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

If we "mistake" a snake for a rope, that's a mistake. If we use a snake or rope as a metaphor for something we think is analogous, that's a metaphor. Abrahamic religions use the snake as a metaphor for temptations of the world, although some Gnostic sects saw it as a symbol of enlightenment.Maya, of course, is a metaphor for what other religions call "worldliness". The Toltecs had similar metaphors to describe the tonal, to denote the immediate wordly world of the senses represented by Topcatlipoca (Smoky Mirror), symbolized by an obsidian mirror (think "thru a glass darkly") or a prowling black Jaguar. Quetzalcoatal , Topcatlipoca's nemesis, symbolized by a feathered serpent, means literally in Nahuatl "precious serpent" or "Quetzal-feathered Serpent", but i.[5] In the 17th century, Ixtlilxóchitl, a descendant of Aztec royalty and historian of the Nahua people, wrote, "Quetzalcoatl, in its literal sense, means 'serpent of precious feathers', but is a metaphor the wise one who restored the human race by shedding his blood (tonali , or "life force). Ixtilochitl (2019) Such metaphors can be useful and powerful if we don't take them too literally.

I believe in the reality of Good and Evil--not as metaphysical entities in Plato's Heaven, but as labels designating behaviors and developments leading to net well being for the greatest number of people. Heaven and Hell, as I use the terms, are metaphors for hypothetical states which would result if everyone dedicated themselves to peace, love, and understanding--or did the opposite, respectively. Both are very real--something to keep in mind when voters consider whether gas prices or democracy should be their main concern in the forthcoming elections.

 

I think you guys might be talking past each other. When AjayO says "Dualism means consciousness is under the domination of insentient matter", I understand him not to be giving a definition of dualism, but rather to be explaining what its effects would be. If that's right, I think I might have addressed th issue in my previous post #82. Putting it in Nahuatl terminology, it is the tendency of Smoky Mirror) to present itself to consciousness (ego) as the "true reality", and to present nagual (spiritual truths; superego) as unreal or unimportant. If that's what AjayO means, I agree.
.

 

May I translate what I think you are saying into the terminology of "religious experience". Christians who have had this report a feeling of Oneness with the Universe or a life-changing instant personal "revelation" which Christians call "born again". In communities where such experiences are considered necessary in order to attain salvation, there may be a certain pressure on the believer to have them. I didn't come from that kind of community, but rather from one in which such things would be taken as a sign of mental illness.

In my own case, it was a set of cascading thoughts that were triggered by Gen. 1:26. And God said: "Let us make Gods in our image and likeness." (not the rest about dominion) This was not something I read. It popped into my mind as I was trying to solve a problem about interpersonal relations. Oddly, I didn't think, then or now, that Genesis is literal. Next stop Atman. Third stop, Maya and the Buddhist teachings about attachments as the basis of suffering, which I related to the story of Adam and Eve; etc, etc. It was an eccumenical trip, but I emerged a Christian as a result of the passage in the John Gospel that God is Love and Jesus's (real or imaginary) teachings (borrowed from the Torah) that the two greatest commandments are love of God and neighbor. From then on, I've seen life in a different way, and going to WalMart is a religious experience.

To me, a remarkable experience like that deserves an explanation. If I were to venture a naturalistic one, I might try "transitory situational disorder", or some other clinical label. I'll settle for "insight", in which problem-solving caused me to dredge up a bunch of knowledge about religions from my subconscious. Other notables who have reported religious experiences, like geneticist Dr.Francis Collins, had his experience triggered by a frozen waterfall in three strands, which made him think of the Trinity. (my ahteist friends wonder if ,had been in several strands, he would have become a Pastfarian.) In the case of Marcus Borg, a Progressive Christian theologian, the feeling of Oneness with the Universe came to him on an airplane, leaving skeptics to wonder whether it was before or after cocktails were served. In my case, it wasn't alcohol or drugs, since I don't use those. I did have a friend ask me once, as he viewed my art, if I did a lot of drugs in my youth. When I said "No", he replied "that's probably a good thing!" So Maya woiuld like to explain the experience away, as psychotic break, temporal lobe epilepsy, transitory situational disorder, etc. But I've chosen to accept it as my reality--subject to change with new evidence. And I continue to draw on other religions to inform my growing understanding of Christianity. Whether that makes me "enlightened", confused, or worse is a matter of opinion.

 

So they say.

I don't know what you're quoting from, but it sounds like some theologian or apologist to me. I wouldn't know what "properly independent means either. The Progressive Christians I hang with tend to be panentheists or (in my case) panendists. God by this conception (not the Dude in the Sky) is immanent as well as transcendent. I sense God everywhere,in everything around me and within you and me. "The kingdom of the Father is everywhere around us, but people do not see it." (Thomas, 113.) But like even Bishop Berkeley, I think we and God are analytically distinct entities. Solipsism is more intuitively obvious than the idea that God is the only reality..

However I see no running around the bush by the notion that God creates but is not His creation. I've created stuff on canvas, but am not my paintings (though a part of me is in them. in a sense.) I seriously doubt they created me. Likewise with most humans. Monism may be true, but is outside ordinary experience. It is unverifiable and irrefutable. Therefore, it is accessible only by mystical experience, and there is no way of validating whether or not that's real or illusory. Unless you've had such experiences, it seems unproductive to discuss the issue.

You didn't understand what I said. Maya is responsible for our perceptions of dualism, but as AjayO says, Maya tends to deny that there can be an alternative perception and those who are in her grip will provide naturalistic explanations for experiences to the contrary. And she (Maya) may be right. Non-self is a hard sell; to people who sense self in what they see, taste, smell, and feel as pleasure and pain. No one can do that with non-self. It seems to deny the obvious. You tend to slip in and out of Buddhist doctrine. If you are talking within the context of Buddhist doctrine, Maya is whatever the Buddha and his followers say she is and reality is what they say it is. It ain't necessarily so. Its major advantage for atheists is that it provides a spiritual alternative to theism. It in the same category as the Christian theology you scoff at. Existentialism is ultimately the only way out. You place your bets and take your chances. I find it helpful to do so consistent with reason and available evidence.

 

Yes, I understand we can mistake one thing for another. What, however, would lead someone to conclude that a snake or rope viewed in broad daylight is an illusion? Or even more unusual, that what we experience with our senses, namely self, is also an illusion?

What I can conclude is that much of what our senses may lead us to think is good can have long-run negative impacts. In particular, I fully accept the Buddhist doctrines of upadana and tanha. I take the mindsets that are responsible for those cravings and attachments to be mistaken. In that sense we can call them illusions. This seems like a practical alternative to arguing a case for monism, which prudence suggests is a philosophical nightmare.

 

As you yourself stated, " Maya is not really an illusion in the sense of being the opposite of reality, Maya is the appearance of reality to the ordinary human mind."

Thus Maya originates from the mind itself. The same mind is capable of the unitary perception ( samadhi) leading to harmony as well as dualistic perception( avidya) leading to discord.

The Self or pure mind or pure consciousness capable of advaitan or nondual perception is distinguished from the impure mind (of cravings/aversions) in Advaita Vedanta.

Advaita as a concept says that all is Brahman, which can be intellectually understood and grasped, and many armchair scholars state the same, after reading the scriptures.

But for this to be a practical reality, samadhi or unitary perception should be experienced by the mind trained to be mentally equanimous and aware, as opposed to the agitated mind riddled with intense desires, cravings and aversions for pleasure and pain, and consequently dualistic.

Yes, it is the mind filled with intense desires in the form of cravings/aversions that is considered to be ignorance( Avidya), not the lack of intellectual knowledge.

Similarly the state of mind that is mentally equanimous and aware is considered to be wisdom in Advaita and eastern philosophy.

Wisdom is considered to be a state of consciousness or no-mind, not intellectual knowledge.

Intellectual knowledge makes one a scholar or intellectual at the most but that does not guarantee that he or she is wise.

Yeah, in Vedantic terminology, we hear of using a thorn to remove a thorn and then to throw away both of them. Similarly the advaitan philosophy and methodology are tools to self-transform the dualistic mind to the nondual mind.

After this is done, one gives up the tools, just as a mechanic releases his wrench and screwdriver after finishing his work.

 

The Self or pure mind or pure consciousness capable of advaitan or nondual perception is distinguished from the impure mind (of cravings/aversions) in Advaita Vedanta.[/QUOTE] Now we may be getting somewhere. What you seem to be saying is its all in the mind. Maya is a concept or metaphor, like Heaven, Hell and the Devil in Abrahamic traditions. I think of Heaven as an idealized state that would result if everyone practiced peace, love and understanding; and Hell as what would result if everyone did the opposite. Satan, Ahriman, the snake, etc. And these are products of the human mind, which is capable of thinking in unifying or divisive terms. If that's what you're saying, I agree.

God as a transcendent being is also a concept that believers think can be intellectually understood and grasped (up to a point). So are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. But as Francis P. Church assured Virginia, Santa "exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus." A lovely metaphor.

Ah, yes. There is at present no single mind, but all those other minds riddled with nasty thoughts and impulses. As Sartre put it:"hell is other people". We can condition ourselves to tune out such impulses. Auto hypnosis is an amazing thing. Experience suggests only a small minority of humans will seek such a path. The world will continue to be ruled by those who worship power, wealth, status, and sensual pleasure. And science tells us that the enlightened ones who attain samadhi do so with material brains which will rot away with them after death. What a pity, but we can keep trying. I think it is risky though to take our metaphors too seriously, lest we end up talking to ourselves, which the unenlightened will take as a sure sign of insanity.l

 

Now we may be getting somewhere. What you seem to be saying is its all in the mind. Maya is a concept or metaphor, like Heaven, Hell and the Devil in Abrahamic traditions. I think of Heaven as an idealized state that would result if everyone practiced peace, love and understanding; and Hell as what would result if everyone did the opposite. Satan, Ahriman, the snake, etc. And these are products of the human mind, which is capable of thinking in unifying or divisive terms. If that's what you're saying, I agree.

God as a transcendent being is also a concept that believers think can be intellectually understood and grasped (up to a point). So are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. But as Francis P. Church assured Virginia, Santa "exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus." A lovely metaphor.

Ah, yes. There is at present no single mind, but all those other minds riddled with nasty thoughts and impulses. As Sartre put it:"hell is other people". We can condition ourselves to tune out such impulses. Auto hypnosis is an amazing thing. Experience suggests only a small minority of humans will seek such a path.






.[/QUOTE]

 

As I suspected.

The Christian God is analytically distinct from material reality. "Creation" is a problematic concept, but most Chrisitians seem to believe it. As I said, I don't think it entails the notion that God (or anyone else) creates implies that He is somehow created by His creation. That doesn't make sense.

No, I don't. I wouldn't think or say that for a minute. The major lesson I personally learned from it is that suffering is a result of attachments. For psychologists, mindfulness has opened up a new avenue of therapy. But for some atheists, it provides a sense of meaning and spirituality without the baggage of theism.

I don't know. Who said that it is? (not I). It is a system of beliefs and values dealing with ultimate concerns. In that sense it resembles other religions (oh, I forgot. You insist on a restrictive use of the term religion to entail gods.) As for dogma, Christians got along for centuries without it, as many of us continue to do.

I do have the impression that when atheist Buddhists spend time and elaborate ratiocination on the fine points of Maya and avidya, we're not that awfully far from the kinds of doctrinal disputes that lead to dogma.

Existentialism starts with that, but it's mainly about choice and commitment in defining our essence, placing bets on the "truths' we've been debating. Luther defined faith as a "joyful bet". Kierkegaard took his famous "leap" of faith. I prefer hops, grounded in reason and empirical observations, when possible.

 

Dualism means there allways will be a Left/Right, Black/White,Good/Evil, ect..........imo

Trick is (personally/planet)...............is finding and keeping a balance.............*sigh*



Mzzls

 

Bless you. A post that is actually on topic! (If you're atheist, that would make it complete), The record of Jesus' personal existence is essentially a matter of inference from documents which came decades later--starting with Paul in the early fifties. Either (1)he was a real person, and after His death became a legend as people added miracle stories, (2) He was a Godman who performed miracles and died for our sins; or (3) He started out as purely fictional. I lean towared the first explanation.

"Proof' is not possible I tend to think the former (although it is certainly an iffy question). One reason for this is that a crucified Jewish Messiah doesn't seem like something people would be likely to make up, since: (1) the Jewish Messiah wasn't supposed to die until He completed His mission to restore Israel to glory; and (2)the Messiah certainly wasn't expected to be executed as a criminal, especially since Deuteronomy 21:22-3) states that a man who is executed in the manner Jesus was would be cursed. Also, as Ehrman argues pesuasively, those miracle stories seem to have gotten better and better as the years went on. Many of the earliest Christians thought He was God's adopted Son, at the time of His baptism (Nazerenes, Ebionites, Mark), or His Resurrection (Paul). Also, Paul claimed to have visited James, the Lord's brother, in Jerusalem. Josephus also mentions James, "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ". Ordinarily, evidence that a person had a brother who existed is evidence that the person in question existed. It is also interesting that none of the Jewish and pagan writers who attacked Jesus said he didn't exist. All attacked His character, but not His existence. There is a void of evidence on how a fictional character named Jesus was made up, by whom, and why.

I go by the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Resurrections, virgin births, walking on water, etc., are extraordinary claims. But nothing is extraordinary about the claim that a messianic claimant was executed in Judea by the Romans in the first century. There were others as well. The only thing different about Jesus is that His following continues and expanded after His death.

 

No real problem, except "proper independence" sounds like theologians' jargon.

I was responding to your statement: "So this explanation, like many Christian explanations runs around the bush a lot. God creates, yet is not his creation." it seems to me that you're suggesting it's "running around the bus" to suggest that a creator is separate from his creation. Most people I know who create are not part of their creations.
It has nothing to do with God being in the form of Jesus, part of a triple nature of God being real, etc. That's why I find it hard sometimes to debate with you, because you tend to read all kinds of weird things into what I say.

I think some of them feel a need for a belief value system that gives them a sense of spirituality and meaning.One of my atheist friends posts on his website: "Atheism tells you what I don't believe. Humanism tells you what I do believe." There are a wide variety of alternatives to theism.

Christians come in many varieties, some more dogmatic than others. The most dogmatic ones are the noisiest ones. The church of your youth invented dogma. I regard Christianity as a "faith-based religion", but my faith is minimalist. God and the teachings of Jesus are the most important things in my life, but I don't necessarily believe they "exist". My conclusion that Jesus is likely to have isn't solely based on an asssumption that no one would have the need to invent him. I've summarized the reasons in Post 98.

I claim to be a Christian (calling me "acclaimed" gives me way to much importance) because my faith centers on the ethical teachings and example of Jesus, as described in the gospels. In that sense, in light of the alternatives, I think the "Christian" label fits me best. But my Christianity is informed by other religions (or non-religions), including Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and atheism. I strongly believe that Paul, though vital to the survival and spread of the religion, steered it off course early on by making it about Jesus' death and resurrection as the Paschal lamb, instead of about his life and teachings. Fortunately, I've found other groups of Christians who agree with me. Catholics and Evangelicals might not regard us as Christian, but they can't burn us at the stake anymore.

I find that hard to believe. From my own observation of western atheists who embrace Buddhism, the basic ideas and terminology did not arise from their observations, personal experimentation and non-reliance on scripture, but rather from reading about an established belief system. Historically, the belief system went through growing pains not totally dissimilar to those of Christianity, with intense doctrinal disputes leading early on to breakups into different sects. Of course, the major split happened some four centuries after the Buddha's death. Theravada vs Mahayana. "In Mahayana Buddhism, ... a view of the Buddha as a transcendent being emerged. The Mahayana sutras presented the notion of multiple universes and multiple Buddhas, including cosmic Buddhas who existed outside of human time, and bodhisattvas who would interact with humans to lead them toward enlightenment. The Buddha who had been Siddhartha Gautama was said to have never been human, but a perfected being who pretended to be human to inspire humanity." Schisms and Sects Mahyana is the form of Buddhism prevalent in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, , Malaysia, and Taiwan . Afterwards came Vajriana Buddhims emphasizing lamas, found in Tibet, Mongolia and the Himalayan countries, Pure Land Buddhism, and the Nichiren and Zen schools popular in Japan.

Proof is impossible, for many figures in our history books, like Homer, Lycurgus, Socrates, and Pythagoras, not to mention the Buddha. Rather than dismiss these because there isn't "proof', it seems prudent to state the limitations and proceed based on the best estimate on the basis of available evidence.

For a summary of my thoughts on the matter of Jesus, see post #98. It doesn't matter to me whether or not He existed, but my best guess is that He did, although not in the form presented in the Bible. Christian scriptures are held to be absolutely true by most (not all)Christians. Historians use some, like the seven letters they think Paul wrote, to find evidence concerning early Christianity. Since he was the first to write about it, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. For a good defense of Paul's existence, see Richard Carrier (atheist and Jesus denier extraordinaire) The Historicity of Paul the Apostle • Richard Carrier. See also,The Quest for the Historical Paul and Gerd Lüdemann (2002) Paul the Founder of Christianity.

Historians don't accept his letters at face value, but when he talks, for example, about his interactions with James ("the brother of the Lord), Peter, and John, whom he calls the "pillars of the church",.they sit up and take notice., Since he has disputes with two of them, it seems unlikely that he made them up. Such things, along with reasonable inferences from what Jewish scriptures say the Messiah would be enough, have convinced me and most scholars that an historical Jesus probably existed, although I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it.