Does this sum up Christian doctrine?

[sojourner]

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

It's unsettling because many atheists, hungry to latch onto anything that appears to "debunk" the Bible, take his "interpretation" as something worthwhile to add to their "arsenals" of skepticism.

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

Those would be them who are more interested in creating straw men than they are in the actual doctrine.

 

[waitasec]

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?"

maybe because most of the people who believe in this doctrine haven't gone beyond the sunday school level of understanding it. actions speak louder than words.
we see nothing but discrimination and the hunger for control over other peoples lives. both of which are the very things the christian doctrine speaks against...anyone who reads luke 6 and does what jesus commands will not be met with any ridicule.

 

[sojourner]

maybe because most of the people who believe in this doctrine haven't gone beyond the sunday school level of understanding it.
we see nothing but discrimination and the hunger for control over other peoples lives. both of which are the very things the christian doctrine speaks against

Not necessarily true. I believe the doctrine, and I've been to seminary.

anyone who reads luke 6 and does what jesus commands will not be met with any ridicule.

I doubt that. The bloodlust is too ramped up.

 

[waitasec]

It's unsettling because many atheists, hungry to latch onto anything that appears to "debunk" the Bible, take his "interpretation" as something worthwhile to add to their "arsenals" of skepticism.

so? are you then saying the truth will not set you free?
because the skeptics are looking for truth you know, just as you are.

Those would be them who are more interested in creating straw men than they are in the actual doctrine.

i disagree.
myth isn't truth. sure there are truths in the moral of the myth...but as far as i can tell, main stream christian doctrine is about faith not control. if the moral of the myth is about faith and those that adhere to it are searching for control, there is no wonder why have conflict.

 

[waitasec]

Not necessarily true. I believe the doctrine, and I've been to seminary.

but not many christians, at least from my experience, have the same
POV as you. a lot of people believe in talking snakes, a world wide flood immaculate conception and the resurrection of the dead

I doubt that. The bloodlust is too ramped up.

so whatever happened to:
mattew 5
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[sojourner]

so? are you then saying the truth will not set you free?

Not if it's twisted into something it isn't.

because the skeptics are looking for truth you know, just as you are.

Dawkins is going about his "search" in the wrong way. I'm becoming more and more convinced that his search for truth has devolved into a search for fame and money.

myth isn't truth.

It is an understanding of truth.

main stream christian doctrine is about faith not control.

Mkay...

if the moral of the myth is about faith

Not sure that it is. It's probably more about the search for truth.

 

[sojourner]

so whatever happened to:
mattew 5
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. __________________

Put Christian clothes on it and it magically becomes for the atheist "ulterior motive."

 

[Quagmire]

Oh, you mean I should address a statement that offers no substance other than characterizing someone else's statement as "a pretty terrible summation" of something with due consideration and provide specific examples of my counterposition instead of merely pointing out its lack of substance in an attempt at irony?

No, I mean you should back up your own statement.

I could indeed give specific examples of terrible, gruesome accounts of stonings, ritual sacrifices, genocide, sexual depravity and other examples in the sacred texts of Christianity, but I think we're all very well aware of them, so why bore everybody?

Yeah, great. This isn't theology though.

You said:

But to be fair, Christian theology is pretty terrible...

heres what theology means: "Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary. [1] Without further qualification, the term is generally understood to refer, specifically, to Christian theology." (wiki)

You made an offhand generalization about a term which you obviously don't have a clear grasp of and then tried to back it up with a random selection of accounts the historicity of which you don't even believe.

Considering the fact tht you don't personally believe the accounts in the Bible, it would be like someone saying: "Barnyard animals are terrible architects" and then offering the story of the Three Little Pigs as evidence.

 

[waitasec]

Put Christian clothes on it and it magically becomes for the atheist "ulterior motive."

in the world jesus lived in there was political and social tension between the jews and the romans....

in todays world, if someone were to mind their own business and kept there nose out of other peoples, i don't see how any one can be persecuted for their religious beliefs. but seeing how the religious have been trying to control other people i can see why the ridicule.
jesus said..do not judge lest ye be judged...so i would say todays modern christians brought this ridicule on themselves simply because of their lack of faith.

 

[waitasec]

Not if it's twisted into something it isn't.

Dawkins is going about his "search" in the wrong way. I'm becoming more and more convinced that his search for truth has devolved into a search for fame and money.

It is an understanding of truth.

Mkay...

Not sure that it is. It's probably more about the search for truth.

i'm more interested in facts. to me facts define truth which seems to be at odds with theological truth because it is based on faith...not fact.

 

[ChristineES]

I think I should also state that not all Christians believe in the Trinity, too. Jehovah's Witnesses don't, and certain other denominations- I believe I heard it said that about 10% or so of Christians don't believe in the trinity. Different denominations believe in different things.
I guess what I've been trying to say this whole time is that not all Christians believe the same way. Because of that, someone couldn't really "sum up" the entire Christian faith by just a paragraph. Since all the Books in the Bible can interpreted in many different ways, Mr. Dawkins would have to come up with hundreds if not thousands of paragraphs to deal with all denominations. And then there are the other theists who are NOT Christians with beliefs he would have to deal with. Not to mention those who are theists with faith but NO religion at all.

 

[Adso]

maybe because most of the people who believe in this doctrine haven't gone beyond the sunday school level of understanding it. actions speak louder than words.

He's been offered opportunities to debate those who have spent a life studying the topic, but runs away and snipes, sneers, and criticizes those who have not...

I don't understand how you are not getting that in the realm of intellectual debate, you argue the ideas, not the adherents perception of the idea.

we see nothing but discrimination and the hunger for control over other peoples lives. both of which are the very things the christian doctrine speaks against...

Yes, because man is a Fallen creature, and even those who know the truth are still subject to it's faults. However, it is inaccurate to say that there is nothing but discrimination and hunger for power.

anyone who reads luke 6 and does what jesus commands will not be met with any ridicule.

Really? That's contradictory to what the verse says in itself... As a believer you are called to turn your cheek to those who strike it, and to love and forgive those who curse, mistreat, or hate you. Christ frequently notes that those who believe and follow Him will be ridiculed throughout the New Testament.

 

[sojourner]

i'm more interested in facts. to me facts define truth which seems to be at odds with theological truth because it is based on faith...not fact.

So, the definition given here of fishing interests you more than having someone describe it as "a method whereby I am brought into relationship with nature, and such experience helps me to relax and to reflect on my life and my place in the universe?"

Which is "fact?" Which is "faith?" where do "fact" and "faith" intersect in this scenario? Is it a "fact" that the person reflects as a result of engaging in fishing? Is it a "fact" that that activity has meaning for the person?

Is it a "fact" that the "purely factual" version of fishing falls short in its description of the value of the activity?

 

[charles brough]

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?"

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

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

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.

Yes, Dawkin's summation does ridicule as well as entertain non-theists. I believe the negative view of Christianity was of some Shintoists. I might add that sharp criticism of Christianity's feminism by early Muslims led to the early Church to sway away from men self-castrating themselves, overly feminine diadem and the practice of almost replacing Jesus with emphasis on Mary.

Yes, the basis for human moral systems does not more attention. I will go next to post one.

 

[Commoner]

Yeah, great. This isn't theology though.

You said:

heres what theology means: "Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary. [1] Without further qualification, the term is generally understood to refer, specifically, to Christian theology." (wiki)

You made an offhand generalization about a term which you obviously don't have a clear grasp of and then tried to back it up with a random selection of accounts the historicity of which you don't even believe.

Considering the fact tht you don't personally believe the accounts in the Bible, it would be like someone saying: "Barnyard animals are terrible architects" and then offering the story of the Three Little Pigs as evidence.

I woud agree with your analogy but for the fact that, in this case, the majority of barnyard animals actually propose "The Three Little Pigs" as evidence of them being great architects and it's only an elite few who reject this view in favor of a particular interpretation of "The Three Little Pigs." which is to be the exclusive "truth" they adhere to. You see, it seems that it's only "the interpretation" that can be assosiated with this small group of barnyard animals, who have taken it upon themselves to be the sole legitimate representatives of all barnyard animals, but not the actual text on which that interpretation it is largely based.

So my mistake, which I admit, is that of form, not of content nor context. Your mistake of falling prey to the red herring of theology seems a much greater misstep to me.

 

[Tonymai]

Jesus taught men are sons of God, all men are brothers who should do the Father's Will. How come such beautiful teachings are ignored, and only the ignorant superstitious beliefs are magnified and denounced?

 

[Commoner]

I think I should also state that not all Christians believe in the Trinity, too. Jehovah's Witnesses don't, and certain other denominations- I believe I heard it said that about 10% or so of Christians don't believe in the trinity. Different denominations believe in different things.
I guess what I've been trying to say this whole time is that not all Christians believe the same way. Because of that, someone couldn't really "sum up" the entire Christian faith by just a paragraph. Since all the Books in the Bible can interpreted in many different ways, Mr. Dawkins would have to come up with hundreds if not thousands of paragraphs to deal with all denominations. And then there are the other theists who are NOT Christians with beliefs he would have to deal with. Not to mention those who are theists with faith but NO religion at all.

That would render everyday conversation, as well as making any point at all about religion and irreligion, impossible. Perhaps I shouldn't be able to say of Republicans that they are "the right", because there might be some republicans that are to the left of some democrats. Would you criticize me for that?

I mean, really, I don't see the point in such discourse - is it not better to simply acknowledge that some things - in fact, most things - are said as generalizations that will necessarily have some exceptions? Such stringent criteria surely cannot be the measure of whether or not something is a fair description?

 

[Commoner]

Jesus taught men are sons of God, all men are brothers who should do the Father's Will. How come such beautiful teachings are ignored, and only the ignorant superstitious beliefs are magnified and denounced?

I guess because even the "beautiful teachings" that you propose, I see as superstition, masochism and a resignation of one's dignity. Even you, instead of promoting love and compassion, get dragged back into the supernatural rhetoric from which few seem to escape.

 

[Tonymai]

I guess because even the "beautiful teachings" that you propose, I see as superstition, masochism and a resignation of one's dignity. Even you, instead of promoting love and compassion, get dragged back into the supernatural rhetoric from which few seem to escape.

Have you ever sought whether God is real? Or you just treat God as a belief? If God were a belief, there would be no difference between religious experiences and seeing a flying elephant. A person must first seek God and finds Him in his personal experiences before he can have faith in Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of men and the effectiveness of doing the Father's Will.

Indeed, fairy tales can not generate true hope and childish beliefs are not religious faith.

 

[Commoner]

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

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.

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.

You know, when you say things like this, I feel even more strongly that the point, the distinction that you're trying to make, is not something I could possibly consider relevant.

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

I told you - people do not die and then get resurrected. At least a virgin could get pregnant, but resurrection...

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."

Well, considering you even have a hard time agreeing that Christ's resurrection is doctrine, this "doctrine" seems to be too elusive for anyone to pin down. While I agree with you that one is different from the other, "doctrine" still needs to be relevant to what Christians believe in order to represent Christianity. Who do you think gives "a doctrine" the authority to be "the Cristian doctrine"?