Did Jesus and Paul understand atheism?

What scriptural evidence is there that the founders of Christianity had a good understanding of the human condition when it comes to the nature of belief, lack of belief, and diversity of religious belief?

@fmf said
What scriptural evidence is there that the founders of Christianity had a good understanding of the human condition when it comes to the nature of belief, lack of belief, and diversity of religious belief?

Atheism and religious diversity would have been heavily discouraged to the point of death I expect. It existed though.

Psalm 14 : 1a
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

In his heart, not out loud.

@divegeester said
Psalm 14 : 1a
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

It's a bit primitive, isn't it? Merely an insult. An assertion. It doesn't demonstrate any understanding of lack of belief. They sound like words written by an incurious groupist.

@fmf said
It's a bit primitive, isn't it? Merely an insult. An assertion. It doesn't demonstrate any understanding of lack of belief. They sound like words written by an incurious groupist.

It doesn’t indicate understanding but I think there is an insight into the thinking about those who secretly held onto a notion of their being no god. Secretly being the word.

@divegeester said
It doesn’t indicate understanding but I think there is an insight into the thinking about those who secretly held onto a notion of their being no god. Secretly being the word.

But anyone can hurl the word "fool" at 'the other' or the non-member. That was Dasa's thing. Everyone who didn't believe what he believed was a "fool". Anyway, Psalm 14:1 is the Hebrews singing to the Hebrew choir and - and I agree - it doesn't constitute "understanding".

'Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.' (Colossians 2:8)

Non-believers seem to be perceived as deceitful and that any philosophies they hold are empty without God. (Not sure if this deceitfulness is seen as deliberate or if it is a case of them having deceived themselves).

@fmf said
But anyone can hurl the word "fool" at 'the other' or the non-member. That was Dasa's thing. Everyone who didn't believe what he believed was a "fool". Anyway, Psalm 14:1 is the Hebrews singing to the Hebrew choir and - and I agree - it doesn't constitute "understanding".

Yes, I’m not referring to the fool comment, we get lots of that in here! I’m just indicating that “unbelief” in those days was probably mostly held in secret, not to be discussed on pain of death. There was clearly little or no understaning of the concept of atheism.

@fmf said
What scriptural evidence is there that the founders of Christianity had a good understanding of the human condition when it comes to the nature of belief, lack of belief, and diversity of religious belief?

What exactly is your derfintion of "good understanding"?

Can I have a good understanding of a Person who claims the Flat Earth Theory to be valid, even though I oppose thier belief in that? Or will all my understanding be understood as Belitteling, since in fact I do think I know more than they?

How would you rate the Meeting with the woman described in John 4. Was she a believer from the beginng? Did Jesus have a good understaning of her? Did he treat her with respect?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
(Colossians 2:8)

Non-believers seem to be perceived as deceitful and that any philosophies they hold are empty without God.

Seems more like mundane partisan preening trash talk and 'xenophobia', as it were, rather than insight. Thinkers have managed to arrive at a rather more sophisticated analysis of the diversity of human belief and morality than that in the meantime. Groupists 2,000 years ago paint a picture of restricted god figure.

@ponderable said
What exactly is your derfintion of "good understanding"?

Perhaps one could start with the fact that the 'revelation' that was allegedly conducted in an effort to convince, convert and "save" everybody has been ineffective and contentious.

Maybe a better "understanding" of human nature would have resulted in a more effective outreach to mankind.

The stated aim was to "save" everybody - according to some Christians here - and yet it seems like it wasn't a genuine effort.

I diagnose the problem as being a distinctly parochial prism and a lack of anything that seems "divine".

Remember, we are told that ghastly vengeful violence awaits people who sincerely and thoughtfully lack belief.

A "good understanding" would have been reflected in a less manmade looking ideology.

@ponderable said
Can I have a good understanding of a Person who claims the Flat Earth Theory to be valid, even though I oppose thier belief in that? Or will all my understanding be understood as Belitteling, since in fact I do think I know more than they?

I think you can have a "good understanding" of them ~ along with their intellectual nature ~ and, yes, you can belittle them at the same time if you want. Instead of belittling them, are you going to burn them in flames for their belief?

@ponderable said
How would you rate the Meeting with the woman described in John 4. Was she a believer from the beginng? Did Jesus have a good understaning of her? Did he treat her with respect?

The prevailing Christian belief is that Jesus is going to oversee her torture after she dies. Is that what her 'incorrect religion' earns her after kindly offering Jesus - someone from a different religion - a drink? I have given assistance to a Muslim before and they have said kind words rooted in their religion; was I supposed to have converted to Islam?

The prevailing Christian belief is that Jesus is going to oversee her torture after she dies.

Old Twisto-brain strikes again.

And he gets upset because it has to finally be pointed out that he's full of crap.

John 4:29

"Come, see a man who told me all that I have done, Is this not the Christ? "

@sonship said

The prevailing Christian belief is that Jesus is going to oversee her torture after she dies.

Old Twisto-brain strikes again.

And he gets upset because it has to finally be pointed out that he's full of crap.

John 4:29

"Come, see a man who told me all that I have done, Is this not the Christ? "

But if she does not believe in Jesus' divinity at her death and is still an adherent to her own religion ~ the religion of her parents, her grandparents, and perhaps countless generations stretching back ~ despite her being a good person ~ isn't Jesus going to torture her in burning flames and watch over the process along with some "angels"?

Besides, the broader point is that your "Jesus" figure has not come to my Muslim neighbours and done something to make them think that the people they know should come and see "a man who told me all that I have done" or ask them "Is this not the Christ?" John 4 is a trite little story and offers no evidence whatsoever that the partisan people who constructed the "Jesus" and "Paul" story understood atheism nor the nature [and diversity] of religious belief?

@fmf said
What scriptural evidence is there that the founders of Christianity had a good understanding of the human condition when it comes to the nature of belief, lack of belief, and diversity of religious belief?

There is the famous passage:

For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

This is form Pslam 14; Psalm 53 also opens up with a reference to fools saying there is no God.

Because of this passage alone, it appears that the concept of atheism is directly confronted. We know that Christ also knew the Psalms -- He quoted one while He was in the process of dying, and He is God. We also know that Paul, who was once a Pharisee among Pharisees and a devout Jew, would have had extensive knowledge of the Pslams, and this would not have been alien to him.

John 3:12 also deals with the concept of belief as a stumbling block:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Numbers 14:11 does the same:

And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?

Here, Christ acknowledges the free will in belief or disbelief:

Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”

(John 1:50)

There are also people who woudl suggest that the passages talking about the hardening of heart are a sort of reference to this concept of becoming faithless and refusing to be moved by the heart towards God, and these types of passages are common.

It is probably certainly true that Christ and Paul each would ahve had some good knowledge of the Greek philosophers and their potential for skepticism -- Christ because He is God, Paul because he was a Roman citizen that shows familiarity with these. Indeed, some very atheistic writers suggest that Christianity actively borrowed from Greek philosophy...

Which would mean that the initial writers or anyone familiar with the Gospel of John would have had some familiarity with atheism as an option even if we contend that the Hebrews had no concept of it -- which the Bible shows us that they did.

it'd seem that it is unfounded to doubt this narrative but maybe there is some richer perspective you can give us to back up the perspective.