Christian Atheist?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Exactly. The trouble is you cannot just 'accept his teachings' without accepting that he died and rose again from the dead.

I'm not sure how you can say that his teachings were fine but deny the resurrection. It makes no sense to me. Christ said that he was God and that is a part of his teachings.

But couldn't you view the resurrection as being metaphorical?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Christ said that he was God and that is a part of his teachings.

Did he say it explicitly?

Even though I was brought up Catholic I can, at the moment, only recall his interogation by Pilate where he replies to the question "Are you King of the Jews?" with "It is you who say it".

Could you remind me when/where Jesus says that he was God directly and unambiguosly. There are comments like God is our father and we are all children of God, but that does not make us divine (well in some cultures we are all divine, but hopefully you get my point).

I'll probably kick myself when you point it out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again multple definitions for the same word are acceptable, maybe not to you but they certainly are in the English language. And I belive that one can accept most of one's teachings without being denied to be a follwer of those teachings. For example, I doubt every Republican accepts the entire Republican platform.

Ok, tell me how you can pick and choose what you like and what you don't? How can you say that Christ had it right here and then deny the resurrection? That's what i don't get. You say you believe in what the Gospels teach about Christ, and on the other hand you don't beleive in what the Gospel says. So how do you decide which parts are correct and which are not?

But as a follower of Christian teachings and philosophy I am not really concerned with other people's opinions about my soul. I am just concerned that I try my hardest to behave in a Christian fashion and try to follow the Golden Rule.

That's not Christianity then. Sorry. Christ is very explicit. There are two laws, the second which you like, which says, "love your neighbour as yourself." You can't ignore the first one which says, "Love your Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength".

As Christ says these two together sum up the whole law and the prophets.

You can go on believing that it is enough to only believe in the first, but that doesn't make you a Christian any more then the fellow who is a honest atheist who says, "my religion is to do good." You need God too, and that's very important to Christianity.

You should listen to your wife. She's trying very hard to convince you that you've got it wrong, and you aren't listening to her.

Just because my belief system corresponds to one accepted definition and yours corresponds to another doesn't mean that only one definition is acceptable.

I'm sorry all I see in this so called "Christian agnosticism" is agnosticism. You don't need to have anything to do with Christ to believe in the Golden Rule, and frankly, it's an insult to the folks who do that you are insisting that you cannot believe in the Golden rule without also being a Christian. That's basically what you are saying here. There is an important distinction, and you won't be a Christian unless you accept Christ.

[snoopy369]

I'd say that you can accept Jesus' teachings in general, but not believe in God. For example, you can believe that Jesus never preached about God, but only about a moral code, and the "God" part was added later by the folks who wrote the gospels ~AD 100 or thereabouts. Given all that was added to the different gospels in order to more appropriately reach the different ethnic groups, who's to say that they didn't all add the "God" part? (It's probably not the case, Jesus seems likely to have talked about God even if he didn't claim to be the Son of God, given the times; but still, who's to say?)

[DinoDoc]

Dauphin: John 14: 1-10?

[Ben Kenobi]

But couldn't you view the resurrection as being metaphorical?

Not unless you believe the whole thing to be metaphorical. That's the problem. The source says one thing. Christ taught these things, which includes the Golden Rule, "love your neighbour as yourself" but he also died and rose from the dead. It isn't a metaphor, it's a real historical event, just like his death on a cross.

Unless of course you want to say that this one sentence is real and this next one is all metaphor, but that's completely arbitrary.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Blake


But couldn't you view the resurrection as being metaphorical?

In our days, everything seems to be taken metaphorical, but as I understand my Bible, no. Of course, my opinion is just that, and as all Christians have an imperfect understanding of God in some way or anothert(we are all imperfect beings after all) I might be wrong. But to the deep of my soul I cannot accept the resurrection, the very core of my belief, to be metaphorical.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ok, tell me how you can pick and choose what you like and what you don't? How can you say that Christ had it right here and then deny the resurrection? That's what i don't get. You say you believe in what the Gospels teach about Christ, and on the other hand you don't beleive in what the Gospel says. So how do you decide which parts are correct and which are not?

When you consider that the Gospels are not the Word of Jesus directly, but the interpreted word 'picked and chosen' as it was by the early Church, I don't have a problem with this. There is a quite reasonable belief that Jesus was essentially a Buddhist type monk, in that he taught his followers to behave in a certain way that was quite contrary to the ways of the times. It's not hard to separate the "earthly" teachings from the "heavenly" teachings (ie, "do this on earth" and "this is how heaven is"), and not entirely unreasonable to suggset that some or all of the latter was added post-fact to make things fit together nicely.

I'm sorry all I see in this so called "Christian agnosticism" is agnosticism. You don't need to have anything to do with Christ to believe in the Golden Rule, and frankly, it's an insult to the folks who do that you are insisting that you cannot believe in the Golden rule without also being a Christian. That's basically what you are saying here. There is an important distinction, and you won't be a Christian unless you accept Christ.

Again, I disagree. I think someone that follows the earthly teachings of Jesus, explicitly (ie, reads the bible, specifically does the things that Jesus taught on the material plane), it is meaningful to suggset that they are a Christian in a sense. Certainly using the phrase "Atheist Christian" is pretty clear on that matter I'd say.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd say that you can accept Jesus' teachings in general, but not believe in God. For example, you can believe that Jesus never preached about God, but only about a moral code, and the "God" part was added later by the folks who wrote the gospels ~AD 100 or thereabouts.

Then How do you explain away Corinthians which is dated to 50 AD?

That just doesn't wash. Corinthians is older then the synoptic Gospels, it was written as a letter before they were all put together.

How do you explain the whole 'death and resurrection'?

In Acts, we see that the disciples started preaching that Christ had died and had been resurrected from the dead right after his crucifixion. This makes no sense unless they actually believed that he had died and resurrected, to go and face the people who had just witnessed him dying. Why would they listen to you unless you had concrete evidence. If Jesus never rose from the dead, why would the disciples go and preach at Pentecost?

None of this makes sense in your understanding if the disciples added it in later.

[Ben Kenobi]

When you consider that the Gospels are not the Word of Jesus directly, but the interpreted word 'picked and chosen' as it was by the early Church, I don't have a problem with this.

And what do they say about what they wrote? They say everything in it was true. When did they put it all together Snoopy? Who wrote which parts? Who did they talk to to put it all together? Why are all the gospels different, even though they talk about the same events.

There is a quite reasonable belief that Jesus was essentially a Buddhist type monk, in that he taught his followers to behave in a certain way that was quite contrary to the ways of the times.

Tell me, what does Buddhism say about someone dying and rising again.

Do you believe Christ was crucified on the cross? At what point in the Gospels do you believe that the disciples started making it up?

I'm sincerely curious.

It's not hard to separate the "earthly" teachings from the "heavenly" teachings (ie, "do this on earth" and "this is how heaven is"), and not entirely unreasonable to suggset that some or all of the latter was added post-fact to make things fit together nicely.

So what do you make of his death and resurrection?

Again, I disagree. I think someone that follows the earthly teachings of Jesus, explicitly (ie, reads the bible, specifically does the things that Jesus taught on the material plane), it is meaningful to suggset that they are a Christian in a sense. Certainly using the phrase "Atheist Christian" is pretty clear on that matter I'd say.

How is this any different from an atheist in my example who says his religion is to do good?

Why should a Christian read the bible if he doesn't believe in what it teaches? The bible says that the resurrection happened. That Christ died and rose again 3 days after he was buried. Why would a Christian read scripture if none of this was true?

Finally, where does Christ say you should read the bible? What does he ask of his believers? He is very clear. There are two commandments.

First, love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.

Second, love your neighbour as yourself.

How do you justify twisting his words and following only the second and not the first?

[snoopy369]

Ben - basically, I think there's a difference between 'an atheist who wants to do good' and 'an atheist who strictly follows the material teachings of Jesus'. Jesus taught many things, not only those two things, and I don't see why you have a problem with someone followingc those material teachings while not believing in God. I'm certain Jesus would have commended such a person ...

I'm not involving my beliefs in this, because a) I don't feel like it, and b) they're explicitly not relevant. We're not talking about whether christian atheism is 'good' or 'right', but simply 'possible'. I think it is.

[Deity Dude]

Ben again we are arguing semantics. There is more than one definition for the term in the Englush language dictionary. Therefore to use one of the accepted definitions is acceptable.

As for picking and choosing what to believ and what not, people do this all the time. I consider myself a Libertarian but I do not accept or agree with EVERY position held by Libertarians. Not all religous Christians agree about every religous aspect of Christ or there would not be so many different denominations.

The point is, one of the accepted definitions of Christian is in conflict with your religous beliefs. That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an accepted definition.

So to answer the question, can one call themselves a Christian Athiest and be consistant with an accepted usage of the term Christian? The answer is yes. The question wasn't is a Christian Athiest consistant with the belief system of the denominations of Christians that accept Christ as the Son of God.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did he say it explicitly?

John 8:49-58

"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death."

At this they exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Now if we go back to Exodus, what is God's name for himself?

Exodus 3:13-14

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

So when Christ says I AM, he is claiming to be God. The God of the Jews and of his people Israel.

[snoopy369]

I wouldn't use John to support anything you say here... John is the most metaphorical of the gospels, and most definitely tailored quite substantially to match the jewish scriptures. If you're going to assume any of the books are 'true', which I'd not give you, stick to Matthew, who's the least 'tailored' from what I've seen.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben - basically, I think there's a difference between 'an atheist who wants to do good' and 'an atheist who strictly follows the material teachings of Jesus'.

So what are the material teachings of Christ. I'm curious as to how these are different from each other. Honestly I don't see it. I'm also curious how you manage to divide these up.

Jesus taught many things, not only those two things,

Yes, and you are denying the first at the same time as you insist he said the second. I'm not sure how you can say that one is true while the other isn't. He said both at the same time, and that there were two not one. If he sincerely believed as you did, he would just say, love your neighbour as yourself, but he didn't. He said both of them.

He also said, if you just take two things out of what he has taught those are the two. His expression is that everything else hangs from these two, and that's important. Yes, he taught other things, but they are all based on these two core principles, on his commandments.

I'm not involving my beliefs in this, because a) I don't feel like it, and b) they're explicitly not relevant. We're not talking about whether christian atheism is 'good' or 'right', but simply 'possible'. I think it is.

I am saying that so-called Christian atheism is no different then Atheism. You don't have to be a Christian to help people out, so I fail to see what is explicitly 'Christian' about this 'christian' atheism to warrant the qualifier.