What is the purpose of christianity then?

[floonine]

IF christianity is a lie, then who cared enough to create such an elaborate lie so many thousands of years ago? If someone does exist... what did they get from it?

I am looking for opinions, so please reply to elaborate your own thoughts.

[Charlatan]

Like all religions Christianity is there to explain the unexplained -- where did we come from and what happens when we die.

These are universal questions that many people need to answer. There is a shared "fear" or uncertainty about dieing and religion provides us a level of comfort against that.

That is the fundament purpose of all religion.

What happens after that is that religions (but not neccessarily all) proivide as system in which to live. A system of rules, customs, mores, etc that dictate how one should live and act.

These rules take the guesswork out of life. They provide a level of comfort in an often confusing world.

This is a true today as it was in the beginning.

It isn't a vast conspiracy. It is just a system that has let people cope.


(the conspiracies come later when nasty people take control of the religion and bend it to their will for their own gain)

[Lebell]

Christianity is not a 'lie'.

It is simply one path that many take to reach a greater reality, IMHO.

[JamesS]

I think of it this way. Hypothetically, if Jesus was just a man, but one disgusted with the 'uncivilized' nature of society back then, what would be the best way to create lasting change? I can think of no better that putting yourself forward as a God to be followed 'or else'.

If Jesus was not a God, just a man who advocated a radical new moral doctrine, pretending to be divine would be the most efficient way to spread his beliefs.

The genius of Jesus, in my opinion, was that he incorporated elements of an existing faith, Judaism, into his religion and then allowed his disciples, after his death, to gradually peel away articles of faith he may have not agreed with (a la dietary restrictions, et cetera) as his own faith slowly gained popularity.

Even if he wasn't the Savior, he was still a pretty together dude, I would say.

[Mael]

Christianity is all about control and power. Control through fear of eternal damnation and power garnered from that fear.

[constant]

I think you guys have explained parts of the whole purpose of Christianity.

Who knows why it was originally thought up. Probably to control people, but Christianity is just so.. human and often just so beautiful the some of the writers or founders of Christianity had good intentions. They were trying to explain life, they were trying to give it meaning. They were writing a legitimate philosophy, too. I don't think anyone can look at the Beatitudes or the law "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" in a negative light.

[Charlatan]

I see the birth of Christianity as this...

1. Jesus. He is a guy that seeks to teach the Jews a new way of living. One that says all of us are holy and can reach the "kingdom of heaven" not just the pious and the priests. He also taught that we must love and forgive all (including many of the outcasts of society: tax collectors, prostitutes, etc).

These teachings were quite radical at the time and viewed as sacreligious. He was killed for his beliefs.

2. In the following years his disciples struggled to keep his message alive. They wrote a number of "Gospels" telling his story. Each of these stories had an audience and a purpose behind them. The main purpose was to convince people that Jesus was the jewish messiah. Not all of the stories were concerned with him raising from the dead but that has become the main message. That he died for our sins and rose up to heaven to be with God.

Again, a radical message but in my opinion something that was added later. How better to drive home his message that we can all reach "the Kingdom" than by spreading the word that he actually did rise again... Powerful words.

If you live life like he did you too can achieve this. Powerful indeed.

3. Paul. To this point Christianity is a Jewish sect only. Paul represents a break in that. He says he is visited by God and told that Jesus' message is for everyone and that followers who believe in Jesus and his message can also achieve "the Kingdom" without keeping the Jewish laws (eating Kosher, etc.).

This opens the door to the Gentiles and Paul goes forth to spead the Good News. This is happening somewhere around 30 to 50 years after Jesus has died.

The purpose isn't to decieve people it is that they feel their message is a good one. That if you live like Jesus you can be redeemed and will rise up to heaven.

4. Paul's letters are all written to specific cities that he has visited address issues that have arisen in his absence (false priests, differing points of view, etc). He writes his letter to give confidence and set down rules for people that are confused.

At this point Paul is like a door to door salesman spreading the story of Jesus. He gets a few people to buy his message but sometime that get it wrong or have questions about the message. So he sets them straight. There are also a number of other salesmen out there selling different messages. He has to struggle against these "false prophets" and make sure his message wins out... it does.

The nastiness of Christianity came much later as people in power used the message for their own gains. I believe that in the early days the message was relatively a good one.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? I don't know. I don't think it matters. What matters is that people believe it is a great reward for living a good life.



Personally I don't need a reward in some after life for living a good life... I get my rewards here and now.

[virus]

beautifully written, Charlatan. i'd just like to point out that many men in the early rabbinical movement were documented as saying things amazingly similar to jesus years before his historical birth would be. so jesus was radical but not necessarily unique. this does not discount anything you said, just a note that others at the time were thinking like him.

there were lots of "false messiahs" at the time as well, some with stricking similarities to jesus. jesus was different from the others in that none were ever mentioned to produce miracles. check out dionysis and osiris for a few similarities in miracle court.

i love Charlatan's conclusion, he is absolutely right. the importance is in the message. so IF it's a lie (i will never say that it is), paul's church is still an absolutely valueable institution.

[sub zero]

Originally posted by Lebell
Christianity is not a 'lie'.

It is simply one path that many take to reach a greater reality, IMHO.

He did say "<font size=4><b>IF</b></font> christianity is a lie..."

then who cared enough to create such an elaborate lie so many thousands of years ago?

See what happened was one guy followed another guy who followed another guy who followed some dude who was saying he was Mr. Jesus. From there, the 'believers' spread like a virus and then there was that whole "turn christian or we kill you" event. That didn't blow over too well.

etc etc... or something close to that i think

[constant]

Why is almost everyone, especially young people, who is not Christian, vehemently anti-Christian?

I know organized Christian religion didn't turn out too well, but there is nothing really wrong with the philisophy of Christianity.

[Charlatan]

I wouldn't say that most are anti-Christian -- i.e. they don't go out trying to destroy the religion -- but they just don't need or buy the message.

Personally I have no need of religion in my life. I am content with the way things are in my world without having to explain them as being that way because of a God that made it that way...

[Ierre Il]

I think its an interesting point put forward, especially when we consider that all the original people that helped to start this thing died in nasty ways for their beliefs. Because they wanted to trick people into being a bit nicer? Or was it because they wanted to have power over everyone after they died? I really hope it was some decent mad selfish reason like that, that a normal person could actually understand...
If religion is there to explain away things that we have no clue about, and hence eliminate uncertainty, one wonders a little how much it helped the people who actually started it. I mean... that might be a reason to believe it "Well, they tell me the world is all sorted out by God, so it's ok", but not a reason to come up with the idea in the first place. How does it eliminate uncertainty to randomly theorise based on data one does not have? Please, lets not fall for the "This was a long time ago and everyone was really stupid back then" argument. Humans really haven't changed that much physically since we domesticated grain and animals, probably earlier. I'd address the "what happens after that", but I imagine its somewhat dependant on the "that" having already happened...
JamesS - If Jesus was not a God, claiming to be one was the best way to get his ass fragged, which is exactly what DID happen. He was a Jew. The Jews had a little piece of scripture they would all recite each day, from Deuteronomy 6:4-9, called the Shema. It basically says there is only one God. They had other sections telling people exactly what to do if someone claimed otherwise. Judaeism is probably the least likely religion for a society in which a man can claim to be God and get away with it. I've heard an argument saying that he was not a good moral teacher, but a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord, as he claimed to be God. Essentially it runs thus: Liar: He knew he wasn't God, but claimed to be. Lunatic: He thought he was God, but wasn't. I'll leave you to work out the last option. In any case, I don't even see three choices here. In a Judaist society, a man calling himself God and believing himself not to be is not a great conman, but a suicidal fool, equally level with a man who believes he is God, and a man who believes he is a boiled egg! It's really the lunatic, lunatic, lord theory...
Mael - you are doing two things: repeating yourself, and saying the same thing. The first you do through use of synonyms, the second through the redundancy you create by employing those synonyms.
Constant - Indeed.. doesn't look too much like the words of a man who believes he's a boiled egg, does it? Maybe he just oscillated a bit.
Ah, Charlatan provides some good meaty arguments... lets take a look at this...
1) He wasn't killed for telling people to play nicely. He was killed for claiming to be God.
2)Why did they struggle to keep his message alive? He was dead. Many of them had followed because they believed he was the Messiah, not in a spiritual sense, but in a political sense, someone who would set their nation free and establish it forever as greatest amongst the nations. When he died, they were a little disillusioned, as you might imagine. Why the sudden turn around then? Why were they willing to die, as he had, knowing that he had NOT risen from the dead, and that chances were niether would they, his followers. Also, one must wonder if, assuming of course he was just a man, these people who lived with him for the years of his ministry, every moment, not just when he was in the public eye, could possibly have believed him to be the son of God for an instant...
3)Talking of sudden turn arounds... Paul is the most drastic of the lot. He was a very zealous Jew, intent on wiping out this evil cult that worshipped a man, putting them to death, always insisting that they be put to death whenever he had a say in their trials, and travelling from town to town to persecute them. He was on one of these very journeys, setting out from Jerusalem with the intent of seeking out any followers of the Christ in Damascus and bringing them back to stand trial, when he changed his mind. These were not simply the words of a man playing two sides and biding his time so he could jump ship, he already had the blood of many of these blasphemers on his hands. Somehow, when he got to Damascus, he was a fervent follower of Jesus, willing to die for him, and went on to suffer trials, stonings, imprisonments and eventually death for what he believed, exhorting others to do likewise in his letters, the largest part of the new testament. His account of what happened between Jerusalem and Damascus was that he saw a bright light and God spoke to him, but it seems far more likely that he just decided maybe blasphemy wasnt such a bad thing after all, and might even be fun.
As for a good message... I personally consider a good lie to be an oxymoron, and see no reason to say you'll go to heaven if you won't. You may as well say that living a good life is its own reward, and will be found as such by those who truly seek it. True enough, as I'm sure many of us, Charlatan for one, can attest to, life changing and with no need to break its own honour code with dishonesty.
4)Salesman? Meh, you define your term, and it's accurate with the given definition.
I agree that the Church has had its nastiness, and possibly may be held responsible for the worst evils in western history. Such happens when people get power, whatever the source. Now... the idea that whether or not Jesus was the son of God or rose from the dead or did ANYTHING other than talk would seem to me to be essential to believing anything else. Otherwise, all he is is another high sounding philosopher with some good ideas, and there have been plenty of those, but with the major difference that the things he put most emphasis on were LIES, and incredibly foolish ones at that.
I think it comes down to that, for Christianity as for the idea of religion as a whole, if it is true, it is of infinite importance, if it is untrue, it is of no importance whatsoever. There isnt really much middle ground there. Do you want to put any weight on the insinuations of a liar (I almost mistyped that as "lawyer"... an interesting slip...), or on the ravings of a madman?

Just my 42 cents... I ran a little long, but don't worry, that was entirely my fault, so I'll still only charge you 2 cents worth.

[CSflim]

Were ancient Greek myths "a lie?",
Were the egyptians lieing when they talked about the sun God etc?
I would rate christianity along side these.

[Charlatan]

1. Do we know that Jesus actually claimed to be the Son of God? Yes the Gospels mention this in places. Many times it is others that say this (ie the Roman soldier --played by John Wayne in The Robe-- at the end of the crucifixion) and you have to remember that the Gospels were written anywhere from 20 to 60 years after his death.

I have to admit that his death for claiming to be the son of god explains a lot though... His silence at his trial for one thing. Any hope of getting off would mean he'd have to keep his yap shut.

2. Why not struggle to keep his message alive? It was a good message. The only difficult part is the ressurection and that had a witness didn't it? It is amazing what you will believe if you want to.

3. Paul. Yes he did transform didn't he... Maybe there is something else we don't know about... i.e. maybe they were making a pretty good living as the disciples of Jesus and Paul wanted in on the action. He saw the Gentiles as a great untapped market and wanted to expand the franchise... Ultimately, when you approach all of this from the point of view that there is no God and Jesus was just a well spoken guy this is all speculation. We just don't know what the truth is...

4. It isn't a lie if you believe in it... If you really believe it is the truth... Millions of Christians can't be wrong... can they?

[HeAtHeN]

Christinanity (like all religions) are designed to control the masses by answering the basic human need for answers.

[virus]

Originally posted by HeAtHeN
Christinanity (like all religions) are designed to control the masses by answering the basic human need for answers.

holy shit! the tfp is a religion!

[constant]

Originally posted by Charlatan
I wouldn't say that most are anti-Christian -- i.e. they don't go out trying to destroy the religion -- but they just don't need or buy the message.

Personally I have no need of religion in my life. I am content with the way things are in my world without having to explain them as being that way because of a God that made it that way...

What's wrong with the message "love your neighbor as you love yourself"? Please, I'd like you to point out one thing wrong with that. Btw, I am definately not a Christian.

[Ierre Il]

Charlatan: some more good meat... you're mostly carrying this discussion...

1) Thats a question of Biblical authenticity... discussed in another thread. Nonetheless, think about it, you don't kill a man for telling people to be nice. Most of what he said was stated somewhere in scripture, and he was just bringing it to light. You can't kill someone for pointing out a verse to you. Also, many of his teachings, according to someone else in this thread, and I think I heard it mentioned before too, were taught by others, who didnt get killed. It wasn't what he suggested others do that got him killed, it was what he claimed about himself... going beyond logic to what testimony we have (again, biblical autheniticity comes into play, but it's what we have), the people loved his teachings, and the only people who were annoyed even in the slightest over his teachings were other teachers who couldn't catch him out on anything. As soon as the point of divinity came up though, they had him, and the crowds screamed for his blood, as the ultimate blasphemer. Not only is this what an old book says, its what logic would indicate knowing the social context and the teachings.

2) You're ambiguous in your sarcasm. Pray remember this is the internet, where noone can hear you sneer. Alternatively, you're not being sarcastic. I can't tell that either, so please try to check for ambiguity... no doubt I do the same thing, just ask for clarification if I do... Now. Struggle for a nice lie, yes. Die for a nice lie, no. Ultimately one can't claim knowledge of how anyone thinks but himself, and others only by inference, but I know I would die for the truth, however distasteful, and would not lay down my life for a lie, no matter how happy it made people. As to the question of a witness... here's the main problem. Why did the witness make it up? I don't have a problem so much with people believing lies as people inventing them and dying for them, with no personal gain. (Naturally, if there really was a 'witness', in the usual, rather than ironic, sense of the word, the event actually ocurred. I'm fairly sure you didn't mean that.) In addition, at least 13 people off the top of my head (Mary Magdalene and the 12 disciples), claimed to be eye-witnesses. That's some conspiracy, considering all of them had slunk away like dogs when they hung him on the cross, weeping and disillusioned. Within 3 days, they've organised a conspiracy by which they gain nothing, and in which all of them claim to have seen Jesus risen, face to face, a claim which would have seemed as preposterous when people made it then as it would if someone did so now.
"Yes, he's dead, Yes, he's buried... yes, he's back. Is there a problem with my story?"
Call that group of people decievers if you will, but at least credit them with an ounce of common sense.

3) They were making a pretty good dying as disciples of Jesus. At this stage there was absolutely NO benefit in being a Christian, materially. That is the point that makes all these lies seem so strange, and that seems so hard for some people to accept. Christianity may be the majority religion in some parts of the world now (One wonders why, but this is irrelevant), but at that time it was an extreme persecuted minority. Both extremely persecuted and extremely minor. Paul supported himself as a tent-maker while he preached (except when he was in prison, of course... perhaps he simply wanted to find a good crime so he could get himself some shelter. After all, one wouldn't expect a Greek-educated, ethnically Jewish, Roman citizen, to have any home of his own or connections to help him. He had nothing to lose, right?), although offered help from those around him who were attempting to put into practice what he had preached to them, he chose to be likewise unselfish and take nothing material but what he earned materially.

The bottom line here, in the lives of Jesus, the disciples, and Paul, is that I can see no personal gain in what they preached, and cannot believe, from the substance and tone of their teachings, that they were willing to base them on a lie, just so that people would be a bit nicer. I use the word lie here, and will substitute no other, which brings me quite neatly to my next point.

4) What you believe does not make the truth. I cannot stand subjectivisim, and if you examine it, you will find no logical basis whatsoever. The concept of truth is unchanging, a set representation of reality, as it truly is, regardless of how people look at it. It is the way the universe is, not the way it is seen. If there is nothing which is not dependant on out beliefs, there is no truth. The concept of subjective truth is inherently self-contradictory. You may say there IS no truth if you wish, but in that case surely there is no point arguing either, as we will arrive at no conclusion, or if we do, it will be no better than the one we started with... or at least, not unless you work with a certain value of better, that each of us may define ourselves. As to your closing question (again seemingly steeped in sarcasm to my perhaps paranoid mind), millions of Christians can be wrong, and probably are about a great many things they are united in believing. I personally do not believe the Christian faith is incorrect in any of its essential details, but there may be some more or less meaningless little things around the edges that everyone accepts, but are wrong. Millions of people, Christian or otherwise, can be wrong. Surely my argument suggests that millions of atheists are wrong, does it not? Why should it be any different for theists, or Christians? You can't solve this by popularity, or rhetoric, but by reasoned argument.

Thanks, HeAtHeN. Stated, noted and answered elsewhere.

Constant - good point, but I'm fairly sure Charlatan stated he wasn't Christian or anti-christian, so he's not knocking the philosophy, just the metaphysics it is built on.

[chavos]

You can't kill someone for pointing out a verse to you.

There have been many marytrs who "just pointed out a verse" to kings and those in power. Jerimiah, Michaiah, Nehemiah....all faced death threats for what they proclaimed. Amos was chased out of town. Isaiah was called a traitor. John the Bapist bit it for repeating Isaiah. Prophecy is a full contact sport...even if you don't say you're God.

the people loved his teachings

He was nearly stoned several times by mobs of the people. Luke 4:28, John 8:59. I'm sorry, but saying any of what he said was inflammatory. It's not just when the Son of God claim enters the picture that the commoners anger at his words.

Nor is it terribly wise to play logic dectective with a story that spent so long as a oral tradition. Personally, i don't think we're supposed to be able to proove that Jesus rose from the dead. Those who saw still had doubts. We're supposed to have a logical proof that it occured?

[mjollnir]

what about all of those other religions and creation myths, are they lies? many are as complex and even moreso than christianity.

[Sledge]

This is ganked verbatim from an article at infidels.org.
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=313

"The followers of a probably basically decent street preacher/Essene/rabble-rouser who's just managed to get himself done-in by the military empire currently knocking heads (apparently at the behest of the local clergy, who were finding he was hurting their box office) are consoling themselves over some warm red wine. It becomes fashionable among them to comment that really, old Jesu is still with us, in spirit; he's not dead, really.

"A few years later, followers of the surviving movement are not so much repeating that his presence is one "in spirit" anymore. "He's not dead" then shifts to "he didn't die--it didn't quite take, not that those Romans didn't give it a try."

"They're thinking it's a bit more concrete than before. Inward, emotional, and fondly remembered perceptions, of the absent preacher's presence become understood as being a bit more physical. Again, it's probably still a mix of alleles, meme-wise; there are still people around saying, no, he wasn't actually here here, but we felt like he was. But as their story is a bit less interesting in another environment where the fantastical, for whatever reason, travels well, it doesn't get passed along as frequently as the other story.

"There are reasons other than just that it's fantastical which might promote the spread of the more-interesting versions of the story as well. Comparative religion types have previously noted the correspondences between many of the major religions, borrowed elements, and so on. The Christian story does bear some interesting resemblances, or at least apparently so, to the Isis/Osiris myths. Gods that sacrifice themselves and return from the dead would seem to have been something of a tradition. (As this is idle musing, not so much a scholarly article, I'm not going to go looking for footnotes right now). Again, you can imagine reasons, mechanisms that would have fused the tradition with the younger, growing story--adherents of both systems unconcerned to keep them particularly separate. (we still often hear the "it's all the same god" ecumenism stuff attempting to bridge traditions even today.) And leaning on its now archetypical, familiar quality, its tendency to spread grows yet again."
- AJ Milne

Basically, I think Christianity is still around because it's a strong, strong meme. It's much more attractive than some other religions that require you to do a set of things to win entry to Heaven; all you do here is believe and follow a by all accounts fairly awesome dude. Of course, those accounts were written decades after the fact, once memories had time to soften... and historians generally believe that Matthew and Luke based their accounts on Mark and another (lost) source we call Q. Whatever the truth about the man originally was, Christianity is likely no more than an elaborate cult of personality.

[josobot]

Christianity,besides having a rather moral decent leader that it was named after, approaches well the mysteries of human life. It has a great deal of Stoic philosophy at its core and I think this holds it together. Its ethics is fairly standard and it used to do what psychologists do today...help peoples emotional needs. Without drugs, it offered confession, advice. and the ritual of the Mass with all its facets of primitive religion. All I can say is that I am a member. Even if I "believe" none of it