In the meantime, some Christians demonstrate their peaceful minds

Thanks Anya- I totally understand this. Distract and away from original subject- as well-known tactic.

So not irrelevant.

A well-known tactic? What, on this thread...?

No in life in general. Sorry Anya- how is it relevant to the rantings of Dawkin's 'haters' whether he is gay or not?

Simplistic attitude as usual!

Dawkins I mean.

Oh I see Anya- re-read your previous post- and yes, I now see what you mean, thanks.

Have now looked at the link.

As I say, anyone can call themselves christians.

If the people writing those awful things think that they are christians, then they need to know [if they dont already, which seems highly unlikely] that God really does not like bad language.
And in the complete unlikelihood that they are reading this, they need to say sorry to God. And mean it. And try not to do it again.
And they really ought to send Mr Dawkins a sincere letter of apology.

From what I've heard/read of Dawkins he's a fundamentalist atheist, so that's the kind of thing he should expect.

That was so funny. I love the idea of a 'gaytheist'. Could we start a campaign for the next census. If enough people write it in the 'what religion are you' bit it will be accepted like the Jedis.

Why doesn't God like bad language? I know we're not supposed to take his name in vain but where does the bible ban general swear words and who decides what is and isn't banned? What about the words that are normal words in one context and swear words in another e.g. sod, bloody, bastard.

Ephesians 5v4 and colossians 3v8 - 10 are a couple of places.

As regards what is and isnt a swear word - we are supposed to do our bit in that regard. So, if we are not sure, best not to say it.

Tricia how can one expect such hatred and violence- from people who are supposed to follow the Bible and the Commandments?

granjura. People can call themselves anything they like, including christians.

God himself warns against such people.
We are to go by their fruits, that is what they do, not necessarily by what they say.

The bible verse "wolves in sheeps clothing" springs to mind.
In this case, they arent even in much of sheeps clothing.
Even christians are warned to watch out for such people. We are not to take people, even so called christians at mere face value.
Look at how they behave over a period of time, and then decide. As best as you can.

I've looked up the verses, soontobe. These are the teachings of St Paul rather than Jesus and are, therefore, his interpretation of Jesus's teachings. Does Jesus actually say that we shouldn't swear?

Who decides/how is it decided that a word is a swear word?

soontobe, I agree with you- and I respect the fact you do agree these people attacking Dawkins in this way are wrong according to their religion. Thank you.

Hope you can also see that such generalisation, about anyone can call themselves Christian, also apply to Muslims.

vq - Paul is as part of the bible as say Moses.

I dont know how it is decided what is swear words. But somehow we all seem to know!
I guess that any word can become a swear word??

granjura - I agree with all of your last post.

That recording has been around for several years now... I found it at once disturbing and hilarious. Disturbing because these correspondents are plain bonkers, and hilarious because of the ignorance they proudly display'

And Richard responds by laughing at them - ridicule is the most potent weapon we have, and it is certainly preferable to what passes through the minds of his detractors.

As for swearing - surely one swears 'by' something or somebody? Just saying a naughty word (simper) is not really swearing at all.

@TriciaF - There is no such thing as a 'fundamental atheist'! The phrase is meaningless. There is no central text or creed to be fundamental - just the inability to credit the existence of the supernatural.

Dawkins is not swearing though, is he- just reporting.

There is such a thing as a fundamental atheist. Not the same thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

Yes indeed, soontobe - anyone can call themselves Christian, Muslim, left wing, right wing, carnivorous, antisdisestablishmentalist and so on and so on.

The problem is that all who declare themselves to be whatever, usually firmly believe that they,and they alone, are right, that everyone else is wrong, and off we go again.

Jesus judges at the end. Just as well it is. He sees all. Humans dont.

Well, there you are - you have an answer that you know is right? QED

I dont think of other people as black and white wrong.
I think of most of them, if not all of them, as potential christians one day. Potential brothers and sisters.

Although I agree Richard Dawkins can be a little strident and sometimes "opens mouth before engaging brain" (as my Dad used to say), the definition of "fundamentalist" is: "a form of religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict literal interpretation of scripture". Since Richard Dawkins is not religious and therefore doesn't base his views on any scripture, I don't see how he or any other atheist can be described as a fundamentalist.

I actually have no problem with Jehovah's Witnesses - I usually find them very pleasant and I understand that they feel they are doing a good thing in trying to "save" me. But I'm not sure how much they'd appreciate me knocking at their door to talk about atheism - similarly the people who stand in our town square at the weekend and shout about the devil, hell and such things.

Having said that, I do think that the people who write such letters to Richard Dawkins, or anybody that they feel is being irreligious, have either a mild learning disability or are mentally unstable and I'm not sure it's fair to imply that they represent the views of mainstream Christianity. Apart from those who are obviously disturbed, I think that anybody who never questions their own beliefs (not necessarily religious beliefs) can, I think, be a dangerous person.