Like I've said the God of the Bible is utter nonsense, like Richard Dawkins said. If you are are talking about a guy in the sky above the firmament that holds back the waters, there is no such thing. Sorry about that. But as he points out if you mean a higher order to things, there's that. Maybe a grand unification theory, or even a grand grand unification theory. That exists. And he also says if you want to call that "God", or February or kumquat, he would agree with that. Even if he didn't use your name for it. But if there is a God he is obviously impersonal. Because he allows a lot of evil and suffering in the world. Some say that's just a test. But like my 2000 atheist teacher said, what kind of "test" is that? That sounds horrible if true. But I started researching whether this was a good world or bad one around 1989. And everyone would agree it certainly not a perfect world. But some people, I read, still think it is the best of all possible worlds.
Dawson invented his own nonsense word, while militant atheists in general can now brag that they invented totalitarian communism, and have ensured a quarter of the developed world still claims the sun revolves around the earth. Currently, they are busy helping everyone build advanced AI, that they claim will destroy humanity in possibly five years, while AI take away everyone's jobs, and automate even censoring everything. Forget about the Bible, without a stupid dictionary, go home and cry to mama.
God knows and sees all. So Jesus created Judas to do that because he wanted to torture him for eternity because he loved him much. But the thirteen pieces of silver were forever tainted. That is why the priests had to use it for an evil purpose, for a place were unbaptized people and beggars were buried. You know, the evil people. And God wants you to give up premarital sex. But not pornography (it's never mentioned once in the Bible, even though they had it then) or pork (Jesus "purged" all unclean meats). But you still can't wear two types of fabric.
And I forgot to add (last one for this thread for today) don't have an abortion or child out of wedlock or a two thousand year old carpenter will torture you for eternity because he loves you much.
Speaking of "utter nonsense":, Dawkins seems to be stuck in the Bronze Age. His generalizations about God on the basis of what "it sez" in the Bible seem downright fundamentalist for an atheist. I suspect that's because it's so much easier to expose the "nonsense" of outmoded beliefs than to deal with serious non-fundamentalist believers who still see merit in a traditional concept adjusted on the basis of twenty-first century knowledge and values. The God you and Dawkins describes seems like Yahweh before He took the anger management course. Yes, an alarmingly large number of folks even today take the Bible literally. In a 2022 Gallup poll, 20% of Americans said they took the Bible as the literal word of God. Fewer in U.S. Now See Bible as Literal Word of God That's a lot, but less than in years past, and less than those who regard it as a collection of "fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." (29%) (I'd count myself in the latter category.) And considerably less than the 49% who thought that it was "inspired by God, not all to be taken literally". Criticizing the belief systems of others can be helpful if the critic understands what those beliefs are and if the criticisms are on target. Otherwise, they just seem uninformed. We've come a long way in our thinking about God since the Bronze Age. As a result of the Higher Criticism of German Enlightenment scholars and Darwin, the so-called "mainline" Protestant churches opted for a less literal approach, with God becoming the Oversoul (Transcendentalism) , "Absolute" (Hegel), Universal Spirit, "Ground of Being" (Tillich), "Higher Power" (Twelve Step programs, etc.) Even Reform Judaism regards the Torah, not as the literal "word of God", but as a human-authored text inspired by God but reflecting humanity's evolving understanding.Theology - The Question of Authority: Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative Theories of Revelation A majority (51%) of Dawkins' fellow scientists surveyed in 2010 (the latest time such a survey was taken) claimed to believe in something that can be considered a deity--33% believing in "God", 18% believing in a Higher Power. If Dawkins wants to call it a kumquat he's free to do so, but others have no problem with the "God" , "Higher Power", "Universal Spirit" or even "Great Mystery" terminology. A less horrifying explanation is that God isn't omnipotent, only very potent. Process theology, an influential modern school of theology, taking off from Alfred North Whitehead's "process philosophy, takes that position. (See Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes). BTW, what course was your atheist teacher teaching? Atheism 101? Did he get into process theology? Here you show an outsider's confusion about Trinitarian beliefs, which are admittedly incomprehensible (or as they like to say, a "mystery"). Christians don't think Jesus created anyone, let alone Judas. You're confusing Him with His Dad, who is part of the same "God" substance but has a different personality. If you're familiar with Hindu theology, it's similar to the Trimurti: Brahman, the ultimate pervading reality, has three different aspects: Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Sustainer), and Shiva (the Destroyer). Or maybe the Three Faces of Eve (multiole personality?) In Christian theology, Jesus is the Logos (Divine Reason) who died to save humanity. Most Christians think Jesus did the opposite. Mark 7:19. That's what happens when outsiders try to tell believers what they're supposed to believe. They often get it wrong, and are easily dismissed.
As a Unitarian minister once said during a sermon, "The Bible is just a bunch of good stories". I tend to agree with him, but its a book like other religious scriptures folk have gone to war over, and that is the sad thing.
Jimbee correctly points out that Dawkins separates into two groups those who believe in an anthropomorphic God, who doesn't exist and is a delusion, in contrast to those that Process theology claims that God can not coerce other beings to do something, but only persuade them. It doesn't deny the existence of God. The Trinity proclaims that there is only one God. An example of God contradicting himself and leaving his poor creations to try and figure out what "he" is saying; to pick and choose what to believe and possibly persecute those who believe otherwise.
I've read his book The God Delusion. If he "separates into two groups those who believe in an anthropomorphic god and those who don't" I must have missed it. That distinction, if it's there at all, isn't given much if any play. In Chapter 1, he seems to argue that "if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is appropriate for worship." i.e., no kumquats. He does acknowledge that some of his scientific colleagues like to use labels like "religious naturalist" to describe the awe and reverence for nature that Spinoza and Einstein expressed. But he dismisses pantheism as "sexed up atheism". In other words,he doesn't regard the naturalistic types as genuinely religious. He proceeds to concentrate on theistic brands of religion, especially the OT Yahweh, an easy mark. When I and other Progressive Christians use the term "God", we denote a felt presence of a Higher Power or Great Mystery "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17). I'm attracted to Christianity because of the teachings and example of Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels: love of God and neighbor, including society's rejects and less fortunate. I get as excited about that as Einstein and Dawkins did about the natural order. Of course it doesn't. That's why they call it theology. Yes, but in three persons. What does that mean? Nobody really knows. But those who believe in the doctrine recognize different roles for the divine "persons". I doubt that many, if any, Trinitarians would think of Jesus as identical to Yahweh (the Father). To say that Jesus created Judas to torture him wouldn't ring true to most believers, although some Calvinists might go for it. First of all, the creator role is something they assign to the Father. Second, they think Judas was given free will and did what he did because of that. Of course, if he hadn't betrayed Jesus, the Divine Mission might not have been fulfilled--by Judas, at least. Most Progressive Christians don't believe Jesus was a supernatural being who came to earth to die for our sins. I personally regard the Trinity idea as a dubious doctrine, although I find some merit to it as a metaphor for different aspects of God: the source of natural order (Father), the mediator between God and humans (Logos, or Son), and the summation of human idealism (Holy Spirit). But God isn't necessarily doing that.That would assume that (S)he is omnipotent and could have planted all the commandments and revelations in us from the git go. I think humans are pretty amazing, but it is frustrating that we have obvious limitations. If there's a God, why couldn't (S)he have given us wings like the birds and angels, and eyes in the back of our heads. If (S)he could do it for Abraham and Moses and Ezekiel and those other dudes, why not us? Those would be convenient. But obviously that's not the way it works. We seem to have have the faculties we have because of biological evolution and/or cultural evolution--which proceed on the basis of trial and error. It's messy, but nature has a way of cleaning up messes--the hard way! Fortunately, we do have the capacity to use reason to keep afloat. How long can we tread water is an open question.
Dawkins is saying that the word God can be used in different ways. He uses Spinoza and Einstein as an example. They sometimes use the term "God" but they use it to express not a supernatural entity or force, but a the existence of natural laws that we don't as yet fully understand. Chapter 1, page 40 in my copy, Exactly. The Trinity can be, and is, explained anyway anyone (religious theologian) chooses as there is no "right" or logical definition that can be understood. You just have to "believe" in the face of facts, data, logic, common sense, or science.
Correct. That's the way I use the term, too, but without the assumption we'll understand them some day and can get on with the routines of daily living. The concept of "supernatural" is dubious--another word for the unknown. I'm using the 2006 edition, which seems to be different from the one you're suing. But from what you've said, I think is probably pp. 12-19 in my copy. He says astrophysicist Paul Davies' The Mind of God "seems to hover somewhere between.pantheism and an obscure form of deism. That's where I hover, too. It's called panendeism. That's what dogma is, and I'm opposed to it. Bismarck compared politics to sausage making, and I think the same can be said about religion. The major doctrinal division between western Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox variety remains the "filioque"--whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son together or just for the son. I could never be so presumptuous as to know how the different persons of the Trinity get on with each other.
Dawkins is certainly entitled to his disbeliefs. But when he becomes one of the atheist Four Horsemen, he has taken a position: that there is "probably" nothing "non-naturalistic" about reality and he's willing to proselytize that viewpoint. By stating that it would be "destructively misleading" to call himself religious, he implies, without evidence, that there "probably" is nothing approximating intelligence behind the amazing natural phenomena he admires. Davies disagrees, and has made his case in several books. As a biologist, Dawkins been trained to suspend judgment and wait for scientific proof--a commendable position for a scientist.. Those of us who are doing life instead of just science don't have that luxury. We can go thru life noncommittal, or take a chance on the basis of our best judgment and the best available evidence. That's what I do every couple of years when I vote. Those who don't vote because "both sides" are flawed have made an important decision. Dawkins acknowledges (while implicitly criticizing), the decision of other scientists to be religious naturalists. Presumably, the 28% of Catholics and 26% of mainline Protestants who believe in a Higher Power or spiritual force instead of the personal biblical God should be given the same benefit. How America's Understanding of God is Changing - Collegeville Institute Praying to the force of gravity may not be emotionally satisfying, but we really don't understand gravity and how it fits into the elusive TOE some scientists are searching for. When people us that Jesus created Judas to torture him, that's twisting even traditional concepts of God way beyond its actual limits--potentially fueling religious misunderstandings.
