Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil?

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-01-10 03:03pm

"He incarnates himself to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself and make himself lift a curse he himself put on humans."

That's brilliant, sir. Mind if I sig that?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-01-10 04:15pm

Anguirus wrote:That's brilliant, sir. Mind if I sig that?

Most certainly, though I think it was Mike who said something along those lines originally.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2006-01-10 04:17pm

NecronLord wrote:Heh. Not a problem.

The best way to put that is: "He incarnates himself to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself and make himself lift a curse he himself put on humans."

Is it really a sacrifice if you don't give it up but just put it away for a while and then take it back?

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-10 04:25pm

Jawawithagun wrote: Is it really a sacrifice if you don't give it up but just put it away for a while and then take it back?

Apparently it is because of the pain involved.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2006-01-10 06:02pm

Magnetic wrote:
Jawawithagun wrote: Is it really a sacrifice if you don't give it up but just put it away for a while and then take it back?
Apparently it is because of the pain involved.

Somehow that doesn't have the right ring to it - "Jesus hurt for us!"

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-01-10 06:33pm

I've been saying this for years. 'Jesus lent a fiver for your sins! And he didn't get it back for DAYS!' Yeah, real impressed. Not to mention the whole situation was manipulated for the showmanlike grandstanding 'death on the cross'. More like reality TV than real sacrifice. 'No incarnate gods harmed in this sacrifice'.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-01-10 08:32pm

NecronLord wrote:
Anguirus wrote:That's brilliant, sir. Mind if I sig that?
Most certainly, though I think it was Mike who said something along those lines originally.

Oh, I've heard stuff like it before, but not quite so concisely or amusingly. Thanks.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-11 04:49pm

Here's a reply regarding the 'short period in Hell'.

Now some might say Christ's sacrifice has less meaning because he was resurrected three days later, and restored, having conquered sin and death. The problem with this view is that it makes his resurrection seem like a selfish act, meant only for himself, and to bring relief to himself from what he suffered when he died and as well, the very state of death he entered into.
The truth is his reusrrection contains the eventual hope of all mankind being resurrected and reconciled back to God.

This is why Christ's death and resurrection are so paramountly equal to each other in their importance. His resurrection expanded and sealed the meaning of his sacrifice on the cross.

If Christ had not been resurrected, as Paul said, then our entire faith would be in vain. Without the resurrection, Christ's death would have borne little meaning in the long run, as mankind would continue to die. And as well...Christ would still be dead too.

So you see...the cross conquered sin, while the resurrection conquered death.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-01-11 05:32pm

Now some might say Christ's sacrifice has less meaning because he was resurrected three days later, and restored, having conquered sin and death. The problem with this view is that it makes his resurrection seem like a selfish act, meant only for himself,

It is more of a masochistic and/or foolish act.

and to bring relief to himself from what he suffered when he died and as well, the very state of death he entered into.

This is not comprehensible. There is no relief in the act, however, there is no permanant sacrifice. The Christian myth is closer to Jesus going through a lot of pain (and remember, if he is the father, as in the trinity belief, his will is not subordinate to his father's and he can just wave his hand and make everything better. It's not a sacrifice so much as a sham of a sacrifice, showmanship, not necessity is the motive.

The truth is his reusrrection contains the eventual hope of all mankind being resurrected and reconciled back to God.

He could, if both the same being as the Father, and omnipotent, have just said 'everyone can be reconciled' without a meaningless sham of death. Similarly, he could have demonstrated his conquest of death by having Peter slit his throat, and then come back to life, no? Instead he supposedly chose a highly violent method, simply to make it more appealing. Despite this, there is no sacrifice involved, because nothing was lost or given up, except of course, time.

This is why Christ's death and resurrection are so paramountly equal to each other in their importance. His resurrection expanded and sealed the meaning of his sacrifice on the cross.

What sacrifice? He lost nothing, he just self-harmed for a while.

If Christ had not been resurrected, as Paul said, then our entire faith would be in vain. Without the resurrection, Christ's death would have borne little meaning in the long run,

It still doesn't, except as drama, because he has no reason to do so. He could wave a hand and conquer death and sin, no?

as mankind would continue to die. And as well...Christ would still be dead too.

So you see...the cross conquered sin, while the resurrection conquered death.

And why did he need to do it? This is proletysing, it does not answer the necessity, or rather, lack thereof, of the act, nor does it change the fact that it is not a sacrifice, but a highly engaging and needlessly violent play to go with the actual act, which, being omnipotent, Jesus could have achieved with no effort or suffering whatsoever.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-01-11 05:37pm

In summation, what Jesus gave up for our sins was three days of his time, assuming of course, he is supposed to experience time as we do. As well as this, he essentially flagellated himself for a while.

Doesn't sound nearly as impressive as 'Jesus died for our sins' does it?

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2006-01-11 08:15pm

Back on the topic of the BBC program - I'm partway through watching it right now, and I had to pause it partway through to laugh when Dawkins said to the evangelical American pastor, "It reminds me of a Nuremberg rally. Dr. Goebbels would have been proud."

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-11 08:57pm

It wasn't a BBC programme, amazingly, the UK actually has more than one network. But yes, that was funny.

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » 2006-01-14 11:09am

There are various downloads of this floating about now, so anyone who missed it, or the US members who want to see it can fairly easily grab a copy.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2006-01-14 03:28pm

It's not on my usual source for these things. Can you PM me with info on how to get it?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-01-16 01:05pm

'The Root of all Evil' episode 2 'The Virus of Faith' is on tonight at 8pm on Channel 4 Brits set your videos if you're going out.

Here's the blurb for tonights episode from the Radio Times:

Radio Times wrote: Two-part series in which evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins presents God as an extremely unpleasant fictional character and suggests that religion is nothing more than a cause of pain and conflict. In the second part, Dawkins explains how religious faith acts like a virus which is particularly virulent to the young. 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.

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » 2006-01-16 03:57pm

Again, excellent.
He did manage to touch on the more moderate aspects again, probably more than last time, but he still seemed to focus more on fundementalism... That 'hell house' guy was a complete fucking psyco.

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » 2006-01-16 03:57pm

Forgot to add, I did manage to get a recording this time

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-16 05:05pm

That Phoenix school guy was like a real David Brent. He seriously came off as a guy who smirked and joked when you told him he was talking total crap. I hope he isn't the shape of things to come for this nation.