Most self-proclaimed atheists that I have met are really Christians. They have lost their faith (or want to have) but they are still stuck in the Christian religion and perceive the world in a Christian way. It becomes apparent when they talk about all the religions out there and logically assume, since they know no better, that all of them work like Christianity.

yes, but I don't know if I'd call it a religion but a relationship with the God of the universe.  God called them out, set them apart from the other nations of the world to be his own people. 

and remember you linquistic one you...   Abram means "exalted father."  His name, changed by God to Abraham means "father of a great multitude." 

Ok, ya, that was before the Tower of Babel when things went really astray.  God recalibrated the world but it didn't take long before human nature started rearing it's ugly head again.  This time God confused their language. 

that makes absolutely no sense at all Leauki.  How can you be for God and anti-God at the same time? 

If you are told that "I was once a Christian and now am an atheist."    Don't believe them.  They are confused.  A Christian is a Christ follower.  There's no turning back.   You cannot follow Christ until he says in your heart "follow me."   You cannot follow Christ spiritually unless you have a heart transplant basically meaning you are "reborn."  Once you are born, you cannot become unborn.  It doesn't work that way. 

In the scripture it was written by John "they departed from us because they were not of us in the first place." 

Christianity is a religion, a set of rules and rituals.

Belief in G-d and Jesus is part of Christianity, but the rules and rituals don't require faith.

Call it what you will, but religion and faith are distinct. There is a Christian religion and a Christian faith. And they are not the same thing. Many people follow the monotony of Christian rituals without believing or behaving in a Christian way.

In this country that is true - mostly because most are Christian to begin with.  And they have the leisure and time to decide to be "different".

I am not sure they have "lost their faith" as much as they are trying to be self important and so they have to show everyone (the ritual part) how open minded and independent they are.

Not all Christians follow the motto of "live and let live".  In that respect, the only difference between the American Atheist (Generalization alert!  I did not say all) and the evangelistic christian is the "god" they are trying to convert you to.

The point is that Christians have a few basic beliefs about what religions are, and they will stick to them without noticing.

That is all good and well until a Christian becomes an "atheist" and tells himself that he is now beyond the limits of religion when in reality he is still bound by the limits of his religion and has merely lost the faith that explained the whole thing. Usually it's easier to make a Christian who believes in G-d see that other religions are different than an atheist who lives without a Christian framework. (For example KFC understands Judaism. Most of the secular people who posted here don't.)

I think I understand what you're saying.  Essentially, its hard to completely eliminate their frame of thinking and their reference of thinking if that's what they were accustomed to.  An example (it'll be non-religious), I have friends that are from several Soviet Block countries and they lived under them.  Even though they are in the United States and most have become U.S. citizens they still have that way of thinking because that is the framework they were raised in.  Their thinking is different from our thinking and actually in current times it is practical.

Even though they have some what adapted to our society they still think, do things, and respond in a certain way.

I agree with you here for the most part.

I have seen this.  I think some try to cram that all paths lead to GOD. Trying to make everything nice and neat and put it in a nice package.  In reality, not all religions believe in the similar things and actually most religion have radically different beliefs. 

I've met a lot of people who claim to be Buddhist here in the States.  Most of them feel that in Buddhism, you are allowed to do whatever you want as long as you have 'good energy/intentions'.  Which is a bunch of non-sense/hog wash especially after living in a Buddhist country.

Actually it's not.  In the OT there were rules and rituals associated with the Jewish Faith which I partly explained above.  Then when Jesus came, he set us free from all that.  That's why it's called a "New Covenant."  It's consistent with the Old Covenant but NOT a continuation of it.  He fulfilled it.  All that was in the OT was a shadow of Christ.  He is the body of that shadow. 

In the NT it was so hard to get the Jews coming into the faith  to understand this (read Galatians) because they wanted to hang onto the old.  Jesus said, you don't put new wine in old wineskins. 

The laws/rituals in the Old Covenant were a way of life (as I explained earlier) NOT a way to life.  That's why Jesus said "I AM the way truth and life."  The law and rituals were never a bais for going to heaven.  If so, none would get there because every single one of us in one way or the other has broken the first commandment. 

To break one law is to break them all.  It was a pkg deal. 

BUT after saying that Leauki, I think I understand where you might be coming from.  The denominations in the name of Christ or Christianity are all about rules and regulations but that is in spite of what the scriptures say, therefore they are rules and regulations of man not God. 

If you go back and read Acts 15 (the beginning of the church) you'd read the instructions given.  The Jewsish Christians now were convinced that the Gentiles were to now come into the faith.  So what do we do with them?  They had a council (Jerusalem) to discuss the matter.  Do we make them come under the law?  Do we have them circumcized?  The answer was a clear NO.  The only two "rules" were for them to obstain from sexual immorality and avoid idolatry.  That's it. 

Chrisitanity is not supposed to be about a heavy burden of rules and regulations but one that is light and easy.   Man has a way of putting us under such regulations with their man made excessive doctrines. 

Ok, I don't have a problem with this.  I would probably say that some "Christian" religions are in name only.  They carry the name but are phoney.  Remember you can profess anything you want to but the real question is do you possess the faith? 

An example. 

In John 8 Jesus went up against a bunch of religious Jews.  They told Christ they followed Abraham and the God of Abraham.  The evidence pointed in the other direction.  Christ challenged them.  If you were, and you're not, you would act like Abraham.  Just like children have the genetic makeup of their parents so it is with the spiritual.  It's the spiritual genetics that matters not the physical (which they were relying on). 

If they wre truly children of Abraham they would act like Him.  There was no proof to convict them.  They were imitators but not genuine. 

It's the same with these so called Christians who have walked away (or maybe still there) and some of the denominations who started out good intentioned but got weary in contending with the faith and fell victim to the whims of the culture. 

Anyhow it ended with name calling.  Insults, and violent language are favorite weapons of the devil.  10X between verses 12-59 these religious Jews, who said they were children of Abraham interrupted, contradicted and reviled this son of David who was one of them.  His meekness and dignity is an unforgotten example for the rest of us. 

I have always found her to be very insightful in religious knowledge.  She does her homework.

I got to give you an insightful for that one!  A light bulb just went off and that explains a lot - both their antipathy towards Christianity and why they pretend to be who they are.  It is both stemming from what is now being called "white guilt" (because of the election of Obama), but is actually more generic than that.  I heard a term several years back - affluenza.  They have a guilt feeling because they have so much!  So they are against everything that got them (or what they perceive to have gotten them) all that.

I feel that most Believers have a very negative view of the Pharisees.  During Jesus's time, there were several sects of Pharisism.  The word Pharisee means 'set apart'.  If you look through out all of Scripture GOD was continually and constantly saying I don't want your burnt bulls or rams what I desire is a changed heart hence why Jesus called some of them 'white washed tombs'. 

As you pointed out KFC it was a way of life and not a way to life.  The word Torah is a word that means "teaching" or "instruction." It is often rendered as "law." But that is the least of its roles. It comes from a root word in Hebrew yarah which gives us the word picture of a man throwing a spear at a target. From this root, we see that Torah is instruction on how to hit the mark or target. More specifically how to accurately do those things which are pleasing to GOD. The Torah teaches us how to please the heart of GOD.  

Romans 10:4 tells us that Messiah was the "end" (telos) of the Torah for righteousness for every one who believes.  Now, I feel that the Greek word telos would be more accurately translated to goal here. Messiah was the goal of the Torah for righteousness (rightstanding) for those who believe. Telos is like the finish line in a race. If you look in Romans 9:30-10:4 in the Greek you'll see that goal makes more sense than end (for the words used here are very Olympic/athletic related). The goal of the runners is to cross the finish line not necessarily just to end the race. When we have received Yeshua (Jesus) as our savior, the goal of the Torah has been fulfilled.

Actually this goes nicely with what your next to the last post said. If you look at Romans 10:4 "For Messiah is the goal of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."  Everything points in the direction of Messiah, if you look at Shabbat meal, for example.  First there is the lighting of the two candles by the head women of the house (symbolizing that the woman would be the one who brings the light/Messiah in).  Then the blessings of the Red Wine giving coming from the vines of the earth and the Bread that is from the grains from the earth.  This is such a beautiful symbolism here.  Me doing this here doesn't get me any brownie points with GOD or make HIM exalt me.  It helps me to see the Messiah throughout all Scriptures and be focused on HIM for Jesus was the goal and the point in all of this.

Good stuff PP.  I love you!!!!  You are a born teacher! 

 I also like to go to the Greek for a clearer meaner to words.  We were studying Jude last night and looked at "earnestly contend" (v3)  which is one word in the Greek and is agonizomai (where we get agonize from) first meant to compete in an athletic contest and then more generally to "fight, struggle, strive."  That's how we are to be in defense of the faith.  We are to agonize over it as we would in a sporting event. 

Sad to say, most have no idea.  But I can see you do! 

That's the philosophical discussion, very typical for rabbinical assemblies.

But here's the deal. Yarah today means "shoot" and 2000 years ago meant "cast" (as in "throw a dice"). But I think it originally derived from "decide". There is a logical connection between "decide" and "cast" ("the die is cast" is a common saying to mean that the decision has been made). Work with me, I am coming to a point.

As you know, and as others might find interesting, the word/root "katav" means "write" and from it derives "hiktiv" meaning "dictate" (aka "make someone write"). Similarly "yashav" means "sit" and "hoshiv" means "seat" (aka "make someone sit"). Most Hebrew verbs have such a derivation. I think it's likely that "horoth" ("instruct", whence derives "torah" = "instruction") derives from "yarah" (originally "decide") and hence literally means "make somebody decide" which is what instructing is. (The "decide" here means "decide what to do or how to do it", hence evolved into "cast").

Now, what really baffles me is the derivation of the word "talmud". It's clear that it derives from "lamad" ("learn"). But how?

("Talmid" = "student" is clear. It's from "make somebody learn" and analogous to "toshav" = "inhabitant" and "torah" = "instruction".)