- Why would you continue to call yourself Christian if you don’t believe in heaven and hell, the virgin birth, the resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine, the parting of the red sea, the apocalypse, etc?
Believe it or not I actually spend a fair amount of time reading the Gospels and quite appreciate a good deal of what Jesus says. However, this is because I find him a compelling political figure thinking a new form of social relation that strove to undo narcissistic group attachments that promote conflict, not as a divinity. I think of the miracles as tall tales that were told in writing the Gospels to function as sales pitches to attract followers. For this reason I would never call myself a Christian or a religious believer. That is, I see Jesus as being of political interest in the same way that I see Socrates, Machiavelli, or Orwell’s 1984 to be of political interest. I must be missing something in Caputo’s position as I really don’t see why one would continue to call themselves religious if they’ve surrendered their belief in anything divine or supernatural as he seems to have done.
Philosophers stretch the meaning of words until they retain scarcely anything of their original sense; by calling “God” some vague abstraction which they have created for themselves, they pose as deists, as believers, before the world; they may even pride themselves on having attained a higher and purer idea of God, although their God is nothing but an insubstantial shadow and no longer the mighty personality of religious doctrine. (Future of an Illusion)