An Interesting Depiction of Christianity

I remember seeing this a while back, and what struck me about it was not the mocking overtone of the comment.  But that the only thing that I could disagree with as being wrong, was the zombie part.  The other question that struck me was; ‘Is this an accurate description of christianity?’

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in christ, christian, Common Sense, creation, faith, fallacious, fraud, god, history, jesus, jesus the christ, jesus the messiah, logic, messiah, probability of God, purpose, Response and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to An Interesting Depiction of Christianity

  1. exrelayman says:

    This is sort of how Christianity looks to an outsider. I would add the nonsensical notion that a God who abhors sin sees fit to make sin ubiquitous in mankind because of the initial sin of the first pair (perhaps a more reasonable God in that circumstance would zap Adam and Eve out of existence as failed beta models and make improvements to the finalized version). But then you see how this makes sense if what you are selling is your particular remedy to sin – there are none who don’t need what you are selling – the best snake oil ever! Oh, and the notion that a God who admonishes us to forgive trespasses against us till 70 X 7 times will punish us on the basis of one life lived with one mistaken belief, regardless of how good and moral we were otherwise. Kind of a do as I say, not as I do God. These points were in the document I emailed you some time back, but seem apropos to this post.

    Only gods and zombies were once dead and now live, to greater and lesser degrees of what you mean by the word live. The similarity seems sufficient so that the usage of zombie in that passage is not unjustified. Being a mocking passage, the word zombie is maximally mocking. Mocking is not inappropriate in response to illogical propositions, however firmly entrenched in popular culture, but does often serves to alienate rather than lead to productive discourse. You do need to remember what they did to Socrates, who did not go so far as to mock, only to question.

  2. Neil Rickert says:

    I don’t much like the “zombie” part.

    It does seem that any reasonably adequate description of Christianity is likely to make it look absurd.

  3. unklee says:

    It is easy to mock anything if you want to (and wish to be nasty). Try this one for atheism. I have never passed that on before, or “liked” it or whatever, because I feel it is unfair, misleading and promoting polarisation. I think the quote you’ve shown does the same, by presenting things christians believe in as mocking a way as possible, and even a few things that most christians don’t believe. For example:

    1. Zombie, as you’ve already pointed out, is unfair.
    2. Jesus wasn’t his own father. Ordinary christians believe he had the nature of God, but was the second person of the Trinity, while his father was the first person.
    3. Eat his flesh etc literally? Didn’t happen the first time, because he was there. Catholics and Protestants alike believe we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus’ death.
    4. Telepathic is a put-down of prayer, but what is unbelievable about a God communicating without words?.
    5. Sin is an evil force? An evil tendency seems closer to the mark.
    6. Many christians don’t believe the Genesis story is literal, and anyway it is hardly essential to belief in Jesus.

    So some of the statements are untrue, others are just misleading. Mocking is one way to deal with matters like this, but I don’t think it is at all helpful. If God exists and Jesus was his representation on earth, christianity makes sense. Each of us can choose to believe it or not, but misrepresenting it only helps people distance themselves from it without having to actual deal with it.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      I do apologize if it offensive. And in being forth-right with you, probably my next two or three post will be somewhat offensive. And I do apologize about that before hand. It’s hard to not be offensive about something, when you are talking, blogging, and critiquing the adverse aspects of it. And since the more offensive and critical aspect of religion and god, I don’t talk about with my wife, I let those out on the blogosphere.

      And I have also realized there is a fine line with criticizing the belief-religion and criticizing the church-religious institution. Cause they are not the same.

      When I post on some on some of the more offensive topics, I do not intend to offend the believer. I am not intentionally trying to hurt. It’s just me giving my honest opinion on the matter. So like I say, I do apologize before hand.

      • unklee says:


        Thanks for your apology, but I am not offended personally. I don’t think I have to care about God’s dignity, he’s big enough to look after himself. But I do feel it is best to try to be fair-minded, and not misrepresent an opposing viewpoint in a way that is worse than what people actually believe. It makes it harder to respect the person who does it.

        But it is your blog, and you are entitled to write what you want, just as I have the option of presenting a different viewpoint. Thanks.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        glad to know you are not personally offened.

        I don’t like being if offensive, unless it is necessary to get a point across. And all offending does, is build up walls of defense. and hinder communication.

        I like I mentioned in my earlier post, In my de-conversion process, I noticed that there were a lot of atheist blogs targeting and de-bunking dogmatic religion; however not all these sites & blogs are christian friendly. Yes, there is alot of atheist/agnostic blogs, but many of them are not designed to answer or give an argument from the perspective of a christian. Many popular atheist blogs are really designed for other atheist with a slight tendency to mock and ridicule the (christian)believer.

        So I am taking my blog in the direction of dissecting the christian faith so that unbelievers, atheist, doubting christians, skeptical christians, or simply the person looking for reasonable sufficient answers to a simple question can search for truth. I want mine to be a haven for free and respectable thought to dissect and take a scalpel to the christian faith without all the other drama. Not just a place for me to vent, but also a place were I can evaluate and dissect the christian faith and the apologetic answers.

    • arkenaten says:

      Jesus wasn’t his own father. Ordinary christians believe he had the nature of God, but was the second person of the Trinity, while his father was the first person.””

      And just who was it that invented the Trinity, Unklee, hmmm?
      Not Jesus, that’s for damn sure., and as sure as eggs is eggs it is not in the bible.
      So, may I suggest it was men…

  4. ignorantianescia says:

    The description as “zombie” is mostly spin. A zombie is either a reanimated corpse or an apathic human being in stories. It’s clear from the Bible that Jesus’ resurrection isn’t about reanimating a corpse, but changing from a body in the flesh to a body in the Spirit. I think if Paul knew the concept of a zombie, he would consider it flesh. And in the Gospel stories of the resurrection, Jesus is not portrayed with the apathy typical of zombie (not surprising, since our concept of “zombie” seems pretty recent, though maybe ghouls or draugr were similar). So Jesus’ body was glorified when resurrected. In other Bible stories of people being revived, that doesn’t happen. Think of the daughter of the synagogue leader in Mark, the resurrection of Lazarus in John and Elisha’s corpse causing the resurrection of a dead man thrown in his grave, for example.

    By the way, I want to make clear I don’t find your post offensive at all. I think it’s fair and civil and asking that question is reasonable.

  5. graceone says:

    I think this description reflects an image of Christianity that is more simplistic, that would appeal to a concrete, literal, black/white kind of thinker. Maybe simplistic is not the right term to use because it sounds unkind. But, I do think it misses the deeper truths of the gospel message. It is a caricature.

    It seems to me that our finite human minds cannot fully express the reality of the incarnation in mere words. Over the centuries the church has come up with various theories and analogies to express the truth of God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Every analogy used will seem crude and inadequate compared to the the thing itself. What the church is simply trying to say is that God loves so deeply that He fully entered into human life and suffering so that we could share in His life and be made like Him in love. I certainly can’t grasp the full mechanics of all this. No one can. But, it certainly doesn’t mean that the forgiveness and love of God is ridiculous or insignificant.

    Personally, I don’t have to look to the Bible or the allegory of Adam and Eve to understand that the world in a very real measure is “fallen.” Friends, just pick up the local newspaper. Violence is everywhere. Global peace and harmony remain a dream. We don’t collectively or individually love our neighbors as ourselves, let alone our enemies. I can deeply look into my own life, and realize that I hurt even those that I love the most, sometimes without even knowing.

    We are certainly not created “worthless,” but as the psalmist says “fearfully and wonderfully made,” and yet also fallen. There is this paradox. We will not be able to fix ourselves by ourselves..

    I also want to add that God made us with minds and that He expects us to use them. It is good to question and encourage open discussion and good discourse.

    But, I do see that on many of the deconversion blogs a great emphasis is placed in human reason to determine all that is true and real. But, I would ask the question if human reason alone can determine all truth, or are there truths about God which exceed finite human reason, but also require divine revelation.

    I think the later to be true, and for me, it is not the same thing as saying that we should numb our minds to merely accept any incredulous claim that comes down the pike because it makes us feel good, or throw modern day science and the scientific method under the bus. What is your thinking in this?

    Forgive me if I don’t get back here right away as I will be travelling for a few days, but I’m certainly interested to hear everyone’s opinion.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      I would never say that human reason has the capability for ALL truth. because for some things there are no answer. Or the answer may not attainable. but with those things, I do not invoke God or God of Gaps. I simply just say, we have no answer.

  6. Pingback: The Christian Delusion | The BitterSweet End

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s