I recently came across the following video on YouTube
Of course when I saw this I immediately thought that maybe there was a response.
The rebuttal video links to an article written by Dawkins himself to explain how he was blindsided and that the interview was edited to make him look bad. The link to that article is below.
I think that Richard Dawkins' response is plausible but I think that the question was a valid question and in that video he did not answer it. His written response is more substantive but it still does not answer the question.
Dawkins wrote:
This idea of information fed from ancestral generations into descendant gene pools is one of the themes of my new book, Unweaving the Rainbow. It takes a whole chapter, “The Genetic Book of the Dead”, to develop the notion, so I won’t repeat it here except to say two things. First, it is the whole gene pool of the species as a whole, not the genome of any particular individual, which is best seen as the recipient of the ancestral information about how to survive. The genomes of particular individuals are random samples of the current gene pool, randomised by sexual recombination. Second, we are privileged to “intercept” the information if we wish, and “read” an animal’s body, or even its genes, as a coded description of ancestral worlds. To quote from Unweaving the Rainbow: “And isn’t it an arresting thought? We are digital archives of the African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas; walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days. You could spend a lifetime reading in this ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it.”
I don't think he answered the question.What I still want to know how does one species' gene pool get infused with more genetic information to turn it into another? During the article he likened our genomes to hard drives and DNA as computer code. I agree. However if he is right that all higher organisms contain code from past generations then where does this code comes from. Random mutations don't explain it and as a computer programmer I can tell you that I don't want my code mutating.
thegrandverbalizer has written a blog post regarding the way Christians speak of violence in the Bible. He makes a valid point that many Christians are embarrassed and even deny that these passages exists. I want to point out that denying any part of scripture is stupid. I see it good to refer to his thoughtful post paragraph by paragraph. My comments will be in red and his comments will stay black.
The United States of America should be applauded recently for not allowing a Christian hate monger Franklin Graham to speak before the Pentagon. I also want to applaud both the United States and New Zealand for removing Bible passages from ammunitions that are used to kill people (and some times even innocent children) in the war in Afghanistan.
Maybe Franklin Graham just wanted to have a photo oportunity of him sitting on a tank with a Bible in his hand struggling with a half smile. Yet, it's good to know that there are Americans of good conscious who thought this could be sending the wrong message.
I'm not sure it is fair to call Franklin Graham a "hate monger" and I would like to see evidence proving that this is an appropriate description.
Where do these Christian dominionist and far right Christian extremist like Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin and Rod Parsley get the idea that violence is o.k and it solves things? Well they get their ideas from Jesus of course!
I also not sure if linking Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin, and Rod Parsley together is appropriately either - given the differences in what they believe.
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”.(Matthew 10:34)
Oh maybe Jesus didn't fulfill this prophecy in his 'first coming' but don't worry he will do that well enough with the help of the United States military in his 'second coming'. Not only that but he will bail out Israel (a nation that has rejected him as a myth or a magician who deserved to be stoned to death) just in the nick of time.
So don't worry in Jesus 'second coming' he will be back as a bad mama jama complete with eye beam lasers, holy hand grenades and what have you.
Do you really think that Jesus was advocating open and armed conflict? Look at the whole of Chapter 10. The context is Jesus is sending out his followers to teach. He warns them of the persecution that they will come against. Jesus is not saying that he desires to bring pain and destruction on earth but because of Him there would be and has been war and conflict. There is no in-between. You are either on his side or you are not. It's polarizing. That is what Jesus referring to.
Jesus says hate everyone but him!
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:25)
Let's look at the context. Could Jesus really be telling his followers to hate their parents when the Law expressly tells us to honor our parents? No. Therefore what did Jesus mean? What did the audience understand that Jesus meant? Jesus was using an extreme point to show hw much devotion we should have to Him not that we should hate our parents. He was saying that we should be more committed to Him than anything or anyone else. He was talking about worship. Considering that worship is being commanded...we can see that Jesus is indeed God for we should worship no one but God. By the way this is verse 26 not verse 25.
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)
A horrible Apologetic
In fact the above verses attributed to Jesus are so shocking that even a Christian in a recent debate with a Muslim tried to flat out deny that they even existed! You can see that here:
It's sad that some would try to deny these verses while still claiming to Christians. I don't really see what is the matter when understood in context. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable. It must be understood in that context. Anyone who denies Christ will not be in the Kingdom. They will be going to hell. Why is that embarrassing?
Jesus and the Old Testament
Remember the Christians believe that Jesus pre-existed as God the word. (John 1:1) so everything that God ordered in the 'Old Testament' or the TNCH Jesus had a hand in it. Any Christian who wants to distance Jesus from the events of the Old Testament is making to admissions.
That the Old Testament is indeed embarrassing thus we need to make distance between Jesus and it.
The God of the Old Testament and New Testament are quite different thus indirectly endorsing the heresy of Marcion.
I agree that trying to distance Jesus from the Old Testament means that you are doing those two things you stated. That is why I would never do that. The Old Testament is completely true and inerrant. Don't forget Jesus based his authority and proofs directly on the Old Testament. It's indeed heretical to say otherwise.
I wonder if the song “Jesus loves the little children”... plays in your head as you read the following biblical passages.
Revelation 2:23And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which search the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
It does play in mind. Love without Justice is not love.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Footnotes:
Jesus loves the little children ALL the children in the world (except those of the Amalekites) red and yellow black and white they are precious in his site (precious enough to just sit back and watch them to get hacked to bits and pieces) Jesus loves the little children of the world. Come on Franklin Graham sit on top of a U.S Abrams tank and sing it with us!!!
How do you know Jesus did not love them? I think that it's equally problematic for a Muslim to attack the Old Testament while Muhammad endorsed it. I trust God that the little Amalekite children deserved whatever He gave them.
1 ...2... 3 'Jesus loves the little children all the children of the world (except those who get in the way of U.S smart bombs) red, and yellow, BUT MOSTLY WHITE, Most of them are precious in his site.
No way do I think that God ordered us Americans to kill Children in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else. I can find no scripture for declaring war on another Nation with no provocation.
Paul and Truth
When Christians are cornered about this they are actually exhorted by Paul to lie and distort the truth.
Where is that?
This is why instead of a confronting the issues most Christians resort to scripture twisting and inconsistent methods of interpretation to hide the fact that they mask their love for violence with a false image of peace.
I don't deny throughout history there have been such Christians as long as you admit that the same thing can be said of Hamas and Al Quieda.
Do you have any proof that Paul used deceptive techniques?
Swords
Lie no.1 The sword Jesus talked about sending is a 'spiritual' sword. Sure it is! Let's take a look at what the spiritual sword did when Peter used it.
More of an example of crappy exegesis not lying.
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) (John 18:10)
Why in the world did Jesus disciples carry swords around with them? To pear apples? Where they going to be part of a 'Pirates of the Caribbean Play'?
Also do you really think that Peter sliced off the high priest servants ear and nothing came of it?
Oh but didn't Jesus say,
Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)
Notice Jesus doesn't say DROP THE SWORD TO THE GROUND. “Put it BACK IN ITS PLACE”
You seem to have forgotten that no where did Jesus say that we could not defend ourselves and the Jesus picked up Malchus' ear and healed him.
But notice what is reported in John.
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
Jesus commanded Peter,“Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (John 18:10-11)
Apparently the writer of John (whomever he/she is) thought it was find and dandy that Peter just strikes off someones ear and he goes about his business. Matthew however, makes it a point where Jesus rebukes Peter. Also notice above in John that there is no dramatic exchange between Jesus and Peter about 'living by the sword and dying by the sword.'
Again Jesus healed the man. Also don't forget Jesus told his disciples to get swords:
35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered. 36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." 38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38)
Jesus told them this because He was leaving them.
Matthew 5:39
“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”. (Matthew 5:39)
This teaching is not very helpful if you are in prison and a man is trying to rape you. Christians who see violence as helpful 'means to an end' have felt that it is not necessary to interpret this passage literally. For example if a man is going to rape and kill your wife and children are you just going to advise your family to 'turn the other cheek'.
Did you know that in the first century if someone was going to strike you on the right cheek they would only want hit you on right cheek with the back of their hand. If you turn the other side they have to slap you again with the front right hand - meaning that you are an equal. Something that an enemy back then would not want to admit. Jesus was telling us to defend ourselves not cowtow.
If Osama Bin Laden launches a terrorist attack in New York and kills thousands of people are you going to 'turn the other cheek'. Hell No! Says Franklin Graham!
Where doe the Bible say we should?
Comments form Folks who Know nothing of Christianity
Loving quotes from Christians who embrace the "real Christianity".
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity ." - Ann Coulter , bestselling political author
Ann Coulter speaks for me as a Christians as much as the Ayatolla speaks for you.
“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” -Pat Robertson of 700 Club and former presidential hopeful.
Ah, yes. Consider the source. He thinks that Haiti gained its independence by making a deal with the devil. I think that this quote shows just as much "wisdom".
In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Mr Parsley speaks of Allah as a “demon spirit” and urges "war between Islam and Christian civilization". There is no difference between violent Islamist extremists and moderate Muslims, he argues.
"I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is,” he writes. “In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam.
I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.” -Rod Parsley former adviser to John McCain
Parsley can't exegete his way out of a paper bag.
I hope that there are Christians who can exegete the many violent passages in the Bible in a way that would allow for more coexistence between people of other faiths. I am hoping that not all Christians understand the Bible in the same way that Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, Rudy Guliani, and Ann Coulter understand it. I hope that there are Christians who embrace love and peace and want better understanding with their Muslim neighbors. Here is hoping and praying for a better world.
You can't consistently read and understand the Bible and agree with Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, Rudy Guliani, and Ann Coulter.
Here is a video of William Lane Craig in full debate mode establishing why atheism undermines science and how Christianity does not undermines science. IK agree with him on this and much that he teaches. I would like to do further research to see what He has to say about Young Earth Creationism. Smells like another post. But in the meantime I hope you enjoy this clip as much as I did.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=147f0428-cabf-4d95-af80-02820a385f6c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4c3d559a-1ced-4e5b-b4e9-2bbb19d63d4d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d5d4c86c-ca78-4e06-ac59-1e4b5a247845)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=85952666-6347-414e-8675-5779a35171a4)