In a recent post, Christian Piatt ponders over whether atheists can also be a Christians:
If you consider that the lower Christology focuses not so much on divinity and more on humanity, it begins to make sense how someone could adhere to the moral teachings of Jesus, and even try to pattern their lives after how he taught and lived, without actually having to believe in God….
Some will feel the need to assert absolute authority in answering this question, and that’s all right. Personally, I think I could spend the rest of my life trying to understand the essence of what I think it means to be a Christian, and still only have a dimly lit view of the whole picture. Other people, atheists included, help me understand a little bit more about my own spiritual reality every day.
He’s right that it really depends on how you define Christian. If it is that you believe and follow Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the gospels, then I really don’t think it’s possible to be a Christian atheist — after all, Jesus taught there was a God and he was his son. I don’t know any atheists who could swallow that one.
But of course there are many positive moral teachings that are attributed to Jesus. To forgive others, to turn the other cheek, to love and serve others, to do unto others as we want done to ourselves, etc, are all exemplary teachings and in most situations I agree with them. But other moral teachers taught such things, and we rarely label ourselves after a teacher where we only follow 30% of what he said and disagree with the rest.
So I find myself in disagreement with Piatt. If you’re a Christian who doesn’t believe in God or what Jesus taught about himself and “his Father,” then I have a hard time seeing what makes you a Christian. Is it because you think other people should be forgiven? So do I, and I do not follow Jesus. Is it because you think you should love and serve others? Or follow the Golden Rule? Because I also think those things, and am not a Christian.
On the other hand, if there are atheist Christians, then perhaps I’m an atheist Jew because I agree that we shouldn’t kill other people and shouldn’t steal, just like Moses taught. I would also be an atheist Muslim because I think people should be kind to their parents in their old age (17:23-24) and should make sure they are facing towards Mecca when praying (okay, maybe not that last one).
But I’m not an atheist Christian or atheist Jew or atheist Muslim, even though I agree with parts of all their morality.
I’m just an atheist with common sense.
How ’bout you?
laura: I wish America wasn’t so hell bent on religion.I mean the some of the brightest and... 
Ronb0116: These are interesting comments that resonate with me. I was also raised deeply religious by a very... 
Mark: Watched the video of Ed from yesterday. There were no answers, just hedging and sarcasm. You know, I... 
Arie: The thing is that in the long term that particular mindset would lead to stagnation. The Middle East has... 
Jerdog: Super long life would almost certainly amplify the differences between the haves and have-nots. Not everyone will be... 
Twin-Skies: And Jews, and Rachel Maddow, and the Dalai Lama XD 
176 Comments
Well, I heard of atheist Christians. I also believe, that there might be people, who came to the conclusion, that Jesus had some neat ideas, but find the divine aspect ridiculous, so they only follow the humanist parts of his teachings.
I seriously wonder, why not take the final step and simply call yourself just a humanist in that case. It’s not like Jesus had the ultimate ideas in that respect.
For some famous examples, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were quite enamored of Jesus’ moral teachings but found the divinity stuff ridiculous.
I’m a philosophy student, I can barely be sure that I as a person exist, let alone that I can be categorised based on beliefs.
But it is true that Christian as traditionally and commonly defined (in terms of the Creeds, which primarily concern themselves with Jesus’ divinity rather than his teachings) is completely incompatible with any form of atheism. “Christian”, after all, implies belief in such a thing as a Messiah (Christ). Anyone following his teachings without that belief would have to be a… Jeshuan?
@wazza
Not being sure whether or not you exist is irrelevant to the discussion. It’s like saying “I can barely be sure that I as a person exist, let alone (argument x)”. Existence some kind is true, and nevertheless what comprises “you” is still “typing out a response”.
that was a joke at the expense of anyone who ever contributed anything to the study of metaphysics…
I am pretty sure I exist.
As Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am.” And as someone else said: “Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits.” So I guess for me, that would be: “I sometimes think, so I might be.”
I like the one that goes:
I think, therefore I am confused.
Throughout Christian history, as science and the surrounding society has progressed and evolved, the Christian teachings have constantly had the pressure to develop into the direction of a more abstract and watered-down version. In a god-of-the-gaps theology, where the great mysteries of life are attributed to a deity, when the understanding of our surroundings grows, the gaps in which the deity can hide grow smaller and smaller all the time.
Example: Less and less Christians nowadays believe that god is literally a bearded man up in the skies. Astronauts went up there above the clouds and found only the vastness of space. Today, for many Christians god is simply an immaterial and timeless consciousness, which is just about as abstract as you can get.
Example: Less and less Christians nowadays believe the Genesis story literally since modern biology, cosmology and geography have expanded our views. The amount of Bible verses that can be taken literally grows smaller as the number of metaphoric and poetic verses grows. Same for verses that contain moral vs. immoral teachings.
The phenomenon described in the article is simply the last step in watering down Christianity to fit the requirements of modern society. Stripping away all the supernatural and theistic, all that is left are some philosophical and moral teachings to life your life by.
And who said that evolution is not true? Christianity is a meme, a thought, a mind-virus, spreading through the minds of people from generation to generation. Bad memes (= harmful and irrelevant thoughts) do no propagate, get weeded out and die. Good memes (= beneficial and relevant thoughts) do propagate, prosper and spread. For a meme to survive throughout time it needs to evolve in order to meet the requirements of its’ time. Above you can see examples of Christianity evolving in order to survive.
and this is relevant to the question of atheist christians?
It wasn’t. His bad memes (irrelevant thoughts) just didn’t get weeded out.
Bad memes don’t propagate? Deception. Honor killing. Racism. Aren’t these bad memes? The religion meme itself is considered by some a kind of mental virus.
The literalism you describe as being part of Christian belief is a new phenomenon, dating only as far back as the 18th century nor was it ever a universal Christian belief. Nor was there ever any requirement or expectation of believing that God is an elderly bearded man – that concept came out of the art of the middle ages. And not all Christians find faith & science to be incompatible. Think Galileo, Copernicus, Newton . . . Please do not describe all 2000 years of Christian belief and tradition in terms of the most narrow of Christian thought.
That said, while I do know atheists who live every bit as morally as Christians are supposed to live it seems to “Christian Atheist” is an oxymoron.
Having read Sebastian’s post several times, I don’t see that he is trying to paint all Christians with a literalistic brush but is rather making a broad God-of-the-Gaps historical argument. It appears to many of us skeptics that there is merit to this view. If there has been a gradual erosion within Christianity of what can be interpreted as history rather than allegory or story, then upon what basis can we be convinced that some in-group has found or is defending the unshakable core?
In other words, why are you not skeptical of biblical claims?
Example: Less and less Christians nowadays believe the Genesis story literally since modern biology, cosmology and geography have expanded our views. The amount of Bible verses that can be taken literally grows smaller as the number of metaphoric and poetic verses grows. Same for verses that contain moral vs. immoral teachings.
Actually, the belief that Genesis was pure metaphor is actually a very ancient one in Christian history.
It’s an irrelevant point to the discussion, most likely…
Nobody claimed it wasn’t an ancient belief, the statement was that less and less believe it literally since modern biology. Why do you have to use straw men on an issue you think is irrelevant anyways?
Less and less Christians nowadays
Just pointing out that it’s not strictly a modern trend.
The phrase “since modern biology” is key. If someone said since the internal combustion engine people have built more and more roads, would you point out that roads existed before the internal combustion engine?
Frankly, I’m getting tired of the folks who show up whenever we talk about Christianity and say, “that’s not the REAL Christianity,” or “not all Christian believe that.” For my own selfish reasons I’d like there to be a working definition for Christianity, so we can go on ranting about Christianity without have to stop and qualify everything.
So it’s fine if you reject substitutionary atonement (for example), but if you do, then you’re not a Christian. Maybe you’re an “ethnic Christian” the way there are ethnic Jews, but you’re not an unqualified Christian.
I suppose I could start identifying myself as an ethnic Unitarian-Universalist.
I’m an ethnic Baptist!
Me too. Although that would only be due to the fact that I was forced to go to church as a child.
I’m a biker.
The problem there is you are still attempting to put a label on Christ, and Christians are “little Christs” as they were first called. When we label someone or something we inevitably detract from, narrow and marginalize them in our attempts to categorize and explain. This is also in part why denominations are so confining and limiting adhering to certain aspects, creeds etc over others.
You can’t truly label Him anymore than they could in the NT. Sure you can mock, call names but “no one knows the Father but the Son, and the Son but the Father”. It takes one to know one.
So you’re saying that the book used as the basis for His church didn’t do a very good job of describing Him – equating labeling with describing (which is what a label should do). That’s maybe a subject worth further debate. Where’s the beer?
An alternative book could be “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”.
Haven’t you labelled your god as the Truth with a capital-T?
Don’t bother replying.. you will just make your hypocrisy even more apparent when you tell those stale old lies.
Frankly, I’m getting tired of the folks who show up whenever we talk about Christianity and say, “that’s not the REAL Christianity,” or “not all Christian believe that.” For my own selfish reasons I’d like there to be a working definition for Christianity, so we can go on ranting about Christianity without have to stop and qualify everything.
So it’s fine if you reject substitutionary atonement (for example), but if you do, then you’re not a Christian. Maybe you’re an “ethnic Christian” the way there are ethnic Jews, but you’re not an unqualified Christian.
My first thought was, “Tough.”
My second, more balanced (I hope) thought was, “That’s because you’re not a Christian.” If you were, you might find yourself doing the exact same thing. I don’t want to be associated with murderers, racists, etc., etc., like the people who often appear on the front page of this blog. So I differentiate myself by saying how I’m different, even though I have the same label.
“My second, more balanced (I hope) thought was, “That’s because you’re not a Christian.”‘
No, I’m just one of those wacky people who think the words we use should have meaning. I tend to think of it as an aid to communication.
Right now it seems to me that the definition of Christian is circular: a Christian is anyone who refers to themselves as a Christian. The word has no descriptive power. If it helps, remember that I’m in academia right now. Academics like neat labels and categories; it helps us talk about these things in a useful way.
So, what do you think it is?
I suppose I’d have to go with something academic and pretentious: “A Christian is someone who is in dialog with the traditions of the Christian community, among which are …” and then hash out which traditions are central. I’d say substitutionary atonement – the sacrifice of Jesus in some way worked towards the forgiveness of sins, even if it’s just through martyrdom and moral example. And the Holiness of Jesus – the notion that Jesus was more that simply another moral teacher or itenerate preacher. We could probably add a few more.
I use that horrible word “dialog,” because I think the important thing is that the subject be engaged with the intellectual traditions. The liberal Christians of the last century didn’t discard any of the central beliefs, they just reinterpreted things until they could agree with them. So Jesus was not exactly divine, but was the first “complete human.” Or, as Tillich put it, “completely transparent to the ground of being,” whatever that means. Even Spong did this, at least in his early years. I remember him saying, “In Jesus, we see God clearly for the first time.”
The important things is that they accepted these traditions as important and sought to work within them. They were taking part in a 2,000 year discussion. Once you start discarding traditions rather than modifying them, I don’t see how you can remain part of that discussion.
I use that horrible word “dialog,” because I think the important thing is that the subject be engaged with the intellectual traditions. The liberal Christians of the last century didn’t discard any of the central beliefs, they just reinterpreted things until they could agree with them. So Jesus was not exactly divine, but was the first “complete human.” Or, as Tillich put it, “completely transparent to the ground of being,” whatever that means. Even Spong did this, at least in his early years. I remember him saying, “In Jesus, we see God clearly for the first time.”
That makes sense, and we probably mostly agree. I think it’s helpful to have a working definition as well; I just think it’s very difficult, especially here frankly, because so often I find myself outside the lines of a working definition but still want to be identified as Christian.
As an aside, why do you think substitutionary atonement is so vital? That’s a concept that’s been debated throughout the centuries… And personally, I wouldn’t label it as a non-negotiable.
As an aside, why do you think substitutionary atonement is so vital?
It may not be vital. I was just reading April DeConick’s blog series “Creating Jesus”, and she locates the atoning sacrifice as the kernel of the early church. In trying to figure out why their messiah was ingloriously executed, the early Jewish-Christians drew from the stories of the Maccabean period. They decided that the suffering of Jesus must have been intended from the start to atone for the sins of Israel.
I’m sure there are a dozen other theories that are just as good, but if she’s right then the atonement is probably the first distinctly Christian tradition. That made it prominent in my mind when I was writing.
” I don’t want to be associated with murderers, racists, etc., etc., like the people who often appear on the front page of this blog. So I differentiate myself by saying how I’m different, even though I have the same label.”
But (IMO) this raises a good question: Why do you(and other Christians) always attempt to disassociate yourselves from these people, or more to the point, these “sinners”..i.e.. “murderers”, adulterers, thieves, and other people who make the headlines, when the Christian philosophy makes it clear that humanity(everyone) is innately “sinful”? After all, you may presumably be seated right next to these types of people in “Heaven”, since biblegod apparently overlooks these transgressions, provided one doesn’t commit the only “unforgivable “sin”, i.e…nonbelief.
But (IMO) this raises a good question: Why do you(and other Christians) always attempt to disassociate yourselves from these people, or more to the point,
I think my comment should be taken in the context of the blog and the way the posts about murderers are generally discussed. For example, Dr. Tiller’s murderer had an explicitly religious motivation for killing Dr. Tiller. Furthermore, if you look through the thread about that topic, you’ll see many people arguing how dangerous Christianity and the pro-life movement are.
I reject his action (and motivation) as unjustifiable. My dissociation from him would be in order to avoid being confused as a murderer because we both call ourselves Christians. Furthermore, I think it’s important to voice that because not all of us are crazy and dangerous; we object to that type of hateful action and hate speech as much as anyone.
So using justifiable homicide as an excuse is rejecting his motivations as unjustifiable?
I am continually amazed that you don’t see your own hypocrisy.
I am continually amazed that you don’t see your own hypocrisy.
You’re incredible. I can’t figure out if you’re a troll or if you’re just really as dense as you appear to be. Read what I say. I’ve said this to you at least five times now.
I’ve never, ever, ever said that I agreed with Tiller’s killer that justifiable homicide is a legitimate defense for his actions. All I ever did was say that Tiller’s killer is using justifiable homicide as his defense. I’ve repeatedly said that I disagreed with that defense; in other words, I do not agree that the homicide was justifiable.
I do not agree with Tiller’s killer’s motivation, i.e., that the Dr. should be killed because he was violating God’s will.
I do not agree with Tiller’s killer that the homicide was justifiable according to my understanding of justifiable homicide, i.e.,
(from wiki)
“Thus, if one person has killed another, intending to do so, the normal consequence would be a conviction for murder. But, for a variety of different public policy reasons, societies over the centuries have considered it morally acceptable and/or merely expedient for one person to kill another and to treat this killing as “justifiable” in a number of different situations.”
I’ve never once claimed that the concept of a justifiable homicide is a legitimate defense for Dr. Tiller’s murder. I’ve said the opposite over and over again, and you ignore me.
The one thing I did say, which you misunderstood, is that one of the early articles that was linked to on this blog claimed that in the view of the killer, the killing was defensible because of the concept of ‘justifiable homicide.’ I don’t agree with that. I think the murder was just that, murder, and indefensible and unjustifiable.
So drop the accusations, already. You’re making a fool of yourself.
Aor, I agree with you on his foolish hypocrisy.
Where’s the hypocrisy?
Tiller’s killer is defending his actions by appealing to the concept of “justifiable homicide.”
I think that defense is bunk. The killing was an unjustifiable murder, plain and simple.
Where’s the hypocrisy in that?
We are not going to help you in finding it.
Because it’s not there. You’re manufacturing it.
Take your time to find the imaginary factory within.
That sentence doesn’t make sense. English you do struggle within, don’t you?
Probably understanding your imaginary words, true real life christian.
brgulker-
I can’t help but imagine that Darkmatter’s continuing to be an ass is being fueled by your attempts to defend your position. He’s trolling you.
Elemenope,
You’re right, I think.
I was just hoping that wasn’t the case and that explaining my position one last time would make a difference. It would to a reasonable person, I suppose.
@DM: That’s the last time I’m going to ask you to call me that. You’re being a condescending jerk, which just makes your trolling that more obvious.
Beautiul, true real life christian.
Brgulker…
DM’s in the flesh, dont let him drag you down to his level…come up higher!
Cheering!
I agree with Aor about brgulker’s hypocrisy, or at least narrow, prejudicial, unthinking closed-mindedness.
@brgulker
Quoting you from the other thread:
You have claimed that the concept of justifiable homicide is also to blame for a killers actions. You talk often about how the killing was not justified, but out of the other side of your mouth you say those ridiculous things that excuse the man and shift the blame from the murderer to a legal concept.
I understand that you say don’t think the killing was justifiable. What I don’t understand is how someone who believes what you claim to believe can also try to shift the blame from a murderer to a legal concept that also allows you to defend yourself and others against violent attacks. One on hand you take the moral stance that everyone expects of a moral person, and on the other you take a very odd position, one that shifts the blame from a murderer to the concept of justifiable homicide itself. Until you take a step back and think that through you will have a dilemma on your hands.
Aor, I agree with you bout brgulker talking out of both sides of his mouth.
(Or both faces, each with a self-contradictory mouth.)
What in brgulker’s comments indicate he is attempting in any way to ameliorate the personal responsibility of the killer? Do you think that if he were on his jury he’d fail to convict simply because he seeks explanations for why the murderer might have decided to act that are slightly more nuanced than ‘God-ordered-it”?
Why do people always think to explore or seek an explanation is necessarily (or even usually) to seek an excuse?
I agree with Aor about brgulker’s hypocrisy, or at least narrow, prejudicial, unthinking closed-mindedness.
Hi, Religious Freedumb. I don’t think we’ve ever interacted before, have we? You seem to have read at least some of what I’ve posted and come to a judgment. What have I said that’s so offensive to you?
@Aor:
Elemenope said it well, I think.
What in brgulker’s comments indicate he is attempting in any way to ameliorate the personal responsibility of the killer? Do you think that if he were on his jury he’d fail to convict simply because he seeks explanations for why the murderer might have decided to act that are slightly more nuanced than ‘God-ordered-it”?
Why do people always think to explore or seek an explanation is necessarily (or even usually) to seek an excuse?
The killer has two very problematic ways of thinking that I see. The first is his twisted religious ideology — that we actually agree on. I think he has an equally problematic understanding of what ‘justifiable homicide’ means, and clearly, if you read the articles about him, the killer believed that it is legally (not just morally or religiously) acceptable to kill Dr. Tiller. In my view, both of those ideologies are in play here. I’m not absolving or excusing the man at all; I’m just observing that there’s more to the story than, “He’s just another religious nutcase.” Expressing that makes me a “coward, hypocrite, and an enabler of murder,” at least by your reasoning — right?
So we still have the issue of you accusing me of being an enabler of murder, an accusation I continue to resent. I fail to see how you can continue to uphold that accusation and refuse to apologize for it.
One on hand you take the moral stance that everyone expects of a moral person, and on the other you take a very odd position, one that shifts the blame from a murderer to the concept of justifiable homicide itself. Until you take a step back and think that through you will have a dilemma on your hands.
I don’t understand the concept of “self-defense” and “justifiable homicide” to be the same thing. The former is a defensive action; the latter is an offensive action. For an example of the former: If someone breaks into my house with a weapon, I would not hesitate to respond with whatever means were necessary to protect myself and my spouse (and children, someday). I’m not sure what to give as an example of the latter. I think that in theory, there may be such a thing as a “justifiable homicide,” although I’m not totally convinced just yet that it’s not just a nice word for vigilante justice, but Dr. Tiller’s murder certainly wasn’t one. But in any case, the killer had a very problematic understanding of what a ‘justifiable homicide’ actually is, I think, and I don’t know why pointing that out evokes everything you’ve hurled my way.
@boomslang:
I don’t think I was clear, and I apologize for that. My comments about the ‘way things are discussed’ isn’t at all what I intended. I was thinking very concretely about two conversations I had on this blog with two specific people, and I didn’t say that. In both of those conversations, I was accused of being an enabler of violence and murder.
My point was evidentally lost on you. Sure, you’ve explained why you don’t want to be “confused as a murderer”. Fantastic. But you’ve hardly scratched the surface in explaining how you will go about disassociating yourself in the supposed “next life”— and again, the question that is/was raised revolves around the notion that you could easily be sitting right next to Tiller’s murderer(provided he repents for any wrong-doing and believes “Jesus” is his “Savior”). Mind you, you won’t be able to pull out the “he’s not True Christian!!!” canard, because he’ll be sitting(floating?) right next to you in “Heaven”. In other words, you’ll be associated, by “belief”, with those who have committed unspeakable acts, just like you are associated with them now, despite your current attempt to avoid that association.
I’ve talked at length about soteriology before, actually. You’re assuming that because I’m a Christian, I believe an entire set of things that I don’t actually believe. I guarantee you that I have very little in common with Dr. Tiller’s killer in terms of my belief structure.
And how would these people be in error? If someone can pick up a book and glean the idea that “killing” is okay, as long as its done in the name of “God”, then that *IS* dangerous. Isn’t that why all the killing and smiting was “okay” in the OT?..because it was done in the name of “Yahweh”, and even by “Yahweh”, himself?
A very good point, and it’s one I argue about with my friends and colleagues quite a bit, actually. I abhor all the killing in the OT as much as you do, I’m sure. But that would be another point of differentiation between Tiller’s killer and myself. I don’t believe God wanted Israelites to murder Canaanites. I think Israel got it horribly wrong, just as Evangelicals are currently doing in the Middle East today.
You can reject another’s actions as “unjustifiable” all you’d like. The problem is, another’s actions only have to be “justifiable” to *them*, obviously……hence, the subjectiveness of using religious dogma for things like a “moral” guide.
Another very fair point. I assume that you’re an atheist, and I’m a Christian. We both believe Dr. Tiller’s death was a murder, and (I’m assuming, but fairly I think) that murder is wrong. And we probably have very similar reasoning about why murder is wrong, especially when it comes to the civil, legal side of things. The point I’m trying to make is that I don’t see how my “religious subjectiveness” puts me at a disadvantage with respect to morality, especially when it comes to the topic at hand, i.e., murder.
Again, I don’t see any non-christian arguing that ALL “Christians” are “crazy and dangerous”. In my view, it’s the revealed “Truth”, aka, “God’s Word”, that ALL Christians adhere to, that is “dangerous and crazy”.
Yes, you’re right. No one has argued that. I was responding defensively to the two conversations I listed above… I shouldn’t have done so.
Hi Br. Concerning the murderer you make your position very clear and I agree with you. What I want to comment on tho is the anger that continues to come your way. As far as I can tell, when you talk about your commitment to Christianity we skeptics can’t find anything to grab on to. Really, what is so special that one should plop down in the middle of these ancient mythologies? Or, why should one stay within these outmoded models when the stakes for the human race are so high? The truth has consequences. Of the good things within Christianity, what exactly cannot be equally incorporated into a modern scientifically based model? And if it all can be, then why water the entanglements where these nut jobs hide? Again, what is so special about Christianity that it warrants commitment?
Question-I-thority
Hi Br. Concerning the murderer you make your position very clear and I agree with you.
Phew. I was worried that I was actually coming across as a hypocrite and failing to grasp that. I haven’t been able to see my hypocrisy or narrow-mindedness, but then again, if we are that way, we usually don’t see it ourselves, right? That you and Elemenope (and Phrankygee in the last thread) commented that I’m not a lunatic is welcomed and appreciated.
As far as I can tell, when you talk about your commitment to Christianity we skeptics can’t find anything to grab on to. Really, what is so special that one should plop down in the middle of these ancient mythologies? Or, why should one stay within these outmoded models when the stakes for the human race are so high? The truth has consequences. Of the good things within Christianity, what exactly cannot be equally incorporated into a modern scientifically based model? And if it all can be, then why water the entanglements where these nut jobs hide? Again, what is so special about Christianity that it warrants commitment?
Janet Greene asked me something similar in a previous thread, and I never really got around to responding. I’m not trying to dodge the question(s), because they’re questions I’ve thought about quite a bit, long before ever posting here. But they’re big questions, and they have long answers, and it’s complicated by the fact that I’m not sure I have a firm, definitive answer — I’m a bit of an academic that way, I suppose, in that I tend to give “On the one hand … but on the other hand…” answers that aren’t always very satisfying. All that to say, I’m not trying to dodge, but when I do answer, I want to give a clear, thought-out answer … and when I post here, I’m usually at the office, and I don’t want to dedicate the time to do that.
(FWIW, I’m working on a personal essay called something like, “Why I believe” that I’ll eventually post to my blog when I get the guts to do so … I have a feeling I’ll get labeled a heretic when I do, so I’m not in a hurry to post it)
Anyway, a couple of knee-jerk responses/reactions to your questions.
First, I understand skepticism, because I’ve experienced it myself, and for that reason, I don’t try to convert people — here or elsewhere. I’m sure that my comments come across as evangelistic or apologetic at times, but I’m not trying to “save the heathens/pagans,” mostly because that’s not what I think anyone here is. In other words, I’m not trying to be an evangelist. I understand your skepticism, and I respect you and your skepticism. (I suppose I probably do play the role of apologist more often around here, although that’s not my explicit intention…). I think that gets at your “nothing to grab onto” point a little bit.
Second, while I understand your skepticism, because I’ve experienced different levels of it myself, I do have reasons for believing, that I’ve talked about before. For example, the Christian picture of Creation — Sin — Redemption has a lot of explanatory power for me. The notion that the cosmos, including humanity, is purposeful (creation); the notion that we as human beings are violent toward one another, hurt one another, and destroy creation (sin); and, the notion that God participates in creation to redeem sinful action and people and transforms them into agents of change — that’s a powerful way to think about the world and my own existence, and it motivates me (to try) to be a redemptive agent in the lives of others.
Obviously, there are people who have a-religious worldviews that want to be the same type of person (using different language, obviously) as I want to be, and they don’t ‘need’ religion to help them be that person. That’s fine by me. But obviously they have some motivation for wanting to do so. Something has motivated them to be ‘good.’
As a bit of an aside: What I haven’t been able to understand (yet) about some of the comments I read here is why people would desire to completely deconstruct my worldview when that worldview motivates me to be the person I’m aspiring to be — especially when I’m not doing that to them. /aside.
In other words, I think there are people who choose to be ‘good’, people who are indifferent, and people who choose self-indulged, self-absorbed lives. I’ve met Christians in all three categories. I’ve not known as many atheists personally (outside of people via the web), but my suspicion is that there are atheists in all three categories as well. Do you think that’s fair?
I do think it makes sense to disagree with people in group 2 or 3 and to challenge their worldview where warranted; however, I don’t think it requires jettisoning one’s worldview completely in order to pursue the ‘good.’
For example, you mentioned that the ’stakes are high,’ and I would agree. We,i.e., humanity, face several pressing challenges, such as overpopulation, an environmental crisis, and religious/cultural genocide and “holy wars” (I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth, but those are the things I think of when someone says the stakes are high).
Let’s take holy war as an easy example. Christian Scripture is filled with it. Christian history is filled with it. We currently have Evangelical Christians in America who advocate for Israel without respect to the atrocities they commit to their neighbors. Often, these same groups of people support our other foreign policies in the Middle East for explicitly religious reasons.
I’ve read several comments here (and elsewhere) that argue that the only way to make progress is to eradicate religious thinking; one of my favorites here was recently when a poster claimed that religious people “(have been) kicking and screaming as humanity has progressed from the enlightenment…” (paraphrase).
Yet here I am, a religious person, who opposes all ‘holy war.’ Heck, I even reject the holy war of the OT. So obviously, I’m left scratching my head when I read comments like that. If the only solution to solving the big problems is eradicating religious thinking, then what of me and others like me? I oppose holy war because of my theology — we are all equally God’s children and creation; why would we slay our siblings? I believe we should care for the Earth, because the Earth is God’s good creation — who are we to destroy it, especially now, when we know that human actions are contributing to its destruction (or at least harm)? Overpopulation is linked to that problem — do we (or the Earth) have the resources to support the number of people alive today, let alone if we continue to reproduce at the current rates?
Certainly you can see how such comments (and people) come across as very intolerant and offensive to me… I share a lot of your concerns, and I think changes need to be made. We have that in common — so why not tolerate each others’ ideological differences whenever that tolerance is possible? And when we are compelled to disagree, can’t we find a better solution than fundamentalist ways of thinking that insist that only my way of thinking is correct, and any other way needs to be eradicated?
As another aside, when I think of fundamentalist thinking, I have in mind something like above, “Only my way of thinking is the correct one, and everyone else needs to think like I do.” In some of the comments I read here, the only difference I see between here and the religious fundamentalists I grew up with is a different set of fundamentals. As a bit of an outsider, that’s a bit baffling to me. Fundamentalist Christians want to eradicate atheism by converting the world; fundamentalist atheists want to eradicate religion by de-converting the world. When the ‘reasonable’ alternative is little more than the polar opposite of the enemies’ position, I don’t see what is to be gained, because it seems like little more than simply switching sides. /aside
I’m rambling.
Third, about ‘outmoded models.’ I think I’ve talked about it in a roundabout way already, but here’s what comes to mind. Obviously, I’m not living in a tribe in the mountains sacrificing sheep to my tribal god. That way of thinking is ‘outmoded,’ obviously, and the early church figured that out and eventually abandoned such practices. And we’ve made other changes along the way. Our beliefs and practices have changed as we’ve learned, and they will continue to evolve with time.
But to the heart of what I think you’re getting at (hope I’m not putting words in your moth):
I agree with you insofar as I think fundamentalist ways of thinking can be very dangerous, especially those that think that ‘justice’ can be taken into their own hands (Dr. Tiller’s murderer) or those who wage wars in the name of God. Where I disagree with you is that the solution is the eradication of religion, and I’ve said why. I think the concept of a ‘holy war’ is a great example of a concept that’s ‘outmoded,’ and I’ve abandoned that concept, and my reason for doing so is philosophical/theological/moral (all three work together for me here). And iirc, we had similar upbringings. We’ve both rejected fundamentalism, but I’ve chose to remain in the faith while you chose to leave it. I’m guessing that we probably agree as to what the ‘big issues’ are that we’re currently facing, and we probably have a good bit in common, at least generally, that we should be working toward solving them (i.e., I’m guessing that we both would think that living ‘green’ is important with respect to the environment). So my response to you (or what I think you’re getting at) is: I think it’s entirely possible to arrive at mutually beneficial solutions to the ‘big problems’ that we’re facing without jettisoning faith and religion, because I think that justice and tolerance are woven into the fabric of Christianity (as an example). That’s a long way of saying that I don’t think Christianity is necessarily ‘outmoded;’ I think there’s plenty of room for tolerance, progress, justice, etc. within it.
That’s an absurdly long response, especially when I said I didn’t want to commit the time to a long response… sorry about that. If anyone takes the time to read that, you have too much time on your hands :P
@brgulker
You said: “I do have reasons for believing, that I’ve talked about before. For example, the Christian picture of Creation — Sin — Redemption has a lot of explanatory power for me. The notion that the cosmos, including humanity, is purposeful (creation); the notion that we as human beings are violent toward one another, hurt one another, and destroy creation (sin); and, the notion that God participates in creation to redeem sinful action and people and transforms them into agents of change — that’s a powerful way to think about the world and my own existence, and it motivates me (to try) to be a redemptive agent in the lives of others.”
I guess this is one of the places I get lost. given the overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary, I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea that the world, including the human race, has fallen from some previous sinless or perfect state. How do you hold to that without becoming a creationist, which is clearly ridiculous?
You also said: “In other words, I think there are people who choose to be ‘good’, people who are indifferent, and people who choose self-indulged, self-absorbed lives. I’ve met Christians in all three categories. I’ve not known as many atheists personally (outside of people via the web), but my suspicion is that there are atheists in all three categories as well.”
What, then, if there is no discernible difference between Christians and atheists, is the point of Christianity? Is it just a way, among others, to encode and teach successful behaviour? If so, is it the best way?
I’ll add a bit of commentary here. I’m clearly agnostic in that I don’t know if there is a god or any kind of spiritual realm and barring any miraculous intervention I don’t think I can know – and any unknowable realm by definition is irrelevant to my life. However, I participate in a Christian community for various reasons, one of which is that I’d quite like to find a personally satisfying answer to these questions. Sometimes I suspect that the pastor finds me irritating :-) It also possibly makes me an agnostic Christian, depending on how you define Christian.
I guess this is one of the places I get lost. given the overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary, I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea that the world, including the human race, has fallen from some previous sinless or perfect state. How do you hold to that without becoming a creationist, which is clearly ridiculous?
I don’t take Genesis literally. I take it as mythic, metaphorical, poetic, etc. For me, the Christian story of “the fall”/sin isn’t powerful because it happened at some point in history (not 6,000 years ago!), but rather that it continually happens — which is why I used the present tense above when I talked about sin. We betray and hurt each other. We commit acts of violence against our sisters and brothers (i.e., Cain and Abel). We destroy creation. Etc., etc.
I’m not sure what you mean by creationist — do you mean Young Earth Creationist? If so, I’m not that. It took a while, but I did eventually become convinced by the overwhelming evidence… and cosmology and astronomy are two of my favorite hobbies, at least when I must up the intellectual motivation to trudge through the physics that I can barely grasp.
What, then, if there is no discernible difference between Christians and atheists, is the point of Christianity? Is it just a way, among others, to encode and teach successful behaviour? If so, is it the best way?
To your first question, I do think there are some pretty big differences. You can take a quick look at the last abortion thread for a case in point :) The point I was trying to make is that on a lot of the big issues, there are some important shared concerns.
To your second question, I don’t know. I’m not a unitarian. And I’m not really a pure pluralist, either. But I certainly would no longer say (I used too, back in the day) that we Christians have a monopoly on goodness or morality (which gets me in a good bit of trouble with some of my Christian friends and colleagues!).
To your third question, I can only really say that it’s best for me. I don’t know what’s best for you or for anyone else. I just about left the faith while I was in college, while reading Nietzsche incidentally. Obviously, I didn’t, but I’ll spare all the details. Long story short, I obviously came back. But others ask the same questions about faith and come to very different conclusions. I respect that.
That respect and tolerance that I strive toward, though, doesn’t mean that I shy away from an argument :) I tend not to debate God’s existence, etc., because I don’t think I have anything new to contribute really, but I’m happy to voice my opinion and explain why I think what I think, believe what I believe, and so on.
I’ll add a bit of commentary here. I’m clearly agnostic in that I don’t know if there is a god or any kind of spiritual realm and barring any miraculous intervention I don’t think I can know – and any unknowable realm by definition is irrelevant to my life. However, I participate in a Christian community for various reasons, one of which is that I’d quite like to find a personally satisfying answer to these questions. Sometimes I suspect that the pastor finds me irritating :-) It also possibly makes me an agnostic Christian, depending on how you define Christian.
I got a good laugh out of that comment because it reminded me of my own experience. I studied Religion/Philosophy in college and then went onto seminary. Particularly in college, I think I irritated my profs with all my questions and skepticism.
I understand your epistemological questions and/or objections. Two guys that I read who deal with that are Tony Jones and Brian McClaren. They may be worth your time, if you want to read about guys who take epistemology seriously and remain Christians, especially McClaren’s New Kind of Christian, IMO. They do a much better job explainin than I can do.
And while we’re sharing, I’ve experienced/witnessed two things that I would call miraculous/supernatural. I’ve never shared them here, and I’m not sure if I will or not. Probably not, as I don’t even really share them with close friends… but anyway, those two events have functioned in the way you’ve described for me, especially because one of them happened during one of the times of doubt and skepticism I mentioned above.
Best in your search for satisfying answers.
HTML tag fail above.
brgulker: please ask “Tony Jones and Brian McClaren” why God would have human emotion such as anger and jealousy. When they respond with their answer, please ask them how they know said answer. Thanks.
Question-I-thority,
You said,
What I want to comment on tho is the anger that continues to come your way.
And I meant to ask you how your comment addressed the ‘anger’ that comes my way. What is it specifically that solicits the anger in your view? I’ve been trying to figure out why myself, but I’m at a loss (most of the time). Or, were you addressing that when you made your comment about skeptics not having something to grab onto? I’m just not sure what you mean, and I’m curious.
@ VidLord,
Sure thing. Actually, you could e-mail Brian yourself. He regularly posts to Sojourner’s blog (/http://blog.sojo.net/) and usually posts his e-mail address when he posts.
I don’t know them personally, but if I ever do meet them, I’ll do my best to remember to ask them and then post an answer back here and hope that you will read it.
Or perhaps you asking me to do that was purely sarcastic, in which case, you can just drop the passive-agressive nonsense and say what you mean to say directly. I’m sure I can handle it.
@brgulker
1. I guess I didn’t explain myself ultra-clearly. By creationist, I don’t just imply YEC. I mean anyone who holds a concept that humanity in particular and the physical world in general was a special creation, once perfect and later corrupted, which to me is the only way that redemption can mean anything – assuming that redeeming something implies bringing it back to a previous or original state. It seems to me that that is what the biblical definition is, and anyone who redefines redemption to fit with a more realistic view of how we got here has a bit of problem. Some ignore it, but you (apparently?) have at least thought about it, which makes me curious. How do you, personally, get around it?
I don’t know whether there is that great a difference in behaviour between atheists and Christians, just a difference in what is considered important. My only qualification to that is that prescriptive religion really does seem to inhibit sophisticated thinking and behaviour, which I think is a big problem. I’m undecided whether that’s specifically a religious problem or a more widespread one, given the amount of general dumbness out there, though!
Again, it’s nice to hear someone say that you don’t know what’s best for anyone else. Even over here in a far more secular society than the US, it’s vanishingly rare. The religious just have smaller ghettos from which to tell people what’s best, that’s all. I seem to have stumbled across a bunch who are considerably less out of step with mainstream society in some ways, but I still shake my head in wonderment at times at some of the things people say without any knowledge of life outside their Christian box.
I guess I didn’t explain myself ultra-clearly. By creationist, I don’t just imply YEC. I mean anyone who holds a concept that humanity in particular and the physical world in general was a special creation, once perfect and later corrupted, which to me is the only way that redemption can mean anything – assuming that redeeming something implies bringing it back to a previous or original state
Two things (in a hurry, not trying to be curt or rude):
1) The ‘original state’ thing we agree on, I think. We both accept evolution, which completely undermines a literal “fall.” That’s why I talked about Genesis happening — we all ’sin,’ ie., hurt each other, hurt creation, etc.
2) Consequently, redemption isn’t about being ‘restored to an idealic state of bliss’ but rather about being freed from the pattern of sin.
Have you ever looked at the etymology of the term ‘redemption’? It might be insightful… or at least interesting :)
Well, yes, it rather backs up my point. The “back” part of the concept is implicit in the word in “re-”, as in buy back, take back, put back (to an original condition). That’s according to my reading of the definition on etymonline.com, anyway, but I’m not a lexicographer, so I could be wrong. It is now used sometimes without that connotation, but I don’t see how you can get around that when reading the Bible.
“I think my comment should be taken in the context of the blog and the way the posts about murderers are generally discussed.”
Excuse me?…”the way” they’re discussed? The over all point of these articles, the way I understand it, is to illustrate that “Christians”, as a whole, don’t behave any less “immorally” than non-christians. The end. Christians aren’t being guided by any invisible, “omnipresent”, “omnibenevolent” beings.
Continues….”For example, Dr. Tiller’s murderer had an explicitly religious motivation for killing Dr. Tiller.”
Lol. Well of course it was religiously motivated. To my understanding, no one has suggested otherwise. Now, are you implying that the reason that you do not kill abortion doctors is not “religiously motivated”? I hope not, seeing as how “Christians”, both the murdering type, and the non-murderering type, claim to get their “morality” from the same Holy book.
“Furthermore, if you look through the thread about that topic, you’ll see many people arguing how dangerous Christianity and the pro-life movement are.”
And how would these people be in error? If someone can pick up a book and glean the idea that “killing” is okay, as long as its done in the name of “God”, then that *IS* dangerous. Isn’t that why all the killing and smiting was “okay” in the OT?..because it was done in the name of “Yahweh”, and even by “Yahweh”, himself?
“I reject his action (and motivation) as unjustifiable.”
You can reject another’s actions as “unjustifiable” all you’d like. The problem is, another’s actions only have to be “justifiable” to *them*, obviously……hence, the subjectiveness of using religious dogma for things like a “moral” guide.
Continues….”My dissociation from him would be in order to avoid being confused as a murderer because we both call ourselves Christians.”
My point was evidentally lost on you. Sure, you’ve explained why you don’t want to be “confused as a murderer”. Fantastic. But you’ve hardly scratched the surface in explaining how you will go about disassociating yourself in the supposed “next life”— and again, the question that is/was raised revolves around the notion that you could easily be sitting right next to Tiller’s murderer(provided he repents for any wrong-doing and believes “Jesus” is his “Savior”). Mind you, you won’t be able to pull out the “he’s not True Christian!!!” canard, because he’ll be sitting(floating?) right next to you in “Heaven”. In other words, you’ll be associated, by “belief”, with those who have committed unspeakable acts, just like you are associated with them now, despite your current attempt to avoid that association.
“Furthermore, I think it’s important to voice that because not all of us are crazy and dangerous; we object to that type of hateful action and hate speech as much as anyone.”
Again, I don’t see any non-christian arguing that ALL “Christians” are “crazy and dangerous”. In my view, it’s the revealed “Truth”, aka, “God’s Word”, that ALL Christians adhere to, that is “dangerous and crazy”.
gulker: “We both accept evolution, which completely undermines a literal ‘fall’.”
I’d be curious to know what the distinction is between “the fall”, the way a biblical literalist reads it in Genesis, and the way you understand this concept in Genesis.
gulker: “That’s why I talked about Genesis happening — we all ’sin,’ ie., hurt each other, hurt creation, etc.”
Again, I’m curious—-do you use quotations on the word “sin” because you don’t believe that the act of causing unnecessary harm to “each other” *is* actually a “sin”?
In any event, we have objective confirmation that human beings behave unethically at times. On the other hand, we do not have objective confirmation that this behavior is a “sin”. Further, even if we grant that the Christian philosophy and its “sin” concept true, there seems to be only one “sin” that is relevent, and that is the (”unforgivable”) “sin” of non-belief. All other “sins”..i.e..murder, child molesting, rape, etc., can be overlooked by biblegod. This is the point I was trying to make to you previously about “Christians” attempting to disassociate themselves with “sinners”. Your “Heaven” could easily be full of “sinners”(assuming such a place exists for sake of argument). You mentioned that you discussed this issue with others, but to my understanding, you didn’t offer any hypothesis that would overcome this rather blatant flaw in the philosophy, itself.
gulker: “Consequently, redemption isn’t about being ‘restored to an idealic state of bliss’ but rather about being freed from the pattern of sin.”
Why, in your opinion, does humankind need to be “redeemed” from a supposed “inherent”(innate) “pattern” that they presumably have no control over, and one that they didn’t adopt of their own free will in the first place?
Re christianity and morality. I came across some interesting information on the close link between christianity and criminality in the US. I have long suspected a link between serial killers, rapists, and fundamentalist backgrounds – here is some hard evidence and further info.
http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/crime_facts_world.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/serial_killers.htm
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=701
My first thought was, “That idiot again. Wonder what tiresome version of his tape will he spew now?”
I have often, erroneously or not, called myself a christian atheist. I guess it’s the same thing as a atheist christian. During my many years as a christian, I developed my moral values based on my evolving and ever changing interpretations of the bible. Who I am now and how I see the world has surely been colored by my past faith.
Perhaps I would have developed the same morals independent of any biblical texts. I don’t know.
As a side note, here’s the story of Robert Jensen, an atheist who tried to rejoin the Presbyterian Church. It’s titled “The Inquisition,” so you can probably guess how that worked out.
It seems like the congregation voted that you could not be an atheist Christian, while the Synod punted and declared that he’d been baptized and was thus still a Christian.
That’s a very interesting question.Lately I have found myself thinking that maybe I should focus more on modelling my life after Jesus and not stressing over whether or not He was God because I possibly may never *know* that until I’m dead and gone to heaven, if there is one… but hoping I won’t go to hell for wondering if these things are true.
But yes, I think you can be an atheist Jew by virtue of your heritage. I have a friend who told me he doesn’t believe in God, then later said he quarter Jewish. So I asked him, when you say you’re quarter Jewish, are you referring to a) your race (like I’m black), b) your tribe (like I’m Kikuyu) c) your religion (like I’m Christian) or d) your nationality (like I’m Kenyan)?
The answer was that were I to switch to Judaism, he would always be more Jewish than me on account of his heritage. In the same way, I beleive there are aspects of Christianity that have to do with,maybe, European cultures, and less with God, and therefore, there probably can be Christians who are atheists (I’m not).
According to the traditional definition of jewdaism then your friend and I guess me as well are jews like you’re Kikuyu. Jews are a tribe that managed to conserved not only its ethnic identity but also its religion while if I understand you correctly you have retained your tribal identity but not its original belief system. Therefore because jewdaism is both an ethnic/national identity and a religion I can be an atheist jew. I am jewish by heratige and history but I don’t see why I should buy into the whole god BS that probably made some sense to the people who came up with it in the bronze age but then so did 90% infant mortality and life expectancy of 30 and I don’t know many people who think we should preserve these.
Jesus also taught the one should not marry, should give away all of one’s possessions, should hate one’s family, and should refuse to plan for tomorrow. Even to turn the other cheek is an irresponsible form of extreme pacificism. No, thank you!
Jesus also taught the one should not marry
I got a chuckle out of that one.
Interesting subject. Yes, I think it’s possible but it would probably require being a bit of a scholar at the same time because it takes a bit of work to find out how some of the earlier versions of the gospels differed with later versions (and we don’t even have the earliest copies either), and of course the portrayal of Jesus differs depending on the gospel, of which there are more than just the four included in the current version of the Bible.
It would be impossible to be a Biblical literalist and an atheist at the same time, but a Christian in the sense of someone that likes the message of Jeus – sure.
And let’s not forget that a lot of people nowadays consider themselves to be followers of Plato’s philosophy without including all the gods he believed in in the same package. For some reason nobody demands intellectual consistency there – they just keep what they like and throw out the rest.
” we rarely label ourselves after a teacher where we only follow 30% of what he said and disagree with the rest”
i agree with you Daniel, jesus had some nice things to say , sure ,but it doesnt take a man-god to realize that doing unto others as you would have done to you is a smart idea.
My experience leads me to believe that a lot of the people who identify as vaguely Christian are people who agree with the liberal Love Thy Neighbor message of a lot of contemporary churches and who feel a connection to a default community either by inertia or a need to fit into a group larger than their household and workplace.
I imagine that if the majority religion in the USA were Zoroastrianism, we’d have a lot of nominal Zoroastrians whose main connection to their religion would be agreeing with Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta. (I love Wikipedia.)
This isn’t a new idea. Thomas Jefferson wrote his new Testament by stripping all supernatural events from them and writing a gospel that focused on his moral teachings. At the end, Jesus just dies. I actually wish Christians would read Jefferson’s undiluted testament because it hammers the “love thy neighbor” message home.
I also think the idea wouldn’t fly in most churches. I brought up the idea that Jesus was probably just an enlightened man when I did attend church and nearly cleared the room. I can’t imagine is gotten any better in 10 years.
Someone, I think it was Harold Bloom, once said something to the effect that there has only been one Christian and he died on the cross. The hallmark of Christianity is its selective nature. Only the fundamentalists take every aspect of it as literally true. Moderates pick and choose which parts of it they will embrace and which parts they will reject. If they take this cherry picking to the extreme, believing that there is no God or afterlife but still follow the teachings of Jesus, I guess you could call them atheist Christians.
Ugh, I think you have a very narrow historical view of Christianity here. One of the big reasons Christianity spread early on was that it’s doctrine did not exclude anybody based on their creed, etc; St. Paul argued that Christs teachings applied to Jews and Gentiles equally.
This is utter nonsense. Again, one cannot simply pick and choose what one likes or dislikes about Christ’s teachings and then use those to paint a broad stroke across the landscape. Christ’s teachings regarding his messianic role most certainly could NOT apply to the Jews, as they rejected his claim. To reject one is to reject the rest, and, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, once Jesus’s claim to be the son of God is rejected, he is ANYTHING but a moral teacher… he’s a megalomaniac who deceived those around him with lies and false promises, and advocated that his followers “think not of the morrow” and abandon all ties to their own ambition, well being, and families, and is to be considered as wicked as the devil himself.
Aron, regarding “To reject one is to reject the rest, [...]“, the problem is that we have no objective evidence as to what Jesus actually said. He left now written record. Thus, we must subjectively second guess the testiment of those who knew him, and those who knew those who knew him, as his direct followers did not leave any direct evidnece either.
Thus if one believes all the NT has to say of Jesus, much of it must be blasphemous. Is it proper to say “to accept one is to accept the rest”?
Ben:
You make the point that we have no objective evidence as to what Jesus actually said, and you’re correct in this. However, this does absolutely nothing to lend itself to Christiantity’s case. If anything, this is one of most important points which MUST be made when discussing the value of the Bible as anything but a collected mythology– nearly all of it was recorded second hand, as all mythology is, then proclaimed the absolute truth which is not up discussion. The Christian God, Jesus himself, and the established religion and its related dogma known as Christianity (including every sect from protestant to catholic) leave no room for second guessing. The Bible either is or is not the word of God. It’s come into vogue for those on the apologetics side of the faith to begin mincing words about interpretation based on point of view or historical retrospect, but, again, any but the most a la carte factions of the faith (which many of them have become, displaying their own hypocrisy) are honest enough to own up to the fact that the words of Christ, at the very LEAST, are not open for debate. Hence, Christ was either the son of God, or he was a mad, wicked man. Any who choose to cherry pick the parts they believe to be “God’s word” out of the rest are not Christian’s as Christ himself dictated.
Yes, it is absolutely proper to say “to accept one is to accept the rest.” This is not an injunction placed upon Christianity by non-believers– this is an injunction which is inherent in any sort of revealed religion, and an injunction placed upon the faith by it’s two most famous names: Yahweh and Jesus.
Aron, I do not agree that “to accept one is to accept the rest”. Such suffers from the same false dichotomoty as “to reject one is to reject the rest”.
You present another false dichotomy with “[Jesus] was either the son of God, or he was a mad, wicked man.”
We don’t have direct evidence of what Jesus said. We must subjectively accept and/or deny what the NT claims.
I for one, reject the claim of the actual exisence of the divine, but embrace the concept, being perfection.
Thus for me, there is no divine scripture. However, when reading scripture, a mind of cognitive skill and ability to reason can discern between the constructive and destructive. For me that simple binary filter is able to qualify good from bad, and as Jesus is said to be good, I can assume the bad is not his, but a result of his followers’ pervsion. I may be wrong about my finger-pointing, but in doing so I do preserve my moral compass.
Aaron
Christ was either the son of God, or he was a mad, wicked man.
Ben Abbott
Jesus is said to be good, I can assume the bad is not his, but a result of his followers’ pervsion.
If Jesus was actually claiming to be God, if he actually thought he was God, and wasn’t, we would have to consider him a madman. Even if he were a well-meaning madman, or a kind, tender and merciful madman; he would still have been a madman.
It is possible however that he himself made no such claim. This would indeed shift the fault -the fault- in Christianity from the historical Jesus himself, to the followers who through their writings elevated him to the status of God. Either way it results in a fault: the establishment of untruth. The great deception.
Aron,
I agree that all religion incorporate a lot of deception. All religions start out seeking perfection in morality, perfection in knowledge and understanding, and other admirable goals. Over tiime myth and superstition creep in. It is unfortunate that so many are captivated by what I see as Christianity’s myth and superstition and have forgotten about such goals.
Over tiime myth and superstition creep in? to superstition and myth?
Back up to my initial comment to Aron above.
The emerging would probably be the other way around. Admirable goals emerging from original myth.
Everybody rejects portions of the bible. Even the most fundamentalist evangelical no longer supports slavery, and most (normal functioning) people would consider the actions attributed to god in the OT extremely psychotic. Now, even christians are FINALLY realizing that the earth is billions of years old, and that Genesis could not possibly be true. This means that the story of original sin collapses like the house of cards that it is. No original sin, no need for salvation. I guess, by your statement that if you reject part you reject all of the bible, that none of it is true. Even to christians???
No original sin, no need for salvation.
Well, perhaps for traditional RCC folks.
But, if we still do sin, that is, if sin is as much present tense as past tense, then salvation is still necessary (of course, assuming sin actually is).
“of course, assuming sin actually is”. My view is that it isn’t. There is no such thing. We have issues, that drive us to do things that harm ourselves or others. We should identify why we do these things – often we do “wrong” things out of anger, guilt, fear, etc. I personally believe that what constitutes “sin” is usually people just trying to deal with these issues in inappropriate ways. I don’t find the concept of “sin” helpful in the least.
“Ugh, I think you have a very narrow historical view of Christianity here.”
Frankly, I think he’s closer that you are. Christianity might allow anyone of any ethnicity into the fold, but they had to believe certain things. Already in Paul’s letters we can see we factions starting to form. In 2nd Corinthians, we see Paul carefully explaining that the eventual resurrection would be bodily rather than in spirit. Thus, the neo-platonists must abandon their beliefs about body and spirit to become Christian. Those that didn’t became the Doecists, and were later branded as heretics.
In Galatians we see Paul feuding with another sect of the church – maybe a sect that included Peter and James – that required circumcision. A Jew coming into Paul’s Christianity would have to give up his understanding of the relationship between God and his people. Those that couldn’t became the Ebionites, and were later branded as heretics.
See the pattern? There were certain beliefs – certain creeds, though that’s an anachronism – inherent in early Christianity, most of them having to the with the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection. If you couldn’t sign off on them, then you weren’t a Christian.
Of course, the members of those competing creeds called themselves Christians. So, the fact of faction really doesn’t help to sort it out, unless we attach some higher meaning to the historical victory of one faction’s victory over others.
Personally, I approach the “who is a Christian” problem with a two-part test:
1. Person says they are a Christian
2. Person doesn’t murder puppies or strangle babies in cribs for the lolz
2. Person doesn’t murder puppies or strangle babies in cribs for the lolz
Perhaps I’m in trouble…
Golly, me too. Are those things considered…bad?
See the pattern? There were certain beliefs – certain creeds, though that’s an anachronism – inherent in early Christianity, most of them having to the with the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection. If you couldn’t sign off on them, then you weren’t a Christian.
I think I agree with your main point, but,
In Galatians we see Paul feuding with another sect of the church – maybe a sect that included Peter and James – that required circumcision. A Jew coming into Paul’s Christianity would have to give up his understanding of the relationship between God and his people. Those that couldn’t became the Ebionites, and were later branded as heretics.
I think you might be off on this particular example. Paul argued that circumcision wasn’t salvific; faith is. Therefore, Gentiles who believed didn’t need to be circumcised. To say that a Jew had to ‘give up his understanding of the relationship between God and his people’ altogether seems to exaggerate Paul’s claims a bit. Paul didn’t say a Jew must abandon the practice of circumcision but rather that a Christian doesn’t have to be circumcised, especially a Gentile convert. Paul didn’t say that that all feasts should be abandoned by Jews but rather that they didn’t have to be celebrated. Paul didn’t say that you must stop observing the Sabbath but rather that you don’t have to observe it.
In other words, I think Paul’s point was not that Jews had to change their lives but rather that Gentiles didn’t have to completely change theirs.
Someone, I think it was Harold Bloom, once said something to the effect that there has only been one Christian and he died on the cross.
The originator of that quote is Nietzsche.
Boy did he have strict criteria! I guess I’m a bit fundamentalist in my definition. A Christian is someone who believes Jesus is God. The moderate Christian is almost an entirely different religion. Fundamentalists and moderates are using the same material but it means something entirely different to each of them. They might even belong to the same church. On the same pew. One taking the preacher’s word literally, the other metaphorically. Kinda like the gnostics of the early church. To the moderate Jesus was not God incarnate and did not really rise from the dead (except symbolically) but as Vorjack mentioned he would still be considered enlightened in some way. There is a vast amount of difference in the two positions.
“There is a vast amount of difference in the two positions.”
I am skeptical of your arguments on your points of christianity.
Could you be more specific?
“A Christian is someone who believes Jesus is God. The moderate Christian is almost an entirely different religion.”
This above “quote”.
Oh, that. Yeah, a bit of an exaggeration. No they are not two different religions. Just to different ways of responding to the same source material.
Oops, sorry.
I don’t think it well reasoned to claim any objective definition for “Christian”. If an individual says he is a Christian, the I think he is. Of course, it is sensitible to ask how he defines the term.
I do no think it sensible to allow another to define the term for him.
Probably arguments within, not without.
I could almost consider myself an atheist Christian. After all, I was raised in the church and was very involved in it for nearly twenty years. Perhaps I’m more of a humanist, but I would say much of my morals and values are still based on the teaching of Jesus.
I understand how the Bible was written and later compiled, and it is safe to assume that many of the miraculous acts were invented by the writers. I also can see how Jesus’ teachings of heaven and his father are metaphors – heaven/kingdom representing a Utopian society on earth, and as reference to his moral code and plan as his father.
While the teachings of Jesus form the largest basis for my morals and values, I also supplement them from other traditions and writers, from Confucius and Buddha to contemporaries like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sounds kinda like pantheism.
Well, without the theism part, though, since I don’t believe any supernatural or spiritual force exists in the word. I wouldn’t call the universe or nature “god.”
I don’t agree with everything written there, but it’s an excellent article. This author merely argues that an atheist should not only feel free, but indeed encouraged, to call himself a Christian if he likes. That’s it.
Looking at it from the Christian perspective, it can be said that just as Christ opened the possibility of “salvation” to both Jew and Gentile, this author attempts to make it available to the ~evil atheists~ as well. It’s an interesting parallel.
It is possible to be an Atheist Christian. I know a man who attends church with his family every sunday, gives money to the church, his family is very involved in the church. The catch? He is a physics professor and is an atheist. That doesn’t mean he cannot lead a christian life. The overall moral teachings of the christian church are good (the details get less good, but overall, the message is love).
If claiming to be an atheist makes you a social outcast and disowned from your family, being a quietly practicing christian atheist can be a more socially acceptable alternative. Depending on your location, being an Atheist might as well make you a murdering child molester in the eyes of some fundies.
As I read this, I thought to myself how a theist could start to ponder if they were Atheist-oh how wonderful! :)
I had feelings like this after running crew on a production of Godspell. It’s a pretty fun play, I’d see it again. I can understand the residual good parts of Christianity that former Christians now atheists would have, it’s mostly formative. The lessons seem obvious and common though. If my mother taught me those things, would I label myself thinking like she does, or formed by her teachings? That doesn’t make sense, of course most people have mothers and like it or not, developed a lot of their own conclusions and approaches to problems and the world, etc. from dear old mom or even dad. What about a teacher or professor at school who you look up to? Does someone have to be a major deal to call yourself an -ist or -ian? Was Jesus a genius? Does he deserve to be adopted in part by atheists because he was so wise and extraordinary? I do not think so. It’s possible to measure yourself against Jesus in particular (on the worthwhile stuff) and still be an atheist, but I don’t see why you would do that, unless, like I said, that’s a big part of what built you to be who you are now.
We’re going aside for a little bit:
As for ethnic Jews, I don’t understand that. I understand the tribes and stuff, and I guess the lineage? My family came from all around Europe to America before I was born, and aside from my appearance, there’s really nothing I would still call derived from Europe. I never went there, I never lived there, I don’t speak the languages, or know anyone from the countries where my great-grandparents all came. I don’t even know most of the family that’s still alive and somewhere in the U.S. I don’t know any customs or like the food or know how to cook it, or know any music, so I don’t really know what all there is to be ethnic about being a Jew. I consider “Jewish” to be sort of a culture, but I can’t be sure it’s an ethnicity that’s distinct by virtue of some tribal lineage. I have a tribe too, but I just don’t know who they are. I’m not that anymore, I’m an American.
If my grandfather wasn’t an atheist, I would probably have been Catholic, and a lot that I’ve considered in the past few years, I might label myself a cultural Catholic, just to make sense of a lot of stuff I mostly shared in therapy – it makes a lot of things make more sense than they otherwise would have. I think my grandfather retained many strict qualities of being raised in an Italian Catholic household (as well as many relaxed ones he made up himself), and so down to my mother, and I live with the residual effect of everybody almost being Catholic. That’s also one of the reasons I can’t consider myself ethnically part Italian, was never introduced to that end of the family, half of whom immigrated before my grandfather was born.
Genealogy and stuff, it’s sort of interesting to play with, but everyone moved around a lot, not so sure why anyone pins down their ethnicity to the last place besides here that anyone was or takes it so seriously. It would be like …. I grew up in NY State, so if I had children, then I tell them that makes them New Yorkers too, even though I live in Massachusetts and probably will forever. How Italian could they be? I guess that would depend on me meeting a charming foreign visitor. His name will be Armando, that’s what I’ve decided for my childrens’ father, some beautiful last name that ends with -ello. I digress. Heh.
Anyway, being somewhat a “culturally Catholic” atheist is not the same at all as being a Christian atheist. I don’t know what it is about Jesus’ teachings that one would single him out to lean your personal philosophy on. I guess what someone said is just an ordinary humanist approach, why center it on Lord? It might be a little pretentious or overthought, navel-gazing and making up weird little categories, defining yourself as more than just your ordinary atheist. Might be more appealing to real Christians, did we cover that? They think we’re all Satan and demons and baby-eaters, why not put a positive spin on it? Hey you, Xian! I’m Xian too except for the stuff where Jesus was the son of god. I’m really a good person, see?
[blockquote]As for ethnic Jews, I don’t understand that. I understand the tribes and stuff, and I guess the lineage? My family came from all around Europe to America before I was born, and aside from my appearance, there’s really nothing I would still call derived from Europe. I never went there, I never lived there, I don’t speak the languages, or know anyone from the countries where my great-grandparents all came. I don’t even know most of the family that’s still alive and somewhere in the U.S. I don’t know any customs or like the food or know how to cook it, or know any music, so I don’t really know what all there is to be ethnic about being a Jew.[/blockquote]
But would that make sense for the Hispanic, the Italians (those who are closer than you are to their “native” culture), the Chinese, the Japanese, the Korean, the African, the Taiwanese, the Indian?
Blockquote fail again. *facepalm*
No.
I think the guy’s just manipulating semantics to say that atheists can be ethical. This is a subject discussed here before, mostly for the edification of christians brainless enough to have any question about the possibility.
And this blog, and my expectations, have been truly rendered complete by John C’s blather.
John C’s “faith” is easily summarized; it’s numbers 120 through 121.
120. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (I)
(1) Someone made fun of my faith.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
121. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Hope that John C rant was at least therapuetic for ya there Claid’ster, anything to help bro.
I appreciate you! (even if you dont me) lol
(sp) * Therapeutic
Sounds kind of like being a carnivorous vegetarian. Thats just crazy talk.
I only eat animals that are vegetarians (at least knowingly, I won’t vouch for what animal it was in some places I only have their word it was beef). Does that make me a carnivorous vegetarian or a vegetarian carnivore.
I vote for “vegetarian by proxy”. :)
I am a mafia christian.
You could never get an atheist Christian. For an atheist to be a Christian they’d have to believe in the Holy Trinity and, if they’re smart enough to think that there isn’t a God, there’s no way they’d buy into that nonsensical rubbish.
As far as I know, none of the first five Presidents of the United States expressed a belief in the Trinity (Jefferson and Adams explicitly rejected the Trinity), and yet they all considered themselves to be Christians, as least in some nominal sense.
Not in the most literal sense of Christian: Christian = relating or belonging to Christ. Things such as the unity of the Holy Trinity were decided afterward by the Council of Nicea in 325AD.
Regarding Christian Atheists, I was reminded of a post on the American Creation blog which was accompanied by a quote by John Adams and commented on by the author Jon Rowe.
“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– John Adams to Samuel Miller
and the comment by Jon Rowe: “In other words, if an atheist was a good person, he was a “Christian.” This is not what the followers of David Barton, Peter Marshall and others think when they hear that quote plucked from context. Likewise when they hear or argue America was founded to be a “Christian Nation,” “Judeo-Christian Nation,” or “Protestant Christian Nation” they likely understand or mean something else.”
ACK! David Barton! *hiss!*
Agreed. David Barton does no one any service. His activisim is destructive to our Nation’s cohesion (as are many extremists).
If you Google David Barton Liar, you’ll notice a post from the blog I mentioned shows up first. Second is Chris Rodda who invests a tremendous amount of effort revealing the deceptive tactics of Barton and others.
Hehe, it’s not hard to see through his lies and bullshit. Though I’m no historian, my bullshit detector went off less than 5 minutes into the “historical” “documentary” entitled America’s Godly Heritage. I searched up Barton and found he was not a historian, but a minister and political activist. The red flags went up immediately, and I promptly stopped the video and removed it from Instant Play (<3 Netflix).
Pseudo-historians earn nothing but my contempt.
I agree completely. I give him props for the success of his activism, but I also have nothing but contempt for the immoral manner by which he seeks to achive his goals.
If Christ wasn’t the son of God, he’s anything but a moral teacher. C.S. Lewis, the greatest of the Christian apologetics, understood this, even though he was unable to take the leap AWAY from faith which his syllogism seemed to imply, if not completely warrant.
He said quite eloquently (and quite correctly), that we are faced with a choice. Either Christ was truly the son of God, and thus when he claimed to be able to forgive you of your sins upon others without consulting those who had been wronged, it was acceptable as he was the party chiefly offended. OR, he was the “devil” himself spreading the most arrogant and megalomaniacal sort of nonsense, claiming that he, a mortal, could forgive and relieve you of your responsibilities to others and to society without even consulting those who had been harmed by your wickedness.
We face this, but also his injunctions to think not of the morrow, for his followers to abandon their families in order to serve him, et cetera. And let us not forget that the idea of Hell, which has served humanity so very well throughout the ages, never made its first “lake of fire and suffering, eternal damnation” appearance until Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild.
For those of who don’t think Jesus was divine, we KNOW, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he was anything but moral. To think otherwise is simply to cherry pick snippets of morality– most of which, by the way, tends to take the form of simple rules governing a social contract between individuals within a society… rules which had been part of any successful civilization long before Christ– from an entire book plagued through and through with thoughtlessness, outright lies, and mania.
Atheism and any form of “faith” in a higher power, be it deism, theism, or simply the belief in the divinity of an individual, are utterly incompatible… especially when discussing the crazed preacher of Nazareth.
you forgot that it’s a trilemma, not a dilemma: Good, Bad or Mad. His not being divine rules out the first option, but he can be the third and still contribute something, such as introducing people to the basic concepts of morality.
I had at least two professors in seminary who were quite vocal about their rejection of the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the like. As one might expect, they also rejected the creeds. Neither of them believed in a God in the classical, theistic, Christian sense of the term…
One of them was a big advocate for the ideas of Gordan Kaufman (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty/em/kaufman.cfm) who argues that “God” is not really “God” at all but is simply the force of creativity that has generated the universe and its inhabitants (Way, way, way oversimplified). There’s nothing that remotely resembles the Christian God in his theology.
The other was an anthropologist who favored naturalistic explanations of spirituality over supernatural ones. His work focused on religion as a sociological phenemona, with particular emphasis on how particular cultures interacted with the “sacred” and how the “sacred” functioned as a mechanism that controlled and guided the members on the ingroup and demonized the members of the outgroup. “Sacred,” in his view, was a purely socio-cultural construction; in other words, there’s no other reality behind the ’sacred,’ such as a supernatural reality.
I don’t know for sure if either of these two were technically atheists or not. I am almost certain that one of them was (the latter), but he never said as much. The former was always a bit more unclear for me, but it seemed to me as if he was agnostic, for certain.
Yet, both of them taught in a seminary, and they were very active in their respective congregations. But, like Daniel mentioned in his opening comments, they definitely took bits and pieces from Jesus’ and didn’t hesitate to make changes when they saw fit to do so.
All that to say, I suspect that it is possible to be an atheist christian, although it would make more sense to me – if that’s how I viewed things – to avoid the word ‘christian’ just to avoid the confusion…but to each his own. I think it’s entirely possible to derive meaning, find guidance, and follow the teachings of Jesus (and thus be a Christian) without buying the all the supernatural bits. Such a person would have a very low Christology, as the original article notes, but could still call him/herself a christian if s/he wanted to.
Oh yeah, FWIW, my roommate for my first year of seminary was on such person. He was a great guy, and I learned a lot from him.
Bah, I forgot to mention some important theological terminology that gets thrown around in this discussion, at least among us Christians.
Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy.
Those who fit the description that Daniel described and that I followed up with would probably argue that orthopraxy is more pertinent to being Christian than orthodoxy.
“The other was an anthropologist who favored naturalistic explanations of spirituality”
Did you check out the Sapolsky video in the “biological basis for spirituality” post that Daniel put up earlier today? It is definitely worth watching, imho!
No, I didn’t. I generally don’t take time to watch the videos… but perhaps during halftime of the NBA finals.
Ahh! Well worth it if you get around to it!
You know the ol’ joke…sounds like it was more “cemetary” than seminary. Will He find faith on the earth? The only way to know Him is to believe and trust with childlike faith, foolish as it may appear. The more I “grow down” the more He “shows up”. Knowing Him costs us everything (and sometimes everybody). Is it worth it? I cant answer that question for others, only for myself. We must lose our own lives to find THE Life. It’s an all or nothing proposition, He is either Lord of all or not at all.
These are hard sayings I know, but he would not say them unless they were rich with reward, teeming with life and joy. Let us count the cost while we are “chasing daylight”.
Apparently the cost is your own sanity.
Would you personally consider any of these people Christian though? There are various opinions on whether or not they can be considered such, both within and without Christianity. Does professed belief make a Christian, or does choosing to be involved in a community identified as Christian make you one no matter what your personal belief?
Does being on the christian-hijacked Ray Bradbury board, and going along with it with cutesy jokes, make one a colluder?
Impossible considering Jesus did not exist. “The most telling moment in the gospels, however, is when Mark has Jesus quote from the Old Testament in his arguments against the Pharisees. Nothing surprising about this except that Jesus quotes from the mistranslated Greek version of the Old Testament, which suits his purpose precisely, not from the original Hebrew, which says something quite different and unhelpful to his argument. That Jesus the Jew should quote a Greek mistranslation of Jewish Holy Scripture to impress orthodox Jewish Pharisees is simply unthinkable. It does make sense, however, if the whole incident were made up by one of the hundreds of thousands of Greek speaking Jews who no longer spoke their native tongue and could not read their scriptures untranslated, hence attributing to Jesus their own misunderstandings.” – The Jesus Mysteries
All this from “divinely inspired” words…hmmmmmm.
I think the author John Shelby Spong is a christian atheist. He was one of the key influences for me when I began to question my faith. He calls himself a christian, but doesn’t believe anything in the bible literally, divinity of christ, etc. Everything, to him, in the bible is metaphorical.
I believe Spong has rejected being called an atheist.
Just because Spong uses theistic language does not mean he is a theist (at least in the ordinary sense of the word). Spong’s stance is an interesting one. He views the concept of gods in the ordinary theistic sense, what he calls “the gods of men and women,” as idolatry. He asserts that atheism is a proper response to idolatry.
Sorry. The “gods of men and women” was actually him channeling Paul Tillich. The article below is my source for this info, BTW…
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_shelby_spong/2007/01/i_welcome_the_attention_that_1.html
I would rather not be called an atheist Christian.
Do I believe in depravity because of “sin”? Do I believe that the Bible is the be-all and end-all of morality? Do I believe in the supernatural? No, no, and no.
It seems that one major but unacknowledged reason people want to be called Christian atheists is because people wouldn’t like to be called atheists. We need to remove the stigma, and to do that, let’s stand up and admit what we believe, and people will see that there’s nothing inherently wrong with our lack of belief in a deity.
But, but… Atheism is what we don’t believe.
And is that not a belief in and of itself?
A negative belief is still a belief, ArchangelChuck. You can’t abuse the definitions of words.
Don’t do too many mental gymnastics, you might hurt yourself. Atheism is a ruling out of the theistic interpretation of gods. It is, by definition, a non-belief.
Sorry, that came across as brash and rude. Thinking about it, perhaps you’re right in a more philosophical view, but in all practicality, it is a non-belief. A negative belief is worthless as a worldview, and must be accompanied with a positive one. That’s my opinion, and that’s why I gave my original comment.
“In a recent post, Christian Piatt ponders over whether atheists can also be a Christians:”
I think the article is asking whether an atheist can also be a christian or a christian atheist who want to be the kind of human Jesus was who they believe exist in time past.
“I think the article is asking whether an atheist can also be a christian or a christian atheist who want to be the kind of human Jesus was who they believe exist in time past.”
I think the article is asking whether an atheist can also be a christian, not asking about a christian atheist who want to be the kind of human Jesus was who they believe exist in time past.
Author Greta Vosper is a United Church pastor, but believes the same as Spong. She is a wonderful, inspiring writer, and, like Spong, does away with all the supernatural trappings and destructiveness of christianity. In fact, I am an athiest and I don’t disagree with anything she says. No original sin (or sin at all), no salvation, no resurrection, no miracles, etc. I recently had the pleasure of hearing her speak, and the question was asked why she was still in the church and why she referred to herself as a christian when she clearly is not. She said that she was working within the structure of the church so that she could reach religious people with this message of looking further than traditional christianity for truth. Where else do religious people go for their teaching? She basically said too that once this idea catches on, the loaded term “christianity” can go out the window also. I personally will not darken the door of any church, but I applaud her courage in doing it this way. She is making massive changes WITHIN the church. I think she is even putting her life on the line to speak this way. I guess every person has their “calling”. Some of us are “called” to blog like crazy (lol) and others are called to change the structure of the church from within.
Jesus never existed.
How can an educated person believe in another absurdly manufactured fairy tale?
That is a good point.The question of Jesus’s historical existence. There is very little evidence for it outside of the gospels. Yet because of my experience with religion I tend to be skeptical of statements of certainty on both sides of the issue. It’s notable that even Dawkins thinks Jesus was a historical figure. I do wonder to what degree this is so. Was Jesus an actual itinerant preacher to whom fantastic folklore was attached? Something like the myths attached to actual historical figures like Jesse James or Billy the Kid. Or is his historicity a little more questionable, like that of King Arthur or Robin Hood? In any case it is the legend moreso than any historical figure that is of cultural importance. That has so powerfully impacted society. It is the legend of Jesus that so many have fought and died over. The belief that he was/is God. (It’s significant that the belief is that Jesus is God, as opposed to God becoming temporarily Jesus. Jesus is not an avatar.)
How can an educated person believe in another absurdly manufactured fairy tale?
This is an even more important point when you consider that not only do many educated people today believed it, but the overwhelming majority of every educated member of western culture believed it. Before the 18th century “everybody” believed it.
On the other hand, it’s beginning to seem to me that you may be right. I found this article on Debunking Christianity. It suggests that the first known writer about “Christ Jesus” was not writing about a historical figure but a mythical one.Where is the 800 pound gorilla?
By bart willruthat 3/02/2008
POSSIBILITY 3. Paul did not assume that Christ Jesus had lived on earth as a Jew just a few years prior to his own conversion. …
This is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first gasp. Mark’s Gospel, the first documented mention of Jesus living in the recent past, would not be written for many years after Paul’s epistles. It is nothing more than an inferrance to assume that Paul was envisioning the Jesus of the gospels. He himself is silent on the details of the “Jesus of history.”
The questions must be asked, Is it legitimate to read into Paul the beliefs of others from a later time? Since later writers referred to Jesus “of Nazareth” is it a necessary implication that Paul had that personage in mind? … if we examine Paul in isolation, his Jesus inhabits a very different universe than did Jesus of Nazareth.
Paul had much to say about Jesus. His Jesus, though, does not share much commonality with the Jesus of the gospels…
Where, for instance, does one find in Paul:
A. Any mention of the birth of Jesus
B. The virgin Mary
C. Joseph
D. The family of Jesus
E. The birthplace of Jesus
F. His hometown of Nazareth (a town which may not have existed at the time)
G. His baptism by John in the Jordan river
H. His temptation in the wilderness
I. His healing miracles
J. His exorcisms
K. His preaching ministry in Galilee
L. His cleanshing of the temple
M. His disputes with the Pharisees in the synagogues
N. His disciples
O. His betrayal by Judas
P. His struggle in Gethsemane
Q. His arrest
R. His trial
S. His questioning by Herod
T. His crucifixion in Jerusalem
U. The two thieves
V. His burial in Joseph’s tomb
W. The empty tomb
X. The resurrection appearances to the women
Y. The great commission
Z. The ascension before a crowd of witnesses
A couple things, here.
First, those are all arguments from silence. Just because Paul didn’t mention those details of the “Jesus of history” does not necessarily mean he was unaware of them. Furthermore, in Paul’s letters, which were written to communities of Christians, giving a historical biography wasn’t the point. The point was to address specific issues and specific questions, with Romans perhaps being the exception, as Romans is more of an introduction of Paul and his theology to a church he had not yet visited.
Second, the Gospels were not written down in their final form until after Paul’s letters, yes; however, there is an abundance of scholarship that posits several different oral and written traditions about Jesus that were circulating well before the Gospels were formalized. There are wiki articles on “Q” and the “logia” that give pretty decent summaries on the different oral/written traditions that (I think, anyway) must have existed in the early Jewish/Christian communities.
Third, whether or not Paul knew of Q or the logia is uncertain; however, we do know that Paul spent a good bit of time with the other apostles in Jerusalem before he began his own Christian ministry (at least if Acts is accurate about that). If that did happen, which I don’t have any reason to doubt that it did personally, then one would have to argue that during those several years in Jerusalem, Paul was never told of the “Jesus of history,” and I think that’s unlikely.
brgulker :
” one would have to argue that during those several years in Jerusalem, Paul was never told of the “Jesus of history,” and I think that’s unlikely.”
That actually hurts rather than helps your argument. If Paul knew the biographical narrative, why wouldn’t some indication of this appear somewhere in his writings? Anecdotal material, after all, is a powerful means of persuasion; especially when the subject matter is your role model. If Paul had such knowledge, he would have likely revealed it at some point, in the process of carrying out his primary purpose of addressing issues and questions.
“there is an abundance of scholarship that posits several different oral and written traditions about Jesus that were circulating well before the Gospels were formalized. ”
That doesn’t really help your side either. It begs the question: was the particular oral history we eventually embraced was the most valid of the competing traditions. Were these traditions themselves anymore than folklore?
Both of those arguments help my point when read in concert with,
“Furthermore, in Paul’s letters, which were written to communities of Christians, giving a historical biography wasn’t the point. The point was to address specific issues and specific questions, with Romans perhaps being the exception, as Romans is more of an introduction of Paul and his theology to a church he had not yet visited.”
I’m a Christian, and I also blog. I don’t give a historical biography of Jesus every time I want to make a point about Jesus or his teachings. I think the author you quoted has ignored the fact that the writings we have from Paul are all have very specific purposes, and none of them is to give a historical account of Jesus. If s/he is willing to ignore that Paul’s writings are letters, not biographies, then the argument holds a lot more water.
There is a very lengthy exchange about this on the website mentioned where the author is called upon to defend his claims. He does a much better job of it than I would ever be able to. Nevertheless, though I understand your objection to “arguments from silence” I don’t happen to share it. In this case the silence is deafening. And though I haven’t, obviously, read everything you write -
“I don’t give a historical biography of Jesus every time I want to make a point about Jesus or his teachings. ”
-I’d be willing to bet you mention an anecdote from Jesus’s life from time to time.
-I’d be willing to bet you mention an anecdote from Jesus’s life from time to time.
In many of his letters (the majority, I think, but I’m not 100% on this), Paul does reference early ‘traditions’ (written or oral) that are about Jesus. He often introduces it with something like, “This is a trustworthy saying…” or something similar.
A rather important example for Christians is the “Christ hymn” in Philippians 2, which does mention the crucifixion, actually.
Nomad,
Paul’s an InChristed Apostle, therefore carries a message “from” Christ (the eternal Word) and herald’s “forward” not backwards or historically. Your positions are grounded in a misunderstanding of who/what Paul is (Gal 2:20). If Paul is the writer of the book of Hebrews (as many believe although the Holy Spirit is the true Author of all pneuma inspired Word) with its numerous mentions then your entire argument is baseless, respectfully.
John C.
Yours is really an interesting perspective. In your world the supernatural is a reality. An extrinsic deity actually commissions Paul. I don’t automatically dismiss the idea of the supernatural. It’s just that Christianity seems to be a false representation of it. As I once heard a Darwinist say “Religion got it wrong”.
Nomad…
Yes, how truly spoken it is that “religion got it wrong”. But religion (in its culturally understood context meaning the historical Institutional Church, denominations, etc) is a man-made institution whose traditions, rituals, etc “make the word of God of none effect” Mark 7:13. Thankfully, what we have seen with that dreaded, dead, stale thing we call religion is NOT what Christ offers, not His true message. Christ is internal and represents a change of nature (His within) contrasted with religion which is a mere external behavior modification technique (which always fails) without an internal transformation.
And yes, the supernatural is a reality, in fact the only reality, all else a “shadow”, part of the Adamic dream, errh nightmare that we are told to “awaken” from. Christ being the intersection between heaven (the true, eternal, pristine, spiritual realm where all is as it should be) and the lower, imperfect, sin (death) marred realm of the flesh, bodily existance.
BTW…your screen name (Nomad) was what the Israelites were called while wandering in the desert (between egypt and the promised land) in the land of the Moabites. Moab meaning “who is my Father”? Just an interesting (at least to me) side comment. All the best.
…for forty years
I don’t automatically dismiss the idea of the supernatural. It’s just that Christianity seems to be a false representation of it. As I once heard a Darwinist say “Religion got it wrong”.
You have piqued my interest. Would you put some meat on those bones?
There remains much that is not known about the world we live in. Science may indeed one day be able to explain it all. Until then the supernatural cannot be ruled out. What science has done is effectively proven that religion’s explanation for the supernatural is invalid.
Fairy tales are true…we’re just living in the period between the once upon a time and the happily ever after. Awaken (to your true Self and from the false, Adamic dream, and Christ will shine on you.
The realm of appearances is a much smaller and confining place to “dwell” than is the realm of the heart (spirit).
So you live in a world where demons can possess people. Big deal.
Where does your relentless urge to witness come from? You are horribly incompetent at it… are you certain this is your imaginary friends plan for you? Endless witnessing about how you met the Smurf and how great it is in Smurfland where everything is Smurfy only you have to be dead to find out if its all real.. that is supposed to convince people?
You are horribly incompetent at it…
He’s approximately as bad at convincing people as you are.
John C – Do you base this belief on the bible? It’s a little “out there”, even for christians I know. Sounds almost a little “new agey”. I’ve never heard this interpretation of christianity. You seem extremely certain of your beliefs, but in all your comments I still don’t understand why you believe it. I addressed some comments to you, but never got responses.
Janet-
I’m sorry I didnt respond, I never saw your question please repeat it and I will do my best to answer you. What exactly are you wondering about? Thx
@brgulker, from above
I just about left the faith while I was in college, while reading Nietzsche incidentally.
He’s a pretty good gut-check for the curious theist. Tillich once called him the most important modern philosopher on Christianity, to whom it must muster a satisfying response or surely and deservedly perish. I personally recommend that any intellectually curious Christian give him a once-over, as you already have.
And I meant to ask you how your comment addressed the ‘anger’ that comes my way. What is it specifically that solicits the anger in your view? I’ve been trying to figure out why myself, but I’m at a loss (most of the time). Or, were you addressing that when you made your comment about skeptics not having something to grab onto?
I can’t speak for Q-I-T, but if I might offer a hypothesis…I think the anger comes from a few places. I don’t have it, and many do, and one relevant difference between me and many who frequent here is that they were once part of a monotheistic religious community and I never was. I imagine that the psychology is entirely different if one has de-converted as opposed to never having been a part of it in the first place, with lingering feelings of betrayal and anger from being, in their view, bamboozled. As the saying goes, there is no zealot like a convert.
Also, you don’t fit the profile; everyone plays somewhat to stereotypes in their heads, at least a little bit. A lot of folks get lazy making fun of John C’s (no offense, JC, but there is no way to engage with you at all), and so are a bit knocked-about when it comes to discussing the same issues with a rational Christian. There was a fellow that used to come around by the name of Wade (not DWade, a different guy) who was very similar; theology and philosophy background, very reasonable, hewed toward a more liberal theology. They got angry at him sometimes too; accused him of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, being a hypocrite, caviling, pretty much the same stuff that gets thrown at you. He, too, didn’t match the stereotype.
Part of it also surely is the philosophy training. I remember when I came here the way I expressed things ticked not a few people off; I think to a lot of people the effort to be technically precise comes off sounding like hedging or weasel-wording. For example, from the point of view of epistemology, atheism is certainly a belief or set of beliefs; in the vernacular, however, it is not what most people would call a belief. Stuff like that can cause a row.
Then of course there is the most obvious point, which is simply they (heck, we) disagree with you on an issue that motivates very deep emotion in most people. Heck, even the subsidiary issues attached to religion, like ethics and policy (abortion, anyone?) can get pretty much any reasonable person frothing at the mouth in two minutes flat.
Hang in there; it’s great to have you around. :-)
Thanks for the explanation and kind words. Appreciate the time you took and what you said.
I am a Christian Atheist. Jesus is my king; I follow his laws. His laws are few and simple, and can be summed up in a single saying: Love your neighbor as yourself. Just in case there is any confusion as to what that means, he includes Don’t steal; don’t commit murder; don’t commit adultery; don’t witness falsely; honor your mother and your father. 6 simple laws to be saved. But as Paul said, “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.”
Part of my dedication to the rule of law is to ignore any law that forbids me to love my neighbor or myself, law that punishes one for doing good. This is what Jesus taught. He also taught us not to give tribute to false rulers.
I don’t believe that every word of the Bible is true. I wouldn’t believe that even if I believed in God, and there is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that it is all true. As Jesus said, “There is none good but one, that is, God.” The Bible is an anthology of stories by many different men; compiled by committee; translated by individuals; and again compiled by a different committee. No work of man is perfect; how could this be?
I take all the stories with a grain of salt, but the gospel of John has no credibility at all, as it neither follows the lead of the other gospels nor shows any understanding of Judaic belief or viewpoint. It is also the only gospel that insists on belief in Jesus us the Only Begotten Son of God as the way to salvation. The others, being Judaic, demand action, not belief.
A lot of Gentiles became Christians and were executed. Do you think that they chose such a path because they suddenly believed in the Jewish God and his Son? I think it was because they wanted freedom from Romans and their local god’s rule.
Live free, and prosper.
Rycke
One Trackback
[...] Here’s the link to the discussion. [...]