Can a Christian be atheist?

[C1ay]

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.

 

I don't think we can leap to that conclusion. I would certainly agree that agnostics are atheists but I would not necessarily classify someone that ckaims to be a "non-believing Christian" as agnostic. IMO, they are only agnostic is they lack belief in a God and believe that man can never ascertain or know the ultimate truth. If they have an affirmative belief that there is no God(s) then they would not be an agnostic.

 

IMO, one cannot legitimately claim to be a "non-believing Christian". A Christian by definition is one who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament. This is not compatible with atheism.

[C1ay]

So the question is, how does getting rid of long term truth create an advantage for aethiests?

 

What exactly is this long term truth you speak of and what verifiable evidence exists to prove that it is in fact the truth?

[Rich]

I want to point out that I was in error when I stated that most Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written by the apostle John, they don’t. This is the traditional view, not the modern scholar’s view. Most now believe an anonymous writer wrote it late in the first or early in the second century. According to modern scholars, the Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel, probably written between 62 and 75 A.D. According to tradition and still considered possible by scholars, Mark was a disciple of Peter and acted as his translator and scribe. Granted this isn’t definitively proven, but if evidence is uncovered that this is true then some of this Gospel could be entered into a court as evidence, not hearsay, since Peter was an eye witness to many of the events described and was addressed directly by Jesus in many instances. Of course, this isn’t really the point of this discussion, except maybe in the eyes of Clay. The point is whether scripture accurately reflects the teachings and intent of Jesus in regards to the claim that he is God, because this has implications as to whether or not one can be a Christian and an atheist at the same time, since, if Christ’s intent was to reveal himself as God, you couldn’t, because being a Christian would necessitate that you accept this claim, but if this was not his intent but a misunderstanding or deception of his disciples, you could.

 

Though not accurately read by some, I earlier stated that Rockytritron’s assertion that scripture is hearsay “many times removed” from it’s source is dubious. It might be hearsay, but not likely many times removed, and definitely not as far removed as is implied.

 

Whether second hand or not, the date of the authorship of scripture is very important, since if they were authored while those whom knew and had conversed with Jesus during his ministry were still alive then it’s not likely the accounts of his life and death were many times removed from the source, but more importantly, if these disciples did not dispute erroneous accounts of his life and teachings then they can be held accountable for at least neglect, or even worse, fraud. This is especially true when considering St. Paul and his writings because many claim that traditional Christianity is a creation born of Paul’s interpretations. Most scholars believe that his writings are the earliest of the New Testament and that he did actually write much of what is traditionally attributed to him. He clearly claims to have met some of the original Apostles and even had disputes with them, thus they were aware of what he taught. There has not been found any body of work by the Apostles, hearsay or testament, that contains a deliberate and consistent refutation of Paul’s teachings, this then being evidence that they agreed with them at least enough not to make a concerted effort to refute them.

 

Careful reading of the Gospels reveals Christ’s claim to divinity is the essential theme of the Gospels and their plot revolves around it. It’s clear he new what would happen to him when he revealed his claim to divinity, that he would be condemned as a blasphemer by those who could not conceive of the possibility that he might be the embodiment of God, and that he put forward the claim subtly and progressively until the time was right, when his resulting murder would reveal the hearts of men and God.

 

Clay stated “why have a belief in anything with a foundation of hearsay?” I’ve tried to make the case that belief is not based just upon belief in scripture (whether you believe it is hearsay or not) but also upon an understanding of the underlying logic (the Logos) revealed by scripture and ultimately the experience of the Spirit of God. Of course, this has fallen on many deaf ears, which is not surprising. In my view, the efforts by Clay and others to call into question the accuracy of scripture’s representation of the teachings and intent of Christ are themselves unreasonable, and if one looks at their methods, of disputing particular elements by requiring unreasonable or self defined degrees verification while dismissing other factors which reasonable human beings use in discerning truth, of dubious intent. These methods are similar in many ways to those of the inquisitors of Jesus; the lawyers and scribes. In essence, the larger picture is made irrelevant in order to achieve their own goals for their own purposes, all done while proclaiming good intent. The irony of it all.

 

Rich

[C1ay]

Whether second hand or not, the date of the authorship of scripture is very important, since if they were authored while those whom knew and had conversed with Jesus during his ministry were still alive then it’s not likely the accounts of his life and death were many times removed from the source, but more importantly, if these disciples did not dispute erroneous accounts of his life and teachings then they can be held accountable for at least neglect, or even worse, fraud.

 

The date is what's important? Are you really saying that it makes a difference whether I claim today that there is a chair orbiting Neptune versus waiting until tomorrow? Just how many of the apostles penned their books while he was still alive versus those after his death?

 

Careful reading of the Gospels reveals Christ’s claim to divinity is the essential theme of the Gospels and their plot revolves around it. It’s clear he new what would happen to him when he revealed his claim to divinity...

 

Could we accurately rephrase this to say something like:

 

Careful reading of the hearsay reveals Christ’s supposed claim to divinity is the essential theme of the hearsay and their plot revolves around it. It’s clear the apostles claimed that he new what would happen to him when he revealed his supposed claim to divinity....

 

In my view, the efforts by Clay and others to call into question the accuracy of scripture’s representation of the teachings and intent of Christ are themselves unreasonable, and if one looks at their methods, of disputing particular elements by requiring unreasonable or self defined degrees verification while dismissing other factors which reasonable human beings use in discerning truth, of dubious intent.

 

So it is unreasonable to question scripture? Everyone should just accept it without question? That science requires verification of claims is unreasonable and dubious? Are you effectively labeling science and skepticism as blasphemous?

[Rich]

Clay,

 

I said and implied no such thing. It is unreasonable to expect all worthwhile knowledge to pass the tests you claim for science, even in some fields of science, as there are some sciences that are less exact than others. Sometimes the goal is simply to determine the degree of likely hood that something is true, and there can be many different factors contributing to that determination. In such cases focusing in on one factor, such as is this or that hearsay, while not even considering other factors such as the prevalence of oral tradition, is not only unreasonable, but also poor scientific method, and if used simply to divert attention from or dismiss other legitimate factors’ contributions to the determination, it is disingenuous.

 

Rich

[C1ay]

It is unreasonable to expect all worthwhile knowledge to pass the tests you claim for science, even in some fields of science, as there are some sciences that are less exact than others.

 

No it's not. There is a simple difference though when viewed from a science perspective versus a religious one. Imagine the simple question of where we came from. Someone says, "a miracle occurred". OK, fine. For science this begins the discussion, the search for the facts of the miracle, the search for the methods, the formation of theories to make predictions that can be tested and verified. A search for the truth. During this time the scientist says we don't know how we came to be, we're looking for the answer.

 

For religion the statement, "a miracle occurred" is the end of the discussion. The end of any search for answers or truth. It simply considers "a miracle occurred" is the answer. For me that is what's unreasonable.

[chilehed]

Here's a wacky thought. Can there be such a thing as an atheist Christian?...

No, that's definitely an oxymoron. By definition, a Christian is one who believes (among other things) that God exists and that he entered time and space in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Rich]

Clay,

 

As I’ve pointed out, the question comes down to “does scripture accurately reflect the teachings of Christ? This is the question because if it does you couldn’t be an atheist Christian since believing in Christ would necessitate believing that he is God since he himself believes it. So how do you rationally determine the chances that scripture accurately reflects Christ’s teachings and intent? According to you, you don’t, because it must be hearsay and hearsay is useless. I say let’s determine the chances that it is hearsay and if there is a good chance that it is, determine it’s potential value in this situation by considering other factors such as context, when it was written, traditional forms of communication of the times, and evidence that Christ’s associates tried to refute them. Your answer; hearsay is hearsay is hearsay. Who here is making a sincere attempt to discern the truth? Not you.

 

There is a simple difference though when viewed from a science perspective versus a religious one.

For religion the statement, "a miracle occurred" is the end of the discussion. The end of any search for answers or truth. It simply considers "a miracle occurred" is the answer.

 

This is oversimplification, and also makes the false generalization that all religions have the same attitude toward rationalization. Your statements intrinsically contain presumptions as to man’s capacity to understand the phenomenon considered. This is fine for many cases, but not all. For example, assuming that you could know God or whether or not God exists or not by simply having intelligence and the desire to know is one of the great fallacies of man, because if God is truly god, he can hide himself from you if he chooses. This is one of the themes of the Bible. Does this mean the question shouldn’t be pursued? No, but this possibility should be kept in mind in the pursuit.

 

Nobody has any need to fear the truth and it‘s pursuit, it is the way truths and half-truths are used by some people that should cause concern.

 

Rich

[C1ay]

I say let’s determine the chances that it is hearsay and if there is a good chance that it is...

 

OK. What is the chance that the scriptures are hearsay? This begs some questions to determine how likely the chances are.

 

What are the chances that the bible is composed of the direct works of Jesus Christ himself, of personal writings that he penned himself?

 

What are the chances that it is composed of the works of other people claiming that Jesus Christ said this or that?

 

What percentage of the scriptures are personal writings of Jesus Christ himself versus the percentage penned by authors other than Jesus?

 

Can you provide any factual numbers for these questions from which the chances of hearsay versus non-hearsay could be determined? I am not personally aware of any portion of the scriptures where it is claimed by anyone anywhere to have been written by Jesus himself but I am open to any reasonable proof you can provide. Have at it.

[cotner]

Can a Christian be an atheist?

 

Absolutely yes!

 

Be like myself, cotner, I am a Christian and an atheist at the same time.

 

How's that? Very simple, you talk like an atheist but believe like a Christian, meaning, in everything that atheism is beyond challenge I talk like an atheist, outside of that I exercise my option to believe like a Christian.

 

Is that okay with God, the Christian God?

 

He, God, has no choice.

 

 

Laugh.

 

 

 

cotner

[atthisaddress]

Thomas Jefferson admired the non-supernatural teachings of Jesus, he even edited the new testament into a version that excluded any mention of the supernatural, commonly referred to as the 'Jefferson Bible'.

 

While he was a deist, he rejected any personification of a deity, viewing nature itself as the "Creator" that he referred to in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Jefferson did refer to himself as a "Christian" in correspondence, but without attaching any belief in the supernatural or acceptance as Jesus as a messiah to the label. Why not call yourself a Jeffersonian Christian?

[cotner]

 

[...]

 

Jefferson did refer to himself as a "Christian" in correspondence, but without attaching any belief in the supernatural or acceptance as Jesus as a messiah to the label. Why not call yourself a Jeffersonian Christian?

 

If you find me abominable, I don't blame you, because you are acting from an automatic reflex, due to inured conditioning.

 

.

Why not call yourself a Jeffersonian Christian?

 

With all due respect to Jefferson and to his admirers and to the whole US citizenry brought up to pay him utmost honor, if he were around today I would ask him:

 

Why not call yourself a Cotnerian Christian?

 

 

Laugh.

 

 

 

cotner

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

It all lies in how you categorize the word "god, christian, religion". It would seem that people want to tell you what these words mean, even if they themselves do not believe in them. I try not to categorize, or rather, since it is impossbile not to categorize, I try to categorize all things together. In this way no one is wrong, they are just saying the same thing in a different way.