Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First a confession. I am here to see whether someone doesn't believe in Thor or Leprechaun's BECAUSE he is like the God of Abrahamic theism.

Actually my beliefs on Thor have changed. I saw him as a nordic story, an invented superhero like superman. Then I looked at him as more the expression of the religiousity and the sense of the numinous in Nordic idiom.

I have though to confess I don't know a lot about him. Are you like me or are you an expert.... Who or what then, since you guys use his name a lot, is Thor?   

[ProfessorDavey]

First a confession. I am here to see whether someone doesn't believe in Thor or Leprechaun's BECAUSE he is like the God of Abrahamic theism.

Actually my beliefs on Thor have changed. I saw him as a nordic story, an invented superhero like superman. Then I looked at him as more the expression of the religiousity and the sense of the numinous in Nordic idiom.

I have though to confess I don't know a lot about him. Are you like me or are you an expert.... Who or what then, since you guys use his name a lot, is Thor?

I don't believe in Thor because there is no evidence for his existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figure in stories made up by people.

I don't believe in leprechauns because there is no evidence for their existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figures in stories made up by people.

I don't believe in the christian god because there is no evidence for his existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figure in stories made up by people.

Simple really.

[Gordon]

Easy peasy, Vlad: insufficient credible evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

First a confession. I am here to see whether someone doesn't believe in Thor or Leprechaun's BECAUSE he is like the God of Abrahamic theism.

Actually my beliefs on Thor have changed. I saw him as a nordic story, an invented superhero like superman. Then I looked at him as more the expression of the religiousity and the sense of the numinous in Nordic idiom.

I have though to confess I don't know a lot about him. Are you like me or are you an expert.... Who or what then, since you guys use his name a lot, is Thor?

Over to you Vlad - why don't you believe in Thor as a real entity, not just an expression of subjective religiosity or a human created myth.

Gordon and I seem to have reasoned and consistent reason why we don't believe in Thor as a real entity, consistent in that we apply it to other similarly purported entities, such as the christian god and leprechauns.

How about you Vlad - why do you believe that the christian god is a real entity yet Thor is merely an expression of religiousity when there is exactly the same credible evidence for both (i.e. zero).

[SusanDoris]

I don't believe in Thor because there is no evidence for his existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figure in stories made up by people.

I don't believe in leprechauns because there is no evidence for their existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figures in stories made up by people.

I don't believe in the christian god because there is no evidence for his existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figure in stories made up by people.

Simple really.

Agree completely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Over to you Vlad - why don't you believe in Thor as a real entity, not just an expression of subjective religiosity or a human created myth.

Gordon and I seem to have reasoned and consistent reason why we don't believe in Thor as a real entity, consistent in that we apply it to other similarly purported entities, such as the christian god and leprechauns.

How about you Vlad - why do you believe that the christian god is a real entity yet Thor is merely an expression of religiousity when there is exactly the same credible evidence for both (i.e. zero).

Since I believe Thor is an expression of religiosity, I think he is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the abrahamic God and our understanding through Christ. His outstanding warrior nature is obviously a narrow view of divinity by people obsessed with warfare.

I do not take your or Gordon's line because it is profoundly philosophical empiricist which has, as Gordon would say, insufficient evidence for what it itself proposes.

I do not believe in Leprechauns because they are supposed to be tiny irish people, of course. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easy peasy, Vlad: insufficient credible evidence.

Is that based on what's credible to you, Gordon?

[ProfessorDavey]

Since I believe Thor is an expression of religiosity, I think he is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the abrahamic God and our understanding through Christ.

Why don't you believe that the christian god is merely an expression of christian religiosity, rather than a real entity. And why don't you believe that the christian god is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the Norse Gods and our understanding through Odin?

That seems equally as reasonable (or unreasonable) as your claim of the opposite.

You seem terrible inconsistent in your thinking Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why don't you believe that the christian god is merely an expression of christian religiosity, rather than a real entity. And why don't you believe that the christian god is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the Norse Gods and our understanding through Odin?

That seems equally as reasonable (or unreasonable) as your claim of the opposite.

You seem terrible inconsistent in your thinking Vlad.

I have encountered God through Christ. It is obvious that , like me you know little about Thor but unlike me you are a philosophical empiricist. No inconsistency the abrahamic God is more comprehensively cosmic and philosophically fundamental than a nordic war God who rather than being the ground of all being is just the CEO of a band of superheroes.

Leprechauns are tiny irishmen if you can believe that.

[Gordon]

Is that based on what's credible to you, Gordon?

No - because I've no idea what credible evidence for 'Thor' would look like: not only have I never encountered any but I've never encountered anyone proposing reasons as to why I should take 'Thor' seriously. I suspect you are in exactly the same position.

By now, you must be running out of feet to shoot yourself in.

 

[Stranger]

I have encountered God through Christ.

You mean you believe that you've encountered "God through Christ". The world is full of people who believe that they've encountered various gods and other supernatural or mythical beings.

There are also plenty who have believed as you do and then changed their minds.

[Anchorman]

 I, too, have encountered God through Christ.
God we cannot see, or define, in any meaningful language - though poetry comes closer than theological gobbledygook sometimes.
Yet, as Paul wrote:
"Christ is the visible sign of the invisible God";
I have encountered Christ through personal experience, through Scripture and through the outworking of His purpose in others.
Can this be measured empirically? No; it was never meant to be.
I am interested in other religions; other ways of trying to define God - you would expect nothing less from an egyptiphile - but nothing comes close to knowing Christ, Knowing who He is, what He Has done, and Christ in me.
I find no issues with looking at other faiths; one of my heroes, Tolkien, was immersed in Saxon and Norse religious practice, whilst at one and the same time being very much a Christian.
There are others; some writing, some 'borrowing' practice from other faiths.
I pray the 'caim', a method of meditative prayer derived from aestheticism infused with possible contact with Buddhist thought in the third and fourth centuries, but used by Celtic Christians and still useful today.
Nothing wrong in that; since the core focus is firmly and completely on the Christian concept of who we accept God to be.
Rational? probably not;, but then many believers who are nevertheless steeped in sciences which I haven't a clue about are at one and the same time firmly convinced in their faith.
This dichotomy works for me as well.

[ProfessorDavey]

I, too, have encountered God through Christ.

Morning Anchorman.

Vlad seems to be of the opinion that Norse people who believed they had encountered Thor were actually encountering the abrahamic god but not really recognising it.

How can you be sure that when you believe you have encountered the abramac god that you aren't actually encountering Thor (or any other god) but can't really recognise it, probably because your upbringing is steeped in the notion that god is the christian one.

[Anchorman]

Morning Anchorman.
 
Vlad seems to be of the opinion that Norse people who believed they had encountered Thor were actually encountering the abrahamic god but not really recognising it.

How can you be sure that when you believe you have encountered the abramac god that you aren't actually encountering Thor (or any other god) but can't really recognise it, probably because your upbringing is steeped in the notion that god is the christian one.

   

Other faiths may indeed have had theophanies - even Christophanies; We believe God interevened in a historical, not only theological, way.
Most religions are set in a 'time outside time' as one writer put it.
Christ is anhored in history, though some writers, Christian as well as nonChristian, have either added bits or argued against bits, to muddy the waters.
There is no evidence that a Thor, or for that matter, a Venus, or a Re-Horakhty, ever walked this earth.
Christ did.
Maybe some reject the only literary corpus we have...though in passing we have a better corpus of literature for Christ ehan, say, Tiberious Ceaser, Hannibal, Xebobia, etc, yet their existance is not in doubt, nor should it be.
The spiriritual dimention of the Christ story is, of course, a matter of faith and experience and beyond ability to measure.

 As for my upbringing?
If quitting Sunday School at the age of nine and rejecting all religions untill my late teens qualifies me, then, yes, I'll own up.......

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no evidence that a Thor, or for that matter, a Venus, or a Re-Horakhty, ever walked this earth.
Christ did.

Nope - there is some very scant evidence that a person called Jesus walked the earth - there is no more credible evidence that this person was divine or god than there is that Thor is divine or god. And, of course, many religious traditions include people known to exist (often with far greater evidence for their actual existence than Jesus) who were also considered to be deities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

[ProfessorDavey]

As for my upbringing?
If quitting Sunday School at the age of nine and rejecting all religions untill my late teens qualifies me, then, yes, I'll own up.......

That you went to Sunday School demonstrates that you were brought up within a christian tradition, so unsurprising that if you think you encounter god, you will ascribe that encounter to be the god you were brought up to believe.

Were you brought up in a different tradition (e.g. hindu) you'd likely ascribe that encounter to one or more of the hindu gods. And that would be the same regardless of whether you'd quit hindu religious instruction classes.

[Anchorman]

Nope - there is some very scant evidence that a person called Jesus walked the earth - there is no more credible evidence that this person was divine or god than there is that Thor is divine or god. And, of course, many religious traditions include people known to exist (often with far greater evidence for their actual existence than Jesus) who were also considered to be deities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

   
Yet the existence of the person Yeshua barYusef is beyond dispute by any methodology of which I am aware.
The nature of who He is is the stumbling block.
If it's links you want, well, here's one.
Theology bores me - that's probably why I try to avoid jargon, but this article from an albeit biased source on religious pluralism versus the claim of Christ is near the mark:
https://www.gospelproject.com/what-is-unique-about-christianity-among-the-world-religions/

[Anchorman]

That you went to Sunday School demonstrates that you were brought up within a christian tradition, so unsurprising that if you think you encounter god, you will ascribe that encounter to be the god you were brought up to believe.

Were you brought up in a different tradition (e.g. hindu) you'd likely ascribe that encounter to one or more of the hindu gods. And that would be the same regardless of whether you'd quit hindu religious instruction classes.

     




Er.....I went to Sunday School, not because my mother, who raised me, thought I should, but because it was mandatory if you wished to be in the Junior Section of the Boys' Brigade.
Those of us who went were frequent absconders and rebels...I bless the kindly relative who bought me one of those mini radios with the earpiece, which, from the age of seven till I was nine, served me very well on the occasions when I went to the Sundau School.
I managed the bare minimum attendances required to remain in the BB - and that was that!
My truancy, learned in the Sunday School, was carried on in secondary school....there were ways and means of dodging Assembly, ways I conquered quite well. As stated earlier, I rejected religions - and to reject something, you have to study it; this I did, using the very good religion section of the School Library. I'd read both the q'ran and the Bible)in three translations; I liked the Moffat) by the time I was fifteen.
I'd say my upbringing in matters religious was more secular than anything resembling Christianity.

[ProfessorDavey]

  Er.....I went to Sunday School, not because my mother, who raised me, thought I should, but because it was mandatory if you wished to be in the Junior Section of the Boys' Brigade.

So let's get this one right Anchorman.

So you went to a christian institution (Sunday School) aimed at christian religious instruction because another christian institution that you were a member of (The Boys' Brigade) required you to. And that latter organisation has the motto:

"The advancement of Christ's kingdom among Boys and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-respect and all that tends towards a true Christian manliness."

And somehow you seem to be arguing that you weren't brought up within a christian tradition.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd say my upbringing in matters religious was more secular than anything resembling Christianity.

AM - parents bringing their children up in a secular manner tend not to send their kids to overtly christian instituions such as the Boys' Brigade and sunday school.

[jeremyp]

I have encountered God through Christ.

How do you know it wasn't Loki tricking you into thinking you have encountered God?

[jeremyp]

   
Yet the existence of the person Yeshua barYusef is beyond dispute by any methodology of which I am aware.

I'm not one of them, but there are people - even a few historians - that dispute his existence. The evidence really isn't that strong but it amounts to

a) a religion (it seems to me that most religions have a founder)

b) a very few references to Jesus in Paul's letters and some poorly attested myths that (I think) have accreted onto a real person.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not one of them, but there are people - even a few historians - that dispute his existence. The evidence really isn't that strong but it amounts to

a) a religion (it seems to me that most religions have a founder)

b) a very few references to Jesus in Paul's letters and some poorly attested myths that (I think) have accreted onto a real person.

I think that is correct.

I too am not particularly interested in challenging the veracity of Jesus as a historical character, largely because it doesn't seem to be a particularly useful discussion as christianity is largely about faith rather than truth in a factual sense.

That said when people make the kind of claim that Anchorman does it should be challenged. The very notion that it is possible to make a perfectly credible argument that Jesus never actually existed as claimed (in a factual sense) in the bible shows how little evidence there is for him. Effectively the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure comes pretty well entirely from the bible, and other early christian documents - but this is, in a historical sense, really weak evidence, because:

1. It is not comtemporary - as JP points out Paul hardly discusses Jesus as a historical figure and the gospels (which do) are from decades after the event, and the earliest extant versions, centuries later.

2. It is partial - written by people with an agenda and with a clear incentive to 'big up' the notion of Jesus as a historical character, in support of their evangelising remit.

3. The reports lack independence - it would appear that what we have in the gospels links back to a tiny number of source materials.

4. It isn't corroborated - we have no independent corroboration from another non-christian source (see below).

5. There is no archeological evidence to back up the claims in the gospels.

So for the historical evidence to be strong we'd expect (in addition to archeological evidence), independent (ideal from the 'other side') corroboratory evidence and reports. But there aren't any. The nearest we have are a couple of tiny sections in documents also written decades after the event, most of which are about the presence of early christians (not really in doubt) rather than the presence of a historical Jesus. There is also strong evidence in these documents of doctoring - in other words later christian interpolation, so there is doubt over whether even the tiny sections are actually in the original versions of Tacitus and Josephus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So let's get this one right Anchorman.

So you went to a christian institution (Sunday School) aimed at christian religious instruction because another christian institution that you were a member of (The Boys' Brigade) required you to. And that latter organisation has the motto:

"The advancement of Christ's kingdom among Boys and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-respect and all that tends towards a true Christian manliness."

And somehow you seem to be arguing that you weren't brought up within a christian tradition.

Forgive me but I enjoyed the way Anchorman seems to have stopped indulging the above.
How often do you need to be informed that mere attendance at a religious institution doesn't make you a christian. My abiding memories of sunday school are the christmas parties and the outings to Chessington zoo and Wicksteed Park and that's about it and dodging it.

I think Dawkin's was brought up in a more profoundly christian environment. His abiding memories of that time, I think, were how clever he was.

[jeremyp]

Forgive me but I enjoyed the way Anchorman seems to have stopped indulging the above.
How often do you need to be informed that mere attendance at a religious institution doesn't make you a christian.

That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.