Does this sum up Christian doctrine?

[Gjallarhorn]

I am no one of significance. But I have learned something from loving a separate life

Okay then...

 

[arcanum]

Okay then...

do you think your special?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

do you think your special?

Compared to what?

 

[Commoner]

Once again, proving my point above.
It isn't an argument of semantics. it's an argument of substance. The things mentioned are not part of Christian theology. And it is theology under debate here -- not Tradition. Confusing the two will only serve to skew an argument and make it weaker.

Sorry, but saying something to the effect of: "Well, it's true and Christians believe it and it is in the the Bible which is the word of God, but it doesn't really fall under the term "Christian theology" so much as "Christian tradition"," isn't much of an argument either. What's under debate is whether or not Christians believe what Dawkins says they believe, not whether or not what Dawkins says is "Christian theology" or "Christian tradition" or "Christian belief".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again, proving my point above.
It isn't an argument of semantics. it's an argument of substance. The things mentioned are not part of Christian theology. And it is theology under debate here -- not Tradition. Confusing the two will only serve to skew an argument and make it weaker.

Don't the things attributed to God speak to the character of God?

 

[Photonic]

Don't the things attributed to God speak to the character of God?

Too bad they were written by humans, huh?

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but saying something to the effect of: "Well, it's true and Christians believe it and it is in the the Bible which is the word of God, but it doesn't really fall under the term "Christian theology" so much as "Christian tradition"," isn't much of an argument either. What's under debate is whether or not Christians believe what Dawkins says they believe, not whether or not what Dawkins says is "Christian theology" or "Christian tradition" or "Christian belief".

The OP says "Does this sum up Christian doctrine?" Doctrine relies heavily on theology -- in fact states the specifics of theological belief. Since Christians don't "believe" (as doctrine) any of the examples you provided, they are worthless to your argument.

 

[sojourner]

Don't the things attributed to God speak to the character of God?

Only within the context in which they were originally put forth and understood.

 

[Katzpur]

Dawkins says Christians believe this? Is he right?

The famous Richard Dawkins describes Christians as ones who believe that "the Inventor of the laws of physics and programmer of the NDA code decided to enter the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself born, then deliberately had himself tortured and executed because he couldn't think of a better way to forgive the theft of an apple, committed at the instigation of a talking snake. As Creator of the majestically expanding universe, he not only understands relativistic gravity and quantum mechanics but actually designed them. Yet when he really cares about is "sin," abortion, how often you go to church and whether gay people should marry."

It seems to sum up the whole way Christianity and Intelligent Design theory come together.

Who believes it and who does not---and why?

Sounds kind of twisted to me. English is a language which gives us such a huge choice of words to use to say what we want to say. Some people (Dawkins obviously being one of them) seem to get immense pleasure out of ridiculing people he doesn't agree with, and so they choose their words in such a way that they will parody rather than accurately represent other people's beliefs. To me, that's just plain juvenile.

 

[Photonic]

Sounds kind of twisted to me. English is a language which gives us such a huge choice of words to use to say what we want to say. Some people (Dawkins obviously being one of them) seem to get immense pleasure out of ridiculing people he doesn't agree with, and so they choose their words in such a way that they will parody rather than accurately represent other people's beliefs. To me, that's just plain juvenile.

No, he's pretty much correct about this, that's not really a skewed but rather re-colored version of what the Bible says.

 

[Commoner]

Sounds kind of twisted to me. English is a language which gives us such a huge choice of words to use to say what we want to say. Some people (Dawkins obviously being one of them) seem to get immense pleasure out of ridiculing people he doesn't agree with, and so they choose their words in such a way that they will parody rather than accurately represent other people's beliefs. To me, that's just plain juvenile.

I can understand you don't agree with the tone - that was most likely the intention, after all, but can you point out a factual error in what he's saying?

 

[Commoner]

The OP says "Does this sum up Christian doctrine?" Doctrine relies heavily on theology -- in fact states the specifics of theological belief. Since Christians don't "believe" (as doctrine) any of the examples you provided, they are worthless to your argument.

The OP also asks whether or not what had been said is what Christians believe...

But in any case, can you explain why you find this to be a significant distinction. What is the force behind saying someone believes something "as doctrine"? It seems like a dodge to me, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

 

[sojourner]

No, he's pretty much correct about this, that's not really a skewed but rather re-colored version of what the Bible says.

No, it isn't. It's taking things at face value, putting a negative spin on it and presenting it as "the truth." Dawkins is smart enough to know that he's engaging in the worst kind of eisegesis. And he's doing it or profit. One can't take an ancient, Near Eastern text and read it "as if" it were a modern, American text. It just don't work that way.

 

[outhouse]

Sounds kind of twisted to me. English is a language which gives us such a huge choice of words to use to say what we want to say. Some people (Dawkins obviously being one of them) seem to get immense pleasure out of ridiculing people he doesn't agree with, and so they choose their words in such a way that they will parody rather than accurately represent other people's beliefs. To me, that's just plain juvenile.

And he has a right to after the crimes against humanity the christian creationist have done to our childrens educations.


I cant begin to tell you the twisted brainwashed minds I have to deal with due to bad educations

 

[outhouse]

No, it isn't. It's taking things at face value, putting a negative spin on it and presenting it as "the truth." Dawkins is smart enough to know that he's engaging in the worst kind of eisegesis. And he's doing it or profit. One can't take an ancient, Near Eastern text and read it "as if" it were a modern, American text. It just don't work that way.

christians still pass this off as modern text and many demand a litteral reading. Trying to pass off theology and mythology as science is primitive and barbaric in my opinion.


your grasp of the bible is not mainstream, you have a superior grasp the majority do not.



I bet if creationist backed off science, he would back off your mythology.

 

[sojourner]

I can understand you don't agree with the tone - that was most likely the intention, after all, but can you point out a factual error in what he's saying?

Yes.

describes Christians as ones who believe that "the Inventor of the laws of physics and programmer of the NDA code decided to enter the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself born, then deliberately had himself tortured and executed because he couldn't think of a better way to forgive the theft of an apple, committed at the instigation of a talking snake.

We, as Christians, believe that we utilize a mythos, using the literary tools of metaphor and allegory, to render a theological understanding of truth. That mythos includes the metaphors of 1) virgin birth, 2) a tree bearing the fruit of knowledge, 3) Wisdom portrayed as the serpent. Further, the fruit wasn't an apple. Additionally, we don't believe that Jesus "had himself tortured and executed." That would be the Romans who did those things.

Need more, Skeezix?

 

[sojourner]

The OP also asks whether or not what had been said is what Christians believe...

But in any case, can you explain why you find this to be a significant distinction. What is the force behind saying someone believes something "as doctrine"? It seems like a dodge to me, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Because "doctrine" denotes a specific belief. None of these things is included in Christian doctrine. Therefore, to answer the OP question: No. This isn't an accurate representation of Christian doctrine.

Further, I don't know any Christians who believe the things mentioned actually, historically happened. Therefore, the generalization that "Christians believe these things" is inaccurate.

 

[sojourner]

And he has a right to after the crimes against humanity the christian creationist have done to our childrens educations.


I cant begin to tell you the twisted brainwashed minds I have to deal with due to bad educations

Yeah, but he could at least do so honestly. Otherwise, he's engaging in the same self-delusion he so publicly detests in others.

 

[Photonic]

Yes.


We, as Christians, believe that we utilize a mythos, using the literary tools of metaphor and allegory, to render a theological understanding of truth. That mythos includes the metaphors of 1) virgin birth, 2) a tree bearing the fruit of knowledge, 3) Wisdom portrayed as the serpent. Further, the fruit wasn't an apple. Additionally, we don't believe that Jesus "had himself tortured and executed." That would be the Romans who did those things.

Need more, Skeezix?

You speak for oh so few when you call them metaphors.

 

[sojourner]

christians still pass this off as modern text and many demand a litteral reading. Trying to pass off theology and mythology as science is primitive and barbaric in my opinion.

Of course it is. But "Christians" don't do this. Some Christians do this. Don't lump me in with the wacko fundigelicals! I'll be whole trumpet section in the parade decrying Biblical literalism.