I had to read this a couple of times. Christianity as a religion is a personal faith and a belief in god and in his existence. Christianity as a philosophy is not. When you say you are a Christian atheist, it sounds confusing because Christianity is more seen as a religion rather than a philosophy. It goes beyond morals and belief in god and Jesus are not mythology but an actual entity, spirit, and person with whom Christians form an relationship with and faith in. In that sense only, I don't understand how anyone can be a Christian atheist.
If Christianity is seen only a philosophy, then I assume the bible is more analogy rather than direct instruction of how god and what god says in order for believers to follow, worship, and believe in him. If its the former, than yes, I can see how you can take up the morals of it's philosophy while not believing in the foundation of it. If it's the latter, than I am at a loss of how anyone can not believe in god but believe in morals of a god that they believe does not exist. It's like learning a lesson from a non-existent teacher.
Please explain?
Okay sure, I perceive "God" to be a presence at the very heart of life itself - not a being with a personality and personality traits that resemble the personalities of human beings who is obsessed with reward and punishment. I concur with many of Einstein's statements on this matter, such a God-image is modeled off of our own humanity; albeit expanded beyond human limits. I think the reverse of Genesis is true; and that we made the supernatural personal god out of our self-images. It's certainly the most parsimonious explanation for the abundant faith traditions on offer throughout the world. So what was once for me an elaborate and sort of ritualistic church lifestyle, is now essentially reduced to affirming human flourishing and well-being; and I sense that as God - you might say that god is something that we do, rather than someone we distantly praise.
You are correct in assuming that I don't take the bible to be the literal or perfect word of a supernatural creator; I think that is a preposterous position to hold and the only way I could manage to do it was back when I'd barely read much of the bible. There is much in the way of morally absurd injunctions in the bible that most benign Christians will ignore. But it is faint praise indeed if the best that can be said of much of scripture, is that it can now be safely ignored.
I reject the view that God sent Jesus to die for our sins. To me it is not much of a surprise why abuse scandals have become a church stereotype, given the central traditional liturgy of the death of Jesus as the penalty for human sins. I accept evolution; hence I do not believe there was an initial perfection from which the human race fell. Rather perfection is yet to be achieved for we are still evolving. If there was no original fall, then there was no need for the rescue operation that traditional Christianity ventures Jesus as the ultimate solution for. Jesus is still a mystery in the sense that there is almost too much uncertainty about what he said. The most reliable gospel is probably Mark; but even it is written 40 odd years after the crucifixion. But for an example, in Mark 9 Jesus teaches
"He who is not against us, is for us" - a wise maxim that to my mind implies that our diversity can be a good thing; - so long as nobody is acting directly against you, it is safe to assume some common humanity. However, when you get to Matthew 12, the author completely changes the meaning of the saying, into
"He who is not with me, is against me". - and this saying tends to be the one the churches go with. Now, unless you have a fish sticker on your car you run the risk of being somehow "against Jesus". Matthew, I believe, really tried to portray Jesus as this great religious leader, when it is quite possible that things didn't start out that way. So the historical Jesus is still a study interest of mine. But rituals like prayer and worship, i've simply re-translated into the perennial affirmation of human well-being and flourishing; and my lifestyle is in effect what I offer in place of hymns and love songs to the skies. Assuming the historical Jesus, I believe that he died in order to prove his teachings; to complete what he envisioned as his work; not as a ransom paid for you and me.
To the specifics of your question; moral propositions can be assessed independent of the personal source. Plus if you're talking about biblical morals, well I credit them to human authorship obviously. But we can certainly examine the ethical propositions of any book from any age and muse upon the value of the historical contribution. I believe in the ethical teachings of the little red hen from my childhood, but obviously I never believed in the existence of a speaking hen. Hope that answers your question - it
is exactly like learning a lesson from a non-existent teacher.
