Atheist Christian here.
I don't see the difference between reading the beautiful message of the New Testament in the same way I read Shakespeare.
>Love thy neighbour as thy love thyself.
You can't claim it isn't perfect in every way on the moral basis if you ignore the superstition.
You don't need to believe in god to be a Christian.
>You don't need to believe in god to be a Christian.
Care to elaborate OP?
I mean, maybe, but that just sounds like heresy, desu
Tell Bible-thumping Christians you're an atheist but you believe in God and you'll get BTFO pretty hard
A lot of Protestants would probably throw you in the bucket with Catholics and pagans
Civic religion is the most cucked form of spirituality ever practiced and the Founding Fathers were deists, so their understanding of God and religion is objectionable to most theists
I provided the Jeffersonian Bible.
I mean you can follow the excellent teachings of Jesus contained within the parables and his speeches without making supernatural claims.
I don't think such parables as the "Good Samaritan" are beautiful and I think saying "judge not lest ye be judged" are amazing and don't conflict with my understanding of the Universe.
Zizek talks about it and is probably gonna be able to explain it more eloquently than anyone on 4chan desu.
If you don't have 30 minutes to listen to Zizek ramble I get it.
If there is anyone on /his/ that doesn't have time to read a source or watch (or just listen while doing something else in another tab) to a 30 min lecture then they should probably leave this board. Even if the source is something they think they won't like or agree with.
Christianity doesn't need to solely be interpreted as religious or spiritual.
Turns on Jesus is actually a pretty bro dude that talked a lot of good shit about how one should live their life, how they should treat others, and ultimately the things that matter most at the end of the day to be happy.
You can follow his teachings and learn from him without buying into the religious aspect.
Why do you care so much that you would use a different definition than most of the world? Followers of Christ are a legit group of people that see things just like you do. I don't see why you wold be disdainful of the title.
>I'm not going to accept any of the physical or metaphysical claims of Christianity
>but I like its ethics, so I'll just assert them by force of will
Except for the whole 'believing something is true because you want it to be true' part. And the part about calling yourself Christian based on this idea.
At this point you can scarcely consider yourself under the "Christian" label. This is like calling yourself Humean because, while you reject all of his positions generally, you think causality is unintelligible.
Only denying final causality brings upon the is/ought problem. Even if you still deny final causality it doesn't follow to call yourself Christian. Even "Cultural Christians" mean people who partake in the culture of Christianity and Christians, which is a larger overall claim that people who just uphold some of Christianity's ethical claims.
and there goes any faith I had for humanity
can you explain yourself
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
how the fuck can you be both?
so you're saying that even though by definition they are antonyms you can be both?
ok by that logic someone could both be gay and straight, or both dead and alive.
Part of the whole "believing in Jesus Christ" thing, in the Christian sense, is believing that he is God. That creates a pretty big problem if you also want to claim to be an atheist.
If you want to redefine terms to fit your own personal worldview, that's fine, just accept that other people are going to call you out on your bullshit. It's possible to say "I like Jesus and his teachings" without saying you're a Christian and misusing the word.
Jesus taught that there was but one God, that was immaterial and unique (meaning that "He" resembled nothing in "His" Creation).
I think OP rejects a personal God, but not a "classical" God. He just doesn't know what Classical Theism is.
>He just doesn't know what Classical Theism is.
He really should, since he tried to use the Jefferson Bible as part of his reasoning. Even Jefferson never claimed to be an actual Christian.