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]

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!

Not two months ago you started a thread professing interest in 'liberal Christianity,' which accounts for about a third of US Christians: Your decision to ignore them here is in itself ample proof of your intention to pigeonhole and insult rather than honestly discuss anything.

...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.

There is no such argument in the OP. Your thread simply asserts that being a Christian 'by definition' means believing a bunch of silly things. The major and minor inaccuracies of your portrayal would make it an obvious gross ad hominem even if all or even most Christians really did believe the things you've caricatured. The fact that some of those things are not believed by most Christians makes the would-be pigeonholing even more egregiously irrational and offensive.

...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.

Only when you're the one being corrected, gotcha

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.

I suppose there's not much I can do to stop you from calling me whatever you come up with next. It's not as if it harms me any, just gets a bit tiresome repeatedly pointing out the reality.

[Jagella]

Setting aside the empty rhetoric about a creed being brainwashing,

As a young, impressionable boy I was compelled to recite the Apostle's Creed. It begins: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth..." I wondered then why I was basically forced to keep saying something that I already believed and in unison with other believers. Did the church fear I and the others would forget what we believed? Now I realize that it wasn't a matter of reminding us of what we believed but to compel us to believe what we were taught. A convincing fact needs no such "reinforcement," but questionable claims with little evidence to support them need all the help they can get!

...you have clearly made up a formula of beliefs.

To the obvious chagrin of many Christians in this forum. I'm not sure what you mean by "formula," but unlike a creed, my definition in the OP is not meant to compel belief but to clarify belief.

A creed is defined as: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief.

I again would add that a creed is meant to instill belief. Otherwise, any time anybody studies or understands Christian beliefs they would be engaging in a creed.

Writing a fictional creed and then saying, but its not a creed, does not somehow change reality.

But I'm afraid that denying that Christians believe in the incarnation of Christ and the virgin birth doesn't change the fact that almost all of them do.

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

bjs, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with what we're debating. At worst, I may have confused the meaning of a couple of words. So what? The fact remains that Christians believe in some crazy stuff and in some cases won't admit it.

[Jagella]

...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!

Everything I posted in my definition in the OP comes right out of the Bible although the Bible is not nearly as clear as my definition. So to answer your question, I think that it is the clarity of my definition that has so many Christians here upset. Rather than face what they really believe, they deny my definition but take care not to admit that in doing so, they deny their most basic religious tenets.

So what's going on here? It appears that we have a case of cognitive dissonance. That is, some of the Christians here are experiencing inconsistent feelings. For example, on one hand they believe in a virgin birth, and on the other hand they cannot believe Mary became pregnant without the use of a penis. The two beliefs are equivalent, of course, but they find the former thought acceptable while they feel shame over the latter. Needless to say, experiencing a conflict over two thoughts that are actually the same is upsetting to the person having that experience.

[Jagella]

Not two months ago you started a thread professing interest in 'liberal Christianity,' which accounts for about a third of US Christians...

These "refer backs" I've noticed are very commonly used by apologists on this thread. It appears that the tact is: "Hey look, everybody--Jagella is contradicting himself! Two months ago he posted A; now he's posting not A. Don't believe anybody so inconsistent."

But I digress.

Your decision to ignore them here is in itself ample proof of your intention to pigeonhole and insult rather than honestly discuss anything.

I'm well aware that many Christians deny some of what the Bible says. For example, many Christians have given up Eve and the talking snake. You are welcome to post what you deny the Bible says including what I pointed out in the OP.

Your decision to ignore them here is in itself ample proof of your intention to pigeonhole and insult rather than honestly discuss anything.

How do you know I intended to "insult"? What's insulting about the definition in the OP?

Your thread simply asserts that being a Christian 'by definition' means believing a bunch of silly things.

I was taught those "silly things" by Christians and/or read about them in the Bible. Can you please offer an example of what you find silly about what I was taught or read in the Bible?

The fact that some of those things are not believed by most Christians makes the would-be pigeonholing even more egregiously irrational and offensive.

Jesus "pigeon-holed" people all the time (See Matthew 23). So do you object to his pigeon-holing or only my alleged pigeon-holing?

But unlike Jesus, I'll be happy to recognize that you deny anything in the OP if you tell me what you deny.

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

Only when you're the one being corrected, gotcha...

Again, tell me what you deny in the OP's definition of Christianity, and I will recognize it.

So in summary, I think the most important point I've tried to make here is that if you find the OP's definition to be inaccurate, then you should point out what it gets wrong. Please be precise. If you merely make vague assertions that it is wrong, then I can't help you.

[Mithrae]

Again, tell me what you deny in the OP's definition of Christianity, and I will recognize it.

So in summary, I think the most important point I've tried to make here is that if you find the OP's definition to be inaccurate, then you should point out what it gets wrong. Please be precise. If you merely make vague assertions that it is wrong, then I can't help you.

Your most important point is rather backwards. A good reasoning process is not to invent some absurd fictitious creed and demand others correct each detail of what you've made up - though that has already been done by some - but rather to start with one or more widely-accepted creeds or definitions and explain what you think would improve on them and why. You haven't even attempted that, as far as I can tell, and judging by the thread so far it seems likely that it wouldn't be a very successful endeavour.

Trying to shift the onus elsewhere is, yet again, quite poor reasoning.

Of course, the idea of doing it the right way round obviously depends on the assumption of a person interested in honest discussion of defining characteristics of Christianity to begin with!

[Jagella]

Your most important point is rather backwards. A good reasoning process is not to invent some absurd fictitious creed and demand others correct each detail of what you've made up

Since you don't like the OP and think it's wrong, then allow me to post a "corrected" version of it here:

• Christianity - the belief that there is no god in the sky and even if he was there he never got a virgin pregnant with himself, or if he did impregnate Mary, then he did use his penis the old-fashioned way, and he cannot make you live forever even if you pretend to eat his flesh and drink his blood which he never asked to begin with, and you cannot pray to him that you accept him as your master to be obeyed at all cost even to the point of death while he really doesn't care what you do because he wants you to have an independent, self-sufficient attitude in your mind that all people are born with and need to survive, and there never was a woman born as a rib, and if they tell you there was such a woman, they are full of it because even if she came from a rib, she was never convinced by a talking snake (even if there was a talking snake) to eat some fruit growing on a tree that probably never existed, and even if it did it could not magically give her the ability to understand what is good and what is evil.

Is that better?

[Jagella]

Not two months ago you started a thread professing interest in 'liberal Christianity,' which accounts for about a third of US Christians: Your decision to ignore them here is in itself ample proof of your intention to pigeonhole and insult rather than honestly discuss anything.

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)

By the way, I never insulted any Christian. I just told them the truth, and that truth insulted them.

[John Human]

...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!

Everything I posted in my definition in the OP comes right out of the Bible although the Bible is not nearly as clear as my definition.

I'd like to challenge that statement. Here are two phrases in your definition that appear to NOT have come right out of the Bible:

1) "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" -- could you please cite chapter and verse for that one?

2) "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." (emphasis added)

The problem here is Jagella's imposition of biblical literalism on all Christians, compounded by Jagella's mistaken interpretation of "tree of knowledge of good and evil." As I have discussed before, this phrase is a metaphor for sexual experience, with the Biblical myth depicted as first masturbation and then (as Eve shares her initial experience with Adam) fornication.

In other words, "knowledge of good and evil" means "sexual experience" which is a double-edged sword, depending on how people go about it. As the myth depicts, Eve and then Adam went about it the wrong way, with the resulting "original sin" rooted in the conception of succeeding generations whose parents go about sex the wrong way.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 68 by John Human]

"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" -- could you please cite chapter and verse for that one?

It really does astound me that people are just not familiar with their own religions, when dumbed down and spelled out in plain language.

Psalm 40
As for me, since I am poor and needy, let the Lord keep me in his thoughts. You are my helper and my savior. O my God, do not delay.
Psalm 27
"For he will hide me in his shelter in the day of trouble; he will conceal me under the cover of his tent; he will lift me high upon a rock."
Psalm 32
"The LORD says, I will guide you along the best pathway for your life. I will advise you and watch over you."

What is it I have been told over and over by Christians will happen to me and people like me and Jagella if apparently we don't choose God? Why...we will get hell, which (according to some Christians) is an eternal void, a loneliness. If I remain independent in my view on life, self-sufficient attitude, this is a bad thing apparently, I can't have this, I need God.

"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." (emphasis added)

Again, some people just can't take the text and read it as it is written.
Genesis 2:9 NIV
"The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground"trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
v16-17
"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
Chapter 3:4-7
"You will not certainly die, the serpent said to the woman. 5 For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

As I have discussed before, this phrase is a metaphor for sexual experience, with the Biblical myth depicted as first masturbation and then (as Eve shares her initial experience with Adam) fornication.

The text does not say this. The text says they became aware of good and evil after eating a magic fruit (such a thing is not uncommon with religious creation mythology, with common items having cosmic effects). There is no mention of sexual matters other than them becoming aware that they are naked.
No-one here has any reason to believe what you said, regarding masturbation and fornication.

[Jagella]

Everything I posted in my definition in the OP comes right out of the Bible although the Bible is not nearly as clear as my definition.

I'd like to challenge that statement.

That's great, John. Always do some fact-checking and ask questions about any claim you find important.

"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" -- could you please cite chapter and verse for that one?

Right off the top of my head, I can cite Proverbs 3:5-6 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.

In other words, don't think for yourself--just trust God (or those who say they speak for him).

Also, from the New Testament we have 1 Timothy 2:5 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus...

So you just can't do it on your own--you need Jesus!

Your "challenge" seems odd considering that if you doubt what I included in the OP's definition, then you would believe that Christianity encourages independent thought and action. To do so seems at odds with almost everything Christianity claims. If people think and act independently, then what would they need Jesus for?

"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." (emphasis added)

The problem here is Jagella's imposition of biblical literalism on all Christians...

I'm well aware of the lack of unity in thought and practice within Christendom. Are you one of those liberal Christians who have done away with Adam, Eve, and the talking snake while holding on to Jesus conceived without the use of a penis? If there was no original sin, then what did Jesus die for?

...compounded by Jagella's mistaken interpretation of "tree of knowledge of good and evil." As I have discussed before, this phrase is a metaphor for sexual experience, with the Biblical myth depicted as first masturbation and then (as Eve shares her initial experience with Adam) fornication.

In other words, "knowledge of good and evil" means "sexual experience" which is a double-edged sword, depending on how people go about it. As the myth depicts, Eve and then Adam went about it the wrong way, with the resulting "original sin" rooted in the conception of succeeding generations whose parents go about sex the wrong way.

Uh, John, what is this? Now I want to see some Bible passages to back up what you're saying here!