Christian atheism, the emerging church, liberal Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

You may be outside my box, but you have your own. And my box is bigger.

Your box has more people in it. It isn't bigger...just more dense.

Like most of its population./zing!

You can be a Platonist, and Aristotelian, you can perhaps call yourself Whiteheadian, Rothbardian, Kantian, etc. So, people who like Christ? Well, I suppose they'll just call themselves Christian.

well, in one hand, I believe Orwell has a point that that seems like a contradiction, given that Christianity is originally related to Theism, in that regard Christianity is a monotheistic (most trinitarian) theological position, and the idea of a Christian Atheism, seems to contradict and negate that relationship.

That seems to make sense for terms such as Kant -> Kantian, the issue is that a Kantian recognizes Kant as Kant, the idea of the term Christian is that you would have to recognize Jesus as The Christ and any atheist recognizing him as such would be a problem because you would have to advocate for the existence of a deity for that, given that the christian theological position of the term Christ advocates for the presence of God. Given the case, I doubt mainstream Christianity would recognize them as Christians, it may be just a name, but getting such recognition seems a problem because of the issue.

A word is useful because both the speaker and the listener are well aware of the meaning and the connotations. When someone labels him/herself a Christian there is no implication that atheism is involved or even permitted.

They all seem like pretty narrow examples.

That said I know of great atheist thinkers who have a lot of respect for Christianity in terms of societal structure and motivation, things that they feel will be a challenge to construct as bonding glue for society without the element of faith, still want to try but still very much feel that the atheist movement has a lot to learn from religion and faith rather than just chucking it in totallity - Jurgen Haabermas comes to mind in particular.

Postmodernists - don't know enough on these guys, though postmoderism as I've always thought of it its something more like dada in fuction. Now, if this actually involves going back to certain principles from Gnosticism and Kaballah or saying that since God created all things that science and empirical reality are our roadmap to understanding him through what he created and how he built us - that I'd respect a lot (technically that's a large part of where I'm at), then again with the name 'postmodernism' I have a hard time figuring its anything like that whatsoever.

Liberal Christians - They think the cough medicine tastes to strong so they just wash it down with a lot more water. I suppose enough liberal Christians really feel like they have the best of both worlds, I don't know that I can relate to that coctail. Sure, exploring reality for true ethics and morals but when I hear this name I think of people shifting moral patterns more to fit the trends than to really find the better way.

You guys need to get the boxes that have an extra-side box for the pooh jar; you'll really be rolling Cadillac then .

As a student of comparative religion I have long felt that Christianity would benefit from an atheistic approach, making it more similar to Buddhism then to a religion (simply following the teachings of the religions founder). Take away the whole 'god told me to do this' defense and I think you'd have a more peaceful religion. Simply my opinion, though.

It's an interesting conjecture but a good deal of the force of Christianity derives from the dogmatic application of guilt on humanity and Christianity's capability of alleviating that guilt through subjugation to theistic regulations to avoid eternal punishment. Remove that and you have an extremely weak religion.

Don't know if I can go for that, mainly in the sense that most of what we value in our sense of human or unalienable rights, our belief that we're entitled to certain freedoms, those seem very much tied to a line between simple or natural theism (pagan monotheism) and Judao-Christian thought. These days they still exist in abstraction as secular values and don't particularly need hell, fire, and damnation to stand because the concepts work. If some would look to the teachings of Christ as something of exemplary civic values - though not believing in his deity - you'd say that they pick him mainly because his agreement with their own sentiments on good civic values meet his iconic status and power as a symbol. That just means taking what they see as the common sense nuts and bolts of his teaching people to perhaps love one another, or whatever they so agree with.

I'm not saying that the position is without its inherent faults, just that I know that many agnostic thinkers through history have looked at organized religion in such a way where, even if they felt the stories were a complete crock, they still felt that what organized religion did for the morality of society was a net good. Secular reasons to support religion are nothing new.

This holds true for every religion in existance...

I am perhaps optimistic in believing the average person would behave decently as one half of a social relationship in dealing with society. Culture has a great deal to do with it. I have heard that clever liars were much admired in ancient Greece and I would be blind not to see that around today. The internet is so thick with scams that the civilized (if that is the right term) interactions of honesty are under severe assault. Complicated scam films are very popular and very entertaining and no doubt present an ideal to some sectors of society. The law, financial and other investment institutions are replete with crookery and positions of high power are rarely held with policies of honesty and decency even in those countries screaming constantly about freedom and civilized behavior. The weapon of fear in religion is probably mostly effective amongst the uneducated and probably not too bright sections of humanity but that constitutes a rather substantial portion. Ant it is large enough to be satisfactory to any organized religion.

That would mean transitioning from Christ, The Lord to Christ, The Worthy Role Model.

Interesting idea.

Change the Ten Commandments to the Ten Suggestions.

Prayer would become meditation.

If such a change took place, there would be few occasions for religious wars and Jihads. I second the motion.

ruveyn

hmmm, perhaps that may sound appealing, but I wonder if this parallels to the idea of changing The Constitution to a book of suggestions.