Why can't Dawkins see the point of that Jesus sacrifice story? I mean isn't he in the same position now, when he is trying to tell people "the truth" and they can't see it, and in some parts of the world he would be killed (crucified) for saying those things. I think he takes things too literally. I think he would understand things better if someone told him that God isn't a person, but a name for the law of conservation of energy, and by fully devoting yourself to an idea (e.g. preaching something, science, charity work, football) you are giving your life for that idea, you are willing to die for that idea, for that belief, for that truth. And that's why Jesus was crucified, people couldn't let go of their truths for his. He died for his cause, and that cause was to save people from themselves, so in a way Jesus died for our sins. He sacrified himself in an attempt to teach us something. I'm not a religious person in the usual sense, but even I can see the point of the story (in my own way.)
I'm not saying that Richard is Jesus, but isn't he telling his "truth" to the "non believers" and if he gets killed, does the law of conservation of energy care about it personally? Why would that law allow him to get killed in the first place, why wouldn't it just forgive their "sins" without a sacrifice? Why would the evolution theory allow it? Because it doesn't work that way, yet you can sacrifice yourself for it by trying to tell people about it. The truth doesn't care about your sacrifice, but you care enough about the truth to sacrifice yourself for it. It's not the truth's decision to sacrifice your life, it's yours because you couldn't do anything else, and the sinners are those who'll kill you for it.
That's my take on the matter, or how I would try to tell Dawkins my perception of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment