The Psychology of Christianity and Atheism

Was there a point or question in any of that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

sorry, i'm late, i dont get many opportunities to reply, or post.I cannot agree with your assertion that matehw and john are at odds, perhaps at face value they seem that way but deeper reading will show that those two, and all the gospels really accentuate each other, written to four audiences, by four authors, four perspectives, and four themes.The word of god is innerant, part of being a christian is believing that, i think we really have a big fallout here, , The Bible is inerrant.

sorry, i probably didn't understand, the way you phrase it, i just keep thinking that you are saying that the bible is unimportant and wrong, and so its better not to read it at all... that what i thought you meant, sorry, could you please rephrase? sorry, i'm not the sharpest tool in the shed

sorry, i probably didn't understand, the way you phrase it, i just keep thinking that you are saying that the bible is unimportant and wrong, and so its better not to read it at all... that what i thought you meant, could you please rephrase? sorry, i'm not the sharpest tool in the shed

Actually, Matthew, Luke and Mark tell one story. John touts the company handbook and by then, that is exactly what it was, a handbook. The author of John was trying to build the franchise and much of what is in John is about as unChristian as any writings can be.If you read John, then read Matthew, Luke, Mark, and particularly the Gospel of Thomas, you will see the difference. John very definitely is totally incompatible with most of the message of Jesus.But being a Christian has very little to do with the Bible. And it certainly can't be taken literally. In fact, there wasn't anything that we would recognize as a Bible for the first three centuries of Christianity and even today, there is no one Cannon common throughout Christianity. The message of Jesus is wonderful and awesome, but the Bible is neither a history book or science text.Jesus said that there are two commandments. Matthew tells us how to love GOD.It really is as simple as that.wish I could spell.

​

This message has been edited by jar, 09-11-2004 10:37 PM

​

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course, you are assuming that salvation exists at all.

Of course, that is the claim of the people who wrote it.A claim doesn't make it true.

You won't know until you actually take some time out to read it.You know, you just come in here and start making all these claims when it is obvious that don't understand the bible and its meaning. Your attacks will be short lived, and you are bordering on breaking forum guidlines.You must back up all your claims with evidence and/or links. We are here for inteeligent disscusion, not to attack people or their belief's. It's called respect.So I have asked you now for the second time, prove it.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 09-12-2004 06:42 AM

quote:

---

I cannot agree with your assertion that matehw and john are at odds, perhaps at face value they seem that way but deeper reading will show that those two, and all the gospels really accentuate each other, written to four audiences, by four authors, four perspectives, and four themes.

---

In the crucifiction story in John, Jesus is dead before Passover, but in the other three Gospels, the Last Supper is a Passover meal.Most Biblical scholars believe that John, which was written much later than the other gospels, is so different from the others because it was very clear by this point that Jesus wasn't actually coming back within any of their lifetimes to lead a military conquest, even though this was plainly promised by Jesus in the other gospels.So, the crucifiction story was framed differently to move Jesus into the symbolic role of the Passover sacrifice, and the "conquest" he promised changed from a literal military one to a spiritual conquest over evil and sin.Now, you talk about "face value" and "deeper" reading of the Gosples, which to me means that you might accept the context in which the Bible was written.However, you then write the following:

quote:

---

The word of god is innerant, part of being a christian is believing that, i think we really have a big fallout here, The Bible is inerrant.

---

There are many, many Christians who do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. In fact, it is only a very small minority of Christians which think the Bible is inerrant.The reason most Christians in the world do not believe that the Bible is inerrant is for two reasons:1) It was written by and translated many, many times by errant and politically motivated men, and2) A literal reading of the Bible contradicts reality, as well as being self-contradictory.

quote:

---

= Read Romans 2:12-16

---

Yeah, Paul really was a very mean, negative guy, wasn't he?So, you didn't really answer my question.Do you believe that your God will damn to hell anyone who never even had the opportunity to hear about Jesus, including all of the millions of people who came before Jesus was even born?

lfen responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

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.

---

Then what on earth was your point? If you weren't trying to say that all religious traditions have a connection to the divine that actually and truly exists, what on earth was the point of what you were saying?

quote:

---

Your charge of dis ingenuousness means what?

---

That you are engaging in logical fallacies to promote a feel-good reaction.In other words, it's all nice and "can't we all just get along" and "everybody has something right" when the fact of the matter is that some religious traditions are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right.And to latch onto a surface fact between two traditions and use that as a claim that they are both tapping into something real is disingenuous at best.As you directly stated: No, there is nothing more to it than that. The "trinity" aspect of the two religions is nothing more than a coincidence as any serious examination of the two religions would indicate.

quote:

---

I gave you an answer to your question.

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

---

Again, disingenuous at best. You cannot look at the surface. You must look deeper.What is the point of Revelation? And how does this relate to the karmic cycle? You can't take the shared concept of "destruction" and claim that the two are referring to the same thing.Just because two people both happen to be 5'11" doesn't mean they're twins.

quote:

---

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

---

Strange...that isn't what you said before: What was the point of this statement if not to imply that there might be an inherent connection between the two? If there is no inherent connection, then the similarity is simply coincidental. They're either connected or they're not.Which is it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

to your question, no, thats what the verse reads.

im not familiar with the gospel of thomas... what exactly is it?

isnt that kind of dangerous?If you rule out a book or two here, then where do we draw the line? How can we say that the few books you may deem as good, are good? How can we know the real message of Jesus, if we're picking and choosing which books we should believe?

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of the saying of Jesus. It's been attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas (doubting thomas) who may have been the twin brother of Jesus. It seems to be been one of the earliest writings, likely pre-dating Matthew, Mark and Luke. It may even be a component or perhaps all of Q.It is generally thought to be gnostic in style if not origin and meant to be, like revelations, a secret writing.It's interesting because it is free of narative and almost Confucius like in that it is simply a collection of saying, and they are cryptic, often almost playful, childlike in nature. You can read the Gospel of Thomas here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion