A narrative essay by – Heather Spoonheim

Christianity is an intellectually repugnant worldview. To subscribe to it is to abandon all reason – and that is why it is so difficult to extract from the psyche of those infected by its doctrines. Once one has thoroughly abandoned reason, they are no longer sentient beings in any meaningful sense of the phrase; they become nothing more than automatons to doctrine.

At the core of Christianity is the father/son relationship – a core archetype of humanity. In any father/son relationship there are two distinct people representing a line of succession. In Christianity, however, the son IS the father; they are simply two different aspects of a being that apparently has three aspects in total, all of which are equal and one.

This, of course, means that the relationship between Jesus and Yahweh is NOT that of father and son – a core archetype of humanity. This leaves bullshit spewing Christian apologists suggesting that ‘things are different on a divine level’. Of course, if ‘things are different’ then they aren’t the same, to which the same brain-dead cunts would beg to differ ‘on a divine level’. With a single foundational doctrine, the cult of Christianity undermines the adherent’s ontological capacity. To the Christian, things that are can’t be and things that can't be are. I can’t believe that sentence actually passed my word-processor’s grammar check.

On top of disregarding the absence of the central ‘father/son’ relationship, Christians go on to talk about the willingness of Jesus to ‘sacrifice’ himself for their salvation. Is Jesus dead? No! Of course not! He’s Christ for Christ’s sake! He currently lives in Heaven and is coming back. What exactly was his sacrifice? Living here in the world with us so that he could know just how hard it is for us to be perfect?

If that were the story, then perhaps Christianity would be onto something. Yahweh was a really hateful prick until he beamed himself into a human body and experienced life down here in the weeds, then he realized the peril of being a perfect being in an imperfect world and decided he could forgive us all our trespasses as long as we gave it our best shot. Would he then repent and beg our forgiveness for drowning the world’s population minus eight? Would our prayers go something like, “Dear Yahweh/Jesus, we forgive you all your trespasses and ask that you continue to forgive us all ours. Amen.” That story, however, would require that Jesus didn’t commit suicide by centurion. It would require that he lived out a full life down here, facing the trials and tribulations of raising children, suffering the loss of his own youth, and dying in obscurity like most of the rest of us peons down here.

That isn’t the story, however. The story says that Jesus ‘died’ for our sins; except that in Christian mythology there is no such thing as death. Perhaps, to tie back into the father/son archetype of succession, Yahweh died at the moment Jesus’ body failed on the cross and Jesus really did succeed Yahweh. In this case, however, Yahweh sacrificed himself because of his petty anger towards us and handed the crown to Jesus who, contrary to sacrificing himself, gained literally everything on the cross. That isn’t even close to Christianity, however; although I can already sense that some confused Christians may come to suspect this as a doctrine after reading it here.

So, even accepting all the events of the bible as true, Christianity has no father, no son, and no sacrifice. Without getting into Yahweh’s other sons, mentioned in Genesis 6:2, or moral dilemmas of an all-loving god that tortures the faithful either as a bet or to ‘test’ them, one can see that the very foundations of the Christian faith thoroughly refute themselves. The only way to ‘believe’ such malarkey is to absolutely disregard fact and reason in favour of subverting one’s own intellect to the assertions of clerics that take ten percent of your wages for lying to you. If a mind is a terrible thing to waste then Christianity is an intellectual holocaust.

Views: 813

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 26, 2012 at 7:00pm

@Simon

Again, without Paul's elaborations and freeing Jesus from all xenophobic, misogynistic dogma of the old testament, you are pretty much left with the pericope adulterae which was a later forgery in the mythology.

Comment by Strega on December 26, 2012 at 7:24pm

@Simon

I appreciate your desire to deify Healing, but Jesus isn't your guy.  Trying to squeeze Jesus into a mould that fits your philosophy is never going to work.  Lots of people try to make Jesus fit their own principles (Westboro Baptist Church being one of the more repugnant).

Fortunately for you, Asclepius fits your requirements perfectly.  Since gods actually don't exist, you might as well pick one that accurately suits your needs, rather than one that needs a copious amount of tailoring.

Comment by Marc on December 26, 2012 at 7:36pm
It's funny how Asclepius, and Zeus, for example are treated differently than Jesus in Wikipedia in terms of the Contents box and how prominently the words myth and mythology are used as the 2nd section of each for the former, whereas the latter has a meager entry 'Mythical View', in the last topic of the fourth section.

History and Wikipedia are both written by the victors.
Comment by Strega on December 26, 2012 at 8:12pm

It's slightly different, Marc, inasmuch as even atheists do not necessarily dispute the existence of a man called Jesus - some do, some don't.  Most of us simply don't believe in a god, and therefore don't believe that Jesus was the son of one, either. 

It's a bit more worrying that the word "mythology" doesn't appear at all on the wiki "Yahweh" page. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 26, 2012 at 11:36pm

I have had strong suspicions about him for about a year but it wasn't until earlier this year that I realized he's a fully indoctrinated, pretty much life long theist.  Anyway, his claims of 'scientifically researching' his 'philosophy' amount to his gut feelings and a few readings -> but you have to push him for info about his research for several days to find that out.

Anyway, he's an interesting one to have here, because he seems to actually believe that he's an Atheist who has found that 'something is out there'.  Check out this new David Henson guy, however.  He seems to be another one in the 'other' religious category claiming to have found his faith from an Atheist perspective.  I suspect he flunked out of bible studies in his younger years and likely hopped back on the wagon recently to become some sort of new age cleric.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on December 27, 2012 at 3:16am

Good point, archaeopteryx. Reverse the terms: obey/disobey church rules, is/isn't a god.

obey/is > happy afterlife. disobey/is > hellish afterlife. These two are all I ever heard from xians

obey/isn't > No fun this life. disobey/isn't > zip/nada/etc. These two resulted from completing the logic.

Pascal, though a mathematician and capable of thought, lived close to heretic burning period and had to state his proposition so church leaders could use it for their self-interested purposes.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on December 27, 2012 at 3:39am

Strega, well said but there are these two points:

1. In Catholic school religion class, to be curious was to doubt, and to doubt was a sin. Also, there being no wikis until recently, there was no place a kid could research until non-religious college.

2. Burning in hell ridiculous? Of course but from many millions of unschooled and wiki-less folk it brought the desired results. From believers it brought frightened obedience; to church leaders it brought wealth and power.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on December 27, 2012 at 3:47am

And, Strega, when you rewrite Pascal's Wager it becomes Strega's(?) Wager and won't produce the effect church leaders want. But, give it a try and show us your wager.

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 27, 2012 at 4:14am

The word "healing" is short-hand for the general process of restoration and making whole and healthy, which goes on in all areas of life.  Healing though is just the basis, the essence of the philosophy.  There's a lot more to it than that.  I've got a mass of material from both science and religion from which I'm trying to draw the essential connections, so that the whole idea can be stated simply and usefully.  Right now, I haven't got to that stage, so any explanation would be long and rambly and incomplete, and therefore unconvincing for you.  But it really is the central thread of the New Testament and in fact all the serious modern religions I've come across. 

The scientific part is the evolution of healing in its biological and other varieties.  The rest is all philosophy.  We can be very precise about the philosophy like never before because the basis is so clear and precise like never before.  Also, the internet accelerates everything, being able to check facts and order books. 

I've been a firm atheist since the age of 5.  I don't expect it to be easy, to get people to accept seemingly-new ideas, so it has to be as clear and succinct as possible otherwise it hasn't got legs. 

The point is "what works?" and "what is the best that can be achieved under the circumstances?" and this implies that it has to be based on facts and reality. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 27, 2012 at 4:28am

You are right - your explanation is long and rambly and incomplete, and therefore unconvincing to me.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service