Can one be a Christian without being a theist, whilst asserting that God 'is'? [open]

[Abiel]

I came across this question as I pottered around the internet and thought it might make an interesting chat, even if only hypothetical

 

[glo1]

Personally I would say no.
That's because to my mind being a Christian is directly connected with believing Jesus to be God.

But there will be those who disagree.
I came across a book in the library about atheist Christians. I didn't read it, but I guess those would be people who admire and/or follow Jesus' example and teachings without believing him to be God, or indeed without believing there to be any God.

A bit strange to me, since the gospels are full of Jesus referring to God, speaking to him, praying, oberying ...

I can kinda understand that people may not believe Jesus to be God himself - such as Muslims, Jehovas Witnesses etc (that's not to say that I personally agree, but I can understand why people may think so), but I cannot comprehend how anybody can believe that God does not exist at all.

glo

 

[Abiel]

Well the proposition of the essay I was reading was to do with not being a-theist, but rather to redefine God in terms which are non-theist.

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox21096.html

 

[Abiel]

selected quotes:

The Supernatural Being that we have traditionally called God has increasingly been rendered impotent by the explosion in human knowledge over the last five hundred years.

At least one English theologian, Michael Goulder, saw this shrinking conclusion of the theistic God destroying his faith. He became an atheist when he came to the perception that the God of traditional theism "no longer has any work to do." This God no longer explains mysteries, cures sicknesses, directs the weather, fights wars, punishes sinners, rewards faithfulness. Indeed, the idea of an external supernatural Deity who invades human affairs periodically to impose the divine will upon this world, though still given lip service in worship settings, has nonetheless died culturally. If God is to be identified exclusively with this theistic understanding of God, then it is fair to say that culturally at least God has ceased to live in our world.

If the theistic understanding of God exhausts the human experience of God, then the answer to the question of the EFM student from Vernon is clear. No, it is not possible to be a Christian without being a theist. But if, on the other hand, one can begin to envision God in some way other than in the theistic categories of the traditional religious past, then perhaps a doorway into a religious future can be created.

 

[tryingtobeagain]

In my opinion, no.

However, there are people who like lessons from the bible but just as general lessons (like after-school specials about not doing drugs). I have a friend who considers herself an athesist but can tell you a whole lot about the lessons in the bible. She does so allthewhile telling people that it's just the moral of the story that she wants people to know, not who said what or that it's right because someone said it.

To be a Christian is to follow and believe the teachings of Christ. The reason you are following and believing these teachings is because God commanded this.

 

[doctrellor]

ok, leme get the straight

You wanna know if you can be a christian and still be an a-theist???

So in other words, someone who doesn't beleive in God, or any god since they think they they are the highest critter in the universe

Let me ask you a question? Tell us what you think...

 

[CaDan]

Paging Paul Tillich!

Paging Paul Tillich!

 

[CaDan]

ok, leme get the straight

You wanna know if you can be a christian and still be an a-theist???

So in other words, someone who doesn't beleive in God, or any god since they think they they are the highest critter in the universe

Let me ask you a question? Tell us what you think...

I fail to see your reasoning for how this implies this. I mean, the sentence has the form of an implication, but it seems to really be a premise rather than a conclusion of your reasoning.

 

[Abiel]

As far as I can see, this is not about not believing in God. It is about redefining God in non-theistic terms. I was hoping we might be able to thrash out what that would look like. Because it is not about following a cool dude named Jesus, or some of his cool ideas. It's about the very nature of God

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I personally do not think it is even linguistically accurate to speak of "defin[ing] God in non-theistic terms". In other words I find the premise a misnomer drawn from the axiomatic assumptions of the essay which Abiel quoted a couple posts back. I think it is the height of human tunnel-vision to presume that our advances in science, medicine, etc. must of necessity render God (or deity) functionally obsolete. It strikes me as akin to a child holding up a wad of play-doh and declaring every factory in the world obsolete because he can make ANYTHING he wants with the play-doh: cups, cars, even people. Never mind that IF every factory in the world were to be removed as a result of his premature declaration, the play-doh itself could no longer be produced.

I would have to second what Glo and a few others have said. Christianity for me includes belief in Christ as the unique incarnation of the Creator in human form. It is not merely the choice to follow His teachings or His example -- though these, too, are included in the package -- and on that note, to be an "atheist Christ follower" one would indeed have to cherry-pick His teachings, which calls into question just whom, then, one is following as it would set one's own mind as arbiter of validity upon His teachings above that of the Teacher's Himself.

So offhand, I would have to say no.


Disclaimer: I have not yet had my morning coffee nor read the entire article linked above. I reserve the right to modify, clarify, or amend my statements following either or both of these developments.

 

[*Starlight*]

I thought about it, and I think it's possible. A Christian is a follower of Christ... But I guess it's possible to understand God from Christ's teachings as a metaphor, and a personification of some aspects of reality... but personally I'm not an atheist.

 

[glo1]

As far as I can see, this is not about not believing in God. It is about redefining God in non-theistic terms. I was hoping we might be able to thrash out what that would look like. Because it is not about following a cool dude named Jesus, or some of his cool ideas. It's about the very nature of God

I guess I am having to get a handle on the term nontheism ...

I found this in wikipedia:

Nontheism covers a range of concepts regarding spirituality and religion which do not include the idea of a deity — a theistic God or theistic gods. It can be applied to atheism (both strong and weak) and agnosticism, as well as certain Eastern religions including Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. It also has links and similarities to Christian existentialism.

A theistic God being "a personal being with expanded supernatural, human, and parental qualities, which has shaped every religious idea of the Western world" (according to Spong)

I also found this quote by Paul Tillich, which put CaDan's obscure post into perspective:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

At this point, I confess, it is all getting a little too theoretical and philosophical for me!

glo

 

[Abiel]

God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.

That sounds great. I wonder what it means?

 

[Abiel]

I have changed the title to reflect more where I was hoping the discussion to go. It's not that this non-theism says that God isn't. It's to do with the terms we are currently employing to describe that being are redundant

 

[glo1]

That sounds great. I wonder what it means?

LOL
Search me ...

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

That sounds great. I wonder what it means?

It means Tillich probably took one too many microdots.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.

I believe the "flaw" or hole in all of this lies in the assumption I bolded & underlined above. The assertion "all beings are finite" is itself axiomatic, unproven and essentially unproveable. Who says all beings are finite? Who is defining "being" for these purposes and what is the definition thereof? Obviously if we can define the term "being" so as to intrinsically exclude any trans-finite qualities, we can then state "all beings are finite" by virtue of that specific definition of the word. But then we must of necessity invent a separate term to represent the presence of God.

I have no problem with the notion of conceiving of God in THIS context as being "beyond being". The conclusion above: "Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself" still does not deny the existence of God; rather it seeks to define the nature of that existence as being something beyond what we normally conceive of as "existence". Describing God in these or other words as a trans-dimensional presence not limited by time or space or finitude or indeed, anything else, does not remove Him from existence itself. If we want to go for full paradox we can state God is the ultimate Schroedinger's Cat, neither existent nor non-existent but in a superimposed state encompassing and containing them both!! -- but really the distinction here would only apply to one particular slice of the academic community who subscribes to the legitimacy of the Schroedinger's cat model in the first place. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but for most of us there is sufficient mystery in simply stating "God Is" and leaving it there.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I identify theism with the Greek Pantheon type of God- human-like, anthropocentric, hotheaded. The kind of God who lives "somewhere else" and interferes with the natural order only occasionally, in a brash display of power or vengeance or grace like crumbs from the table. I take a more cosmic view of God, but also more imminent. God is in everything, and is not confined to some "supernatural realm", any more than he is confined by the tawdry requirements of physical existence- if you wish to meet God, you need only look around you at the beautiful world of his creation, and the love that lives in the heart of our brothers and sisters.

Matthew Fox wrote that "It's a very Newtonian idea, that God is behind the universe with an oil can. And of course, the next step after theism is atheism; it's very easy to reject a God who's way out in the sky."

Usually, if anyone asks, I self-identify as a panentheist. I personally feel it is more in keeping with the teachings of Christ who said "When you have done this to the least of these, you have done it to me", and "What you look for is already here, but you have not seen it." But perhaps I am being over-literal.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

DB: to pick a nit, don't you mean immanent? (sorry, I'm a word geek )
I have some panentheist leanings as well, so I totally get what you're saying. If we are going to define theism in strictly those limited terms, I'd have to concur entirely that it's way too narrow, confining and limiting a wrapper to hold God.

 

[B®ent]

Personally I would say no.
That's because to my mind being a Christian is directly connected with believing Jesus to be God.

Agreed.