User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 103

  1. #1
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,926

    Default "Bible is as Toxic as Quran, but Christians Don't Believe the Bible Literally"

    British evolutionary biologist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins asserted in a recent interview that the Bible is just as "toxic" as Islam's holy book, the Quran, but reasoned that the difference between Muslims and Christians is that most Christians are taught to believe the Bible "metaphorically."

    In an interview with Fox News Radio's Alan Colmes earlier this week, the 74-year-old Dawkins, a zealous atheist who authored the 2006 book The God Delusion, was asked a number of questions on topics such as the 2016 presidential race, America's "secular" founding and the "toxicity" of religions.

    When Colmes asked Dawkins if he believes one religion is "sicker" or "more toxic" than the others, Dawkins stated that it is not unfair to say that in the today's world, Islam is to blame for the "maximum toxicity in religion."

    Dawkins asserted that "it's partly that [Muslims] are taught to believe that the Quran is literally true."

    Colmes responded by saying that many Christians are also taught that the Bible is literally true.

    Dawkins agreed but further argued that there are not as many Christians who take the Bible as literally as Muslims view the Quran.

    "There are but they are not that numerous," Dawkins stated. "The Bible itself is as toxic as the Quran but most Christians are not taught to believe it literally. Most Christians are taught to believe it metaphorically or allegorically."
    [...]
    Atheist Richard Dawkins Claims 'Bible as Toxic as Quran,' but 'Christians Don't Believe the Bible Literally'


    Discuss.

  2. #2
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    When intelligent people talk about how they know God is not real, etc, it reinforces what a fool they really are. (fool being a biblical term)

    God is not something that can be proved or known by intellectual thought exercises, pHDs, or philosophical debates. Belief and faith are largely irrational processes.


    And I believe your title is misleading. And slightly baiting. I get where he was coming from. He was referring to jihad. What he does not realize is that it's not that Christians take the Bible metaphorically, it's that CHRIST teaches love first and foremost. He wouldn't understand that because he is an atheist.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com

    Likes Thalassa, Rambling liked this post

  3. #3
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    When intelligent people talk about how they know God is not real, etc, it reinforces what a fool they really are. (fool being a biblical term)

    God is not something that can be proved or known by intellectual thought exercises, pHDs, or philosophical debates. Belief and faith are largely irrational processes.


    And I believe your title is misleading. And slightly baiting. I get where he was coming from. He was referring to jihad. What he does not realize is that it's not that Christians take the Bible metaphorically, it's that CHRIST teaches love first and foremost. He wouldn't understand that because he is an atheist.
    There is a word limit to the titles, so sometimes the full idea can't be expressed.

    I'd say the Old Testament God isn't exactly about love first and foremost, but I suppose being an Atheist prevents me from acknowledging that?

  4. #4
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    There is a word limit to the titles, so sometimes the full idea can't be expressed.

    I'd say the Old Testament God isn't exactly about love first and foremost, but I suppose being an Atheist prevents me from acknowledging that?
    Atheists can't even read religious texts. When they attempt to look at the words God(s?) transforms those words in their minds into meaningless jargon.

    Apparently when Christopher Hitchens tried to read the Bible every word came out as "squawk".
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.
    Likes Dyslexxie, Ivy, Thalassa liked this post

  5. #5

    Default

    Dawkins?

    Yeah, I'd expect him to be an authority on religion. Probably objective, fair and balanced too.
    Likes MDP2525, Bush Did 9/11 liked this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    I don't really see a center theme of discussion presenting itself...

    My personal contention and conscious belief: is that the Bible is not written for historical merit, or "scientific" merit... its written in order to share something like "spiritual" knowledge. Obviously there is lots of controversy about what that can mean, and must entail, and the vulgar atheistic view is that it must always be 'stupid' in some sense. But this is all to do with definitions of first principles, and teleological outlook; which is funny because, that is the central grounding that spiritual knowledge is able to supply; while as far as I know, Atheism must has no way to escape its pluralistic outlook (which is a decadent point of view which can only be excused by feeble rhetoric and fallacy).

    A spirit is to do with a direction, or an outlook applied to a particular context. A good example of the correct use of the word spirit would be the famous Marx quote on religion (which proves that the word holds merit even in a secular sense (that in my view, is the same meaning as the word given in the Christian Scriptures))

    Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

    Marx has also said about religion:
    Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun". . .
    ---
    In the above contexts, I would agree with Marx fully, I would even add there are Christian Scriptures that mirror these sentiments, which I have even quoted before on this forum..

    I will perhaps digress back to these points that Marx draws out after dealing with some of Dawkins claims more directly.

    Obviously I don't count many so-called (self-professed) Christians to be 'believers' as I understand the Christian faith. Dawkins is obviously commenting in a rather Sociological fashion, which is incoherent in its treatment of the veracity of such 'types' of faith as he lumps together. However then, although my beliefs don't engage Dawkins in any direct way (as he is addressing some nebulous-group of huddled-"Christians" which must either all be covered by a single counter-argument or Dawkins could just correctly tout that you wouldn't be addressing his obtuse claims head-on), to me its obvious that the Bible is to be taken as an account on "psychological reality", and the mechanics of the psyche at its core, which seek to share this knowledge in the only ways of doing so: mystery to be unlocked by understanding, of which the Scriptures state clearly and is popular for the arbitrary reason that it's not so easy to overlook as so many other points of doctrine in the bible which are commonly overlooked. This can be described as 'metaphorical' writing, I don't know if I would call it metaphor myself, because it has no factual counterpart, it is speaking of the immaterial nature of the psyche, none of it is meant to be grounded into a concrete appearance of Godliness ("The Kindgom of God comes not with observation"), it's meant to be sublimated into (and 'banked' as) discerning. Which is why the Scriptures talk about a discerning spirit being the one that relates to the true God. And also while the last book of the bible is just a fully related account of a dream: how many 'concrete' dreams has anyone every had, and yet their meaning is quite possibly made full concrete, by what?

    Discerning.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.
    Likes Xann liked this post

  7. #7
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    I disagree with the assertion.

    I have a lot of experience with various christians, and I can tell you that most on the fundamental protestant side take it very literally. Like, 'the earth is 12,000 years old' literally. Like, get red in the face and scream at you if you suggest otherwise literally. Catholics are probably the best Christian denomination at taking the Bible metaphorically, with Lutherans a close second, but most of the random 'Churches of Give Us Money' do not.

    Why Christianity works and Islam does not is that the bible has a new testament, which 'fulfills the old' according to them. So all the wife beating gay bashing first born slaying can be chalked up as pre-christ, therefore not necessarily (or literally) gospel. The religion is more like a redemption story, and you're supposed to follow your main character role model only after the third act transformation. Islam doesn't have that. Take out the New and the Old looks a lot like the Quran. What Muslims need is a Jesus to come along and form a new branch of Islam in his name, so the lore can be kept but the blood transcended.

    Mohammad was no Jesus. A prophet isn't enough. Only the son of Allah will do.
    It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it. Any volunteers?

  8. #8
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    16,991

    Default

    Yes and no. The Bible is as "toxic" as the Quran, and equally able to be used to justify violence and bigotry. Sadly, though, plenty of Christians do take it literally, at least the parts that appeal to them and can be used to justify their lifestyle and point of view. The big difference is that primarily Christian nations/societies operate with significant separation of church and state, which at least in theory, places all religions on an equal footing. Anyone can be a literalist, but no one can impose their literal interpretation on anyone else.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Luke O, Dyslexxie, Cowardly liked this post

  9. #9
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,926

    Default

    I'll concede that my experience and Dawkin's might be somewhat ignorant of American reality; there seems to be more Christians nutjobs there than I had initially assumed

  10. #10
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,736

    Default

    He's out of his element.

    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Is the truth of something as important as its implications?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-29-2012, 02:42 AM
  2. [JCF] Is "Feeling" as RATIONAL as "Thinking"?
    By Wonkavision in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 02:09 PM
  3. Socialism is never going to be as trendy as capitalism
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 02:54 AM
  4. Are there tests as good as MBTI but not related to it?
    By hommefatal in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 07:17 AM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO