The Psychology of Christianity and Atheism

But other "religions" are "religious". They bow down to idols etc..You could not tell me apart from an atheist, or would hard pressed to. That's because a personal saviour requires that I have life and have it more abundantly, without following a religion. I have the truth, only Jesus Christ has ever satisfied this person here present. It may be truth to them. I'll even tolerate their religion, yet I won't partake of it. Nor can I dismiss the possibility that God has revealed himself to them. However, one truth they lack is God incarnate suffering and dying for them. This is generalizing. If I am religious (Am I or not) and I don't take part in all of the above, would I be more tolerant?Didn't I tell you that in my view you could go to heaven, and I am a witness?(Not that my opinion is worth spit in this matter!) Have you forgotten so quickly? I've never said that christians alone are going to heaven, yet I'm sure you'd call me "religious".I apreciate what it is like where you live. I remember the taunting you told me of. But that instance is an instance. One. It doesn't mean that every believer on the planet is against gays and is a witch burner. How can they predate the creator? Before man, I am was.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-02-2004 04:44 PM

mike the wiz responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

However, one truth they lack is God incarnate suffering and dying for them.

---

But if they're right, then "god incarnate suffering and dying for them" is not a truth because it didn't happen.You're stuck in a logical error, mike. You need to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you believe in all of the Hindu gods, since they predate the Jewish god by quite a lot?

---

​

How can they predate the creator?

---

Because Hinduism is older than Judaism.You're stuck in the logical error again. You need to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong. Perhaps the Hindus are right about the nature of the supernatural.

quote:

---

Before man, I am was.

---

But before there were Jews, there were Hindus.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi Rrhain. What I meant by "one truth they lack is Christ" is that, while there is a possibility of their religion containing some truth, they obviously dismiss/don't know, about the message of Christ, which I believe is true. But my point is, that if there is a creator, then he was before us. Let's even assume that the assertion of Hinduism being older than Judaism is true (I presently disbelieve this), then even so, their religion could still be man-made, and still God was before them. I'm sure you're probably right in that it's ilogical to assume I am right. Yet, have you assumed that I think they are wrong completely?You see, I'm willing to admitt that say, "answered prayer" might put us at odds with each other, (if we both say it). This might look like it favours Schraff's argument that it's in our heads (prayer hits). Yet, is she/you considering the possibility that rather this could suggest that "God" has answered both the Jew and the Hindu? Rather than saying; "Christ and Allah can't both have answered prayer"...how about considering saying, "God could have heard them both"? ...Am I unreasonable/anti-biblical in suggesting this though?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-04-2004 01:18 PM

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But if they're right, then "god incarnate suffering and dying for them" is not a truth because it didn't happen.

---

​

What I meant by "one truth they lack is Christ"

---

That isn't what you said.You said, "god incarnate suffering and dying for them."If the Hindus are right, then your "god incarnate suffering and dying for them" isn't true because it didn't happen.

quote:

---

while there is a possibility of their religion containing some truth, they obviously dismiss/don't know, about the message of Christ, which I believe is true.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you seriously saying that Hindus are not Christians because they're spiteful? Ignorant?Are you seriously saying that it is impossible for somebody to hear the "message of Christ" and simply conclude that it's a load of hooey without their being an ulterior motive, insanity, or stupidity involved?Are you incapable of treating anybody else who disagrees with you with respect?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because Hinduism is older than Judaism.

---

​

But my point is, that if there is a creator, then he was before us.

---

But my point is that you misunderstand what that creator is. You are stuck in the notion that you can't possibly be wrong. You need to consider the possiblity that maybe, just maybe, somebody else is right. Maybe, just maybe, your "creator" is not the one that truly exists.

quote:

---

Let's even assume that the assertion of Hinduism being older than Judaism is true (I presently disbelieve this)

---

Why?It is clearly shown by the documentary evidence. The history of Hinduism runs further back in time than the history of Judaism. Judaism is not the oldest religion out there.

quote:

---

then even so, their religion could still be man-made

---

But you need to apply that concept to yourself, as well. YOUR religion could still be man-made.

quote:

---

Yet, have you assumed that I think they are wrong completely?

---

When you say things like, "they obviously dismiss/don't know, about the message of Christ," then you leave very little room for interpretation.You can say "while there is a possibility of their religion containing some truth" all you want, but that doesn't jibe with your insistance than Hindus are willful, stubborn, ignorant fools.Until you can comprehend and accept that people who follow other religions are just as devout, just as sure, just as guided in their faith as you claim to be in yours, you will never escape the logical error. Christ has no meaning if Christ is a myth.

quote:

---

Yet, is she/you considering the possibility that rather this could suggest that "God" has answered both the Jew and the Hindu?

---

Logically impossible.Hinduism and Christianity are not identical. Therefore, they cannot be referring the same agency. Therefore, "answered prayer" is not an example of a singular entity functioning through multiple "conceputalizations of the divine."The very nature of the godhood in Hinduism is completely foreign to that of Christianity. They cannot be referring to the same thing.

quote:

---

Rather than saying; "Christ and Allah can't both have answered prayer"...how about considering saying, "God could have heard them both"?

---

Because Jehovah and Christ and Allah are not the same being. Therefore, "God could have heard them both" is logically impossible as that would require them to be the same being.

quote:

---

Am I unreasonable/anti-biblical in suggesting this though?

---

Yes.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If you don't mind, i'd like to add something to what you said here for Mike.If scientists were to accept such a theory as the existence of God or a God, it would still be only a theory based on observable, testable evidence. The moment that another theory that has a better explanation or evidence/observation was found that falsified the ToG (Theory of God), it would be thrown out or changed in some way (ie. think Einstein/Newton). If at some time enough evidence was presented, that a ToG could be proposed, scientists may come to accept it as an explanation for observations but not necessarily THE explanation. I'm sure scientists would still search and test to verify its validity, just as they do the ToE.This is something I don't think many Christians understand. That if their religion was subject to the same rigors as science, and it eventually was accpeted as a valid explanation, it would still ONLY be a theory.

Mike,Hindus believe that God was before them also. They believe their scriptures, the Vedas and Upanishads are divinely inspired, and that God creates the universe only they believe this has been done many times.Many Hindus have little problem recognizing Jesus as an incarnation of God, what they wouldn't do is totally accept the Christian religion if it required them to repudiate their own. At this point my understanding is that you could be a hindu and worship Jesus no problem, but at least some christian's would not accept a hindu who also observed his hindu religion as a christian.Religions do good things and bad. I don't want you claiming I'm hating christians or persecuting you. I am making this statement about all religions inclusive of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, etc etc. All rational evidence supports them being created by humans--yours, theirs, everyones. If religious truth were facts there wouldn't be a need for faith based belief. I don't need to believe as I look out my window that the sun is shining.At this point the name Siva for God appears to predate the tetragrammaton. I learned that in a comparative religions class but I can't at this point cite anything. We were taught that people have worshipped God under the name Siva longer than any other name for God. The Indus valley civilization has very ancient roots.lfen

I myself wouldn't go quite that far. There are differences that particularly from a judeo christain perspective are irreconcilable. However, the Hindu's have a triune aspect to their supreme God Brahman who incarnates as Brahma, Vishun, and Siva. And these aspects of God are believed to have incarnated many times to help people. But it's more foreign than similiar. These similiarities are perhaps coincidence, but there may be something more to it than that. I don't know.lfen

No true scotsman fallacy.Watch the trap.

For an intelligent bloke, how can you make such a mistake. Here's what I said; " while there is a possibility of their religion containing some truth, they obviously dismiss/don't know, about the message of Christ "Not only did I not rule out the possibility of God interacting with people of another religion, I quite CLEARLY made out that they either dismiss, as in - do not believe in Christ, (Tha's all) and/or they haven't heard of him. Again, you've looked far beyond the actual information I provided. All I am suggesting is that they either don't believe and/or haven't heard. I am quite able to see that they may "dismiss" the story as hooey, as I previously said "dimiss".I infact do respect other people's religions. I am positive their faith is real, otherwise - why would I suggest that God would get involved with them? Stop being so cynical, I've shown no dis-respect. No, I'm not misunderstanding. Whoever created this universe,--> that's the bloke I'm talking about. Obviously the creator would pre-date the guy on the rock he made. I don't have any other gods. I said that there may be an interaction of God, and therefore some truth to their religion, or atleast, what compels them to have faith.

Not sure why you aim this at me. But then, there's more than one Mike, maybe it isn't meant for me. If it is, I have no interest in creationism, and therefore do not seek to offer my bible up for scientific interpretation. What made you think I do? Maybe some do. Young earthers, or creationismists. However, I for one have no interest in a scientific evaluation concerning Jesus. So I'm a bit confused my friend.

I feel that not only did I abstain from postages for almost twenty days, (despite recommending ten), that also - I don't actually have the power to stop my posting priveliges, and lock myself out. I do have the power to refrain, but I am not able to do the former. Thanks.

lfen responds to me:

quote:

---

However, the Hindu's have a triune aspect to their supreme God Brahman who incarnates as Brahma, Vishun, and Siva.

---

Don't be disingenuous.That is, you are literally correct that the Hindu concept of the supreme godhood has a tri-partite aspect to it and that the Christian concept has a three-in-one aspect, too.But if you look at what those three parts are, you find that the only thing they share is the fact that there are three. The Christian trinity is of a singular, creative force.The Hindu trinity has a singular creative aspect, a singular destructive aspect, and a balancing intermediary that keeps the system turning.If one were Wiccan, one might call them Weaver, Wyrm, and Wyld.The fact that two system divide a supreme concept into three doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing.

quote:

---

These similiarities are perhaps coincidence

---

Perhaps?Who among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Christian source of destruction? If Shiva correlates to one of the Christian Trinity, then he must map to one of them.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that Hindus are not Christians because they're spiteful? Ignorant?

---

​

For an intelligent bloke, how can you make such a mistake.

---

Because there is no other way to interpret the words you used. If you didn't mean what you directly said, then why did you say it?

quote:

---

Here's what I said; " while there is a possibility of their religion containing some truth, they obviously dismiss/don't know, about the message of Christ "

---

Precisely.If they dismiss it, it's because they are spiteful. If they don't know, then they are ignorant.Are you seriously saying that Hindus are not Christians because they are spiteful? Ignorant?It can't possibly be because they sincerely and with no malice simply think Christianity is a load of hooey?

quote:

---

Not only did I not rule out the possibility of God interacting with people of another religion

---

But you immediately contradicted any sincerity in that statement by implying that those who aren't Christian are simply spiteful or stupid.What do you think "dismiss" and "do not know" mean?Once again, you have fallen into the logical error of believing your own hype. You need to embrace the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong. You need to continually remind yourself that the people who disagree with you are just as sincere as you. You need to work from the position that they have heard everything you think you know that justifies your position and with absolutely no ulterior motive but instead with great thought and deliberation set it aside as invalid.Until you can do that, you are incapable of treating another person's religious conceptualization of the world with any modicum of respect.

quote:

---

All I am suggesting is that they either don't believe and/or haven't heard.

---

Precisely.They're spiteful or stupid.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But my point is that you misunderstand what that creator is. You are stuck in the notion that you can't possibly be wrong. You need to consider the possiblity that maybe, just maybe, somebody else is right.

---

​

No, I'm not misunderstanding. Whoever created this universe,--> that's the bloke I'm talking about.

---

But the bloke you're talking about and the bloke they're talking about cannot be the same bloke.One of you has to be wrong and it just might be you. You have to remember that you might be wrong. You have to come to the table with humility and under the impression that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong, that the person on the other side of the table is just as sincere as you are, knows just as much about your religion as you do, and simply doesn't agree with you.Otherwise, you will be incapable of treating them with respect.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

---

​

I don't have any other gods.

---

But they do.How can you possibly treat them with respect if you don't accept that fact? That they are not spiteful or stupid but simply have other gods?

quote:

---

I said that there may be an interaction of God

---

But you then immediately undermined that claim by declaring them spiteful or stupid.I don't believe you when you say you think they might have encountered the divine. If you really meant that, you wouldn't say the things you say.

quote:

---

and therefore some truth to their religion, or atleast, what compels them to have faith.

---

But it is logically impossible for the being they worship to be the same being as the one your worship.Therefore, if there is only one, then you and they cannot possibly be dealing with the same thing.Therefore, if you are right, they cannot possibly have had contact with the divine.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The above is what your were replying to with this: I was not being disingenuous. I did not go into details partly because I've not the time to find the references to the catholic monk who was in India studying there religion and building bridges between, that is to say he wasn't a simple missionary. It is easier for the Hindu's to accept Jesus or Jehovah than to go the other way. I know that there are individuals who are finding common ground across the gulf of Hinduism and Christianity, so that it is possible to find commonality.I've read opinion that there had been contact between India and early Christians.I still take exception to your claiming its completely foreign. The point I was comparing was the idea that a single source entity could manifest as different aspects and that is a shared conception. The nature of the relationship of godhood to universe and people is different perhaps more different that the nature of the godhood in itself.I was being equivocal because of the complexities and variations of the Hindu religion. Shiva destroys ignorance and in his dance can destroy the universe. Some of the apocalyptic imagery of Christ returning has a Shiva quality. In some variants of Hinduism the trinity may be singulars, but in other forms of Shaivism that is not the case. It's actually much harder for me to characterize Hinduism at that level because unlike the vast majority of Christianity, Hinduism does not insist of literalism. Indeed some of it's greatest figures such as Shankara and Ramana insist ongoing beyond all literal forms of the religion. And I think the greatest difference between Hinduism and exoteric Christianity is on the issue of nondualism vs. dualism.I know christians, heretical maybe but they consider themselves christian, who believe Jesus to have been an awakened teacher like the Buddha. These christians believe that the Godhood taught by Jesus was similiar to that of Brahman.I take exception to the charge of being disingenuous. I think what is emerging is a contrast between lumper and splitter approaches to a subject. I find your "splitter" approach to be a bit extreme and you seem a bit intolerant of my tendencies to "lump". I accept that but it's a genuine difference of approach that is found in many disciplines. To insist on literal distinctions for these concepts is to acknowldge the religious view of the literalist and to deny the non literalist their approach to questions of god.lfen

lfen avoids my question.Let's try it again, shall we? I really want to know. If there is a true inherent connection between the trinity of Christianity and the trinity of Hinduism, then which one of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost corresponds to the destructive force that is the archetype of Shiva?

quote:

---

Some of the apocalyptic imagery of Christ returning has a Shiva quality.

---

Again, you avoid the question and again, you are being disingenuous. You are finding any sort of connection and claiming that the two share a deep, fundamental connection ignoring the fact that the entire context surrounding the singular trait shared in common are completely different.If you use the red crayon and I use the red crayon, that doesn't mean we're painting the same picture.

quote:

---

In some variants of Hinduism the trinity may be singulars

---

I never said they were.The Hindu trinity is even more "aspect of the one" than Christianity. In Christianity, the Son was physically separated from the Father. In Hinduism, Shiva is really no different from Brahma.But you still need to answer my question:Is god, Jesus, or the holy ghost the correlate of Shiva?

quote:

---

I take exception to the charge of being disingenuous.

---

I'm sure you do, but you still haven't responded to my point:You are taking a surface fact, that both Christianity and Hinduism have a tripartate aspect to the godhood, and claiming that this indicates a deep, fundamental similarity.

quote:

---

I think what is emerging is a contrast between lumper and splitter approaches to a subject.

---

Incorrect.Apples and oranges are both fruit. As such, they have quite a lot in common. But an apple is not an orange and it is disingenuous in the extreme to say that the flesh of an apple shares a fundamental identity with the flesh of an orange.This has nothing to do with "lumping" and "splitting." It has to do with accepting reality. The fact that things share traits in common does not mean they are intimately connected. You miss the third option: Things can be connected and yet still separate.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!