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 Strega on December 24, 2012 at 10:36pm

Ha! Robert that's a classic - I swear on these lies to be truthful.  Lovely irony.

Comment by James Cox on December 25, 2012 at 3:25am

"Don't like jury duty?"

I used the 'knows to much' defence. I suggest asking technical questions concerning the case, that might be purceived to bog down the jury. My favorites, 'I would like to know when and if the radar devise was last calibrated? What is the error on the devise? When and how often has the acting police officer been trained or certified to use the radar devise? Have there been any recalls on the devise? Is the devise sensitive to weather and temperature changes in the field? When was the devise last maintained, and its repair history?' 

This could be generalized to the theists with a little creativity....

 

Comment by Gregg R Thomas on December 25, 2012 at 3:40am

I got booted from jury in a capitol case (guy shot his GF in the face with a 44mag), the judge told us to put aside our emotions...he apparently didn't like my response, I said that wouldn't be possible once the DA brought in the crime scene photos...I got asked to go away.

Comment by Scott A McGreal on December 25, 2012 at 6:48am

What you said about how Christians abandon reason in the name of faith reminded me of an idea I've often had that Christianity is like a virus that forces believers to try and replicate it mindlessly. Their beliefs make no sense, yet even when people point this out they still persist in trying to convert others as a top priority. 

Comment by Marc on December 25, 2012 at 9:40am
Heather this is in the best tradition of the great xmas narratives. Take that Clemment Clarke Moore.

The sad likelihood is that it would have next to zero chance of effecting the thought processes of said 'automatons'.
Comment by Marc on December 25, 2012 at 10:01am
Gregg has this actually worked for you because I've tried that twice and it did not get me out of jury duty in either case.

I've been called 4 times now. I got out of the first one by untruthfully saying that I had been stabbed myself, as the case was about a domestic violence stabbing. The judge asked if the scar was in a place that I could show her. I said I could but I preferred not to unless required. I think I over-reached on that one and should have just said I was brought up in a home where my I saw domestic violence growing up.

I was sitting next to a lawyer who was called for jury duty with us and we were discussing creative ways of getting out of the jury. He said he was just going to say he was a lawyer and his bias would get him out. I was excused in the first round and he wasn't. Don't know if he actually served of not.

In the second case I truthfully said that my cousin was a District Attorney but that would not in any way influence my judgement in the case. That is my stand by now. You could do a little homework ahead of time and find some random person and claim them to be a cousin.
Comment by James Cox on December 25, 2012 at 10:48am

"...trying to convert others as a top priority. "

I expect that ignorance can pretend to a 'perfect knowledge'. They have one error already, what not be wrong about everything?

Comment by James Cox on December 25, 2012 at 10:54am

"The sad likelihood is that it would have next to zero chance of effecting the thought processes of said 'automatons'."

Yes, wish we luck. Today I enter the Twilight Zone of distant the 'Distant Family'. Young kids, with children, that are believers, and have guns, and use the men use intimidation as a control ploy. At least it is at my mother's.

My brother's ex, is planning to be there!

It promises to be a great time. If it gets rough, I'll help my mom cook, and keep my mouth full.

Comment by Ed on December 25, 2012 at 12:39pm

 I think it is a fair question to ask a theist, foregoing reference to an ancient text lacking any originality, what allows them to make that leap of ignorance? I have never related to a person's willingness to accept something as truth that which has no verifiable explanation. The promise of eternal blissdom  is so overpowering.

Faith is believing that which you know ain't so. -Mark Twain

 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on December 25, 2012 at 1:53pm

Thanks for the feedback everyone.  I would like to add that this little argument works quite effectively in the field.  I've so far tried it out on facebook and youtube and the amateur apologists seem to be a little rattled by it because this angle hasn't been going around.  I just state plainly that  Christianity is based on a non-existent father/son relationship because they claim to have one god and one being of any sort cannot be its own son.  It's rather fun watching them squirm, although, as predicted, they just say "it's different on a divine level".  Anyway, I just follow through the argument and leave calling them ontologically crippled.  It's makes for a nice hit & run.

Comment

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

Join Think Atheist

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 17 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