An Easy Jesus for Practical Atheists

[Jagella]

If any person has read the Gospels, then she knows that following Jesus means great sacrifices. He "advised" his male followers to become "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:12), and he explained that to attain eternal life involves giving away all one's possessions to the poor (Matthew 19:15-22). Needless to say, very few Christian men castrate themselves either literally or figuratively, and neither do most Christians give away all their possessions to the poor. They know full well that to follow Jesus in either way would be very difficult indeed.

So what's going on here? Are Christians being hypocrites, or are they unaware of what Jesus preached? Based on what Christians have told me about the demands Jesus made on his followers, those demands do not apply to them. Not really. For example, one Christian recently told me that Jesus never commanded that his male followers become eunuchs: It was merely advice to be accepted by any man who cared greatly for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Evidently the Christian I was speaking to could not accept going so far for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven--he would keep his testicles and let other men concern themselves with the Kingdom of Heaven!) Also, to attain eternal life, according to those Christians who maintain their wealth, it isn't really necessary to give everything they have to the poor. Jesus only meant that the rich young man he spoke to needed to attain eternal life by giving all he had to the poor. Other Christians have no such burden.

I could go on, but the upshot of all these imaginative interpretations of the Gospel is that many Christians have created for themselves a Jesus who is much easier to follow than the Jesus you read about in the Gospels. This "easy Jesus" allows his followers to get their hands on all the money and the sex they can manage to get. If a Christian is struck on the cheek, then Jesus says go ahead and strike back. So most Christians end up acting almost exactly like atheists do or even worse. They may believe and talk like Christians, but in practice they are atheists disregarding what Jesus reputedly said by interpreting it to allow them to do whatever they want to do. In other words they are "practical atheists" the Gospel having little effect on how they live.

 

[Windwalker]

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

~Mt. 11:28-30​

Certainly, cutting off your balls is not an easy yoke!

I'm afraid your reading of scripture leaves a bit to be desired. Perhaps this was meant metaphorically, and you don't understand that? Do you think Jesus meant we should actually hate our mothers and fathers too, like despise them literally? In any case, the above verse doesn't seem to fit your understanding very well. That much is clear.

 

[Jagella]

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

~Mt. 11:28-30​

Certainly, cutting off your balls is not an easy yoke!

I'm very familiar with the passage you quoted. It seems to contradict the many other passages that quote Jesus as being demanding to the point of telling people to get themselves into life-threatening situations. However, I think the passage is meant to make the demands issued by Jesus appear to be not so difficult.

I'm afraid your reading of scripture leaves a bit to be desired.

That's what Catholics and Protestants have been telling each other for five centuries. As far as I know nobody has yet demonstrated that their reading of the Bible is the correct interpretation. Perhaps you are the one and only!

Perhaps this was meant metaphorically, and you don't understand that?

What was meant metaphorically? I assume you are referring to Matthew 19:12 where Jesus advises his male followers to become eunuchs. If you read that passage carefully, there are no obvious metaphors in it. When a metaphorical interpretation of scripture is not clearly appropriate, then I usually default to a literal interpretation. I think my approach is prudent because if you don't interpret scripture the way I do, then you likely end up reading into the text what is probably not there. I do know that it is common practice among Biblical apologists to interpret problematical passages metaphorically when a literal interpretation would render the passage as wrong. I hope you can see that to interpret the Bible that way has more to do with defending the faith than discovering the truth.

Do you think Jesus meant we should actually hate our mothers and fathers too, like despise them literally?

Sure. Why not? If you want Jesus to be what we think of today as a perfect man, then yes, a perfect man would never tell people to hate their families. However, if making Jesus out to be perfect is not your agenda, then you should be able to see his anti-family position. Even if he didn't mean what he said to be taken literally, then his words are still very harsh and irresponsible.

In any case, the above verse doesn't seem to fit your understanding very well. That much is clear.

Actually, the passage you quoted doesn't take back anything that Jesus reputedly demanded of his followers; it just says that those demands aren't so hard! I'm not saying that Jesus necessarily thought he was being tough on people, but that most Christians find his demands too tough to obey.

In conclusion, I'd recommend that you read the Gospels to see what the Gospel writers wrote about Jesus rather than read the Gospels to find what you want to believe about Jesus.

 

[F1fan]

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

~Mt. 11:28-30​

Certainly, cutting off your balls is not an easy yoke!

Imagine the poor sap that didn't get the email from the Men's Christian Committee about the emergency vote, and he shows up the the weekly meeting already fixed. "Jesus, sorry Jim. We voted and decided to not get castrated after all, but thanks for your commitment to Christ."

I'm afraid your reading of scripture leaves a bit to be desired. Perhaps this was meant metaphorically, and you don't understand that? Do you think Jesus meant we should actually hate our mothers and fathers too, like despise them literally? In any case, the above verse doesn't seem to fit your understanding very well. That much is clear.

The dilemma with Christianity is the many thousands of different takes on what it all mean, with over 44,000 sects from liberal to the KKK. It is a big theological buffet of ideas.

 

[Jagella]

Imagine the poor sap that didn't get the email from the Men's Christian Committee about the emergency vote, and he shows up the the weekly meeting already fixed. "Jesus, sorry Jim. We voted and decided to not get castrated after all, but thanks for your commitment to Christ."

I'm not so sure about the email part, but "in the beginning" some Christian men did castrate themselves in obedience to Christ's words regarding becoming eunuchs. In response, the church soon found itself in need of outlawing the practice. So it appears that the modern way to interpret such injunctions as metaphorical was not always in vogue among Christians.

Anyway, I hope you can see the wisdom in interpreting the Bible as metaphorical. That way can be a lot less trouble than taking it at face value.

The dilemma with Christianity is the many thousands of different takes on what it all mean, with over 44,000 sects from liberal to the KKK. It is a big theological buffet of ideas.

And all those different interpretations are right--to the people making them.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not so sure about the email part, but "in the beginning" some Christian men did castrate themselves in obedience to Christ's words regarding becoming eunuchs. In response, the church soon found itself in need of outlawing the practice. So it appears that the modern way to interpret such injunctions as metaphorical was not always in vogue among Christians.

You gotta figure it didn't exactly attract men in droves. "I gotta do what? Let me think about it."

Anyway, I hope you can see the wisdom in interpreting the Bible as metaphorical. That way can be a lot less trouble than taking it at face value.

I actually think the only way any of the Bible can work as the basis of an effective religion is ONLY symbolic. NONE of it should be promoted as literal. Literalism might have worked before the Age of Reason and science, but today it only causes a rift between the zealot and the educated.

And all those different interpretations are right--to the people making them.

Which i think is fortunate, because can you imagine the power of a unified Christianity? It's bad enough that evangelicals back the GOP, which essentially renders them anti-Christs. Irony.

 

[Kooky]

You gotta figure it didn't exactly attract men in droves. "I gotta do what? Let me think about it."

One would think so, but the cult of Magna Mater was popular in the city of Rome and involved pretty much that.

 

[rational experiences]

Did a perfect man as first man theory Phi science ?

Yes.

Didn't you quote O pi and O Phi two circles to apply a status wisdom to convert?

Yes.

Did sacrifice of gods earth exist?
No.

Did man's science sin cause sink holes?
Yes.

You sacrificed life of man blood body cells bones?

Yes.

Then imperfect conditions existed by your scientist choice?

Yes.

So Jesus was both a criminal and a perfect man imperfect by the teaching.

I reasoned he was chastising his holy mother who as a baby man son was rude. His mother owned his life body presence first not God.

Get the message yet?

 

[rational experiences]

Did a perfect man as first man theory Phi science ?

Yes.

Didn't you quote O pi and O Phi two circles to apply a status wisdom to convert?

Yes.

Did sacrifice of gods earth exist?
No.

Did man's science sin cause sink holes?
Yes.

You sacrificed life of man blood body cells bones?

Yes.

Then imperfect conditions existed by your scientist choice?

Yes.

So Jesus was both a criminal and a perfect man imperfect by the teaching.

I reasoned he was chastising his holy mother who as a baby man son was rude. His mother owned his life body presence first not God.

Get the message yet?

 

[F1fan]

One would think so, but the cult of Magna Mater was popular in the city of Rome and involved pretty much that.

Back before Maury Povich was around with those damn DNA tests.

But I'm a critical thinker, who knows, maybe I'm wrong about getting castrated.

 

[Jagella]

You gotta figure it didn't exactly attract men in droves. "I gotta do what? Let me think about it."

The early Christian practice of circumcision was enough of a way to dissuade converts, so Christians didn't need to tell men to cut off their fixtures too.

I actually think the only way any of the Bible can work as the basis of an effective religion is ONLY symbolic. NONE of it should be promoted as literal. Literalism might have worked before the Age of Reason and science, but today it only causes a rift between the zealot and the educated.

So must God be merely a metaphor too? How about a symbolic heaven? I think the most prudent way for Christians to interpret the Bible is to take literally what they want to be literally true while interpreting the bad stuff as figurative--you know, how they do interpret the Bible. To interpret the Bible consistently is anathema to faith, and there will always be plenty of "zealots" to fill the collection baskets if you feed them a good line.

Which i think is fortunate, because can you imagine the power of a unified Christianity?

Yes. Sincere Christians are much more dangerous than the hypocrites.

It's bad enough that evangelicals back the GOP, which essentially renders them anti-Christs. Irony.

One thing Jesus preached I actually agree with is his supporting the poor. As you say the right-wing in America honors Jesus with their lips, but their hearts are far from him.

 

[F1fan]

The early Christian practice of circumcision was enough of a way to dissuade converts, so Christians didn't need to tell men to cut off their fixtures too.

Don't underestimate "new and improved" offers.

So must God be merely a metaphor too?

I would think in the Abrahamic religions, yes. I say that because the various concepts are not easy to reconcile with reality. Christians insist there's a loving God, but then your friend's 3 year old daughter gets diagnosed with Leukemia and dies after two years of treatment. How do you justify a loving God from that experience and not suffer serious inner conflict? It just doesn't work, why put believers through this inconsistency?

The big dilemma is how the dian brain evolved to believe in tribal concepts, mostly religion, and the tradition of belief gets passed from generation to generation. The concepts are adopted by the next generation and there is little opportunity to adjust the ideas.

How about a symbolic heaven?

And hell. teach people that how they live this life is what brings them to a heavenly state, or a hellish existence separated from God. Want to be with God, be heavenly in your thoughts, be charitable, be honest, be ethical, be in service to others, save yourself from despair.

See how attractive that could be? ll this afterlife nonsense means Christians can be vile people in life and certain they are confirmed in heaven because they believe in Jesus.

I think the most prudent way for Christians to interpret the Bible is to take literally what they want to be literally true while interpreting the bad stuff as figurative--you know, how they do interpret the Bible. To interpret the Bible consistently is anathema to faith, and there will always be plenty of "zealots" to fill the collection baskets if you feed them a good line.

Then Christians will interpret the Bible to suit their good or bad traits, and there won't be any pressure for them to be better human beings. If Jim is capable of being a better person, then the role of a leader is to help him be a better person, not a better believer.

Yes. Sincere Christians are much more dangerous than the hypocrites.

A distinction without a difference.

One thing Jesus preached I actually agree with is his supporting the poor. As you say the right-wing in America honors Jesus with their lips, but their hearts are far from him.

Yes, and I blame the leaders of certain sects for doing this, as they know how to exploit their congregation to attain the very things the Bible warns of.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm very familiar with the passage you quoted. It seems to contradict the many other passages that quote Jesus as being demanding to the point of telling people to get themselves into life-threatening situations. However, I think the passage is meant to make the demands issued by Jesus appear to be not so difficult.

So, Jesus was a sadist and a liar then, according to your views?

That's what Catholics and Protestants have been telling each other for five centuries. As far as I know nobody has yet demonstrated that their reading of the Bible is the correct interpretation. Perhaps you are the one and only!

LOL. By my pointing out that your interpretations are poor, at best, that somehow means I have the one right interpretation? Is that what you think about your interpretation? That's your view is right alone?

You do know it's possible to point out someone has a really bad interpretation, while not claiming your own is the only right one? There's lots of ways to interpret these things, some good ways, and some of really crappy ways. Yours I would not call one of the better ways.

What was meant metaphorically? I assume you are referring to Matthew 19:12 where Jesus advises his male followers to become eunuchs. If you read that passage carefully, there are no obvious metaphors in it.

Obvious it's not a metaphor? How is it obvious? Only if you don't understand context, let alone how others understood it. Being a "eunuch" for the Lord, means basically choosing to be celebate. That's all. Even back in the day when I was a fundamentalist who read the Bible literally, I understood that! It seems your literalism was even worse than mine!

Have you never read where Paul said, it is good for a man not to marry, and that "I wish all men were as me", but he understood if someone wanted to marry instead (1 Cor 7)? That's what this is about. It's a very common thing for people on a spiritual path to choose celibacy, either for a time, or for life. This is true in most religions. It's a well known thing that have sexual relations can detract from a fully devoted spiritual life. That is all that is meant in this. Not mutilating your own body! You really believe Jesus was telling people to cut themselves up?

Reminds me of the freaky movie I saw when I was a boy at summer camp. It was really bad B-movie called The Man with X-Ray Eyes. Distraught by this ability to see everyone's skeletons and organs all the time, in the end scene he walks into some wacky fundamentalist church, where they are of course literalists you know, and they're quoting Jesus saying, "If thine eye offend thee, it is better to pluck it out", and of course, the fool gouges out his own eyeballs in front of everyone!



This is what scripture looks like to literalists. The eyes of fundamentalists. The eyes of literalists, who gouge out their own eyes, or cut off their own balls, because they do not understand metaphors. Literalism is a deficiency of imagination which does not understand "as if" statements.

Anyway, dollars to donuts you come out of one of these literalist churches that would literally believe to "pluck out your eyes" means literally plucking them out. So based upon this, the Bible should be rejected because it teaches this? You don't see interpretation as a factor here?

 

[rational experiences]

The teaching just a man introduced two science thoughts pi O and phi O.

Perfect man thinking became imperfect man was a whole thesis written about how one man the human theist was self deceitful.

As he never intended sacrifice of man.

Hence to tell a man's truth you had to identify you were not perfect first as you used imperfect thoughts.

The actual scientists self confession.

Consciousness.

Sion.

He said my brother's hence became ..
Lots of variations in consciousness

Take your pick what type of man you describe yourself as.

As only in person born by sex is the type of inhumane man seen.

The evidence.

 

[Windwalker]

The dilemma with Christianity is the many thousands of different takes on what it all mean, with over 44,000 sects from liberal to the KKK. It is a big theological buffet of ideas.

This is of course true with anything. Just look at how some people interpret a violent coup attempt as "legitimate political discourse". Democracy is a big buffet of far reaching extremes as well. That just means people have some pretty crappy understandings of things, of what is true, good, and honest, calling the invalid valid, evil good, unjust just, and wrong right. It's not the institutions as much as it is about those who are thick in the head.

 

[Jagella]

Don't underestimate "new and improved" offers.

I've been told that God has eased up nowadays having shut down hell.

I would think in the Abrahamic religions, yes. I say that because the various concepts are not easy to reconcile with reality. Christians insist there's a loving God, but then your friend's 3 year old daughter gets diagnosed with Leukemia and dies after two years of treatment. How do you justify a loving God from that experience and not suffer serious inner conflict? It just doesn't work, why put believers through this inconsistency?

You lost me here. How does this make God out to be a symbol? Is he a metaphor for allowing people to die of cancer?

And hell. teach people that how they live this life is what brings them to a heavenly state, or a hellish existence separated from God. Want to be with God, be heavenly in your thoughts, be charitable, be honest, be ethical, be in service to others, save yourself from despair.

Hell has become a common metaphor for any kind of suffering, but I don't see hell used as a metaphor in the Bible.

See how attractive that could be? ll this afterlife nonsense means Christians can be vile people in life and certain they are confirmed in heaven because they believe in Jesus.

If heaven is full of "vile" people, then it doesn't look too heavenly to me.

Then Christians will interpret the Bible to suit their good or bad traits, and there won't be any pressure for them to be better human beings. If Jim is capable of being a better person, then the role of a leader is to help him be a better person, not a better believer.

Many Christians see Christianity as superior to other religions claiming it is unique in that one need not earn one's way to heaven. Salvation is a free gift courtesy of Jesus! As I see it, a religion is better if it requires people to earn their heaven. That way there would be more people doing good.

 

[F1fan]

I've been told that God has eased up nowadays having shut down hell.

Yeah, too many Christians were showing up and they realized they had to change their business model.

You lost me here. How does this make God out to be a symbol? Is he a metaphor for allowing people to die of cancer?

No, the idea of any God has to be consistent with what we observe in nature. If nature behaves in a way as if no loving and interventionist God exists, then the idea of God has to be equally indifferent to human suffering, even a 3 year old with cancer. At best a "loving God" can be a metaphor for the best in human concern for each other.

Hell has become a common metaphor for any kind of suffering, but I don't see hell used as a metaphor in the Bible.

Much of the Bible is allegory and symbolic. It is modern folks who want to read these ideas as literal. In ancient times most folks didn't think in terms of real versus imaginary like we distinguish today.

If heaven is full of "vile" people, then it doesn't look too heavenly to me.

Right, when you see evangelicals behave with attitudes that are contrary to what Jesus taught, yet they think they are bound for heaven, they certainly had bad religious leadership.

Many Christians see Christianity as superior to other religions claiming it is unique in that one need not earn one's way to heaven. Salvation is a free gift courtesy of Jesus! As I see it, a religion is better if it requires people to earn their heaven. That way there would be more people doing good.

I agree, doing works as a means to earning your way into heaven. I have read many more conservative believers insist there is no such condition, and ince a Christian accepts Jesus as savior they are saved, period. That includes prison guards at Auschwitz. To my mind it exploits a loophole that God is powerless to change. I asked Christians about their final judgment at the Pearly Gates, and they hold firm that they have a place in heaven and their judgment is based on accepting the free gift. That is the essence of greed.

To my mind it suggests these folks don't really believe in God. If they did they would likely fear judgment and damnation, and would bend over backwards trying to follow the lead of Jesus and be in service to their fellow man. Instead they have a contemptuous attitude about God, and feel it is powerless to judge them on the merits of their moral outlook.

 

[Jagella]

So, Jesus was a sadist and a liar then, according to your views?

It's impossible to say what Jesus was, but it's entirely possible he was a sadist and a liar. It's very naive to deny that possibility.

LOL. By my pointing out that your interpretations are poor, at best, that somehow means I have the one right interpretation? Is that what you think about your interpretation? That's your view is right alone?

You appear to think you have a "superior" interpretation. I think my interpretation is superior to yours, so we are even. What is claimed by assertion can be denied by assertion.

You do know it's possible to point out someone has a really bad interpretation, while not claiming your own is the only right one? There's lots of ways to interpret these things, some good ways, and some of really crappy ways. Yours I would not call one of the better ways.

You can assert whatever you wish, and so can I.

Obvious it's not a metaphor? How is it obvious?

You're misquoting me here. I never said that "eunuch" in the context of Jesus' rant against sex is obviously not a metaphor. I said that the word eunuch in that context is not an obvious metaphor. There's a subtle difference in the two statements. Read them a few times, and let's hope it dawns on you.

Have you never read where Paul said, it is good for a man not to marry, and that "I wish all men were as me", but he understood if someone wanted to marry instead (1 Cor 7)? That's what this is about. It's a very common thing for people on a spiritual path to choose celibacy, either for a time, or for life. This is true in most religions. It's a well known thing that have sexual relations can detract from a fully devoted spiritual life. That is all that is meant in this. Not mutilating your own body! You really believe Jesus was telling people to cut themselves up?

We're discussing what Jesus preached about sex, not Paul. Yes, many religious people choose celibacy, and castration is a darned good way to achieve that goal! So to argue that celibacy is not castration is to argue a false difference.

This is what scripture looks like to literalists. The eyes of fundamentalists. The eyes of literalists, who gouge out their own eyes, or cut off their own balls, because they do not understand metaphors. Literalism is a deficiency of imagination which does not understand "as if" statements.

You're arguing a non sequitur fallacy here. Just because some people have tragically mutilated themselves in response to reading the Gospel, it does not follow that they misinterpreted it. You seem to be denying the possibility that the "eunuch sermon" preached by Jesus was meant to be taken literally. Since you fail to consider that possibility, you must deem any person who takes it literally as being wrong. Something isn't necessarily wrong just because you assert it is wrong.

Anyway, dollars to donuts you come out of one of these literalist churches that would literally believe to "pluck out your eyes" means literally plucking them out. So based upon this, the Bible should be rejected because it teaches this? You don't see interpretation as a factor here?

I see you're finishing up here with yet another fallacy. My religious background doesn't make me wrong. "Fundamentalist" has become a bugaboo among many people who are either nonreligious or liberally religious seeing themselves are smarter than those mindless fundamentalists! Logically, however, fundamentalists can be right in their interpretation of the Bible. People aren't necessarily wrong based on what you call them.

 

[rational experiences]

Jesus already state imperfection stigmata. Shouldn't occur. Holy humans highest status not sacrificed.

Holy baby.
Holy man first perfect was sacrificed imperfect man only.

 

[Jagella]

Yeah, too many Christians were showing up and they realized they had to change their business model.

LOL I understand that Christian theologians had to wrestle with the issue of suicide. At one time it was the unforgivable sin because anybody committing suicide murdered with no chance to seek forgiveness because they were dead at their own hands. Such a harsh belief has been eased up a bit assuming that the person who had committed suicide was so grief stricken that she could not be held responsible for her act.

Anyway, it makes better sense to me that the "deadline for salvation" should come at some time after death when the person has irrefutable proof that God, heaven, and hell are real.

No, the idea of any God has to be consistent with what we observe in nature. If nature behaves in a way as if no loving and interventionist God exists, then the idea of God has to be equally indifferent to human suffering, even a 3 year old with cancer. At best a "loving God" can be a metaphor for the best in human concern for each other.

I think that a God would have far better concern for us than we have for each other assuming God is perfectly good. So God might be a symbol for the perfect goodness that we want, but although nature clearly does not give us evidence for such a being, it doesn't keep people from believing that God is real.

Much of the Bible is allegory and symbolic. It is modern folks who want to read these ideas as literal. In ancient times most folks didn't think in terms of real versus imaginary like we distinguish today.

I agree that those living in antiquity made much use of allegory, but they nevertheless believed in literal Gods, devils, ghosts and magic. They were generally very superstitious, but they could sometimes tell fact from fancy. For example, we are told that some of the Jews thought that Jesus was crazy and doubted he really had magical powers.

If heaven is full of "vile" people, then it doesn't look too heavenly to me.

Right, when you see evangelicals behave with attitudes that are contrary to what Jesus taught, yet they think they are bound for heaven, they certainly had bad religious leadership.

I wouldn't necessarily call disobeying Jesus "vile," but there's no doubt that many Christians disregard the Gospel's injunctions. In many cases it's better that they do.

I agree, doing works as a means to earning your way into heaven. I have read many more conservative believers insist there is no such condition, and ince a Christian accepts Jesus as savior they are saved, period. That includes prison guards at Auschwitz. To my mind it exploits a loophole that God is powerless to change. I asked Christians about their final judgment at the Pearly Gates, and they hold firm that they have a place in heaven and their judgment is based on accepting the free gift. That is the essence of greed.

Many Christians explain that people who leave the faith were never Christians to begin with. If that's true, then we can never be sure that any living person is a true Christian, and that would include the Christians who say that!

To my mind it suggests these folks don't really believe in God. If they did they would likely fear judgment and damnation, and would bend over backwards trying to follow the lead of Jesus and be in service to their fellow man. Instead they have a contemptuous attitude about God, and feel it is powerless to judge them on the merits of their moral outlook.

I've thought a lot about this same issue, and it seems that a lot of Christians come up with their own personalized theology which grants them special immunity from punishment for sin. That way they can act like jerks and still get to heaven.