've missed out on any "magic." Like I said, we still celebrated christmas, we still hung stockings over the fireplace and called them "santa stockings" and so forth. We did all the usual christmas things, but I just hadn't been lied to about santa being real.

What's gained by adding a lie to this?

if you're going to be in for a penny, be in for a pound.
Remove all forms of fiction from their lives. Remove, Snow White, Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel & Gretel, Sleeping Beauty... Cartoons, Television, Movies, Novels... anything that may be considered a 'lie'.

Are you seriously suggesting you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it? Did you believe cartoons were real when you watched them? I didn't. But I still watched them and I still enjoyed them.

No one is suggesting removing childhood playfullness or story telling. Just the "lies and deceit" part. They don't add anything to the experience.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by LordBucket]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:06 AM
I sort of agree with her .

Santa is a lie. And we know it.
But we fallow the tradition because most people do. Whats hard for a Kid is not knowing the facts about Christmas.
If you stop giving your kids gifts on Christmas day because you tell them that there is no Santa. It won't matter to them. What matters is why are the other kids getting gifts on Christmas if there is no Santa. The Kids want the gifts anyway because every one else is getting gifts. Santa or no Santa.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by spy66

If you stop giving your kids gifts on Christmas day
because you tell them that there is no Santa.

...why is santa a prerequisite for gift giving...?

we fallow the tradition because most people do.

There's no need to follow tradition if you don't want to. If your parents did something that you found to be unpleasant, or more about effort than fun, then why do it? You're entitled to create your own traditions if you wish. And your children are entitled to create their own. If you pick and choose the things you want in your life, you're more likely to be happy with them.

Doing something just because somebody else did is really very silly.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:29 AM
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

God....just listen you yourself!

I can tell your going to raise some mentally destroyed over analytical kids who worry to much about crap that they can never answer.

Just spank them, feed them (depending on how much you like them), watch "the dog whisperer" and they will be fine.

Let the little rug rats figure out their own stuff in life.

Or you can tell them right now that they have absolutely no future and will be very fortunate if they don't burn their brains out on drugs, video games, or television.

Tell them about all the little children right this moment getting sold as sex slaves or starving so hideously that vultures are already gathering around them.

And that the world is made in this way and that horrible things happen to people so he can live safe and receive Chinese led made toys for Christmas.

Hell does not happen by accident so how could it be a lie?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Izarith]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:31 AM
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

You are wrong in believing that santa is this and that. All santa is, is the word satan. Thats all santa is, and you are just worshipping him without knowing it.

You do what you want, but your still worshipping, what we call the devil, if you take part in it, lol.

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:22 PM
I would've told my kids about Santa Claus. There's no harm in it. It's just a holiday character who's based off of a historical human being.

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

Well, I agree with you and disagree with you, but not for the reasons you might think.

I have never believed in Santa Claus, ever.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Santa Claus

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Sinterklaas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle or simply "Santa", is a legendary figure who, in many Western cultures, brings gifts to the homes of the good children during the late evening and overnight hours of Christmas Eve, December 24 or on his Feast Day, December 6 (Saint Nicholas Day).

The legend may have part of its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of gift giver Saint Nicholas.

A nearly identical story is attributed by Greek and Byzantine folklore to Basil of Caesarea.

Basil's feast day on January 1 is considered the time of exchanging gifts in Greece.

Not because my parents chose to lie or not lie, but because I have always seen the world for what it is, a place where people do things, both benevolent and evil.

I went to the library and found books on Santa Claus.

Christmas is supposed to be about Jesus Christ and the spirit of giving, the secular and pagan world made up the story of Santa Claus as a means to compete with the church and for no other reason than that, because Government and the church, all churches, are in direct and indirect competition for the control mechanism over society.

Codependence As Religious Control Mechanism - The Atheist Experience #578

The Hegelian Dialectic easily explains away religion through the explanation of control mechanisms.

Hegelian Dialectic- Problem, Reaction, Solution explained 1/3

Hegelian Dialectic- Problem, Reaction, Solution explained 2/3

Hegelian Dialectic- Problem, Reaction, Solution explained 3/3

Quote from : Wikipedia : Dialectic : Hegelian Dialectic

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a three-fold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.

Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation.

Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.

Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete.

Sometimes Hegel would use the terms, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

Hegel used these terms hundreds of times throughout his works.

The formula, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, does not explain why the Thesis requires an Antithesis.

However, the formula, Abstract-Negative-Concrete, suggests a flaw in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error and experience.

The same applies to the formula, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete.

For Hegel, the Concrete, the Synthesis, the Absolute, must always pass through the phase of the Negative, that is, Mediation.

This is the actual essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics.

To describe the activity of overcoming the negative, Hegel also often used the term Aufhebung, variously translated into English as "sublation" or "overcoming," to conceive of the working of the dialectic. Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea, thing, society, etc., while moving beyond its limitations.

(Jacques Derrida's preferred French translation of the term was relever).

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts).

When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.

As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage.

For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation as slavery to self-unification and realization as the rational, constitutional state of free and equal citizens.

The Hegelian dialectic cannot be mechanically applied for any chosen thesis.

Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective.

Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis.

In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis is not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses.

The problem with the Fichtean "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things.

Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things.

This conception of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus.

Hegel has outlined that the purpose of dialectics is "to study things in their own being and movement and thus to demonstrate the finitude of the partial categories of understanding"

One important dialectical principle for Hegel is the transition from quantity to quality, which he terms the Measure.

The measure is the qualitative quantum, the quantum is the existence of quantity.

"The identity between quantity and quality, which is found in Measure, is at first only implicit, and not yet explicitly realised.

In other words, these two categories, which unite in Measure, each claim an independent authority.

On the one hand, the quantitative features of existence may be altered, without affecting its quality.

On the other hand, this increase and diminution, immaterial though it be, has its limit, by exceeding which the quality suffers change.

[...] But if the quantity present in measure exceeds a certain limit, the quality corresponding to it is also put in abeyance.

This however is not a negation of quality altogether, but only of this definite quality, the place of which is at once occupied by another.

This process of measure, which appears alternately as a mere change in quantity, and then as a sudden revulsion of quantity into quality, may be envisaged under the figure of a nodal (knotted) line"

As an example, Hegel mentions the states of aggregation of water:

"Thus the temperature of water is, in the first place, a point of no consequence in respect of its liquidity: still with the increase or diminution of the temperature of the liquid water, there comes a point where this state of cohesion suffers a qualitative change, and the water is converted into steam or ice".

As other examples Hegel mentions the reaching of a point where a single additional grain makes a heap of wheat; or where the bald-tail is produced, if we continue plucking out single hairs.

Another important principle for Hegel is the negation of the negation, which he also terms Aufhebung (sublation): Something is only what it is in its relation to another, but by the negation of the negation this something incorporates the other into itself.

The dialectical movement involves two moments that negate each other, a somewhat and an another.

As a result of the negation of the negation, "something becomes an other; this other is itself somewhat; therefore it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum".

Something in its passage into other only joins with itself, it is self-related.

In becoming there are two moments: coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be: by sublation, i.e. negation of the negation, being passes over into nothing, it ceases to be, but something new shows up, is coming to be.

What is sublated (aufgehoben) on the one hand ceases to be and is put to an end, but on the other hand it is preserved and maintained.

In dialectics, a totality transform itself, it is self-related.

Most people miss completely, that during the time of Jesus, that Israel was under occupation by the Roman's, where do most of you think Pontius Pilate came from?

He was a Roman Prefect, a governor, watching over the Israelites.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate (pronounced /ˈpɒntʃəs ˈpaɪlət/; Latin: Pilatus, Greek: Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος) was the Prefect (governor) of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36.

Typically referenced as the fifth Procurator of Judea, he is best known as the judge at Jesus' trial and the man who authorized his crucifixion.

Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were favorites, in all of my studies of history.

When I grew up knowing Santa was fake, I stood on the playground and heard the other kids arguing about Santa being real or not because of the differences between how parents raise their children, and the disillusionment that comes from children when they eventually find out, at about age ten, and all I did was stood there mute, wondering why either side was disputing a fictional representation the same as they argue and bicker over fictional representations about the Bible.

The same as I do now standing in the middle between 9/11 "Truther's" and those who defend the official version, seeing neither side realizes they are being played for fools.

Just like professional wrestling is fake, yes people get hurt, but for the most part it’s staged, and the people getting hurt are by accident, or a lack of professionalism, and just people being mean.

When I say argue over fictional representations of the Bible, that is a complex statement, and personally I believe this thread needs to be moved to the Religious Forum due to the nature of the thread itself.

Original Poster, you can ask for that to be done by U2U'ing a Moderator.

If you want to do so.

The way I see it, Santa, is the same exact thing as the belief in going to Heaven and or Hell, in that it is nothing but a white lie, wrapped in social, spiritual, and emotional blackmail, to conform to a certain set of societal beliefs.

The pretext of losing presents to coal, or going to Hell instead of Heaven, is nothing more than a dichotomy, a false one at that, because there are only two choices, just like Republicans or Democrats, a false dichotomy, a pre-selected and pre-determined outcome based upon your particular actions, reactions, thoughts, and beliefs.

Before someone goes off on me, without premise, I studied Greek for high school, where I was home schooled, learning the Bible inside and out through the original Greek from a teacher who knew both Hebrew anf Greek.

I know the context, content, sub-text, and intent of the Bible, it is clearly a set of stories put together at the Council of Nicaea.

Quote from : Wikipedia : First Council of Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325.

The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

What was the Council of Nicaea all about?

Quote from : Wikipedia : Second Council of Nicaea

The Second Council of Nicaea is believed to have been the Seventh Ecumenical Council by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and various other Western Christian groups.

It met in 787 AD in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea; present-day İznik in Turkey) to restore the honoring of icons (or, holy images) which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717 - 741).

His son, Constantine V (741 - 775), had held a synod to make the suppression official.

The Bible to me, is nothing more than a history book, an incomplete one at that.

Personally, I let other people believe how they want to believe, and if I find we have similar ideas, morals, or ethics, I share with them my thoughts, and they share theirs with me, and along the way I find out more information about how the world actually works, and it only makes me a better person because of it.

Truth : The First Victim, The Last to Be Un-Buried, Never to Rest...

I say let people believe what they want and never force your ideas upon other people, otherwise you are a bully, and bullies are something I love to challenge, seeing as I am a bully buster.

On that note, I will leave you with a fictional rendition of two "fictional characters".

Jack Bauer Interrogates Santa Claus

Remember, fact, or fiction, it is not who is telling the truth, it is how you handle it.

Personally, I will not tell my children, when I have them, about Santa, I will let them discover that and believe in it how they will, and when asked questions, I will encourage them to research it, ask questions, and dispute it.

Conspiracy Theorist to the end, through and through.

For those who wish to know, I am not an Atheist, I am Agnostic.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

new topics

top topics


log in