Are you really an atheist?

[yepimonfire]

By the way, when all you atheists talk about the "Christian" God, you should realize that the only version of God that matters is how God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Until you read the Gospels for yourself, absent any interpretations from anyone other than yourself, you will never see God for what he really is. When you have seen Christ--you have seen God.

why is that? that then brings ANOTHER problem, are all of the revelations of god in the OT invalid? that doesn't make sense.

(Edited to fix quote. -- Recusant)

[Sandra Craft]

Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god?  I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me.  On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.

Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.

I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god.  But Christ as god?  No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely. 

[xSilverPhinx]

Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god?  I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me.  On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.

Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.

I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god.  But Christ as god?  No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely. 

I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.

[history_geek]

Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god?  I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me.  On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.

Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.

I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god.  But Christ as god?  No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely. 

I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.

A radical philosopher who re-used a number of much older philosophical ideas For exampe the Golden Rule.

[AnimatedDirt]

By the way, when all you atheists talk about the "Christian" God, you should realize that the only version of God that matters is how God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Until you read the Gospels for yourself, absent any interpretations from anyone other than yourself, you will never see God for what he really is. When you have seen Christ--you have seen God.

why is that? that then brings ANOTHER problem, are all of the revelations of god in the OT invalid? that doesn't make sense.

Egor, if that were true, Christ would've NEVER mentioned the God of the OT...BTW the OT is the only "Bible" Christ knew and referred to.

God is both Judge and Savior.  While I don't hold that the God of the OT is the Judge and the God of the NT is the Savior (I believe both aspects of God's character are revealed in both the OT and NT) that's to say that the Judge side may be the prevelant trait seen by a glance at the OT.  The OT is full of the same grace taught in the NT.  The ONLY difference MAY be that the OT's grace from God was mostly a promise of later salvation.  However to those that followed God, experienced His grace daily as that of the NT believer. 

[xSilverPhinx]

Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god?  I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me.  On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.

Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.

I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god.  But Christ as god?  No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely. 

I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.

A radical philosopher who re-used a number of much older philosophical ideas For exampe the Golden Rule.

Yes, but the golden rule is one of those things that are hardwired into human brains, it's just reality isn't as simple as that and so moral dilemmas and discussions happen. 

It's possible that if there was a historical Jesus, that he even thought up the golden rule based on basic moral common sense independently, without ever having read up on more ancient philosophers who wrote of it first, such as Confucius.

I think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking.  Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least. 

[Sgtmackenzie]

Now there's where the question gets interesting -- from what perspective are we discussing god?  I'm assuming the Xtian one because the OP is a Xtian and that puts his god, along with all other personal gods, in the highly improbable category for me.  On the other hand, if this is the Spinoza perspective -- that god is the sum total of the physical laws of the universe -- then yes, I believe in that god.

Spinoza's idea of God is a monstic entity. In other words, it's not that God is the sum total of physical laws, but rather that all things that exist are of God's substance. In other words, all that exists is God.

I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god.  But Christ as god?  No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely.  

I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.

A radical philosopher who re-used a number of much older philosophical ideas For exampe the Golden Rule.

Yes, but the golden rule is one of those things that are hardwired into human brains, it's just reality isn't as simple as that and so moral dilemmas and discussions happen.  

It's possible that if there was a historical Jesus, that he even thought up the golden rule based on basic moral common sense independently, without ever having read up on more ancient philosophers who wrote of it first, such as Confucius.

I think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking.  Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least.  

Apologies for the gigantic nested quotes.    I agree with this idea.    

Back on topic, I consider myself an Agnostic. (weak atheist, pick your poison...)    I know that I do not know whether God does or does not exist.   It has not been proven to me either way.    There is a significant lack of evidence on both sides of the equation, and believe me - it is completely understandable lack of evidence given that we live for Maybe 70 years on average if we're lucky and the course of human history is many, many times that number in years.

Now think of the game you may have played in school as a child, where you are given a sentence and pass it on through your classmates one by one and by the end the sentence is nothing like you were given originally.    So went the course of human history, given to new generations first only by oral tradition, then finally by written tradition.   Somewhere along the lines though - man, as in humanity, or a man, or group of men, whoever realized that history could be whatever it is they wanted it to be.    By making small adjustments in text they could influence the masses.    I see this as a more plausible theory than that Jesus was the son of God AND God through some supernatural twist of logic.

Today, we see this religious approval given for things that would have been heresy in years past, now given out like candy.

*edit* added last sentence instead of double posting.

[Sandra Craft]

I think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking.  Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least. 

That's my take on him as well.  And in all honesty, I could be a variety of Xtian if all it meant were a follower of Christ (still have to do some cherry-picking tho), it's the supernatural elements, including the claims of godhood, that are a speed bump I just can't get over.

[xSilverPhinx]

Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.

[Asmodean]

Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.

You know, some xians even claim some names as their own, what with them being "biblical" and all... *sigh* Do you really think something as small and insignificant as reality is going to stop them from claiming that "stuff" in the name of their prophet... messiah... YHWH's alter ego..?

[MadBomr101]

Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.

Yes, ma'am.

In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person.  This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.

[Sweetdeath]

Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.

Yes, ma'am.

In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person.  This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.

This. *thumbs up*

[Recusant]

In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person.  This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.

Wouldn't you know it, somebody already did that. No less a personage than Thomas Jefferson, in fact.

The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth

[MadBomr101]

In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person.  This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.

Wouldn't you know it, somebody already did that. No less a personage than Thomas Jefferson, in fact.

The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth

How cool is this?  Imagine, a bible that isn't completely overflowing with bullsh*t. 

TJ and me, we think alike.   

[Gawen]

Yeah, I don't see following some of Jesus' better teachings and being an atheist as incompatible. Some stuff are really universal and not uniquely Christian actually.

Yes, ma'am.

In fact, if you remove all the supernatural hooey of life after death, eternal paradise or punishment, magical deities and so on from the teachings of Jesus you're left with a message that basically urges one to be a good person.  This is something I, and many others, have somehow managed to accomplish without worshipping fairytales.

That is not entirely true.