Do Atheists "Worship" Anything?

Note that Acts is not one of the gospels, and note that Acts was written by Luke, who was not an eyewitness to the life of the alleged Jesus, and who was not likely to have spoken or written Aramaic.

Once again, i don't dispute that some of the texts upon which the gospels were later written may have originally been written in Aramaic. The issue is the validity of the sources--and you need to avoid making statements which you cannot support, and which can easily be disputed, such as the statement to which i objected.

By the way, RR, long before your boy Jesus was alleged to have existed, Aramean merchants had largely become confessional Jews, and had spread the practice of Judaism throughout southwest and central Asia. That is not, however, evidence that everyone who was called a Jew for confessional reasons was an ethnic Jew, nor does it mean that they all spoke and read Aramaic. In fact, it is unlikely that many people in that age were literate, so what language any text was written in was meaningless--all that mattered is what literate people told illiterate people was written in any given text.

It really means little whether or not the language used was Aramaic.

Acts 26:14
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue [Aramaic], Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Comment: Yes I am aware that the book of Acts is NOT part of the four Gospels.

Acts is the fulcrum book between the old and new testament.

But I also believe the Gospels are part of the OT not the New. (Jesus fulfilled the law...)

Though true the general populace could not read nor write, Aramaic was the language of the common Jew in and around the first century.

It might have made sense that even Luke wrote in Aramaic considering his books were addressed "to the Jew first and then the gentile..."

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 2:9
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Comment: Romans is the first "doctrinal" epistle written to the church...

Spare me your scriptural drivel, Rex. I'm only going to comment when i see you peddling lies.

It was not a "lie" Set, it was an honest mistake.

And I again thank you for pointing that out. I am in search of truth not fabrications.

But I have justified my position.

Yet I have not justified my error...

I will say that it is interesting point that you have raised that the books "may" have been "originally" written in a couple of different languages rather than simply one or the other.

Yet I prefer to think Aramaic was the language of their conception.

As the Roman Church began to organize itself, the gospels become solidified. Hence 300-400 years later.

Edits were made.

This is common knowledge.

I agree edits were made.

Constantine had to add the trinity in to the NT somehow.

This is why the Aramaic is vital because the edits do not seem to generally have permeated those texts...

Which is my point. It's not like Constantine asked John to edit his own text. The Idea that the NT is first hand is laughable.

The word has what is called "checks and balances".

This why the the word of God cannot be broken.

The ignorant people that believe that a few added words will break it's truth are naive.

Just like a few words about "the three agree in one" added by Constantine trying to promote the trinity cannot obliterate the truth that more than one God is idolatry. Creation/Creator

It is of note that the Aramaic text does not contain this exact (three in one) phrase...

In other words the Bible places it's vital truth in "several places" in various different manner in case one place is corrupted the other places will clearly reveal the broken symmetry.

Don't speak to me as if I don't know what a system of checks and balances is. BTW, what checks and balances?!?!?!? No susch system has taken place.

No, this is why no words of god can be assempled, not broken.

The ignorant people are the ones that think that a few words are harmless. Further, it's not like it a few words, several books were omited. Every reason to hold those books invalid holds for the one that are canon.

How nice of Constantine to fix that little error. This would certainly help win over pagans. BTW Constantine, Here's a idea, highjack their holidays too.

It's terrifying how easily you trivialize things.

So basically it's a book that lacks consistancy. This will be handy later when we need the book to mean one thing but only for a while. Later we'll need it to mean something else.

Slaves are cool by me, until the world realizes it is heinous. Then we'll jump on the end of the parade and help seek out those horrible slave drivers. It's a good thing we hisd the "vital truth" in so many places so that people didn't get upset about us not condemming this kind of human treatment. We can always default to the "corrupt" aliby.

No it doesn't. The US government has checks & balances (bad ones), but the bible has none.

Re: Do Atheists "Worship" Anything?


this is stupid, religious people and atheists alike share interests in cars and other worldy things. no logic here at all. in fact most christian people i know are completely obesessed with money. go figure.

OGIONIK - I agree, however I can tell you that people like REX have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to distanncing themselves from THOSE christians. It's easier to dismiss those peopel as not being true christians as opposed to acknowledging their profound existance.

The real sad thing is that your post allows REX and others of similar beliefs to change the subject at hand becuase now they can respond to you post instead of the current line of questioning.

It's not your fault though. It's just a shame.

LOL, THATS WHAT THEIR BEST AT!

(J/K)

OK MY CAPS KEY IS OFFICALLY BROKEN.

Rosie has been hanging upside down so long that things appear upside right.

Rex - You care to answer my question.

"What checks and balances?"

Sorry I have neglected this post.

STUDY and reason and is at the root of the checks and balances...

There are so many checks and balances but most people belong to a religion and they just take what their preacher/minister/pastor says without question. Because they believe that there are spiritual leaders and spiritual followers rather then us all being followers of God. It is equally a duty for all believers to "come unto a knowledge of the truth".

They do not "check" the word of God THEMSELVES to realize if what they have been told is true.

Then once they check the word they do nto "study" it.

They check a certain scripture and compare it with others and weigh if the truth is only isolated in only a few unclear scriptures of if it fits with the continuity of the whole book. They follow tradition rater than the literal word of God... For they have been talked out of the truth by sincerity, flattery of words and verbal linguistics.

This is where the word "scope" comes in. (no not mouthwash)

Scope as in how the idea fits with the whole book.

First one must believe in the "integrity" of the word of God.

They take what others say about the book rather than what the book says about itself.

They must believe that the word of God is perfect. No it is not perfect on the outside but it is perfect on the inside.

In other words it is inherently (within) inerrant (without error). For if you believe it is simply full of errors and written by men/woman alone then you will not search diligently for it's truth. So it takes faith in "the word".

This is why you get theists as great even as Martin Luther pointing out the Bible contradictions rather than solving the contradictions by study and soul searching until God reveals the charms of his charismatic wisdom. Not to say that Martin did not find many gems of truth and reveal them to the world but there was much more to learn. this is exactly what the word protestant means. It does not mean to "protest" but it me pro (for) testament (the word). For the written revelation and not tradition or what the pope says on any particular day and mood he feels in. FOR THE WORD..

Gods word fits together with a mathematical accuracy and a scientific precision.

Consider this scripture.

2Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Comment: The words behind the English words "rightly dividing" in Greek come from Euclidean geometry. See how God has used words that are mathematically perfect and not easily corrupted?

To rightly divide in Euclidean geometry means to divide to the point that there is no remainder. Like a piece of pie if we were to share a pie between four people would you notice if someone got a generously bigger piece?

Well this is the words way. It is wrong to elevate a few unclear scriptures over a wealth of clear ones.

This wealth of clear scriptures is part of the checks and balances. Divide to the extent that there is no remainder. In other words do your math right and not do your addition and subrtaction of ideas haphazardly but with integrity. Thus believing in the integrity and accuracy of God's holy testaments.

Thus the apparent contradictions are in our understanding not in the inherently inerrant perfect word of God.

It would not say to STUDY it if the message was matter of fact and available to obtain simply by a cursory reading.

I heard it once said that God made it hard to understand on purpose. I don't know if I would go that far though.

So no remainder.

That means that if you have one scripture that seems to contradict a wealth of clear scriptures saying the opposite you do not magnify the unclear scripture above the wealth of clear ones but you become suspect of the interpretation of the unclear scripture and study it to unravel it's actual hidden meaning. Where it's meaning is obscured by presumption because of it's lack of clarity. One needs to be able to recognize the difference between a clear statement and an unclear statement.

This is checks and balances.

Psalms 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Here is one example among so many...

UNCLEAR SCRIPTURE

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


CLEAR SCRIPTURE

Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Comment:
So if John is saying Jesus is God then Exodus is a blatant contradiction and the architecture of the truth crumbles. But John is being unclear. For to be clear would be to say, "in the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God." But it does not say that no matter how many times you reread it or wish it to be so... Why didn't John just write that if that was what he meant?

So out of the respect for the wealth of verses that proclaim there is only one true God and by Jesus' own admission it was ONLY the father who sent him that deserved worship then to use John to sanction idolatry would not only introduce error into the equasion but it would also then obscure the true meaning of what John was really trying to say. this would also leave a wrongly dividing of the word and clearly leave a remainder. The word would not say to "rightly divide" it if it could not be RIGHTLY divided.

So the "rule" is "to understand difficult verses in light of the MANY clear ones".

Yet modern Christian theists have done the exact opposite and this is why there is so much contradiction introduced into the most holy of faiths.

Checks and balances...

This is what I feared.

This is certainly not a system of checks and balances.

You have clearly described a circular system.

A preacher takes out information from the original source. Then delivers it to a person. They personally meta-gestate. But then for clarification they return to the original source.

That loop is not a system of checks and balances.


No. Accountablility and control of power is the root of checks and balances.


So in other words even though there are checks and balances, you shouldn't need them because the word is perfect already? poor arguement.

As for the math stuff, don't push your luck. I can't count how many times I've been told by a biblist that I can't expect science and math to be means to explain the bibles claims. It seems that you only want to discuss math and science when someone uses the word "divide." Your math calim is unimpressive.

I'm sure I have said this before; there are at least two kinds of atheist:
(1) the one who--probably out of deep resentment for his church upbring (once he discovered the lie of it) chooses to BELIEVE in a No-God and "worships" Him. This involves a kind of counter-religiousity.

(2) the other who, like yours truly, simply finds the notion of a Grand Creator and Judge as meaningless and turns away from it. No worship or even "belief" there.

I see absolutely no moral virtue in holding a belief, even one that is correct.
I "believe" in the "truth" (validity) of E=mc2 even though I do not completely (mathematically) understand it. But I do not consider myself morally superior to one who does not believe in the validity of that theorem. I would feel simply that he's just "wrong" but not immoral on that basis.
Paul's introduction of "faith" to his Christianity was an act of bad faith if you ask me.