Two years ago, September 11 caused us to think a lot about the purpose of our lives...

> Perhaps he's stating their view because he
> agrees.

Perhaps.

> I'm not sure this question has any
> relevance, but it could be possible to
> answer by reviewing the dating of the works.

It had relevance because Thomas' Gospel was viewed (accused) as borrowing from the other Gospels. The implication being that the other Gospels came first and thus are more authoritive.

If it is agreed that Thomas' Gospel came first it means the others are copy cats and Thomas' work is the more authorative.

That is its relevance.

> That statement seems really bold, especially
> coming from someone who often comes down
> hard on others for making unsubstansiated
> claims. Why you would make a statement like
> that without any support?

Because I see no need to get into endless debate pulling things out of the Bible to make my case. Those who are interested can open up the New Testament and discover the differences themselves. Do so by picking one "story" and reading it in each Gospel.

For example. Pick the story of the scene at the Cave, or the Nativity, or whatever. Then read all four versions of that same story one after the other. You will see the differences.

Further. My "unbacked" claim was in response to an unbacked claim. Tit for tat, so to speak.

> I hope the recent "bashing" trend
> on these boards isn't moving on to major
> religions.

Nah - not from me anyway. No-one can win a religion bashing. In the end it degenerates into insults and ends with neither party changing their mind. If anything, each walks away with even firmer resolve to their point of view.

> I assume the Church to which you refer is
> the Catholic church? If so, let me just say
> that I'm not defending them.

> But counterpoint: the non-church folk
> actually have a lot more to lose if the
> Bible is "proved" true. At the
> very least, it could change one's whole
> outlook.

True. You get no arguement from me there. In fact, going by the various religions and their system, if any one of them is true, there are going to be a lot of other people who will be terribly upset.

If Buddhism is really it, then non-Buddhists will die and be reborn for all eternity.

If Judaism is it, then unless you convert or are born into it... tough luck for you.

If Christianity is it, then poor Jews for they would turn out not to be the chosen ones after all.

If Is-lam is it, then all those who are not Moslems (and Al-lah knows), will not like it very much.

And if Jainism is it, then boy, the next 20,000 years or so are not going to be very enjoyable. And as Jainism predicts its system not to last through until then (correct me if I am wrong), then there will be no salvation for anyone.

As for reading the books the "elders" read and know and being wise for "followers" to also read. That is MY take on it. I've read the Bible (and the Mormon one too). And the Quaran. And other authoritive works on various religions as well as works relating to uncover "truths" about those religions. I find the subject (of religion) fascinating. And thus have no prejudice for or against any one particular religion. They all have good points. They all have bad points. Take what you can use and discard the rest.

Michael Ross

I'm really not trying to foster this discussion, so let me make a few more points and then (hopefully) bow out gracefully.

First, let me thank you, Michael, for not taking offense at my last post.

Second, thank you for realizing that each world view really is exclusive -- that is, they cannot all be true. I've met too many people who claim to be "practioners" of multiple religions but, in fact, they really don't know what they believe. I guess they think they are being more tolerant and inclusive -- but I feel that such folk are being deceptive. I would rather just agree to disagree.

Third, the point about the "inconsistencies" of the gospels: Let me just say that I believe that the differences are intentional -- the only author who claims to be giving a historical account is Luke. The others have different theological points that they are trying to emphasize, a point which become clearer when you look at the elements of Christ's life which they stress or ignore. While many people think these differences condemn the gospels, I think they are crucial to fully appreciating them.

Fourth, I don't mean to be telling you folks what to do -- if you want this discussion, have at it. I just offered a warning, based on my experience. Shortly after becoming a Christian I became involved in a discussion along these lines that, sadly, degenerated into a prolonged series of angry e-mail messages. Ever since then, I like to know whether the people I speak with regarding religion have real questions or just an axe to grind.

Best,
--Phil

Phil,

Thank you for making your points even more lucid.

> I'm really not trying to foster this
> discussion, so let me make a few more points
> and then (hopefully) bow out gracefully.

> First, let me thank you, Michael, for not
> taking offense at my last post.

I cannot take offence. Below I explain why.

> Second, thank you for realizing that each
> world view really is exclusive -- that is,
> they cannot all be true. I've met too many
> people who claim to be
> "practioners" of multiple
> religions but, in fact, they really don't
> know what they believe. I guess they think
> they are being more tolerant and inclusive
> -- but I feel that such folk are being
> deceptive. I would rather just agree to
> disagree.

This is a good point. And raises something else I too will make more lucid in my post to Chris' part two post. And that is knowledge of what they believe in... the more intricate workings and history of their chosen religion.

> Third, the point about the
> "inconsistencies" of the gospels:
> Let me just say that I believe that the
> differences are intentional -- the only
> author who claims to be giving a historical
> account is Luke. The others have different
> theological points that they are trying to
> emphasize, a point which become clearer when
> you look at the elements of Christ's life
> which they stress or ignore. While many
> people think these differences condemn the
> gospels, I think they are crucial to fully
> appreciating them.

Again, this is a good point. Rather. A Good explanation of WHY the stories differ. Thank you for sharing it.

> Fourth, I don't mean to be telling you folks
> what to do -- if you want this discussion,
> have at it. I just offered a warning, based
> on my experience. Shortly after becoming a
> Christian I became involved in a discussion
> along these lines that, sadly, degenerated
> into a prolonged series of angry e-mail
> messages. Ever since then, I like to know
> whether the people I speak with regarding
> religion have real questions or just an axe
> to grind.

Funny thing. Religion. People can get very passionate about it. Because it is a part of them.

It's an interesting psychological occurance. Based on what WE individually consider is part and parcel of ourselves.

Religion and Politics. Country. State. City. County. Suburb. Street. Sporting and recreational affiliation. We own some of these things.

If I say, "Everyone in North Dakota is an idiot." People who do not live in North Dakota won't care. Residents of that state will get upset.

If I then say, "People in the USA are idiots." Those who didn't get upset previously, now will be upset. Because I have broadened the range of my insult.

If I expand that to "People in Nrth America are idiots" I now also anger Canadians.

The reverse is also true. People in Such and Such suburb are idiots will not make you bat an eyelid if you live in the suburb next door. But mention your suburb, and you take it personally.

Same goes with streets. Sports teams you follow. Cars you drive. TV shows you watch.

The same with religion.

As I mentioned earlier about Terrorists being labeled as Moslem but never Christian.

While they get called Moslem Terrorits, the Jews and Christians don't think anything of it. On the other hand, the Moslems are trying to get heard that those terrorists are NOT Moslems because their actions go against the religion. Using the same arguement which has been used by some Christians when hit up with questions about the large numbers of deaths in the Crusades... you should not blame a religion for things done in its name.

Anyway. The moment groups like the IRA get labeled Christian Terrorits we will see a HUGE outcry from the Christian community. (Maybe adoption of the Jewish "your anti-sematic" label should also be used by other religions?)

But while it doesn't happen, and while the label is stuck onto another religion instead, those not in the labeled religion don't see it. Just like my "insult" example earlier in this post.

The personalizing of topics is what causes the majority of discussions to quickly deteriorate into name calling and the like. Points about a religion as a whole get taken personally because we consider that religion is a part of us - which it is. (Not counting those with an axe to grind, as you mentioned.)

Now it just so happens that the western world is mainly Christian. And the Arab world Moslem. So we not only end up with Religious differences, there are economic differences and cultural differences too. So what could be the result of cultural or political ideologies is thus easily labeled as a religious difference.

Historically, the MO of the far far left as been violence. Even relatively civil lefties cause riots during the World trade Summit meetings every year.

When those super far left radicals also come from the Middle East, it can appear as Moslem vs the rest of us.

And when Osama says, "Do this and this and this" or the news reports that he "calls on all Moslems to..." That is like you - or any other Christian - calling on all Christians to...

In other words. No authority.

But seeing as he is the figure head of a violent extreme left ideology, he wraps it in Is-lam and the smoke job is complete.

As you hinted at... it is all too easy to call yourself a member of a certain religion, whether you practice that religion or follow its teachings or not.

Anyway. I think you have bowed out gracefully. Unless you want to chime back in again :o)

Michael Ross