You are doing exactly what those other people were doing, but instead of discrediting Islam as "not a religion" you attempt to elevate christianity as something different, and i am sure you think "better" than religion.

------------------------
What about the argument you use to rationalize and elevate your own belief?
"Christianity isn't a religion. It's a relationship."

right.

Oh snap. Nail meet head.

Interbane wrote:
The person best able to sell the idea, I think, is Daniel Dennet. He's so pedantically thorough and pragmatic that you wish he'd be more bold sometimes. He seems reluctant to discuss anything which he hasn't devoted thousands of hours of careful consideration towards, and disclaims any presumptions.

Yeah man, I would love to read Dennet's stuff. I read Darwin's Dangerous Idea a long time ago. What book specifically would you recommend?

I think the one I'd recommend most is the one I haven't read yet.

He explains memes a bit in the back of "Breaking the Spell", not sure which other book he expands on the idea even more.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... memes.html

The ted talk is a bit too compressed. A book would be better.

Interbane wrote:

You are doing exactly what those other people were doing, but instead of discrediting Islam as "not a religion" you attempt to elevate christianity as something different, and i am sure you think "better" than religion.

------------------------
What about the argument you use to rationalize and elevate your own belief?
"Christianity isn't a religion. It's a relationship."

right.

Oh snap. Nail meet head.

I can't expect any of you to understand because you immerse yourselves in the equivalent of pulp novels when it comes to God, religion and Christianity. TEog is an excellent example. That book has no substance to it. It is self contradictory and full of fluff and speculation.

The point about Islam is that Allah is an impersonal god. One's postion (not relationship to him because that concept is alien to Islam) is based on works (the five pillars of Islam) and even then one's ultimate fate is unknowable. The only exception is Jihad. I realize this is a brief and simplified explation but I really don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of Islam. My point in providing the summary was to contrast it with Christianity. In pure evangelical Christianity there are no works, no five pillars, no requirements. Once a personal relationship is established between the believer and Jesus that's it. No sacrifices, no ritual, no nothing. Ideally, one will mature, become more like Jesus over time, and that yields 'fruit' but that is a benefit, a manifestation and not requirement.

stahrwe wrote:
I can't expect any of you to understand because you immerse yourselves in the equivalent of pulp novels when it comes to God, religion and Christianity. TEog is an excellent example. That book has no substance to it. It is self contradictory and full of fluff and speculation.

I know, it's so unfeasible. All those, like, words!

When it's so much easier to believe that 6,000 years ago Magic Sky Daddy made the earth and later flooded it, destroying all humans except for Noah, a few friends, and a pair of every single species on the planet, who survived by living on Noah's boat. And then, even later, Magic Sky Daddy sent down his son, Jesus, to save all humans from original sin, a badness caused by Adam and Eve--the very first humans--when they ate an apple in the Garden of Eden.

Yes, so much more believable! So less self-contradictory, and so unfluffy!

Geo wrote:The idea that certain religious concepts can be embraced by a culture while other religious concepts from the same religious text can be largely ignored seems very meme-centric to me. It breaks down the larger religious texts into individual memes, a meme being a unit of culture. Many Christians ignore a good part of the Old Testament, but cannot jettison it completely because original sin is so intrinsically tied in with the New Testament's message of salvation. But these days almost nobody pays much attention to the Old Testament. Its God is laughably cartoonish. The New Testament's message of universal love and salvation, on the other hand, remains very appealing to the masses. And Christianity is alive and well, although arguably becoming less relevant. I wonder, at what point is critical mass reached wherein a culture rejects so much of a religion's texts that there's almost nothing left?

Out Of Context !!!

* Funny as can be ...

geo wrote:

stahrwe wrote:
I can't expect any of you to understand because you immerse yourselves in the equivalent of pulp novels when it comes to God, religion and Christianity. TEog is an excellent example. That book has no substance to it. It is self contradictory and full of fluff and speculation.

I know, it's so unfeasible. All those, like, words!

When it's so much easier to believe that 6,000 years ago Magic Sky Daddy made the earth and later flooded it, destroying all humans except for Noah, a few friends, and a pair of every single species on the planet, who survived by living on Noah's boat. And then, even later, Magic Sky Daddy sent down his son, Jesus, to save all humans from original sin, a badness caused by Adam and Eve--the very first humans--when they ate an apple in the Garden of Eden.

Yes, so much more believable! So less self-contradictory, and so unfluffy!

If you follow the thread Epistemology and Biblical Evidence you will see a fully developed structure of interrelationship develop for the Bible. We are just getting started there but with time it will emerge. On the other hand, TEog is, well, read page 117 for an example of spculation. That is the way the whole book is.

stahrwe wrote:
If you follow the thread Epistemology and Biblical Evidence you will see a fully developed structure of interrelationship develop for the Bible. We are just getting started there but with time it will emerge. On the other hand, TEog is, well, read page 117 for an example of spculation. That is the way the whole book is.

With all due respect, Stahrwe, this is a discussion of Wright's book. His premise is that religion and "God" are human inventions. All of his arguments and speculations follow from that premise. He states this up front in the introduction. Obviously, you disagree with that premise and it is predictable that this book will hold no interest for you. And that's fine. Why don't you let us discuss the book and meanwhile you're perfectly free to have your Bible class discussions in those forums that are specifically set up for that purpose. Anyone who wants to participate with you knows where to find you.

stahrwe wrote: The point about Islam is that Allah is an impersonal god. One's postion (not relationship to him because that concept is alien to Islam) is based on works (the five pillars of Islam) and even then one's ultimate fate is unknowable.

stahrwe, I don't believe this. Have you been inside the heads of Muslims? If not, why are you so sure of the nature of their feelings toward their Abrahamic god?

stahrwe wrote: If you follow the thread Epistemology and Biblical Evidence you will see a fully developed structure of interrelationship develop for the Bible. We are just getting started there but with time it will emerge. On the other hand, TEog is, well, read page 117 for an example of spculation. That is the way the whole book is.

It's a kind of exploration that Wright does. Do you see him engaging in this exploration, or speculation if you prefer, and then coming to dogmatic conclusions based on it? If he did, I would find your criticism justified. But it appears that what bothers you is the simple fact that he raises the questions at all.