Christian Atheism

Makes sense really. If you want people to do things like they know are wrong, like murder, genocide, etc, demonize the victim, and religion does that literally.

Any smart tyrant will use that to his advantage, be it an Egyptian Pharoah claiming to be a God, Hitler pointing at "Jews killing Jesus", or medieval kings claiming devine authority through popes, etc.

 

Good observation.

 

The problem with the "initial philosophy of Jesus" is that we can't know anything about it. All we have are a number of writings that often contradict each other. The huge number of very different early Christian sects is proof of very different views of Jesus and his philosophy as early as the second century CE (first century, if we consider Paul's epistles and the gospels genuine and without later interpolations).

What's self-evident to me is that an ideology that claims to be the sole source of absolute truth and absolute morality is doomed to fail, because there's no such thing as absolute truth, and there's no such thing as absolute morality, and both these concepts are detrimental to human societies. By definition, religions engender concepts like absolute values and sin, concepts that are contrary to human rights and essential liberties.

You'll probably say again that we can separate Jesus' teachings from religion, and I'll say again that such a feat would be impossible, because Jesus' teachings are religion. Jesus is a god, a god's teachings are religion, there's no way to separate the two. We can try to pry some of Jesus' teachings from the grip of organized religion, but I can't see any advantages in recycling old ideas about how to gain eternal life after death.

Timing wouldn't make bad ideas good. Timing wouldn't turn a totalitarian ideology on its head. I'm talking about fundamental flaws in ideologies, not about Da Vinci's flying machine. I can't see any possible time when concepts like absolute truth and absolute morality would benefit humanity in the long term.

Well...leaders usually have some bearing on the ultimate result, but...

One look at the French revolution should prove that leaders are way overrated. Robespierre's bloody ways are not characteristic of the French Republic policies today, even though the French Republic we all know might not have existed without Robespierre and his bloody ways. Imagine that all French leaders had been like Robespierre, because he was so successful at creating and preserving the Republic...what an awful society to live in would France be today. Imitation without innovation is bad.

Why do you choose to ignore everything attributed to Jesus in the many non-canonical writings of early Christians? Why is the NT the only authoritative source in your eyes?

Jesus' philosophy in the gospels is incoherent because nothing is clearly spelled out. It's all in parables. As I already said, and as early Church Fathers attest, Christianity had its mysteries, accessible to initiates only, not to the whole community of believers. Tertullian, if I'm not mistaken, wrote that the gospels are milk for babies, not solid food. How can a half hidden philosophy be coherent?

Again: I don't think we can build a healthy society based on teachings of a god whose goal was to save souls. We need to save living, breathing people, build a better life here and now.

I don't like Wikipedia, but as time is a scant resource I'll give you the lazy person's link for now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man_(utopian_concept)#Communist_New_Man

Funny thing is, we were bombarded with pompous speeches about the new man, but nobody ever explained this concept.

 

I wonder why did God send his own son to the cross in order to offer a chance at immortality in Paradise to the descendants of the couple he himself banished from Paradise because he didn't want them to become immortal.

 

This strain of Christianity has been around for quite a long time, actually - going back to the Protestant Reformation.

Of course, these people were pretty much considered heretics by the Catholic and Magesterial Protestant churches at the time. Hopefully, no one got burned at the stake...

 

Isn't it the point of that story to simply indicate that as far as man is concerned, "good" is what god judges to be "good"?

Adam was of the tree of life, but not of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - the tree of what it takes to be judge. God is of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For Adam to think HE could be the judge of good and evil indicates the fundamental flaw in humans.

 

Good questions......
Messiah Yeshua - Jesus in His pre-existent form as the Word - Logos the Eldest of the Elohim who spoke in Genesis chapter one verse twenty five and twenty six.....
wanted Adam and Eve and their descendants, (and perhaps even their reincarnations because King David was rumoured to be one of the reincarnations of Adam), to be able to sin and fall but then repent......
if they had taken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Eden......
it would have been vastly more difficult for the serious sins of King David to result in Psalms fifty one.....
which has been a catalyst for many seriously bad dudes to come to genuine repentance like the repentance of the Apostle Paul and even of Cephas - Peter.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1&version=NIV

Near death experiencer Dr. Kevin Zadai reports being shown that when The Word - Logos created Covering Cherub Halel who became Lucifer.... He knew that Halel would steal some of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and would initiate a rebellion against heaven and the ways of heaven!

This was also shown to near death experiencer Dr. Richard Eby ....
https://near-death.com/richard-eby-nde/
(Near death experiencer Dr. Richard Eby) :

 

you arent making the distinction between religion and philosophy. You can believe whatever you want, until you 'act' upon those beliefs its not religion, its philosophy.

 

Pisa was talking about what Jesus taught, not about what you do about it.

In Matthew 25:31 to the end Jesus makes it clear that the "golden rule"-like direction he modeled was not just a philosophy - it was a requirement of the religion.

If you don't do anything about it, it doesn't mean it isn't religion. It just means you don't subscribe.

 

David was OK as a boy but he became one of the most despicable characters in the Bible.

 

If you b elieve it and do nothing its nothing more than philosophical foot ball.
the core constituent of religion is that to which you are bound, ie if you do nothing you are not bound and a court will bounce you out faster than you walked through the door.

 

The crucifixion story is based on the idea of having a scapegoat and it illustrates the Eight Commandment, Exodus 34:25.

 

I haven't found ideas of his, as described to me, that were anything but nice, fairly simple and rather positive stuff. A little peculiar as a fellow to sit down and socialize with, but there is nothing not to like about his ideas. Christian atheism does not seem like a bad notion.

 

A man after his maker

 

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.
-George Carlin

I cant wait to see how neoatheists intend to uncontradict "Christian-Atheist" since to accept Christ actions requires acceptance of Christs source of the actions, which of course is supernatural.

 

Delete this. Don't want to get into this again.

 

Just put him on ignore. It will save your sanity.

 

Well, it's no more than a philosophical football to the individual who doesn't live their religion, maybe. But, that doesn't mean the religion isn't fully legit.

For example, Christianity is a religion regardless of how many actually walk the walk.

I don't know what court you're talking about. During the Vietnam war, there were courts that had to address the issues of conscientious objection. But, that wasn't much more than an object lesson in what happens with government decides to make decisions on what is religion and who are fully dedicated.

 

Your nature allowing adjustments to your body is hardly you going against your nature.

Nice try, loser.

Regards
DL

 

Yes. I take my adult position as my own master.

Strange that you do not see the harm that homophobia and misogyny do.

You must be either more immoral, or more stupid than most.

Would you like to be hated for being gat?

You must think gays like it, if you cannot see how immoral homophobia and misogyny are.

Thanks for showing all here what Christianity creates.

Regards
DL

 

But one can accept Jesus' teachings, ethics, achievements and contributions without having to believe in the supernatural.

Which reminds me of one of the more interesting passages from Boris Pasternak's novel Doctor Zhivago that you won't find in David Lean's film:

"What you don't understand is that it is possible to be an atheist, it is possible not to know if God exists or why He should, and yet to believe that man does not live in a state of nature but in history, and that history as we know it began with Christ, it was founded by Him on the Gospels. Now what is history? Its beginning is that of the systematic work devoted to the solution of the enigma of death, so that death may eventually be overcome. This why people write symphonies, and why they discover mathematical infinity and electromagnetic waves. Now, you can't advance in this direction without a certain upsurge of spirit. You can't make such discoveries without spiritual equipment, and for this, everything necessary has been given us in the Gospels. What is it? Firstly, the love of one's neighbor - the supreme form of living energy. Once it fills the heart of man it has to overflow and spend itself. And secondly, the two concepts which are the main part of the make-up of modern man - without them he is inconceivable - the ideas of free personality and of life regarded as sacrifice. Mind you, this is all new. There was no history in this sense in the classical world. There you had the blood and beastliness and cruelty and pock-marked Caligulas untouched by the suspicion that any man who enslaves others is inevitably second-rate. There you had the boastful and dead eternity of bronze monuments and marble columns. It was not until after the coming of Christ that time and man could breathe freely. It was not until after Him that men began to live in their posterity and ceased to die in ditches like dogs - instead they died at home, in history, at the height of the work they devoted to the conquest of death, being themselves dedicated to this aim."

Obviously, that's just one angle, and equally obvious there are many more...

 

Kind of screws up the immortal God Jesus died for me people.

Where in scriptures does it say that God can die?

Jesus never said he was a god, and a god does not pray to itself.

The notion of using Jesus, even if he was real, would be quite immoral for him to ask or us to accept human sacrifice as justice.

It also goes against the law Jesus taught, that says we are all responsible for our own sins.

No exceptions.

Regards
DL

 

Would that include the messiah thing?

How can Jesus forgive us our sins, if Yahweh, a supernatural God, never sent him?

Do you see Jesus, given his Armageddon, as a moral character?

Regards
DL

 

I see it more as a tale showing how sin is a happy fault and necessary to both Yahweh and nature.

It allows adults to teach forgiveness and tolerance.

IOWs, as the Jews call it, Original Virtue.

Compare that to Original Sin, and how Christians venerate it, and there is no conflict between the Jewish and Christian view, even as most see a conflict because of the terms.

Regards
DL

 

True, but in a dualistic universe, creating one creates it's antonym.

Yin creates it's compliment, not opposite, Yang, by default.

Regards
DL