The Psychology of Christianity and Atheism

To holmes:Thank you for your reply.I apologise for my extremely late reply. Exam commitments *sigh* Actually, it is not obvious at all.For 1)"ensnare Eve into his plot" to work, you have to first assume that the snake has a plot. The "plot" is not at all obvious from the account.For 2)"being false in not giving complete information" to work, you will have to assume that the snake has complete information. This is not shown in the account.5)the snake didn't actually tell Eve that eating from the Tree of Knowledge would improve her life. She decided that herself. The snake said: "That is not true; you will not die. God said that because he knows that when you eat it, you will be like God and know what is good and what is bad." - all of these details are void of value judgments and predominantly neutral. Errrr....no. Your claim of inaccuracy would only stand if you can show that the snake knows beforehand that what it has described is not the complete picture. Given that the snake was punished in the end, your claim that the snake knew all the consequences and yet chose to masochistically punish itself would be somewhat unjustified.The information presented seemed inaccurate to you only because you knew the outcome. You have inadvertantly attributed this onto the snake, which has not demonstrated this prior absolute and complete knowledge in the bible. Nope. God said: "You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day.". Where's the anger? How does the snake know? How would the snake know? Where did the snake tell you it knew?Eve's warning was: "God told us not to eat the fruit of that tree or even touch it; if we do, we will die.". Again, no anger. If I were to read this for the first time, I would have thought that the fruit was poisonous, the way Eve and God made it sound.Nowhere in the bible prior to Man's Fall did punishment and anger come into play (for obvious reasons - no sin). So how the snake could have obtained the knowledge that you have claimed is beyond me. To change your proposed edit into a less biased version, I propose changing the parts in bold to:1) "Can't you wear clothes?"
2) "But my wife told me I will die if I wear them."
3) "I know you will not die if you wear clothes. Clothes make you warm, like everyone else who's wearing clothes."
4) "The snake told him he wouldn't die from wearing clothes, and so he did it." Yes, that is what I am implying. Just as God lied to Eve about the fruit, so too did Eve lie about her choice. From the bible, Eve was not deceived and she was merely saying it to shift blame. As written, Eve said she was deceived by the snake. As written, did the snake really deceive Eve?Well, that's the way I'm reading it. Why can't she be lying? God lied, didn't He? Errrr....no. Consider a king: The king lied to a subject. The prince revealled the truth to the subject. The king punishes both the prince and the subject. Was the prince punished for trickery? In this case, can the prince reveal the truth without knowing that the king would get mad at him for letting the cat out of the bag?It seems that you are extremely certain about your interpretation of the account, and that you, as a free thinker, are also prone to accepting new ideas. How about you read Genesis again with a tabula rasa mind set and see if the deception is as set in concrete as Christians would have you believe.After my exams next week, I'll have to think long and hard about taking another philosophical position. For the time being, why don't we hold off this debate and let the ideas sink in first?Pleasant debating with you.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

It has not been my position that there is a "true inherent connection" or "a deep, fundamental similarity." So why are you attributing these propositions to me. What about my reply implies a position of deep fundamental similarity, or inherent connection? I stated that I would be unwilling to go quite as far as you are going. Your charge of dis ingenuousness means what? I'm lying and really do go as far as you do, but for some reason choose to pretend that I don't? Is it inconceivable to you that anyone could honestly disagree with your position and so must be lying if they say they do?I'm not going to try to discuss something with you when you change my
position and ask me to defend a position of your creation not mine.I gave you an answer to your question. You don't have to accept it, you don't have to find it acceptable.
If you wish to argue against "fundamental similiarities, and inherent connection" between Hinduism and Christianity you will have to find someone other than myself to do it with as those are not and never were my positions and I have no interest in defending them. Nor in discussing something with someone who keeps putting words into my mouth. As you keep attributing statements to me I never made, there is no need for further input from me, you are doing fine by yourself.lfen

I am pretty tired of you suggesting that I read it sans Xian interpretation. I have already said that I have done so. I have read it using many different interpretations.I am telling you that while one can read the account as you have suggested, it is not the LITERAL account, and certainly not the obvious one. That has got to be the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. Have you never heard of, or been the victim of, a scam? That's exactly how it works.Or maybe I should put it another way... If you believe that, there is this property down in florida with an ocean view you could buy.That is equally value neutral, but that does not mean you are not about to get fleeced. I have already given the reasons why it may have chosen to do this. If you wish to ignore my answers in order to repeat your criticisms, I'm not gonna keep playing. I will point out once again that the first description of the snake was that it was clever. This is not exactly a glowing, positive endorsement of its character, but at the same time suggests it is intelligent.PERHAPS it did not know the definitive outcome, I have even admitted the literal translation may be consistently read that S couldn't be sure exactly what would happen. But that does not change the fact that S knew that God told her not to do so.If S was up on the fact that God told A&E not to eat the fruit, yet exaggerated the threat it posed, AND the snake was CLEVER, wouldn't it's coming out of nowhere to tell Eve God wasn't accurate be a little less than honest? Wouldn't this CLEVER serpent understand that God would not be happy with them eating the fruit? Okay, I meant God's potential anger. Let's say this... the snake knew that God laid out a false warning to prevent them from eating the fruit. That would indicate at the very least that God would not exactly be pleased to find them munching on that fruit, right? I'll accept 1,2, and 4 (though I have reservations about 2).I cannot accept three as no one else has eaten from the tree, or at least Eve has not seen anyone eating from it. So you can stick with just, they make you warm.But then to make it still more accurate, you have to have the clothes be a suit she had made and put in the room with the man at some point and said "you can wear all the other clothes, BUT NOT THAT SUIT. Or you will die."And then when introducing the snake he is introduced as being a clever creature.And of course when she cuts off his balls and kicks the snake, she explains that she is hurting the snake for what he has done.That would about make the analogy fit. Nowhere does it say explicitly that God lied. As I have mentioned, one interpretation is that his warning was fulfilled. Before they ate of the fruit they had had access to the tree of life. That meant that they had had immortality.In the "day" (I can't remember now if the Hebrew word was literal or general day) that they ate it (or at least were found out) God blocked them from ever eating that fruit and so making them dead. Before they were incaable of dying, then they were GOING to die.But let us move beyond that to the more appropriate point. You keep asking me to stick to the literal text and then remove yourself from that requirement.For example because the story does not say the snake was being deceptive he must not have been, yet when eve says she was decieved she must be lying despite the fact that the story never says she was AND the fact that God said he was punishing the snake for the deed she said it commited.You have got to get consistent.Given the setup, and the story, AS WRITTEN, it is much easier to assume S was being deceptive, than that E was lying. Neither are stated explicitly, but the latter takes a LOT MORE assumption. Yes, as written, the snake really did deceive Eve. Your analogies keep revealing your hidden bias. The king lied to a subject WHY? To stop him from doing something. And it was not a prince, it was a CLEVER SERPENT, that told the subject that the king lied about the consequence. Now WHY would the CLEVER SERPENT do that to the king?He obviously understood, despite the king not being accurate, that the kind would not want the subject doing what he was warned not to do. Right? I am, I have, and there is no question that as a piece of literature it reads as the CLEVER serpent DECEIVED Eve into eating from a tree she was WARNED not to touch.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

He would be your God, your own personal God, not his.
This is also doesn't mean your going to hell.

In fifty years, have you ever repented?
Only you and God would know if you truely did.

You were created for his glroy. You get to share in that glroy, IOW its great to be alive. Of course not, that is why you are free to choose. Its by God's grace that you can.
Doesn't mean your going to hell either.

Well, of course, since this God thing is a myth, it couldn't know if I repented or not. Heck, I didn't even PENT yet, so I could I repent?

You know.. being created for glory (I assume that is what you meant), makes that concept of god to be a rather shallow narcisitic enity.Surely an entity that was so powerful as to create the universe would be above such petty emotional needs.

Awesome, do you also not read instruction manuals when you buy stuff?

And you do stuff that makes you sad, because thats what you need.

Trying to be like Jesus, is IMO not wasting your life.Mis-interpeting what Jesus wants us to be, and claiming you are Christian, is a mis-guided life IMO.All athiests are condemmed to hell, is not our call. I think Jesus even said himself that people you think won't get into heaven, will, and people you think will get into heaven won't.I do not feel any pressure in myself to be one or the other. I feel God gave us the free will, for us to choose between right and wrong. The only pressure I feel is to act right towards other people.

I doubt that. Consider Matthew 25 31:46

quote:

---

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

---

Where in that does it say anything about the persons belief system? I absolutely agree. IMHO many an atheist will get into heaven before many a Christian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you mis-understood me, I will re-word it, because the verses you showed us cleary supports what I'm saying. Unless I am not understanding what your trying to say.I am saying just because you are an athiest, doesn't mean you are condemmed to hell.Those verses you showed, show Jesus letting people into heaven who took care of others. If you take care of others, yout ake care of Jesus, and that is what is important. In a way you accept Jesus by doing that whether you accept him by name or not.

I'm still kinda new at this posting business, so bear with me. Sme of the comments here kind of intrigued me, (btw, i haven't read the whole 18, or some odd pages in the forum, i just picked up here )
especially ramoss's comment about. " Surely an entity that was so powerful as to create the universe would be above such petty
emotional needs."I would think our emotions, are more than petty. They are essentially what drives us, apart from instinct. Though, you have somewhat of a point, our emotional needs are petty, and that is why in a true christian life, there is so much more to it than emotion, there is commitment. But god, being as good as he is, has chosen to give us the one thing that would satisfy (and then some) our emotional needs, he has chosen to be with us, and be one with us.
Which leads me to the crux of christianity, LOVE. Love between the father and the son, a person and his neighbor, etc, etc. This love is made perfect when we decide to share it w/ god... but whoa, im getting way off topic here.The other thing that bothered me was atheists going to heaven. It is an extremely cruel and depressing point of my faith, one that i have challenged, one that made it so hard to except Jesus. If you don't believe in jesus, and that he is the savior, etc, etc, then you arent going to heaven. John 3:16-21.Here is the love i was talking about (and getting carried away with) earlier. The commitment you make to Jesusis a testament of love.Thats why it bothered me when jar and riverat agreed tha many an atheist will get into heaven before many a christian. True, if we look deeper into it, we can argue that some and maybe many christians are blinded by foreign doctrines, and will not get into heaven, but an atheist by definition, does not believe a god exists, so how can you get into a heaven in which the one requirement is that you believe that Jesus is the savior sent by God (and in turn is God himself)?as far as i'm concerned a true atheist will never go to heaven, but a true christian will always. But it is the heart that maters, and i think that may have been riverats, and jar's point. What people may title you as is immaterial. But professing your faith, more than just believing is essential as well.those are two things that caught my eye, this debate is extremely interesting, more to my taste than previous debates i got into (science, etc.), please share your thoughts with me.

It certainly wasn't my point. I am firmly convinced that many an atheist will get to heaven when many a Christian will not.John and Matthew are 180^o out. If one is true, the other is false. That's not surprising. John was much later than Matthew and was revisionist in nature. It was written to support the early anti-semtic influence as the Christian church broke away from then Jewish faith.How could the person we know as Jesus even worry about what people thought of him, of whether or not they believed in him. That's the action of some bling-bling pimp-daddy hawking dreams on a dark corner, not the GOD that created the universe._{edited because I still can't spell worth a damn.}This message has been edited by jar, 09-09-2004 12:18 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion