Does this cover Christian belief or not?

C

charles brough

Registered Senior Member
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?

brough
http://civilization-overview.com
I hate nit-pickers!
 
charles brough said:
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."



, I would not be surprised to see him mental health with in a few years.



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 would like him to explain chemically how the primordial soup formed a living cell in step by step.
Click to expand...
 
As I said, the Abrahmic bible is bull shit. Christ did not come here to die, he came here to be our savior. In the end he died to teach us a lesson, a lesson that went unlearned apparently.
 
There is no contemporary historical record that your mythological diety ever existed.
 
charles brough said:
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 what he really cares about is "sin," abortion, how often you go to church and whether gay people should marry."
Click to expand...
Sa Wee Ta :)


Yes, I'd say that's an apt description of Xianity. I'd also like to add that the God-Head could have created sentient creatures that did not need to kill other living creatures to survive. Creatures that feel pain. Hell, we didn't need to be created such that we need to eat at all. We needn't have evolved at all. Anyway, no one would think the Jesus story all that interesting if they just read it today. It's not even as good as Harry Potter :shrug: At least 2.0 had a magic fairy creature ;)
 
AlexG said:
There is no contemporary historical record that your mythological diety ever existed.
Click to expand...

Josephus


On topic though. I think Dawkins glances over the surface of some things described by scripture, but as usual he completely neglects the ideas they were meant to teach. So I would say No, this does not cover what Christians believe, except maybe fundamentalists...
 
Socratic Spelunker said:
Josephus


On topic though. I think Dawkins glances over the surface of some things described by scripture, but as usual he completely neglects the ideas they were meant to teach. So I would say No, this does not cover what Christians believe, except maybe fundamentalists...
Click to expand...
Jesus was created as a protagonist to teach us things about ourselves (and some 'spiritual' ideas Gnostics held). I don't know of any Xians who don't think Jesus was a real live person, at one time. Oddly enough many Xians do think Hell is allegory. It's a step :)
 
charles brough said:
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?

brough
http://civilization-overview.com
I hate nit-pickers!
Click to expand...


Be honest, this is just a nasty dig at christians, the religion, and religion in general, isn't it? :cool:

jan.
 
The opening response sums up the misinformation that is preached by the atheist propaganda machine. Dawkins should read the bible first and then make a summary, since it is obvious he didn't do his homework.

First of all, it is irrational to define the past in terms of the present. They did not have I-pads at 0-AD like Dawkins seems to infer. It was a different time and place and what happened was appropriate to conditions of the times.

A good analogy would be to provide modern data and theory to critique Darwin. For one thing, Darwin didn't know about the role of genetics in evolution. If Darwin was connected to religion, Dawkins would say, since Darin didn't know about genetics, we need to stop teaching Darwin. The guy was in fairie tale land. We need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, even if the baby is clean.

If Dawkins wasn't so narrow minded, slightly more rational, instead of empirical, he would realize the past was a stepping stone leading to the present. Without each stepping stone we would not be able to climb. Instead of dumping on the bottom of the stairs as evil and the top is better (spoiled child), all is good. But Dawkins is an entertainer who mkaes money exciting those who fall for his propaganda.
 
i find it humorous what people read into what God will do or care about . Why would god care about gay marriage? I would rather say that Christians are the ones that care about condemning gay marriage . Better yet it would be Heterosexuals that make the big deal out of it .

The whole idea of scared ? Now that is a funny concept . What makes something Sacred? In this day of rage I am thinking not . How do you air grievances if it is a hush hush world . Silos must fall . If you believe in freedom of information ? Do Ya.

If you all want to know the Character Of God read your bible with a fresh out look and I am sure you will see what the old timers were trying to tell you . It will blow your mind .

O.K. think of it this way. It is like a child trying to tell there parents that they were molested and you are the parent . They are talking to you or the future generations . Try putting your self in the roll of the speaker telling the story . You will never be same once you do this . You feel the blood and guts of the writer and understand the emotions put on paper by another human that happened to be engaged in life as they wrote there bit .

I would venture to guess that they were trying the best they could to convey there human conditioning . I find it all lockstep built upon each other in a forward type motion. Like they had read the previous books and they expounded from there more modern view , but using the same type of language as the ones that came before them . Buddy up is what I call it . There mind excepted what they learned from the books before them and then they built on it while describing there exaggerated personal experiences.

I think just by writing down a story gives it a mysterious bigger than life element to it . A lot like our sensationalized media still to this day . You think about all the cases of violence at your own Court house and then go turn on the T.V. and think about the latest sensationalized violent act . Be honest with your self now . Which one stirs you up more and which one causes more opinion . Butt loads of the ones at the court house you don't even have the gumption to find out about . They just roll on day by day with out another thought that they are there , The media one is packaged for consumption . The consumer eats it up and acts like it is the big real deal .

Thats Entertainment !!
Now don't think I am getting on you for watching T.V. . I think humans need entertainment as to give joy in a harsh world . All work and no play and you will crack some day , That be me cracking up . Ha Ha Ha Ha

Lighten up , It is all ridiculous, One thing for sure is old timers have had experiences we may not ever have cause of the changing times . Now the old timer has a habit of discounting the young people experiences. Why ? They can't relate . The disconnection . The habit is to diminish the child experience. You"l see you whippersnapper. There is a reason for it . There may and there may not is the right answer . If it has become obsolete and in process of fading any it may not mean a thing . Yet the ritual continues because of it being sacred.

That is weird to Me . The word Sacred . You see what I see ? Probably not cause you not Me . This is what I see and it is only because of Me parallel life experience. The Guy from Sac. who the red rock was given . Me Special red rock that I put value on . Why ? Because of who gave the rock to Me and what he said when he gave it to Me . I tell you what ? Jack and the bean stalk story took on a whole new meaning when that happened
 
AlexG said:
There is no contemporary historical record that your mythological diety ever existed.
Click to expand...




Let me give you an example , I come from a low class family , there was never a registration of my birth until I was 15 years old .

I don't know If you have looked in a Jewish historian Josephus , there is a brief mention of a man like Yashua .
 
charles brough said:
Who believes it and who does not---and why?
Click to expand...

I'm very sympathetic with the kind of idea that Dawkins was expressing there. Like Dawkins, I just don't think that the mythological imagery in the first chapters of Genesis is impressive enough, or transcendent enough, to say nothing of credible enough or informative enough, serve as a literal description of how the universe came to be. There certainly doesn't seem to be any evidence of divine inspiraton. Even in purely poetic terms, the Biblical language doesn't rise to the glory of its object. In more conceptual and philosophical terms, it doesn't seem to be saying a whole lot.

I do think that Biblical cosmology is kind of fascinating. So are the ancient cosmologies found in other ancient traditions like those of the Mesopotameans or in the Vedas. But what's fascinating about these traditions isn't what they literally tell us about the universe. Modern science is superior in that regard by many orders of magnitude. What's interesting is what these ancient writings tell us about how the ancients once imagined their world. It illustrates the beginnings, the first stirrings, of philosophical speculaton, when it was still being expressed in mythic story-form.
 
There are many types of historians whose expertise lie in the past. To them the past is alive and fresh with each new discovery. If you are a cosmologist, you enjoy exploring billions of years ago. With each new discovery, the past is treated like it is alive. We treat the new supernova like it is real time. Religion is similar, in that it is from the past, with each new discovery making the past alive.

If you hate history and/or try to put the past behind, because you feel the need to live in the now, studies of the past will need to be downplayed less you drift backwards. The advantage of knowing history, is the past helps you know the future, since history tends to repeat itself.

If you are blind to the past, or need to repress it, when history repeats another cycle, it looks unprecidented. Rather than be rational about the repeat, the irrationaliry of novelty appears ot give a religious effect. With time narrowed to today people can be conned to believe an old song is a brand new song, created today.

For example, manmade global warming makes use of the principle of historical short sight. To this movement, the history of the earth began 50 years ago, and not 6 billion years ago. This narrow history is needed to create a false historical zero point, to disguise a lie that was eventually brought to light.

The global warming lie needed a new name, as though a new disguise and the use of narrow history would work again. But it did work again for the short sighted, who still did not learn to make a connection to the zero points and cycles of history.

Religion is part of that history and provide zero points from thousands of years ago. Doom and gloom has been very popular for centuries. If you check history, this form of herd behavior repeats itself, periodically and will do so again, even in the present and future. How does science explain the belief in the global warming myth that was changed to climate change? The scientific method had no remedy.
 
Yazata,

I'm very sympathetic with the kind of idea that Dawkins was expressing there. Like Dawkins, I just don't think that the mythological imagery in the first chapters of Genesis is impressive enough, or transcendent enough, to say nothing of credible enough or informative enough, serve as a literal description of how the universe came to be.
Click to expand...


What would you regard as impressive, trancendant, and credible?


There certainly doesn't seem to be any evidence of divine inspiraton. Even in purely poetic terms, the Biblical language doesn't rise to the glory of its object. In more conceptual and philosophical terms, it doesn't seem to be saying a whole lot.
Click to expand...



Again, that depends on what you expect.



jan.
 
Michael said:
Jesus was created as a protagonist to teach us things about ourselves (and some 'spiritual' ideas Gnostics held). I don't know of any Xians who don't think Jesus was a real live person, at one time. Oddly enough many Xians do think Hell is allegory. It's a step :)
Click to expand...

Jesus was a man. He was sent here to save us, he didn't fail us, we failed him and he still died for us. The only reason a Christian wouldn't believe in hell is because they recognize the grim truth of their fate.
 
. . . . I get it now!! . . . . . the main theme of these fora is to see who can accumulate the most 'posts' . . . being the final 'Top Post Dog' is the goal - regardless of IQ. (I.Q. = Intelligence Quotient, or I.Q. = Ignorance Quotient - you pick!).

What is said is not as important as the total 'Post Number'.

wlminex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top