Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 03-12-2004, 02:30 PM

I agree totally, capnkirk. Jesus, if he existed, was a Jewish man teaching a new form of Judaism, and was not unique at the time in doing so. Jesus was most certainly not a "Christian" as the term is understood today, and was definitely not divine. If I implied otherwise (and I'm not sure your response was to me), I did not mean to.

When I use the term "Christ message", I am not referring to the commonly held meaning that includes "divinity" (which is a corruption of the word in the first place), but rather to a metaphorical image of someone whose life and teaching may represent (to some) a way of enlightenment, a way of living at one with others and the universe (whether one wants to put "God" in the universe or not), a way of recognizing the "oneness" or "sameness", if you will, of all of humanity. Many find in Jesus' life and teachings inner messages to humans and their relationships to other humans and the (natural) world around us, not messages about a relationship with some external being. There are other "Christ figures" or those who taught the "Christ message" to be considered, if one is so inclined. Buddha, another mythic hero, is another example of the "Christ message" embodied in myth and legend.

Whether the "Christ message" that may be found by some in the account of Jesus' life, or in the lives of others, is based on legendized accounts of a historical man's life or an entirely made-up myth makes no difference to realizing that message, if it is there.

I think that if there's any "truth" to be found in the Bible and the legends of Jesus, that is it. And to consider the Gospels literally, to apply "divinity" to Jesus, and to accept the "gospel message" that the intent of Jesus was to reconcile corrupt humanity with an angry and vengeful God, is to entirely miss whatever message may be found there.

Note that I'm not saying I buy into all that lock, stock and barrel, but merely saying that that is what I see as possible to obtain from the New Testament (though I admit I do find it a bit attractive in an Eastern sort of way, as I find some of the myths and teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, and mystic/gnostic religions sometimes attractive), and am considering what the implications for my life might be).

I'm not a mystic or a theist; I'm simply a curious atheist and naturalist who's willing to examine myself and my beliefs, and examine what others in the past may have learned and taught about the human condition that may be useful to me, in whatever form they recorded it. I'm not afraid to examine the myths of our history to see if I can learn some insight here and there that others may have picked up and recorded in metaphorical form.

But I certainly don't expect anyone else to share this opinion. It's my journey, not anyone else's.

Tristan Scott · 03-12-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnkirk
Jesus was NOT a Christian!!! That's my opinion, and here's why.

While there just isn't sufficient space here to provide an in-depth explanation for the claim that Jesus wasn't Xtian, I will offer one critical fact that deals a "hammer blow" to the Jesus = Christ concept:

Over the last two hundred years, comparative work on the gospels has slowly but surely established certain results and conclusions. One such conclusion (which most Christian scholars try to ignore) is that it has become embarrassingly obvious that all references to christ in the gospels are the result of translational problems. There simply was no word in either Hebrew or Aramaic that carries the deific overtones that christ does for Christians. ‘Christ’ is derived (via Latin) from the Greek word (krestos) that essentially means “good�? or “great�?. Jewish scholars translating the Septuagint (c. 200 BCE) first used the term as the closest available Greek translation for the Hebrew term we call Messiah (which literally meant “anointed one�?). They applied this translation everywhere anointment was described in the Old Testament (OT); all the Davidic kings and High Priests were anointed and were called messiah. It was not until Paul, writing in Greek, used krestos to describe the Christ figure familiar to all modern Christians that the term first came to mean a divine being. Since Paul came after Jesus was executed, all references to Christ in the Gospels must be mentally retranslated back into the Hebrew meaning of messiah, a non-deific human entity. This realization sheds considerable light on how Christians developing the gospels after Paul’s death read the familiar christ-figure back into the proto-gospel materials available to them. Ergo, Jesus could not possibly have been a Christian!!

Then he was Jewish after all?

Mageth · 03-12-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
Maybe that is all because most of the ancient peoples from which Judaism and Cristianity came mythicized their "truths" as a means of communicating them and demonstrating their applications to life. Modern mainstream Christianity is repelled by this because from a fundamental standpoint it is the ju-ju and magic described in scripture that has become paramount. The message; the "truths", have been lost or rendered secondary to the supernatural.

Spot on. What literal Christians do is actually a form of idolatry, IMO. They worship the myths, meant to convey metaphorical messages, as literal history.

Nom · 03-12-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nom
Dead on. I mean, if you're going to strip all the mythological elements out of the Gospels in search of the "real" Jesus...well, waitaminnit, why then should I give a rat's ass about the real Jesus? If there was no Virgin Birth or walking on water or replication of food and drink or raising of the dead or, or course, Resurrection (and there wasn't), then the whole Christian edifice crumbles at its foundations. Yet many appear to believe this and still call themselves Christion. Delusional is a good word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Umm, that appears to be a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Typically, it's the literalist Christians we see committing that fallacy when discussing those that hold to more liberal forms of Christiainty.)

I don't see how. I'm not saying that there are no true Christians. I'm saying it's contradictory to believe that Jesus was not divine, did not die for everyone's sins, etc., and still consider oneself a Christian in any meaningful sense.

Quote:

And that's what I'm interested in learning about : how did this new religion that is today so prevalent in our society get its start? I seek to understand the true history (what of it may be found) behind this religion.

I'm in the same boat.

Quote:

BTW, there are very intelligent thinkers I respect very much who, while recognizing that Jesus was mythologized and that the Gospels are embellished legends if not entirely mythical, still find truth and meaning in the "Christ message"

The whole "Christ message" thing is just a retreat into denial (IMHO, of course, this being an opinion thread

). "Okay, okay, okay, we give, it all wasn't real, but we still wanna play priest and bishop anyhow." Well, hey, no problem -- but if you don't mind I'm going to put that big ol' cathedral of your on the tax rolls.

Quote:

Indeed, if only more, if not all, Christians (and Moslems, etc.) would do so, and recognize the commonality of the metaphors behind their "faith documents", much of the strife in the world would disappear quite rapidly.

You really think so? I'm not so certain. I have great confidence in mankind's ability to invent all new bulls--t to fight about. And arguably, we don't fight about religious beliefs in the first place. We fight over land, food, resources -- religion simply provides moral justification: "God wants us to have [insert stuff here]! Kill the infidel!"

Quote:

I'm all for Christianity etc switching from the mistaken literal interpretation of the Bible and other documents to a metaphorical interpretation, an interpretation based on human need and not God's need.

Yeah, me too, but then you wouldn't need Christianity any more. You could have just plain ol' humanism (which is fine by me).

Quote:

To me, someone who is willing to recognize that the "faith documents" that established their religion are largely mythical and have unfortunately been interpreted literally and thus abandon that literal interpretation in favor of a metaphorical interpretation is not "delusional", in my book. Indeed, their honesty illustrates clearly that they are not delusional, but instead willing to cast off whatever delusions they once had about the myths in question. The fact that they may still try to find some metaphorical meaning in the myths may seem "delusional" to some, but not to me.

I simply call it delusional to believe you can save Christianity by removing Christ (and inserting a "historical Jesus" and a lot of smoke about "Christian messages"). As the old saying goes, the operation might be a success, but the patient dies.

Quote:

Heck, I'm an atheist, and I find things in the myths of the Bible that are meaningful, just as I might in any work of fiction. There's a lot of extra baggage there, true, but I don't exclude myself from still recognizing what of value may be found there.

I could write the same paragraph myself; I agree with it completely. But when that "extra baggage" you're throwing out includes stuff like the Resurrection, I don't think you can label yourself Christian any longer.

Quote:

Simply put: just because a story is a myth or fiction does not mean it is useless and does not preclude it from conveying some metaphorical truth about the human condition.

I never said it did.

capnkirk · 03-12-2004, 02:51 PM

No, Mageth, my post was not aimed at you. It was aimed squarely at the OP in direct response to his query what is my opinion of JC?

I also found your elocution of the value of the "Christ message" quite refreshing. I think many "humanist" atheists have accepted the message while rejecting any religion's ownership of it, and the need to worship some deity to partake of it. I am an ardent student of Joseph Campbell, and his exploration of the power of myth down through time and across cultures, and much of what you just said strongly echoes his insight.

Mageth · 03-12-2004, 02:52 PM

nom:

We seem to be much more in agreement than in disagreement, so I should probably just leave it at that.

However, I do think it's possible for someone to call themselves a Christian and not believe in the divinity of Jesus or some of the stuff tacked onto it (many do, after all). If anything, I think it's those that do believe in the misinterpretations of literal Jesus as divine etc that are perhaps not the "true" Christians.

I guess it boils down to how one defines "Christian". Perhaps we'd best leave that up to the Christians, or those who call themselves Christians.

The whole "Christ message" thing is just a retreat into denial (IMHO, of course, this being an opinion thread ). "Okay, okay, okay, we give, it all wasn't real, but we still wanna play priest and bishop anyhow." Well, hey, no problem -- but if you don't mind I'm going to put that big ol' cathedral of your on the tax rolls.

Instead of a "retreat into denial", I consider it more of a recognition of reality and escape from denial.

IIRC, Gandhi once referred to himself as "a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist...", or something along those lines. The point being, some may self-identify as "Christian" in a liberal sense that does not involve playing "priest and bishop". Spong may not be such as good example (as he is a bishop), but he is a good example of someone who doesn't hold to a literal interpretation of the Gospels, yet holds to the essential "christian" message, and thus self-identifies as a Christian.

Whether churches should be taxed or not is a different question. Buddhist temples are tax-exempt as well, after all.

Mageth · 03-12-2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by capnkirk
No, Mageth, my post was not aimed at you. It was aimed squarely at the OP in direct response to his query what is my opinion of JC?

OK; I wasn't sure, since it came right after my post where I introduced the "Christ message", and I can understand how some might misinterpret that with all the baggage the term "Christ" has picked up, as you correctly pointed out.

I also found your elocution of the value of the "Christ message" quite refreshing. I think many "humanist" atheists have accepted the message while rejecting any religion's ownership of it, and the need to worship some deity to partake of it. I am an ardent student of Joseph Campbell, and his exploration of the power of myth down through time and across cultures, and much of what you just said strongly echoes his insight.

I've devoured Campbell - that's where that echo came from, I'm sure. I'm currently reading some Spong, and have Jung in the queue as well (though Jung gets out there pretty far sometimes).

In fact, I almost recommended Campbell's Thou Art That as good reading material for Nom et al, and particularly for any theists who might be interested in exploring a more humanistic approach to Christianity/religion.

Another excellent book I'd highly recommend to believers of all sorts and non-believers alike is Karen Armstrong's A History of God. I bought the book and a 5-CD abridged version read by Armstrong. I've listened to the CDs (they're outstanding), but have yet to read the book. The book (based on my listening to the CD) is an excellent journey through the history of the "Abrahamic" God concept, from its possible origins to the present. Armstrong covers Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in most if not all of their various embodiments. Her insights into the Axial Age and the mystical branches of the religions were particularly enlightening. And she even covers Atheism quite sympathetically.

capnkirk · 03-12-2004, 03:05 PM

Nom,

Are you just being obtuse? The points Mageth is making are as simple as answering these two questions:

Do you have to believe in the Greek gods to see accept the moral in a Greek morality play?

Does each of Aesop's fables have to be true before there is any value in the moral principle that it carries?

The only reason religions survive is because for too many people, the answer to the questions above is YES.

capnkirk · 03-12-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

Another excellent book I'd highly recommend to believers of all sorts and non-believers alike is Karen Armstrong's A History of God. I bought the book and a 5-CD abridged version read by Armstrong. I've listened to the CDs (they're outstanding), but have yet to read the book. The book (based on my listening to the CD) is an excellent journey through the history of the "Abrahamic" God concept, from its possible origins to the present. Armstrong covers Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in most if not all of their various embodiments. Her insights into the Axial Age and the mystical branches of the religions were particularly enlightening. And she even covers Atheism quite sympathetically.

I have read Armstrong's Islam, A Short History and was impressed by it. It wasn't until her name started popping up on the forum that I realized that her expertise is much broader than just Islam. Too many books...I need a high speed dataport in the back of my head.

Gawen · 03-12-2004, 03:58 PM

Ok. So one may pick and choose certain tenants to fit their worldview and yet they may not be delusional? Perhaps. Assume that the Golden rule was first seen in the OT. That's a pretty good rule really. And let's pick a couple sayings from Budda...and Mao...and Marx...and Freud...and Lincoln...and the Magna Carta...and a few little sayings from some obscure witch doctor from the Phillipines. And throw out all the stuff we each think is bad or not right for us. We have not made a religion, nor even a poilitcal world view; we've adopted a whole bunch of stuff to devise our world view.

I can see your point Mageth. Yet, if a Christian claims to be a Christian, he/she must adhere to the whole thing. Those that pick and choose bits and pieces of their entire religion, to me, seem self-deluded. If I decided to adopt certain things from many others and made my own cult, and this cult is not warlike or contrary to most other peoples norms of society, but is maintained that it is the TRUE religion, would you still respect me?...

But I must say that all religion is not a bad thing. I really don't care what people believe. It's when they try to make me believe it, that's what irritates me...

Oh...{edited to add}...I may have been a bit brusque with godfrey. I just didn't want to have to defend myself in the way others had done....sorry godfrey.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2004, 02:30 PM	#41
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I agree totally, capnkirk. Jesus, if he existed, was a Jewish man teaching a new form of Judaism, and was not unique at the time in doing so. Jesus was most certainly not a "Christian" as the term is understood today, and was definitely not divine. If I implied otherwise (and I'm not sure your response was to me), I did not mean to. When I use the term "Christ message", I am not referring to the commonly held meaning that includes "divinity" (which is a corruption of the word in the first place), but rather to a metaphorical image of someone whose life and teaching may represent (to some) a way of enlightenment, a way of living at one with others and the universe (whether one wants to put "God" in the universe or not), a way of recognizing the "oneness" or "sameness", if you will, of all of humanity. Many find in Jesus' life and teachings inner messages to humans and their relationships to other humans and the (natural) world around us, not messages about a relationship with some external being. There are other "Christ figures" or those who taught the "Christ message" to be considered, if one is so inclined. Buddha, another mythic hero, is another example of the "Christ message" embodied in myth and legend. Whether the "Christ message" that may be found by some in the account of Jesus' life, or in the lives of others, is based on legendized accounts of a historical man's life or an entirely made-up myth makes no difference to realizing that message, if it is there. I think that if there's any "truth" to be found in the Bible and the legends of Jesus, that is it. And to consider the Gospels literally, to apply "divinity" to Jesus, and to accept the "gospel message" that the intent of Jesus was to reconcile corrupt humanity with an angry and vengeful God, is to entirely miss whatever message may be found there. Note that I'm not saying I buy into all that lock, stock and barrel, but merely saying that that is what I see as possible to obtain from the New Testament (though I admit I do find it a bit attractive in an Eastern sort of way, as I find some of the myths and teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, and mystic/gnostic religions sometimes attractive), and am considering what the implications for my life might be). I'm not a mystic or a theist; I'm simply a curious atheist and naturalist who's willing to examine myself and my beliefs, and examine what others in the past may have learned and taught about the human condition that may be useful to me, in whatever form they recorded it. I'm not afraid to examine the myths of our history to see if I can learn some insight here and there that others may have picked up and recorded in metaphorical form. But I certainly don't expect anyone else to share this opinion. It's my journey, not anyone else's.

03-12-2004, 02:51 PM	#45
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	No, Mageth, my post was not aimed at you. It was aimed squarely at the OP in direct response to his query what is my opinion of JC? I also found your elocution of the value of the "Christ message" quite refreshing. I think many "humanist" atheists have accepted the message while rejecting any religion's ownership of it, and the need to worship some deity to partake of it. I am an ardent student of Joseph Campbell, and his exploration of the power of myth down through time and across cultures, and much of what you just said strongly echoes his insight.

03-12-2004, 02:52 PM	#46
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	nom: We seem to be much more in agreement than in disagreement, so I should probably just leave it at that. However, I do think it's possible for someone to call themselves a Christian and not believe in the divinity of Jesus or some of the stuff tacked onto it (many do, after all). If anything, I think it's those that do believe in the misinterpretations of literal Jesus as divine etc that are perhaps not the "true" Christians. I guess it boils down to how one defines "Christian". Perhaps we'd best leave that up to the Christians, or those who call themselves Christians. The whole "Christ message" thing is just a retreat into denial (IMHO, of course, this being an opinion thread ). "Okay, okay, okay, we give, it all wasn't real, but we still wanna play priest and bishop anyhow." Well, hey, no problem -- but if you don't mind I'm going to put that big ol' cathedral of your on the tax rolls. Instead of a "retreat into denial", I consider it more of a recognition of reality and escape from denial. IIRC, Gandhi once referred to himself as "a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist...", or something along those lines. The point being, some may self-identify as "Christian" in a liberal sense that does not involve playing "priest and bishop". Spong may not be such as good example (as he is a bishop), but he is a good example of someone who doesn't hold to a literal interpretation of the Gospels, yet holds to the essential "christian" message, and thus self-identifies as a Christian. Whether churches should be taxed or not is a different question. Buddhist temples are tax-exempt as well, after all.

03-12-2004, 03:03 PM	#47
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by capnkirk No, Mageth, my post was not aimed at you. It was aimed squarely at the OP in direct response to his query what is my opinion of JC? OK; I wasn't sure, since it came right after my post where I introduced the "Christ message", and I can understand how some might misinterpret that with all the baggage the term "Christ" has picked up, as you correctly pointed out. I also found your elocution of the value of the "Christ message" quite refreshing. I think many "humanist" atheists have accepted the message while rejecting any religion's ownership of it, and the need to worship some deity to partake of it. I am an ardent student of Joseph Campbell, and his exploration of the power of myth down through time and across cultures, and much of what you just said strongly echoes his insight. I've devoured Campbell - that's where that echo came from, I'm sure. I'm currently reading some Spong, and have Jung in the queue as well (though Jung gets out there pretty far sometimes). In fact, I almost recommended Campbell's Thou Art That as good reading material for Nom et al, and particularly for any theists who might be interested in exploring a more humanistic approach to Christianity/religion. Another excellent book I'd highly recommend to believers of all sorts and non-believers alike is Karen Armstrong's A History of God. I bought the book and a 5-CD abridged version read by Armstrong. I've listened to the CDs (they're outstanding), but have yet to read the book. The book (based on my listening to the CD) is an excellent journey through the history of the "Abrahamic" God concept, from its possible origins to the present. Armstrong covers Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in most if not all of their various embodiments. Her insights into the Axial Age and the mystical branches of the religions were particularly enlightening. And she even covers Atheism quite sympathetically.

03-12-2004, 03:05 PM	#48
capnkirk Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: where no one has gone before Posts: 735	Nom, Are you just being obtuse? The points Mageth is making are as simple as answering these two questions: Do you have to believe in the Greek gods to see accept the moral in a Greek morality play? Does each of Aesop's fables have to be true before there is any value in the moral principle that it carries? The only reason religions survive is because for too many people, the answer to the questions above is YES.

03-12-2004, 03:58 PM	#50
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	Ok. So one may pick and choose certain tenants to fit their worldview and yet they may not be delusional? Perhaps. Assume that the Golden rule was first seen in the OT. That's a pretty good rule really. And let's pick a couple sayings from Budda...and Mao...and Marx...and Freud...and Lincoln...and the Magna Carta...and a few little sayings from some obscure witch doctor from the Phillipines. And throw out all the stuff we each think is bad or not right for us. We have not made a religion, nor even a poilitcal world view; we've adopted a whole bunch of stuff to devise our world view. I can see your point Mageth. Yet, if a Christian claims to be a Christian, he/she must adhere to the whole thing. Those that pick and choose bits and pieces of their entire religion, to me, seem self-deluded. If I decided to adopt certain things from many others and made my own cult, and this cult is not warlike or contrary to most other peoples norms of society, but is maintained that it is the TRUE religion, would you still respect me?... But I must say that all religion is not a bad thing. I really don't care what people believe. It's when they try to make me believe it, that's what irritates me... Oh...{edited to add}...I may have been a bit brusque with godfrey. I just didn't want to have to defend myself in the way others had done....sorry godfrey.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.