MyJoe:
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is where Christians are wont to stop when quoting the verse.

“It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers first and foremost, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16).

MyJoe:
In the same vein, religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools. That fact is reinforced in the second part of the Bible verse: “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

Deep Sight:

MyJoe -

The biblical assertion "the fool says in his heart - there is no God" applies perfectly to the atheistic mindset.

Let me hasten to add however, that there are millions of people who do not believe in the God per se; but remain highly moralistic and apply the principle of humanist love and brotherhood to all that they interact with.

I will be inclined to saying that even if the conscious mind of such a person rejects the idea of God as expounded: the inner spirit of such a person has apprehended and absorbed the most essential principles of God.

Can such a person be called "a fool" in biblical terms?

I think not.

Mr.D.S

Apologies! BUT YOU ARE WRONG! 

Because the most essential principles of God are GOD himself.

To say i have apprehended and absorbed GOD would mean I HAVE BEING BIRTHED, INITIATED, and taught to/and experienced the true Life (called the ZOE) which HE HAS PASSED UNTO HIS SON TO GIVE TO THOSE WHO COME UNDER THE ABODES OF HIS LORDSHIP.

Sorry, but bible said "It has pleased God that the fulness of the Godhead should dwell in Christ Jesus"(scriptures) and Jesus said "No one can get to apprehend this Zoe except through Christ.

Traugott:

Viaro Nice to read from you on NL again, it's been a while!

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is where Christians are wont to stop when quoting the verse. “It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers [color=#000099]first and foremos[/color]t, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it [i]in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16).

At the basics, it is the question of the existence of God and the supernatural that forms the core of theism - and for someone to assert that 'there is no God' is basically foolish, whether they do so by merely mouthing it off or actually believeing it with their hearts. I do not find how you could intelligently defend the idea that someone would go out of his way to deny the existence of God with their mouth without believing that denial with their hearts.

Deep Sight:

Viaaaaaro!

Where you don dey na? I have missed your caustic tongue. . .

Deep Sight:
I will be inclined to saying that even if the conscious mind of such a person rejects the idea of God as expounded: the inner spirit of such a person has apprehended and absorbed the most essential principles of God.

viaro:

That again is the summary of a misguided assertion. Religious folks do not try to deny the existence of God, although they may 'deny God' by their lifestyles when they go contrary to the claims of their beliefs. To deny God and to deny the existence of God are two worlds apart.

Let me explain:

[list](a) you do not need to a worldview to deny God (both religious and irreligious folks could deny God);
(b) but, you certainly must hold on to a worldview to make a statement of denying the existence of God and the supernatural - and that worldview that assertively denies God's existence is atheism.[/list]

It is on that note that you accentuated a particularly misguided ideology on your assumption.

Expounding on (a) above, let me again recommend the link I posted earlier, clearly showing that "["it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers"].
And indeed, these 'others' include religious folks to whom are committed  the tenets of their faith. A few examples: Israel was admonished to take heed to God's Word spoken to them, "lest ye deny your God" (Josh. 24:27) - this does not mean that they were in danger of denying 'God's existence', but rather that they risked turning away from Him to worshipping other gods (compare Duet. 6:12-14 and 32:18). The atheist who says "there is no God" does not turn aside to other deities nor does he acknowledge the supernatural - and it is not about atheism that Joshua was warning Israel.

Compare again the point in 2 Tim. 2:12 from the pen of the same apostle - 'If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us'. The 'denying' of God here is not about His existence or the supernatural, in as much as God denying anyone does not turn him to an atheist nor does it say that God does not believe in the existence of those who deny Him. It is rather the same message to be conveyed as that which you cited in Titus 1:16, whereby religious folks are living ungodly lives.

The express denial of the existence of God is not the claim of the religious or the theist, however unfaithful he or she might be. Rather, such a denial of His existence is the core of atheism for many atheists, who assert that 'there is no God', and that nothing exists outside of their materialistic and physicalistic worldview. To assert that 'there is no God' is the core of the belief of many atheists which they hold dearly in their hearts, unless other atheists would want to play the hypocrite of asserting something with their mouths which they believe differently from their hearts.

Deep Sight:

MyJoe -

The biblical assertion "the fool says in his heart - there is no God" applies perfectly to the atheistic mindset.

MyJoe:

My understanding of the gist of your reaction is that the intention of the psalmist could not have excluded atheists who mouth disbelief in the existence of God. I have no objection to this and I did not set out to make the point that those who vocalise their unbelief in God are not referred to in that verse.

[b]The point I set out to make is that, first and foremost, the scripture text refers to believers who disown God by their works. [/b]That is probably where we disagree.

To be sure, I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous.

I recognise that most analogies suffer severe inferential limitations and did not expect this to work for everyone. As I believe you can see, the whole idea was to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing.

When quoting Psalm 14:1 in dialogue, Christians are wont to stop at the first sentence, since they believe it conveys the point they are trying to get across - that the Bible calls you a fool if you say there is no God. I will get to the point you made to Tudor in that thread presently.

What you wrote is not an accurate understanding of this:I think the inclusive qualifier, “first and foremost”, adequately conveys my position that both the atheist and the Christian are covered in that portion of the Bible. It shows my point of emphasis without being exclusive.

That is again highlighted in the last paragraph with the expression ". . . far more than atheists." This is like the ancient saying that when you point a finger at someone, three are simultaneously pointed at you. This in no way vacates the fact that you are still pointing at the other person. And that applies to the whole write up. That the emphasis was placed on the three fingers was naturally because I was primarily addressing Christians, as atheists have had that scripture thrown in their faces long enough by Christians who apply it not to themselves, wrongly in my view.

Nowhere did I do this. I did not even imply it. If you show me my error, I will apologise.

MyJoe:

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is where Christians are wont to stop when quoting the verse. “It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers first and foremost, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16).

MyJoe:

The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too. However, it is not one I will attach undue importance to since the concept of God is largely metaphysical. And this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short. While viruses are material and can be apprehended objectively, God is not. I believe in the existence of God, and do so do you. But our reasons for believing might be different. The process of apprehending evidence for the existence of God is subjective. Subjective acceptance of God is then expressed by…, well for most, belief in the afterlife is fundamental.

Now, I don’t know how familiar you are with our national politics but permit me to draw my analogy from there.

Once during a conversation my cousin remarked that he did not believe our immediate president, Olusegun Obasanjo, believes in the afterlife. I considered the matter and slowly added that I did not think Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida, Lamidi Adedibu, Ayo Fayose or Charles Taylor believed in any afterlife. Now belief in the afterlife is so central to belief in the existence God that even many of the champions of deistic thought like John Toland and Thomas Paine did not reject it. All the guys mentioned above are religious.

If those who believe in the existence of God display such manifest wickedness that people take a look and say, he doesn’t believe in afterlife, can we still find a distinction between them the atheist with reference to denying the existence of God? Yes. But it is infinitesimally small. It is immaterial.

That was a good point you made to Tudor in that thread, but I am here concerned with the use of Psalm 14:1 to label people.

viaro:

I disagree with you, for that verse is not primarily addressing the believer, but the godless unbeliever. That statement is made twice over in the book of Psalms - (a) Psalm 14:1; (b) and Psalm 53:1 - and standing alone unqualified, it shows that it was not addressing the believer, as it is clear that even the one who categorically denies the existence of God is no better in his "abominable iniquity".

I would not like to belabour the point I already made: that, we should not be so broad in our generalisations. When you say "Christians", you're making a far more broader generalisation that is quite unwarranted - I have seen many who quote either Psalm 14:1 or 53:1 without stopping there or using those single quotes as best fits for some clichés to address only the atheist. Perhaps a better and more accommodating way to put it would be to qualify the statement with 'some Christians', as it cannot be said that 'Christians' around the world just stop somewhere on that verse.

Hang on, mate. . . I don't think you're helping that point, for the gist of your emphasis in your summary is to criminalise the Christian and acquit the atheist  - for your assertions pointed to this very point:

[list](a) "For the text says nothing at all about atheists"

and
(b) "religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools"[/list]

I think the points are self-referencing and we don't need to pretend anything here.

I do not understand how you would deny the atheist was included in that verse by the assertion you made that it says "nothing at all about atheists" and then turn round to say you had included the atheist that you absolved from that same verse? Nor did you even try to make a balance between these things when your summary points the finger at religious folks as the ones who are the fools?

I think the emphasis in italisizing "in their heart" in your OP was what I was pointing to ~~

MyJoe:

Yes. The believer and the unbeliever may both do iniquity. Or they may not. If the Psalmist was thus addressing the doer of iniquity, why restrict him to the vociferous atheist? This I have often witnessed, hence this thread.

I get your point. Yes, my choice of words in that instance imply as you say. But the whole write up does not. But I see going further on the point will only amount to repeating all I have said about my audience and the way that scripture has been used, as well as the phrases “first and foremost” and “far more than”.

Out of here till Monday. Have great weekend, you and everyone.

Deep Sight:

Viaro - as usual you quibble over words and split hairs as though you were a tailor kniiting up a cloth from the hair of Samson.

MyJoe's analogy about Aids was simple, clear, lucid and intelligible - for the commonsensical, that is.

It simply asserts the following -

1. That Action does not always connote belief

2. That inaction does not always connote unbelief

3. Thus that affirmation within the heart is the true affirmation

4. And consquently that a person who through his actions and thoughts belies a truth he espouses; really does not hold such a truth.

I urge you to consider that the terrible myths of hell and the wrath of God which are held by the so-called religious - are so replete with terror that any person who GENUINELY believes in such can scarcely belie it within his actions.

There is nothing to argue with in the foregoing, but i expect that you will devote your energies once again to form and not to substance

viaro:


His analogy with AIDS was off the beat - that much he even agreed.

Let’s illustrate this with a story from Africa’s stormy politics.

The immediate past president of South Africa, the dour and cerebral Thabo Mbeki, is universally famous for questioning the causal link between HIV and Aids. Unfortunately, his HIV atheism rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation towards an apocalypse that demanded nothing short of a WW II German Fallschirmjäger military-type response.

Enter the ebullient Jacob Zuma. With smiles oozing from the four compass points of his mouth, he met with presidents, scientists, philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and HIV evangelists of various colouring. HIV causes Aids, he declared. His government was going to tackle it. Some heaved a sigh of relief. But not everyone. Anyone who knew Zuma well knew here was the greatest danger to the Aids fight South Africa has ever seen! Here is a man who told the world that he knowingly slept with a HIV-positive woman and promptly proceeded to take a shower to halt the viruses possibly swimming up his penile orifice in their tracks! Now consider the potential effect of those words on the mindset of young South African men; add to that the fact that Zuma has remained the connoisseur of nubile females with absolutely no time for condoms and have sufficient neonatal bundles of evidence to leave Tuface looking a virgin. Now you will begin to see who poses the gravest threat to the HIV/Aids fight between the atheistic Mbeki and Zuma, born again and spirit-filled in speech, but saying in his heart that there is no Aids.

The immediate past president of South Africa, the dour and cerebral Thabo Mbeki, is universally famous for questioning the causal link between HIV and Aids. Unfortunately, his HIV atheism rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation towards an apocalypse that demanded nothing short of a WW II German Fallschirmjäger military-type response.

With smiles oozing from the four compass points of his mouth, he met with presidents, scientists, philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and HIV evangelists of various colouring. HIV causes Aids, he declared. His government was going to tackle it.

But not everyone. Anyone who knew Zuma well knew here was the greatest danger to the Aids fight South Africa has ever seen! Here is a man who told the world that he knowingly slept with a HIV-positive woman and promptly proceeded to take a shower to halt the viruses possibly swimming up his penile orifice in their tracks! Now consider the potential effect of those words on the mindset of young South African men; add to that the fact that Zuma has remained the connoisseur of nubile females with absolutely no time for condoms and have sufficient neonatal bundles of evidence to leave Tuface looking a virgin.

I did not argue about actions or inactions always connoting belief. He saw my point quite simply, made no disagreement thereto (because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation); and then also stated that his point was "to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing".

False. If that were ever the case, it makes such a person a classic hypocrite. You don't go out of your way to make repeated assertions about an issue and then come back yapping that such assertions were not expressions of what you hold in your heart.

If I were to follow your style, I could as well turn this topic into a discussion about the fictitious and illiterate 'oneness of infinity' that has forever NEVER convinced anyone on Niaraland with commonsense - not even when you tried to hoodwink some with the attempt to dribble it in 'prose'.

Deep Sight:

No Viaro. And I am not concerned with what gentlemanly concessions MyJoe makes to you  - I verily believe that he does such only out of a compound and most mature desire to assimilate all views as well as avoid needless and long-drawn out quibbling – which you are very well known for.

Let us examine again the said analogy.

To any other person, getting this point across would have been as simple as stating the age old axiom – ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS! ! ! But for you even that simplest of sayings requires special and extended explanations.

You should thus see that the example is perfectly on-point in proving that which it set out to – namely – that the ACTIONS of so called “believers” speak louder than words in unveiling that which rests in the deepest base of their hearts - - - viz:

THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN GOD.

“The fool says in his heart . . . there is no God . . .”

I hope its become clear now for you: that this is what such people have said IN THEIR HEARTS. . . that there is no God!

I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous

So who are the fools?

Moot point. Because the subconscious is mostly unnoticed anyhow - especially by hypocrites.

Of course they are hypocrites. What else could they be? Your point is ? ? ? ?

What’s your obsession with the Oneness of Infinity Theory? Why are you never able to address any posers I raise without rushing back to that? What does it do to help your argument here? ? ? Is that being discussed on this thread ? ? ? Of course you only rush back to that on account of a complex you need to hide from!

Please focus on the issue at hand jaare.

Deep Sight:

Viaro - as usual you quibble over words and split hairs as though you were a tailor kniiting up a cloth from the hair of Samson.

Deep Sight:
MyJoe's analogy about Aids was simple, clear, lucid and intelligible - for the commonsensical, that is.

It simply asserts the following -

1. That Action does not always connote belief

2. That inaction does not always connote unbelief

3. Thus that affirmation within the heart is the true affirmation

4. And consquently that a person who through his actions and thoughts belies a truth he espouses; really does not hold such a truth.

viaro:
His analogy with AIDS was off the beat - that much he even agreed.

viaro:
(because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation)

Deep Sight:
3.   Thus the cardinal point is that his ACTIONS SHOW GREATER UNBELIEF IN AIDS THAN MBEKI’S WORDS DID!

Deep Sight:
I hope its become clear now for you: that this is what such people have said IN THEIR HEARTS. . . that there is no God!

MyJoe:

Reading exchanges between Deep Sight and viaro can be as sweet as sitting back on a Sunday morning after breakfast and listening to Tchaikovsky or Pavarotti's renditions of Verdi. (Often, that is. Not all the time. The Reincarnation thread, for instance, was an abortion. It was like listening to that ghastly orchestra from Edinburgh, or where is it? )

In this thread, while I disagree with viaro as to the main culprits of Ps 14:1, I particularly appreciate the way he has pointed out my failure to include atheists in my op. It reminded me of a case at the high court in Ibadan a few years back. The lawyers wrote a brilliant Brief of Argument but omitted the name of the governor whose governorship was the subject of the suit. When the court ruled against the governor, the man told the world that the judgment was no skin off his nose because it did not mention his name! Most people thought he was being mischievous, of course, since the gist of the ruling was that the process that brought him to power did not comply with the law. But a few thought he had a point and when the lawyers for his opponents were preparing their Respondent's Brief to his appeal, what did they do? They inserted his name in every page where that could be done.

I think he does it like a Harvard professor peer reviewing an article for the journal Nature. Which is perfectly fine, as all it does in essence is to increase the quality of debate. It helps you get a truly complete view of the subject long after you thought you had it all wrapped up.

MyJoe: No. I never agreed it was offbeat, but I agreed to this:

viaro:
(because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation)

As I already opined, this applies to just about every analogy.

viaro:
The express denial of the existence of God is not the claim of the religious or the theist, however unfaithful he or she might be. Rather, such a denial of His existence is the core of atheism for many atheists, who assert that 'there is no God', and that nothing exists outside of their materialistic and physicalistic worldview. To assert that 'there is no God' is the core of the belief of many atheists which they hold dearly in their hearts, unless other atheists would want to play the hypocrite of asserting something with their mouths which they believe differently from their hearts.

MyJoe: The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too. However, it is not one I will attach undue importance to since the concept of God is largely metaphysical. And this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short. While viruses are material and can be apprehended objectively, God is not.

Ogaga4Luv:

[size=13pt]God is the only being who does not have to exist in order to reign. [/size]