Something about statues to unknown gods (covering all the bets) and "I perceive you are very religious".

when people call themselves atheists, they often mean not that they don't believe in any god at all as the term would indicate, but they don't believe in a particular version or description of God.

If that's the case, then I'd say they're not really atheists at all, so there's no point in saying that 21 percent of atheists believe in God. Never mind the fact that by its very definition atheism denies the existence of God.

Strange. Very, very strange.

If you think about it, its not strange at all. There is a large group of people like me who are caught in the middle. We aren't atheists but we are also told by ministers that we aren't allowed to be christians. Here is but one example of many. The currently popular definition of "christian" is that you must believe in the resurrection and the virgin birth eventhough Jesus never said so.

In the bible stories Jesus never told anyone he met that they should not believe in him now but that they should wait until his death and resurrection and believe in that in order to go to heaven. Jesus also never told anyone that they must believe that his mother was a virgin in order to go to heaven. But now, years after Jesus' death we are told that to be a true christian we must believe in all these human invented rules and that we must pretend they came from god when people like me (who have actually read the bible) know they did not.

You see, if you aren't allowed to be a christian because you have actually read the bible then where do you fit? Atheism is the only group that will accept you for who you are.

Hi, Mark. Thanks for the comment.

There is a large group of people like me who are caught in the middle. We aren't atheists but we are also told by ministers that we aren't allowed to be Christians.

Well that's sort of my point. :-) If you profess to have any sort of belief in God, you can't be an atheist.

I hear what you're saying about propositionalism. To me that's been the plague of certain forms of Christianity for a long time. On the other hand certain beliefs (like the resurrection) are at the core of the Christian faith because undermining those beliefs would, I believe, threaten the integrity of the faith.

Sure, JESUS never said, "Here are the rules. Here is what you've got to believe." Well, actually I take that back, He sort of did say that. He said love is the rule, and love is what you have to have, do, and show.

But now, years after Jesus' death we are told that to be a true christian we must believe in all these human invented rules and that we must pretend they came from god when people like me (who have actually read the bible) know they did not.

I agree to a certain extent. Certain belief propositions as a litmus test to authentic faith are simply silly (e.g. Young Earth Creationism).

However, you have already mentioned the resurrection, and you mentioned that you have read the bible. If that's the case, you have to believe that the Bible is lying about the resurrection (assuming you don't believe in it), because it plainly testifies to the resurrection. Paul even says that if the dead do not rise then we (Christians) are of all men the most pathetic.

But the dead do rise. :-)

Mark, thanks again for the comment.

Yes, Mark - thanks for commenting.

I too would like more clarification from you on what you said. Are you suggesting that the Bible doesn't teach the resurrection, or just that Jesus didn't make believing in it a requirement?

I'm thinking of passages like this: "And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again." - Mark 8:31

Far from being the currently popular definition of Christian, belief in the resurrection was foundational all the way back to the first Christian churches.

Also, I am with Bird on this post - there are more things one can be beside "Christian" and "Atheist". For instance - "Theist", meaning believing in a supreme being but not accepting, for instance, that Jesus is the incarnation of that being. C.S. Lewis, in his book Surprised by Joy, talks about spending an entire year as a Theist, believing in God but not in Christ or in the resurrection, etc, before finally going all the way and converting to Christianity.

You sound more like a Theist than an Atheist, to me. But that's just based on your one comment. I'd be interested in hearing more from you.

you have already mentioned the resurrection, and you mentioned that you have read the bible. If that's the case, you have to believe that the Bible is lying about the resurrection (assuming you don't believe in it), because it plainly testifies to the resurrection.

You seem to be missing my point. The resurrection is not a lie. Its a non sequitur to faith. Is the woman who Jesus met at the well now in hell along with all those others who choose to believe in Jesus but never got the word of his death and resurrection and thus never testified that they believe in a resurrection.

What's important is to believe that Jesus is God who came to Earth in the form of a man, to walk with men and teach them the wisdom of the ages and to save mankind from their own sinful destruction. Once you believe that then raising someone from the dead becomes a trivial magic trick performed two thousand years ago to impress the natives with shallow minds. Of course Jesus was raised from the dead. God can do anything he wants.

My question is not whether the resurrection is true but rather why have Christians chosen to focus on and sometimes worship the magic tricks but yet remain relatively oblivious to truly profound things that God has done for us?

Thanks for clarifying Mark.

And I would agree that worshipping the "magic tricks" is wrong.

We'll have to differ on the importance of believing in the resurrection. But in regard to your objection, the Bible teaches that people who died before the resurrection are alive in Christ today (Moses, Enoch, the Thief on the cross, etc). That doesn't make the resurrection unimportant - the early church considered it foundational.

I'm out of pocket for the next 48 hours or so, so if I don't respond, that's why. Happy fourth!

Is the woman who Jesus met at the well now in hell along with all those others who choose to believe in Jesus but never got the word of his death and resurrection and thus never testified that they believe in a resurrection.

Absolutely not. Of course, the thief on the cross didn't know that three days later Jesus was going to be alive again after his crucifixion. He's not in hell either.

About the resurrection in particular, Bill said it best: "Far from being the currently popular definition of Christian, belief in the resurrection was foundational all the way back to the first Christian churches."

My question is not whether the resurrection is true but rather why have Christians chosen to focus on and sometimes worship the magic tricks but yet remain relatively oblivious to truly profound things that God has done for us?

To me the resurrection is truly a profound thing that God has done for us. :-) To relegate it to a "magic trick" (with the implication that God is a magician) is erroneous.

On the other hand, I think, if I'm reading you correctly, you have a good central point. Namely, that a relationship with God isn't simply about mental assent to a list of propositions, but trusting JESUS with your life, right now and in the future.

The problem with denying the resurrection (which, apparently, you're not doing), or crediting it to wizardry (which, apparently, you are doing), is that the resurrection is what makes us free from sin. Without it, JESUS was simply another false messiah.

Forgive me if I'm missing your point, but please do clarify.

Its a non sequitur to faith.

Nope. Read Paul. Faith is trusting that Jesus is Lord (meaning, he isn't dead).

The woman at the well and the thief on the cross were trusting in a living Savior, not least because Jesus was breathing right in front of them. But they also trusted that he would keep living, that when he promised eternal life, he meant it. And not a symbolic way.

The resurrection is crucial to the Christian life and faith. My problems are real, my pain is real, and my sins are real. Why would I trust a dead man to handle them?

Bird wrote

To me the resurrection is truly a profound thing that God has done for us. :-) To relegate it to a "magic trick" (with the implication that God is a magician) is erroneous.

My point is that many Christians seem to be more impressed with God when he appears to behave similar to that of a magician. How should we treat the people who know its true just because Jesus said so.

Perhaps a reading of Matthew 8:5 will help.

To people like this, raisings from the dead, burning bushes and parts seas are trivial to the real majesty of creating the universe and everything in it and giving the power of self awareness and an understanding of right and wrong to mere creatures made from the dust.

Mark

Back to your earlier comment, i still find it curious, based on what you have written here, that you self-identify as an atheist. You believe in God, Jesus as God, miracles, God's creative work, etc.

Bill wrote:

i still find it curious, based on what you have written here, that you self-identify as an atheist.

The point I'm trying to make is that christians today are so caught up in the fun of deciding who else is not a christian that its not surprising to me at all to find so many spiritual people wearing the "atheist" label. All I can see are christians playing politics in a clever game of of who can vote who off the island of salvation.

I've been told by so many christian ministers that I'm not a christian because I don't properly recite the correct verbiage whereas I have found atheists to be much more open and accepting of people just as they are.

All in all, that second group seems so much more compassionate & inclusive and more like Jesus and is much more appealing to me.

So here is the paradox, I'm willing to accept that I'm not a christian because of the way christians behave in the world not because I don't believe in Jesus.

In Matthew 7:21 it appears that Jesus also had similar issues as mine as to the way self proclaimed christians were behaving.

In summary, I don't feel that I self identify as an atheist but rather I'm labeled that way by the christian church because I don't conform to their dogma. Why fight the label?

i've observed, Mark, that sometimes people who call themselves atheists are really just people bitter at the church, for various reasons. The church is, some would say unfortunately, the body of Christ on earth. That's how God set it up. I still can't imagine someone who differs doctrinally from you declaring you an atheist (i mean, you believe in God, right?) - but I'll take your word for it - i'm sorry you've experienced that.. I hope you can find Christians who will truly be Christlike to you.

This is simply a result of a public that doesn't know the definition of words. That, along with Mr. Spirit-of-the-Times (re: perhaps Obama?) and Sir. Enlightenment's efforts to kill all romantic, or non-rational basis for truth (e.g. experience and revelation). It has become fashionable to attack established religion and favor universalist or humanist dogma which have removed all moral prescriptions in favor of a more palatable descriptive doctrine.

The problem is that you can't have it both ways. You cannot have a secular or humanist system of belief (e.g. based on environmentalism or neo-darwinism) and still claim any moral, ethical, or Good as the foundation. That is what the philosophers called the 'Is/Ought' dilemma. This is similar to those old Hollywood or New England Socialist of the early 20th century who live in a free-market capitalist democracy which has enabled their ignorance to sit in their mansions and muse about the manifold benefits of communal life.

It would be funny if it didn't have such disasterous consequences (see the French Revolution and the 'death of God' or the rise of Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia).