Atheists for Jesus?

[Cypher44]

If I were to place my personal beliefs aside.. Then Jesus is a very strange person, not least in the fact he's pretty generic in his teachings, the Bible seems to embellish his divine qualities and diminish his human ones. He seems too perfect and flawless ya know?. His status as a role model doesn't really work because even if you strive to be like him, you fall short every time

[SteveII]

My girlfriend is one of those atheists that strongly admire the teachings of Jesus, so much so that she is upset that I almost universally despise all things in Christianity. Its gotten kind of a sticking point because I think that even if Jesus said good things, the belief in him is toxic by very definition. Also, I've never really encountered a specific argument that was particularly convincing about WHY Jesus was a good person. I mean, in Matthew 15:21-28, he initially refuses to help a woman who was either Canaanite or gentile. 

Am I wrong in believing that Jesus wasn't something to write home about?

Yes, you are wrong. You don't seem to know much about Jesus or his teachings. The fact that you referenced Matthew 15:21-28 suggest you went looking on atheist websites to find "dirt" on Jesus and found a text that a lot of people take out of context. It was a repeated theme of Jesus to put a stumbling block in front of someone to see if they would step over it (a test). He obviously was not racist from a bunch of other texts including the woman at the well, the Good Samaritan, John 10, etc. 

Every teaching Jesus gave on how to live and treat others is objectively a superb set of instruction on living a fulfilling, moral, and productive life.

I understood WHY Jesus does it, but I disagree with the method. Notice how I didn't say that Jesus was racist. He had to know that this woman had faith first before helping, rather than helping from the outset. 

You aren't a good person if you have to play mind games with the people that are begging you for help before you help them.

You are ignoring that there might be other purposes for the context. A caananite woman recognized him as...something. What did the disciples get out of the story?

[Phaedrus]

The irony is that there is nothing special about the Jesus character whatsoever. He never said anything unique. All he did was make a wild claim to be the divine son of god.

[adey67]

Seriously if Jesus existed, if he was the son of God, if God existed and the Bible was an ultra important document for the salvation of mankind isn't NOT allowing the creation of an unambiguous perfectly understandable document the action of an imperfect being where perfection is claimed? Frankly when I come across threads like this where God has to employ the services of apologists like Stevell  to tie themselves in pretzel like knots making excuses for something which if it were divinely inspired should be easily understood by people of all intellects then frankly it does nothing but confirm my atheism, simply put this is a prime example of how far people are prepared to go to convince themselves and others that something they desperately want to be true is actually true. Dissonance 101. These days when we hear of people who join cults that refuse a person access to their loved ones we are rightly indignant and yet when jesus does it he gets a total pass, superb set of instructions my fucking ass..

[Dancefortwo]

My girlfriend is one of those atheists that strongly admire the teachings of Jesus, so much so that she is upset that I almost universally despise all things in Christianity. Its gotten kind of a sticking point because I think that even if Jesus said good things, the belief in him is toxic by very definition. Also, I've never really encountered a specific argument that was particularly convincing about WHY Jesus was a good person. I mean, in Matthew 15:21-28, he initially refuses to help a woman who was either Canaanite or gentile. 

Am I wrong in believing that Jesus wasn't something to write home about?

Yes, you are wrong. You don't seem to know much about Jesus or his teachings. The fact that you referenced Matthew 15:21-28 suggest you went looking on atheist websites to find "dirt" on Jesus and found a text that a lot of people take out of context. It was a repeated theme of Jesus to put a stumbling block in front of someone to see if they would step over it (a test). He obviously was not racist from a bunch of other texts including the woman at the well, the Good Samaritan, John 10, etc. 

Every teaching Jesus gave on how to live and treat others is objectively a superb set of instruction on living a fulfilling, moral, and productive life.

Yabut  you can get the same advice on human nature and how to treat others  from reading  Aesop's Fables,  and it's all there without the threat of extortion.

[Bucky Ball]

Dang.
I thought this was gonna be a new group, like "Jews for Jesus".

It's rather suspicious that the "love your neighbor as yourself" preaching content, which was the concern of the rabbis at the end of the 1st Century, after the temple was destroyed and the diaspora was under way, was "placed in the mouth of Jesus", at such an early date. They were trying to boil the "law" down to its basic content, since strict observance (going to Jerusalem) etc, was no longer possible. If Jesus existed, the law was still possible to observe then (??)

[Atothetheist]

Yes, you are wrong. You don't seem to know much about Jesus or his teachings. The fact that you referenced Matthew 15:21-28 suggest you went looking on atheist websites to find "dirt" on Jesus and found a text that a lot of people take out of context. It was a repeated theme of Jesus to put a stumbling block in front of someone to see if they would step over it (a test). He obviously was not racist from a bunch of other texts including the woman at the well, the Good Samaritan, John 10, etc. 

Every teaching Jesus gave on how to live and treat others is objectively a superb set of instruction on living a fulfilling, moral, and productive life.

I understood WHY Jesus does it, but I disagree with the method. Notice how I didn't say that Jesus was racist. He had to know that this woman had faith first before helping, rather than helping from the outset. 

You aren't a good person if you have to play mind games with the people that are begging you for help before you help them.

You are ignoring that there might be other purposes for the context. A caananite woman recognized him as...something. What did the disciples get out of the story?

A Canaanite recognized a dude that's been ministering (healing/preforming miracles) to people and gaining a following, wow...

I didn't ignore the context, I'm of the belief that there is no context imaginable that would make it okay for a dude to hang a carrot over starving person's head. Doesn't matter whether or not it was a lesson for her, or for the disciples, or for the reader of the text itself. 

This woman is (presumably and reasonably assumed to be) desperate, Jesus, in his wisdom says it plainly (from the NIV): “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

when she beseeches more, he says “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

Now, I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem like Jesus is making moral statements or using this to teach anybody here a lesson. He didn't turn to the disciples or otherwise indicate to them that this was a teaching moment. Rather, it seems like he was persuaded by her rhetoric (if you read as the story continues).

So, there are at best, two interpretations of this story.

1) Jesus clearly states he wasn't INTENDED to save everyone, but rather just the Jews. In which case he isn't a good person, but rather a Hebrew-centric person who merely did good towards the Jewish people. (Not a terribly great person.)

2) He used this woman's desperation as a teaching moment and manipulated this woman into doing exactly as he wanted her to do (in order to teach the disciples/the reader SOMETHING), and once he was satisfied with her answer, THEN he helped her. 

I don't see how ANY of those two interpretations, REGARDLESS of what context created them or the intent behind them, makes Jesus out to be anything OTHER morally compromised human being.

[Atothetheist]

The irony is that there is nothing special about the Jesus character whatsoever. He never said anything unique. All he did was make a wild claim to be the divine son of god.

He may/may not have even done that.

[SteveII]

I understood WHY Jesus does it, but I disagree with the method. Notice how I didn't say that Jesus was racist. He had to know that this woman had faith first before helping, rather than helping from the outset. 

You aren't a good person if you have to play mind games with the people that are begging you for help before you help them.

You are ignoring that there might be other purposes for the context. A caananite woman recognized him as...something. What did the disciples get out of the story?

A Canaanite recognized a dude that's been ministering (healing/preforming miracles) to people and gaining a following, wow...

I didn't ignore the context, I'm of the belief that there is no context imaginable that would make it okay for a dude to hang a carrot over starving person's head. Doesn't matter whether or not it was a lesson for her, or for the disciples, or for the reader of the text itself. 

This woman is (presumably and reasonably assumed to be) desperate, Jesus, in his wisdom says it plainly (from the NIV): “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

when she beseeches more, he says “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

Now, I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem like Jesus is making moral statements or using this to teach anybody here a lesson. He didn't turn to the disciples or otherwise indicate to them that this was a teaching moment. Rather, it seems like he was persuaded by her rhetoric (if you read as the story continues).

So, there are at best, two interpretations of this story.

1) Jesus clearly states he wasn't INTENDED to save everyone, but rather just the Jews. In which case he isn't a good person, but rather a Hebrew-centric person who merely did good towards the Jewish people. (Not a terribly great person.)

2) He used this woman's desperation as a teaching moment and manipulated this woman into doing exactly as he wanted her to do (in order to teach the disciples/the reader SOMETHING), and once he was satisfied with her answer, THEN he helped her. 

I don't see how ANY of those two interpretations, REGARDLESS of what context created them or the intent behind them, makes Jesus out to be anything OTHER morally compromised human being.

Jesus would have known he was going to meet the woman and heal her child. To get your uncharitable reading, you first have to assume this was unexpected and Jesus therefore 'showed his true colors' because the interaction meant nothing on a macro level. Second, when Jesus expresses the common sentiment of the day (Jews vs. Caananites), and then actually shows the opposite--that they are human, important, and worthy of his attention, you focus on the wrong part because of your bias. The fact is, you were not there and you have to read a bunch of stuff into the encounter to get it to be what you want it to be. 

I love how these little phrases are pulled out and paraded about like they make a point. You have a thousand other verses and hundreds of encounters that can provide context. For example, Jews hated Samaritans. What were the two greatest commandments Jesus gave? And then who did he say was your neighbor? The fact is clear as day that Jesus, at the very least, was an exemplary moral teacher preaching to a civilization that did not already hold those moral values.

[Old Man Marsh]

The irony is that there is nothing special about the Jesus character whatsoever. He never said anything unique. All he did was make a wild claim to be the divine son of god.

Gee, that's never been done before.

[Kim]

Seriously if Jesus existed, if he was the son of God, if God existed and the Bible was an ultra important document for the salvation of mankind isn't NOT allowing the creation of an unambiguous perfectly understandable document the action of an imperfect being where perfection is claimed? Frankly when I come across threads like this where God has to employ the services of apologists like Stevell  to tie themselves in pretzel like knots making excuses for something which if it were divinely inspired should be easily understood by people of all intellects then frankly it does nothing but confirm my atheism, simply put this is a prime example of how far people are prepared to go to convince themselves and others that something they desperately want to be true is actually true. Dissonance 101. These days when we hear of people who join cults that refuse a person access to their loved ones we are rightly indignant and yet when jesus does it he gets a total pass, superb set of instructions my fucking ass..

Oh, Adey who knew I could adore someone so much for writing all those words in barely three sentences using only one comma?


It's happening.


We're home.

[SteveII]

Seriously if Jesus existed, if he was the son of God, if God existed and the Bible was an ultra important document for the salvation of mankind isn't NOT allowing the creation of an unambiguous perfectly understandable document the action of an imperfect being where perfection is claimed? Frankly when I come across threads like this where God has to employ the services of apologists like Stevell  to tie themselves in pretzel like knots making excuses for something which if it were divinely inspired should be easily understood by people of all intellects then frankly it does nothing but confirm my atheism, simply put this is a prime example of how far people are prepared to go to convince themselves and others that something they desperately want to be true is actually true. Dissonance 101. These days when we hear of people who join cults that refuse a person access to their loved ones we are rightly indignant and yet when jesus does it he gets a total pass, superb set of instructions my fucking ass..

As far as I'm aware, the main theme of the Bible has been understood by people of all cultures, all intellect, at all periods in history. Seems to me that proof of that is Christianity still grows every year--especially in parts of the world where the culture has no long history to 'help' them understand it. I fail to see how someone not actually reading the Bible or reading it with a bias is evidence of anything other than...well...not reading it or reading it with a bias. Really, how hard are the concepts in the NT? What looks like "pretzels" is just basic reading comprehension and a little systematic study. 

What are you taking about "refusing access to their loved ones"? Do you need help with a verse?

[Phaedrus]

or reading it with a bias 

Everyone reads everything with a bias.

In the end, the bias must be shoved aside for reason through the process of critical thinking. Think empirically.

[adey67]

Seriously if Jesus existed, if he was the son of God, if God existed and the Bible was an ultra important document for the salvation of mankind isn't NOT allowing the creation of an unambiguous perfectly understandable document the action of an imperfect being where perfection is claimed? Frankly when I come across threads like this where God has to employ the services of apologists like Stevell  to tie themselves in pretzel like knots making excuses for something which if it were divinely inspired should be easily understood by people of all intellects then frankly it does nothing but confirm my atheism, simply put this is a prime example of how far people are prepared to go to convince themselves and others that something they desperately want to be true is actually true. Dissonance 101. These days when we hear of people who join cults that refuse a person access to their loved ones we are rightly indignant and yet when jesus does it he gets a total pass, superb set of instructions my fucking ass..

Oh, Adey       who knew I could adore someone so much for writing all those words in barely three sentences using only one comma?


It's happening.


We're home.  

Hi Kim glad you are here my grammar and syntax  sucks

[Kim]

You are ignoring that there might be other purposes for the context. A caananite woman recognized him as...something. What did the disciples get out of the story?

Hmm    let's see ...
That people really only love what they think is power?
That openly suffering is actually just being selfish?
That if someone begs for help, get payback with interest?
That there's no such thing as unconditional love?
That love is a comodity to be bargained for?

Rather than a life of love, empathy, and compassion, it appears as if big J was leading his gullible disciples into a grand life of cynicism.  

Well, there's a sin to die for.    

[Kim]

Hi Kim glad you are here my grammar and syntax  sucks

No and no.

Passion!

Passion defies the laws of grammar... as it should.

[SYZ]

As far as I'm aware, the main theme of the Bible has been understood by people of all cultures, all intellect, at all periods in history...

That's a pretty sweeping statement to make.  Australian aborigines have never understood the
main themes of the bible; in fact virtually none do to this day, despite more than 200 years of
Anglo-Christian settlement here.  They have their own beliefs and culture dating back around
60,000 years, and certainly don't need any modern biblical "instructions" on how to live their lives. 
And the Christian missionaries who used them as captive slaves and free labourers hardly spread
any goodwill or compassion—quite the opposite in fact.

Seems to me that proof of that is Christianity still grows every year...

Not here in Australia.  Our first Federal census in 1901 reported 98% of our population were
Christian.  In out last census in 2016, that figure had dropped to 61%, with atheists now
outnumbering each of the Roman Catholic and Anglican religions.

Pew Research estimates that 40 million people are expected to convert to Christianity
between 2010-2050, and 106 million people are expected to leave Christianity during that
period—resulting in a net loss of 66 million. In the US, Christians will decline from
more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050.

—Pew Research Center, 2 April 2015.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't pick on Jesus, people, he never existed. Pick on the nasty fucks who used him to advance their own agendas.

[Kim]

----
---
-- In the US, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050.

—Pew Research Center, 2 April 2015.

So, they're saying I might actually get to have a relatively peaceful death?

Well, it's something, I guess.

[Kim]

Don't pick on Jesus, people, he never existed. Pick on the nasty fucks who used him to advance their own agendas.

Oh oh ... I feel a Paul discussion coming up.


Guy was a complete dick.

[adey67]

Seriously if Jesus existed, if he was the son of God, if God existed and the Bible was an ultra important document for the salvation of mankind isn't NOT allowing the creation of an unambiguous perfectly understandable document the action of an imperfect being where perfection is claimed? Frankly when I come across threads like this where God has to employ the services of apologists like Stevell  to tie themselves in pretzel like knots making excuses for something which if it were divinely inspired should be easily understood by people of all intellects then frankly it does nothing but confirm my atheism, simply put this is a prime example of how far people are prepared to go to convince themselves and others that something they desperately want to be true is actually true. Dissonance 101. These days when we hear of people who join cults that refuse a person access to their loved ones we are rightly indignant and yet when jesus does it he gets a total pass, superb set of instructions my fucking ass..

As far as I'm aware, the main theme of the Bible has been understood by people of all cultures, all intellect, at all periods in history. Seems to me that proof of that is Christianity still grows every year--especially in parts of the world where the culture has no long history to 'help' them understand it. I fail to see how someone not actually reading the Bible or reading it with a bias is evidence of anything other than...well...not reading it or reading it with a bias. Really, how hard are the concepts in the NT? What looks like "pretzels" is just basic reading comprehension and a little systematic study. 

What are you taking about "refusing access to their loved ones"? Do you need help with a verse?

Mark 1 v 16 to 20
Matt 10 v 35 and 37

Refusing access was a poor choice of words on my part, my bad. If it was as simple as basic reading comprehension and systematic study then all the apologists should be lining up with one another, trouble is they fight as much amongst each other as they do with atheists or other religions.

[Phaedrus]

Mark 1 v 16 to 20
Matt 10 v 35 and 37

Refusing access was a poor choice of words on my part, my bad. If it was as simple as basic reading comprehension and systematic study then all the apologists should be lining up with one another, trouble is they fight as much amongst each other as they do with atheists or other religions.

I know where I lean.

[SteveII]

Seriously if Jesus existed, if he was the son of God, if God existed and the Bible was an ultra important document for the salvation of mankind isn't NOT allowing the creation of an unambiguous perfectly understandable document the action of an imperfect being where perfection is claimed? Frankly when I come across threads like this where God has to employ the services of apologists like Stevell  to tie themselves in pretzel like knots making excuses for something which if it were divinely inspired should be easily understood by people of all intellects then frankly it does nothing but confirm my atheism, simply put this is a prime example of how far people are prepared to go to convince themselves and others that something they desperately want to be true is actually true. Dissonance 101. These days when we hear of people who join cults that refuse a person access to their loved ones we are rightly indignant and yet when jesus does it he gets a total pass, superb set of instructions my fucking ass..

As far as I'm aware, the main theme of the Bible has been understood by people of all cultures, all intellect, at all periods in history. Seems to me that proof of that is Christianity still grows every year--especially in parts of the world where the culture has no long history to 'help' them understand it. I fail to see how someone not actually reading the Bible or reading it with a bias is evidence of anything other than...well...not reading it or reading it with a bias. Really, how hard are the concepts in the NT? What looks like "pretzels" is just basic reading comprehension and a little systematic study. 

What are you taking about "refusing access to their loved ones"? Do you need help with a verse?

Mark 1 v 16 to 20
Matt 10 v 35 and 37

I don't know what your objection to the Mark passage is.

Regarding the Matt passage, words are mirrored from Micah 7:6 (a time of uncertainty for Israel) and clearly the context is the trials ahead where families will not support the radical decision to follow Christ--for which is brought home in the subsequent three verses.   The whole chapter is about preparing the disciples as they go from town to town preaching a new message and what to do when such and such is encountered. 

Refusing access was a poor choice of words on my part, my bad. If it was as simple as basic reading comprehension and systematic study then all the apologists should be lining up with one another, trouble is they fight as much amongst each other as they do with atheists or other religions.

That seems nothing more than a red herring. This comes up a lot as a supposed trump card whenever anyone is challenged on biblical knowledge. That argument goes something like:

1. Christians disagree on some issues
2. Therefore the Bible is unclear on all issues. 

Not only does (2) not follow from (1), (1) can be further undercut by how major or important any particular doctrinal disagreement is to the overall theology. Most doctrinal disagreements are not seen as 'core' by either party.

[adey67]

As far as I'm aware, the main theme of the Bible has been understood by people of all cultures, all intellect, at all periods in history. Seems to me that proof of that is Christianity still grows every year--especially in parts of the world where the culture has no long history to 'help' them understand it. I fail to see how someone not actually reading the Bible or reading it with a bias is evidence of anything other than...well...not reading it or reading it with a bias. Really, how hard are the concepts in the NT? What looks like "pretzels" is just basic reading comprehension and a little systematic study. 

What are you taking about "refusing access to their loved ones"? Do you need help with a verse?

Mark 1 v 16 to 20
Matt 10 v 35 and 37

I don't know what your objection to the Mark passage is.

Regarding the Matt passage, words are mirrored from Micah 7:6 (a time of uncertainty for Israel) and clearly the context is the trials ahead where families will not support the radical decision to follow Christ--for which is brought home in the subsequent three verses.   The whole chapter is about preparing the disciples as they go from town to town preaching a new message and what to do when such and such is encountered. 

Refusing access was a poor choice of words on my part, my bad. If it was as simple as basic reading comprehension and systematic study then all the apologists should be lining up with one another, trouble is they fight as much amongst each other as they do with atheists or other religions.

That seems nothing more than a red herring. This comes up a lot as a supposed trump card whenever anyone is challenged on biblical knowledge. That argument goes something like:

1. Christians disagree on some issues
2. Therefore the Bible is unclear on all issues. 

Not only does (2) not follow from (1), (1) can be further undercut by how major or important any particular doctrinal disagreement is to the overall theology. Most doctrinal disagreements are not seen as 'core' by either party.

OK, I concede defeat here, you are clearly a highly skilled debater so props to you, it doesn't change my mind though, I still do not believe in the supernatural space fairy and his bronze aged book of horrors, but I freely admit I have been trounced and well and truly thrashed debate wise, so I leave it as is. Perhaps someone else will take up the mantle and show me where I went wrong.
I still cannot get over the feeling that I have been scammed and hustled though, it feels decidedly bizarre.

[Kim]

Wrong?

The only place anyone "went wrong" is thinking The Bible is anything other than a book.  

Star Trek was a television show, the main theme of which has been ... "understood by people of all cultures, all intellect, at all periods in history" ... since it's inception in the 60s.  People have debated it's various precepts and followed and even made personal vows based on the philosophies gleaned from it.  

Both book & tv show are human constructs, simply devined by humans grasping for hope.  

All fine & dandy but uh, reality is much more relative to living a good life.