News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Christianity Defined

Started by Jagella, June 03, 2019, 08:42:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jagella

I found an “internet meme” courtesy of Richard Carrier that provided what might be described as a “clothes-off” definition of Christianity. My paraphrase of that definition is the following:

    Christianity - the belief that some cosmic Jewish Guy-in-the-Sky who got a virgin pregnant with himself without a penis can make you live forever if you pretend to eat his flesh and drink his blood and also tell him telepathically that you accept him as your master to be obeyed at all cost even to the point of death the purpose of doing so being to have him remove an  independent, self-sufficient attitude from your mind that all people are born with and need to survive because a woman born as a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat some fruit growing on a tree that magically gave her the ability to understand what is good and what is evil.

(Note that the vast majority of scholars are completely convinced that the Jewish Guy urging symbolic cannibalism and vampirism existed although many of them do not insist that his being in the sky and getting a virgin pregnant with himself is necessarily historical.)

Can anybody here point out any inaccuracies in this definition?

Yes, it's an absurd idea, but it is what Christians believe!

Unbeliever

#1
Nope, looks about right to me! :-D

I didn't have time to watch the video, though, so I'll check it out tomorrow.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Mike Cl

Love Carrier!!  Your definition sounds about right.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cavebear

That seems about the right amount of "stupid" for all theisms...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

The infancy gospel was only in one telling (in the canon).  There was another version outside of the canon.  But it wasn't essential to the story, in that the Gospel of Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and Paul starts with the crucifixion.

There wasn't just one story, or just one group.  The Last Temptation of Christ comes close as a story about the story.  Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist.

The reality of ancient religion isn't something we are familiar with today, blood animal sacrifice for instance.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 05:52:21 AM
The infancy gospel was only in one telling (in the canon).  There was another version outside of the canon.  But it wasn't essential to the story, in that the Gospel of Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and Paul starts with the crucifixion.

There wasn't just one story, or just one group.  The Last Temptation of Christ comes close as a story about the story.  Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist.

The reality of ancient religion isn't something we are familiar with today, blood animal sacrifice for instance.

I sure won't disagree with you that "Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist",  But assuming that there really was a "jesus" is also an assumption.  There certainly may have been one of many wandering preachers,  but to me, by definition, they were all false given no actual deity they claimed to represent.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 06:02:18 AM
I sure won't disagree with you that "Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist",  But assuming that there really was a "jesus" is also an assumption.  There certainly may have been one of many wandering preachers,  but to me, by definition, they were all false given no actual deity they claimed to represent.

There were false messiahs.  Doesn't really matter if one was named Jesus or not.  The idea that the messiah is false, pretty much cuts the Christians off at the knees regardless.

False Messiah = the Romans weren't magically destroyed.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 06:07:07 AM
There were false messiahs.  Doesn't really matter if one was named Jesus or not.  The idea that the messiah is false, pretty much cuts the Christians off at the knees regardless.

False Messiah = the Romans weren't magically destroyed.

All messiahs are false by logic.  If one was real, we wouldn't be sitting around discussing it, would we?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Mike Cl

The Jesus story could very easily be the rehashing of typical Cynic: a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.

The Gospel of Thomas most likely came from such a source.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cavebear

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2019, 08:56:35 AM
The Jesus story could very easily be the rehashing of typical Cynic: a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.

The Gospel of Thomas most likely came from such a source.

Or Mithras...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Jagella

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 03, 2019, 08:50:26 PM
Nope, looks about right to me! :-D

Over at Debating Christianity a Christian objected to my saying that Christians pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink Christ's blood--so he thinks it's the real deal!

Jagella

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 03, 2019, 11:10:01 PM
Love Carrier!!  Your definition sounds about right.

There's nothing like telling people the "emperor is naked."


Baruch

#12
Quote from: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 06:24:26 AM
All messiahs are false by logic.  If one was real, we wouldn't be sitting around discussing it, would we?

All politicians are false, by brazen lying.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Jagella on June 04, 2019, 10:28:05 AM
Over at Debating Christianity a Christian objected to my saying that Christians pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink Christ's blood--so he thinks it's the real deal!

Yes, that is one theology.  But for Zwingli ... it wasn't the "real presence" or some variation, but "in remembrance".
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?