Atheists and Jesus Christ

Faith & Science Conversation
81

Hello LeamingU,

I hope these lines will help with the discussion of atheists.

Jesus is God in the flesh that dwelt among us and died in the flesh for us.

Based on past conversations I had with atheists, I tend to think that many atheists tend to profess themselves as such because of attempts to relieve themselves of the heavy weight of knowledge of their (our) chronic inability to please God in their own strength as in the case of all of us. Such weight on the shoulders may be heavier than thousands of locomotive trios that head long trains.

Scriptures tell us “there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Romans 3:12).” And, “there is none good but one, that is, God: (Matthew 19:17).”

Despite regular church attendance and having knowledge only about Jesus minus that of His grace, I found myself at times unnecessarily weighed down with knowledge of the threat of eternal hell if I did or didn’t do such and such a thing that God was apparently nagging and nagging me about. Is that why some tend to think of God as the cruelest of the cruel?

As we too often tend to burden ourselves into thinking we must “come up” in our own strength, we often forget that God saves and keeps us only by His great grace much of which tends to be lacking in too many religious environments. Grace made possible by the cross is the thing that makes the Christian gospel unique.

Do we remember the father of the prodigal son that restored his deviant son after the son’s -honest- confession, and the miraculous catch of fish by the disciples as they trusted Jesus’ word after they answered “no” to Jesus ’ asking for fish?

So does the Lord supernaturally lifts us from our fallen state when we honestly confess our troubling faults to Him in prayer. That’s how even the heaviest burdens are lifted. We thus know God as good because of His paying our sin debt we couldn’t pay ourselves.

From my observations I find that there’s no such thing as a true atheist. Atheists are such only by profession based on denial of knowledge of God whom we know is true. But honest prayerful confession eliminates the apparent need for this denial.

Earl

1 Like
82

Body, Spirit, Death and Eternal Judgement

I identify as a conservative old earth Christian… not that I am that old, but I am somewhat older :slight_smile:

I am a newbie to the site, so please take that into consideration. Sorry, this got long because my passion runs deep. This is a general post on the subjects being discussed.

One thing I value about listening to non-Christians speak about Christianity and Jesus is the unfettered critiques and perspectives. I have been inside Christianity since the cradle, and many themes are so drummed into my head so completely that the absurdity of certain beliefs may never come to mind without fresh perspectives. Science has inherent crosschecking built into the process to identify error and work to find better accuracy. I know Ohm’s law works. I witnessed it daily for 36+ years. Theology is nothing like that unfortunately, and because of this reality, we Christians should be mindful that errors in our thinking/teaching do exist, maybe even shocking ones. I trust the Bible itself, because if we are to held responsible for our actions, G-d must communicate something to us, and I recognize the Bible as the clearest example of respectable G-d-like virtue (and I appreciate how debatable that may be depending on the reader). However, it is the Christians who study the Bible and teach others its meaning who need to be crosschecked, and that pretty much includes all of us. Our methods and assumptions for Biblical interpretation find their roots in antiquity. Could a concept such as social evolution make any difference in how we think about G-d’s methods of communication with humankind? You bet it could and does. I think we need a reboot of our methods for Biblical interpretation which in turn would yield an updated old earth systematic theology. (This is why I think Christians need to embrace/teach old earth and officially kick 6-day to the curb.)

I have a son who is a near-atheist and I love and respect him as a sovereign person in charge of his own thoughts and responsibilities. From my perspective, I think science loving atheists are the most justified in their beliefs, because science provides an explanation of reality which to date shows no sign of a creator evident in the equations. I see rationality in the holding of this perspective, especially for people of science. And I also see it as a mindset requiring faith, even great faith.

I know what I am about to say isn’t popular among us Christians, but this perspective has become my belief based on my personal wrestling match with Scripture. Roman’s 2 speaks of a faith based not in Jesus, but a faith based in a perception of a creator and thereby a faith mainly in goodness for goodness’ sake. We call this natural revelation and I have come to see it as the fairness of G-d which has been available since the beginning of humankind. When any sapient person sees others harming one another or people helping one another, these occurrences witness to their being. They then make their own decision about how they will conduct their own life, and they live that life. I would wager this forum is filled with people, perhaps all who strive to do good because we all believe in good. We believe it is the right thing to do for good reasons. Romans 2 says that this is a saving faith. Judaism has always taught of the righteous man, a non-Jew who lives righteously. For these reasons, I count as brothers and sisters all those who aspire to goodness, because although they may not believe in the G-d of Abraham or Jesus, they believe along with G-d that goodness is rightness. In the end, this is truth. In my view, the Bible teaches that the Bride of Christ is made up of those who know and love Jesus; but the bride and groom are not the only participants in the wedding. Many more are there, and I expect heaven to include all those who have placed their faith in goodness just as Romans says. Their hearts and behaviors betray the nobility of their intentions and they are vindicated before G-d.

Wow, no body thinks I am conservative now… But I think that is what Romans is saying, am I wrong? :wink:

We all remember the story of Jonah, the big fish story, but the real story there is the love of G-d for the 120,000 people of Nineveh. Please notice, they were not Jews and they didn’t convert to Judaism, yet they are counted as saved in an eternal sense. Just sayin.

Death and Eternal Judgement
I think we all plan to die someday. I know I do. You can view death as a curse or a judgement or simply as a reality of our existence. But it does include an element of finality. I don’t think most of us view it as unfair, but some could. It is hard for those who remain here even under the best circumstances such as after a long, loving and productive life.

Spiritual life and death is much more ethereal. But for similar reasons to physical death, I am not offended by the possibility of a spiritual death as long as it is humane. I currently do not have the proof I seek to convince myself of the exact error in theology, but in my retirement years I am seeking such proof from Scripture. Natural revelation has taught us all in western culture that torture is wrong. No matter what someone has done, torture is not warranted as recompense for the crime, and that is not about to change. Surely G-d is the author of that mindset, just as good seeking is a rational choice of a good heart. A plain reading of John 3:16 seems to some up my thinking. The word perish is used throughout the Bible to signify bringing an end to things, an end, not an endless end. A spiritual death is eternal, by definition.

I do not believe that G-d desires an eternal never ending torture to define death. Let me ask you, if you are a friend of G-d or of good, would you ever wish to exist in perpetuity knowing that every person you ever knew who didn’t love good is actively living in endless agony for endless billions of years while you are living in endless perfection and/or goodness? And if you were running the universe, would you punish anyone in such a way?

The punishment simply does not fit the crime. No one choses to be born. It is not a sin to not like or love G-d. You can love good and not even know G-d. Yes, because of original sin, we stand condemned (meaning we will die), but doesn’t the Bible also teach that children are protected, and if when they reach accountability they choose good over evil, then in practice they are never actually condemned in an eternal sense. So, in practice, did they ever stand condemned?

If in the end, spiritual death is the necessary death of an ill-intentioned life, then so be it. But it needs to be an ending of life, not an endless torture. If we are to be G-d’s best friend, surely what we think matters a great deal to G-d. Do you ignore the concerns of your spouse? Just askin. :wink:

Sorry for the length, Jack

1 Like
83

Whether or not your political credentials with this or that tribe are still intact might preoccupy you some, but our identity in Christ is something we share, and that’s infinitely more important, right? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that it is important to have respectful relationships with those who identify as atheists and to acknowledge their dignity and choice to do that without questioning their sincerity. And I think it possible to do that while also holding that (just as it is for any overt religious identity) the motivations for self-identifying that way will be varied and many.

3 Likes
84

Mervin,
Yes, respect is big with me since as people made in the image of G-d we are sovereign in our own right. G-d worked hard to create a place where we can stand on our own and not be a robot. We have true freedom of mind and action, and therefore what we think and do has true meaning before G-d.

For me, conservative means I must be constrained by Scripture, but I need not necessarily be constrained by the experts. The Bible was written to all of us, and the experts are entitled to their own opinions and even more respect than that, but it does not mean that their opinions are authoritative unless or until I submit myself to them in some way.

I have a rough road to travel there, but I know it.

Jack

85

I liked your comment despite fundamentally disagreeing with it Earl.

I’m very old school and a raving liberal, so I’m big on grace and confession, and utterly reject the concept of God punishing anyone. Which conflicts with a conservative, literal, historical-grammatical approach to the Bible. Including mine of 40 years. So why do I confess, why am I in awe of God in Christ? Because I’m helplessly broken and He was utterly faithful to death in His humanity. He opened the door, Himself being the door. And atheists do not have to deny anything at all. It’s an accident of history that theism came first. They perfectly legitimately have no knowledge of God as there isn’t any to be had directly. If we think we know something, it has to be offered humbly from below.

1 Like
86

Thank you Robin. Blessings. I think this is wonderful to have this discussion to come closer to our Lord. I think that Jesus teachings are more far reaching and yes they definitely do have root in some of the ancient teachings but they deviate from them that shows he has a greater authority. However, that’s another story. He knows the secrets of the universe. Look deeper.

John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe , how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things

From a scientific basis what is life and why is there death? All forms of life from bacteria to birds not just humans live and experience death? “From dust have you come and dust shall you return” Why is there death for all living creatures? It certainly cannot be because animals commit sin? do they? And in this context Jesus teaches about giving and taking producing the fruits of the spirit. There is more to the concept of sacrifice or giving consider

Luke 21:4. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.

Peace and Grace

87

Was it though? This thread is mostly inane pronouncements by believers, culminating in one person asserting that there aren’t really true atheists but only denialists. I don’t see much interest or curiosity about what atheists think, and indeed I see little respect for the opinions I expressed when I mistakenly thought the question was genuine.

1 Like
88

“I think the parable of the ten minas and the parable of the ungrateful servant, both in Matthew, are appalling.”

Stephen,
What about these two parables do you find appalling? I’m not sure you ever got a chance to expand on that in any depth.

Jack

89
90

sf: I thought that was it. I am not sure whether characterizing something as “inane pronouncements by believers” qualifies as “gracious” dialog – or “respect,” but maybe it is a matter of perspective. No, really. I was in fact interested to hear the thoughts of those who are atheists. I actually once was atheist — and you don’t want to hear that story — but was curious as to what people who still “are” that think. But it does seem, from the few examples I saw, to boil down to a couple issues. I did not read everything you posted, sfm, so maybe I missed some other remarks. Maybe “respect” is hard to do, but there is a lot of emotion involved in personal beliefs, no matter whose they are…

91

And one person asserted the rationality of atheism. I’ll go further if you like. Atheism is the rational default, the dialectical synthesis. Theism has no warrant beyond the claim of incarnation by the earliest Church, which is the only claim of intervention it need, should make.

92

It’s a conversation that includes dismissal of the very existence of atheism, so tone policing of a comment about pronouncements is not worth further response.

I doubt it’s worth pursuing, but the examples I gave could have expanded into a discussion of what an atheist might typically think when reading the words of Jesus. They are, to me, a mixed bag. The best defense that can be raised against his more bloodthirsty comments is the anachronism defense, but in fact I was pointing to the moral implications of those parables, separate from the crudely violent illustrations.

The ungrateful servant story ends with a chilling admonition that turns the moral of the fable into: be forgiving, or else. I call that appalling and I reject that kind of moral philosophy. I avoid people who embrace it.

The 10 minas tale (the nastiest version is in Luke, not Matthew, my bad) is morally bizarre (rich get richer, poor get poorer), which can almost be salvaged by massaging it into a teaching about “faithfulness” with gifts. But it ends with an outburst of evil. To me, that kind of sick talk is a big red flag. I don’t hang with people who talk like that, or think like that. ‘Hyperbole’ doesn’t get the speaker off the hook. He wants his “enemies” to be destroyed. He sounds like a monster. I offered him an out, which is: his biographers were the confused ones, and they added hell to the picture later. Best I can do.

Now, those are my answers to “what does an atheist think of Jesus?” My point is that there are things to really like about what he said and did (inclusiveness, forgiveness, radical generosity, inversion of inequity), some things to reject without equivocation (see above), and religious stuff about kingdoms and whatnot that, to this unbeliever, are just pablum. My take-home message is not that Jesus was a monster, but that he said some monstrous things alongside some cool things alongside a lot of woo. Since I don’t think he, or anyone else, is a supernatural god, it should go without saying that I don’t judge his words as though they came from a god.

Maybe there’s something there worth discussing, and maybe not. Either way is fine with me.

93

Klax,
I basically agree, but I think the agnostic position is more the default. It takes conscious effort to go either way from there.

Stephen,
I think parables are an art form of their own. They often appear to mean things they don’t and truly it is hyperbole on the one hand, but its actually in this case (the ten minas) a situation where a human king of that near time period would have had such authority and may have done just this. I would not be surprised to learn that something like this may have taken place and could have been common knowledge. Stories are often more impactful like that. The other point there is if you fear the wrath of a king, don’t you fear the wrath of G-d even that much more? That does not imply that G-d behaves like humans do. May it never be. But keep in mind, the shock factor sponsors discussion.

Jesus was trying to break through people’s complacency to gain their attention. I personally reject the idea that Jesus was teaching the harsh message which is implied. Jesus is the One who often said to real people in real life situations, “Go and sin no more.” “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.” The clear teaching of Jesus is there. The parable is a valuable way to make certain points, and it is hard to forget. This the reason we are still discussing it 2000 years later. If Jesus isn’t G-d, He was a flaming genius to have a bunch of folks discussing his teachings when He never wrote a single word on paper.

And surely the point made is that this mischaracterization of the man of royal birth was significant to the story. This was not a reference to just any man on the street, or an agnostic or an atheist, this is a reference to one who knew exactly who this nobleman was, and chose to actively oppose his agenda. What type of person might that be?

I love these stories, because they never stop speaking truth into my heart. My hope for you is that you can at least appreciate the art form.

Best regards,

Jack

94

OK…you have answered the question. Thanks for your thoughts.

I suppose the LiarLordLunatic argument does not work with you?

But again, thanks for at least saying what you think here.

95

Interesting question. I think the first problem with that argument is that it’s a garden path that starts with the assumption that we know that Jesus said and meant everything in the canon. I have already suggested that this is wrong, and my approach to Jesus is to assume that I don’t know, and can’t know, what he really said and meant and did. But if we grant it, or if we just take the Jesus character to be the one in the gospels, then I would say he was deluded and perhaps unwell. If he thought he was a deity, then he was in some sense unwell. Liar? Nah, that seems too elaborate a hypothesis (Occam’s razor and all), and besides, we are already obligated to suspect the biographers/narrators instead of the subject. Lord? No. I respect this character too much to call him a lord in light of how he inspires so much evil.

Richard Dawkins has said, IIRC, that maybe Jesus was just “honestly mistaken.” I can’t quite make that one work in my head, since people who are “honestly mistaken” about being god are, I think but could be wrong here, generally thought to be unwell.

96

If He wasn’t honestly mistaken then He wasn’t fully human.

97

Robin,
I believe there is no way to prove the existence of G-d, and for that reason, I no longer spend time on that. However, I remain certain that people can become convinced of G-d’s presence in their lives whatever that means to each person. It’s a mystery of sorts.

My suggestion to anyone who has an honest curiosity about G-d is to ask for a meeting and see what happens. That puts the ball in G-d’s court, and you can always say you did your part. It’s personal.

Jack

98

That’s true of him in general but that’s not the context here, which is the Liar/Lunatic/Lord business of CSL.

99

Well we do agree on that one. A person who said he was God —and is not – is somewhere on the order of a person who thinks they are a dolphin or a rabbit ---- or a poached egg, which I think was a suggestion of Lewis’.

Inasmuch as the earliest records — that is, those outside the gospel biographies — assert that Jesus was someone who thought He was Messiah (which in the parlance of that era, would also have meant God) and then crucified during the time of Pilate — I should think we should stick with that. So the Man was a loon, but you do at least like his stuff about inclusiveness, forgiveness, radical generosity, inversion of equity [?]…Would it not be rather amazing to hear such from an “unwell” man? I happen, a few years back, to have made the mistake of asking a man who otherwise appeared normal-- what he did for a living. I got two hours of stuff about getting messages from Mother Earth Gaia through the gold tooth in the man’s mouth and how amused he was by yuppies getting cancer thru their Bluetooths and his rotten ex-wife who thought he needed therapy…I can definitely tell you that NOTHING that man said struck me as something I " really like" and could find useful in my own life…

So I do not know how any such thing could be found in the teachings or preachings of Jesus if He were as “unwell” as you or some others might suggest. Just a thought though. I can not claim to be an expert on the “unwell,” however.

100

I know that Stephen. Which is why I said what I did. Lewis’ false trichotomy notwithstanding. Why did he leave out myth?