Should I consider myself an Atheist?

reply to post by adjensen

Christ worked pretty hard to demonstrate that we are not saved by clinging to the words in a book, or to the contradictory teachings of religious authority, but by the very real presence of God in our lives.

Believing/trusting in Christ includes honoring/holding sacred everything He says. Doing everything He commands, and rejecting everything He rejects. Did Christ say this?:

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Luke 4:4


Let me remind you, the Greek for these verses is even more specific than the English. I'm not saying you're not saved, that's alone up to the Lord, however, I do feel comfortable saying your comments display a disdain for people who believe every word written in the Bible. God honors His Word more than He honors His own name:

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 138:2

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I do feel comfortable saying your comments display a disdain for people who believe every word written in the Bible.

If I have given you that impression, I am sorry for it, because it is not the way that I feel. As I have said, repeatedly, I have no issues with your beliefs, but I have been down that road and it wasn't right for me. Whether it is of any consequence, that will be between God and I, not you and I. If I have been critical, it is with your insistence that I believe what you believe, as I consider that inappropriate Christian behaviour.

And, with that, I suggest that we drop it, but if you want to continue to argue, do so in private, as Paul suggests. I'll be happy to take your wrath in a U2U if you so desire.

reply to post by adjensen


Firstly, I most certainly feel no wrath towards you. My wrath is and always has been directed to the wolves/heretics. Martin Luther says "You cannot be to gentle with the sheep and you cannot be to harsh with the wolves."

I'd wish you not paint this as "You believe what I believe", because that's not the entire picture. It's my attempt to exhort someone who also claims Christ to believe what He taught. But you've made many sly comments in the past about "fundamentalists". And I don't see how it's a bad thing to hold the Word of God as our highest authority. Our Supreme Court if you will. Jesus said to live by "EVERY" word of God, not some, not many, not most, but EVERY word of God we are to live by. And Psalms states God magnified His Word even above His own name.

To me this is significant. I'm not mad at you, but the Word says iron sharpens iron, and to exhort one another. Don't view this so much as "me against you", but me defending Christ and His Word. Which I will not apologize for.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
But you've made many sly comments in the past about "fundamentalists". And I don't see how it's a bad thing to hold the Word of God as our highest authority. Our Supreme Court if you will. Jesus said to live by "EVERY" word of God, not some, not many, not most, but EVERY word of God we are to live by. And Psalms states God magnified His Word even above His own name.

My comments elsewhere regarding fundamentalists, regardless of whether they are Christian fundamentalists or Atheist fundamentalists who attempt to use a literal reading of scripture to discredit Christianity, is that this perspective -- that the whole of the Christian Bible is to be taken literally, in all aspects, without error, through all translations, transcriptions and interpretations, is one that I do not share, neither does the vast majority of Christendom. This does not make me right and you wrong, it's just my personal perspective.

Once again, I will not be drawn into an argument over specifics, just suffice it to say that I do not find disharmony in holding both a rational and theological view. This is not a matter of open persuasion, it is a reasoned perspective that has been arrived at after a long period of introspection. If you consider that to be wrong, consider it so and let it go.

Consider Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 6... Christians bickering between each other serves no one but those who deny Christianity.

reply to post by adjensen

that the whole of the Christian Bible is to be taken literally, in all aspects, without error, through all translations, transcriptions and interpretations, is one that I do not share, neither does the vast majority of Christendom.

And I'm right there along with you. I don't believe so either. I've been extremely outspoken against every modern translation of scripture there is, especially the grossly perverted NIV version. Only the originals are inerrant and infallible. Only the Textus Receptus MSS is reliable.

So we for sure see eye-to-eye there.

reply to post by adjensen

or Atheist fundamentalists who attempt to use a literal reading of scripture to discredit Christianity, is that this perspective

In all fairness the reason atheists, such as myself, do this is because we have been told time and time again by fundamentalists that the Bible is to be taken as the literal and inerrant word of a perfect God. So showing that the Bible is not the inerrant literal Word of God is the purpose of taking it literally and pointing out the flaws that arise when it is taken that way. So it isn't an attempt discredit all Christianity, merely the fundamentalist subset that makes the rest of Christianity look far crazier than they are.

I mean I have no real problem with Christians, such as yourself, who see the Bible as flawed BUT also containing spiritual wisdom about the God you believe in. That's perfectly fine, its people who want to accept the Bible as the wholesale truth and try to say it trumps science that I have a problem with. It seems that many Christians out there need to be reminded that their God isn't a book, he's supposed to be the LIVING God. Its that aspect of Fundamentalism I cannot stand more than any other. No book ever written by man and edited that many times could possibly be perfect let alone be equated with the words of a God.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d79bf2080719.jpg[/atsimg]

I was accepted in my local Masonic lodge...

... one qualification for which is that you profess belief in a "Supreme Being."

Assuming you were truthful in your petition to join, then the remaining "out" to avoid simple theism would be that you believe in an impersonal "Supreme Being," such as the Brahman in Hindu religion, or perhaps a truly ineffable Supreme Being, to whom the conceptual categories of "god" and "non-god" were inapplicable.

If so, then I think it would be a category mistake to describe yourself as either agnostic or atheist. Both of those are ordinarily understood to mean that you would make a responsive answer to the question "Does any god exist?"

A believer in an impersonal or ineffable Supreme Being is, in some sense, saying that the question is ill-posed. "Yes" or "no" are both defensible answers, but neither is satisfactory. Compare the agnostic, who acknowledges that exactly one of [ yes, no ] is the correct answer, the same as theists and atheists do.

If not so, then you are a theist. Say no more.

Either way, if you feel the need for a pithy religious label, then "Blue-lodge Mason" will be understood as such. It would also be apt in your case, if your petition to join the Masons was more or less as specific as you care to be about the "Supreme Being" in whom you believe.

Hope that helps.