Christian Atheist?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Why do you care? I was answering Dauphin's question, which btw was cited earlier up.

You'll have to inform me first which parts of which Gospel are true, so that I can make sure not to quote any of the metaphysical parts.

Tell me, do you believe this to be true?

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Since you know Matthew so thoroughly, I bet you can cite the chapter and verse.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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

No offense Ben, but how reliable do you think that something that are written at least two generations after it's claimed to have happened ?

Admitted, 100 years later is worse, but honestly, would you trust hearsays about what happened in 1958 ?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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?

In Buddhism, parable teaches a moral lesson (or a lesson about the nature of things) and it matters not whether the story was true or not, the only thing which matters, is the message conveyed. Why couldn't someone take the same approach with reading the bible? Are they are a worse Christian than someone who puts memorizing above understanding?

edit: And this is true. Many stories from Buddhism, well you'd have to be more than incredulous about the truth of the story, but they teach a valuable lesson. For example, The Blind Men and the Elephant" which teaches a superb lesson, but there's clearly no value in actually believing the story as being true...

Buddha was big on that, telling people not to believe what he says, but to investigate what he says.

So many stories in buddhism, are clearly not meant to be taken literally. It makes things easier for Buddhists, they are less likely to treat the teachings as dogma, because treating teachings as dogma, results in no new understanding, it's actually worse than nothing.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Blake


In Buddhism, parable teaches a moral lesson (or a lesson about the nature of things) and it matters not whether the story was true or not, the only thing which matters, is the message conveyed. Why couldn't someone take the same approach with reading the bible? Are they are a worse Christian than someone who puts memorizing above understanding?

QFT... this is the root of what i'm saying, said more intelligently and coherently of course

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense Ben, but how reliable do you think that something that are written at least two generations after it's claimed to have happened ?

Admitted, 100 years later is worse, but honestly, would you trust hearsays about what happened in 1958 ?

Remember, the disciples had concrete evidence according to Ben, otherwise why would anyone listen to them? Presumably this takes the form of home movies of the resurrection.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Remember, the disciples had concrete evidence according to Ben, otherwise why would anyone listen to them? Presumably this takes the form of home movies of the resurrection.

Stupid me - I've totally forgotten that Prophet Chegitz Guevara bears evidence about how perfect life was in the mighty socialist countries of the 1950'ies.

Guess that if CG writes a couple of letters and maybe a book, then the base for a new religion is founded.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
There was an article a while ago on the BBC site where Dawkins called himself a "cultural christian" IIRC.

I see whats he getting at, and use that concept myself sometimes, though its not really a widely acccepted term in English, at least. Cause Christians generally wont accept that they are anything less than universal, transcending specific cultures, and atheists of Christian background generally prefer to deny that THEIR particular viewpoints and biases are rooted in Christian civilization, rather than representing a universal truth.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense Ben, but how reliable do you think that something that are written at least two generations after it's claimed to have happened ?

Admitted, 100 years later is worse, but honestly, would you trust hearsays about what happened in 1958 ?

You do know that Christ died in 33 AD?

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
it sounds like 7 is more to your thinking and 8 is more to mine. The point of multiple definitions is that they are all acceptable definitions of the same word. So you are correct, and I never disputed, that a Christian CAN BE someone who believes Christ is God or he CAN BE someone who follows his teachings. Your definition is not the only one but one of many and I believ the original question was CAN someone accurately cite themselves as a Christian Atheist? By definition 1 or 8 they certainly can.

Just because there are multiple correct definitions doesn't mean that you can use any definition whenever you want regardless of context. When you say "I am a Christian", under almost all circumstances that is going to be interpreted as "I am a member of the religion, Christianity". That is simply the way the context works!

Likewise with Chistian agnosticism and Christian atheism, the context of religious identity IMO pretty much forces the "christian" term to mean the religion.

On an intersting side note, I've heard a few Christians describe themselves as agnostic in that they don't know if God exists, but that they think He does.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Ben again we are arguing semantics.

The whole thread is about semantics. If you don't care to argue semantics then you've picked the wrong one!

Originally posted by Deity Dude
There is more than one definition for the term in the Englush language dictionary. Therefore to use one of the accepted definitions is acceptable.

Not always! Here's an example:

"I took a car here"

Everyone would know that the above means that I either drove or rode an automobile . Noone will believe nor should they expected to believe that I might have taken a train (and was in a passanger car).

Even though in one context ("Which way to the dining car?"), car means a segment of a train doesn't mean in another context ("I took a car here") it means the same thing.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
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 answer is no because that usage isn't accepted in your context!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


You do know that Christ died in 33 AD?

JM

Well, that detail had slipped my mind

Though, while it reduces my time interval, it doesn't change the fact that eyewitnesses is the most unreliable kind of proof that exist and it get worse as time goes by

[Proteus_MST]

20 years are still half a generation in a time where the average life expectancy was around 30 years.

As for the bible:
Why would one not want to read the bible even if one doesn´t believe the things written in there to be the literal truth of god.
It teaches lots of moral lessons and, even if you take away everything about faith, is still a valuable source about many things that happened in history (even if not everything written in the OT/NT is believed to be true according to historians)

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Perfection


The answer is no because that usage isn't accepted in your context!

Well it seems that many many people don't agree with you. Since many, but not all, accept my definition it is acceptable, whether you do or not. Who are oyu to tell me what to call myself. I believe Christ existed, I think he was probably the greatest person that ever lived, I try my hardest to follow his earthly teachings I just question the whole God bit. Therefore I am a Christian Agnostic.

Your example of car does not apply here because it is 2 nouns that happen to have the same word. That would be simliar to me totally repudiating Chris's teachings but saying I m a Christian because it is my given name (Hans Christian Anderson).

The context that I use the word is totally acceptable by the definition I intend it for and is accepted in the English language.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
20 years are still half a generation in a time where the average life expectancy was around 30 years.

I can remember 20 years back (and am not 30), can't you?

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

No offense Ben, but how reliable do you think that something that are written at least two generations after it's claimed to have happened ?

Compared to every other historical work in the ancient world? That's pretty good. It would meet the highest standard of reliability.

Compared to Josephus, he wrote his account in 95 AD

Tacitus wrote about the events in Christ's time in 105 AD

The Gospels if we were to consider them by the same standard are more reliable in terms of proximity to the date.

Ask yourself, would you doubt an account published of the rise and fall of the third reich written in 1965 by say Winston Churchill before he passed away? It's the same here. You have eyewitnesses to Christ compiling accounts of his life and ministry here on Earth.