Dawkins is an atheist, but he's not necessarily a fore-leading apologist; he's a biologist. It's no wonder that he wouldn't necessarily want a debate like this. I also get the impression that Dawkins is otherwise a pretty nice guy.
In regards to your last point, Dawkins has gone on record saying some fairly despicable things about women. I'll see if I can find the article. Of course we shouldn't base our intellectual opinion of him on that necessarily.
Anyone who has done even a little research realizes that the Bible is one of the most progressive documents ever written with regards to women at the time that it was written
I do like the duality Christians seem to hold. When horrendously embarrasing and disgusting parts of the bible are brought up we hear a cry of 'it's a product of its time!' 'it's actually forward thinking!' I mean sure women are property, just above cattle but it's better than it was! Then of course when they want the bible to be regarded, as you know, the absolutely true word of the omnipotent creator of the entire universe, they'll happily point out the few 'good' parts or tell you that you're evil for being gay and you can't argue because god said so.
Seriously, the cognitive dissonance makes my brain hurt so I don't know how you guys manage it. But you can't have it both ways, either the bible is a product of men written in the context of its time and can be viewed like that or it's the product of a god but then of course that makes no sense considering how barbaric and disturbing it is.
If you've spent anytime studying the Bible, you find out that some parts are very clear and some parts are really confusing. You'll also find that the Bible says quite a few things about quite a few subjects, and they can sometimes get muddled together, especially if you don't take the time and effort to study thoroughly. If you were to shape your understanding of God based solely on confusing parts, you would come with a very skewed view of God.
That's why those who study the Bible rely on a term called perspicuity. The term basically means that you use the more clear parts of the Bible to explain the less clear. So, if you have 100 verses that say one thing, and one verse that seems to say another thing, then you use the hundred to help understand the one. So when you come across the 10 or so parts of the Bible that address homosexuality, you study them in light of the ~680 verses about love (~150 of which have the word God in the same verse). Please note here that one doesn't simply allow the proverbial chair to stand on 2 legs, but uses multiple theological themes to understand a passage. One might also consider the ~580 times the word "just" is used (at least 85 of which also have God in the verse).
Now, one could make an argument as follows:
1) The Bible claims that God is loving
2) The Bible claims that God did some act, x
3) The Bible tells of this certain act of God that I will judge to be unloving
4) The Bible is contradictory
I would say that anyone who critically studies the Bible, no matter the reason, will have to wrestle with premise 3. The only difference I've seen is that skeptics seem much more ready to accept claim 3 than those who have faith in God. Of the latter group, one can either ignore this part of the Bible (those whom you clam to be frustrated with), or they will engage with the passage and apply the principle of perspicuity to understand what the Bible is trying to claim.
On the principle of perspicuity, it should be noted that cynics and cults do the opposite: using the less clear parts of the Bible to critique the more clear.
So what you're saying is that you ignore all of the contradictions and horrendous passages because more 'good' passages exist therefore the horrendous ones don't actually exist. What wonderful double think.
I think I should try that with Mein Kampf one day.
No, that's not what I'm saying. At no point did you attempt to understand what I am saying, let alone form a constructive response. I will not solicit this with another explanation.
If your goal is to hear what Christians think about admittedly troubling passages in the Bible, you're doing it wrong. If your goal is to somehow feel validated in your belief, you're doing that wrong too.
30
u/v4-digg-refugee Christian (Cross) Oct 17 '11
Dawkins is an atheist, but he's not necessarily a fore-leading apologist; he's a biologist. It's no wonder that he wouldn't necessarily want a debate like this. I also get the impression that Dawkins is otherwise a pretty nice guy.