What do Theists Think About Atheists?

[Jacob(smooth)]

the most honest reading of the bible leads us to the concept of physical resurrection for us, and Lake of fire for you. Given the time elapsed since it was written, that's getting tricky. Gonna be standing room only, and that's not my idea of a fun eternity! And the Lake of fire is just plain silly.

I think oblivion is probably about right. As to heaven, the phrase most often used by Jesus is eternal life. Eternal does not mean for all time, it means outside of time. I can't conceive of what existence would be like outside of time so no idea what that would look like either.

So, if you've got an honest reading of the bible leading you in one direction, and your version of this concept leading you in another, doesn't that mean yours is a dishonest reading of the bible?

No, my reading of the bible is, I think, honest. But my opinion is different to my reading of the bible. To put it another way my opinion is not wholly based on my reading of the bible. I (I think) read what the Bible said about heaven and hell, dismissed it, and formed a different view based on, but not following what the Bible says. Does that make any sense?

Sometimes I think, an honest reading of the bible leads to the conclusion that what the Bible says is wrong. Faced with that, a theist has three choices.

1. Conclude that the Bible is a fairy tale and become an atheist.

2. Conclude that either some or all of the bible is wrong, or miswritten, mistranslated or misread and form a view which is influenced by, but not dictated by, the Bible.

3. Reinterpret the bible to say that it says what it does not actually say.

I think 3 is intellectually dishonest. I'm a 2. You I guess are a one.

So let me give an example. The colour of the robe Jesus was crucified in. One gospel has it as red, another as purple.

A 1. Will conclude that it can't have been both, therefore the account is unreliable.

A 2. Will conclude that it shows fallibility or errancy in the authors of the bible. However they may conclude that since red and purple are similar, it was probably somewhere between the two, or that one of the authors was colourblind. Or that perhaps it was a made up robe. A 2 is full of doubt.

A 3. Will probably say that since the bible is inerrant, there is a colour which is reddish purple, neither one nor other but accurately reportable as either. That as such the robe was red AND purple. Sort of schrodingers dressing gown. I think that's dishonest because red is red and purple is purple.

Sorry, not a very coherent answer I know.