PDA

View Full Version : Christianity is stupid


David Hume
08-25-2007, 02:42 PM
I give you Chapter IV of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason (copyright expired). The Cliff's Notes version would be simply this: Christianity is stupid. If you need more clarification, read the followin excerpt from one of the most important works of Western thought.

Enjoy.

--------------------------------

IT is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I am going to mention, that the Christian mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.

The ancient mythologists tell us that the race of Giants made war against Jupiter, and that one of them threw a hundred rocks against him at one throw; that Jupiter defeated him with thunder, and confined him afterwards under Mount Etna; and that every time the Giant turns himself, Mount Etna belches fire. It is here easy to see that the circumstance of the mountain, that of its being a volcano, suggested the idea of the fable; and that the fable is made to fit and wind itself up with that circumstance.

The Christian mythologists tell that their Satan made war against the Almighty, who defeated him, and confined him afterwards, not under a mountain, but in a pit. It is here easy to see that the first fable suggested the idea of the second; for the fable of Jupiter and the Giants was told many hundred years before that of Satan.

Thus far the ancient and the Christian mythologists differ very little from each other. But the latter have contrived to carry the matter much farther. They have contrived to connect the fabulous part of the story of Jesus Christ with the fable originating from Mount Etna; and, in order to make all the parts of the story tie together, they have taken to their aid the traditions of the Jews; for the Christian mythology is made up partly from the ancient mythology, and partly from the Jewish traditions.

The Christian mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the garden of Eden in the shape of a snake, or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no ways surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tate is, that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.

After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the church mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit, or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him, (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain) or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women, and doing more mischief. But instead of this, they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole. The secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?

Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded --put Satan into the pit--let him out again--given him a triumph over the whole creation--damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, there Christian mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing [NOTE: The French work has: "yielding to an unrestrained appetite.--Editor.] had eaten an apple.

CheesyMuslim
08-25-2007, 06:52 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. Makes perfect sense.
2. Gawd already knew firsthand that Eve would eat first, and bring the apple to Adam, and that Adam would go ahead and eat, seeing Gawd gave him Eve, from his own flesh and bone: and Adam realized that Gawd was bigger than an apple, so he ate of it.
2.a) Here's where it really gets interesting:
3. And also Gawd, knew that Mary would later give birth of Himself, where he would lay down His life, for his friends, and followers, <No greater thing can a man do than lay down his life for a friend>.
4. So woman started the falling away, then women with Gawd, set in motion the plan of Salvation.
5. Gawd isn't going to just come to Earth and say, someday many thousand of years later after he created everything, *Creation*, "Hey I'm Gawd, and I came to check in with you".
6. Gawd has been here all along, and has been dealing with mankind sense the beginning.
7. He has taught man everything that he knows, and helped with inventions so mankind can prosper.
8. All you see has been given, *By Gawd*.
9. Everything you have seen mankind make, Gawd inspired it, through dreams and speaking through the spirit to man, so they went on to do *Great Things*.
10. Its a fool who says there is no Gawd.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Alonzo
08-25-2007, 06:58 PM
Is this really necessary? First Atheism is stupid and now Christianity is stupid. Come on, we can do better than this.

Jaaaman
08-26-2007, 01:50 AM
Well, David Hume said he was going to create this thread (this morning) I guess because the 'Atheism is stupid' thread pissed him off.

Can one of you Mods lock this thread or at least move it to FP?

Alonzo
08-26-2007, 02:02 AM
No, especially since where have an atheism is stupid thread there's no reason to lock this one.

Jaaaman
08-26-2007, 02:04 AM
David Hume did this just to start shit. That is his whole purpose being here on this board. But whatever, I'll just add him to my slowing growing ignore list.

moses2792796
08-26-2007, 05:17 AM
You can pick and choose details all you like. "Logic" can be manipulated to justify virtually any point of view. Only when you have a holistic view of the cosmos will you see God.

Deadshot
08-26-2007, 12:17 PM
You can pick and choose details all you like. "Logic" can be manipulated to justify virtually any point of view. Only when you have a holistic view of the cosmos will you see God.


If you believe that "'Logic' can be manipulated to justify virtually any point of view." Then you MUST believe the same thing about faith, right?

I mean you have a Christian religion that has a Catholic Dogma and faith that doesn't agree with the Baptists Dogman and faith. You have the RLDS that believes in a way that breaks with their traditional roots of polygamy, which still exists, and claim to be following the "One true word of God."

If Logic can be manipulated, as you say, then Faith can as well.

moses2792796
08-26-2007, 12:26 PM
You can pick and choose details all you like. "Logic" can be manipulated to justify virtually any point of view. Only when you have a holistic view of the cosmos will you see God.


If you believe that "'Logic' can be manipulated to justify virtually any point of view." Then you MUST believe the same thing about faith, right?

I mean you have a Christian religion that has a Catholic Dogma and faith that doesn't agree with the Baptists Dogman and faith. You have the RLDS that believes in a way that breaks with their traditional roots of polygamy, which still exists, and claim to be following the "One true word of God."

If Logic can be manipulated, as you say, then Faith can as well.


Any type of reasoning that originates in the individual can be manipulated in this way, because it only takes in to account one point of view. The only way to truly aspire to truth is through metaphysical principles. This way truth is only such when its universal implications have been considered.

Deadshot
08-26-2007, 12:46 PM
Any type of reasoning that originates in the individual can be manipulated in this way, because it only takes in to account one point of view. The only way to truly aspire to truth is through metaphysical principles. This way truth is only such when its universal implications have been considered.


That's wonderful, moses. But most of us don't deal with life on a "metaphysical" level. Also I don't believe most religions deal with things on a "metaphysical" level.

Ergo, as you admit above, just as Logic can be perverted, so can faith.

moses2792796
08-26-2007, 01:13 PM
And it is for that very reason that endless arguments over them tend to lead nowhere.

Deadshot
08-26-2007, 01:24 PM
And it is for that very reason that endless arguments over them tend to lead nowhere.


Agreed. Though that won't stop us talking about it. :thumbsup:

David Hume
08-26-2007, 04:42 PM
Well, David Hume said he was going to create this thread (this morning) I guess because the 'Atheism is stupid' thread pissed him off.

Can one of you Mods lock this thread or at least move it to FP?


Oh, poor Jaaaman, what, does my thread offend you? Poor thing! Lock the thread? Why didn't I see you advocate for locking the "Atheism is stupid" thread? Hmmm?

I'm not an atheist, so the "Atheism is stupid" thread bothered me not one iota. (Sorry to disappoint you.)

I only provided this thread for some balance. Let the zealots come defend their religion, which is an insult to the true god. Thomas Paine actually MAKES a case that Christianity is not only stupid, but also offensive to god.

Earlier, I posted Part I, Chapter IV of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. It occurred to me that Chapter V seems to be in order this morning. It this chapter, Paine makes the strongest case for the absurdity of the Christian religion. (PS: So much for that "Founding Fathers as Christian mythology" line of BS conservatives enjoy trotting out so much.) Enjoy:

PUTTING aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.

In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan a power equally as great, if not greater, than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterwards to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.

Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.

Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd, less contradictory. But, instead of this they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.

That many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very good lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime) is what I have no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything else in the same manner. There are also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story. The more unnatural anything is, the more is it capable of becoming the object of dismal admiration. [NOTE: The French work has "blind and" preceding dismal."--Editor.]