How many of you are Atheists? What about Theists?

[Bluth Corporation]

It's really not. In fact, it's antithetical to Christianity.

So Christ is not a Christian?

No; what he's not is the son of god, because there is no god.

[Bluth Corporation]

Perhaps you could elaborate on this interesting opinion of yours? How exactly, is the New Testament antithetical to Christianity? Instead of giving purposefully vague statements to attract attention, you could explain your position and enlighten us all.

Good luck with that. I've been trying to do that for weeks now.

I've been doing exactly that for weeks now.

[Samuraikoku]

Good luck with that. I've been trying to do that for weeks now.

I've been doing exactly that for weeks now.

Yeah, claiming the very Bible Christians abide was forged by these "followers of the Cult of Jesus and Jehovah". That's why I didn't make a bulletpoint reply to what you said in the last page. Because all you did was just denial.

[Hydesland]

So Christ is not a Christian?

No; what he's not is the son of god, because there is no god.

But that verse is directly quoting Christ (allegedly), so you're saying that what Christ teaches is antithetical to Christianity.

[Samuraikoku]

No; what he's not is the son of god, because there is no god.

But that verse is directly quoting Christ (allegedly), so you're saying that what Christ teaches is antithetical to Christianity.

He's saying the Apostles forged Christ's teachings in the Bible. Indeed, a devout Christian he is.

[Kilel]

My views on the definition of religion and faith differ from the majority of society. I see them as different aspects almost entirely. Faith is just what deity you have belief in (or lack thereof) and religion is more your lifestyle being affected by your faith.

I was baptized Catholic. I claim myself as an Areligious Christian. Some may call me a Lukewarm Christian. Either way.... I dislike religion.

[Bluth Corporation]

I've been doing exactly that for weeks now.

Yeah, claiming the very Bible Christians abide

Christians don't abide by the Bible. The cult of Jesus and Jehovah does abide by the Bible, and they're not Christians. Certainly, many of them call themselves Christians; but if I called myself the President of Bulgaria, would that make it so?

Because all you did was just denial.

It's a fabrication; what else do you expect me to do in that case?

[Samuraikoku]

Christians don't abide by the Bible. The cult of Jesus and Jehovah does abide by the Bible, and they're not Christians. Certainly, many of them call themselves Christians; but if I called myself the President of Bulgaria, would that make it so?

Again with the baseless analogies? What requisites do you have to have to be a Christian? The same as the Bible says.

It's a fabrication; what else do you expect me to do in that case?

You've admitted defeat.

[Ceannairceach]

Yeah, claiming the very Bible Christians abide

Christians don't abide by the Bible. The cult of Jesus and Jehovah does abide by the Bible, and they're not Christians. Certainly, many of them call themselves Christians; but if I called myself the President of Bulgaria, would that make it so?

No, but claiming what you are is equally batty.

[Samuraikoku]

No, but claiming what you are is equally batty.

Hello there, Jesus Christ. (*bows*) This Samurai humbly salutes you.

[Bluth Corporation]

Christians don't abide by the Bible. The cult of Jesus and Jehovah does abide by the Bible, and they're not Christians. Certainly, many of them call themselves Christians; but if I called myself the President of Bulgaria, would that make it so?

Again with the baseless analogies? What requisites do you have to be a Christian? The same as the Bible says.

That the Bible is the proper authority on such matters is an assumption you make. I reject it.

It's a fabrication; what else do you expect me to do in that case?

You've admitted defeat.

Only if one is to accept that the Bible is the authority on what is and is not a Christian. But it isn't.

[Samuraikoku]

Only if one is to accept that the Bible is the authority on what is and is not a Christian. But it isn't.

Oh, this is gonna be fun.

Then what is?

[Kilel]

Christians don't abide by the Bible. The cult of Jesus and Jehovah does abide by the Bible, and they're not Christians. Certainly, many of them call themselves Christians; but if I called myself the President of Bulgaria, would that make it so?

Again with the baseless analogies? What requisites do you have to have to be a Christian? The same as the Bible says.

It's a fabrication; what else do you expect me to do in that case?

You've admitted defeat.

Ok:

1. Do not use the Bible EVER in these discussions. EVER. The Bible is as unreliable as any piece of historical literature. Why you ask? Because it was written, not by God, but by man. Therefore, it is as questionable as anything you can pull off of a shelf and as biased as its author.

2. He didn't admit defeat. Stop being a thick-headed ass and open your mind a little bit.

[Hydesland]

That the Bible is the proper authority on such matters is an assumption you make. I reject it.

What source do you use to learn the teachings of Jesus then?

[Hydesland]

1. Do not use the Bible EVER in these discussions. EVER. The Bible is as unreliable as any piece of historical literature. Why you ask? Because it was written, not by God, but by man. Therefore, it is as questionable as anything you can pull off of a shelf and as biased as its author.

You haven't been following the debate at all, have you?

[Samuraikoku]

Ok:

1. Do not use the Bible EVER in these discussions. EVER. The Bible is as unreliable as any piece of historical literature. Why you ask? Because it was written, not by God, but by man. Therefore, it is as questionable as anything you can pull off of a shelf and as biased as its author.

I'm not questioning it. I'm an atheist. LOL. But what exactly are Christians supposed to follow? When last I looked it was the Bible.

2. He didn't admit defeat. Stop being a thick-headed ass and open your mind a little bit.

You don't seem to understand that this guy is doing what he's doing on purpose.

[Kilel]

1. Do not use the Bible EVER in these discussions. EVER. The Bible is as unreliable as any piece of historical literature. Why you ask? Because it was written, not by God, but by man. Therefore, it is as questionable as anything you can pull off of a shelf and as biased as its author.

You haven't been following the debate at all, have you?

Not quite. I just got here and can't be bothered to look through the other pages. Just take my posts as they are.

[Samuraikoku]

You haven't been following the debate at all, have you?

It's not his fault, don't be hard on him.

[Kilel]

I'm not questioning it. I'm an atheist. LOL. But what exactly are Christians supposed to follow? When last I looked it was the Bible.

Yes it IS the Bible, however to do so is as asinine and stupid as asking a chimp to lead you to buried treasure. That's my point.

You don't seem to understand that this guy is doing what he's doing on purpose.

I understand that he's doing it on purpose, but I'm saying he hasn't admitted defeat.

[Hydesland]

You haven't been following the debate at all, have you?

Not quite. I just got here and can't be bothered to look through the other pages. Just take my posts as they are.

Your posts are irrelevant. Bluth is claiming that Christians inherently do not believe in a God. It is fair game to point out that the New Testament, and quotes of Jesus in the NT explicitly reference God. This forces Bluth into the difficult position that the New Testament is antithetical to Christianity, which begs the question of why the NT shouldn't be considered the principle texts of Christianity, and what (if anything) is.

[SimVillia]

Judaism didn't get a place, but Wicca did?

[Samuraikoku]

Yes it IS the Bible, however to do so is as asinine and stupid as asking a chimp to lead you to buried treasure. That's my point.

A point I agree with and never argued against (as I said, I'm an atheist), but saying Christianity isn't in the Bible is utterly ridiculous.

I understand that he's doing it on purpose, but I'm saying he hasn't admitted defeat.

I doubt he will anyway.

[Bluth Corporation]

That the Bible is the proper authority on such matters is an assumption you make. I reject it.

What source do you use to learn the teachings of Jesus then?

It is derived from the New Testament, though not the same as it. The New Testament has been corrupted by the modifications and additions and fabrications created by those who sought to use it to promote the myth of the divinity of Jesus's person, so one must first work at stripping away those fabrications.

Essentially, take a look at what Thomas Jefferson or Leo Tolstoy did (from an earlier comment, I suspect you're familiar with the latter): since Jesus lived and worked in the real world, you can start by stripping out everything that's not compatible with the real world, such as the miracles, the conversations with the Abrahamic god or Satan, etc. From there, it's a matter of working out the internal consistency of what's left.

It is possible that, when you're finished, the portrait of Jesus you have bears little relation to the historical Jesus. Perhaps the historical Jesus was indeed a theist. Perhaps he did believe himself to be the son of god. That's not really relevant. A Christian follows the teachings of Jesus the Christ, whether that man be an actual historical person, an adaptation of a historical person, or a complete fabrication. What matters is the teachings and the life that embodies them and so serves as a model for the rest of us, because (as I will explain shortly), those are what define the Christ, whether that life actually occurred or not. The historical Jesus, if he was not this ideal person, was therefore not the Christ, and so those who follow him cannot be Christians because what they are following is not the Christ. Those who believe that it was important that the life as recounted in the New Testament that has survived to this day is literally true are making the mistake of focusing on the person rather than the ideas, while Christness is contained in the ideas, the teachings, and the exemplary model rather than in the person. For a fuller explanation, I will turn to my response to Samuraikoku:

Only if one is to accept that the Bible is the authority on what is and is not a Christian. But it isn't.

Oh, this is gonna be fun.

Then what is?

Essentially, the very meaning of the word "Christ." Let's remember that the epithet "Christ" is derived from the Koine khristos, meaning "anointed one" or "savior."

Now, a Christian is one who follows someone or something which can properly be termed "Christ," and so if someone or something is to be termed "Christ" then he/she/it must have some attribute that makes him "anointed" or our "savior." So what is it about Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ (again, the ideal that may correspond more or less to the historical person, if--as is quite likely--such a person even existed), that makes him "anointed" or our "savior"? Acolytes of the cult of Jesus and Jehovah will tell you that it is his status as the supposed son of god. But (to repeat what I said above) Jesus lived and worked in the real world, and the existence of a god is incompatible with the real world--and if there is no god, then it is impossible for someone to be the son of a god. So we must look elsewhere for what is special about him.

I submit that it is his teachings that make him our "savior" and therefore the Christ. By teaching us how to live with one another, how to get along with another, he literally showed us how to avoid destroying ourselves. Thus, it is the teachings rather than the person that are the essential part of Christianity; we discover what those teachings are through the process I described above; and someone who follows and focuses on those teachings, rather than the corruption promoted by an uncritical reading of the New Testament or on the person of Jesus himself, that can properly be called a "Christian."

EDIT: Re-reading this, I found a typo and fixed it.

[Samuraikoku]

Essentially, the very meaning of the word "Christ." Let's remember that the epithet "Christ" is derived from the Koine khristos, meaning "anointed one" or "savior."

Now, a Christian is one who follows someone or something which can properly be termed "Christ," and so if someone or something is to be termed "Christ" then he/she/it must have some attribute that makes him "anointed" or our "savior." So what is it about Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ (again, the ideal that may correspond more or less to the historical person, if--as is quite likely--such a person even existed), that makes him "anointed" or our "savior"? Acolytes of the cult of Jesus and Jehovah will tell you that it is his status as the supposed son of god. But (to repeat what I said above) Jesus lived and worked in the real world, and the existence of a god is incompatible with the real world--and if there is no god, then it is impossible for someone to be the son of a god. So we must look elsewhere for what is special about him.

I submit that it is his teachings that make him our "savior" and therefore the Christ. By teaching us how to live with one another, how to get along with another, he literally showed us how to avoid destroying ourselves. Thus, it is the teachings rather than the person that are the essential part of Christianity; we discover what those teachings are through the process I described above; and someone who follows and focuses on those teachings, rather than the corruption promoted by an uncritical reading of the New Testament or on the person of Jesus himself, that can properly be called a "Christian."

And where do you find the teachings? In the New Testament. Which renders your theory null.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Essentially, the very meaning of the word "Christ." Let's remember that the epithet "Christ" is derived from the Koine khristos, meaning "anointed one" or "savior."

Now, a Christian is one who follows someone or something which can properly be termed "Christ," and so if someone or something is to be termed "Christ" then he/she/it must have some attribute that makes him "anointed" or our "savior." So what is it about Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ (again, the ideal that may correspond more or less to the historical person, if--as is quite likely--such a person even existed), that makes him "anointed" or our "savior"? Acolytes of the cult of Jesus and Jehovah will tell you that it is his status as the supposed son of god. But (to repeat what I said above) Jesus lived and worked in the real world, and the existence of a god is incompatible with the real world--and if there is no god, then it is impossible for someone to be the son of a god. So we must look elsewhere for what is special about him.

I submit that it is his teachings that make him our "savior" and therefore the Christ. By teaching us how to live with one another, how to get along with another, he literally showed us how to avoid destroying ourselves. Thus, it is the teachings rather than the person that are the essential part of Christianity; we discover what those teachings are through the process I described above; and someone who follows and focuses on those teachings, rather than the corruption promoted by an uncritical reading of the New Testament or on the person of Jesus himself, that can properly be called a "Christian."

And where do you find the teachings? In the New Testament. Which renders your theory null.

I expect he finds them in the parts that weren't stripped down.

To be quite honest, I feel bad about mocking him because his interpretation does make a lot of sense. My only concern is what the criteria for stripping "inconsistencies" are, and whether you lose quite a few teachings by ignoring the miracles and other "magical" occurrences in the Bible, since many nuggets of wisdom are conveyed through those fantastic stories.

However, I do think saying "I am a Christian, therefore I am an atheist" is still not appropriate. One interpretation of the Christianity does not render the rest irrelevant or incorrect.