When I first saw a picture of Dawkins at the beach wearing a T-shirt saying "Atheists for Jesus" I thought, why would someone who declares atheists to be people of intellectual and moral integrity, admire a deceptive, deceitful liar? I mean, if Jesus wasn’t who He said He was (and I’m sure Richard doesn’t believe that Jesus is God incarnate), a liar is the least of names that we could call Him.
On the other hand, if Jesus is not exactly who He said He is, there should be a crime against His words and actions for they are vile in the extreme. And that’s why I wonder, since he believes that Jesus is an imposter and a fraud (and if true He’s also a monster), what is it about Richard Dawkins that he is drawn to such a pathological personality?
. Jesus conned people into dying for Him. Yet Richard Dawkins admires Him.
. Jesus told people to worship Him. Dawkins seems to like that idea.
. Jesus told others to be honest, while He lived a lie. Dawkins seems to relate.
. Jesus told others to trust Him to save their souls. Not unlike Dawkins and his sycophants.
. If Jesus was not who He said He was then He was a blasphemer of the highest order. 'Nuff said.
. If Jesus was not who He said He was then He was a megalomaniac. Hmm. Interesting.
Jesus said that He was / is the God of the Old Testament. Just one among many, many comments along those lines is, “Before Abraham was, I Am.” The Spiritual leaders of the time understood perfectly that Jesus was saying that He was what Dawkins describes as the “Nasty God of the Old Testament.”
When it comes to the Lord, Liar or Lunatic explanation, Richard Dawkins in all his brilliance adds what he thinks is the undoing of that proposition. “Perhaps Jesus was mistaken,” says the brilliant biologist. Ya, right. The soundest, purest and most intelligent mind to ever walk the earth was mistaken about being God. ‘Oh. I thought I was God, certain about it really, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry.’
In describing Jesus, Historian Philip Schaff says, “A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. The [author], as has been well said, would in this case be greater than the hero. It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus. How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an impostor - that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man - have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?”
I can’t presume to know the motives for Richard Dawkins’ seeming inability or unwillingness to discern the fact that it’s only one way or the other. Either Jesus was and is God, or He wasn’t. This sidestepping of the evidence seems to become more and more typical of Richard Dawkins as his early writing transits from clear thinking, entertaining biological science, to his latest works that seem to be clouded by raging anti-Christian polemics.
If Jesus was / is God then we’d better order our lives around that fact. That just makes sense, doesn't it? If Jesus is God, then worship Him as such, or rail in opposition against Him. Both are valid options that God has left open to us.
If He wasn’t God, then Jesus needs to be dealt with in our minds the way we deal with any repugnant personality. But please, if Jesus wasn't God, don't pretend that He was some wonderful person when He clearly wasn't.
Richard Dawkins can’t figure it out, but maybe you can. For the sake of your life on earth and for eternity, I pray that you find Jesus as Lord and Saviour and find Him soon. It’s a wonderful, healthy, rarified, bracing, exhilarating, blessed and freeing experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It’s a wonderful, healthy, rarified, bracing, exhilarating, blessed and freeing experience.
So is rational thought.
Ya, I know. I use it every day.
WHen I first saw this post I cringed. I figured for sure that Dawkins was just being his iconoclastic self and was just wearing the tee-shirt as an in-your-face joke. I felt sad and disappointed that you took Dawkins' joke seriously. But I googled "Dawkins and atheists for Jesus" and lo and behold, there it was:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
He is actually serious in asserting that Jesus was just a good and moral man who got nailed to a cross because he offended the establishment by preaching peace and love, and shied away from what Dawkins views as the vengeful God of the Old Testament. Somehow the most basic logic (that Jesus could not be good and moral if He were not the God he claimed to be) escapes even Dawkins. This makes me wonder about his effective employment of that faculty in areas that are more in line with his expertise.
Leo, I'm interested in the picture. Where was that taken? It looks like you're having a ball.
I read a line once that went, "Outside of their chosen speciality, scientists are just as dumb as the rest of us."
Dawkins is a walking testament to that.
The picture is on the Strait of Messina, with my parents' home town of Torre Faro, Sicily in the background. In mythology, it is the place where Odysseus sailed through and had his ears stopped up so he would not hear the enticing sound of the sirens.
In real history, it was the place St. Paul sailed through after weathering a horrific storm, shipwrecking on Malta, and then sailing again for Rome, stopping in Syracuse (southeastern Sicily) and then Rhegium (modern day Reggio, Calabria on the toe of the Italian mainland). As he sailed from Rhegium toward Puteoli and eventually Rome, he had to go through the Strait of Messina.
Post a Comment