Greg Laurie to Elon Musk, Richard Dawkins, and Other ‘Cultural Christians’: "Take the Next Step!"
(churchleaders.com)
- N C S W I C -
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (10)
sorted by:
He did not say he is or will be.
Is your reading ability that bad?
These words are how it is spinned by Laurie. That he employs a non-sequitur, well who cares, right?
To me, this article is an attempt of dealing with the butt hurt that came from the book: The God Delusion.
If Dawkins had placed his arguments in a different context: "The Allah delusion", you would have kekked your ass off.
So, it is not about principle but context.
By the same token, it could be argued, Rupert Sheldrake is a cultural christian. https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=O3o2YCDpiAk
And, if you were to make a deepdive into the "pre-catholic" era in Europe, you may be amazed at the fact that "Christian" ethos was alive and well.
So, at best, your argument stems from ignorance.
No, it doesn't my argument stems from listening to every one of his debates and reading every one of his books. He does not believe that God exists and would not follow him if he did.
He has stated that believing in God is akin to believing in a "sky fairy" and has compared religious indoctrination of children to child abuse, suggesting that teaching children about hell is psychologically damaging.
So, no its not out of ignorance its out of knowledge of what he has said to believe.
Kudos for taking the time to read his books! Not many will be able to say the same thing.
Your quote is quite comprehensible from the CONTEXT.
Allow me to pose this question:
Was a pre-christian society moral? Or did Christianity in Europe adopt the morals of the several tribe and regions?
What is the influence of Roman thought? Of Greek Philosophy? Were the Saxons, Sverkers, Frysians, Picts, Vandals, Goths, Cimmry, The Gauls, etc, immoral people?
Ignorance means: the state of not knowing. Not knowing may include: mis-take or mis-perception. It does not mean dumb, per se, although it may. But that is not what I am talking about. It has to do with rejection. And it is the reason of the rejection that is of import.
I would agree with you that following that man is not very beneficial. You should be following your own authority. Learned people are prone to err as well as those who have not attained the same level of learnedness. The advantage of the latter, however, is, there is less to let go off.
Personally, what is considered the Christian epistles, I think it is false in the sense that there is host of noise contained within it. But there are certain items that are beneficial.
As is considered EWA, or eternal law, such a law is common to people and retains its value. To treat others the way you want to be treated is one such an idea. This idea is not specific to Christianity. 2000 years of Christian history may prove both sides of the argument, as it is a personal matter.
However, if the idea is acceptable BECAUSE it is Christian, then by all means, accept and embrace it. Those who practice it are off for the better. But, they still may miss the deeper meaning of it.
So, from what perspective is something viewed?
So, how do we perceive? or rather, how do we by means of sight?
Of course we generally are able to ceive data through our senses: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin. There are more subtle means by which we can ceive. 9 extra to be exact.
Every sense is dependent on energy.... and as an avid reader, you know this by mind. Perhaps it is a good moment to really let that sink in before continuing reading ...
============================
The issue of energy being at the base of everything is the key. Of course, you maybe convinced of a certain construct that explains sufficiently for you the world around you, and that is ok.
The issue is, that spirituality, if you will, is a matter of personal experience, not of dogma, or the paths of others, as it is about the essence of YOU, and you alone.
What I do care about, is the single point of convergence: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever comes after, [from your own discovery!] is up to you. That is your path.
For instance: would you have thought children could discover their own "supernatural" powers?
The work Iris Huizing has done is simply amazing and there is no Hocus Pocus. https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=LXCqiNGNeeE
This leads into the views of Dan Winter, Schauberger and others on energy.
If these matters are of such a nature, what else is there? Isn't it quite obvious that although we may think we have an open mind, we still cling to a 3d mind-set, instituted by thousands of years of indoctrination into a fixed set of beliefs, geared towards control? What role does that play in our tendency to reject?
I know, it is a leading question. But please, just, if you are able to achieve such, to ponder it without accepting it (noble mind)
Indoctrinating children into a fixed set of narratives is violating that sacred right of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, as we then transgress the bounds of what is correct, we treat our children worse than we would want to be treated ourselves (Christian rule) I mean, would you want to be brainwashed?
From what i know of Dawkin's
Richard Dawkins argues that morality predates religion, including Christianity, suggesting that pre-Christian societies were moral based on evolved social behaviors. He believes Christianity absorbed existing cultural practices rather than creating morality. Roman and Greek thought significantly influenced Christian doctrine, blending with older moral codes rather than supplanting them.
Dawkins would reject the notion that ancient tribes like the Saxons or Vandals were immoral, instead emphasizing that morality varies by context and evolved across all human societies.
Regarding perception and energy, Dawkins, a proponent of scientific skepticism, would be critical of spiritual or metaphysical claims unsupported by empirical evidence. While acknowledging energy's foundational role in physics, he would reject supernatural interpretations.
On indoctrination, Dawkins strongly opposes religious education that imposes dogma on children. He advocates for fostering critical thinking and intellectual freedom, emphasizing reason and evidence over tradition and religious authority.
My own views
From a Christian perspective, the moral codes of pre-Christian societies were shaped by natural law, a reflection of God's eternal law written on the hearts of all people. While these societies exhibited moral behavior, Christianity introduced a transformative ethic centered on Christ's teachings of love, forgiveness, and the sanctity of every individual, fulfilling and transcending earlier codes.
Christianity did not simply adopt the morals of various tribes and regions; it redefined them in light of divine revelation. Roman and Greek thought, particularly in philosophy and ethics, influenced Christian theology, enriching its intellectual foundation. However, Christianity uniquely emphasized humility, mercy, and self-sacrificial love, values that were less emphasized in classical philosophy.
Regarding the morality of ancient tribes like the Saxons, Goths, or Gauls, Christianity acknowledges that all people, created in the image of God, have the capacity for good. Yet, like all humanity, they were in need of redemption through Christ. Ignorance, in this context, is not merely a lack of knowledge but a spiritual blindness that can lead to the rejection of truth. Christianity offers a path to overcome this ignorance through faith, grace, and the transformative power of Christ's teachings.
Ultimately, Christianity encourages individuals to seek truth, not merely through their own authority but through the guidance of divine wisdom, as revealed in Scripture and the teachings of the Church. The goal is not control but freedom—the freedom that comes from living in accordance with God's eternal law, which leads to true life, liberty, and the pursuit of holiness.
Part one is well received, thank you.
From your own views, well, they are yours. But technically, your nice overview, which I read with interest and gratefulness, comes down to one single issue:
All else is dependent on that, is it not?
So where does it converge, these two positions?
On the one hand we have the mind, well molded by Church and scripture, and on the other a mind well molded by nature.Where do these converge?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If that is holiness, as defined by your church and whatever is considered scripture (which is a thought that is imaged through words which in turn are imaged through symbols, which are copied and translated into other symbols, so basically, a copy of a copy of a copy pertaining to be holy), then that is your choice.