Asklemmy

43947 readers

579 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

112

At what age and how do you tell children about the truth of Christmas? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm writing this as someone who has mostly lived in the US and Canada. Personally, I find the whole "lying to children about Christmas" thing just a bit weird (no judgment on those who enjoy this aspect of the holiday). But because it's completely normalized in our culture, this is something many people have to deal with.

Two questions:

What age does this normally happen? I suppose you want the "magic of Christmas" at younger ages, but it gets embarrassing at a certain point.

And how does it normally happen? Let them find out from others through people at school? Tell them explicitly during a "talk"? Let them figure it out on their own?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Exactly. There is about as much proof of Jesus of Nazareth existing as there is of King Arthur existing.

Saying “he probably did exist” is like saying “my dog probably speaks English to his fellow dogs.” It is meaningless without objective evidence.

People tend to say “he probably did exist” simply to hedge their bet or to not go against the grain of the mainstream belief system. I, for one, have been provided no objective evidence (by claimants such as religionists) of the existence of such a person and therefore I have no reason to accept the mainstream belief of his existence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed. People don't take into account the fact that historians have existed for a long time and probably would have noticed a person as revolutionary as the one mentioned in the gospels - miracles or not. The Romans were excellent record keepers, and that is how we know for a fact - for example - that Herod's timeline does not jibe with the virgin birth myth, nor did the Roman survey methodology jibe with the Bethleham journey myth, to cite two examples among so many others