Realistic Christian (Jesus, Creator, gospel, salvation, choice)

[Halcyon]

What are peoples thoughts on this site?

http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/christian.html#a

[Willamena]

The choice of background color is attrocious. Oh wait, you wanted comments on the content...

The site is subtly condemning of what it presents as atheists who refer to themselves as Christian --comdemning all who fit its self-description by referring to them as atheists rather than Christians based on nothing more than their silence about their concept of god. So it purports to give them a concept of god (perhaps with the intention that if they have none, they can hold this one?).

In a similar fallacious manner, the author's ideas equate literacy with understanding, belief in a creator with our own ability to create, and Nature with Reality. It presents a theory about the history and evolution of the god concept with a certainty that reveals itself as strong opinion on the low value that the Image of God can (or should) hold. "G*D" is reduced to being a symbol of reality, nothing more (and if we already have reality, what do we need a symbol for again?).

Basically, it outlines all the things I found wrong with the idea that god and nature were one, back when I entertained that idea, but presents them as if they were a good thing, and then tries to squeeze that idea into the Christianity model. I don't think it fits well: what is it these Realistic Christians are being saved from? (salvation)

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Willamena

The choice of background color is attrocious. Oh wait, you wanted comments on the content...

The site is subtly condemning of what it presents as atheists who refer to themselves as Christian --comdemning all who fit its self-description by referring to them as atheists rather than Christians based on nothing more than their silence about their concept of god. So it purports to give them a concept of god (perhaps with the intention that if they have none, they can hold this one?).

In a similar fallacious manner, the author's ideas equate literacy with understanding, belief in a creator with our own ability to create, and Nature with Reality. It presents a theory about the history and evolution of the god concept with a certainty that reveals itself as strong opinion on the low value that the Image of God can (or should) hold. "G*D" is reduced to being a symbol of reality, nothing more (and if we already have reality, what do we need a symbol for again?).

Basically, it outlines all the things I found wrong with the idea that god and nature were one, back when I entertained that idea, but presents them as if they were a good thing, and then tries to squeeze that idea into the Christianity model. I don't think it fits well: what is it these Realistic Christians are being saved from? (salvation)

Interesting observations. And what do you think of the description of Jesus they offer?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Interesting observations. And what do you think of the description of Jesus they offer?

I didn't read that far, but will later today.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Interesting observations. And what do you think of the description of Jesus they offer?

Why does he start with the assumption that the Canonical Gospels record actual information about an historical Jesus?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Why does he start with the assumption that the Canonical Gospels record actual information about an historical Jesus?

'Cause that's all we got i guess.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

'Cause that's all we got i guess.

Then how does he separate the "metaphorical" parts from the "historical"/"realistic" parts?

[Victor]

Very common Gnostic movement representation of Christ. It usually doesn't get very far as history has shown.

You can either have a Davinici Code attitude and say "the Church suppressed it because they are afraid of the truth" or have a more historical perspective "the Church opened up the dialogue arena to all ideologies and had a Council about it and resolved the issue". As my title shows what direction I took.

People tend to forget about Councils and how they were held. Perhaps they are unaware that the very people who held certain positions were invited to the Councils and allowed to make their case. Sometimes even plenty of bishops and priests supported a false ideology. Yet, something always came out of a Council.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Then how does he separate the "metaphorical" parts from the "historical"/"realistic" parts?

I don't know, i didn't write it, just looking for opinions.

Originally Posted by Victor

Very common Gnostic movement representation of Christ. It usually doesn't get very far as history has shown.

Really? It's not like any Gnostic concept of Christ i've ever come across - if anything we tend to play down Christ's humanity and link to Judaism.

To me it seems more like something i'd expect from the Jesus Seminar.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

To me it seems more like something i'd expect from the Jesus Seminar.

That was my impression, too. It's the speculatory "what is the real Jesus of history hidden in the scriptures" approach of a Robert Price or John Dominic Crossan. Not really gnostic though.