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!

[Jagella]

"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 ; )

Yes, that definition is "cute." I don't understand atheism that way, but I suppose some people might define atheism in that manner. My version of atheism is what happened to me when I became skeptical of the existence of gods. So for me, I see atheism as no belief in gods.

So please note what I just posted. For starters, I recognized that some people find humor in describing viewpoints they don't agree with. That's fine with me; I don't get upset over it. In addition, I realize that definitions are arbitrary, and people define the same words in different ways. So that "caricature" of atheism cannot sensibly be said to be wrong; it's just a definition that may not be commonly accepted. Finally, rather than assert without reasons that I disagree with that definition, I explained in detail how my understanding of atheism differs.

I see a woeful lack of such a rational response to the OP on this thread on the part of the apologists. What they've said amounts to: "No, that's not what we believe...so there!"

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

Actually, what's being caricatured is modern science rather than atheism. Although science and atheism compliment and support each other, they do differ. It's common for apologists to mix up atheism and science.

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.

If God isn't in the sky, then you can get away from him in an airplane. Is that correct?

Finally, I'm surprised you protest my definition of Christianity. I thought you said you're not a Christian, so I wonder why you object presumably because you have a "correct" definition for Christianity. Did Christ tell you the correct definition?

[tam]

Peace to you,

"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 ; )

Yes, that definition is "cute." I don't understand atheism that way, but I suppose some people might define atheism in that manner. My version of atheism is what happened to me when I became skeptical of the existence of gods. So for me, I see atheism as no belief in gods.

So please note what I just posted. For starters, I recognized that some people find humor in describing viewpoints they don't agree with. That's fine with me; I don't get upset over it. In addition, I realize that definitions are arbitrary, and people define the same words in different ways. So that "caricature" of atheism cannot sensibly be said to be wrong; it's just a definition that may not be commonly accepted. Finally, rather than assert without reasons that I disagree with that definition, I explained in detail how my understanding of atheism differs.

I see a woeful lack of such a rational response to the OP on this thread on the part of the apologists. What they've said amounts to: "No, that's not what we believe...so there!"

Then you have not been paying attention to the responses you have received. The very first response in this thread detailed the inaccuracies of the OP 'definition'.

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

Actually, what's being caricatured is modern science rather than atheism. Although science and atheism compliment and support each other, they do differ. It's common for apologists to mix up atheism and science.

So the point of the comparison was lost?

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.

If God isn't in the sky, then you can get away from him in an airplane. Is that correct?

The only appropriate response I can think of saying here is 'no'.


(and I will remind you that the objection to that 'caricature' was explained in great detail by a number of people)

Finally, I'm surprised you protest my definition of Christianity.

Considering the many conversations that we have had, I am surprised that you are surprised. If indeed you are surprised.

I thought you said you're not a Christian,

I have never said that.

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.

so I wonder why you object presumably because you have a "correct" definition for Christianity.

I object for the same reason I objected on your "TIMITS" thread. Your definition is inaccurate. Not a single person who professes to be Christian has agreed with it (here or on that other thread).


Peace again to you.

[William]

Jagella: If God isn't in the sky...

William: Just now I am wondering exactly what isn't 'in the sky' when I think that 'the sky' is also in 'the heavens' [universe]...we are all 'in the sky' at that rate...

[Jagella]

Jagella: If God isn't in the sky...

William: Just now I am wondering exactly what isn't 'in the sky' when I think that 'the sky' is also in 'the heavens' [universe]...we are all 'in the sky' at that rate...

Can you figure this out? If we cannot escape the Bible god by flying off into the sky in an airplane, then logically he's there in the sky or at least he can go there. Yet Tam denies that he's ever in the sky. Not to mention that God is supposed to be everywhere which would result in his being in the sky. Finally, if manna came from God, and it came from the sky, then God must be up there to pour it down.

Besides, if I was God I'd go into the sky all the time. It's a cool place, and it's handy to rain down fire and manna.

[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.

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."

Creationists specifically tend to caricature mainstream science, or 'scientism,' in my experience. A small caveat, but judging by post #31 it seems you have joined me on the list of imaginary "apologists" for overlooking it

[William]

Jagella: Can you figure this out?

William: I like puzzles. Throw it at me!

Jagella: If we cannot escape the Bible god by flying off into the sky in an airplane, then logically he's there in the sky or at least he can go there.

William: Yes. Which one shall we settle on? The GOD is in the sky all the time, or the GOD can come and go into the sky as The GOD pleases?...or maybe both?

Jagella: Yet Tam denies that he's ever in the sky.

William: Does Tam deny this? I don't know. Can you cite Tam?

Jagella: Not to mention that God is supposed to be everywhere which would result in his being in the sky.

William: Well since it is being mentioned anyway, better put then "There is no place in which that GOD cannot BE."
The GOD is next to you and me as well as inside us both. and simultaneously in this universe and every other one as well.

Jagella: Finally, if manna came from God, and it came from the sky, then God must be up there to pour it down.

William: A reasonable conclusion to make in the presence of manna falling from heaven/the sky.
Perhaps a portal opens above and pours out things from one universe into this one, as it pleases the GOD?
Jesus left by lifting up into the sky and is promised to return from the sky. Apart from going down into the Earth, where else can anyone come from if they are to leave and return?
From what I have read of Tam, Tam seems to understand this concept...so I am inclined to think that maybe the problem is simply mis-communication between the two factions...
?yes

Jagella: Besides, if I was God I'd go into the sky all the time. It's a cool place, and it's handy to rain down fire and manna.

William: No doubt I would say the same thing, unless of course there were other universes to experience as well as this one. I could be away for centuries and even eons at a time, and only pop in when something grabs my interest...essentially leaving it on auto-pilot with some alarm which activates on a detection algorithm whenever there is significant change, specific of course, to life on Earth...

Fire and manna are already provided by that Planet so no need for me to hang around and feed the children.
Things to do - places to be... oh wait! We would have to be non-omnipresent to be able to experience those ideas of GOD...
Travelling on the back of the great omnipresence rather than being that great omnipresence. That's the *Ticket*
Makes me The Demiurge...if I were that GOD...

[Jagella]

Then you have not been paying attention to the responses you have received. The very first response in this thread detailed the inaccuracies of the OP 'definition'.

I assume you are referring to bjs's Post 2. Not only did I pay attention to that post, but I immediately rebutted it in Post 3. I demonstrated that he was wrong and that either Christians do in fact believe the details of the definition in the OP, or they contradict their own Bible.

rikuoamero also rebutted bjs's Post 2 in Post 4. bjs has since left the thread.

So frankly, it appears that it is you who isn't paying attention perhaps only reading what you agree with. It's only fair to give me credit for what I have argued.

So the point of the comparison was lost?

Bust Nak shared the definition of atheism in Post 26. You should ask him what his point was. He did say that my definition of Christianity is more accurate than how some creationists define atheism.

So it appears to me that you misunderstand Bust Nak. He's not saying that the two definitions are of equal accuracy but that my definition is far better.

If God isn't in the sky, then you can get away from him in an airplane. Is that correct?

The only appropriate response I can think of saying here is 'no'.

Sorry, but if God is not in the sky, and you ascend into the sky in an airplane, then you are in a place where God is not. So not only is your answer not "appropriate," but it is illogical as well.

(and I will remind you that the objection to that 'caricature' was explained in great detail by a number of people)

And I will remind you that I rebutted those objections. Again, please give me credit for what I have argued and not just those you agree with.

I thought you said you're not a Christian...

I have never said that.

OK, then you are a Christian.

...you also call Mithrae a Christian when he has said to you on numerous occasions that he is not a Christian.

I don't recall calling him a Christian, but I do remember telling him that he's an apologist. He surely argues like a Christian apologist. It seems strange that anybody would make his kind of arguments if that person is not a Christian. It's not uncommon to see people haunting Christian forums who may claim to be atheists or at least insist they are not Christians, yet they defend Christianity tooth-and-nail. It's very suspicious.

I object for the same reason I objected on your "TIMITS" thread. Your definition is inaccurate. Not a single person who professes to be Christian has agreed with it (here or on that other thread).

Just because people don't say they agree with something doesn't mean they don't believe it. It's possible that they are too embarrassed to admit they believe it.

[Jagella]

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?

[William]

Jagella: 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?

William: non-theists have from time to time also 'accused' me of being a Christian because I do not necessarily disagree with stuff which is commonly seen to be 'Christian' in nature...At first I 'minded' because I feel it is important to allow others the right to label themselves, but I have relaxed that stance now as it is not really important in the grand scheme of things.
That is why - when I feel the situation warrants it - I refer to my position as "Christian Panentheist"
Personally I do not wish to 'go to heaven' when the next phase happens. Heaven appears to be for those who require justice. I do not require justice. That is probably why I am not 'Christian' in regard to that...but in other ways I am. A Panentheist is enabled that way - the position does the enabling.
Panentheist isn't really a religion either. Certainly not an organised one, which of course Christianity most definitely is...a Panentheist can 'follow Jesus' without really 'being a Christian'.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Then you have not been paying attention to the responses you have received. The very first response in this thread detailed the inaccuracies of the OP 'definition'.

I assume you are referring to bjs's Post 2. Not only did I pay attention to that post, but I immediately rebutted it in Post 3. I demonstrated that he was wrong and that either Christians do in fact believe the details of the definition in the OP, or they contradict their own Bible.

rikuoamero also rebutted bjs's Post 2 in Post 4. bjs has since left the thread.

So frankly, it appears that it is you who isn't paying attention perhaps only reading what you agree with. It's only fair to give me credit for what I have argued.

This has nothing to do with what I rebutted.

You claimed this:

Finally, rather than assert without reasons that I disagree with that definition, I explained in detail how my understanding of atheism differs.

I see a woeful lack of such a rational response to the OP on this thread on the part of the apologists. What they've said amounts to: "No, that's not what we believe...so there!"- Jagella

This claim is false. People did respond with reasons (and details) to the question in the OP.

So the point of the comparison was lost?

Bust Nak shared the definition of atheism in Post 26. You should ask him what his point was.

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

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, since I think he recognizes the OP as being inaccurate as well. But yes.

So it appears to me that you misunderstand Bust Nak. He's not saying that the two definitions are of equal accuracy but that my definition is far better.

I understood what Bust Nak meant. I think you just misunderstood what point I was referring to.

If God isn't in the sky, then you can get away from him in an airplane. Is that correct?

The only appropriate response I can think of saying here is 'no'.

Sorry, but if God is not in the sky, and you ascend into the sky in an airplane, then you are in a place where God is not. So not only is your answer not "appropriate," but it is illogical as well.

My response was not at all illogical. 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.

(and I will remind you that the objection to that 'caricature' was explained in great detail by a number of people)

And I will remind you that I rebutted those objections. Again, please give me credit for what I have argued and not just those you agree with.

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

I thought you said you're not a Christian...

I have never said that.

OK, then you are a Christian.

Yes.

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).

...you also call Mithrae a Christian when he has said to you on numerous occasions that he is not a Christian.

I don't recall calling him a Christian, but I do remember telling him that he's an apologist.

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

He surely argues like a Christian apologist.

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian either, but he argues against the 'myth theory'. One does not have to be a Christian to be able to rebut something that one sees as false.

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

I object for the same reason I objected on your "TIMITS" thread. Your definition is inaccurate. Not a single person who professes to be Christian has agreed with it (here or on that other thread).

Just because people don't say they agree with something doesn't mean they don't believe it. It's possible that they are too embarrassed to admit they believe it.

It is possible, but far more unlikely over the internet. People can be anonymous on the internet, so it is easier for them to speak openly.



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.




Peace again to you!