Does this sum up Christian doctrine?

[ChristineES]

You've not explained your point with your analogy though. I don't understand what difference it makes if you love to eat fish?

I mean, in no way would I characterize your earlier description of fishing as "a lie" or even inaccurate - it was clear that it was said with disdain, but that's it. Neither did I find it offensive in any way - but even if I did, so what?

If you can't see why we see it as inaccurate, then I really can't explain it to you. We see it as twisted- the facts may be there, but the truth of it is not. And if you can't see why it could be offensive to us, then I see no point in continuing this conversation. Mind you, I am not angry or anything, but I don't like to keep going on and on with a discussion that is getting nowhere.

 

[Commoner]

If you can't see why we see it as inaccurate, then I really can't explain it to you. We see it as twisted- the facts may be there, but the truth of it is not. And if you can't see why it could be offensive to us, then I see no point in continuing this conversation. Mind you, I am not angry or anything, but I don't like to keep going on and on with a discussion that is getting nowhere.

I mean, I think the only thing is I don't see the relevant distinction. Let me give you an example of what I mean. And, let's get a bit more specific - the virgin birth.

Dawkins said (I'll assume that the OP is accurate): "the Inventor of the laws of physics and programmer of the DNA code decided to enter the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself born."

Katzpur commented (just as an example): "I don't believe that Mary gave birth to the individual who caused her to become pregnant. She gave birth to His Son."

Now, admittedly, I have quite a few problems understanding the whole trinity thing - in fact, I think it's pretty self-contradictory in a lot of ways, but I'll try my best. There is one God, but it is "made up of" the father, the son and the spirit, sort of like parts of one whole - is that more or less accurate?

So to me, a good analogy of what's happening here is this:

Imagine an lcd monitor (a really good one ). It's made up of multiple parts - the liquid crystal matrix, the casing, the speakers, etc... Now imagine you set up a live feed with a little webcam or something like that and you pointed the webcam at the back of the monitor, for instance. In essence, the monitor would be displaying "itself". Now imagine that I came to my friend, showed him this wonder and said: "look, the monitor is displaying itself! (OMG! )" And then imagine my friend responding by saying: "that's absurd, it's only the liquid cristals lighting up in such a way as to form an image of the casing of the back side of the monitor."

This, to me, seems like what's happening when a claim of "God impregnated Mary and got himself born" is met with a comment like "no, it was only the father that impregnated Mary so she would give birth to the son."

Do you see what I mean - I can see an aesthetic difference, I can see there's some level of detail added, but I don't see the "relevant" distinction. Stricktly speaking, you could say I was "inaccurate", saying that the monitor was displaying itself - but would you? Is it relevant that it's not necessarily the whole of the monitor that's responsible for displaying the image and that it's not the whole of the monitor that is being filmed/displayed?

I don't think so - but I could imagine someone who was so into the technology that to them my statement would seem absurd, perhaps even irritating. But that doesn't take away from my interpretation, at least in my opinion. What do you think? Is this a good analogy?

 

[ChristineES]

I mean, I think the only thing is I don't see the relevant distinction. Let me give you an example of what I mean. And, let's get a bit more specific - the virgin birth.

Dawkins said (I'll assume that the OP is accurate): "the Inventor of the laws of physics and programmer of the DNA code decided to enter the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself born."

Katzpur commented: "I don't believe that Mary gave birth to the individual who caused her to become pregnant. She gave birth to His Son."

Now, admittedly, I have quite a few problems understanding the whole trinity thing - in fact, I think it's pretty self-contradictory in a lot of ways, but I'll try my best. There is one God, but it is "made up of" the father, the son and the spirit, sort of like parts of one whole - is that more or less accurate?

So to me, a good analogy of what's happening here is this:

Imagine an lcd monitor (a really good one ). It's made up of multiple parts - the liquid crystal matrix, the casing, the speakers, etc... Now imagine you set up a live feed with a little webcam or something like that and you pointed the webcam at the back of the monitor, for instance. In essence, the monitor would be displaying "itself". Now imagine that I came to my friend, showed him this wonder and said: "look, the monitor is displaying itself! (OMG! )" And then imagine my friend responding by saying: "that's absurd, it's only the liquid cristals lighting up in such a way as to form an image of the casing of the back side of the monitor."

This, to me, seems like what's happening when a claim of "God impregnated Mary and got himself born" is met with a comment like "no, it was only the father that impregnated Mary so she would give birth to the son."

Do you see what I mean - I can see an aesthetic difference, I can see there's some level of detail added, but I don't see the "relevant" distinction. Stricktly speaking, you could say I was "inaccurate", saying that the monitor was displaying itself - but would you? Is it relevant that it's not necessarily the whole of the monitor that's responsible for displaying the image and that it's not the whole of the monitor that is being filmed/displayed?

I don't think so - but I could imagine someone who was so into the technology that to them my statement would seem absurd, perhaps even irritating. But that doesn't take away from my interpretation, at least in my opinion. What do you think? Is this a good analogy?

I think I can explain what I mean about the one thing: The Virgin Birth.

There are many different ideas of how that was accomplished- depending on which denomination you speak to. Some Christians believe that Jesus was "just a man" but was made sinless by God. Other Christians believe that Jesus was actually, by blood, Mary and God's son. While other sects believe that God made Himself into a baby and then planted Himself into Mary's womb or one part of Himself in yet another. The JW (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe that Jesus is and was Michael the Archangel- who they believe was the first angel created (I know this because I very nearly became a JW but changed my mind at the last minute). You probably wonder which one I believe in- I go with what the Baptists preach mostly. But about Jesus' birth- I really don't dwell on it that much and the same with the trinity. I say Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God and leave it at that- usually.
It all has to do with interpretation of scriptures. That is why there are so many denominations.

That is also why you can't pin all the doctrines of the Christian faith into one paragraph- there are slight and not so slight differences in the different denominations.

(I know this is not really an answer, but it is an example of differences in doctrine and why it is not so easy)

 

[Commoner]

I think I can explain what I mean about the one thing: The Virgin Birth.

There are many different ideas of how that was accomplished- depending on which denomination you speak to. Some Christians believe that Jesus was "just a man" but was made sinless by God. Other Christians believe that Jesus was actually, by blood, Mary and God's son. While other sects believe that God made Himself into a baby and then planted Himself into Mary's womb or one part of Himself in yet another. The JW (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe that Jesus is and was Michael the Archangel- who they believe was the first angel created (I know this because I very nearly became a JW but changed my mind at the last minute). You probably wonder which one I believe in- I go with what the Baptists preach mostly. But about Jesus' birth- I really don't dwell on it that much and the same with the trinity. I say Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God and leave it at that- usually.
It all has to do with interpretation of scriptures. That is why there are so many denominations.

That is also why you can't pin all the doctrines of the Christian faith into one paragraph- there are slight and not so slight differences in the different denominations.

(I know this is not really an answer, but it is an example of differences in doctrine and why it is not so easy)

Ok, so I'll concede this point - those who believe Jesus was "just a man", cleary the Dawkins quote does not apply. But for those that do believe that Jesus is (also) God, do you not agree with me that Dawkins' quote is not really inaccurate regarding this one point?

Now, as an outsider, I would without hesitation say that "the trinity" is a major Christian doctrine and would therefore not have much objections to using it as a generalization - sort of like I would not have a problem saying that; "Christians believe Jesus died and got resurrected". It would strike me...odd, for someone to argue against that - even though I freely admit that it is a generalization - I don't think anyone is denying that the quote in the OP is exactly that as well.

 

[charles brough]

Dude, that's exactly what I did with my original post. If somebody presents a complex, multifaceted concept in a childish, mocking tone, and then asks me to address it, why should I waste energy trying to argue with someone who presents (and agrees) with a deeply flawed perception of even the basic tenets?

If Mr. Brough asks me in what way it's a terrible summary, I'll gladly answer more in depth. The topic at hand is Christian theology, not the actions of individuals or tribes

Actually, it was not my remark. I see Dawkins summation of the faith as an oversimplification meant to entertain. There are, as has been stated above, much onerous and primitive behavior describred in the Scriptures, much of it done by leading "prophets" in the Old Testament. Yet some of the doctrines are over-humanistic to the extreme. It is felt by some Asians that Christianity is a sort of "sissy" faith and feel it is degrading to worship a man who was executed and hung up for display.

I want to add one other thing: the source of human moral nature is not religion and never was. Our moral codes all serve only the one purpose, to provide society with a common enterpration of the innate human social behavioral nature. We evolved as small group primates and like all social group beings, we naturally behave in a social/moral manner. Moral codes make it uniform and hence efficient.

The only reason moral systems break down in society is that the ideological division in society becomes so divisive that people no longer feel they are in and belong to a group. They feel alone and even "used by" or "exploited" by the group. What happens in all primate social groups when they grow too large is that tension builds up until they break up into two groups. We cannot do that to relieve our growing tension. We crowd the Earth and have to sustian "the World Community of nations" and "the global economy" or collapse into global war.

 

[Katzpur]

The Entire OT.

Done.

How idiotic can you get? That's probably the most pathetic attempt to respond to a legitimate request I've seen in my six and a half years on RF. I think I need to suggest a new award category.

 

[Photonic]

How idiotic can you get? That's probably the most pathetic attempt to respond to a legitimate request I've seen in my six and a half years on RF. I think I need to suggest a new award category.

Explain why the God of the Old Testament is so very human then?

 

[waitasec]

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?

i think that pretty much sums it up:
god the creator, the father, the martyr, and god the judge...

 

[Katzpur]

Explain why the God of the Old Testament is so very human then?

Photonic, I'm not going to explain anything to someone whose response to my one and only request was as completely lame as yours was. You don't want dialogue. You only want to ridicule. Well, find yourself another victim.

 

[waitasec]

i don't understand why some give so much power away when they have god on their side...

 

[sojourner]

So you don't believe there was an actual "Jesus" that died and then got resurrected? Is this not "Christian doctrine"? Is anything this elusive "doctrine"?

No, I'm claiming that doctrine is based on theology and not on history. The two sometimes jive and sometimes they don't.

Are you now claiming that Christians (including clergy) don't believe that Jesus got resurrected? Now, look how far we've gotten - perhaps God is also just a myth? I think this is bordering on dishonesty now.

In the classic sense, "myth" =/= "untrue." What I'm saying is that the myth is what's important to the doctrine -- not necessarily historical fact.

Yes - theological "truth" isn't (always) truth,

don't twist "truth" and "fact." Theological truth always at least points toward truth -- or it wouldn't be theology. There are elements of truth that are not completely either understood or completely articulated by human beings.

so why the hell does it matter what some theology which sometimes agrees with facts and is sometimes completely contary to (very, very basic, universally accepted, uncontraversial) facts, states?

What "universally-accepted" "facts" would those be that disagree with theology?

What matters is what people actually believe, how that compares to facts and how those beliefs inform their actions.

But "what people actually believe" may be a far different thing than "what encapsulates Christian doctrine." And it is Christian doctrine that's under the microscope here, not some pastafarian "belief."

 

[Photonic]

Photonic, I'm not going to explain anything to someone whose response to my one and only request was as completely lame as yours was. You don't want dialogue. You only want to ridicule. Well, find yourself another victim.

That's...somewhat ironic.

 

[sojourner]

Dawkins* And yes, it does. Just because you don't like the way the Bible Says it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

It isn't the way the Bible says it that's disturbing. It's Dawkins' "interpretation" that's both unsettling and untrue.

 

[Photonic]

It isn't the way the Bible says it that's disturbing. It's Dawkins' "interpretation" that's both unsettling and untrue.

I'll agree with you that the light he casts on it is certainly unsettling, but no less unsettling than the original scripture itself.

 

[sojourner]

I'll agree with you that the light he casts on it is certainly unsettling, but no less unsettling than the original scripture itself.

It's only unsettling when one only attempts to "understand" it according to Dawkins' "standards."

 

[sojourner]

i don't understand why some give so much power away when they have god on their side...

We don't understand God to take "sides." Plus, the religious life isn't about power.

 

[Photonic]

It's only unsettling when one only attempts to "understand" it according to Dawkins' "standards."

According to Dawkins standards? You mean being reasonable?

I'm starting to wonder if any of you have actually listened to Dawkins ever, read one of his books to understand his position, or are just using a hive mentality of blatant blind disagreement.

 

[waitasec]

We don't understand God to take "sides." Plus, the religious life isn't about power.

then why is what dawkins said unsettling?
are you not giving dawkins that power...

you made an interesting comment on a recent post with your discourse with photonic:

What I'm saying is that the myth is what's important to the doctrine -- not necessarily historical fact.

there are those who look at the christian doctrine from the outside that are only interested in the facts not myth.

 

[Adso]

Actually, it was not my remark. I see Dawkins summation of the faith as an oversimplification meant to entertain.

I don't think "entertain" is the right word. "Ridicule" is more accurate. It doesn't bother me any, but I have yet to see Dawkins demonstrate any knowledge of Christianity (or any other faith for that matter) above a Sunday school level. It's a level of frustration for me that I assume is akin to somebody well trained in evolutionary biology having to put up the constant barrage of creationist questions like, "Well if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys around, smart guy?"

There are, as has been stated above, much onerous and primitive behavior describred in the Scriptures, much of it done by leading "prophets" in the Old Testament.

The behaviors and rationale of Old Testament tribes are not particularly relevant to the original topic.

Yet some of the doctrines are over-humanistic to the extreme. It is felt by some Asians that Christianity is a sort of "sissy" faith and feel it is degrading to worship a man who was executed and hung up for display.

I had never heard this before... Any books on the topic you'd recommend?

I want to add one other thing: the source of human moral nature is not religion and never was [...] collapse into global war.

I think that should be a whole 'nother thread, otherwise this thread will go on forever into a bunch of different angles and we'll have to have Lambchop come in and become it's mascot.

 

[sojourner]

According to Dawkins standards? You mean being reasonable?

What's reasonable about taking texts out of context and wringing the meaning out of them, so that they no longer communicate what they were meant to communicate. That represents an exercise in futility, not reason.

I'm starting to wonder if any of you have actually listened to Dawkins ever, read one of his books to understand his position, or are just using a hive mentality of blatant blind disagreement.

I used to be a fan of his, until he began blatantly pandering to the atheist mob mentality.