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: 705

Tags: Christianity, Heather, Refuting, Self, Spoonheim

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 25, 2012 at 6:24pm

"Watch the play."  If we filter out the historical distortions, we can see how Jesus was tested in various difficult situations, and how his behaviour stood firm to his principles. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 25, 2012 at 6:32pm

If "giving up my earthly life" lead to living in a blissful, pain free, state of all-knowing then I really wouldn't be giving up anything.  The legacy of Jesus, rather than being of value, has left an aftermath of intellectual subversion and undermining of all adherents' ontology.  As this article points out, the Christian is left unable to grasp the incongruity of a creature that is it's own son, a sacrifice being a reward, or the lack of contemporary mention of what should have been the greatest event in history.

As I stated, the legacy of Jesus has become an intellectual holocaust.

Comment by Simon Paynton on December 25, 2012 at 6:35pm

I agree, it's confused. 

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on December 25, 2012 at 7:14pm

Strega, whilst (I like that word; I'll use it sometime) you were thinking about Pascal's Wager, did you think of two of its possibilities (is a god, and do/don't follow his rules) or all four (is/isn't a god and do/don't follow his rules)?

I ask that because the people I've heard using it mention only two of the four possibilities. Fraudsters all.

Comment by Strega on December 25, 2012 at 11:22pm

Hiya Tom,  I was really thinking of it's inadequacies and the way it is used to try to persuade people to err on the side of mental caution when I think we should be enjoying mental exuberance

I always look up anything I am curious about, so when I first came across Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor, I went off to wiki them so I could understand what was meant for their usage. I hope to not use any label without knowing what I am saying.

Pascal's wager is a ridiculous gamble because it doesn't take into consideration the tedium of following the rules and regulations of a god you would be pretty much questioning the existence of, to start with, if you were contemplating it. 

I would rewrite the gamble to emphasise that if there is no god, and you waste your life and mind blindly following an illusion, what a terrible waste of a life you would have, whereas if there is a god (of the nice, kind, forgiving variety) he'd be fine with you saying, oops, sorry, the set-up where I was on Earth wasn't really very convincing.  And if the god was a harsh, judgmental, vengeful kind, at least you would have had a life-time's unfettered use of your own brain before dealing with the tyrant god.  You would actually have the moral high-ground, rather amusingly, if the latter were true.

Burning in Hell?  Ridiculous.  That's just made up monsters, to pitchfork the errant adherent along the church's desired path of obedience. Not worthy of inclusion in my new version of the Wager.

Comment by Strega on December 25, 2012 at 11:28pm

@Simon.  Arch's question is the same one I have.  I always thought that the Jesus character was executed by way of capital punishment.  I have never understood the idea that he died for "our" sins.  He died because "we" killed him.  You said he went willingly to this death.  If he had gone kicking and screaming, he would still have been killed.  He just didn't fight the inevitable, as far as I can tell.  Are you saying he volunteered for crucifixion?

Comment by James Cox on December 26, 2012 at 12:10am

 "..thinking about Pascal's.."

I worked on a proof for Pascal's Wager several years ago. There was one odd option that came out during the coding of the proof, that it might be that everyone goes to heaven anyway, no matter what you do. Maybe all the fussing and carrying on is more drama than necessary. Somehow this result seemed a little too optimistic, but I am still rather unconvinced one way or another...LOL

Comment by Strega on December 26, 2012 at 12:25am

You're right, Arch! That is what he said :)

Now we can set up a religion to define and more importantly, dictate what constitutes a "good" life, and simultaneously gain tax-free status!

(ps.  Is 'whilst' one of those words that fell off that boat?  I had no idea)

And to James, that sounds like a really interesting proof.  Is it something I can read, or is it too technical for the non-specialist? 

If you go with the 'everyone goes to heaven' concept, we are back to the ancient mythologies and their versions of the afterlife/underworld.  A complete circle.  What fun!

Comment by James Cox on December 26, 2012 at 1:06am

" Is it something I can read, or is it too technical for the non-specialist? "

Logic proofs can appear to be technical, but much of the problem resides in finding a good clear statement of premises, then following mechanically the process of evaluation. If the proof is set up nice, sometimes you will find areas in the logic that were hidden. Human logic does not always visit the total decision space. 

The proof is/was part of a series of papers for a Propositional Logic class, from 1983. I'll see if I still have the paper somewhere in my records. If I don't have the paper, you might still be able to find that funny result, by researching a clean statement of premises, encoding the premises into standard notation and following the combintorial process of a proof(this might be available in many first/second year logic texts. The 'proof' will show places where the result is true and the premises false. Working back through to the F/T states of the premises then should offer that weird result, unless I was wrong..;p(.

One needs to be careful, shoulds and oughts do not encode well due to abiguities. 

Comment by _Robert_ on December 26, 2012 at 1:13am

Live a good life..but do not suffer fools


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

Join Think Atheist

© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service