This idea can have logic and great value even for an atheist.
Not that long ago I offered for some angry people to kick my head in, to prove a point about how men should treat women (i.e. don't bully them). (I guess they didn't have the heart to do it.)
Among the many interpretations which can be placed on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, we can say this:
Jesus went to his death willingly - in that he knew it was going to happen, and didn't run away, when he could have done - in order to prove and illustrate a point. That point was his life's work (well, the last 3 years'). One of his main lessons was that we can all be given the chance for our sins to be forgiven, provided we earn it and do the necessary real work involved. Provided we go to our Crucifixion willingly. If he can get himself crucified, we should be up to saying sorry and putting things right when we have to. We should be humble enough to suffer for what we have done. We should be humble enough to let something go instead of escalating to some kind of blood feud.
He also forgave the people who were crucifying him.
By dramatically illustrating the idea that God can forgive our sins, will always give us a second chance to make good: life became possible, life became good, life became fruitful. Instead of nasty, brutish and short. Hence the Resurrection.
"That Jesus now loses his status as an all powerful sentient being, diluting his stature to be merely a metaphor for salvation. enlightenment. This contradicts what Christianity is saying about the status of Jesus as a living God... "
That's OK. I'm an atheist, we're atheists, we don't believe in the monotheistic creator God as given in the major religions. There's no problem in that for us.
I don't believe that everyone on Earth has to have the same beliefs. If we're religious or spiritual, we can all do the same thing but in the way that we're comfortable with. If that's Muslim, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu - they can all be equivalent at heart, but each in their own particular style or language.
"Are you an atheist or a believer? There is really no middle ground. You need to choose for who you going to bat. This quasi eclectic mix of ideas are very incompatible for any sane,sober human being."
What I've done is to find an atheist basis for a religion. I've deconstructed religion back to its most basic principles, and I'm reconstructing it from scratch in an atheist way. This originated as a way to answer the atheist morality problem - "how can atheists be moral without God?". The answer is clear, simple and obvious, and the surprising thing I found was that you end up constructing a conventional religion on top of that answer, in order to do a thorough job of answering the question. A complete spirituality springs up from it if you just keep exploring. The challenge is how to bring it to life so it can be understandable by everyone, even those without the necessary life experience.
It's actually, pardon my French, fucking brilliant, and I've grown immensely as a person in the process. This is why I don't run away from trouble - trouble is the fire, the testing ground.
Sounds like, Philosophy + Jesus = magic! And how can you, "reconstruct it from scratch in an atheist way" when you start with Jesus?
@Joshua - you can actually start with common science, and then find that Jesus was talking 100% sense.
Really? Where's the casting out of demons in science? I must have missed that class.
And then there's the part where fig trees are supposed to bear fruit out of season when Jesus wants a snack. Guess it's 98% now. Care to go for 97?
Forget that Dave, if you want to talk science, let's go all the way back to the virgin birth and the fact that Holy Spooks don't have DNA, so Yeshua would have been an exact clone of Mama Mary, boobs and all.
I was leaving the intangible sperm for later, arch. :D
Weather control and altering the surface tension of a lake are also on the list.
That was Demon Casting 403, an advanced course, and taught only on alternating semesters, due to low demand - it was easy to miss, so don't beat yourself up about it.
The only example of 'demons in science', would 'Maxwell's Demon'. If memory serves, this 'demon' was used in reference to thermodynanics. Can't quiet remember context, but maybe dealing with entropy.
You mean that an anonymous author, writing 30-100 years after the alleged event, who was never there, basing his story entirely on hearsay and his imagination, said that Yeshua said things that made 100% sense - stick to the facts.