[pertikuss]

Maybe they think Jesus wasn't the son of god but just a stand up guy.

[7UENf0w7]

Christians would tell you that believing in the divinity of Christ is an absolute requirement for calling yourself Christian, so there can be no such thing as a Christian athiest.

If you want to deny the existence of God but follow the teachings of Christ, you're welcome in most Unitarian Universalist congregations. But you're not a Christian.

[RuttyUttepe]

Well, the collective understanding of the term "Christian" determines who is and who isn't, It's kinda messu though because the definition is fuzzy. Often times because of this we defer to the person in question, but that's not the whole story. Certainly, someone who says the bible is a load of trash and Jesus was a total douchebag wouldn't be able to call himself a Christian.

I'd say this is a pretty boarderline case between where one would defer to him and where one would disregard his label.

[IRMartin]

Lukashenka, the dictator of Belarus, declared himself "christian-orthodox atheist". I believe it means that while a person does not believe in God, he is attached to some religion and wants to support it.

[jacknates]

In germany it would mean, that he/she ist still member of the christian (normally catholic or protestant) church and pays chruch taxes, but doens´t really believe in the stuff anymore
(someting not uncommon, as the church taxes are used for social projects, like retirement homes, hospitals and the like and those people who now pay church taxes might, in he near or far future, have use for these facilities themselves )

[Bymnbypeten]

There was an article a while ago on the BBC site where Dawkins called himself a "cultural christian" IIRC.

[delnisfernan]

Sounds like this priest was definitely no evangelical fundamentalist, because else he would have preached it to be the other way round
(i.e. no matter how good you have been you will be thrown to hell if you don´t believe in christ and no matter how many sins you have commited in your live, you will go to heaven if you accept Jesus as your savior)

[nuabuncarnigo]

But if you know that what they're doing is wrong according to the teachings of the church, it doesn't make sense to blame them for your unbelief.

[Goooooblin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Christians would tell you that believing in the divinity of Christ is an absolute requirement for calling yourself Christian, so there can be no such thing as a Christian athiest.

If you want to deny the existence of God but follow the teachings of Christ, you're welcome in most Unitarian Universalist congregations. But you're not a Christian. Antitrinitarism, Unitarianism is part of Christianity, no matter how much catholics, orthodox, prechalcedonians and most of protestants despise that thought.

[intifatry]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Sounds like this priest was definitely no evangelical fundamentalist, because else he would have preached it to be the other way round
(i.e. no matter how good you have been you will be thrown to hell if you don´t believe in christ and no matter how many sins you have commited in your live, you will go to heaven if you accept Jesus as your savior) That's what the handouts from the Jehovah's witnesses always say. Yes, I actually read those things they give you at your door.

[Menierofe]

Originally posted by Lorizael
A cogent post from Perfection! Sorry, I ran out of dick jokes.

[lisualsethelp]

It seems to me that "Christian" here is being used in two senses. One as a follower of Christ's teachings, and the other a follower of religion of Christianity. It is in my experience that the usage of the term "Christian" insinuates the later meaning under most contexts.

Thus it would be deceptive to call yourself a "Christian" without further elaboration because that would imply that you follow Christianity, which you don't.

Perhaps you can get away with "Christian agnostic" if you do so in a context that divorces it from religious identify, but I'm skeptical that such a context can be used.

Personally I'd just say "agnostic" and maybe say, "but I think Christ is cool".

[arrendabomnem]

Actually, the dictionary (dictionary.com/websters) agrees with me. You're citing its definition as an adjective but when you look at its definition as a noun:

"-noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian."

You fail to meet definition 7 which supports my claim that you calling yourself a "Christian" to be deceptive.


Now as for my releuctance to the usage of the term "Christian agnostic" (where "Christian" is an adjective); I'll admit I don't think the dictionary provides the best support. However, I'll still stand by my criticism because while "Christian" an adjective may more commonly imply the following of Christ, under the context of religion identity the second definition (belonging to the religion,Chirstianity) would seem to be the one implied. You'd fail to meet that definition as well.

[Lymneterfeiff]

Originally posted by Perfection
Well, the collective understanding of the term "Christian" determines who is and who isn't, It's kinda messu though because the definition is fuzzy. Often times because of this we defer to the person in question, but that's not the whole story. Certainly, someone who says the bible is a load of trash and Jesus was a total douchebag wouldn't be able to call himself a Christian. Well said.

[infinkPoode]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Exactly. The trouble is you cannot just 'accept his teachings' without accepting that he died and rose again from the dead.

I'm not sure how you can say that his teachings were fine but deny the resurrection. It makes no sense to me. Christ said that he was God and that is a part of his teachings. Again multple definitions for the same word are acceptable, maybe not to you but they certainly are in the English language. And I belive that one can accept most of one's teachings without being denied to be a follwer of those teachings. For example, I doubt every Republican accepts the entire Republican platform.

Acording to your Christian religion my belief system may exclude me from heaven which would correspond to one definition of Christian. But as a follower of Christian teachings and philosophy I am not really concerned with other people's opinions about my soul. I am just concerned that I try my hardest to behave in a Christian fashion and try to follow the Golden Rule.

Just because my belief system corresponds to one accepted definition and yours corresponds to another doesn't mean that only one definition is acceptable.

[wrardymar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Christ said that he was God and that is a part of his teachings. Did he say it explicitly?

Even though I was brought up Catholic I can, at the moment, only recall his interogation by Pilate where he replies to the question "Are you King of the Jews?" with "It is you who say it".

Could you remind me when/where Jesus says that he was God directly and unambiguosly. There are comments like God is our father and we are all children of God, but that does not make us divine (well in some cultures we are all divine, but hopefully you get my point).

I'll probably kick myself when you point it out.

[markbila]

I'd say that you can accept Jesus' teachings in general, but not believe in God. For example, you can believe that Jesus never preached about God, but only about a moral code, and the "God" part was added later by the folks who wrote the gospels ~AD 100 or thereabouts. Given all that was added to the different gospels in order to more appropriately reach the different ethnic groups, who's to say that they didn't all add the "God" part? (It's probably not the case, Jesus seems likely to have talked about God even if he didn't claim to be the Son of God, given the times; but still, who's to say?)

[55Beaphable]

But couldn't you view the resurrection as being metaphorical? Not unless you believe the whole thing to be metaphorical. That's the problem. The source says one thing. Christ taught these things, which includes the Golden Rule, "love your neighbour as yourself" but he also died and rose from the dead. It isn't a metaphor, it's a real historical event, just like his death on a cross.

Unless of course you want to say that this one sentence is real and this next one is all metaphor, but that's completely arbitrary.

[jokilewqs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ok, tell me how you can pick and choose what you like and what you don't? How can you say that Christ had it right here and then deny the resurrection? That's what i don't get. You say you believe in what the Gospels teach about Christ, and on the other hand you don't beleive in what the Gospel says. So how do you decide which parts are correct and which are not?
When you consider that the Gospels are not the Word of Jesus directly, but the interpreted word 'picked and chosen' as it was by the early Church, I don't have a problem with this. There is a quite reasonable belief that Jesus was essentially a Buddhist type monk, in that he taught his followers to behave in a certain way that was quite contrary to the ways of the times. It's not hard to separate the "earthly" teachings from the "heavenly" teachings (ie, "do this on earth" and "this is how heaven is"), and not entirely unreasonable to suggset that some or all of the latter was added post-fact to make things fit together nicely.


I'm sorry all I see in this so called "Christian agnosticism" is agnosticism. You don't need to have anything to do with Christ to believe in the Golden Rule, and frankly, it's an insult to the folks who do that you are insisting that you cannot believe in the Golden rule without also being a Christian. That's basically what you are saying here. There is an important distinction, and you won't be a Christian unless you accept Christ.
Again, I disagree. I think someone that follows the earthly teachings of Jesus, explicitly (ie, reads the bible, specifically does the things that Jesus taught on the material plane), it is meaningful to suggset that they are a Christian in a sense. Certainly using the phrase "Atheist Christian" is pretty clear on that matter I'd say.

[investor]

When you consider that the Gospels are not the Word of Jesus directly, but the interpreted word 'picked and chosen' as it was by the early Church, I don't have a problem with this. And what do they say about what they wrote? They say everything in it was true. When did they put it all together Snoopy? Who wrote which parts? Who did they talk to to put it all together? Why are all the gospels different, even though they talk about the same events.

There is a quite reasonable belief that Jesus was essentially a Buddhist type monk, in that he taught his followers to behave in a certain way that was quite contrary to the ways of the times. Tell me, what does Buddhism say about someone dying and rising again.

Do you believe Christ was crucified on the cross? At what point in the Gospels do you believe that the disciples started making it up?

I'm sincerely curious.

It's not hard to separate the "earthly" teachings from the "heavenly" teachings (ie, "do this on earth" and "this is how heaven is"), and not entirely unreasonable to suggset that some or all of the latter was added post-fact to make things fit together nicely. So what do you make of his death and resurrection?

Again, I disagree. I think someone that follows the earthly teachings of Jesus, explicitly (ie, reads the bible, specifically does the things that Jesus taught on the material plane), it is meaningful to suggset that they are a Christian in a sense. Certainly using the phrase "Atheist Christian" is pretty clear on that matter I'd say. How is this any different from an atheist in my example who says his religion is to do good?

Why should a Christian read the bible if he doesn't believe in what it teaches? The bible says that the resurrection happened. That Christ died and rose again 3 days after he was buried. Why would a Christian read scripture if none of this was true?

Finally, where does Christ say you should read the bible? What does he ask of his believers? He is very clear. There are two commandments.

First, love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.

Second, love your neighbour as yourself.

How do you justify twisting his words and following only the second and not the first?