• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Elon Musk Says He Identifies as a ‘Cultural Christian’ but Follows ‘The Religion of Curiosity’ in Interview With Jordan Peterson

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
181,019
65,330
Woods
✟5,771,993.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Eccentric tech mogul Elon Musk recently said that he considers himself a “cultural Christian” during a conversation with conservative commentator Jordan Peterson.

Musk is the founder of SpaceX, the CEO of Tesla, and the majority owner of X (formerly Twitter).

Peterson is a Canadian psychologist and author. While Peterson has often spoken positively about Christianity and has even offered a lecture series on the biblical book of Exodus through his partnership with The Daily Wire, he does not identify as a confessional Christian.

Peterson and Musk recently sat down for a two-hour interview, which was broadcast on X. During the freewheeling conversation, the two spoke about a number of topics, including artificial intelligence, ancient Mesopotamian religion, the carnivore diet, environmentalism, and gender identity.

As Peterson spoke to Musk, he wore a sports coat emblazoned with icons of Christian saints.

Continued below.
 

JustaPewFiller

Active Member
Apr 1, 2024
200
165
59
Florida
✟43,546.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It might be worth noting that famed atheist Richard Dawkins also considered himself a "cultural Christian"..

From the article linked in the OP above..

“I do think that we are culturally a Christian country,” Dawkins said of the United Kingdom, “and I call myself a cultural Christian.”

Likewise Musk said..

“I would say I’m probably a cultural Christian,” Musk said. He went on to say that Christian values “are going to lead to a better society, I think, a society that we would prefer [to live in].”


Ultimately, though, Musk reiterated that he subscribes to “the religion of curiosity,” which he further described as “the religion of enlightenment.”

An interesting viewpoint. It is like they want enjoy the benefits of a Christian society without Christ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,744
4,661
✟352,064.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
If there are those who cannot take the step of becoming a Christisn yet are willing to support and ally with Christians in shaping society towards something which we might consider good, I will not stop them or act against them. Especially if they are those with considerable influence or power like Elon Musk.

Christians can't fully embrace them or conform Christianity to what they might want but we can nevertheless create a cultural alliance with them which is to our benefit.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,138
672
Hawaii
✟299,202.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While it may be the prerogative of U.S. citizens to vote for "Christian" politicians or at least those who publicly proclaim to be, I don't think that as a nation we are electing Pastors. We are interested in someone who in our individual estimation would make good decisions concerning the welfare of the country.
The founders were not necessarily Christian and the wording of the Constitution reflects this. Men should have the freedom to chose, not be compelled to practice any State established religion. They wished to neither encourage, nor discourage any particular form of religion.
For what it is worth, I grabbed this off the net.


History News Network
George Washington may have said it best, if not first: “Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” To prevent such controversies, Washington ordered Continental Army commanders “to protect and support the free exercise…and undisturbed enjoyment of…religious matters."

But former attorney general Jefferson [“Jeff”] Beauregard Sessions, III, of Alabama, contends that Washington’s views were “directly contrary to the founding of our country.” And Vice-President Michael Richard Pence, a fervent church-goer who publicly proclaims his Christian beliefs whenever he can, insists the United States was “founded as a Christian nation.”

Pence and Sessions are but two prominent Americans in and out of politics today who continue refueling a centuries-old controversy over the role of religion in American life.

Washington’s friend, the widely heralded polemicist Thomas Paine tried ending the controversy. “I do not believe in…any church,” he declared. In a call to arms against what he called church-state tyranny in early America, he insisted that “every national church or religion accuses the others of unbelief; for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

Both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson agreed. President Jefferson denied that Jesus was “a member of the Godhead,” and Benjamin Franklin, a co-author of the Declaration of Independence with Jefferson, decried Christian church services for promoting church memberships instead of “trying to make us good citizens.” An outspoken Deist, Franklin criticized all religions for making “orthodoxy more regarded than virtue.” He insisted that man be judged “not for what we thought but what we did…that we did good to our fellow creatures.”

Most of America’s Founding Fathers echoed Franklin’s beliefs. America’s fourth President, James Madison was raised an Anglican and was a cousin of Virginia’s Episcopal bishop. But he was a fierce proponent of church-state separation and fathered the Bill of Rights, whose opening words outlawed government “establishment of religion” and any prohibition of “the free exercise thereof.” Both Congress and all the states agreed.

“It was the universal opinion of the [18th] century,” Madison wrote in 1819, “that civil government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment and that the Christian religion itself would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its clergy.” But as President, Madison found that, “the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church from the state.”

Even the devout, church-going Congregationalist John Adams, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, inked his presidential signature on the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli affirming to Americans and the world that “the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.” The 23 members present in the U.S. Senate (out of 32) ratified the document unanimously.

That should have settled matters, but in the centuries since the founding, some Americans have persisted in claiming that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, ignoring-- even scoffing at--the words of the Founders, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The sole grain of truth to claims of governmental ties to Christianity in early America lies in the different religions established in each of the independent British-North American provinces before the birth of the United States. Although individual states retained state-supported religions well into the 19gh century (four did so until after the Civil War), the ratification of the Constitution created an absolutely secular nation.

Indeed, each of the nation’s three founding documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution—carefully avoided all mention of Christianity or Christ. Article VI of the Constitution states as dramatically as possible, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” –hardly the hallmark of a “Christian” nation.

To reaffirm America’s not becoming a Christian nation, Congress and all the states added the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, reiterating the nation’s areligious character by barring government establishment of any and all religion.

Only the Declaration of Independence even mentions God--in a single ambiguous reference in the opening paragraph to what Deists rather than practicing Christians called “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

Like the founding documents, the collected letters, speeches, and papers of George Washington never invoked the name of Christ or Christianity and mentioned God only once, as he concluded his oath of office as first President of the United States and added, “So help me God.” Prior to that, he carefully omitted all references to God and Christ, appealing instead to “providence,” “destiny,” “heaven,” or “the author of our being” as sources of possible supernatural favor for himself and the nation

“Providence has directed my steps and shielded me.” young Colonel Washington affirmed after escaping death in a fierce encounter in the French and Indian War. And as President, he wrote carefully worded letters affirming the nation’s areligious status and its promise of religious freedom to leaders of twenty-two religious groups—and atheists!

In a reaffirmation of his deep opposition—and that of all the Founding Fathers--to state-sponsored religion, Washington wrote a personal letter to members of the Jewish synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790, restating the United States Government commitment that “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Again, the nation’s first President avoided all mention of God or Christ.

Thomas Paine reinforced the thinking of Washington and America’s other Founders in his famed pamphlet Common Sense—the most widely read publication in the western world in the late 18th century after the Bible. Washington called Common Sense critical in convincing Americans of “the propriety of a separation [from Britain].”

A fervent patron of Deism, Paine called the “connection of church and state adulterous.” He said such a connection in Britain and British-America had been designed to enrich both institutions and keep mankind in their perpetual thrall by infecting men’s minds with the myth of divine right of kings and hereditary rule. “Why,” Paine demanded, “should someone rule over us simply because he is someone else’s child?” Calling the notion absurd, he added, “Mingling religion with politics [should be] disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.” The Founding Fathers agreed.

John Adams disliked Paine intensely, but nonetheless declared, “I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or its affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. Call it then the Age of Paine.” He might have said, “The Age of Deism.”
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,744
4,661
✟352,064.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
While it may be the prerogative of U.S. citizens to vote for "Christian" politicians or at least those who publicly proclaim to be, I don't think that as a nation we are electing Pastors. We are interested in someone who in our individual estimation would make good decisions concerning the welfare of the country.
The founders were not necessarily Christian and the wording of the Constitution reflects this. Men should have the freedom to chose, not be compelled to practice any State established religion. They wished to neither encourage, nor discourage any particular form of religion.
For what it is worth, I grabbed this off the net.


History News Network
George Washington may have said it best, if not first: “Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” To prevent such controversies, Washington ordered Continental Army commanders “to protect and support the free exercise…and undisturbed enjoyment of…religious matters."

But former attorney general Jefferson [“Jeff”] Beauregard Sessions, III, of Alabama, contends that Washington’s views were “directly contrary to the founding of our country.” And Vice-President Michael Richard Pence, a fervent church-goer who publicly proclaims his Christian beliefs whenever he can, insists the United States was “founded as a Christian nation.”

Pence and Sessions are but two prominent Americans in and out of politics today who continue refueling a centuries-old controversy over the role of religion in American life.

Washington’s friend, the widely heralded polemicist Thomas Paine tried ending the controversy. “I do not believe in…any church,” he declared. In a call to arms against what he called church-state tyranny in early America, he insisted that “every national church or religion accuses the others of unbelief; for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

Both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson agreed. President Jefferson denied that Jesus was “a member of the Godhead,” and Benjamin Franklin, a co-author of the Declaration of Independence with Jefferson, decried Christian church services for promoting church memberships instead of “trying to make us good citizens.” An outspoken Deist, Franklin criticized all religions for making “orthodoxy more regarded than virtue.” He insisted that man be judged “not for what we thought but what we did…that we did good to our fellow creatures.”

Most of America’s Founding Fathers echoed Franklin’s beliefs. America’s fourth President, James Madison was raised an Anglican and was a cousin of Virginia’s Episcopal bishop. But he was a fierce proponent of church-state separation and fathered the Bill of Rights, whose opening words outlawed government “establishment of religion” and any prohibition of “the free exercise thereof.” Both Congress and all the states agreed.

“It was the universal opinion of the [18th] century,” Madison wrote in 1819, “that civil government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment and that the Christian religion itself would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its clergy.” But as President, Madison found that, “the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church from the state.”

Even the devout, church-going Congregationalist John Adams, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, inked his presidential signature on the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli affirming to Americans and the world that “the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.” The 23 members present in the U.S. Senate (out of 32) ratified the document unanimously.

That should have settled matters, but in the centuries since the founding, some Americans have persisted in claiming that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, ignoring-- even scoffing at--the words of the Founders, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The sole grain of truth to claims of governmental ties to Christianity in early America lies in the different religions established in each of the independent British-North American provinces before the birth of the United States. Although individual states retained state-supported religions well into the 19gh century (four did so until after the Civil War), the ratification of the Constitution created an absolutely secular nation.

Indeed, each of the nation’s three founding documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution—carefully avoided all mention of Christianity or Christ. Article VI of the Constitution states as dramatically as possible, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” –hardly the hallmark of a “Christian” nation.

To reaffirm America’s not becoming a Christian nation, Congress and all the states added the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, reiterating the nation’s areligious character by barring government establishment of any and all religion.

Only the Declaration of Independence even mentions God--in a single ambiguous reference in the opening paragraph to what Deists rather than practicing Christians called “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

Like the founding documents, the collected letters, speeches, and papers of George Washington never invoked the name of Christ or Christianity and mentioned God only once, as he concluded his oath of office as first President of the United States and added, “So help me God.” Prior to that, he carefully omitted all references to God and Christ, appealing instead to “providence,” “destiny,” “heaven,” or “the author of our being” as sources of possible supernatural favor for himself and the nation

“Providence has directed my steps and shielded me.” young Colonel Washington affirmed after escaping death in a fierce encounter in the French and Indian War. And as President, he wrote carefully worded letters affirming the nation’s areligious status and its promise of religious freedom to leaders of twenty-two religious groups—and atheists!

In a reaffirmation of his deep opposition—and that of all the Founding Fathers--to state-sponsored religion, Washington wrote a personal letter to members of the Jewish synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790, restating the United States Government commitment that “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Again, the nation’s first President avoided all mention of God or Christ.

Thomas Paine reinforced the thinking of Washington and America’s other Founders in his famed pamphlet Common Sense—the most widely read publication in the western world in the late 18th century after the Bible. Washington called Common Sense critical in convincing Americans of “the propriety of a separation [from Britain].”

A fervent patron of Deism, Paine called the “connection of church and state adulterous.” He said such a connection in Britain and British-America had been designed to enrich both institutions and keep mankind in their perpetual thrall by infecting men’s minds with the myth of divine right of kings and hereditary rule. “Why,” Paine demanded, “should someone rule over us simply because he is someone else’s child?” Calling the notion absurd, he added, “Mingling religion with politics [should be] disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.” The Founding Fathers agreed.

John Adams disliked Paine intensely, but nonetheless declared, “I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or its affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. Call it then the Age of Paine.” He might have said, “The Age of Deism.”
This American deification of the founding fathers is annoying from a Christian perspective. Why on earth must Christians continue with this destructive dechristianization of society?
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,138
672
Hawaii
✟299,202.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This American deification of the founding fathers is annoying from a Christian perspective. Why on earth must Christians continue with this destructive dechristianization of society?
I'm fairly conservative and deify no man. Since faith in Christ is an individuals decision I can't speak for others. I will say this though, I vociferously detest the direction liberals and non believers are pushing the moral fiber of this nation. I believe we are in the last days and God warned us of decaying and decadent men. As far as the wording of the constitution I think they did a commendable job. I doubt however that my faith in God would have compelled me to befriend many of the framers had I known them. Todays world is literally, in my opinion going to hell in a handbasket.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,228
20,591
Orlando, Florida
✟1,487,677.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Is "cultural Christian" the new term for a white guy who doesn't want to have to check his privilege or have his hierarchy of values upset? Because I'm noticing a pattern here...
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,228
20,591
Orlando, Florida
✟1,487,677.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
While it may be the prerogative of U.S. citizens to vote for "Christian" politicians or at least those who publicly proclaim to be, I don't think that as a nation we are electing Pastors. We are interested in someone who in our individual estimation would make good decisions concerning the welfare of the country.
The founders were not necessarily Christian and the wording of the Constitution reflects this. Men should have the freedom to chose, not be compelled to practice any State established religion. They wished to neither encourage, nor discourage any particular form of religion.
For what it is worth, I grabbed this off the net.


History News Network
George Washington may have said it best, if not first: “Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” To prevent such controversies, Washington ordered Continental Army commanders “to protect and support the free exercise…and undisturbed enjoyment of…religious matters."

But former attorney general Jefferson [“Jeff”] Beauregard Sessions, III, of Alabama, contends that Washington’s views were “directly contrary to the founding of our country.” And Vice-President Michael Richard Pence, a fervent church-goer who publicly proclaims his Christian beliefs whenever he can, insists the United States was “founded as a Christian nation.”

Pence and Sessions are but two prominent Americans in and out of politics today who continue refueling a centuries-old controversy over the role of religion in American life.

Washington’s friend, the widely heralded polemicist Thomas Paine tried ending the controversy. “I do not believe in…any church,” he declared. In a call to arms against what he called church-state tyranny in early America, he insisted that “every national church or religion accuses the others of unbelief; for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

Both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson agreed. President Jefferson denied that Jesus was “a member of the Godhead,” and Benjamin Franklin, a co-author of the Declaration of Independence with Jefferson, decried Christian church services for promoting church memberships instead of “trying to make us good citizens.” An outspoken Deist, Franklin criticized all religions for making “orthodoxy more regarded than virtue.” He insisted that man be judged “not for what we thought but what we did…that we did good to our fellow creatures.”

Most of America’s Founding Fathers echoed Franklin’s beliefs. America’s fourth President, James Madison was raised an Anglican and was a cousin of Virginia’s Episcopal bishop. But he was a fierce proponent of church-state separation and fathered the Bill of Rights, whose opening words outlawed government “establishment of religion” and any prohibition of “the free exercise thereof.” Both Congress and all the states agreed.

“It was the universal opinion of the [18th] century,” Madison wrote in 1819, “that civil government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment and that the Christian religion itself would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its clergy.” But as President, Madison found that, “the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church from the state.”

Even the devout, church-going Congregationalist John Adams, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, inked his presidential signature on the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli affirming to Americans and the world that “the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.” The 23 members present in the U.S. Senate (out of 32) ratified the document unanimously.

That should have settled matters, but in the centuries since the founding, some Americans have persisted in claiming that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, ignoring-- even scoffing at--the words of the Founders, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The sole grain of truth to claims of governmental ties to Christianity in early America lies in the different religions established in each of the independent British-North American provinces before the birth of the United States. Although individual states retained state-supported religions well into the 19gh century (four did so until after the Civil War), the ratification of the Constitution created an absolutely secular nation.

Indeed, each of the nation’s three founding documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution—carefully avoided all mention of Christianity or Christ. Article VI of the Constitution states as dramatically as possible, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” –hardly the hallmark of a “Christian” nation.

To reaffirm America’s not becoming a Christian nation, Congress and all the states added the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, reiterating the nation’s areligious character by barring government establishment of any and all religion.

Only the Declaration of Independence even mentions God--in a single ambiguous reference in the opening paragraph to what Deists rather than practicing Christians called “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

Like the founding documents, the collected letters, speeches, and papers of George Washington never invoked the name of Christ or Christianity and mentioned God only once, as he concluded his oath of office as first President of the United States and added, “So help me God.” Prior to that, he carefully omitted all references to God and Christ, appealing instead to “providence,” “destiny,” “heaven,” or “the author of our being” as sources of possible supernatural favor for himself and the nation

“Providence has directed my steps and shielded me.” young Colonel Washington affirmed after escaping death in a fierce encounter in the French and Indian War. And as President, he wrote carefully worded letters affirming the nation’s areligious status and its promise of religious freedom to leaders of twenty-two religious groups—and atheists!

In a reaffirmation of his deep opposition—and that of all the Founding Fathers--to state-sponsored religion, Washington wrote a personal letter to members of the Jewish synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790, restating the United States Government commitment that “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Again, the nation’s first President avoided all mention of God or Christ.

Thomas Paine reinforced the thinking of Washington and America’s other Founders in his famed pamphlet Common Sense—the most widely read publication in the western world in the late 18th century after the Bible. Washington called Common Sense critical in convincing Americans of “the propriety of a separation [from Britain].”

A fervent patron of Deism, Paine called the “connection of church and state adulterous.” He said such a connection in Britain and British-America had been designed to enrich both institutions and keep mankind in their perpetual thrall by infecting men’s minds with the myth of divine right of kings and hereditary rule. “Why,” Paine demanded, “should someone rule over us simply because he is someone else’s child?” Calling the notion absurd, he added, “Mingling religion with politics [should be] disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.” The Founding Fathers agreed.

John Adams disliked Paine intensely, but nonetheless declared, “I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or its affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine. Call it then the Age of Paine.” He might have said, “The Age of Deism.”

Though I don't agree with Payne in terms of religious proclivities, his view of the state church had an element of truth. In the UK, the episcopacy (bishops) was retained because the ruling elites, who were all Reformed Protestants (for the most part, with some crypto-Catholics), feared social upheavals if the symbol of episcopacy was abolished, as it was representative of an ancient social hierarchy (not unlike the "divine right of kings", another part of the hierarchical model inherited from the ancient regime from the Medieval world). It actually had nothing to do with sacramentalism or anything like that, at least for the first few centuries after the Reformation. The episcopacy in the Anglican church continued to be used politically up into the present day, and one of the reasons the Puritans left for the US, as they saw the episcopacy as tainted with simony, the buying of ecclessiastic offices (it's also another reason that US Episcopalians went with the more ancient practice of electing bishops, instead of having them be appointed by the monarch or head of state).

Interestingly enough, the United Methodist practice of episcopacy is closer to the Anglican model the Congregationalists and Episcopalians rejected. Growing up Methodist, we never had a pastor for more than a few years before he or she was moved around by the church hierarchy, and it wasn't too uncommon for the congregation to be at odds with the pastor. There was much more of a "top-down" model of church governance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Merrill

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2023
1,456
1,062
45
Chicago
✟89,787.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is "cultural Christian" the new term for a white guy who doesn't want to have to check his privilege or have his hierarchy of values upset? Because I'm noticing a pattern here...
"check his privilege"? --do you think this is some left-wing reddit site?

(also implying only white guys have privilege: pretty sure people like Michael Jordan have great athletic privilege, Denzel Washington has good looks and natural talent, and Barak Obama had resources and intellectual gifts to go to Harvard, or become president)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
181,019
65,330
Woods
✟5,771,993.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1722006052961.gif
 
Upvote 0

Ted-01

Active Member
Apr 26, 2024
206
168
Greenville
✟25,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Eccentric tech mogul Elon Musk recently said that he considers himself a “cultural Christian” during a conversation with conservative commentator Jordan Peterson.

Musk is the founder of SpaceX, the CEO of Tesla, and the majority owner of X (formerly Twitter).

Peterson is a Canadian psychologist and author. While Peterson has often spoken positively about Christianity and has even offered a lecture series on the biblical book of Exodus through his partnership with The Daily Wire, he does not identify as a confessional Christian.

Peterson and Musk recently sat down for a two-hour interview, which was broadcast on X. During the freewheeling conversation, the two spoke about a number of topics, including artificial intelligence, ancient Mesopotamian religion, the carnivore diet, environmentalism, and gender identity.

As Peterson spoke to Musk, he wore a sports coat emblazoned with icons of Christian saints.

Continued below.
Interesting article... thanks you for sharing it! I haven't read the whole thing but intend to follow the links (or clues to links) later on.

I get strange "vibes" from folks when they invoke the word/term Christian in some sort of self-identifier statement. I have a cousin who calls herself a "metaphysical Christian", I have no idea what that means, lol... and don't pursue that conversation. But it is becoming very common for people to add these qualifiers... most being cryptic, which I think is often intentional. And I'm not fully sure what to make of it all... but as I said, I get a strange vibe, or a catch in my spirit... a red-flag, bells and whistles kinda' thing. It speaks to me of "neo", new, hot, hip, what's in and cool, yada, yada. And the attending "gospel" that they may share is far removed from anything that might be called Traditional.

For me, I beginning to rethink the term "Christian" in general. It seems to be vacant of any real meaning anymore, as people just use it with or without qualifiers, yet they don't model behavior and conduct in their daily lives that are clearly in Scripture... things that are encouraged for believers to include in their life, or general mindset. Some are commanded (and thus Commandments of Christ), some are warned against and come with promises of blessings or (ultimately), condemnation. Most if not all, are clear and easily recognizable - straightforward. But many folks have arguments for abstaining from those rules/directives/truisms for whatever reason they want to give. It's like, "I'm a (whatever) Christian that's progressive, using rational thinking, seeing Scriptures with new eyes that are informed with the modern academic...", or whatever.

In short, Christianity as defined by post-modernism and relativism thinking. (Total bunk in my opinion) Show the term "Christian" and it variant forms, have become hollow and incoherent... meaningless twaddle. Although, some creative souls still have sincere intentions in their walk with Christ... so no throwing babies out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Anyway, I try to use "I follow Christ", "I belong to Christ/God" and whatever... my self-relabeling is a work in progress.

But in the meantime, when I hear folks call themselves a Christian, or a "identifier Christian" I'm both unconvinced and unimpressed.
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
181,019
65,330
Woods
✟5,771,993.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Interesting article... thanks you for sharing it! I haven't read the whole thing but intend to follow the links (or clues to links) later on.

I get strange "vibes" from folks when they invoke the word/term Christian in some sort of self-identifier statement. I have a cousin who calls herself a "metaphysical Christian", I have no idea what that means, lol... and don't pursue that conversation. But it is becoming very common for people to add these qualifiers... most being cryptic, which I think is often intentional. And I'm not fully sure what to make of it all... but as I said, I get a strange vibe, or a catch in my spirit... a red-flag, bells and whistles kinda' thing. It speaks to me of "neo", new, hot, hip, what's in and cool, yada, yada. And the attending "gospel" that they may share is far removed from anything that might be called Traditional.

For me, I beginning to rethink the term "Christian" in general. It seems to be vacant of any real meaning anymore, as people just use it with or without qualifiers, yet they don't model behavior and conduct in their daily lives that are clearly in Scripture... things that are encouraged for believers to include in their life, or general mindset. Some are commanded (and thus Commandments of Christ), some are warned against and come with promises of blessings or (ultimately), condemnation. Most if not all, are clear and easily recognizable - straightforward. But many folks have arguments for abstaining from those rules/directives/truisms for whatever reason they want to give. It's like, "I'm a (whatever) Christian that's progressive, using rational thinking, seeing Scriptures with new eyes that are informed with the modern academic...", or whatever.

In short, Christianity as defined by post-modernism and relativism thinking. (Total bunk in my opinion) Show the term "Christian" and it variant forms, have become hollow and incoherent... meaningless twaddle. Although, some creative souls still have sincere intentions in their walk with Christ... so no throwing babies out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Anyway, I try to use "I follow Christ", "I belong to Christ/God" and whatever... my self-relabeling is a work in progress.

But in the meantime, when I hear folks call themselves a Christian, or a "identifier Christian" I'm both unconvinced and unimpressed.
Cultural, metaphysical, pagan, etc. Christian… the list goes on. Another trend that seeks to shape Christianity into one’s own image and partake from the cafeteria imo. It does not impress me at all. Same for the vapid statement of being spiritual but not religious. Same for Christians that basically share nothing but contempt for Christianity and fellow Christians in general. They claim Christians are doing it all wrong and go off to do their own version while simping up with the worldly people and things. It’s really all the same.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ted-01
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
12,065
12,936
East Coast
✟1,012,862.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is "cultural Christian" the new term for a white guy who doesn't want to have to check his privilege or have his hierarchy of values upset? Because I'm noticing a pattern here...
He seems to want people to have more babies.

“There’s an argument that when a culture loses its religion that it starts to become anti-natalist and decline in numbers and potentially disappear,” Musk

Okay, what is the argument? He must not be referring to Shakers.

Nothing he said is peculiarly Christian. Other religions think avoiding violence and having forgiveness are good things. I guess he means he likes the morality of some religions. He says he had an experience that compelled him to read various religious texts. He found them all wanting, but found insight by reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I guess that means he's a "cultural Christian," which apparently has no meaning.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,228
20,591
Orlando, Florida
✟1,487,677.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Cultural, metaphysical, pagan, etc. Christian… the list goes on. Another trend that seeks to shape Christianity into one’s own image and partake from the cafeteria imo. It does not impress me at all. Same for the vapid statement of being spiritual but not religious. Same for Christians that basically share nothing but contempt for Christianity and fellow Christians in general. They claim Christians are doing it all wrong and go off to do their own version while simping up with the worldly people and things. It’s really all the same.

I used to think "spiritual but not religious" at one time in my life was vapid, but now I think it is often a sincere sentiment. And there may be scientific evidence for this, as well. Exposure to the natural world may be inherently spiritual for many people:

 
Upvote 0

Ted-01

Active Member
Apr 26, 2024
206
168
Greenville
✟25,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is identifying as a ‘cultural Christian’ just a kind of virtue-signaling to the portion of the conservative political movement that thinks the country should be ‘Christian’? Or is it something else?
I think that you're right about "cultural Christian" is a type of virtue-signaling thing... but I'd also go so far as to say that often times, just identifying as "Christian" is also a form of trying to be included in a group that the individual isn't really in.

Like I said earlier, it seems to me that when somebody identifies themselves as a Christian, I have no idea what they actually believe. Therefore, it's an empty and meaningless social identifier, in my book.
 
Upvote 0