From: "Robert Comer" 

>I just couldn't believe in his basic premise that religious faith is the
>root of all evil

Of course not, we're just a convenient scapegoat.  The root of all evil is
in every single human, believer or not.

- Bob Comer


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:432a3aa2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>I did go to the local Borders today and gave it a closer look but decided
>against purchasing 'The End of Faith'. I just couldn't believe in his basic
>premise that religious faith is the root of all evil
>
> I did settle of James Morrow's excellent fantasy 'Towing Jehovah though -
> From a review
>
> In Towing Jehovah, God is dead--literally. His corpse has fallen from the
> heavens, and the Vatican has to contract with an unemployed oil tanker
> captain, Anthony Van Horne, to tow it to its final resting place in the
> Arctic. "The bizarre details actually work in context even if . . . they
> may seem extreme," writes Joe Mayhew in the Washington Post Book World.
> "It is important, however, to remember that Morrow is writing about the
> vices of man. His novel attacks only the cartoons of religion, not the
> real thing."
> Morrow has been described as 'Christianity's Salman Rushdie, only funnier
> and more sacrilegious.
>
>
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:4328c35d{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I did a cursory read of his intro and excerpts.  I disagree with the
>>premise that religion even in moderation is a menace.     My beliefs are
>>more akin to Joseph Campbell  -  that humanity needs/requires myth.
>>
>> It seems odd that he draws on insights in eastern mysticism ( which would
>> seem to require faith )  but  I'm not sure what he's using that 'insight'
>> to prove. The hardcover appears to be at my local Border's Books so I may
>> give it a look when I visit tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Randy H"  wrote in message
>> news:4328b1be{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Try this on for size:
>>>
>>> http://www.samharris.org/
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:43282259$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Ellen K." 
wrote in message
>>>> news:kqdfi1ludgd7r95aqqosfs6b4vlungfulg{at}4ax.com...
>>>>> One I find particularly egregious underpins the
Christian doctrine of
>>>>> the virgin birth.  The word Christians translate as
"virgin" does not
>>>>> mean "virgin", it means a young woman. 
There is an exact word that
>>>>> means "virgin" which appears many times in
the Bible, which is not the
>>>>> one used.  The Bible is not shy about these things, if
"virgin" was
>>>>> meant, the word for virgin would have been used.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW some Catholic theologians agree with you. Many (
myself included )
>>>> feel that the virgin birth mythology was more a product of pagan
>>>> religious influence - keeping the story of the birth in context with
>>>> other mythical heroes/gods  of the populace
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
>>>> The Jewish Origin Theory (Isaias 7:14)
>>>>
>>>> A second class of writers derive the early Christian
tradition of the
>>>> virgin birth from Jewish Christian influence. Harnack [39] is of the
>>>> opinion that the virgin birth originated from Isaias 7:14; Lobstein
>>>> [40] adds the "poetic traditions surrounding the
cradle of Isaac,
>>>> Samson, and Samuel" as another source of the belief
in the virgin
>>>> birth. Modern theology does not grant that Isaias 7:14,
contains a real
>>>> prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ; it must maintain,
>>>> therefore, that St. Matthew misunderstood the passage when he said:
>>>> "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled
which the Lord spoke
>>>> by the prophet, saying; Behold a virgin shall be with
child, and bring
>>>> forth a son," etc. (1:22-23). How do Harnack and
Lobstein explain such
>>>> a misunderstanding on the part of the Evangelist? There is no
>>>> indication that the Jewish contemporaries of St. Matthew
understood the
>>>> prophet's words in this sense. Hillmann [41] proves that
belief in the
>>>> virgin birth is not contained in the Old Testament, and therefore
>>>> cannot have been taken from it. Dalman [42] maintains that
the Jewish
>>>> people never expected a fatherless birth of the Messias,
and that there
>>>> exists no vestige of such a Jewish interpretation of Isaias 7:14.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5