Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Recommended Posts

Posted

When I bailed out of the clown car that is Fundamentalist Christianity, I think I may have jumped a bit too far. I couldn't shake this feeling that atheism didn't quite hit the mark, and agnosticism--while closer to the truth--wasn't quite close enough. Still, an examination of how the Bible was put together destroys its credibility as any kind of "inspired" document. We're all familiar with the inconsistency between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. One thing the Bible seems to remain consistent about is the person of Jesus Christ.

 

I have yet to do all the research, but I believe Jesus did exist, and that he claimed to be the son of God. I also believe there was a fair amount of editing that went on in the Bible to make it seem as if Jesus came from the Jewish traditions, and Paul (the so-called "apostle") took it upon himself to make it appear as if Jesus was on his team. In short, Jesus made claims that cannot be verified, but I do believe Jesus existed and had some kind of supernatural power. Therefore, I cannot call myself an atheist, but I cannot quite get to the point where I can call myself a theist, either.

 

Do I think whatever god exists gives a damn about what we do? Not really. Not anymore, at least. Jesus may have been that god's attempt to say, "Hey, Buckwheat! Don't be a dick." That is, more or less, the bottom line of Jesus' message. Beyond that, I really don't see god intervening in our lives. As far as the details of Christ's life--his death, mainly--I could see that happening in as much as a guy who claimed to be the son of a god would be put to death in that day. The only reason I would buy Christ as the son of a god over others is because he was--by the account of Flavius Josephus--a virtuous person (not in keeping with the one Christians call his "father").

 

I'm still exploring this idea, but with that in mind, I'm going to see if I can attend a reasonable church; one that will let me alone, more or less, to worship and seek truth in my own way.

Posted

There are some very liberal Jesus-centred churches around, including some that are online based.  On my way out of xianity I considered being involved in an online liberal church, as none of the bricks and mortar churches in my city seemed to gel with me anymore.

 

Another option might be a Universal Unitarian church.  My understanding is that they have a core set of principles, which has a very accepting feel to them, and that each congregation sets the style for itself.  So, they can vary widely.

 

IMO, agnosticism is a useful position to take.  I'm an agnostic atheist, for example.  Gnosticism means claiming you know the truth, which is a big claim to have to support.  I don't know if anything supernatural exists, but I believe it doesn't because I haven't seen evidence that would convince me and it seems extremely unlikely that it would exist.  But we agree on agnosticism.  And humanism.  And lots of other things :)  

  • Like 2
  • Moderator
Posted

I'd start with examining your assumption about Jesus' consistency and supernaturalism and then go from there. You're concerned with the truth of it all, right?

 

If so, then you really need to read through professor Bart Ehrman if you want to get to the bottom of what type of Jesus can be mustered up by the best efforts of New Testament scholarship:

 

http://www.bartdehrman.com/

 

Beyond that, there's even more to learn about it.......

  • Like 2
Posted

When I bailed out of the clown car that is Fundamentalist Christianity, I think I may have jumped a bit too far. I couldn't shake this feeling that atheism didn't quite hit the mark, and agnosticism--while closer to the truth--wasn't quite close enough. Still, an examination of how the Bible was put together destroys its credibility as any kind of "inspired" document. We're all familiar with the inconsistency between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. One thing the Bible seems to remain consistent about is the person of Jesus Christ.

 

I have yet to do all the research, but I believe Jesus did exist, and that he claimed to be the son of God. I also believe there was a fair amount of editing that went on in the Bible to make it seem as if Jesus came from the Jewish traditions, and Paul (the so-called "apostle") took it upon himself to make it appear as if Jesus was on his team. In short, Jesus made claims that cannot be verified, but I do believe Jesus existed and had some kind of supernatural power. Therefore, I cannot call myself an atheist, but I cannot quite get to the point where I can call myself a theist, either.

 

Do I think whatever god exists gives a damn about what we do? Not really. Not anymore, at least. Jesus may have been that god's attempt to say, "Hey, Buckwheat! Don't be a dick." That is, more or less, the bottom line of Jesus' message. Beyond that, I really don't see god intervening in our lives. As far as the details of Christ's life--his death, mainly--I could see that happening in as much as a guy who claimed to be the son of a god would be put to death in that day. The only reason I would buy Christ as the son of a god over others is because he was--by the account of Flavius Josephus--a virtuous person (not in keeping with the one Christians call his "father").

 

I'm still exploring this idea, but with that in mind, I'm going to see if I can attend a reasonable church; one that will let me alone, more or less, to worship and seek truth in my own way.

 

After becoming an atheist I also missed spirituality. You might look at Sam Harris' book "Waking Up: Spirituality without Religion". What I did personally was rescue the God experience from the religious God concept. It has made all the difference. I'm an atheist with respect to all mythical/literal understandings of God, but when I meditate I connect to something higher than myself. I feel no need to call that God, though I do use that word as a convenient shorthand for the experience of the absolute, of consciousness itself. What I'm suggesting is that you don't have to keep the Abrahamic God concept in order to have a spiritual life.

  • Like 2
  • Moderator
Posted

I was watching a documentary on the Freemason's the other night on netflix. They were outlining a general history of Freemasonry and during that time pointed out how the belief in God clause was written in by a clergyman. Beyond that I sort of realized why deism is something that the founding fathers were into. The were required to believe in God, so the idea of a God who doesn't tamper in human affairs was the only real option on the table because atheism wasn't allowed. It seems like a straight forward invention intentionally designed to be as atheist as possible, and yet sufficient in order to hold rank in Freemasonry. 

  • Like 2
  • Moderator
Posted

That's a good read. I went to wiki and read through a lengthy encyclopedia entry on deism and it's origins, which led into the American colonists interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism 

 

Deism apparently went into sharp decline after 1800: 

 

Commentators have suggested a variety of reasons for the decline of classical deism.

  • the rise, growth, and spread of naturalism[58] and materialism, which were atheistic
  • the writings of David Hume[58][59] and Immanuel Kant[59] (and later, Charles Darwin), which increased doubt about the first cause argument and the argument from design, turning many (though not all) potential deists towards atheism instead
  • criticisms (by writers such as Joseph-Marie de Maistre and Edmund Burke) of excesses of the French Revolution, and consequent rising doubts that reason and rationalismcould solve all problems[59]
  • deism became associated with pantheismfreethought, and atheism, all of which became associated with one another, and were so criticized by Christian apologists[58][59]
  • frustration with the determinism implicit in "This is the best of all possible worlds"
  • deism remained a personal philosophy and had not yet become an organized movement (before the advent in the 20th century of organizations such as the World Union of Deists)
  • with the rise of Unitarianism, based on deistic principles, people self-identified as Unitarians rather than as deists[59]
  • an anti-deist and anti-reason campaign by some Christian clergymen and theologians such as Johann Georg Hamann to vilify deism
  • Christian revivalist movements, such as Pietism or Methodism, which taught that a more personal relationship with a deity was possible[59]
  • Like 1
Guest Furball
Posted

 

Christian revivalist movements, such as Pietism or Methodism, which taught that a more personal relationship with a deity was possible[59]

 

I wasn't aware that was a new system of beliefs. I always thought that from the beginning jesus taught that people could have a real relationship with his god, since he was going to pay for their sins thereby closing the sin gap once and for all between believers and god. Thanks for writing those out, i learned something today. -peace

  • Like 1
  • Moderator
Posted

I thought to myself, "what about adeism?" 

 

And by golly here it is: https://adeistic.wordpress.com/tag/adeism/

 

Rational rejection of supernatural mythologies. That makes sense to consider in contrast to deism, weight out the two sides and all. 

 

Spirituality in the sense of deism has rendered pandeism, and panendeism: 

 

  1. Pandeism (or Pan-Deism) is a theological doctrine which combines aspects of pantheism and deism. It holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.
  2. panendeism (uncountable)
    1. belief in a god who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a god who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, who does interact, but does not necessarily intervene in the universe, and that a personal relationship can be achieved with it, in as much as a person can have a relationship with his/her own rational thoughts. Contrasted from Panentheism in that the existence of, and relationship with, the creator god (or prime mover) is determined from observance of nature, not rationality and thought.

 

 

So it's a way of trying to add a "rational edge" to just about any variety of theisms, even to the extent of a rationally based atheism called adeism. 

Posted

Penguin - whatever makes sense to you.  There are various ways of understanding the concept of deity, and the Christian concept of a egotistical tyrant who insists we regard him as perfect is by no means the only approach.

 

Also, have a think about what you mean by "supernatural".  Whatever has or may have happened within this universe, explained or otherwise, how can it be supernatural?  You don't have to understand the stories of any mythology (and the New Testament is ultimately just a mythology) in terms of the miraculous.

  • Like 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.