E.D. I don't really have a quarrel with you. Your philosophy, "...the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible)….” is
one I share, leaving out the christian thing. You see Christ as an inspiration, I see common sense as my inspiration, the "less is more" argument.
My gripe, well one of them, with religion is that it is totally subjective but the religious refuses to admit it. After all, if god has inspired the writing of holy texts (Bible, Book of Mormon, Kur'an) setting forth his will, well you better damn sure follow it/them, "drink my blood" to holy under ware.
That example, my anti-Jesus post was directed at the very point you used in your defense. I know you are not anti-Jesus, you love Christ, but your Christ is not Benny Hinn's Christ, it is not the pope's Christ, it is not the Christ Andrew Sullivan sees. You said that there are different interpretations of how to spread the Gospels, you have the lead by example model, Billy Graham the proselytize model, the Mormon's the sending out of young missionaries to disturb my Saturday morning, Islam, the knock a few heads together model. But most things in religion are rife with interpretation. Most(?) christians believe that good works are necessary to gain heaven, but Calvin had a different view. Folks were born saved or damned, good works would not change their destiny. The list is close to endless. Religious wars fought because of some minor, my word, interruption of a holy text.
I am not claiming the above criticism is new, indeed it is a quite common critique of religion. But for me it is a valid critique. Religion is subjective.
Now the religious will probably answer with, "these interruptions are minor, we all agree that X is the true god." Well I'm not buying that argument, when you are sending your opposition to eternal flames for not buying "it really does turn into the blood of Christ" it's getting pretty serious.
These inter and intra- disputes diminish religion far more than any some rant by Dawkins.
2009-02-04 14:22:21
E.D. you say, "I’m an anti-missionary, no matter the faith." That is in #9. I always thought that Jesus charged the apostles to go forth and spread the good news, the Gospels. Right? Are you anti-Jesus?
2009-02-03 16:12:03
I realize that your comment was directed at The God Delusion, not all of his writing's. But you only have faith to back-up your theory that the book is nothing but a money grubbing enterprise. And when I write "faith" I mean it is a belief. You can't, I dare you, to offer one single fact to back up your claim that the book was written in, as the saying goes, "bad faith". Are you privy to a letter Dawkins sent the publisher proffering a book that would pad the bank account of both the author and publisher but would otherwise have no merit? Some fact like that?
2009-02-03 15:15:07
Wow! And I thought I made over the top generalizations. I just can't believe you wrote this, "The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It’s not an intellectual pursuit at all...." This defines cynical.
And this, "...(and yes, I’m sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible)...."
E.D. if I was to become religious and christian I would be right there. But as an atheist, an imperfect label, I can say the purpose of my life "is not to build wealth but to live simply an good and with as little as possible." Well said Mr. Kain.
The Wow factor is the fact your "purpose of Christianity" is not universally accepted. (I know you are not saying that.) But a large number of the followers of Christ reject your definition. I guess they are generally refereed to as Charismatic, followers of Prosperity Gospel (PG)/theology. Even to me, one that has no use for religion but is reasonably aware of contemporary events, the folk associated with PG trip right off my finger tips: Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer etc.
E.D., if your philosophy held sway in the christian community we would be having that Kum Ba Yah moment.
But no singing yet, not as long as you continue to hold the "pointless screed" theory.
I love you, ya' big lug!
2009-02-03 03:43:29
Your harping on the books and the riches atheists glean from the sales trivializes your argument. If Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens write books you find lacking criticize the book, point out the slender threads from which the author weave their arguments. Your wholesale condemnation of their enterprise is silly. You are gracious enough, however, to allow that this is their right, it is, after all, still a free country, turning a buck is allowed. You come dangerously close to blurting out it is just a money making industry, you disallow the possibility that the books do indeed represent the authors honest thoughts. You assert, you offer no evidence. You offer snarky comments, "religion-basher," "Tales Told by Idiots...," "...a compleat waste of time." Those are your words.
Regarding the religious niche found in book stores I have noticed that pro-religious books far out number the atheist titles. Check it out the next time you are in a book store. But this only makes sense since an overwhelming number of Americans claim some degree of belief in a god. I am unwilling to accuse those writers of being in it only for the money. I am willing to bet that Rick Warren has sold more books than Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens combined. But you don't have a word to say about that side of the coin.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
E.D. I don't really have a quarrel with you. Your philosophy, "...the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible)….” is
one I share, leaving out the christian thing. You see Christ as an inspiration, I see common sense as my inspiration, the "less is more" argument.
My gripe, well one of them, with religion is that it is totally subjective but the religious refuses to admit it. After all, if god has inspired the writing of holy texts (Bible, Book of Mormon, Kur'an) setting forth his will, well you better damn sure follow it/them, "drink my blood" to holy under ware.
That example, my anti-Jesus post was directed at the very point you used in your defense. I know you are not anti-Jesus, you love Christ, but your Christ is not Benny Hinn's Christ, it is not the pope's Christ, it is not the Christ Andrew Sullivan sees. You said that there are different interpretations of how to spread the Gospels, you have the lead by example model, Billy Graham the proselytize model, the Mormon's the sending out of young missionaries to disturb my Saturday morning, Islam, the knock a few heads together model. But most things in religion are rife with interpretation. Most(?) christians believe that good works are necessary to gain heaven, but Calvin had a different view. Folks were born saved or damned, good works would not change their destiny. The list is close to endless. Religious wars fought because of some minor, my word, interruption of a holy text.
I am not claiming the above criticism is new, indeed it is a quite common critique of religion. But for me it is a valid critique. Religion is subjective.
Now the religious will probably answer with, "these interruptions are minor, we all agree that X is the true god." Well I'm not buying that argument, when you are sending your opposition to eternal flames for not buying "it really does turn into the blood of Christ" it's getting pretty serious.
These inter and intra- disputes diminish religion far more than any some rant by Dawkins.
E.D. you say, "I’m an anti-missionary, no matter the faith." That is in #9. I always thought that Jesus charged the apostles to go forth and spread the good news, the Gospels. Right? Are you anti-Jesus?
I realize that your comment was directed at The God Delusion, not all of his writing's. But you only have faith to back-up your theory that the book is nothing but a money grubbing enterprise. And when I write "faith" I mean it is a belief. You can't, I dare you, to offer one single fact to back up your claim that the book was written in, as the saying goes, "bad faith". Are you privy to a letter Dawkins sent the publisher proffering a book that would pad the bank account of both the author and publisher but would otherwise have no merit? Some fact like that?
Wow! And I thought I made over the top generalizations. I just can't believe you wrote this, "The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It’s not an intellectual pursuit at all...." This defines cynical.
And this, "...(and yes, I’m sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible)...."
E.D. if I was to become religious and christian I would be right there. But as an atheist, an imperfect label, I can say the purpose of my life "is not to build wealth but to live simply an good and with as little as possible." Well said Mr. Kain.
The Wow factor is the fact your "purpose of Christianity" is not universally accepted. (I know you are not saying that.) But a large number of the followers of Christ reject your definition. I guess they are generally refereed to as Charismatic, followers of Prosperity Gospel (PG)/theology. Even to me, one that has no use for religion but is reasonably aware of contemporary events, the folk associated with PG trip right off my finger tips: Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer etc.
E.D., if your philosophy held sway in the christian community we would be having that Kum Ba Yah moment.
But no singing yet, not as long as you continue to hold the "pointless screed" theory.
I love you, ya' big lug!
Your harping on the books and the riches atheists glean from the sales trivializes your argument. If Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens write books you find lacking criticize the book, point out the slender threads from which the author weave their arguments. Your wholesale condemnation of their enterprise is silly. You are gracious enough, however, to allow that this is their right, it is, after all, still a free country, turning a buck is allowed. You come dangerously close to blurting out it is just a money making industry, you disallow the possibility that the books do indeed represent the authors honest thoughts. You assert, you offer no evidence. You offer snarky comments, "religion-basher," "Tales Told by Idiots...," "...a compleat waste of time." Those are your words.
Regarding the religious niche found in book stores I have noticed that pro-religious books far out number the atheist titles. Check it out the next time you are in a book store. But this only makes sense since an overwhelming number of Americans claim some degree of belief in a god. I am unwilling to accuse those writers of being in it only for the money. I am willing to bet that Rick Warren has sold more books than Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens combined. But you don't have a word to say about that side of the coin.