The Church of Jesus Christ Atheist

Guest book review: “Walking Without God - In Search of a Humanist Spirituality” by Ben Whitney

2012-02-10T07:02:00.000-08:00

[This is a new (but hopefully to-be-repeated) feature from CJCA - a guest book review. This review is from Simon Clare, the author of the marvellous blog "Faithless Eye". Simon has blogged his experiences as an atheist attending an Alpha Course, and you'll be surprised and enlightened by how he got on.]

“WalkingWithout God - In Search of a Humanist Spirituality” by Ben Whitney

Ben Whitney

http://www.ypdbooks.com/religion-and-spirituality/476-walking-without-god-YPD00424.html

http://www.ben-whitney.org.uk/

Review by Simon Clare Tw: @FaithlessEye : http://lookthroughmyfaithlesseye.blogspot.com/

Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists” is receiving a lot ofwell-deserved attention in the mainstream media as he is a verywell-known writer and the cogs of the publisher’s promotionalmachine are whirring away. His book - or at least the headlines ithas spawned - has also come under the scrutiny of surprisinglyindignant atheists who resent the very idea that someone can besecure in their atheism at the same time as recognising the fact thatmany aspects of religion are worth reclaiming for humanity.

Perhapsde Botton’s book is too big a step for such atheists. To getsomeone to move from a position where they see all religions asfundamentally evil to one where they can objectively recognise theirpositive qualities is a little like asking somebody whose life hasbeen ruined by alcoholism to try to appreciate the marvellousflavours of fine whiskeys - and marvellous they truly are.

Iwould recommend “Walking Without God” as a stepping-stone betweenmilitant atheism and a more absorbent humanism. Specifically I wouldsuggest that grumpy, die-hard atheists read it just before they start“Religion for Atheists”. One of the unique things about this bookis that it is also my first choice recommendation to Christians whomight want to understand how it is possible for non-believers to havea sense of morality. I used to recommend A.C. Grayling’s “TheMeaning of Things” but Ben Whitney’s book would be far moreeffective.

In “Walking WithoutGod” former Baptist minister Ben Whitney manages to describe - inbrilliantly simple language - a completely humanist basis for his ownmorality and ethics, set against a background of the Christianitythat he was brought up in. Without renouncing his past or dismissingthe views of believers, he shows that you can move seamlessly frombeing a Christian to being a non-religious, good person.

This book isself-published by Ben Whitney so does not have a vast marketinginfrastructure working in the background to promote it. Many criticsof de Botton’s book have benefited from the publicity associatedwith it, they just link their blog with the right hashtag andthousands of de Botton supporters or detractors flow to theirwebsites. Such opportunist critics deserve none of this exposure andwriters such as Whitney deserve it all. Books like “Walking WithoutGod” are rare and they have paved the way for de Botton’s work;supplying us atheists who do not dismiss every aspect of the churchout of hand with literature to fuel and inspire us.

Thebook consists of nine chapters; each one a response to one of thepsalms. When I first saw the list of chapters, I admit that I fearedI had been suckered into buying a Christian book that wasmasquerading as humanist one. I was not used to seeing atheistsdallying this closely with the enemy - with scripture. However, myfears were shown up as the petty prejudices they were within a fewpages, when Whitney assured me that he no longer believes in asupernatural ‘God’. “It just does not make any sense to me.”

Whitneywrites with a secure, humble certainty that there is no God but doesnot labour this point. He does not mince his words and says that theidea of

“..salvation through Jesus to secure our eternal future, butonly for those who believe certain things about him, is particularlyimpossible to believe.”

Hestates clearly what he doesn’t believe without then makinginferences about the mental abilities of those who do believe suchthings, which is what so often happens when atheists write abouttheir beliefs. Whitney demonstrates that there is simply no need todo that.

Oneof the refreshing characteristics of Whitney’s approach is that hewrites only of his own thoughts and conclusions. At no point does hesuggest that this is what we ought to think, or that the way hethinks is the best way. He has no need to call attention to his ownauthority on any matter either, as he is not trying to change thereader’s mind. This is an essential part of why this book is such ajoy to read and to read again.

Whether a writer isatheist or Christian, when they attempt to bring us around to theirway of thinking they can’t help but be coercive to some degree. BenWhitney simply lays his thoughts out in plain view and the reader isfree to take them or leave them, to agree or to disagree. The mind ofthe reader is left to do its own thinking in its own way. In readingthis review, you will have noticed that I am trying to convince youthat my thoughts about this book are the right thoughts and that youought to have this opinion too. You may well resent this, and maybeyou should. My point is that there is a very subtle distinctionbetween a writer who is only writing about their own thoughts and awriter who is also trying to influence the reader’s mind on somelevel. Perhaps it was a reaction to having read a couple ofevangelical Christian books prior to reading this, but I reallyappreciated someone talking to me without trying to subliminallychange my mind.

One of many fineexamples of Whitney’s ability to convey fundamental and powerfulconcepts is in Chapter 7, where Whitney talks about the existence ofevil in the world and how it is often seen as an external force. Intypically straightforward language he mentions the idea of life beinga battle between the forces of good (God) and evil (the Devil) andhow this is the way the existence of evil in the world ischaracterised by many. He then reminds us that this is not what thebible says at all - the serpent was part of the creation too, sowhether you believe in God or not, evil is just part of reality. Themanifestation of evil, he says, is something that we are responsiblefor. Blaming the devil for it or trying to hide from it will simplynot make it go away and neither will belief in God. Evil is happeningto real people right now and only us humans have the power to stopit. God might be content with having set up a planet where evilhappens, but Whitney wants it to stop, here and now.

Thisbook is short and concise. You can read it all on a Saturday morningif you like and I’d bet that for the rest of the day you would be aslightly more excellent human being for having done so. You mighteven be inspired to read the psalms, secure in the knowledge thatthey won’t infect you with faith because you will know you can justread them as critically as you would any other literature, free todiscard the silly bits, but free also to indulge fully in the partsthat resonate with your own perspective on the universe.

“WalkingWith God” shows us what it actually looks like when humanityoutshines the religions it created.

-Simon Clare

More good stuff from Alain de Botton

2012-02-04T04:02:00.000-08:00

It seems people are determined to either misunderstand or misrepresent Alain de Botton's latest offerings about religion, but I think that he's Alain de Spot-on. From the Christian Atheist (or Atheistic Christian) perspective, a lot of what he has to say makes eminent sense. In some ways secularism has abandoned moral engagement, and left the field wide open to religions. Religions have over the years managed to accrete a number of ways of dealing with the sorts of things that plague this species of sentient ape during daily life, and despite the underlying untruth of their dogmas and beliefs, there is a lot of good there. Perhaps we should throw out the baby Jesus, but keep the bathwater.

Here's the video: http://vimeo.com/35701336

Enjoy, and please leave a comment here and at the main Vimeo site. Your ideas about how to integrate this with Christian Atheism would be most welcome.

Atheism 2.0

2012-01-22T14:55:00.000-08:00

http://www.alaindebotton.com

Great talk by Alain de Botton on TED.com on how we might be able to use some of the ideas of religion in an atheistic and secular society. Maybe he has read my blog - Enjoy!
[Incidental point - he was born on exactly the same day as me - the stars must have been in some sort of very auspicious alignment that day ;-)]

Jerusalem: A Biography

2011-10-02T15:03:00.000-07:00

I'm reading this tremendous book by Simon Sebag-Montefiore at the moment; it's a 3000-year romp through the history of the world's most fought-over city, and it's wonderful. The problem is that there is just too much history to cover. Surely nowhere else on the planet can have experienced the multiple highs and lows, rebuildings and reinterpretations of Jerusalem? Although it is of central importance to Jews, Christians and Muslims, I do wonder how many of them, if they really knew its history, would retain their beliefs in their religion? Or would they realise that beliefs are unimportant vanities that only serve to keep people apart? And isn't it astonishing that the most impressive religions are not the ones with the most arcane theologies, but the ones that emphasise respect for each other above mere creeds and doctrines? Let's hope the next few years are happier for Jerusalem and the world than the last three millennia.

Atheistic Christianity in action, Dutch style

2011-08-10T14:31:00.000-07:00

The Rev Klaas Hendrikse is a minister in the Dutch Protestant Church, and doesn't believe that God is a "thing" or a "being", but a word for human experience. While a lot of traditional believers will have some problems with this purely naturalistic view of Christianity, it strikes a major chord with the many Christians who have come to the realisation that God doesn't really exist in the sense we used to think.

Here is a BBC article on Rev Hendrikse and his church, while here is the Unitarian blogger @TimothyJMoore's take on the subject.

I suspect that there are many people within traditional "theist" congregations who share these views. Any thoughts?

The Authentic Gospel of Jesus

2011-06-09T13:59:00.003-07:00

A book by Geza Vermes, author of "Jesus the Jew". JTJ was pretty good, but a little academic & heavy, I thought. I've downloaded AGJ and will see what I think, then post some of my thoughts here.
Anyone else read it? What do you think of the whole enterprise of reconstructing the historical Jesus?

Letter to God

2011-04-27T01:37:00.000-07:00

There is something heartwarming in this story from the Daily Telegraph in which a six year-old girl, being brought up in a secular household, although attending a church-affiliated school. The children in the school were asked to write a letter to God, asking "How did you get invented?" The little girl, Lulu, showed this to her parents; her dad emailed it to a number of church leaders, getting either no response or a pile of theobabble, but, bless him, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sent this reply:

Dear Lulu,

Your dad has sent on your letter and asked if I have any answers. It’s a difficult one! But I think God might reply a bit like this –

‘Dear Lulu – Nobody invented me – but lots of people discovered me and were quite surprised. They discovered me when they looked round at the world and thought it was really beautiful or really mysterious and wondered where it came from. They discovered me when they were very very quiet on their own and felt a sort of peace and love they hadn’t expected.

Then they invented ideas about me – some of them sensible and some of them not very sensible. From time to time I sent them some hints – specially in the life of Jesus – to help them get closer to what I’m really like.

But there was nothing and nobody around before me to invent me. Rather like somebody who writes a story in a book, I started making up the story of the world and eventually invented human beings like you who could ask me awkward questions!’

And then he’d send you lots of love and sign off.

I know he doesn’t usually write letters, so I have to do the best I can on his behalf. Lots of love from me too.

+Archbishop Rowan

Now I know I don't believe that there is a god, and nor do I indoctrinate my children either way - they will find out for themselves, and I'll answer their questions as best I can when they ask them. But for Archbishop Williams to write such a lovely non-in-your-face gentle letter gets him piles of credit in my view. There is no dogmatism there. There is no attempt to stifle the child's wonder or curiosity. There is of course a general assumption that god exists, but I don't expect the Archbishop to come from any other position.

So, Archbishop, thanks for this beautiful response; to me it demonstrates the meaning of a Christianity that people can engage with and use, whether or not they believe there is anyone there to actually write that letter. And well done Lulu!

The Christian Humanist

2011-02-20T15:17:00.000-08:00

I've been very quiet on here lately. Sometimes I think I may be beating my head against a bit of a brick wall with this Atheistic Christianity malarkey, and to some extent that may be true. However, it is nice to know that other people have been thinking along similar lines, so I would encourage anyone who does happen to stumble by this little waystation on the road of e-life to head over to http://christianhumanist.net and compare and contrast the offerings there with what you get here on the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist.

Have fun!

Anglican Atheism?

2011-01-01T14:17:00.000-08:00

Interesting article from Nigel Farndale in the Telegraph back in March about being an Anglican Atheist. I don't know that I quite agree with everything he says there - much as I respect the Anglican tradition, and regard myself as an Atheistic Christian, all this pox about political correctness trying to stamp on Christians is really a load of old wet. Stop yapping, Archbishop! Grow some nuts. Whatever its history, the UK is a secular country, as it should be - you can't claim special privilege for one religion over another.

Where in the gospels is the verse: "Jesus whinged"? It's not there. Jesus NEVER yapped about feeling that his rights were being infringed; if we take an idealised version of the life of Jesus as a humanist hero (and let's set probable historical actualities gently to the side for a moment, because that's what we all do, theist or atheist), then Jesus stood up for people who were *really* being oppressed - the poor, the needy, the marginalised.

Yes, the wheels fell off the wagon pretty quickly after Jesus left the scene, but we have our model, and the scenes of whingeing archbishops and lamenting columnists are just a little bit embarrassing to those of us who like our Christianity real, meaningful and world-changing.

So, I delicately suggest, perhaps we should move away from this tedious moaning, and promote a Christianity that does not exclude people, be they Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Pagans or whatever. The Christianity of Jesus was about the here and now - the Kingdom of God is a metaphor for the establishment of a caring and altruistic society where we all take responsibility to help each other out, whatever their circumstances. Stop whitewashing the sepulchres, people. When you're dead, you're dead. The Kingdom of God is NOW.

And as an Atheist, I have no problem in saying that.

Any comments?

Belated Happy Christmas!

2010-12-26T07:42:00.000-08:00

Happy Christmas to one and all from the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist!

It's what Jesus would have wanted, I suppose, but it's *definitely* what Christ wants. At Christmas, it's not so much the birth of Jesus that we are celebrating, but the birth of Christ. To the Atheistic Christian, Jesus functioned (quite possibly entirely unwittingly) to the "Christ" - an example of ideal moral conduct that could form the basis of narratives of human interactions that help us sort out what is important from what is unimportant or even harmful.

Scholars have known since at least the 19th Century that the charming tales of the nativity are not "historical" in any meaningful sense. Yes, Herod was a bastard (even though he was long dead before Quirinius became governor in Syria and administered Augustus's local census that didn't affect Nazareth...), but the contradictory accounts in Matthew and Luke provided the nucleus for a heartwarming mythical memeset surrounding the birth of Christ - the baby in all of us that represents triumph over adversity, new life from the jaws of death, the promise of Spring in the heart of winter. In regard to the latter, we in Northern Ireland have experienced plenty of that over the last few weeks.

But here we are - whether old folks complain about commercialism and rubbish music (I love carols, however) and greedly acquisitive little brats and the whole thing extending back to September - peace, love, goodwill and basic human decency do merit a festival, a celebration. After all, this is what the "Christ" meme is about - it's encapsulated perfectly in the story of the Good Samaritan, but the story, however apocryphal, of a baby born in Bethlehem in the bleak midwinter long ago tells us something much more profound than theists can really appreciate.

Happy Christmas, one and all.

Biblical novels

2010-12-06T14:05:00.000-08:00

Parrhaisos has offered us Thomas Mann's magnum opus "Joseph and his Brothers" as a scholarly and challenging re-telling of a classic bible tale. This was in response to my previous post about Joseph - one of the most satisfying stories in the bible, and a novella in its own right. The bible is full of gems like this - does anyone else have any favourite novelisations of biblical stories? Feel free to add them below.

Clive James on Jesus

2010-11-27T03:31:00.000-08:00

This is a bit of an oldie - from 2008 in fact. Clive James, popular broadcaster, wit and bon viveur is an atheist - no surprises there. In this article on the BBC, Clive writes about how someone who does not believe the supernatural elements of the bible stories of Jesus can still derive a great deal from them, and appreciate the ethics and outlook of "Jesus the man".

There is a lot of sense in the article, and I think I broadly agree. I also think it can serve as a useful touch-point for those of us who don't believe in gods, demons, angels or messiahs to engage with those who still do in a meaningful, educational and collaborative way. After all, the question of belief (to the unbeliever) is spectacularly less important than setting the basis for an ethical and mutually-beneficial society and global outlook. Indeed, if you look at the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels, you see a picture of a man opposed to religious dogmatism, antithetical to religious belief as the admission card to "The Kingdom". I've mentioned before that this is the somewhat lost meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan - belief is unimportant. It is how you interact with your fellow humans that counts, and your relationship with whatever metaphysics you find to your taste is your own business.

Where I would perhaps depart marginally from Clive is over the implication that this "Jesus the man" is necessarily cognate with "the historical Jesus" - we simply do not have enough evidence to judge, and to be realistic, there is every evidence that Jesus was a fairly observant Jew, and did of course believe in God. He was not just a teacher of ethics; he had a religious axe to grind too - and these are separate things. However, the important thing is that we have been left with a series of stories that we can use, expand upon, midrashise, fill out, crop, mix and match as we like (hey, that is what Christians have been doing for millennia!), and just because we atheists have realised that there is no God behind all this, that should not disqualify us from adopting it if we wish, and parsing it through our Christianity Compatibility Layer.

Jesus the Nazarene presents a rich narrative resource, backed up by centuries of infrastructural investment (much of it with a rather unattractive history, but we are where we are) and a wide cultural familiarity. If we are honest and open, there is no reason why Atheists cannot be Christians too. I suggest...

Atheists for Jesus

2010-11-20T03:37:00.000-08:00

Any comments?
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com

This from Ken Schei:
"I will utilize information from the Bible, the writings of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, the Didache, the so-called "Q Document," and the insights of great minds such as Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Carl Sagan, to show how the original compassionate religion OF Jesus of Nazareth was distorted almost beyond recognition (by the "self-appointed" apostle, Paul, and his followers) into a "me-oriented" religion ABOUT Jesus the Christ (a caricature made up of bits of Jesus, that were combined with and corrupted by the addition of material from the mythologies of Dionysus, Mithras, and other Greco/Roman Deities). Moderate and Liberal Christians, who wish to actually honor the life and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, need to weed out and totally discard all of the misinformation that Paul, and those who have followed in his footsteps, have added to the original message of love and compassion that was at the heart of Jesus' teachings. Thomas Jefferson (who called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus") did most of the work for us already."

I'm reminded a bit about Richard Dawkins' statement that he is a Christian, albeit a "cultural Christian". Is there a distinction here? I think there perhaps is some difference between these positions and also between these positions and the scenario I'm sketching out with the CJCA. I have a great deal of sympathy for these other positions, but in Dawkins' case, Cultural Christianity is merely that - a cultural wrapping. This does have the advantage that it doesn't become seen as constricting, and since culture evolves, Cultural Christianity is free to evolve also.

Schei seems to present a "back to basics" view that Jesus really was (i.e. the historical Jesus) presenting us with something of value that has since become corrupted. I think where I might differ is that I think the real historical Jesus (insofar as we can say anything about him) seems to have made a lot of mistakes too, and it might be an error to regard him as authoritative. Besides, freethinkers tend to reject authority anyway - we're evidence junkies, and adherence to a "true teaching" will never satisfy. That said, finding out about the history of early Christianity really is a fascinating intellectual pursuit, and can teach us lessons for the future.

The CJCA approach is more to take what we've got right now, where we happen to be, and running with that. Trimming and polishing where necessary, bridging gaps as needed, and even frankly decrying some of the morally unacceptable facets of "Christianity". Effectively, religion forms a narrative. It can't be a strait-jacket, nor do we need to keep the same old rubbish once it is past its sell-by date.

But these views are (I think) not mutually incompatible - I find myself wandering between them (as well as outright anti-religion thinking!) frequently. As ever, dear reader, your thoughts are most welcome.

Atheist Ministers

2010-11-09T13:26:00.000-08:00

John Loftus shared an interesting link over at Debunking Christianity on the topic of ministers who are atheists, yet find themselves in the position of leading a church.

Here is the actual link to the ABC News story. I think a lot of the regular readers here can empathise with "Jack" and "Adam" - certainly I do. And I'm not even sure that they are in the wrong job - perhaps they are very much in the right job, and if the Central Thesis of CJCA is correct, many of their congregation probably feel the same way.

More on good churches

2010-11-04T16:22:00.000-07:00

All Souls Church in Belfast is a beautiful old church with one of the most intriguing histories of any church in Belfast. It belongs to the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church in Ireland - a fairly wide grouping of freethinking Christians ranging from the extremely sensible to the outright bonkers. But that's a good thing, right?

The minister is Rev Chris Hudson, a remarkable and colourful character, and a man of enormous compassion and energy, particularly in the face of injustice. In particular, Chris has been very vocal in standing up for the rights of gay people in Northern Ireland, and his inclusive approach means that atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Pagans and others can feel very much at home in the church.

Is this a vision that Atheistic Christians can also share? Go to the Facebook page, and follow the progress of this remarkable congregation.

Sad news: Dr Ken Pulliam has died

2010-10-30T23:31:00.000-07:00

Ken Pulliam was a former evangelical minister who discovered that many of the things he had been taught and had believed about Christianity were untrue. His excellent scholarship and reasoning have helped many people to counter the nonsense put about by Christian apologists.

His blog contains some great posts: http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/
This Facebook page has been set up in his memory.
He will be sorely missed.

Belief is dead; long live orientation!

2010-10-07T14:54:00.000-07:00

It's not just Christians who don't believe in God any more - check out Rabbi Jeffrey Falick's intriguing blog: http://www.theatheistrabbi.com

The "orientation model" of religion appears to be growing; fewer and fewer people adhere to the "belief model" (OK, they are still a majority). Perhaps this is due to better education. Perhaps it is a consequence of people being exposed to other viewpoints, and realising that what they previously held as "truth" is really just a societal custom, open to change.

The ideal church?

2010-10-05T21:49:00.000-07:00

Over at Irreducible Complexity, Ian has an intriguing post, This is my church, where he sets out his ideal Sunday morning church experience. Coffee, chat, a bit of education, breakout groups - it all seems very congenial. Maybe it'll catch on?

We're on Facebook

2010-09-22T15:48:00.000-07:00

Oh peskies! It appears my earlier post (which has been edited and annihilated - happy now, John Stott?) did not correctly indicate how to get to the Facebook page. I admit to a little puzzlement as to how to make that work, but try this link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Church-of-Jesus-Christ-Atheist/128248970561284

Is Christian Atheism going to go viral? I would love to think so, but really I think that we will remain something of an underground movement, always trying to inject a bit of reason and freethought into a juggernaut that continues to accrete more and more nonsense as it goes on.

Be careful out there, people!

Render unto Caesar

2010-09-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

One of Jesus's statements in support of a strict separation between Church and State. I imagine he would be horrified that the Pope is being accorded a "state" visit to the UK, but then the pope is pretty caeasresque too...

Joseph and his amazing technicolor funboat

2010-09-03T14:19:00.000-07:00

From www.thebricktestament.com

The story of Joseph is one of my favourites from the whole bible. It comprises the latter part of the Book of Genesis, and most authorities agree that it was a fairly late addition. Although Kenneth Kitchen (a formidable expert in Egyptology) places the events in the New Kingdom, around 1400BCE, many Egyptologists feel that the case is much more persuasive for placing the main events and characters in a Late Period setting, around 600BCE. There are many details of the story that seem out-of-place in the New Kingdom.

As a novella, it is a real beauty, with (in my opinion) some strong stylistic linkages to Egyptian stories such as Sinuhe (much earlier - Middle Kingdom). It is clearly written in a novel-like form; my feeling is that this was an original Egyptian story that has been adapted for a Hebrew readership. Perhaps "Joseph" was originally a country boy from the North-Western delta, or he could indeed have been an Asiatic from the North-East. Little literary motifs in the story scream "Egypt!", and part of me wonders if somewhere in the desert there may be a jar with a hieratic document containing the original story. Maybe if we found that, we would know who the Pharaoh was (annoyingly, the bible mentions very few Pharaohs by name, making it difficult to contextualise some of the stories).

Any of you have any favourite stories? Incidentally, this is one story where I think an atheist can get just as much enjoyment as a theist. See? We don't *lose* anything - we *gain*! :-)

Be Thou My Vision

2010-09-02T15:23:00.000-07:00

Essentially this captures what I'm trying to do here. Atheists can sing this hymn with just as much feeling, meaning and emotion as theists. Do add your favourite hymns to the comments; if you have links to any recordings you like, please share them, and maybe let us know a little about how you might interpret it in a non-theistic way. Or perhaps you just appreciate beautiful music and poetry...

Inerrancy - a deeply unbiblical and idolatrous concept

2010-08-31T14:39:00.000-07:00

How true?

Nowadays there probably aren't that many Christians who really believe the bible is true in every detail. However, somewhat paradoxically, if you challenge them on this, they (well, lots of 'em) will circle the wagons and declare that it is indeed completely "God's Word", and that if it disagrees with the findings of science, history, common sense, reason, and even what people would ordinarily judge to be "true", then so much the worse for the competition.

But this is a tricky position for the (theistic) Christian. There is nothing in the recorded (or attributed) words of Jesus that can really support such an extreme bibliolatry, and - worse - if people take that view, then they are left unable to properly understand what is written in the bible, and the beliefs and culture of the people over the 800 years or so during which it was cobbled together. The process of compilation is part of the message, and part of the fun and value of the thing, for Christ's sake! Why turn it into some primitive oracle, and rob it of its humanity?

As a Christian Atheist, it's pretty obvious that I cannot hold to an inerrantist position - but even when I was a theist, the suggestion was absurd. In order to make it "inerrant", one had to dream up the most ridiculous convoluted nonsenses, that then dehumanised the authors, wrenched the stories and worldviews from their historical contexts, and made the "God" of the bible a buffoon. Indeed, biblical inerrancy was (in my view - and it continues to be my view) a very deep and troublesome form of blasphemy.

Let's look at it another way. If there are contradictions in the bible, outright errors, fictions, fables, fantasies and fudges - does that decrease its value? I would suggest not. I would instead suggest that the bible gives us a very clear view that religion should really have nothing whatever to do with truth claims (or even gods), but about community. A shared narrative that gives us a toolkit for describing the problems that life throws at us wee humans.

So, if you're sitting in a church, listening to some priest or pastor rabbitting on about the amazing bible, you can remind yourself that he or she is missing something really important. Perhaps the most important thing of all. But you won't be thanked for pointing it out.

The Parable of the Cube and the Crazy People

2010-08-11T14:44:00.000-07:00

And Jesus said unto his disciples: Sit down, chaps. You're going to love this one.

A man was walking on the road from Capernaum to Ginosar, and waxed thirstful. He stopped at a well, and had a drink. Beside the well lay a Rubik's cube which was jumbled up, and he picked it up and looked at it. As he started to twist it, behold, a Pharisee leapt out of the bushes (there were some bushes beside the well - did I mention that? Well there were.)

What doest thou, thou blasphemer?! yelled the Pharisee. Dost thou not know that this is the Holy Cube, and has been given unto us as it is, never to be touched, for it is perfect?!

Your arse, said the man. It's all jumbled up - look, there are blues and greens and yellows and whites and reds and oranges all over the shop - it's hopelessly jumbled. But I am a very clever chap, and I can *do* Rubik's cubes - I can solve these babies oh yeah.

But the Pharisee waxed ever angrier. No, thou evildoer - the cube is perfect, and can never be touched. Here. Give it back. Now feck off.

The man walked on until he came to another well (hot day, still thirsty, no water bottles back then, OK?). Beside it was another Rubik's cube, much the same as the last one, except for a couple of twists. He picked it up and was about to start solving it when out jumps an Essene (bushes here too), and demands that he stop.

But your cube is jumbled! said the man.

Yes, said the Essene, but to fix it you must not twist it around, for that would be blasphemy. Instead you must peel off all the stickers and put them on in the pattern of holiness.

Which would be? inquired the man, who was becoming a little perplexed at the misplaced reverence shown to this object.

It's a secret, said the Essene, grabbing the cube. Now feck off.

And feck off he did. At the next well, he picked up the next cube, and yadda yadda and out jumps a Nazarene.

[Hey, isn't that us? said Simon Peter. Yes, said Jesus, but shut up. This is important.]

This cube is as it is because of the Fall, said the Nazarene. You're just making it worse.

Making it worse? said the man - it's a mess!

Yes, but the Son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven and solve the cube!

But I can solve it now; I just have to do a load of twists and rotations, and it'll get there.

No, said the Nazarene, the Son of Man will solve it with one twist.

Like feck he will, said the man. Look, I appreciate your beliefs, but you have no evidence for them.

The evidence is in the messed up state of the cube! said the Nazarene. What was perfect is now imperfect.

Why will none of you let me try to solve the cube? asked the man.

Don't you get it? said the Nazarene. You cannot solve the cube by yourself, other than by taking it apart and putting it back together again.

How do you know? said the man.

It is folly to try! said the Nazarene. Now give me my cube and bugger off.

And the man walked on.

[Simon Peter said: Lord, what the feck was that all about?
Jesus replied: Give me a while - I'm working on it, OK?]

Good cop or bad cop?

2010-08-01T14:21:00.000-07:00

Well, it's a puzzler for sure. I'm an atheist; I regard myself as what Richard Dawkins might call a "Cultural Christian", but I sorta prefer the term "Christian Atheist". Personally I do not go to church, but I don't rip the head off people who do, and indeed that group would include a lot of my closest friends and family (theists and atheists alike). I recognise the historical legacy left by Christianity, even if the historical basis for the resurrection (that sine qua non of the whole shebang, according to a certain Saul Paulus) has been shown to be non-existent.

Deep down - or not even that deep - I do not feel that theism and a scientific outlook are compatible. I recognise that many scientists are theists, but that simply shows us that people can internally tolerate a disconnect, and that is hardly Big News. The reason for the incompatibility is not that science "disproves god" - I accept that it doesn't and indeed cannot absolutely rule out the existence of a goddy thing - it is much simpler than that.

Science cannot tolerate authority.

As a scientist, if the bible tells me that such-and-such happened at such-and-such a point in history, it may or may not be telling the truth, but the status of any such statement is that of a claim. These claims may or may not have supporting or contradictory evidence. I am in no position to accept them as true, and indeed I must (as a scientist) be at liberty to reject them if they conflict with the evidence.

Which is a problem for the Theistic Christian, because if we apply proper methods of historical analysis to the biblical claims, the scientific methodology behind archaeology, and the rational approach demanded by science, we find that events such as the virgin birth or the resurrection do not only not stack up, they are refuted by evidence from within the bible itself.

So how should we handle things when someone gets up in a pulpit or other public platform, and sounds off about some matter or other (such as homosexuality, for instance), using the bible as "authority", when ALL of us atheists, whether Christian or otherwise, REJECT that authority? Should we make an issue of it, and contradict the speaker, thereby causing tremulousness among those who demand "Christian unity", or should we simply accept it, smile benignly, let it pass, and privately internally pity the poor sap who is so deluded.

Good cop or bad cop?

I'll admit to playing both roles from time to time, but then I can afford to do so, since I don't have a church to be kicked out of. Any experiences anyone would like to share?

[Cartoon from Shelley the Republican. Make of that what you will! ;-)]

The Parable of the Maiden and the Bears

2010-07-06T15:13:00.000-07:00

An astonishing discovery has been made in the Middle East. The Lost Gospel of Zebedee is an Aramaic document, written on papyrus in the 1st Century CE, and predates the earliest of the canonical gospels by at least 20 years. Dr Ursi Goldschluessel from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has hailed the find as "spectacular; this promises to shed light on the whole purpose of Christianity and the concept of religion as understood by Jesus himself". Here is one short section:

The Gospel of Zebedee
CHAPTER 7.
1. And Jesus travelled through the region, coming unto Samaria, and, behold, a great multitude did follow him, for his fame had spread abroad.
2. And coming to the edge of a forest, he sat and spake to the multitude, saying,
3. A young maiden with golden hair was walking through the woods, near the road from Jerusalem to Damascus, when she came upon an house, wherein lived three bears,
4. A father bear, a mother she-bear, and a baby bear, and they were a family of bears, and verily did enjoy breaking the night-time fast with morning porridge, which Mummy Bear did make, as is the wont of mummy bears, as ye all know.
5. Now the bears had departed from their abode for a short while, that the porridge may cool, for it was hot hot hot, and they did take a walk in the woods, mayhap to carry out that thing that bears do in woods. Verily. They do. Even Elisha knew this.

There are several more pages of the Lost Gospel that have yet to be translated from the original, but it is clear that this may change Christianity for ever. And this is a parable within a parable.

He or she that has ears to hear, let him/her hear. Or if they don't have ears, that's OK. Or whatever.

Where do you go; what do you like?

2010-07-05T13:30:00.000-07:00

OK - a chance for pew-sitters to spill the beans! If you do attend a church, which church do you attend? What do you like about it? What do you dislike? Maybe you're a minister / pastor / priest - how do you view your "calling" if the belief side of things has slipped away?

I'll kick off by saying that although I am not a church attender, I have been made to feel very warmly welcome in two churches in Belfast - St Bartholomew's Church of Ireland on the Stranmillis Road, and All Souls Non-Subscribing Presbyterian on Elmwood Avenue. In both cases, members of the congregation are welcoming, and very prepared to discuss and debate issues of religion over coffee and biccies. Be sure to stop by!

Actually... is there anyone out there?

2010-07-04T15:29:00.000-07:00

Any atheists who attend church? Do you like the service? Do you participate in communion / eucharist? Indeed, are you a church leader or even pastor / minister / priest? I'm not asking for names; I don't want to "out" anyone. If you have any experiences you'd like to share, please let us know in the comments to this post. Are there things churches could be doing to become more welcoming to those of an atheistic viewpoint? Are there ways atheists should consider changing to "fit in" more with the church, without compromising their view?

Fire away!

Hymns

2010-07-03T10:06:00.000-07:00

Some are great, some are awful, some are stirring, some are cringeworthy. Some are crushingly tedious, and others stick with you.

All things bright and beautiful: raw interminable tedium.
And can it be: sheer brilliance.
Jesus loves me, this I know: bang your head repeatedly off the back of the pew in front.

So here's a thread for your faves and pet hates. Also, any CCL (Christianity Compatibility Layer) comments welcome - how can atheists sing the good ones without feeling silly?

We need your help here, people!

The Resurrection

2010-05-07T14:09:00.000-07:00

Is the resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene (or Chad Kruger from Nickelback) the "best attested event in ancient history" as claimed by some theistic apologists?

For many people, it has been the study of the bible itself that has led them to atheism. As Paul mentions in Corinthians, if the resurrection did not take place, then Christianity is worthless. Like a lot of Paul's opinions, this is probably not quite true (and certainly many apologists argue this point too - they argue that Christianity has brought many benefits to humankind, regardless of whether it is "true" or not).

However, one thing that is very clear is that the resurrection of Jesus is not only NOT the best-attested event in ancient history, the bible actually contains a stack of evidence that shows it to be false. The accounts of the resurrection and the post-resurrection appearances (rather, visions) of Jesus are all flawed in a number of particulars, and the motivations of the people who made the gospels are all there in the text.

Far from the resurrection being the "best explanation of the facts" as claimed by some apologists, several explanations present themselves that are far far more likely - including the idea that the whole story is complete fiction, from Bethlehem to Calvary.

In future posts we'll have a look at some of this evidence, but for now it is probably worth thinking about what the resurrection means as a story for the Christian Atheist. Feel free to comment...

The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ: REVIEW

2010-05-07T14:07:00.000-07:00

Shane has a review of "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" over at answersingenes.blogspot.com - have a look and leave a comment!

A different perspective

2010-04-11T13:04:00.000-07:00

I've had an interesting comment on the "Welcome" message. Unfortunately it's anonymous, but I think it's interesting and provides some food for thought. What do folks think?

I have to admit that I also have a surprising belief. I call myself a "Christian", but am actually a sort of non-believer in "Christianity" and an actual believer in "Christ". Does that make me a "non-Christian" believer in the divinity of Christ, I wonder?

As a "non-Christian believer in Christ" I have long suspected that many "Christians" or "pew warmers" are actually secret atheists, so to have a means by which they can "come out" is a good thing, I suppose. After having dumped their pretence at belief in God, they then may also dump their "Christianity" (all the rules, regulations, sectarianism and guilt along with the cultural trappings and psychgology) in the hope they will then come round to seeing what it is all really supposed to be about.

What I am really saying is that my view is probably the opposite of what is being presented here. What has grown up in the centuries after the death (and after the other thing, dare I say it) of Jesus is not so much a "mythologising" of the supernatural, but the very opposite - an attempt to subsume the reality under the religious. That's why people like me get just a wee bit piddled off when we are categorised with "religious" people when attacked by atheists.

It would be really great to see "Christians" coming out and admitting that they were unbelievers (like the Pope, perhaps?), so at least they are the ones who would take all the flak for being religious, and leave the rest of us in peace.

As a starter for ten, I would suggest that the resurrection (the "other thing"!) is very much a piece of mythology, crafted after the death of Jesus the man. Jesus the man was not the Christ, but what arose from the story, and indeed what is perhaps a foundational point in Christian Atheism, is that "Christ" is something *we* create - a concept of a dynamic change for the better. Sometimes change is hard to achieve - we have to go through some difficulties to reach our goal - the "suffering". At least that is one way of looking at it.

But this concept of "Christ" implies radical transformation - a conscious placing of others before ourselves. Yes, I appreciate there is a disconnect here with the real historical Jesus (particularly his inexcusable behaviour in the temple, when he actually resorted to violence), but there are lessons we can learn. "Christ" as a real messiah is an incoherent concept; Christ as a concept we can attach ideal standards to is eminently more serviceable - even if (or perhaps precisely because) it is a myth.

Thanks again for your comment, Anonymous - please stick around and feel free to comment more!

The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ

2010-04-03T11:20:00.000-07:00

Philip Pullman's latest offering is a retelling of the story of Jesus, and it has already ruffled a few feathers. It looks excellent! I haven't read it yet, but if anyone has, please feel free to add your comments below.
If you haven't read it, you can catch an excerpt at the Guardian.

You are not alone

2010-03-18T15:11:00.000-07:00

I guestimate that 15-20% of Christians do not really believe that the resurrection happened, or that Jesus was really the son of God. At least 10% of regular churchgoers (who will describe themselves as Christians) do not believe in god at all - you are probably one of them if you're reading this.

Now comes news of a study by Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola, interviewing current preaching ministers who do not believe in god. There is a lot to consider there. However, the ministers concerned regarded themselves as the tip of a much larger iceberg.

If that iceberg would like to make acquaintance with the Titanic that is CJCA, come right ahead - feel free to comment away (but do read the study!)

This "Christ" thing...

2010-03-07T14:12:00.000-08:00

The way I see it, Christian Atheism is an entirely valid position. I don't believe in any gods, and I don't believe that Jesus the Nazarene was even that special. He is, however, the focus of a rather remarkable phenomenon that crystallised out of the supersaturated religious solution of the Roman Empire. Now, whether we accept that the "Impostle Paul" (Saul of Tarsus) made the most of this up or not, we are left with this concept of a "Christ" which has become attached to the story of a Galilean teacher in 1st Century CE Palestine. Jesus, in many ways, can be viewed as a retrospective Christ, not crowned by God, but by us.

And we're not even exclusive. A Christian Atheist won't say that Jesus is The Way (even if Jesus himself did say that, which is questionable). He's not even *A* way as such, because there isn't really any need for a way in the first place. What the Christian Atheist does (in my view) is simply adopt Christianity and the person of Jesus as a ready-made set of tools by which to explore human relationships. Some aspects of the stories of Jesus can be made to handle this better than others of course, but it is a fair enough start. Other religions have developed similar parable-packs, and there is even no real need to go to religion to get them - it is perfectly possible to either address the issues directly, or with entirely secular approaches that do not draw on religious metaphor.

So why choose Christianity as an atheist sandbox?

I think it's because a lot of the groundwork has already been done. A lot of entirely humanistic and atheistic ideas have already been incorporated fully into Christianity. There is also the huge infrastructure of Christianity - surely we can tap into that rich vein?

Of course, this approach is not without its difficulties. Some standard Christian hymns and bible stories are frankly silly, or even a little offensive to atheistic views. Can we maintain the heritage of Christianity, warts and all, yet still move forward with what is, essentially, the inescapable logical conclusion of the Reformation and the Enlightenment?

The God of Classical Theism vs Zeus?

2009-12-24T01:53:00.000-08:00

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism has a post about whether there is a proof of the existence of the God of Classical Theism (hereinafter GOTC) that would *disprove* the existence of Zeus. He thinks that Zeus wouldn't have a look-in, but my point is that YHWH wouldn't have a look-in either, without the layers of theological reinterpretation that have been applied over the millennia.

Here's what I wrote:

Luke, your problem here is that this "God of classical theism" is actually incompatible with the god of (say) Genesis or Job. Classical theism presents a multiply worked-over god concept that in the Christian tradition has been superimposed on the biblical texts, but when we look at those texts without the "benefit" of millennia of interpretation and metaphorisation, there's no spitting distance between YHWH, Zeus, Amun-Re or even the FSM.

If the Greeks had bothered (and some evidently DID), they would have had no problem at all in identifying the GOCT as Zeus, and vice versa, just as Theistic Christians (as opposed to Atheistic Christians) have done, and just as could be done for Amun-Re (which would be really cool - I'd love to see Karnak re-open as a functional temple to Amun).

I would also argue, of course, that this means that Christianity doesn't actually require a god to exist for it to *work*, and the same may (arguably) be true for many other religions - we should encourage atheistic versions of them too (Ancient Greek, Egyptian, Islam, Hinduism, etc). God is like the gap under an arch - when you're standing atop it, you feel like there is something there, but the support is actually coming from elsewhere. And whichever arch you fancy, go for it.

A lot of Christian people know this already, but don't feel that they want to come "out" with it, for fear of upsetting their friends and family (in much the same way as you don't want to tell the kids about Santa, but let them work it out for themselves).

Any thoughts?

[Luke's blog, btw, is absolutely excellent, and a must-read for would-be philosophers of religion. He deserves to go far, and I predict you will be hearing a lot more of him in the future. Keep up the good work, Luke!]

Behold the mighty Sphinx!

2009-12-20T08:10:00.000-08:00

Religion is a funny thing. Over 5000 years ago, long before Yahweh was invented, the people of Egypt developed a sophisticated (and oft-misunderstood) religious system that lasted far longer than Christianity, yet vanished without a trace.
Yes, elements of Egyptian religion became incorporated into the new religion of Christianity (the Trinity is one example; much of the Gnosticism that ended up making its way into *mainstream* Christianity is also traceable to concepts directly related to the old Egyptian religion), but by and large it was forgotten.

At Christmas time, let's celebrate what came before. Let's raise a toast to the Egyptians, and make our snow-sphinxes (weather permitting) with pride.

That old "God-shaped hole"

2009-12-04T15:21:00.000-08:00

There is a popular theistic cliché that inside everyone there is a void - a "god-shaped hole".
The problem is: if you start out with a god-shaped hole, you end up with a hole-shaped god.

Christian Atheists grab this bull by the horns. We don't have a god-shaped hole. A god is like a piece of clothing; a style. We're not saying that Christianity is the Right Way - the Way, the Truth or the Life. It is simply the way we have chosen. Other atheists are Muslims, Jews and many others. Some are happy to remain within their religious tradition; others have grown beyond that.

Don't worry about a god-shaped hole. Typically what you really need are fulfilling human relationships and a direction to what you're doing with your life. Pay it forward. Don't be defined by what other people say you lack. Don't live by the hole.

What would Jesus do?

2009-12-03T14:33:00.000-08:00

Turns out he would do whatever you think he would do. People create God in their own image - the Will of God turns out to be remarkably close to the Will of whoever thinks they're interpreting it. Which we have known all along of course. Here's more... http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php

Secular Bible Scholarship

2009-10-17T14:52:00.000-07:00

Debunking Christianity is one of my favourite blogs, run by the incomparable John Loftus. John has posted a call from himself, Hector Avalos, Jim Linville and Ken Pulliam for the establishment of a group to apply biblical scholarship from an explicitly non-religious perspective.

Yes, yes, I know the CJCA is trying to not rock the boat, but replace it plank-by-plank, while keeping it afloat (possibly a doomed enterprise, but who's to say it's not a fun experiment?), but this has got to be a good thing. Many Christian Atheists have come to their positions because they have studied the bible in considerable detail, and Christianity ultimately supports Atheism in the final analysis.

Of course, a corollary of what I'm saying is that Atheistic Judaism and Atheistic Islam etc. are perfectly valid positions to take, and people are developing atheistic compatibility layers for these religions too (possibly most advanced in Judaism - a fantastic model to follow in many respects). Atheistic Christianity is not exclusive - our atheism joins us to our colleagues in many other camps and disciplines. Keep it up, folks! Similar groupings for study of the Torah and Koran, anyone?

Christianity Compatibility Layer (CCL)

2009-07-26T12:22:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it's time for a little glossary. Feel free to add items in the comments, and as time goes on I'll see if we can keep the list up to date.

God: A human conceptual creation; a notional creator of the universe, or creative principle, and the agent of human salvation from sin. In the CCL, "God" essentially maps to whatever general principle turns out to be behind the universe itself, as well as a cognitive tool for deflecting inappropriate feelings of guilt, or a concept to help us make it through difficult times. We may even "pray" to "God" and seek its "guidance", being aware that what we are really doing is making some use of our unconscious mind to resolve some of our problems. The human brain has evolved to be a funny thing. Thank "God" for that!

Jesus: A man who is said to have lived in the early first century of the common era. Known in his time as "Jesus the Nazarene", he was a Galilean preacher who initially followed the charismatic John the Baptist, but later seems to have set out on his own. After an act of violent disorder in the Temple, he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and this is where things get very odd. His body seems to have gone missing, and some of his followers suggested that he was risen from the dead, and was indeed the promised Messiah or Christ. There is zero evidence for this resurrection, and the stories that were told after his death are hopelessly contradictory. However, for the Christian Atheist, Jesus serves as an illustration or a secular parable - in that sense, the Jesus Christ of fiction can be as relevant as the real Jesus the Nazarene. The Christian Atheist has the advantage of being able to analyse the stories and reported sayings of Jesus, and recognise which are sensible, and which are a bit silly.

More later!

Oops! Accommodationism rears its ugly head

2009-06-07T12:02:00.000-07:00

Oh dear - it seems that we have confused and upset some folks with this early effort. We have been accused of "accommodationism" - a kow-towing to the religious status quo; an equivalisation of our position of principled atheism with the position of simple theistic "faith". Perhaps some more explanation is in order.

There isn't a god. Jesus wasn't his son. He didn't rise from the dead - those are things that we can be pretty sure about. Yes, you can never be precisely 100% sure about anything, but most atheists feel they are on pretty solid ground there. So we're not relaxing that position any.

Nor are we seeking to open the sort of "debate" between the "two sides" (as if there were only two!) in the spirit of enquiry into the fundamental nature of existence. There are plenty of resources for that, and where we impinge on that arena, we are more than happy to let the big guys slug it out.

No - on this site we are atheists, and we're happy with that. I keep returning to the Windows vs Linux analogy - we are not wanting to install a theistic mental operating system. Many of us have tried that in the past, and it so totally hasn't worked. For reasons as to why that should be the case, you can check out some of the many excellent atheist web resources (let's plug DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY and COMMON SENSE ATHEISM at this point - they're great).

What we are trying to do is help people who have come to an atheistic understanding of the world, but remain (or indeed *want* to remain) within their churches, doing good, "witnessing" for some of the good values that you *do* find in Christianity (they're humans after all, and most humans aren't all that bad), and who do not want to feel hypocritical or that they are dissembling when they stand up and sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" or some such.

Hence the Christianity Compatibility Layer (CCL). A cognitive module for atheists, to allow them to participate and interact with their Christian friends and family, and to show that "becoming an atheist" need not mean losing your values, what you've worked for, your social circle, your charitable leanings, your joy in life, or EVEN (if you're this way inclined) your church. You can be a force for good, for rationality, for science, for knowledge, and you can show people a new way to interpret the world around them - one that is positive, progressive, liberal, and pays due heed to history, culture, tradition, and the art of the possible.

So, no accommodationism here - at least, not for ideologies. Accommodation for people, and an easy route from theism to atheism, with the option to continue to be a Christian.

The Good Samaritan

2009-04-13T14:21:00.000-07:00

The parable of The Good Samaritan is one of the most well-known and well-loved of the stories attributed to Jesus. It appears in the Gospel of Luke (and only there, which is a pity, because it's a winner), chapter 10:25-37. Seen as central to Christian ethics, it is also a shining example of core humanist ethics that make no call on a god for validation.

Our poor assault victim lies by the roadside, and is passed by by the religiously observant priest and Levite. They weren't simply ignoring this unfortunate chap because they couldn't be bothered - their religion explicitly forbade them touching a wounded man. They were doing what their god had commanded them to do! This aspect is frequently glossed over.

When Jesus told this story, the barb would not have been lost on his hearers - this is an *antireligious* story. It tells of religion's ability to get between a person and their ethical responsibilities. Who holds people to account? God? No. People? Yes.

The Samaritan, unencumbered by religious nonsense, and acting on pure basic humanistic principles, helps the injured man, and demonstrates the real value of humanistic ethics. Jesus could not have put it plainer than this. He could have told the story about a good Muslim, a good homosexual, a good atheist - all of the above. It is just one episode that justifies non-believers claiming Jesus as a fellow-traveller along that hazardous road to Jericho.

Welcome!

2009-04-13T13:37:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist.

Jesus Christ was an Atheist?? You may be shocked, but don't be. Stick with us, and we'll explain where this is going.

There is no question that the man, Jesus the Nazarene, believed in God. However, the notions that have been attached to this man (a human like all of us) are largely fictional, and overlain with multiple layers of theistic interpretation, that they combined many elements of Jewish and Greek religious thought into a new religion, Christianity, in the centuries following the death of Jesus.

Nowadays, a large percentage of people in "Christian" countries do not believe in God; they do not believe (obviously) that Jesus was the "Son of God" (or divine - the two terms are not interchangeable). They do not believe that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, or rose from the dead.

However, many people still do believe these things, and they have set up remarkable organisations called churches to promote their worldview, and to bring their message to the community. Oddly enough, many members of these churches are themselves atheists or agnostics, but enjoy the community life of the church, and like the people that they meet on a Sunday. Yet deep down many such people feel a little bit hypocritical for standing up and singing hymns, while under it all, they don't believe.

Sound familiar? The CJCA may well be for you.

Are we a church? No - not in the normal sense. We don't (often) meet up in real life, separately from the usual churches. Our goal is to develop a compatibility layer, enabling free-thinking people - atheists, agnostics, humanists - to engage with Theistic Christians and to participate fully in the life of churches in an ethical and responsible way, without having to short-circuit their brains into "believing" what they know to be untrue.

It turns out that there are many elements of Christianity that reflect deep areas of human ethics; many parables and events from the bible and Christian history, many characteristics of Jesus the Nazarene that can be adapted and adopted by those who do not believe in god, and used as narratives to illuminate and enhance the human condition.

In doing so, it is we who confer the honour "Christ" on Jesus the Nazarene, and use his story, acknowledging its shortcomings, as both a parable and a paradigm for our lives and our self-examination. Not in dogma. Not as a short-circuit to science or reason. Not as a set of "beliefs", but as a scaffold upon which to tell our own stories, and to build a better world for all - theist and atheist alike.

If this strikes a chord, why not join with us - comment on this post, and follow the blog! Part of what we will be trying to do is reinterpret the bible in an atheistic way - not to change it or deny its history, but to learn lessons, and reclaim Jesus the Nazarene as an icon for Freethought.