Originally Posted by polar

Originally Posted by ghost_us

For instance, the concept of Zeus/Jupiter(God) having sex with a mortal (Alcmena)(Mary) and giving birth to a demi-god (hercules)(Jesus) that would rule on earth. There are a number of other examples and consistencies there.

I've read Some Buddhism, Taoism, Sikh, and some reading Nordic mythology.

It's difficult to find english translations for much of it, let alone, people bothered to discuss it.

Interesting, just recently read a number of books on Nordic religion, I was a suprised how much had been incorporated into Chrisitianity (e.g. Hell - Hela, lucifer - loki, Odin travelling around during winter solstice in his horse) - and modern life.

Seems also to be a link between armies, government and religion. The structure of Christianity Bishops etc, seems to result into Kings and Emperors and strong military power..... So is the pen mightier than the sword??? Sword seems to have been better spreading christianity than the word.

Indeed. The "Yule Log" thrown on the fire at xmas time is a nordic tradition. I believe St Nick also has origins from that neck of the woods.

Christianity is/was pervasive in Scandinavia and in order to convert much of the population it took a long time, like around 200 years or so. During the time they mixed a lot of the local mythos with mainstream Christianity in order to make it more palatable to populace.

As far as a power, power is simply the ability to manipulate. One thing to have men fight for money, land, or fear, but your immortal soul? How do you argue with that?

In as far as existentialism vs religion. Imagine for a moment, a world where there is only you and those around you. Where what you have now, is all there will be.

A world in which you and you alone are responsible for your actions.

Imagine the weight and value each day of your life would have. Imagine the respect for life and that of others you would feel and the knowledge of the permanence if you took it from them.

I don't imagine that anyone that found religion has found anything extraordinary, unless, it brings them the serenity and wisdom to live this life as if given no other.

I don't think having faith makes you a "nutter" but I certainly don't think it makes you open minded. In fact, by virtue of the piety, you cannot be.

At last- my degree seeming to come in handy for something! I had a tute on this two days ago, and it's a fascinating subject. The way I see it, I think a lot of people (probably most actually) have a natural pre-disposition towards belief in 'something'. Even if that 'something' is that coicindence is impossible, or, for example, a view that beautiful can't've been created by trial and error...

What a lot of people since (what may be termed) the atheist revolution seem to have a problem with is organised religion. A lecturer of mine made an unusally interesting point when he said that you can usually tell what kind of atheist someone is upon talking to them; viz. if they're a rebellious Buddhist or Muslim or Catholic etc.

Religion is just a way of defining God in a social setting (even if sometimes it gets a little self-important and/or over-excited), and for many people, religion is a choice, but a fundamentally superstitious attitude is not.

And I say this having met genuine atheists, who would equally say that they had no choice in their absolutely rational take on the world (ie, they wouldn't ever ever pray, even when under extreme circumstances- see "touching the void" for details).

So basically, no. People don't have a choice in their pre-disposition towards faith or not, but some people choose to act on it and join the rank of the organised religionists.

Originally Posted by ghost_us

Christianity is/was pervasive in Scandinavia and in order to convert much of the population it took a long time, like around 200 years or so. During the time they mixed a lot of the local mythos with mainstream Christianity in order to make it more palatable to populace.

No just Scandanavia, most of UK and Germany. See this map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reformation.gif

Oops, thats not a map of Asaturu/Odinism/Heathen, its a map of the reformation. Coincidence?

Originally Posted by Ispeakcrabandpongo

Thats where we differ. I feel my faith is stronger because I believe in something I cannot see, but I believe to exist.

Do you believe in fairies? On the basis of what you've written here, you should, 'cos you can't see them either.

Anywhere the Christians were proselytising this happened: Roman practices incoprorated for Rome, Norse and/or Celtic practices where applicable. Very persuasive to build on things people already believe.

Here on the Isle of Man, every early Christian chapel was built on or near a pagan site, and much practice incorporated - especially dates and ideas associated with them. For example:
All Hallows (hallowe'en) is at the date and has the ghost-walking tradition from Celtic Samhain (Hop-tu-naa in Manx - we didn't need to re-import it from the septics). Christmas moved to the winter solstice. Easter set at Beltain (and named, amusingly, after Eostre, AKA Ishtar, Astarte).

Got to be careful though, when you talk about Celtic pre-christian paganism - there are few primary sources. Most is the 20th century development of people like Gerald Gardner which led to the religion called Wicca.

Originally Posted by Manninagh

Originally Posted by Ispeakcrabandpongo

Thats where we differ. I feel my faith is stronger because I believe in something I cannot see, but I believe to exist.

Do you believe in fairies? On the basis of what you've written here, you should, 'cos you can't see them either.

I think you are confusing 2 issues here: firstly that faith and belief are synonomous which they are not, and secondly that belief in one thing equates to belief in all manner of things.

Having faith is simply going beyond empirical proof. You can have faith that there is something beyond yourself and your own immediate experiences without necessarily believing in anything specifically. in other words you can have faith without belief, but belief becomes hard without faith when you cannot prove difinitively that God exists.

Secondly, believing in God (or whatever) because something has led you to have faith in the possibility of existence does not mean that you will believe fairies exist. In order for faith to develop into some form of belief there has to be some form of rational discernment that leads you on the balance of probabilities to conclude in favour of the existence of God. In other words an individual has experienced or considered that there is enough proof of God's existence that the gap between what you can proove to give yourself a degree of certainty and what would be the absolute difinitive gurantee that could not be argued against is the very gap that is filled by the strength of faith such that you are content to believe.

That is not to say that people cannot loose faith, or stop questioning, the issue then is the extent to which the basis of faith is challenged and the consequences on your certainty.

Originally Posted by woopert

Originally Posted by Manninagh

Originally Posted by Ispeakcrabandpongo

Thats where we differ. I feel my faith is stronger because I believe in something I cannot see, but I believe to exist.

Do you believe in fairies? On the basis of what you've written here, you should, 'cos you can't see them either.

I think you are confusing 2 issues here: firstly that faith and belief are synonomous which they are not, and secondly that belief in one thing equates to belief in all manner of things.

Having faith is simply going beyond empirical proof. You can have faith that there is something beyond yourself and your own immediate experiences without necessarily believing in anything specifically. in other words you can have faith without belief, but belief becomes hard without faith when you cannot prove difinitively that God exists.

Secondly, believing in God (or whatever) because something has led you to have faith in the possibility of existence does not mean that you will believe fairies exist. In order for faith to develop into some form of belief there has to be some form of rational discernment that leads you on the balance of probabilities to conclude in favour of the existence of God. In other words an individual has experienced or considered that there is enough proof of God's existence that the gap between what you can proove to give yourself a degree of certainty and what would be the absolute difinitive gurantee that could not be argued against is the very gap that is filled by the strength of faith such that you are content to believe.

That is not to say that people cannot loose faith, or stop questioning, the issue then is the extent to which the basis of faith is challenged and the consequences on your certainty.

A fair point of rational argument, and I stand slapped for being facetious. I do take issue with your point "rational discernment that leads you on the balance of probabilities to conclude in favour of the existence of God". I cannot accept that any rational view of the balance of probablilities would lead one anywhere but disbelief. And I struggle with the idea that one can have faith without some fundamental level of belief. I would suggest that this view would effectively be that of the agnostic, a position which I occupied for many years before concluding that it was intellecually and morally idle, at which point the fence became uncomfortable.

I find it amusing those who mock faith and religion are expressing very christian views, i.e. their is a right or a wrong and nothing exists in between, and religions where these concepts or binary viewpoints don't exist are brought in under the same black and white labels - grey is also a colour

Originally Posted by polar

I find it amusing those who mock faith and religion are expressing very christian views, i.e. their is a right or a wrong and nothing exists in between, and religions where these concepts or binary viewpoints don't exist are brought in under the same black and white labels - grey is also a colour

Either there is or there is not a God (or gods). There is nothing grey about it.

Proof - I think is key!

Why can't we get any proof? Having faith is so spurious. I would like some proof. I know that is the premise of faith - there is no proof, which is why you need faith. But it would be easier if we had proof.