Christian Atheism

Yes. Gnostic Christians know how to see heaven in the here and now the way Jesus did in scriptures.

We also see the trash that is the God religions.

It is good to be a really big prick to the immoral.

For evil to grow and all that.

Do you not have the balls to fight for the innocent?

I do and that is why I ask those who disagree on morals in the Christian community to step up, and they always step back.

They are wrong and know it and that seems to make my views the right ones.

I will tell anyone to their face, --- especially homophobic and misogynous ********s, --- that to discriminate negatively against anyone without a just cause, --- is immoral.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

If Christians and others cannot see that what motivates me, --- to first protect me and mine against homophobes and the misogynous, --- then try to extend that protection and harm reduction to the real world, --- then **** all immoral Christians and everyone else.

My love creates the hated needed to have me do the right and moral thing.

If you cannot see the good in my hate against hatter who actually do the harm, what can I say?

Regards
DL

 

Hmmm.

I guess he did not mean "everybody", when he said, "do unto others", even though it looks implied.

Jesus sees all souls as equal. It is gods will that all be saved. All are. Relax.

Paradox.
Be happy in the sin that Christians identify as a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

In the Jewish tradition, Jesus represents an ideology/theology that represents only himself.

When anointed to Christ, one is to take that individual perfected ideology and apply it to all.

Somewhat like a a person ascending to the right hand of power and ruling in the material world.

That is the material dualist built into the Judeo Christian myth and has the spirit of Jesus doing the same in heaven.

Regards
DL

 

It's fine to use my words as a departure-point, into another area, but you realize that you took what I said out of context, yes? Pisa was suggesting that Jesus was about getting the world (everybody) to conform to his own ideas of how they should behave. I was pointing out that Jesus advised people to be principally concerned with their own actions; that is, how one treats everyone else, IS one's own behavior-- Hypocrite, first remove the plank from your own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the speck from the eye of your brother.

 

Take what I put out of context, and stay grammatically stupid.

Jesus, like all good teachers, if you read the right Jesus, wanted sheeple who would eventually do better than himself, just as his ascension would retire Yahweh so that Jesus could rule and await his son.

He wanted what he had for all people and souls.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

Alan Watts - On The Book of Eli - YouTube

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

On Becoming an Adult - YouTube

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL

 

Those are important, yes.

That does not negate your responsibility to help protect your fellow Humans.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.

Please get back to me with your conclusion.

Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Regards
DL

 

Sounds more like a philosophy, highlighting Jesus. And to answer your first question, I suppose they would use that label because Christianity is so well known so it is a convenient reference point. I do agree that Jesus was certainly not alone or even very special in what he had to say.

 

Personally, I don't accept the claim that Jesus even existed as such. He seems to have started out as a sort of clone of existing solar deities of the period, not as a guy who walked around preaching to people. He lacks a coherent history within religious writings and he lacks any historical record. Everything about him indicates that he existed only in hearts, minds and religious literature.

New Testament ideas were not new, either. They're just the most popular surviving form of those ideas from so long ago, which is not surprising given the history of Christianity and its vast impacts on how information was preserved (or purposely and jealously wiped out).

 

Please cite the specific passage where the Jesus character himself preached to the Gentiles.

 

Let me begin by clearing up any possible misunderstanding, that my reiteration of Jesus' famous, "Hypocrite, remove the beam/plank from your own eye..." was not directed at you. It was an example of the point I was making: Jesus' emphasizing minding one's own goodness, instead of looking for the specks in our brothers' eyes. With that said:

English translation please? That is an unintelligible collection of words, not a clearly expressed thought.

Evidence of this? Or is it assumed that we will just take your word for it?

Note that neither of those quotes, supports your foregoing claim, about his wanting "sheeple who would eventually do better than himself"-- never mind the underlined part of your contentions. Your other quote is from Paul's letter to the Romans, which cannot be taken to be the teaching of Jesus (that's where the trouble comes in to Christianity, as I thought you agreed).

But thanks, anyway for your link, if that will bring me to something by Joseph Campbell, to whom I do find it is very worthwhile to pay attention.

 

As you asked for me to get back to you, I am doing so, but can only reiterate what I have been saying: that you misinterpreted my words about being concerned with one's own self, more than with other's behavior. Obviously, we are to be concerned with the WELFARE of our brothers-- Love your neighbor as yourself; whatever you do for the least of my brothers, that you do onto me.

In the context that I made my remark, it was meant akin to, "Judge not, least ye too be judged." I hope that clarifies the confusion.



P.S.-- I hope you will forgive my relying on memory for my biblical "quotes," rather than looking them all up. I think that it is at least clear, in each instance, to what actual quote I am referring.

 

Of course, there is & may well never be, any positive proof that Jesus lived, even if he, in fact, did. But I do not understand your quote, emboldened above, which is apparently a large part of your reasoning. I am curious as to what, specifically, "about him indicates that he existed only in hearts, minds, and religious literature?" I am not a Christian, so you have no cause to fear that this conversation will not be based on reason. It is just that I believe what you are suggesting, would be much more remarkable than the alternative. That is, we have found, more & more, that mythological figures usually are based on actual personages, even if exaggeration has seeped in, with the passing years. So it is an odd thought to me, that this religion would be based upon a totally fictionalized narrative. And even this would only add to the magnitude of the author's achievement, to have inspired such belief without any historical basis for his narrative. Let's not forget, either, that it was the teachings in the narrative, which were the greatest contribution, not the stories of miracles and the like. However, that there were numerous authors, even beyond the four that became the Gospel-writers, to my mind, makes some historic precedent more likely, not less so.

I must also strongly contest your claim that the ideas in the New Testament were not revolutionary, at the time they were first written. Again, I think historical fact will back up my argument.

 

Care to offer some examples of this common philosophy at the time? I think, while one cannot say Jesus was totally alone in some of his ideas:
1) his overall teaching was unique, revolutionary (and not the same as Gautama Buddha/Siddhartha's);
2) to call him, based on his ideas, "not very special," is patently absurd.

 

I'm not sure if you didn't understand my post due to your background as a former Catholic, taught to see Jesus in a certain way, or because English is not may native tongue.

Let's try again. All of Europe has been Christian for nearly two millennia, so theoretically everybody there should have followed Jesus' teachings and become a better person. It didn't happen. Why? Well, that's my other point you didn't understand.

The teachings of Jesus are not meant for people who have to survive in the real world. They're meant for people who're seeking eternal life after death. Some of this stuff is valuable, I'll give him that much, but it's not enough.

We should also keep in mind that we'll never know most of Jesus' teachings, because the really important stuff was taught in secret to a handful of initiates. Early Christianity was a religion of mysteries.

I've always have been an atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural, or a greater purpose, or some universal conscience. That's why empirical evidence is so important to me, and right now empirical evidence shows that Jesus' teachings didn't deliver as hoped.

 

Did I say at the time? No. The question was why would a person with these ideas or morals call themself "Christian" (when atheist) instead of something else. My guess is that they do so because that is an easy framework given how popular and well known the Jesus mythology is. Doesn't even matter if he existed or not.

You don't think others have taught similar ideas in similar ways?

What do you say is so very special? I don't think the Jesus Character is particularly special or that his teachings were particularly unique. Plenty of others have said the same or very similar things he said in his sermon on the mount and in other stories that atheists would likely admire him for, as a character or as a person.

But I do think the context of him is very strong. He is very well known, so I can see why some may label themselves as "followers" of his philosophy, even if they don't see him as in any way supernatural or even if they don't think he actually even existed.

I can similarly see somebody saying they stand with King Arthur's round table and the philosophy of inclusion it holds, or who declare their religion as "Jedi".

 

Very good point. I hadn't noticed it before.

 

Prolly not quite the same, but I'm sortof a 'Christian Humanist.' I don't think God created us just to worship Him and try to get as many other believers saved as possible (though certainly thats important!), but rather we're supposed to build Heaven. By that I mean we're meant to use the creativity that the Creator instilled in us by making us in His image and the compassion taught to us by His son Jesus Christ to build a utopia. Its been said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, perhaps even the sort of 'magic' that God Himself wields. Science fiction has already come up with numerous ways that 'god' powers could be technologically achieved. Now its simply a matter of time (much much time) and effort to make fiction become reality (as we keep doing with every new advancement). 'Free' energy and space colonization I see as the two main milestones we've yet to hurdle to to achieve this. Once we're able to untether ourselves from the nest (Earth), the possibilities are endless. The universe contains all the resources and energy we could ever use to eliminate poverty, power struggles, population limits, even greed and hatred. Its only a matter of investing the proper effort to get there and surviving those troubles (as a race) long enough to do it. If we can, I think some day in the distant future humans will be able to physically meet God as equals in power and wisdom. And I believe this is God's ultimate plan for us. For what father doesn't wish for his children to surpass him?

...if we can't, well then theres always the book of Revelations that describes God's backup plan for if we fail. That would be quite a shame. Kinda like the father who's druggy children spend most of their life in prison only to return home to lay around on the sofa. He still loves them, but they could've been so much more.

 

Well one of my points, that should have been very clear, regardless of your familiarity with the finer points of English, was that the Christian RELIGION differs from the teachings of Jesus. I know that this seems counter-intuitive, but if you have lived your life in a Christian culture (which I am only assuming), it still seems like something you might have picked up on, even if you are not a Christian, yourself.

Here were my two previous attempts at making the point I am now making, once more:

So, if "Christians," are not adhering to specifically Christ's teachings, that is, if those are only part of a mish-mosh of beliefs, then it is not fair to rate the philosophy of Jesus, IMO, based on the results of people practicing the distinctly different philosophy of Christianity, in its various forms. Is that clearer?

While I do not agree with your quote's reasoning, in the end it is making the same point as I just made, for the third time: you are assessing the results of CHRISTIANITY, not of JESUS'S TEACHINGS. If you will forgive my saying, I would think that someone for whom, "empirical evidence," holds such importance, would be somewhat less imprecise, in his terminology. So do we agree, then, that the way Christianity has been practiced, has not been an accurate reflection of what Jesus taught? If so, then was your intention to evaluate the religion which built up around Jesus's teachings, among other materials?



By the way, for anyone who was or is curious enough to look into my abridged version of "the Essential Jesus," through the short list of very brief passages, which I listed, above, I thought of one more that I should have included (though it is just stressing the same idea that some of the other passages already do). That is the parable of the rich man, whose granaries were full, and whose future looked comfortably set. As he thought about his good fortune, God spoke to him, in reply, calling him a fool for being absorbed with such worldly concerns because, that very night, his life would be required, of him (his death would visit him; I'm not sure if it is here that Jesus used the imagery, "like a thief in the night"). The point being, what good would all this earthly wealth be to him, at the hour of his death? It is akin to the idea of, "... give to Caesar, what is Caesar's; but give to God, what is God's." I also see a connection to Jesus's live for the day philosophy, expressed in his Lillie's of the field, imagery, and elsewhere.

 

I very much agreed with your ready-reference point theory, which is why I did not quote that. I quoted, specifically, the line about Jesus's ideas not being particularly special; I did not realize that you meant this, specifically, in regard to the idea of people choosing the term "Christian Atheist," because of your use of the past tense:

Jolly Penguin said: ↑
. I do agree that Jesus was certainly not alone or even very special in what he had to say.
<End Snip>

It would have been far clearer that you were including all philosophy up to the current day, had you said, "Jesus is certainly not alone or even very special in what he has to say." But if that is your meaning, then I must actually now disagree with your argument, which I had found so sensible, without this addition, implying that Christian Atheists DON'T specifically follow Jesus's teachings, but only ideas in that basic, not very special ballpark (unless I am still misunderstanding your intended meaning). Certainly, that may be true of some, but it does not seem to follow that if the philosophy-- that is a big enough influence for someone to change the name they use for their belief system-- is not based on Jesus's teachings but, rather, a mix of Buddhist, Christian, New Age Hindu (cf. Deepak Chopra), and Taoist thought, they would choose to recognize only the part that is attributed to Jesus. For comparison, though it's not exactly the same, I think of, "Jews for Jesus." Could that name possibly imply that those Jews might, instead of thinking of Jesus as the Savior, really imagine it as being the God Krishna, or Mithras, or Zoroaster, or maybe Quetzalcoatl, but just find it more convenient to use the name "Jesus," because it expedites their getting across the gist of their faith?

I put my question to you this way, in an attempt at (droll) humor, so please do not interpret me as being confrontational, though I am, in a friendly way, challenging your idea, that most Christian Atheists would not especially focus on the teachings of Jesus.


BTW, I took those names from an interesting list in a book, that you (and others) might find interesting.
So here's the link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World's_Sixteen_Crucified_Saviors

 

I don't have time for an extended reply, right now, but I just want to point out that our current technology, on our planet of the moment, already hold the potential of eliminating world poverty, if we chose to do so. But we have not even assured all of sufficient, safe drinking water. Or electricity. Or sanitation systems. To do ANY of these things would entail a radical shift in our way of treating reach other, which would utilize the principle-- which I believe you find loathsome-- of "wealth redistribution."

While your great faith, in both science and mankind, to excise the human race of greed and hatred, is touching, it ignores the truth about human nature, and so is a misguided faith. No matter how great the resources we develop, there will always be those who want more for themselves, w/o limit, and who will see sharing as a weakness, who will even call it a disservice to those who benefit from it.

With that, have a nice day!

 

I mean that the earliest writings about Christ don't speak of a man, but of a voice that spoke to Paul. The gospels came later and presented a heavily allegorical pseudo-history for Jesus that had him in real places, interacting with real people, commenting on recent and current events (mainly revolving around the Judeo-Roman wars). He seems to be the product of clever writers and orators, not a historical figure attested to by eyewitnesses. His gospel stories set out to satisfy religious requirements for a messiah at a time when the old idea of the messiah was in crisis after the destruction of the temple and harmonize the then-popular idea of a solar deity with that Jewish concept. Jesus blends the two, and thus blends Judaism and popular Roman cults, beliefs and concepts (which had in turn come from other cultures of the time and region, such as Persia and Egypt) into a new whole that seems designed to settle things down in Judea and bring the warring to an end, and allow the Jews to exist more peacefully within Rome.

Bottom line, I feel that to understand Jesus and Christianity in full, people need to study the history of the region and gain an understanding of the context in which it all happened. I feel that Christians in particular focus on alleged biblical personalities and events in an information vaccum. Imagine people reading the Book of Mormon a millennium or two later and trying to work out what happened historically mostly if not entirely from that. It would be pretty comparable to how Christians approach the Bible, I think.

 

Interesting. Is this true? Where can I read more about this?

 

I thought that would be understood based on the thread title and context of the question I was writing in response to.

It wasn't an argument. It was explicitly stated as a guess at answering the question it quoted. And it is the best guess I have.

You do come across as confrontational, in a passive aggressive way, and with a lot of straw.

I did not write that Christian Atheists would not especially focus on the teachings of Jesus. I wrote that his teachings are not unique or particularly special and that it isn't surprising that he would be focused on as a reference point for or expression of them.

So in answering why such people would call themselves "Christian" atheists, I think that is why. There are certainly others who follow Christianity more closely than that.

 

For reading in particular, I suppose Richard Carrier's writings would be a place to start: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21964522-on-the-historicity-of-jesus

Here is the author's website: https://www.richardcarrier.info/


For something less scholarly but nonetheless interesting, thought-provoking, and at least somewhat informative, this site is what introduced me to the mythicist argument: https://www.usbible.com/ (you may get a warning as I just did due to the site not being secure, but as far as I know it's a safe site to visit).

This site focuses on the apparent relationships between the gospels and astrology, arguing that Jesus and his gospel stories are based on astrology. The author of this site makes some obvious mistakes, but his arguments are generally compelling to me. There are a lot of astrological motifs in the gospels and in the Book of Revelation especially (and primarily, Old Testament aside) that are quite obvious once you gain a rudimentary understanding of astrology and how it was regarded in the ancient world. Basically, it was tightly interwoven with religion and cosmology, as you might expect given that the scientific method as we know it did not yet exist. "Wisdom" back then was also religious and superstitious in the extreme.

 

Carrier is definitely the best place to start for an academic view of the myth theory. He's actually the only truly reliable academic source I've found. I still don't buy it, personally, but Carrier doesn't resort to some of the wilder claims when it comes to pagan parallels. The people who claim that the Egyptians believed that Osiris or Horus were crucified and resurrected, or that the Greeks believed Dionysus was crucified and resurrected, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and/or are just making **** up.

 

Yes, we have a long way to go morally as well as technologically.

FTR I only oppose trying to force people to participate. I'm all on board with what might be called voluntary collectivism. I dont think making people pretend to care about eachother at the barrel of a gun does anyone any good and only serves to increase resentment and resistance.