talkpolitics | Dawkins : "I'm a cultural Christian".

Entry tags:

Dawkins : "I'm a cultural Christian".

Professor Richard Dawkins has said the he is ' A Cultural Christian'.
In a news story on the BBC website, he declared that he has no wish to see Christmas cancelled, or see Britain lose any part of it's Christian heritage. This may come as a surprise to some, but his website tends to direct its venom towards the more negative aspects of religious belief.

These include the Catholic Church's stance on child molesting priests, it's opposition to contraception, and its condemnation of gay people. Yet Protestant believers come in for criticism too. It isn't simply a belief in Adam and Eve that Dawkins criticises, it's the Old Testament's account of Joshua's conquests, the concept of Hell and the moral standards taught in the O.T. that also provoke his ire.

Well, my take on it is as follows -
the Jews didn't really do the conquest of Canaan like the Bible says,in fact they didn't conquer Canaan at all - Joshua's campaign was largely a propaganda exercise done in a later period;
the concept of Hell as a place of eternal torment rests upon misinterpretation and misunderstanding of certain Biblical passages, as well as a certain amount of Hellenistic influence;
the sexism, racism and homophobia are all there in the Torah, but the Jews themselves got over a lot of it before Jesus came along and finished the job.

If we were to teach History in school and pay more attention to events in the Levant around the Bronze Age, it would do a lot to dispel the negative influence that religious mythology still has on society. We can dump all that stuff and still have a version of Christianity that is different from Atheism. And, yes, I would be happy to explain the specifics in the comments - if I get any:)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

My experience of it and the theology surrounding it was mostly really traumatic

I can totally see how this might be the case. The charismatic movement has done a lot of damage. I was just being flip. Being a "catcher" gave me the opportunity to observe the phenomenon up-close and personal.

I am glad that you have recovered from the trauma. <3

Well, I can relate to that. Ok, it is old news, but I have not really been around that sort of thing for a long time.

I can only say that unless you understand the URC , you do not understand me or where ii am coming from .

Jesus, for me, is not someone you can pin down just by reading about Him. OK, reading helps, but no - He is not just about upholding God's Holiness, he is also about helping us and lifting us up. Yes, us. Not just guys who went to college and wear suits to work. Oh, them too - He has nothing against the rich, it is just that He also has nothing against the poor.

I don't really get the impression that people who got attached to the early church found it traumatic.

actually I'm a member of the URC and still don't understand where you are coming from three quarters of the time

I don't really get the impression that people who got attached to the early church found it traumatic.

who suggested they did?

Well, you said that you found the Toronto Blessing's theology traumatic. Contrast this with the folks who met Jesus and how 'traumatic' was that for them ?

like, I am really sorry if you got hurt by any church that treated you in an abusive way . But I don't think that anyone who leaves people traumatised is seriously following Jesus.

Sorry to reiterate, but Christianity is not about having to follow rules and ' being good enough' to earn god's favour.

We are God's children , and he does not love us for what we do or what we have got to give Him or His church - He loves for the fact that we are his Children and carry His image.

Once you get that, it changes everything about how you treat others and the way you feel about yourself as a result. Does this make any sense to you?

what makes you think that I don't know all this?

Perhaps you do, and perhaps you think I do not.

Let us compare notes.

what?

Sorry- but it is really late. i hope we can talk some more tommorrow. Really sorry, but I have to leave it here for now. good night.

Er... wasn't meeting Jesus traumatic for most of the disciples? I mean, they were called away from their lives and families to follow a teacher who preached a lot of rather strange things - forgiveness for your enemies, disavowal of earthly riches, forgiveness for the worst of society's outcasts, the debasement of the powerful and haughty. Then they saw this man, this remarkable man of wisdom and miracles who they believed to be at a minimum a messenger of God, beaten, bloodied, humiliated and murdered at the hands of a worldly and hostile occupying government. Peter, the rock on which the Church would be built, was so afraid of what he saw and what he knew his beliefs would mean that he disavowed knowledge of the man thrice on the day of his death. Imagine that. You give up your entire life to follow a man, and then you cannot even admit to having known him within hours of his death. One of your closest companions on this journey turned that man in, and has killed himself. Your entire life, as you have devoted yourself to it for some three years, collapses in a single weekend, and all your hopes are smashed.

I'd say the experience of the apostles was pretty traumatic, by any view.

Well, I don't us e any of this to support the view that Catholic priests are OK to abuse kids in their care, or that the ICOC is within its rights to be down on black people or blue collar workers.

well why would anyone?

this is a really strange reply.

Yeah, none of this makes sense to me. But that's Minto for ya...

I can't even imagine the mental gymnastics needed to go from "actually jesus's followers had pretty traumatic experiences" to "this is why people think child abuse is okay and I must show that I don't"

just...what is this, I don't even...

Yeah, that reply bears no connection to my statement. I kinda feel like I'm missing something in Minto's reply, like he's coming here to have an argument with people who aren't here, so he's just responding to everyone else with the stuff he cooked up for these other folks...

yeah, that actually makes the most sense of the situation

well, no. my point is that the Apostles did have a lot of trauma in their lives, but Jesus Himself did not harm them.
There are many churches today , though , that abuse their members, and it isn't something that jesus encourages or approves of.

Sorry - LJ eating lots of my replies. Will try to get back on all your points, but may not succeed.

but where are you seeing anyone using a_new_machines assertion to support child abuse, racism or classim?

I am not - why do you ask.

I am simply saying that Jesus did not abuse any of his disciples, and there is therefore no excuse for the church to be abusive towards their membership.

You : I found the theology around the T/B traumatic.
Me: meeting Jesus was not a traumatic experience for most.
ANM: It was, in lots of ways, for his Apostles.
Me : But how much of that came directly from Jesus , and how much from people outside His circle? Compare this to churches directly responsible for abuse themselves.

Go where you want from here, but I don't see Christ as an abuser myself. I think he suffered a lot at the hands of others, and he tells us that following Him will cause us to suffer as well, but I don't think He causes any of it, and nor should his church , if acting in accord with His teachings .

nobody is saying Christ is an abuser but you seem to be assuming that acknowledging that the disciples had traumatic experiences means people are somehow using that to condone abuse

you said Well, I don't use any of this to support the view that Catholic priests are OK to abuse kids in their care, as if other people do

nobody is saying Christ is an abuser but you seem to be assuming that acknowledging that the disciples had traumatic experiences means people are somehow using that to condone abuse
So what point is A.N.M trying to make here?

I have no idea if you are a Catholic or not. I am not having a go at individual Catholics, but the RCC has shifted priests from one parish to the next, knowing that they are guilty of abusing young people, and thus allowed them to reach new victims. The church, as an institution needs to clean up their act.

The Evangelical churches - more fringe than mainstream but still, they are also guilty of taking it upon themselves to be 'lording it over the flock' and pushing a narrow interpretation upon people with the implications that you are not really following Christ unless you see it their way. Again , this is just giving ammo to the aggressive atheism that Dawkins preaches.

No, sorry , you don't have to live by Deuteronomy to be a Christian, in my view.

I think their point was that following Jesus can be traumatic.

I'm not a Catholic, which you would know if you paid attention because I already told you in this post that I'm the same denomination you are. I do know the history of abuse in the catholic church though. It's not just the catholic church in which child abuse happens though so I don'y know why you are behaving as if it is.

of course churches do bad things sometimes, what would the point of church be if everybody was perfect?

There are no pedophiles outside the Catholic Church. And, even if there were, every case of sexual abuse outside the Catholic Church would be reported -- and the perpetrator would, in every instance, be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Dawkins : "I'm a cultural Christian".

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject