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.