Hi, I'm a cultural Christian

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

Why would I have any less animosity for someone equally dismissive of my viewpoint?

[Jason78]

Hi, I'm a cultural Christian

A what?

[scroyle]

Hi everyone and thanks for the welcome. My MacBook is downloading the latest OS X now so I'm typing on the phone but I'll write more when I can use my proper keyboard which will be soon. I think you misunderstand what a cultural Christian is and it's my fault because there's a whole spectrum and I agree some of them are superstitious. But I'm not a superstitious person even though I'm deeply religious. I don't think atheists will have any need to dispute with me. My computer should be ready soon unless the new OS has a bug. I just thought I should at least thank folks for the warm welcome first. Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scroyle]

OK, I now have the use of my computer. It's true that some liberal Christians believe in superstitious things like supernatural beings with magical powers and workers of miracles, etc but that's because there are all kinds of liberal Christians.  As I have said, it's a whole spectrum but many of us don't accept anything supernatural.

Many liberal Christians turn anything in the Bible that is wrong into a metaphor. So God didn't create an Adam and an Eve but both Adam and Eve are a metaphor for "early men". But these liberals may still believe that early men were ultimately created by a supernatural being. Evolution becomes a process guided lovingly by a supernatural God being.

But some of us don't just stop there. We see God himself as a metaphor. God is a personification of a quality.  The quality being goodness, truth and justice. Of course I'm not blind to the fact that at one time, the entire church believed God to be a separate entity and not just a metaphor for goodness. But at one time the whole of humanity didn't know better.  Now we do.

I said I have nothing to debate with atheists because when it comes to the "supernatural" there is no dispute.  But there is still a huge difference between us. I'm deeply religious. I have served the church all my life since my toddler years and I continue to serve the church and will do so until I die. Passion Week will be here soon and it means a lot to me.  Factually, I acknowledge that I can't even be certain that Jesus existed historically. There's zilch Roman record of his existence but I think he probably did exist as an anti-Roman apocalyptic zealot. He probably got killed like all apocalyptic zealots and I acknowledge that the church romanticized his death and created a Jesus that's different from the historical Jesus who was probably a devout Jew who hated all Gentiles and would have nothing to do with a pork eating Christian. But the Jesus that I've grown up to love and to weep for in Passion Week as I think of the crown of thorns forced on his head is not the historical Jesus but a creation of the Church. That's the image of Jesus that is significant to me. It's a galvanising force for all the good works within the church that we do for our fellow humans. What is wrong with that? True, atheists are honest people and they can't stand an untruth and this church-created image of Jesus does not accord with history.

But you see, culture is not about scientific or historical truth. Culture is the sum total of our human story complete with all the mistakes that we make, the lies our ancestors told, etc.  As a cultural Christian, I acknowledge that this concept of the Passion of Christ is historically incorrect. He died a traitor to Rome but I'm not bothered about the real Jesus. He was an insignificant man. It means nothing to me when atheists say Jesus couldn't even heal a man with a common cold, far less resurrect Lazarus. I already knew he couldn't.

Two years ago, the new Chaplain of Harvard University said something that I absolutely agree with. It doesn't matter if Christianity is true. What's important is we can make it true by the life we live.  Now, that's liberal Christianity at its finest.

Cheers

scroyle

[Mister Agenda]

S'up.

[Solitary]

Welcome aboard! Solitary   I don't hate religious people that do good, I hate organized religion that does horrible things in the name of God. Like hating love and something as beautiful as this:

[Poison Tree]

We see God himself as a metaphor. God is a personification of a quality.  The quality being goodness, truth and justice.

And can he leap tall buildings in a single bound? Seriously, though, have you actually read the bible? If so, how can you honestly say that the god depicted therein is good, just or truthful? I assume your a non-trinitarian; or was Jesus fully human and fully metaphor? Can a metaphor talk to prophets and kings or are all those stories some how metaphors too; metaphors of what?

[scroyle]

And can he leap tall buildings in a single bound? Seriously, though, have you actually read the bible? If so, how can you honestly say that the god depicted therein is good, just or truthful? I assume your a non-trinitarian; or was Jesus fully human and fully metaphor? Can a metaphor talk to prophets and kings or are all those stories some how metaphors too; metaphors of what?

Of course God can't leap at all. You've got to be an existing entity to even leap.
Yes, I have studied the Bible carefully and have studied the New Testament using the Nestle Koine Greek text. I am quite familiar with the Bible.
I follow holy tradition which has God expressed as a Trinity.
No, of course a metaphor can't talk. It can't think either. Metaphor of what? I thought I've said it. God to me is the metaphor of goodness, truth and justice.

[scroyle]

Welcome aboard! Solitary   I don't hate religious people that do good, I hate organized religion that does horrible things in the name of God. Like hating love and something as beautiful as this:

Thanks, Solitary. All love is beautiful. So is lesbian love.

[La Dolce Vita]

OK, I now have the use of my computer. It's true that some liberal Christians believe in superstitious things like supernatural beings with magical powers and workers of miracles, etc but that's because there are all kinds of liberal Christians.  As I have said, it's a whole spectrum but many of us don't accept anything supernatural.

Many liberal Christians turn anything in the Bible that is wrong into a metaphor. So God didn't create an Adam and an Eve but both Adam and Eve are a metaphor for "early men". But these liberals may still believe that early men were ultimately created by a supernatural being. Evolution becomes a process guided lovingly by a supernatural God being.

But some of us don't just stop there. We see God himself as a metaphor. God is a personification of a quality.  The quality being goodness, truth and justice. Of course I'm not blind to the fact that at one time, the entire church believed God to be a separate entity and not just a metaphor for goodness. But at one time the whole of humanity didn't know better.  Now we do.

I said I have nothing to debate with atheists because when it comes to the "supernatural" there is no dispute.  But there is still a huge difference between us. I'm deeply religious. I have served the church all my life since my toddler years and I continue to serve the church and will do so until I die. Passion Week will be here soon and it means a lot to me.  Factually, I acknowledge that I can't even be certain that Jesus existed historically. There's zilch Roman record of his existence but I think he probably did exist as an anti-Roman apocalyptic zealot. He probably got killed like all apocalyptic zealots and I acknowledge that the church romanticized his death and created a Jesus that's different from the historical Jesus who was probably a devout Jew who hated all Gentiles and would have nothing to do with a pork eating Christian. But the Jesus that I've grown up to love and to weep for in Passion Week as I think of the crown of thorns forced on his head is not the historical Jesus but a creation of the Church. That's the image of Jesus that is significant to me. It's a galvanising force for all the good works within the church that we do for our fellow humans. What is wrong with that? True, atheists are honest people and they can't stand an untruth and this church-created image of Jesus does not accord with history.

But you see, culture is not about scientific or historical truth. Culture is the sum total of our human story complete with all the mistakes that we make, the lies our ancestors told, etc.  As a cultural Christian, I acknowledge that this concept of the Passion of Christ is historically incorrect. He died a traitor to Rome but I'm not bothered about the real Jesus. He was an insignificant man. It means nothing to me when atheists say Jesus couldn't even heal a man with a common cold, far less resurrect Lazarus. I already knew he couldn't.

Two years ago, the new Chaplain of Harvard University said something that I absolutely agree with. It doesn't matter if Christianity is true. What's important is we can make it true by the life we live.  Now, that's liberal Christianity at its finest.

Cheers

scroyle

This might come as a shock to you, but you are an atheist. The bolded part (and your entire post) explains why. I'm happy you used "Cultural Christian" correctly. You can be an atheist and religious at the same time. In fact there are plenty of atheist religions like Buddhism. I have no clue why you'd want to have anything to do with christian culture. It is quite vile IMO. But as long as you don't believe in any woo your only likely difference from most members here will be ideological. In that sense you'll fall in the same scope as the communists and Ayn Rand-followers that occasionally could drop by an atheist forum.

[Poison Tree]

You rather missed the thrust of my comment, so let me try to be more blunt.
You say god is a trinity (ie, Jesus is god, holly spirit is god) but that god is a metaphor. So what does it mean that "[Mary] was found to be pregnant through [a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice]"? or "an angel of [a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice] appeared to [Joseph] in a dream and said"? Or that Mary gave birth to (1/3rd of) a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice? OR that the Romans crucified (1/3rd of) a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice?

How could a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice appear to Abimelech and tell him that Sarah was Abraham's wife? You said

No, of course a metaphor can't talk.

So what do you do with all the bible *stories* where god talks or acts? Did a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice tell Noah to build an ark and then send a flood to kill every living thing out side the ark? If not, then what do you make of *that story*? Are all those *stories* also metaphors? If so, what is the meaning of the *metaphoric stories* where a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice tells the children of Israel to commit ethnic cleansing? What's the point of detailed and repeated instructions on the proper way to sacrifice animals to a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice? What does it mean that a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice smelled the pleasing aroma of animal sacrifices? How can a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice fast in the desert for 40 days and be tempted by Satan? If these are all just stories, why bother studying them, in Greek or not? Why not devote your life to Aesop's fables--I'd say there is more good in them than the bible and you'd work your self into less knots inventing decent interpretations of Aesop's fables than trying to force metaphoric interpretation on all the bible stories

Even speaking metaphorically, would a metaphor for goodness, truth and justice order ethnic cleansing or kill every living thing outside of a magical boat?

[Johan]

But some of us don't just stop there. We see God himself as a metaphor.

So let me see if I'm reading this right. You're saying that you're a christian but that you also believe that god does not exist. Do I have that right?

[La Dolce Vita]

There are culturally jewish atheists and even culturally muslim atheists, so I don't see why a culturally christian atheist would make waves. I guess he sees the bible stories all moral tales. No clue how he can support such morality, but then again I guess he only picks what he likes.

[scroyle]

Your quotations from the Bible don't mean a thing. Of course the writers of the Bible believed in a supernatural being that's capable of independent thought and speech. They're ancient folks and all ancient folks believed in that.

I've read atheistic books and I find it amusing that some atheists take objection to the immoral parts of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for example, went to town about how Isaac was a victim of extreme child abuse and what horrid psychological trauma he would have suffered. But if you look at legends and fables, they are all quite violent and by our modern enlightened understanding of morality, quite immoral. That's because our human cultures are ancient and ancient men thought differently and were more unjust and violent. Naturally, their stories are violent and unjust too. Just look at the entire story of Christ's Redemption of mankind. Without any intention of being disrespectful to people's feelings, the entire blood process is barbaric. It's the kind of story that Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun might have come up with on a cold winter's night after having slaughtered a whole village.

I know many atheists have thought of me as an atheist but my definition of an atheist is slightly different. An atheist is one who will not follow a religion. He probably finds the stupidity, ignorance and barbarism of a religion unbearable for him. I understand that ancient folks could not help believing in things that aren't true. But religion helped them organise their society. Religion gave them some sense of right and wrong, warped though some of these may be to us today. But the church became a galvanising force for good and it still is.

If you look at charitable institutions all over the world, you will find that the majority of them belong to the Church. I now live in a country where Christians only form a very small percentage of the population but just about every orphanage, old folks' home, hospice for the destitute, etc is owned by the Church. However much you may want to laugh at a culture that is based on a book that is terribly flawed (atheists usually attack the Bible which is silly because of course when you pick a book that's this ancient, it's bound to be flawed), you can't deny that the good that it does to the world is immeasurable. Atheists will point out the paedophile crimes of the RC church. I agree that is unpardonable but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. There's is a whole lot of good that the Church has done all over the world.

I hope you don't think I'm belittling humanist societies when I say that the good they do don't even come up to the ankles of the good that the church does. I've read the news about atheist associations in the US and the way they spend their money is appalling. They take legal action against schools that want to distribute toys to poor children on Christmas because it's religious and schools cannot get involved in religion - they have separation of State and church. A interviewer asked the president of the atheist association if his atheist group would get toys for poor children now that they had successfully stopped the school for doing that charity work. His reply was shocking. His atheist association spends their money suing people who do charity work in the name of religion but their money is not meant to be used as charity. The interviewer rightly pointed out that that was cold comfort for the children.

What surprised me was Richard Dawkins seemed to think the interviewer was harsh. I go the entire link to the article and the video of the interview from Dawkins' website. But that's the part of atheism I detest. They don't do any charity but they will stop others from helping poor children because of their rabid hatred for Christianity. And why do they hate Christianity? Because the Bible gets many facts wrong and ancient folks believed in supernatural beings. And they throw away an entire institution that has been in place with all its charitable works and infrastructure.  Who would work in a hospice for destitute people with no remuneration? It may be true that people who are willing to sacrifice their time and money doing these things also believe they will be rewarded after their death but the fact is they still do good work.

If you see how atheist groups function in the US, it's abominable. I'll probably listen to them more if they were to fight less and do more good. But when they go round suing those who do good and rejoicing when they can stop charity work, they do make themselves out to be quite disagreeable and I wouldn't want to be a part of them.

Perhaps one day atheist societies will stop fighting and start doing real charity work. Until that day comes, the world still needs the Church.

[Mr.Obvious]

Your quotations from the Bible don't mean a thing. Of course the writers of the Bible believed in a supernatural being that's capable of independent thought and speech. They're ancient folks and all ancient folks believed in that.

I've read atheistic books and I find it amusing that some atheists take objection to the immoral parts of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for example, went to town about how Isaac was a victim of extreme child abuse and what horrid psychological trauma he would have suffered. But if you look at legends and fables, they are all quite violent and by our modern enlightened understanding of morality, quite immoral. That's because our human cultures are ancient and ancient men thought differently and were more unjust and violent. Naturally, their stories are violent and unjust too. Just look at the entire story of Christ's Redemption of mankind. Without any intention of being disrespectful to people's feelings, the entire blood process is barbaric. It's the kind of story that Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun might have come up with on a cold winter's night after having slaughtered a whole village.

Of course, but mostly atheists just say that they are therefore not good lessons to blindly draw your morals from. They would say the same to other violent myths. They don't claim the violence in the myths are a reason not to believe. We just meet less people that would say the myth of, for example, prometheus was a good guide to morality and the proof of the goodness of a creator. If people didn't put the bible forth as a non-immoral book, we wouldn't bother pointing out that it's immoral.

[/quote][/quote]

I know many atheists have thought of me as an atheist but my definition of an atheist is slightly different. An atheist is one who will not follow a religion. He probably finds the stupidity, ignorance and barbarism of a religion unbearable for him. I understand that ancient folks could not help believing in things that aren't true. But religion helped them organise their society. Religion gave them some sense of right and wrong, warped though some of these may be to us today. But the church became a galvanising force for good and it still is.

I can't force you to accept a definition, but concider what the word 'a-theism' means. It means 'without god', not 'without religion'. In essence it's just the lack of being convinced by any case made for any God.
And though I understand your reasoning for this second part, it's important to also look at it from the other side. It's more likely that you're accurate if you say that people gave religion a sense of right and wrong, rather than the other way around. And if that's the case, you don't need religion. Mayhaps back then (though I'm not convinced), but certainly not now.

[/quote][/quote]

If you look at charitable institutions all over the world, you will find that the majority of them belong to the Church. I now live in a country where Christians only form a very small percentage of the population but just about every orphanage, old folks' home, hospice for the destitute, etc is owned by the Church. However much you may want to laugh at a culture that is based on a book that is terribly flawed (atheists usually attack the Bible which is silly because of course when you pick a book that's this ancient, it's bound to be flawed), you can't deny that the good that it does to the world is immeasurable. Atheists will point out the paedophile crimes of the RC church. I agree that is unpardonable but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. There's is a whole lot of good that the Church has done all over the world.

I hope you don't think I'm belittling humanist societies when I say that the good they do don't even come up to the ankles of the good that the church does. I've read the news about atheist associations in the US and the way they spend their money is appalling. They take legal action against schools that want to distribute toys to poor children on Christmas because it's religious and schools cannot get involved in religion - they have separation of State and church. A interviewer asked the president of the atheist association if his atheist group would get toys for poor children now that they had successfully stopped the school for doing that charity work. His reply was shocking. His atheist association spends their money suing people who do charity work in the name of religion but their money is not meant to be used as charity. The interviewer rightly pointed out that that was cold comfort for the children.

What surprised me was Richard Dawkins seemed to think the interviewer was harsh. I go the entire link to the article and the video of the interview from Dawkins' website. But that's the part of atheism I detest. They don't do any charity but they will stop others from helping poor children because of their rabid hatred for Christianity. And why do they hate Christianity? Because the Bible gets many facts wrong and ancient folks believed in supernatural beings. And they throw away an entire institution that has been in place with all its charitable works and infrastructure.  Who would work in a hospice for destitute people with no remuneration? It may be true that people who are willing to sacrifice their time and money doing these things also believe they will be rewarded after their death but the fact is they still do good work.

Perhaps one day atheist societies will stop fighting and start doing real charity work. Until that day comes, the world still needs the Church.

Again, the book is only a problem if some claim it isn't flawed and that it is absolute truth. At least to me.
And yes, the Church (and to make it broader: religion as a whole) has done a lot of good over the years. But you don't need religion to do good. Though there are some things only tried to be excused by the hand of religion.
And if you want to talk about 'spending their money', be sure you want to open this pandora's box. These atheist organizations aren't the ones hoarding billions while preaching the merrit of poverty. They aren't the ones spending money on spreading the message that condoms help the spread of aids destroying lives throughout the world. They aren't the ones demanding money go to the restauration of buildings that it's messiah deemed unnessecary rather than hospitals in which it's followers can go and do some actual charity work. They aren't the ones who've had millenia of time to actually do something about it, but fail to. They aren't the ones that are wide-spread either, after all: if you have 85% of the people be religious, for instance, you can't expect 15% of people to make an equal amount of charity-organizations with an at least equal effect as those of the vast majority.

And one more thing on 'charity work'. Charity work is admirable, by far. It really is beautifull. But it wasn't untill secularized organisations and institutionalized social security and other such recent and enlightened projects took off, that poverty, disease and other social problems have truly been countered (not yet beaten, but countered). Before, the poor houses did nothing to relieve the poor. These victories are the fruits of enlightenment, not religion.
There is a reason why charity work is not our main goal, for charity work is not universal nor secure enough. It is dependent on the willfullness of flawed men and women rather than an impartial system. Charity work is simply not effective enough, there are better ways of helping the world.