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!

[Mithrae]

Kinda funny that you think I have said that (which I have never said), but then you also call Mithrae a Christian when he has said to you on numerous occasions that he is not a Christian.

'Funny' is one word to describe it, I suppose.

If you're not a Christian, then what is your religion? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if I encounter a person who defends Christianity, then I can safely conclude that that person is a Christian apologist. Are you hoping that Christianity's claims are true and argue for those claims trying to convince yourself that yes, you can go to heaven?

After the failure of your initial 'definition' of Christianity it's understandable that you'd want to try again. I'm not sure that "A Christian is anyone who doesn't agree with all my attacks on Christianity, regardless how erroneous or irrational" counts as much of an improvement, however. You are in good company though; Jesus likewise preached that whoever is not with him is against him.

[Jagella]

This has nothing to do with what I rebutted.

Sorry, but you accused me of "not paying attention to the responses (I) have received." This accusation is, as you love to say, false. Anybody can read what I've posted to see that I've addressed in detail almost everything that my interlocutors have argued.

But before we proceed with this discussion, I need to stress and point out that you are engaging in a least two logical errors. The first is that of a "red herring" which is to say you are arguing off of the topic into issues that have nothing to do with the issues I raised in the OP. The second fallacy is that of "arguing against the man" in that instead of arguing against what I presented in the OP you are arguing against me.

I am remiss for not pointing out these fallacies earlier, but for the sake of defending my own arguments and explaining the flaws in your arguments, I will continue the discussion.

Mithrae's point was to show that the OP was as accurate as some creationists' description of atheists' beliefs. That was the point I was referring to.

Understood. What you posted had me confused.

Mithrae then upgraded that original point to suggest that the creationists were actually more accurate than the OP (even though both were false).

Mith certainly has a right to his opinion, but I disagree with his opinion.

Regarding the accuracy of the definition in the OP, and seeing that you love to go back to old posts, you may wish to go back and review my Post 7. I listed the Christian doctrines that appear in that definition. Which of those doctrines do you deny? If you deny the OP's definition of Christianity, then you deny every doctrine on that list.

So again, which of those doctrines do you deny? I would like an answer to this question.

He did say that my definition of Christianity is more accurate than how some creationists define atheism.

Yes. That does not seem to be saying much...

Well, it says much to me. So far it seems like there is a very significant difference in the responses to the definition of Christianity in the OP coming from atheists and from Christians. Atheists generally agree with it while Christians mostly deny it. One way to explain this difference between the two camps is that atheists have no stake in making Christianity look sensible while apologists fight to make Christianity look reasonable in our modern, scientific age.

God not being in the sky does not mean He cannot go there. As well, God not dwelling in the sky does not mean that one can 'escape' Him there, especially not if God can be everywhere, and if all creation is in God.

If God can go to the sky, then how is my referring to him as a "Guy-in-the-Sky" wrong? From what I've read in the Bible, God spends a lot of time there. Besides, if God is everywhere, then he'd be in the sky!

My response was not at all illogical.

What you're arguing is not logically consistent.

Again, I was responding to your (incorrect) claim that 'apologists' did not respond with reasoned or detailed explanations.

Again, please review my posts in which I explained that the responses I've received from the apologists on this thread contain flaws in their reasoning.

I have said that I am not in "Christianity" (the religion). So perhaps that is why you were confused. I am in Christ. He is the One who made me Christian. I am not in "Christianity" (the religion).

Uh, yes, that's very confusing! So you say you are not in Christianity but are a Christian. Are you a Christian who is out of Christianity? Can you explain the difference between being a Christian and being "in Christianity"?

Your post 28:

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 - Jagella

You are good at digging up what I posted! I didn't exactly call Mith a Christian but insinuated that he was a Christian. In any event, my mistaking him as a Christian is perfectly reasonable considering that I cannot recall that he ever divulged his religion to me despite my asking.

So Tam, your homework assignment is to dig up a post in which Mith answered me divulging his religion. Note that in his latest post, Post 41, he has refused to answer my question regarding his religion.

One does not have to be a Christian to be able to rebut something that one sees as false.

True, but it is unusual for non-Christians to defend Christianity.

I am not a Muslim, but I have argued against some of the claims people make about Muslims and the Quran.

But in your case you claim to speak for the gospel Christ so you are obviously not a Muslim. In Mith's case his religion is not so obvious.

I will say that I am not embarrassed or ashamed. I disagreed with your OP (here on and on the other thread) for the reasons that I stated.

Again, it would be a good idea to review Post 7 and tell us what on that list of doctrines appearing in the OP's definition you deny. If you cannot or will not deny any of those doctrines, then the definition in the OP is accurate.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 41 by Mithrae]

Since you refused to answer my question and have continued to go off on a red herring, I think I'm fully justified in concluding that you are a Christian.

So what is it about being a Christian that causes you to defend your faith? Is your defense more effective if you don't tell people that you are a Christian?

[Goose]

[Replying to post 41 by Mithrae]

Since you refused to answer my question and have continued to go off on a red herring, I think I'm fully justified in concluding that [Mithrae is] a Christian.

He's not. Unless he's lying. Which, from my interactions with him, I don't think he is.

Certainly that hypocrisy and the comfortable irrelevancy of churchianity was one of major reasons why I walked away from "the faith" altogether.

In that thread Mithrae and I had a lengthy debate. He certainly wasn't arguing for the validity of Christianity there.

Not to mention Mithrae is a member of the former Christian user group.

So what is it about being a Christian that causes you to defend your faith?

My impression of Mithrae's arguments and the positions he takes is that he tries to defend moderate positions which he thinks are reasonable, not Christianity per se. He's one of the more reasonable non-Christian here in my opinion and that's one of the reasons I look for his posts and enjoy engaging him in debate. I usually learn something when I do.

[tam]

Peace to you,

This has nothing to do with what I rebutted.

Sorry, but you accused me of "not paying attention to the responses (I) have received."

I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you on this, Jagella. I explain my response in my previous post. Do with that what you will.

Mithrae's point was to show that the OP was as accurate as some creationists' description of atheists' beliefs. That was the point I was referring to.

Understood. What you posted had me confused.

Okay.

He did say that my definition of Christianity is more accurate than how some creationists define atheism.

Yes. That does not seem to be saying much...

Well, it says much to me. So far it seems like there is a very significant difference in the responses to the definition of Christianity in the OP coming from atheists and from Christians. Atheists generally agree with it while Christians mostly deny it.

I don't tell you (or other atheists) what you believe (or do not believe). I have always accepted the definition that atheists give of atheism. Perhaps you should consider doing the same?

One way to explain this difference between the two camps is that atheists have no stake in making Christianity look sensible while apologists fight to make Christianity look reasonable in our modern, scientific age.

Or... some atheists have a stake in making "Christianity" look bad (or of making faith in Christ and God look bad).

God not being in the sky does not mean He cannot go there. As well, God not dwelling in the sky does not mean that one can 'escape' Him there, especially not if God can be everywhere, and if all creation is in God.

If God can go to the sky, then how is my referring to him as a "Guy-in-the-Sky" wrong?

Because your claim implies (and has meant) that He lives there, and that claim has been refuted.

I have said that I am not in "Christianity" (the religion). So perhaps that is why you were confused. I am in Christ. He is the One who made me Christian. I am not in "Christianity" (the religion).

Uh, yes, that's very confusing! So you say you are not in Christianity but are a Christian. Are you a Christian who is out of Christianity? Can you explain the difference between being a Christian and being "in Christianity"?

A Christian is person who has been anointed with holy spirit. That person is in Christ and Christ in them. Christ is the One who chooses those who belong to Him.


Christianity is a religion made of many different sects that claim to be based upon the teachings of Christ -and/or- the bible. No faith is required to be in the religion; not even to be a priest in that religion, not even to be the Bishop of Rome. One who is in religion tends to obey the edicts and teachings of that religion, but those are often in contradiction with Christ (the Truth).



Christ calls His people OUT.

"Come out of her, my people!"

"Stop touching the unclean thing and I will take you in."

Your post 28:

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 - Jagella

You are good at digging up what I posted! I didn't exactly call Mith a Christian but insinuated that he was a Christian. In any event, my mistaking him as a Christian is perfectly reasonable considering that I cannot recall that he ever divulged his religion to me despite my asking.

Now who is committing logical fallacies?

Mithrae has told you that he is not a Christian. Just because he has not divulged his religion to you does not mean he must be a Christian - nor does it mean he even has a religion to divulge to you.

(Nor is he under any obligation to respond to your question.)


ALSO, his religion (or lack thereof) does not add or take away from his argument. You are "arguing against the man" if you think their religion (or lack thereof) invalidates the points in their argument.



*side note, I do not see the OP as an accurate representation of your points in post 7.




Peace again to you.

[Mithrae]

But before we proceed with this discussion, I need to stress and point out that you are engaging in a least two logical errors. The first is that of a "red herring" which is to say you are arguing off of the topic into issues that have nothing to do with the issues I raised in the OP. The second fallacy is that of "arguing against the man" in that instead of arguing against what I presented in the OP you are arguing against me.

To recap:
1 - You started a thread which, rather than discussing the truth or falsity of particular ideas, attempts to pigeonhole Christians under a 'definition' both narrow and insulting (obvious gross ad hominem)
2 - Others pointed out the logical fallacy of such caricaturing by comparison to Creationists and, in response, you falsely claimed that your 'detailed rebuttal' was something that "apologists" had not done regarding your OP (again, criticism of the persons rather than merely disagreeing with their criticism of your claims)
3 - Tam posts in response to your claim about your actions, pointing out the fact that detailed rebuttals had in fact been posted, but as soon as you realise she is correct, your complaint is that she is somehow 'arguing against the man'


Edit: Let's not forget that your obsession with my religion (because apparently reading the words "non-religious" in my usergroups is beyond you) is yet another form of ad hominem, utterly irrelevant to the validity of my posts.

[William]

Tam: I have always accepted the definition that atheists give of atheism.

William: Which of the various definitions of atheism is that which you have accepted? I have given up using the word as it is unclear as to which definition is the correct one. "Non-Theist" seems the better descriptive to use overall.

[tam]

Peace to you!

Tam: I have always accepted the definition that atheists give of atheism.

William: Which of the various definitions of atheism is that which you have accepted? I have given up using the word as it is unclear as to which definition is the correct one. "Non-Theist" seems the better descriptive to use overall.

Yes, I tend to agree that non-theist seems the better description. Less room for misunderstanding in that (imo).

But if in a conversation with an atheist, I will accept what they say atheism means to them.

[Jagella]

Sorry, but you accused me of "not paying attention to the responses (I) have received."

I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you on this, Jagella.

OK, but it's best not to open up "rabbit holes" if you are unable or unwilling to go down them.

I don't tell you (or other atheists) what you believe (or do not believe). I have always accepted the definition that atheists give of atheism.

What definition is that? I know of several definitions for atheism. Most atheists like the "lack of belief in gods" definition. I like that one myself. However, the "skepticism regarding the existence of gods" is also a good definition. Some apologists I believe define atheism as "the belief that there is no God" which I think has some merit.

In any case, as I have tried to explain to you before, any word can be defined any way you choose. But for the sake of good communication, it's best to use commonly accepted definitions.

Perhaps you should consider doing the same?

Doing the same what? I assume you are referring to some definition of Christianity that Christians give for Christianity that you ask me to accept. What is that definition? Aside from some creeds posted on this thread which as I have explained are not definitions, I'm not sure if anybody has attempted to post any such definition. If they did, it's unlikely that all Christians would accept it considering how much Christians fight over their beliefs.

Or... some atheists have a stake in making "Christianity" look bad (or of making faith in Christ and God look bad).

I think the Bible writers beat us to it!

If God can go to the sky, then how is my referring to him as a "Guy-in-the-Sky" wrong?

Because your claim implies (and has meant) that He lives there, and that claim has been refuted.

First of all, saying God is in the sky doesn't necessarily mean that he lives there. And if I did say he lives there, then to refute that claim, you would need to demonstrate he lives somewhere else! Besides, I thought God is everywhere and is alive everywhere. If so, then he has no single place to live.

And he's in the sky!! Just like I keep saying.

Christianity is a religion made of many different sects that claim to be based upon the teachings of Christ -and/or- the bible. No faith is required to be in the religion; not even to be a priest in that religion, not even to be the Bishop of Rome. One who is in religion tends to obey the edicts and teachings of that religion, but those are often in contradiction with Christ (the Truth).

Hmmm. Is this that long-awaited definition of Christianity? I don't see how it necessarily contradicts my definition. But what is it about this definition that makes it true and other definitions wrong? In other words, why should I believe you and not believe other people who see Christianity differently? My late Dad, for example, would probably say that you work for the Devil because you're not Catholic.

Mithrae has told you that he is not a Christian. Just because he has not divulged his religion to you does not mean he must be a Christian - nor does it mean he even has a religion to divulge to you.

That's true, but I'm just suspicious that he's posing.

(Nor is he under any obligation to respond to your question.)

True, but I'm under no obligation to believe anything he says.

ALSO, his religion (or lack thereof) does not add or take away from his argument. You are "arguing against the man" if you think their religion (or lack thereof) invalidates the points in their argument.

Uh, Tam--I believe it was you who started yacking about Mith to begin with.

*side note, I do not see the OP as an accurate representation of your points in post 7.

LOL--"side note"? That's all you have to say? I detailed the Christian doctrines included in the OP, and you just say the definition in the OP is not an "accurate representation" of them.

But of course, the OP's definition is a spot-on, slam-dunk, crystal clear definition of Christianity which exposes Christianity and like posing in one's underwear, is not what most people want other's to see.

[Jagella]

You started a thread...

Yes. I enjoy these discussions and value my opportunity to share my point of view on issues related to Christianity.

...which, rather than discussing the truth or falsity of particular ideas, attempts to pigeonhole Christians under a 'definition' both narrow...

You do have a point here. I do concede that any definition of Christianity including my own is unlikely to encompass the totality of Christian beliefs and practices. Christians believe in many different and conflicting dogmas and no two Christian sects will accept all the same dogmas. My definition, for example, assumes that Christians "pretend" to eat Christ's flesh, yet many Christians think they literally eat it!

...and insulting...

It's strange that you would object to my allegedly insulting Christianity if you don't hold Christian beliefs.

Be that as it may, my definition is no more insulting to Christianity than my telling a person with a lack of bladder control that she is incontinent. Embarrassing truths are not really insults.

...(obvious gross ad hominem)...

You evidently have no idea what an ad hominem argument is although you use such arguments all the time. In fact, your post here is an ad hominem! An ad hominem argument is an "argument against the man" rather than an argument against her or his argument. I'm arguing against the rationality of Christian beliefs which is perfectly proper and logical.

Others pointed out the logical fallacy of such caricaturing by comparison to Creationists...

You'll need to go back and review how I countered all those objections. I should also point out that a caricature is not a logical fallacy.

...in response, you falsely claimed that your 'detailed rebuttal' was something that "apologists" had not done regarding your OP (again, criticism of the persons rather than merely disagreeing with their criticism of your claims)...

Pointing out that one's interlocutors are not conducting themselves properly in the debate is not a logical fallacy.

Tam posts in response to your claim about your actions, pointing out the fact that detailed rebuttals had in fact been posted...

While I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here (a direct quotation would be helpful or at least a citation of the posts), I don't know of any attempted rebuttals that were sensible.

And by the way, it would be enlightening if you would post a rebuttal to the definition in the OP.

Let's not forget that your obsession with my religion (because apparently reading the words "non-religious" in my usergroups is beyond you) is yet another form of ad hominem, utterly irrelevant to the validity of my posts.

I think it's only proper when debating religion to divulge one's religious views to the interlocutor.

So there you go, Mith, all corrected. Please post more arguments, and I will correct those for you too.