Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.

Why did Richard Dawkins fail to answer the questions?


  • Total voters
    0
Salaam

Hmmm why are you people giving time to a secular bigot like Dawkins?+o( Seriously theres better things to do with your time.

His TGD is not an intellectually sophisticated book, its little more than an angry bitter diatribe against us religious folks. He does strike me as a distrubed individual, his almost pathological hate for the religious is distrubing to the say the least. And you can see the consequences of it by the rather ugly athiest subculture that he himself has helped to create.
 
First, I'm going to agree that there is much in Christianity that not only can be, but often is confusing. We talk about the kingdom of God being here and not yet. We say that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not by works (lest any man should boast), and then at the same time say that faith without works is dead. We talk about Jesus being both fully human and fully divine in one person at the same time, and yet without intermingling those two natures. We talk about (what we at least term) a monotheistic God who exists in three persons. And then we go so far as to suggest that somehow all of this is supposed to make logical sense.

We ought to at least admit, that while it might make some degree of sense to those who grew up with it, that it is suggesting some pretty heavy stuff to those who grew up not hearing this kind of conversation every day. (And frankly, it obviously has caused some confusion even among its adherents or theologians wouldn't still being arguing over the finer points and calling them major points.)

So Christ is your mediator with your father?
can you not directly connect with the father, or does christ have the monopoly?
There is no short version, Yes/No answer to your question, but I'll try to keep it as brief as I can.

Remember that one aspect of the Christian understanding of sin (which differs from Islamic understanding) is that we were all created perfect and sinless, but that Adam's (and Eve's) sin changed everything and has a continuing effect on all. This means that even a person who does not committ sins, is not sinless because we are all born into a fallen world and with a Sinful nature. To speak of there being a Sinful nature is to suggest that our human nature is not automatically and primarily directed toward living in fellowship with God, but rather that our basic nature as human beings is to be primarily focused on pleasing the self.

Like I said, I know Muslims have a different starting point than Christian with regard to this, but to understand Christian theology you have to understand that this view of sin is one of our apriori assumptions with regard to human nature: people are by nature messed up, and so messed up, that try as we might we can never get it right to be good enough for God all on our own merits.

Given that not even the best of us -- to put it in an Islamic context, not even a prophet -- is good enough for God. We all fall short. We all sin --big or little it doesn't make a difference. Falling short is falling short. Abraham, according to the Qur'an, may only have lied three times in his life and they may even have been little ones that were done for an ultimately "good" purpose (don't know that that last part would be in the Qur'an, just trying to minimized Abraham's sin to make it infinitesimally small), but God demands perfection and so even near perfect (but not quite 100% perfect) Abraham would on his own merit be unable to enter paradise. So, Sin (meaning the entire Sin nature, not just the list of individual sins) becomes the big issue that needs to be solved in order to re-establish humanity's ability to live in fellowship and communion with God (e.g. to fully in harmony with to God's will) that he was intended to do in his creation.

Now, should we accept the theology of the Tanakh, God provided a means by which people could make sin offerings and re-establish their relationship with him. But it didn't keep people from sinning, and it certainly didn't take away the Sin nature. In that sense it was an imperfect solution. (I expect at least some Jews to disagree with the view that the sacrificial system was imperfect, and for Muslims to object that it is ridiculous to consider God offering an imperfect solution to anything that he offers a solution for. Be that as it may, it is the Christian view.) Christians believe that the Bible proposes God offering an ultimate solution to the issue of sin in the final act of cleansing of the entire world in the last days. But the question is, in those last days of final cleansing who shall be saved? How can anyone who is sinful endure that cleansing? And the answer is that again on one's own merits they can't. But....and here is where if I haven't lost you already I expect to lose you now....Christians hold that in the same way that God's angel of death passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt whose doorways were covered by the blood of the lambs to mark them as belonging to God's chosen people, so too will those who are covered by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus, God's anointed one) be spared eternal death (which is another thing that Adam's sin introduced to the world) and be saved for eternal life.

Again, this act of salvation is not something that a person is able to do for one's self, but must be done for him/her. Because it must be for us, because it comes to us from outside our own selves and our own efforts, but is made possible by the work of another and then offered to us, to receive it is a gift. And the way to receive it is to trust that it really is true, that Christ's voluntary offering of himself on the cross does provide a perfect sacrifice that ultimately promises the removal of this Sin nature so that we can be fitted for heaven. I need to be quick to point out, that this does not make Christians any better than anyone else. It only makes us better than we would otherwise be apart from Christ. (Sometimes that's still pretty bad.) But in doing this, God himself comes back into our lives in a unique way that he was not present before, and has not been present in anyone's life since the time that God breathed his life giving Spirit into Adam.

OK. There is more. But I promised that even though I couldn't make it short that I would try to make it as brief as I could. So, hopefully you see how Christ's role -- God the Son making the perfect offering on our behalf, which he couldn't do unless he was perfect as God is perfect --provides us with access to God the Father with whom we were created to live in communion and fellowship. It is in this sense that he is a mediator. We can pray to God the Father (or for that matter God the Son or God the Spirit) all on our own. We don't need a mediator for that. But when Satan, the accuser, declares that we are sinful beings, unworthy of living in God's presence, the Son becomes our advocate saying that the devil lies, we have been washed clean of sin and those sins have been cast as far from us as the east is from the west and then forgotten so that God remembers them no more and does not count them against us. And therefore, we are, by his grace, priviledge to stand perfect and blameless before God at the time of judgment.

So, you say that "intentions" and "deeds" are needed in order to be saved.
Does christianity provide guidance on those necessary "intentions" and "deed"?
Yes. Our guidance comes in the person of the Holy Spirit who is the very presence of God in our lives to lead and direct us according to his will.

Does it happen that all Christians respond to this leading should be your next question? And the answer is, I don't know. It would not appear so.

It appears that we still sometimes sin. And some people who claim to be saved seem to act exactly as the unsaved do. Since only God can see into a person's heart, I won't try to answer whether they are or are not saved. But, Jesus does tell us that by their fruits you shall know them. Reading a bit more in the scriptures we also find that it seems though Christ's offering is once for all, each individual needs to grow in the practice of righteousness. What I suspect (and this is making some assumptions on God's behalf for the sake of brevity in this post) is that those who allow themselves to be led by the Holy Spirit are like an athlete in training. We keep our eyes in the prize. And little by little, by practicing righteousness and giving up our sinful lives, we become made over into the person that God would have us become. But few, if any, of us are automatically there at the point of our coming to faith. However, should we die before we have perfected living a fully righteous and submitted life, faith not works, is what counts. God counts our hearts directed toward him, our willingness to be guided by his Spirit, as the same as having accomplished our goal of living a fully submitted life. (Sort of like the Hadith about the person who is approaching hell and gets within an arm's length and yet is saved by Allah's mercy.) Still, for as long as we live, we need to remember that the goal is to live that submitted life and to let ourselves be guided by God's Spirit in doing so. When we really are open to his leading, one will see the results in works of good deeds, righteous living, and the expressing of love both toward God and toward neighbor in all we do.


Because I've always read about how Jesus pbuh abolished the old covenant and created new covenant that seemingly does not require anyone to do anything to be saved (this is the essence of what paul said)?
Yeah, I know. I've even put it that way myself. The more I'm learning the more I think we have to be careful about that particular construction. It is just a bit too simplistic.

The old covenantal rituals by which one made connection with God are no longer necessary because Christ has made a perfect offering, so the old offerings of blood are no longer required. But the nature of the original covenant -- that God would be our God and we would be his people -- has not changed. In essence, what the New Covenant celebrates is that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. The promise of God to redeem the world has taken place. Though the end times may not have quite yet arrived, those who are in Christ are already a part of that eternal promise of God. We can live (through faith) in the knowledge of our salvation being fulfilled in Christ's return, even as we await his promised second coming.
 
Last edited:
Can you give is the scriptural references to all this and whether those reference's are about visions or actual events or what? Why don't you go an look up where Jesus says in Matt 10 and find out its context and meaning

So you don't believe that Jesus pbuh will kill the antichrist?
 
Yes. Our guidance comes in the person of the Holy Spirit who is the very presence of God in our lives to lead and direct us according to his will.

So God send holy spirit to come to you?
How do you know if holy spirit has visited you?
This holy spirit thing seems so mysterious to me.

Does it happen that all Christians respond to this leading should be your next question? And the answer is, I don't know. It would not appear so.

But how do you christians respond to this leading?
I mean, holy spirit is so abstract and mysterious.
What can a christian do to make sure that they are responding to the leading by holy christ?
because it seems the most heinous crimes are conducted by among the highest authority of the churches.

The old covenantal rituals by which one made connection with God are no longer necessary because Christ has made a perfect offering, so the old offerings of blood are no longer required. But the nature of the original covenant -- that God would be our God and we would be his people -- has not changed. In essence, what the New Covenant celebrates is that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. The promise of God to redeem the world has taken place. Though the end times may not have quite yet arrived, those who are in Christ are already a part of that eternal promise of God. We can live (through faith) in the knowledge of our salvation being fulfilled in Christ's return, even as we await his promised second coming.

This is a bit meaningless I might say, it does not really answer my question.
I'm just responding to the bolded statement, so any christian who are already living through faith have knowledge that they are going straight to paradise?
So can I assume that people like you, hugo or glo who seem to be "living through faith" know that you guys are going straight to paradise? How about the pope?
 
But the nature of the original covenant -- that God would be our God and we would be his people -- has not changed.


Except, god seems to have undergone a physical change.
In the old covenant, God is one, in the new covenant according christianity god is three in one.
 

Thanks Hugo. I just did that, some of his work are about theology, others are not (evolution-ism, biology etc.). I wondered if someone (who read his works) could redirect me to one or 2 main books which reflect the most his approach. I can only afford to buy one or 2 books, so I needed some advice to get something worthy :p.
But Thanks a lot for your help.

Hi marwen.

Dawkin's most famous book directly on God and theology is The God Delusion. It became is bit of a best seller, although I have heard people say that it is not one of his best written books and that he tends to go off on tangents.

His most recent book on evolution is The Greatest Show on Earth.
Older books about evolution, which were highly praised at the time, and still are, are The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
You can probably find them in second hand shops.
 
First, I'm going to agree that there is much in Christianity that not only can be, but often is confusing. We talk about the kingdom of God being here and not yet. We say that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not by works (lest any man should boast), and then at the same time say that faith without works is dead.

Sounds awfully similar to Islam. I guess there are still morsels of jesus pbuh real teachings that survived christianity (or rather paulian).
so, deeds are still important in obtaining salvation, correct?

Now, should we accept the theology of the Tanakh, God provided a means by which people could make sin offerings and re-establish their relationship with him. But it didn't keep people from sinning, and it certainly didn't take away the Sin nature. In that sense it was an imperfect solution. (I expect at least some Jews to disagree with the view that the sacrificial system was imperfect, and for Muslims to object that it is ridiculous to consider God offering an imperfect solution to anything that he offers a solution for. Be that as it may, it is the Christian view.)

I did not mean the sacrificing and all that.
But it seems since paul said that with the new covenant it is no longer necessary to obey/observe all those things listed in the old covenant.
And it has become slippery slope for christianity since then.
for example:
extra marital sex and homosexual acts were certainly major major sins that deserve major punishment according to old covenant, but since there is a story where (some think, with evidence, it was fabricated) about the first non-sinner cast the first stone, christians have become permissive over the such crimes/sins.
And now you get priests and pastors marry gays and lesbians in churches.
That's what I was getting at, that it seems the new covenant makes everything somehow permissible because old covenant was dead.
So the pastors who marry gays in churches work through faith, correct?
 
Okay, I think this Islam-Christianity debate has to stop this instant.

Please, keep on topic, people!

Only atheists responding ot the OP/religious speculating the atheist perspective/discussions with the original poster, s'il vous plait!
 

Hi marwen.

Dawkin's most famous book directly on God and theology is The God Delusion. It became is bit of a best seller, although I have heard people say that it is not one of his best written books and that he tends to go off on tangents.

His most recent book on evolution is The Greatest Show on Earth.
Older books about evolution, which were highly praised at the time, and still are, are The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
You can probably find them in second hand shops.

Dawkins is one of the greatest leading minds of evolution. Problem here is that he recently took the bait and started taking on the creationists that have berated him for so many years (who complain that we "didn't come from monkeys" etc - having no clue what evolution actually is).

I can see how he'd get frustrated and want to write "God Delusion". It isn't a very well written book though and you can clearly tell he has left his area of expertise. He made no argument against theism that I have not already seen elsewhere or thought of on my own.

He recently wrote "the greatest show on earth" which follows up "Extended Phenotype" which followed "Selfish Gene" (an absolutely brilliant ground breaking book he wrote on evolution back in the early 80s). Maybe he'll get back to that area and be brilliant again.
 
Maybe he'll get back to that area and be brilliant again.


He can only be brilliant to those who know science by 'proxy' science is in the details, and if you don't know what those details are, you are in fact bound to turn a cultist into a 'brilliant'.. what questions can you ask, when that is all you know?

all the best
 
Okay, I think this Islam-Christianity debate has to stop this instant.

Please, keep on topic, people!

Only atheists responding ot the OP/religious speculating the atheist perspective/discussions with the original poster, s'il vous plait!

Of course. I understand the need to keep a thread from wandering too many different directions. One question leads to another and soon the conversation has nothing to do with the original purpose of the thread.

naidamar, I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, if a conversation is what you want. Either PM me, or use my above post to start a new thread.
 
Nope, this thread was dead on arrival. The questions were answered in the first couple of posts and the original poster never followed up. Nothing wrong with the derail. The thread was already over.
 
So you don't believe that Jesus pbuh will kill the antichrist?
Please give the reference's here so we can all see you have looked it up and understood its context. The words we were speaking of was when Jesus said in Matthew 10

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

You might understand what the word 'sword' implies if you think what would happen to a Muslim who rejects Islam and becomes Christian and that person may well be you brother or sister or Mother. So this verses is not about Christian wielding a sword to kill unbelievers its about the cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus and facing the hatred and violence of those who cannot stand the idea that others may choose a different and better path.
 
Please give the reference's here so we can all see you have looked it up and understood its context. The words we were speaking of was when Jesus said in Matthew 10

I am asking you the question again:
" do you believe that jesus will kill the antichrist?"

no need to go into verbal diarrhea which amounts to nothing.... as usual
 
I am asking you the question again: " do you believe that jesus will kill the antichrist?"
no need to go into verbal diarrhea which amounts to nothing.... as usual

It not a question of verbal diarrhoea its about you telling us what or where you have found this term but as we can see you are ignorant and prefer insults. The word 'Antichrist' comes from the Greek word 'antichristos' and can mean either against Christ or instead of Christ or perhaps combining the two we get one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ. The word is only found in John's epistles (4 times) and the implications is that there will be many Antichrists who are forerunners of the Antichrist himself. What John say of him closely resembles what he says of the first beast in Revelation 13 and what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2. What all this means I am unsure and I suppose that is the nature of the way the revelation is expressed. I content myself with the belief that it all mean that ultimately Jesus will triumph over and abolish sin and death.
 
I content myself with the belief that it all mean that ultimately Jesus will triumph over and abolish sin and death.

From this I'll take it that jesus will "exterminate" the anti-christ and his followers ("the lamb will lead 144,000 people against the antichrist"), if you don't like the word "kill".

I don't know how you can exterminate or destroy without violence, unless christians invent new meanings to well-established words/concept (just like the word "begotten" or the concept of "3 is actually 1").

Also, you didn't address the other point before:
jesus sent demon into thousands of pigs, sending all of them into violent death.
 
From this I'll take it that jesus will "exterminate" the anti-christ and his followers ("the lamb will lead 144,000 people against the antichrist"), if you don't like the word "kill". I don't know how you can exterminate or destroy without violence, unless christians invent new meanings to well-established words/concept (just like the word "begotten" or the concept of "3 is actually 1"). Also, you didn't address the other point before: jesus sent demon into thousands of pigs, sending all of them into violent death.

You are taking everything literally and expecting to see Jesus charging into the infidels with a sword or something riding on a horse. No one can take literally that say 144,000 people exactly are involved. Its like any scripture, it has to be interpreted otherwise you end up with total nonsense and because these are prophesies we cannot be sure how they will work out in practice nor when they will occur. It is not the Christian position that these verses licence us to kill all who we might regard as Antichrist and only a tiny deluded mind would take that view. These visions are about how God will deal with the end of time not you and he will do that when he is ready. Why is it that a Muslim mind springs to the killing idea so readily whilst the Christian one recoils from it?

If we take the pigs incident the point is that the restoration of one human life from madness is worth more that a herd of pigs - that is the message of the story and there is no teaching here that we are go off and kill herds of pigs or anyone.
 
You are taking everything literally and expecting to see Jesus charging into the infidels with a sword or something riding on a horse. No one can take literally that say 144,000 people exactly are involved.

If you say so, although the number 144,000 is quite such precise and elaborate number if it's not meant to be taken literally.
So which ones in the bible are literals and which ones are not? no two christians have the same answer.
It seems interpretations of bible throughout history varied dramatically depending on the politics of the day.

It is not the Christian position that these verses licence us to kill all who we might regard as Antichrist and only a tiny deluded mind would take that view.

i did not say that, so why did you get defensive?

I was only saying that jesus will lead an army to destroy the antichrist and his own army.

Christians might not use violence to kill everyone they think as the antichrist, but they definitely love(d) using violence to kill anyone they think is evil.
Past history and current events support this.






Why is it that a Muslim mind springs to the killing idea so readily whilst the Christian one recoils from it?

you dont like the word "killing", i will accept that.
But lets go back to your scripture: It clearly described that towards the end of time jesus with the assistance of many people faithful to One God will lead war and destroy the antchrist and his followers.

And i suspect you havent learned your history well and ignorant of current events to even suggest to christians recoil from the killing idea they think they will have to destroy evil.

Either you are a complete ignorant, or a hypocrite. there you go again.

If we take the pigs incident the point is that the restoration of one human life from madness is worth more that a herd of pigs - that is the message of the story and there is no teaching here that we are go off and kill herds of pigs or anyone.

Is that your interpretation of the event?

No matter how you spin it, the fact is jesus still killed thousand of innocent pigs unjustly.
You consider him as a god, dont you? couldn't he have cast away the demon without having to kill the pigs?

There goes your belief that jesus did not precribe violence in all cases.
based on these two events written in your bible, jesus was willing and is not going to be shy in using violence when need be.
 
If you say so, although the number 144,000 is quite such precise and elaborate number if it's not meant to be taken literally. So which ones in the bible are literals and which ones are not? no two christians have the same answer. It seems interpretations of bible throughout history varied dramatically depending on the politics of the day.
There is a saying by Jewish and Christian scholars: "to go from text to application without interpretation is itself heresy". It can be hard to decide what is literal and what is not but Ibn Rushd defined a way of doing it: "if the literal words don't make sense then the author must have meant something else". Consider Q9:5 about slaying idolaters wherever you find them (chronologically the last passage spoken by Muhammad) or Q5:60 that Allah transformed Jews into pigs and monkeys - how do you interpret these verses: literally so you are out to kill unbelievers and like Abdul Rahman Ibn Abdul Aziz as-Sudais (imam of the Grand mosque in Mecca and Islamic Personality Of the Year 2005) vilify non-Muslims and has called for the annihilation of Jews and he quite definitely take these verses literaly and called Jews Pigs and Monkey. So stop hiding and tell us what your view is.
I was only saying that jesus will lead an army to destroy the antichrist and his own army.
I have asked this before but what Bible verse or verses do you base this claim? You say it 'clearly describes ..." so where does it do this? Then we can look at what is actually said and find an interpretation - but I guess you don't know where this idea comes from but I will wait and see.

Of course I know that events such as the inquisition and the crusades happened and I regard them both as an absolute disgrace. Now let me ask you; is there ANY event in Islamic history you are ashamed of: Massacre of Jews in Medina, millions died in Bangladesh, Darfur, 9/11 and hundreds of other events?

No matter how you spin it, the fact is jesus still killed thousand of innocent pigs unjustly. You consider him as a god, dont you? couldn't he have cast away the demon without having to kill the pigs?
This event is recorded in Matthew chapter 8 and if you had bothered to read it we see that Jesus allowed the demons to go into the pigs and they then ran into the water. You are not the first to ask why allow this destructive work which seems alike needles and pointless and many explanations are available. So what can we learn from this if we take your literal approach; well it can only be that when we cast out demons they must be sent into pigs and if you do it the pigs may commit suicide and because we have cast out the demons whatever the pigs do is our fault. AS I said, I don't know for sure what the answer is here but I do know that two lives were saved by it. But are you trying to prove here - that Jesus is a mass murderer? Only a blind mind can read the four Gospels and conclude that Jesus was violent or advocated violence or that this passage means we can also be violent - but you have not read them have you?
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top