My atheist friends often have Psalm 14:1 lobbed at them as if the verse ends the conversation like a holy grenade! It says, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God".
But the verse does not mean all atheists are fools. It means anyone who "says in his heart" there is no God is a fool. In other words, anyone who denies God for merely emotional reasons is foolish. An issue this profound is not to be determined by one's psychological state or emotional disposition.
The person who has genuine intellectual questions or objections concerning God's existence is not the biblical definition of a fool. God will honor and answer in the humble quest for truth. The honest inquirer is in a better position before God than the emotionally closed-minded.
Since I'm talking about the Hebraic-Christian Scriptures, they repeatedly say we must humble ourselves before God. Think about it. If God exists, humility is certainly in order in seeking Him. "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you". "Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God", etc.
This shouldn't be hard for the atheist intellectually. Most of my atheist friends agree that humility is in order in the quest for any truth. Don't you agree?
(On the other hand, I can see how horrible I would feel (at least at first) if, say, Islam was proven to me to be true. I would be forced intellectually and emotionally to acknowledge Allah and Muhammad. I would have to begrudgingly and reluctantly bow before them. That would suck! I would acknowledge Allah's existence, but probably continually resist any relationship or love for him until he smote me!
But I must say that my emotional resistance to Islam is mostly for intellectual reasons! Thankfully, I am confident there is nothing forthcoming in Islam that will serve as an adequate defeater of Christ's claims.)
BTW, I am aware of Christ's injunction against calling anyone a fool, yet he himself did. Keep in mind that Christ is forbidding unwarranted name-calling (literally "empty head") from people who are themselves often foolish!
Who's King Nipple? I love trolls! Let me at him!
Nice! Thanks for the share!
I was once a christian of the "reform" faith and was lost on #1 and #2. However, the post he wrote could have been stated better.
Your question commits the fallacy of the Complex Question. I don't hold the view that Christianity is a myth.
For what it's worth, I'm trying eliminate "revisionism".
The formula for determining whether Christianity is myth would be:
Historian's criteria for determining myth + earliest historical facts about Christianity = ?
Complex questions can but do not have to be fallacious... Religions/Belief Systems/Myth's/Fables are based upon a fallacy of defective induction.. IE Argument from Authority.. If we are subject to not use fallacious arguments then each post you have made recently is instantly fallacious.. So please bring something new the table good Sir!
As well a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.
The bible walks like a duck does it not?
There is appropriate and inappropriate Appeal to Authority. The former would be "Dr X says it and she is an expert in her field so it lends evidential weight to the proposition". The latter is "Dr. X says it and she is an expert in her field therefore the proposition is true".
But if God were the authority he would be the ultimate and infallible authority and whatever he declares is true. God is allegedly the authority behind the Christian Scriptures. Obviously, the internal question is how Christians would view and use the Scriptures. The external question is whether the Scriptures are inspired by God.
My objection to the use of "myth" when it comes to the Bible is the implication that there are no good historical grounds for its truth claims.