"Christianity" Is A Nearly-Meaningless Term

The term Christianity is nearly meaningless.

Why?

Because the term is a blanket term for virtually anyone who wishes to call him or herself a Christian, self-applied uncritically. And these "Christian beliefs" from one person or group to the next can be wildly different and even contradictory. Yet Christians will often overlook this wide variety when it's to their benefit to do so, and focus on it when they are in an exclusionary mood. This is a bit hypocritical.

Consider: Christians are fond of saying that America is a "Christian nation", yet if one where to press a Calvinist or Presbyterian on the subject, we would soon find out that he or she means, "well, except for those Catholics, as Catholics aren't "True Christians". They're a cult". "And except for the Mormons, they're a cult too, and except for the Nazarenes, and the Baptists, and the Pentecostal snake-handlers...(et al)" "...and in the End of Times, only 5,000 to 10,000 world-wide will go to Paradise in The Rapture, yet America is a 'Christian Nation', and 'Christians' make up the majority of Americans."

Obviously, there is some self-induced duplicity going on here.

When any critical "outsider" makes virtually ANY critical comment at all, they are ripped to shreds by the "Christians", even when he's making a comment that many "Christians" themselves would make. If atheist author Sam Harris said that it's a commonly held Christian belief that they need to seek salvation and the means of salvation is made possible by Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, there would be countless Christians who would look at this as an opportunity to pounce on him and claim his ignorance of Christian theology and dogma, yet many if not most Christians would say exactly the same thing.

Some Christians would say that "True Christians" follow the teachings of Christ, and that Jesus came to set an example and that salvation is within each and every one us, and don't the scriptures say "ye are gods?", and others would say that faith is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, and that "True Christians" are those that are "redeemed" through Christ and accept his sacrifice as payment for their own sins, and yet others, (like Thomas Jefferson), don't even believe in the 'god'-man "magic" Jesus at all, but consider him a philosopher. Some Christians would say that "The Passion" is morbid and a distraction from "the real message", and others would say that The Passion *IS* the point, as he suffered in our stead.


Consider the Neo-Christian idea that "god is good".

Well, we can point to examples in the scriptures where 'god' is threatening to force people to "eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" (Jer 19), or where he is threatening to force fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers in a 'god'-induced drought that is to be sent as punishment (Eze 5:10), and this 'god' EVEN SAYS that this is "evil" (ra' in Hebrew) in Eze 6:10.

Yet those who would contend that "god is good" would try to explain-away these things and how forcing little children to eat their parents as a form of punishment isn't REALLY not-good.

Also, consider the popular Christian idea that the scriptures support the notion that Jesus' birth was a "virgin birth", citing the reference in Mathew 1:23.

It's widely understood that "Emmanuel" noted in this verse is in reference to the "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14, yet the child in Isa 7:14 was to be born in the days of King Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall when attacked. This is more than 700 years BEFORE Jesus is supposed to come about. Was the mother of Immanuel, born 700 years BEFORE Jesus a "virgin"?

"No", we are told, "in Isaiah 7:14, 'almah' means virgin in reference to Jesus's mother Mary, but 'young lady' in reference to the mother of the boy born in the days of Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall".

This is beyond preposterous. (Even if we side-step that 2 Chron 28 tells us that his kingdom DID fall, and 'god' blames Ahaz for 'god' going back on his word).

Such defense of the indefensible is beyond absurd. It's ridiculous and I give it the public ridicule it has so soundly earned and still deserves.

Religion is absurd, and in defending absurdity one becomes absurd.

We can nurture the human spirit and spiritual growth without accepting metaphysical theories about an essence that survives physical death or an after-death "paradise". We can deal with "big questions" without presuming cosmic justice or an elusive space ghost. We can love and care for each other without appeal to magical thinking.

But this involves evolving and stepping out of the Dark Ages.