Dawkins Against Religion continued

 Just to touch on the ususual  he again says that faith is believing something without evidence when in the case of Christianity, no, it is believing on the basis of witness testimony which is evidence.  I believe what the witnesses have told me they wthen he goes on to how faith leads people to commit evil acts

itnessed and in believing that it beomce shemy own knowledge.  and the example he gives is als always from Islam, the suicide bombing and the flying of planes into the twin towers, but he never distinctguishes that from the fact that Christianity does not teach us to do such things, that is something only Islam teaches.  And that is because not all religions are the same although he always acts as if h thingsks they are.  Christians are taught to love others and do good to others, and to put up with persecutions and injustices, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile when compelled to go one and so on.  this is not what Islam teaches at all.  There could not be two more different religions but Dawkins seems not to notice or not to care.

What I was saing in the first paragraph about faith got cut off.  Yes, the things I know by faith are acquired through the testimony of witneesses.  IEither you trust the witnesses or you ton'.  I judge the many witnesses of the Bible to the many dsupernatural and other events to be reliable.  If you don't you dn't.  

Besides that I don't use faith in any context where I can use empirical knowledge or direct observation.  Why shuld I?  Faith is all we hve for the kinds of events given in the bible, but it isn't appropriate in our everyday lives in the same way.  Still of course there are many things we all know only because we've been taught them by others, but that isn't the same thing as believing in the resurrection of Christ for my salvation although in a sense it may be said to be knowing something by fiath nevertheless.  Again it is  a matter of whether you belive the witnesses or not.  Unfortunately there are many people who refuse to beleive the witnesses not because of anyything  they know about their trustworthiness as people but only because they have rejected their testimony in advance.  Say they claim to have witnesses a miracle.  Their testimony will be rejected bwcause it is a miracle they switnessesd, not because they themseles are at fault in any way.  Or the fault is imputed to them as a consequence of the distrust in the miracle.    So nobody woulwcould eevery find out if a miracle really occurred or not who can't consider the validity of the witneesses' testimony at all for prejudice against the thing witneessed. 

Oh well.

Dawkins and the Cry of the Atheist Aginst the true God

 Dawkins on religion: Is religion good or evil? | Head to Head (youtube.com)

The l above is supposed to be the URL to an interview of Richard dawkins on the subject of his hatred for religions, in particular Christianity or the Old testament at least.  Is religion evil he is asked and he says yes.   The main example of this is as usual Islam whicfh certainly does do evil acts since its central aim is to take over the world for Allah and it teaches utter disdain and hatred for all those who do not believe in Allah.

However, Dawkins finds just as much to hate in the Old testament, and even in parts of the New Testament.    

It occurred to me that the most direct, or at least shortest way of answering Dawkins might be to say that what he is criticizing is the Moral Law.  the Moral Law is an inexorable judge of all violations of its tenets.  You can't separate God from His Moral Law in some sense because He must operate according to it and it operates inexorably, therefore so does He when it comes to judging sin.  but there is also a sense in which the Moral Law operates impersonally and automatically, as the Law would, although it is also very subtle which is why god hcan be said to repent or relent fom time to time or change His mind, but all this really means is that the Law is very refined and subtle and language is being used to make it easier for us to understand it by keeping us in touch with the personal God who in some sense embodies it.

I supposesomeone could come along who has studied all this for years and might denounce me as saying something heretical, in which case I'd have to withdraw it and rethink it but this is how it hits me at the moment.  

What the Old Testament does is take us behind the scenes of world events which normally just happen to us without our understanding why.  Why wars happen, why disasters happen, why horrific things happen nd so on.   Violations hae bewen accumulating for generations in a particular people group for instance and hve finally come to the "fullness of time" when punishemnt is going to destroy them.  Then a particular methjod of punishemnet will be seen to be decreed by god, such as perhaps the armies of the Israelites will be employed to punishe a particular tribe of people.  Or later the armies of the Assyrians will be employed by God to punish Israel when they have accumjulated years of 8iviolations themselves.  

the Old testament is to introduce us to the character of god both as judge and in all His other dispositions, but it seems to be His charctger a judge that most captures the attention of the unbelievers like Dawkins who put in so much energy denouncing Him for what they see as His mean and nasty character.  Of course they minimize sin if they take it into account at all.  You wouldn't kill your dog for digging up your flower bed would you?  that level of thought about sin.  

The fear of God is the beiginning of wisdom he are told here and there in scripture, mostly in the book of Proverbs.  This fear is to teach us to recognize that sin brings punishment so that we can learn not to commit sin and therefore preserve our lives and remain in God's good graces.  

We sin anyway even if we have at least some measure of that fear of God, and now we see His merciful and loving sinde as He sends us a redeemer to save us from the consequences of our sins.  First he teaches us that sin brings punishemtns, that the wages of dsin is death, and then He offers us salvation from it.  He cannot lifet the operations of the Moral Law, they are inexorable, but He can save us from their consequences by sending His own sinson to die in our place.    "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" He says through the Prophet Hosea, and what He means is that they haven't learned to fear God and obey His law, they commit all the sins He forbade in the Ten Commandments for instance, they lie and steal and covet and murder and commit adultery and terefore they keep being subjected to punishemtns, and God laments this fact, blaming the leaders of isareal for not teaching the Ppeople prophery.  

he gives the Law to Moses and accounces that through this Law He is setting before the people life and death and says they are oto choose life by obeying these laws.  Well over the years through many good and bad kings and true and false prophets the people accumulate eough sins to be sent to babylon for seventy years and for their land to be laid waste by the armies of the Assyrians.  but just as the Prophet Daniel is discovering that the time in babylon is about to expire so that the people may go home, he is also told of the time left before the Savior Messiah is to appear to save the world from sin.  

Perhaps none of this would be of any interest to an unbeliever but I think it's about the best I can do at the moment.

I might also try to deal with the incident of god's calling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac winc that tis the usjbect of much outgrage by the atheists.  But I think I'll have to leave that for some other time.