In an (easy) word -- no. That is because Christianity is a broad, vast tradition that includes many schools of thought that do not take the Bible literally. Hard to believe, I know, but there it is. In fact, today there are probably more denomination that do not take the Bible literally than those that do.

So as Christianity is in some circles a philosophy, no, it cannot be debunked. Some even take the resurrection and the promise of resurrection as symbols.

I am not Christian and never really have been, but I do go to UU (not often, but occasionally). Last time I was there, the pastor gave a fascinating lecture that included looking at George Carlin's ideas about the Christian god. He pointed out NO ONE believes in that god. (Not only atheists don't believe. No one believes.) That is because that god is just a caricature. I am rather tired of people turning Christianity or anything else into a caricature of a belief system and then sneering at their own handiwork. If you seriously want to examine Christianity, take a good history class. After you have taken in the Gnostics, the Quakers, the Eastern Orthodox, the early church, the Ecumenical, the Jesuits and few other schools of Christian thought, at least you will have some idea what you are passing on judgment on.

Christianity, like many other religions, can swirl out to include agnostics and atheists.

Can you debunk Christian fundamentalists? Sure. But it seems a waste of time to me. In other news, evolution is proven and the climate is changing. I'm sorry! Did I yawn?

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> Can you debunk Christian fundamentalists? Sure.
> But it seems a waste of time to me. In other news,
> evolution is proven and the climate is changing.
> I'm sorry! Did I yawn?

Probably the central tenet of Christianity is the tenet
that human beings are destined for an after-life, but
are prohibited from a blissful continuation, due to
unremitted "sin" -- and that a universal vicarious
atonement has been made, for those who will believe it.

Eliminate this foundational doctrine (as has been done
in some instances) and the "Christianity" that emerges
is something far different than what is offered in most
churches these days.

The Unitarians long ago started the ball rolling, by
deciding that Jesus the son of Mary was not a god, nor
a member of a triune godhead. That conclusion evolved
into an understanding that Jesus death (supposing it
were real) did not effect a supernatural atonement --
and that the very notion of an "after-life" was debatable.

Eliminate what the Unitarians decided to eliminate, and
the remainder of Christian teachings are greatly undermined.

Not all of them -- perhaps not much of what was in place
prior to the rise of primitive "Apostolic Christianity."
But, still, so much of the religion's doctrine is taken
away, that its proponents have little left to proselytize
upon. No "sin" -- no "hell" -- no "salvation" -- and no
"kingdom of heaven"... at least, not in the literal,
commonly understood sense of those terms.

A compelling case can be made for thus eliminating much of
Christianity. Paradoxically, some of its mythology might
thus actually be salvaged -- as symbolic and as parable.
Would even one in a thousand contemporary Christians be open
to such a radical (as in going back to the "roots") debunking
of Christianity?

I doubt it.

Check back in another 1000 years.

UD

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
George Carlin's
> ideas about the Christian god. He pointed out NO
> ONE believes in that god. (Not only atheists don't
> believe. No one believes.) That is because that
> god is just a caricature. I am rather tired of
> people turning Christianity or anything else into
> a caricature of a belief system and then sneering
> at their own handiwork.

Everyone loves a fire and strawmen burn very well.

But Carlin wasn't making a straw man, he was satirizing (very well I should add). I know you know the difference, janeeliot.

So it goes...

Human

(By the way, you don't post often enough.)

She's already gone. Janeeliot doesn't discuss. She bombs and bails.

I also see her mostly only post about Christianity while claiming she's an atheist.

I know her personally and from another board and she is an atheist.

fidget Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also see her mostly only post about Christianity
> while claiming she's an atheist.


Are you kidding, fidget? No one talks God & Christianity more than atheists. They're obsessed with what they deem silly and non-existent. It's kinda weird, when you think about it.

Good point.

How soon after you abandon the defining characteristics of an idea does the idea become something different than it was before? At what point is Christianity no longer Christianity? At 50%, 75%, or 100% metaphor. What if you lose the personal savior aspect at the 75% mark? Is it still Christianity?

Interesting question.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/

Thanks, I will hit it this evening.

I'm sorry, did you say something? It's hard to understand you through all the sneering and snarkiness.

The claims of Christianity as laid down in their scriptures sure as hell can be and have been thoroughly debunked.

Christians have no access to special supernatural information on the nature of reality. They have no special claim to morality. Their organizations are as legitimate as a table full of me and my friends stuffing our faces with pizza and cola while battling orcs and Minotaurs in an epic week-long Dungeons and Dragons campaign to clear the catacombs of Azaroth of both beast and booty.

Don't like my trite and unfair comparison? Too damned bad. When you argue using snark, expect it in kind.

Whatever. I went to the local Episcopalian church once. Their motto is "We take the Bible seriously, not literally." Christians who do not believe in the flood, do believe in evolution, do believe in the descent of man, take the virgin birth and any walking on water with a hefty dose of salt are a dime a dozen. They are at least as often met with as those that are invested in those beliefs. But if it gives someone a kick to "debunk" those notions, makes them feel superior to others, they should spend their time that way, right? Especially if they just left Mormonism and feel they have been foolish and fooled and would feel better about life if they could prove others are foolish and fooled, too.

I can't agree with your central teachings of Christianity. Here are the Gnostics:

Salvation: A person attains salvation by learning secret knowledge of their spiritual essence: a divine spark of light or spirit. They then have the opportunity to escape from the prison of their bodies at death. Their soul can ascend to be reunited with the Supreme God at the time of their death. Gnostics divided humanity into three groups:
* The spiritual, who would be saved irrespective of their behavior while on earth.
* The Soulish, who could be saved if they followed the Gnostic path.
* The carnal who are hopelessly lost.
Gnostics also believed only they interpreted Jesus' message correctly. So -- not your definition of Christianity.

Here is the Quakers:

a belief in the possibility of direct, unmediated communion with the Divine (historically expressed by George Fox in the statement, "Christ is come to teach his people himself"); and

• a commitment to living lives that outwardly attest to this inward experience.

Again -- not recognizable as your idea of central Christian teachings.

In the same post that you lambast everyone for not knowing near as much as you, you demonstrate your own lack of comprehension.

Gnostic beliefs are so varied that it is almost embarrassing that you lumped them all together.

Oh and Quakers, even if half of them are Pluralists, which isn't even close, the rest would still be the Christians who aren't ecumenical but damn close.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Gnostic beliefs are so varied that it is almost
> embarrassing that you lumped them all together.
...

Like any other social movement, not regulated by a
strong central authority, the adherents of gnostic ideas
differed widely throughout time and geography.

If I had a time-machine, I'd be curious to go back and
take a look at the Gnostic Cathars of southern France --
that is, before the Pope exterminated them in a crusade.

I'd be equally curious to see what Jewish gnosticism
looked like 2000 years ago. I suppose it had very few
practitioners, but perhaps some of them melded into
the very earliest Christianity.

All in all, I'd boil gnosticism down to the precept that
the Kingdom of God is within you (plural or singular)
and that there never was a need for a hierophant running
the "church." --- That, and a whole lot of unbelievable
metaphysics that detracted more than it added to the basic
religion. Maybe the Pope did us (and them) a favor...

UD

God, you guys are a hoot and half! I didn't lambast anyone for anything! I just pointed out THE PERFECTLY OBVIOUS you can't "debunk" Christianity because it is difficult to even take in what it is. Can you "debunk" something you don't really understand? No.

I am perfectly aware of how varied JUST THE GNOSTICS are. Thanks so much for thinking of me! I'm always treated like a dim child and lectured when I post! Thanks for the patronization and condescension! Good thing I didn't leave Mormonism because I found that behavior insufferable. Oh wait. I did. I didn't lump anything. My point -- thanks for making it for me! -- is that Christianity is too varied to be stereotyped and "debunked." Why just the Gnostics alone can't be stereotyped -- so good luck "debunking" their various beliefs.

There are much better questions than Can I turn Christianity into a Caricature So I Can Laugh at Christians and Feel Much Better About All the Money I Lost on Tithing? (You can! But are you sure that is "recovery"?)

Here are a few Much Better Questions

1. Why are posters on this board so chronically angry and unpleasant? What is that about? What is gained?

2. Why does it make posters angry to think that Christianity is more complex than they thought? Wouldn't that (just logically speaking) make them happy -- that is wasn't just people believing silly things like the flood really happened? What is your investment in Christians (or Mormons or anyone) being stupid? Do you get something out of that?

In short, why do you start screaming in the middle of what is supposed to be a intellectual discussion? Isn't the screaming -- sorta emotional rather than -- ya'; know -- that "rational" thing at which believers fail but you excel?

Screaming?

FYI: My response was to dalebroadhurst.

For the rest of you, you might want to figure out your animus -- or not. Hey -- it's YOUR animus. You have to live with it day and night. I don't.

Sonoma

No.

No animus. Believe me, I'm on your team.


It's important to note that George Carlin is *supposed* to make caricatures, and we don't "sneer" we laugh. That's a good thing.

But I agree with you that when someone like Dawkins, a scientist, sets up a caricature for others to sneer at it is, to say the least, unseemly. It's tiresome, really.

Of course Dawkins and those like him will respond that Christianity lends itself too easily or only to caricature, which of course begs the question.

As I said, in the end we all like fire and straw men burn well.

" I am rather tired of people turning Christianity or anything else into a caricature of a belief system and then sneering at their own handiwork"

Christianity (or if you prefer, the christianities) made ITSELF into a caricature of a belief system.

It's not our fault for noticing!

sonoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Christianity (or if you prefer, the
> christianities) made ITSELF into a caricature of a
> belief system.
...

These days I'm getting more than a little concerned over
the devolution of some (many?) Southern Baptist congregations
into the 21st century version of the Kluklux movement. All
that's missing, it seems, are the Knights Templar white sheets
for horse and doctrinally pure night-rider.

Don't get me wrong -- I once served as an pastoral intern
in an American Baptist Convention church in Ohio. I'd never
paint all Baptists, AoGs, Pentecostals, etc. with the same
brush. But I do see a lot of them lapsing into a kind of
religion more appropriate to Salem witchcraft burnings than
the spreading of a gospel of brotherly love and selflessness.

UD



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2014 06:38PM by dalebroadhurst.

I agree Uncle Dale. They concern me too,but that isn't really the point here.I think the point is that many Christians are very different from the ones you mention

Christianity has already been debunked by its own followers refusal to believe in it or follow it. They would much rather morph it.

Christianity has already shattered into religious shrapnel, each piece capable of poisoning an entire society.

The idea that the sacrifice of the quality of this life for the next is a lofty and desirable concept is so toxic it can mix with almost any culture and erode the efficacy of the most intellectual and talented people.

One has only to look at what it did to the Arabs, who invented our number system, algebra and chess. What have they innovated lately? Yep - too busy blowing things up for Allah.

Or Christianity. By all rights, Spain should be the most powerful country in the world, having discovered the treasure of the New World. Alas, their embodiment of the Arab culture gave them "pointe de honor" as their code of ethics -- which, loosely translated means "Hurray for me and f*ck you." They were quite willing to die for what they believed (Christianity teaches the value of martyrs as well as Islam, starting with Jesus). And so they did. And over their dead bodies, other countries carted off the loot.

Christianity can't be disproved any more than atoms can be reassembled after a nuclear explosion. Still existing, they are in unrecognizable form, still clinging to the name for legitimacy.

Even Mormonism, which once prides itself as being "other" has turned itself into a butt-licking parody of what its founder had in mind when he said his followers were a peculiar people. He would be nauseated if he were alive seeing them begging to be accepted as "Christian" when the made-up standard allowing a church to call itself that is belief in the TRINITY, a concept Jesus himself never heard of.


Anagrammy

Jane,you cannot argue with people who know little about any beliefs other than Mormon or fundamentalism and who cannot or will not realize that Christianity is very diverse, but thank you for trying. I also find it amusing that some of the snarkiest posters are calling you snarky. Lol

I might be guilty of what I am about to say.

It is one thing to know you are being snarky and another thing altogether to be ignorant of how ignorant you sound.

Really. I am ignorant and you.are not? How special for you.

I admitted before I made the statement that it might apply to me.

<Bats Eyes>
<Blows Kisses to Bona>

You're too precious for words.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2014 07:01PM by En Sabah Nur.

Ahh amor...

Gurl, you're just a mess...