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!

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

It's your rabbit hole, Jagella.

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.

The one that describes the atheist I am conversing with, according to what they say about themselves.

In any case, as I have tried to explain to you before, any word can be defined any way you choose.

And as I have tried to explain to you, if we just arbitrarily make up definitions for words that already have definitions, then words lose all meaning, and conversations become an exercise in confusion and frustration. If we want to have a meaningful conversation, then we must use words according to their actual and truthful meanings.

Unless someone has invented a new word and given that word its own meaning (even though no one is obliged to recognize this made-up word); words should be used according to their own definitions.

But for the sake of good communication, it's best to use commonly accepted definitions.

Depending upon the situation, yes, I tend to agree.

But if we were trying to determine what people meant two thousand years ago, then we should examine what a word or phrase meant to them. The etymology of words can be helpful in this endeavor.

Perhaps you should consider doing the same?

Doing the same what?

Accepting what others say about their beliefs, instead of dismissing their words to tell them what YOU say they believe.

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?

I gave one that I think encompasses all of the different sects and denominations:

Christianity is a religion made of many different sects that claim to be based upon the teachings of Christ -and/or- the bible.

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.

Point of interest: your OP is nothing more than a summary of a creed. So I don't see how you can object to the creeds that were subsequently posted.

If they did, it's unlikely that all Christians would accept it considering how much Christians fight over their beliefs.

Depends upon how specific or general that definition would be, but again, a summary of beliefs is more of a creed than a definition.

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?

The bolded part, though I'm not sure how "long-awaited" it is.

I don't see how it necessarily contradicts my definition.

Your definition is more a creed than a definition, but yeah, the definition I gave is pretty general (albeit true).

But what is it about this definition that makes it true and other definitions wrong?

Can you point out something wrong in it?

Is Christianity not a religion?

Is Christianity not made of many different sects and denominations?

Do those sects not claim to be based upon the teachings of Christ - and/or - the bible?


As to the part not in bold (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), it is an absolute FACT that one (clergy or layman) does not have to have faith to be in the religion. There is an entire website out there dedicated to those clergy who do not believe in God or His Son, but continue to be priests, elders, etc... for fear of losing their income or livelihood, the respect of their peers, the love of their family and friends.

In other words, why should I believe you and not believe other people who see Christianity differently?

I am not here to tell you what to believe, Jagella.

Examine the evidence; test the claims; do with those as you will.

Come, let us reason together.

My late Dad, for example, would probably say that you work for the Devil because you're not Catholic.

First, I am sorry for your loss.

Second, that would just be a claim with no evidence to support it.


It is also a fact that the RCC has committed terrible atrocities (the Inquisition, for example; the residential school systems that ripped native children from their homes and families and then proceeded to commit terrible abuse against them; sexual abuse in general and the covering up of said abuse). All of those atrocities go against Christ and His teachings. Who among those who ordered or took part in the Inquisition was listening to Christ?

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.

So? Even if your suspicion were true (I do not believe it is), what difference does it make? Why do you keep harping on it if not to try and discredit him - "arguing against the man"? His arguments stand or fall on their own, do they not?

*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.

Yes.

The doctrines you cite in post 7 do not make the claims you have posted in your OP.


If you think otherwise, then draw up a comparison between the two, to support your claim.




Peace again to you.

[Jagella]

First, I am sorry for your loss.

Second, that would just be a claim with no evidence to support it.

There's as much evidence for your working for the Devil as there is evidence that Christ speaks to you.

Speaking of my Dad, he was one of the Christians who inspired my definition in the OP. My Dad was frankly no intellectual as he very openly admitted. He had a very childlike way of looking at things, and his religious beliefs were no different. Like a child he tended to see things without twisting them to make them more socially acceptable. He was very anti-Jewish, for example, and made no secret that he based those feelings in the Bible. He would have little problem with the OP because like I said, he didn't distort what he saw or heard. So for him God was a "Guy-in-the-Sky" although he may not have been happy with the Jewish part. And God getting Mary pregnant with himself without the use of a penis? My Dad would describe the virgin birth that way. Not to mention that my Dad definitely believed Eve was born of a rib and was convinced by a talking to eat some fruit getting God very, very upset with us all. In fact one day my Dad was lamenting his troubles and he blurted out: "Why did Eve have to eat that stupid apple!"

So I know that your claim that Christians don't accept my definition is only true for some Christians, and even those Christians are in all probability being disingenuous.

And frankly you are obviously being disingenuous, and that's why I have not replied at length to your last post.

[bjs]

you're comparing apples and oranges: a definition of Christianity is not a creed.

Your opening post does not contain a definition. It contains something like a creed. Since you presented that creed as a definition I assumed that you were using the word “definition� a little loosely. I provided two accurate creeds, as opposed to your fictional creed.

The definition of Christianity is: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christianity

[Jagella]

The definition of Christianity is: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christianity

That definition is way too vague, in my opinion. What's involved in the religion, and what does it profess? My definition spells out Christianity much better than that definition.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 54 by Jagella]

You are blatantly contradicting yourself now.

You wrote:

a definition of Christianity is not a creed.

You then provided a made up creed and wrote,

My definition spells out Christianity much better than that definition.

So which is it?

Do you want use your made up creed as a definition?

Or do you maintain that a creed is not a definition?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 54 by Jagella]

You are blatantly contradicting yourself now.

What am I contradicting myself about? Even if I was, I don't see the relevance to which definition of Christianity is best.

[bjs]

[Replying to Jagella]

Read the rest of my post. I explain your contradiction and how your inconsistent reasoning in this thread effects the "definition" of Christianity.

[Jagella]

[Replying to Jagella]

Read the rest of my post. I explain your contradiction and how your inconsistent reasoning in this thread effects the "definition" of Christianity.

Good try slipping out of a sticky wicket, but I never made up a creed. A creed as I have said is a method employed by religion to brain-wash people, but a definition is an explanation of what a word means.

What a great definition of Christianity it is!!!

[bjs]

Good try slipping out of a sticky wicket, but I never made up a creed. A creed as I have said is a method employed by religion to brain-wash people, but a definition is an explanation of what a word means.

Setting aside the empty rhetoric about a creed being “brainwashing,� you have clearly made up a formula of beliefs. A creed is defined as: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief.

Writing a fictional creed and then saying, “but it’s not a creed,� does not somehow change reality.

You wrote a creed and called a definition. That’s fine, but stop pretending it is something other than what it is.

[rikuoamero]

Good try slipping out of a sticky wicket, but I never made up a creed. A creed as I have said is a method employed by religion to brain-wash people, but a definition is an explanation of what a word means.

Setting aside the empty rhetoric about a creed being “brainwashing,� you have clearly made up a formula of beliefs. A creed is defined as: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief.

Writing a fictional creed and then saying, “but it’s not a creed,� does not somehow change reality.

You wrote a creed and called a definition. That’s fine, but stop pretending it is something other than what it is.

See...here's the problem I'm having with the Christian responses in this thread. Christians say they believe in some things (such as Jesus Christ is the virgin born Son of God, who died for our sins, rose again a few days later, sits at the right hand of God, so on and so forth) and when asked why they believe these certain things, they invariably point to the Bible (if they don't claim to have been told direct by God himself).
There's lots of things the typical Christian believes that are only found in the Bible, and not in real life. In real life, virgins don't get pregnant (at least not without IVF), men don't walk on water or conjure fishes and loaves, etc. Yet Christians believe these things happened. So why is it that when Jag published his OP, Christians were all too quick to say he's making a strongman? Their own particular individual beliefs plus anything not strictly pertaining to the individual Christian (perhaps they don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve?) are all ONLY within the Bible!
If an individual Christian says the OP is a strongman because he's not required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a talking snake...why doesn't he believe in that too? The same volume he's pointing to with regards to Jesus Christ ALSO has the Edenic couple plus crafty serpent.