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

Wouldn't that be wonderful! Very rarely do you get that for religions in their early stages, or even for some major events in history. Descriptions of great battles were often written by partisan ancient historians who were naturally biased in favor of their own side. Accounts of the Greek and Persian wars, mostly by Greek historians, give a portrait of the Persians as decadent oriental despots that might be a little slanted. The primary source was Herodotus, called the "father of history" (also called the "father of lies"). Often, these military accounts, and/or corroborating accounts were written long after the events they are describing. Historians can decide to leave them alone, or make decisions about what seems trustworthy, confirming them, of course, to the extent that is possible. That account, celebrated in the movies of the heroic feat of 300 Spartans holding off the Persian army at Thermopylae until they were all finally killed. Was it really 300, or might it have been 500? Would you believe 2,000? We can't just take them at face value, but sometimes it's all we have to go on. Few usable archives existed, and the ancient historians often relied on other ancient historians for their information. Livy relies primarily on Polybius’ century earlier account of the Second Punic War, while Dio Cassius (c. AD 150–235), writing more than a century later, relies on Livy’s account for the same war. Take them or leave them. But many historians are willing to give their "interpretations" their best reasonable judgment based on the available evidence. "Written history is a dialogue among historians, not only about what happened but about why and how events unfolded."3. Historical Analysis and Interpretation | Public History Initiative

That, of course, is your prerogative. Are you that demanding in the things you believe in everyday life? Proof? I gather you share my view that Trump is a scoundrel, but can you prove it? I have friends who think we should suspend judgment, cuz its all politics, the liberal media is feeding us fake news, etc. Most of the big decisions in my life--who to marry, where to live, what job to take, who to vote for--are judgment calls based on whatever evidence is at hand.

The nice thing about the substantial evidence standard is that it's enough to convince a reasonable person even though other reasonable persons aren't convinced. Most of our federal safety standards are based on that standard

 

Are you referring to the Catholic Church? There are certainly lots of very intelligent, reasonable Catholics, but fundamentally they believe that the Church is God's one and only true one, and the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope and the Church Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure that God is a Christian. Evangelical preacher Andy Stanley * argues that "Christian", a label originally imposed by outsiders, is too nondescript, since there are so many varieties. He prefers to do what Jesus asked of His disciples: "Love one another".

 

Of course, these external identites have a functional purpose. For example separate washrooms should be there for men and women, and passports have national identities and other details recorded.Trouble arises when one emotionally or egotistically identifies with them, using these identities to define themselves.

One identifies with external labels when there is no self-knowledge. To the proportion to which there is no self-knowledge there will be emotional identification with such external labels.

This can potentially lead to emotivity and reactivity, and all sorts of conflict based on identification with gangs, alliances, gender, race,caste, religion, nationality, ideology,theism, atheism, and so on.

Such emotivity and reactivity comes up because of insecurity. For some, it is the worst nightmare come true, not being able to have an authentic identity or sense of self. 'If these external labels don't define me, then who the hell am I.' Those who are afraid to look deeper into this question then gladly identify with the external labels and are ready to exert intensely and die for it.

The function of authentic religion and spirituality is to enable one to transcend such external labels and base one's identity on Self-knowledge, which is a state of consciousness.

Your own intrinsic consciousness should define oneself, not such external labels.

I am , therefore I am.

 

So if it is still being debated, are you holding out for conclusive proof? Is belief in Troy inseparable from belief in Achilles and Agamemnon, or is it okay to say there seems to have been a Troy, but those guys seem "mythical"?

I'd never go that far. I've been saying that on the basis of the evidence I've outlined, slim as it is, It seems likely there was such a person. Most scholars in the field who have studied the matter agree with me. It's an informed opinion, based on admittedly sparse evidence. I also think Socrates is likely to have existed, even there are only three people of his time to support me, and they disagree about what he was like. I think it's unlikely that he said all, or even many, of the words Plato puts into his mouth in his dialogues, but I find it especially convincing that Plato says he was a heeroic genius and Aristophanes says he was a pompous fool and charlatan. The fact that people with such different perspectives agree on his existence strengthens the case for it, in my opinion.

Good for you. I get the impression from your posts that you're pretty opinionated, and since I agree with most of your opinions about politics, they seem reasonable. I hope you don't think though that you have conclusive evidence for them, as opposed to making reasonable inferences on the basis of the facts at hand.

 

Why more likely? Viewers who aren't tuned into subtle metaphysical distinctions may be puzzled by the differences. The Hindu concept of reincarnation involves transmigration of souls. In Buddhism there is no soul or transmigration but people are somehow reborn in some other form after they die, carrying the baggage of karma acquired from their past lives thru the wheel of samsara. Oh, not quite. Since there is no self, what is reborn is neither the same nor a different person than the deceased. But Do you really believe that? Can you provide a shred of evidence it's true or "more likely"? Or is it just another term for enlightenment, in which case how, if at all, would it differ from the "born again" experience of a Christian conversion experience?

Ah, you seem to be a progressive Buddhist! Actions have consequences.( How profound!) One thing leads to another. Traditional Buddhism taught and teaches that it carries over to the next life, so that if a person is badly deformed or reborn a cockroach, (s)he must have acquired really bad karma in a previous life. Except if there is no transmigration and no self, how could that be? In Theravada Buddhism,the energy of our karma survives us and somehow generates rebirth. Science has yet to confirm this, and it frankly seems irrefutable. The Tibetan Book of the Dead details the passage of this energy from one life to the next, and tells us what life between death and rebirth is like. Needless to say, empiricists view this as metaphysics.

Yes, sometimes it's used loosely to refer to the teachings of the Buddha.; or physical reality. It was central to the Buddha's meditations and is one of the three "jewels" or "refuges" of Buddhism. But the term is borrowed from Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) to designate the unchanging law of the universe with moral implications for human conduct. This seems pretty close to the Greco-Roman concept of "natural law', which Roman Catholics have taken over for their sexual morality. The Bhagavadgita links it to performance of duty, including those dictated by one's station in life. I gather that doesn't apply in Buddhism. It stands, among other things, for righteous thought and deed. And it has an internal aspect as a tranquil state of mind.But again, in its full meaning, it is unverifiable, irrefutable and beyond the reach of "proof".

That's the secular, "progressive version, congenial to western thought. Of course, in Mahayana Buddhism, the faith of a majority of the world's Buddhist, it means much more: a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering fellow humans, some by means of supernatural powers. The Bodhisattva Avalokitasvara has over 100 avatars, including the male Padmapāṇi and the female Guanshiyin. And Amida or Amitābha (actually a celestial buddha,of light and love, infinite wisdom and compassion), is the main object of devotion of Pure Land Buddhism (Amidism). By availing oneself of the accumulated karma of Amida and Bodhisattves, ordinary people can avoid the efforts of building their own accumulated good karma through the cycle of samsara and can achieve nirvanna by their devotions. Does this sound like Christian saints and salvation by grace to you? It does to me. I gather you aren't that kind of Buddhist.

Yes, I think that's the question. You're talking about self as a feeling or pewrception. I can accept that, as long as we realized we're far from completely getting rid of a sense of self, no matter how hard we try. Our nervous systems are connected to a physical brain, not to the universe. Alan Watts wrote a lot about selflessness, but couldn't really overcome his addictions. Life for most of us is a struggle between id and superego on the battleground of the ego.

But I thought nirvana was a condition in which consciousness of self had been annihilated: "the final beatitude that transcends suffering, karma and samsara and is sought especially in Buddhism through the extinction of desire and individual consciousness." Definition of NIRVANA If you haven't extinguished the consciousness of self (and if you claim to have done that, I'd find it hard to believe) nirvana isn't "here now and nothing to achieve" for you. Alan Watts wrote a lot about non-self and nirvana, but on a personal level he couldn't get past his addictions. I happen to think of heaven as a state of mind experienced on this earth as a condition in which the humanity followed the example and teachings of Jesus: peace, love and understanding. "The kingdom of the Father is spread out everywhere upon the earth, and people do not see it" (Thomas,113).

Sangha was traditionally one of the "three jewels or refuges". Originally, Buddhism was not a religion for loners. Community can be a source of spiritual support (much like a support group), although, as you say, it can also be a source of conformist pressure; so it's important to choose one's communities wisely.I belong to several, both Christian and atheist, so one can serve as a supplement and corrective to the others. Modern secular western Buddhists sometimes use their therapists as sangha. If it works for them, fine.

 

Denial of Jesus' existence seems to be a means of keeping proselytizing Christians at bay. But why not just deny doctrinal claims that are made about Him, since they are extraordinary while His existence is not. I find pastor Adam Hamilton's Making Sense of the Bible useful in handling the inerrantists. Jesus' gospel of love is the hermeneutic for understanding all of scripture.Anything which seems to conflict with it can't be literally true.

Some do. I certainly don't! But I think it's the most plausible conclusion from the limited evidence available. I tend to think the Buddha existed, too, although the evidence for him is even more limited.

 

It depends on what kind of Christian you have in mind. I'm a fan of Christian processs theology, which rejects immutability and even ominipotence and ominiscience. See Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Holiness, certainly, and as a panendeist, I think immanence, as well as transcendence are also characteristics, in my conceptualization of God. Holiness would be true of any deity, distinguishing the sacred from the profane. Love of God is for us to do, not an attribute of God. No evidence God is in love with Himself. Most of the other characteristics you mention are the product of theologians' overactive imaginations. And with all of them, we're just guessing. How would finite humans know whether or not God is infinite. If God is, among other things, the summation of human idealism, as I believe, those properties (Beauty, Truth, Love, Justice, etc) do seem infinite and eternal, even though they are human discoveries. I think it's unlikely that God has anthropomorphic attributes like anger and jealousy. I know the Bible says so , but I think those are metaphors, like quite a lot of the Bible.

 

No "proof", just evidence, which you can take or leave.

None at all, at least by Christians, during the first three centuries of its existence, during which time Chrisstianity continued to grow exponentially.See Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity. The statement that it relied mainly on force to propagate itself from the outset isn't just a "myth". It's a falsehood! Why do you keep repeating it

 

Agreed. Power corrupts. But you seem to be stuck in that period of the past--over a millennium ago, and centuries after the advent of Christianity.

The gymnastics were directed at His nature, not His existence. Surely you don't think that because the clerics at the Council were off base, that can be used to discredit all efforts by secular historians to consider the existence of an historical Jesus. You'd flunk Logic 101 with that argument.