Does this sum up Christian doctrine?

[sojourner]

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.

Red herring? I don't think so, Skeezix. Theology is precisely what's at issue here, because theology drives the doctrine. If anything, you're accusation of theology as a red herring is a red herring.

 

[sojourner]

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.

That's a laugh. if you think Xy represents a resignation of one's dignity, you don't know enough about it to even comment.

What you term as "supernatural rhetoric," we call "mythos." Mythos is important to the human family, as it provides meaning for our experiences. Your fallacious ploy would be called an "appeal to ridicule."

 

[sojourner]

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.

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.

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

You would be wrong.
people are resurrected all the time.

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"?

The problem is that Dawkins takes a theological story, takes the theology out of it, presents it as bare, historic fact, and then proceeds to poke fun at it, because the facts are stupid. The story was never meant to be bare, historic fact. it was meant to be a story full of metaphor and meaning. And as such, it is invaluable to those who seek spiritual meaning. When you take the meaning out, you destroy the doctrine, because doctrine is built on meaning. Therefore, no. The story, as presented by Dawkins, does not encapsulate doctrine. It encapsulates Dawkins' pandering, however.

 

[sojourner]

I think it's perfectly clear what my point is - and has been throughout this thread. I don't find it a compelling argument that because something is not necessarily considered "doctrine" by the "top" 2% of Christians, who are in a lot of ways almost indestinguishable from deists, it's not what "Christianity" is.

This is precisely the red herring you're presenting us with. The OP asked if Dawkins' statement "summed up Xian doctrine. It does not.
We're not talking about "what the average Xian believes." Unless the OP isn't really asking what it intends to ask. Inattention to detail isn't our problem.

 

[sojourner]

I think from now on this is going to be a fairly one-sided conversation though, I hope you enjoy it.

Bye!

"I'm gonna pick up my marbles and go home [sniff]."
Quag. makes valid points. I, for one, would like to see your answers before you take off in a huff.

 

[sojourner]

iow,
the purpose of this truth of a deity is to buffer the realization of the harshness of life's indifference...

No. The purpose of theology is to help us make meaning out of what little we know of a truth whose magnitude exceeds our capacity to fully understand.

 

[sojourner]

Commoner, here's where you got yourself into trouble:
From post #3:

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

To be fair, if you think Xian theology is "pretty terrible," you don't know enough about Xian theology to make that sort of claim.
You're writing checks with your mouth that your arguments cannot cover. We're just trying to keep you accountable to your claims, and it's ******* you off.

 

[waitasec]

Each person is absolutely unique, if the personal experimentation of each person's mind came out with the same objective realization, the spiritual realm would be no different from material realm.

what's wrong with that? i like to make informed decisions, don't you?

The reality of Deity would be easily taught mechanically as we teach science. Human life would be totally scientifically predicable. Who wants to live such mechanical life eternally?

isn't that the purpose of religion or faith in a deity?

btw,
you are mistaken about the predictability of the material world, very mistaken.

 

[waitasec]

No. The purpose of theology is to help us make meaning out of what little we know of a truth whose magnitude exceeds our capacity to fully understand.

i'm not so sure how one can make meaning out of something that is beyond the capacity to understand

 

[Photonic]

No. The purpose of theology is to help us make meaning out of what little we know of a truth whose magnitude exceeds our capacity to fully understand.

Then theology puts absolutely no faith in humanity as a species, and continuing to think like that is certain destruction.

 

[waitasec]

Commoner, here's where you got yourself into trouble:
From post #3:

To be fair, if you think Xian theology is "pretty terrible," you don't know enough about Xian theology to make that sort of claim.
You're writing checks with your mouth that your arguments cannot cover. We're just trying to keep you accountable to your claims, and it's ******* you off.

to be fair, it is a pretty terrible theology from my perspective. and i have that right to think so, don't you think?

terrible because it's a forged tradition taken out of it's original context and morphed into an entire new ideology that contradicts it's origins

 

[Commoner]

Red herring? I don't think so, Skeezix. Theology is precisely what's at issue here, because theology drives the doctrine. If anything, you're accusation of theology as a red herring is a red herring.

This is precisely the red herring you're presenting us with. The OP asked if Dawkins' statement "summed up Xian doctrine. It does not.
We're not talking about "what the average Xian believes." Unless the OP isn't really asking what it intends to ask. Inattention to detail isn't our problem.

The op asks a very straight forward question - don't worry, you too can find it if you look hard enough, it's even in bolf. Here, let me copy paste it here for your convenience:

"Dawkins says Christians believe this? Is he right? "

 

[Commoner]

That's a laugh. if you think Xy represents a resignation of one's dignity, you don't know enough about it to even comment.

What you term as "supernatural rhetoric," we call "mythos." Mythos is important to the human family, as it provides meaning for our experiences. Your fallacious ploy would be called an "appeal to ridicule."

I wasn't commenting on Christianity, I was commenting on that person's proposition.

 

[Commoner]

The problem is that Dawkins takes a theological story, takes the theology out of it, presents it as bare, historic fact, and then proceeds to poke fun at it, because the facts are stupid. The story was never meant to be bare, historic fact. it was meant to be a story full of metaphor and meaning. And as such, it is invaluable to those who seek spiritual meaning. When you take the meaning out, you destroy the doctrine, because doctrine is built on meaning. Therefore, no. The story, as presented by Dawkins, does not encapsulate doctrine. It encapsulates Dawkins' pandering, however.

Again, you are speaking only for some Christians - and futhermore, I wasn't arguing that Dawkins' quote "encapsulate Christianity" I was simply arguing tha neither does theology.

 

[Commoner]

"I'm gonna pick up my marbles and go home [sniff]."
Quag. makes valid points. I, for one, would like to see your answers before you take off in a huff.

You have the chance to address any issues you want with me - I'm not going anywhere. I am not, however, going to respond to someone who's express purpose is to try and annoy me.

 

[sojourner]

i'm not so sure how one can make meaning out of something that is beyond the capacity to understand

We do that all the time with art, music, storytelling, poetry. What is true also contains beauty. Do you fully understand beauty? No one does, but it's sure nice to strive for, don't you think?

 

[sojourner]

Then theology puts absolutely no faith in humanity as a species, and continuing to think like that is certain destruction.

Nah. It affords faith in humanity to possess a great capacity to wonder, to create, to exceed the limitations of where we now are. Space flight, is largely a theological proposition. So is robotic surgery and systems theory.

 

[sojourner]

to be fair, it is a pretty terrible theology from my perspective. and i have that right to think so, don't you think?

That depends on if you know enough about it to make such an assessment.

terrible because it's a forged tradition taken out of it's original context and morphed into an entire new ideology that contradicts it's origins

What was its "original context?" What's wrong with the process of evolution? Living beings do it all the time. In what way does Xian theology "contradict its 'origins?'"

 

[sojourner]

The op asks a very straight forward question - don't worry, you too can find it if you look hard enough, it's even in bolf. Here, let me copy paste it here for your convenience:

"Dawkins says Christians believe this? Is he right? "

Either way, the answer is "no." The title question is: "Does this sum up Xian doctrine?" No. It doesn't.

The following question, "Dawkins says Xians believe this -- is he right?" is also properly answered, "no."

Because Dawkins squeezes all the meaning out of the events of the story, and its the meaning -- not the bare facts -- of the story that foster belief.

How many times do I have to say that? Hello! Are you not comprehending?

 

[sojourner]

Again, you are speaking only for some Christians - and futhermore, I wasn't arguing that Dawkins' quote "encapsulate Christianity" I was simply arguing tha neither does theology.

First of all, myth is what it is -- regardless of what some -- or even many -- think it is. Many Christians couldn't tell you why they believe what they believe, but that doesn't negate the process. Do babies understand about the process of digestion and the fundamentals of nutrition? No. Do they still reap the benefits when they eat? Yes.

The OP is what we're arguing and the OP wants to know if Dawkins' statement sums up Xy. If you want to argue something else, go start your own thread. My answer was to the OP and, ONCE AGAIN, no, it doesn't, as I explained adequately in the post to which you answered here.

Theology does sum up "what Christians believe," for it is precisely the process of doing theology that creates belief in the first place. Again, if you can't figure that much out, you don't have any business arguing like an expert against it here.