(July 11, 2009 at 9:13 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Dawkins gave rather a good description of the god that was presented to me in childhood. An image that was good enough to lure me into holy communion at the age of seven (since then I've been highly allergic to these flavourless holy cookies). Nowadays it seems that an advanced course in theology is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of the christian god, to find the really, really, real christian god.
With more than 3000 denominations it certainly is possible these days to snack your own christian religion in a cafetaria model that draws from all these denominations and every personal flavour you like to add. If you attack Dawkins on his imagery than you also are obliged to attack 99% of mentioned denominations. The more liberal image of the christian god is only trailing liberal cultural developments on social and moral issues. The trouble is, the christian god lacks definition, but when someone like Dawkins adresses key elements that are present in most, scorn is the warm embrace of christianty.
Dawkins is no more interpreting god than any of the thousands of christian denominations.
Seems there are as many ways NOT to believe in god as there are to believe in god. Funny how that evens out.
"On Earth as it is in Heaven, the Cosmic Roots of the Bible" available on the Amazon.
