What is atheism?

[d taylor]

The Bible defines the atheist as a liar and an antichrist.

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

 

[ZNP]

The Bible defines the atheist as a liar and an antichrist.

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

I don't think this is helpful. Surely we can all agree that many evils have been committed in the name of some religion or some God. Even the Bible says that Satan appears as an angel of light. So it is very likely that some people who are atheists are reacting strongly to unrighteousness dressed up as some kind of religious babble. Just read the history of the Catholic church or if you don't think old dead popes are relevant to today then watch the movie "Spotlight".

We have already learned one thing, no atheist has a standard definition for the term "good". The only thing they agree on is that "good" is not equated to God. So that is clearly a very black and white demarcation between Christians and Atheists.

We have also learned that the Christian definition of good has been precisely defined and described in the four gospels and that every single Christian would agree on that definition whereas you can't find a single Atheist who could give you a definition for good that all atheists would agree on. So then how can you say something is "good" if you can't define precisely what that is?

We have also discovered that they are incredibly sensitive to being called "unscientific" a derogatory term that all Christians face multiple times. It feels like insulting Mohammed to a Muslim, as though Science is their God.

 

[d taylor]

I don't think this is helpful. Surely we can all agree that many evils have been committed in the name of some religion or some God. Even the Bible says that Satan appears as an angel of light. So it is very likely that some people who are atheists are reacting strongly to unrighteousness dressed up as some kind of religious babble. Just read the history of the Catholic church or if you don't think old dead popes are relevant to today then watch the movie "Spotlight".

We have already learned one thing, no atheist has a standard definition for the term "good". The only thing they agree on is that "good" is not equated to God. So that is clearly a very black and white demarcation between Christians and Atheists.

We have also learned that the Christian definition of good has been precisely defined and described in the four gospels and that every single Christian would agree on that definition whereas you can't find a single Atheist who could give you a definition for good that all atheists would agree on. So then how can you say something is "good" if you can't define precisely what that is?

We have also discovered that they are incredibly sensitive to being called "unscientific" a derogatory term that all Christians face multiple times. It feels like insulting Mohammed to a Muslim, as though Science is their God.

But christianity is not about how a person defines good.
But if a person has believed, trusted, exercised faith in The promised Messiah (Jesus) for the free gift of The Messiah's Eternal Life.

The doctrine of denying that The Christ has come in the flesh is an evil act and warns a believer to not share in this evil deed.

 

[ZNP]

But christianity is not about how a person defines good.

That sounds right, so I'm sure you won't mind me examining that a little closer. For example a work of faith that is perfect, lacking nothing, like James describes. Would that work be "good"? Can you do a work of faith apart from God or is it that "apart from me you can do nothing". Would you agree that the work Jesus did on the cross was perfect, lacking nothing? Would you agree that this work was "good"? Because according to Jesus only God is good.

But if a person has believed, trusted, exercised faith in The promised Messiah (Jesus) for the free gift of The Messiah's Eternal Life.

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

I would argue that Jesus was the author and perfector of our faith, and He showed us His faith by His works. His works were good, because they were of God.

The doctrine of denying that The Christ has come in the flesh is an evil act and warns a believer to not share in this evil deed.

My point of contention is saying that "we can be good without God" is to deny that the Christ has come in the flesh.

 

[d taylor]

That sounds right, so I'm sure you won't mind me examining that a little closer. For example a work of faith that is perfect, lacking nothing, like James describes. Would that work be "good"? Can you do a work of faith apart from God or is it that "apart from me you can do nothing". Would you agree that the work Jesus did on the cross was perfect, lacking nothing? Would you agree that this work was "good"? Because according to Jesus only God is good.



14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

I would argue that Jesus was the author and perfector of our faith, and He showed us His faith by His works. His works were good, because they were of God.



My point of contention is saying that "we can be good without God" is to deny that the Christ has come in the flesh.

Jesus death and resurrection was a miracles that, one took away the sin of the world and also proved that He was who he said He was, which is the promised Messiah from the Tanakh.

But that miracle should direct a person back to Jesus because that is where eternal life is found in The Messiah and not in any of The Messiah's miracle's or if you what to say good works.

He showed us miracles (good works as you say) to prove that He was the promised Messiah. So a person will look to Him for Eternal Life.

As for equating good with denying Christ you may can make that argument. But i see it as softening the Bibles message. That until we see that in many cases when dealing with atheist, we are actually dealing with an antichrist.

The atheist name, has just been used/defined by them as who they are, when actually the better and more accurate word to define them, as seen in the Bible, would be antichrist. When you are dealing with an atheist you are dealing with an antichrist.

 

[ZNP]

As for equating good with denying Christ you may can make that argument. But i see it as softening the Bibles message. That until we see that in many cases when dealing with atheist, we are actually dealing with an antichrist.

The atheist name, has just been used/defined by them as who they are, when actually the better and more accurate word to define them, as seen in the Bible, would be antichrist. When you are dealing with an atheist you are dealing with an antichrist.

Strange, I see the Bibles message as 19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Which might also be a "good" work

 

[d taylor]

Strange, I see the Bibles message as 19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Which might also be a "good" work

That verse is speaking to a believer, turning a believer away from sin, not speaking about an atheist.

 

[ZNP]

That verse is speaking to a believer, turning a believer away from sin, not speaking about an atheist.

oh, I thought it was talking about turning a sinner from the error of his ways.

Does this mean the gospel message is only for those who are backslidden Christians?

 

[d taylor]

oh, I thought it was talking about turning a sinner from the error of his ways.

Does this mean the gospel message is only for those who are backslidden Christians?

So you do not think you are a sinner, Why would James call these people he is addressing, brother and sisters if they were not believers. James is addressing turning back a believer from a sinful life. So God will not take the believers physical life on earth.

Not sure if you are aware 90% of the New Testament is written to believers. The Gospel of John is the only book stated (20:30,31) whose reason for being written is to tell people how to have life (eternal life)

 

[ZNP]

So you do not think you are a sinner, Why would James call these people he is addressing, brother and sisters if they were not believers. James is addressing turning back a believer from a sinful life. So God will not take the believers physical life on earth.

Not sure if you are aware 90% of the New Testament is written to believers. The Gospel of John is the only book stated (20:30,31) whose reason for being written is to tell people how to have life (eternal life)

James didn't call them believers, he called them "the twelve tribes in the dispersion". He was preaching the gospel to the circumcision, but nowhere does that mean they were believers. Here he is addressing those that would do a work of faith to "turn a sinner from the error of his ways". There are a multitude of good works that you can do, preaching the gospel to unbelievers is one, soup kitchen is another, but regardless of the work of faith the priniciple is the same, turning a single sinner from the error of their ways covers over a multitude of sins. Don't care if you are Billy Graham, or a kid who reaches out to another kid in trouble.

 

[d taylor]

James didn't call them believers, he called them "the twelve tribes in the dispersion". He was preaching the gospel to the circumcision, but nowhere does that mean they were believers. Here he is addressing those that would do a work of faith to "turn a sinner from the error of his ways". There are a multitude of good works that you can do, preaching the gospel to unbelievers is one, soup kitchen is another, but regardless of the work of faith the priniciple is the same, turning a single sinner from the error of their ways covers over a multitude of sins. Don't care if you are Billy Graham, or a kid who reaches out to another kid in trouble.

1st three chapters James open with My brethren and chapter 4 continues the same thought, but in a correction matter. James is addressing sinful faults in this membership in chapter 4

 

[ZNP]

1st three chapters James open with My brethren and chapter 4 continues the same thought, but in a correction matter. James is addressing sinful faults in this membership in chapter 4

I think that is certainly reasonable that these were Jews who were receiving James ministry, hence they were Christians. But calling them brothers would be true whether or not they were Christians because they were all Jews. So that could also be similar to Paul saying "be all things to all people". What is undeniable to my understanding is that referring to yourself as a member of the 12 tribes after Christ's death and resurrection brought in the New Creation is to wander from the truth. James was writing to those who had wandered from the truth.

 

[ZNP]

As for equating good with denying Christ you may can make that argument. But i see it as softening the Bibles message. That until we see that in many cases when dealing with atheist, we are actually dealing with an antichrist.

The atheist name, has just been used/defined by them as who they are, when actually the better and more accurate word to define them, as seen in the Bible, would be antichrist. When you are dealing with an atheist you are dealing with an antichrist.

I would disagree slightly. In my experience the term "atheist" is really misleading. I have heard many atheists talk and they don't appear to be against "religion" per se, or against the idea of a deity per se (for example they seem quite agreeable the Greek idea of a bunch of evil Gods) nor do they seem to have any issue with pantheism. No, in my experience the staunchly vocal atheists are actually "Christ deniers".

So the comparison I would make is not "antichrist" which is a "false Christ" but I would compare them to the pharisees who were very active in denying that Jesus was the Christ.

I could be wrong, perhaps the Atheists on this forum would prove me wrong. It would be simple, they could point me to Buddhists forums where they dispute the idea of a deity with Buddhists, and Jewish and Muslim forums. Perhaps I think they only frequent Christian forums because I myself only frequent them.