Why does Atheist Richard Dawkins sound religious? After all he agrees with most religions on Jesus?

Groupies--

What we have to understand about an 'athiest' (or at any rate non-Yahwistic) point of view with respect to R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. 'Iesous') is that we do NOT possess any of his IPSISSIMA VERBA i.e. his ORIGINAL words or even expressed within his original Sitz im Leben ('setting in life' to quote Bultmann --notice how the sayings placed into his mouth occur in different settings in different Gospels !) by only Greek words placed into his mouth in the Greek Gospels ---

i.e. FOREIGN Greek words were placed into his ORIGNALLY Galilean Aramaic speaking mouth in the WRITTEN 'canonical approved gospel' material we look at today in the cold light of day...we have NO ORIGINAL Galilean Aramaic sayings in any of the canonical 4 gospels (with the exception of a very very few odd words e.g. Abba, = 'Daddy!", or "Talitha cumi' = 'li'l girl, get up ! etc.) so sceptics realise we are not dealing with historical words or beliefs or preaching, but rather what the post AD 70 Greek speaking Churches BELIEVED he had spoken--which was already filtered through a Greek Speaking Lens AFTER the FAILED 1st JEWISH WAR against Rome, when a great deal of his originally SEDITIONISTIC language (echoing the vitriol against Rome in the Dead Sea Scroll material) was carefully altered to make him sound more 'palatable' to Greek Speaking Messianic Jews in the Diaspora who were under Roman occupation/control (and also to the socalled 'gentile god fearers'...who half-believed in the clan god of the Jews but would not accept 'circumcision nor the strict Kashrut dietary laws of the Torah...')

Persons on this thread not conversant with the canonical 'Gospel' material in the Greek or have little idea of the religio-political situatioin of the very violent 1st Century Roman Occupation of Palestine OFTEN FAIL TO REALISE that we today in fact have less tha 1% of what this man actually spoke during his lifetime...

What LITTLE we DO have still extant in the canonical council approved 4th century AD GREEK GOSPELS (copied by hand and edited/added to/subtracted from ad nauseam) is often expressed in a truncated heavilly edited form moreover in a FOREIGN GENTILE LANGUAGE which the man never spoke---at least the words placed into his mouth in the Council Approved 4 Greek Gospels...and hardly anything at all from Saul of Tarsus in terms of adding to that corpus of sayings... ('remember what the Lord said, it is more blessed to GIVE than to RECEIVE' which is NOT found in the gospels !)

Dawkins knows full well that the GREEK words placed into this man's mouth in the 4 canonical council approved Gospel material were heavily redacted and carefully translated out of their MOTHER TONGUE to make R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (whose name was changed to 'iesous' in Greek !) appear less of a violent political threat against Rome, despite his being executed for armed Sedition against Rome (the earliest church's reputation was originally as another Messianic anti Roman Jewish splinter group, headed up by a fanatical Rabbi who armed his disciuples with swords in AD 36 (100th anniversary of the invasion of the Roman general Pompey into Jerusalem, marking the beginning of the ROMAN OCCUPATION of Palestine - hence 'the times of the Amorites are fulfulled' kinds of expressions, meaning that they were about to take back the holy land from the 'Kittim', to echo the Dead Sea Scrolls which were being copied during this man's lifetime)...

We see lots of statements of LOVE THY BROTHER from WITHIN his organisation ('children of the Kingdom') but utter contempt for ANYONE OUTSIDE of his own group especially GENTILES (e.g. Matthew chapter 15: 'Woman, the SOn of Man was SENT ONLY to the LOST SHEEP of the ELECT OF THE HOUSE of YISRO'EL--and anyway, since when is it right to take the children's bread out of their mouths and throw it away to the DOGS under the table?' where DOG is the technical term of GENTILES and 'other unclean persons' in the dead sea scrolls, which were contemporary documents in the same part of the world).

This anti Gentile sentiment was clearly softened in the other gospels since the 'word' was being preached to them--Dawkins and others know the value of preaching to a RECEPTIVE audience and the last thing you want to do is INSULT the group you are preaching to...so they doctored the texts (see 4th Gospel's clean up act: 'For it is written, the Salvation of Israel shall come from the Judaeans' (Test. Naphtali chapter 8:13, i.e. Dead Sea Scroll citation)' which is deliberately MIS-quoted more 'universally' as 'for...Salvation is from the Judaeans' (transl. as 'Jews' in the King James version !) : this same writer wrote: THESE THINGS ARE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY SO AS TO ALLOW YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IESOUS IS THE CHRISTOS AND BY BELIEVING TO HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME...' i.e. not historical documents writing HISTORY, but rather preaching PROPAGANDA tracts to attract new converts to the religion.

So understand what we are reading in the Canonical Council Approved 4 greek Gospels is heavilly re-written to suit the needs of the early GREEK SPEAKING CHURCHES, not to accurately encode what the 'good' Rebbe actually said (if we had tape recorders back then, boy would HE be in trouble with the goyim today !!)






[edit on 17-11-2009 by Sigismundus]

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
...
Nope i'm struggling to understand here OT, i think you have once again created a thread from a perspective of imagined persecution and it is severly clouding your thought process.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

"imagined persecution"???

Why do you resort to personal attacks? It does nothing to help your credibility or persuasiveness...


Just answer this question...

Does Mr. Dawkins believe Jesus Christ was just a GOOD man?

By his writings, I'm gonna say, you'd answer 'yes'


Here's the OFFENSIVE parts for you...

You hate the fact that all religions agree with you...or that you agree with them...and it bothers you, sorry.

And it worries you that your conclusion may be wrong...

And you appear to take out that fear in expressions of personal attacks on me.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]

Personal attack? I didn't see it but I see you childishly attack people all the time, for someone of your age you are seriously immature and your posts and threads reflect the intelligence of a 10 year old.

The only person that is wrong is you and when people try to engage you in conversation or debate you have no clue what they're saying so you just post verse after verse of bible verses which mean nothing and are most of time not even relevant to the conversation.

You wouldnt have a clue what Dawkins thinks about anything as is evident in this thread

Originally posted by eight bits
Disclosure of interest: I am an agnostic.

So far as I am concerned, Dawkins is religious. He professes the atheist faith. In fact, he evangelizes the atheist faith.

Dawkins does not 'know' that there is no God, he beleives that there is probably not one but states that if he could be proved wrong, he would concede and become a believer. How many Fundamentalists would say that if it could be proved that there is no God, they would become 100% atheist?

Originally posted by Lolage

Originally posted by eight bits
Disclosure of interest: I am an agnostic.

So far as I am concerned, Dawkins is religious. He professes the atheist faith. In fact, he evangelizes the atheist faith.

Dawkins does not 'know' that there is no God, he beleives that there is probably not one but states that if he could be proved wrong, he would concede and become a believer. How many Fundamentalists would say that if it could be proved that there is no God, they would become 100% atheist?

Oh! Oh! Pick me! Pick me, I know the answer!!!

It's a trick question! The answer is 0 fundamentalists would change, because science has disproved the existence of a higher deity hundreds of times already.

Dawkins does not 'know' that there is no God, he beleives that there is probably not one but states that if he could be proved wrong, he would concede and become a believer.

I know that under gentle assumptions water freezes at zero degrees Celsius. If I could be proved wrong, then I would concede and become a believer of some other account of water freezing. I still know that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius.

Dawkins is confident enough in his belief to characterize disagreement with him as a delusion, hence the title of his book.

There are many standards for when it is justified to say that someone claims to "know" something. To hold that believing otherwise is a symptom of mental illness seems a robust and practical criterion.

As to your other question, I have no idea how Fundamentalists would react to a proof that there was no god. My advice would be to come up with one and find out.

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
...For Dawkins - and a lot of his fellow atheists - admiration for Jesus is basically like admiration for any other good fictional character. Have you ever used a work of fiction to make a real life point about something?

Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”/

Want a napkin? 'cause you've got a little foam there, chief. Right on the corner...

He's a fictional character. You might as well be screeching about how either Harry Potter was the boy who survived and saved us all, or he was a madman, blah blah blah.

Clearly, sir, your intellect is not quite up to the exercise you endeavor to.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by OldThinker

Just answer this question...

Does Mr. Dawkins believe Jesus Christ was just a GOOD man?

By his writings, I'm gonna say, you'd answer 'yes'

I would agree he thinks that Jesus was a good man. No question or debate on that from me.

Originally posted by OldThinker
Here's the OFFENSIVE parts for you...

You hate the fact that all religions agree with you...or that you agree with them...and it bothers you, sorry.

And it worries you that your conclusion may be wrong...

And you appear to take out that fear in expressions of personal attacks on me.

Erm no, i was not attackinhg you i was stating something that seems clearly obvious from your posts and your attacks on atheists. You seem to feel persecuted, your posts really reflect that. It is interesting that instead of dealing with the points made you chose to deflect this and then actually try and send a personal attack at me, something you just accused me of!

So lets deal with the quote above. All religions agree with me? I'm rather confused by that statement, or that i agree with them, again what are you talking about? I'm sorry to say you are making absolutely no sense here, it's gibberish.

What conclusion do you speak of? That i have not seen any proof of god and therefore do not believe in god? If that is the conclusion you speak of then i'm afraid you're wrong, i don't fear that i may be wrong, it doesn't bother or concern me at all. If it did then i'd be following a religion.

The "attack" wasn't made out of fear, it wasn't even an attack just an observation. You post things that make absolutely no sense to anyone but yourself. I truly am trying to follow your line of thought but i'm struggling because it's incoherent!

I debate believers often, i never have trouble following them usually so honestly please just try and lay things out in a logical, coherent manner and i'll deal with it properly.

EDIT

Just to requote something i would like someone to decypher this for me because i'm at an utter loss.

Originally posted by OldThinker
You hate the fact that all religions agree with you...or that you agree with them...and it bothers you, sorry.

Did i miss something here? Am i just being dumb? Because i just don't understand this. I'm an atheist so how could all religions agree with me or i agree with them?

[edit on 17-11-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I believe you are misrepresenting the other religions of which you speak.

Jesus is not mentioned in any of their original texts.

Originally posted by lifecitizen
.....

"imagined persecution"???

Why do you resort to personal attacks? It does nothing to help your credibility or persuasiveness...


Just answer this question...

Does Mr. Dawkins believe Jesus Christ was just a GOOD man?

By his writings, I'm gonna say, you'd answer 'yes'


Here's the OFFENSIVE parts for you...

You hate the fact that all religions agree with you...or that you agree with them...and it bothers you, sorry.

And it worries you that your conclusion may be wrong...

And you appear to take out that fear in expressions of personal attacks on me.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]

Personal attack? I didn't see it but I see you childishly attack people all the time, for someone of your age you are seriously immature and your posts and threads reflect the intelligence of a 10 year old.

The only person that is wrong is you and when people try to engage you in conversation or debate you have no clue what they're saying so you just post verse after verse of bible verses which mean nothing and are most of time not even relevant to the conversation.

You wouldnt have a clue what Dawkins thinks about anything as is evident in this thread



= = = = = = = =

Thumbs up to lifecitizen

You spoke TO me..wow

Who have I attacked? Please look through my thousands of posts...find one OK?

Please engage me...you usually post a drive-by-slam and i never see you again on that thread..would you like me to post the evidence?

Please engage OT..please do...

If you are consistent, readers will never see you again here...


Shock me...and come back....



[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by GovernmentAgent
I believe you are misrepresenting the other religions of which you speak.

Jesus is not mentioned in any of their original texts.

read the original posts friend...OT didn't make them up.

What do you think of JC? HE said it this way...."But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Matthew 16:15

your turn!!!!!!

Originally posted by Lolage

Dawkins does not 'know' that there is no God, he beleives that there is probably not one but states that if he could be proved wrong, he would concede and become a believer. How many Fundamentalists would say that if it could be proved that there is no God, they would become 100% atheist?


OK, do you know some one earlier on the thread made your exact point...

I'll tell you what I told them....

Evidence will be be revealed to him...he will be fine/protected/etc.

Good is good, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." II Peter 3:9

Richard Dawkins is PROTECTED by GRACE...pls let him know, ok?

THIS IS NO GAME.....but GRACE will be revealed...it is SOOOOOOO exciting to watch...

You tuned in friend?

[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
I think that was a wonderful post but I'm biased.Lol

I used to think that people who didn't believe in him were a bunch of deadbeats, that were just too lazy to seek out the truth, but now I know they are spiritually dead and have no desire to wake up.

Jesus is the one!

I disagree.

Only a few short years ago I would have called myself an atheist. I made all the arguments that I see atheists making today. So much so, that it is much like I am arguing with my past self. I almost know what they will argue before they even say it.

It wasn't because I was too lazy to seek out the truth. I cared very much about the truth - which is what ultimately changed me. The problem was, all I knew of these things is what Christians told me and how Christians acted.

I unknowingly allowed those people to define the concept of god to me. And as a result, I found it to be absurd. I saw hypocrisy, excuses, the promotion of ignorance, and a deep hatred sugar coated by the actions of another(Jesus). It looked like nothing more than brainwashing to me, and in many cases still does.

It was not that I didn't care or want to see the truth. I had been blinded to the truth. And for the most part, I was content in it as well, atleast for many years.

What changed is when I no longer allowed others to define god for me. When I no longer looked at religious people and how they acted as being a reflection of god. I just got to the point where I could not trust what any man told me - any. And then I started to seek the truth. Which is what I found.

I still do not consider myself Christian, nor do I like organized religion. I find the entire concept of salvation in the death of Jesus to be Satanic in nature. But I do now know what Jesus is talking about, and know that he is telling the truth.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
......

Clearly, sir, your intellect is not quite up to the exercise you endeavor to.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

OK, pls keep your head in the sand...

IF you think OT is stupid, pls google 'ASQ LSS MBB'

I am in the top .0001% world wide.....

nope, you are just intimated by a religious dude who won't back down

HEY, LET's do an DOE, ok?

You ready?

Let's put 20 yrs on my approach and 20 yrs on yours, have an impartial panel to evaluate the fruit from both? And see who comes out ahead...?

Listen!!!! You need to understand clearly...OT was not born yesterday and my posts may not affect readers TODAY....but let's give it a DECADE or so...and I'm the one they will come to with a U2U when the SH*t hits the fan.....I could give you 25 or so that this has already happened....

Google the EMPIRICAL rule,,,it the CTL at affect!!!!!!

T

reply to post by badmedia


badmedia, my friend!!!!!!

SOOOO glad you joined...

hope all is well



I'll go back and read your latest now

Originally posted by badmedia
...But I do now know what Jesus is talking about, and know that he is telling the truth.

When WE take our (temporal) eyes off of others, the TRUTH gets in huh?

OT

Originally posted by Pr0t0
This thread contains little in the way of evidence... The Bible is not a suitable source.

What a bold claim!

Proof out there?

OT used to believe BELIEF determined BEHAVIOR....

In many atheists the opposite is true....their BEHAVIOR dictates their BELIEF...the scriptures call that an 'EXCUSE', sorry

[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by OldThinker

In many atheists the opposite is true....their BEHAVIOR dictates their BELIEF...the scriptures call that an 'EXCUSE', sorry

[edit on 17-11-2009 by OldThinker]

Well this is wrong. OT i was a Christian until i was around 9 years old and realised it was all nonsense, actually i never really believed in god. I am an atheist not because my behaviors are bad, atheists are a varied group, some are scumbags and others are the nicest people in the world, just as with any group on Earth. Some follow all of the moral teachings you do, just without the whole religion or belief in God.

Their belief is generally based upon the lack of evidence for a God. I know my own belief, (or should that be lack of belief?) is because i have never been provided with evidence to the contrary.

Finally OT i U2U'd you with all of the question that need to be more clearly clarrified by yourself in relation to your original premise about Dawkins. You replied politely to that U2U without addressing any of the questions and just threw some random scripture and completely incoherent mutterings at me.

I am beginning to think that you're someone having fun winding people up. I also find the way you constantly refer to yourself in the third person incredibly strange.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


No, you were not a CHRISTIAN when you were 9..its a THEOLOGY thing....pls research it, OK? It's not a LABEL..but a RELATIONSHIP


I do thank you for the U2U, and am looking forward to your response on the TC audio....

OK?

reply to post by OldThinker


Nope i give up, you won't respond to simple questions, you avoid them like the plague so i'm going to spend my time debating people who actually try and defend their position. You were asked simple, basic questions and you never answered any of them at all.

It's odd though i get this feeling that either you're winding people up, are conducting some kind of sociology experiment or aren't all there. Well whichever i think i'll leave others to try and get a straight answer from you.

EDIT

Actually i'll try one last final time, just because i'm a hopeful soul.

1. Where is any proof that Dawkins agrees with other religions about Jesus?
2. In what ways does he agree?
3. Why do you state that Dawkins only does this with Christianity when he clearly criticises every religion?

Please answer those questions without quoting scripture, without avoiding them and showing verifiable sources for your claims. This isn't so much about theology as a claim you have made about an individual.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]