Religion does this, atheism is that

[mball1297]

Katzpur, the point is that while you may see no way to separate Jesus from his divinity, many others do. They just believe he had some good stuff to say, and they follow that. They might take some of his teachings allegorically or symbolically, or they may just ignore some things. Just as you have a different way of looking at Jesus and Christianity than most Christians, they have a different way of looking at Jesus than you do.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Alceste

Especially this one:

Those who know do not speak;
Those who speak do not know.

one of my faves

IF God guides you not into the road,
It will not be disclosed by logic.
Logic is a bondage of forms;
A road that is long and hard.
Leave it for a season. Like Moses
Cast away that staff
And enter for awhile “The Valley of Peace.”

–Manichean Proverb

Beloved, I sought you
here and there,
asked for news of you
from all I met;
then saw you through myself
and found we were identical.
Now I blush to think I ever
searched for signs of you.

–Fakhruddin Iraq

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Katzpur, the point is that while you may see no way to separate Jesus from his divinity, many others do. They just believe he had some good stuff to say, and they follow that. They might take some of his teachings allegorically or symbolically, or they may just ignore some things. Just as you have a different way of looking at Jesus and Christianity than most Christians, they have a different way of looking at Jesus than you do.

I guess what is hardest for me to understand is that the word "Christianity" refers to the belief in Jesus as "Christ." The word "Christ" refers specifically to an individual believed to be "the annointed one," or in the case of Jesus Christ, "the Messiah." It's too bad there is not a term "Jesusian atheists." I would be more confortable with that. I guess I just don't follow how someone who doesn't believe in God can refer to himself as a believer in someone annointed by God to be a Messiah or "Christ." If someone wants to call himself a Christian atheist, though, I don't really care. I've said on many occasions that the word "Christian" is just a manmade label and if fundamentalist Christians don't want to apply it to me, I could care less. I don't think any of us have the right to say what other people want to call themselves. If I can say it's my right to call myself a Christian, who am I to deny someone else that right? I just don't understand it, that's all. Maybe I'm just dumb.

[Madhuri]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I guess what is hardest for me to understand is that the word "Christianity" refers to the belief in Jesus as "Christ." The word "Christ" refers specifically to an individual believed to be "the annointed one," or in the case of Jesus Christ, "the Messiah." It's too bad there is not a term "Jesusian atheists." I would be more confortable with that. I guess I just don't follow how someone who doesn't believe in God can refer to himself as a believer in someone annointed by God to be a Messiah or "Christ." If someone wants to call himself a Christian atheist, though, I don't really care. I've said on many occasions that the word "Christian" is just a manmade label and if fundamentalist Christians don't want to apply it to me, I could care less. I don't think any of us have the right to say what other people want to call themselves. If I can say it's my right to call myself a Christian, who am I to deny someone else that right? I just don't understand it, that's all. Maybe I'm just dumb.

I can relate to this, even though I'm not a Christian. I see no problem with the concept behind this Christian Atheism, but the label is strange. It seems to ignore or misunderstand the meaning of the term Christian. As you said, the 'christ' part of the term is very significant.
The label of Christian Atheist is difficult to take seriously as a result, although, as I said, there is nothing wrong with the actual concept.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

I can relate to this, even though I'm not a Christian. I see no problem with the concept behind this Christian Atheism, but the label is strange. It seems to ignore or misunderstand the meaning of the term Christian. As you said, the 'christ' part of the term is very significant.
The label of Christian Atheist is difficult to take seriously as a result, although, as I said, there is nothing wrong with the actual concept.

Maybe this will help:

Definitions of christian on the Web:

• relating to or characteristic of Christianity; "Christian rites"
• a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination
• following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ

Think about this: it is difficult to take people named Chris, Kristof, Christopher, Cristobal, Christian, Christine, etc seriously unless they believe Jesus was an incarnation of God? All these names literally mean "filled with the spirit of Christ", or "follower of Christ".

But there's a lot more to any given word than its literal meaning, right? It is also a symbol of a large bundle of concepts that vary from culture to culture and person to person, and from one context to another. "Christian behavior", for example, does not mean "acting like Jesus was the incarnation of God". It means "acting in accordance with the moral teachings of a Christian church".

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I guess what is hardest for me to understand is that the word "Christianity" refers to the belief in Jesus as "Christ." The word "Christ" refers specifically to an individual believed to be "the annointed one," or in the case of Jesus Christ, "the Messiah." It's too bad there is not a term "Jesusian atheists." I would be more confortable with that. I guess I just don't follow how someone who doesn't believe in God can refer to himself as a believer in someone annointed by God to be a Messiah or "Christ." If someone wants to call himself a Christian atheist, though, I don't really care. I've said on many occasions that the word "Christian" is just a manmade label and if fundamentalist Christians don't want to apply it to me, I could care less. I don't think any of us have the right to say what other people want to call themselves. If I can say it's my right to call myself a Christian, who am I to deny someone else that right? I just don't understand it, that's all. Maybe I'm just dumb.

Well, that may be the origin of the term "Christ", but it's not really relevant anymore, IMO. Terms change meaning over time. At this point, the only real meaning Christ has to most people is the second part of Jesus's name. I would bet that most people don't even know that Christ once specifically referred to someone anointed by God.

And you're not dumb.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by mball1297

At this point, the only real meaning Christ has to most people is the second part of Jesus's name.

to you maybe....

from the Gnostics we find:

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.

One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wore the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.


"Jesus" is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name. For this reason "Jesus" is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name "Jesus". While as for "Christ", in Syriac it is "Messiah", in Greek it is "Christ". Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. "The Nazarene" is he who reveals what is hidden. Christ has everything in himself, whether man, or angel, or mystery, and the Father.

--Gospel of Philip


Jesus was known as Jesus the Nazorean. He was called the Nazorean because the customs and practices of the Nazoreans were a significant part of His message and teachings. By carefully studying ancient historians, modern anthropologists and seers who have spoken of these Nazoreans, we can reconstruct many ancient Nazorean customs and traditions which formed such a significant part of the original Message of Jesus. By acquainting ourselves with the ancient Nazorean Way we place ourselves in a position to truly keep the commandment of “Jesus the Nazorean” when He said: “Follow Me.”

Nazirutha is the Mandaean/Aramaic name for Nazorean Gnosis. Those among the Mandaeans who possess secret knowledge are called Nazuraiia, or Nazoreans. The less enlightened lay Mandeaeans are called Mandaiia, meaning “gnostics”. True enlightenment, however, is considered very rare and is called Nazirutha.

--ES Drower (The Mandaeans of Iran and Iraq)

Good is the Good to the good, and They settle their nature upon those who love their name. We will seek and find, and will pray and be heard.
We have sought and found, we prayed and were heard in thy presence, my Lord Yeshu and Maryam d-Hiya, Lords of Healings.

Amen

–The Gnostic Prayer book

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Mr Cheese

to you maybe....

Nope. To me and to most people these days. Giving me something from a Gnostic book doesn't help reinforce the idea that many people agree with you, since last time I checked there weren't many Gnostics around.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Well, that may be the origin of the term "Christ", but it's not really relevant anymore, IMO.

To me, that's sad. In my Church, we almost always either speak of Jesus as either "Jesus Christ" or just "Christ." I've actually noticed that because I hear evangelicals speak of just "Jesus" and it sounds kind of funny to me. It's like something very important is missing. We LDS think of Jesus as "Christ" to such an extent that it's hard for me to understand how some people could see the word as irrelevant.

Terms change meaning over time. At this point, the only real meaning Christ has to most people is the second part of Jesus's name. I would bet that most people don't even know that Christ once specifically referred to someone anointed by God.

Terms may change over time, but who Jesus Christ was and is will never change. If He was ever God's Son and the Savior of mankind, He still is, and still deserves to be acknowledged as such. I know the purpose of this thread is not to debate who He was. I'm only mentioning that as an explanation of why it's hard for me to understand the term "Christian atheist."

Whether or not people choose to agree with me, I hope I've at least clarified my perspective so that it is understood.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

To me, that's sad. In my Church, we almost always either speak of Jesus as either "Jesus Christ" or just "Christ." I've actually noticed that because I hear evangelicals speak of just "Jesus" and it sounds kind of funny to me. It's like something very important is missing. We LDS think of Jesus as "Christ" to such an extent that it's hard for me to understand how some people could see the word as irrelevant.

I mean it's irrelevant for this discussion. It's not that no one uses it. It's just that when people use it, they generally mean it as just a second name to go with Jesus, no different than "Marx" and "Karl Marx".

Terms may change over time, but who Jesus Christ was and is will never change. If He was ever God's Son and the Savior of mankind, He still is, and still deserves to be acknowledged as such.

That's true. If he was ever God's son and the savior of mankind. If he wasn't, then who he was was not the savior of mankind, and that won't change. You may think he deserves to be recognized for being that, but the fact is that it's just as easy to see him not as that literally, and so he doesn't really deserve anything.

I know the purpose of this thread is not to debate who He was. I'm only mentioning that as an explanation of why it's hard for me to understand the term "Christian atheist."

Whether or not people choose to agree with me, I hope I've at least clarified my perspective so that it is understood.

It's understood. I'm merely saying that that only works for a narrow view of the terms.