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!
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)