Comments on: Richard Dawkins Interview

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:56:00 +0000

I think this is dangerous ground. The Pharisees, too, made conditions for sanctity like 1, 2 and 3 above. And they claimed that God's Word–as they interpreted it–put their views in the right on these matters. In their case, 1, 2 and 3 were Healing on the Sabbath, Eating with Sinners and Claiming to Be/Believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah. So, I would think that we modern Christians would beware of the Pharisaic impulse to condemn based on what we think Scripture says. Yes, Scripture does say “thou shalt not kill” and so we should not kill the unborn. Yes, we know from Scripture that the Lord created the heavens and the earth (exact timeframe is not given us to know, apparently). But as for relations between men and women, if we were to follow scripture, we'd have to decide between the Old Testament injunctions about how to treat many wives, and Paul's statement about being a husband of one wife; perhaps we should, as Christians, pray to the Lord, try to act with integrity ourselves, and leave off prescribing a path for others to follow. As for homosexuality, the Bible is not clear on the subject, so I would think a Christian would be wary of condemning anyone based on their flawed understanding of inconclusive “proof texts”.
Vicky

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:47:00 +0000

Getting back to the post, Dawkins serves well as a proto-modern man. He is atheist to the core, his philosophical foundation is utilitarianism, nature is his god and science is his religion. He is a model materialist.
In every interview he gives and every book he has written, he delights at jabbing faith as unscientific ignorance, mythology, wishful thinking. He cannot imagine a true scientist who would embrace religion.
And, he believes that Darwinian evolution is properly the answer to every deep question about the nature of life. He holds that Darwinian evolution necessarily nails the lid on God's coffin, because it provides a totally naturalistic explanation for all that we are and know in life.
As you point out, he is not always consistent in following his own logic. He does call us to have faith in “authority” when authority is science, but he doesn't trust political or religious authority. He idealizes science — it is, after all, his religious faith, so he always speaks lovingly about it.
Christians need to read Dawkins and understand his arguments. In his view, God is self-refuting, so it makes no sense to even consider God's existence. Evolution proves that life grew up from material causes, life exists and thrives all around us, therefore God does not exist because evolution is true.
He's an interesting character. Deluded, but interesting.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:46:00 +0000

I talked with John about this via email and I want to clarify my point here about inerrancy. I personally hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. My point is that it should not be held as an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Denying the doctrine can lead to dangerous ideas, but denying it does not do so necessarily.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:43:00 +0000

“Of course, this submission to Christ as Savior and Lord includes accepting His Word as inerrant and sufficient.”
I'm not sure this an “of course,” assuming by “His Word” you're referring to the Bible. I would say whatever words Jesus Himself uttered are inerrant, and one who claims to be a Christian should believe that. However, I see no convincing reason to hold Christians to believing the Bible we have today is inerrant and sufficient.
We should also clarify what we mean by intelligent design. If it's simply that God created/designed the universe, then that seems necessary for the Christian worldview. However, if we're referring to the contemporary debate over Intelligent Design (an ideology promoted by folkds like William Dembski, et. al.), then I see no reason to require Christians not to question it. In fact, I think we've questioned some aspects of it here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:37:00 +0000

This may surprise you, but I agree with much of what you are saying. I just do not understand why you would think any of these things after reading my post. I said nothing about political activism. Were you simply trying to vent?
In my post, I was trying to show the errors of atheists like Dawkins in their arguments against Christianity. I hope that you have found it helpful.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:30:00 +0000

Well, getting a little off-topic from the post but I don't see 1, 2, or 3 as being necessary in the way some see it. Certainly the Bible must inform our understanding of God's desire for our lives but that must be filtered through the understanding that the unsaved mind is darkened to such understanding. We should not permit homosexuality to stand unchallenged in the church, we should seek to preserve the sanctity of life in the church and we should seek to recognize God as our creator in the church. But we can not expect those outside the church to understand or accept what we know to be the truth in the church. We must not stop in our proclamation of the truth and our encouragement of the unsaved to accept the truth, but we should not expect them to comprehend or live by those truths.
I see some serious flaws in the modern politcal Christianity that has taken hold in many quarters and see it as a fundamental danger to the liberties of this nation, but I see the agendas of groups such as the ACLU and others to be equally as dangerous and concerning. There is a fine line to be walked between proclaiming the truth in love and using the truth to establish tyranny over not only the conciensce but the behavior of others.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:37:00 +0000

Hmmm… Where did you get this out of what I am saying? But to address your concern: confessing Christians are those that repent of their sins, believe in Jesus Christ and His redemptive work alone for salvation, and submit to His Lordship in their life. Of course, this submission to Christ as Savior and Lord includes accepting His Word as inerrant and sufficient.
So I ask: Does God's Word not speak about marriage and the proper relationships between men and women? Is God's Word silent on the sanctity of human life? Does God not reveal Himself as Creator? Denying these things is a failure to understand and to submit to the revelation of God.
In light of these things, could a person be a Christian and be pro-gay, pro-choice, and anti-ID? Sure. But they would not understand what their Savior has revealed about these things! And this is a serious problem–one that should not be encouraged but corrected.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:14:00 +0000

So what I'm understanding is this: Now there are three things that are non-negotiables when it comes to being a 'confessing' Christian in relationship to the culture:
1. Must be anti-Gay marriage
2. Must be pro-life
3. Must not question intelligent design
Anything else? Just want to make sure I have the the right things down in fear that I would not be condemned.