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: 608

Tags: Christianity, Heather, Refuting, Self, Spoonheim

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 archaeopteryx on December 25, 2012 at 3:03pm

@Heather - the "trinity" wasn't established as official Christian doctrine until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and even then, the concept, which was voted on, passed with a very narrow margin.

@Onyango - RE: "the moment when he cries father father why have you forsaken me" - the Ebionites, another of the many Christian sects abounding in those early days, would have taken that further. They believed that Yeshua was fully mortal, born the usual way, but that the day he was baptized by John the you-know-what, the "holy spirit" descended upon him in the form of a dove, entering him and giving him the powers and knowledge he needed to perform his miracles and make his statements of wisdom. But they believed that as Yeshua hung, dying, the spirit suddenly remembered it had other things to do, and abandoned him to his fate, thus the "forsaken" quotation.

@Straga - pas de quoi, i.e., ain't no big thang --

(@Unseen - I know, that just begs a, "that's what SHE said," so go ahead, it's Christmas, I'll give you that one --)

Comment by archaeopteryx on December 25, 2012 at 3:20pm

What's REALLY ironic about the Christian religion, is that throughout the NT, Yeshua is quoted as referring to the ancients, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and Moses, as being religious authorities, to whose edicts Yeshua advised all to subscribe, yet biblical archaeologists and scholars, throughout the last century, have proven that these characters in the biblical drama never existed, that in fact, the chronicles of their adventures were written over a 300-year time period by at least four different groups, mostly for political purposes. Yet, if he, himself ever actually existed - and his own words were also written by anonymous authors whose words can never be substantiated - then he obviously bought into the fabrication just like everyone else, which removes any connection he may ever have been believed to have had, to any all-knowing divinity.

Comment by archaeopteryx on December 25, 2012 at 3:21pm

But Merry Christmas anyway --!

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 archaeopteryx on December 25, 2012 at 4:24pm

@Paynton - your statement implies acceptance of the words of four anonymous authors, who were not there and did not know the man (if he ever existed), and whose reputation for veracity, considering their anonymity, can never be verified, but other than that, you're spot on.

I'm not clear though as to why he would have chosen to jump, when he could simply have levitated --

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

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

Join Think Atheist

  

Forum

FROM THE WORD OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Started by Stephen Gunn in Small Talk. Last reply by Erock68la 2 hours ago. 5 Replies

Lobby

Started by Glen L in Small Talk. Last reply by Glen L 3 hours ago. 4 Replies

Disorders of Sex Development

Started by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp in Small Talk. Last reply by Simon Paynton 3 hours ago. 12 Replies

Deepak's challenge

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 8 hours ago. 29 Replies

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 11 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service