Christian Atheism

[Moxie]

Christian Atheism

 

"Christian Atheism is a belief in the word and existence of Jesus without the acceptance of the Christian God. Christian atheists (or Atheist Christians) are hard to define. Like in traditional religion, such as the different denominations of the Christian belief, much diversity exists among views. However, a recurring conviction among Christian atheists is:

 

The acceptance of the teachings of Jesus in the absence of a belief in God.

 

We can therefore call Christian atheism a brand of atheism, which lies closer to theism in a more traditional and moral sense than spiritual sense (although there are plenty of Christian atheists who lean more towards agnosticism).

 

Many Christian atheists hold a contemporary vision of a modern society without God, but include the importance of Judeo-Christian values and the moral philosophies of Jesus. Others (e.g. Megan and me) try to actively bring the teachings of Jesus and those from the Bible into our daily lives. Christian atheists generally support a secular society and don’t often adhere to a particular Christian denomination such as Catholicism. I personally prefer to study the word of Jesus from as many different sources as I can find and try to make up my own mind about which ones I believe are closest to original Christian philosophy.

 

One can say that Christian atheism is similar to humanism, or more specifically Christian humanism. However, a humanist can also be a deist (one who believes in a supernatural entity). This is generally not the case for Christian atheists, who reject God. Humanists and Christian atheists do believe in an intrinsic human nature from an ethical stance, but the latter is more open to guidance from a Biblical perspective."

 

 

This is somewhat appealing to me.

 

Thoughts?

[Dagan]

How can this work? Jesus' authority came from "the Father," did it not? He portrayed himself as a messenger of God, bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Jesus as a good moral teacher fails, IMO. His teaching is too interconnected with God.

 

I can find more meaningful moral teachings elsewhere, if that's the path to take.

[ElrondHubbard]

 

We can therefore call Christian atheism a brand of atheism, which lies closer to theism in a more traditional and moral sense than spiritual sense (although there are plenty of Christian atheists who lean more towards agnosticism).

 

I have a problem with this. There is atheism, and there are varying degrees of theism, but agnosticism isn't middle ground; you believe in god(s) or you don't. Weak theism is still theism.

 

Many Christian atheists hold a contemporary vision of a modern society without God, but include the importance of Judeo-Christian values and the moral philosophies of Jesus. Others (e.g. Megan and me) try to actively bring the teachings of Jesus and those from the Bible into our daily lives.

 

I think this is problematic, too. First of all, without God there is no divine inspiration; if that is the case, the Bible loses authority. How do you resolve the problem of the Bible itself claiming that God is real? From there, you're working backwards - using a book you've already essentially declared invalid - to justify your own values. With theistic implications removed, "Judeo-Christian values" are basically just good ol' human values, and you can find much better justification for those outside of the Bible than in it. Christian atheism just perpetuates the crappy misconception that Christianity has a monopoly on morality.

 

I personally prefer to study the word of Jesus from as many different sources as I can find and try to make up my own mind about which ones I believe are closest to original Christian philosophy.

 

I agree that digging through this stuff and thinking for yourself about it is a good place to start, but you also have to acknowledge the limitations on that sort of study. From a historical perspective, there are VERY few acceptable sources for a critical study of Jesus' life and teachings - a few pagan confirmations of his existence, a sentence or two from a Jewish historian, the canonical gospels and maybe a non-canonical gospel or two (and gospels are a big can of worms, in terms of authenticity).

 

I think it's good to be as open as possible, and I think part of that is acknowledging that I can reject Christianity and still appreciate parts of it. Logically, though, I just don't think christian atheism makes a lot of sense.

[florduh]

If you're that keen to find a label for yourself, I say go for it. It makes no sense to me, but if it does to you then that's all that matters.

 

I will say that a lot of people who don't believe in gods and others who are deist often take what they consider to be "wisdom" from snippets of Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and other texts. These people just usually call themselves "spiritual".

 

Whatever floats your boat, as they say.

[Guest I Love Dog]

To me, believing in the teachings of someone who was probably non-existent is no different to believing in a god or gods who probably don't exist.

 

The story of Jesus and his "teachings" was most probably a composite character, with most of his story gleaned from that of Mithra. Mithra, Persian sun god, was born on 25th December to a virgin, grew up, performed miracles, had 12 disciples, rose again after 3 days of death, was called "lamb", "savior", all sound familiar? The first church in the Vatican was built on top of a Mithran temple, a statue of Mithra and Mum was altered to become Jesus and Mum

 

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

 

For a lot more evidence that Jesus didn't exist, I suggest looking at http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

 

For people who think that the Biblical Jesus was the embodiment of love should have a look at:

 

http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm

 

Finally, wasn't Jesus the son of god? How can someone believe in the son, fathered by someone who didn't/doesn't exist?

 

Christian atheism sounds a bit strange to me! Sorry!

[Neon Genesis]

Bishop Spong can apparently pull this off while also being a bishop:

[Non-Redneck]

True that there are some good things that Jesus taught, but a good deal of Jesus' teachings were about "repenting".

 

He wanted the Jews to follow his interpretation of the Torah. His message was that the Jews needed to "return to God". I don't see how this can be separated from his moral teachings. It's selective religion. IMO this is not much different than what a lot of Christians do, except that the Atheist Christian and the theist Christian ignore different parts of the Bible.

[qec]

Hopefully one day there will be Muslim Atheists, Christian Atheists, Jewish Atheists (already are those), Orthodox Atheists etc etc. One can find wholesome moral truths (just as soon noxious malicious truths) in something like the Bible, while retaining one's cultural background. There are Humanist Jews around up here in New England and they do fine, so Hopefully one day there will be more non-spiritual Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus (/atheist), etc. I don't see any reason why people have to toss the cultural stuff out if they don't want to. One could modify it somewhat conceivably.

 

As far as people in here appealing to the Bible itself or any such thing: who cares? It's just a book, full of mythology. If you can grab moral lessons from it, or the Koran, or anything else, who cares? There are subjectively useful moral "truths" to be had in any "holy" book, or oral tradition, etc.

[dagnarus]

Why? Other than that he was the son of god, what possible reason could you have for ascribing any more authority to the moral teachings of Jesus than any other moral teacher? The only records we really have of his teachings are the gospels, and the teachings in those, other than a few nuggets, are largely crap. Maybe if you look deeply enough, and study hard enough you would be able to discover that his true teachings were a lot better than the corrupted ones we have now, but, why bother? What reason do you have to believe that his teachings would be better than Kant's, or Plato's, or Buddha's, or your mother's? The only real reason to believe this is because he was the son of god, without that he's just a guy, who gave some good advice, and some (arguably more) bad advice. Why is it that everybody wants to steal Jesus for their own philosophy?

[Non-Redneck]

Dagnarus,

I suspect that people want to "steal Jesus" because he is familiar to them. It's the familiarity that causes them to want to retain part of what they know. They might not be ready to completely reject Christianity. Remember at this point, their worldview has been exposed as a lie and they are entering a state of confusion.

 

I would think of it like a comfort blanket. It's needed to transition temporarily, but once the person becomes more secure in their disbelief, the need to cling to Jesus as the source of moral authority should disappear.

[qec]

Dagnarus,

I suspect that people want to "steal Jesus" because he is familiar to them. It's the familiarity that causes them to want to retain part of what they know. They might not be ready to completely reject Christianity. Remember at this point, their worldview has been exposed as a lie and they are entering a state of confusion.

 

I would think of it like a comfort blanket. It's needed to transition temporarily, but once the person becomes more secure in their disbelief, the need to cling to Jesus as the source of moral authority should disappear.

 

 

Seeing as how Dagnarus was responding to me and you responded to her I will respond to you, that's not what I was referring to at all: I don't consider myself a "Christian Atheist" of any sort. What I am referring to is the ability to simply study the Bible or other "Holy Books"/Collections of things if one so chooses, and pull morality from them while still retaining cultural identifiers. That's it. One doesn't have to believe in God to find useful moral sentiments in the Bible, the Koran, or any other cultural "holy book". Of course one can find plenty of nonsense and downright malicious garbage as well. I don't personally study the Bible or any other Holy books. I don't even study the Tao or Buddhist stuff, I am just defending the concept.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Why? Other than that he was the son of god, what possible reason could you have for ascribing any more authority to the moral teachings of Jesus than any other moral teacher? The only records we really have of his teachings are the gospels, and the teachings in those, other than a few nuggets, are largely crap. Maybe if you look deeply enough, and study hard enough you would be able to discover that his true teachings were a lot better than the corrupted ones we have now, but, why bother? What reason do you have to believe that his teachings would be better than Kant's, or Plato's, or Buddha's, or your mother's? The only real reason to believe this is because he was the son of god, without that he's just a guy, who gave some good advice, and some (arguably more) bad advice. Why is it that everybody wants to steal Jesus for their own philosophy?

 

I even doubt that he was "son of god". I see no evidence of a god or that Jesus was his son, if indeed Jesus did exist at all. I suspect that he was just a re-birth of the old Persian Mithra.

 

I look at it this way. Why would a supreme deity, with total power, decide to plant his seed into a human virgin, who was another man's wife anyway, so why would she be a virgin if she was married and what right does any deity have to impregnate another man's wife? Indeed, why would he need to? A supreme god could have been spitting out grown-up sons all day long if he wanted a son or two.

 

If he made Adam, making a Jesus wouldn't have been difficult, without using a virgin, or even a woman.

[dagnarus]

Dagnarus,

I suspect that people want to "steal Jesus" because he is familiar to them. It's the familiarity that causes them to want to retain part of what they know. They might not be ready to completely reject Christianity. Remember at this point, their worldview has been exposed as a lie and they are entering a state of confusion.

 

I would think of it like a comfort blanket. It's needed to transition temporarily, but once the person becomes more secure in their disbelief, the need to cling to Jesus as the source of moral authority should disappear.

 

 

Seeing as how Dagnarus was responding to me and you responded to her I will respond to you, that's not what I was referring to at all: I don't consider myself a "Christian Atheist" of any sort. What I am referring to is the ability to simply study the Bible or other "Holy Books"/Collections of things if one so chooses, and pull morality from them while still retaining cultural identifiers. That's it. One doesn't have to believe in God to find useful moral sentiments in the Bible, the Koran, or any other cultural "holy book". Of course one can find plenty of nonsense and downright malicious garbage as well. I don't personally study the Bible or any other Holy books. I don't even study the Tao or Buddhist stuff, I am just defending the concept.

 

Actually I was responding to the op. What you have stated has merit however.

[dagnarus]

I would think of it like a comfort blanket. It's needed to transition temporarily, but once the person becomes more secure in their disbelief, the need to cling to Jesus as the source of moral authority should disappear.

 

I didn't actually state this, but I was referring more to the fact that it seems like there are so many people, whether religious or not, who basically assume that whatever there philosophy is, that's what Jesus really meant. I've read stuff suggesting Jesus was a Buddhist.

[dagnarus]

I even doubt that he was "son of god". I see no evidence of a god or that Jesus was his son, if indeed Jesus did exist at all. I suspect that he was just a re-birth of the old Persian Mithra.

 

I look at it this way. Why would a supreme deity, with total power, decide to plant his seed into a human virgin, who was another man's wife anyway, so why would she be a virgin if she was married and what right does any deity have to impregnate another man's wife? Indeed, why would he need to? A supreme god could have been spitting out grown-up sons all day long if he wanted a son or two.

 

If he made Adam, making a Jesus wouldn't have been difficult, without using a virgin, or even a woman.

 

Exactly. And once you realize that, it becomes possible to realize, you know what, most of Jesus's authority comes is based upon who he is supposed to be, not based upon the merit of his teachings. If Jesus doesn't have his mythic aspects the majority of his teachings fail to stand upon their own merits.

[Neon Genesis]

Why? Other than that he was the son of god, what possible reason could you have for ascribing any more authority to the moral teachings of Jesus than any other moral teacher? The only records we really have of his teachings are the gospels, and the teachings in those, other than a few nuggets, are largely crap. Maybe if you look deeply enough, and study hard enough you would be able to discover that his true teachings were a lot better than the corrupted ones we have now, but, why bother? What reason do you have to believe that his teachings would be better than Kant's, or Plato's, or Buddha's, or your mother's? The only real reason to believe this is because he was the son of god, without that he's just a guy, who gave some good advice, and some (arguably more) bad advice. Why is it that everybody wants to steal Jesus for their own philosophy?

Don't forget that Jesus was a Jew and the title son of God had a completely different concept in Judaism than it does in Christianity. In Judaism, son of God was a symbolic title that was given to someone who was a representative of God that had a special duty. King Saul, for example, was referred to in the OT as being the son of God but even most Christians don't believe King Saul was literally biologically related to God. Given that the virgin birth myth is a later invention and is not referenced anywhere in the writings of Paul or Mark which were the earliest Christian writings, it seems likely to me that the belief of Jesus as a literal son of god is a later Christian invention. Whether one hates or loves the teachings of Jesus is their own personal opinion. Richard Dawkins is an atheist but likes the teachings of Jesus but that doesn't mean you should too because Dawkins likes Jesus. Nobody would argue that Greek mythology is totally worthless unless you believe in Hercules so I don't see why the bible should be tossed out either. I wouldn't call myself a "Christian atheist" either since I think that has the potential to be confusing but I don't see why the bible is worthless as literature just because it's not real.

 

Seeing as how Dagnarus was responding to me and you responded to her I will respond to you, that's not what I was referring to at all: I don't consider myself a "Christian Atheist" of any sort. What I am referring to is the ability to simply study the Bible or other "Holy Books"/Collections of things if one so chooses, and pull morality from them while still retaining cultural identifiers. That's it. One doesn't have to believe in God to find useful moral sentiments in the Bible, the Koran, or any other cultural "holy book". Of course one can find plenty of nonsense and downright malicious garbage as well. I don't personally study the Bible or any other Holy books. I don't even study the Tao or Buddhist stuff, I am just defending the concept.

There's also atheistic Buddhists and Sam Harris himself advocates atheistic Buddhism as a rational alternative to religion.

[Shyone]

There are certain teachings of Jesus that seem moral to us because we know what morality is and the teachings resonate with us.

 

There are similar teachings in other schools of philosophy and religion, some of which seem moral to us.

 

Thomas Jefferson tried to separate the religious and the secular morality in the bible, and that looks to me what is being done with "Christian Atheism." Coming from a generally Chrisian society, we still hold the bible to be a good source for guidance even as we reject the God parts of it. I think this is a bit narrow minded however, and overlooks a good part of the writings of other civilizations. It also tends to elevate the teachings of Jesus to the detriment of other philosophers. I'm not sure this is at all justified.

 

Perhaps a critical evaluation of the teachings and what they imply would be a better approach. Even the "secular" suggestions of Jesus may have some implications that we should reject - such as leaving the poor to their fate, or advice to sell everything and give it to the poor. There are better solutions to these simplistic recommendations.

 

Remembering that Jesus was just a man, the product of his society, we can then look as well to modern philosophers, other cultures, and our own sense of right and wrong to arrive at the best way to live.

[dagnarus]

Don't forget that Jesus was a Jew and the title son of God had a completely different concept in Judaism than it does in Christianity. In Judaism, son of God was a symbolic title that was given to someone who was a representative of God that had a special duty. King Saul, for example, was referred to in the OT as being the son of God but even most Christians don't believe King Saul was literally biologically related to God. Given that the virgin birth myth is a later invention and is not referenced anywhere in the writings of Paul or Mark which were the earliest Christian writings, it seems likely to me that the belief of Jesus as a literal son of god is a later Christian invention.

 

Read my post again. Except interpret son of God as you described above. Does the meaning of my post change at all?

 

Whether one hates or loves the teachings of Jesus is their own personal opinion. Richard Dawkins is an atheist but likes the teachings of Jesus but that doesn't mean you should too because Dawkins likes Jesus. Nobody would argue that Greek mythology is totally worthless unless you believe in Hercules so I don't see why the bible should be tossed out either. I wouldn't call myself a "Christian atheist" either since I think that has the potential to be confusing but I don't see why the bible is worthless as literature just because it's not real.

 

I don't remember saying that it was worthless as literature. I also readily admitted that Jesus did have some good teachings. My post was aimed at raising his teaching to being something greater than any other moral teacher. Just out of curiosity, what teachings of Jesus do you like other than, Love your neighbour, the Golden rule, and love you enemy? Personally other than those I can't really think of any teachings of his that I don't disagree with, either because they're supernatural in nature, bad advice, or immoral. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if I agree with more of Paul's advice than Jesus's.

 

Edit: Heck there's probably a lot of teachings from modern day cults which I agree with too. Jim Jones taught true racial harmony and equality in the days of racial segregation. Doesn't mean I would elevate him to the status of a great teacher. For those who don't know Jim Jones is the guy who got his followers to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid.

[Neon Genesis]

I like most of Jesus' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount and his brilliant arguments on the evils of dogmatism with the Pharisees which I think is still relevant to today with our own modern day Pharisees, the fundamentalists. I also like a lot of the teachings of Paul but I don't hold either over other philosophers and moral teachings, rather I take inspiration from all religions and moral teachings. Recently I've started reading the Koran and I actually don't think it's as bad as most people make it out at least so far. It's not any worse than the bible to me in any case. My only real complaint with "Christian atheism" is that I think it has the potential to be confusing. Like if we had a Christian atheist at ex-c, where would we classify them? Would they be allowed to post in the testimony forum because they're an atheist or would they not be allowed in testimonies because they're a Christian?

[Vigile]

Jesus was a dick. I'd rather be a theist than an xian atheist.

 

I also don't get why people need a book as a moral guide. Are people really that desperate to follow?

[Vigile]

Why? Other than that he was the son of god, what possible reason could you have for ascribing any more authority to the moral teachings of Jesus than any other moral teacher? The only records we really have of his teachings are the gospels, and the teachings in those, other than a few nuggets, are largely crap. Maybe if you look deeply enough, and study hard enough you would be able to discover that his true teachings were a lot better than the corrupted ones we have now, but, why bother? What reason do you have to believe that his teachings would be better than Kant's, or Plato's, or Buddha's, or your mother's? The only real reason to believe this is because he was the son of god, without that he's just a guy, who gave some good advice, and some (arguably more) bad advice. Why is it that everybody wants to steal Jesus for their own philosophy?

 

Plus a big ol' 1

[Neon Genesis]

Didn't we have a Christian atheist here sometime last year?

[dagnarus]

I like most of Jesus' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount

 

I would agree there are some good teachings in there, as well as some extremely bad ones, this page from the iron chariots wiki sums up my opinion of it pretty well.

 

and his brilliant arguments on the evils of dogmatism with the Pharisees which I think is still relevant to today with our own modern day Pharisees, the fundamentalists.

 

Brilliant arguments on the evils of dogmatism? This is a guy who preached that those who didn't subscribe to his dogma would have a one way trip to gehenna, which whatever it was, was supposed to be worse than physical death. I would be more impressed with teachings on hypocrisy and dogmatism, if he ever pointed out the hypocrisy and dogmatism in himself, as it stands just like with my own church preaching how the other churchs were dogmatic hypocrites, the beam was always in the other guys eye. When you get right down to it all Jesus did was do what every other religion does, point out the stupidity of the other guys religion and why it is wrong, and just like with every other religion the purpose is not to teach people against hypocrisy, but to attack the religions enemies. Remember when the christians were writing the gospels they had to explain why most of the Jews had rejected the messiah, what do you think would have been a better explanation to give, Jesus didn't really fulfill any of the requirements for being the Jewish messiah, or, the Jews were just a bunch of religious hypocrites who cared more for their positions and traditions, than obeying God?

 

I also like a lot of the teachings of Paul but I don't hold either over other philosophers and moral teachings, rather I take inspiration from all religions and moral teachings. Recently I've started reading the Koran and I actually don't think it's as bad as most people make it out at least so far. It's not any worse than the bible to me in any case.

 

I've thought about reading the Koran too. Haven't got around to it though. I think a lot of the problems with holy books only really come up, when you seriously believe that it's the word of God, and you seriously believe that not following it's teachings could condemn you to eternal hellfire. Then all those bits of the book which could have ambiguous meanings, not to mention the not so ambiguous ones suddenly become really important.

 

My only real complaint with "Christian atheism" is that I think it has the potential to be confusing. Like if we had a Christian atheist at ex-c, where would we classify them? Would they be allowed to post in the testimony forum because they're an atheist or would they not be allowed in testimonies because they're a Christian?

 

When I was still in christianity, I began to notice something. There was a leadership, and this leadership spouted a lot of doctrines, some of it good, some of it not so good, and often contradictory. This could put the lower level members in a bit of a situation, the leadership could use one teaching to force you to do what they wanted, but simultaneously if what they wanted hurt others, or otherwise blew up in your face, well that was your fault, because you failed to follow the other good teaching. Similarly the leadership was never really held to all of the principals it espoused. Basically it was a system designed to fuck over and heap all the blame upon the bottom rung.

 

Now as I look upon Christian atheism, and basically anything which I perceive as attempting to make out that Christ was some great moral man, and all those religious people are just perverting his teachings, well it pisses me off. Why? Because even if those nice teachings of Jesus like love your neighbour and the Good Samaritan are in there, all that other stuff about if you feel lust or anger you'll go to hell, you have to be willing to hate your loved ones for my sake, and all those who don't heed my preaching will get ass-raped by god are in there also. And those who believe what Jesus taught are put into an untenable position where they're supposed to follow all of it, or else they run the risk of not getting into the kingdom. Likewise Jesus didn't really live up to his own teaching, when he was rejected by Capernaum, what did he do? Did he turn the other cheek? or did he curse them with worse than Sodom and Gomorah? When the Temple was filled with moneychangers did he reject violence? or did he make a whip of chords and drive them out? Did he show respect to his own parents and family?

 

Basically when I see Jesus being extricated from the clusterfuck which is Christianity, I see a repeat of ignoring the hypocrisy of the leader, and putting all the blame on the dumb pricks who were stupid enough to buy his line of shit. Seriously, I don't think fundamentalists really need that, their religion is already designed to put all the blame as far away from Jesus already. As to the true historical Jesus and what he taught, how can you say his teachings were good, you don't what they were.

[Neon Genesis]

I also like this article by Dawkins on the teachings of Jesus: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20

[dagnarus]

I also like this article by Dawkins on the teachings of Jesus: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20

 

That isn't an article on the teachings of Jesus. It only went into one solitary isolated part of his teachings, and the rest was tangential to Jesus at best. Fuck, even the levitical law had good stuff in it. Return your enemies cattle to him and what have you. Also I liked this comment to the article.

Edit: thought this one was better Edit:

 

It is also funny how this unhistorical and potentially non-existent character--is so malleable in the mind of the person talking or writing about him, the he acquires whatever character one wants him to have, or more aptly acquires the character traits the writer has; or aspires to.

 

Look at these absurd statements and think about them:

"He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was." (Meaning maybe he wouldn't have been if he had a chance to read "The God Delusion.")

 

"... he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness." (Gee I wonder who thinks like this about the Meglomanical infantacidal... Yahweh?)

 

"... so radical a thinker as Jesus."

 

"At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so." (Reasonable first part, absurd second part)

 

"I think a reborn Jesus would wear the T-shirt." (Why not an "Atheists for Buddha" T-shirt? And, which escape from the world icon came first? Buddha under the Bo-tree [enlightenment] or Jesus nailed to the cross of our sins [knowledge]? I say "nay" to the absurd T-shirt idea, I wouldn't wear either "brain is falling out, splat, oh dear... would you kindly pick that up--I might use it again someday" incarnation of a very bad conciliatory idea.)