http://www.chickyog.net/2008/09/26/zap/

Eek!!

"firemonkey" <firemonkey> wrote in message
news:4819
> [..]
>
> Eek!!


Christ!

Lachlan - KotU wrote:

>"firemonkey" <firemonkey> wrote in message
>news:4819
>> [..]
>>
>> Eek!!
>>Christ!

More proof, if needed, that the problem doesn't lie so much with Jesus
as his followers.

Here (thank's for the pointer, Mazza) is yet more proof:

[url down]

Ariel <ariella> wrote:

> Lachlan - KotU wrote:
>> More proof, if needed, that the problem doesn't lie so much with Jesus
> as his followers.
>
> Here (thank's for the pointer, Mazza) is yet more proof:
>
> [..]

The contents of the Old Testament don't have a lot to do with what Jesus
was on about. Some, but not a lot.

While that idiot was sawing and hammering, I read an interesting article
about a Jewish scholar who's busy debunking the parts of the Bible that
Jews pay attention to.

He's all in favour of Jewish tradition and so on - but he doesn't see
why it has to be considered the literal truth, seeing as how a lot of
it's just propaganda invented to serve the purposes of those who created
the tales. And that's according to a devoutly religious Jew.

Rowland.

Rowland McDonnell wrote:

>Ariel <ariella> wrote:
>>The contents of the Old Testament don't have a lot to do with what Jesus
>was on about. Some, but not a lot.
>
>While that idiot was sawing and hammering, I read an interesting article
>about a Jewish scholar who's busy debunking the parts of the Bible that
>Jews pay attention to.
>
>He's all in favour of Jewish tradition and so on - but he doesn't see
>why it has to be considered the literal truth, seeing as how a lot of
>it's just propaganda invented to serve the purposes of those who created
>the tales. And that's according to a devoutly religious Jew.
>
>Rowland.

I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, those who are
secure and intelligent enough to see the value of questioning their
beliefs should be strong enough to read this book.

Ariel <ariella> wrote:

[snip]


> I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, those who are
> secure and intelligent enough to see the value of questioning their
> beliefs should be strong enough to read this book.

The problem with Dawkins is that he's as barking mad as the god
botherers he criticises.

The Royal Society's education bod was forced to resign recently, on
account of having said that pupils who raise questions in science
classes about creationism should have it explained to them that
creationism isn't scientific in a way that shows respect for their
personal beliefs.

Dawkins led the rabid attack on this perfectly reasonable chap because
of his perfectly reasonable statement.

Then it turns out that Dawkins himself appeared on telly, running a
science class, and, erm, answering a pupil's question about creationism
by explaining that creationism isn't scientific in a way that showed
respect for the pupil's beliefs. Private Eye put me on to that last
bit.

Rowland.

Rowland McDonnell wrote:

>Ariel <ariella> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>> I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, those who are
>> secure and intelligent enough to see the value of questioning their
>> beliefs should be strong enough to read this book.
>
>The problem with Dawkins is that he's as barking mad as the god
>botherers he criticises.

Oh dear, there goes another of my would-be-heroes, I was just warming
to him as well.

>The Royal Society's education bod was forced to resign recently, on
>account of having said that pupils who raise questions in science
>classes about creationism should have it explained to them that
>creationism isn't scientific in a way that shows respect for their
>personal beliefs.
>
>Dawkins led the rabid attack on this perfectly reasonable chap because
>of his perfectly reasonable statement.

I remember hearing about that only two of three weeks ago, I mean how
he was rather harshly forced to resign but I didn't realise that
Dawkins was involved in that.

>Then it turns out that Dawkins himself appeared on telly, running a
>science class, and, erm, answering a pupil's question about creationism
>by explaining that creationism isn't scientific in a way that showed
>respect for the pupil's beliefs. Private Eye put me on to that last
>bit.
>
>Rowland.

Well, no-one likes a hypocrite but, even so, his book is brilliantly
argued and often very funny.

Ariel <ariella> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>> Oh dear, there goes another of my would-be-heroes, I was just warming
> to him as well.

I can't say I've got heros as such. Dawkins is certainly not one of
them. I despise the man.

You make up your own mind, though.

> >The Royal Society's education bod was forced to resign recently, on
> >account of having said that pupils who raise questions in science
> >classes about creationism should have it explained to them that
> >creationism isn't scientific in a way that shows respect for their
> >personal beliefs.
> >
> >Dawkins led the rabid attack on this perfectly reasonable chap because
> >of his perfectly reasonable statement.
>
> I remember hearing about that only two of three weeks ago, I mean how
> he was rather harshly forced to resign but I didn't realise that
> Dawkins was involved in that.

Dawkins criticised the man for telling people that they should behave in
the way that Dawkins behaved. Dawkins led the slavering pack that
pushed him out of his job - pushed him out of a job for telling people
that they should behave in the sensible, reasonable, civilised fashion
that Dawkins himself considers the right thing to do, as we have seen
from what Dawkins actually does.

Dawkins is a lunatic and a hypocrite and he's doing a lot to harm
rationality in society.

> >Then it turns out that Dawkins himself appeared on telly, running a
> >science class, and, erm, answering a pupil's question about creationism
> >by explaining that creationism isn't scientific in a way that showed
> >respect for the pupil's beliefs. Private Eye put me on to that last
> >bit.
> >
> >Rowland.
>
> Well, no-one likes a hypocrite but, even so, his book is brilliantly
> argued and often very funny.

Dawkins is barking mad, I promise you.

Rowland.