john76

Hello. I would like to give a short account of my agnostic journey, which is now at both an end and at a beginning.

I have forever been an agnostic. I have always thought that questions about theism and atheism are alot like sitting in your house and guessing about how many people are at the local McDonald's.

However, when I was in my fourth year of university, something changed. I was majoring in philosophy, and had been reading alot of Nietzsche talking about 'Dionysus versus the crucified' and the lies of Christianity. This seemed to me like little more than pointless ranting until I took a course on the New Testament and was exposed to the similarities between the myth of Dionysus and the story of Christ. On all of the major points, the Jesus story seemed to be derived from the Dionysus myth.

This really got me charged up. I started reading everything I could about the Greek God Dionysus. I became so obsessed with this idea that I completely went overboard when I read the following quote from the Bacchae by Euripides: "Even though he be no god, as thou assertest, still say he is; be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, that she may be thought the mother of a god, and we and all our race gain honor." This was reflected in Plato's "Republic" and at the time seemed like it may have became the entire impetus for rehashing the Dionysus myth in the figure of Christ. We also see in the Old Testament that lying is smiled upon if it is done in the service of God (see the index of the commentary version of the 'New Jerusalem Bible' under truth and lies).

This did it for me. I was convinced that the Jesus story was a complete lie made up by the early Christians for political reasons. I started E-Mailing newspapers with my 'evidence' every time they would publish a religious story, hoping in my mind that this would somehow be the impetus for overthrowing Christianity.

Over the next few years, things got worse. Works by profs. like Robert M. Price and Tom Harpur started being published on the idea that Jesus was a myth, and these were supplemented by popular writers like Timothy Freke and Earl Doherty. They all made compelling arguments that Jesus was derived from earlier myths about Dionysus, Horus, and Zoroaster.

In my passion, I started E-Mailing these writers and others with my 'special' passage from Euripides, with the hope that Christianity would soon be overthrown. Things were not helped by the fact that I got positive feedback from these writers, and even had letters published on certain atheist websites and humanist 'letters to the editor.'

In the midst of all this, I was getting increasingly frustrated because I felt all my 'brilliant insights' about the origins of Christianity were going unbroadcast and weren't being acted upon. I was getting really upset.

My point is, in all this nonsense, I was forgetting the true lessons of agnosticism. The question of whether Jesus really existed or not is certainly a fun question that can be debated back and forth between theists and atheists, but I do not believe that it belongs in the view of the agnostic thinker. How could we ever know such a thing?

At the end of my long journey, I have come to a place of peace. I believe that learning to bracket theological questions leads you to a place of calmness. Otherwise, you just become a fundamentalist theist or atheist, filled with energy and childishness. If there is anything the world has suffered enough from, it's fundamentalism; John MacDonald

romansh

Hi John.... welcome
interesting...

The thing with some atheists and fundamental Christians, they both take the bible literally? My take on the bible is that any reasonable person from atheist to Christian, should be able to interpret the mythical and metaphorical truths in the Bible.

As Joseph Cambell said of myths "something that never was and always will be" (or words to that effect).

all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

john76

The question, though, is how did the New Testament have the effect that it did if it was originally only interpreted as metaphorical insight?

romansh

I am no expert in these matters
I asked a similar question when I came across this possibility.
The only useful answer I got (at least my interpretation of it) was 'does it matter?'

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

john76

I guess it depends on what you are looking for. Different Profs. focus on different issues. Robert M. Price has been giving a lot of interest toward the Greek issue. Tom Harpur has been getting increasing support on the Egyptian issue. It is a facinating idea, though. It may be the case that Jesus never existed - and was merely a concept derived from older mythological sources.

romansh

Hi John .... I'm not that familiar with the arguments and issues regarding Jesus's existence. But let's say Jesus never actually existed. Pretending this could be proved:

1) How would it change your outlook on life?
2) Christians would probably move to a metaphorical interpretation of the New Testament or simply not believe in the said proof? I would not care to guess what Islam would do?
3) Atheists would say "what's the big surprise?"
4) And agnostics might say "oh?" And move on.

So my question is why is it important (to you) whether Jesus actually existed or not?

all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Skepticologist

You've quite apparently cleared a lot of hurdles and thought some deep thoughts. And I admire your avoidance of just becoming a fundamentalist. I think we're pretty much on the same page, at least with regard to where we've arrived philosophically, although I sense we're in decidedly different age groups.

My question for you, and it's a question for myself as well, is where do you go from here? More specifically, since realizing that I'm an agnostic several years ago, virtually all the searching I've done in the interest of closing in on universal truth has only strengthened my position as an agnostic. It's convinced me that there's no substantive evidence for or against the existence of a supreme being, but has failed to move me perceptibly closer to what it's all about, Alfie.

I'm interested in where you see yourself going from here because I personally have no clue.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

john76

My only point is that it is important for people to realize there is a potential danger here. I went through a difficult period because I took the possibility of an atheistic ideal and gave it a very prominent place in my life. It led to a lot of negative emotions. I am, as Nietzsche said, only drawing ink from my own well here, but I am just trying to suggest to people that if they are interested in following the same investigative path, they should do so with caution. The atheistic ideal has the ability to trap the mind just like the theistic ideal does. I hope that people can keep in mind that both atheism and theism are only ever possibilities. Take care.

spiritualquest

I am completely dumb here. LOL. I will look it up, but please try in a nutshell to give me a basic definition of atheist? And Theist?
Thanks,
Debra

john76

Sure 'Spiritualquest.' 'Theist' just means means someone that asserts an original 'source' or ground of things that does not itself have a previous ground (like God, for example). This comes from the Greek word 'theos.' On the other hand, the word 'a-theist' is formed by taking the root word of 'theism,' and putting something called an alpha-privative in front of it. Grammatically, the 'a' is meant to negate what comes after it, which makes it the equivalent of saying 'not-theistic.' Simply put, in normal non-philosophical usage, it is the difference between saying there is a god (theism) or there isn't a god (atheism). The negation also gives us the other distinction of 'a-gnosticism' (gnosis meaning something like 'knowing'). Greek also uses an alpha modification of the root to do something called 'intensitivum' in the Latin, but that doesn't really apply here. Hope that helps and wasn't too technical. Regards; John