Christianity Defined

[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.)

Question for Debate: Can anybody here point out any inaccuracies in this definition?

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

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 18 by Jagella]

It's always the other Christians who have it wrong. If you can see how wrong they get it, then why can't you see how wrong you are?

1213's response is perfect proof of that.

[Mithrae]

For all the chest-beating over Carrier's caricature, it seems what we've "learned" in the thread is that the OP is somewhat incorrect on pretty much every single point and wildly erroneous on two or three. In fact off the top of my head it's quite difficult to recall when we've last had such a broadly misguided OP

I will say that my initial post pointing out the striking similarities between this feeble style of 'argument' and that used by Creationists may or may not have been misdirected: It's possible that Carrier himself may have simply been aiming for a little comedy, never imagining that anyone could seriously think that his caricature would be worthy of actual debate.



Edit: Just thinking about it further now it's really quite dismal how bad the OP actually is. Thanks to BJS we can easily compare the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds - one or both of which have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history - to the supposed 'definition' of the OP and see how much overlap there is with either of them, even stretching credulity to the limit to overlook the obvious errors of the caricature:

• 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.

That's it; about 80% of what the OP imagines to be 'defining' characteristics of Christianity are not even remotely found in either of the religion's two primary creeds (and the area of 'overlap' contain some of the most wildly misguided errors). Again, perhaps Carrier himself thought it would be good for a laugh; but put forward as the subject of serious debate, it really is difficult to overstate how profound that level of ignorance of the subject matter actually is.

Comparing it to Creationist caricatures might actually be a little unfair to the Creationists

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 22 by Mithrae]

Mith, you're comparing apples and oranges: a definition of Christianity is not a creed. The former reveals what Christianity is while the latter is a brain-washing method employed by the church.

But since you deny the definition in the OP, then you like 1213 believe God did use a penis on poor Mary!

So the moral of the story is that apologetics is like quicksand: the more the apologist struggles, the deeper he sinks.

[1213]

...then it tells us that God used his penis to impregnate Mary, and she was no virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. ...

Why not direct quote from the Bible, what it actually says, instead of guessing or making up your own version of it?

[Mithrae]

But since you deny the definition in the OP, then you like 1213 believe God did use a penis on poor Mary!

Binary 'logic' and trying to tell others what they believe are nothing new for you, sadly, but the attempted vulgarity is a little out of character. I hope your week improves.

[Bust Nak]

Comparing it to Creationist caricatures might actually be a little unfair to the Creationists

Are you sure about that, now that's something I'd argue against. The lampooning version of Christianity is by far more accurate than the creationist equivalent:

"Atheism -
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what-so-ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."

[Jagella]

In fact off the top of my head it's quite difficult to recall when we've last had such a broadly misguided OP...
...it's really quite dismal how bad the OP actually is...
...it really is difficult to overstate how profound that level of ignorance of the subject matter actually is...

That's some great argumentation there, Mith. You have trouble remembering an OP that you think is as misguided as this OP. You think it's really bad and ignorant! Please let me know how many Christians you comfort by saying that you don't like my OP.

...about 80% of what the OP imagines to be 'defining' characteristics of Christianity are not even remotely found in either of the religion's two primary creeds...

That's an interesting argument. Anything that doesn't appear in Christianity's "two primary creeds" is not what Christians believe. Neither creed mentions the creation of Adam and Eve, the Law given to Moses, the Sermon on the Mount, and the baptism of Jesus. So according to your logic, Christians don't believe in any of these dogmas.

...trying to tell others what they believe are nothing new for you...

It didn't take long for the "arguments against the man" to crop up.

...sadly...

Who's sad? I'm having a great time. If you're sad, then I advise you to try to discover your source of sadness and root it out. That source appears to be somewhere in this discussion.

...the attempted vulgarity is a little out of character.

If you object to my speculating whether or not the virgin birth was truly virgin, then don't belong to a religion that claims a virgin birth.

Comparing it to Creationist caricatures might actually be a little unfair to the Creationists...

You have a problem with creationists. I wonder where they get their ideas.

[Jagella]

The lampooning version of Christianity is by far more accurate than the creationist equivalent...

I'm hoping that Mith will explain to us where creationists get their ideas and why he think's those ideas are wrong. The creationist ideas I'm most acquainted with are their saying that the creation stories and the flood are literal history--they really happened like the Bible says. If we look at the details of these creationist beliefs we do see an Eve created from a rib who later was convinced by a snake in a tree to eat the tree's fruit which upset God who subsequently condemned all people to hardship. As a solution to his condemnation, thousands of years later he got a virgin pregnant with Jesus who turned out later to be God himself. And if you don't share these beliefs, then you go to hell!

Yes, it would be very helpful if Mith explained why these beliefs are bogus and why he as a Christian does not share these beliefs with creationists.

[tam]

Peace to you!

Comparing it to Creationist caricatures might actually be a little unfair to the Creationists

Are you sure about that, now that's something I'd argue against. The lampooning version of Christianity is by far more accurate than the creationist equivalent:

"Atheism -
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what-so-ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."

Lol, that was cute ; )


I would suggest that the 'caricatures' are all pretty much on par with one another. Hopefully, the point of the comparison was not lost.



Peace again to you!

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]


I'm not going to spend much time on this caricature. I am just going to remind Jagella and the reader that the whole 'guy in the sky' claim has already been refuted.


viewtopic.php?t=34581&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

viewtopic.php?p=933172#933172