Funny you should ask. From Walter Simonson's acclaimed run of Thor comics in 1980's, here's some of Thor #362:
So yeah, I think it's safe to say that Odin likes guns...a lot.
Posted on 12/18/2010 5:45:06 PM PST by neverdem
In a widely read and commented upon post, Nigel Barber examines some of the evidence and trends related to atheism and the decline of religion. Barber closes his thought-provoking post with the following:
"The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs."
It is true that much of the developed world lives in not only a post-Christian, but a post-religious society in many ways. And it is true that many people have turned to religion because of economic uncertainty or emotional challenges. They still do, in fact.
However, for many people, religion is not merely a way to deal with fear, uncertainty, and emotional difficulties. In my experience, many people follow a particular religious way of life because they believe that it is true. The problem with a market-based analysis of the future of religion, as well as the market-based practices present in many contemporary religious communities, is that religion at its best is not a consumer product. Rather, at its best religious faith calls for sacrifice, unselfishness, love, and a willingness to remove oneself from the center of the universe, so to speak. In order to be willling to live in such a way, a self-centered market-based approach to religion will not do. Rather, one must believe that she is living in a way that is consistent with reality in order to motivate an unselfish approach to life.
It is also unclear how atheism is positioned to replace religion, in the following way. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. But this, in and of itself, cannot form the foundation for a way of life. Only by forming and practicing positive beliefs and values can one build a coherent and meaningful life. So if something is to replace religion, it will not be atheism. Perhaps some form of secular humanism will accomplish this task. But here we run into another problem, namely, that human beings long for transcendence of some sort, as shown by the presence and prevalence of religious belief throughout cultures across time.
On this topic, Barber claims that sports can replace religion. In one sense, I think he is right. The loyalty, community-identification, and limited transcendence of the experiences related to sports do fuflill many of the functions of religion for many people. However--and I am a passionate sports fan and participant--at the end of the day sports are incapable of doing the work needed to provide sufficient meaning, transcendence, and fulfillment in life. But even if sport can do this to some degree, the view that sport is replacing religion fails to notice that religion should not be approached as a consumer good.
Lastly, we should be very grateful for the powerful psychopharmacological substances which can make life better for many of us. However, we must remember that religion is not merely about making my life better. Religion at its best is about making me better, and a better contributor to the common good. In closing, I think the reports of the impending death and replacement of religion with atheism are greatly exaggerated.
“Petitio principii.”
Absolutely correct. Accepting Christ begs the question. It is a leap of faith into an intellectual unknown. It violates every law of logic and common sense. It is other worldly and utterly irrational. It is a revelation.
Since I have no belief that God exists, the question has no meaning.
Since I have no belief that God exists, the question has no meaning.
Precisely.
Sorry, you don't get to re-write the definition of words to help your argument. From www.websters.com:
re·li·gion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Christianity is clearly a religion. Interestingly, you could define the Bible itself as a "revelation of God in human history through Christ". I wouldn't believe it to be true of course...but given a different set of core assumptions, it would be a valid definition.
You mean God might not reveal Himself after an hour or a week of prayer? It’s almost like you’re saying He hasn’t revealed Himself to everyone.
Choose to believe anything you like, but somebody is right and somebody is wrong and there are consequences that come with the choice.
Is it holy to imply that self-interest might be the right motivating factor in belief, rather than basing belief on what one thinks is real?
You think everything one does must have only a single motivating factor? Self interest is motivating and so is faith.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Live is full of choices. You, like everyone else, must make them.
My relationship with Christ is not a set of beliefs. Hence it is not a religion.
Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear see and understand. God reveals Himself to whom He chooses.
Funny you should ask. From Walter Simonson's acclaimed run of Thor comics in 1980's, here's some of Thor #362:
So yeah, I think it's safe to say that Odin likes guns...a lot.
And at the same time there is a set of beliefs and practices that can be called "Christianity".
You might as well argue (with equal validity, mind you) that Islam isn't a religion, that instead it's a relationship with Allah.
How Calvin-ish...
No. Islam is not a relationship with Allah. It is a set of beliefs and practices. There are many who consider themselves Christians based on beliefs and practices. I submit that these clearly religious activities do not insure a relationship with the living Christ.
How Calvin-ish...
How theological.
Islam is the Arabic world for "submission". A person who follows Islam is called a Muslim, which means "one who surrenders to God."
That's a Muslim's relationship to Allah. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
I know God not as a result of any intellectual effort on my or anyone’s part but because He has made Himself known to me. The revelation of God to His followers, and others, is the a priori of reformation. No amount of rational discourse changes this truth. It is true because God has said it is true. This is the stumbling stone against which rationalists crash and burn.
Dialog among believers strengthens faith and encourages understanding. Because knowledge of (the existence of) God does not come through rational effort it is meaningless to argue the merits of belief on rational grounds. God exists because He who is within me says He exists. I stake my life and my soul upon that knowledge.
It should be borne in mind that when it comes to religions that give me the heebie-jeebies it doesn't have anything on Islam.
And here we have an irreconcilable difference. As far as I can tell the only way to understand the universe is by examining it rationally.
Well, that'll have to be it for tonight. It's been a hoot, but I have to get up in the morning for a friend's 50th anniversary party.
Because knowledge of (the existence of) God does not come through rational effort it is meaningless to argue the merits of belief on rational grounds.
***I actually find great meaning in examining and discussing it on rational grounds.
I first start out with historical standards, such as whether or not Columbus sailed the ocean in 1492, whether John Adams was the 2nd president of the US, whether Julius Caesar existed in history or was invented. The overwhelming physical and historical evidence for those 3 figures in history is exactly the same level of historical evidence for Jesus as a historical figure.
Next, I examine why Jesus was put to death. No one denies that he died on a cross ~2000 years ago. Even his enemies claim he was put to death for blasphemy, for claiming equality with God.
So now we have rationally arrived at the most important discussion in history: Whether or not Jesus was God Himself.
When discussing this subject, I have seen such irrational positions as “well, we can’t rely on ANY history”.
I’m not willing to trade God for the Mets. Or even a good team.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.