Progressive Christianity

[cercatorius]

I feel that the bible is a collection of letters, poetry, fables, and word-of-mouth versions of events from history (not necessarily actual history), and a wonderful collection of myths.  I do not believe it to be a guidebook, history book, or science book. I do not believe it is inerrant, nor is it the inspired word of god. I think truth can be found in parts of it.  I think there is also truth in other myths (different than facts), fables, poetry, etc.  I think one of the biggest tragedies is people who want to make it a continuous single piece of work. That takes a lot of perspective away in one fell swoop.  In short, I think the bible is the pieced together written record of one group of people's ongoing attempt to make sense of their world and relate to the force of creation, and destruction.
...

If the Bible is just a collection of works written by uninspired people, why are you a Christian at all?  Why are you not some other sort of theist?  It seems to me that you have rejected the foundation of Christianity, but still accept some form of Christianity.  Why do that?

I have absolutely rejected the foundation of conservative Christianity. Most people who identify as Christian are unaware that their theological foundations are really, at most, several hundred years old. I understand many atheists do not draw a distinction between conservative Christianity and any other practice, but many of us do.

---

I think that there is a broad spectrum. I'm rather in the process of deconstructing right now, to be honest. At the moment, I'm neck deep in Rene Girard's theories on mimetic theory and reevaluating my beliefs in that context.  I very much enjoy his ideas on violence and sacrifice and their place in religion.  I believe Jesus to have been someone who was more fully in touch with his own humanity than I am. His teachings offer a good guideline for me to step out of rivalry with others and hopefully evolve in my treatment of others, and also myself.

That sounds a little like 'christian atheism' or whatever

I'm trying to understand what it means. Could you list the biggest differences between you and a run of the mill vanilla christian?

Sure - one of the significant differences is in our understanding of atonement/why Jesus was crucified.  Conservative Christians usually ascribe to penal substitutionary atonement, the idea that sin is original to humans, that separates us from God, God is both loving and hateful, and demands a sacrifice or else, and that Jesus stood in our place for that sacrifice. This drives almost every aspect of their belief system; from the fabrication of "hell" to how they treat outgroups (closely related to hell). Biblical inerrancy (let's be honest, they obviously don't really believe that), and that the Bible is inspired Word of God are also tenets. Very often they read scripture without cultural, linguistic, historical or translational context, and impose their opinions on the text.

I do not believe in original sin. I don't believe in hell. I do not believe we are separated from "god" - although I think of God as more of the creative and destructive force(s) in life.  I believe that force is only loving, and though more powerful than I am, is most likely limited in "power" (I really hate using that word, it sounds melodramatic). I do not believe God ever demanded a sacrifice. I believe humans did/do. I do not believe that the word of god is the bible (or in inerrancy or any unique inspiration not available to other writers); I believe the Word of God is Jesus, who (whether human or divine, whatever that means) showed us the way that creation loves us, by submitting to our sacrificial system, so that it can be rejected - broken from within. I am currently unsure about what resurrection means for me, although I am certain I do not believe it means resuscitation. I do my best to approach biblical texts with academic honesty. I don't feel that a flat reading of any ancient text is helpful to understanding the text.

---

Hey, people can believe in the Tooth-Fairy for all I care just so long as they keep their bullshit out of our schools and laws.  I can see where the fundies will not react well to this, though.

As H.L. Mencken noted:

There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

I completely agree. Religion has no place in schools or laws, on federal, state, or municipal property. I love how the Church of Satan is going about addressing that.  Their work here in Oklahoma regarding the 10 commandments statue at our capitol was amusing and effective, thank goodness.

---

I think she can fend for herself Judi. Why so worry?

She can absolutely fend for herself. I asked for her to be given a chance. This is a sort of "get to know you" phase as in any relationship. So many times I see a religious person come into these forums only to be knocked down right away because they are the minority, the rare of the group. I have much respect for her and I guess I was trying to protect that. Part of my nature is to care. Especially when one of my friends are involved. Apparently it would seem that trying to have my friend's back has touched a nerve.

I don't feel like I need to fend at all, actually.    None of this is about who I am, it's just about my experiences with deconstructing and reconstructing my belief systems.

---

No probs I appreciate your answers!

It's refreshing to hear a Christian call the OT god like it is. I get so tired of hearing all the slavery and rape apology in a desperate attempt to paint an evil character as a good one.

I have no problem with drawing inspiration from a book, certainly. What baffles me is when people just accept that all the magic stuff written in it actually happened without question. It sounds like you're rather out from under that spell, and are investigating for yourself!

We've had a lot of interesting discussion about Jesus from an atheist perspective, regarding the subject of if such a historical character actually existed at all. Most people seem to think that he did, but those who've studied it in detail admit the points of coincidence with the character in the story are very few and far between. I'm more of the opinion that he is most likely an amalgamation of various people around at those times, the popular mythology, and some straightforward fiction (particularly regarding fulfilling prophecies).

Oh, the OT god was a violent, Janus-faced, tyrant. There is zero doubt about that for me.  I think one of the differences between conservative and progressive Christians is that we tend to be comfortable with admitting the similarities between many of the gospel stories about Jesus - they do borrow from many other mythologies floating around the roman empire at that time.  That makes sense to me. The writers are attempting to reach their contemporaries.  I don't believe that the gospel writers actually expected people to believe there was a virgin birth, for example. Or the feeding of masses - that story has a rich connection with and speaks to tribal divisions in Israel's history. I believe much of the supernatural stuff we read about falls into that category.  Have you read "Lamb", by the way?  LOVE THAT BOOK.

---

You can call yourself Christian just fine as far as I'm concerned. I strongly believe that if Christianity is to survive at all, it's going to have to become far more liberal and non-literal, so I see your stance as the right direction. It just so happens to be the direction I personally like too, because of the lack of fundamental ridiculousness and bigotry that goes along with it.

No one gets to say who is and isn't Christian. It's become so diverse that it means virtually anything now. You seem to be able to separate yourself from your beliefs and not take it all personally, which is something a lot of theists struggle with.

Conservative Christianity is dying. And it should. It's a violent, plague-like theology that has done much more harm than good.

---

Jesus is not a nice man... How do you base your morals on that guy?

Yes.  He went on and on about his enemies being tortured in hellfire forever and ever.  And his reaction to a fig tree not bearing fruit because it was not in season is extremely childish.  Jesus is a remarkably poor role model.

It sounds like you're reading or referencing the bible with a similar application to conservative Christians - as a literal text.  It really isn't meant to be read that way. If there are specific sections you would like my feedback on with cultural and linguistic context in place, feel free to let me know. 

---

... But as far as anyone has the right to call themselves Christian, I see no problem here ...

A right to call oneself something does not make one right in calling oneself that thing.  If she says she is the queen of England, are you going to bow down to her?

Suppose I were to tell you I am a Christian.  Of course, I don't believe in hell, or heaven, or that Jesus is the son of God, or that Jesus even existed as a man, or that there is a God at all.  But I am a Christian all right.

Now, what do you say to that?  Am I a Christian if I say I am?  Am I the queen of England if I say I am?  Is there a problem with saying that one is something that one is not?

I am reminded of something Lewis Carroll wrote:

Humpty Dumpty took the book, and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right—' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that SEEMS to be done right—though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now—and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents—'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm

(It's a great book, by the way.)

There's glory for you.

Hi Pyhhro - I agree with your logic, but I think I would apply it a little further back.  Perhaps it is conservative Christians who are (to borrow your example) proclaiming themselves Queen of England. Their theological tenets are relatively young, and actually at odds with much of what is in the bible when read with academic honesty.

---

I feel that the bible is a collection of letters, poetry, fables, and word-of-mouth versions of events from history (not necessarily actual history), and a wonderful collection of myths.  I do not believe it to be a guidebook, history book, or science book. I do not believe it is inerrant, nor is it the inspired word of god. I think truth can be found in parts of it.  I think there is also truth in other myths (different than facts), fables, poetry, etc.  I think one of the biggest tragedies is people who want to make it a continuous single piece of work. That takes a lot of perspective away in one fell swoop.  In short, I think the bible is the pieced together written record of one group of people's ongoing attempt to make sense of their world and relate to the force of creation, and destruction.

Then why do you call yourself a Christian, to me a better suited name would be a Progressive Mythian. Eliminating all you have of the Bible how is it you could possibly identify with Christ. How is it you are able to see a purpose for Christ if the Bible's a myth. You should be honest with yourself and actually admit your a progressive non believer.

GC

Interesting - I don't feel I've eliminated anything from the bible. I will agree that I refuse to put upon it things that it was never meant to bear. I feel that I take the bible more seriously than my conservative counterparts when I approach it with honesty and an eagerness to maintain it's context. The mythologies surrounding Christ's crucifixion and resurrection are pretty unique for their time in that they portray a God as a willing and forgiving victim, succumbing to humanity's need for a sacrifice - not the other way around - and in doing so, rejecting the role of sacrifice all together.  I definitely am a non-believer in the popular conservative Christian theology, and I kindly reject the idea that their is the only way to understand and incorporate Jesus into my beliefs. I appreciate your encouragement to continue deconstructing. It's always nice to have encouragement on that journey. 

---

Then why do you call yourself a Christian, to me a better suited name would be a Progressive Mythian. Eliminating all you have of the Bible how is it you could possibly identify with Christ. How is it you are able to see a purpose for Christ if the Bible's a myth. You should be honest with yourself and actually admit your a progressive non believer.

GC

Anyone who believes that the bible provides truth is a mythian.

Kitan - are you referring to "the truth" or individual snippets or facets of truth? I actually hadn't heard the label mythian before joining here.  I kind of like it. Really, aren't all religious peeps mythians?

---

You've given evidence of this I'm assuming.

GC

The evidence is evident due to the fact that many individuals are not dense enough to believe in it without the proper evidence required to support it as anything other than fiction.

I feel like there is a difference between truth and fact. Myths are certainly not fact. I'm not sure that it then follows, however, that they cannot contain truths.

---

You've given evidence of this I'm assuming.

GC

I don't know if he has, but I sure will.

There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the christian bible is a clever(ish) fiction devised with two main purposes: explaining the natural world in the absence of widespread scientific process, and controlling humans. If you look at it for what it is, without bias, it becomes clear that the bible is part of an over-arching storytelling tradition that consistently comprises humanity's efforts to preserve what they think they know and to find deeper meaning in reality.

If you examine the content of the text itself, the stories share themes, components, and sometimes even whole narratives with other works of myth (some predating the bible) that were devised for reasons similar to the ones I've already mentioned. Some stories fill in at-the-time gaps in the popular understanding of the natural world, some stories are obvious propaganda to boost national pride and self-righteousness amongst the jewish and/or christian people, and still others serve merely to communicate "god's" commandments to society. It's the same kind of content you find in other systems of myth. Whether it's the flood story, Samson's strong-man-hero story, or even the story of a dying and rising savior god, none of these themes are unique or original to christianity or judaism.

So yeah...while there is no evidence of the existence of a creator god, there is evidence to suggest that the bible, like other works of myth, was written and inspired entirely by humans for entirely human reasons.

In the beginning, man created god in his image.

That's a really fabulous summary! Girardian theory on Jesus mythology produces a different structure than other dying/rising savior god myths that I am aware of.  If you are aware of any that present a deity as a willing victim to humanity's demand for sacrifice, with their subsequent resurrection tied to the end of a sacrificial system, I'd be truly grateful for you to point me in their direction. What a delightful find that would be for me

---

Lol yeah But I mean, other Christians should have no grounds to criticize in my opinion, since it's all arbitrary anyway.

I feel cerca is on a journey here and is evaluating what is and isn't true. I'm all for it!

Thanks!

---

Thank you Last, for realizing that I'm not the bad guy here. I'll be waiting in the chambers for the ritual to begin.

Nobody here thinks you are the bad guy. While I understand you, for wanting to give kid's gloves to your friend, she is able of herself. Telling atheists how to act is like herding cats. We have our individual opinions like everybody else has, and your friend has indeed a very peculiar one. But like cats, we also prey on theists. We shall play with your friend untill she gets bored.

I'm not looking for kid gloves. I actually hadn't planned on doing an "ask a" type thread until someone mentioned it in my intro comments. The reason I'm here is because, first and foremost, it was important for my friend that I get to know her community.  Secondarily, icing on the cake is that I am able to read a lot of information from varying positions about just about any subject under the sun, it appears.  I'm not here to preach, convert, or convince.  I'm definitely here to listen and learn, and to share my thoughts if I'm asked to.

---

There's a lot of questions there.  I don't limit myself to just Christianity. I agree that there are many venues for truth and goodness and that they should be explored.  I haven't delved into satanic laws and sins - that's an accurate assumption on your part.  I'm not really sure why, other than a bias of discomfort with the idea - a throwback from my personal history and prejudice. (not defending, just being honest about where I find myself) Jesus may not be any different than any other preacher or teacher or philosopher.  I think we as a race have sacrificed many wonderful people, and that he is not unique in that.  I don't know that atheistic Christianity would fit as a label for my beliefs. I do believe there is a creative force, although I fall more closely in line with process theology; it may be more powerful than I am, but not all powerful. I'm not sure if you're asking me about my personal thoughts on Jesus and violence or interactions with his mother - I'll forgo addressing those unless you specifically ask me to. I don't want to cross a preachy line at all here.  I do hear a lot from atheists that I cannot label my beliefs as Christian if I do not ascribe to contemporary conservative Christianity (although I'm not sure you went that far ).  That's a frustrating experience for me, because I believe conservative Christianity to be an entirely different theology and community than what I follow and belong to.

At the risk of sounding preachy myself, the idea that Jehovah exists and that Jesus is his son is not a tenet of "conservative" christianity. It's a tenet of...christianity. By definition, in fact (from google):


"Christianity is the world's largest religion, with about 2.4 billion adherents, known as Christians. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and the savior of humanity whose coming as Christ or the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament."


While I wouldn't presume to tell you what you believe, I might presume to say that if you don't believe the minimal tenets of what christians believe (tenets Christ himself is said to have taught), then you are not a christian, even if you follow some of the other teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. You can call yourself that if you want, I guess, you'd just have to concede that you're not using the same definition of the word that pretty much everyone else is using.

As for your hesitation toward atheistic satanism, I can certainly understand your reasoning and appreciate your honesty. I think you might be surprised at some of what you'd find, though. For a primer, here are the 9 Satanic Sins:

1. Stupidity

The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

2. Pretentiousness

Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn’t applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone’s made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.

3. Solipsism

Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

4. Self-deceit

It’s in the “Nine Satanic Statements” but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it’s fun, and with awareness. But then, it’s not self-deceit!

5. Herd Conformity

That’s obvious from a Satanic stance. It’s all right to conform to a person’s wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the many.

6. Lack of Perspective

Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do not be swayed by herd constraints—know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.

7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies

Be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it’s something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.

8. Counterproductive Pride

That first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you’ve painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow, then do it.

9. Lack of Aesthetics

This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but an eye for beauty, for balance, is an essential Satanic tool and must be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It’s not what’s supposed to be pleasing—it’s what is. Aesthetics is a personal thing, reflective of one’s own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.


To me, this list represents a much more critical and sensible system for deciding how to think and act (thought I don't necessarily subscribe to it 100%). The 11 Laws of the Earth are pretty good, too, but I'll let you look those up on your own if you want. This post is already pretty long.

I think google has been leaning heavily on conservative Christian definitions.  Thanks for the suggested reading material. I'll get off my prejudice and dive in. I appreciate that you kindly called me out on that and am grateful for the opportunity to make an effort to change it.

[Pyrrho]

If the Bible is just a collection of works written by uninspired people, why are you a Christian at all?  Why are you not some other sort of theist?  It seems to me that you have rejected the foundation of Christianity, but still accept some form of Christianity.  Why do that?

I have absolutely rejected the foundation of conservative Christianity. Most people who identify as Christian are unaware that their theological foundations are really, at most, several hundred years old. I understand many atheists do not draw a distinction between conservative Christianity and any other practice, but many of us do.

You do not seem to understand my meaning.  There are certainly plenty of people who are Christians of some sort, but reject part of the Bible, and some who pretend that taking the horrific stories as allegory somehow makes them nicer than they are (though they invariably fail to explain how one could take them as nice stories even if one does not take them literally).

If you throw out the Bible, from whence do you get any kind of "Christianity?"  What I am suggesting is, that without the texts that make up the Bible, there would be no Christianity at all.

...

Yes.  He went on and on about his enemies being tortured in hellfire forever and ever.  And his reaction to a fig tree not bearing fruit because it was not in season is extremely childish.  Jesus is a remarkably poor role model.

It sounds like you're reading or referencing the bible with a similar application to conservative Christians - as a literal text.  It really isn't meant to be read that way. If there are specific sections you would like my feedback on with cultural and linguistic context in place, feel free to let me know. 

Take the fig tree story as a metaphor if you like.  How does that make Jesus into an admirable character?  What we have is a story of a grown man throwing a childish temper tantrum, who punishes an inanimate object for not doing what it could not possibly do.  Where is the good message in that?  How do you interpret the story to make Jesus into something other than a stupid childish fool?

And if we take the stories of Jesus condemning his enemies to torture for eternity as metaphor, again, what interpretation can you give those stories such that Jesus is not a vindictive asshole?

It is fine for you to tell me that they are not literally true.  But as mythical stories, they still portray Jesus as a despicable character.


That contrasts greatly with Odysseus in The Odyssey.  Odysseus, though an imperfect man, is still a heroic character who uses his intelligence to overcome extreme obstacles to achieve his honorable goals.  Odysseus is a much better character to emulate than Jesus.  Of course, this is myth, and virtually no one today regards The Odyssey as literally true.  But one can see the virtues of intelligence and perseverance and integrity displayed in Odysseus.  Even though one will never encounter the mythical obstacles that Odysseus faced, one can still emulate him with that being a good thing.  But emulating Jesus makes one a petty, vindictive, stupid, childish little twerp.

A right to call oneself something does not make one right in calling oneself that thing.  If she says she is the queen of England, are you going to bow down to her?

Suppose I were to tell you I am a Christian.  Of course, I don't believe in hell, or heaven, or that Jesus is the son of God, or that Jesus even existed as a man, or that there is a God at all.  But I am a Christian all right.

Now, what do you say to that?  Am I a Christian if I say I am?  Am I the queen of England if I say I am?  Is there a problem with saying that one is something that one is not?

I am reminded of something Lewis Carroll wrote:


http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm

(It's a great book, by the way.)

There's glory for you.

Hi Pyhhro - I agree with your logic, but I think I would apply it a little further back.  Perhaps it is conservative Christians who are (to borrow your example) proclaiming themselves Queen of England. Their theological tenets are relatively young, and actually at odds with much of what is in the bible when read with academic honesty.

If the Bible is read with academic honesty, one comes to the conclusion that is it just a collection of old books written by primitive savages, with no more insight than other primitive savages.  In other words, such a reading makes one not a Christian in any usual sense of the word.

According to you, what does the word "Christian" mean?

---

Then why do you call yourself a Christian, to me a better suited name would be a Progressive Mythian. Eliminating all you have of the Bible how is it you could possibly identify with Christ. How is it you are able to see a purpose for Christ if the Bible's a myth. You should be honest with yourself and actually admit your a progressive non believer.

GC

---

Interesting - I don't feel I've eliminated anything from the bible. I will agree that I refuse to put upon it things that it was never meant to bear. I feel that I take the bible more seriously than my conservative counterparts when I approach it with honesty and an eagerness to maintain it's context. The mythologies surrounding Christ's crucifixion and resurrection are pretty unique for their time in that they portray a God as a willing and forgiving victim, succumbing to humanity's need for a sacrifice - not the other way around - and in doing so, rejecting the role of sacrifice all together.  I definitely am a non-believer in the popular conservative Christian theology, and I kindly reject the idea that their is the only way to understand and incorporate Jesus into my beliefs. I appreciate your encouragement to continue deconstructing. It's always nice to have encouragement on that journey. 

In the story, though, it is not humanity that demands the sacrifice.  It is God who requires it.  So you have the story completely backwards.  It is supposed to somehow save us from God punishing us.  Of course, it is an incoherent mess of a story, but that is the story.  Humans do not have the keys to the gates of heaven, so humans cannot demand anything to get into heaven.

...

I feel like there is a difference between truth and fact. Myths are certainly not fact. I'm not sure that it then follows, however, that they cannot contain truths.

Sure, there can be truths in myths.  But there are also a lot of falsehoods in myths.  Making a mythical story does not insure that there is some great truth in the story.  And in the case of the Bible, the lessons are almost all bad.  Like the story of Abraham and Isaac, where blind obedience to authority is portrayed as a virtue, even when one is told to do something horrible.

If one lives in accordance with the stories of the Bible, one will be stupid, narrow-minded, and evil.

---

I don't know if he has, but I sure will.

There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the christian bible is a clever(ish) fiction devised with two main purposes: explaining the natural world in the absence of widespread scientific process, and controlling humans. If you look at it for what it is, without bias, it becomes clear that the bible is part of an over-arching storytelling tradition that consistently comprises humanity's efforts to preserve what they think they know and to find deeper meaning in reality.

If you examine the content of the text itself, the stories share themes, components, and sometimes even whole narratives with other works of myth (some predating the bible) that were devised for reasons similar to the ones I've already mentioned. Some stories fill in at-the-time gaps in the popular understanding of the natural world, some stories are obvious propaganda to boost national pride and self-righteousness amongst the jewish and/or christian people, and still others serve merely to communicate "god's" commandments to society. It's the same kind of content you find in other systems of myth. Whether it's the flood story, Samson's strong-man-hero story, or even the story of a dying and rising savior god, none of these themes are unique or original to christianity or judaism.

So yeah...while there is no evidence of the existence of a creator god, there is evidence to suggest that the bible, like other works of myth, was written and inspired entirely by humans for entirely human reasons.

In the beginning, man created god in his image.

---

That's a really fabulous summary! Girardian theory on Jesus mythology produces a different structure than other dying/rising savior god myths that I am aware of.  If you are aware of any that present a deity as a willing victim to humanity's demand for sacrifice, with their subsequent resurrection tied to the end of a sacrificial system, I'd be truly grateful for you to point me in their direction. What a delightful find that would be for me

...

As noted above, humans are not the ones demanding the sacrifice, according to the story.  And, again, it is God who holds the keys to the gates of heaven (metaphorically speaking), not humans, so humans are not in a position to demand anything.

---

At the risk of sounding preachy myself, the idea that Jehovah exists and that Jesus is his son is not a tenet of "conservative" christianity. It's a tenet of...christianity. By definition, in fact (from google):


"Christianity is the world's largest religion, with about 2.4 billion adherents, known as Christians. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and the savior of humanity whose coming as Christ or the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament."


While I wouldn't presume to tell you what you believe, I might presume to say that if you don't believe the minimal tenets of what christians believe (tenets Christ himself is said to have taught), then you are not a christian, even if you follow some of the other teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. You can call yourself that if you want, I guess, you'd just have to concede that you're not using the same definition of the word that pretty much everyone else is using.

...

---

I think google has been leaning heavily on conservative Christian definitions.  Thanks for the suggested reading material. I'll get off my prejudice and dive in. I appreciate that you kindly called me out on that and am grateful for the opportunity to make an effort to change it.

Try an ordinary dictionary.  You might also find Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian" worthwhile"

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

One of the many things he discusses is the changing meaning of "Christian" over time.  It is less robust than it once was, but if the term is to be of any use at all, it must retain some meaning.  And this reminds me of yet another story, about the erosion of what "god" is held to be.  This idea has been discussed by Antony Flew:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

You appear to be erasing all meaning from the word "Christian," though, perhaps, you can explain what it is that you mean by the term.

[popsthebuilder]

cercatorius
We seem to have really similar views. I just don't exactly get why you are calling it Christian unless in that you mean that Christianity is encircled in the belief of one God. Just answered my own question. Anyway, good to not be alone although we never are. Good to meet you.

[Lek]

Christian was the name given to followers of Christ, and I still define it that way.  Since Cercatorius is not a follower of Christ, I wouldn't define her as a christian.  This is not meant meant to be an insult or anything like that.  It's just my way of defining a person with her beliefs.  If a person "follows" Christ, then Christ is their "leader".  Those who discard christian beliefs and then continue to call themselves christians present a false concept of christianity to others.  I'm sure that they may be sincere in their beliefs, but they just aren't christians.

About Cercatorius' and others comments about the necessity of christianity to become more liberal to survive, it's the mainline denominations who are dying out at the time.  They are the ones who have tended to become more liberal.  It's the conservative groups who are gaining followers worldwide.  Christianity is losing ground in the US and Europe, but is in no way dying out.  It's not only growing, but exploding in Asia and Africa.  As far as the decline in the West, we've had declines and revivals over history.  I wouldn't pronounce the death of christianity yet.

[Pyrrho]

cercatorius
We seem to have really similar views. I just don't exactly get why you are calling it Christian unless in that you mean that Christianity is encircled in the belief of one God. Just answered my own question. Anyway, good to not be alone although we never are. Good to meet you.

"Christianity" does not mean the same thing as "monotheism."  If it did, then Muslims would all be Christians, and Jews would all be Christians, and etc.  If you take Christ out of Christianity, you have no reason to be calling whatever is left "Christianity."

[popsthebuilder]

If that's what that individual is comfortable with then why not. The idea is to unite as one under one God, not to stay divided and lost.

[Longhorn]

If that's what that individual is comfortable with then why not. The idea is to unite as one under one God, not to stay divided and lost.

Say THAT to the 20 major religions and 44,000 christian denominations

[Godscreated]

You've given evidence of this I'm assuming.

GC

I don't know if he has, but I sure will.

There is ample evidence to demonstrate that the christian bible is a clever(ish) fiction devised with two main purposes: explaining the natural world in the absence of widespread scientific process, and controlling humans. If you look at it for what it is, without bias, it becomes clear that the bible is part of an over-arching storytelling tradition that consistently comprises humanity's efforts to preserve what they think they know and to find deeper meaning in reality.

If you examine the content of the text itself, the stories share themes, components, and sometimes even whole narratives with other works of myth (some predating the bible) that were devised for reasons similar to the ones I've already mentioned. Some stories fill in at-the-time gaps in the popular understanding of the natural world, some stories are obvious propaganda to boost national pride and self-righteousness amongst the jewish and/or christian people, and still others serve merely to communicate "god's" commandments to society. It's the same kind of content you find in other systems of myth. Whether it's the flood story, Samson's strong-man-hero story, or even the story of a dying and rising savior god, none of these themes are unique or original to christianity or judaism.

So yeah...while there is no evidence of the existence of a creator god, there is evidence to suggest that the bible, like other works of myth, was written and inspired entirely by humans for entirely human reasons.

In the beginning, man created god in his image.

 I've heard all those things many times yet they amount to no more than the word you used and I put in bold. You're just parroting things others have come up with, nothing original about you, seems to me you have put yourself in the same category as you have put the Bible. 

GC

[Godscreated]

You've given evidence of this I'm assuming.

GC

The evidence is evident due to the fact that many individuals are not dense enough to believe in it without the proper evidence required to support it as anything other than fiction.

Really, you call that logical thinking.

GC

[Minimalist]

 It's not only growing, but exploding in Asia and Africa.

It always grows where ignorance is rampant and dies out where knowledge abounds.  You should ask yourself why that is but I know you won't.