Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The silliness of Christianity

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» The silliness of Christianity

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

This will be an on going article that I have decided to write up detailing aspects of Christianity that I find silly. I will use the bible for some cases and Christians themselves in others.

Chapter 1: (God the reactionary)

I want to take the "fall of man" as this chapters topic. What is the point in casting man out because of some offense? Shouldn't god have seen this coming a mile away? Unless this god had no idea that it would happen. Or was it planned all along and set up for man to purposely fall? I mean from the story in the bible, I can get the impression just by how it is told that it is a complete set up.

God shows up, gives the warning not to partake of the forbidden fruit. Then wanders off. A short time later he returns trying to find his two prized creations only to find them hiding from him. Once they confess that they broke the rule, he casts them out and curses the female. How convenient is that and not only that but didn't he know this was going to happen at the moment he is ripping Adams rib from his chest to make Eve in the first place? It seems a little silly that he never let on that Adam would eventually be kicked out. But this is my point, that god is a reactionary as if he has no idea what is about to happen.

Along these same lines is the flood story. I mean the whole story itself is pointless if you think about it. If man eventually is going to turn towards evil and require god to destroy everything, what is the point in letting it continue then? If god knew the outcome of events, why didn't he know that humanity would eventually turn evil and he would feel inclined to destroy it? This is another clue that he has no idea what is about to happen, and just reacts when things are to the point he doesn't like. Christians sight this all the time but they can't see what it actually spells out. Just like they use armageddon theories to scare people into becoming followers of Jesus. If god is going to destroy the world again, what was the point of destroying it all the other times? He lets Noah and his family live, for what purpose? Because they would supply the world full of good people? Well if these people eventually turn evil, then why wouldn't god have realized that? Unless god does not know what the results are going to be.

The bible is full of these kinds of reactionary stories. The Tower of Babel, the Cain and Abel story are to name a few more. But just about every occurrence is nothing but a reactionary event as if god had no idea what was about to happen until it happened, and then got mad about it. A totally humanistic attitude and one that can be seen to be childish. When you don't like something, just destroy it. When you don't like someone, just kill them. When your favorite things are threatened, just murder the opposition. When your chosen people can't find wives, just allow them to take what ever women they want.

Even the self sacrifice of himself to himself is a result of reactionary measure. If god had too high of an expectation on humanity wouldn't he have realized this before he even created humans to begin with? This clearly points out that he is reacting to his own expectations and trying to solve it through self sacrifice.

So in conclusion of this chapter. If the god of the bible is accurate, then this god does not know any future outcomes until they happen. You could try to make the argument that from god's perspective everything happened all within the same instant moment and thus knew all events at exactly the same time, but they only appear to be reactionary. The problem is, if god knew future events, he would have known the end result even before creating anything from the very beginning. It would be like you have an idea to build something, but before you even start on the project, you know that it is going to fail. So why continue with it? Or why continue if you know that you will have to destroy this project?

@Krumple,

Christianity is not just some bunch of ideas, but the people who accept them as fact; so silly or not, I would recommend you to be more political, because if you would change a mind you must change the way people feel first, and an attack only hardens people to a change of feeling... If folks get all hurt and defensive you can forget any meaningful change...

@Fido,

Fido;156144 wrote:

Christianity is not just some bunch of ideas, but the people who accept them as fact; so silly or not, I would recommend you to be more political, because if you would change a mind you must change the way people feel first, and an attack only hardens people to a change of feeling... If folks get all hurt and defensive you can forget any meaningful change...

I agree with this, you need a certain sneakness to change someone's mind =)

But I agree that christianism is full of contradictions. Its a nice point you got there, god is either childish or, for some reason, he planned everything from the start, including the eventual occurance of evil and his own interferences.

Neither option fits with the christian description of an infinitely wise and merciful god.

@Krumple,

Don't you think the Bible is man seeking god, not god speaking to man?
The description of god in the Bible does not answer whether there is a god or not.
It only shows what man (and for that matter man from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago) thought about the nature and action of god. This is before the enlightenment, the age of reason and the age of science. Dont you think our conceptions of the nature of god and of gods action in the world would/should be different now?
Do you believe in god? Not what men say about god?

The Bible has value other than its literal truth or fundamentalist interpretation, for the stories in the Bible deal with timeless issues of human nature, human relations and mans conception of his relationship to nature and to God.

It is always ironic when both atheists and fundamentalist share the same literal interpretation of scripture. The truth of god has nothing to do with the truth of the Bible.

@Krumple,

My only concern here is why are you so bothered by my(and other Christians) beliefs? There are rational explanations that can be given for every one of your concerns(if there were not the religion would have been vanquished long before either of us came along) but I'm not even sure that is your point. And I am almost certain that it would be outright rejected as a nonsensical answer even if I did give my explanations(I will though). I don't know that I've ever been upset enough with a persons religious beliefs to feel the need to attack them.

I have shared the gospel with people I've felt led to do so with but never once have I felt the need to call their beliefs "silliness" or any other term of the sort. Typically I share what I believe and why I believe it and let them decide. Part of me always feels compelled to answer any questions(such as these) that people raise because I think the bible says we should be willing to defend the gospel but at point it becomes less about a mutual respect and more about lampooning what you consider 'silliness' and that is disheartening.

I would wonder why it is or rather where it is that you have acquired such certainty about spirituality as to be able to criticize anther's religious beliefs.

I know I personally have a spiritual nature. I have a desire for such things. I've always had a desire for such. I've always had a curiosity about God and an existence that transcends this one. As C.S. Lewis once said "Creatures are not born with [natural]desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." (Note: I added the natural) And it seems rather egotistical for someone to boldly state that such things are nonsense when I know better. I know I've personally been enriched through my spirituality and I can't imagine existing without it.

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 07:33 PM ----------

Nevertheless my responses:

what was the point of casting the people out?

The bible explicitly states they were 'cast' out because the tree of life was there and God did not want man to live forever in their sin. Tell me what's worse.....being wrong or being wrong and not knowing it? IMO, I might would say the latter because at least if you know you're wrong there's the chance you can correct it.

Shouldn't God have seen it coming from a mile away?

He did! God knew from the beginning it would happen. Not because He wanted it to happen but because He had foreknowledge of their free-willed choice. God's only option was to figure out a way to rectify the situation. But it goes even deeper than that. God, knowing our psychology, had to let us fail first because otherwise we would think that we could make it on our own strength or that we 'deserved' everything we were getting or that we were entitled to it. We probably would have even placed ourselves ahead of God or equal with God. Same thing with Old Testament law. OT law was supposed to make us ''righteous before God'', but it failed to do that according to Paul(Romans 8:3 etc..), so it's quite obvious that, failure, was the point all along. That attempting to obey laws alone was not the path to righteousness.

Or was it planned all along and set up for man to purposely fall?

You fail to realize that God could both know ahead of time that it was going to happen, while also not causing it to happen. Free will and that whole thing. As I said, if God wishes to maintain our free will then His goal should not be preventing the fall but rescuing us from the fall. And Hallelujah that He has.

what is the point in letting it continue then?

so that we could learn. . . why do we fall off the horse? Why let anything 'difficuly' occur? Because it is through such things that we learn who we truly are. Without the 'trials' of this life, how could anyone know what they were truly capable of...what they were made of? What kind of person they were? As Arjuna said in a thread once, the trials are only a medium by which greatness can be known.

He lets Noah and his family live, for what purpose?

Because Noah's faith was counted as righteousness before God. And because through his bloodline the savior of the world would come. Let us not forget that Noah warned everyone for 120 years that a flood was coming and to repent.

@Fido,

Fido;156144 wrote:

Christianity is not just some bunch of ideas, but the people who accept them as fact; so silly or not, I would recommend you to be more political, because if you would change a mind you must change the way people feel first, and an attack only hardens people to a change of feeling... If folks get all hurt and defensive you can forget any meaningful change...

Yes this is a possibility however; there is more than one way to give another perspective. If they just go onto the defensive, it would not matter what was said, they would more than likely still go onto the defensive.

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 05:43 PM ----------

prothero;156164 wrote:

Don't you think the Bible is man seeking god, not god speaking to man?
The description of god in the Bible does not answer whether there is a god or not.
It only shows what man (and for that matter man from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago) thought about the nature and action of god. This is before the enlightenment, the age of reason and the age of science. Dont you think our conceptions of the nature of god and of gods action in the world would/should be different now?
Do you believe in god? Not what men say about god?

The Bible has value other than its literal truth or fundamentalist interpretation, for the stories in the Bible deal with timeless issues of human nature, human relations and mans conception of his relationship to nature and to God.

It is always ironic when both atheists and fundamentalist share the same literal interpretation of scripture. The truth of god has nothing to do with the truth of the Bible.

Well my over all point is that the bible is just man's idea of a god, but since it is so flawed, I call into question the concept itself being flawed. I don't feel that I am using a firm literal interpretation of the bible, hence the line of questioning. But if you think the solution is to use some vague interpretation, like reading of a poem then it becomes useless because you can read absolutely anything then. What ever you want it to say, that's what you would suggest it is saying. That to me is not any kind of truth but rather just wishful imagination. For the bible to be useful it would have to have a clear point and not some convoluted underline hidden meaning.

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 06:05 PM ----------

Amperage;156172 wrote:

I would wonder why it is or rather where it is that you have acquired such certainty about spirituality as to be able to criticize anther's religious beliefs.

Spirituality is a pretty vague concept. I have heard all sorts of claims that people had vast spirituality which allowed them some special abilities. But these abilities have been debunked so they call into question those peoples spirituality. The word is so misused, and can't actually be weighted so I am skeptical that it even exists. You can't actually pick out a spiritual person and on the other hand you can fool people into believing that you are a spiritual person.

Amperage;156172 wrote:

I know I personally have a spiritual nature. I have a desire for such things. I've always had a desire for such. I've always had a curiosity about God and an existence that transcends this one.

So have I but are you going to say I am spiritual? I think the word you are looking for is curious.

Amperage;156172 wrote:

what was the point of casting the people out?

The bible explicitly states they were 'cast' out because the tree of life was there and God did not want man to live forever in their sin. Tell me what's worse.....being wrong or being wrong and not knowing it? IMO, I might would say the latter because at least if you know you're wrong there's the chance you can correct it.

But don't you see there is an artificial rule. Just obey god and if you don't obey that is the crime. Why does obeying have to be the rule? So it is completely convoluted problem that god would have created on purpose.

Amperage;156172 wrote:

Shouldn't God have seen it coming from a mile away?

He did! God knew from the beginning it would happen. Not because He wanted it to happen but because He had foreknowledge of their free-willed choice. God's only option was to figure out a way to rectify the situation. But it goes even deeper than that. God, knowing our psychology, had to let us fail first because otherwise we would think that we could make it on our own strength or that we 'deserved' everything we were getting or that we were entitled to it. We probably would have even placed ourselves ahead of God or equal with God. Same thing with Old Testament law. OT law was supposed to make us ''righteous before God'', but it failed to do that according to Paul(Romans 8:3 etc..), so it's quite obvious that, failure, was the point all along. That attempting to obey laws alone was not the path to righteousness.

But there is nothing more than the law to obey, the only difference is the law was slightly altered but it is still there. Instead of follow this law, its follow this person or else. Nothing different.

Amperage;156172 wrote:

Or was it planned all along and set up for man to purposely fall?

You fail to realize that God could both know ahead of time that it was going to happen, while also not causing it to happen. Free will and that whole thing. As I said, if God wishes to maintain our free will then His goal should not be preventing the fall but rescuing us from the fall. And Hallelujah that He has.

I don't see how interference would affect free will. This is going to be my next chapters topic so I don't want to go too far into this right now but if the argument is that if god reveals himself it would disrupt free will, then why is he shown in the bible to reveal himself on multiple occasions? I mean if what you say about it ruining free will, then didn't he ruin their free will to reveal himself to them? Your argument doesn't hold true to what the bible proclaims, so either you are wrong, or the bible is wrong, which is it?

Amperage;156172 wrote:

what is the point in letting it continue then?

so that we could learn. . . why do we fall off the horse? Why let anything 'difficulty' occur? Because it is through such things that we learn who we really are. Without the 'trials' of this life, how could anyone know what they were truly capable of.....good or bad? As Arjuna said in a thread once, the trials are only a medium by which greatness can be known.

If it is the trials that make the person, then why would being a follower or a believer be important then? Couldn't I just be a good person and reject god but most Christians say that does not work. So I do not buy your argument that it is all about the trials of life to see if you step up to them. A person who rejects the concept of god is said that their actions do not matter. If that is the case then it was never about the trials of life. Unless you mean there is only one trial, obey.

Amperage;156172 wrote:

He lets Noah and his family live, for what purpose?

Because Noah's faith was counted as righteousness before God. And because through his bloodline the savior of the world would come. Let us not forget that Noah warned everyone for 120 years that a flood was coming and to repent.

Then right after the flood happened he had sex with his daughters. I mean his daughters basically raped him. Waited until he was drunk and planed to use him to repopulate the earth. Sounds like a righteous man to me. But to actually respond to what you said. He warned people for a 120 years? When did he have time to do this? He was busy building the ship right? Not only that but how silly is it that these animals came from all the corners of the earth magically. So the mountain elk of Canada swam across the ocean to the middle east, to climb onto a boat and then after the flood, it swam back across the ocean back into Canada? There would be many species of animals that would have to have made a very long journey just to get onto a ship. It is ridiculous.

@Krumple,

Krumple;156175 wrote:

So have I but are you going to say I am spiritual? I think the word you are looking for is curious.

we all have a spiritual nature whether we like it or not. It is part of our being. Our connection to God.

Krumple;156175 wrote:

But don't you see there is an artificial rule. Just obey god and if you don't obey that is the crime. Why does obeying have to be the rule?

You are really hung up on rules....obeying is no more a rule than aspiring to do the right thing is a rule. Do you consider doing the right thing, a rule? Because if you aspire to do the right thing you are "obeying" what God has written on your heart without even realizing it.

Krumple;156175 wrote:

I don't see how interference would affect free will. This is going to be my next chapters topic so I don't want to go too far into this right now but if the argument is that if god reveals himself it would disrupt free will, then why is he shown in the bible to reveal himself on multiple occasions? I mean if what you say about it ruining free will, then didn't he ruin their free will to reveal himself to them? Your argument doesn't hold true to what the bible proclaims, so either you are wrong, or the bible is wrong, which is it?

Where did I say anything like that? I said He can't force us to choose correctly if He wants to maintain our free will. Therefore, since He loves us and doesn't wish to see us perish in our sin, He is compelled to send a savior rather than make us robots.

Krumple;156175 wrote:

If it is the trials that make the person, then why would being a follower or a believer be important then? Couldn't I just be a good person and reject god but most Christians say that does not work. So I do not buy your argument that it is all about the trials of life to see if you step up to them. A person who rejects the concept of god is said that their actions do not matter. If that is the case then it was never about the trials of life. Unless you mean there is only one trial, obey.

It's not the trials that make the person, but the trials are a means of realizing what you wouldn't otherwise. Of course you can be a good person and reject God, no one here is saying you can't. Trials can be used as a refining tool though. You asked what is the point in letting life continue when we're just going to keep repeating our mistakes and I answered so we (hopefully) learn from them. Hopefully we'll become better for it. Hopefully we'll see that we need God. Hopefully we'll change. Course God already knows if we will or not but the thing about people is you have to prove to them something won't work before they'll try something different.

@Krumple,

If no one ever did something silly, nothing would ever happen.

@Krumple,

[QUOTE=Krumple;156175] Well my over all point is that the bible is just man's idea of a god, but since it is so flawed, I call into question the concept itself being flawed. [/QUOTE]I do not see how the notion that the Bible is a human not a divine product proves that there is no god. The major notion of god in the Bible is god as rational, creative and moral agent. The Bible is flawed because man is flawed and religion is flawed for the same reason, because the Bible and religion are human products. If there is a god, the universe is a divine product and so you learn more about god from the universe than from religion and the bible. At the very least your conception of the divine should not ignore or be incoherent with nature and natural law.

[QUOTE=Krumple;156175] I don't feel that I am using a firm literal interpretation of the bible, hence the line of questioning. But if you think the solution is to use some vague interpretation, like reading of a poem then it becomes useless because you can read absolutely anything then. What ever you want it to say, that's what you would suggest it is saying. That to me is not any kind of truth but rather just wishful imagination. [/QUOTE]Most of your arguments use a literal interpretation of scripture. A non literal interpretation would be Genesis I- god as creator, bringing order to the formless void, Genesis 2- the fall of man- alienation or separation of man from god and from nature.
Etc.

[QUOTE=Krumple;156175] For the bible to be useful it would have to have a clear point and not some convoluted underline hidden meaning. [/QUOTE] You know you just have to appreciate how much of western art, literature, music and civilization has Biblical themes. The stories, conflicts and human interactions recorded in the Bible are timeless depictions of human nature and the human condition. They could all be fiction and still have immense value as a source about human nature and mans existential problem of relating to nature, mortality, suffering and the question of god.

Our worldview changes as our scientific knowledge changes; this change is not regarded as a weakness but as strength, an advance of understanding. Yet, somehow the notion that our understanding of religious conceptions might need to change is regarded as proof that they are all fictional and imaginary. It is not a valid argument.
"Religion will not regain its former power in the world until it learns to accept change in the same spirit as science" A.N. Whitehead.
Yes the supernatural interventionist vision of the divine needs to be modified and examined as does the notion of God as divine ruler, lawgiver and judge. These are attributes more appropriately attributed to Caesar than to God.

@Krumple,

Krumple;156100 wrote:

Shouldn't god have seen this coming a mile away?

God likes to micromanage.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;156232 wrote:

God likes to micromanage.

Possibility =)

I was going to give a big answer to this thread, but I accidentally lost the answer I was writing, and I can be bothered to write it again =) So im just gonna adress an important point:

Amperage;156180 wrote:

Where did I say anything like that? I said He can't force us to choose correctly if He wants to maintain our free will. Therefore, since He loves us and doesn't wish to see us perish in our sin, He is compelled to send a savior rather than make us robots.

If god creates us, and if god knows everything, he therefore created us knowing exactly ever choice we would make. This means we have no free will before god, and are no different from robots before god. What means that if we make incorrect choices, its because he wanted so.

@manored,

manored;156563 wrote:

If god creates us, and if god knows everything, he therefore created us knowing exactly ever choice we would make. This means we have no free will before god, and are no different from robots before god. What means that if we make incorrect choices, its because he wanted so.

how does that follow? Does knowing what you will choose imply that you didn't freely choose it? I know every choice Ben Franklin ever made but that doesn't mean he didn't make the choices he made of his own free will

@Amperage,

Amperage;156574 wrote:

how does that follow? Does knowing what you will choose imply that you didn't freely choose it? I know every choice Ben Franklin ever made but that doesn't mean he didn't make the choices he made of his own free will

Indeed, you would not know about his choices unless he made them in the first place.

@Amperage,

Amperage;156574 wrote:

how does that follow? Does knowing what you will choose imply that you didn't freely choose it? I know every choice Ben Franklin ever made but that doesn't mean he didn't make the choices he made of his own free will

We did choose it, but it was god who gave us the ability to choose and adjusted it into working order. And, if god is also omniscient, then this means that even before creating us he knew we would sin. He could have made us differently, but he didnt. So he wanted us to sin.

@manored,

manored;156717 wrote:

We did choose it, but it was god who gave us the ability to choose and adjusted it into working order. And, if god is also omniscient, then this means that even before creating us he knew we would sin. He could have made us differently, but he didnt. So he wanted us to sin.

Now you are talking about God's omnipotence, not his omniscience. The issue is whether God's omniscience (alone) is incompatible with free will. The answer seems to be, no.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156824 wrote:

Now you are talking about God's omnipotence, not his omniscience. The issue is whether God's omniscience (alone) is incompatible with free will. The answer seems to be, no.

I would think gods omniscience would play fundamentally the same role as hard determinism (there would be only one possible future or course of events, in fact the future would in some sense already exist in the eternal realm) and thus the breakdown for compatibilism and incompatibilism would remain pretty much the same as with hard determinism? I never know what soft determinism means with respect to the possiblities of the future (one or many)?

@Krumple,

Intelligent people normally don't take the bible literally but more of a story with a deeper meaning.

The bible was written by men inspired by God, so don't take everything you read from holy books literally.

Look up Phiolo of alexandria or St Augstine.. You can always watch did Darwin Kill God on Youtube, it's a good BBC doco explaining genesis.

@Krumple,

I think your presuppositions and overall interpretation of the bible (and the Judeo-Christian god for that matter) may be off base. Certainly there are people that are biblical literalists that think that God breathed every word of the bible and Moses, Paul, etc. just wrote them down. You probably won't find many of them here or open to discussion in general.

A better way to view the bible is in light of the historical context and its value as an inspired work (like the Qur'an, writings of Buddha, etc.).

No one seems to take Homer's Iliad literally, nor do they think that it is meant to be a news account of the 5th century BCE. Why the bible?

Krumple;156100 wrote:

God shows up, gives the warning not to partake of the forbidden fruit. Then wanders off. A short time later he returns trying to find his two prized creations only to find them hiding from him. Once they confess that they broke the rule, he casts them out and curses the female.

How about a parable - God has our best interests at heart and desires to protect us from evil. But we, in our human nature, desire what is evil as it tempts our human nature. In doing so, we separate ourselves from God.

Krumple;156100 wrote:

Along these same lines is the flood story. I mean the whole story itself is pointless if you think about it. If man eventually is going to turn towards evil and require god to destroy everything, what is the point in letting it continue then?

Although the human race is lost to its own selfishness and evil desires, God desires to rescue it and give it hope for a future. God will give the human race a way out, even when it is faced with destroying itself.

Krumple;156100 wrote:

The bible is full of these kinds of reactionary stories. The Tower of Babel, the Cain and Abel story are to name a few more.

I don't know what you mean exactly by "reactionary stories". Life is full of stories like these: brother betrays brother, men trying to become God. Romeo and Juliet, The Count of Monte Cristo, etc. etc.

Krumple;156100 wrote:

Even the self sacrifice of himself to himself is a result of reactionary measure. If god had too high of an expectation on humanity wouldn't he have realized this before he even created humans to begin with? This clearly points out that he is reacting to his own expectations and trying to solve it through self sacrifice.

To me, this is the best example of a story taken literally really RUINS the point! The point of this is not some dude getting killed on a tree. The point is that we can all achieve "true life". It has been said (someone fill in the author for me please Smile

Few have died that have ever truly lived (or something like that) ...

Cheers!

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156824 wrote:

Now you are talking about God's omnipotence, not his omniscience. The issue is whether God's omniscience (alone) is incompatible with free will. The answer seems to be, no.

But I was talking about both characteristics combined. Since we are discussing the christian god, I didnt make that entirely clear.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that god cant possibly be omnipotent and omniscient, and, at the same time, not want us to sin.

@manored,

manored;157385 wrote:

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that god cant possibly be omnipotent and omniscient, and, at the same time, not want us to sin.

This really got me thinking!

Does omnipotence imply you get everything you want?

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» The silliness of Christianity

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The silliness of Christianity

Quick Links

My Account

able2know