Margherita Hack, Italian astrophysicist. Staunch atheist, said: I do not believe in God because I find the notion itself absurd, it is a human invention. I live perfectly without believing in God. I don't need God to behave good towards the others. Jesus' figure is essential. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"...it is extraordinary.
You've probably heard of this: "Christian atheism is a form of Christianity that rejects the theistic claims of Christianity, but draws its beliefs and practices from Jesus' life and/or teachings as recorded in the New Testament Gospels and other sources."
I just don't get it. Remove the supernatural parts, and the story of the life of Jesus is ordinary. How many people do we all know who are kind and benevolent, and lead lives of self-denial and service to others? It's maybe one in a thousand, but there are billions of people now and billions more throughout history.
So what was that life? Once we remove the supernaturalism, it's a guy promoting religion and his idea of moral behavior. What is special or exemplary there? How many people dedicate their lives to their religious beliefs and try to teach people to be good people? Was that life more exemplary than Billy Graham's? If so, how? Was it more exemplary than Schindler's life? Not to me. Jesus' life was much more ordinary and much less heroic than Schindler's. It's only a minority of people who live lives that are morally exemplary, but among them, Jesus is just another one. Correct me if I'm overlooking something here that distinguishes Jesus life sans the miracles from thousands of others.
Personally, I think one can live his life many better ways than by promoting religion, so the life of Jesus is not something I would admire. I don't consider proselytizing or living a religious life a good way to live or a good thing to be doing. I understand that for the believer, my words are wrong, that that was a very good way to live, but why would unbelievers admire that life or regard it as exemplary? Why would the woman quoted think that even if Jesus were just a man or, presumably, completely fictional, his life as depicted in the Gospels is still exemplary? As I said, I just don't get why unbelievers would single out that life.
Maybe what they like is Jesus' moral code, but I find it flawed. I find the Sermon on the Mount to be a terrible piece of advice. Blessed are the meek? Believers change that to blessed are the humble, since meekness is not a virtue, but rather, a poverty of spirit, an inability to assert oneself where appropriate. That's not blessed, so they change it to mean something closer to humble. But that's not blessed, either, just polite and a smart way to deal with people. Then throw in the admonitions to be longsuffering, to turn the other cheek, and to accept one's plight in exchange for pie in the sky after death, and what you have there is the message one gives those he intends to exploit in the hope that they will be meek and docile rather than rise up. This is not exemplary. I would never teach my children to behave that way. I would tell them to be strong, to be people of principle and courage, to be leaders - not that stuff.
Turning the other cheek is also a bad idea, which the believer converts to forgiveness, but it's not forgiveness. It's just more of the same slave ethics, and it invites further violence. It reminds me of the frat hazings or basic training scenes where people are being abused and forced to ask for more. I would also never give that advice to my children. Much better options include walking away and attempting to negotiate a peace. Putting your hands up to protect one's face makes a lot more sense than offering the other cheek. In fact, even if one is just trying to make a point, offer the tender cheek, not the fresh one.
I could go on naming other bad moral teaching, such as that finding somebody sexually attractive is adultery, or that it is ever appropriate to remove body parts (eyes, hands, testicles). Is this good advice to give people?: "Take therefore no thought for tomorrow: for tomorrow shall take thought of the things for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." How about this?: "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall][be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
If I thought Jesus was a god, then this argument goes out the window. But what is the reason an unbeliever should turn to the Gospels for life or moral advice?
