Newbie: I think i'm a Christian-Atheist but perhaps debate here will change that.

[Unveiled Artist]

I think Omega Green pretty much covered it in his response to this question.

I honestly think that pigeon-holing Christianity (or any religion) into your first description of it is detrimental to the possible growth of that faith. While your description is certainly accurate for many people, and it may even be an "official" description of the primary tenets of the faith, it's necessarily limiting in its scope.

Christianity, as with any faith system, is populated by people with a much more fluid faith than what is officially accepted. How many hundreds of thousands of people sit in church pews ever Sunday and don't ACTUALLY believe everything that they are supposed to believe?

I'm just as much a Buddhist Atheist and a Hindu Atheist as I am a Christian Atheist, if we are basing my personal descriptors over the faith and values systems on the amount of literature and influence that any of these subsets have had on my life. I'm a touch Islamic, given my experiences living in Saudi Arabia - but I'm still an atheist. I've been around a few native pagan cultures as well, and I've garnered a bit of perspective from their adoration of nature spirits and I've experienced different ways of opening the mind using natural "medicines" - but I'm an atheist. So I can refer to my self as a Pagan Atheist, which seems like a complete oxymoron until you look past your initial understanding and connotations associated with the word.

Every single person on this forum has gone through some type of spiritual and ideological transformation as they figure out who they are and what it is that they believe. Atheism is no different. I don't believe in Santa Claus - yet I yearly enjoy and experience the traditions that I've formed around Christmas time. I let my kids actively participate in something that I intellectually reject as a plausible happening... It's really no different than that.

Both of you have well meaning responses. In regards to religion or lifestyle focused on one's full well-being, I am pretty much a traditionalist.

For example, I can say I am Catholic. I took the sacraments as an adult and well-intention. I understand and was very deeply, I mean deeply involved in my faith and it changed me. I appreciate that. It's something I can't forgot. According to the Church, I am always Catholic.

For me to take up that word (and Christian) in any sense of the term, it's not a fluid set of beliefs and practices to adopt. That sounds more new age Christianity. We have a literal and physical relationship with the sacraments. I don't know what other Church members believe; but, their interpretation and fluidity of beliefs doesn't change what the Church actually teaches and tells its members to believe. So, instead of going off the members of the Church, if I were to become Catholic, I'd go off the doctrines of the Church and the authorities of it.

I don't believe in "common law" religions; and, I don't agree with making orthodox or claimed orthodox religion common law because I don't share the same view and interpretation as in that said religions doctrine.

So, I'd never call myself a Christian unless I had a full relationship with the sacraments, the person and spirit of Jesus Christ, god his father not an force or spirit that cannot be defined (since Christians define the father through Jesus), and scripture literal and analogy. We have the freedom to interpret scripture anyway we like. I Agree with @Demonslayer that we can call ourselves whatever we like. That's not the issue (my terms) of labels. I do believe if you are taking up a actual lifestyle and devotion to commit to Jesus as your Lord and Savior whether or not you believe he is god (since not all denomi do and scripture doesnt say so), follow his teachings over all others, and die in him to live a better life-then yes, I'd say one is a christian.

If it is only the morals of Jesus but not seeing his father as he would see him as with everything else, then, if one sees it that way, traditionally, I wouldn't call that person a Christian. I'm pretty sensitive when it comes to labels. So, I even try not to label myself. I am a pantheist, atheist, Nichiren Buddhist, Spiritualist, Pagan, and former Catholic. Try putting that all into one word.

That, and as an atheist, I don't see how that is a foundation or can be used in any label when describing one's belief or lifestyle since being an atheist doesn't mean you follow an "atheist lifestyle" or religion. It just means disbelief in god. (Again, traditionalist)

@Omega Green

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.

From that point of view, I guess I can see how you can be a christian atheist. Though, in my head, I'd think that god isn't limited to the christian definition; so, are you atheist to the Christian god or to a deity in general?

I reject the view that God sent Jesus to die for our sins.

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.

I respect your opinion and the paragraph thereafter this statement; and, I do find it a bit confusing to read a Christian who doesn't believe Jesus died for them in one way or another.

Only because Jesus is a sacrificial offering that has been laid out profoundly in the OT and re-established in the New. The problem I see with the Jesus-died thing is that in the OT, animals were sacrificed. I disagree with animal sacrifice but on the other hand, when we kill for food, we are killing to bring life and nourishment to our body. In Christianity, Jesus is life and nourishment to the Christian's soul. So, if a Christian doesn't believe in his sacrifice then where does Jesus play a role in their life but a teacher? I can follow Jesus as a teacher, though I wouldn't consider myself Christian because I follow many people but that doesn't mean I believe In them and base my whole life-everything-off of their teaching.

That's just my view. Given how you interpret Christianity, I understand why you'd call yourself Christian Atheist. From a traditional (and my point of view), I find it incorrect. Tomaato Tomato.
​

Nam.

 

[Omega Green]

Here's a question. What's special to you about the Christian tradition that you can't derive from other sources? Why, if your next statement is "having concluded theism is quite inadequate for the 21st century" (which I like a lot), do you feel the need to grasp on to your theistic roots?

In other words, why not just be atheist and develop your own moral/spiritual path, untethered from Christianity which carries so much baggage?

I appreciate this question. Both artists and existentialists taught me that there is something to the art of creating out of what resources you have. Which in psychological terms, includes three solid years spent being an evangelical Christian. During that time I was a teacher, I taught the study of the bible to primary school boys; I was also a drummer, I would play drums in the music ministry every two weeks approximately. I'm also very much a Marilyn Manson fan - my avatar photo with my pet kitten was taken within months of a Marilyn Manson concert; and so in the spirit of these artists and existentialists, I guess I didn't want to just write off every single thing about my former church involvement and say "that's all rubbish" - clearly I had learned some things through the church: improved morality; improved compassion; literary study skills; musical skills; an introduction to metaphysics - I can foresee that unifying the terms "Christian" and "Atheist" could imply baggage; but my hope is that hyphenating them "Christian-Atheist" is at least going to bring about some pause and questioning. One of the books i'm reading now is Bishop Spongs "Jesus for the Non-Religious", and it's excellent. It's excellent to see an upstanding Bishop admit "Do I think that the miracle stories of Jesus are literally true? - No!" - So I know that, at least the idea of Jesus, changed my life during my teens and that change wasn't all bad, I simply repent of putting the supernatural onto God, of creating God as some supernatural being. Because of this, i'm left with the sense that i'm talking to God anytime I am in an exchange with anyone. It sometimes - particularly when I meet someone challenging - even has a ring of what I used to dream about final judgment: now everyday is final judgment - who will I meet today? What sort of people will I get to deal with this week? There is always more to God than I knew yesterday; I am convinced it's a fallacy for churches and church leaders to represent that they have binded God and that they can know his will with some true insight; rather I see God as a mystery that I can journey on into more each day.

I can already see here we have a Muslim who is also an Atheist - and I completely understand. In some sense we should like to honor our traditions in some way, we should like to honor the traditions even as we step through them. I was challenged by the statements by Einstein that said "I do not share the crusading spirit of the atheists, caused by the fetters of religious instruction received in youth", I can recognize this, so there's no real place for the primacy of anti-theistic condescension as a rule. And that's mainly because I don't want to live my life as an angry person. I am of course - moved to a sense of anger by much of what traditional religion can offer, and i've narrowed that down to supernaturalism: I'm basically not standing for supernaturalism, as the Marquis de Sade said "Nature sufficeth unto herself, in no wise hath she need of an author". So I'd say it's probably got something to do with the spirit of making the most out of what you get. So I said to myself, I'll take the principles of reasoning and of logic, metaphysics and epistemology, and grow both my love of Atheism along with my Christian investment. I'm using the term "Traditional-Christianity" to describe forms of Christianity that incorporate supernaturalism. And as long as i'm still representing the value of questioning and the primacy of proof-based metaphysical inquiry, then the essence of what I love about Atheism remains too. My question is, is the end result better if I identify as a Christian-Atheist? I obviously like the fact that it sounds oxymoronic at face, but I can argue in defense of it, so perhaps it will lead to more interesting conversations.

Lol, yeah sorry, I forgot the hen was real! Have a good day.

 

[Omega Green]

Hi Carlita, thanks for the post,

<<< Carlita : "From that point of view, I guess I can see how you can be a christian atheist. Though, in my head, I'd think that god isn't limited to the christian definition; so, are you atheist to the Christian god or to a deity in general?">>>

I was listening to a talk from Karen Armstrong on the idea of God been an idea that extends beyond human limits. She will say that we cannot even say that God exists because our idea of existence is far too limited. Armstrong seems to have pulled theological writings of outsider theologians in all three abrahamic faiths saying the same thing; that God does not exist and there is nothing out there - not because they wanted to be deniers of God, but because they wanted to safeguard gods transcendence. Technically, according to Armstrong, "God" is just a symbol for transcendence.

To your question; I am an atheist with respect to a god-concept that I've since come to call "Omnimax" - the name was suggested by my good friend Mass Noun - A God who is, foremost a separately-existing being endowed will supernatural powers to infinite degrees (Omnipotence / Omniscience / Omni-benevolence / Omnipresence etc). Omni-Attributes - Maximum Ability.

<<< Carlita : I respect your opinion and the paragraph thereafter this statement; and, I do find it a bit confusing to read a Christian who doesn't believe Jesus died for them in one way or another. >>>

Well I recognize that theological systems are human creations, not divine revelations. The symbols of Jewish rituals like yom kippur and the passover and the paschal lamb, these all tied into the eventual effort to interpret the meaning of Jesus. So this was a case of how the people who surrounded and were affected by Jesus, and that effect clearly resonated out to include people in following generations, the gospel authors - it was their decision to draw on these symbolics. Most traditional Christians are taught John 3:16 and then they go and re-read the rest of the gospels through the lens of John 3:16 but some of Johns ideas, such as the pre-existent Jesus present from the dawn of time - are quite far fetched. Far fetched in a different kind of way to Matthew's writings. Matthew turned Jesus into a grant religious figurehead; John turned Jesus into eternity; but beyond these ideas if there was a man, we can know that he lived in a world that had the same mathematical precisions as we've come to learn through science. We have plenty of ancillary documentation claiming that other folks, like Dionysus 500 years earlier, was born of a virgin, performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, was crucified and resurrected. I can see this story was certainly in fashion in the Mediterranean. And what it means - is I think - the idea that certain people have been particularly impressive to people around them, to the extent that supernatural stories soon developed in their wake. I'm more impressed by the philosophical teachings of Jesus than I am of the argument for his miraculous essence. He was human, and his following made him out to be divine. That's a fair conclusion given the turnover of decades between the crucifixion and the appearance of gospel narratives.

But if he was - his people were conquered by the Romans, he brought ideals aimed at his own peoples well-being and flourishing; he'd had to have known that the penalty for what he'd do would be his death. I don't believe the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion, despite Matthew, only really a Roman leader could have the authority to sentence to crucifixion; the Jews - I believe - prescribed stoning. So he clearly believed that his community best be well, and in that sense the story of Jesus is an influence to me. Traditional Christians are forever saying that they try but they fall short to live up to all the particular standards prescribed by their church; I'm trying to avoid being hypocritical; rather i'm trying to be selective - and point out that if there is some value for us in our former faith traditions, we should then try to keep what is really important in the final analysis.

Also, when you reject the doctrine of a personal God, then there simply is no God to send Jesus to earth to die on the cross. The cross was his final moment, and an attempt to truly prove his own teachings. Though a debate one day on the ways and nuances of martyrdom are of some interest to me. Perhaps i'll find a good thread here on that subject or start one.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita, thanks for the post,

<<< Carlita : "From that point of view, I guess I can see how you can be a christian atheist. Though, in my head, I'd think that god isn't limited to the christian definition; so, are you atheist to the Christian god or to a deity in general?">>>

I was listening to a talk from Karen Armstrong on the idea of God been an idea that extends beyond human limits. She will say that we cannot even say that God exists because our idea of existence is far too limited. Armstrong seems to have pulled theological writings of outsider theologians in all three abrahamic faiths saying the same thing; that God does not exist and there is nothing out there - not because they wanted to be deniers of God, but because they wanted to safeguard gods transcendence. Technically, according to Armstrong, "God" is just a symbol for transcendence.

To your question; I am an atheist with respect to a god-concept that I've since come to call "Omnimax" - the name was suggested by my good friend Mass Noun - A God who is, foremost a separately-existing being endowed will supernatural powers to infinite degrees (Omnipotence / Omniscience / Omni-benevolence / Omnipresence etc). Omni-Attributes - Maximum Ability.

<<< Carlita : I respect your opinion and the paragraph thereafter this statement; and, I do find it a bit confusing to read a Christian who doesn't believe Jesus died for them in one way or another. >>>

Well I recognize that theological systems are human creations, not divine revelations. The symbols of Jewish rituals like yom kippur and the passover and the paschal lamb, these all tied into the eventual effort to interpret the meaning of Jesus. So this was a case of how the people who surrounded and were affected by Jesus, and that effect clearly resonated out to include people in following generations, the gospel authors - it was their decision to draw on these symbolics. Most traditional Christians are taught John 3:16 and then they go and re-read the rest of the gospels through the lens of John 3:16 but some of Johns ideas, such as the pre-existent Jesus present from the dawn of time - are quite far fetched. Far fetched in a different kind of way to Matthew's writings. Matthew turned Jesus into a grant religious figurehead; John turned Jesus into eternity; but beyond these ideas if there was a man, we can know that he lived in a world that had the same mathematical precisions as we've come to learn through science. We have plenty of ancillary documentation claiming that other folks, like Dionysus 500 years earlier, was born of a virgin, performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, was crucified and resurrected. I can see this story was certainly in fashion in the Mediterranean. And what it means - is I think - the idea that certain people have been particularly impressive to people around them, to the extent that supernatural stories soon developed in their wake. I'm more impressed by the philosophical teachings of Jesus than I am of the argument for his miraculous essence. He was human, and his following made him out to be divine. That's a fair conclusion given the turnover of decades between the crucifixion and the appearance of gospel narratives.

But if he was - his people were conquered by the Romans, he brought ideals aimed at his own peoples well-being and flourishing; he'd had to have known that the penalty for what he'd do would be his death. I don't believe the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion, despite Matthew, only really a Roman leader could have the authority to sentence to crucifixion; the Jews - I believe - prescribed stoning. So he clearly believed that his community best be well, and in that sense the story of Jesus is an influence to me. Traditional Christians are forever saying that they try but they fall short to live up to all the particular standards prescribed by their church; I'm trying to avoid being hypocritical; rather i'm trying to be selective - and point out that if there is some value for us in our former faith traditions, we should then try to keep what is really important in the final analysis.

Also, when you reject the doctrine of a personal God, then there simply is no God to send Jesus to earth to die on the cross. The cross was his final moment, and an attempt to truly prove his own teachings. Though a debate one day on the ways and nuances of martyrdom are of some interest to me. Perhaps i'll find a good thread here on that subject or start one.

Thanks for the reply.

Real quick. Ima get back to you with your reply. You can "quote" me by either hitting the "reply" button without erasing my message. You can highlight parts of my post and when the pop up comes and says [quote / reply] the former saves what you highlighted until you reply. The latter quotes the highlighted text so you can reply to it.

That or you can signal me with an @Name-example . That way both above or this way, I get a signal that you commented to my post. I am just reading this. No biggie. Just thought I'd share that just in case. Disregard if you already know.

Nam.

 

[Omega Green]

Real quick. Ima get back to you with your reply. You can "quote" me by either hitting the "reply" button without erasing my message. You can highlight parts of my post and when the pop up comes and says [quote / reply] the former saves what you highlighted until you reply. The latter quotes the highlighted text so you can reply to it.

That or you can signal me with an @Name-example . That way both above or this way, I get a signal that you commented to my post. I am just reading this. No biggie. Just thought I'd share that just in case. Disregard if you already know.

Nam.

Hey thanks. I think i'm down with the reply function; i'll play around with the quote function also, but thanks again for explaining that. The previous board I regularly posted on used some form of html keyboard code, this place is swankier though.

 

[Knight of Albion]

A very warm welcome to the forum, dear soul