Christian Atheism

[Neon Genesis]

But then how do you know your negative views of Jesus are also not being acquired through your negative views of religion?

[dagnarus]

But then how do you know your negative views of Jesus are also not being acquired through your negative views of religion?

 

Religions and cults routinely bait with doctrines of love, mixed in with doctrines of fear and other negative doctrines to control the adherents, another fact of cults and religions is that if you read a cult writing about it's leader, it almost definitely makes him out to be nicer than he actually is. Now lets apply this knowledge to Jesus, he to uses doctrines of love, he also attempts to make people feel guilty for natural feeling such as anger, and lust. He suggests makes it clear that loyalty to him and his doctrine should take precedence over family relationships. He threatens divine punishment upon those who don't listen to him. In short the Jesus described in the Gospels, acts like a religious/cult leader. That's what he acts like. Hence it makes sense to look upon him with the same as I would look upon a religious/cult leader. Certainly we could argue that all these negative traits ascribed to him were later additions by evil religious people out to corrupt his pure teaching. Maybe this is the case. Of course we could also argue that the actual Jesus was an even bigger dick than the one described in the gospels. All of this is of course assuming he existed at all. In short Gospel Jesus is a dick, for the simple reason, that, as written, he acts like a dick.

[Neon Genesis]

But you said before that people are just imposing their own values and beliefs onto Jesus, so if people are just imposing their own beliefs and values on Jesus when they say positive things about him, how do you know you're not doing the same in the opposite direction? How do you know you're not imposing your anti-religious beliefs on Jesus by making Jesus out to be as evil as possible or does imposing your values on Jesus not count when it comes to negative views of him?

[dagnarus]

But you said before that people are just imposing their own values and beliefs onto Jesus, so if people are just imposing their own beliefs and values on Jesus when they say positive things about him, how do you know you're not doing the same in the opposite direction? How do you know you're not imposing your anti-religious beliefs on Jesus by making Jesus out to be as evil as possible or does imposing your values on Jesus not count when it comes to negative views of him?

 

I said

 

he also attempts to make people feel guilty for natural feeling such as anger, and lust. He suggests makes it clear that loyalty to him and his doctrine should take precedence over family relationships. He threatens divine punishment upon those who don't listen to him.

 

Would you agree that Jesus according to the bible taught all of these things? Or will I have to break out verse references?

 

If you personally have nothing against teaching people to feel guilty for perfectly natural human emotions, and that it is perfectly fine to teach that people should be loyal to you even so far as to hate their own wife and children, and saying that if people are not willing to listen to your teachings then God is going to fuck you up, then fine your OK with that. Although I would have to question what your real problem with fundamentalism is then, but oh well.

 

Of course you could take a different tack. You could insist that all the bad verses which relate to Jesus in the bible were inserted later by evil Christian scribes, well fine. Your talking about a different Jesus than the one in the gospels. I'm talking about gospel Jesus, not some arbitrary Jesus which you invented to agree with you. edit: although I would like to wonder why you should be more justified in thinking Jesus taught what you say he did than, a fundamentalist who thinks he taught what the gospels say?

[Neon Genesis]

And I could easily quote bible verses to "prove" Jesus was really a nice hippy guy who preached love and happiness or whatever. Yet if I did that, I would be accused of imposing my values on Jesus yet if you quote the nastiest teachings of Jesus you can find and argue that's the "real" Jesus, then you're somehow also not imposing your anti-religious views on Jesus. Are people imposing their values on Jesus or not and why do you think you're somehow immune from imposing your values on Jesus? That your Jesus is the right one and everyone else who disagrees are just imposing their values on him?

[Shyone]

And I could easily quote bible verses to "prove" Jesus was really a nice hippy guy who preached love and happiness or whatever. Yet if I did that, I would be accused of imposing my values on Jesus yet if you quote the nastiest teachings of Jesus you can find and argue that's the "real" Jesus, then you're somehow also not imposing your anti-religious views on Jesus. Are people imposing their values on Jesus or not and why do you think you're somehow immune from imposing your values on Jesus? That your Jesus is the right one and everyone else who disagrees are just imposing their values on him?

No one is entirely good or entirely bad. I'm sure Hitler said some really nice things and I could mine Mein Kampf and find "sayings to live by." Same with the Bible.

 

Christians view Jesus the same way Nazi Germans did Hitler before WWII; a hero who could do no wrong.

 

We should take everything we read and filter it through our own sense of morality. That is not the same as imposing my values on Jesus or Hitler. It is rather taking what is good and leaving what is bad according to my standards.

 

See the difference?

[Ouroboros]

No one is entirely good or entirely bad. I'm sure Hitler said some really nice things and I could mine Mein Kampf and find "sayings to live by."

Hitler promoted a healthy lifestyle. He wanted people to eat more vegetables and outlawed smoking.

[mwc]

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

I don't know when but I'm pretty sure at least one of these stopped by (and I could swear was a Yeshua douche).

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

 

No one is entirely good or entirely bad. I'm sure Hitler said some really nice things and I could mine Mein Kampf and find "sayings to live by." Same with the Bible.

 

Christians view Jesus the same way Nazi Germans did Hitler before WWII; a hero who could do no wrong.

 

 

I guess it was only inevitable that someone would eventually committ Godwin's law.

[mwc]

Jesus was a dick.

Which explains why everyone is so eager to stroke him.

 

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

Seriously. I take from everywhere. Anything I find useful I integrate it. Books, movies, TV, online and even other people (gasp). Wherever. But one "super" source? I did that already and it was a huge letdown. I bet it would have been just great a couple thousand years ago but it's kind of dated now. I guess if I wanted to get back the the "good ol' days" (meaning the 1st century) then it's a winner. I like not wiping my ass with the communal sponge though. (What? "Jesus" failed to warn against the "demons" lurking in that thing? And then said it was cool not to wash before eating? Yuck!)

 

mwc

[mwc]

But then how do you know your negative views of Jesus are also not being acquired through your negative views of religion?

This may be but in this case isn't the only "jesus" to be evaluated the one that is in the bible? This is about being a xian atheist or following the "teachings" of this "jesus." This doesn't appear to be an academic issue. I don't think that we're deciding who the "real" person in the bible is and then trying to decide what they may have actually said and then just following those few lines of text. It would be about opening the bible and reading the red letter verses but ignoring all the magical stuff (much like Jefferson).

 

So if we go through the text and find many "happy" items that is all well and good but then we find the "bad" items. What should we make of them? Do we keep a running total and the column with the most things "wins" out so if there are 100 in the good column and 10 in the bad column then he must be an alright guy? Or, is it more like he's the guy that says "I will build a great empire" and does it. Nice. But then rounds up all his self-defined enemies and slaughters them in horrific ways. Is he a good guy or a bad guy? Is it because he got killed off that we never see the end result of separating wheat from chaff (and burning the chaff), the separation of sheep and goats, the placing of the millstone and drowning (if you happened to upset one of his elect), the being put under foot, and so on. In a way we see a campaign being run with a set of campaign promises. "If elected I will..." and he says some nice things to gain support and some not so nice things that weren't carried out because he drops out early for "health" reasons.

 

mwc

[Vomit Comet]

To me this is like vegetarians that eat imitation meat. Although I suppose that's understandable. This isn't.

[dagnarus]

And I could easily quote bible verses to "prove" Jesus was really a nice hippy guy who preached love and happiness or whatever. Yet if I did that, I would be accused of imposing my values on Jesus yet if you quote the nastiest teachings of Jesus you can find and argue that's the "real" Jesus, then you're somehow also not imposing your anti-religious views on Jesus. Are people imposing their values on Jesus or not and why do you think you're somehow immune from imposing your values on Jesus? That your Jesus is the right one and everyone else who disagrees are just imposing their values on him?

 

I don't remember saying that Jesus didn't say all that nice hippy stuff. If you got that impression I am sorry.

 

Know I'm saying that gospel Jesus said all that nice hippy stuff. And he also said a lot of horrible nasty stuff.

 

Similiarly my old Church taught all the nice hippy stuff, they did, they didn't just ignore those parts and focus on the bad shit, it's just that they taught all the nasty stuff too. Now if I looked back at my old church I could technically say that it was a good nice hippy place because it taught all that nice hippy stuff, if you were to ask the members there currently this is also probably what they would tell you in fact. But the fact of the matter is that, that was not the totality of the teachings, the nasty stuff had an effect. For example nasty teachings made it so that when divisions over theology occurred the faithful adherents would be quite willing to segregate themselves from friends and family which they had known for years. To characterize my old church by it good teachings would be to characterize it as being something it was not, because in the end the nasty teachings poisoned much of even the nice teachings.

 

This can be applied also too the Jesus of the gospels. Jesus of the Gospel's taught many nice teachings. He also taught many bad teachings. He taught damnation upon those who did not adhere to his teachings, and take him as king, thus encouraging exclusivity. He taught a willingness to hate one's closest love ones for him, thus encouraging placing more importance on following God than caring for people.

 

Another example of this could of course be Jim Jones. Jim Jones had at least one very good teaching. He actively campaigned for equal rights between blacks and whites, and he drew the ire of crazy ass racists for doing so. The fact that he had this and doubtlessly other good teachings, does not however, take away, from the horror, that he caused 100s of people to commit mass suicide, worse than that, there were many members of his group who were forced to drink the poison, even if they did not want too. What is my point, if I were to look upon Jim Jones, only in light of his good teachings, I would see a man, who was completely different, too the narcissistic monster, he actually was. Jim Jones was not just the good things about him, he was also the nasty things about him. and in Jim Jones case the bad things, completely overshadow, and corrupt the good. Similiarly, I would say that in Jesus's case, as well as in any other teacher, who preaches complete submission to his own teaching, and that those who do not follow, are somehow, worthy of death, that again, the bad, out weighed the good.

 

At the same time just as with Jim Jones, I still can still take good things away from Jesus's teachings, even though I may consider them as both being evil men. Equal rights for blacks and whites is a good thing regardless of who taught it.

[Vigile]

And I could easily quote bible verses to "prove" Jesus was really a nice hippy guy who preached love and happiness or whatever. Yet if I did that, I would be accused of imposing my values on Jesus yet if you quote the nastiest teachings of Jesus you can find and argue that's the "real" Jesus, then you're somehow also not imposing your anti-religious views on Jesus. Are people imposing their values on Jesus or not and why do you think you're somehow immune from imposing your values on Jesus? That your Jesus is the right one and everyone else who disagrees are just imposing their values on him?

 

You are being seriously obtuse here. What he is saying is that you have to ignore all the shitty garbage he preached before you can make him a nice guy. For example, if you want to pick through Mein Kamf (sp?) you can most certainly find valuable and even good advice for living. Is one merely imposing one's own values on Hitler when they argue that Hitler was an ass?

[Vigile]

No one is entirely good or entirely bad. I'm sure Hitler said some really nice things and I could mine Mein Kampf and find "sayings to live by." Same with the Bible.

 

Ha! I wrote the post above before I read this.

[dagnarus]

You are being seriously obtuse here. What he is saying is that you have to ignore all the shitty garbage he preached before you can make him a nice guy. For example, if you want to pick through Mein Kamf (sp?) you can most certainly find valuable and even good advice for living. Is one merely imposing one's own values on Hitler when they argue that Hitler was an ass?

 

A very good summation of my points, in far less words.

[Vigile]

 

No one is entirely good or entirely bad. I'm sure Hitler said some really nice things and I could mine Mein Kampf and find "sayings to live by." Same with the Bible.

 

Christians view Jesus the same way Nazi Germans did Hitler before WWII; a hero who could do no wrong.

 

 

I guess it was only inevitable that someone would eventually committ Godwin's law.

 

You need to brush up on the definition of GL. He didn't invoke it merely by using Hitler as an example.

[Neon Genesis]

 

You are being seriously obtuse here. What he is saying is that you have to ignore all the shitty garbage he preached before you can make him a nice guy. For example, if you want to pick through Mein Kamf (sp?) you can most certainly find valuable and even good advice for living. Is one merely imposing one's own values on Hitler when they argue that Hitler was an ass?

You have to pick through the teachings of Plato and ignore his pro-slavery beliefs to get to his valuable teachings too but that doesn't mean we're imposing our values on Plato or that Plato's writings are the equivalent of Hitler.

[Vigile]

 

You are being seriously obtuse here. What he is saying is that you have to ignore all the shitty garbage he preached before you can make him a nice guy. For example, if you want to pick through Mein Kamf (sp?) you can most certainly find valuable and even good advice for living. Is one merely imposing one's own values on Hitler when they argue that Hitler was an ass?

You have to pick through the teachings of Plato and ignore his pro-slavery beliefs to get to his valuable teachings too but that doesn't mean we're imposing our values on Plato or that Plato's writings are the equivalent of Hitler.

 

Who follows Plato and calls themselves an Platonic atheist?

 

However, I'm going to go out on a limb and commit Godwin's law and say that Jesus was equivalent to Hitler; at least his followers have done a hell of a lot more damage and his meme is far more virulent.

 

His followers were just following the letter of the law according to Jesus btw. You'd have a hard time fitting Plato into this mold.

[Neon Genesis]

But I thought they were just imposing their values onto Jesus? How can you be imposing your values onto Jesus while also following the letter of the law? Fundamentalist Christians also cherry pick the bible in the opposite direction by cherry picking the dogmatic passages at the expensive of the loving passages. And Plato had his own cult following in his own day with whole schools that were centered around his teachings. But if we're using the argument of a time limit on when analogies still apply, since nobody follows Hitler anymore these days and calls themselves a Nazi atheist, then the Hitler analogy doesn't count either.

[Vigile]

There aren't enough ways to beat a dead horse to satisfy you NG.

[Franko47]

I suppose that Jesus has become such a generic paradigm by now, that anybody practicing a rational philosophy that includes traditional Judeo-Christian values can claim their behavior as "Christian".

 

 

I really get ticked at these universalists who go on about Jesus being another "incarnation" of Buddha, or Shiva, or Dum-fuk-wan or something; yet this forms the cornerstone to a lot of new age and modern spiritualism. Let's just tumble all the gods that have ever been into a blender and make a milkshake.

[dagnarus]

You have to pick through the teachings of Plato and ignore his pro-slavery beliefs to get to his valuable teachings too but that doesn't mean we're imposing our values on Plato or that Plato's writings are the equivalent of Hitler.

 

Who said Plato was perfect? He was an imperfect person like everybody else. But he didn't encourage dogmatic following of his own teachings. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't believe he ever taught that those who didn't follow his teachings deserved divine wrath, and when he taught on morality he gave reasons for his teachings which were more substantive than, do this and God will reward you. Do that and God will burn your ass.

 

Furthermore I don't think that people actively try to impose their believes on Plato. Don't people restrict themselves to representing Plato's philosophy as being, well, what Plato wrote, nobody denies that Plato endorsed slavery for example.

[Neon Genesis]

But then there were Platonists and Neo-Platonists who were also Jews and Christians, like the Jewish philosopher Philo the Platonist and the early church father, Origen and applied Platonism to their interpretation of scripture.

[dagnarus]

But then there were Platonists and Neo-Platonists who were also Jews and Christians, like the Jewish philosopher Philo the Platonist and the early church father, Origen and applied Platonism to their interpretation of scripture.

 

I'm not quite certain what you mean here. Could you please elaborate?