Happy Christmas to one and all from the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist!
It's what Jesus would have wanted, I suppose, but it's *definitely* what Christ wants. At Christmas, it's not so much the birth of Jesus that we are celebrating, but the birth of Christ. To the Atheistic Christian, Jesus functioned (quite possibly entirely unwittingly) to the "Christ" - an example of ideal moral conduct that could form the basis of narratives of human interactions that help us sort out what is important from what is unimportant or even harmful.
Scholars have known since at least the 19th Century that the charming tales of the nativity are not "historical" in any meaningful sense. Yes, Herod was a bastard (even though he was long dead before Quirinius became governor in Syria and administered Augustus's local census that didn't affect Nazareth...), but the contradictory accounts in Matthew and Luke provided the nucleus for a heartwarming mythical memeset surrounding the birth of Christ - the baby in all of us that represents triumph over adversity, new life from the jaws of death, the promise of Spring in the heart of winter. In regard to the latter, we in Northern Ireland have experienced plenty of that over the last few weeks.
But here we are - whether old folks complain about commercialism and rubbish music (I love carols, however) and greedly acquisitive little brats and the whole thing extending back to September - peace, love, goodwill and basic human decency do merit a festival, a celebration. After all, this is what the "Christ" meme is about - it's encapsulated perfectly in the story of the Good Samaritan, but the story, however apocryphal, of a baby born in Bethlehem in the bleak midwinter long ago tells us something much more profound than theists can really appreciate.
Happy Christmas, one and all.
Biblical novels
Clive James on Jesus
There is a lot of sense in the article, and I think I broadly agree. I also think it can serve as a useful touch-point for those of us who don't believe in gods, demons, angels or messiahs to engage with those who still do in a meaningful, educational and collaborative way. After all, the question of belief (to the unbeliever) is spectacularly less important than setting the basis for an ethical and mutually-beneficial society and global outlook. Indeed, if you look at the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels, you see a picture of a man opposed to religious dogmatism, antithetical to religious belief as the admission card to "The Kingdom". I've mentioned before that this is the somewhat lost meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan - belief is unimportant. It is how you interact with your fellow humans that counts, and your relationship with whatever metaphysics you find to your taste is your own business.
Where I would perhaps depart marginally from Clive is over the implication that this "Jesus the man" is necessarily cognate with "the historical Jesus" - we simply do not have enough evidence to judge, and to be realistic, there is every evidence that Jesus was a fairly observant Jew, and did of course believe in God. He was not just a teacher of ethics; he had a religious axe to grind too - and these are separate things. However, the important thing is that we have been left with a series of stories that we can use, expand upon, midrashise, fill out, crop, mix and match as we like (hey, that is what Christians have been doing for millennia!), and just because we atheists have realised that there is no God behind all this, that should not disqualify us from adopting it if we wish, and parsing it through our Christianity Compatibility Layer.
Jesus the Nazarene presents a rich narrative resource, backed up by centuries of infrastructural investment (much of it with a rather unattractive history, but we are where we are) and a wide cultural familiarity. If we are honest and open, there is no reason why Atheists cannot be Christians too. I suggest...
Atheists for Jesus
Any comments?
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com
This from Ken Schei:
"I will utilize information from the Bible, the writings of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, the Didache, the so-called "Q Document," and the insights of great minds such as Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Carl Sagan, to show how the original compassionate religion OF Jesus of Nazareth was distorted almost beyond recognition (by the "self-appointed" apostle, Paul, and his followers) into a "me-oriented" religion ABOUT Jesus the Christ (a caricature made up of bits of Jesus, that were combined with and corrupted by the addition of material from the mythologies of Dionysus, Mithras, and other Greco/Roman Deities). Moderate and Liberal Christians, who wish to actually honor the life and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, need to weed out and totally discard all of the misinformation that Paul, and those who have followed in his footsteps, have added to the original message of love and compassion that was at the heart of Jesus' teachings. Thomas Jefferson (who called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus") did most of the work for us already."
I'm reminded a bit about Richard Dawkins' statement that he is a Christian, albeit a "cultural Christian". Is there a distinction here? I think there perhaps is some difference between these positions and also between these positions and the scenario I'm sketching out with the CJCA. I have a great deal of sympathy for these other positions, but in Dawkins' case, Cultural Christianity is merely that - a cultural wrapping. This does have the advantage that it doesn't become seen as constricting, and since culture evolves, Cultural Christianity is free to evolve also.
Schei seems to present a "back to basics" view that Jesus really was (i.e. the historical Jesus) presenting us with something of value that has since become corrupted. I think where I might differ is that I think the real historical Jesus (insofar as we can say anything about him) seems to have made a lot of mistakes too, and it might be an error to regard him as authoritative. Besides, freethinkers tend to reject authority anyway - we're evidence junkies, and adherence to a "true teaching" will never satisfy. That said, finding out about the history of early Christianity really is a fascinating intellectual pursuit, and can teach us lessons for the future.
The CJCA approach is more to take what we've got right now, where we happen to be, and running with that. Trimming and polishing where necessary, bridging gaps as needed, and even frankly decrying some of the morally unacceptable facets of "Christianity". Effectively, religion forms a narrative. It can't be a strait-jacket, nor do we need to keep the same old rubbish once it is past its sell-by date.
But these views are (I think) not mutually incompatible - I find myself wandering between them (as well as outright anti-religion thinking!) frequently. As ever, dear reader, your thoughts are most welcome.
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com
This from Ken Schei:
"I will utilize information from the Bible, the writings of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, the Didache, the so-called "Q Document," and the insights of great minds such as Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Carl Sagan, to show how the original compassionate religion OF Jesus of Nazareth was distorted almost beyond recognition (by the "self-appointed" apostle, Paul, and his followers) into a "me-oriented" religion ABOUT Jesus the Christ (a caricature made up of bits of Jesus, that were combined with and corrupted by the addition of material from the mythologies of Dionysus, Mithras, and other Greco/Roman Deities). Moderate and Liberal Christians, who wish to actually honor the life and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, need to weed out and totally discard all of the misinformation that Paul, and those who have followed in his footsteps, have added to the original message of love and compassion that was at the heart of Jesus' teachings. Thomas Jefferson (who called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus") did most of the work for us already."
I'm reminded a bit about Richard Dawkins' statement that he is a Christian, albeit a "cultural Christian". Is there a distinction here? I think there perhaps is some difference between these positions and also between these positions and the scenario I'm sketching out with the CJCA. I have a great deal of sympathy for these other positions, but in Dawkins' case, Cultural Christianity is merely that - a cultural wrapping. This does have the advantage that it doesn't become seen as constricting, and since culture evolves, Cultural Christianity is free to evolve also.
Schei seems to present a "back to basics" view that Jesus really was (i.e. the historical Jesus) presenting us with something of value that has since become corrupted. I think where I might differ is that I think the real historical Jesus (insofar as we can say anything about him) seems to have made a lot of mistakes too, and it might be an error to regard him as authoritative. Besides, freethinkers tend to reject authority anyway - we're evidence junkies, and adherence to a "true teaching" will never satisfy. That said, finding out about the history of early Christianity really is a fascinating intellectual pursuit, and can teach us lessons for the future.
The CJCA approach is more to take what we've got right now, where we happen to be, and running with that. Trimming and polishing where necessary, bridging gaps as needed, and even frankly decrying some of the morally unacceptable facets of "Christianity". Effectively, religion forms a narrative. It can't be a strait-jacket, nor do we need to keep the same old rubbish once it is past its sell-by date.
But these views are (I think) not mutually incompatible - I find myself wandering between them (as well as outright anti-religion thinking!) frequently. As ever, dear reader, your thoughts are most welcome.
Atheist Ministers
John Loftus shared an interesting link over at Debunking Christianity on the topic of ministers who are atheists, yet find themselves in the position of leading a church.
Here is the actual link to the ABC News story. I think a lot of the regular readers here can empathise with "Jack" and "Adam" - certainly I do. And I'm not even sure that they are in the wrong job - perhaps they are very much in the right job, and if the Central Thesis of CJCA is correct, many of their congregation probably feel the same way.
Here is the actual link to the ABC News story. I think a lot of the regular readers here can empathise with "Jack" and "Adam" - certainly I do. And I'm not even sure that they are in the wrong job - perhaps they are very much in the right job, and if the Central Thesis of CJCA is correct, many of their congregation probably feel the same way.
More on good churches
The minister is Rev Chris Hudson, a remarkable and colourful character, and a man of enormous compassion and energy, particularly in the face of injustice. In particular, Chris has been very vocal in standing up for the rights of gay people in Northern Ireland, and his inclusive approach means that atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Pagans and others can feel very much at home in the church.
Is this a vision that Atheistic Christians can also share? Go to the Facebook page, and follow the progress of this remarkable congregation.
Sad news: Dr Ken Pulliam has died
Ken Pulliam was a former evangelical minister who discovered that many of the things he had been taught and had believed about Christianity were untrue. His excellent scholarship and reasoning have helped many people to counter the nonsense put about by Christian apologists.
His blog contains some great posts: http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/
This Facebook page has been set up in his memory.
He will be sorely missed.
His blog contains some great posts: http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/
This Facebook page has been set up in his memory.
He will be sorely missed.
Belief is dead; long live orientation!
It's not just Christians who don't believe in God any more - check out Rabbi Jeffrey Falick's intriguing blog: http://www.theatheistrabbi.com
The "orientation model" of religion appears to be growing; fewer and fewer people adhere to the "belief model" (OK, they are still a majority). Perhaps this is due to better education. Perhaps it is a consequence of people being exposed to other viewpoints, and realising that what they previously held as "truth" is really just a societal custom, open to change.
The "orientation model" of religion appears to be growing; fewer and fewer people adhere to the "belief model" (OK, they are still a majority). Perhaps this is due to better education. Perhaps it is a consequence of people being exposed to other viewpoints, and realising that what they previously held as "truth" is really just a societal custom, open to change.
The ideal church?
Over at Irreducible Complexity, Ian has an intriguing post, This is my church, where he sets out his ideal Sunday morning church experience. Coffee, chat, a bit of education, breakout groups - it all seems very congenial. Maybe it'll catch on?
We're on Facebook
Oh peskies! It appears my earlier post (which has been edited and annihilated - happy now, John Stott?) did not correctly indicate how to get to the Facebook page. I admit to a little puzzlement as to how to make that work, but try this link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Church-of-Jesus-Christ-Atheist/128248970561284
Is Christian Atheism going to go viral? I would love to think so, but really I think that we will remain something of an underground movement, always trying to inject a bit of reason and freethought into a juggernaut that continues to accrete more and more nonsense as it goes on.
Be careful out there, people!
Is Christian Atheism going to go viral? I would love to think so, but really I think that we will remain something of an underground movement, always trying to inject a bit of reason and freethought into a juggernaut that continues to accrete more and more nonsense as it goes on.
Be careful out there, people!
Render unto Caesar
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
One of Jesus's statements in support of a strict separation between Church and State. I imagine he would be horrified that the Pope is being accorded a "state" visit to the UK, but then the pope is pretty caeasresque too...
One of Jesus's statements in support of a strict separation between Church and State. I imagine he would be horrified that the Pope is being accorded a "state" visit to the UK, but then the pope is pretty caeasresque too...
Joseph and his amazing technicolor funboat
 |
| From www.thebricktestament.com |
As a novella, it is a real beauty, with (in my opinion) some strong stylistic linkages to Egyptian stories such as Sinuhe (much earlier - Middle Kingdom). It is clearly written in a novel-like form; my feeling is that this was an original Egyptian story that has been adapted for a Hebrew readership. Perhaps "Joseph" was originally a country boy from the North-Western delta, or he could indeed have been an Asiatic from the North-East. Little literary motifs in the story scream "Egypt!", and part of me wonders if somewhere in the desert there may be a jar with a hieratic document containing the original story. Maybe if we found that, we would know who the Pharaoh was (annoyingly, the bible mentions very few Pharaohs by name, making it difficult to contextualise some of the stories).
Any of you have any favourite stories? Incidentally, this is one story where I think an atheist can get just as much enjoyment as a theist. See? We don't *lose* anything - we *gain*! :-)
Be Thou My Vision
Essentially this captures what I'm trying to do here. Atheists can sing this hymn with just as much feeling, meaning and emotion as theists. Do add your favourite hymns to the comments; if you have links to any recordings you like, please share them, and maybe let us know a little about how you might interpret it in a non-theistic way. Or perhaps you just appreciate beautiful music and poetry...
Inerrancy - a deeply unbiblical and idolatrous concept
 |
| How true? |
But this is a tricky position for the (theistic) Christian. There is nothing in the recorded (or attributed) words of Jesus that can really support such an extreme bibliolatry, and - worse - if people take that view, then they are left unable to properly understand what is written in the bible, and the beliefs and culture of the people over the 800 years or so during which it was cobbled together. The process of compilation is part of the message, and part of the fun and value of the thing, for Christ's sake! Why turn it into some primitive oracle, and rob it of its humanity?
As a Christian Atheist, it's pretty obvious that I cannot hold to an inerrantist position - but even when I was a theist, the suggestion was absurd. In order to make it "inerrant", one had to dream up the most ridiculous convoluted nonsenses, that then dehumanised the authors, wrenched the stories and worldviews from their historical contexts, and made the "God" of the bible a buffoon. Indeed, biblical inerrancy was (in my view - and it continues to be my view) a very deep and troublesome form of blasphemy.
Let's look at it another way. If there are contradictions in the bible, outright errors, fictions, fables, fantasies and fudges - does that decrease its value? I would suggest not. I would instead suggest that the bible gives us a very clear view that religion should really have nothing whatever to do with truth claims (or even gods), but about community. A shared narrative that gives us a toolkit for describing the problems that life throws at us wee humans.
So, if you're sitting in a church, listening to some priest or pastor rabbitting on about the amazing bible, you can remind yourself that he or she is missing something really important. Perhaps the most important thing of all. But you won't be thanked for pointing it out.
The Parable of the Cube and the Crazy People
And Jesus said unto his disciples: Sit down, chaps. You're going to love this one.
A man was walking on the road from Capernaum to Ginosar, and waxed thirstful. He stopped at a well, and had a drink. Beside the well lay a Rubik's cube which was jumbled up, and he picked it up and looked at it. As he started to twist it, behold, a Pharisee leapt out of the bushes (there were some bushes beside the well - did I mention that? Well there were.)
What doest thou, thou blasphemer?! yelled the Pharisee. Dost thou not know that this is the Holy Cube, and has been given unto us as it is, never to be touched, for it is perfect?!
Your arse, said the man. It's all jumbled up - look, there are blues and greens and yellows and whites and reds and oranges all over the shop - it's hopelessly jumbled. But I am a very clever chap, and I can *do* Rubik's cubes - I can solve these babies oh yeah.
But the Pharisee waxed ever angrier. No, thou evildoer - the cube is perfect, and can never be touched. Here. Give it back. Now feck off.
The man walked on until he came to another well (hot day, still thirsty, no water bottles back then, OK?). Beside it was another Rubik's cube, much the same as the last one, except for a couple of twists. He picked it up and was about to start solving it when out jumps an Essene (bushes here too), and demands that he stop.
But your cube is jumbled! said the man.
Yes, said the Essene, but to fix it you must not twist it around, for that would be blasphemy. Instead you must peel off all the stickers and put them on in the pattern of holiness.
Which would be? inquired the man, who was becoming a little perplexed at the misplaced reverence shown to this object.
It's a secret, said the Essene, grabbing the cube. Now feck off.
And feck off he did. At the next well, he picked up the next cube, and yadda yadda and out jumps a Nazarene.
[Hey, isn't that us? said Simon Peter. Yes, said Jesus, but shut up. This is important.]
This cube is as it is because of the Fall, said the Nazarene. You're just making it worse.
Making it worse? said the man - it's a mess!
Yes, but the Son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven and solve the cube!
But I can solve it now; I just have to do a load of twists and rotations, and it'll get there.
No, said the Nazarene, the Son of Man will solve it with one twist.
Like feck he will, said the man. Look, I appreciate your beliefs, but you have no evidence for them.
The evidence is in the messed up state of the cube! said the Nazarene. What was perfect is now imperfect.
Why will none of you let me try to solve the cube? asked the man.
Don't you get it? said the Nazarene. You cannot solve the cube by yourself, other than by taking it apart and putting it back together again.
How do you know? said the man.
It is folly to try! said the Nazarene. Now give me my cube and bugger off.
And the man walked on.
[Simon Peter said: Lord, what the feck was that all about?
Jesus replied: Give me a while - I'm working on it, OK?]
Good cop or bad cop?
Well, it's a puzzler for sure. I'm an atheist; I regard myself as what Richard Dawkins might call a "Cultural Christian", but I sorta prefer the term "Christian Atheist". Personally I do not go to church, but I don't rip the head off people who do, and indeed that group would include a lot of my closest friends and family (theists and atheists alike). I recognise the historical legacy left by Christianity, even if the historical basis for the resurrection (that sine qua non of the whole shebang, according to a certain Saul Paulus) has been shown to be non-existent.
Deep down - or not even that deep - I do not feel that theism and a scientific outlook are compatible. I recognise that many scientists are theists, but that simply shows us that people can internally tolerate a disconnect, and that is hardly Big News. The reason for the incompatibility is not that science "disproves god" - I accept that it doesn't and indeed cannot absolutely rule out the existence of a goddy thing - it is much simpler than that.
Science cannot tolerate authority.
As a scientist, if the bible tells me that such-and-such happened at such-and-such a point in history, it may or may not be telling the truth, but the status of any such statement is that of a claim. These claims may or may not have supporting or contradictory evidence. I am in no position to accept them as true, and indeed I must (as a scientist) be at liberty to reject them if they conflict with the evidence.
Which is a problem for the Theistic Christian, because if we apply proper methods of historical analysis to the biblical claims, the scientific methodology behind archaeology, and the rational approach demanded by science, we find that events such as the virgin birth or the resurrection do not only not stack up, they are refuted by evidence from within the bible itself.
So how should we handle things when someone gets up in a pulpit or other public platform, and sounds off about some matter or other (such as homosexuality, for instance), using the bible as "authority", when ALL of us atheists, whether Christian or otherwise, REJECT that authority? Should we make an issue of it, and contradict the speaker, thereby causing tremulousness among those who demand "Christian unity", or should we simply accept it, smile benignly, let it pass, and privately internally pity the poor sap who is so deluded.
Good cop or bad cop?
I'll admit to playing both roles from time to time, but then I can afford to do so, since I don't have a church to be kicked out of. Any experiences anyone would like to share?
[Cartoon from Shelley the Republican. Make of that what you will! ;-)]
The Parable of the Maiden and the Bears
An astonishing discovery has been made in the Middle East. The Lost Gospel of Zebedee is an Aramaic document, written on papyrus in the 1st Century CE, and predates the earliest of the canonical gospels by at least 20 years. Dr Ursi Goldschluessel from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has hailed the find as "spectacular; this promises to shed light on the whole purpose of Christianity and the concept of religion as understood by Jesus himself". Here is one short section:
The Gospel of Zebedee
CHAPTER 7.
1. And Jesus travelled through the region, coming unto Samaria, and, behold, a great multitude did follow him, for his fame had spread abroad.
2. And coming to the edge of a forest, he sat and spake to the multitude, saying,
3. A young maiden with golden hair was walking through the woods, near the road from Jerusalem to Damascus, when she came upon an house, wherein lived three bears,
4. A father bear, a mother she-bear, and a baby bear, and they were a family of bears, and verily did enjoy breaking the night-time fast with morning porridge, which Mummy Bear did make, as is the wont of mummy bears, as ye all know.
5. Now the bears had departed from their abode for a short while, that the porridge may cool, for it was hot hot hot, and they did take a walk in the woods, mayhap to carry out that thing that bears do in woods. Verily. They do. Even Elisha knew this.
There are several more pages of the Lost Gospel that have yet to be translated from the original, but it is clear that this may change Christianity for ever. And this is a parable within a parable.
He or she that has ears to hear, let him/her hear. Or if they don't have ears, that's OK. Or whatever.
The Gospel of Zebedee
CHAPTER 7.
1. And Jesus travelled through the region, coming unto Samaria, and, behold, a great multitude did follow him, for his fame had spread abroad.
2. And coming to the edge of a forest, he sat and spake to the multitude, saying,
3. A young maiden with golden hair was walking through the woods, near the road from Jerusalem to Damascus, when she came upon an house, wherein lived three bears,
4. A father bear, a mother she-bear, and a baby bear, and they were a family of bears, and verily did enjoy breaking the night-time fast with morning porridge, which Mummy Bear did make, as is the wont of mummy bears, as ye all know.
5. Now the bears had departed from their abode for a short while, that the porridge may cool, for it was hot hot hot, and they did take a walk in the woods, mayhap to carry out that thing that bears do in woods. Verily. They do. Even Elisha knew this.
There are several more pages of the Lost Gospel that have yet to be translated from the original, but it is clear that this may change Christianity for ever. And this is a parable within a parable.
He or she that has ears to hear, let him/her hear. Or if they don't have ears, that's OK. Or whatever.
Where do you go; what do you like?
OK - a chance for pew-sitters to spill the beans! If you do attend a church, which church do you attend? What do you like about it? What do you dislike? Maybe you're a minister / pastor / priest - how do you view your "calling" if the belief side of things has slipped away?
I'll kick off by saying that although I am not a church attender, I have been made to feel very warmly welcome in two churches in Belfast - St Bartholomew's Church of Ireland on the Stranmillis Road, and All Souls Non-Subscribing Presbyterian on Elmwood Avenue. In both cases, members of the congregation are welcoming, and very prepared to discuss and debate issues of religion over coffee and biccies. Be sure to stop by!
I'll kick off by saying that although I am not a church attender, I have been made to feel very warmly welcome in two churches in Belfast - St Bartholomew's Church of Ireland on the Stranmillis Road, and All Souls Non-Subscribing Presbyterian on Elmwood Avenue. In both cases, members of the congregation are welcoming, and very prepared to discuss and debate issues of religion over coffee and biccies. Be sure to stop by!
Actually... *is* there anyone out there?
Any atheists who attend church? Do you like the service? Do you participate in communion / eucharist? Indeed, are you a church leader or even pastor / minister / priest? I'm not asking for names; I don't want to "out" anyone. If you have any experiences you'd like to share, please let us know in the comments to this post. Are there things churches could be doing to become more welcoming to those of an atheistic viewpoint? Are there ways atheists should consider changing to "fit in" more with the church, without compromising their view?
Fire away!
Fire away!
Hymns
Some are great, some are awful, some are stirring, some are cringeworthy. Some are crushingly tedious, and others stick with you.
All things bright and beautiful: raw interminable tedium.
And can it be: sheer brilliance.
Jesus loves me, this I know: bang your head repeatedly off the back of the pew in front.
So here's a thread for your faves and pet hates. Also, any CCL (Christianity Compatibility Layer) comments welcome - how can atheists sing the good ones without feeling silly?
We need your help here, people!
All things bright and beautiful: raw interminable tedium.
And can it be: sheer brilliance.
Jesus loves me, this I know: bang your head repeatedly off the back of the pew in front.
So here's a thread for your faves and pet hates. Also, any CCL (Christianity Compatibility Layer) comments welcome - how can atheists sing the good ones without feeling silly?
We need your help here, people!
The Resurrection
Is the resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene (or Chad Kruger from Nickelback) the "best attested event in ancient history" as claimed by some theistic apologists?
For many people, it has been the study of the bible itself that has led them to atheism. As Paul mentions in Corinthians, if the resurrection did not take place, then Christianity is worthless. Like a lot of Paul's opinions, this is probably not quite true (and certainly many apologists argue this point too - they argue that Christianity has brought many benefits to humankind, regardless of whether it is "true" or not).
However, one thing that is very clear is that the resurrection of Jesus is not only NOT the best-attested event in ancient history, the bible actually contains a stack of evidence that shows it to be false. The accounts of the resurrection and the post-resurrection appearances (rather, visions) of Jesus are all flawed in a number of particulars, and the motivations of the people who made the gospels are all there in the text.
Far from the resurrection being the "best explanation of the facts" as claimed by some apologists, several explanations present themselves that are far far more likely - including the idea that the whole story is complete fiction, from Bethlehem to Calvary.
In future posts we'll have a look at some of this evidence, but for now it is probably worth thinking about what the resurrection means as a story for the Christian Atheist. Feel free to comment...
The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ: REVIEW
Shane has a review of "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" over at answersingenes.blogspot.com - have a look and leave a comment!
A different perspective
I've had an interesting comment on the "Welcome" message. Unfortunately it's anonymous, but I think it's interesting and provides some food for thought. What do folks think?
As a starter for ten, I would suggest that the resurrection (the "other thing"!) is very much a piece of mythology, crafted after the death of Jesus the man. Jesus the man was not the Christ, but what arose from the story, and indeed what is perhaps a foundational point in Christian Atheism, is that "Christ" is something *we* create - a concept of a dynamic change for the better. Sometimes change is hard to achieve - we have to go through some difficulties to reach our goal - the "suffering". At least that is one way of looking at it.
But this concept of "Christ" implies radical transformation - a conscious placing of others before ourselves. Yes, I appreciate there is a disconnect here with the real historical Jesus (particularly his inexcusable behaviour in the temple, when he actually resorted to violence), but there are lessons we can learn. "Christ" as a real messiah is an incoherent concept; Christ as a concept we can attach ideal standards to is eminently more serviceable - even if (or perhaps precisely because) it is a myth.
Thanks again for your comment, Anonymous - please stick around and feel free to comment more!
I have to admit that I also have a surprising belief. I call myself a "Christian", but am actually a sort of non-believer in "Christianity" and an actual believer in "Christ". Does that make me a "non-Christian" believer in the divinity of Christ, I wonder?
As a "non-Christian believer in Christ" I have long suspected that many "Christians" or "pew warmers" are actually secret atheists, so to have a means by which they can "come out" is a good thing, I suppose. After having dumped their pretence at belief in God, they then may also dump their "Christianity" (all the rules, regulations, sectarianism and guilt along with the cultural trappings and psychgology) in the hope they will then come round to seeing what it is all really supposed to be about.
What I am really saying is that my view is probably the opposite of what is being presented here. What has grown up in the centuries after the death (and after the other thing, dare I say it) of Jesus is not so much a "mythologising" of the supernatural, but the very opposite - an attempt to subsume the reality under the religious. That's why people like me get just a wee bit piddled off when we are categorised with "religious" people when attacked by atheists.
It would be really great to see "Christians" coming out and admitting that they were unbelievers (like the Pope, perhaps?), so at least they are the ones who would take all the flak for being religious, and leave the rest of us in peace.
As a starter for ten, I would suggest that the resurrection (the "other thing"!) is very much a piece of mythology, crafted after the death of Jesus the man. Jesus the man was not the Christ, but what arose from the story, and indeed what is perhaps a foundational point in Christian Atheism, is that "Christ" is something *we* create - a concept of a dynamic change for the better. Sometimes change is hard to achieve - we have to go through some difficulties to reach our goal - the "suffering". At least that is one way of looking at it.
But this concept of "Christ" implies radical transformation - a conscious placing of others before ourselves. Yes, I appreciate there is a disconnect here with the real historical Jesus (particularly his inexcusable behaviour in the temple, when he actually resorted to violence), but there are lessons we can learn. "Christ" as a real messiah is an incoherent concept; Christ as a concept we can attach ideal standards to is eminently more serviceable - even if (or perhaps precisely because) it is a myth.
Thanks again for your comment, Anonymous - please stick around and feel free to comment more!
The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ
Philip Pullman's latest offering is a retelling of the story of Jesus, and it has already ruffled a few feathers. It looks excellent! I haven't read it yet, but if anyone has, please feel free to add your comments below.
If you haven't read it, you can catch an excerpt at the Guardian.
You are not alone
I guestimate that 15-20% of Christians do not really believe that the resurrection happened, or that Jesus was really the son of God. At least 10% of regular churchgoers (who will describe themselves as Christians) do not believe in god at all - you are probably one of them if you're reading this.
Now comes news of a study by Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola, interviewing current preaching ministers who do not believe in god. There is a lot to consider there. However, the ministers concerned regarded themselves as the tip of a much larger iceberg.
If that iceberg would like to make acquaintance with the Titanic that is CJCA, come right ahead - feel free to comment away (but do read the study!)
Now comes news of a study by Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola, interviewing current preaching ministers who do not believe in god. There is a lot to consider there. However, the ministers concerned regarded themselves as the tip of a much larger iceberg.
If that iceberg would like to make acquaintance with the Titanic that is CJCA, come right ahead - feel free to comment away (but do read the study!)
This "Christ" thing...
The way I see it, Christian Atheism is an entirely valid position. I don't believe in any gods, and I don't believe that Jesus the Nazarene was even that special. He is, however, the focus of a rather remarkable phenomenon that crystallised out of the supersaturated religious solution of the Roman Empire. Now, whether we accept that the "Impostle Paul" (Saul of Tarsus) made the most of this up or not, we are left with this concept of a "Christ" which has become attached to the story of a Galilean teacher in 1st Century CE Palestine. Jesus, in many ways, can be viewed as a retrospective Christ, not crowned by God, but by us.
And we're not even exclusive. A Christian Atheist won't say that Jesus is The Way (even if Jesus himself did say that, which is questionable). He's not even *A* way as such, because there isn't really any need for a way in the first place. What the Christian Atheist does (in my view) is simply adopt Christianity and the person of Jesus as a ready-made set of tools by which to explore human relationships. Some aspects of the stories of Jesus can be made to handle this better than others of course, but it is a fair enough start. Other religions have developed similar parable-packs, and there is even no real need to go to religion to get them - it is perfectly possible to either address the issues directly, or with entirely secular approaches that do not draw on religious metaphor.
So why choose Christianity as an atheist sandbox?
I think it's because a lot of the groundwork has already been done. A lot of entirely humanistic and atheistic ideas have already been incorporated fully into Christianity. There is also the huge infrastructure of Christianity - surely we can tap into that rich vein?
Of course, this approach is not without its difficulties. Some standard Christian hymns and bible stories are frankly silly, or even a little offensive to atheistic views. Can we maintain the heritage of Christianity, warts and all, yet still move forward with what is, essentially, the inescapable logical conclusion of the Reformation and the Enlightenment?
And we're not even exclusive. A Christian Atheist won't say that Jesus is The Way (even if Jesus himself did say that, which is questionable). He's not even *A* way as such, because there isn't really any need for a way in the first place. What the Christian Atheist does (in my view) is simply adopt Christianity and the person of Jesus as a ready-made set of tools by which to explore human relationships. Some aspects of the stories of Jesus can be made to handle this better than others of course, but it is a fair enough start. Other religions have developed similar parable-packs, and there is even no real need to go to religion to get them - it is perfectly possible to either address the issues directly, or with entirely secular approaches that do not draw on religious metaphor.
So why choose Christianity as an atheist sandbox?
I think it's because a lot of the groundwork has already been done. A lot of entirely humanistic and atheistic ideas have already been incorporated fully into Christianity. There is also the huge infrastructure of Christianity - surely we can tap into that rich vein?
Of course, this approach is not without its difficulties. Some standard Christian hymns and bible stories are frankly silly, or even a little offensive to atheistic views. Can we maintain the heritage of Christianity, warts and all, yet still move forward with what is, essentially, the inescapable logical conclusion of the Reformation and the Enlightenment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)