As an atheist, do you still “acknowledge” Jesus Christ?

Yeah, Maya is synonymous with the devil, except for the fact that Maya is not a veritable demonic figure with horns. That is just a product of the imagination, and ought not to be taken seriously.

Maya is a state of mind that focusses exclusively on sensory and intellectual stimuli at the expense of the Self or pure consciousness which is considered to be the fundamental substratum of the mind.

Cravings for pleasure and aversion to pain are the tools by which Maya operates. All vices such as lust, greed, hatred are just intense desires in the form of cravings and aversions, and in their extreme form results in flaws in conduct or crimes.

The focus in eastern philosophy thus is to anchor oneself in remembrance of the personal God or Self/impersonal Brahman while being engaged in the world.

The more one focuses on the vices(cravings/aversions), the more this attention is lost resulting in a compulsive thinking and emoting process that veils the Self within, like clouds veiling the sun, while bringing anxiety and misery in its wake.

Meditation and virtuous conduct are spiritual practices that help to reduce the compulsive thinking and emoting process , thereby revealing the Self within, which brings peace and joy in its wake.

This is why meditators experience joy and peace, and why some people insist on being true and just in their conduct as it gives them the peace of a clean conscience which helps them sleep better at night. If they were unjust or vicious, it would give them a guilty conscience resulting in misery till they feel they have compensated adequately for the defect in conduct.

But what is really happening is that meditation and virtuous conduct is unveiling the Self within, which is what brings the peace and joy within.

 

Whoa, so many questions, requiring deep thought! Theology 101 on an off topic post on an atheist site. I might answer them as I find the time. One problem is that you string these question out, and if I try to answer them, there' s real danger that I'll lose them all if I hit the wrong thing on my computer, which I just did. I may try again later. I've learned my lesson, and will respond to each point in a separate post.
For now:

Awhile ago, I thought you were arguing that there was something wrong with saying that God creates his creation and is separate from it. God is everywhere, which means analytically distinct from but intimately present in His creation: immanent and transcendent, as the theologians say. But the painter analogy is too anthropomorphic. Figuring out what God is is above our pay grade. Neo-orthodox theologians like Barth and Bultmann often say God is "wholly other", or as Hindus say of Brahman, the name from whom all words recoil. And yet they also say we are all Brahman. How could that be? We are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, and subject to the laws of physics--every bit of us. Does this mean we are the same as the laws of physics? I don't think so. They are bigger than us, and we really don't completely understand them. When I use the term God, part of my understanding is that God is whatever is responsible for the laws of physics--responsible for the TOE (Theory of Everything).

 

You know what they say about "assume". The term Son of God in the OT was originally an honorific title, given to kings. Paul used it with reference to Jesus at the time of His resurrection. Mark, the first gospel,at the time of His baptism. It isn't until we get to John in the ninth century or so that we get the high Christology that you assume. And today? You'll find Progressive Christians who use the term mainly metaphorically.I think Jesus was fully human and as such "created" like the rest of us--more accurately, by a long process of human evolution. Most traditional Christians don't believe that Jesus the Christ was created by God. That is Arianism that was declared a heresy at the Council of Nicaea. People who believe that today are mainly Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

All forms of Christianity are dogmatic, some more, some less.[/QUOTE] Your statement seems a bit dogmatic. Dogma ordinarily refers to "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". or "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church." Bart Ehrman, in Lost Christianities, describes a wide variety of Christian churches who belived a variety of different things, such as multiple gods (some as many as 365).How dogmatic they might have been about it in their own congregations I don't know, but Christianity didn't impose the orthodoxy of the creeds until the fourth century. Buddhism also went through an early phase of factional schism. But of course they didn't have dogmas because, well--they were Buddhist,

 

Not at all. The Bible tellls us "God is love".According to the gospels, Jesus's last words to His disciples before His crucifixion were "Love one another". He also said the two most important commandments are love of God and neighbor. And it says in Micah 6:8, " what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness,and to walk humbly with your God? That's all. That's enough. Nothing about believing the unbelievable. So what's so contradictory about that?

Well, I think Christianity went off the rails early on when Paul emphasized Jesus' death and resurrection instead of His life and teachings--mainly because He had never known Jesus outside His visions, and probably didn't now much about His life and teachings.He used the Paschal lamb metaphor, Jesus as sacrificial lamb, which led to the notion of vicarious atonement. I prefer Luke's version: that Jesus led an exemplary life, and His death focused attention on human inhumanity.

I am a Christian minimalist, and I gave an account Two paragraphs supra. Basically, God is love. Minimalists (my term) I'd take generally to include Progressive Christians. For an "accounting" try:
Bishop John Song,A new Christianity for a New World'
Marcus Borg,The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith;
Anything by the Jesus Seminar.
How would they differ from atheists? I can't speak for them, but I'd guess it's because they regard God and Jesus as real(not necessarily factual), meaningful and are willing to bet their lives on them. Their idea of God isn't the anthropomorphic one of the fundamentalists. They tend to be Deists, panentheists, panendeists, etc. But seem to be sincere as I am. We think life has a higher purpose than survival. I think that is God, which I'd define as the felt presence of a Higher Power, in whom we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28).

Yes and No. Original sin, as sin inherited from Adam and Eve, not exactly. I think it's metaphorical I believe in Upādāna. Human propensity for attachments that lead to suffering is very real. Evolutionary biologist E.O.Wilson tells us that at an early stage in human evolution we developed separate modules for our selfish instincts and the norms of society. Freud seems to be on a similar track with the id and the superego. I think St Augustine, a brilliant but guilt-torn man, did damage to Christianity with his original sin doctrine. The Holy Spirit? As a guy who came to Christianity through a conversion experience and continues to follow the "inner Light", I'd have to say Yes. The Bible as the inherent word of God? A definite No. It's the words of fallible men, presumably seeking God, in different periods of history, with different agendas. "Inerrantists'" are dogmatic fundies. The resurrection of Jesus? Not literally. Metaphorically, as Spong explains in Resurrection: Myth or Reality. He opts for myth, but with Joseph Campbell's understanding that myths are metaphors for truths, in this case opening the disciples' eyes to the reality of God and the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth. The return of Jesus? I think that happened metaphorically long ago, as Jesus took new life in the hearts and minds of his disciples. Will the historical Jesus come to earth again? I wouldn't hold my breath. Now God the Creator is difficult. I believe in God, one aspect of Which is the source of the integrated complexity of the universe. I think God works through the laws of science, including the processes of human and cultural evolution. Does that count as creation? I think it does.

 

To me, the core beliefs of Christianity are the ones I just stated supra: Peace, love and understanding. Love of God and neighbor, including society's rejects. Social justice, kindness,and to walking humbly with God.

As I recall, early Buddhism went through a period of intense factional disputation, leading eventually to the major division between Mahayana and Theravada.
"There are many stories about disagreements among the Buddha’s disciples during his lifetime and also accounts about disputes among his followers during the First Buddhist Council held soon after the Buddha’s death, suggesting that dissent was present in the Buddhist community from an early stage. After the death of the Buddha, those who followed his teachings had formed settled communities in different locations. Language differences, doctrinal disagreements, the influence of non-Buddhist schools, loyalties to specific teachers, and the absence of a recognized overall authority or unifying organizational structure are just some examples of factors that contributed to sectarian fragmentation."About a century after the death of Buddha, during the Second Buddhist Council, we find the first major schism ever recorded in Buddhism: The Mahasanghika school. Many different schools of Buddhism had developed at that time. Buddhist tradition speaks about 18 schools of early Buddhism, although we know that there were more than that, probably around 25."A Brief History of Ancient Buddhism – Brewminate: A Bold Blend of News and Ideas

Of course there is much more evidence of historical figures who had the power to build monuments write books, and put their faces on coins. The questions, how willing are we to settle for a history onl about them, and how willing are we to make educated bets on what seems slender but sufficient evidence. The fact that mainstream Christianity has embraced a myth that depends on a godman shouldn't blind us to reasonable conclusions about the man on whom such myths are based. Fortunately, most historians, secular as well as religious, aren't that skeptical.

I "quoted the Bible"? (gasp). I quoted Paul, the first person to write about Christianity. No historian would ignore what he said just because he was a Christian. As for not citing the pagan writers who criticized Jesus without denying his existence, try Celsus, who comes to us only through a Christian writer, so that will probably rule him out in your book. For a Jewish take, try the Babylonian Talmud.
This point which caught your attention was not the only one that I made. Whaddabout the fact that it's unlikely anyone making up a Jewish messiah would make up one who died before restoring Israel to glory, and would be "cursed" if crucified? Or the references to James the brother of Jesus. Not much to go on, I admit, but not chopped liver.

I'm not clear what you're saying here, but seems to be repeating your point that historians can't trust documents that come from Christian sources, even if the passage seems credible--i.e., Paul' s description of disputes which he is having with Christian leaders. Fortunately, most historians aren't so restrictive.

I'm beginning to kick myself for replying to your questions, since I think I'm talking to the wall and nobody else on HF seems interested. Maybe someone else will read it.

Now some questions for you. Do you believe in reincarnation? Karma? Dharma? Bodhisatvas? Do you really believe you have no self, or are laboring under an illusion that you have one? Do you expect to achieve nirvana or are working toward that end? Do you believe in the sangha? Have you ever belonged to one? Why or why not?

 

Not quite. They have to love everyone--enemies included.

Pretty much. Justin Martyr, in the second century, said:"those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they be deemed atheists."Pope Francis seems to agree. "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics," he said.. "Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" Of course, his Jesuitical minders were quick to point out he couldn't quite mean it, or if he did he was speaking off the cuff and not ex cathedra. You might recall in the Catholic positin: "If someone does not come to believe in God because of stubbornness or refusal to give up selfish desires, then such a person would be culpable for his lack of belief. If, however, because of circumstances a sincere person is prevented from coming to belief in God, then his lack of faith is called invincible ignorance, and such a person would not be considered culpable." Can an Atheist Go to Heaven? The Catholic catechism recognizes that “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hol d the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841) See also, the "Decalration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetae (1965), by Pope Paul VI, which says:“Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.” And “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions” and holds that other religions, in certain ways, often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” Trappist monk and author Thomas Merton said that he wanted “to become as good a Buddhist as I can.” I agree.
So you don't believe in original sin, you believe in a Hindu/Buddhist concept.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. My understanding of the Adam and Eve metaphor is that it points to a serious character flaw in humanity that causes constant trouble: two people in Paradise, and all they can think of is eating the forbidden fruit so they can become like God. Made me think of tanha and upadana.

The Jews, who gave us Genesis, did not believe in original sin. That was the brainchild of Saint Augustine, a brilliant but guilt ridden moral perfectionist,("Lord make me chaste, but not yet).And it was accepted after Augustine won a doctrinal battle with the followers of Pelagius who taught that humans were inherently good. Pelagius was declared a heretic. Church politics.

I tend to shy away from speculations about the ultimate nature of God, which I think is way above our pay grade. Bismark once said: "Laws are like sausages".It is best not to see them being made," I feel the same way about many doctrines that have led to factional divisions among Christians. "The Trinity" was first articulated by Tertulian ("I am a Christian because it is absurd"), a rather truculent early Christian apologist who was later declared a heretic on other grounds. He drew, of course, on scriptural references to Jesus being the Son of God, and to the "Holy Spirit" descending on the apostles. Putting 1+1+1 together and, voila! But it wasn't until the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century under Constantine's auspices that the church fathers decided it was official doctrine. That was the big showdown between the Arians, who said that God created Jesus, and the followers of Athanasius who said they coexisted. In wrangling about God's nature, the church fathers sided with Arius, and added the Holy Spirit for good measure. Interestingly, Constantine was baptized by an Arian priest, and his son and heir, Constanstius II worked out a compromise Semi-Arianism that didn't last. Today, the Jehovah's Witnesses continue the Arian tradition that Jesus was God's first creation, and is identical with the Archangel Michael. This was the first major episode in the long, divisive history over the nature of Jesus that turned dyopysites against monophysites and miaphysites. Sad. A religion that was originally about peace, love and brotherhood became a religion of division and factional animosity, with imperial and church politics behind it.

I do see some value in a Trinitarian outlook. ‘Persona’ (πρόσωπον) was the name of the mask worn by actors in Greek theater, and although I've been scolded for applying that to the TYrinity, I think it may have some relevance. As Hindus tell us, Brahman is just hard for ordinary folks to grasp. They began to solve the problem by the Trimurti (Brahma Vishnu, and Shiva, each of which had different manifistations which had their own manifestations, etc. I think God is the Wakan Tanka (Great Mystery), but we know Him through manifestations: the Father,the integrated complexity of the universe and other natural phenomena like consciouness; the faces of our fellow humans (the image and likeness of God), of which the biblical Jesus, the Son, is exemplary; and Holy Spirit, the summation of human idealism (God is Love); .

You're welcome. Here we go again!

 

No, I'm comparing the available evidence for an individual,probably a cult leader, who claimed to be the Jewish messiah, had followers, and was crucified by the Romans. I think the other stuff was made up posthumously. Evidence for His existence is scant, as is that for the Buddha, and consists entirely of writings by followers.Most historians would consider it important to use all written records available, although they treat them with due caution and skepticism.

If Paul says he is having a fight with James and Peter, we can choose to dismiss it because everything in the Bible is suspect and worthless, or we can use our judgment. Was he making up imaginary rivals or reporting his actual gripes about real ones? It's a judgment call, and most historians consider his letter authentic evidence of the existence of Jewish Christians and a "circumcision faction" in Jerusalem before Paul.
Celsus died in 177 C.E. so he wasn't alive at the time Jesus would have been. He criticized the current Christian religion, he wasn't trying to support the existence of Jesus{/QUOTE]. He was trying to criticize Jesus, not just the religion. He discounts or disparages Jesus’ ancestry, conception, birth, childhood, ministry, death, and resurrection. He introduced the tale that Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier named Panthera or Pantera, and that he learned Egyptian magic, which he used to perform his miracles. Apparently there was no tradition that Jesus didn't exist by that time. And we don't know of any such tradition before then.

You do only if you're making an affirmative argument that Jesus didn't exist,as the Jesus mythicists do.

I disagree. The Bible can supply seemingly credible evidence in, say, Paul's letters, that there was a church in Jerusalem whose leaders had differences with him, and a "circumcision faction that was out to undermine his ministry. I'd go farther and use the methodology of the Jesus Seminar and other bible scholars to sift the consistent and the credible from their opposites: They use certain rules of thumb that seem reasonable:age of the document (the earlier the better), multiple independent attestations, dissimilarity embarrassment, etc. For example, the criterion of embarrassment would ask why folks making up a Jewish messiah would make up one who didn't fit the expectation of leading Israel to glory and who was executed in a manner that would leave him cursed.

 

Whether or not you accept something as true is up to you.The evidence for a historical Jesus is scant but I think enough to convince a reasonable person, and has indeed convinced a majority of professional historians who have studied the matter.

It's not just my claim or particular branch, but actually most secular historians. The interesting thing about all those other religions you mention is that there was rarely a tradition that those gods and goddesses were mortals who walked the earth. The Roman Mithras originated as the Vedic god of light, harvests, justice and the enforcer of contracts, and was later taken over by Zoroastrianism as a champion in the struggle against the forces of darkness. Some versions of the Osiris legend have him actually ruling Egypt in the far distant past, and being murdered by his brother. Possible. None of them had living relatives and followers that a real people claimed to have visited and quarreled with. None died in such a manner that would make him cursed in the eyes of people he was meant to attract. And in the context of first century it is certainly possible that a real messianic claimant was executed by the Romans. He was neither the first nor the last. The only difference is that He was able to retain a following after His death, and became the subject of growing legends. I was asked whether or not I thought Jesus existed and gave my reasons for thinking He did, which I never offered as proof. I don't know that He did, but I think it's the most plausible conclusion based on the available evidence.

Of course, the major difference between Bigfoot, the Reptillans and an historical Jesus is that claims about the former two are about extraordinary creatures, requiring an extraordinary amount of evidence to support reasonable belief. Nothing at all extraordinary about a messsianic claimant being crucified by Romans. It's quite plausible to think the miraculous stories about Jesus were added after His death.The first recorded one, by Paul, was only about resurrection--no virgin births, raising other peolpe from the dead, etc. Paul talks about the appearances of the resurrected Jesus to the apostles as similar to his own--visions, resurrection in a "spiritual body". It's only with the last two gospels, Luke and John, that the resurrection gets physical, with Jesus eating fish and (in John's godspel) baring His wounds for Thomas. The other miracles came with the gospels, 40 years or more after Jesus, and they get better and better with the later ones. To me, resurrection appearances are understandable.
Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences (PBHE) are not uncommon for people with no previous history of mental disorder, and in those days would have been given a supernatural explanation.

BTW, there were plenty of miracle stories that circulated about the Buddha--his mother being impregnated by a white elephant, him walking and talking from birth, being shielded from the sun by a cobra, etc. I don't think those rule out the Buddha being a real historical figure.

So they then made up a story that the great messiah was killed by the nasty Romans in a manner that would make Him cursed in Jewish eyes. I think it would be a hard sell. Passing the hat for a bungled, cursed Messiah. It's a judgment call, and your theory sounds more implausibleble than the one accepted by historians.

 

No. They get in under the "invincible ignorance" clause.

What's confusing about that? Many Christian theologians see God as fundamentally ineffable, but knowable to some extent by humans thru revelation and nature. Try Paul Tillich, Lutheran theologian who is one of the most influential Protestant theologians of recent times. (God as " the Ground of Being"). Or Catholic theologian Fr.Hans Kung, What Is God?
Or Marcus Borg. I've given you my own personal beliefs, which are certainly non-traditional. I think that nothing is certain, not even that, including your existence. (Now my own I'm pretty sure of). I think all knowledge is grounded on what Santayana called "animal faith".Faith in God is, as Luthr put it, a "joyful bet." But I like to make educated bets, grounded in reason, experience, intuition, and available evidence.

 

Evidence of disciples and followers who claim to have known Jesus, one of whom is said to have been His brother, is not conclusive but is not chopped liver. If you put your mind to it, you can deny anything, as is amply illustrated in today's "alternative realities". The evidence is good enough for me, coupled with the implausibility of a cursed Messiah. Are you saying that such a conclusion is unreasonable? I understand you to be saying we can't believe anything about the past unless it is supported by "proof", or clear and convincing evidence, even if we think it's the most plausible explanation based on the available evidence and we recognize its inclusive. If that's so, its your opinion

 

Chrisianity made its debut in the first century c.e. Those dogmas you mention are products of the third and fourth centuries, to counter the many dfferent belief systems that claimed to be followers of Jesus, some with two gods, some with 360, some Jewish Christians who thought all Christians must be circumcised and practice kosher, some "Gnostics" which covers a wide variety of beliefs emphasizing esoteric knowledge. Yes, I don't like it either, but it's a different world now, and a free country in which Christians can make up their own minds, although they may be excommunicated from established churches.

"Positive proof" is hard to come by for many historic personages. I settle for" more plausible than other explanations base on the available evidence". The fact that traditional Christianity depends on an historical Jesus has no probative value concerning his existence or lack thereof. It may, however, explain the zeal of Jesus mythicists in attacking His existence. If they can challenge that, maybe they can drive a stake through a threatening religion once and for all. In fact, some Islamaphobes have tried the same thing with Muhammad, with dubious success.(See Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist?)