It is embarrassing and discomforting when your opponent latches onto and exposes your "Achilles' Heel". Richard Dawkins did this recently when interviewed by Howard Condor on Revelation TV in the United Kingdom.
I recite parts of the interview here following:
Condor. "Was there a particular experience you had where you said, 'That's it, God doesn't exist'"
Dawkins. "Oh, well, by far the most important, I suppose, was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right, in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more—what shall we say—sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they're deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that at the age of about sixteen.
Dawkins went on to question the interviewer saying: Why on earth would ... you believe in Genesis, given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is against it, given that the Pope is against it, any respectable bishop is against it ...?" [as, also, is the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney]
We must make a distinction here between Evangelical and that which is not Evangelical but, instead, a sort of faux evangelical. Dawkins obviously uses the term Evangelical in the traditional and true sense as one who trusts and espouses the Word of God. There are many today who just do not trust and espouse the Word of God fully yet they claim to be Evangelical. Many in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney are of this kind and are faux evangelicals.
Dawkins rightly sees the incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity and he stands as a ready victor in any debate against a Theistic Evolution.
Should Richard Dawkins venture to Australia again, please, please Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, don't put up any Theistic Evolutionist (eg the Archbishop of Sydney) in debate against him. For the sake of Christ's Church here in Sydney, let's keep our embarrassments hidden in a corner.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Jesus was a product of evolution.
The historical record of the Person of Jesus Christ i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, indicates clearly that he is the antithesis of evolution and by no means a product of anything purported to be evolution.
Peter, you have some questions yet to be answered on a post a little while back.
Sam Drucker
"As God can send a nation or people no greater blessing than to give them faithful, sincere, and upright ministers, so the greatest curse that God can possibly send upon a people in this world, is to give them over to blind, unregenerate, carnal, lukewarm, and unskilled guides. And yet, in all ages, we find that there have been many wolves in sheep’s clothing, many that daubed with untempered mortar, that prophesied smoother things than God did allow. As it was formerly, so it is now; there are many that corrupt the Word of God and deal deceitfully with it. It was so in a special manner in the prophet Jeremiah’s time; and he, faithful to his Lord, faithful to that God who employed him, did not fail from time to time to open his mouth against them, and to bear a noble testimony to the honor of that God in whose name he from time to time spake."
George Whitfield
The Method of Grace.
Jeremiah 6:14, "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people
slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace."
Sam,
Jesus was a creationist like you because he did not understand how we came about. Jesus of Nazareth was clearly a product of evolution.
What was the question I owe you an answer?
Farel
So the humble minister George Whitfield said "As God can send a nation or people no greater blessing than to give them faithful, sincere, and upright ministers..". Talking about shameless self promotion which is blindly promoted by his followers.
Peter
Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.
Pr 27:22
Peter said:
Jesus was a creationist like you because he did not understand how we came about. Jesus of Nazareth was clearly a product of evolution.
Jesus Christ is the Creator Incarnate. He knows how we came about because "through him all things were made". In all He espoused and urged upon humanity and all that He did we see clearly that evolution is alien to His nature.
In relation to the outstanding questions I draw your attention to the comments of the recent blog "Another Atheist in From the Cold" where I put the following to you:
Peter, a couple of times you have said that you were once a Christian. It would be helpful to know what you believed about yourself, what you believed a Christian was and how the two fitted together.
Warwick also sought an answer to a question of you.
Sam Drucker
Farel, thank you for the cautionary words of George Whitefield. They are appropriate for these times.
Sam Drucker
Peter,
Did your disbelief come about because of an "intellectual" change of heart or did some priest sodomise you?
The inordinate amount of time you seem to waste on our blog when, according to your belief, you'll be mere fertiliser in a few years (or less), pushes me to believe it's the above latter explanation.
However, I'm open to other reasons e.g. your dad tortured you by shoving your hands into open fires to teach you the "reality' of hell.
Peter, I informed you of the outstanding questions and you have 'done a runner' again.
Can you be more mature about this?
Sam Drucker
Sam,
This discussion was not going anywhere and I'm not going to provide you or Warwick any personal info. I guess I need to "be more mature about this" and rise to Farel's and John's level. Farel, like many incompetent apologists, use Bible verses to dish out silly insults, John's comment is in a category on its own.
Peter constantly fails to act with merit. He avoids scrutiny.
Peter, you leave me to believe you never were a Christian.
Sam Drucker
Peter, buddy, you ought to take a real hard look in the mirror. You're evasive, but care not to address it.
You bait, but refuse to cease.
You take some sort of stand-offish moral highground and from there cast stones.
You aren't really searching but like to fight, denying you are all the time.
So exactly why do you bother coming here?
The lesson for correspondents regarding Peter is,,,
Prov.29.9 ¶ If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.
Because,,,,
1Co 2:14 ,,,,the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Peter needs the gospel, not "apologetics". Apologetics is meant to be an instructive and constructive exposure of the deceits embedded in fallen human conceits. It is to show believers that unbelievers and their master are not, in fact, reasoning at all. Unbelievers credit themselves with superior insight and grand intellectual liberty as "free thinkers" but,they are those,,'
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
from
"just another incompetent apologist"
"the free thinker is a man whose understanding has become emancipated from his conscience"
Charles Hodge
(another incompetent apologist)
sic
Yes, I'd be delighted if Peter would receive light.
Sam Drucker
Sam,
remember,
Joh 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
Ro 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy..cf to.18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
So, let's pray for Peter tonight.
Sam Drucker
Post a Comment