A page from The Common Man’s Reference Bible by David Hoffman, in which “No Comment defames or degrades the preserved words of scripture.” It does, however, do a number on sense, reason and my patience.
(as usual, you can click to embiggen)
Posted at Stuff Fundies Like, where the provider explains that there are 2000 pages of this. *whimper*
Seeing as the modern (red and white) Santa outfit was an invention of the Coca-Cola Co., Hoffman’s explanation seems a bit off…
What? A Coke-Satan connection leading directly to Santa As We Know It sounds implausible to you?
Well now you mention it….
Yeah, it’s actually a bit older than that.
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp
There’s also the Swedish Tomte, who is probably one of the fore-runners of the Santa myth, who wore reindeer skins uncured and with the bloody side out…
Sorry, wrong. Cartoonist Thomas Nast gave Saint Nicholas his present appearance.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/Original_Santa_Claus.htm
Nast shortened his robes, removed the Bishop’s mitre and staff, and made him much fatter.
See, that also isn’t true. The Snope’s article Wintermute linked is pretty good, and it isn’t hard to see for yourself that depictions of Santa gradually morphed over several decades to what we have now. (Admittedly, though, the “modern” Santa hasn’t changed much in the last sixty or seventy years.) No one person came up with the design. It comes form many sources.
You are essentially correct- the image of Santa Claus “morphed.” However, there can be no doubt that the Thomas Nast depiction, because it was seen across the US in newspapers, became the primary source for later American popular culture versions.
In 1870 Nast also illustrated a very popular publication of the 1823 poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas,” better known as “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas.”
Lol, the best quote is: Santa (feminine) Claus (masculine ) a an unisex freak of Satan. But it proves one thing there is a thing like too much pot.
Pingback: Santa Claus is a unisex freak of Satan « I Think I Believe
“Common Man” … I love that this book is someone to hold your hand while you read the bible to tell you what’s really meant here. I looked at the thread on WFL also, and the first comment has it mostly right. Shades of paranoia, the same kind of person who looks at the current world and wonders what the bible prophesies in it, or looking for codes and coded language. The bible confirms your delusive hunches about everything if you want it to. You can’t see the world for what it is, but if you suspect anything, find a relevant passage or code in the bible so god can let you know you’re on the right track, then you can say “Hey, I’m not crazy, I read it in the bible.” Like all those crazy people who find stupid reasons to hate Obama – rather than relying on issues to be dissatisfied, or rather than admit they are scared of a black guy, the bible contains passages that can be applied and associated as some sort of miraculous prophesy. The problem occurs that they are crazy and they think using the bible as supporting their claims is normal, especially since the bible tends to be very vague concerning current events, so vague it can be about almost anything. Anagrams are important clues! Color associations are not accidental!
The properties of Santa Claus are nearly the same as god, but he’s not god, and most everyone over the age of 8, conservatively, considers him symbolic and imaginary, but a spirit of goodness and generosity. This reminds me of a forum article I had read last Eastertime in which a mother complained against the ad for Walgreen’s drugstore about the kids saying what they wanted in their Easter basket, which she felt too nearly destroyed the Easter Bunny story for her child (even though EB showed up in the end of the ad putting jelly beans in a basket), some of the other comments in the thread were of a sort – some parents don’t have any Easter Bunny stories because they don’t want their kids to learn that he’s not real eventually, and then make the mistake of using the same reasoning to conclude that Jesus isn’t real, and do the same for Santa Claus. I can see because he’s a good guy, people might get upset because he’s a false idol of sorts. But he’s clearly a guy. The word “Santa” is feminine in Spanish, but the word “saint” in English has no gender. We borrowed a word from another language and screwed it up.
We borrowed a word from another language and screwed it up.
Exactly. “Santa” is an English respelling of the Dutch common-gender word “Sante”, which descends from the more clearly marked Middle Dutch masculine “Sinter”.
But don’t bother trying to use etymology-fu on a fundie brain. The membranes are not permeable to knowledge.
Clearly they are selectively permeable.
Right – if you tell them “Santa” is borrowed and corrupted in English, they won’t believe you. If you point out how Santa is an anagram of Satan, they will trap that little fact in their mind forever.
Perhaps, but that depends on how broad your definition of “knowledge” is.
I thought religion had a monopoly on knowledge.
Who says Rudolph is drunk?
Some fundie. It’s right there in black and white, in a bible, no less. So it must be true.
Now I want to hear about the pagan origins of Frosty the Snowman, the Grinch, and Charlie Brown!
I’m sure you can find some! I’d like to see Christians be thorough in their rejection of pagan influence: money, writing, agriculture, architecture, etc.
“The famous words of Santa/Satan came from the Bible.” Y’know, I can’t think of any Bible verse that contains the expression “Ho ho ho”.
Pingback: Santa is Our God! | A Witchy Life
- Can a Rational Individual believe in God ?
In other words:
Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws?
Of course
Because if God exists, He/She/It would necessarily
to work in an Absolute Reference Frame and had set of
physical and mathematical laws to create everything
in the Universe.
If we find and understand this Absolute God’s House then
is possible step by step to find and understand God’s Physics
Laws, which Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck,
Einstein and many others scientists discovered.
#
Has God known the formula: E=Mc^2 ?
If God has known the formula why HE / SHE /IT
didn’t write it in His Bible?
=========..
The people created a God.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name ” I am who I am “.
Is it enough for us in the XXIc ?
Why wasn’t the formula E=Mc^2 written in the Bible?
===============. .
Each religion uses a system of symbols
(images, metaphors, ancient myths and legends ,
beautiful stories) to explain its truth.
But Bernard Shaw wisely remarked :
“ There is only one religion,
although there are a hundred versions of it.”
It means that the source of all religion is one.
And I try to prove this idea with the formulas and laws of
physics. I don’t invent new formulas. I use simple formulas
which ,maybe, every man knows from school.
Is it possible? Is it enough?
Yes. Because the evolution goes from simple to the complex.
So, in the beginning we can use simple formulas and laws.
For this purpose I explain what the first law of Universe is,
and second law is and ………..etc.
Step by step I create a logical system of the Universe.
============= . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
============ .