Christians and Muslims: Why don't you believe in Odin?

[Denny Crane!]

I don't think that's true though. Christianity itself developed in tandem with philosophy, it can be read into its scriptures. Stoicism especially. Early Christians embraced Neoplatonism not as a veneer but as an intrinsic part of their worldview.

Thats not scripturally based though, its not fundamentally part of the philosophy but something that the great thinkers of Christianity started to adopt as part of their worldview, this is a debate I frequently have whilst comparing the fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity/islam and the fact that you can't just cherry pick after thoughts on the scriptural doctrine because regardless of what comes after the only true certainty with regards to the fundamentals is the scripture.

[Valden]

The Christian god, right? What makes the Christian god more truthful/believable than god according to Islam or a deistic god?

Assuming you are aware that Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God, this is sort of an irrelevant point. We don't worship different Gods, but the same God in different ways; under monotheism it would be a self-contradiction for more than one God to exist, as God is deductively a maximally great being. It would be a self-contradiction for two maximally great beings to exist.

I have yet to see any useful definition of this god's abilities, personality, role in the material world, etc. to bother with refuting any god claim.

This means that either A you are vastly ignorant of the arguments theists put forward, in which case your intellectual credibility in atheism is severely undermined as you are hardly 'open minded', or B, that you are familiar with them but have dismissed them. In the case for the former it is your responsibility to look into it, and in the case of the latter, if you see no need to refute an argument in order to dismiss it, then debate with you would be impossible.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Believe in what ? Is Odin exist or is Odin god ? There is no god but God, so Odin is not god.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

And you know that because?

[Sir Adrian]

Which is countable.



And those miracles performed by those gods in the life times of those who believed in them? Like those that helped the creation of Alexanders Empire? Or those battles mentioned earlier in which Odin was said to appear? Or the countless miracles performed by the Aztec patron god, proving to the Aztecs that they were the chosen people?

As opposed to believing in some poor carpinter that converted water into wine and returned from the dead over 2,000 years ago, of whose feats there are no historical records? Who witness these miracles you are talking about and have they taken the time to attribute scientific reasoning for them?

Sounds very hypocritical, all of that.

Some guy dressing up as Odin to scare his enemies is not a miracle, a temple catching fire during on a stormy night is not a miracle. And what miracles helped the creation of Alexander's empire?


I cannot wait to hear your scientific explanation as to why the river Jordan starts flowing backwards each year, on the Theophany, after the priest blesses it; or the the many instances of miraculous healing (some people got cured of cancer, overnight, after praying to a certain saint), or the numerous Icons which spontaneously start crying chism, normal candles spontaneously lighting themselves at midnight on Orthodox Easter, why the bodies of Saints do not decay and give out a pleasant smell, even after hundreds or thousands of years.

As for historical records: almost everything written in the Bible has been proven true by archeology.

[Lazarus]

Not true. There's no proof of resurrections or parting seas or any of that, archeological or otherwise.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I cannot wait to hear your scientific explanation as to why the river Jordan starts flowing backwards each year, on the Theophany, after the priest blesses it

It doesn't

or the the many instances of miraculous healing (some people got cured of cancer, overnight, after praying to a certain saint)

Like the non-religious people whose illnesses similarly disappear? Medical science has explanations.

or the numerous Icons which spontaneously start crying chism, normal candles spontaneously lighting themselves at midnight on Orthodox Easter

they don't

why the bodies of Saints do not decay and give out a pleasant smell, even after hundreds or thousands of years.

they decay

As for historical records: almost everything written in the Bible has been proven true by archeology.

That's because most of the bible is simply a history of Isreal and Judah. The magic certainly has no evidence to support.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

why the bodies of Saints do not decay and give out a pleasant smell, even after hundreds or thousands of years.

This, most likely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy#N..._mummification

Alternatively, a man-made solution - it's called embalming, and probably perfume as well. That is, if they don't simply decay.

[Himster]

As for historical records: almost everything written in the Bible has been proven true by archeology

Really? Is the Exodus of 500,000 men (not including their families) from Egypt supported? Is the global flood of Noah supported? Is the Garden of Eden supported? Did all the graves of Jerusalem open up and the dead wander around on Good Friday? Was there ever a tower of Babel when and where all mankind spoke one language?

The bible is not a history book, it was treated as such when we didn't know any better, but now we know better.

[motiv-8]

The matter in question was if Christianity was spread violently, and yes... It did. It also spread peacefully, but it does not deserve its pacifistic image.

What? Of course it does. If anything the evidence only points that Christians don't deserve their pacifist image, not Christianity. The Orthodox Church especially clearly lays out that violence and especially war is a sin. Which is why, after going on campaign, a Byzantine soldier would have to spend a significant amount of time doing repentance. Crusading in Western Christianity became an important doctrinal foundation for decades, but it was in and of itself an innovation and eventually died out completely, and why? Because it had no fundamental basis in Christian theology or practice.

It's just like -- I find Buddhism to be a very pacifistic philosophy/religion, but there's no denying that there were Buddhists and Buddhists kingdoms engaging in stringent warfare with a high level of brutality during what the West called the Middle Ages. But I don't see that as a mark against Buddhism, but a reflection of the time and the environment.

That's not to say Christianity encourages promiscuity,

Because it literally encourages the opposite of that.

but once you bring a state to Christianity, you attach it to the western cultural sphere where these ideas can spread more easily. More than just a religion, Christianity has become a tool of cultural imperialism--emphasis on imperialism--because it was during the age of imperialism that Christianity truly became a world religion.

This is neither unique to Christianity nor a legitimate reason to attack it. If not Christianity then it is Islam, if not Islam then it is Marxism, if not Marxism then it is democratic liberalism. Any idea can be used in this way. It is a mark against the cynicism of Man, who in bewildering displays of contradiction can conceive beautiful ideas and ideals of justice and peace and then use those same ideas and ideals to do great harm.

That's why I mentioned Japan. Like you said, oftentimes its not about the religion, but about the political aspects which go alongside it.

Absolutely, but like I also said most people can't discern between the two.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Really? Is the Exodus of 500,000 men (not including their families) from Egypt supported? Is the global flood of Noah supported? Is the Garden of Eden supported? Did all the graves of Jerusalem open up and the dead wander around on Good Friday? Was there ever a tower of Babel when and where all mankind spoke one language?

The bible is not a history book, it was treated as such when we didn't know any better, but now we know better.

I read an article in the Danish version of Illustrated Science some years ago (still got the magazine, if need be) that the Exodus is actually derived from two historic events.

The Jews, who had settled in the Nile Delta (Avaris), being asked to leave by the Egyptians due to a hunger crisis after the volcano eruption on Santorini.
The second event was an escape of slaves, some of them Jews, 70-80 years later. The slaves camped on high ground, when they came to the coastline, while the pursuing Egyptians camped below. During the night water rose and the Egyptian camp was flooded.

No idea, if the theory is correct, but is at least interesting.

This means that either A you are vastly ignorant of the arguments theists put forward, in which case your intellectual credibility in atheism is severely undermined as you are hardly 'open minded', or B, that you are familiar with them but have dismissed them. In the case for the former it is your responsibility to look into it, and in the case of the latter, if you see no need to refute an argument in order to dismiss it, then debate with you would be impossible.

Italic: I have no responsibility to educate myself on unproven nonsence (too many contradictions between the Bible, the Quran and the Torah, aswell as no red line in each of them seperately, to even take them seriously). I have no "divine" guidance to annoy (convert) people like you do.
Bolded: That's the case with everything presented so far. I have seen better arguments for Socialism than I have seen for rejoining Christianity. I just use the ways of the Ignostics to ask for something actually worth discussing from you theists.

[saxdude]

Some guy dressing up as Odin to scare his enemies is not a miracle, a temple catching fire during on a stormy night is not a miracle. And what miracles helped the creation of Alexander's empire?


I cannot wait to hear your scientific explanation as to why the river Jordan starts flowing backwards each year, on the Theophany, after the priest blesses it; or the the many instances of miraculous healing (some people got cured of cancer, overnight, after praying to a certain saint), or the numerous Icons which spontaneously start crying chism, normal candles spontaneously lighting themselves at midnight on Orthodox Easter, why the bodies of Saints do not decay and give out a pleasant smell, even after hundreds or thousands of years.

As for historical records: almost everything written in the Bible has been proven true by archeology.

That is one of the most broken arguments I have had the pleasure of reading in TWC.

[Kanaric]

If there were elaborate awesome churches complete with sacrifice and the ancient rites I would follow Odin. Not for any spiritual means, no, but only for the spectacle of it. It would be like larping but more fun.

1st Temple Judaism, Egyptian Pantheon Relgion, Phoenician Religion (without babies), sure bring them on. I'll go so long as I dont have to confess to priests and eat wafers. I'll even dress in period costume if required. It would be a fun affair for all. However I need a large amount of effort and money put into this fare to keep me interested. I want a massive temple complex complete with priests and giant brass braziers of fire in which to burn our offerings. The more outlandish and straight out of a fantasy novel the better. Lets even have mock human sacrifice like on the 2nd Indiana Jones movie with people chanting like insane people if our revival religion demands such things.

Thats why I can't take wiccans seriously. They actually believe in things like that they can control the wind and they don't have any awesome theatrical ancient god worship going on. I want to be able to tell someone "I follow the OLD gods" in a malevolent voice and bring them to my awe inspiring temple where the old ways of distant past are still followed..... and not be a Catholic.

TBQH I would probably get tired of it after a few times. Never liked larping.

I look at all religions like I look at reading about the church of Cyric in my forgotten realms campaign setting manual. However ours are far more boring.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

What? Of course it does. If anything the evidence only points that Christians don't deserve their pacifist image, not Christianity. The Orthodox Church especially clearly lays out that violence and especially war is a sin. Which is why, after going on campaign, a Byzantine soldier would have to spend a significant amount of time doing repentance. Crusading in Western Christianity became an important doctrinal foundation for decades, but it was in and of itself an innovation and eventually died out completely, and why? Because it had no fundamental basis in Christian theology or practice.

Christianity is not a pacifistic religion. If it seems that way, it's only because Jesus appealed to the meek in Roman Judea. They were in no position to fight anyone, even if they were being oppressed, so Jesus taught them mercy because when you can't have justice, mercy will have to do. Jesus even hints at violence in some of the passages in the Bible:

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. -Luke 22:36

The Book of Revelation is notoriously violent; it portrays this righteous Christ-like figure waging war and vanquishing all of God's enemies.

This is neither unique to Christianity nor a legitimate reason to attack it. If not Christianity then it is Islam, if not Islam then it is Marxism, if not Marxism then it is democratic liberalism. Any idea can be used in this way. It is a mark against the cynicism of Man, who in bewildering displays of contradiction can conceive beautiful ideas and ideals of justice and peace and then use those same ideas and ideals to do great harm.

Well what is a legitimate reason to attack it then? Are sociopolitical threats a legitimate reason to attack it? It can't be because of religion alone. For example, in China, Muslims have historically been treated with respect and have reached high positions of power in the government, while Christians were persecuted. You can't use cultural intolerance as an argument here.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Technically christians do believe in Odin, they just think he is a demon sent by satan to confuse us mortals and lead us down the path of idolatry.

[motiv-8]

Christianity is not a pacifistic religion. If it seems that way, it's only because Jesus appealed to the meek in Roman Judea. They were in no position to fight anyone, even if they were being oppressed, so Jesus taught them mercy because when you can't have justice, mercy will have to do. Jesus even hints at violence in some of the passages in the Bible:

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. -Luke 22:36

The Book of Revelation is notoriously violent; it portrays this righteous Christ-like figure waging war and vanquishing all of God's enemies.

First of all, Revelation is eschatology not related to the life and teachings of Jesus, and it describes what Is supposed to happen at the end of days to save mankind from violent calamity -- which is not instigated by Christians. Second the only way you can read in even hints of overt violence in Christianity is by ripping single sentences out of context, like you did. That's amateur work.

Well what is a legitimate reason to attack it then? Are sociopolitical threats a legitimate reason to attack it? It can't be because of religion alone. For example, in China, Muslims have historically been treated with respect and have reached high positions of power in the government, while Christians were persecuted. You can't use cultural intolerance as an argument here.

Muslims were persecuted and conflicted with the central government in China too. Get the history right first, or there's no reason to proceed.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Technically christians do believe in Odin, they just think he is a demon sent by satan to confuse us mortals and lead us down the path of idolatry.

Maybe Odin is the correct god and the Abrahamaic god is the demon sent by satan/Ice giants/Loki... That would make all the Jews, Muslims and Christians devil-worshippers, what a twist that would be!

[Pontifex Maximus]

Maybe Odin is the correct god and the Abrahamaic god is the demon sent by satan/Ice giants/Loki... That would make all the Jews, Muslims and Christians devil-worshippers, what a twist that would be!

Eh, if there's some sort of cosmic supernatural presence on this earth I would prefer it be something more like Harry Potter

[AngryTitusPullo]

And you know that because?

Then which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Then which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?

This is merely me guessing Blatta's response, but I'm going to go with "all of them". Books written by mortals don't prove the existence of some god, if it did, the sagas would prove the existence of Odin and his gang of gods aswell.