sometimesisquint

Understood...my mistake.

I was working off the connection Gamera provided when he/she said that “The gospels are like Hamlet…” I understand the context of such a point, but that was the basis for my response.

I’m not implying that the Gospel writers were putting out novels. I merely meant “not real”. It wasn’t a genre concern, but an observation of what is real or what is intended to be seen as "real".

I disagree. I think on many levels the relevance can be equated (with regard to the idea that Jesus was not based on a real person and, AGAIN, with regard to what I understood Gamera to be saying/implying).

Ancient? Perhaps. The world in general? I doubt it. Minor problems at times, yes, but not so major as to cause whatever it is you are implying.

What was the purpose, then? Was any of it intended as “true”? And what else can be assumed to be non-literal? I'm genuinely curious...I've never heard such an assertion by anyone who assumes any section of the gospels to be “true”. (Not that you have...)

I think a fair share of Christians in the US understand the account in Genesis as allegorical...I'm not sure the same can be said of the "infants slaughtering" section in Matthew being "fictional" or for the mere benefit of story.

It wasn't that I couldn't fathom it, it has nothing to do with thinking outside the box, I assume there are people who believe that way, Gamera implied as much as have others on separate threads on this site. What I was trying to fathom was the possibility or even the specifics of how such an acceptance works. I'm not sure I think most people who ascribe to the Christian faith (and not simply philosophy) are willing to accept that Jesus wasn't real and still accept biblical standards or ideals worthy of a Christian religion.

I'm sure there are “Atheist Christians”, but then I wonder what definition of "Atheist" and "Christian" is used. It isn't naive to assume that the accepted definition of Christianity assumes deity of the Christ figure. As such, the translation to a large number of those in modern society might read: Someone who doesn’t believe in god believing in god.

If by Christian you mean, "one who professes or accepts the teachings of Jesus," then what does that really mean? One of the central and main teachings of most denominations of Christianity is that Jesus was god. What definitions are you working from? Are these people ones who accept the philosophical ideals of a story without assumption that Christ is a deity? I doubt it.

Don't balk at my position as if I'm some idiotic child who can't understand simple language. I'm not highlighting some fringe belief system that flies in the face of majority opinion, I'm talking about what seems to be the accepted definition of the term "Christian".

The terms "atheist" and "Christian" have very obvious connotations. I never doubted the possibility that there are people who profess that system (I’m not completely unfamiliar with the usage) rather the dynamics of how it works for them.

As it relates to Christianity: One who professes to accept the teachings of Hamlet and believes he is/was god.

Chris Weimer

It's not "fictional" or merely for the "benefit of story", but theological truth. It was written for the understanding of Jesus. I think it's a special point that often gets lost. Can one believe that something was a theological truth without emphasizing so much?

I don't think many people think outside the box.

It is naive to assume such. It ignores critical scholarship on the Ebionites, the Gnostics, and other groups who don't always think Christ is God.

Most denominations starting with...? Certainly not all even ancient denominations.

Historically ignorant.

Things are not always as they seem. You are some child - ignorant of the historical considerations surrounding the Jesus movement.

Not all Buddhists think Buddha was god. Almost no, if any at all, Taoists think that Lao Zi is God. The definition is most certainly naive, uninformed, and worthless for this discussion.

lpetrich

I still don't see what this has to do with what "atheism" is commonly understood to mean. Atheism is lack of belief in all gods, not thust this or that god.

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, states the God hypothesis as "there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

He then went on to argue that such an entity is very likely pure fiction. However, "the Father" that Jesus Christ had referred to seems very much like that sort of entity. And if I am mistaken about that, then what's the real story?

No Robots

Christ proclaimed with his own word the same thing that Judaism, in its essence, has always proclaimed:


Judaism is anti-religion. Jahve is not a god; Jahve is Beingness. Other synonyms include the Absolute, the Essence, Brahman and the Dao. All systems of thought, to the extent that they are truly systems of thought, are godless. It is a peculiar conceit of our times that we think of atheism as a recent invention, when in fact it has been the position of all true thinkers of all times.

gurugeorge

Hehe, we're all coming out of the woodwork now But while I agree with you in principle (as I think you sense), I think it's a bit anachronistic for the Jews to be spouting Heidegger!

These high concepts were exhibited in simple, homely words and ideas, including concepts like "God" (which doesn't actually describe the real meaning any better or worse than "gods").

IMHO the "received wisdom" on this is all to cock. Nothing was actually gained by Jewish monotheism (as that's normally understood, I think "monolatry" is a better word for what many Jews and Christians actually promulgated), in fact in some ways, at its worst it was actually a blunting of the sophistication of the ancient mind rather than a further sophistication, especially in its most virulent form of degraded "Christ" idolatry. While OTOH what was true and beautiful about Jewish monotheism and Christianity was already a long-standing part of the ancient world, in the popular form of "henotheism" and the highbrow thought of people like Pythagoras, Parmenides and Plato (which was of course admitted by Christians themselves, when they spoke of echoes of the truth of Christianity in the great philosophers, and philosophical interpretations of paganism, and the like), just a different flavour, that's all. Just like some people love all the Catholic ritual and foofaraw, while others cant' stand it and prefer just sitting quietly with no image and a "plain" life.

I'd actually be so bold as to say that the pagan influence, from Plato especially, was a factor that tended to keep Christianity "clean", tended to pull it away from the tendency to monolatry.

Any old God, or gods, or no god at all, is THAT, there is nothing but THAT. Whether you use the symbol "God", "one special god", "all gods are masks", "there are no gods", "there is no God", all these can logically have only One meaning, which is ...

angelo

Christianity stands or falls on the existence of a historical, crucified, and ressurected Jesus. In my humble opinion neither existed, therfore christianity is at best a farce, at worst a giant con of the masses of believing christians by the early church fathers. And the con is continued today by the vatican.
Any theologian that is honest with himself, knows it's a load of horse shit. But hey, would you tell your boss ''my job is no longer relevent, so I'm resigning.?''

No Robots

It's difficult for us ever-so-evolved moderns to admit that maybe we're just catching up to where thinkers were 3,000 years ago.

Chris Weimer

Funny that many ancient and some modern Christians disagree. :huh:

sometimesisquint

I assumed it was worthwhile and "relevant" for this discussion based upon the understanding I had of modern Christianity. However, my position is certainly not one based on any authority in the historical context...as such I defer to your understanding and scholarship.

Ignorant or not, I am here to learn.

Muchos Gracias.

gurugeorge

Funny that you keep bringing this up as if it were relevant.