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: 811

Comment by SteveInCO on December 25, 2012 at 2:25pm

I've seen other variants of this point being made, but maybe you've hit on a way of presenting it that gets through somehow.

One incidence of cognitive dissonance will rarely instantly deconvert them but maybe a couple years down the road they'll remember it.

Comment by James Cox on December 25, 2012 at 2:39pm

"ontologically crippled"

I have just got to use that somewhere.

I have a nephew that just thinks guns are way cool. Maybe, 'come on man, guns don't kill people, crazy romantics ontologically crippled, kill people'. Then we will spend the whole afternoon trying to get his HS flunked out mind around the idea.....LOL  


Comment by Dale Headley on December 25, 2012 at 3:30pm

From "repugnant" to "Intellectual holocaust," a feast of reasoned (and grammatical) discourse.   

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 25, 2012 at 3:51pm

Jesus' sacrifice showed that he had balls, and it gave his message validity.  He didn't set out to attack anybody, but he jumped up on the cross.  This very act and the way he did it proved his point. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 25, 2012 at 4:06pm

Except that we really don't know his disposition at all, now, do we?  For the gospels vary quite a bit on his demeanor, from rather calm, knowing stoicism to frightened victim.  None of them write from an eye witness perspective and none of them even claim to have been based on eye witness testimony.  We could do better finding truth in the legends of Paul Bunion.

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 25, 2012 at 4:26pm

Reports of his demeanor don't matter.  He was crucified willingly.  This is a reported fact which has come down to us.  It rings true with everything else we know about him.  If your message is about sacrifice, then allowing yourself to be crucified gives it the ultimate bollocks.  If he didn't maintain zen-like calm at all times - perhaps this is a good thing, and shows humanity. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 25, 2012 at 4:35pm

But what did he sacrifice?  According to the mythology he's not dead.  On the contrary, it is claimed that he ascended to the throne of Heaven - something unattainable by anyone else.  So he had literally everything to gain and nothing to lose.  He never married, had children, grew old, or even experience half the life that most people experience today - he just walked around telling cool stories and drinking wine with tax collectors all so he could die a hero to his followers.  Sounds very much like the sort of movie plot that a lot of young people today would fantasize about.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 25, 2012 at 4:42pm

Also, how the authors relate his demeanor tells us a lot about whether or not they had access to any verifiable information about the man.  The inconsistencies are all over the place, even within single narratives.  For instance, we have a woman who is visited by an angel and told that she will be giving birth to the messiah - a veritable demi-god destined for greatness and wonder; yet she seems to completely forget about that later on when she is confounded by the behavior of her precocious child. Perhaps she did in fact forget about her angelic encounter because the MIB showed up and flashed her memory -> but then WHO, exactly, recalled those events in order to later write the gospels?  The simplest answer is that the stories were independently fabricated and the authors themselves and no sense of literary continuity when crudely assembling them.

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 25, 2012 at 6:18pm

"But what did he sacrifice?" - as a human being, he would have sacrificed three days of suffering on the cross.  "inconsistencies" - very true.  The gospels are full of inconsistencies.  But their function is not as historical documents - rather, they were designed to fit existing mythologies into the (scanty) historical record.  For atheists, however, there is plenty there which we can use, if we choose to look and see it.  Jesus' legacy has value and usefulness for everyone in a difficult situation even today.  He leaves a message of healing, strength, love and sacrifice.  All good virtues which will carry us through. 

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 25, 2012 at 6:20pm

Three days of suffering and then his earthly life.  Not something I'd like to give up lightly. 


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