Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins


 Religions > Atheism > Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 28

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

26
 

27
 

28
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 27 Dec 2005 11:44:08 AM
Object: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins
To be broadcast on UK TV Channel 4 on Monday January 9 2006:
20:00 THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? 1/2: The God Delusion
Professor Richard Dawkins, Chair of the Public Understanding
of Science at Oxford and world-renowned evolutionary biologist,
is no stranger to controversy. His outspoken views on religion
and his championing of evolutionary theory have earned him
the nickname of "Darwin's Rottweiler", an epithet he wears
with pride. In this controversial two-part series, Dawkins
describes God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all
and launches a wholehearted attack on religion as the cause
for much of the pain and suffering in the world. In the light of
overwhelming scientific evidence that shows a supreme being
cannot exist, and in a world in which religious conflict and
bigotry are increasingly centre stage, he believes that for the
good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and dismissed.
In this first film, Professor Dawkins confronts the march of
militant religious belief across the world. In the American
"Bible Belt", he meets Ted Haggard, the President of the
American National Association of Evangelicals, who believes
that science will one day prove the Bible's Creation story right.
In Jerusalem, where the terrible certainties of faith began and
still rage, he challenges the Grand Mufti of Palestine and
discusses with Yousef Al Khattab, a Jewish settler turned
Muslim fundamentalist, the implacable hatreds that faith
has thrown up in this blighted city. The 21st century, Dawkins
argues, should be an age of reason but we are threatened
by those who see unreason as a positive virtue. Faith is an
indulgence of irrationality that is nourishing extremism,
division and terror.
Dir: Russell Barnes; Prod: Deborah Kidd; Prod Co: IWC Media
http://www.channel4sales.com/programming-and-schedules/channel4-schedules.aspx?date=09-01-2006
or
http://tinyurl.com/cb53u
To be broadcast on UK Channel 4 on Monday January 16 2006:
20:00 THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? 2/2: The Virus of Faith
...In this second film, Professor Dawkins explains how religious
faith acts like a virus which is particularly virulent to the young.
In challenging interviews with a Hasidic rabbi and the head of a
city academy, which has adopted the American 'Accelerated
Christian Education' curriculum, he tackles the rise of faith
schools in Britain and argues that religious education saddles
our children with evident falsehoods and an inflexible moral
outlook. Dawkins goes on to examine the underpinnings of
Judaeo-Christian morality, analysing the so-called 'Good Book'
and questioning how the idea of hell is used for moral policing.
He takes on an American pastor who stages 'Hell House'
morality plays and a Reverend who believes the Bible
sanctions the murder of abortion doctors. He questions
Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford on how the moderate
Anglican Church can justify being part of the same religious
fabric that derives morals from a Bronze age text. Dawkins
shows how the true roots of human morality lie in our
evolutionary past and not in Holy Scriptures which actually
reveal God to be a rather nasty character.
Dir: Russell Barnes; Prod: Deborah Kidd; Prod Co: IWC Media
http://www.channel4sales.com/programming-and-schedules/channel4-schedules.aspx?date=16-01-2006
or
http://tinyurl.com/7bqd4
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.

User: "Mike Archer"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 27 Dec 2005 09:02:21 PM
<snip>
Thanks for that post, I've bookmarked it in my TV guide and will watch
it. Sounds interesting...
.
User: "graham"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 28 Dec 2005 05:11:05 PM
"Mike Archer" <mikearcher@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1c1077292e5150989733@news.zen.co.uk...


<snip>

Thanks for that post, I've bookmarked it in my TV guide and will watch
it. Sounds interesting...

Lucky you! Probably not much chance of seeing it this side of the pond:-(
Graham
.
User: "Mike Archer"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 28 Dec 2005 08:43:27 PM
In article <dYEsf.205211$ki.15483@pd7tw2no>,
says...


"Mike Archer" <mikearcher@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e1c1077292e5150989733@news.zen.co.uk...


<snip>

Thanks for that post, I've bookmarked it in my TV guide and will watch
it. Sounds interesting...


Lucky you! Probably not much chance of seeing it this side of the pond:-(
Graham

Just tried emailing you and I got an error because your email address
was invalid. If you want to recieve my email, please email me a valid
address..
.
User: "Jeffrey Goldberg"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 01 Jan 2006 10:42:23 PM
Mike Archer wrote:

Thanks for that post, I've bookmarked it in my TV guide and will watch
it. Sounds interesting...

Lucky you! Probably not much chance of seeing it this side of the pond:-(
Graham

Just tried emailing you and I got an error because your email address
was invalid. If you want to recieve my email, please email me a valid
address..

My reply-to address is valid, and I would be very interested in any
suggestions you might have for someone on the west side of the pond
regarding this matter.
Cheers,
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoted or HTML posts
My Reply-To address is valid.
.




User: "muzz"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 28 Dec 2005 01:10:46 PM
wrote:

To be broadcast on UK TV Channel 4 on Monday January 9
2006:

20:00 THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? 1/2: The God Delusion

Great, hope enough theists watch it and realise that relity isn't so scary.
How did the recent one go about why all those people died in the tsunami ? I
was going to watch it but found out that some vicar guy was conducting the
search for answers.
--
Muzz
http://highlandmist.blogspot.com
http://www.geocities.com/tripdogmonkey/index.html
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 09 Jan 2006 09:05:10 AM
wrote:

To be broadcast on UK TV Channel 4 on Monday January 9 2006:

20:00 THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? 1/2: The God Delusion

Professor Richard Dawkins, Chair of the Public Understanding
of Science at Oxford and world-renowned evolutionary biologist,
is no stranger to controversy. His outspoken views on religion
and his championing of evolutionary theory have earned him
the nickname of "Darwin's Rottweiler", an epithet he wears
with pride. In this controversial two-part series, Dawkins
describes God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all
and launches a wholehearted attack on religion as the cause
for much of the pain and suffering in the world. In the light of
overwhelming scientific evidence that shows a supreme being
cannot exist, and in a world in which religious conflict and
bigotry are increasingly centre stage, he believes that for the
good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and dismissed.
In this first film, Professor Dawkins confronts the march of
militant religious belief across the world. In the American
"Bible Belt", he meets Ted Haggard, the President of the
American National Association of Evangelicals, who believes
that science will one day prove the Bible's Creation story right.
In Jerusalem, where the terrible certainties of faith began and
still rage, he challenges the Grand Mufti of Palestine and
discusses with Yousef Al Khattab, a Jewish settler turned
Muslim fundamentalist, the implacable hatreds that faith
has thrown up in this blighted city. The 21st century, Dawkins
argues, should be an age of reason but we are threatened
by those who see unreason as a positive virtue. Faith is an
indulgence of irrationality that is nourishing extremism,
division and terror.
Dir: Russell Barnes; Prod: Deborah Kidd; Prod Co: IWC Media


http://www.channel4sales.com/programming-and-schedules/channel4-schedules.aspx?date=09-01-2006

or

http://tinyurl.com/cb53u

To be broadcast on UK Channel 4 on Monday January 16 2006:

20:00 THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? 2/2: The Virus of Faith

...In this second film, Professor Dawkins explains how religious
faith acts like a virus which is particularly virulent to the young.
In challenging interviews with a Hasidic rabbi and the head of a
city academy, which has adopted the American 'Accelerated
Christian Education' curriculum, he tackles the rise of faith
schools in Britain and argues that religious education saddles
our children with evident falsehoods and an inflexible moral
outlook. Dawkins goes on to examine the underpinnings of
Judaeo-Christian morality, analysing the so-called 'Good Book'
and questioning how the idea of hell is used for moral policing.
He takes on an American pastor who stages 'Hell House'
morality plays and a Reverend who believes the Bible
sanctions the murder of abortion doctors. He questions
Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford on how the moderate
Anglican Church can justify being part of the same religious
fabric that derives morals from a Bronze age text. Dawkins
shows how the true roots of human morality lie in our
evolutionary past and not in Holy Scriptures which actually
reveal God to be a rather nasty character.
Dir: Russell Barnes; Prod: Deborah Kidd; Prod Co: IWC Media

http://www.channel4sales.com/programming-and-schedules/channel4-schedules.aspx?date=16-01-2006

or

http://tinyurl.com/7bqd4

Recommended
.
User: "Janusz"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 09 Jan 2006 03:43:19 PM
COPY AND PASTE INTO WORD FOR EASE OF READING
It's all well and good to have an argument, to have a viewpoint, and a
decision. And it's all well and good to support Richard Dawkins in his
views, but then again, wasn't his whole point trying to get "religious"
people to take a different view? Surely he should take another view
before he decides that he alone is right.
I have to say, as a keen biologist, and a Christian, I found the
program hilarious. Firstly, I noticed how none of Dawkins' arguments
were developed past the point of "Religion is wrong". There was, quite
clearly, no justification for his remark other than "muslims blow
themselves up", which is wrong in its entirety.
I'm not sure I fully understand how this "man of science".... and
"rational thought" can make such blatantly false claims. This man, who
bases his entire life on data and statistics, as a devout scientist,
decides that the basis for his entire argument should be that,
occasionally, the odd zealot kills a lot of people. And the "odd" there
is not used loosely. Is it not true that in Russia, just a few years
ago, over 600 people were killed in a theatre, in an event completely
unrelated to any religion. Was Hitler's rampage across Europe based on
HIS religious beliefs? Or rather did he seek, not unlike Dawkins, to
eradicate a religion, namely Judaism.
Secondly, I found Dawkins' half-baked attempt to exact revenge for his
embarassment at the hands of the Evangelical pastor from America
absolutely hysterical. I don't really understand how this man (Dawkins)
can go in there looking for the fight, looking to challenge this man
and his beliefs, and, looking to embarrass him on his home ground -
Dawkins was primed for the fight. But he still came off second best,
because the pastor spoke truth the whole way through - not once did he
concede defeat, and not once did he say anything that you can question.
Can you really argue that Dawkins' grandchildren might one day look
back and laugh at their grandfather's statement that the world is over
4 billion years old? I mean, come on, if you, like thousands of people
out there, can honestly say that the world is definitely over 4 billion
years old, then I'd quite like for you to e-mail me, but don't forget
your data, photos/diagrams and any other evidence you can give me to
prove it, and if you're going to use the whole carbon-dating idea then
don't even talk to me. Firstly, because that method is based on a
completely random process of radioactive decay, which can almost be
aligned along a line of best fit, but the fact remains that the basis
of the method is random.... RANDOM - leaving an incalculable number of
potential mistakes int the reading. Personally, I don't buy into the
ideas that fossils prove the earth's age either. Does the Bible not
mention in Genesis the Leviathan? - the giant sea creature that may
well have been a dinosaur. Does the Bible not mention the Nephilim? -
the giant people, that quite easily could have been Neanderthals.
Either way, I thought that the way in which the pastor left Dawkins
speechless was classic - he got him completely - how can Dawkins say
that the evolution theory, is not, in essence a big accident? How too,
could he argue against his arrogance, this man (Dawkins) has stated
that he would like to clone himself (check Channel 4's website if you
want any details.... by the way, Channel 4 is the TV station that is
broadcasting "The Root of All Evil?").
What else gets to me, is that Dawkins complains about "religious"
people, claiming, in the program, that he doesn't hate anyone... now,
if that was so, would he really go through the effort of producing an
entire TV series PREACHING against religion. He didn't even go through
with it in a conservative way, in fact, his first mention of Christian
belief compared it to Napoleon's belief that he should rule supreme,
and he worded it "delusion". A man of science should know that you have
to balance your arguments, you can't expect to do anything if you just
give your version of events. Are we living in the dark ages? Wait a
second, wasn't that the question he kept asking? I think it might have
been.... the time when people did believe absolutely in God, when the
Church (by that I mean the Catholic Church) had immeasurable power, and
also the time when people were tried and executed, based merely on an
accusation?
Don't get me wrong, I am no supporter of the Catholic Church, in fact,
I think it wrong to call them Christians. To me, Catholics are
pagans... they are followers of God, yes, and Jesus, yes..... but then
they worship Mary, oh yes, and they love celebrating their saints, men,
humans. You can't worship a human.
Finally, because I do want to keep this short, I love the way in which
Dawkins took back absolutely everything he said during his program,
right at the end. "Science does not claim to know everything" - yet he
claims he KNOWS the world is over 4 billion years old, "We still have
much to discover" - and everyday, scientists all over the world add
themselves to the ranks that support the idea of Intelligent Design
(Creation Theory). And the way in which he refrained from arguing with
his interviewees, by stating his point of view, but rather commented on
theirs by means of Voice-over when he was safe from humiliation in the
editing room.
Fair enough, take a prod at religion, take a prod at Christianity for
all I care, but Dawkins, do it properly - don't put forward half-baked
ideas that you can't back up.
Don't expect another one of these after the next episode, I don't have
all the time in the world, but hey, you never know... miracles DO
happen.
Janusz (not my real name, no jokes please)
P.S. I will try to respond to any e-mails I get
.
User: "Steve Marshall"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 09 Jan 2006 07:00:02 PM
"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote

Firstly, because that method is based on a
completely random process of radioactive decay, which can almost be
aligned along a line of best fit, but the fact remains that the basis
of the method is random.... RANDOM - leaving an incalculable number of
potential mistakes int the reading.

The rate of decay isn't random.

- how can Dawkins say
that the evolution theory, is not, in essence a big accident?

Because it isn't. Evolution relies upon adapting to or being able to cope
with the circumstances in a particular environment . Circumstances allow
certain types of life to occur.

What else gets to me, is that Dawkins complains about "religious"
people, claiming, in the program, that he doesn't hate anyone... now,
if that was so, would he really go through the effort of producing an
entire TV series PREACHING against religion.

Do you think 2 programs is an entire series ? I don't recall him doing any
preaching. He just presents why he thinks religion and science are in
conflict and why science is a better way forward.
It isn't long since Robert Winston produced a show claiming that religioin
and science were two different ways of trying to answer the same problem.
Did you complain about that one ?


P.S. I will try to respond to any e-mails I get

I suggest you go and watch the program again first. You obviously missed a
great deal.
Steve M
.
User: "Janusz"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 10 Jan 2006 09:01:06 AM
Quite frankly, there have been far too many responses to this for me to
actually reply to all of you. I tried to read them all, and I do
understand that posting that in the atheistic group might have been
like throwing myself to the lions.... as it seems to have been. I will
admit, that my science is not completely accurate, in fact, I will also
admit that carbon dating is not used to date the world, but, what I was
trying to get at is the dating of fossils, from which people have said
"the earth must be" however old. Basically, I am studying Biology and
Chemistry at AS level at the moment, and would never claim to know as
much as, say, Richard Dawkins, but then again, you have to understand,
and this is to the majority of those that have argued against me, that
you can't give me as half-baked an argument as Dawkins did. The
majority of the responses I've read have been "you are wrong", or,
perhaps the most common, "you are a troll", which quite frankly leaves
me questioning your capacity to formulate an argument.
I do not, and will not deny the fact that I am biased because of my
beliefs, but do not deny that those of you who have never experienced
anything other than life in the secular world, where its fashionable to
ridicule those who understand a deeper meaning to life, do not deny
that you yourselves are biased too.
Steve Marshall, I have to tell you that, while I agree with you on your
explanation of evolution, that is not the way most people see it, which
is the view that creationists and Christians have to battle against.
Your definition is exactly my view of evolution, the way Darwin had
originally intended, a series of adaptations, combined with natural
selection, resulting in the species that we have today. However, the
view that the pastor (whom everyone's had a go at) was talking against,
is the view that people have descended from fish, that, at some point,
all life was uni-cellular. It's the view that gives us the ability to
argue that our dual-circulatory system (the way your heart works for
those "trolls" out there) could not be a result of evolution, nor could
it be a meer adaptation, simply because it is so different to the
single-circulatory system of the creatures we have been theorised to
have evolved from (before apes..... as in the fish again).
Sorry if I'm not finishing anything I'm saying, but I'm reading the
responses as I go along, and, as i said last night, I really don't have
time to be doing everything perfectly.
If you were to read what I said properly, then you might find that I
did indeed say that the random decay of a sample of an isotope IS
random, but to the extend where it can be, almost accurately predicted.
But, what i said after that, is that there are a huge number of
problems associated with such a method, because, in essence, you are
relying on a random process, which could, (very likely to), or could
not do as you expect. It is flawed.
"The Bible contradicts itself"... where? if you're referring to the
differences between the old and new testament, do you not think that
could be because some of the information in the old is superceded by
the new? Where Jews would have had to live righteously to get into
heaven, do Christians not have to simply accept Jesus as their saviour?
Did you not realise that the Bible says both, but that only the latter
is applicable to Christians because Jesus came to free both Jews and
Gentiles, where the old testament is focussed purely on Jews.
Don't tell me that the Bible contradicts itself until you've read it,
and you understand it, and feel free to tell me the same thing about
science, and maybe I'll get back to you in a couple of years once I've
gotten through Uni.
Anyway thats all I'm writing here now because I do have better things
to do, but I will try reply again at some point.
.
User: "Steve Marshall"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 10 Jan 2006 05:35:46 PM
"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote

If you were to read what I said properly, then you might find that I
did indeed say that the random decay of a sample of an isotope IS
random, but to the extend where it can be, almost accurately predicted.
But, what i said after that, is that there are a huge number of
problems associated with such a method, because, in essence, you are
relying on a random process, which could, (very likely to), or could
not do as you expect. It is flawed.

What people arguing about evolutionary biology forget is that fossils can
be dated by the layers of rock from which they are taken. Geological
evidence and data is pretty much ignored by creationists. To them there is
continental drift yet we can measure that happening now. Forget your fossils
for the moment and consider geology !
Steve M
.

User: "Steve Marshall"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 10 Jan 2006 05:20:39 PM
"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote

Steve Marshall, I have to tell you that, while I agree with you on your
explanation of evolution, that is not the way most people see it, which
is the view that creationists and Christians have to battle against.
Your definition is exactly my view of evolution, the way Darwin had
originally intended, a series of adaptations, combined with natural
selection, resulting in the species that we have today. However, the
view that the pastor (whom everyone's had a go at) was talking against,
is the view that people have descended from fish, that, at some point,
all life was uni-cellular.

I don't think my explanation is so different, I've just describe the process
rather than the genetic science. The is mutation and a randomness to
evolution but the success of an organism is dependant on other
circumstances. Adaptation suggests a concious decision to change which I
don't think is apparant.
I don't know of any evolutionists that claim we are derived from fish. This
is the sort of utter nonsense people like the pastor create based on a vague
understanding of the 'story of evolution' i.e. life developing in the oceans
and moving out onto land. The evidence shows that life developed in such a
way, but I would question that we are derived from fish.
We may however have occured from single cell structures. The evidence points
that way.

It's the view that gives us the ability to
argue that our dual-circulatory system (the way your heart works for
those "trolls" out there) could not be a result of evolution, nor could
it be a meer adaptation, simply because it is so different to the
single-circulatory system of the creatures we have been theorised to
have evolved from (before apes..... as in the fish again).

What evidence is there for such organisms developing in any other way ?
I will refer back again to the computer program 'Game of Life' also known as
'Life'. It usues three simple rules to dictate whether cells live, die or
replicate. With just three rules vastly complex patterns and motions are
developed. There is no need for complexity to create complex structures. The
human genome had far less information than was expected. It is just nonsense
to suggest something natural couldn't have evolved.

Don't tell me that the Bible contradicts itself until you've read it,
and you understand it, and feel free to tell me the same thing about
science, and maybe I'll get back to you in a couple of years once I've
gotten through Uni.

It really annoys me that people assume critics of the Bible haven't read it
or looked into religions . I know a great many atheist who have been bought
up in religioius homes and some of whom had read the whole Bible. If you
don't think there are contraditions, mistranslations and errors then you
haven't looked at it enough ! Study the evidence !
Steve M
.

User: "Donald"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 10 Jan 2006 11:15:29 AM
"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1136902796.967693.209620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"The Bible contradicts itself"... where? if you're referring to the
differences between the old and new testament, do you not think that
could be because some of the information in the old is superceded by
the new? Where Jews would have had to live righteously to get into
heaven, do Christians not have to simply accept Jesus as their saviour?
Did you not realise that the Bible says both, but that only the latter
is applicable to Christians because Jesus came to free both Jews and
Gentiles, where the old testament is focussed purely on Jews.
Don't tell me that the Bible contradicts itself until you've read it,
and you understand it, and feel free to tell me the same thing about
science, and maybe I'll get back to you in a couple of years once I've
gotten through Uni.

Anyway thats all I'm writing here now because I do have better things
to do, but I will try reply again at some point.

Run while you can, eh? I suspected you were a troll form the off and the
fact you're unwilling to remain to argue the point simply confirms that
view.
Okay, does the bible contradict itself? Okay, let's look at some evidence,
starting with something very straightforward. How many sons did Abraham
have? Genesis 22:2 and Hebrew 11:17 both state Abraham offered Isaac, his
only begotten son, up to God. However, Genesis 16:15 talks about his son
Ishmael, Genesis 25:1-2 about his sons Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian,
Ishbak and Shuah. Galatians 4:22 states quite categorically that Abraham
had 2 sons. Now okay, this might be a minor point - what relevance does the
number of sons a man who lived thousands of years ago have? But these books
are supposedly the inspired word of God. So either God can't count, He made
a mistake or the transcriber (i.e. Moses) wrote it down wrong. And if a
mistake was made was made with such a basic fact, can the rest of the
accounts be trusted?
How about something more fundamental; was man created before or after the
animals? Genesis 1:1-2:3 says that God "made the beast of the earth after
his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon
the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us
make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image." Clearly,
man was created after the animals.
However, Genesis 2:4-25 says "and the LORD God said, It is not good that the
man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the
ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the
air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof".
Clearly, man was created before the other animals.
That's a contridiction that can't be squared. The Bible is full of such
things and, although some can be argued away, many accounts can't be squared
against each other.
Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't half as effective as the Vulcan groin kick,
but it is more politically correct!!
.
User: "Alan Cossey"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 12 Jan 2006 03:28:24 AM
Donald wrote:

"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1136902796.967693.209620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"The Bible contradicts itself"... where? if you're referring to the
differences between the old and new testament, do you not think
that
could be because some of the information in the old is superceded
by
the new? Where Jews would have had to live righteously to get into
heaven, do Christians not have to simply accept Jesus as their
saviour? Did you not realise that the Bible says both, but that
only
the latter is applicable to Christians because Jesus came to free
both Jews and Gentiles, where the old testament is focussed purely
on Jews. Don't tell me that the Bible contradicts itself until
you've read it,
and you understand it, and feel free to tell me the same thing
about
science, and maybe I'll get back to you in a couple of years once
I've gotten through Uni.

Anyway thats all I'm writing here now because I do have better
things
to do, but I will try reply again at some point.


Run while you can, eh? I suspected you were a troll form the off
and
the fact you're unwilling to remain to argue the point simply
confirms that view.

Okay, does the bible contradict itself? Okay, let's look at some
evidence, starting with something very straightforward. How many
sons did Abraham have? Genesis 22:2 and Hebrew 11:17 both state
Abraham offered Isaac, his only begotten son, up to God. However,
Genesis 16:15 talks about his son Ishmael, Genesis 25:1-2 about his
sons Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. Galatians
4:22 states quite categorically that Abraham had 2 sons. Now okay,
this might be a minor point - what relevance does the number of sons
a man who lived thousands of years ago have? But these books are
supposedly the inspired word of God. So either God can't count, He
made a mistake or the transcriber (i.e. Moses) wrote it down wrong.
And if a mistake was made was made with such a basic fact, can the
rest of the accounts be trusted?

You make a good point, but surely the writer of Hebrews and Genesis
would have twigged that Abraham had two sons, wouldn't he? The point
is that Isaac, was special in that he was born of a promise of God to
Abraham, i.e. when both Abraham and Sarah were well over the hill (~90
years old), and it was to be through Isaac and his descendants that
God would reveal himself to mankind, ultimately through Jesus. We are
told in the New Testament that the people of God are the sons of God,
but is clear that it is meant in a different manner to Jesus being the
Son of God. Same thing for Ishmael being the special son of Abraham.
Bearing in mind that this post is in uk.religion.islam, have a look at
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Dictionary/begotten.html for a bit of
background.


How about something more fundamental; was man created before or
after
the animals? Genesis 1:1-2:3 says that God "made the beast of the
earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing
that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was
good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created
man in his own image." Clearly, man was created after the animals.

However, Genesis 2:4-25 says "and the LORD God said, It is not good
that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
that was the name thereof". Clearly, man was created before the
other
animals.
That's a contridiction that can't be squared. The Bible is full of
such things and, although some can be argued away, many accounts
can't be squared against each other.

Don

If there is a Hebrew-speaker around, they will be better able to
explain this than me, but here goes. The tenses in the original Hebrew
do not show the order given in the English translation you quote. If I
understand it correctly, it can just as easily be translated, "Now
the Lord God HAD formed out of the ground all the animals..." and is
so translated in the NIV.
Alan
.
User: "Donald"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 12 Jan 2006 12:03:52 PM
"Alan Cossey" <alan@NO.SPAMcossey58.freeserve.co.ukNO.SPAM> wrote in message
news:dq578l$3v1$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Donald wrote:

"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1136902796.967693.209620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"The Bible contradicts itself"... where? if you're referring to the
differences between the old and new testament, do you not think that
could be because some of the information in the old is superceded by
the new? Where Jews would have had to live righteously to get into
heaven, do Christians not have to simply accept Jesus as their
saviour? Did you not realise that the Bible says both, but that only
the latter is applicable to Christians because Jesus came to free
both Jews and Gentiles, where the old testament is focussed purely
on Jews. Don't tell me that the Bible contradicts itself until you've
read it,
and you understand it, and feel free to tell me the same thing about
science, and maybe I'll get back to you in a couple of years once
I've gotten through Uni.

Anyway thats all I'm writing here now because I do have better things
to do, but I will try reply again at some point.


Run while you can, eh? I suspected you were a troll form the off and
the fact you're unwilling to remain to argue the point simply
confirms that view.

Okay, does the bible contradict itself? Okay, let's look at some
evidence, starting with something very straightforward. How many
sons did Abraham have? Genesis 22:2 and Hebrew 11:17 both state
Abraham offered Isaac, his only begotten son, up to God. However,
Genesis 16:15 talks about his son Ishmael, Genesis 25:1-2 about his
sons Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. Galatians
4:22 states quite categorically that Abraham had 2 sons. Now okay,
this might be a minor point - what relevance does the number of sons
a man who lived thousands of years ago have? But these books are
supposedly the inspired word of God. So either God can't count, He
made a mistake or the transcriber (i.e. Moses) wrote it down wrong. And
if a mistake was made was made with such a basic fact, can the
rest of the accounts be trusted?


You make a good point, but surely the writer of Hebrews and Genesis would
have twigged that Abraham had two sons, wouldn't he? The point is that
Isaac, was special in that he was born of a promise of God to Abraham,
i.e. when both Abraham and Sarah were well over the hill (~90 years old),
and it was to be through Isaac and his descendants that God would reveal
himself to mankind, ultimately through Jesus. We are told in the New
Testament that the people of God are the sons of God, but is clear that it
is meant in a different manner to Jesus being the Son of God. Same thing
for Ishmael being the special son of Abraham.

Bearing in mind that this post is in uk.religion.islam, have a look at
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Dictionary/begotten.html for a bit of
background.


How about something more fundamental; was man created before or after
the animals? Genesis 1:1-2:3 says that God "made the beast of the
earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing
that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was
good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created
man in his own image." Clearly, man was created after the animals.

However, Genesis 2:4-25 says "and the LORD God said, It is not good
that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
that was the name thereof". Clearly, man was created before the other
animals.
That's a contridiction that can't be squared. The Bible is full of
such things and, although some can be argued away, many accounts
can't be squared against each other.

Don


If there is a Hebrew-speaker around, they will be better able to explain
this than me, but here goes. The tenses in the original Hebrew do not show
the order given in the English translation you quote. If I understand it
correctly, it can just as easily be translated, "Now the Lord God HAD
formed out of the ground all the animals..." and is so translated in the
NIV.

Alan

Yes, ancient Hebrew does not have any tenses. I've heard that argument
before (Genesis 1:2 should read: "And the earth *BECAME* empty and void",
with all the ramifications that intails). However, in Genesis 2:18, the
context is clear that man was alone and, therefore, God created the animals
and brought them to him to be named (a process that must have whiled away a
few afternoons) and see if any would be a suitable companion (there's the
old joke about the sheep being a close also ran but we'll not go there).
This, of course, led to God creating women but the original chain of events
starts with God deciding that it was not good that man was alone. Now God
decides man is alone because the animals hadn't been created yet or because
God had forgotten about all the animals he'd already created (even though he
subsequently brought them to Adam).
Unfortunately, this *is* a contradiction and no amount of arguing about
tenses can explain it away, at least not without making God seem a dithering
and forgetful fool.
Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't half as effective as the Vulcan groin kick,
but it is more politically correct!!
.


User: "gareth"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 10 Jan 2006 02:32:37 PM
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:15:29 +0000, Donald wrote:

"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1136902796.967693.209620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"The Bible contradicts itself"... where? if you're referring to the
differences between the old and new testament, do you not think that
could be because some of the information in the old is superceded by
the new?


Okay, does the bible contradict itself? [good stuff snipped] The Bible
is full of such things and, although some can be argued away, many
accounts can't be squared against each other.

Quite so, but to answer the OP's question about differences between the
Old and New Testaments, the classic has to be the fabricated lineages
for Jesus that the Gospels themselves contain. In a weak attempt - which
in places even contradict the lineages for some of these figures in
the books of Chronicles and Kings - Matthew and Luke come up with these
ancestors for Jesus:
MATTHEW LUKE
David David
Solomon Nathan (falling at the first hurdle, there)
Rehoboam Mattatha
Abijah Menna
Asa Melea
Jehoshaphat Eliakim
Joram Jonam (close one that - benefit of the doubt)
Uzziah Joseph
Jotham Judah
Ahaz Simeon
Hezekiah Levi
Manasseh Matthat (not one of the middle-men match)
Amon Jorim
Josiah Eliezer
Jeconiah Joshua
Shealtiel Er
Zerubbabel Elmadam
Abiud Cosam
Eliakim Addi (in fact, very few of the names actually match)
Azor Melki
Zadok Neri
Akim Shealtiel
Eliud Zerubbabel
Eleazar Rhesa
Matthan Joanan
Jacob Joda
Joseph Josech
JESUS Semein
Mattathias (14 additional generations from here ...)
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph (... to here)
JESUS
Not only are these clearly contrived to show an artificial descendency
from King David, but the "missing generations" amount to a staggering 250
unaccounted years - generously erring on the low side of 20 years between
each generation - between the two lists.
Using the Luke list, and bearing in mind that Old Testament folk "begat"
their offspring at a much, much older age than 20 - centenarians some of
them - the gap between David and Jesus could be anywhere between 840 years
(close call, but still 100 years short) to 3,000 years. Apologies for the
tortured logic, but it's only to demonstrate that no empirical trust can
be placed in these "gospel" accounts, and that no science or history lies
behind these two alleged lineages.
Not only contradictory, but hopelessly inaccurate and wilfully CONTRIVED
(i.e. lying) on so many counts. And these false representations sit slap
bang in the story of Jesus himself!
--
Kind regards,
Gareth Williams
.
User: "Steve Marshall"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 10 Jan 2006 05:31:36 PM
"gareth" <gareth@nospam.com> wrote


Not only are these clearly contrived to show an artificial descendency
from King David, but the "missing generations" amount to a staggering 250
unaccounted years - generously erring on the low side of 20 years between
each generation - between the two lists.

Yeah, but in the Bible people like Moses and Adam live up to they are 950,
so if you believe such crap anything's possible.
The Bible is however used by archaeologists as it is one of the few
surviving texts from the period. They've linked up some info with Rameses II
and there used to be a big gap in time between him and a second King. When
they postulated that the second King was the same guy and the gap was closed
it made more sense of the time line. Some of the Bible can be used
historically, but some parts are obviously made up.
The Jehovah's idiots were on the doorstep trying to claim that tigers used
to eat grass (not meat) because of some bit in the Bible that says how the
animals all lived together happily munching on the garden which was provided
for them to eat. It takes more than faith to accept such tales !
Steve M
.
User: "Janusz"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 14 Jan 2006 09:03:42 AM
Not only are these clearly contrived to show an artificial descendency

from King David, but the "missing generations" amount to a staggering 250
unaccounted years - generously erring on the low side of 20 years between
each generation - between the two lists.

"Yeah, but in the Bible people like Moses and Adam live up to they are
950,
so if you believe such crap anything's possible. "
Firstly, Moses died at the age of 120 according to the Bible, and Adam,
I'm not so sure about right now. I know that Methuselah, who might be
the guy you're looking for, lived up to 800 and something I think. But
then again, just because people don't, and the chances of people living
past 70 nowadays is pretty slim, and the fact that with all their
technology living past the age of 40 was probably pretty difficult.
Does it mean that it's impossible? I mean come on, if you believe in
the big bang and such crap, anything's possible.
"The Bible is however used by archaeologists as it is one of the few
surviving texts from the period. They've linked up some info with
Rameses II
and there used to be a big gap in time between him and a second King.
When
they postulated that the second King was the same guy and the gap was
closed
it made more sense of the time line. Some of the Bible can be used
historically, but some parts are obviously made up. "
Well, some parts may be made up, but then again, you can't prove it.
Some parts of Darwin's theory may have been him just hammering on for
the sake of it, and writing complete nonsense, but, because he said it,
lots of people are unlikely to question it.
"The Jehovah's idiots were on the doorstep trying to claim that tigers
used
to eat grass (not meat) because of some bit in the Bible that says how
the
animals all lived together happily munching on the garden which was
provided
for them to eat. It takes more than faith to accept such tales ! "
Now, if I were to say that all "Christians" were right, then I would be
going against my own beliefs. Jehovah's witnesses, or so I'm told,
don't even believe that Jesus died on the cross, so, the fact that they
claim that tiger's used to eat grass doesn't surprise me. Don't forget
that the Jehovah's witnesses is merely a sect founded in the capital of
intelligence, America.
.
User: "Steve Marshall"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 15 Jan 2006 09:04:48 AM
"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote

"Yeah, but in the Bible people like Moses and Adam live up to they are
950,
so if you believe such crap anything's possible. "

Firstly, Moses died at the age of 120 according to the Bible, and Adam,
I'm not so sure about right now. I know that Methuselah, who might be
the guy you're looking for, lived up to 800 and something I think.

In the Bible I looked at Adam was 950 when he died, and so was Moses.

I mean come on, if you believe in
the big bang and such crap, anything's possible.

Belief is only required for things that don't exist. People may believe in
fairies, dragons, crystal healing and so on. You can actually hear the noise
from the big bang. We can also tell that the Universe is still expanding. If
god made the universe and kept it the same way as creationists would have
you believe. there would be no expansion and no background noise.

Some of the Bible can be used
historically, but some parts are obviously made up. "

Well, some parts may be made up, but then again, you can't prove it.

There is some you can prove adn some you can't. In one part it says how
mustard seed grows into a tree. That isn't the case. It is a simply not
true.
But what needs looking for is evidence of proving the stories to be true.
Science has provided ways of showing how some events could have occurred,
for instance the ten plagues of Egypt. It has been shown to be a natural
event due to draught. An unusual incident but one effect leading to another.
The Bible proclaims such things as an act of god because the people didn't
understand what was occuring. Man fills the gaps in his knowledge with god.

Some parts of Darwin's theory may have been him just hammering on for
the sake of it, and writing complete nonsense, but, because he said it,
lots of people are unlikely to question it.

Such as what exactly ? Darwins theory was published with another paper which
had drawn the same conclusions. Ever since science has found more and more
data that supports teh theory enough to recognise it as a fact. The very
processes involved can be demonstrated. Fish breeders can use natural
selection to produce fish with long split tails. It's something of a hobby
breeding to produce different tail shapes. This is only possible because of
evolutionary processes. Similarly we have a whole range of different shapes
and sizes of dogs, all acheived through selective breeding. Then we have
ring species. For example, a type of bird may occur around a coastal region.
further down the coast there is a variation, and further down another one.
Each can breed with it's neighbour but at either end the birds are so far
removed that they can't breed. This is evolution demonstrated as fact.

Now, if I were to say that all "Christians" were right, then I would be
going against my own beliefs. Jehovah's witnesses, or so I'm told,
don't even believe that Jesus died on the cross, so, the fact that they
claim that tiger's used to eat grass doesn't surprise me. Don't forget
that the Jehovah's witnesses is merely a sect founded in the capital of
intelligence, America.

Why shouldn't you accept them ? They just read the Bible like you ? They're
no different to another branch of Christianity or even another variation of
another religion like Islam. They look in their Holy book and draw
conclusions.
If you are to accept what your book says, it does say that god provided the
garden of Eden as food for the animals. Are you saying now that this is
wrong or that there weren't carnivores to begin with or what ?
Steve M


.


User: "Janusz"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 14 Jan 2006 09:45:58 AM
Steve Marshall wrote:

"gareth" <gareth@nospam.com> wrote


Not only are these clearly contrived to show an artificial descendency
from King David, but the "missing generations" amount to a staggering 250
unaccounted years - generously erring on the low side of 20 years between
each generation - between the two lists.


Yeah, but in the Bible people like Moses and Adam live up to they are 950,
so if you believe such crap anything's possible.

Actually, Moses lived to around 120, around 40 years in Egypt, around
40 years in Moab, and then around 40 years in the desert with the
Israelites


The Bible is however used by archaeologists as it is one of the few
surviving texts from the period. They've linked up some info with Rameses II
and there used to be a big gap in time between him and a second King. When
they postulated that the second King was the same guy and the gap was closed
it made more sense of the time line. Some of the Bible can be used
historically, but some parts are obviously made up.

But then again, a lot of the Bible has been proven to be scientifically
accurate, for example, Noah's Ark, which was the perfect shape in order
to be unsinkable. The Great Flood, however, in my eyes does not refer
to the entire Earth, but rather the world, and the word world there
refers to Noah's world, i.e. the surrounding countries - the world he
knew.
And agree with your comment on archaelogical findings, the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah, have, based on scientific dating methods, been
found to have been destroyed at roughly the same time as the Bible
states. (I apologise there for going back on myself and using the
scientific dating method, but I have accepted that I was wrong about
that previously). You don't know that any of the Bible was made up - a
lot of the Bible, I believe, was written under extreme circumstances,
and, in reference to Noah once again, it is likely full of
exaggerations. However, the essence is there, it is composed mainly of
truth, and so I don't believe it fair to call it made up.


The Jehovah's idiots were on the doorstep trying to claim that tigers used
to eat grass (not meat) because of some bit in the Bible that says how the
animals all lived together happily munching on the garden which was provided
for them to eat. It takes more than faith to accept such tales !

But then again, the Jehovah's witnesses are a sect that come from none
other than the capital of Intellect, the most intelligent nation in the
world, that is, America. And aside from that, they don't believe that
Jesus even died on the cross, so, adding them to any argument is pretty
immaterial considering that neither you, nor I, give any credence to
anything they say.


Steve M

.
User: "Donald"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 14 Jan 2006 11:26:16 AM
"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1137253558.450924.61400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

But then again, the Jehovah's witnesses are a sect that come from none
other than the capital of Intellect, the most intelligent nation in the
world, that is, America. And aside from that, they don't believe that
Jesus even died on the cross, so, adding them to any argument is pretty
immaterial considering that neither you, nor I, give any credence to
anything they say.


Steve M

Witnesses still believe Jesus dies for man's sins, only it was on a torture
stake, not a cross. Why? Because the cross is the symbol for the moon in
pre-Christian cultures (i.e Pagan cultures). Easter itself is a movable
feast because it is determined by the moon. Friday, the day Christ dies, is
linked to Freya's day. Freya is the moon Goddess. There are 13 "months" in
a lunar year and, not surprisingly, 13 is the central number of ancient moon
religions. That's why there are 13 individuals in a Witch's coven, a leader
and 12 disciples. This setup is echoed in various myths and historical
tales. King Arthur and his 12 Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood and
his 12 merry men, the King and the 12 Knights of the Order of the Garter
(their robes were embroidered with 13 x 13 garters), Roland and the 12 peers
of France, Romulus and his 12 shephers, Odysseus and his 12 companions,
Hrolf and his 12 Berserkers, Baiani and his 12 followers (who founded the
Australian Aborigine nation), the judge and the 12 jurors. The list goes on
and on. Of course, about the most famous example of this setup is Jesus and
his 12 disciples. If you compare one of the central ceremonies of these
moon religions to the story of the Resurection, the similarities are more
than coincidence.
So if Witnesses have little credence because they've tried to distance their
beliefs from Pagan rituals and religious ceremonies, then those who are
quite happy for their religion to be based on ancient Moon religions and the
like are even less credulous.
Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't half as effective as the Vulcan groin kick,
but it is more politically correct!!
.
User: "Janusz"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 14 Jan 2006 02:26:22 PM
Donald wrote:

"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1137253558.450924.61400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

But then again, the Jehovah's witnesses are a sect that come from none
other than the capital of Intellect, the most intelligent nation in the
world, that is, America. And aside from that, they don't believe that
Jesus even died on the cross, so, adding them to any argument is pretty
immaterial considering that neither you, nor I, give any credence to
anything they say.


Steve M


Witnesses still believe Jesus dies for man's sins, only it was on a torture
stake, not a cross. Why? Because the cross is the symbol for the moon in
pre-Christian cultures (i.e Pagan cultures).

Actually, Witnesses believe Jesus died for the sins of SOME men, not
man's sins. And by the way, Jesus also happened to die on a cross,
hence the word, crucifixion.

Easter itself is a movable feast because it is determined by the moon.

And to fit the celebration in with our weekdays, which, yes are named
after Pagan Gods, i.e. Freya, and Thor (thursday).....

Friday, the day Christ dies, is
linked to Freya's day. Freya is the moon Goddess.

Friday also happens to have been the name of the day at the time, and
so, instead of renaming the day and confusing absolutely everyone, the
Christians who brought Christianity to Britain decided to leave the
name as it was, and simply add Good to the front in order to separate
it from the rest of the Fridays in the year.

There are 13 "months" in
a lunar year and, not surprisingly, 13 is the central number of ancient moon
religions. That's why there are 13 individuals in a Witch's coven, a leader
and 12 disciples. This setup is echoed in various myths and historical
tales. King Arthur and his 12 Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood and
his 12 merry men, the King and the 12 Knights of the Order of the Garter
(their robes were embroidered with 13 x 13 garters), Roland and the 12 peers
of France, Romulus and his 12 shephers, Odysseus and his 12 companions,
Hrolf and his 12 Berserkers, Baiani and his 12 followers (who founded the
Australian Aborigine nation), the judge and the 12 jurors. The list goes on
and on.

Who created the moon, on which all of these things is based? Well...
according to Christians, because I know you're an atheist.

Of course, about the most famous example of this setup is Jesus and
his 12 disciples. If you compare one of the central ceremonies of these
moon religions to the story of the Resurection, the similarities are more
than coincidence.

And he chose 12 disciples for symbolic reasons yes, how about, perhaps,
the 12 tribes of Israel, wouldn't that be a shocking coincidence? Or
perhaps the 13 tribes, with reference to the Tribe descended of
Abraham's son Ishmael who fathered the Arab people, that would leave
enough for Jesu and 12 disciples. Did you know the Jews, whether most
of them know it or not, see the Arabs as a fellow tribe?

So if Witnesses have little credence because they've tried to distance their
beliefs from Pagan rituals and religious ceremonies, then those who are
quite happy for their religion to be based on ancient Moon religions and the
like are even less credulous.

Perhaps its because they've distanced themselves from Biblical
teaching, i.e. Jesus died on a cross, or it might just be that they
invented their own Bible. They also believe that Jesus was merely an
angel who became man, as opposed to God in human form, and that there
is no trinity. And did you know, they even believe that Satan was given
authority over the creation of the Earth.
And, if anything, their distancing themselves from the teaching of the
cross does more to discredit them, because it proves that they are
willing to change things to make it fit better with what they WANT to
believe.
Did you know, at one point they claimed to know where God was seated on
his throne, and no, they do not believe in omnipresence so they
actually thought they could pinpoint his throne to be in the Pleiades
star system, but soon decided that in fact they could not pinpoint his
throne... that is to say, he could be anywhere.
Don't tell me that my religion is based on "ancient Moon religions"
simply because certain days have the same name. Or because Jesus did
certain things to fulfill certain prophecies, or because Christianity
is above altering people's lives in an inconsequential way. What you're
saying is that the names of the week should've been renamed. That Jesus
should not have risen from the dead, and that Jesus should've chosen 10
disciples, just to shake things up a little bit. Well I would say Jesus
shook things up enough, and he pretty much got crucified for it. I
guess you'd have to shake things up quite a bit to get that kind of
punishment. Don't you think...?
.
User: "Donald"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 14 Jan 2006 04:13:12 PM
"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1137270382.610336.125910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Donald wrote:

"Janusz" <imafrican@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1137253558.450924.61400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

But then again, the Jehovah's witnesses are a sect that come from none
other than the capital of Intellect, the most intelligent nation in the
world, that is, America. And aside from that, they don't believe that
Jesus even died on the cross, so, adding them to any argument is pretty
immaterial considering that neither you, nor I, give any credence to
anything they say.


Steve M


Witnesses still believe Jesus dies for man's sins, only it was on a
torture
stake, not a cross. Why? Because the cross is the symbol for the moon
in
pre-Christian cultures (i.e Pagan cultures).


Actually, Witnesses believe Jesus died for the sins of SOME men, not
man's sins. And by the way, Jesus also happened to die on a cross,
hence the word, crucifixion.

Since Witnesses believe all men have sinned, it follows they belive Jesus
died for the sins of all men. Unless, of course, you can cite some Witness
text that shows otherwise.
Some crucifixions were carried out using a single upright pole (the Witness'
so called torture stake), a crux simplex. The original Greek word for cross
is generally understood to indicate an upright pole or stake.
There are plenty of records of other crucifxation methods. St. Andrew, for
example, was crucified on a decussate cross (X-shaped) or saltire.
Experiments seem to show that the single stake method is the best since both
the tau cross (T-shaped) and the decussate cross only result in death after
the victims legs are broken (does the bible mention that Jesus' legs were
broken?)

There are 13 "months" in
a lunar year and, not surprisingly, 13 is the central number of ancient
moon
religions. That's why there are 13 individuals in a Witch's coven, a
leader
and 12 disciples. This setup is echoed in various myths and historical
tales. King Arthur and his 12 Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood and
his 12 merry men, the King and the 12 Knights of the Order of the Garter
(their robes were embroidered with 13 x 13 garters), Roland and the 12
peers
of France, Romulus and his 12 shephers, Odysseus and his 12 companions,
Hrolf and his 12 Berserkers, Baiani and his 12 followers (who founded the
Australian Aborigine nation), the judge and the 12 jurors. The list goes
on
and on.


Who created the moon, on which all of these things is based? Well...
according to Christians, because I know you're an atheist.

How do you know I'm an atheist. You've just assumed that with no evidence
whatsoever.

So if Witnesses have little credence because they've tried to distance
their
beliefs from Pagan rituals and religious ceremonies, then those who are
quite happy for their religion to be based on ancient Moon religions and
the
like are even less credulous.


Perhaps its because they've distanced themselves from Biblical
teaching, i.e. Jesus died on a cross, or it might just be that they
invented their own Bible. They also believe that Jesus was merely an
angel who became man, as opposed to God in human form, and that there
is no trinity. And did you know, they even believe that Satan was given
authority over the creation of the Earth.

There is little evidence for the trinity in the bible. Indeed, much of the
bible actually rejects such a concept. Admittedly, the New Testament does
contain some evidence but really only in the gospels written in Greek. Not
surprisingly, we find that the trinity is a common concept in Greek
pre-Christian religions. The Revelation in the Bible effectively rules out
such a trinity, though, as it talks about power being handed back and forth
between God and Jesus (or Michael the Archangel if you go with the Witness
text and some translations of the New Testament). You also have to question
Jesus' monologue as he was crucified - who was he talking to if God and
Jesus are one and the same?
Satan (the Third) was indeed given authority over the creation of the Earth.
The Bible and other ancient texts basically say so. These texts also say
that when Satan saw the potential of man, he rebelled against God (because
he felt betrayed), hence his casting out of heaven.
You accuse me of being an atheist, yet you seem to be quite ignorant of what
the bible actually contains. Perhaps, instead of getting it second hand,
you should maybe actually read it yourself.

Did you know, at one point they claimed to know where God was seated on
his throne, and no, they do not believe in omnipresence so they
actually thought they could pinpoint his throne to be in the Pleiades
star system, but soon decided that in fact they could not pinpoint his
throne... that is to say, he could be anywhere.

Omnipresence? The Bible categorically states that God is *NOT* omnipresent.
Any preacher that claims He is omnipresent is teaching you a false religion.
Look, I've suggested it before, I'll do it again. Read the Bible and try to
understand what it actually says. God is not omnipresent. He was absent
when Satan tempted Eve and when Eve persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden
fruit.

Don't tell me that my religion is based on "ancient Moon religions"
simply because certain days have the same name. Or because Jesus did
certain things to fulfill certain prophecies, or because Christianity
is above altering people's lives in an inconsequential way. What you're
saying is that the names of the week should've been renamed. That Jesus
should not have risen from the dead, and that Jesus should've chosen 10
disciples, just to shake things up a little bit. Well I would say Jesus
shook things up enough, and he pretty much got crucified for it. I
guess you'd have to shake things up quite a bit to get that kind of
punishment. Don't you think...?

In one ceremony of the ancient Moon religion, the Moon sacrifices the Sun on
the last day of the year. The Sun is then resurrected so that live (eternal
life) on Earth can continue. For the ceremony, a man would stand in place
of the Sun. This man was killed by having his genitals removed to turn him
into a menstrating women (linked to the lunar cycle, etc). He would be bled
to death. The blood would be drunk and the body would be eaten.
Now, surely even you can realise that the similarity goes beyond days of the
week having the same name.
We have the Son (of God; of Man) being sacrificied. Before his death, he
urges his followers to drink of his blood and eat of his body. While he's
being sacrificied, he's penetrated with a spear (as much a phallic
representation as you can get) and bleeds out. He is resurrected and brings
the promise of eternal life on Earth.
Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't half as effective as the Vulcan groin kick,
but it is more politically correct!!
.
User: "Steve Marshall"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 15 Jan 2006 09:20:31 AM
"Donald" <donald@mccaskey.freeservedotco.uk> wrote

Omnipresence? The Bible categorically states that God is *NOT*

omnipresent.

Any preacher that claims He is omnipresent is teaching you a false

religion.
So you can only have a true religion if you follow what it says in your holy
book ? It's true that most religions that don't have them have fallen away
and disappeared. Is it true that everyone looks at the Bible in the same way
? Nope. How many branches of Christianity aare there - how many different
Jewish outlooks ? If one "gets it wrong" they are apparently a false
religion. So it's pretty clear to me there are no accurate and true
religions.

Look, I've suggested it before, I'll do it again. Read the Bible and try

to

understand what it actually says. God is not omnipresent. He was absent
when Satan tempted Eve and when Eve persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden
fruit.

Where'd he go ?

For the ceremony, a man would stand in place
of the Sun. This man was killed by having his genitals removed to turn

him

into a menstrating women (linked to the lunar cycle, etc). He would be

bled

to death. The blood would be drunk and the body would be eaten.

So this is the sort of people who we are supposed to believe in whewn they
write down a few stories ? Very reliable information it's going to be isn't
it ?


While he's
being sacrificied, he's penetrated with a spear (as much a phallic
representation as you can get) and bleeds out.

I think they were trying to kill him not create life.
Steve M
.
User: "Donald"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 15 Jan 2006 12:41:43 PM
"Steve Marshall" <sdm@atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:43ca6850$0$2672$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...


"Donald" <donald@mccaskey.freeservedotco.uk> wrote

Omnipresence? The Bible categorically states that God is *NOT*

omnipresent.

Any preacher that claims He is omnipresent is teaching you a false

religion.

So you can only have a true religion if you follow what it says in your
holy
book ? It's true that most religions that don't have them have fallen away
and disappeared. Is it true that everyone looks at the Bible in the same
way
? Nope. How many branches of Christianity aare there - how many different
Jewish outlooks ? If one "gets it wrong" they are apparently a false
religion. So it's pretty clear to me there are no accurate and true
religions.

Christianity is based on what's written in the Bible. There are no other
writings that are accepted as supplementing the Bible. If, as a Christian
preacher, you preach doctrine that's in conflict with what the Bible
actually says, that would be false religion. The Bible actually warns
against these types of preachers and these warnings have been used to
justify all manner of atrocities through the ages.
As to whether or not there are any true and accurate religions today - no,
you're probably right. Most organised religion today, at least in
Christendom, puts as much stock (if not more) in doctrine that in what the
Bible contains.

Look, I've suggested it before, I'll do it again. Read the Bible and try

to

understand what it actually says. God is not omnipresent. He was absent
when Satan tempted Eve and when Eve persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden
fruit.


Where'd he go ?

The Bible doesn't say. The Universe is a big place and he could have been
anywhere. He wasn't, however, in the garden (or if he was, he was hiding).

For the ceremony, a man would stand in place
of the Sun. This man was killed by having his genitals removed to turn

him

into a menstrating women (linked to the lunar cycle, etc). He would be

bled

to death. The blood would be drunk and the body would be eaten.


So this is the sort of people who we are supposed to believe in whewn they
write down a few stories ? Very reliable information it's going to be
isn't
it ?

I'm struggling to see what you're getting at, Steve. I'm merely trying to
show that the resurrection story echoes at least one Pagan ceremony.

While he's
being sacrificied, he's penetrated with a spear (as much a phallic
representation as you can get) and bleeds out.


I think they were trying to kill him not create life.

Again, I'm struggling to see what you're getting at. The reason the Pagan's
sacrificied the Sun was for the Sun to rise again and continue life on
earth. The Christian resurrection story claims Christ died for the same
reasons.
Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't half as effective as the Vulcan groin kick,
but it is more politically correct!!
.
User: "Steve Marshall"

Title: Re: Heads Up: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by Richard Dawkins 15 Jan 2006 01:24:03 PM
"Donald" <donald@mccaskey.freeservedotco.uk> wrote

Christi