Criticisms of Christianity Lightning Round

Trying shorter form content and addressing some typical iFunny criticisms of Christianity

Let’s get right into it.

1. “Christianity is Le Jewish Desert cult”

Embarrassing Level: 3.5/5

Kernel of Truth Level: 1/5

This one always amuses me because it’s completely backwards. Christianity was the religion of urban people, not the Bedouins or something. The original converts to Christianity were the wives of nobility and the dregs of Roman society- slaves etc. Also, almost the entire Roman province of Judea looks something like this:

Notice the lack of sand dunes and pyramids.

Sometimes you’ll see people claim that they’re really referring to the Old Testament, especially when the Israelites are commanded to wander the desert for 40 years until their unfaithful die off. But they aren’t referring to this because they also believe that Christianity “came about” after the Old Testament, as in they incorrectly say the religion of the Israelites and the religion of the Disciples were 2 different things.

I also find it quite funny that they use the word “cult” because it reinforces for the millionth time that 95% of people on iFunny are functionally Christians even if they don’t acknowledge the deity. The word “pagan” means something like “country bumpkin” or “hillbilly”, and refers to non-standard, non-organized religions of the Frankish/Germanic etc. peoples. You know, the people who had…cults...

Or the Greeks, who were famous for their.. mystery cults..

Using “cult” as a pejorative only demonstrates how they are still fundamentally Christian. They have a Christian worldview, morality, more often than not cosmology and epistemology, and so on.

2. “Pre-Christian folk religions secretly did everything good for Christianity, Christianity would be nothing without Germanic contributions”

Embarrassing Level: 2.5/5

Kernel of Truth Level: 3/5

It’s completely true that Germanic folk religions “contributed” to Christianity. A great resource for this is the book (really a doctoral thesis) called the Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity by James Russell. Part of what makes straightening this out so difficult is that pre-Christian northern Europeans were almost entirely illiterate outside of a few notable exceptions (like the Druids of Celtic Ireland, weirdly). They had almost exclusively an in-group oral tradition. In other words, we usually have to rely on the written work of Christian monastics to tell us about the world before Christians.

Already not looking good for the “pagan contributions” crowd.

The contributions they’re referencing are typically: ancestor veneration, attitudes towards militancy, “life-affirming” soteriology (more on that later), holy places (like springs, lakes, forests, and mountains), holy days and festivals, Saint worship as a substitute for pantheons, and a defined laity/clergy divide.

Sure, I’ll give them that the Germanics imprinted *some* of this in a cultural exchange between missionaries and the indigenous. There’s nothing wrong or shameful with that btw. But remember, these customs are not really “Germanic” more than they are broadly Indo-European. The Germanics didn’t have a monopoly on any of those things, nor do Indo-Europeans in general. Most of those practices are essentially the default for any people group (including sub-Saharans) around the globe. Attempting to monopolize ancestor veneration, for example, as a “unique” contribution of the Germanics is silly- even more so when considering Christianity was already incorporating the philosophies of the Ancient Greeks (among other Ancient Peoples) to refine its catechisms.

More importantly, this critique commits the Genetic Fallacy: that you can deduce the truthfulness of an argument by where the information comes from. If you learned that 2+2=4 from Chris Chan, does that make it any less true?

It was (likely) God’s plan to use the Europeans to lead the Church in the direction He wanted. He’s used gorrillions of people groups throughout history to accomplish His will. Shouldn’t you be glad He saw those values as worthy of adoption?

Where this critique goes from bad to worse is when they attempt to retroactively “claim” some of Christianity’s spotlight moments. I once watched a certain “habitually untruthful” individual on iFunny explain that the First Crusade was secretly lead by Pagans who just wanted a good brawl and weren’t particularly religious. Anyone who has ever studied the specifics of the First Crusade would bust out laughing reading that. In real life, the leaders of the First Crusade went to enormous lengths to finance the logistics of moving men, supplies, animals, etc. across the planet in the 1000s. The complexity and difficulty of this operation was similar to landing on the moon in the 20th century. They went to ridiculous lengths to fund their trip, to include selling their noble titles, mortgaging estates and entire duchies/baronies, liquidating their property to finance loans, and much more. You know, because there weren’t enough options for a good fight in parochial Medieval Europe. Ayup.

3. “Europeans only converted by force or for material reasons, much like the conversions to Woke today”

Embarrassing Level: 3.5/5

Kernel of Truth Level: 2.5/5

This is a gross oversimplification that is so broad that it just becomes false. Some *Northern Europeans at *some eras of history were forced or persuaded by riches. (btw what does that say about them, their values, and their commitment to the old gods?)

In real life, proselytizing was a lot more complicated. Sure, there’s figures like Olaf Tryggvason, who nominally converted for the sake of a Casus Belli against his neighbors. Or when Charlemagne offered a choice of baptism or execution to the oceans of Franks he had just crushed in battle.

There’s also moments like the conversion of Iceland, where community elder Thorgeir Ljosvetningagodi (Lol) just laid under a blanket in silence for 24 hours before standing up and announcing that Iceland would become Christian.

Or what about Constantine’s revelation at Milvian Bridge? Alfred the Great’s piety?

iFunniers will zoom in on specific moments where indigenous Europeans either killed their missionaries or otherwise balked at instantly accepting Christianity (the expectation that this happens is “life is like Paradox game” tier btw) and act like this is a killshot. In reality, “Christianizing” is a well understood process. Outright rejection is merely the first step in this process, and typically passed quite quickly. It actually looks a lot like the dumb Ghandi quote:

Or even the stages of Grief. Regardless, its not exactly a gotcha when a mere several generations later these places were a stronghold of Christianity. Yes, there were insincere “nominal” converts for a while- this is more a part of human psychology than any statement of how pious the famously agnostic Nordics were for their old gods. Moreover, this exact process has been repeated across the globe, so its not even unique.

4. “Yahweh was a Canaanite storm deity” or “Yahweh was subservient to El/Eloheim” or “the Israelites were polytheists until someone ‘invented’ monotheism”

Embarrassing Level: 3.5/5

Kernel of Truth Level: 0/5

This is iFunny’s latest killshot, which is bizarre because it’s so bad. This one is just straight up incorrect. Its an exegesis of scripture typically conducted by people who are clearly in it only to confirm their biases, that starts from a conclusion (“I need a new killshot”) and works backwards.

So why does it get repeated so often?

For starters, the argument is made from archeology- a field where definitive conclusions are few and far between. As alleged lovers of Ancient History, you’d think they’d know that our understanding of the Ancient World is constantly shifting with additional information. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls were only found (by accident) in the last century. They are some of the most important documents discovered about the Ancient World, ever. Acting like the inarguable truth has been decreed because some guy on Discord dropped a (modern translation of) bible verse is just wrong.

Getting back to the topic, the claim is that Yahweh (the Abrahamic God, if you didn’t know) is referenced in the Old Testament as somehow subservient to a greater god El. Typically, it’s Deuteronomy 32 (32.8 specifically) doing the heavy lifting here.

8 When the Most High divided the nations: when he separated the sons of Adam, he appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Immediately, there’s some confusion about the language of this chapter. Deuteronomy 32:8 does not say “El”, it says “Elyon”, which means “the Most High”. In other words, it invokes a common title for Yahweh mentioned throughout the OT. Poetic language is common throughout the Pentateuch; attempting to cleave this out as a separate identity is like claiming “His highness” is as separate person from “King George” when everyone knows they’re interchangeable. This verse does not say “El gave Yahweh Israel”, it says “Yahweh took Israel for Himself”, the implication being He allowed the other peoples to be given over to their other gods because of their clear desire to reject God. The imagery of the Ark is relevant here.

Also, the “evidence” for their adoption of Yahweh is really weak. It is merely inferred that the Israelites came into contact with the foreign gods of Edom and Midian, so they surely must’ve adopted their religion along the way. There’s not really any evidence for this (except what I’ll discuss in a moment), and it completely disregards that it was Yahweh that lead them out of Egypt in the first place- meaning the Isrealites were not exactly in the market for a deity to adopt by that point. They already had extensive contact with Yahweh.

So were the Israelites always strict Yahweh-loving monotheists from the beginning of time? No. The Bible itself explicitly tells us of the numerous times the Israelites forsake Yahweh in favor of foreign gods. Their unfaithfulness inspires the book of Hosea (where Hosea is told to marry a prostitute), and is a major theme of the OT culminating in the destruction of the Israelite civilization and the life of Jesus. Some of the famous scenes of the Bible, like Aaron’s golden calf worship, are examples of this. It’s why Israel is eventually split into Judea and (North Israel), as now another portion of the population acted like the original peoples that rejected God. It’s also why God commands them to wander the desert, so that the last generation of the unfaithful would die off as a “soft reboot” of the tribes.

So why is this claim wrong? Because it assumes God (Yahweh) is the one changing. As I’ve written about before, the God of the New Testament is the exact same of the Old Testament- He’s immutable. The Israelites are the ones who forsake God and try to workshop their religion into one that would allow them to sacrifice children, have orgies, slaughter at will, etc. Huh, drop that into post-Roman Scandinavia and some would say it would be very… life affirming..

5. “Christianity is a religion for slaves” or “X pre-Christian indigenous folk religion is life-affirming and Christianity is life-denying” or “Christianity promotes weakness”, or “Christianity neutered the European warrior spirit”

Embarrassing level: 1.5/5

Kernel of Truth Level: 1/5

I’m grouping these up since they’re all related, but we’ll discuss them individually.

• “X pre-Christian indigenous folk religion is life-affirming, Christianity is life-denying”

What does “life-affirming” mean? Well, in almost every instance it’s just a stand-in for hedonism. Pre-Christian indigenous folk religions were almost always just a vessel for whatever base, animalistic instincts people wanted to indulge. Polygamy (including orgies), degenerate bloodshed (Look up what a Blot was lol), excessive drunkenness, betrayal, ridiculous greed and materialism, you get the idea. The idea here is, “if its a thought that can organically occur, its natural and therefore good”. Now we’re getting somewhere- peel back the layers and it’s the old trope of Naturalism again.

Naturalism is typically considered a pretty weak argument. The easiest hole in the argument here is to ask if the same thing applies to American blacks. Ok, violence for violence’s sake is based and manly and displays heroic vigor, got it. Then why are you mad when Crips hose down the 7/11 while you’re pumping gas? What’s the difference between raiding a monastery and looting up a Target? Don’t worry, I have a separate post cooking for the Vikings, who I think very poorly of for the most part.

Moreover, there’s lots of “Natural” things that pre-Christian indigenous folk religions are not on board with. There’s species of animals where the males will r*pe one another as a sign of dominance. But wasn’t there a death penalty for homosexuality in Germania?

Apes and other primates will fling shit at each other, and also eat shit in the right circumstances. I don’t see Wotan pulling up to Subway for the Spiro deluxe.

Ok, so it’s whatever is natural to humans since you can’t always promote what animals do as a rule. But then you’re just back at square one.

Christianity is one of many global religions that promote “rejection of desire” as a pathway to happiness. It’s also not unique in seeing life as a chance to prepare for death and what comes after (this is where we get the claim of “life-denying”). How many critiques of Hinduism and Buddhism do you see for the same thing?

One more thing- “Life affirming” is a statement of ethics. As in “it is good to affirm ‘Life’”, where again “life” just means “pleasure”. But why? Why is pleasure good? Why is pleasure the key pursuit of life? Since there’s not really objective moral values on Pre-Christian indigenous folk religions, they can’t answer that.

• “Christianity is a religion for slaves or promotes slave morality”

Ok, this one obviously comes from Nietzsche, who I haven’t read enough of (yet) to effectively comment on what he means. Instead, we’ll just discuss it more broadly.

For starters, let’s examine the difference between the deities of Pre-Christian indigenous folk religions and Christianity. In the Germanic (including Nordic) pantheons, the gods are quite weak. They have a fate they cannot change, they can be defeated in combat, they are given to vices. They’re also typically myths based on real people. For example, Wotan was a literal, mortal person. The “idea” of Wotan snowballed for centuries through oral tradition until he took on a mythic, demi-god like status.

Compare this to the infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing, infinitely present, infinitely infinite God of the Bible. While I could probably be a peer of Wotan if I destroyed a bunch of civilizations and otherwise became a really powerful mortal, I’d approach 0.0000% of the biblical God’s power. Do you see how being a “slave” to a Being that powerful is already quite generous?

Odin loses the battle for Ragnarok and is obliterated, only to be reborn and start the cycle again. Jesus Christ merely waves His scepter at Armageddon and instantly vanquishes evil for all time. I would be comfortable telling Wotan to take a hike, I would be literally scared to disobey a direct order from God.

The rest of this stuff is just silly, especially because Christianity promotes an independence and rejection of the world, not being enslaved by it.

The only “valid” point here is that the original Christians (33AD-150AD) were typically the bottom of society- Prostitutes, (actual) slaves, tax collectors, lepers, women, etc. Go ahead and laugh, but remember it was the religion of these bottom-feeders that destroyed yours and conquered the world.

• “Christianity destroyed the European warrior spirit”

This directly contradicts the other claim that Christianity was only successful because of the European warrior spirit, btw. It can’t steal and destroy it simultaneously.

Also, quite silly when considering the best moments of the European warrior spirit (Chivalry, for example) came as a direct result of Christianity.

But to get at what they’re saying, Christianity is fundamentally a religion of Love. Again and again Jesus teaches that Love is the most important thing a person can have, or do. The love of the members of the Trinity for one another is actually a major piece of Christian cosmology. In other words, Christianity is never going to be this cartoonish, “slaughter everyone always” caricature that people believe Pre-Christian indigenous folk religions were (they weren’t).

I always find these depictions of Jesus as a mighty warrior SS Officer 6’8 giga chad to be ridiculous, even in secondary texts like the Heiland. They’re equally as wrong as depictions of Jesus as a squatty, 5’1 sub-Saharan.

Christianity rocked the Ancient World (and conquered it) because it was the only one offering Love as its fundamental, core value. This was a world where the Romans sent slaves to die of smoke inhalation so their baths could be heated- unironically. In a brutal, bloody Ancient World (where nobody today, not even iFunny’s alleged Liftwaffe Aryan super soldiers, would survive) founded and maintained by force, Jesus changed everything far more effectively with Love. Don’t believe me? Here’s someone you might like better saying the exact same thing: