All Atheist Are Fools...

[essgeeskee]

Not sure if this has been brought up here, but what does anyone make of these 2 Bible verses?

As stated in Psalms 14:1, all Atheist are fools:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Matthew 5:22 states:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

So one verse says that Atheist are fools and another verse says that if a someone calls another person a fool, they are in danger of going to hell.

I pointed this out to a Christian who was referring to Atheist as fools in a debate and his response after seeing what Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 5:22 was like, "...and? So what!"

When I used to consider myself to be a Christian, I wonder if I would have put the blinders on just as the guy previously mentioned did, or would I have seen the contradiction right away.

I'm puzzled as to how I could have ever believed any of this stuff!

[William]

As stated in Psalms 14:1, all Atheist are fools:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Well then here is a MEGA fool in that case - Professor Fred Hollows (and his foundation since his passing) have cured thousands of blind people in the name of secular goodness instead of to the eternal glory of 'RLard'.   How abominable!?    What a wasted opportunity!? 

Matthew 5:22 states:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The bit that says "without a cause" is the perfect escape clause 
 

I'm puzzled as to how I could have ever believed any of this stuff!

You're forgiven brother, absolved of all previous God-given stupidity - me too 

[Nick]

Another way to cover your ass when the validity of a Sky Daddy is brought up.

[KingofBashan]

Psalms 14:1, etc...
Matthew 5:22, etc...

I'm puzzled as to how I could have ever believed any of this stuff!

Here is the Matthew 5 quote in full context (you are probably familiar with it):

Do not think I came to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it...

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

First notice Jesus is making a statement about the Jewish law.
Second notice he addresses one law, the 6th commandment, You shall not murder.
Third notice the quote has words not in the original old testament text, Whoever murders will be liable to judgment.

Taken together, we can conclude Jesus is clarifying some rabbinic misunderstanding about the law. Jesus has not come to abolish it, but to fulfill it, ie, to uphold it in its correct interpretation (and to obey it). In this case, the Jews had only partially understood the command. Jesus now upholds its full meaning. Not only is murder an outward act of physically taking a life. Murder can be an inward act of malice. Anger and hate (here expressed as a verbal attack on another human being, as in, "you fool!") violates God's law as much as a knife attack.

Psalm 14 is not a verbal attack from a heart of malice. It is an observation intended to express truth - and as the old saying goes, sometimes the truth hurts. The psalmist is not tearing down, but stating the obvious with the intention of possibly making an atheist reconsider their poor and gravely misinformed assessment of reality.

[Astreja]

The psalmist is not tearing down, but stating the obvious with the intention of possibly making an atheist reconsider their poor and gravely misinformed assessment of reality.

So inform us, KoB.  Pray for your god to materialize in My study so that I can meet it personally.  I am no longer taking any representations from human middlemen, books, or tricks of the imagination and will only be satisfied with a personal physical encounter.  Until that happens, My reality clearly says "Nope, no evidence of Biblegod here."

[essgeeskee]

Do not think I came to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it...

In my opinion, your quote above is another contradiction; Matthew 5:17

I always hear Christians point out that many of the horrific events people hear of in the old testament no longer apply because Jesus brought forth a new law. By Jesus supposedly stating that he came to fulfill the old law as shown above in Matthew 5:17, it seems to me that Jesus would probably identify himself with fundamental Christians as opposed to moderate Christians.

I've also heard that many biblical scholars question the validity of the book of Matthew anyway because it appears to have been copied directly from the book of Mark. The host Matt from the Atheist Experience did a really good video on this. He actually read the liner notes on the book of Matthew right from the NIV Bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLUF1leMF0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[KingofBashan]

I've also heard that many biblical scholars question the validity of the book of Matthew anyway because it appears to have been copied directly from the book of Mark. The host Matt from the Atheist Experience did a really good video on this. He actually read the liner notes on the book of Matthew right from the NIV Bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLUF1leMF0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Interesting video. It is frustrating to see how disparaging the NIV has become to the orthodox faith.

If you are interested in a Christian's perspective on skepticism and textual variants I would recommend this link:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=630131930293

This a single lesson in a greater series:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=gbcnet&keyword=2013+GCCM&keyworddesc=2013+GCCM

If you are interested in a counter perspective to the Mark theory and the legitimacy of Matthew, you may be interested in this:
http://grbcav.org/2011/11/dating-the-gospel-of-matthew-in-relation-to-the-other-synoptics/

[KingofBashan]

  I am no longer taking any representations from human middlemen, books, or tricks of the imagination and will only be satisfied with a personal physical encounter.  Until that happens, My reality clearly says "Nope, no evidence of Biblegod here."

Here is a train of thought to chew on. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts if you consider the following.

If there is a god (I'm speaking generically, any divine being), do you think he would be approachable? By definition isn't the concept of divinity a being with such properties as transcendence, absolute actuality, immutability, etc?

By definition of divinity, you cannot have a physical encounter with God. Any encounter would be, by necessity, mediated.  How can the creature approach the creator? But the creator can utilize the created to express itself, ie via mediation.

[William]

By definition of divinity, you cannot have a physical encounter with God. Any encounter would be, by necessity, mediated. 

Wrong.

Yahweh told Noah to build an Ark.
Yahweh spoke directly to Moses - a lot.
Jephthah conversed directly with God about battle tactics to kill God's enemies.

Jesus, while flying around like Superman, appeared to a bunch of people, after He pulled off His resurrection stunt.

Allah spoke to Mohammed - a lot.

Ganesha resides in the first chakra - at the base of your spine.

[mrbiscoop]

  I am no longer taking any representations from human middlemen, books, or tricks of the imagination and will only be satisfied with a personal physical encounter.  Until that happens, My reality clearly says "Nope, no evidence of Biblegod here."

Here is a train of thought to chew on. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts if you consider the following.

If there is a god (I'm speaking generically, any divine being), do you think he would be approachable? By definition isn't the concept of divinity a being with such properties as transcendence, absolute actuality, immutability, etc?

By definition of divinity, you cannot have a physical encounter with God. Any encounter would be, by necessity, mediated.  How can the creature approach the creator? But the creator can utilize the created to express itself, ie via mediation.

  Doesn't sound very omnipotent to me.

[shnozzola]

King,
        If there is a divine being, it may indeed be an exact, definable thing, that never changes.  It may never be approachable, and it may have indeed created everything in the universe.

   It may also be an undefinable changing thing that can be as approachable or unapproachable as it wants.  There are as many definitions for this thing as there are people.

   I don't care.  I am not so much interested in which human beings on the third planet in our solar system are right.  I am interested in stopping the horrible things the closed-minded religious do, being absolutely convinced their views are correct.  I am interested in having people think about things and realize their views may be mistaken, and to respect the views of others.  My agnostic atheist views may be wrong, I have no way to know for certain - but that's not what is important - what is important is how I treat the Muslims and Christians and Buddhists and witches and Sikhs and Jews and the atheists, and the flying spaghetti monster worshipers, etc.  What is important is how we all treat each other.  Historically a convinced belief in a deity gets in the way of that.  I wish it wasn't true.

[nogodsforme]

  I am no longer taking any representations from human middlemen, books, or tricks of the imagination and will only be satisfied with a personal physical encounter.  Until that happens, My reality clearly says "Nope, no evidence of Biblegod here."

Here is a train of thought to chew on. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts if you consider the following.

If there is a god (I'm speaking generically, any divine being), do you think he would be approachable? By definition isn't the concept of divinity a being with such properties as transcendence, absolute actuality, immutability, etc?

By definition of divinity, you cannot have a physical encounter with God. Any encounter would be, by necessity, mediated.  How can the creature approach the creator? But the creator can utilize the created to express itself, ie via mediation.

Here are my thoughts on that;

I have lived with polytheistic animists in Africa and Latin America. These people (except the ones converted by Mormon, JW or evangelical missionaries) do have actual physical encounters with their gods. Even the Catholic-influenced people do. They believe that the gods interact with humans all the time. They don't have to rely on stuff written down thousands of years ago. They have real contacts with their dieties every day.  The gods talk to them, appear to them, give them advice, give people magic powers, possess their bodies, leave magic signs, protect people and curse their enemies, punish wickedness.  Just like the gods in pretty much every ancient sacred text, including the bible.

I told them that the gods in the US are not that active and don't generally do all those things. They have to be "mediated" as you put it. The wise old people I talked to nodded with understanding. They said, "That is because your religions are 'cold'. Our religions are 'hot'." They explained that 'cold religions' are dead religions with dead gods that only exist in stories in books. 'Hot religions' have living gods that are like real people.

The OT clearly describes a 'hot' religion. The Catholic faith is still pretty 'hot' as far as traditional people in third world countries are concerned-- Santeria, Vodun, etc. Modern Protestant Christianity, however, has cooled off.

How is it that modern monotheistic religions, although dead and 'cold', still manage to convince people that they are real?

[Graybeard]

Not sure if this has been brought up here, but what does anyone make of these 2 Bible verses?

As stated in Psalms 14:1, all Atheist are fools:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Matthew 5:22 states:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

To deny God is the second worst thing you can do.

I have highlighted the relevant words.

I'm puzzled as to how I could have ever believed any of this stuff!

You will see that the Bible is the template for all repressive regimes. You are required to obey without question and yet it is unclear as to what you should obey.

God Himself says that regardless of what you do on earth, you are at His Mercy on Judgment Day.

Psalms 14:1 dismisses anyone who disagrees, or thinks for themselves as an idiot.
Matthew 5:22 attempts to stop people quarrelling.

They are not related.

[Astreja]

Here is a train of thought to chew on. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts if you consider the following.

If there is a god (I'm speaking generically, any divine being), do you think he would be approachable? By definition isn't the concept of divinity a being with such properties as transcendence, absolute actuality, immutability, etc?

I don't think that divinity has to be defined that way.  There are many examples of approachable gods in world mythology.  The Greek pantheon in particular is notable for many interactions with humans, and even the god of the Old Testament had direct communication with Adam & Eve and with Moses.  I tend to think that yes, a god (or at very least, an avatar representing some aspects of a god)  can be approachable.

By definition of divinity, you cannot have a physical encounter with God. Any encounter would be, by necessity, mediated.  How can the creature approach the creator? But the creator can utilize the created to express itself, ie via mediation.

Interesting hypothesis, but what enables a mediator to have divine contact?  What qualities does it possess that are off-limits to regular humans?

[SkyWriting]

Not sure if this has been brought up here, but what does anyone make of these 2 Bible verses?

As stated in Psalms 14:1, all Atheist are fools:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Matthew 5:22 states:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

So one verse says that Atheist are fools and another verse says that if a someone calls another person a fool, they are in danger of going to hell.

I pointed this out to a Christian who was referring to Atheist as fools in a debate and his response after seeing what Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 5:22 was like, "...and? So what!"

When I used to consider myself to be a Christian, I wonder if I would have put the blinders on just as the guy previously mentioned did, or would I have seen the contradiction right away.

I'm puzzled as to how I could have ever believed any of this stuff!

It's not obvious, but the first is actually referring to all of mankind.  Other passages back up the idea that all are sinners.   Given that we are all fools, it is very bad to call others a fool, implying that the first passage is wrong and that we are better then "them".

[One Above All]

<snip>
implying that the first passage is wrong
<snip>

Did you just say the Bible is wrong?

[Azdgari]

No.  He said that in the situation he's describing, someone else would be calling the passage wrong.

[neopagan]

FWIW, these passages always puzzled me in my "believer" days (my six month deconversion anniv thi  month).. and none of the apologetic attempts to explain the contradiction away ever satisfied.

Furthermore, the whole idea that jeezus showed up (thousands of years later) to clarify/enhance/reiterate the law always bothered me too.  What that implied was... the so-called omnimax passed out his laws in the OT and had his personal priests and scribes write all of it down and it was still totally messed up and people were confused and misinterpreting it!

What about the hordes of goat herders who lived and died in between omnimax's progressive revelations who had it all wrong or needed skydaddy jr. to clarify the old law?  Some poor slob died a "fool" because he gave up trying to make sense of it all... and we know what a bangup job JHC did of straightening it all out.

[SkyWriting]

FWIW, these passages always puzzled me in my "believer" days (my six month deconversion anniv thi  month).. and none of the apologetic attempts to explain the contradiction away ever satisfied.

Furthermore, the whole idea that jeezus showed up (thousands of years later) to clarify/enhance/reiterate the law always bothered me too.  What that implied was... the so-called omnimax passed out his laws in the OT and had his personal priests and scribes write all of it down and it was still totally messed up and people were confused and misinterpreting it!

What about the hordes of goat herders who lived and died in between omnimax's progressive revelations who had it all wrong or needed skydaddy jr. to clarify the old law?  Some poor slob died a "fool" because he gave up trying to make sense of it all... and we know what a bangup job JHC did of straightening it all out.

All are fools and have rejected the father from their hearts. 
The Jews represent = everyone.  Lucky them. 
Jesus came from the Jews = Jesus came from humanity.
God, in the form of Jesus died for all.

According to the scriptures, the written story is relevant, but not required reading.

 http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

[nogodsforme]

Someone alone on an island would never come up with anything like the stories in the bible. (That's why different cultures have completely different religions.) How are people supposed to know this stuff if they don't read the bible and don't talk to anyone else who has read the bible? Where else do these ideas come from?

[SkyWriting]

Someone alone on an island would never come up with anything like the stories in the bible. (That's why different cultures have completely different religions.) How are people supposed to know this stuff if they don't read the bible and don't talk to anyone else who has read the bible? Where else do these ideas come from?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."   
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

[nogodsforme]

Not an answer to my question. Just a rationalization.

[neopagan]

Someone alone on an island would never come up with anything like the stories in the bible. (That's why different cultures have completely different religions.) How are people supposed to know this stuff if they don't read the bible and don't talk to anyone else who has read the bible? Where else do these ideas come from?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."   
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

are you serious?  invisible qualities clearly seen??????

[SkyWriting]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."   
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

are you serious?  invisible qualities clearly seen??????
[/quote]

I agree.  But that is what the scriptures have always said, the Bible is not required reading.

[jdawg70]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."   
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

are you serious?  invisible qualities clearly seen??????

I agree.  But that is what the scriptures have always said, the Bible is not required reading.
[/quote]
Articulate exactly what it is you agree with.

[magicmiles]

are you serious?  invisible qualities clearly seen??????

Lets just isolate part of the verse to try and make nonsense of it, shall we? What does the rest of the verse say?

This is contemptible, Neo Pagan.

[SkyWriting]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."   
http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

are you serious?  invisible qualities clearly seen??????

I agree.  But that is what the scriptures have always said, the Bible is not required reading.

Articulate exactly what it is you agree with.

All six words.  But only 2 question marks.  More is not correct.

[Truth OT]

I'm puzzled as to how I could have ever believed any of this stuff!

AS human beings, we all suffer from a condition I call "Pro-Me-Ism". Us promeistic folks tend to seek to relax in our our norms, perspectives, and traditions rather than first looking out at the natural world critically before we allow these things to be established as a part of who we are. When something has become a part of us, no matter how silly it may be or who may dare to stand against it, our initial inclination is usually to defend ourselve, our positions, and in turn our beliefs. We often engage is a rationalization process that others can see as ridiculous while we are blinded to that fact by our own convictions.

We a way we are all fools that have a tendency to overvalue the perspective of our 'hearts'. The fool has said in his heart numerous things that are often not based in reality whether it's based on religion, our desire tosee ourselves in a different light than reality illustrates, or our seemingly innate desire to be valued.

[jdawg70]

are you serious?  invisible qualities clearly seen??????

Lets just isolate part of the verse to try and make nonsense of it, shall we? What does the rest of the verse say?

This is contemptible, Neo Pagan.

In neopagan's defense, he was replying to SkyWriting's post that quotes that, and only that, verse as an answer.  If Sky wanted more context to be considered, he should have been more explicit.

Besides, the context of the the verse doesn't really help clarify much insofar as answering nogodforme's question to Sky.