Looking For A Smart Atheist

[Jeremiah Ames]

So, uh . . . as it turns out, I'm looking for a smart open minded atheist to devote . . . probably a few minutes a day, to a consideration - a test of sorts - of the Bible.

Difficult. Very difficult. Because what I mean by open minded is that the atheist has to be able to see the Bible without their preconceived notions. As a part of this team of Biblical examiners I would have to do the same.

Can it be done?

A Christian cannot see the Bible without preconceived notions.
Most Christians start going to church long long before they look at the Bible. Some may never open a Bible.

What kind of preconceived notions are floating around in their heads, as a result of their religious indoctrination?

Religion is the biggest deterrent to an understanding of the Bible, imo. Find me an open minded Christian first, please.

Let’s review Matthew 7:5

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye

I only say the above because you imply that it would be ‘difficult, very difficult’ for an atheist to be open minded.

 

[Earthling]

i could be considered a christian atheist. i don't believe in a god, or gods, unlike yourself.

Okay, but I'm not so sure you're smart enough. In the right way. I've read many of your posts and they read like bumper stickers for a spiritual retreat center to me. You could be smart or as dumb as a post, it's difficult to say. With your sort of space age approach to apostasy I don't think it would matter much if you were Einstein, we would never get anywhere.

 

[Earthling]

Dani'el is very old.. its a poem from coastal Syria about 1500 BC.. too good a story not to be incorporated into the OT..

Both Daniel and Isaiah prophesied Vaticinium ex eventu ..

Why are you Christian, if I may be so bold as to inquire?

 

[sooda]

You're sure about that?

First of all, that they "knew" that you haven't established very well, secondly, just because something is teaching or instructional doesn't mean it isn't true.



So?



Truth.



I'm talking about the prophecy that said this many years from Cyrus' decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah (baptism) would be 483 years.


Maimonides was born in Córdoba, Spain, in 1135. Are we not talking about the same person?

Yes, Aristotle lived in the 4th century BC.

They wrote about Cyrus after he restored the Jews to Jerusalem.. that's why its call prophecy Vaticinium ex eventu ..

 

[Fool]

Okay, but I'm not so sure you're smart enough. In the right way. I've read many of your posts and they read like bumper stickers for a spiritual retreat center to me. You could be smart or as dumb as a post, it's difficult to say. With your sort of space age approach to apostasy I don't think it would matter much if you were Einstein, we would never get anywhere.

idolatry is apostasy.

its why you believe in god and do not know god, or have any experience of god, or for that matter your idol.

 

[Earthling]

idolatry is apostasy.

its why you believe and do not know god.

Even if this is true what would it matter? I'm a Bible believer not a Christian. I burn Bible when they wear out. I have no idol.

 

[sooda]

Why are you Christian, if I may be so bold as to inquire?

I am Christian by heritage and training.. and because I think Jesus was very special and enlightened... a holy man.

I don't believe in the supernatural.

 

[Fool]

Even if this is true what would it matter? I'm a Bible believer not a Christian. I burn Bible when they wear out. I have no idol.

jesus is your idol. a begotten, created thing. he's the blinders.

i burn bibles too; when they become worn out.

i've read the bible more times than any other book, using at a minimum 4 translations, studying both strong's concordance, reading commentaries from various jewish and christian scholars.

i was raised baptist/holiness. i left behind the ignorance(sin) for understanding. you can lead a person to their mind but you can't make them think.

i've also attempted to study many other systems of beliefs but am not as proficient in them as i am in "your" preferred lack of knowledge and belief..

 

[Quintessence]

Well, as a non-Abrahamic, I'm functionally an atheist when it comes to the Abrahamic god and their holy books. Like Polymath, I also reject the concept of the supernatural (albeit for very different reasons, I suspect, and with a theistic endpoint given gods need not be supernatural). Does that mean I count?

 

[Earthling]

jesus is your idol. a begotten, created thing. he's the blinders.

i burn bibles too; when they become worn out.

i've read the bible more times than any other book, using at a minimum 4 translations, studying both strong's concordance, reading commentaries from various jewish and christian scholars.

i was raised baptist/holiness. i left behind the ignorance(sin) for understanding. you can lead a person to their mind but you can't make them think.

i've also attempted to study many other systems of beliefs but am not as proficient in them as i am in "your" preferred lack of knowledge and belief..

There! You see? That wasn't too difficult was it? Something more substantial - more capable of debating than some vague bumper sticker, some spiritual retreat center slogan, don't you think?

A thing is not necessarily an idol. I didn't suggest Jesus or the Bible was my or for that matter, your idol. In fact, idolatry didn't even enter my mind. . . .

In that other thread.

 

[Earthling]

I am Christian by heritage and training.. and because I think Jesus was very special and enlightened... a holy man.

I don't believe in the supernatural.

Hmm. What was so special about Jesus as a holy man? He pretty much said the same thing as many before him.

 

[Fool]

There! You see? That wasn't too difficult was it? Something more substantial - more capable of debating than some vague bumper sticker, some spiritual retreat center slogan, don't you think?

you claim to want an open mind but then you reject open mindedness and focus on the poster.

A thing is not necessarily an idol. I didn't suggest Jesus or the Bible was my or for that matter, your idol. In fact, idolatry didn't even enter my mind. . . .

you've already expressed your jesus idolization. jesus wasn't and isn't necessary for 'el to be.

 

[Earthling]

Both seem to say that souls *can* die (if they are destroyed by God), but I don't see where it says they *must* die. My understanding of the term 'immortal' would not be that death is impossible, but rather that it isn't the typical order of things. Many mythologies have the death of otherwise immortal beings.

Let's say, by immortal I mean capable of being destroyed. That's a good point about mythological immortal beings, though.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's say, by immortal I mean capable of being destroyed. That's a good point about mythological immortal beings, though.

Just to be sure: you mean *incapable* of being destroyed? So an immortal being couldn't ever be destroyed?

 

[Earthling]

you claim to want an open mind but then you reject open mindedness and focus on the poster.

How so? Are you reacting emotionally to some criticism I gave in another thread? That thread was indicative of a style which you are consistent at.

If, I, for example, say something like, ahem . . . "The superfluous floats from the inner mind of the surface network, to the universe and back to the spiritual mind's eye of the temporal. And it whispers God." That's bull****. It has nothing to do with God. In fact it has nothing to do with anything.

Now, I can write it over and over and I can expand upon it, just adding more meaningless words in a vague sense, blah, blah, blah . . . doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with anything and is therefore, perhaps conveniently enough, un-debatable.

you've already expressed your jesus idolization. jesus wasn't and isn't necessary for 'el to be.

No I haven't, you have suggested it. El is just a Semitic term for 'god.'

 

[Earthling]

Just to be sure: you mean *incapable* of being destroyed? So an immortal being couldn't ever be destroyed?

Yes. The question was intended to establish whether or not the soul can be destroyed or is it a part of someone that goes on after one's death, to be tortured forever in hell, for example. There's a difference between what the Bible clearly says and what theology says.

It doesn't matter, ultimately, I suppose, until we would have explored what the soul was.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That doesn't help me with which ones might be willing to commit to such an endeavor.

I certainly couldn't commit to anything like this, as you have already demonstrated your own inability to look past your own biases a couple of times by post #10.

 

[Fool]

How so? Are you reacting emotionally to some criticism I gave in another thread?

emotion isn't needed for discussion. you made a statements about posters. what relevance does that have to do any of the subject matter?

the subject matter isn't about the poster. it's about the idea being conveyed, or queried.

That thread was indicative of a style which you are consistent at.

If, I, for example, say something like, ahem . . . "The superfluous floats from the inner mind of the surface network, to the universe and back to the spiritual mind's eye of the temporal. And it whispers God." That's bull****. It has nothing to do with God. In fact it has nothing to do with anything.

as explained to you the idea was incorporated from the corpus hermeticum. nothing emotional about that.

No I haven't, you have suggested it. El is just a Semitic term for 'god.'

'el is a semitic word for one and only one god, elohim is it's plural noun for god, or gods.

 

[Earthling]

I certainly couldn't commit to anything like this, as you have already demonstrated your own inability to look past your own biases a couple of times by post #10.

Well, it would kind of be your job to point those out. So . . .

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. The question was intended to establish whether or not the soul can be destroyed or is it a part of someone that goes on after one's death, to be tortured forever in hell, for example. There's a difference between what the Bible clearly says and what theology says.

It doesn't matter, ultimately, I suppose, until we would have explored what the soul was.

Well, it seems to me that the difference in definition of 'immortal' may be one of the reasons distinguishing your viewpoint from what 'theology' says. Maybe God has the *option* of destroying souls, but doens't in most cases. that would at least be an interpretation that is consistent with the verses you gave.

/E: This would also be consistent with the assumed omnipotence of God: not being able to destroy souls would seem to be a limitation on the power of the deity.