Dawkins : "I'm a cultural Christian".

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

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:)

Comments

'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you can explain the anachronisms and errors in the OT some other way, Pastor, but to me it seems that the Torah was not written by Moses , but by some other person or persons at a later date.

maybe around the time the book was 'lost' and then 'found' in the reign of Josiah. See 2 kings 22:1-20. Was it really 'lost'? or did they find several versions and tidy it up a bit, amalgamating two separate stories on Noah's Ark - one with two of every animal, and one with seven 'clean' animals being sent aboard?

Of course, the OT is riddled with contradictions.

The Divine Name that is rendered 'Jehovah' in the KJV is actually YHWH when transliterated from the Hebrew into English.
Abraham did not know the name of YHWH, so we are told in Exodus 6:2&3. Yet Abraham himself names a place 'Jehovah -jirah' in Genesis 18:20, 21. How did this happen, do you think?

But apart from the facts, what about the moral standards of the OT as a whole? Deuteronomy 23;3 forbids a Moabite from entering into the congregation of the people of Israel down to the tenth generation. So it's nice to see such a harsh edict ignored to admit Ruth, and also allow her great grandson David actually become king. naturally, if the book of Deuteronomy were actually written , even in its present form , a long time after David and not before him, we don't get a problem then, we just have the problem of explaining it now.

But I will let you respond to this before I mention Uriah the Hittite, and the Gibeonites. Because these accounts also support my hypothesis, that the Torah in its present form was unknown to the people of David and Solomon's time, and was actually written or compiled in the days of Josiah.

I would agree that the popular version of Hell, complete with fire and brimstone, is 'crap theology', as you put it.

I would simply say that Josiah turned the Valley of Himmon into a rubbish dump, and had brimstone used to stoke the fires there. It became a symbol for an ignominious fate, as executed criminals were thrown there, rather than being given a proper burial. The language of the Old and New Testaments were taken up by readers who didn't know the history behind the texts.

Do you dispute any of this, and if so on what grounds?

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what you're on about. I was talking about your crap theology -- including your crap soteriology, your crap Christology, and your crap ecclesiology -- not your third-hand dilletante's understanding of textual criticism.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Really? His understanding of current (non-fundamentalist) mainline form criticism seems pretty spot-on. Where is he wrong specifically?

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I'm critiquing his theology, not his ability to regurgitate Ehrman.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

For the record, I can honestly say that I have never even HEARD of Ehrman. I gather that possibly he may be German , but that is a guess. An American of German descent could easily have that surname.

Now, please, Pastor, attack the idea, and not the person.
If Ehrman, or anyone else agrees with me, I say this:

I have studied the Bible on my own time. I have formed my own opinions on the basis of what I have read in the public libraries and on the internet. Yes, I did Alpha Course, I did a few years in the Theocratic Ministry School , and I would expect people like you to accuse me of regurgitating Weilhousen, if that is how you spell his name.

I look forward to your critique of my ideas set out here, and if someone else has beaten me to it, well, I am not surprised, but please show us all what we have all missed and you have spotted.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

What is the gospel?

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

'Gospel' is a word meaning ' good news'.
there are 4 ' gospels, four accounts of the Good News about Jesus of Nazareth in the Christian Bible, but there were other works called 'Gospels' that did not make it into the Canon.

Now, i have answered your question , please answer one of mine, please.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

how about you answer my questions?

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

sorry - LJ is being slow tonight - you should have your answers in full by now.

please get back if there is anything i did not cover or you don't understand.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, that's not what the gospel is.

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

Try starting there.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

To be fair the Alpha course is hardly indepth theology. It also leans to evangelistic theology, which makes it quite specific.

there are many critiques of the alpha course (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Alpha+Course#pq=alpha%20course&hl=en&cp=11&gs_id=1c&xhr=t&q=criticisms%20Alpha%20Course&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=criticisms+Alpha+Course&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=73d4a0b2ffe0e558&biw=1520&bih=925)

I don't think it's a very good thing to base your entire theology on

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

To be fair the Alpha course is hardly indepth theology. It also leans to evangelistic theology, which makes it quite specific.

Even so, it is a fair example of the sort theology that I have studied and have mostly rejected.

There are many critiques of the alpha course.

You don't say. I think you are assuming that I accept and follow it's conclusions. I think I could write my own critique of the Alpha Course, and nobody who teaches the course would like what I have to say about it.

I don't think it's a very good thing to base your entire theology on

That is why I don't, but prefer to believe the critics who say it is wrong. Trust me, I have done Alpha, but that does not mean I believe it and accept it uncritically. I have examined it and rejected most of it's conclusions.

I believe the following:-

That homosexuality itself is not morally wrong.

That the Bible's historical accounts often contradict each other and also the facts of archaeology and physical sciences like dendrochronology, palaeontology, and many others.

Adam and Eve? Myth. Noah's flood? Didn't happen. Moses, Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan? Out of harmony with what we know of the period.

The Devil is not real, but is a concept from pagan myth that worked it's way into Christianity. ' Lucifer, mentioned in Isaiah chapter 14, is really based upon Helel ben Shachar, a figure from Canaanite mythology.

Likewise, the Protestant and Catholic Hell is very different from both Sheol and Gehenna, as portrayed in the Bible.

The Bible is not God's revealed word to Humankind, but rather traces our human ancestors experiences and their thoughts on what these experiences mean.

The Bible we use today is not the Bible for the Early Church, and the Bible went through centuries of change before settling onto the form we know today, with books coming in and going out before settling on the present form.

I did not come to these conclusions solely as a result of doing the Alpha Course, nor from my studies in the Theocratic Ministry School. I came to these conclusions by reading Funk and Wagnell's Encyclopaedia, The Golden Bough , The Masks of God, and several other commentaries and critiques of the Bible that I found in my local library.

I have set out some hear , and I wait to see if Pastor Lenny can refute a single point i have raised.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

so what do you believe in regards to Christianity?

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

also what is the Theocratic Ministry School?

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

A group set up by a Fundamentalist sect called Jehovah's Witnesses.

It teaches, among other things that -

The Bible is the Inspired Word of God and that if scientists disagree with it, the scientists are wrong
Homosexuality is immoral,
The Devil is a fallen angel that God threw out of heaven
Adam and Eve are historical characters who were created about 6,000 years ago
Noah's flood happened as a historical event, about 2,000 years before Christ.

All of which I disagree with on the basis of historical, textual and scientific evidence to the contrary.

I was raised and brought up on believing that The Bible was the highest source of revealed truth , and was of Divine origin. I understand what people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Duane Gish are saying - I just think that they are totally wrong.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

including your crap soteriology, your crap Christology, and your crap ecclesiology -- not your third-hand dilletante's understanding of textual criticism.

Well, maybe we can talk about those subjects some other time.
Right now , I am saying that the Torah is saying that Abram / Abraham did not know the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which was in fact one of the Divine Names of God.

However, he actually names a place and included the tetragrammaton in the place name. So, how come?

Also, I am surprised that you do not know that there are two accounts of the loading of animals into the Ark in the Bible. I suggest you go look at Genesis 6: 19-22, then go compare Genesis 7:1-3. please come back to me when you can explain this clear discepancy between the two accounts, for one says that seven of every clean beat went in , not just two.

Even so, let us go straight to David and discuss him.

You are aware that his great grandmother was a Moabitess, are you not? So how come he was allowed to be King over Israel? Were not the Moabites forbidden to come before the Lord, down to the tenth generation ?

And, for the record, Uriah the Hittite was one of the seven races slated for destruction . yet this guy marries anice jewish girl and has a house quite close to the kings palace in Jerusalem. If he is supposed to be killed, how oome the prophet nathan gets all indignant ith David, and how come David does not say " take this heathen dog out and stone him to death "? After all , he wants this man's wife, nd if the Law is already written , he can invoke that Law and thus achieve his ends with a degree of legitimacy. The fact that he doesn't supports the idea that the Law code was not present in his day in its present form.

Do you understand my argument, Pastor. If you do, please specifically refute it.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

You haven't constructed an argument. You're just playing Old Testament trivia.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Well, how do I 'construct an argument', then , according to your rules.

Understand that I make an assertion ,
namely that the bible contains contradictions in it's narrative of events.

I cite David being king and Uriah being married to a Jewish woman and also a soldier in David's army as examples of what should not be happening if the Jews really had a law code with anti Hittite and anti Moabite sentiments at the time of david. i am saying that David acts and behaves as though the Law does not exist, and say that this is because they did not have it.

If this is not an argument, I don't know what is.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

once again, how does this effect your Christianity/relationship with God

And please don't give me a laundry list of things you don't believe

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

It leads me to conclude that Jesus wants us to help others and be aware of the needs of people at the margins of our society.

I think that one can learn a great deal by study, but that intellectual understanding is not the final aim - it should be helping others to fulfil their potential.

I believe that Christ wants us to create a society that means that the world works for everyone , not just the Social Elite.

A Church that has Jesus alive and at work in it will welcome women into the Pulpit and not marginalise them. It will be a Church that is focussed on helping those fleeing from domestic violence, seeking to give women and other marginalised groups a voice in society and speaking out on their behalf. It will welcome black people and other Ethnic minorities as equals, it will not be discriminating against blue collar workers, it will go out into the community on a regular basis and not expect the community to go to it.

If you want my take on a specific issue, you need to be more direct. for it seems to me that many take the view that God is all for the 'old ways' - that God is an Arch conservative, someone who is anti gay, anti women's rights, anti - intellectual , anti evolution and anti democratic.

No, I don't believe in a God who is any of that. Jesus set us free from the rules, and asks that we serve Him by serving others.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

do you believe in the resurrection, in salvation?

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

First, that's not constructing an argument. It's instatiating an assertion.

Second, in your OP you purport to argue for the following conclusion:

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.

This is the conclusion I'm refuting.

Third, they're not "my rules." They're the basic principles of language, logic, reason and rhetoric.

Fourth, heroin is illegal in the US. I regularly hang out with heroin users in the US. HOW CAN THIS BE????? THIS COMMENT MUST NOT BE TRUE!!!11!!!

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I will be back tomorrow.
LJ really slow loading up and I am getting tired.

I merely tried to show that we don't need a burning hell under us to bring us to the Lord - in act I consider that counter productive. it mean that people come to church out of fear and not out of love. i leave you with that thought, and may gods love be with you and yours. good night till tomorrow.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

First, that's not constructing an argument. It's instatiating an assertion.

I am still saying that the OT contradicts itself, and points to a faked early history, however you want to slice it.

This is the conclusion I'm refuting.
Um , I don't see where you have refuted a single claim I made. Nor does Telemann sound that convinced to me. But, please, run it past me again.

Abraham can call a place by a name of God he doesn't know because...?

Uriah the Hittite is allowed to marry a Jewish girl after all because...?

And David gets to be king in spite of the edict in the Torah because...?

So, the fact that they found this book is no problem. It was really there and the Jews never faked their own early history.

Telemann has called you on it in a previous comment, and I call you on it again, right here.

The Bible contradicts itself, in all the examples shown here. Abraham and the Divine Name; Uriah the Hittite living and working in Jewish society, David the king as a fourth generation Moabite.

If we can agree that these are contradictions that show that the Hebrews wrote themselves a false history, we can then look at Gehenna and Sheol as they appear in Scripture and hopefully accept that many Protestant churches miss the point in original passages and go for a doctrine that does not reflect well on God.

Fourth, heroin is illegal in the US. I regularly hang out with heroin users in the US. HOW CAN THIS BE????? THIS COMMENT MUST NOT BE TRUE!!!11!!!

But heroin is illegal, and this does not stop people from breaking the law.

In the Bible, however, we see that although the Jews had a Legal Code containing many features that might well have put them ahead of their neighbours, they do not come up so well against the standards of our day.

Like for instance, when the prophet Elisha calls down the wrath of god on a bunch of kids who are mocking him.Two she bears burst out of the woods and maul the youngsters, killing 42 of them. Not what I would call 'minimum use of force'.

Then we have Saul offering his daughter to anyone who will kill Goliath for him. Er, since when does he have the right to hand over
his daughter to just anyone without her consent? And does God object to this view of women being mere pieces of property? Apparently not.

Again, it seems to me that God in the OT simply reflects the Jewish standards of the day. Quite advanced in some ways, and very sexist in others. So, that is another can of worms you have opened.

Re: 'Crap' theology?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

You have not in any way defended your position that "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."