Can Atheists be Blessed?

[jessehove]

Are Atheists Godless? Can they be blessed, and bless others through their own belief system?
Here is my take.....

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2012 ... essed.html

[Divine Insight]

Here's my take:

The Christian New Testament is mainly the work of Paul as it is believed he was the author of about 75% of the New Testament. In fact, many Christians quote verses form Paul and actually attribute his words to Jesus. So many Christian view Paul as speaking for the Christ.

Here's what Paul has to say about atheists (those who do not like to retain God in their knowledge):

Romans 1:28-29

[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So that pretty much settles it right there.

This is what the Holy Scriptures have to say.

Now if you disagree with Paul, then the question becomes, "Should you then toss out everything Paul has to say?", and if so, then you've just tossed out 75% of the New Testament as being something you personally disagree with.

By they way, this is indeed my own personal view. I do indeed reject the writings of Paul, and thus I reject 75% of the New Testament.

But then this same sort of thing keep reoccurring. The next thing I know I'm tossing out large chunks of the Old Testament as also being something that I do not personally agree with on moral grounds. And when I do that I soon realize that I need to toss out far more than I'm keeping.

It becomes a "Salad Bar" religion where I'm simply taking what I agree with and tossing out what I disagree with.

When I go back to the 25% of the New Testament that is left off, I soon realize that I also, either disagree with or find extreme contradictions in the remaining Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.

By the time I'm done the only honest thing to confess is that I don't agree with, nor see any reason to believe well over 90% of the content of the Holy Bible.

Suddenly I realize that the collection of fables must not be so "Holy" after all.

~~~~

What I find truly amazing is the number of people who will simply disagree with the parts they don't like, whilst still trying to cling to what's left as if those parts could retain "Holiness".

In other words, if you disagree with the Holy Scriptures of Christianity, why not just move on to choosing a more highly ethical religion that you can agree with?

That's what I did. No need to even become and atheist. There are far better religions to be had than those of the ancient Hebrews. And then you'll have a religion you can actually agree with instead of having to dissect Christianity with a salad knife rejecting the rotten parts that you personally find distasteful or unbelievable.

[jessehove]

You have missed the most important verse in Romans 1 my friend!

Romans 1:20

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.

To me this means that even without belief, atheists can choose Good, or not. Paul makes some mistakes in his ministry. But as with all of us, you must see it through the lens of the full life lived!

[Divine Insight]

Paul makes some mistakes in his ministry. But as with all of us, you must see it through the lens of the full life lived!

I see. So in other words, you feel that you can justify your salad bar tactics by simply dismissing the things you don't care for in the Bible as being simply 'mistakes'.

I would still suggest that moving on to a religion that isn't riddled with mistakes would be a better idea. That way you won't need to continually apologize for the mistakes of your prophets.

The whole field of Christian apologetics has become a major part of Christian theology precisely for this reason. But the problem is that even the apologists can't agree with each other on what needs to be apologized for and what doesn't. There are many Christian ministers who would passionately argue with you that Paul made no mistake, and you are the one who is mistaken.

But that's what Christianity will always be evidently. So I guess that's the way a lot of people like it.

You had posted a question, and offered your take.

Being a discussion forum I have offered my take on the same topic.

My take still stands. And if Paul was making mistakes in his ministry, as you suggest, then my decision to not trust his ministry is supported.

By the way, when I see through the lens of the full life lived, I see that Jesus was most likely a mystic Jewish Mahayana Buddhist who was greatly misunderstood, even by his own disciples, which the Gospel rumors verify, and this leads me to view the Gospels as nothing more than misunderstood and exaggerated superstitious rumors.

So through the lens of the full life lived I have more than sufficient reasons for rejecting the superstitious claims of Christianity.

The question of whether or not atheists can be in harmony with God isn't even a question until Christianity or Islam is dragged into the picture. These writings of Paul and other places in the Bible and the Qu'ran, including in the Old Testament, is precisely where this kind of religious bigotry and prejudice comes from.

If it weren't for Christianity and Islam, you wouldn't even be asking these kinds of questions. These are really the only two religions that make those kinds of religiously bigoted accusations in the first place.

If you simply dismiss those religiously prejudiced flawed doctrines, and move up to a truly wholesome spiritual religious philosophy from the far east, like say Taoism or Buddhism, then you won't be plagued with having to constantly apologize for the mistakes of the Abrahamic prophets.

I'm just offering a suggestion to help you find a spiritual philosophy that you can actually support without having to constantly apologize for it.

So like I say, your question, "Can Atheists be Blessed?", is a question that stems solely from the religions that you are now arguing against. Those are the religions that answer this question by saying "No" they cannot be blessed. And you are the one who is arguing against your own religions. As I see from your web site you support both Christianity and Islam.

Here's some more quotes from the New Testament along the same lines:

Mark.16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Here we have two authors of the New Testament both proclaiming that non-believers will be condemned and damned.

So what do you do now? Proclaim that Mark and John are mistaken and we need to look at some bigger picture?

By the time you're finished you're not going to have a trustworthy prophet or saint left and there won't be a bigger picture to look at because you will have ultimately renounced the bulk of the Bible as being riddled with mistakes.

[jessehove]

You need to understand those verses in the context of the 1st century. Jesus was telling the Jewish zealots to be believers in his way of peace or they will likewise end up in Gehenna. That is will end up in a tormented waste land of death if they follow the way of war. Which historically happens to them in 72 AD with the destruction of the second temple.

As for "eastern" religions which offer more peace. I love eastern religions but they have their own problems. Buddha himself leaves his wife and child because they are seen as chains keeping him from enlightenment. Buddhism just like every other major religion has also struggled with sexism throughout history. If you look at what is going on in Sri Lanka Buddhists are by no means angels.....

[Divine Insight]

You need to understand those verses in the context of the 1st century. Jesus was telling the Jewish zealots to be believers in his way of peace or they will likewise end up in Gehenna. That is will end up in a tormented waste land of death if they follow the way of war. Which historically happens to them in 72 AD with the destruction of the second temple.

To begin with, those particular verses of Mark and John aren't even being presented as quotes from Jesus. They are being presented as narrative opinions of those authors. So there's really no reason to even think that Jesus would necessarily agree with these views.

Of course, due to the fact that even the quotes that are being attributed to Jesus are hearsay rumors as well, we really don't have any reason to trust that those hearsay quotes truly reflect the actual views of Jesus.

The fact is that Jesus isn't even in the Bible at all in terms of having anything to do with its authorship. So everything in the New Testament can never be anything more than just hearsay rumors.

As for "eastern" religions which offer more peace. I love eastern religions but they have their own problems.

I agree they do have their own problems. However, they aren't claiming to be the "Word of God" so there's a huge difference right there.

Buddha himself leaves his wife and child because they are seen as chains keeping him from enlightenment.

In the Bible Jesus asks his disciples to do the very same thing to follow him.

Matthew 10:37-39

[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
[38] And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
[39] He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


If Jesus was "The Word" made flesh, as the biblical scriptures claim, then this was the Holy Spirit telling people that it's more important that they seek harmony with the Holy Spirit than with their own families.

So Jesus was teaching people to do precisely as the Buddha had done. Forget about your earthly families and pursue a relationship with God.

So in that sense, Jesus represents the same ideal here that you see as being problematic with the Buddha.

Buddhism just like every other major religion has also struggled with sexism throughout history. If you look at what is going on in Sri Lanka Buddhists are by no means angels.....

I agree. As a religion, Buddhism has its problems for sure. Just as Christianity and Islam do. Buddhism has many different sects and denominations just like all other religions.

The difference is that Buddhism, in general, does not condemn people for disbelief. This kind of religious bigotry belongs solely to the Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam.

Many Christians do indeed like to refer to their own personal salad bar plate of Christianity as a "Personal Walk with God". And they don't use their Salad Plate as an excuse to judge atheists to be automatic heathens. (just as you apparently feel).

All I'm saying is that this idea actually conflicts with the whole "Jealous God" ideal of Christianity and Islam.

The Buddhists don't start out with a self-proclaimed jealous God who demands that no other Gods shall be placed before him.

The original Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, taught people to follow what calls to them spiritually and not to get bogged down in dogma. In fact, the various Buddhists sects that do get bogged down in dogma have clearly strayed from the teachings of the original Buddha. Just as many Christian sects have strayed from the teachings of Jesus.

Of course in Christianity the teachings of Jesus are highly muddled for two reasons:

1. Jesus was metaphorically nailed to the Old Testament as the Son of the God of Abraham.

So this muddles the teachings of Jesus in with various teachings from the Old Testament, such as the idea that God hates homosexuality. That didn't come from Jesus, that comes from the Old Testament.

2. The writings of Paul in the New Testament are also viewed and quoted by many Christians as though they represent the words of Jesus verbatim.

But the truth is that Jesus never predicted that any man named Paul would be coming to finish his ministry. On the contrary he warned that there would be men coming along preaching in his name who would be false prophets.

Thus if we actually accept Jesus as his WORD we should renounce Paul as a false prophet. After all, if Jesus knew that Paul would be coming along so soon after his death why not prophesize about the coming of Paul? The mere fact that Jesus never even remotely hinted that someone would be coming along to finish his ministry suggests to me that Paul should be viewed as a clearly false prophet.

So yes, I will agree that many Buddhist sects have their own problems. But it's not nearly as problematic as the problems associated with Christianity.

Buddhism was never seen as "The Word of God" to begin with. It's hard not to take that stance with Christianity when Jesus is being held up as being "The Word" made flesh.

So even though the various Eastern Mystical sects hold different views it's not nearly as problematic there as it is in Christianity.

In the Eastern Mystical view, the "Salad Bar" approach to having a "Personal Walk with God" is far more acceptable. Precisely because the Eastern Mystical religions don't claim to be "The Word of God". They merely offer suggestions on how to potentially have a personal walk with God.

And for this reason they are in no position to be passing judgements on atheists, because even atheism can a "Walk with God", even if the person who is walking with God is totally unaware that God even exists.

In other words, the bottom line is that you can "Walk with God" entirely through your heart, mind, and soul, without any need for any dogma. And you don't even necessarily need to realize that your doing it.

In terms of the Eastern Mystical philosophies I think Taoism approaches this aspect of it the best. In Taoism there is no need to even acknowledge that a "God" exists as any form of deity. Taoism is all about "The Walk". Flowing with the Tao. Flowing with God (although you don't even need to use that term)

In fact many people view Taoism is a form of glorified atheism precisely because it doesn't even require that you believe in a personified deity named "God".

Taoism isn't about the deity, nor is it about the dogma. It's entirely about "The Walk".

But in the end, isn't "The Walk" really the bottom line, even when god-like deities are put into the picture.

In other words, is Christianity really about "The Christ"? Or is it about "The Walk"?

Even Christian theologies argue tooth and nail over that question.

If it's about "The Christ" then atheists are in big trouble.

If it's about "The Walk" then atheists who walk the walk are in complete harmony with God, even though they totally renounce "The Christ".

So is Christianity about "The Walk", or is it about "The Christ"?

And if it's about "The Walk" then shouldn't it be called Walkianity?

Same with Buddhism. It too should be called Walkism? Because in the end, it's not about the Buddha, it's about the things the Buddha taught.

But Taoism has them both beat, because it's always been just about "The Walk" without any reference to any deities at all.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, I don't mean to be picking on you. I think it's great that you are attempting to portray both Christianity and Islam as peace loving religions.

And you have a great website for trying to implement that view.

I just personally feel that it's basically a waste of time because you're going to get just as much static from both the Christians and the Muslims, as you'll get from the atheists, etc.

Orthodox Christians are never going to accept anything that doesn't recognize and worship Jesus as the "Only begotten Son of God" as per the claims of the New Testament.

Orthodox Muslims are never going to accept Jesus as the only way to salvation and they hold up Muhammad as being of utmost importance.

So that's a Holy War you're never going to quench.

So while your intentions are good, you're just setting yourself up to be renounced by everyone. Christians, Muslims, and non-believers of those religions as well.

I'm merely pointing out why this will be the case.

[jessehove]

I myself am an Orthodox Christian so I am not promoting some time of religious pluralism where everything gets merged into one singular goal. We will always have particularity and disagreement with in that. That does not mean we can't and havent looked at where we agree. Particularly I would argue the Abrahamic faiths have a kingship bond and have shared in peace with each other that kinship bond.

As for your take on Scripture. You are right in that we do have to come to the table with certain presuppositions about the historicity of scripture. That said alot of history that is commonly accepted as fact share the same historical question marks as scripture. There is no point in you even trying to argue a scriptural point if you are not willing to a certain degree accept scriptural presuppositions (ei you have to give the writers the benefit of the doubt in order to fully get what they are trying to argue. NOBODY knows what in scripture is fact or not fact, and the fruitless work of the Jesus seminar is ridiculous, because none of those scholars really agree on anything, and all came to the table with their own presuppositions) you either take scripture on faith or you don't. Trying to argue you know what they are trying to say, without accepting their own presuppositions is stupid and arrogant. It is treating the Gospel writers like children who can't yet argue for their own reality. You either believe them or you don't. Trying to argue that Christ's death and resurrection is some how meant to be a Metaphor alone is STUPID. Either you believe the Gospel writer's were telling the truth or you don't. And if you are going to choose to believe, than it is also fruitless to try and be overly historical critical of their writings, because the writers (whoever they were, I don't care) were not writing expecting the history police to be all over them. They writing because they believed deeply in the story they were telling, and they believed it was coherent with what Jesus would think. We either give them a lens of sympathy at their historical errors or we throw it all out together. You CANNOT play both sides. That is arrogant, and condescending.

That said I think if you do choose to believe what the Gospel writers are saying (if you don't that is fine God can still work through you, just not in the most beneficial way for your own spiritual growth then you should study the historical period to try and better understand their first century context (even if this will always be first founded in presuppositions). We do this not to critique their historical narrative, but to better understand it. It is pointless to critique it historically as a believer because they were not writing a history textbook. Now if you are a modern historian and you want to better understand the historical context I get that, but if you are using history alone to inform your faith you will be dissapointed.

Yes I do like the aspect of the Buddha that encourages us to detach from the superficial aspects of the world, Jesus teaches this as well.

[Divine Insight]

We either give them a lens of sympathy at their historical errors or we throw it all out together. You CANNOT play both sides. That is arrogant, and condescending.

You can look at it any way you so choose. And that in no way implies arrogance, nor condescension. On the contrary, the only time it becomes arrogant and condescending is when people try to hold the scriptures up as an an excuse to belittle non believers, etc.

That said I think if you do choose to believe what the Gospel writers are saying (if you don't that is fine God can still work through you, just not in the most beneficial way for your own spiritual growth

See you are already drawing conclusions that may not have any merit. You're already suggesting that God has something to do with these scriptures. And you are even suggesting that for those who reject these scriptures God may not be able to work with them in a beneficial way for their own spiritual growth.

You were just mentioning being arrogant and condescending, but that very insinuation does indeed come across as being arrogant and condescending on your behalf. Because you are already speaking in terms of what might be most beneficial for "their" spiritual growth.

then you should study the historical period to try and better understand their first century context (even if this will always be first founded in presuppositions). We do this not to critique their historical narrative, but to better understand it. It is pointless to critique it historically as a believer because they were not writing a history textbook. Now if you are a modern historian and you want to better understand the historical context I get that, but if you are using history alone to inform your faith you will be dissapointed.

I haven't been disappointed at all. On the contrary my historical approach to these scriptures has indeed been very enlightening. However, my historical approach includes all of history. Not just the confined box from which the Hebrews were viewing things.

For me, I look first to the Old Testament. What I see there are fables that are very Zeus-like in many ways, right down to a personified male Godhead who is appeased by blood sacrifices. I find many thing associate with these fables that convince me that they are not the thoughts, directives, or behavior of any supposedly all-wise supreme being.

So I have already concluded that the Old Testament has no more merit than Greek Mythology.

From this you may ask, "Well, why even bother looking at the New Testament at all then?". After all, I've already dismissed the God of Abraham, what's the point in moving forward to reading stories that are supposedly about his only begotten son?

Well, there are many reasons to look into this story. Just as a matter of pure history. What caused the story? Was there any actual figure named Jesus who might have given rise to these superstitious rumors, or was the whole thing just totally made up fiction?

Those are legitimate questions even for people who have no interest in the religion at all from a spiritual point of view.

And when I do that, looking also at the larger picture of what was actually going on at that point in history I realize that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist, (or at least he embraced a very similar philosophy). Which I might add was not alien to Jews at that time.

I have many reasons for drawing these conclusions. Not the least of which is that Jesus himself rejected many of the immoral teachings of the Torah, or early books of the Old Testament, and replaced them with moral values that are far more in line with those taught by Mahayana Buddhism.

The fact that Jesus proclaimed to be one in the same as the Father is also in line with Buddhism, but not in line with the Old Testament. On the contrary with respect to the Old Testament such a claim would be considered blaspheme which even the Gospels reveal to be true.

And when Jesus is accused of blaspheme for having claimed to be one with the father, he points to the Old Testament and says, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods"?

That's hardly an argument that he's the only begotten son of God. On the contrary, he's clearly supporting a pantheistic view of God by suggesting that anyone can claim to be one with the father. After all, that is the foundational idea of the Eastern mystical view of Mahayana Buddhism especially.

There is nothing arrogant nor condescending in any of this. On the contrary suggesting that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is a very respectable hypothesis. Supported by much historical evidence as Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak at precisely the time when Jesus would have lived.

This would explain what sparked all these superstitious rumors about this man. The confusion over what Jesus was actually trying to say is explain in totality.

Jesus rejected the immoral teachings of the Torah and replaced them with the more highly moral teachings of Buddhism. He called the Pharisees hypocrites and was eventually crucified by them because they were insulted and offended by him.

All is explained. The followers of Jesus were extremely upset and distraught over his crucifixion so they turned him into a "God" by proclaiming that he was the promises messiah. But that idea really doesn't work anyway.

So, yes, I agree with you the authors of the New Testament probably did believe in their own superstitions, and they made a case for their superstitions which became the scriptures we now refer to as the "New Testament".

My conclusions about all of these are neither arrogant nor condescending to anyone. I also suspect that along the way these ancient scriptures were indeed twisted and exaggerated upon to continue to support these superstitions. That's to be expected. It's human nature for people to latch onto superstitions and add to them and embellish them.

So it has nothing to do with arrogance or a desire to be condescending. It's just a very rational hypothesis of who Jesus most likely was, assuming the man existed at all. I personally believe he did exist, at least in so much as rejecting the immorality of the OT, calling the pharisees hypocrites and managing to get himself crucified (something I'm sure he didn't personally plan on).

The other thing too that I would add, is that my hypothesis not only makes perfect rational sense, but it also does away with the idea of a supreme creator being associated with a crucifixion as a means of offering salvation to mankind. This is something that many people have difficulty with, even many Christians. In my hypothesis this removes God from having anything at all to do with this. So in that sense my hypothesis is not condescending toward God at all, but on the contrary it's quite uplifting because I remove any need for a God to be involved in this thing at all.

Yes I do like the aspect of the Buddha that encourages us to detach from the superficial aspects of the world, Jesus teaches this as well.

My main point is that you can actually get all the "good stuff" directly from Buddha without having it contaminated by the writings of Paul and the Old Testament. With Jesus you not only get all that contamination tossed in, but then you also end up with a God who is somehow appeased by having his own son crucified on a pole, which IMHO, isn't conducive to divine behavior.

So I'm saving God from being associated with this perverted act.

How could that be viewed as being either arrogant or condescending?

The Jesus in my hypothesis if highly respectable. No condescension involved at all. He was simply misunderstood, and highly outrageous superstitions were made up about him that he really had no part in.

Jesus neither knew of, nor contributed to, the writings of the New Testament in any way. So there is no need to hold Jesus personally responsible for any rumors that were made up about him after he had died.

[Darias]

Are Atheists Godless? Can they be blessed, and bless others through their own belief system?
Here is my take.....

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2012 ... essed.html

Atheists don't believe in any gods, and thus don't believe in blessings from heaven. However they can do good things and people can do good things for them as well. Morality is not owned by religion. And in my opinion, doing good without fear of hell or hope of reward (and doing good for the sake of doing what's intrinsically right -- NOT for obeying a divine command), this is true morality.

Take this Atheist for example, practically lives like Jesus... gives all he has to the poor.

Or according to the Bible, a fool with a reprobate mind, heartless, wicked and evil: