First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
The Norse Gods is the right religion, Christianity is Dead Wrong!
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

SeraphAlford

Jesus > Odin hands down. Odin was nailed to a tree, died, and never came back. Christ was nailed to a tree and came back with vengeance!




Odin willingly pierces himself to Yggdrasil for nine days to gain the knowledge of the nine worlds. Christ is nailed to the cross for one afternoon. It's hard to favor the immortal god who knows he will be resurrected.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

Regulus133 wrote: Your arguments in favor of the historical integrity of the New Testament can also be used to question it.

1.) If the authors seem lost, ambivalent, and unaware, it may reflect a higher level of realism than is present in other mythologies and a hesitancy to make unfounded claims... or it may suggest that they are not reliable sources for anything they saw. It also seems to me that the people most devoted to Jesus would be the people most prone to exaggeration and mystification (especially given that the records were, I believe, written long after his death, providing ample time for them to develop their own interpretations of events and fall into religious superstition), though you might argue that they were most devoted to Jesus precisely because the events they witnessed could only be explained in this way.


The ambivalence I mentioned is only present in the details. In one story of the bible there’s X amount of people. In the next there’s one more person. In one story such and such wore camel-skin, in the next goat skin. They’re the same type of variations our police find in modern story’s when requisitioning witnesses of a crime.

My father used to be a police officer, and when gathering information he was told that the most reliable source of information for what happened was the original reaction of the witness. So, if a group of children saw somebody get shot then you want to question them immediately after. The more time passes and the more questions asked the less informative these testimonies are.

This being said it is very rare that we collect the first telling of anything when it comes to history. There are exceptions, of course, but as a rule most of the information we accept as history is being narrated by somebody whose narrated it before. Details are always lost and this is inexorable.

You see, I do not believe that the bible is perfect. I believe that the authors -were- limited, but only so much as every human being is limited. The point was that in other mythological sources the story-teller puts himself in a privileged position.

Those most loyal to Christ would’ve been the most likely to exaggerate his deeds. However, the most loyal of his followers didn’t write the biblical texts. His most loyal followers were women, and for obvious cultural reasons they weren’t the authors. Besides this, Saul-who was later called Paul-was a pagan, and not one of Jesus’ loyalist followers.

You are right in that the stories weren’t recorded until after his death-though, not so long as most people imagine. This being said, that only furthers the credentials by showing that these people were real. How many people do you know that run over to their journals and start writing the moment they hear something wise? Yet, it’s very common that somebody would reminisce and share a sagacious maxim or something of the sorts later on.

And, again, much of what we accept as history is in fact carried by oral tradition. I’m not saying that the bible is historically perfect. I am saying that it is as valuable (and in some cases more so,) than many other historical documents we don’t question.

And, again, Augustine’s answer to the idea that the gospels were corrupted still stands. We have no reason to believe they were corrupted since nobody has ever been able to provide any evidence whatsoever of an ‘uncorrupted,’ version, oral or otherwise. It’s just a blind accusation-a technical possibility, but I already addressed this approach previously.


2.) You say the fact that the authors do not know what Jesus wrote in the sand, likely due to large crowds, adds to the realism. I say: 1.) enough people in such a crowd would know what was written to communicate it to others, and 2.) if the fact that Jesus wrote something in the sand that could not be remembered was important enough to record at all, surely the recorder would have taken an interest in it and examined it upon the crowd's dispersal or later asked Jesus what he wrote.


I disagree. I don’t think it’s likely that they would’ve approached him for a couple reasons. First off, the authors weren’t writing for histories sake. They were just writing. Their letters didn’t to them hold any more value than if I wrote you talking about what my pastor taught last Sunday.

Which leads me on. My church is very large. We’ve got all these screens and they’re always showing words and scriptures. I’m always late to church so I wind up standing in the back. I’m never able to read what the screens say-and I never ask. It’s a mob mentality. I just nod along and go with it. I’m aware that it’s something people seem to be taking an interest in, so if I write you a letter describing my experience I’ll probably mention it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go and ask my pastor what it said.

Then, there’s my personal theory. This is just a theory but I think Jesus Christ wrote something specific. He said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and then starting writing in the sand. Suddenly people start breaking up and heading their separate ways. My religious theory is that what Christ started writing was actually a list of sins that the people had committed.

Seriously, if I were out pounding somebody for doing something bad and then somebody showed up and started writing all the things I’d done wrong…I’d be out of there real quick, and I’d never tell anybody what was written.

Still, this second note is just an interesting idea with no support. It holds no historical water so I still stand on my mob mentality approach.


3.) My knowledge of Biblical history is, I admit, quite limited, but isn't it quite the assumption that the New Testament is a collection of eye-witness accounts? Why could it not simply be the written account of popular accounts and rumors? If the crowds were large enough (as they are often said to be when Jesus performs his "miracles"), surely the stories would circulate and someone would wish to record them. And you know what happens when rumors start. The same criticism could be leveled at many historical texts, but we must keep in mind that these in particular suggest mystical powers that have not been re-created and witnessed. I suppose you could argue that they may have been, that the scientific community generally dismisses any such claims by default, but then that would undermine the "special nature" of Jesus. After all, if Joe the Plumber also fed thousands of people with a loaf of bread and a fish, who's to say that he's not our savior or that both he and Jesus are demons? Unfortunately, it's a catch-22.


To some degree it is an assumption, but a reasonable assumption. We’ve made bigger assumptions in other areas of history. My entire point isn’t that the bible is an unflawed source, I’d contradict that statement. It’s that the bible is just another source and the only reasons we’re doubting it’s historical context I explained in a previous post.

There’s a case where a man is writing his cousin and complaining about the taxes the local dice guild in his city is placing on its merchandise. He wrote this in his journal. It’s possible that the man had complained about it and that eventually it became exaggerated through his continuous retelling and then somebody else came and used his name to write a journal making recording the exaggerated version of the complaint. We just don’t have any evidence of that so we assume the truth of the original source.

The fact that somebody was saying it was true suggest it was true. The fact that this somebody was claiming to be Mr. X suggest that he’s Mr. X. There’s nothing to suggest otherwise so we assume the truth even though it could possibly be a lie.

So yes, you do have a good point. The bible may be a lie, but it remains just as reliable and more so than other sources. It is an assumption but history is built on assumption. Another example is that somebody claimed that Alexander the Great slept with a copy of the Iliad and Odyssey as well as a dagger under his pillow.

Outside sources tell us that his father was assassinated by a lover who was angered by Philip’s execution of his homosexual lover. So, it seems reasonable that Alexander might have a dagger under his pillow. We also know that Alexander was taught by some great philosophers and was introduced to literature very early. So, it also seems likely that he might have been fond of Homer’s poems. So, we assume it’s true even though it could still be a rumor.

In the same way we have sources talking about people behaving in the way that they might if they were reacting to a miracle. We have things talking about people running around claiming to be able to see after Jesus passed through. Then we have this source that says that Jesus gave the man sight. They’re separate sources so typically we’d make an assumption that Jesus Christ did something to give that man sight.

Maybe he had access to medicines that we no longer no about. Maybe he was a blooming alien, I don’t know. But we’re still questioning that he gave a man sight even though in other-similar-circumstance we’d accept it even though it seems a bit strange.

We’ve done this when it comes to certain Greek methods of chemical warfare, namely Greek fire. Supposedly the Greeks invented a chemical that created a fire that would actually grow if you doused it with water. We assume its true even though we don’t (with all our science,) comprehend how they did it. It seems very strange but we still accept the existence of Greek Fire as a historical fact based on the nature of the reports discussing it, the context, and the authors.


4.) Lastly, I read again and again that there are few to no secular accounts of these events. But--not to sound snide--maybe everyone became devoutly Christian after witnessing them, hmm?


That depends on what you define as secular. Well, if your excluding the eye-witness accounts that contain miracle stories (which is based off of a cultural and philosophical belief that miracles don’t happen, which isn‘t a critical and clinical approach as you should take when concerning history) there really -are- few secular sources concerning the events.

But, again, there are other things we accept as historical fact that have fewer sources evidencing them than the events of the bible; moreover, I don’t need to defend all the events of the bible from a textual approach. I simply need to defend that a good man/teacher named Jesus Christ with a revolutionary philosophy of theological ethics existed and had a following. The rest is addressed in the Aut Deus Aut Homo Malus argument I totally ripped off of Peter Kreeft.

Even if you discredit the bible’s historical reliability in some areas that doesn’t mean that all the junk I just mentioned is true. It’s genetic fallacy.

So, to summarize the bible does have historical weaknesses just like every other historical source. However, the basis of my argument still stands. Alas, I understand that you weren’t addressing my argument, but moving on:

You don’t believe in any absolutes? So you think there are no absolutes? Doesn’t that seem a bit absolute to you? There are absolutely no absolutes. X_X




1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

So, to summarize the bible does have historical weaknesses just like every other historical source. However, the basis of my argument still stands. Alas, I understand that you weren’t addressing my argument, but moving on...


I think you responded more than adequately, so I just have one thing to add.

While I primarily turn my skeptic's eye to religious texts and other mystical accounts and metaphysical claims, I am willing to turn it to many other things. I don't hold it to be absolute that there was a man named Socrates, but I don't think of it much because it really doesn't affect my life. If someone managed to prove that Socrates was completely invented by Plato, I would not find my world turned upside-down. However, I'm not sure if one can regard Biblical claims so lightly if he knows them and thinks they're probably true. They should have some kind of life-changing effect or at least change one's philosophy. Thus, when I come across religious claims, I subject them to considerably more scrutiny than other claims, not only because they very often deal with irreproducible phenomena, but because their effect on my life and philosophy would be profound.


You don’t believe in any absolutes? So you think there are no absolutes? Doesn’t that seem a bit absolute to you? There are absolutely no absolutes. X_X


I only said "it's quite a big deal." I generally hold logic and mathematics to be absolute, though I haven't studied much of this newfangled quantum physics. Still, if I claimed that there are no absolutes, I would not necessarily be inconsistent. I could add "except this one" to the claim. People think this is dodging the problem, but I don't see how, as there's nothing illegitimate about believing the only absolute is that there are no other absolutes, especially when one considers that the nature of the claim "there are no absolutes" is not the same as the nature of the claim "there is an absolute," since the former negates while the latter affirms. Perhaps it's a linguistic issue centering around variations of "to be," though I haven't put much thought into that idea.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


MEMPHADON wrote:
i had a whole long essay written out, weighing your points, providing a few counter arguments, but after reading it, i saw it made absolutley no sense and i can't be arsed into editing it right now so i'll just get to the point.

maybe jesus was divine, its possible. i believe in magic, and shamans are statistically proven to be more successful healers than western doctors, so i suppose its possible. but as for the son of god and him being the only way to heaven? HA! just because he's divine doesn't make him a god.

so i still must say:
Odin>>Jesus


Actually, by very definition being divine makes him a god-in this case, the god.

Still, if you understand Christianity it’s not too hard to find a counter argument. This being said, the counter argument is only effective from a religious standpoint. That is to say, logic be darned, religion isn’t about science and common sense.

By its core, Christianity is undeniably a mystic religion. Take, for example, the concept of our Holy Trinity. God is three and yet God is one. This seems to contradict basic mathematical laws of identity. Why does it seem that way? Because that’s exactly what it’s doing. Christianity is about personal experience, not organized religion or deism.

Aldous Huxley asserted that Jesus was divine in the since that we’re all divine. (Huxley is a follower of the Santana Dharma.) Jesus Christ wasn’t the son of God and the way to God. He was a guru.

That’s a counter argument-and it’s actually kind of difficult to attack this one from a logical standpoint. It’s also a direction I don’t like to go. I don’t like bickering between religion. I prefer to stand where religion faces the word, rather than battle behind the scenes. Anyway, this approach is discredited in “Between Heaven and Hell,” and I could explain it-if you desire.

So, there’s one final dodge. It’s a classic of mystics. “That’s not true simply because it’s not true.” Mystic believe based on personal sensation, so logic is null to sway their opinions. (Unless you’re a hybrid mystic like me. Half Deist/Half Mystic/All Christian. I can explain that too, if’n you like.)

But yeah, from a secular and logical point of view my afore mentioned argument personified in Aut Deus aut Homo Malus is inescapable.

Oh, one more note for all you logic hungry maniacs out there:

I love telling people this. Math is logically flawless, correct? Well, basic geometry tells us that we present the same face a second time every time we turn 360 degrees. Yet, mathematical measurements have also proven to us that an electron spins around 720 degrees before doing this. Crudely, if you were to draw a on an electron and then let it rotate…it’d spin around twice before the was looking at you again.

Physics...

P.S

There’s a hilarious seen in the manga, “Vineland Saga,” where a drunken priest and a group of barbarian Vikings get into an argument about whose God is greater.

http://www.onemanga.com/Vinland_Saga/

Anyway, based on the powers bestowed on Odin in Norse Myth and the powers bestowed on Jesus in Christian theology…

Jesus > Odin hands down. Odin was nailed to a tree, died, and never came back. Christ was nailed to a tree and came back with vengeance!




woah buddy, odin was nailed to a tree for nine days, and came back far greater than jesus did. he came back with the ability to cast spells, tell the future, and enchant items, and he still lived a life after he got off the tree. jesus just died and went to heaven, where people hope he's taking care of them. also, the vikings in the manga were only confused about what the priest meant by "love," since they had no understanding of the word. in reality, they had a pretty good understanding of the word, its just that the priest was crazy and saying weird crap like death is the ultimate form of love because it is lifeless.

i don't even know why you're bringing something as irrelevant as physics into this. the trinity was created almost 2000 years before electrons were even imagined. its a false analogy. just because an electron spins 720 degrees to reach the same face doesn't mean the trinity isn't polytheisti,. and even if the trinity was somehow not polytheistic, it has nothing to do with Odin wiping the floor with jesus, or with Asatru being the true religion instead of christianity.
Posted 11/4/08
All religion is false. If you humans would just realize this there would be much less problems around.

But I understand your lives are 99% of the time hopeless and depressing, unlike us bees where we just keep to ourselves and friends, buzzing about.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/4/08

MEMPHADON wrote:


woah buddy, odin was nailed to a tree for nine days, and came back far greater than jesus did. he came back with the ability to cast spells, tell the future, and enchant items, and he still lived a life after he got off the tree. jesus just died and went to heaven, where people hope he's taking care of them. also, the vikings in the manga were only confused about what the priest meant by "love," since they had no understanding of the word. in reality, they had a pretty good understanding of the word, its just that the priest was crazy and saying weird crap like death is the ultimate form of love because it is lifeless.

i don't even know why you're bringing something as irrelevant as physics into this. the trinity was created almost 2000 years before electrons were even imagined. its a false analogy. just because an electron spins 720 degrees to reach the same face doesn't mean the trinity isn't polytheisti,. and even if the trinity was somehow not polytheistic, it has nothing to do with Odin wiping the floor with jesus, or with Asatru being the true religion instead of christianity.


Yeah, that Priest was saying stupid things in that manga. I never said the guys didn't understand love. I just said that there was a funny scene. But, Odin and all the Norse Gods perished on Götterdämmerung.

The physics thing wasn’t an analogy. I already said that the concept of the trinity is mystic, not mathematical or necessarily logical. Besides, Christianity -is- a monotheism. Like I said, it’s three in ONE. We have one god capable of holding three identities. They’re all aspects of God himself. It’s a mystical concept.

That’s what I mean by people judging Christianity without understanding the theology of Christianity. Secularly you look at the trinity and think-polytheism, but that’s because your looking at it from a secular aspect instead of a mystical one.

Jesus is still more powerful and more awesome than Odin. Jesus is omnipotent with no rival. Odin had to compete with other deities.
Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/4/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I have a question for anyone that like to answer it. If Thor god of Thunder, and Odin his father, and Rey all came down and claimed that they are the true Gods! And the Christian God is not real.
What would it take for you to believe them?
Say they wipe out all the militarize powers on earth, would you then convert to Norse Paganism?


Types of Evidence
- Eyewitness testimony
- Is the eyewitness reliable? Biased?
- Supporting testimony
- Can you find a neutral party to confirm some part of the testimony ?
- Material evidence
- Any evidence that confirms what really happened?
- Self observation

This is really what is needed for any Atheist to be converted. In my opinion! See atheist are willing to believe if you can show real proof that it is true.
(this is just a friendly question.)






Did you by any chance study Psychology?

But anyway in answer to the question...I suppose having Thor come down and blow a whole military power away right before my eyes would be proof enough really....

If I myself hadn't seen it...hmm that would probably be a different matter. Eyewitnesses can be inaccurate and influenced by outside things, same goes for supporting testimonys (*is thinking about case studies*)...but then again the situation would be a bit different then that of a car crash I suppose...

Material evidence...as in a video or a devasted landscape? Hmm...maybe, maybe not... videos can be faked after all and as for the destruction of militarize powers (what exactly IS that? The military?) I'd put it down to some sort of freak happening of nature seeing as our world's going mad as it is...

So yeah it would have to be self observation....and may I add this is a really random question to ask...how'd you come up with it?

Oh yeah and as an after thought...not really relative to the question...but I find the Norse Gods far more interesting then the Christian god...maybe because its labled as Mythology...an interest of mine.
But then again I see all religion as mythology...maybe it's only the ones which not longer really exist...*shruggs*
Posted 11/4/08
=D This thread went crazy. I like. Keep it up.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/4/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


MEMPHADON wrote:


woah buddy, odin was nailed to a tree for nine days, and came back far greater than jesus did. he came back with the ability to cast spells, tell the future, and enchant items, and he still lived a life after he got off the tree. jesus just died and went to heaven, where people hope he's taking care of them. also, the vikings in the manga were only confused about what the priest meant by "love," since they had no understanding of the word. in reality, they had a pretty good understanding of the word, its just that the priest was crazy and saying weird crap like death is the ultimate form of love because it is lifeless.

i don't even know why you're bringing something as irrelevant as physics into this. the trinity was created almost 2000 years before electrons were even imagined. its a false analogy. just because an electron spins 720 degrees to reach the same face doesn't mean the trinity isn't polytheisti,. and even if the trinity was somehow not polytheistic, it has nothing to do with Odin wiping the floor with jesus, or with Asatru being the true religion instead of christianity.


Yeah, that Priest was saying stupid things in that manga. I never said the guys didn't understand love. I just said that there was a funny scene. But, Odin and all the Norse Gods perished on Götterdämmerung.

The physics thing wasn’t an analogy. I already said that the concept of the trinity is mystic, not mathematical or necessarily logical. Besides, Christianity -is- a monotheism. Like I said, it’s three in ONE. We have one god capable of holding three identities. They’re all aspects of God himself. It’s a mystical concept.

That’s what I mean by people judging Christianity without understanding the theology of Christianity. Secularly you look at the trinity and think-polytheism, but that’s because your looking at it from a secular aspect instead of a mystical one.

Jesus is still more powerful and more awesome than Odin. Jesus is omnipotent with no rival. Odin had to compete with other deities.


i definitley don't believe jesus was omnipotent. omnipotence implies perfection, and if god or jesus were perfect, and they created the world, then the world must be perfect. since my own experience tells me its not; jesus, and therefore god, can not be ompnipotent
569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / lei sla bonita
Offline
Posted 11/4/08



I have a question for anyone that like to answer it. If Thor god of Thunder, and Odin his father, and Rey all came down and claimed that they are the true Gods! And the Christian God is not real.
What would it take for you to believe them?
Say they wipe out all the militarize powers on earth, would you then convert to Norse Paganism?



if they demonstated there power in such a way then yes
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

whatsome wrote:

=D This thread went crazy. I like. Keep it up.


I will try my best.
Posted 11/4/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


whatsome wrote:

=D This thread went crazy. I like. Keep it up.


I will try my best.


I did not mean it in a good way. That smiley was there because of typing habit.

teehee

=D
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

whatsome wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


whatsome wrote:

=D This thread went crazy. I like. Keep it up.


I will try my best.


I did not mean it in a good way. That smiley was there because of typing habit.

teehee

=D


Do you understand the underlining concept of this thread?

This thread is to try to get you to think, you know fire up your synapses.

I am hoping most people at least took a little time to think about it.
Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/4/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


whatsome wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


whatsome wrote:

=D This thread went crazy. I like. Keep it up.


I will try my best.


I did not mean it in a good way. That smiley was there because of typing habit.

teehee

=D


Do you understand the underlining concept of this thread?

This thread is to try to get you to think, you know fire up your synapses.

I am hoping most people at least took a little time to think about it.

Hmm.... synapses **Homer Simpson gurgles**

Interesting. People give a lot of thought about this thread, but how come I don't get the same reception for a thread like this:
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-330549/What-do-you-think-is-your-equivalent-punishment-to-your-sin.html

Are you guys shitting me?











18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

whatsome wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


whatsome wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


whatsome wrote:

=D This thread went crazy. I like. Keep it up.


I will try my best.


I did not mean it in a good way. That smiley was there because of typing habit.

teehee

=D


Do you understand the underlining concept of this thread?

This thread is to try to get you to think, you know fire up your synapses.

I am hoping most people at least took a little time to think about it.

Hmm.... synapses **Homer Simpson gurgles**

Interesting. People give a lot of thought about this thread, but how come I don't get the same reception for a thread like this:
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-330549/What-do-you-think-is-your-equivalent-punishment-to-your-sin.html

Are you guys shitting me?













I did post in your thread one min before you posted this in my thread, I must of read your mind hmm...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.