I dunno about these Christians..

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Important point. If I simply took all the times that txag or NR told me I didn't actually have any idea what real Christians believe, or what the Bible really says, or what Christianity is all about, and used their exact rebuttals, and then took up an argument with a different Christian where I used these arguments but admitted I was an atheist, I am 100% positive that within a few minutes I would be told that I have no idea what the Bible says, what real Christians believe, or what Christianity is really all about. It is really, really difficult to make any meaningful description of what Christians are really like, even solely with regards to their religious beliefs. But the opposite is also true, that Christians should be very wary of using this copout of an argument, that the silly atheist they are arguing with has no idea what Christianity is really all about. A lot of the time, the atheist is just regurgitating the explanation he got from a Christian about some specific issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

That's partly why my initial description of what Christians look like to me was so broad. There is so incredibly much that Christians disagree upon amongst themselves that it is nearly impossible for an outsider to make any sense of it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

But an important part of that, which is apparently the point you started from and the point I am gradually coming to, is that it isn't really very honest of the atheist or agnostic to simply cherry-pick whichever "Christian" position he finds easiest to defeat and then project that onto whatever Christian he happens to be arguing with, and force that person to defend it. What that means is that these discussions take longer than they need to, since every single time, effort must be expended to find out what this specific person believes on the relevant issues (Christianity doesn't correlate very strongly with...anything) but this effort really has to be spent if you want any meaningful exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hallelujah! This is exactly why I find Dawkins et al. frustrating. It's like, "congratulations, you've successfully debunked the things that religious scholars themselves debunked over 1,000 years ago."

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I'm a merry-go-round today, though, so don't jump in to agree with me quite yet. Dawkins is debunking those things for the large number of theists who don't know what theologians have debunked a thousand years ago. He serves a purpose. Read Ancestor's Tale, and you will say "Well duh, this is basic evolution, dummy, I don't need it explained to me like I'm a 4 year old with colorful stories. This is all stuff that was discovered 150 years ago." But thats not who he is writing it for.

I'm saying you need to fight them where they are, not where you want them to be. Dawkins fights SOME of them where they are...just not the ones smart enough to respond or criticize his writing. Basically, if someone is able to come up with a cogent critique of his book, I'd bet they are probably right, without even reading it. Its the ones that can't do that that he is writing about.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I'm a merry-go-round today, though, so don't jump in to agree with me quite yet. Dawkins is debunking those things for the large number of theists who don't know what theologians have debunked a thousand years ago. He serves a purpose. Read Ancestor's Tale, and you will say "Well duh, this is basic evolution, dummy, I don't need it explained to me like I'm a 4 year old with colorful stories. This is all stuff that was discovered 150 years ago." But thats not who he is writing it for.

I'm saying you need to fight them where they are, not where you want them to be. Dawkins fights SOME of them where they are...just not the ones smart enough to respond or criticize his writing. Basically, if someone is able to come up with a cogent critique of his book, I'd bet they are probably right, without even reading it. Its the ones that can't do that that he is writing about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, I don't know. I think Dawkins is writing more for atheists to give them some ammunition to use. If he was writing for the religious I don't think he would be as confrontational and insulting.

And I think you should step off your merry-go-round right now. I like where your head is at right about now.

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]

What does the Christian look like.. to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this questions produces a result with a variety of answers, depending upon the answerer's experiences in life and encounters with Christians. I think your point is that Christianity as it is portrayed by some (in the media, this forum, or elsewhere)is not entirely accurate, but as a caricature. I would tend to agree.

But what we are actually observing is the behavior of those who are in some stage of following Christ, and not the true teachings of Scripture. Most people are at some stage of allowing him to continually change and shape their person and character. As such, it's wholly illogical to then cast various behaviors of a few (or even many) onto the group - and even worse then to imply that belief in Christ is unreasonable because certain adherents fail to live up to it on various levels at various times.

For me personally, when I do the things that others have mentioned on this forum (whether it's be angry, or have anxiety, or whatever) I don't doubt the message of scripture, only my lack of application of it at the time. Some use that in the "scripture must be untrue" column when referring to the behavior of some.

The appeal for me is that through the correct application of scripture, I can continually align myself with God, His will and His kingdom and allow Him to continue to change me into something better each and everyday. I know by doing so, I can experience God and reap the fruit of it - peace, joy, love, patience, kindness, gentleness, self control. I have experienced that this does not come through self effort. It's reasonable for me to continue to act accordingly because I've seen it to work.

So while asking what a Christian looks like may produce some answer, I don't think it begins to solve the problem. It only gives someone an opportunity to use the behaviors of others to justify what they believe already - either way you look at it.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I don't know. I think Dawkins is writing more for atheists to give them some ammunition to use. If he was writing for the religious I don't think he would be as confrontational and insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believed he said in some interview that the book is aimed at them who have never really thought about these things and have just gone with the flow. I'm sure there are a lot of those people in America too considering how poorly they know their religion (ten commandments, who gave Sermon on the Mount etc.)

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I don't know. I think Dawkins is writing more for atheists to give them some ammunition to use. If he was writing for the religious I don't think he would be as confrontational and insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believed he said in some interview that the book is aimed at them who have never really thought about these things and have just gone with the flow. I'm sure there are a lot of those people in America too considering how poorly they know their religion (ten commandments, who gave Sermon on the Mount etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, I understand what he was trying to do. I think he miscalculated a little bit though. By presenting the material in the way that he has, he is giving other atheists an example to follow. And people he converts to atheism will also be rude to theists at large.

In my view, this deepens the divide between the theists and the atheists instead of bringing theists back to the discussion.