• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Santa Claus (not the secret santa thread)

bigdoublezero said:
If it were only about receiving, secular Christmas just wouldn't exist. The economics don't make sense.

It's OK to have fun stuff in life. God wants that.
Click to expand...

If you think I give a damn about the economics about secular Christmas then you should reread my posts.

I'm not saying don't have fun, and I'm not saying don't have a narrative. But I believe that the real narrative is far more powerful than a made up one, especially one created by the capitalist machine. Plus, Santa, as we tend to think of "him," is a relatively new figure, and kids seem to have been just fine before that myth came along, still had imaginations, sill experienced joy and wonder. So I really don't think any lasting damage is going to be done.

Not really sure what you mean by it not being representative to say that Christmas is about receiving. I'm talking theology, Christmas is a celebration of Emmanuel; of God coming to earth. That's about receiving. You could say it's about God's giving, but it remains about our receiving. In church-speak, it's called Grace.

I'm all for giving children, and specifically mine, gifts, even those that aren't always "utilitarian." But I'm not interesting in doing it on Christmas, thereby perverting it. All this being said, I realize that these are my choices, and in no way am I condemning/judging those who do use Santa. Reasonable people of faith can come down on both sides of the issue, while still celebrating the religious aspects of Christmas. I just can't reconcile consumerism with Christmas; but if you can, then, in all sincerity, good for you.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Does buying kids stuff that they don't really need, often made in sweatshop type conditions, show charity or generosity?

Secular Christmas isn't the same as religious Christmas, if you want a secular "holiday," by all means, go for it. My interest is religious Christmas. Santa, as some have said, is great for imagination, and wonder, and magic, but the fictional Santa being treated as a reality isn't the only way to achieve those end. In fact, I believe that the story of the real St. Nicholas, and the legends surrounding his life, are even more powerful. And perhaps still even more powerful to realize that his spirit of charity and generosity is still active today, hundreds of years later, in his memory. No reason to make him into something he's not (a fat, jolly, old man in a red suit). Why can't he just be the Bishop of Myra?

Furthermore, Santa doesn't bring joy to anyone, but rather, others do (perhaps in his name). But that's the lesson that I'd rather have my daughter learn, not that by magic some guy flies around the world with reindeer to give out gifts, but rather that we can be like St. Nicholas by bringing joy to others. My other big issue is that the marketers/advertisers have done an excellent job in fooling us into believing that Christmas is a season of giving. It's not. It is a season of receiving. That is what the Incarnation is about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, have to side with BDZ here.

1. Santa doesn't buy kids toys created in sweatshops. Parents, friends, and family members do that; Santa builds them in his workshop at the North Pole. It seems like your gripe here is more with gift-giving (or, more accurately gift-receiving) than Santa. If anything, the creation and idea of Santa add a veneer of charity to what can be perceived as the less-palatable underbelly of gift-giving.

2. He can't just be the bishop of Myra because mere human accomplishment has never been enough for humanity. Myth, legend, and story are and have been an integral part of human existence, from the very beginning. Beowulf didn't really kill a dragon. King Arthur didn't really find the Holy Grail. Odysseus didn't really defeat a Cyclops. None of those people need to be a legend, but nobody would tell the story of a king who may or may not have existed and maybe went out to fight the Saxons. To some degree, and I say this as a Christian, religion itself is grounded in the need to believe that something greater and larger than man exists. Maybe St. Nicholas himself doesn't need to be a legend, but someone has to be, else human life is drained of all its color. Given the already-existing mythos surrounding Santa Claus, it might as well be him.

3. Completely disagree. I can only speak for myself, but the anticipation and excitement surrounding Christmas was exponentially greater when I believed in Santa Claus, went out on Christmas Eve to look for Rudolph's nose, and carefully selected the finest and most sugar-laden Christmas cookie to set out for him the night before than once I knew that Mom and Dad had bought me a lot of presents that they'd be placing beneath the tree that night. The home videos marked by shouts of "Santa came!" seem to bear that out. The process matters at least as much as the material gratification, and believing in Santa Claus undoubtedly enhanced that process.
 
Last edited:
OldGoldBeard said:
Yeah, have to side with BDZ here.

1. Santa doesn't buy kids toys created in sweatshops. Parents, friends, and family members do that; Santa builds them in his workshop at the North Pole. It seems like your gripe here is more with gift-giving (or, more accurately gift-receiving) than Santa. If anything, the creation and idea of Santa add a veneer of charity to what can be perceived as the less-palatable underbelly of gift-giving.
Click to expand...

its fun to read this in Will Ferrell's Elf voice
 
Yes, very fair to say my gripe is with gifts, not Santa. If you read about the real St. Nicholas, there is already a ton of good legend about him, stuff that even is powerful today. I just don't feel the need to add the commercial/modern interpretation of Santa on top of that. It would be as if someone came up with the idea that Beowulf now slays the monsters that live under your bed, then sell figurines to kids. Rejecting the newer interpretation doesn't deny the original myths that the new ones are founded on. I completely agree that we need to believe in something bigger than us. What confuses me is why we can't focus more on the, I don't know, maybe the story of Christmas (birth narratives of Jesus) over things such as "The Night Before Christmas" or "Santa Claus." I grew up with Santa, loved the guy, nothing against him. But I don't want Christmas to be about material gifts, I'd much rather it be about time spent together and worship. Not that you can't have those things with gifts, but I don't need/want the gifts.

And to the tagger that said I ruined the thread- I simply posted my response to the OP, others commented on it, so we're having a respectful/civil adult conversation. That's what internet message boards are for, conversation.
 
RevDeac06 said:
If you think I give a damn about the economics about secular Christmas then you should reread my posts.

I'm not saying don't have fun, and I'm not saying don't have a narrative. But I believe that the real narrative is far more powerful than a made up one, especially one created by the capitalist machine. Plus, Santa, as we tend to think of "him," is a relatively new figure, and kids seem to have been just fine before that myth came along, still had imaginations, sill experienced joy and wonder. So I really don't think any lasting damage is going to be done.

Not really sure what you mean by it not being representative to say that Christmas is about receiving. I'm talking theology, Christmas is a celebration of Emmanuel; of God coming to earth. That's about receiving. You could say it's about God's giving, but it remains about our receiving. In church-speak, it's called Grace.

I'm all for giving children, and specifically mine, gifts, even those that aren't always "utilitarian." But I'm not interesting in doing it on Christmas, thereby perverting it. All this being said, I realize that these are my choices, and in no way am I condemning/judging those who do use Santa. Reasonable people of faith can come down on both sides of the issue, while still celebrating the religious aspects of Christmas. I just can't reconcile consumerism with Christmas; but if you can, then, in all sincerity, good for you.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand my use of the term "economics." My mom doesn't spend hours and hours painstakingly making Christmas cookies every year because she's greedy, for example.

Kids are much better off in the modern era with Santa Claus in their lives, and it's not even close. Not really even debatable. It's not about lasting damage being done without Santa. It's about lasting benefits added to their lives with him. A child is going to get much more joy out of life because Santa left him a gift under the tree than learning about someone who did something commendable hundreds of years ago. Also not really even debatable.

Seems like your biggest issue with secular Christmas comes down to public relations for the church and its historical traditions. That's on the church, not on the fun traditions of secular Christmas. It's a complete waste of time to try to rail against something that's universally loved and respected (for myriad good reasons), especially because pretty much everybody understands that fun traditions can happen in life without taking away from their faith. You can celebrate God coming to earth without tearing down Santa Claus. And if you can't, you're screwed.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Kids are much better off in the modern era with Santa Claus in their lives, and it's not even close. Not really even debatable.


Seems like your biggest issue with secular Christmas comes down to public relations for the church and its historical traditions. That's on the church, not on the fun traditions of secular Christmas. It's a complete waste of time to try to rail against something that's universally loved and respected (for myriad good reasons), especially because pretty much everybody understands that fun traditions can happen in life without taking away from their faith. You can celebrate God coming to earth without tearing down Santa Claus. And if you can't, you're screwed.
Click to expand...

On the first point, you can't just make that sort of claim and say it's the truth; it's an opinion, certainly a valid one, but there's no way to claim that people are better or worse off because of Santa.

My issues isn't PR, but I agree completely that the Church has lost most of what it really is about, and not just concerning Christmas. Furthermore, it's not a waste of time to rail against something that is loved and respected (so many examples here, misogyny, slavery, etc.). I'm even fine with Santa, so long as Christmas isn't about just getting a bunch of stuff.

So the general outline of Christmas, from the Biblical perspective: God creates world, enters into relationship with Israel, Israel turns out not to live up to their end of the deal, God comes to earth to redeem and show love not only to Israel, but the whole world. God does this by being born as a poor, uneducated man in a backwater town. This man is radically devoted to transforming the unjust power structures and is eventually killed for it... So we celebrate this event of God becoming incarnate by putting more emphasis on a man in a red suit, who was created as a marketing ploy, and this guy gives kids who live in the West toys that they don't really need, mostly because they already have tons of toys. Pretty sure there is a disconnect somewhere in there.

It's really not anti-Santa, anti-fun, or anti-gifts. I'm all about symbol and myth, those are my currencies as a priest. But I'm struggling to see how this "fun tradition" is doing anything other than distorting the meaning of the holiday.

I'm interested in seeing the prayer "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" come closer to reality more than I am about people being stoked about opening presents and finding joy in materialism. So if that's your criticism of me, then guilty as charged.
 
RevDeac06 said:
It's really not anti-Santa, anti-fun, or anti-gifts. I'm all about symbol and myth, those are my currencies as a priest. But I'm struggling to see how this "fun tradition" is doing anything other than distorting the meaning of the holiday.
Click to expand...

That's like calling fireworks distortive because they disrespect the sacrifices made by the colonists during a revolt against the English. At some point the Fourth of July became less about commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence and more about having a fun time celebrating. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach our kids about the Revolutionary War. We can do both. They're, for all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive, although there are some core values that overlap.

If you honestly think secular Christmas is mere materialism, you're the one involved in perversion.
 
HailToTheDeacons said:
Thank God.

I can't fathom our future children waking up to a pile of unwrapped presents. What a crock.
Click to expand...

Also, Santa toys would often come assembled and out of their boxes.

6OWqWIg.jpg


Why would Santa put crap in a Matel box and further commercialism just so he could wrap it?
 
Unwrapped piles of santa gifts, wrapped presents from parents/family later (after breakfast/brunch). But at this point that isn't quite as important.

I feel for Rev's kids.
 
cookoutdeac said:
Unwrapped piles of santa gifts, wrapped presents from parents/family later (after breakfast/brunch). But at this point that isn't quite as important.

I feel for Rev's kids.
Click to expand...

It's not so bad. They can play Angry Birds on daddy's fair trade Foxconn made phone!
 
People did just fine without smartphones in the 1300s. Why can't people just talk face-to-face anymore?
 
how did the actual distribution of gifts go? was it a free-for-all under the tree?

We were 4 kids so we all kind of had a spot to sit and after everyone went through their stockings my dad would dish them out (all wrapped, all from santa). After taking over a couple years ago I better appreciate the difficulty in making sure not one person gets too much in a row/everyone has something to open.
 
BullDeacLaw said:
how did the actual distribution of gifts go? was it a free-for-all under the tree?

We were 4 kids so we all kind of had a spot to sit and after everyone went through their stockings my dad would dish them out (all wrapped, all from santa). After taking over a couple years ago I better appreciate the difficulty in making sure not one person gets too much in a row/everyone has something to open.
Click to expand...

After the santa presents celebration, and then breakfast or whatevs, we'd all sit in different spots and have the kids distribute the packages from under the tree. Then we'd take turns opening them (w/ the parents trying to guide it so that the biggest/best present would be last).
 
I imagine that as a parent one of the greatest joys you can experience is seeing your child light up when they see the gifts that Santa brought. My kids will get the full experience. "Sleigh bells" the night before at bedtime, reindeer food, notes from Santa, etc.

My dad used to take his boots and put them in the soot in the fireplace and make boot prints in the living room like Santa had walked through. Even bent the candles and stuff on the mantle so it looked like he actually came down the chimney. He would only eat half of the sandwich and cookies we left out for him so you could see the bite marks and all. My parents did it right.
 
Last edited:
lbE08 said:
Point: RevDeac
Click to expand...

Shame on you who feel bad for my kid, that's a low blow. I don't expect everyone to go as far (or to the same place, because it's not that I have the only right path) as I do in integrating my faith and desire to live in a transformed world into household decisions. But I had hoped for more respect.

Thanks lbe, and I'm going to sign off on this thread and let it go back to the question posed in the OP.

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
 
Last edited:
BullDeacLaw said:
how did the actual distribution of gifts go? was it a free-for-all under the tree?

We were 4 kids so we all kind of had a spot to sit and after everyone went through their stockings my dad would dish them out (all wrapped, all from santa). After taking over a couple years ago I better appreciate the difficulty in making sure not one person gets too much in a row/everyone has something to open.
Click to expand...

First we did stockings, which everyone could kind of do at once. For gifts, my sister usually did the distribution and weighted it so she would have more gifts at the end (took me a while to figure that out). I don't recall any separation of gifts from Santa versus those from family. One gift opened at a time, and my mom would collect the wrapping paper trash and take notes on who it was from for the thank-yous. My dad usually has one nicer gift for my mom, jewelry or whatever, and that he would save for last. The year that we took a family trip to the Bahamas, that revelation was saved for last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top