The Case for Christianity

[Jimmy Higgins]

LOL. Maybe, it will help if I set out the big picture and then go into where I think a new perspective is needed.

The Overall Narrative
Essentially, according to the Bible, God created the universe.

This is not certain. There is a sense that the Earth and Heavens were formed from the pre-existing chaos referred to in Gen 1:2.

Humans are His final creation and was created in His image. In the Garden, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and was banished from the Garden.

In the First Story of Creation man is created last. In the narrative of the Garden, man is one of the first creations.

Whilst human prospered and grew in number, they were very wicked and corrupt and God tried several ways to teach them to live better. Even though we knew the difference between Good and Evil, we often chose the path of Evil.

The knowledge of Good and Evil is a likely metaphor for "all things". Knowing morality isn't particularly a major thing that makes one a God (one of the cited reasons God boots them from the Garden).

Although there were several attempts to lead us to the path of Good, they were not successful and the final solution was to send His Son, Jesus, to fulfil God's commandments and save the world.

There were zero paths to help man become good. Just repeated punishments followed by minor mercies (Garden, Abel's murder, The Flood). When God selects Abraham, he doesn't put forth a moral code, just tells the males to slice something off as a testament to their union with Yahweh. The rules don't come for hundreds of years! Instead, Yahweh tells his chosen people to smite the fuck out of people.

However, instead of listening to him, we crucified him and hung him up like a murderer.

We?

Jesus then rose after the third day and rallied his followers to spread the word, i.e. that he died and rose from the dead. As a result, Christianity grew and became the dominant religion in the world.

Mormonism is growing, Islam is a massive religion. Does this imply that these religions have legitimacy because they are popular? Hinduism replaced Buddhism in India... does that mean Hinduism is the right religion?

The narrative has several paradoxes which challenge the reader and its followers. Amongst them:
1. Although the Bible is taken to be sacred and the Word of God, it contains many contradictions and seems to be somewhat arbitrary.

It also barely talks about Jesus in the New Testament, which contains some of the writings from the time, but not all of them. It also starts off with a political plea to the Jewish to take them more seriously and that they aren't a cult.

The Moral Imperative
Besides the narrative of Jesus as saviour, the main concern in the Bible is the notion of Good and Evil. Although we are supposed to know what is Good and Evil since Adam and Eve both ate the fruit, it is not clearly defined until much later, in the times of Moses, where God inscribed the Ten Commandments and gave the Jews a whole set of laws to follow.

...and then redefined later.

That didn't work very well and the Jewish nation fell into disarray and waited for the coming of their Saviour. Jesus came and summed up the Law into one single commandment, Love God and Love One Another.

That'd be two laws.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

@Brunswick1954, where you planning to answer points made to you in various posts, or are you just going to preach now?

You call these posts preaching? It is virtually a poor man's ChatGPT overview of Christianity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You do realise that there are many points raised in this thread and I can't possibly address them all, even assuming that I have an answer in the first place, .

You can't claim to know special knowledge of the Bible and then feign an inability to address questions about it.

 

[Elixir]

Christianity grew and became the dominant religion in the world.

When was that?
Christianity isn’t even a religion. It’s an artificial aggregate of lots of mutually incompatible sects.
Ya got Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Jehovah’sWitnesses etc etc, many of which will eagerly dismember each other literally or figuratively, given half a chance.
Christianity didn’t “grow” per se, it fractured into sects and cults that independently grew or died, but never convened in body or spirit. To lump them all together and represent it as a consensus force, is inaccurate and/ or dishonest.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think NoHolyCows did a good job refuting much of OP in his post #2. But I have a question and two comments.

The question (given "Christianity" in the title) is

Even if you assume that life's complexity dictates there be some Intelligent Designer, Why on Earth assume that that Creator is the very same Jehovah who impregnated Jesus' allegedly virgin mother?​

Why assume it was the same Jehovah who required males to be circumcised? (Why not just invent them pre-circumcised if that was so important for him? Or was the mutilation some sort of test?)

Why not posit Itzamná of the Mayas as being the Divine Creator? Or Ahura Mazda? Or (much likelier) some "divinity" mankind has never heard of? Or some kid having fun practicing simulations with a version of Hyper-Minecraft in a universe millions of times more complex than ours?

This is odd, don't you think? We can uncover the beginning of the universe, discover black holes, even create artificial intelligence but we have not penetrated even the simplest form of life.

At this point the origin of life is understood better than the beginning of the universe. One thing we know is that even the simplest life has amazingly complex machines, e.g. ribosomes and their attendants, and ATP synthase -- far beyond man's inventive power.

I don't know what the greatest human inventor who ever lived thought about Christianity (denying it was "politically incorrect" at the time) but he admitted that nature surpassed him in talent:

While human ingenuity may devise various inventions to the same ends, it will never devise anything more beautiful, nor more simple, nor more to the purpose than nature does, because in her inventions nothing is lacking and nothing is superfluous.

And yet AI is advancing so rapidly, that designing nano-machines as complex as ribosomes will soon be within reach.

The knowledge of Good and Evil is a likely metaphor for "all things". Knowing morality isn't particularly a major thing that makes one a God (one of the cited reasons God boots them from the Garden).

Animals know nothing about "good and evil." I've always thought that that distinction between (Iron Age) humans and most other animals was at the heart of the Garden of Eden metaphor. No?

 

[pood]

@Brunswick1954, where you planning to answer points made to you in various posts, or are you just going to preach now?

You call these posts preaching? It is virtually a poor man's ChatGPT overview of Christianity.

Yes, it’s anodyne, but if you just talk about the bible and don’t entertain challenges or questions it is still preaching to me, however bland.

 

[No Robots]

In short, I am essentially thinking aloud. @No Robots encouraged me and allowed me to start this thread even though I just joined this group. I thought he/she/they approved of what I was doing but perhaps all it was is they knew it might generate a lively discussion. I don't mind that at all. Disagreements are all good. I don't even mind a disparaging remark or two. If it gets too unruly, I suppose the moderators can shut it down.

I pmailed you an encouraging note because I do like your approach, your tone and your content. I hold much the same position as you. I am not much liked here, so I don't post much. If you are interested in private discussion, please let me know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

@Brunswick1954, where you planning to answer points made to you in various posts, or are you just going to preach now?

You call these posts preaching? It is virtually a poor man's ChatGPT overview of Christianity.

Yes, it’s anodyne, but if you just talk about the bible and don’t entertain challenges or questions it is still preaching to me, however bland.

Oh great, now I have to look up the word anodyne and find out what it means.

*google*

I'm back... I'd say it is more banal or anemic than anything else. They claim a unique understanding of the Bible, yet have provided such a beyond basic synopsis for the Tanakh and New Testament. Look, Genesis 1... then the resurrection... therefore God. It is so weak to make it difficult to consider preaching, but I get what you are saying.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I guess you haven’t been reading the posts citing the need for evidence to support these ridiculous and false claims, right?

Well this is why I have no respect for such people. They're firehoses of falsehood and will never learn because they prefer their willful ignorance. It's clear they don't actually care about truth or investigation. And it's to the detriment of others.

 

[ideologyhunter]

As for the rest, I can only say again you’re addressing a board of skeptics with an evidence-based epistemology. Yours is a faith-based epistemology.

In our eyes, this requires you to present empirical evidence not only that Christianity his true, but even more, that your version of it is true, and not other versions. These two together are an insurmountable hurdle, so I really can’t see what you hope to do here.

I'd say there are at least two defaults among us freethinkers, when it comes to Bible assertions. First is the need for empirical evidence, as you state. A second, and closely related, default is our finding that the Bible lacks moral legitimacy. For every inclusive and love-based teaching the faithful cite, we can cite an atrocious Bible teaching or murder event. No need to list them, we all know them. The believers seem to assume that they somehow don't count or can be explained as the moral limitations of Bible times. That doesn't fly here. Most of us size up the Bible as a schizoid mishmash of cultural artifacts. It's as if David Dukes and Joan Baez had a baby, and the critter is now running for office, quoting both mom and dad. If that's your Roadmap for Life, you've ended up in Dumbfuck Egypt.

 

[TomC]

. I am not much liked here, so I don't post much.

Your unsupported, irrational, assertions are commonly challenged. Your response is nearly always a reference to some human authority, making similar assertions.

It's not that we don't like you. We don't know you. It's your religious assertions that get the respect that they deserve, but not any more than that.
Tom

 

[pood]

As for the rest, I can only say again you’re addressing a board of skeptics with an evidence-based epistemology. Yours is a faith-based epistemology.

In our eyes, this requires you to present empirical evidence not only that Christianity his true, but even more, that your version of it is true, and not other versions. These two together are an insurmountable hurdle, so I really can’t see what you hope to do here.

I'd say there are at least two defaults among us freethinkers, when it comes to Bible assertions. First is the need for empirical evidence, as you state. A second, and closely related, default is our finding that the Bible lacks moral legitimacy. For every inclusive and love-based teaching the faithful cite, we can cite an atrocious Bible teaching or murder event. No need to list them, we all know them. The believers seem to assume that they somehow don't count or can be explained as the moral limitations of Bible times. That doesn't fly here. Most of us size up the Bible as a schizoid mishmash of cultural artifacts. It's as if David Dukes and Joan Baez had a baby, and the critter is now running for office, quoting both mom and dad. If that's your Roadmap for Life, you've ended up in Dumbfuck Egypt.

Not only that, but what agreeable things Jesus allegedly said were said by others before him. “Do unto others …” predates him by centuries. After all, how hard is it to figure out that you should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated? No supernatural entity is needed to understand that.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'd say there are at least two defaults among us freethinkers, when it comes to Bible assertions. First is the need for empirical evidence, as you state. A second, and closely related, default is our finding that the Bible lacks moral legitimacy.

I'm not sure if I qualify as a "freethinker" but I fit into neither of these two defaults.
I do not seek empirical evidence for obvious myths or metaphors. And morality barely interests me at all; if I were to pursue an education about morality, the Bible would hardly be a choice.

What DOES interest me are the puzzles: What can we glean from this strange mixture of myths, history, poetry and the arcane?

• Was Genesis 46 really a brilliant logic puzzle with a solution intended to reveal a secret? Or just a simple arithmetic oversight?
• Is it likely that Terah of Ur of the Chaldees was based on the historic Terru of Urkesh? Or is this just a billion-to-one coincidence that are a "dime a dozen" if one looks hard enough?
• Did King Hezekiah really have a son Manasseh who committed great sacrileges? Is it coincidence that a Jewish temple was built at Elephantine during Manasseh's reign?
• Et cetera

 

[Swammerdami]

In short, I am essentially thinking aloud. @No Robots encouraged me and allowed me to start this thread even though I just joined this group. I thought he/she/they approved of what I was doing but perhaps all it was is they knew it might generate a lively discussion. I don't mind that at all. Disagreements are all good. I don't even mind a disparaging remark or two. If it gets too unruly, I suppose the moderators can shut it down.

I pmailed you an encouraging note because I do like your approach, your tone and your content. I hold much the same position as you. I am not much liked here, so I don't post much. If you are interested in private discussion, please let me know.

I feel like I've been tolerant and even appreciative of some of the Christians who post here. I couldn't remember what my history with No Robots was like, or whether I "much liked" you; so I deployed the Search facility.

Now I see that you do indeed exasperate me. I believe in an historic Jesus which, in your opinion, is incompatible with my views on the Authorship Controversy.

^From the point of view of someone who accepts the scholarly consensus on both Jesus and Shakespeare as historic, your position on Shakespeare makes you no better than the Jesus mythomaniacs. I'm truly sorry for that. Your arguments for the scholarly consensus on Jesus are good, but they are completely vitiated by your rejection of same on the Shakespeare question. It's like someone saying, "There was no CIA involvement in 9/11, but the CIA did kill JFK." It shows that you do not follow a coherent procedure for analyzing cultural phenomena.

Whatever.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Although there were several attempts to lead us to the path of Good, they were not successful and the final solution was to send His Son, Jesus, to fulfil God's commandments and save the world.

LOL, you wrote "final solution", probably subconsciously you know just how much it is like Hitler.

"Final Solution": Overview

The term Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a euphemism used by Nazi Germany’s leaders. It referred to the mass murder of Europe’s Jews.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

Anyway, to review some Biblical mythology:

• Yahweh doesn't like how people are behaving, you know, like boys marrying boys, etc, so he murders 99.99999% of the planet. That was 1 "solution" that an alleged omniscient being could have avoided, and very immoral to boot. Hitler would have done the same thing.
• Later on, he warns the pharaoh through Moses to release the jews or he'll throw some frogs on the street. Yeah, that's a solution? Yeah, he knew it wouldn't work since he's allegedly omniscient. Then, locusts and a bunch of other naturally occurring events. Then, he says through Moses again that all the firstborn sons of the Egyptians will die, but he doesn't know who is who, and so he tells the jews to put a mark on their doors so "god" will know which children to murder at night. Yeah, that's the ticket, it was god doing the murdering, not some other people by night. Another non-working solution since it didn't work. Then, later as the jews are fleeing, he allegedly parts the Red Sea through Moses when, as an all-powerful, omniscient being, he could have just teleported everyone to Palestine in the beginning instead of all the silly-game "solution" failures.
• Next, Moses lays down the law through a secret, confidential meeting with the Invisible Man on the mountain. Getting murdered by a bunch of crazy people throwing rocks at you is the punishment for really dumb things. So, another solution that was a complete failure.
• Next, the Lord your god allegedly impregnates a young lady who keeps her virginity. How young was she? We don't know, but she was married at the time! So the half-god child Jesus murders another child, but the book that tells that story is hidden and kept away from proper society. Everyone else just thinks there is a huge gap in the half-god's teenage years narrative. Then, later Jesus tells everyone, "hey, you know all that crap in the laws you would get murdered for? Yeah, that was all bullshit." His bad. Now you just have to believe in him to be saved and go to Heaven.
• But that's not the final solution. The half-god, after being crucified and so-called "dying," is supposed to come again. Come again? That's when the whole planet will be murdered and either be sent to Hell (or not exist in some versions) or go to Heaven. You just have to believe in the cult to be saved...wickedness doesn't matter anymore.

And people repeat this crap with a straight face.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Although there were several attempts to lead us to the path of Good, they were not successful and the final solution was to send His Son, Jesus, to fulfil God's commandments and save the world.

LOL, you wrote "final solution", probably subconsciously you know just how much it is like Hitler.

This also brings up the tiny issue of why was the crucifixion necessary? It is said to have been needed to save us... you know... because of sin... but it seems peculiar that Yahweh would be required to do anything... rather than to choose we are saved. Is Yahweh god or not?

The entire premise that Jesus had to die on the cross to save mankind from sin is the most preposterous fan fiction ever!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

^From the point of view of someone who accepts the scholarly consensus on both Jesus and Shakespeare as historic, your position on Shakespeare makes you no better than the Jesus mythomaniacs. I'm truly sorry for that. Your arguments for the scholarly consensus on Jesus are good, but they are completely vitiated by your rejection of same on the Shakespeare question. It's like someone saying, "There was no CIA involvement in 9/11, but the CIA did kill JFK." It shows that you do not follow a coherent procedure for analyzing cultural phenomena.

Whatever.

I wonder why he's not much liked here.

 

[Brunswick1954]

LOL. Given the wide diversity of opinions offered here, which question would you like me to address? First come, first served.

 

[pood]

LOL. Given the wide diversity of opinions offered here, which question would you like me to address? First come, first served.

Why not start with the very first reply you got, and work from there?

 

[bilby]

However, instead of listening to him, we crucified him and hung him up like a murderer.

We?

Yeah, I am pretty sure I never crucified anyone.

Although admittedly there are some periods in my youth when I was drinking heavily, where I have very hazy memories of what I actually did.

Still, an actual crucifixion, of a dude who spoke Aramaic and lived two thousand years ago, is something I would at least expect one of my slightly more sober friends to mention.

"Hey, remember that night when you drank two bottles of Thunderbird, and affixed the son of God to a cross, and then you threw up outside the kebab shop? Man, you were so wasted!".