(March 14, 2014 at 11:14 pm)heathendegenerate Wrote: Why not?
You intellectuals bring that shit to life. Go through everything that makes christianity ridiculous. I'll link to articles tomorrow, but for now, please make a point to post here. I need this for future reference. I can't remember shit with my pooched brain, so I'd like to be able to come back here to simply go, "Damn, I forgot about that stupid shit!" lol
OK, I'm posting before I've read the rest of the thread again, so forgive me if I'm repeating what others have posted. I should know better but my impulsive nature is such that I can't resist.
The Fundamental Belief of Christianity
Before getting into the details, and a lot of these details will vary according to each Christian's interpretation, let's get to the foundation of the structure and just see what an unstable pile of sand that is.
Christianity is the belief that God (or, to be specific, "Yahweh") had to send himself down to earth to become his own son so that he could sacrifice himself upon a cross because doing so was the only way he could convince himself to forgive us for being such sinful beings.
Why Does Blood Sacrifice Make Anything Better?
The blood sacrifice of Jesus as a means of redemption is an essential part of Christianity as it is expressed in the Bible that without such a sacrifice there could be no redemption (or "remission of sin"). Why Yahweh needs a blood sacrifice is never explained. I can forgive others without killing anything. Why am I better able to forgive than a god?
So Is Jesus God Or Not God?
The insanity of blood sacrifice is compounded when the Trinity suggests that Jesus, while "a separate person" is still part of the same substance "being" of their god. So is their god sacrificing himself to himself? Because this is the only way he can convince himself to forgive us?
If the Trinity itself weren't mind-numbingly nonsensical enough, the apparent tautology of their god sacrificing himself to himself or trying to convince himself to forgive only compounds the madness of the doctrine.
In my opinion, the best way to understand the madness is to look at the history of the belief and understand the dilemmas that the early Christians were wrestling with. The belief that an intercessor was required with the divine is spelled out in John 14:6 when he claims that "no one comes to the father except through me". Indeed, the very idea that we need the intercessor Jesus to reach the divine and be saved is what defines Christianity. But how can that be reconciled with strict Jewish monotheism, particularly since the Jewish god was so jealous and clearly delegated the role of intercessor to no one. The very idea of an intercessor is forbidden by the very first commandment, "no gods before me".
The only solution Christian theologians could apparently find was to have their cake and eat it too. Jesus was God and also Not God at the same time. When he's praying to his father, claiming to have less knowledge than the father or subordinating his will with his father's, that's when he's "fully human". But when he's forgiving sins and hearing prayers, that's when he's "fully divine". The nature of their central icon flip-flops back-and-forth depending on the theological needs of the moment.
Christianity is the only religion that tries to be monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time.
The "Fall" From "Grace" Into "Sin"
The reason we are such sinful beings is because an ancestor of ours who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after she spoke with a talking snake. It was at this point that "the fall" occurred. Treating the Garden of Eden and humanity's choice to "sin" as a literal historical event seems to me to be inescapable in order to preserve Christian theology.
Some Christians accept evolution and try to place the fall at some point around our development into Homo Sapiens. But if there was no "fall" and no "sin" prior than there was no death. Death enters the world because of sin. No death = no evolution. Game over for this apology.
Other Christians simply dismiss the Garden of Eden story as a metaphor. But if it was just a metaphor, there was no literal "fall" and thus no need for Jesus to save us and redeem us from that fall. This apology fails.
Other Christians will say that we've always been sinful, that there was no point at which we fell. However, if this is the case, humanity made no choice to embrace sin. We were created that way and therefore the fault is entirely that of our Creator and so we have nothing to repent. This apology doesn't fit with Christian theology as spelled out in the Bible.
Punishing The Children For The Sins of the Parents
why should I be responsible for the choices of an ancestor of mine? Our morality has evolved to the point where we know it is wrong to punish descendants for what their ancestors did. Just because Eve ate that magic fruit doesn't mean I need to be punished.
Clearly our morality is superior to the Christian god's. The idea of punishing children for the sins of the parents is even written into the second of The Ten Commandments. See Exodus Chapter 20 verse 5.
Satan Gets a Rewrite
Central to the story of "the fall" which leads to the story of the sacrifice of Jesus is the idea that Satan tempted humanity to embrace sin at the Garden of Eden. And yet, there is no indication that "the snake" was Satan. In fact, scripture says otherwise, introducing "the snake" as "the most subtle of any beast of the field" (Gen 3:1).
"The Snake" was just a metaphor for snakes and the story is a "just so" tale to explain why snakes have no legs (Gen 3:14).
This story got a retcon with the earliest of the Christian books of the NT, Revelation, when Satan was described as "that old serpent". Satan also got a retcon from being the tempter of humanity working for Yahweh in the OT (see the book of Job) to being the bitter enemy of Yahweh. This change is essential for the Christian scheme of salvation, as a "bad guy" is needed to oppose Jesus in a tug of war over the souls of humanity. However, it's not consistent with the OT, however much apologists may tie themselves into knots trying to insist otherwise.
What's Their Motivations?
As one who enjoys role playing games like D&D, I like creating villains and evil gods who's motives are understandable and coherent, however vile they may be. I've even created entire mythologies including a creation myth and a pantheon of warring deities and have taken care to explain the motives of each.
From this perspective, Christianity's cast of characters seems strange and contrived. Why is Satan trying to get more souls into Hell? Does he get to "win" if he can just get enough of them? It seems like Satan is just evil for its own sake, which makes for bad storytelling.
What is Jesus' motive? Other than the obvious motivations of the priests who wrote the story, why does Jesus think the most important thing about us, the factor that determines whether or not we pass the test on Judgment Day, is what our unproven metaphysical beliefs about his sacrifice on the cross was?
The Christian god is an insecure megalomaniac who needs constant validation from mere mortals. It's so important to him that people believe in him and adore him. And yet, instead of making bombastic appearances to bask in the worship of mortals, something we'd expect of such a megalomaniac in insecure narcissist, Yahweh decides to spend the last 2000 years in shy seclusion. Why? Why has the same god who was so overt in the Book of Acts and elsewhere in the Bible suddenly become so quiet and withdrawn?
The Contrast of Worlds: Bible vs. Natural World
Read the Bible and you'll read about a god that is neither subtle nor restrained. You can barely turn a page without reading about some angel, miracle, or overt supernatural event. The Christian god is not at all shy, speaking to Moses face-to-face, wrestling with Jacob, eating lunch with Abraham and even giving a speech to Judea (Judges chapter 1). Yahweh in a booming voice introduces Jesus at the baptism.
The sacrifice of Jesus didn't change how hands on Yahweh was. Read the Book of Acts and you'll read about a world drenched in magic, angels and miracles.
Now put the Bible down and look about. It's a natural world governed by predictable laws and best understood through science and reason. All tests of the power of prayer have underscored the impotence of prayer. All claims of the supernatural have either been proven untrue or not proven true.
For Christian theology to be sustained, the interventionist nature of its god must be downplayed so severely as to be inconsistent with the very Bible they claim is the Word of that god.
Hell: Who Sends Us There Again?
Jesus loves us very much. And if we don't love him back, he'll toss us into Hell where we'll be tortured for all eternity.
This "love" seems like the "love" of an abusive husband or a stalker. It's more about possession and control than it is about actual empathetic affection.
Christians ties themselves into knots trying to rationalize this. We send ourselves to Hell, we are told. But what if on Judgement Day we just don't want to take that leap into the Lake of Fire? Someone has to make us. If not Jesus, than who?
With power comes responsibility. Jesus has the power to send people to Hell. Jesus is responsible for doing so.
The Problem of Evil
Let's be generous for a moment.
Let's give Jesus a free pass for all the suffering caused by natural disasters. Let's just call that "living in a fallen world" and gloss over it.
Let's give Jesus a free pass for all the evil done by humans. A child rapist kidnaps a little girl who prays fervently for rescue. Her parents and loved ones are equally devout and pray as well. Tragically, the little girl is found dead later. Grim crime statistics tell us horrible events like these happen and yet Jesus apparently never answers any of the prayers for protection and rescue. Let's call this "free will" and just quickly move on.
Let's only focus on the evil done by the vicars of Christ in the name of spreading the religion of Christianity. From the Crusades, Inquisitions, genocides of native populations of colonies, to the televangelists who bilk their credulous followers, the sordid history of Christianity is rife with such abuse and crimes against humanity. The Church of Christ is build on a ground soaked in blood.
Jesus watches all, we are told. Apparently, he watched his vicars commit these abuses and did nothing. What would we do with a general who's soldiers committed war crimes? What if we could prove the general got regular reports and did nothing to stop the abuses? Would the general get off because his soldiers acting in his name have "free will"? Failing to stop soldiers from committing atrocities when you have both the knowledge and power to do so is being part of that atrocity.
If Jesus is who the Christians say he is, than he is the least morally fit being in all the universe to stand in judgment over anyone and it should be he who begs our forgiveness, not the other way around.
Conclusion
Different brands of Christianity will differ on other topics. Is love evil when the body parts are similar? I'm sure the gay-friendly branches of Christianity will have their own arguments about this. It's the fundamental beliefs I delved into above. I just don't see how any of these problems can be fixed or overlooked.
It's amazing to me that anyone EVER believed such nonsense, never mind in today's world.
