Can one be an atheist and a Christian?

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 92
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    There really is no reality in religion - that is to say: religion is a deterioration of the teaching of an individual in ALL cases. It's just the name we give spirituality or wisdom when it has become corrupted. That's it.



    Why is that? Is it just because religion is a human activity, and all human activities are flawed and distorted? Or is there something special about religion? I don't see any particular reason why a religion as practiced couldn't be true to the fundamentals.
  • Reply 42 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Big words.



    I'm going to have to ask you to back them up. This is what we need: an actual quote from Christ (ie actual words - not commentary by someone else) and ditto from Muhammad in a contradictory sense.



    We'll also need verification for both - ie that is a genuine quote and not a later mistranslation or interpolation.



    You can do it with Buddha or Zoroaster if you like too. As you please.



    I'm not holding my breath.






    Why? The very idiom that is at the heart of this discussion is a basic understanding of the age-old talking points of everyone from Diotima to Lenny Bruce. Honestly, why was Critique of Pure Reason written?



    I don't have time to rearrange that amount of furniture for you.
  • Reply 43 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Umm, ok - Kant had too much time on his hands ? hehe, reminds me of that old Monty Python song: "Immanuel Kant was a boozy old...." ahem....bygones.



    You're not making sense - what has idiom got to do with it ?



    It's really very simple, you don't have to rearrange any furniture (I can imagine you might headbang a few walls though - feel free), all you have to do is:



    back up your assertion.



    They call it debate. Used to be popular with the Greeks.



    One qupte from Muhammad.



    One form JC.



    Contradicting each other.



    Simple.



    If this is too hard, I can start supplying quotes for where they agree. Let me know.




    You're in luck, Omnipage has my PC in stiches.



    Muhammad wasn't a Christ figure (obviously) -- besides, the metaphysics of Islam don't allow for an incarnate God-man (in a Christian sense, not one of Hassan i Sabbah's uber-goddude examples) Christ went on and on (if even one or two chapters of the Gosple of John are to be believed) on the nature of His being. 'Father with Me, Me with the Father, send the Spirit, bla bla bla.' You don't see this in Islam. I don't see what you want by quoting the Koran, it doesn't 'go there' (to the best of my knowledge.)



    Without the Christ you fall prey to Kant/Bath in that you can't bridge that "wholy other gap". Without a Christ event, or "truth" event in history you end up to regressing back to the mind being sufficient unto itself -- or intelligible to itself.
  • Reply 44 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Hmm... see my comments below re Christ.



    The following is the position of Islam and also my position:



    Moses, Christ and the rest were believers in one God. No trinities, no sons, - just one God.



    This was also the position of many of the early Christians and later, many 'official' churches such as the Nestorian and the Eastern Church with its luminaries such as St Isaac and St Andrew who subscribed to this notion.



    Muhammad therefore saw Islam as a restating of the religions of Christianity and Judaism which had become corrupted by Polytheism - which is essentially what the trinity belief is. I'm sure MarcUk can fill you in on the origins of this heresy which are proved beyond doubt to derive from the Cult of Mithras and the triple Mother Goddess and were amalgamated into the teachings of the Church in a blasphemous and cynical manner.



    This is Islam's only major point of divergence - the refusal to accept Christ's divinity (something many early Christians concur with) as well as the issue of the crucifixion. Again something there are grave doubts over.



    The fact is that the vast majority of the Church's teaching and what we know as Christianity stems from Paul. And from later tampering.



    And Paul, as I mentioned earlier, was at loggerheads with the disciples who disagreed with him on may key issues.



    It comes down to who you trust: the disciples who knew Christ or some ex-mass murderer that never met him.




    You're basically right on that first part, also, don't forget Christ's claims at 'polytheism' drove the Sanhedron right over the edge. You have to have that comingling, though or Christianity doens't hld together.



    Anyway.



    I do think you're loonie on the Paul bit, although sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and wonder.....



    ...anyway, this starting to be a time sucker.

    I don't want my day to trun into this -->
  • Reply 45 of 92
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    I don't want my day to trun into this --> [/B]



    Hey, it's Benzene's Scientific proof that the Earth is in a very dense part of the universe, hence you have all the time in the world to look up the quotes. DMZ, I wanna know about Sophia.
  • Reply 46 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    Hey, it's Benzene's Scientific proof that the Earth is in a very dense part of the universe, hence you have all the time in the world to look up the quotes. DMZ, I wanna know about Sophia.





    Sofia? What the hell?!





    I move we adjourn and begin locating adult beverages.



  • Reply 47 of 92
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    Sofia? What the hell?!





    I move we adjourn and begin locating adult beverages.







    I guess you're still stuck on level 1 then
  • Reply 48 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Not sure which bit is the looney bit about Paul so here's the info on both:



    The rift with the disciples:







    My emphasis. From The life of the Apostle Paul - an ok-ish website but one which gives the direct quotes and Bible verses to back up its argument - as we should all do as good posters



    Regarding the persecutions by Paul in his incarnation as Saul, perhaps 'mass-murder' is a bit too much but Saul/Paul was undoubtedly directly responsible for the death of many early Christians and admits this in Acts 26:10 (among other places)



    "... and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death gave my voice against them."



    Both this admission and the attitude of Peter makes it utterly beyond doubt that the doctrine of the early Christians AND that of the disciples was vastly different from that of Paul.



    Paul's doctrine is the doctrine of the Church today. The teaching of Christ is something else altogether. As I said before: you have to choose which one you believe - they are mutually exclusive.






    I think that is a misreading of Paul and a misunderstanding of the process that IS the Church -- the Holy Spirit leading the Body of Christ into ALL truth.



    Paul's work was to clarify the move from the Torah, to Grace --- but even Paul makes it clear that (except with regard to ceremony) that obligations to morality are not optional. (And yes, he and Peter did not get along as well as they could have.)



    Two points, without regard to Paul. The first is that The Church began with eleven scared jews in who were hiding from the Sanhedron, who didn't EVEN know the gentiles were 'in on' the new convanent. Even Christ had told them to go out into the nations, but they were still lost in their idiom. (That had to change, and it took Paul to change it -- what irony.)



    The second point is Peter's dream. Right before Peter had his vision [of the unclean animals lowered from heaven in a sheet -- God tells Peter "kill eat" -- Peter says no frelling way -- God basically says 'what I have called clean you should too'] he was debating on whether or not to enter the house of a gentile, and from the guidance from his dream he went -- something completely agianst the Torah.



    Today is a work day for me, and I can already hear that sucking sound.
  • Reply 49 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    That's a sin - look what happened to Clinton. On the Sabbath too.





    You have found me out!!
  • Reply 50 of 92
    I have to say that I agree with segovius. I have read one of Spong's books and I could relate to it more than any other theological text I've read.



    BTW, did anyone see "The Question of God" on PBS a few months ago. It was just re-aired here a couple of weeks ago. It was very insightful.
  • Reply 51 of 92
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    It all depends of what one means by Christianity, and what a Christian is.



    One thing it is absolutely not: a convenient mechanism by which one can ignore or go against Jesus' teachings (by being materialistic/greedy/duplicitous/ etc etc), all the while knowing you're doing wrong, but at the same time knowing you can wipe the slate clean by either regularly confessing your sins, or 'giving yourself to Jesus' when the going gets really tough, or on your death bed.



    Real Christianity is not synonymous with Pauline doctine. It also has nothing in common with the rantings of charlatans and ripoff artists like Billy Graham and Benny Hinn etc. Real Christianity is not selective about which morals should be adhered to, and which can be shelved, out of convenience. To qualify as a genuine Christian is a tall order. Gandhi knew this when he once stated that he 'had always looked forward to meeting a Christian".



    So, here's a question: Who is more a Christian?

    (a) the person who is charitable, generous, caring, and always prioritizes others' needs, but doesn't read he Bible or go to Church, doesn't believe in God per se and regards Jesus as just one of many spiritual masters who taught ethics and morals?

    or (b) the person who goes to Church every Sunday, but spends the rest of the week involved in purely materialistic pursuits?



    Original Christianity was heavily rooted in Eastern philosophy; karma and reincarnation was a part (until excised as heretical)...but tell that to the fundamentalist evangelist set..and they'll turn every shade of puce and start blowing fuses.



    Spong has as much right as any other self-described [Christian] to claim Christianity as his faith.



    Who, may I ask, has the last word on who is a Christian, and who ain't? All the different denominations, the analyses and writings of theological scholars, synods, panels of bishops, conventions of cardinals, etc etc etc are redundant; it is all down to how each person lives their life on this earth, abiding by the principle of "do unto others as you would wish others to do unto you". Fall short here, and you're failing Jesus' test.
  • Reply 52 of 92
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    How can one be a Christian (and therefore believe that Jesus is either God incarnate or a prophet leading us to God) and not believe in a God at all?



    You can't. It is possible to believe that Jesus was a real guy who said cool things, but unless you believe that he is somehow related to the Godhead (depending upon your particular slant in the trinitarian/anti-trinitarian "debate"), you ain't a Christian.
  • Reply 53 of 92
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    What is being a Christian ?



    Was Christ a Christian ? By the Church's definition certainly not.



    With no disrespect to the thread and the contributors, imo the Spong issue is actually ridiculous and irrelevant.



    There really is no reality in religion - that is to say: religion is a deterioration of the teaching of an individual in ALL cases. It's just the name we give spirituality or wisdom when it has become corrupted. That's it.



    In this sense Spong is right - you can certainly be spiritual without a conception of God. And spirituality is the root of religion. Religion wouldn't exist without spirituality but spirituality would always exist without religion.



    None of the founders of the great religions would be accepted by these religionists. I can give you five hadith* off the top of my head where Muhammad states this will be the case in future and where he said things that are 'unorthodox' and unacceptable to current Muslim thought.



    And more from the Christian tradition. So the religions are in opposition to their founders in many ways, I hold that these men are right and the later religious interpretations (ie the Church) wrong.



    And then you can go further: you see that the religions are nominally opposed and you see the wars and trouble that result - but if you look at the founders - Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Moses - they are all saying the same thing.



    We need to dispense with religion imo - progress to a situation where we have instead 'the wise' from humanity as our role models (these would not just be spiritual people - you'd need philosophers and 'ordinary' people in there too) and dispense with authoritarian culture-based exclusive clubs.



    Because that's what they are.




    I disagree wholeheartedly, but I know that you expected me to do exactly that.



    You are an atheist, but one who likes to read, write, think, talk and educate others about religions and one who came to the conclusion that religions are just the times-surviving ideologies developed and constructed around the teachments of great humans. So, you basically like and try to discover the teaching of great humans like Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed and others that were in your opinion falsified and changed by orthodox organized religions.



    While I agree that all religions have misinterpreted and in some cases deliberately falsified scriptures or concepts*, you go beyond that and think that those prophets aren't sent by any God but are just normal humans that just happened to have a great bright moment, and that the followers of those have just constructed a religion with a thought-up-God around that great human achievement.



    Consequentially you don't believe in a God that created humans, threw them out of garden eden onto earth to prove their belief in God in heart, thought and action, and therefore you also don't believe that there would be one day called judgment day, on which all dead people would be ressurected and recreated to face judgment about their belief and actions in the life they had on earth, and then either to be punished eternally in hell or be rewarded eternally in paradise.



    It's ok to disbelieve, but you and others are turning your disbelief into a secular religion, called humanism, that takes the socialising empeacing and civilising aspects of religions and leaving out any hints at God, after-life, judgment-day etc.. and trying to preach that, by not expecting others to believe you, that concept is too religiously, but by accepting that as proven reality. In that sense you are on the same page as the church-official that inspired this thread.



    Maybe I'm completely wrong and misinterpreting your posting, if so, I'm sorry.





    Nightcrawler



    * While in christianity the "Bible", which is a witness-report of Jesus doings and sayings is falsified and many things just misinterpretations and time-bound philosophical thinking, the same problems in Islam are also disturbing the witness-reports of Muhammad's sayings and doings that are collected in the "Hadiths". But luckily we muslims have additionaly the words of God in the form of the "Quran" revealed by an illiterate prophet.
  • Reply 54 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    How can one be a Christian (and therefore believe that Jesus is either God incarnate or a prophet leading us to God) and not believe in a God at all?



    You can't. It is possible to believe that Jesus was a real guy who said cool things, but unless you believe that he is somehow related to the Godhead (depending upon your particular slant in the trinitarian/anti-trinitarian "debate"), you ain't a Christian.




    I think this whole thread is needlessly complicated.



    First and foremost, Christ was either who he said he was, or he was a nutcase. The Christ presented in the Bible is a self-identifying God-man IN HISTORIA. He claims that he is one with the ex nihilo creator of the universe, and that no one may come to the Father except through Him. You can't say "oh he claimed to be one with God, he was mistaken, but at least he meant well" -- nutcase or lair -- you have to choose.



    Now, the early Christians did stray on this issue, to Gnostisism, or Arianism, etc., but these matters were adressed through various Church coucils to stop, among other things, self-castration and other odd practices that can't be squared with Christianity. Remember, the Church started with eleven scared Jews who didn't realize that the gentiles were even in on the deal -- there is a process going on here that is not yet complete.



    I deny "tampering" with what is now the New Testament, but at the same time we must admit we do not have the original texts and that some texts were excluded. What we do know for certain, is that the New Testament is a seamless theological work, in that it does not contradict itself -- something that is a 'given' in the Church -- that all the fundamental metaphysics have been vetted and unified into one Codex.



    There are Barthian slight-of-hand tricks that attempt to say that God is reavealed in the Scriptures that in the end basically say that God IS the scripture -- and there are other Kantian-rooted approaches, but they break down in that you start first with the intellect being intelligible to itself and then fit God in later.



    I don't think some of you are being truly consistent in your approach to this.
  • Reply 55 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    That is where your whole argument crumbles into dust - it not only contradicts itself in a textual sense, it contradicts itself theologically and m, most importantly, it is contradicted by what we know for a fact from historical evidence.



    The evidence for tampering is overwhelming also and I shall post incontrovertible proof of both tomorrow as I am attending a dinner party tonight and do not have the time to devote to the complex issue that it is.







    Textual critisism over small 'differences' (I use that term very carefully) are hardly relevant here. Also, the Church has already adressed (with the help of it's critics) any "theological errors", and have turned this into a non-issue as the Church is fully unified on it key teachings.



    It's troubling that you won't address the underying metaphysical issues here, unless dredging up old hersies is more entetaining.



    (And I'm not really here to entertain you.)
  • Reply 56 of 92
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    How can one be a Christian (and therefore believe that Jesus is either God incarnate or a prophet leading us to God) and not believe in a God at all?



    You can't. It is possible to believe that Jesus was a real guy who said cool things, but unless you believe that he is somehow related to the Godhead (depending upon your particular slant in the trinitarian/anti-trinitarian "debate"), you ain't a Christian.




    1. You ain't a Christian, according to whom? Sure, that's the common view, but throughout history there have been others, such as many of our founders, who didn't believe Jesus was related to God in any way. And there have been other previously-unthinkable reformations of Christianity throughout history. Is it possible to take the supernatural out of religion, as a new reformation for the modern age? You say no, but I'd at least say "maybe."



    2. Spong is an "atheist" in the sense that he overtly rejects theism. But theism is just one view of God - a view that is dominant today, but is not the only view of God. Spong seems to view God as kind of a metaphor, or a label we use to focus our spiritual feelings. God isn't real in the literalist sense of a sentient being. God might be life, or love, or the universe, or the big bang, etc. Are you an atheist if you think God is the big bang?
  • Reply 57 of 92
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Entertaining me ? Trust me - you don't.



    I shall continue however, because your folly may be beneficial to others. So, once again:



    1) If you outline a metaphysical issue I shall address it. So far you have singularly failed to do so.



    2) I have outlined some theological issues you have ignored - at least the Church has debates on these issues - you do not. How is the issue of Christ's atonement relevant if he is divine ? The Church has never resolved this.



    The problem of sin and the foreknowledge of God ditto.



    And on and on. Address those two in depth and we'll talk about the rest.



    3) Your 'small textual differences' are major showstoppers.



    We went over this before in the 'Passion' thread. To recap:







    Without a shadow of doubt, we know Herod had been dead for at least 10 years when Qurinius became governor of Syria and therefore Luke is wrong. And the Bible is wrong.



    I don't call that a 'small difference'. I call it proof that: Luke was not an eyewitness, the writer pretending to be Luke was a much later writer with little knowledge of the history OR this is an instance of tampering and finally that that author wasn't God.






    (1) The metaphysical issue is straightforward, and it's pure Kantian vs. essentially the Reformed view of Scripture. There just isn't any way of stating it more plainly.



    (2) I think this another misreading of Church doctrine -- Trinitarian doctrine is critical to Christianity.



    (3) On the Luke thing -- first things first -- you have Kantian Criticism at your base -- you could know Luke personally and still dispute his account. So from my position, if I try to Prove the exsitence of Christ, I end up disproving the exsitence of Christ.



    [snip -- went too far]



    Explanations such as this are nice......



    Quote:

    ...In reply to these objections we may say : .........(b) Augustus ordered several census populi between A.U. 726 and 767.......and, as a good statesman and financier, he himself prepared a rationarium or breviarium totius imperii.......which was read, after his death, in the Senate.



    .........It cannot, indeed, be proven by direct testimony of Josephus or the Roman historians, that Augustus issued a decree for a universal census, embracing all the Provinces ("that all the world," i.e., the Roman world, "should be taxed," Luke 2:1), but it is in itself by no means improbable, and was necessary to enable him to prepare his breviarium totius imperil.'

    In the nature of the case, it would take several years to carry out such a decree........Zumpt assumes that Sentius Saturninus,' who was sent as governor to Syria A.U. 746 (B.C. 9), and remained there till 749 (B.C. 6), began a census in Judaea with a view to substitute a head tax in money for the former customary tribute in produce ; that his successor, Quintilius Varus (B.C. 6-4), continued it, and that Quirinius (B.C. 4) completed the census.......



    ......The problem is not quite solved; but the establishment of the fact that Quirinius was prominently connected with the Roman government in the East about the time of the Nativity, is a considerable step towards the solution, and encourages the hope of a still better solution in the future.'





    ....but like I said, Luke could be right, and still be wrong, from a Kantian "Critical" standpoint -- so I don't see the your metaphysical point, unless it's for entertainment value.
  • Reply 58 of 92
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    1. You ain't a Christian, according to whom?



    The operator's manual.



    Quote:

    Sure, that's the common view, but throughout history there have been others, such as many of our founders, who didn't believe Jesus was related to God in any way.



    The founders were largely Deists, which means they're not Christians. But they are still theists. As for the trinitarian/anti-trinitarian debate, sure. Milton dealt with this exhaustively in De Doctrina Christiana, and orthodox Christian doctrine holds that the Godhead is made up of the paradox of the trinity. The only exception to my knowledge in a major religion is the LDS church, which I just learned last month is fiercely anti-trinitarian (I learned this after making a casual reference in class one night, attempting to explain something, and my students looked at me like I was insane).



    My point was simply that to be a Christian one must believe in the Christ, God's anointed one, who one must follow if one is to receive reward in the afterlife. In other words, one must be a theist.



    Quote:

    Is it possible to take the supernatural out of religion, as a new reformation for the modern age? You say no, but I'd at least say "maybe."



    We're not talking about religion. We're talking about whether or not it is possible to be a Christian and an Atheist. The core element of Xianity is the Christ, which must assume that there is a theology at work and, therefore, precludes anyone who "believes" in the Christ from being an atheist. Sure, it's possible to look at the Christ and think "Nice guy. Good ideas. I think I'll follow his rules." But that doesn't make you a Christian. Didn't Dante have a special place in hell for people who could not have known the Christ but who lived well? It wasn't a place of punishment, but it was, nonetheless, not heaven.



    Quote:

    Spong is an "atheist" in the sense that he overtly rejects theism. But theism is just one view of God - a view that is dominant today, but is not the only view of God.



    But again, the question is whether or not an individual can not believe in the idea of a God and yet believe in the Christ. You can't. I'll put it this way: I think Jesus was a real guy. I think he did good things and was a good guy. I also think that the way he said people ought to live their lives is good. This does not make me a Christian, however, because I do not believe that Jesus is in any way related to a God.



    Quote:

    Spong seems to view God as kind of a metaphor, or a label we use to focus our spiritual feelings.



    That's great. I do, too. And that makes him an atheist.



    Quote:

    God isn't real in the literalist sense of a sentient being. God might be life, or love, or the universe, or the big bang, etc.



    Sure. And again, that makes him an atheist, since God isn't God in these examples. God is a metaphor for something else.



    Quote:

    Are you an atheist if you think God is the big bang?



    No, you're not. Because you believe in a God. Unless, of course, you're using the God as a metaphor for the big bang. Then you're an atheist. But you can't be a Christian because Judeo-Christian tradition is very clear about God being a sentient being.



    About Spong: I don't think he's quite finished with his rationalization, and so what we're talking about here is one man's rationalization of his move either away from theism to atheism (or the other way around). The problem is that he's only halfway done with it.



    Cheers
  • Reply 59 of 92
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    midwinter:



    The manual - the Bible? I can't believe you think it, as text, isn't subject to critical analysis and interpretation, Herr English Professor.



    You said a few times that someone might think Jesus was a good guy with some cool things to say, but that doesn't make you a Christian. You said that you have to believe that Jesus was related to God.



    But hold on. Who says that's what you have to believe? I think, and segovius might agree, that historically, the entire concept of Jesus being God or the son of God was a little addition by some of the early Christians. I personally doubt he ever claimed to be related to God in any unique way. It doesn't seem in character to me from what I've studied and believe he actually said. If that's true, then believing Jesus was a good guy with some interesting things to say just might be exactly what it means to be a true "Christian."



    Sure, belief in God would seem to be a non-negotiable issue. But in my view, the problem is that God is such a difficult concept - even Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God in weird parables and aphorisms that only make sense if koans make sense to you. And because it's such a difficult concept, although it's clearly at the center of the religion, it's also been subject to as much disagreement as any other concept. Whether God is an actual being or just a metaphor seems to me to be within the bounds of that disagreement. Mainly because there aren't any bounds.



    And if there are bounds, who sets them? Irenaeus? Constantine? Benny Hinn? Lots of Christians say Mormons aren't real Christians. Some Protestants say Catholics aren't real Christians. Now you say Spong and Jefferson aren't real Christians. And you're not even a Christian yourself! I don't really want to join in the inquisition. I say anything goes!
  • Reply 60 of 92
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    [B]midwinter:



    The manual - the Bible? I can't believe you think it, as text, isn't subject to critical analysis and interpretation, Herr English Professor.



    I believe that would be Herr Doktor Professor, if we're going by what the Germans use. But I think they draw a distinction between "full" professor and just a regular prof. I'm just a regular prof. I believe you deserve the same appellation, no?



    And yes, texts are open to interpretation. Some would even argue, following your logic, that texts don't exist at all and exist only in the act of interpretation. But yes, as historically determined artifacts, texts exist only through their being part of a constant process of interpretation.



    Quote:

    You said a few times that someone might think Jesus was a good guy with some cool things to say, but that doesn't make you a Christian. You said that you have to believe that Jesus was related to God.



    No. I said that believing in Jesus as a human being living in Roman-occupied Judea in the 1st century and believing Jesus was the Christ are two different things.



    Quote:

    But hold on. Who says that's what you have to believe?



    Um, me?



    Quote:

    I think, and segovius might agree, that historically, the entire concept of Jesus being God or the son of God was a little addition by some of the early Christians.



    Perhaps. And here we get into the thick of it. You're driving at the inevitable conclusion that what it means to be a Christian is historically determined. It is. But how can you pick and choose which era you're going to conform to, considering the only reason you're even capable of considering Christianity as manifold in meaning is because of a series of political and philosophical arguments that have come into favor since the 1960s? You must recognize that your ability to perceive Christianity the way you do is just as historically determined (even overdetermined) as the belief you are implicitly critiquing.



    Quote:

    I personally doubt he ever claimed to be related to God in any unique way. It doesn't seem in character to me from what I've studied and believe he actually said.



    That's great.



    Quote:

    If that's true, then believing Jesus was a good guy with some interesting things to say just might be exactly what it means to be a true "Christian."



    But that's not being a Christian. That's thinking nice thoughts about Jesus.



    Quote:

    Sure, belief in God would seem to be a non-negotiable issue.



    It is a pretty clear binarism.



    Quote:

    But in my view, the problem is that God is such a difficult concept - even Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God in weird parables and aphorisms that only make sense if koans make sense to you.



    Yes. Hence Pfflam refuses to utter "God" and instead uses "G-d." But at the heart of it all is the idea that there is a God.



    Quote:

    Now you say Spong and Jefferson aren't real Christians. And you're not even a Christian yourself! I don't really want to join in the inquisition. I say anything goes!



    No inquisition. I'm just saying that you can't subscribe to a theology and then claim you're not a theist.



    Cheers
Sign In or Register to comment.