Christian Atheism

Right. I think there are parallels to be found between Jesus and other ancient figures of worship, but that so far it's largely the realm of amateurs rather than scholars. I would like to see more scholarship about it, because I'm convinced there is substance there that is being ignored.

 

It's absolutely true that most historians believe that Paul's letters predate the gospels. It's also true to say that Paul says virtually nothing about historical details involving Jesus. He mentions that he was crucified. He mentions meeting people who knew him. He mentions meeting his brother. Carrier claims that this brother was not a literal "brother," that Paul intended to say he had met people who had encountered the spiritual, but not physical, Jesus, and that the Paul meant that the crucifixion happened in a spiritual realm, not the physical world. He essentially argues that not even Paul believed in a physical Jesus. It's interesting, but it's on the fringes of historical research. The only verse he really points to that seems to positively reinforce his position, rather than just being an interpretation, comes from the book of Hebrews . . . which virtually no historian thinks Paul actually wrote.

 

Scholars have actually looked into it pretty extensively. There were definitely plenty of other myths about dying and reborn gods, for sure. There were plenty of other myths of sons of gods. Most of the other parallels mentioned, however, come from poets in the 1800s, not scholars. They like to add details about crucifixion (there are no pre-Christian myths of crucified gods; Inanna is the closest you can get there). The "virgin birth" parallels are almost entirely fake -- the virgin birth was a later addition to Christianity in the first place, and the closest I can find in "pagan" religions is Perseus, the rest really weren't "virgin" births). Same goes for the constant fake claims about Horus/Dionysus/others having 12 disciples. Sure, you can find some December birth date parallels, but that was also a later addition to Christianity. Carrier has been pretty responsible about this, though.

 

Fascinating stuff Glad I started the thread and prompted these responses.

 

I remember reading and hearing those claims. I don't have those particular claims in mind when I speak of parallels, of course, but figures such as Sol Invictus and Attis. I can't say with any certainty, but it is known that mystery religions were popular at that time and that Christianity bears a resemblance to those. So, I would at least postulate that mystery religions in particular influenced the development of Christian theology and kind of made a mystery-religious figure out of the old messianic idea of Judaism, turning the earthly messianic ruler into a heavenly ruler and personal savior, thus also providing a way forward for the Jews who must have suffered quite a crisis of faith when the Romans destroyed the temple and scattered their people, essentially razing Temple Judaism in the process.

 

I don't know much about Attis, but I can see stronger parallels with Sol Invictus than the others I've mentioned, and I think you are right about the timing. Early Christianity definitely borrowed other, broader concepts from the local pagans (especially the logos), and I can see where mystery religions would have influenced that, especially in the way you describe in your last sentence.

@Jolly Penguin

Just my two cents here: I grew up Christian, and I can see the admiration for the figure of Jesus (whether he historically existed or not). Looking at him as a reformer, rather than as God on earth, I can see it. I'd be lying if I said it hadn't influenced me in some ways. You may also want to look up some things about "transtheism." I'd also say that many of Christianity's most popular theologians (I'm mostly thinking of Tillich here) have philosophical views of God that are largely compatible with atheism -- God as "the ground of being" more so than a personal entity.

 

1) Without your explaining WHY I come across, to you, as confrontational, your comment is (obviously) not at all helpful to my amending any bad habits.


2) I don't know how much of my posting you have seen, but anyone who has read a considerable amount of it, I would be surprised if they would think of me as passive aggressive. When I have something to confront someone about, I am not shy about doing so, and directly. So I wonder how you define "passive aggressive."

For example, your saying that I seem confrontational, but with no elaboration-- not even adding to the reply (since I brought up the idea), that, "...but, if you say that is not your intention, I will take your word"-- is, itself, what I would call "passive aggressive." To my mind "confrontational," and passive aggressive, are two descriptions that are largely in opposition to one another: the more confrontational-- which word, describes openly manifested behavior-- one is, the less passive aggressive they can be, at least to my thinking.

In fact, it is your responses which I would categorize as having that sort of back-handed, passive-aggressive insult to them. Here, I will give some examples, to clarify my meaning:

Objecting to my use of the word "argument"-- which is understood, in debate lingo, to mean your assertion-- to specify that you thought of it more as a, "guess," seems the epitome of a passive-aggressive counter-argument-- I mean, rather, a passive aggressive distinguishing, objecting over a small detail, as if that made any real difference. I was just using that general term (in this forum) of "argument," to mean, your "point."


Here's another quote that-- to be clear, I am not imputing with your specific intention-- certainly has the appearance of a passive-aggressive thrust;

You understand, how that comment could be read as meaning, "I didn't think that anyone was so dimwitted, that further clarification would be necessary?"

And here is more, overly- obsessing over small disagreements, without seeming to be willing to read my question for the actual information I am asking for, and then just speaking to that.

Lots of correcting of my question, but that correction doesn't fully answer my question.

Continuing:

JollyPenguin said: ↑
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.
<End Snip>

I could go on, but I don't think it is worth, or should be necessary for, me going into painstaking detail, in order for my point to be clear.

So, what things did I say, that seemed, "passive-aggressive," to YOU?


And, lastly--
3) I am not familiar with the expression, "with a lot of straw." I tried looking it up under idioms but, though there were lots of figures of speech using the term "straw," none matched your usage. I can take a very rough guess, at what you may mean but, if it's not asking too much, could you specify what you'd meant by that?

 

Since nobody has ever managed to build a society able and willing to live according to the teachings of Jesus - or any other teachings, for that matter - without the material infrastructure designed to support and enforce those teachings, it stands to reason that I take such an infrastructure into account.

All ideologies - religious or secular, at state or smaller community level - engender infrastructures whose initial purpose is to support the believers (again, it doesn't matter if their beliefs are religious or not) and organize the community. I said "initial purpose", because the more such infrastructures grow, the more powerful they become, their goals slowly shift toward their own survival, ideology be damned. Such changes are quite obvious in theocracies and communist countries, but even NGOs follow this pattern. There's no reason to believe that, should atheists organize themselves in atheist churches whose ideology would be based on Jesus' teachings, those churches won't follow the same pattern common to all other infrastructures of this type.

I didn't look at the religion at all. I only take into account the existence of the infrastructure, be it religious or not. If you can find a way to bring whole communities to live by the teachings of Jesus without any kind of supporting infrastructure, you're welcome to try, but the OP is talking about atheist churches, which are infrastructure.

I really don't see what good would earthly suffering be to anyone at the hour of death, either. As I said, Jesus' teachings are mostly about surviving death. Not very useful for atheists.

If I told you what I think about the real purpose of this parable, you'll certainly accuse me again of conflating Jesus' teachings with religion. But, you see, since Jesus was a god, his teachings can't be separated from religion, at least not from the earlier versions, when the gospels were written. I don't think we can understand anything Jesus said without a thorough understanding of the social, cultural, religious, and economic context of those times.

 

Fascinating stuff. Thank you for writing this. It had never really occurred to me that atheists could consider themselves “Christian”, even in a philosophical sense, until very recently.

I was born into a mostly atheist family (though my mom dabbled mostly for social reasons) so didn’t grow up with the context.

 

It just goes to show you how over the top delusional neoatheists can be.

Since JC is grounded in the divine, only a neoatheist could conceivably concoct such nonsense fusion and choose to believe it.

So much for your no one can CHOOSE what they are theory!

 

Yep neoatheists think the world is supposed to pamper them and take them seriously. I never dreamed they could get so far from center, but then I suppose these people have a world to conquer (by hook or crook)

Same thing happened in my thread too!

MO: First a few posts heckle the target, you know a little bait to foster good will and tidings (bait the target) in the thread;

Then check out the load of manure that gets shoveled into my back yard!

Its a case of looking in the mirror and blaming everyone around for the ugly picture in front of they see.

 

More than five years ago a really, really, really, really intelligent moderator or Admin on one of the Richard Dawkins forums
told me that my belief in Theistic Evolutionary Theory was actually a bona fide branch of Atheism.......

My belief in G-d in a sense "evolving" ...... and eventually figuring out how to invent a pair of human Adam and Eve prototypes......
after a rebellion by about a third of the angels......
is being discussed by the really, really, really intelligent Atheists who don't want to divide and conquer!

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

or if that link doesn't work:



GTA TV Ep. #0205 - “Evolution vs. Creation?” - Garner Ted Armstrong
10 years ago


Later on some of the other Admins or Moderators banned me from that particular Richard Dawkins Ph. D. forum........ but I kind of suspect that I may be able to organize a face to face debate with him in less than five years........

I believe that he deserves a lot of credit for what he has stated about aliens... that is a good first step in his logic....

 

So, if I may paraphrase, your point is that just because people espouse a particular, "doctrine"-- whether it be, "Love thy neighbor," or "Connecting the world/making the world closer," or however Facebook's slogan/mission statement reads-- it will not be 100% of those peoples' guiding principles. That is inarguably true, yet it supports what I have been saying all along, which you, for some reason, do not wish to simply acknowledge: that your critique is not specifically about the TEACHINGS of Jesus, but about how they have been APPLIED, in Christianity. As admitting this, would take nothing away from your argument, I am a little puzzled as to why you so deliberately avoid doing so; I can only assume that you are one of those who loathes admitting one's errors-- even though making mistakes is part of the human condition, so therefore nothing that anyone should find especially mortifying.

But thank you, your answer confirms for me, that we are on the same page, and I have no argument (for the moment, at least), with your position, even without your writing the words, e.g., "You misunderstood my point, I didn't mean Christ's biblical teachings, considered abstractly."

That is an interesting perspective, which I will keep in mind, going forward, though it is not how I view Jesus' teachings, at least not in full. And I am not at odds with you, here, in our overall concepts of living for the day, not for the "next life." I actually think that Epicurus was one of the wisest of early philosophers, and hope to search his teachings, further, to see if there is more depth, beyond the principal idea, of pursuing pleasure & avoiding
pain (which even that philosophy considers in the long term, not just in any given moment).

Though you did not explain your own interpretation of the parable that I'd recounted, I can probably make a fair guess, and I will try to present what I feel, additionally, is part of Jesus' teaching. To my mind, Jesus is presenting people with a more selfless path, in which those who would lead, serve the rest. This is not merely as a way to build up heavenly credits, but to live a more fulfilling life, and develop the best qualities of one's humanity, as opposed to the less-elevating, or worst ones.

A salient example of this, I think, is the second of the Two Great Commandments, with which Jesus sums up all religious law, and the entreaties of all the prophets: Love your neighbor, as yourself. To me, Jesus is clearly depicting a different model for human civilization, than the course that it had taken: a more communitarian one, in which we sense that we are all part of the Same Body, and more tangibly feel that connection. In other words, I don't see Jesus, as do you, advocating suffering for it's own sake, for any who are not anticipating an eternal reward.

While you, yourself noted, this would provide no inducement to an Atheist, yet you ignore the fact that these teachings of Jesus DO appeal to some of those, without any illusions of paradise. This should indicate to you, that you are missing something, in your own interpretation, which these other Atheists, find.

Whether or not humans have the capacity to attain this envisaged, new way of living is, of course, an open question. It should be noted that the Christian communities of the first few centuries have the reputation, at least, of having operated in this way. But, as I think Jesus' teachings acknowledge, while this selflessness may be possible among (smaller) groups who are downcast and, overall, of modest means, mounting success, wealth, and power, will bring with them, an increasing challenge to maintain it.

We should, nevertheless, keep in mind, as well, that there can be a benefit in describing, defining, and projecting an ideal, even one that may, ultimately, not be fully attainable. I point you to the "mission statement," of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which both aspire to concepts that are still works in progress, incompletely requited, by reality.

 

I agree that there is some irony, in those remarks, addressed to you.
In my case, I wonder if part of his seemingly innate attitude of antipathy to my posts, could stem from my use of editing tools. While I can empathize with getting fed up with another's ubiquitous use of these features without any plausible justification, as I have seen from just a few members, I did not think (though my employment of these is surely beyond the preference of some), I came anywhere close to that line.

But I have encountered a few posters who have shown themselves to possess an extremely low tolerance for any such use. I had one person make a comment about my over-usage, in one of my posts, containing just a single, emboldened word. Another member, with whom I believed I was on friendly terms, put me on, "ignore," supposedly for this reason-- though when all the attack on one's argument focuses on editing tools, it is fair to see that respondent, as not really having any good counter-arguments; so that poster's strong objection to my position, and inability to refute it, may also have played a role.

 

@Kokomojojo

Here is something I tried to add to the above post, regarding people's unobjective reactions, and over-reactions, but I ran just a couple of minutes beyond the window for edits:


Still, we all have our pet peeves, and most of us probably have things, upon which we place an inordinate amount of our focus. It reminds me of a particular experience I had, in Hawaii. Let me explain that I was raised in Connecticut, just north of NYC, by parents who were, both, born & bred in the Bronx, where most of my relatives still lived.

I noticed, when I was in southern California, with it's more laid-back attitude, that my New Yorkerish demeanor, made me come across to some as more aggressive than I, in fact, was being. An analogy might be someone who was used to driving in NYC, elsewhere then crossing paths with under-aggressive, overly-deferring, drivers.

But when I was in Hawaii, my accent also was something which many misinterpreted, which I know, from the many comments that this misjudgement solicited. In the memorable example of this, which I mentioned at the start of this digression, I was introduced to someone, and I said, "Glad to meet you," or some such. The responding, first words out of that person's mouth, were, "So you're Jewish, huh?"

 

Done. Moving on.

Evidence is within you.

Do you want your children to grow to be inferior, the same, or better than yourself?

Assuming you choose "better"; what makes you think a god or spiritual side of man would choose differently?

In the Christian theology, Jesus does what we are all to do. It is called growing up.

Pick up your cross says it all.

They do. Lets not quarrel.

Joseph Campbell is top class and i am pleased that you are buddy.

Regards
DL

 

I am likely guilty of this.

Apologies.

I fight so much with the obtuse and intolerant that I forget how to keep my net bully under control when talking to a normal guy.

Regards
DL

 

I agree.

In fact, I think Jesus would do a thumbs down on the mainstream homophobic and misogynous right wings of politics and religions.

Equality and the acceptance of gays, etc., was well on it's way before Christianity took over and reversed the trend. Check the Jewish and Egyptian history, where Christianity plagiarized, via the Jews, the ir religion. Check the end of the Book of the Dead for the Ten Commandments, written in a better form.

Regards
DL

 

Their God given natures ****ed them up.

Their creator screws up quite a lot.

Strange that you should question how he creates human natures.

Regards
DL

 

Are you suggesting we can't choose to overcome our nature?

 

In the reasonable manner that I promised you, from the outset, I will point out what seems an obvious flaw to this theory. Those writings by Paul, were addressed to ALREADY EXISTING, CHRISTIAN communities. Just because Paul's correspondence was written prior to the gospels, is far insufficient of a basis to conclude that there had not already been established, an ORAL TRADITION, when Paul penned his letters. Surely this researcher whose theory you sketch out, must have addressed this apparent inconsistency?

Are you saying that there are passages in the Gospels that unmistakably comment on future events, which could not have been known about, at the time when they were written? This would clearly be strong evidence of the theory. Could you cite a couple of examples of this (so I will know if it is worth my reading an entire book, possibly based on a false assumption)? I strongly suspect-- if you don't find honesty off-putting-- that these "examples," will be subjective interpretations, in keeping with say, the way some read Nostradamus. If I am wrong, however-- which I AM aware of occurring-- I will much appreciate your correcting of my view!

Is it not possible that the reason these gospels, "satisfy religious requirements," of the time, is due to this popular movement arising at that time? The phenomenon of religious cross-pollinization is a well established, NATURAL one, not dependent on some social-engineering, artistic genius.

It is certainly understood that the writers of the gospels inserted some of their own ideas (most writers do). But this, again, is not a disproving that Jesus was an actual person, or that the general narratives described, are "based on a true story."

Or, that this theory, which seems to have you convinced, is a clever revision of history. Also a possibility, yes?


As far as your point, "not attested to by eyewitnesses"-- that's what at least two of the gospels are, or purport to be (there are, likewise, other gospel-type books of the period, that are thought to be secondhand accounts, written by authors who knew original witnesses). Of course, there was no AP News Agency-- or, more appropriately, A.D. News-- for us to now research their archives, for old stories, covering this. There is an awful lot that went on in that distant past, of which we have no surviving, "official," record.

I will mention, once more, that we are continually coming across archaeological finds which support events, formerly believed to have been myth. One such event, for a glaring example of how impenetrable to evidence, can be the millennia, is the Trojan WAR! This was long thought to be the "brilliant invention" of Homer, until an amateur archaeologist, to the shock of all the incredulous experts, discovered the ruins of Troy (which also had been believed not to have really existed). I believe it is now a consensus opinion, that most myth have, at their center, at least a kernel of truth.

In conclusion, I also heard, not too long ago, of the discovery of the bones of what would have been a true giant, in the ancient homeland of the Philistines. His funerary treatment has led archaeologists to contend that this is proof of the existence of the biblical figure of Goliath, whose encounter with the Hebrew David has been, likewise, ascribed to the vivid imagination of writers.

 

Yes, God made Man, "in His own image"-- a potentially disturbing thought.

That is a very tall "ask." The practical answer is: in some cases, we can subvert our natures, especially when their are other forces aiding our "will;" in other cases-- don't bet on it.

 

The Jesus character did not start Christianity; the Paul character did. Paul is the one who established the Christian rituals and beliefs, most of which have been altered over the ages.

 

Just remember that when discussing the biblical God and man, that only Israelites/Hebrews/Jews are considered to be men (or human) in the Bible. Gentiles are animals, like serpents, donkeys, swine, dogs.

 

My one and only reason for not sinking my teeth into the teachings of Jesus is quite simple: I don't have the time. I also don't wish to come across as one of those militant atheists who strive to utterly destroy Christianity. My interest is purely academic.

It's true though that how an ideology is applied, and the results thereof, tell us more about the viability and usefulness of that ideology than any theoretical interpretation of its texts. At the end of the day, what is matters more than what was initially intended.

Because I'm aware that my reticence might be interpreted as pure enmity not really related to Jesus' teachings themselves, I'll tell you my opinion on the wealthy man parable. I think it was a veiled criticism of initiates in pagan mystery religions and their leaders. We know that the Eleusinian mysteries, for instance, were led by a wealthy Greek family, and among the initiates were many Roman emperors. We also know that Demeter, the central goddess of the cult, was the god of wealth's mother. Initiates in the mysteries of Dionysos received gold plates as gifts of burial. The wealthy man parable was probably polemic, intended maybe as a warning for the wealthy that their wealth would not buy them a place in the afterlife unless it was spent for initiation in the right religion.

Why did the writer of the parable choose to veil his criticism in such a manner? I can only guess, but logic dictates that a small, unofficial cult lacking support of powerful patrons, couldn't tell Roman emperors and other wealthy influential families in the empire that they're wrong and going to play with devils in hell. Christians had to be cautious.

At least some of other teachings might be polemic in nature, as well, me thinks.

Well, our basic premises are very different, obviously. It is, to stay on topic, a small miracle that we understand each other at all.

Early Christianity was nothing like the later denominations we all know. Early Church Fathers would have been condemned as heretics by Churches in the Middle Ages. As I said, I think many passages in the NT are really polemic in nature, some against pagans, some against various Christian sects. We'll probably never know for sure how much of Jesus' teachings were part of the original doctrine, and how much were tweaked by scribes as counter-arguments to ideological opponents. We know that Christians had to defend themselves against all sorts of accusations, including but not limited to ritual murder of children. The famous "give Caesar" could have been an attempt to avoid persecution by authorities.

In light of the above, at least some of Jesus' teachings are not really Jesus', and not really teachings, their purpose being far from creating a better world. How can we build something durable on an illusion?

The second of the Two Great Commandments is plagiarized by Christians from Hillel the Elder.

Suffering is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. Jesus suffered. Earthly pleasures are evil, the work of Satan. Even Augustine of Hippo knew that as early as the fifth century CE. Waldensians knew that in the 12th century. Mendicant orders knew that in the 13th century.

I'm running out of time for now. I'll answer the rest later.