Children and Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc.

[Me Died Blue]

I do not want this thread to become a discussion about whether or not Easter, Christmas and the like are biblically permitted for the Christian to celebrate. This is a ninth commandment issue, not a second commandment one. What I am wondering is what people think (and/or do) regarding telling your children for a stage that fictional characters like the ones mentioned in the title are real.

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by Me Died Blue]

 

[crhoades]

Thou shalt not bear false witness pretty much does it for me.

You could go on with the fact that Santa is represented as omnipresent being able to deliver toys everywhere at once, omniscient as knowing who's been naughty or nice, etc all taking on the characteristics of God and thus being an idol.

Then there's the whole S-A-T-A-N S-A-N-T-A thing.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

It's also a third commandment issue with respect to the attributes of God aforementioned being superstitiously ascribed to St. Nicholas. Santa Claus is also comparable to the Japanese diety Hotei.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A113: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required;[1] and the abuse of it in an ignorant,[2] vain,[3] irreverent, profane,[4] superstitious,[5] or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes,[6] ordinances,[7] or works,[8] by blasphemy,[9] perjury;[10] all sinful cursings,[11] oaths,[12] vows,[13] and lots;[14] violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful;[15] and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful;[16] murmuring and quarreling at,[17] curious prying into,[18] and misapplying of God's decrees [19] and providences;[20] misinterpreting,[21] misapplying,[22] or any way perverting the word, or any part of it,[23] to profane jests,[24] curious or unprofitable Questions,[25] vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines;[26] abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms,[27] or sinful lusts and practices;[28] the maligning,[29] scorning,[30] reviling,[31] or any wise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways;[32] making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends;[33] being ashamed of it,[34] or a shame to it, by unconformable,[35] unwise,[36] unfruitful,[37] and offensive walking,[38] or backsliding from it.[39]

1. Mal. 2:2
2. Acts 17:23
3. Prov. 30:9
4. Mal. 1:6-7, 12; 3:14
5. I Sam. 4:3-5; Jer. 7:4, 9-10, 14, 31; Col. 2:20-22
6. II Kings 18:30, 35; Exod. 5:2; Psa. 139:20
7. Psa. 50:16-17
8. Psa. 1:16-17
9. Isa. 5:12
10. II Kings 19:22; Lev. 24:11
11. Zech. 5:4; 8:17
12. I Sam. 17:43; II Sam. 16:5
13. Jer. 5:7; 23:10
14. Deut. 23:18; Acts 23:12, 14
15. Esth. 3:7; 9:24; Psa. 22:18
16. Psa. 24:4, Ezek. 17:16, 18-19
17. Mark 6:26; I Sam. 25:22, 32-34
18. Rom. 9:14, 19-20
19. Deut. 29:29
20. Rom. 3:5, 7; 6:1-2
21. Eccl. 8:11; 9:3; Psa. ch. 39
22. Matt. 5:21-48
23. Ezek 13:22
24. II Peter 3:16; Matt. 22:24-31
25. Isa. 22:18; Jer. 23:34, 36, 38
26. I Tim. 1:4, 6-7; 6:4-5, 20; II Tim. 2:14; Titus. 3:9
27. Deut. 18:10-14; Acts 19:13
28. II Tim. 4:3-4; Rom. 13:13-14; I Kings 21:9-10; Jude 1:4
29. Acts 13:45; I John 3:12
30. Psa. 1:1; II Peter 3:3
31. I Peter 4:4
32. Acts 4:18; 13:45-46, 50; 19:9; I Thess 2:16; Heb. 10:29
33. II Tim. 3:5; Matt. 6:1-2, 5, 16; 23:14
34. Mark 8:38
35. Psa. 73:14-15
36. I Cor. 6:5-6; Eph. 5:15-17
37. Isa. 5:4; II Peter 1:8-9
38. Rom. 2:23-24
39. Gal. 3:1, 3; Heb. 6:6

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
What I am wondering is what people think (and/or do) regarding telling your children for a stage that fictional characters like the ones mentioned in the title are real.

I let the kids have fun with these holiday characters. With my oldest son, I volunteered the information that Santa was make believe. With my youngest, he approached me and asked if Santa was real. I "warned" him and said, "I'm going to tell you the truth. Do you really want me to answer your question?" He declined, then the next year told me he knew Santa wasn't real.

I think as parents we should always tell our kids the truth. I'm always 'afraid' that if I tell them that Santa is real, it'll come back to bite me in the ankle (or elsewhere). If they come of age and realize that I lied about Santa, I don't want them to think that I may have lied about what I told them about Jesus.

Bob

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by blhowes
If they come of age and realize that I lied about Santa, I don't want them to think that I may have lied about what I told them about Jesus.

That is likewise one of my chief thoughts on the issue. What prompted me to start this thread in particular was thinking about the practice and role of catechism in the rearing of our children, and what implications and effects fantasies like the aforementioned would have on the catechizing process, then and later.

 

[BJClark]

I think as parents we should always tell our kids the truth. I'm always 'afraid' that if I tell them that Santa is real, it'll come back to bite me in the ankle (or elsewhere). If they come of age and realize that I lied about Santa, I don't want them to think that I may have lied about what I told them about Jesus.

That and as I am supposed to set the example for my kids, if I lie to them, they learn lying must be okay.

I even put "from Jesus" on many of their Christmas presents now, this was a submission area I struggled greatly in my last marriage, he wanted to 'let them believe in Santa and the easter bunny and so forth", and I did not.

He doesn't see it as lying to the kids, I do.


[Edited on 12-5-2005 by BJClark]

 

[tdowns]

My wife didn\'t agree.

My wife kind of fought me on it, but I explained basically the above issues, and I've told the kids that Santa Etc. are just make believe characters like Spider man, or Sponge Bob. They are fun to fantasize about and make up stories about but they are not real, just for fun. So I allow the "make-believe" talk of it my mom does, and stuff like that, but we all know it's fake. And I do explain to the kids when the stuff about Santa's powers come up, that only God can do that. My young kids are 4 and 7 and I've been straight up from the begining.

 

[Pergamum]

Sorry to comment thus; but isn't putting "From Jesus" almost as bad as putting "from Santa"? (of course, I recognize that all blessings are from God...but they're not usually under the tree)...

 

[Mrs.SolaFide]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It's also a third commandment issue with respect to the attributes of God aforementioned being superstitiously ascribed to St. Nicholas.

"He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake!"

I can remember how awful I felt when I found out (from my younger brother who'd finally worked up the nerve to ask my mom) that Santa wasn't real. I wasn't at all upset that he didn't exist. I was devastated to learn for the first time that my parents had lied to me & began to wonder what else wasn't true...

 

[biblelighthouse]

I too was raised to believe in Santa Claus, and was unhappy when I learned it was all a lie.


I REFUSE to teach my kids a lie! As Adam would say, "Don't lie to kids!"


I don't mind if they get older and watch a movie or cartoon about Santa Claus, as long as they *clearly* understand it is fiction and fantasy.

 

[dkicklig]

Originally posted by tdowns007
My wife kind of fought me on it, but I explained basically the above issues, and I've told the kids that Santa Etc. are just make believe characters like Spider man, or Sponge Bob. They are fun to fantasize about and make up stories about but they are not real, just for fun.

My kids know that Santa and company are as real as Spongebob and Mickey Mouse.

My daughter lost her first tooth today, and when I get home she's getting a little $$ from dad, not the tooth fairy. If I told here that some woman is coming into her room in the middle of the night to take her tooth from under her pillow she would freak out.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by crhoades
Thou shalt not bear false witness pretty much does it for me.

You could go on with the fact that Santa is represented as omnipresent being able to deliver toys everywhere at once, omniscient as knowing who's been naughty or nice, etc all taking on the characteristics of God and thus being an idol.

Then there's the whole S-A-T-A-N S-A-N-T-A thing.

 

[BJClark]

trevorjohnson

I don't see it that way, no.

1. because Jesus IS real

2. Jesus provided the job my husband has that brings in the income that allows us to purchase the gifts to begin with.

So why not acknowledge that is where they truly came from? And in that we are celebrating the greatest Gift from God--His Son, it causes them to stop and think about all the other gifts God provides for them as well, even those not under the tree. They even take time to Thank Jesus, for those gifts, just as they would thank their grandfather or aunt, or friends for the gifts they buy for them.

So No, I don't see it the same way, because I am not lying to my children about where the gifts came from, even if I was the one who went out and purchased them.

Although, I guess I could just put "From God"

Sorry to comment thus; but isn't putting "From Jesus" almost as bad as putting "from Santa"? (of course, I recognize that all blessings are from God...but they're not usually under the tree)...

[Edited on 12-5-2005 by BJClark]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I too was raised to believe in Santa Claus, and was unhappy when I learned it was all a lie.


I REFUSE to teach my kids a lie! As Adam would say, "Don't lie to kids!"


I don't mind if they get older and watch a movie or cartoon about Santa Claus, as long as they *clearly* understand it is fiction and fantasy.

There are characters like Dora the Explorer, or the Wiggles, or Bert and Ernie that are All fictional characters. We should obviously watch out for what they watch, but fiction is not a bad thing. For example, Santa is this fictional fat man who rides a sleigh with tiny reindeer who fly, and lives with a bunch of elves who make toys. Big Bird is a talking "bird" that lives on Sesame Street that hangs out with a sloth named Groucho who lives in a garbage can, and Elmo who likes to dance. So long as the child knows its fiction, and it is clearly explained that way, I have no porblem with snowmen who come to life with a magical top hat, or a hobbit that goes on adventures through middle earth.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I lifted this comment from another thread I posted in a while back.


Before I was married I purposed in my heart to never lie to kids about St. Nicholaus. My reasoning was if I told them a lie about Santa who is to say that I am not lying about Jesus. So when I started having children I told them the truth. St. Nick was dead but that he lived in heaven with Jesus. I told them about the fables and myths and said it was wrong to make Santa Claus have characteristics that only God has.

Well, one Christmas we were in a department store and the cashier asked my two boys (probablly around 6years old) if they were good and if Santa was going to come to their house. To which my oldest looked at her and said, "No, Santa is dead." You should have seen the look of horror on that ladies face. It was great. I then explained to her that we believe that the real St. Nick is alive in heaven with Jesus because Jesus died for the Bishops' sin, and that we wanted our son's to know that their parents always told them the truth. They could trust us when we said Jesus was real.

It is a great witness.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I too was raised to believe in Santa Claus, and was unhappy when I learned it was all a lie.


I REFUSE to teach my kids a lie! As Adam would say, "Don't lie to kids!"


I don't mind if they get older and watch a movie or cartoon about Santa Claus, as long as they *clearly* understand it is fiction and fantasy.

There are characters like Dora the Explorer, or the Wiggles, or Bert and Ernie that are All fictional characters. We should obviously watch out for what they watch, but fiction is not a bad thing. For example, Santa is this fictional fat man who rides a sleigh with tiny reindeer who fly, and lives with a bunch of elves who make toys. Big Bird is a talking "bird" that lives on Sesame Street that hangs out with a sloth named Groucho who lives in a garbage can, and Elmo who likes to dance. So long as the child knows its fiction, and it is clearly explained that way, I have no porblem with snowmen who come to life with a magical top hat, or a hobbit that goes on adventures through middle earth.

Santa Claus is unique among the characters listed here because he alone is blasphemously ascribed attributes which belong to God alone, and he alone is considered a Roman Catholic saint to whom superstitious people pray. He is more than fictional, he is idolatrous.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Andrew

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Santa Claus is unique among the characters listed here because he alone is blasphemously ascribed attributes which belong to God alone, and he alone is considered a Roman Catholic saint to whom superstitious people pray. He is more than fictional, he is idolatrous.

Worship of a made up man is idolatrous.

The Bishop of Myra was probably a very godly man who ended up suffering persecution under Rome for Christ's sake. He was also present at the Council of Nicaea 325 AD.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Santa Claus is unique among the characters listed here because he alone is blasphemously ascribed attributes which belong to God alone, and he alone is considered a Roman Catholic saint to whom superstitious people pray. He is more than fictional, he is idolatrous.

Andrew, as I was pondering this as well as what others have said in this thread, a thought occured to me that left me unclear on your precise views on this issue and your reasons for that view. To bring up that thought, allow me to cite you from another recent thread:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The character of Neo, to my mind, is not any different principially from that of Aslan. Neo is clearly a Messianic figure who is resurrected on the way to Zion and is intended to be a Christ-like character. But there are lots of Messianic characters in the arts, and I think the threshold for violating the Second Commandment requires a much more clear and direct connection than simply a lion who has certain characteristics that correspond to the story of Christ. Christ-like and direct representations of Christ are not the same thing to my mind.

At the moment, I do not see a difference between the two situations. You seem to be saying that characters such as Aslan and Neo, with clear Christ-like attributes, parallels and roles are lawful, but that Santa Clause is unlawful precisely because he exhibits qualities rightly ascribed to God alone. Could you help me to understand your view here?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Santa Claus is unique among the characters listed here because he alone is blasphemously ascribed attributes which belong to God alone, and he alone is considered a Roman Catholic saint to whom superstitious people pray. He is more than fictional, he is idolatrous.

Andrew, as I was pondering this as well as what others have said in this thread, a thought occured to me that left me unclear on your precise views on this issue and your reasons for that view. To bring up that thought, allow me to cite you from another recent thread:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The character of Neo, to my mind, is not any different principially from that of Aslan. Neo is clearly a Messianic figure who is resurrected on the way to Zion and is intended to be a Christ-like character. But there are lots of Messianic characters in the arts, and I think the threshold for violating the Second Commandment requires a much more clear and direct connection than simply a lion who has certain characteristics that correspond to the story of Christ. Christ-like and direct representations of Christ are not the same thing to my mind.

At the moment, I do not see a difference between the two situations. You seem to be saying that characters such as Aslan and Neo, with clear Christ-like attributes, parallels and roles are lawful, but that Santa Clause is unlawful precisely because he exhibits qualities rightly ascribed to God alone. Could you help me to understand your view here?

That's a good question, Chris. I can see how you might wonder at the distinction that I am getting at.

Aslan and Neo are Messianic figures in the world of arts. They are imaginary, and neither purports to be Christ or God, although as I have said the characters are indeed Christ-like. As types I think they are best critiqued as to how they fit in to their imaginary world and what message they convey. But the fact remains that they are fictional characters and they are elements of a story that is fantasy. No one worships Aslan or Neo -- at least that I know of. And no one tells their children that they are real or that they will give them presents or that Aslan or Neo knows if they've been good or bad for [minced oath]. I don't defend Aslan or Neo per se, I have only argued that they don't rise to the level of a Second Commandment violation.

St. Nicholas or Santa Claus, on the other hand, is case where a good and godly historical man has been elevated to the pantheon of Roman Catholic saints who have been given festival days (December 6) -- which the Westminster Standards teach we are not to observe and to do so is in violation of the Second and Fourth Commandments -- and to whom prayers are directed. His recreated persona is intimately associated with false and superstititious religion. He symbolizes for most people the monument of idolatry that is known as Christmass. He has come to replace in many minds the stated "reason for the season" (ie., Jesus) and in the process of supplanting Christ on December 6 or December 25 or January 7 in the eyes of the world or those who are given to superstitition he said to have attributes that belong to God alone (omniscience, omnipresence, judging the good and the bad) and in so doing makes a mockery of God, the giver of all good gifts.

If Aslan or Neo have attributes that belong to God alone -- I mean by that more than "superhero powers" or self-sacrifice/resurrection (resurrection per se is not unique to Christ), I am not aware of them. And as I said, I am not aware of anyone in real life who prays to Aslan or Neo.

Because Santa Claus is ascribed the attributes of God (Third Commandment) and is prayed to (Second Commandment) and symbolizes a Popish holiday (Fourth Commandment) and dishonors Christ specifically (and not because he has a flying sled) not to mention a good and godly historical man from the fourth century I view him in a category that makes him much more odious than Aslan or Neo or Dora the Explorer.

Aslan and Neo are not above criticism for the worldview which they may represent, but they are imaginary and do not directly and practically lead to superstition and false worship as does Santa Claus and all that he represents.

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It has been a very long time since I read the Chronicles but wasn't Aslan said to be involved in all the different realms and worlds and might appear differently depending on which realm he was in? And wasn't worship or service attributed to others done in ignorance attributed to being done for Aslan because it was done in ignorance in the last book. Sounds like rendering to a diety to me.

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
If Aslan or Neo have attributes that belong to God alone -- I mean by that more than "superhero powers" or self-sacrifice/resurrection (resurrection per se is not unique to Christ), I am not aware of them. And as I said, I am not aware of anyone who prays to Aslan or Neo.

This point makes a lot of sense, and greatly clarifies a good reason for seeing the two different categories - for Aslan and Neo are redeemers of their people, accomplish that saving by means of their own death, and are powerful and wise yet good, yet while all those qualities hardly be overestimated in terms of how much they apply to Christ, they nonetheless are not unique to Him by any means, while omniscience and either omnipresence or the ability to be transcendent over time are unique in that sense.

I do not, however, see the full applicability of your points about Santa Claus being based on an historical person versus Aslan and Neo as being fictional - for if it is the case that Santa Claus is an idolotrous character, surely it would be based on the attributing of God's exclusive qualities to him, rather than based on the fact that attributes of God (exclusive or non-exclusive) are being attributed to him as an historical rather than fictional character - for William Wallace was in many ways an "Aslan" or a "Neo" based on an historical character. Even so, while I do not see the relevance of St. Nicholas' historical reality, I do see the applicability of your point about the exclusive (to God) versus non-exclusive (though still to God) nature of attributes ascribed to the characters, although I will still have to think more about whether or not I conclude from that that the recognition of "Santa Claus" is sinful.

In any case, I'm glad everyone seems to agree that at least the portrayal of any such fictional characters as real to our children is sinful in its breaking of God's Law and damaging to our responsibility to genuinely catechize, exhort and serve as an example to, our children. Does anyone have some more thoughts on the relationship (and implications) that responsibility has to (and for) the topic of the reality of fictional characters, or a closely related topic?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
It has been a very long time since I read the Chronicles but wasn't Aslan said to be involved in all the different realms and worlds and might appear differently depending on which realm he was in? And wasn't worship or service attributed to others done in ignorance attributed to being done for Aslan because it was done in ignorance in the last book. Sounds like rendering to a diety to me.

{Moderate}

I brought up Aslan's relation to Christ here merely to clarify and shed further light on the expressed thoughts on Santa Claus' same relation as such. But to keep on the topic here of fictional characters as a whole being portrayed to our children as real, if any people want to further discuss other specific characters' relation to God in terms of attributes and image, please do so in this thread or possibly a new one.

 

[gwine]

Does anyone have some more thoughts on the relationship (and implications) that responsibility has to (and for) the topic of the reality of fictional characters, or a closely related topic?

Just a comment from experience. I grew up in a PC-USA home but without much emphasis on religion. When I found out that Santa Claus was not real I don't remember making any association between him and Christ insofar as thinking that if my parents lied about Santa then maybe, just maybe . . .

I was a nominal Christian when my boys were young, and we choose not to let them believe that Santa was real, although there were some conflicts with the grandparents on both sides.

Perhaps if I had come from a real reformed background I would think differently, but I can't see where it made me much difference back then. I'm not sure my stand made much difference for my sons, since I am batting 50% right now.

 

[Pergamum]

Bj Clark:

Good take on the holiday! Now that you have explained it - I am starting to really like your idea. Not a compromise...but not grinchy either.

The kids get gifts and they give God the glory!

Trevor

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by gwine
Just a comment from experience. I grew up in a PC-USA home but without much emphasis on religion. When I found out that Santa Claus was not real I don't remember making any association between him and Christ insofar as thinking that if my parents lied about Santa then maybe, just maybe . . .

I was a nominal Christian when my boys were young, and we choose not to let them believe that Santa was real, although there were some conflicts with the grandparents on both sides.

Perhaps if I had come from a real reformed background I would think differently, but I can't see where it made me much difference back then. I'm not sure my stand made much difference for my sons, since I am batting 50% right now.

Gerry, I can greatly relate to not really questioning anything once my parents told me Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy were not real.

Even so, I am against doing the same thing because of the ninth commandment at least, and also largely because even if my children would turn out not to respond to it as a stumbling block, it would still be inconsistent at heart with the whole principle behind the important nature, role and practice of catechism in raising them, not to mention inconsistent with setting an example of honesty.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
This point makes a lot of sense, and greatly clarifies a good reason for seeing the two different categories - for Aslan and Neo are redeemers of their people, accomplish that saving by means of their own death, and are powerful and wise yet good, yet while all those qualities hardly be overestimated in terms of how much they apply to Christ, they nonetheless are not unique to Him by any means, while omniscience and either omnipresence or the ability to be transcendent over time are unique in that sense.

Right.

I do not, however, see the full applicability of your points about Santa Claus being based on an historical person versus Aslan and Neo as being fictional - for if it is the case that Santa Claus is an idolotrous character, surely it would be based on the attributing of God's exclusive qualities to him, rather than based on the fact that attributes of God (exclusive or non-exclusive) are being attributed to him as an historical rather than fictional character - for William Wallace was in many ways an "Aslan" or a "Neo" based on an historical character. Even so, while I do not see the relevance of St. Nicholas' historical reality, I do see the applicability of your point about the exclusive (to God) versus non-exclusive (though still to God) nature of attributes ascribed to the characters, although I will still have to think more about whether or not I conclude from that that the recognition of "Santa Claus" is sinful.

If I may be permitted to address this last point without my reason for highlighting the fact that Santa Claus -- unlike every other fictional character mentioned in this thread -- is based upon a real person -- Nicholas of Myra. Without his consent and contrary to his good name he was canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. He is worshipped in both churches as the patron saint of children, et al. There is an entire pantheon of Roman Catholic saints (all of whom were persons who walked the earth and many of whom were decent honorable Christians who would have repudiated the idolatrous honors ascribed to them later on) who have been assigned patronages and powers which often correspond to Roman and Greek mythology and are therefore worshipped after the Roman or Orthodox manner.

I trust that we would not tell our children that St. Christopher, the patron saint of travellers, actively goes around helping those who are on the road, yet many Protestant parents will tell their children that Santa Claus is coming and will give them presents if only they are well-behaved. St. Nicholas' feast day is kept in the Dutch Reformed Church today although Dutch Puritans in accordance with the 1574 Synod of Dordt refused to acknowledge such saints' days. Protestants ought to tell their children that Nicholas of Myra was a good man -- like many saints whose memories have been exploited for idolatrous purposes -- but his legacy has been corrupted and with all due respect to Virginia (says Virginia Huguenot) there is no Santa Claus.

He is a lie, and worse than a lie because he is actively ascribed divine powers and worship. Just as we would not teach our children to celebrate other patron saints in any respect beyond honoring their historical lives as Christians, so we should not give any credence or perpetuate any idolatrous honors to the patron saint known as Santa Claus.

Again, it is because of 1) false worship ascribed to St. Nicholas, aka Santa Claus, which corrupts true worship; and because 2) false Santa worship is real and all around us whereas no one in the real world worships Aslan, Neo or other fictional characters mentioned here; that Santa is unique among the list.

The Easter Bunny has its origins in superstition too and is intimately associated with false religion as well, though is a less direct way than Santa. The Tooth Fairy, so far as I know, is just a Ninth Commandment issue rather than a Second Commandment issue.

In any case, it is not harmless to promote or perpetuate false religious honors ascribed to St. Nicholas or Santa. We are commanded to keep pure the ordinances of worship and to avoid vain and superstitious customs which ascribe God's attributes to holy men of old. Just as Herod should have rejected divine honors ascribed to him (Acts 12.22) so we should reject the entire mythology and false superstitious religion that ascribes divine honors to a fourth century bishop and turns him into an idol.

 

[BJClark]

gwine,

I grew up going to church on occassion, when my grandparents visited or when we visited them. Which wasn't very often, maybe once every few years, so that you even went to Church on a regular basis was a true blessing for you.

My parents were BIG on Santa Claus and going all out, even into debt for Christmas. I don't remember when I found out Santa wasn't real, so I can't say that it made that big of an impact on me in and of itself.

However, and this is a BIG however, most all of my childhood was shrouded in lies and secrecy and I personally didn't want my children to grow up in a house of cards, built upon lies and secrets (sand). I didn't know what a solid foundation was or even what one looked like. Yes, I had grandparents as a wonderful example, but I only seen them every few years, so it wasn't a clear picture, and even that was blurred through the sand in which my house was swallowed up underneath.

When I was 17, my neighbor led me to Jesus. I'd seen Him over the years spending time with friends and family, but I didn't know or even understand He was the Rock in which I could grab hold of to prevent me from sinking deeper into the sand. Even when my neighbors led me to Him, and I climbed upon that rock, I didn't fully trust I wouldn't slip off and fall back into the sand. It took many many years learning to trust that the foundation on which I was now standing was solid, and has a grip so firm He wouldn't let me fall.

When I married at 25, I still wasn't totally sure of the strength of the foundation on which I stood, and I didn't know how to see if others were standing in sinking sand or standing on the Solid Rock. And I married a man who was standing in sinking sand.

When a rough storm hit and the winds blew and the sand shifted he shifted with it, and I realized the foundation in which he was standing and trying to pull me out onto was the same on which my childhood family was built. God taught me that even what the world might consider the smallest of lies, was putting my children out there on that sinking sand, and I didn't want that for them.

For years, I felt I was being pulled back down into a hole, and the last few years of marriage I felt I was suffucating in muck he was trying to pull me down into. And God pulled me back up. I went through a horrid custody battle, and I knew it was a battle for the very foundation on which my children would grow up.

God taught me so much during that time, part of which was if a person is going to lie about something the world considers a small thing, (teaching Santa is real) then they will lie about larger things, like what they are doing when they are away from home. If they live a life of secrecy in one area, they will live a life of secrecy in other areas, and the very foundation in which they stand is nothing but sinking sand.

So, I have no desire to even place my children near the sinking sand, lest they get swollowed up and sucked in, while still learning about the foundation upon which they stand as babes in Christ.

When they go visit their father, I pray for them, and ask God to keep them planted firmly on the center of His foundation, so that they don't get pulled to the edge and fall even for a little while into the sand, to where they start choking and drowning and have to wipe the sand out of their eyes and spitting the sand out of their mouths in order to fight their way back to the very foundation in which God has planted them on.

I don't want them to be sucked up into the quick sand of addictions and false hopes and dreams, and the lies the world has to offer fighting for their very lives in order to get back to God, when they don't have to leave the foundation to begin with.

Anyway, I've rambled enough and not even sure if it makes sense, but I hope it does.

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by BJClark]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by BJClark
trevorjohnson

I don't see it that way, no.

1. because Jesus IS real

2. Jesus provided the job my husband has that brings in the income that allows us to purchase the gifts to begin with.

So why not acknowledge that is where they truly came from? And in that we are celebrating the greatest Gift from God--His Son, it causes them to stop and think about all the other gifts God provides for them as well, even those not under the tree. They even take time to Thank Jesus, for those gifts, just as they would thank their grandfather or aunt, or friends for the gifts they buy for them.

So No, I don't see it the same way, because I am not lying to my children about where the gifts came from, even if I was the one who went out and purchased them.

Although, I guess I could just put "From God"

Sorry to comment thus; but isn't putting "From Jesus" almost as bad as putting "from Santa"? (of course, I recognize that all blessings are from God...but they're not usually under the tree)...

[Edited on 12-5-2005 by BJClark]

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. " (James 1:17)

The problem with putting "from Jesus" on the presents under the tree (or wherever), is that it trivializes the truly "good gift" that comes from God, that is, salvation in Christ alone. They are no more "good gifts" than some arbitrary human action is a "good work" defined by the Bible.

Did Jesus really make that pair of slippers or sled or whatever a "good gift" described in the Bible? Or course we should recognize the blessing from God, including productive work to satisfy our needs and wants. But I truly believe that running around once an year and writing "from Jesus" on the labels only degrades the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, sinc no one sacrifices to give these things to their children.

 

[BJClark]

tcalbrecht,

Did Jesus really make that pair of slippers or sled or whatever a "good gift" described in the Bible? Or course we should recognize the blessing from God, including productive work to satisfy our needs and wants. But I truly believe that running around once an year and writing "from Jesus" on the labels only degrades the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, sinc no one sacrifices to give these things to their children.

No, but he did give the person who made them the ability to make them.

And how do you know it's not a sacrifice for some parents to buy even a few gifts for their children?

I was a single parent for a few years, and to be able to afford even one or two gifts each for three children was a huge sacrifice. And to recieve gifts from charity so that my children would have a Christmas at all was VERY humbling. And I pray you never have to experience that.

And that I am remarried and my husband lost his job within the first year of our marriage, and how God provided another job one making less money I count it a blessing and a gift that we can afford to buy Christmas gifts for our children.

So again, No, I do not see it as degrading the sacrifice Christ made for me on The Cross. I do however, see the Love of God expressed more fully.

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by BJClark]