Christian Atheism

[ThirtyThree]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

This has always interested me. The world has Atheist forms of everything it seems, even Christianity. However, my debate point is this:

If God does not exist, why even follow the Bible? Is it really for the moral teachings?

 

[Sunstone]

That's how Christian atheism was explained to me 35 years ago: For the moral teachings. Personally, I think Bible base Christian morals are anything but consistently moral.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't understand that either. Frankly, I don't think the Bible is all that useful even for Christian Theists.

 

[ThirtyThree]

That's how Christian atheism was explained to me 35 years ago: For the moral teachings. Personally, I think Bible base Christian morals are anything but consistently moral.

Yes, that is what I thought also. That it was about the moral teachings more than much else. Do you think it is a functional ideology?

 

[ThirtyThree]

I don't understand that either. Frankly, I don't think the Bible is all that useful even for Christian Theists.

Why do you say this, especially in reference to The New Testament?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, that is what I thought also. That it was about the moral teachings more than much else. Do you think it is a functional ideology?

Since it seems to be a real thing, I must assume that it can be made to work somehow, at least on a small scale and with a good measure of respect for personal characteristics of the people closest to them.

Maybe it is a highly personal thing? A slight extrapolation of those family situations where people disagree on doctrinary matters but nevertheless feel a need to keep common grounding on religious ritual?

 

[Laika]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

This has always interested me. The world has Atheist forms of everything it seems, even Christianity. However, my debate point is this:

If God does not exist, why even follow the Bible? Is it really for the moral teachings?

If you argue that Jesus is a real person, and that you are following his example (and not god) that makes a little more sense. If you say Jesus is real, then it means that the morality still has meaning even without god. it becomes a man-made morality.

see link: Jesuism

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do you say this, especially in reference to The New Testament?

Mainly, I don't think it is a very inspired or even a very clear book.

There are interesting parts in the Gospel of Luke, for instance.

But most any book can be made religiously relevant with the proper effort and emphasis - and frankly, I could give you a half dozen better choices than the Bible in half a minute.

The Bible strikes me as far more of an artifact of tradition than as an actual, significant religious book.

 

[ThirtyThree]

If you argue that Jesus is a real person, and that you are following his example (and not god) that makes a little more sense. If you say Jesus is real, then it means that the morality still has meaning even without god. it becomes a man-made morality.
see link: Jesuism

Like a Buddha?

 

[ThirtyThree]

Mainly, I don't think it is a very inspired or even a very clear book.

There are interesting parts in the Gospel of Luke, for instance.

But most any book can be made religiously relevant with the proper effort and emphasis - and frankly, I could give you a half dozen better choices than the Bible in half a minute.

The Bible strikes me as far more of an artifact of tradition than as an actual, significant religious book.

What would you remove then, to make the book work better?

 

[Windwalker]

If God does not exist, why even follow the Bible? Is it really for the moral teachings?

One would assume that an atheist Christian would by default be following Christian teachings because of the spiritual value they hold, not just moral teaching. There is such a thing as a spiritual atheist. One can strip away the bathwater of anthropomorphic literalism of myth while retaining the baby of spiritual insight and truth. Religions are allowed to evolve.

 

[Laika]

Like a Buddha?

yes. I think that's right.

it would be because you think Jesus is wise, rather than "divinely inspired".

 

[ThirtyThree]

One would assume that an atheist Christian would by default be following Christian teachings because of the spiritual value they hold, not just moral teaching. There is such a thing as a spiritual atheist. One can strip away the bathwater of anthropomorphic literalism of myth while retaining the baby of spiritual insight and truth. Religions are allowed to evolve.

Spiritual Atheist? You have to explain THAT ONE.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would you remove then, to make the book work better?

Nearly all of it, frankly.

I would only use it at all if I were under severe constraints. Which, to be fair, is a very realistic situation for many people.

I have found that most of what I actually find useful in the Biblie is in Luke.

 

[LuisDantas]

Spiritual Atheist? You have to explain THAT ONE.

I must assume you do not have too many atheistic friends.

"Spiritual" is an awfully vague word, but there is no inherent incompatibility with atheism.

 

[George-ananda]

IMO, Christian Atheist is a contradiction in terms. They need another name.

 

[Windwalker]

Spiritual Atheist? You have to explain THAT ONE.

Those who are atheists who understand the non-rational nature of their being without conflict. Such as Albert Camus, or Jean Paul Sartre. One doesn't have to believe in a literal God "up there" in order to feel the profound nature of reality in their being.

 

[Corthos]

IMO, Christian Atheist is a contradiction in terms. They need another name.

Atheistians?

 

[crossfire]

Like a Buddha?

I would say Jesus qualifies as a Bodhisattva, at the very least.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Atheistians?

Chratheists?