The apologists for Christianity typically claim that its critics generally misrepresent the Christian position, and consequently all their criticism are really aimed at a carricature version of Christianity.  While I generally disagree with this position, it is also true that there is no single one version of Christianity, making it particularly hard for the critic to take aim.  Today, there are well over 30000 Christian denomination, each denomination holding onto a slightly different Christian message.  Or is that true?

In his book, The Dawkin's Delusion, the Christian theologian, Alistair McGrauth, accuses Richard Dawkins of attacking a misrepresentation of true Christianity, without really stating what constitutes true Christianity. It could well be that it is true that a great deal of the criticism are unjustified, owing to the misunderstanding of what true Christianity is. But what are the core tenets of Christianity?

Let me make an attempt at defining what Christians believe.  I would welcome correction, if I misrepresent the Christian position;

1)  That there is a God who intervenes regularly in the running of the world, who created the world in seven days, who forgives sins, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, etc.

2)  That Jesus Christ is this God

3)  That Jesus was born of a virgin around 4BC (or 6AD) , died and resurrected and ascended into heaven

4)  That there is ultimate judgment, salvation, heaven and hell

5)  That God created humans in the Garden of Eden and that humans sinned, hence dead and evil

6)  That God destroyed all humanity, but one family, and some animals,  in a catastrophic flood

7)  That the bible is the inerrant word of God.


This is by no means exhausive. You are welcome to add to the list.

I would like to invite our Christian friend to advise us if this constitute a misrepresentation of their belief.

@huxley,

When we talk about misrepresenting the message of Christianity, Richard Dawkins is not a good example for arguing your point. I say this because you mentioned Alistair McGrath's book which was a response to Dawkins' polemic against the Biblical worldview. The list you gave, however, is really not focusing on Dawkins' mishap; so it seems to me that you have already taken a defective approach in this attempt to discuss these issues.

However, let me make a few observations:

huxley:

In his book, The Dawkin's Delusion, the Christian theologian, Alistair McGrauth, accuses Richard Dawkins of attacking a misrepresentation of true Christianity, without really stating what constitutes true Christianity.

First, McGrath was not accusing Dawkins of attacking a misrepresentation of true Christianity, in as much as Dawkins was not attacking a "misrepresentation". What Dawkins did was try to ridicule and attack Christianity directly, rather than discuss issues in an intelligent manner. As we investigate this issue at length, you will see why even prominent atheists have opined that Dawkins wasn't really scholarly but embarrassingly provacative.

huxley:

The apologists for Christianity typically claim that its critics generally misrepresent the Christian position, and consequently all their criticism are really aimed at a carricature version of Christianity. While I generally disagree with this position, it is also true that there is no single one version of Christianity, making it particularly hard for the critic to take aim. Today, there are well over 30000 Christian denomination, each denomination holding onto a slightly different Christian message. Or is that true?

It is true that there are numerous denominations in Christendom - no one is pretending otherwise. What amazes me is the idea that the "critic" hopes to take aim, and yet he himself is largely unaware that atheism has numerous denominations as well. Evidence of this is clear in any discussion on the definition of atheism among atheists. We know that even up until now, there is no consensus of the definition of atheism among its proponents - yet, Christian apologists are not worried thereto with reference to 'taking aim'.

When people worry themselves with excuses of 30,000 sects in any group, it indicates to me that such discussants are not aware of the real issues they set out to discuss. In almost every human endeavour and experience, there are many coteries within any worldview - and no less so is true even in atheism.

C'mon Christian, tell us what you really belief in.

Is any of the above a misrepresentation of Christianity?