Atheists for Jesus! Is belief required to follow "the way"?

[Josh Weeden]

Conversations with religious types along with some of JG crash course series of late has lead me to rethink my stance on religions and one thing I have found out is that Jesus.....he was pretty awesome pretty much encapsulating DFTBA 2000 years ago. I personally have looked at the bible (pronounced bibbly....eddie Izzard fans, anyone, no?) again and if you strip away the walking on water, the virgin birth, the new stars and any of the other mystical aspects of the life of Jesus his actual messages are as true today as they were ever.

I am in no way considering conversion hence my question do you have to believe in god to follow the teachings of a religion as a good idea?

Thoughts please...I look forward to reading them

[Hutch Hogan]

Though problems arise in the case that baggage is inherent in the system.  In that case, it is best to see if its benefits can be drawn from other sources, or syncretized and justified through other means. 

[Tyler]

This is true, I would prefer it if people not continue to perpetuate any kind of legitimacy to the bible,but at the end of the day if all someone is doing is trying to live by the positive values they see in it, then in response to the OP's question I don't think there is any contradiction with not believing in the supernatural side of it.

[Jon Mark]

just be careful you are actually living for positive values, I have met many people who say they are living a positive life, but then do not follow through, Christians and atheists. Supernatural only matters for the supernatural, it is a source from which people find hope, love, and perseverance, you can find it other places too. Humans should only care if you live by those values, not what you believe.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Supernatural only matters for the supernatural, it is a source from which people find hope, love, and perseverance, you can find it other places too.

 

I think you are somewhat oversimplifying the issue here. In the case of Christianity, the belief system makes it very clear, the supernatural matters very much for the natural also. IE Whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is fundamentally linked to whether or not we are saved. Paul makes this point fairly explicitly in several of the letters.

[Patrick]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with C.S. Lewis on this one:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

In other words, Jesus is Mad, Bad, or God. Take your pick.

[Hutch Hogan]

Unfortunately Lewis is unable to complete the logic of his trilemma. 

[Lori S.]

The trilemma is bad, bad apologetics, and has been rejected by most Christian thinkers.

There is, of course, "simply mistaken."  In the time Jesus lived in, where there was much apocalyptic fervor and many would-be messiahs, that would have been an option.

There's also the option that the Gospels do not record the verbatim words of Jesus, but are theological interpretations of the life of Jesus written by his followers decades later.  In that case, we're not talking about "what Jesus said" but "what Jesus's followers later recorded him as having said."  

There's a lot of interesting stuff out there about the historical Jesus, some from Christians and some from non-Christians, that explores the kind of man Jesus the person would have been.  None conclude that the only possibilities are lord, lunatic, or liar.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

There is, of course, "simply mistaken."  In the time Jesus lived in, where there was much apocalyptic fervor and many would-be messiahs, that would have been an option.

 

How can he have been "simply mistaken"? Either he did perform the miricles he did or he did not. If he did not, then that would have been it. Game over. Okay, I guess I was wrong, I'm not him, etc. The nature of his life was such that it was impossible for him to be simply mistaken. Either he was lying (he somehow fabricated the miricles, very difficult given the available tech and the kinds of miricles he was performing), he was mad (he believed miricles were happening when they were not) or he was telling the truth.

 

There's also the option that the Gospels do not record the verbatim words of Jesus, but are theological interpretations of the life of Jesus written by his followers decades later.  In that case, we're not talking about "what Jesus said" but "what Jesus's followers later recorded him as having said.

 

There is a reason why that theory is widely rejected by Christian theologians. For it to work, you have to ignore the writings of Paul. Paul's writings refernece the Gospels and use the kinds of language that indicate to us their age. Given that Paul was writing in 50AD, the gospels must have been around before that, and given that Paul refers to their contents as being "Traditions" using the contexual meaning of the word "tradition" of the time, we are able to infer that the gospels are from a period significenty earlier than 50AD.

[Patrick]

Ok, so how about if I made one small amendment to the quote:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus allegedly said would not be a great moral teacher."

I'm reluctant to accept that Jesus could "mistake" himself for God and not be some kind of insane, just as one cannot be mentally healthy and "mistake" oneself for a poached egg.

Also, as to the gospels not being the verbatim words of Jesus, while I'm inclined to agree with you, it doesn't really bear on the question, in my opinion. It doesn't matter if Socrates is historical or mythical because the things he is supposed to have said make sense (or don't) no matter who said them. The things Jesus is supposed to have said only make sense if the person saying them (whether it's actually Jesus or a dubious historian of his life) is at least partly divine.

[Hunter Scott Rizer]

Christianity is a moral system based off of deities. Heck, that's any religion my friend. 

[Lori S.]

I think that's oversimplying it.  I tend to be a little nervous about how the popularity of the New Atheists is flattening discourse around religion.  The one view of God they tend to promote--God, as Terry Eagleton put it in his review of The God Delusion, as a very large chap in the sky--and the view of religion they promote--moral systems people are driven to slavishly follow due to fear--might reflect the reality of some fundamentalists, but not either the actual experience of most religious believers or the state of contemporary (or, for that matter, ancient, medieval, and modern) theology.

[Jon Mark]

yeah, I can find parallels in many of these comments to my own opinions. I am a Christian, but can see how following the teachings of Jesus as a method to bring about world awesome. Frankly, each person person has a choice in what they believe and whether do live a life which promotes awesome or suck. (lol good and evil). I care not what you believe, just that you live a life that makes the world a better place (alas better is a very difficult word to evaluate).

So yes, you can follow Jesus without believing in omnipotent being(s). Chances are you will do better at following Jesus that many supposed Christians. Belief is between you and God, action is between you and other humans.