Christian Atheism

[Invincible Summer]

The acceptance of the teachings of Jesus in the absence of a belief in God.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

http://www.christianatheism.com/what-is-christian-atheism-part-1

So these are Christians who just think Jesus was a really cool guy/character, and think that the concept of god and the church are outdated.


Many Christian atheists hold a contemporary vision of a modern society without God, but include the importance of Judeo-Christian values and the moral philosophies of JesusJudeo-Christian values I'm somewhat wary about, but "moral philosophies" of Jesus are pretty universal values, so I have no problem with this.



I think this is very interesting. I would like to hear what you anti-clerical people and anti-theists would say about this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The good stuff that Jesus supposedly said isn't original and the original stuff isn't good.

[¿Que?]

The good stuff that Jesus supposedly said isn't original and the original stuff isn't good.
The depressing thing is that you had to learn about it to make that point.

[9]

I don't know much of anything about "the teachings of Jesus", but I feel confident saying that this is dumb as hell; reminds me somewhat of this (http://www.shj.org/), which is likewise dumb as hell.

[AristeraGR]

Jesus was the first communist in History he just didn't have the philosophy and choose the second best ''religion''.So now we have the idea let's forget religion.

[9]

Jesus was the first communist in History he just didn't have the philosophy and choose the second best ''religion''.So now we have the idea let's forget religion.

From my understanding, its highly unlikely that Jesus even existed.

[Kuppo Shakur]

From my understanding, its highly irrelevant whether or not Jesus even existed.
Christianity is still stupid.

[9]

From my understanding, its highly irrelevant whether or not Jesus even existed.
Christianity is still stupid.

I never argued otherwise, broski. :rolleyes:

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'm just sayin.
If Jesus descended from the heavens right now and was like "Here I am", that doesn't validate christianity.
So it's stupid to argue about such things.

[¿Que?]

I'm just sayin.
If Jesus descended from the heavens right now and was like "Here I am", that doesn't validate christianity.
So it's stupid to argue about such things.
But it would give it a hell of a lot more evidence in its favor.

[Kuppo Shakur]

But it would give it a hell of a lot more evidence in its favor.
Evidence!? In mah religion!?
Good lawd!

[Invincible Summer]

The good stuff that Jesus supposedly said isn't original and the original stuff isn't good.

Yes, I know it isn't original. That's why I said that they are "universal" i.e. humanistic values. You know, basically "don't be a dick to other people."

I'm just saying that if all these people focus on is the humanist portion of Christianity, then it doesn't seem as abhorrent as the way it is typically practiced.



I'm just sayin.
If Jesus descended from the heavens right now and was like "Here I am", that doesn't validate christianity.
So it's stupid to argue about such things.

Such an act would validate Christianity, but not necessarily the teachings.



I don't know much of anything about "the teachings of Jesus", but I feel confident saying that this is dumb as hell; reminds me somewhat of this (http://www.shj.org/), which is likewise dumb as hell.
Could you elaborate on why this is "dumb as hell?" I'm not trying to pick a fight, just wondering where you're coming from.

But it doesn't seem at all similar to the site you linked to, which just seems to be some pro-Jewish culture thing, and not really any sort of philosophy.

[9]

Could you elaborate on why this is "dumb as hell?" I'm not trying to pick a fight, just wondering where you're coming from.

But it doesn't seem at all similar to the site you linked to, which just seems to be some pro-Jewish culture thing, and not really any sort of philosophy.

Really? It seems extremely similar to me. From the wiki description of "Christian Atheism" that you linked:


Christian Atheism is an ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) in which the God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) of Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) is rejected but the moral teachings of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) are followed.

The link I provided was regarding "Humanistic Judaism", which is an ideology in which the Jewish God is rejected but the "moral teachings" (lol) of Judaism are followed.
It seems to me like basically the same sort of deal. Again, my knowledge of Christianity being what it is (i.e. very limited), but its very difficult for me to imagine that anything which bases itself on the five books of Moses could have a lot of "humanistic" value. Judaism certainly has very little in my opinion, but obviously it doesn't stop people cherrypicking the scriptures to suit their own purposes.
There are a lot of genuinely "humanistic" texts around. What exactly is the purpose, if you are an atheist, in limiting yourself to the "humanistic teachings" of one of the Abrahamic religions? I just find the whole thing totally bizarre.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I haven'y read the whole thread, I',m in a hurry, srry if this is offtopic. The Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch said "the only good Christian is an atheist and the only good atheist is a Christian". He argued for a type of religionless Christianity. It makes sense.

[Blackscare]

Basically for Athiests who still want to be emotionally crippled by an absurd value system, as far as I can tell. :blink:

[Magón]

This is as bad as LDS (Latter Day-Saints aka Mormons) Anti-Revisionists calling themselves "LDS Anarchists". My mind just wants to tear them a new one!

[Rainsborough]

Surely Marxism, Socialism or Anarchisms main point is the bringing together all workers, without divisions caused by ethnicity, culture or religion? All this seems to do is give Christianity, which has been responsible for countless millions of deaths throughout its two thousand years, an excuse for yet another two thousand years. Atheist Christians - don't make me laugh! :laugh:
What's next Islam without Allah, Bhuddism without Bhudda? :rolleyes:

[AristeraGR]

Hey I never said cristianity or anyother religion is good.

[mikelepore]

a contemporary vision of a modern society without God, but include the importance of Judeo-Christian values and the moral philosophies of Jesus

A problem with that idea is Jesus's suggestion that people should walk away from their jobs and join a group that survives by begging for charity. That makes it a movement for a minority only, because someone has to produce the food that the group is begging for. This approach might make sense if the end of the world is imminent, which is a religious concept, but otherwise it's not sustainable.

[Invincible Summer]

Surely Marxism, Socialism or Anarchisms main point is the bringing together all workers, without divisions caused by ethnicity, culture or religion? All this seems to do is give Christianity, which has been responsible for countless millions of deaths throughout its two thousand years, an excuse for yet another two thousand years.

Well, to be fair, it's not a mass movement. So I don't see how it's trying to "breathe new life" into Christianity.


What's next Islam without Allah, Bhuddism without Bhudda? :rolleyes:

Christianity is about Christ aka Jesus anyway, so God doesn't necessarily have to be the in the picture I guess. I'm not that read up on this yet. I'm not sure how they reconcile Jesus being the son of God then... :confused:

Also, Buddhists don't worship Buddha so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

[Across The Street]

Comrade Kuppo said: "If Jesus descended from the heavens right now and was like "Here I am", that doesn't validate christianity."

^ You sir, are a moron.

Invincible Summer said: "Such an act would validate Christianity, but not necessarily the teachings."

It would absolutely validate the teachings, but it would not validate the acts of those who profess the faith.

[Queercommie Girl]

Comrade Kuppo said: "If Jesus descended from the heavens right now and was like "Here I am", that doesn't validate christianity."

^ You sir, are a moron.


Actually he is right, it doesn't necessarily validate Christianity. It could just be an alien intelligence pretending to be God.

God is defined in your theology as "absolutely powerful", "having infinite knowledge" etc, such things cannot be proven empirically.

[RedLeft]

I would much rather construct my own moral beliefs.

[Rainsborough]

I'm just sayin.
If Jesus descended from the heavens right now and was like "Here I am", that doesn't validate christianity.
So it's stupid to argue about such things.

Very true. In fact mental institution throughout the ages have had a selection of Jesus Christs, Napoleon Bonapartes, Julius Ceasars and so on.
Religions main function is to maintain the status quo, it props up our 'Masters' and provides an authority for their excesses. Individual 'priests' may walk the revolutionary path, but their rulers don't.

[ComradeMan]

Actually, and inspite of some of the more puerile comments on this thread this is an interesting line of thought.

The divinity of Christ was, perhaps, not necessarily a core belief of some early Christian groups; the Ebionites (historical) being one example. Non-trinitarian groups also tend to shy away from the divinity of Christ too. However this actual divinity is/was not universally agreed upon either.

In Islam Jesus is recognised as a prophet, but not divine as such, as did Manichaeism. In Buddhism the idea of Jesus as bodhisattva is also to be found. Judaism's position on Jesus tends to see him as no more than a man and a failed messiah and is quite hostile however there are some currents in very liberal Judaism that have opened to the idea of Jesus being a "master" of some sort; understandably the matter within Judaism is a "hot" topic if you like.

Objective discussions of Jesus' divinity tend to focus on mainstream and orthodox Christian views whilst often neglecting other Christian and non-Christian views.

Leaving aside personal faith, as a matter of private choice, whether Jesus were divine or not would that change the message of his ministry in being non-judgemental, forgiveness and treating others in the same way you would want to be treated, i.e. an egalitarian social ethic?

An interesting comparison could be with the cult of Santo Ernesto de la Higuera. Within living memory a man was executed/murdered and yet the mythos has arisen that El Che is a saint. Those involved with his execution/murder have all had great misfortune and this has been put down to the curse of El Che whilst peasant farmers call on Santo Ernesto to help them out in times of difficulty. Let's carry this on for another two thousand years and see where it goes? Perhaps in two thousand years' time the figure of El Che will become "divine"? Who knows? Obviously we have more written records and more photographic/film evidence than two thousand years ago but still- it's food for thought. In the absence of such who's to say that a person cannot be transfigured by popular consent? That still does not change the fundamental message of the person.

[Queercommie Girl]

Leaving aside personal faith, as a matter of private choice, whether Jesus were divine or not would that change the message of his ministry in being non-judgemental, forgiveness and treating others in the same way you would want to be treated, i.e. an egalitarian social ethic?


Just because it is an issue of "personal faith" does not mean it should be shielded from rational criticism. Socialists should never "respect" and defend religions in such a way.

I don't agree with politically banning religions, but religions should be opened up to all kinds of rational criticism, "respectful" or not.

Fact of the matter is, although there is some evidence for the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, there is no real evidence for his supposedly "supernatural" actions at all. Roman historians never affirm such superstitious tales, only the Bible itself, which is clearly circular logic.

Not to mention even if the "supernatural" things occurred logically it is still not sufficient for people to assume that Jesus really is the God of orthodox theology, other than just a being with some "higher-than-human" powers.

[ComradeMan]

Just because it is an issue of "personal faith" does not mean it should be shielded from rational criticism. Socialists should never "respect" and defend religions in such a way.

I don't agree with politically banning religions, but religions should be opened up to all kinds of rational criticism, "respectful" or not.

Fact of the matter is, although there is some evidence for the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, there is no real evidence for his supposedly "supernatural" actions at all. Roman historians never affirm such superstitious tales, only the Bible itself, which is clearly circular logic.

Not to mention even if the "supernatural" things occurred logically it is still not sufficient for people to assume that Jesus really is the God of orthodox theology, other than just a being with some "higher-than-human" powers.

The personal faith quote was to highlight the matter of Christ's divinity or non-divinity depending on an existential analysis and is therefore non-empirical- critique was not included.

The other point is this, the fundamental messages ascribed to Christ, i.e. do unto others etc, had nothing to do with the supernatural miracles or divinity per se. You also ignore the fact that Jesus is not just a figure in Christianity but in other belief systems too.

[Queercommie Girl]

The personal faith quote was to highlight the matter of Christ's divinity or non-divinity depending on an existential analysis and is therefore non-empirical- critique was not included.


"Existential analysis" is unscientific and idealistic. A gay fundamentalist Christian who has been "cured" of his homosexuality through "exorcism" might be "existentially" convinced that homosexuality is evil, but does that mean homosexuality really is evil objectively? No. Purely through "existential analysis" someone could be convinced that they were really abducted by aliens, because it really felt real to them, does it mean it was objectively true? Most likely not.

A person's existential status is highly prone to direct social manipulation, often those of a rather reactionary nature.



The other point is this, the fundamental messages ascribed to Christ, i.e. do unto others etc, had nothing to do with the supernatural miracles or divinity per se.
No they don't. Not only that, they've all being said by people centuries before Jesus, by the likes of Confucius and Socrates. They are not only not divine, they aren't even original either.



You also ignore the fact that Jesus is not just a figure in Christianity but in other belief systems too.
No I didn't. I said Jesus probably did exist as a historical figure as the Roman historians mentioned him. But I reject any "supernatural" aura surrounding Jesus or his life as fundamentally unproved. I also think socialists should never defend any religious system from rational criticism.

[Rainsborough]

Whether or not Jesus the man existed historically, or not, to gain a mention by Roman Historians is one thing, the idea of the 'Son of God' another. There were many other historians, many Greek, in the middle-east at the time, and stories of someone doing miracles which included bringing the dead back to life would have had them running to record it. However, they don't seem to have, so Jesus as a purely human figure - maybe. Jesus as a divine miracle producing being - I don't think so.
If we need inspiration look to inspirational people, not to mythical beings that descend from the skies.

[ComradeMan]

"Existential analysis" is unscientific and idealistic. A gay fundamentalist Christian who has been "cured" of his homosexuality through "exorcism" might be "existentially" convinced that homosexuality is evil, but does that mean homosexuality really is evil objectively? No. Purely through "existential analysis" someone could be convinced that they were really abducted by aliens, because it really felt real to them, does it mean it was objectively true? Most likely not.

A person's existential status is highly prone to direct social manipulation, often those of a rather reactionary nature.

No they don't. Not only that, they've all being said by people centuries before Jesus, by the likes of Confucius and Socrates. They are not only not divine, they aren't even original either.

No I didn't. I said Jesus probably did exist as a historical figure as the Roman historians mentioned him. But I reject any "supernatural" aura surrounding Jesus or his life as fundamentally unproved. I also think socialists should never defend any religious system from rational criticism.

Yawn... that's why I said it was a non-empirical argument. If Jesus was or was not divine no one can or cannot prove it either way so it's a waste of time arguing about it. The existential argument of faith, like that proposed by Kierkegaard, is a personal matter. That other argument about a gay Christian being cured has nothing to do with the original point.

You could argue that a person's presumed objective view on anything is fundamentally existential.

Original actually means having origins, it's a word misused. But Jesus didn't say he came with a new idea- the whole point of the Jesus movement was back to the grass roots. Whether Jesus had the idea or not, does it take away the fact that he promoted the idea?

No one is defending any religion from critique but you are attacking with poor logic. You still haven't answered the question, whether he were or were not divine, does that change the message of his ministry on a social basis? I don't think it does.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yawn... that's why I said it was a non-empirical argument. If Jesus was or was not divine no one can or cannot prove it either way so it's a waste of time arguing about it. The existential argument of faith, like that proposed by Kierkegaard, is a personal matter. That other argument about a gay Christian being cured has nothing to do with the original point.

You could argue that a person's presumed objective view on anything is fundamentally existential.


You recognise that it's non-empirical, but you fail to see that it is fundamentally illogical, because according to the materialistic world-view, everything is empirical, or it's nothing at all. All human knowledge is ultimately from empirical sources, that's the fundamental principle of materialistic epistemology.

The "existential argument of faith" may be a "personal matter", but that does not make it valid in anyway. Otherwise you might as well justify the objective validity of every single religious and pseudo-scientific cult out there.

I brought up the example of the hypothetical "gay Christian" being cured because if your BS "existential analysis" is valid, then it would prove that homosexuality is literally evil, which is, for any genuinely progressive socialist, an absurd conclusion to reach, even on a purely individualistic level.

On the other hand, the supposed "divine" status of Jesus is very much in doubt from an empirical perspective since his apparently "supernatural" actions in the Bible cannot be verified at all by any non-Biblical sources. If Jesus the historical figure is no more than an ordinary man, then how likely is it for him to be the real source behind all the "subjective existentialist inspirations" that people thousands of years after him apparently have?



Original actually means having origins, it's a word misused. But Jesus didn't say he came with a new idea- the whole point of the Jesus movement was back to the grass roots. Whether Jesus had the idea or not, does it take away the fact that he promoted the idea?
He wasn't the first one to suggest "bringing social justice etc. back to the grassroots" either.



No one is defending any religion from critique but you are attacking with poor logic.
Poor logic? That's coming from someone like you who is not even recognising what I'm actually saying:

1) "Existentialist justifications" for religion are fundamentally idealistic and therefore invalid from an objective scientific perspective;

2) There is only historical evidence for Jesus the man, but there is absolutely no real evidence for Jesus the God.

Before you actually address my points here, you are not qualified to accuse me for using poor logic.



You still haven't answered the question, whether he were or were not divine, does that change the message of his ministry on a social basis? I don't think it does.
There is however nothing really special about Jesus' social message. Given that he is not divine, (the "divine" doesn't even exist anyway) Jesus is no more than just another moral and social philosopher who said a few good things among thousands of others, that's it.

And given some of the more reactionary connotations that are associated with Christianity, such as its almost fundamental anti-LGBT stance, it is very debatable whether or not Jesus' social message is really that "positive" at all.

It is frankly a waste of time for socialists to spend time and effort promoting the so-called "social ministry" of Jesus, because the return does not really justify the investment. Not to mention that it is pretty fucking Eurocentric to focus so much on Jesus, since in much of the world, he is really just considered to be a rather minor figure by non-Western cultures.

[Sir Comradical]

Celibate Pornstar.

[L.A.P.]

Well Jesus is almost just as fictional as God and even if a man named Jesus did exist he would not be anything like the idea of Jesus that Christians and people in general have of him so the two would be so different that they'd basically be two different people. Not to mention the fact that the biblical story of Jesus was almost completely ripped off from the story of Horus of Egyptian Mythology.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul
You recognise that it's non-empirical, but you fail to see that it is fundamentally illogical, because according to the materialistic world-view, everything is empirical, or it's nothing at all. All human knowledge is ultimately from empirical sources, that's the fundamental principle of materialistic epistemology.

Who's to say that empirical knowledge is not fundamentally existential because it's based on what we as human beings can and cannot perceive? Isn't a bit like the old "viewer effects the experiment" argument? To say that something is either empirical or it's nothing at all assumes absolute knowledge and seeing as we do not and probably cannot have absolute knowledge the penguin falls off the iceberg again.

The "existential argument of faith" may be a "personal matter", but that does not make it valid in anyway. Otherwise you might as well justify the objective validity of every single religious and pseudo-scientific cult out there.

It is an empirical "fact" that some people have a personal faith, if nothing can exist that is not empirical how come people have a personal faith?

I brought up the example of the hypothetical "gay Christian" being cured because if your BS "existential analysis" is valid, then it would prove that homosexuality is literally evil, which is, for any genuinely progressive socialist, an absurd conclusion to reach, even on a purely individualistic level.

No it doesn't, it proves the existential reality only of the said individual in the given example. Existentialism does not do "universals" so to say something "is literally evil" on an existential basis is to create an objective epistemological universal from a subject existential "reality".

On the other hand, the supposed "divine" status of Jesus is very much in doubt from an empirical perspective since his apparently "supernatural" actions in the Bible cannot be verified at all by any non-Biblical sources.

Nor can they be disproven either, nor is it or will it ever likely be proven or disproven- hence Kierkegaard's matter of faith. Saying that something definitely did not happen because there is no evidence two thousand years later to prove it is open to the accusation of a logical fallacy. You also seem to jump from saything something is in doubt, i.e. neither proven nor disproven as such to saying that something definitely does not exist.

If Jesus the historical figure is no more than an ordinary man, then how likely is it for him to be the real source behind all the "subjective existentialist inspirations" that people thousands of years after him apparently have?

On the other hand some may argue that if the historical Jesus had never existed at all how come the existential inspirations- for every effect there must be a cause. But then the Greek philosophers were not considered divine nor were Eastern sages nor was the Prophet Mohammed for that matter.

He wasn't the first one to suggest "bringing social justice etc. back to the grassroots" either.

So what? It doesn't change the fact that he did have a social conscious and was spreading a message at a time and a place. Christianity, Christian-socialism, etc etc do not base their ideas on the fact that Jesus was some kind of a "first" in fact, in a sense, a theological perspective might hold Jesus to have been a final revelation- a last.

Poor logic? That's coming from someone like you who is not even recognising what I'm actually saying:

Because I do not recognise your point I am in the wrong.... come on! :)

"Existentialist justifications" for religion are fundamentally idealistic and therefore invalid from an objective scientific perspective;

There is no existential justification for religion and seeing as religion may be seen to be fundamentally idealistic and Jesus was an idealist they may be invalid from a scientific point of view but then no one is saying that religion is a science. The whole idea of religion is in a sense existential. Is existentialism now completely invalidated?

There is only historical evidence for Jesus the man, but there is absolutely no real evidence for Jesus the God.

Well Christians would say that the New Testament is evidence for Jesus the God along with other revelations but hardened materialists will not count that as evidence- so it's a bit of a no-win situation either way. "Without faith" there is no divinity in a sense therefore scientific evidence to prove the divinity of Jesus would confute itself. :crying:

There is however nothing really special about Jesus' social message.

But there is nothing really special about anyone's message for that matter is there? Most things have been said by someone else before. However, can you define special? Special is a subjective term and based on an existential and subjective analysis therefore I think "unique" would be a better term.

Given that he is not divine, (the "divine" doesn't even exist anyway) Jesus is no more than just another moral and social philosopher who said a few good things among thousands of others, that's it.

And....? Before you said his divinity was in doubt- but now you say he is not divine. The problem here lies with the concept of divine, here and now, and how it may have been seen two-thousand years ago in a completely different context. Roman Emperors whilst still alive were considered "divine", the Divine Augustus.

And given some of the more reactionary connotations that are associated with Christianity, such as its almost fundamental anti-LGBT stance, it is very debatable whether or not Jesus' social message is really that "positive" at all.

Here you are guilty of reification. Christianity is an abstract concept encompassing a wide range of beliefs, interpretations and points of view. To attack "Christianity" on a monolithic scale is like when people attack "Communism", "Islam" or a lot of other -isms etc. The fact that a lot of Christians were/are homophobic does not mean that Christianity per se is homophobic- a lot of the world pre-Christian and non-Christian were/are homophobic independently from Christianity. Several atheistic regimes do not have an exactly great LGBT record either. Whenever I hear a so-called Christian bashing gays I tend to remind them of the "judge not lest thou be judged" concept expressed in the New Testament to which they usually have no answer.

Of course, this is a differnent subject really and is going off the track of the divinity or non-divinity of Jesus- albeit an interesting subject for discussion however there is wide-ranging debate about the actual meaning of the original texts, the translation and the interpretation thereof. The fact that some bush Baptist with little knowledge of theology gets up with a microphone and says that homosexuality is evil because it says so in his Bible- when there isn't even a word meaning homosexual to be found in the originals is another matter.

It is frankly a waste of time for socialists to spend time and effort promoting the so-called "social ministry" of Jesus, because the return does not really justify the investment.

Well considering the materialstic history of communism and socialism in general in the 20th century some might argue that it's a waste of time because the return does really justify the investment- which is in itself a rather capitalist way of putting things. :D

Not to mention that it is pretty fucking Eurocentric to focus so much on Jesus, since in much of the world, he is really just considered to be a rather minor figure by non-Western cultures.

This is a bit of a poor statement given that Jesus was Middle-Eastern to start with, the oldest churches were established in the Middle-East, Egypt and Ethiopia and that in predominantly non-European Islam Jesus, although not considered divine, is on a par with Mohammed, i.e. one of the highest figures in the religion- I would hardly say, divine or non-divine, historical or non-historical that you can turn around and say he is a minor figure whatever your opinion of him.

[Queercommie Girl]

@Iseul
You recognise that it's non-empirical, but you fail to see that it is fundamentally illogical, because according to the materialistic world-view, everything is empirical, or it's nothing at all. All human knowledge is ultimately from empirical sources, that's the fundamental principle of materialistic epistemology.

Who's to say that empirical knowledge is not fundamentally existential because it's based on what we as human beings can and cannot perceive? Isn't a bit like the old "viewer effects the experiment" argument? To say that something is either empirical or it's nothing at all assumes absolute knowledge and seeing as we do not and probably cannot have absolute knowledge the penguin falls off the iceberg again.


This depends on your philosophical world-view. I am a materialist, like most Marxists, which means for us the empirical external world is primary, while the "subjective world" of the observer is secondary. Existentialism is idealistic because it turns this basic relationship upside-down, which is why materialists reject existentialism.



The "existential argument of faith" may be a "personal matter", but that does not make it valid in anyway. Otherwise you might as well justify the objective validity of every single religious and pseudo-scientific cult out there.

It is an empirical "fact" that some people have a personal faith, if nothing can exist that is not empirical how come people have a personal faith?


People believe a lot of different things and do a lot of different things all the time, does it mean all of these are objectively valid? No.



I brought up the example of the hypothetical "gay Christian" being cured because if your BS "existential analysis" is valid, then it would prove that homosexuality is literally evil, which is, for any genuinely progressive socialist, an absurd conclusion to reach, even on a purely individualistic level.

No it doesn't, it proves the existential reality only of the said individual in the given example. Existentialism does not do "universals" so to say something "is literally evil" on an existential basis is to create an objective epistemological universal from a subject existential "reality".


Which is why I emphasised "on a purely individualistic level". If existentialism is valid, then it means at least for this particular person it's right for him/her to consider homosexuality as "evil" since that's what his/her personal "experience" tells him/her.



On the other hand, the supposed "divine" status of Jesus is very much in doubt from an empirical perspective since his apparently "supernatural" actions in the Bible cannot be verified at all by any non-Biblical sources.

Nor can they be disproven either, nor is it or will it ever likely be proven or disproven- hence Kierkegaard's matter of faith. Saying that something definitely did not happen because there is no evidence two thousand years later to prove it is open to the accusation of a logical fallacy. You also seem to jump from saything something is in doubt, i.e. neither proven nor disproven as such to saying that something definitely does not exist.


With historical events it's always "guilty until proven innocent". Historians assume that an event did not occur unless there is good historical evidence to prove it, not the other way around.

You are completely wrong in stating that the doubts regarding Jesus' supposedly "divine" status arise only because "there is no evidence 2000 years later". The issue here is that there was no evidence for Jesus' apparent supernatural actions during his own time or soon after, even though Greek and Roman historians recorded about him as a normal person. You are completely missing the point.

Also, you do realise that even if Jesus did some "supernatural" things, it still does not empirically prove that he is the God of orthodox theology? It would only prove at most that he has super-human powers and perhaps is some kind of "god" in the pagan sense.

The God of orthodox theology is supposed to be "infinitely powerful", that's not something that can ever be empirically proven, no matter how many people Jesus really manages to feed.



If Jesus the historical figure is no more than an ordinary man, then how likely is it for him to be the real source behind all the "subjective existentialist inspirations" that people thousands of years after him apparently have?

On the other hand some may argue that if the historical Jesus had never existed at all how come the existential inspirations- for every effect there must be a cause. But then the Greek philosophers were not considered divine nor were Eastern sages nor was the Prophet Mohammed for that matter.


Jesus probably did exist as a normal human being, and yes he said some good things. I don't deny that people might draw inspiration from him, in a way similar to how people might draw inspiration from people like Confucius, Newton, Marx, Lenin or Che. But to say that Jesus can give people some kind of "supernatural divine satisfaction", well that's a completely different matter altogether.



He wasn't the first one to suggest "bringing social justice etc. back to the grassroots" either.

So what? It doesn't change the fact that he did have a social conscious and was spreading a message at a time and a place. Christianity, Christian-socialism, etc etc do not base their ideas on the fact that Jesus was some kind of a "first" in fact, in a sense, a theological perspective might hold Jesus to have been a final revelation- a last.


Ok, so Jesus probably existed as a man and said a few good things? So what? Hundreds of others said similar things in ancient times. There is nothing special about him. So why do you seem to focus on this one person so much?



Poor logic? That's coming from someone like you who is not even recognising what I'm actually saying:

Because I do not recognise your point I am in the wrong.... come on! :)


You don't seem to be grasping what I'm saying, that's what I meant.



"Existentialist justifications" for religion are fundamentally idealistic and therefore invalid from an objective scientific perspective;

There is no existential justification for religion and seeing as religion may be seen to be fundamentally idealistic and Jesus was an idealist they may be invalid from a scientific point of view but then no one is saying that religion is a science. The whole idea of religion is in a sense existential. Is existentialism now completely invalidated?


From a materialist perspective, which is the philosophical basis of Marxism, yes existentialism is indeed invalid because it turns base and superstructure upside-down.

But I'm not an explicit militant atheist because I believe religions will never go away as long as the conditions for these religions still exist, so just attacking religion directly all the time doesn't work. So while I support all kinds of rational criticism of religions, I also think people should have the freedom of belief, as long as it's not discriminatory or reactionary.



There is however nothing really special about Jesus' social message.

But there is nothing really special about anyone's message for that matter is there? Most things have been said by someone else before. However, can you define special? Special is a subjective term and based on an existential and subjective analysis therefore I think "unique" would be a better term.

Given that he is not divine, (the "divine" doesn't even exist anyway) Jesus is no more than just another moral and social philosopher who said a few good things among thousands of others, that's it.

And....? Before you said his divinity was in doubt- but now you say he is not divine. The problem here lies with the concept of divine, here and now, and how it may have been seen two-thousand years ago in a completely different context. Roman Emperors whilst still alive were considered "divine", the Divine Augustus.


Materialists don't believe the "divine" really exists.

I'm not anti-Jesus, I think he probably existed and he said some good things, but I don't see the point of focussing so much on him.



And given some of the more reactionary connotations that are associated with Christianity, such as its almost fundamental anti-LGBT stance, it is very debatable whether or not Jesus' social message is really that "positive" at all.

Here you are guilty of reification. Christianity is an abstract concept encompassing a wide range of beliefs, interpretations and points of view. To attack "Christianity" on a monolithic scale is like when people attack "Communism", "Islam" or a lot of other -isms etc. The fact that a lot of Christians were/are homophobic does not mean that Christianity per se is homophobic- a lot of the world pre-Christian and non-Christian were/are homophobic independently from Christianity. Several atheistic regimes do not have an exactly great LGBT record either. Whenever I hear a so-called Christian bashing gays I tend to remind them of the "judge not lest thou be judged" concept expressed in the New Testament to which they usually have no answer.

Of course, this is a differnent subject really and is going off the track of the divinity or non-divinity of Jesus- albeit an interesting subject for discussion however there is wide-ranging debate about the actual meaning of the original texts, the translation and the interpretation thereof. The fact that some bush Baptist with little knowledge of theology gets up with a microphone and says that homosexuality is evil because it says so in his Bible- when there isn't even a word meaning homosexual to be found in the originals is another matter.


It's a different issue but it's not off-topic, because you keep on insisting that Jesus' social message is something good and positive, regardless of whether or not he is really divine, so it's worth it to analyse the specific "social message" of Jesus itself, isn't it?

I didn't say Christianity is always homophobic, there are some progressive variants of it which are not, but the majority probably are, so that's not such a good ethical connotation for anyone who supports LGBT rights.



It is frankly a waste of time for socialists to spend time and effort promoting the so-called "social ministry" of Jesus, because the return does not really justify the investment.

Well considering the materialstic history of communism and socialism in general in the 20th century some might argue that it's a waste of time because the return does really justify the investment- which is in itself a rather capitalist way of putting things. :D


Marxism never completely negates the mathematical method of analysing "investment" and "return" etc. In fact, one could argue that with the planned economy there is more of a focus on real serious scientific planning of resources rather than just letting the random forces of the "market" run most things.



Not to mention that it is pretty fucking Eurocentric to focus so much on Jesus, since in much of the world, he is really just considered to be a rather minor figure by non-Western cultures.

This is a bit of a poor statement given that Jesus was Middle-Eastern to start with, the oldest churches were established in the Middle-East, Egypt and Ethiopia and that in predominantly non-European Islam Jesus, although not considered divine, is on a par with Mohammed, i.e. one of the highest figures in the religion- I would hardly say, divine or non-divine, historical or non-historical that you can turn around and say he is a minor figure whatever your opinion of him.

Jesus is a minor figure in much of the world, such as China and India, the two countries with the greatest numbers of people on this planet. I just don't think he is that important for you to focus on him that much.

[Sosa]

There isn't much evidence for a historical Jesus either