Can a Christian be atheist?

[Rich]

Clay,

 

Why is it that you so easily take Rockytriton's word as to who originally wrote this when most Biblical scholars agree that it was the Apostle John, who would have heard it from the mouth of Jesus, who first wrote it? Reasonable faith that the early church had some clue as to what Jesus said and intended requires at least some degree of knowledge of the teachings and why they developed as they did, otherwise you can make them out to mean anything you please.

 

Rich

[C1ay]

when most Biblical scholars agree that it was the Apostle John, who would have heard it from the mouth of Jesus, who first wrote it?

 

If all Biblical scholars believed there is a chair in orbit around Neptune would that make it true? Would that make it a fact? The bottom line is that the bible is founded almost entirely on hearsay, a body of evidence not even allowed in courtrooms. Why should anyone have faith that it's true?

[rockytriton]

Clay,

 

Why is it that you so easily take Rockytriton's word as to who originally wrote this when most Biblical scholars agree that it was the Apostle John, who would have heard it from the mouth of Jesus, who first wrote it? Reasonable faith that the early church had some clue as to what Jesus said and intended requires at least some degree of knowledge of the teachings and why they developed as they did, otherwise you can make them out to mean anything you please.

 

Rich

 

Tell me who these biblical scholars are who believe that John wrote it. And please give references. From what I have read, most believe that the gospels were written by companions of the apostles or those who knew the companions. Which is why the earliest written versions we have of them are not until the second century.

[Rich]

Rockytriton,

 

Since you made your claim first, why don’t you supply your references first, then I’ll take the trouble to supply mine.

 

Clay,

If Rockytritron says that a chair revolves around Neptune, would you believe it? This issue cuts both ways. What amazes me is that when people here have claimed that there is no scriptural support for the claim that Christ is and claimed to be God and when I point out that there is, the response has been that scripture means nothing, with implication that it could not possibly mean anything. My point all along has been that if you know something about traditional Christian teachings and how they came about, and even if you don’t take scripture as the inerrant word of God, you would see an underlying rational to them, whether you agreed with it or not. It seems the prejudice against Christianity is so great by some in this forum that even this mild claim can’t be tolerated.

 

Rich

[C1ay]

What amazes me is that when people here have claimed that there is no scriptural support for the claim that Christ is and claimed to be God and when I point out that there is, the response has been that scripture means nothing, with implication that it could not possibly mean anything.

 

Then you're missing the point. What FACTUAL evidence is there for this hearsay scripture you're attempting to use as proof of anything? What FACTUAL evidence is there that a man named Jesus ever existed and that he was in FACT some kind of supreme being? Where is the testable, verifiable scientific evidence that the bible has any truth in it at all and what exact portions can be proven to be the actual truth? Is there any portion of the bible that is not hearsay, written by Jesus himself? No one should expect anyone to accept the bible as truth or fact unless they can support their claim.

 

BTW, I do not believe there is a chair orbiting Neptune but then again, I question unreasonable claims before lending them any belief.

[Rich]

Clay,

 

I believe that the only thing I’ve attempted to prove is that whether you believe scripture or not, it clearly states that Christ is God. I’ve never attempted to prove to you that scripture is true, though I have pointed out that the unsubstantiated statements that it is all hearsay removed many times from it’s source are dubious . What I have also pointed out is that if you know enough about scripture and how it came about, even if you don’t believe one bit of it you’d see that there is an underlying rational to the teachings of the early Church. You might say well what good is that? It might help you understand why it is taken seriously by many people even though there isn’t scientific evidence for it. After all, are you claiming that the only worthwhile knowledge is scientifically verifiable knowledge? Most scientific knowledge is developed from speculations of what might or could be before it is verified anyway.

You also miss the biggest point of all about Christianity. Coming to experience the presence of God is in fact what it is all about. Someone who hasn’t had that experience cannot understand it, and it can‘t be proven to them that it exists, since the proof is in the experience. True Christian teaching is meant as a means to this goal.

 

Rich

[rockytriton]

Rich I wonder where you get your information for claims such as "I have pointed out that the unsubstantiated statements that it is all hearsay removed many times from it’s source are dubious". I have read books by biblical scholars (ones without atheist agendas) and nobody claims that the scriptures were written directly by the apostles or jesus themselves. I don't know if you are just making this stuff up or if you are really researching this information. The earliest full copies that we have of the gospels are from the 4th century, and if you compare many of these copies, there are many differences. None of this information is disputed by biblical scholars, this is why I'm assuming you are making up your claims.

[C1ay]

Coming to experience the presence of God is in fact what it is all about. Someone who hasn’t had that experience cannot understand it, and it can‘t be proven to them that it exists, since the proof is in the experience.

 

There may not be any proof in the experience. See Dan Dennett's Can We Know Our Own Minds and Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes. Just a suggestion from someone that you are having this experience is enough to make you believe that you are. Factual knowledge is what will help you know if it is real or not.

[Rich]

Rockytritron,

Look up “New Testament” in Wikipedia, and even if you don’t believe all that it says, there are plenty of references. Though this is not where I got my information, it is consistent with what I’ve read.

 

 

 

Clay,

 

When I say experience, I’m referring to a continuing and growing awareness, not simply a subtle hint. A characteristic of the experience is it’s similarity to what other Christians through history have reported experiencing, and to a lesser extent, what non-Christians have also reported experiencing. You might say this is simply the result of psychologically deficient people experiencing a common delusion, but those who experience it will say the same thing about those who don’t experience it, that they are deluded into thinking that the experience isn’t real and those who think that it can’t possibly exist because it doesn’t exist for them are deluded into thinking that they know more about what is real than they actually do. This has been a long running dispute between believers and non-believers through history. The fact is that you don’t need to believe in the teachings in order to concede that there is a type of rational to traditional Christianity, and if someone wishes to dispute this they should at least obtain an accurate understanding of what is believed and why.

 

Rich

[C1ay]

and if someone wishes to dispute this they should at least obtain an accurate understanding of what is believed and why.

 

So why believe it? Why have a belief in anything with a foundation of hearsay?

[HydrogenBond]

One thing about the bible, it was written originally for an audience that existed almost 2000 years ago. If you went back into time, the writers were not asking, what do we need to write so the people of 2007 can follow along? The intended or realtime audience was back then and needed to use what people back then could understand.

 

An analogy is reading the science of 400 years ago and critiquing the science of today based on that version. The books of that time were written for an audience that was just starting to understand. If someone back 400 years ago suggested airplanes, it would never be published in the science literature of the day. Under those conditons the airplane would be more in touch with reality than the stuff they were publishing, but because they had little understaning, it would never get published.

 

So the bible, when it was written, had to reach the audience of that day. If someone had suggested using modern concepts, which could be understood in 2007, these would never have been included. The goal was to be as inclusive as possible. Getting too fancy would be exclusive and would have defeated the goal of spreading the religion.

 

Although the ancient people were ignorant, with respect to modern ideas they were not stupid, but common sense. One only has to look at what Rome did without high-tech or advanced math. That being said, the bible had to be presented to their common sense. Much of it is symbolic so it could reach their common sense. For example, Christ talked in parables. He never meant these to be taken literall,y but to convey meaning. The parable of the mustard seed being like the kingdom of God was not given to literally equate the size and color of heaven to this small seed. People back then had enough common sense to get the gist.

 

If one goes to an ancient tomb, there may be hierogliphics about a battle. To look at the pictures, it looks like an idiot carved them. To the trained eye they tell much more information. At the same time, the person doing the carving, must have been fully aware of the details of the battle. He may even fought in them and been an eye witness to hisotry. What was written doesn't do justice to what they witnessed. These were more like still photos, which when seen again, brought back the living memories of those times with much greater detail, i.e., memory pegs.

 

The debate of today is analogous to a hierogliphic picture of horse with a square head. One party assumes the horses back then had square heads. The other thinks the bible teaches horses square heads. Neither are using common sense. Both take it literally, one with faith and the other with disbelief. Common sense would say, the artist was trying to draw a horse but his artistic skills resulted in a type of abstraction. In this light, both sides are correct, at the same time, but for the wrong reasons. The first knows it is a horse and the second knows horses don't look like that.

 

If you go back to the beginning of Genesis, the spirit of God was brooding over the deep...let there be light! Compare this ancient model to the big bang theory. The bible model starts with nothing, while the BB has to start with the primordial atom. The bible model is more advanced, since modern science hasn't been able to explain the from nothing part, yet. It tries to use the concept of parallel universes; where God lives?

 

The BB has the universe expanding with space-time. Let there be light did the same thing, suggesting a type of big bang with energy appearing from this conversion of nothing into the early universe. It does not offer mathematical proof, but there is little difference. The guy in the street 5000 years ago was already doing advanced physics. He didn't have the modern whistle and bobbles to make it look more formal.

 

I'll do one more symbol. Adam was formed from the dust of the earth. If you look at dust, this is as smallest measure of small that the human eye can see without an artificial extension of visual capability. If one had suggested Adam was formed from the atoms of the earth, it would have never been published, since they would have expected proof. The idea was to convey something very small from the earth, which had to stay within the realm of common sense without nebulous concepts.

[Rich]

Clay,

 

A name for one type of hearsay is “oral tradition”, which was the more prevalent method of passing on information in ancient times, especially in small tightly knit communities such as the early Christian Church. It is different than common hearsay in that since people are aware that they are the means of preserving and passing on what they were taught there is a more concerted effort to pass on information accurately. The other factor that you ignore, as I’ve mentioned, is that Christianity was and is meant as a way to come to the experiencing of God. This is why it was referred to as “The Way” in ancient times. Acquiring the experience of the Spirit then, as the Apostles did at Pentecost, was a goal of the teaching, and having the Spirit enabled Christians to see life with a common vision but in a different light than non-Christians. When the community become large and wide spread the writing down of essential beliefs became necessary, but the purpose of the writings still was to bring people to the beliefs and practices which would open them up to an experience of God. This is a more realistic understanding of how Christian teaching were disseminated in the ancient world and in a way in which God achieved his purpose than is your assumption that unless Jesus wrote it down it can’t be true.

 

You keep saying that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, but there is reference to him and his crucifixion by non-Christian historians, such as the Jewish historian Josephus, and, as I understand, it is now commonly accepted by scholars that he did at least exist and was crucified by the Romans. Maybe you check on that with Rockytrition.

 

Rich

[C1ay]

A name for one type of hearsay is “oral tradition”, which was the more prevalent method of passing on information in ancient times, especially in small tightly knit communities such as the early Christian Church. It is different than common hearsay in that since people are aware that they are the means of preserving and passing on what they were taught there is a more concerted effort to pass on information accurately. The other factor that you ignore, as I’ve mentioned, is that Christianity was and is meant as a way to come to the experiencing of God.

 

Sorry, wrong answer. Try again. Hearsay is hearsay is hearsay. It is a claim of what someone else supposedly said. A "he said, she said" argument that is not reliable as evidence of anything. There is no physical evidence for any God, only hearsay which should not be sufficient for anyone to "conclude" that some God actually exists.

 

You keep saying that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, but there is reference to him and his crucifixion by non-Christian historians, such as the Jewish historian Josephus, and, as I understand, it is now commonly accepted by scholars that he did at least exist and was crucified by the Romans.

 

Be very cautious there. No where in this thread, and certainly not repeatedly, did I say there was no evidence that Jesus ever existed. I simply asked for FACTUAL evidence that he did, something other than hearsay. All I've claimed is that the evidence is weak because it is nothing more than hearsay. Now you can point out specifically where I repeatedly claimed that "there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed" or you can recant.

[Rich]

Clay,

 

I humbly apologize for taking your statement “What FACTUAL evidence is there that a man named Jesus ever existed“ as an implication that you think there is none. It must have been the tone I undoubtedly misconstrued. I still haven’t found yet where you stated the evidence is weak, but I must not be looking hard enough. I also humbly apologize for saying “repeatedly”; it must have been the repeated implication that Christianity is based upon a fraud. By the way, have you checked out the article I mentioned in regards to the origins of the New Testament, or is this totally irrelevant, as I suspect you believe? Also, do you believe Socrates existed, and if you do, on what basis?

 

Rich

[C1ay]

it must have been the repeated implication that Christianity is based upon a fraud.

 

Hearsay does not imply fraud. It is simply questionable evidence. There's been plenty a murder where "he said she said" was absolutely true yet inadmissible simply because of the unreliability of hearsay evidence.

[HydrogenBond]

Existence is evident in its affect on time and space. The affect was that Christianity spread in time and space, overtook Rome, against all odds, and changed the western world. It led to the Magna Carta, the Age of Enlightenment and the US Constitution within Christian influenced cultures. If Christ didn't exist, yet the affects from him occurred, as history can show, then what was the force potential that was driving all this connected and evolving change?

 

If it had been a fraud, it would have been a fad. If it had been a clever fraud, the fad may last a generation or two. But this lasted 2000 years and is still going. Most of the books written today, claim truth, but are good for a few months to maybe year or two. Maybe the real argument is, the Bible does not correspond to the laws of short term fad truth that is common today. I would have to agree with that. This type of fad truth wears out, gets boring, requiring new fads. There is another type of truth that remains fresh and outlasts people.

 

If you look at the problems within culture, it is not due to the long term truth but is due to fad truth trying to change the truth. Poverty, violence, crime, hardheartedness, greed, pretension, lying, slander, the list goes on were not taught by the long term truth. These all become viable due to short term truth, changing the long term, creating a short term advantage for some, but leading to problems for others. So the question is, how does getting rid of long term truth create an advantage for aethiests? It may have to do with opening up new areas for short term fads. If the aetheists can get rid of religion, short term religion-lite fads could appear, none of which will last more than a decade or generation at a time. Religion would be able to change along side of the designer fashions.

 

One way to look at the relative affects with in time, between long term truth versus short term fad truth is connected to the brain. Natural animal instinct is very old and very conservative. It changes very little in time. The abberations of instinct or unnatural instinct come and go. Sometimes these stick, but most of the time, they come and go. The long term truth affects the more natural-conservative part of the brain. The fad truth is more connected to the more transients aspects of the brain. The difference is sort of between short and long term memory.

 

Most can recall their early bible teachings as a child. The brain has no problem adding this to long term memory. Try to remember the details of the last fad truth that already wore out. The brain didn't bother storing this fad very long. The brain seems to be able to tell the difference, between what is beneficial to long term instincts and what is marginal. The marginal has to will the brain to pretend this is long term truth. But the brain is not fooled that easily, causing the fad to wear out. If it does not complement natural human instinct it is a truth virus that can linger, and even kill what is natural inside the human psyche.

[LaurieAG]

Here's a wacky thought. Can there be such a thing as an atheist Christian? One which believes in the philosophy and ideologies of Jesus Christ without believing in a God.

 

Hi C1ay,

 

What you call an 'atheist christian' is actually an agnostic but research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people.

 

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

 

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

 

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion.

 

BTW, Paul said 'I am debtor to both the greeks and the barbarians, to both the wise and unwise'. He didn't actually say that the greeks were wise and the barbarians were unwise.