I watched the first one on the second link - the virus one? - and so I can comment on that one now :)
It wasn't bad. I was concerned at first that he wasn't going to give moderate/liberal Christians a voice at all, but he did toward the end. It would be nice if he also, one day, spoke to some who have faith but not religion.
So:
1) He had a good point about sectarianism, and I don't even disagree. Most likely a child who is isolated from any other view is going to keep the view that they were raised in. Separating people isn't helping people to be accepting/respecting/loving one another - unless - that is also covered as important in sectarian schools. I also think children should be allowed to hear other world views and think for themselves, although they will be influenced perhaps most by what their parents believe (some to keep that belief/others to purposely believe something opposite).
2)When he spoke to the Christian teacher at the ACE (accelerated christian education) program, I thought both men had good points. The teacher brought up a good point about having been taught as a child in science class that the moon came from the earth. That it shot out of the earth. So that is science that is no longer valid, but was taught as fact. So how much are we taught now that is false as well.
Then Dawkins had a good point about the kids being taught that aids was a consequence of 'immorality'. The teacher dodged that question and switched to another topic... which I have to assume meant that he KNEW that this teaching was not on the up and up.
3) Those hell house things are appalling. You cannot teach someone to love through fear. You can just teach them to toe the line and live in fear, imo.
4) The random guy who thought adultery should still be punishable by death (thinking that this was not negated by the NT), obviously has never read that Christ said adultery is grounds for divorce, not death. Or that mercy and forgiveness are more important than sacrifice and punishment. Or at least he didn't understand what he read.
5) I quite enjoyed listening to the liberal Christian speaking. I agree with the little bit he said that got a spot. Dawkins seemed to like him, but did wonder how liberal Christians 'cherry pick'. He never asked the pastor, though. My answer is Christ. If Christ didn't do it or live it or teach it (especially if he taught the opposite), then I don't believe it is more than something man decided, or we misunderstand the context or cultural climate.
6) He did speak about evolution of morality, and I do understand and believe that society can change their views on issues according to what benefits them best as a species/culture. I am not convinced about the visual evidence for us being more moral than those who lived four thousand years ago, though. Over different views on issues, yes; such as homosexuality. That is not necessarily an evolution of morality though, but more of an improved understanding.
But people still tend to feel the same about deeper issues. We tend to give only what we can afford to maintain our chosen lifestyle (if we give at all), even if that means some people starve to death. We still think of our rights being more important than someone else's in another country or culture. There are no more or less people now than there were thousands of years ago (relatively speaking), who are willing to sacrifice themselves for others, or even for their own ideals. When push comes to shove, the same amount of people will still change an ideal to save their skin, and turn away before stepping in to sacrifice their lives or things for someone else.
So those are my thoughts. Doubt I'll get to the other one today, but perhaps.
Tammy
