Distributed by www.worldviewweekend.com
The Sunday Times headlined: "Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI. RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain 'for crimes against humanity'"1.
Dawkins sure had the big talk. Last month he asked the question, "Should the pope resign?" and answered,
"No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch. No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears."2.
This month, Protestant Dawkins apparently had linked with fellow atheist, Christopher Hitchens, on a social agenda to make sure that justice was done.
The thought made me smile, because no one takes on the pope. He's too big, too powerful, too lofty, and too loved by too many for two atheists to hold him accountable for anything. It's a matter of survival of the fittest. The two out-spoken atheists would be lucky to get a balcony-wave in their general direction, let alone their day in court with the pope.
I had more skepticism than a combined Hitchens and Dawkins would have at a Benny Hinn healing meeting.
Of course, it wasn't true. The good professor was all talk. He said that any talk of an arrest was an exaggeration. A misunderstanding. Media spin. Like when the missing link was found in 2009. Hype. That's all. Like when the professor said that he believed we were the products of aliens. He didn't mean that. And he didn't mean this. David didn't have a tiny stone to sling.
"Christians: Your hero Ray Comfort is lying. Again. He said--'Like when the professor said that he believed we were the products of aliens. He didn't mean that.' He didn't say it, either. I challenge any one of you Christians to either verify that Dawkins actually believes that life on this earth came from space aliens, or else call Ray on his lying." captain howdy
Richard Dawkins said, "It could come about in the following way: it could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet . . . and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." (Italics added) "Expelled."
Notice his use of the words "could," "probably" and "perhaps." This is the normal language he uses and almost all evolution believers use, when speaking of the theory of evolution--the language of "speculation." This is what Professor Dawkins believed at that point. Then he back-tracked and said he didn't mean it--but he let the cat out of the bag in front of a camera.
P.s. After reading the fiery comments, I have to admit that atheists defend Dawkins like faithful Catholics defend the pope. You are very loyal to your hero.
"Imagine, for a moment, a world where religion never existed, for whatever reason. Its citizens go about their lives having never heard of any religion. In your mind, what would the world be like -- worse, better? Why?"1.
I think that a world without religion would be a much better world. Imagine no 911. Imagine no terror-threats from Islam. No suicide bombs. Imagine no pedophile priests or money-hungry televangelists. Imagine no Roman Catholic Crusades against innocent people or torturous Inquisitions against those who denied their religion.
Imagine no religious nuts carrying signs at soldiers funerals saying that it's good that they died or that "God hates fags." Imagine no religious hypocrisy, and no trail of human blood down through history through the mass of religious wars. No witch burnings, no hindrances to science . . . imagine.
The Bible only mentions "religion" five times. Three times the Apostle Paul uses the word in reference to his pre-Christian life. The other references are in the context of religious hypocrisy (see James 1:26-27). I try and distance myself as far as possible from those religious folks who insist that salvation comes from religious works. I don't believe that, I don't practice that, and I don't want to have anything to do with that.
Man has always used religion for his own political or economic gain. Hitler did it. America does it. Iran does it. The Pharisees in the time of Christ did it.
Religion is very grimy and murky bathwater, and those who don't look carefully can easily miss the baby. A world without religion…how wonderful that would be. May God hasten the day.
1. Adapted from, scienceforums.net interview
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
Printer Friendly Version |
Return to home |
Send this article to a friend
Click Here to Watch Now
Ebook + Hard Cover
Click Here for Details
Sign up to receive our
FREE Biblical Worldview Newsletter!