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!

[John Human]

Countless people die for the world 'as it is', each and every day. From war, murder, starvation, disease, accidental deaths, suicides, etc. Not to mention those whose suffering is enough that they long for death (some of these resulting in suicide, some of these resulting in drugs or other harmful behaviors).

Yes, it's terrible what goes on in this world, but overall there is far more good than bad.

My understanding is that people with rose-tinted sunglasses usually have enough spare cash for an extra pair. It seems to me that generalizing from one's own state of relative comfort to the world at large is risky at best. Here's a summary of the state of much of the world from the 1988 resignation letter of Davison Budhoo, a senior official of the International Monetary Fund who confessed to crimes against humanity, with the blood of millions on his hands in "our own peculiar Holocaust":

http://www.naomiklein.org/files/resourc ... budhoo.pdf

Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over twelve years, and after 1000 days of official Fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind's eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal.... What devil is there in us that will allow us to go this far into a shame and an ignominy without screaming out a protest as human beings and as men of conscience?

[John Human]

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).

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but your original post focused on Christians' acceptance of Jesus as their lord (and thus removing the "independent, self-sufficient attitude from your mind that all people are born with and need to survive," as you put it in your original post).

So it seems to me that quoting from Proverbs (or from Psalms as rikuoamero did) doesn't apply here, because "the Lord" in the Old Testament refers to Yahweh/Adonai, not Jesus. Perhap you can convince me that this is nothing more than a quibble, but there might be another side to that argument, too.

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!

I see no necessary correlation between this quote and "removing an independent, self-sufficient attitude from your mind that all people are born with and need to survive," but perhaps there is an arguable correlation that might not convince a skeptic.

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.

Your logic appears to have a short-circuit: Just because I doubt what you said in the opening post doesn't necessarily mean that I believe that Christianity encourages independent thought and action. Perhaps you would be on firmer ground with a verb like "condone" or "tolerate," but then again, perhaps we need to visit what you mean by "independent thought and action." [For example, "independent" has a classical meaning of "conforming to the law of nature" -- free from slavery to internal compulsions as well as free from external limitations to our "natural" (maturely developed) inclination to act for the well-being of ourselves and others. Think of a guy who is addicted to internet pornography. His compulsive viewing is not "independent thought and action."]


In other words: You can not logically deduce my opinion on whether Christianity encourages independent thought and action, based on my challenge to your statement.

However, I'm not inclined to go too far here, because you might have a point, within the limited context of your definition. And perhaps that is my essential objection to your definition of Christianity; it seems far too limited and lop-sided. I'm still thinking that through, already imagining a follow-up post...

"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?

Um. ](*,) ](*,) I have repeatedly, from the beginning of my presence on this forum, brought up the observation that Christianity includes three fundamental interlocking doctrines that Jesus (as recorded in the Bible) never said; and if you remove any of these three doctrines, the other two become meaningless. This trinity of interlocking post-Jesus doctrines is: (1) Our participation in "original sin" condemning us to eternal damnation. (2) The Virgin Birth (establishing the divinity of Jesus). (3) The sacrifice of divine Jesus on the cross as atonement for the sins of those who believe in him, saving them from eternal damnation. I've brought that up six or seven or eight times, without any discussion from anybody else, as prima facie evidence that some Christian doctrine was concocted after Jesus came and went, while leaving open the hypothetical possibility that this concoction was in some way divinely inspired.

[Jagella]

Here's a summary of the state of much of the world from the 1988 resignation letter of Davison Budhoo, a senior official of the International Monetary Fund who confessed to crimes against humanity, with the blood of millions on his hands...

Well, that's one person's point of view. The vast majority of people I have known never committed crimes against humanity nor do they have the blood of millions on their hands. Most people are good most of the time. If we were not good most of the time, we as a society could never survive. Our civilization is built on our goodness.

But then why do we have such a dim view of ourselves? I can think of at least three reasons. One, the media is very active and ever-present these days bringing all the bad news to us as it happens giving us the false impression that bad things happen everywhere all the time. Two, since the "bad" people are the people we need to look out for, we tend to notice them a lot more than the good people. Finally, the third reason we focus on evil in people is that many of us are Christians, and Christians are hoping that as evil gets worse, we get nearer to their "day of salvation." In other words, as far as Christians are concerned, bad news never looked so good!

[Jagella]

...it seems to me that quoting from Proverbs (or from Psalms as rikuoamero did) doesn't apply here, because "the Lord" in the Old Testament refers to Yahweh/Adonai, not Jesus.

If you choose to create your own god that way, then for you passages from the Old Testament are not relevant. It's hard for me to keep up with all the different and conflicting Christianities in the world.

I see no necessary correlation between this quote and "removing an independent, self-sufficient attitude from your mind that all people are born with and need to survive," but perhaps there is an arguable correlation that might not convince a skeptic.

If there is only one way to God, Jesus, then we must depend on him and him only and believe only him. That sounds pretty dependent to me. If we think and act independently of the gospel, then we are doomed. Christians try to remove this independent thought and action in order to "save" us.

Just because I doubt what you said in the opening post doesn't necessarily mean that I believe that Christianity encourages independent thought and action.

Well, if I define Christianity as removing an independent, self-sufficient attitude from a person's mind, and you object to that definition, then you must think Christianity differs from what I said. Otherwise, why would you object to my definition? Anyway, if you object to my saying that Christianity fosters dependence, then logically you think that Christianity fosters independence.

Sheesh! Talk about needing to spell out what should be so obvious.

I have repeatedly, from the beginning of my presence on this forum, brought up the observation that Christianity includes three fundamental interlocking doctrines that Jesus (as recorded in the Bible) never said; and if you remove any of these three doctrines, the other two become meaningless. This trinity of interlocking post-Jesus doctrines is: (1) Our participation in "original sin" condemning us to eternal damnation. (2) The Virgin Birth (establishing the divinity of Jesus). (3) The sacrifice of divine Jesus on the cross as atonement for the sins of those who believe in him, saving them from eternal damnation.

What does any of this have to do with my pointing out the fact that Christendom is divided?

I've brought that up six or seven or eight times, without any discussion from anybody else, as prima facie evidence that some Christian doctrine was concocted after Jesus came and went, while leaving open the hypothetical possibility that this concoction was in some way divinely inspired.

Well, John, maybe I'm not the only one who's not sure why you're posting those "interlocking doctrines." But if it makes you feel any better, I can say that those three doctrines are not all interdependent. The virgin birth, for example, has nothing to do with original sin or the crucifixion.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The point is of course that there is no death or suffering or mourning or tears in the Kingdom.

If I was there in "the Kingdom," then I would mourn the loss of those billions of people killed

You're assuming billions of people have been killed. Where are you getting that from?

and, depending on your theology, burning in hell.

That is one more false teaching of "Christendom" but we have previously discussed it at length so I will not continue it here (unless you want).

I would suffer knowing that many of my friends and people I respect and even revere would be forever lost.

I understand your feeling (even though the promise is for us and our children - our entire household even).



That being said... don't you already believe that all who die are lost forever, including your friends and the people you respect and even revere?

How does the coming Kingdom change that fate, except to bring hope for those who would otherwise have been lost forever?

I might even shed tears over the world-wide destruction of all non-Christian cultures.

You mean atheism or other religions would be destroyed? Not because the people are destroyed, but because the people will all see the truth for themselves, and so what would be the point in continuing to believe something false?


I'm not sure what you mean beyond that.

So would you be happy knowing that societies all over the world were destroyed [strike]and that billions of men, women, and children had died?[/strike]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

As for the details of that "Christian vision", I suspect those details are merely yours (or others') interpretation.

Yes, I must struggle with my own very imperfect "interpretation" of the Bible reading it, coming to my own conclusions, and then having apologists tell me I'm lying if I disagree with what they say the Bible says.

Do you think you are coming to your conclusions entirely on your own? Or do you think you may have been influenced by your previous religion and its teachings (strongly entrenched things)?

Christians also have to be careful of that; to make sure that we are not carrying 'strongly entrenched things' from former religions, but are building our faith upon Christ.

Well, I don't blame you... even though "Christianity" (the religion) is in fact a part of this world.

Weren't Moses, the Temple, and Christ part of this world too?

Moses and Christ lived in this world for a time, but no, they were no part of this world. Christ said that His Kingdom was not of this world, that He is not of this world, that we who belong to Him are not of this world.

I have given them your word and the world has hated them; for they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.


If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.



The Temple and the priesthood that God gave to Israel is the only religion that God sanctioned, and even then only until Christ came. Now that Christ has come, we are to worship in spirit and in truth.

But I do understand that you say that you are a Christian but not "in Christianity." I'm not sure what that means, but you did say it.

If I said that I am a Christian but I am not in "Christendom" would that help?

I am no part of any of the many different denominations and sects of "Christendom."


I belong to Christ. I do not belong to the RCC. I do not belong to the WTS. I do not belong to the LDS. I do not belong to the Baptists or the Anglicans or the Eastern Orthodox or any other sect in "Christendom".


I belong to no religion.

I belong to Christ, worshiping (God) in spirit and in truth.

[Jesus] preached a truly horrible future for humankind.

Would you like to list some things so I know what you are referring to?

Oh boy--here we go again! Get ready to tell me that what I say I've read is "false." Let's start with Matthew 10:28 (NRSV):

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

So Jesus/God is going to be killing a lot of "souls and bodies" in hell. I'd prefer that that would never happen. I think it's horrible.

There's a more detailed version of this horror in Luke 12:5 (NRSV)

But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!

Here we are told that Jesus/God after killing people will cast them into hell. Again, that's a terrible vision of the future courtesy of Christ.

Here is a better translation of that latter verse:

I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear the One who, after you have been killed, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him! - Berean study bible



This is referring to the judgment though (and the second death - not some kind of eternal torment). This is not referring to when Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom. The judgment takes place a thousand years after Christ returns (at the resurrection of the dead), where non-Christians are resurrected either to life, or to judgment and the second death... based upon their deeds.

The next time you chat with Christ, you need to explain to him that he's really confusing people.

How could He be the one confusing people when those same people are not listening to Him to begin with?

So Jehovah's Witnesses aren't listening to Christ?

Well, not because I say so. JW's are the ones who teach that Christ does not speak directly to people today; not even to their Governing Body. One of those GB members - Anthony Morris I believe - admitted this during an investigation into child sexual abuse in their religion, after being questioned about their two witness rule (so that they take no action against a person accused of sexual abuse without a second witness). Morris was asked about an exception to that rule (based on the the exception the OT makes for a woman who was raped in the country.) Morris said (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that he could not ask Jesus about that now, but one day he hoped to be able to ask Him.

I'm not so sure about their not listening to him. Jehovah's Witnesses are avid Bible readers and place tremendous emphasis on what they read in it. So it's only fair to give them "credit" for trying to understand the gospel. If they have read the Bible--and they do read the Bible--then they've done their part. If they're still confused, then the blame lies with those who have written the Bible.

The claim is that theirs is a bible based religion, albeit interpreted by their religion. But they must listen to their religion (and its leaders). That is what the religion (and its leaders) tells them.


But I do not mean to single them out; other religions do the same - to a greater or lesser extent.

Tell him that although he may be "the LIFE," people are reading the gospel and hoping for death.

What people?

How does that even make sense?

I've known at least one Christian who wanted to die. Death for her was an escape from her earthly troubles. She told me she wanted to be "with Jesus," and to get to him she, of course, needed to die.

Thank you for explaining. Earthly troubles were the source of her distress. She was not hoping for death because something in the gospel horrified her. That (some people longing for death because the gospel horrified them) was what I thought you meant.



Anyway, even though we disagree on many matters, Jagella, thank you for the discussion!


Peace again to you and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Jagella]

You're assuming billions of people have been killed. Where are you getting that from?

As if you don't know! But let's look at Revelation 21:8 (NRSV):

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.�

Now, it seems very likely to me that almost all people can be cowardly and faithless at times, many fornicate, and we have all lied at one time or other. Since virtually all people fit the description here of those kind of people whose place is in the lake of fire facing the "second death," then the billions of people alive today will end up there.

So Tam, it's your job to gloss this sticky situation over. You might try reinterpreting the lake of fire as a cozy, warm place. And as for the murderers, and fornicators, and liars, etc, let's just say they are people out in the cold seeking warmth by a fire!

That is one more false teaching of "Christendom" but we have previously discussed it at length so I will not continue it here (unless you want).

If you want to shut down hell, then why keep heaven open? Is such a decision just a matter of personal preference?

That being said... don't you already believe that all who die are lost forever, including your friends and the people you respect and even revere?

Yes, but I'd rather people die naturally over the course of may years than be killed off in one huge genocide. You could just as easily ask Jews what was the big deal about the Holocaust when those Jews would die anyway!

How does the coming Kingdom change that fate, except to bring hope for those who would otherwise have been lost forever?

The "coming Kingdom's" death is a bit too sudden for me.

You mean atheism or other religions would be destroyed? Not because the people are destroyed, but because the people will all see the truth for themselves, and so what would be the point in continuing to believe something false?

Yes, Jesus is out to destroy anything and anybody who disagrees with him. He doesn't seem to understand that different people think differently seeing "truth" in many different ways. I say let people believe what they want even if it seems false to others.

Do you think you are coming to your conclusions entirely on your own? Or do you think you may have been influenced by your previous religion and its teachings (strongly entrenched things)?

I've been influenced by a lot of people to interpret the Bible the way I do. I keep what seems right and trash the rest.

Moses and Christ lived in this world for a time, but no, they were no part of this world. Christ said that His Kingdom was not of this world, that He is not of this world, that we who belong to Him are not of this world.

You appear to be describing a mythical Moses and a mythical Christ here.

I belong to no religion.

I belong to Christ, worshiping (God) in spirit and in truth.

But many people "belong to a religion" saying they "belong to Christ, worshiping (God) in spirit and in truth." So you don't seem much different in that regard.

JW's are the ones who teach that Christ does not speak directly to people today; not even to their Governing Body.

They may not believe that Christ speaks to them audibly, but I'm sure they believe he speaks to them through the Bible. So again, you're not that different from Christians you disagree with. Like you, they believe they are led by Christ--only in a different direction.

Earthly troubles were the source of her distress. She was not hoping for death because something in the gospel horrified her. That (some people longing for death because the gospel horrified them) was what I thought you meant.

No, she wasn't horrified by Christ. She thought he was so great that she wanted to be with him, and based on the Bible, she felt she could only get to Jesus via dying.

But of course, she like I am coming up with what is "false" when we read the Bible.

[John Human]

...it seems to me that quoting from Proverbs (or from Psalms as rikuoamero did) doesn't apply here, because "the Lord" in the Old Testament refers to Yahweh/Adonai, not Jesus.

If you choose to create your own god that way, then for you passages from the Old Testament are not relevant. It's hard for me to keep up with all the different and conflicting Christianities in the world.

Then you seem to admit that the disrespectful and simplistic blanket summary of Christiany in your opening post is inadequate.

[tam]

Peace to you Jagella,

You're assuming billions of people have been killed. Where are you getting that from?

As if you don't know!

I don't know what you are referring to or I would not have asked.


I am speaking of Christ's return and Him establishing His Kingdom upon the earth. He does not kill anyone, much less billions of people.

You are referring to (your idea of) events that occur a thousand years later: 1 - Armageddon (Rev 20:7-9); and 2 - the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of those dead (Rev 20:11-15).

But let's look at Revelation 21:8 (NRSV):

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.�

Now, it seems very likely to me that almost all people can be cowardly and faithless at times, many fornicate, and we have all lied at one time or other. Since virtually all people fit the description here of those kind of people whose place is in the lake of fire facing the "second death," then the billions of people alive today will end up there.

Yes, the things in that passage could apply to most if not all people at some point in their lives, and I have wondered about this myself. But we know that not all people receive the second death. So there are a few things to take into consideration:


1 - Christ is a covering for those who belong to Him. Christians - if indeed they truly are Christian - are covered by Christ, and have their sins forgiven in Him. He intercedes on their behalf.


2 - Non-Christians may also have a covering for their sins: that covering being love. Love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)


3 - Mercy. God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses, and Christ said that the merciful will be shown mercy.



That passage in Revelation also does not speak of those people repenting of their sins; so that one might want to consider that they have refused to repent of such things.

So Tam, it's your job to gloss this sticky situation over. You might try reinterpreting the lake of fire as a cozy, warm place. And as for the murderers, and fornicators, and liars, etc, let's just say they are people out in the cold seeking warmth by a fire!

Not at all. The lake of fire is the second death, destruction, annihilation.

That is one more false teaching of "Christendom" but we have previously discussed it at length so I will not continue it here (unless you want).

If you want to shut down hell, then why keep heaven open? Is such a decision just a matter of personal preference?

It has nothing to do with preference, and everything to do with what is true.

"Hell" - as the world of the dead, originally called "Sheol" (Hebrew) and translated to "Hell" (English) or "Hades" (Greek) - does exist. But the dead in "Sheol" know nothing; they sleep. There is no such thing as 'hell' a place of eternal torture and torment.


And there is indeed a reason to shut one down while keeping heaven (and earth) open:

You only need a place for the dead as long as death exists and people die. Once death is no more, there will be no need for "Sheol" ("hell"). But since there will still be people who are alive, there still needs to be a place for the living: the earth and heaven.

You mean atheism or other religions would be destroyed? Not because the people are destroyed, but because the people will all see the truth for themselves, and so what would be the point in continuing to believe something false?

Yes, Jesus is out to destroy anything and anybody who disagrees with him.

This is incorrect, and I said nothing about people being destroyed so I am not sure why you agreed with my statement.

He doesn't seem to understand that different people think differently seeing "truth" in many different ways. I say let people believe what they want even if it seems false to others.

Is He supposed to hide His existence and refuse to return, so that people can continue to believe false things? Should He lie or keep silent - abandoning His own people even - so that people can continue to believe false things?


If that is what you believe, then you should not be here speaking against Christianity. You should not be presenting any evidence that you think might convince people that their religion is false. Never mind the harm that you believe Christianity does. Just let people believe what they want, Jagella.

Moses and Christ lived in this world for a time, but no, they were no part of this world. Christ said that His Kingdom was not of this world, that He is not of this world, that we who belong to Him are not of this world.

You appear to be describing a mythical Moses and a mythical Christ here.

Not at all.

All that is meant is that Christ (and those who belong to Him) do not see things the way the world sees them; do not live according to the ways of this world; do not judge according to the standards of this world; do not seek after the things of this world.


For a very small example - this world is very much based upon outward appearance and judging BY that appearance. God and His Son are not part of the world in that; they see the inside of a person, the outer appearance means nothing.




Peace again to you!

[Jagella]

I don't know what you are referring to or I would not have asked.

Tam, you know I read the Bible and that I was indoctrinated by Christians including Pentecostals and Roman Catholics. They believe Christ will return to judge all humanity and that he will punish unredeemed sinners. There are currently seven billion people living, and about four to five billion of them are not Christians. What do you think Christ is supposed to do with all those people who never pray to him or worship him or don't even believe in him?

2 - Non-Christians may also have a covering for their sins: that covering being love. Love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)

3 - Mercy. God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses, and Christ said that the merciful will be shown mercy.

In that case we don't need to follow Christ. He'll just "cover our sins" as he has mercy on us for being human.

Whew--thanks for telling me that! I have nothing to worry about. Now, where did I put my bong?

The lake of fire is the second death, destruction, annihilation.

But what of that sin-covering and mercy? I was counting on your version of Christ to let me go.

"Hell" - as the world of the dead, originally called "Sheol" (Hebrew) and translated to "Hell" (English) or "Hades" (Greek) - does exist. But the dead in "Sheol" know nothing; they sleep. There is no such thing as 'hell' a place of eternal torture and torment.

Oh good. In that case Christ died on the cross, but I don't need to fret over it. I'll just take a nice snooze in Sheol and not worry about all that salvation stuff.

Yes, Jesus is out to destroy anything and anybody who disagrees with him.

This is incorrect...

Then what will Christ do to those who disagree with him? Will he pat them on the back and say: "That's OK, man--you have your opinion, and I have mine"?

Is He supposed to hide His existence and refuse to return, so that people can continue to believe false things? Should He lie or keep silent - abandoning His own people even - so that people can continue to believe false things?

Well, Christ can do what he wants to make himself real to people, I suppose, but it's not a sure deal that he will convince everybody. Some mentally ill people, for example, may be incapable if discerning reality and not see him as real. Others may see him as a hallucination, and still others might think he's a trick of the Devil. So again, what is "true" and what is "false" varies from one person to another even if they are presented with the same evidence.

Just let people believe what they want, Jagella.

Oh, but I do let people believe what they want! I have no power at all to force people to think differently, and even if I could force people to change their minds, I wouldn't. I try to persuade people using the best logic and facts I can muster. Whatever they conclude, however, is entirely up to them because they have the right to believe what seems true to them.

Can you say the same for Christ?

All that is meant is that Christ (and those who belong to Him) do not see things the way the world sees them; do not live according to the ways of this world; do not judge according to the standards of this world; do not seek after the things of this world.

For a very small example - this world is very much based upon outward appearance and judging BY that appearance. God and His Son are not part of the world in that; they see the inside of a person, the outer appearance means nothing.

I don't see anything unique to Christ, there. Many people who may not be Christians ("the world") may say that what's "inside" a person matters rather than outward appearance. In fact, there's almost nothing unique to the gospel. According to that story, Christ was very human and acted the part. He was as "worldly" as you or I am.

In parting, I should say that I find your version of religion to be a bit unorthodox. Where did you get your ideas about Christ, and what makes you so sure you're right about him?

[John Human]

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.

I think there is no doubt that Jagella's "pants-off" paraphrase of Christianity is disrespectful, but is it actually hateful? Could it perhaps be motivated by wounded rage and the desire to humiliate?

Beyond that, is Jagella's definition of Christianity overly simplistic? Does it miss something of the fundamental essence of Christianity?

As I have observed through the years, Christianity, when done right, fosters the development of compassion and concern for the well-being of others, and this Christian imperative of love of our fellow humans is absent from Jagella's definition, which takes on the appearance of a mean-spirited caricature.