Cultural Christians.

[William]

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

“While I’m not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise… I would say I’m probably a cultural Christian,” the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. “There’s tremendous wisdom in turning the other cheek.”

Christian beliefs, Musk argued, “result in the greatest happiness for humanity, considering not just the present, but all future humans… I’m actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think they’re very good.”

{SOURCE}

For debate.

Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?

Also.

Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

[Purple Knight]

The teachings of Jesus are more or less pacifism, plus unhealthy levels of restrictive morality for me, ignore it all if it's done by thee.

I don't think that's healthy. Nor is "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" healthy. But people wanting everything for free isn't healthy either. People are programmed to be either dominant or submissive. But what's best for humanity is for us to be equal. Put others not first, but equal to yourself. No more losers and winners, just equality. Nobody forced to be altruistic so others can be totally selfish. Everyone gets to consider themselves, too. It would require more fight than humanity has ever put up to get there, but it'd be worth it.

Besides, you can't really be a cultural Christian. The teachings of Jesus are bound up with the religion. The idea that everyone is sinful, and needs divine forgiveness, can't be extracted from the religion and put into secular practice.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]

you can't really be a cultural Christian. The teachings of Jesus are bound up with the religion. The idea that everyone is sinful, and needs divine forgiveness, can't be extracted from the religion and put into secular practice.

Cultural Christian Definition = "Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise."

The rules are in the definition. It may be the case that one cannot be a follower of the Bible-Jesus because that entails Bible-Worship and Churched Rules but even so, Biblical Jesus told/tells it that there will be those who don't/didn't think they had anything to do with him, he would/will welcome with hugs - in a friendly manner.

(Also - to repeat evidence - Jesus never went around calling himself a "Christian" nor did he gather "Christians" unto him and call them "Christians").

So - back to the definition - CCD="Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise."

So we could argue whether the belief is true and also whether we should just take that from Bible verses or extend it to all claims purported to be spoken of by Jesus, such as the Gospel of Thomas...and other documentation re that.

(Perhaps an appropriate definition of "disciple" would be "Anyone who knows that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.")

If we can dig deeper then, perhaps we should.

(Mathematics and Language)
371
As an answer, "don't know' is incomplete...
Unlocking the power of information.
If we can dig deeper then, perhaps we should.

[Purple Knight]

even so, Biblical Jesus told/tells it that there will be those who don't/didn't think they had anything to do with him, he would/will welcome with hugs - in a friendly manner.

He might. And then he might explain it all, telling them they actually do need divine forgiveness. This is the only consistent thing.

There are certainly some parts of the Bible that are good. I would even venture to say that overall, its teachings are wise. Don't just watch your neighbour's cow straying away. Good idea. When I saw my neighbour's garbage can straying away, I chased it down and brought it back. Don't rape people. Don't hurt people. Treat your fellow man as yourself.

But there are some parts of the Bible that lean abusive. No matter how hard you try, you're still evil and sinful. You need to be forgiven. And only your abusive spouse or parent can do that. He's the only one who's actually good enough. If it's all true, then it's just true and we have to go from there; we might actually be really rotten people, all of us, and sinful, just as the Bible says. But if it's not true, it's extremely abusive.

Thus I think cultural Christians are misguided.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

Q. Where on that spectrum do you consider your position to being?

Ok, you may argue that you are more interesting is irreligious theism (cosmic mind) in which case, what is the point in appealing to the cultural relics of religion in one country or another?

Where have I appealed to such. I simply point out that influences such as Elon and Richard are doing so.

Only as a ploy to try to undermine atheism with invalid arguments.

Cultural Christrianity by Dawkins or anyone else does nothing to undermine atheism or validate religion.

Feel free to "validate" atheism to me if you can do so without resorting to arguing where the best dining is to be found.

Q. Which of the two seagulls do you consider yourself to being?

Atheism looks at the unknown and says 'we don't know what is there'.

What is there to "look" at if something is "not there"?

You are conflating "atheism" with "atheists" when referring to atheism in the personal. Atheism is a position (lacking belief in gods) atheists who lack belief in gods have varying positions and opinions on the matter of where they prefer to dine.

Theism believes something without proof and claims it is out in the unknown area without any proof, and in fact put there to excuse there not being proof.

Theism is more than what you are making out in your statement. Elon Musk claims that we possibly exist within a created environment. If you think he does so without evidence, you need to get the facts instead of making these blanket statements in the name of "atheism".
(it seems to me that your arguments in the name of your precious "atheism" is an example of that which is undermining itself)

Q. Which of the two seagulls do you consider yourself to being?

That a creative process has gone on is undeniable, but for Theism it has to be Intelligent creation, which has to be proven, not smuggled in with semantic trickery.

How is my stating that I prefer interacting with the deep-thinking humans rather than with the shallow-thinking humans arguing over the best place to dine, "semantic trickery"?

Q: How is one to remedy the paradox of such hypercritical behaviour?

It seems that you cannot mentally escape from this idea that science is just eating chips or breadcrusts (or the naturalists playing in the sand) when there is a world of unknowns out there. Science is the one that has discovered what is in the unknown and religion or theism hasn't.

For whatever reason, you missed the point I made, while at the same time resorted to semantic trickery by implying that science and atheism are somehow the same thing.
Undermining atheism is not the same thing as rejecting science/scientific process re discovery.
Rejecting atheism is not the same things as rejecting science.
Accepting science is not the same things as accepting atheism.
I reject atheism because (as I have already informed) it is a like sealed room with nowhere to go.

I'm not going to spend much time on this. It is merely evasion and nit - picking whenYou could simply say you don't promulgate the idea of a Cosmic Mind (Aka God) of which our own minds form part. If you don't do so, then that is your belief, and never mind Elon Musk who even if you take him for a genius rather than a fraud, is no philosopher or paraphysical science - expert.

No, the bottom line is you only want to interact with those who have the same ideas and beliefs that you do. Whatever those are; they seem, as usual, to be vague and hard to pin down. But o appear to be some kind of Deism.

[TRANSPONDER]

The teachings of Jesus are more or less pacifism, plus unhealthy levels of restrictive morality for me, ignore it all if it's done by thee.

I don't think that's healthy. Nor is "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" healthy. But people wanting everything for free isn't healthy either. People are programmed to be either dominant or submissive. But what's best for humanity is for us to be equal. Put others not first, but equal to yourself. No more losers and winners, just equality. Nobody forced to be altruistic so others can be totally selfish. Everyone gets to consider themselves, too. It would require more fight than humanity has ever put up to get there, but it'd be worth it.

Besides, you can't really be a cultural Christian. The teachings of Jesus are bound up with the religion. The idea that everyone is sinful, and needs divine forgiveness, can't be extracted from the religion and put into secular practice.

Yes, true. Mind, we have to accept that some are more able than others, at least at some things. It is a common fallacy of Theist apologetics to user Authority figures in one subject to validate others they may know no more about that anyone else.

Of course Cultural Christianity is like any national culture. It is just linked to the religion to validate it. That is why Christmas can still be enjoyed, with a number of traditions added in, and which are little to do with the religion.

[JehovahsWitness]

But there are some parts of the Bible that lean abusive.

Nobody's perfect: Is that an abusive teaching or an observable reality? I have yet to meet the person that has never made a mistake or needed to be forgiven.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #23]

Thus I think cultural Christians are misguided.

Well, given that both Sir Richard Dawkins and Elon Musk consider themselves to be Cultural Christians, what is it about their overall expression into the world that you deem to being misguided?

[Purple Knight]

But there are some parts of the Bible that lean abusive.

Nobody's perfect: Is that an abusive teaching or an observable reality? I have yet to meet the person that has never made a mistake or needed to be forgiven.

It can be both.

I have met a few perfect people. Not myself certainly, but I genuinely believe perfect people exist. Not perfect as in omnipotent, or even perfect as in, can do literally anything humanly possible and at the peak of ability across all skills, but perfect as in, has never made a mistake. I have had one or two really, really, really mean bosses I am as positive as it is humanly possible to be that they have never made a mistake. They tend to be quite hard on us mistake-makers. Unforgiving. Even nasty. It's what we deserve, right?

See, we can accept that the reason people should forgive, is because they themselves also need forgiveness. But I think there's a better reason than a chain of giving people passes they don't deserve. It's not forgiveness so much as it is, understanding. Withholding that understanding can rise to the level of abusive. You don't know someone who's like that? Always telling people to improve, that they're lazy, would succeed if only they tried a little harder? Yes that's abusive, and that's what I see when Christians say that we all have the capacity not to sin, at all, but we all do anyway, thus we all need to be forgiven. You have to admit there are parallels with the way Christians talk about people sinning, and the way an abusive husband talks about how his wife would weigh 80lbs if she just tried harder, but she doesn't, so she constantly needs to be sorry to him.

I did admit that the questions remains of what we do if it's true. I think we do the best we can, and not harp on it when people can't rise to a high level.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #23]

Thus I think cultural Christians are misguided.

Well, given that both Sir Richard Dawkins and Elon Musk consider themselves to be Cultural Christians, what is it about their overall expression into the world that you deem to being misguided?

Emphasis added, and nothing. I think they're doing it for a good reason. I think they want a better world, and what they're doing might help. I would even agree if they said that what they wanted, was to throw their lot in with Christians who have overall (but sometimes not, like with witch burnings and crusades) been a good influence on the world.

I just think it's misguided to think you can extract the teachings of a religion that are fundamentally bound-up with that religion, from that religion. The primary, central teaching of Christianity is that we're all horrid sinful things that need to beg for divine forgiveness to be saved. How do you accept that teaching in a secular manner? We're all horrid sinful things that are hopeless and can never be saved? Even if true, that idea is probably very destructive.

[1213]

....
How is an isolated Christian in a "religion of one" any different from an humanitarian atheist? How can someone's observable actions (motivated by love) identify the group he belongs to as true disciples of Christ?
...

Atheists don't believe God nor Jesus. Disciple of Jesus believes. I think that is a big difference. And, not being a part of a group doesn't necessary mean person doesn't love others, even if he is not following your group.

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone who doesn’t follow us casting out demons in your name; and we forbade him, because he doesn’t follow us.” But Jesus said, “Don’t forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For whoever is not against us is on our side.
Mark 9:38-40