Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Flagellum

Here:

TBS: You have just returned from a very successful tour of the U.K., where you participated in nearly a dozen lectures and debates. Even so, the most famous atheist you were to debate—evolutionary biologist and bestselling author, Richard Dawkins—was a no-show. In a public statement that got a lot of web play, Dawkins claimed he did not want to debate with you because you refuse to distance yourself from God, who in the Book of Deuteronomy orders the destruction of the Canaanites, which Dawkins termed “genocide.” In hindsight, what do you make of this episode?

WLC: Well, in hindsight I have to say that Dawkins’ attacks in The Guardian and elsewhere turned out to be the best publicity for the event at the Sheldonian Theatre [at Oxford University—ed.] that we could have possibly made up! [vid] His reaction was so counterproductive, from his point of view. Other atheists in the blogosphere and also in The Guardian roundly condemned him for what were clearly manufactured pseudo-reasons for not participating in the debate with me. So the whole fiasco just proved to be a boon to the public profile of the lecture that I gave in the Sheldonian Theatre, which was responded to by three other Oxford faculty, who apparently didn’t share Richard Dawkins’ reservations about being on the platform with me. So it really was very helpful to our outreach!

(Wouldn’t debate? It wasn’t about the elevator. Yes, he said it was about this. More likely, some say, about this.  More coffee, please.)

Comments
I don't care a fig about why Dawkins didn't want to debate Craig. I personally wish he had, and I thought it was pretty stupid to come up with a post hoc justification (which was what it read like). But as I say, I don't care a fig about that. I'm not a great Dawkins fan anyway. What I am, however, grateful to him for, is giving the link to Craig's essay. Which I have of course now read, in its entirely, as well as several others. I find it absolutely appalling, and the issues as to whether or not Dawkins using it as an excuse is completely irrelevant to it's appallingness. Here is a man saying, explicitly, that a thing that would normally be wrong is not wrong if God commands it. A point repeatedly rebutted by, of all people, Jesus.Elizabeth Liddle
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Elizabeth. In his book "River Out Of Eden", Richard Dawkins wrote: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" 1.If you agree with Dawkins views about Good and Evil then what grounding do you have to make moral judgements against Craig? 2. If you disagree with Dawkins views about Good and Evil then why are you not condemning Dawkins just like you admitted he was an idiot for his idiotic excuses to duck debate with Craig. 3. If you do condemn Dawkins views about Good and Evil then on what basis do you do that? How specifically would Dawkins be Wrong?, what would make him a Bad Atheist and you a Good Atheist?mrchristo
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
F/N: How do you know that the voice of your mom is not a program in a zombie? Or, a pill speaking , or -- personal, painful point -- Mr Alzheimer's speaking -- or, the thoughts in your own head? There are no good materialist answers, which is of course the context of Plantinga's remarks on God and other minds. There is no intrinsic reason why any and all cases of those who claim to have heard -- audibly or otherwise -- from God, should be deemed ipso facto delusional. I would suggest that the real answer is that one discerns the voice of God, from self, from delusion, by reason of long term growth in relationship, so that one has a rational intuition that this is the real deal. That is going to require a long term growth in virtue and building a confidence based on experience that shows this is not delusion but he real deal. As a specifically Bible-believing Christian, I think it was well said that when God speaks, he speaks truth, which will correspond to reality, and will open eyes to the right; as opposed to the easy way. If you are hearing a voice from your head, or on the radio, or a pulpit, or a lecturer's podium or a political platform, or wherever, that is tickling you ear with what you want to hear as opposed to calling you to the difficult path of the right, that is NOT the voice of God. I think we can all easily enough recognise the voice of God in scripture, and in conscience aligned with the right, and in circumstances. if we are willing to humble ourselves and yield to the correction implied in that. Consistently, the pull is going to be to the right, not the easy path. The rule I learned long ago now was look for alignment of well tested and warranted trustworthy Scripture, circumstances and whatever personal, subjective sense of leading or voice -- inner, outer, pulpit, lecturer's podium, politician's platform -- one hears. I generally agree with Dr Selensky that we can easily, ever so easily, deceive ourselves, taking an over-confident expectation of our virtue and wisdom. Our own hearts and imaginations are ever so often deceitful and desperately wicked; if unchecked. The other thing I say, is that it is wise to look for the unexpected as a way God will speak to us. Like the wise remark a solid sister of mine once told me: XXX would never have made it up unto that platform by herself to speak like that, and that is a wisdom that is well beyond her natural ability. So, I suggest,t he3re are no easy answers, and the answers that sound right are utterly challenging. Gioven what MLK achieved, and what he had to say, he could well be telling us the truth, never mind his personal stuggles, which we all have as finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill willed. BTW, those are also tests of claimed guidance. Let Paul have the last word:
1 Thess 5:16 Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil. 23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.
KFkairosfocus
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Elizabeth on a video by birdieupon on youtube there are 12 excuses given for dodging Craig including the ones about Craigs moral philosophy even though Dawkins was found to contradict himself and have no credibility because he knew about Craigs article and even in 2011 mentioned it in an article while using a different excuse, it was only afer so much pressure that he used Dr Craigs writing as an excuse. Only his most blind followers are defending him, 12 excuses and contradictions would try even the most reasonable of devotees, I am happy to see you have shifted your position and realize that Dawkins excuses do not hold water. Do you support Dawkins views on morality because that would undercut your position to make moral judgements?mrchristo
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Why do you keep pushing this myth that Dawkins refused To debate Craig for Noble reasons when Dawkins already knew about Craigs Article and mentioned it back in 2008? Dawkins claimed that he did not know about Craigs words when he shared the stage of a panel Debate back in 2010 so we know that what he is saying is false. Furthermore in an article in 2011 Dawkins again mentions about Craigs writing concerning the issue but Dawkins gives the excuse that he does not want to help Craig in his relentless quest for self promotion and that will continute to be his position. It is 5 months later that Dawkins shifts his position and uses Craigs article as an excuse. If you are interested in the truth then I am sure you will quit Defending Dawkins position, Whether you have a problem with Craig is beside the point, Dawkins reason does not stand up to scrutiny.mrchristo
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
It's actuality rather easy. Divine commands are always in ALL CAPS.Petrushka
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
IF YOU THINK YOU HEAR A DIVINE COMMAND, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT REALLY IS?
Phrased that way, it's actually the easier question to answer. If you think you hear a divine command (a voice, a message in a dream, or a vision) absolutely do not listen to it. It is not a divine command. It is either deception, mental illness, or just a really weird dream.ScottAndrews2
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Lizzie "I think personally, the answer is very simple" I would love to see your answer. "But i wont give mine until......." Oh, shucks! Well I guess I could try. The israelites had already seen God smite egypt with ten plagues. Afterwards they saw God part the red sea. When God told them judgment needed to befall the cananite nations, I think they were pretty confident they werent just "hearing stuff" So how can you tell if God really is talking to you? You will probably see some miracles coming your way. Your turn.kuartus
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
“Yes, based on my limited human intelligence, in combination with the accumulated wisdom of many other human beings who have, over the millenia, gradually learned the rules the best allow them to live in harmony.” I wouldn’t call what’s happening in the Middle East “living in harmony”. Unless you wanted to ignore reality.
And the Middle East is a good example of a secular society, coming to reasonable conclusions from collective experience? That looks like an own goal to me, Barb.
“It’s as objective as we’ve got, for the simple reason that we have no way of telling – or at least you have not provided one – whether an edict from an alleged “all powerful omnipotent god” is indeed and edict from an “all powerful omnipotent god”, and not a subjective delusion.” There have been examples provided to you in this thread of God directing the activity of humans. If you don’t want to believe that is anything but a delusion, that is your choice.
I didn't say that God doesn't direct the activity of humans. I didn't say that the perception that one is directed by God is a delusion. I've repeatedly tried to make that clear, yet your eyes seem to skate over my words. What I asked was: how do you know? In other words: by what means do you discern that the command is from God?
“The fallible human collective at least has the advantage of being able to use reason and argument and experience.” Is experience always the best teacher? Do I truly have to try drugs to know that they’ll destroy my mind?
No, which is why I specifically used that word "collective". Please try to read my posts in full Barb, this is getting very frustrating.
Also consider that the Bible states, “The wisdom from above is reasonable.” The fact that you don’t understand portions of the Bible does not make this statement untrue. It just means that you don’t understand portions of the Bible. That’s all.
That argument is completely circular. If you can't understand that, then that may explain why we are having this problem. Please try to break out from the circle and address the simple question: how do you know that a command from God is from God? I think, personally, the answer is very simple. But I won't give mine until at least one theist on this thread has attempted to give theirs.Elizabeth Liddle
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
The elephant in the room, Barb, which you seem determine not to see, to the extent of completely missing the point of my posts is the answer to the question: IF YOU THINK YOU HEAR A DIVINE COMMAND, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT REALLY IS? The people who flew planes into the twin towers thought they were acting by divine command. So did Peter Sutcliffe. So did, allegedly, the Israelites who allegedly massacred the Canaanites and the Midianites. How do you know which ones were really following God's orders and which ones had made a terrible mistake? Please simply answer my question, instead of casting aspersions on my lack of intelligence or faith.Elizabeth Liddle
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
The people who committed those acts did so because they believed that it was Gods will - they had faith, just as Abraham did. You made a series of statements regarding Abraham and the Canaanites and used the idea of faith as something, from what I can see, that justified the events - that made them right. My point was to highlight the fact that your, or their personal faith that something is Gods will does not make it morally right or Gods will. From what I can see your position is that if you come to believe that the God you have faith in says it is OK, then it is OK. I don't think that is in any way good, or morally grounded, indeed it is the root of much evil.
What does 9/11 have to do with Abraham?
So now you see the relevance we can re-phrase your question properly: "What does faith have to do with Faith?"GCUGreyArea
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
A logical fallacy such as non sequitur indicates that the person is making a statement that has nothing to do with what's being discussed and/or debated. You brought up the events of 9/11. This thread, so far, has been discussing the faith of Abraham. What does 9/11 have to do with Abraham? Do you truly not understand this, or are you trolling?Barb
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Why is that a logical fallicy and why is it irrelevant to the claims you are making about faith?GCUGreyArea
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
And that has what to do with this discussion? Nothing? Non sequitur. Try not to use logical fallcies when posting, as they don't prove anything.Barb
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
Because having faith allowed the Israelites to take possession of the land that was rightfully theirs and to live in relative peace and security. Because having faith allowed some of the Canaanites peoples–namely, the Gibeonites and Rahab and her family, not to mention Ruth–to live with the Israelites and to not be killed as the other nations were. Genocide has no survivors. God’s warfare, in this instance, did. I notice that nobody seems to have picked up on that. I wonder why. Because having faith is what allows you to understand the big picture. Abraham did not see the fulfillment of the covenant that God had made with him. He died before the nation of Israel, his descendants, took possession of the land. He did understand that this was part of God’s purpose, to pave the way for the Messiah.
Because having faith allows you to fly aeroplanes into buildings.GCUGreyArea
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Champignon, I could poke my head in once a day, but what's the point? (And yes, I do admit that I have a problem.)
If making a shopping list just involves a succession of physical brain states evolving according to the laws of physics, why do you believe that the same thing can’t be happening when someone writes a novel or whistles Beethoven?
I though my point was clear that the same thing is happening. How does that answer my argument that the natural laws it acts within do not explain it? I spelled that out, and you ignored it to respond to the opposite of what I said.ScottAndrews2
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
No, I don’t get the point.
Yes, we know. Despite repeated attempts to explain it to you.
Why would anyone want it to be true that the god they worship had commanded one tribe of people to massacre another on order to take the land they lived in?
As pointed out already, it fulfilled prophecy; it was their land by right. If I inhabited the house you own and refused to move, would you have me evicted? And, as pointed out already, the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice. Are you suggesting that this practice is okay, and that the Israelites should have turned a blind eye to it?
Please explain.
Try reading my posts.
Also why it is a good thing to have faith in a putative god that delivers such commands. I used to have faith in a good God. There’s a sense in which I still do. I have never regretted the lack of a faith in a mythical tyrant.
Because having faith allowed the Israelites to take possession of the land that was rightfully theirs and to live in relative peace and security. Because having faith allowed some of the Canaanites peoples--namely, the Gibeonites and Rahab and her family, not to mention Ruth--to live with the Israelites and to not be killed as the other nations were. Genocide has no survivors. God's warfare, in this instance, did. I notice that nobody seems to have picked up on that. I wonder why. Because having faith is what allows you to understand the big picture. Abraham did not see the fulfillment of the covenant that God had made with him. He died before the nation of Israel, his descendants, took possession of the land. He did understand that this was part of God's purpose, to pave the way for the Messiah. However, all this being noted, the Bible frankly does acknowledge that "faith is not a possession of all people." No, Elizabeth, it certainly is not in your case. 8.2.1.1.3 kuartusFebruary 7, 2012 at 4:43 amBarb
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
1. Because we have evidence, in the form of the Bible, that God might exist. We have no evidence to show that aliens of any sort exist. 2. What makes you think the empirical evidence would show that it's wrong? If God exists and it was proved empirically, the only people who should be sweating are the atheists who've long denied and decried his existence. I have no worries.Barb
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
“Yes, based on my limited human intelligence, in combination with the accumulated wisdom of many other human beings who have, over the millenia, gradually learned the rules the best allow them to live in harmony.” I wouldn’t call what’s happening in the Middle East “living in harmony”. Unless you wanted to ignore reality. “It’s as objective as we’ve got, for the simple reason that we have no way of telling – or at least you have not provided one – whether an edict from an alleged “all powerful omnipotent god” is indeed and edict from an “all powerful omnipotent god”, and not a subjective delusion.” There have been examples provided to you in this thread of God directing the activity of humans. If you don’t want to believe that is anything but a delusion, that is your choice. “The fallible human collective at least has the advantage of being able to use reason and argument and experience.” Is experience always the best teacher? Do I truly have to try drugs to know that they’ll destroy my mind? Also consider that the Bible states, “The wisdom from above is reasonable.” The fact that you don’t understand portions of the Bible does not make this statement untrue. It just means that you don’t understand portions of the Bible. That’s all.Barb
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
First link is wrong: www.biblearchaeology.org/category/exodus-conquest.aspxkuartus
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
Just an addition, it is obvious that while such states (at early stages in any case) may not be classified as illness, they are extremely dangerous spiritually and lead to peril because people learn to trust their own imaginations instead of sober spiritual guidance by tradition.Eugene S
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
Lizzie, actually there is quite a lot of archeological evidence that there was a conquest of the land of canaan by israel just like the bible says, and quite a lot of evidence for the presence of foreign semitic peoples in egypt when the bible says israel was there. Here is a link you might want to look at. It would do you good to inform yourself on these issues: Www.biblearcheology.org/category/exodus-conquest.aspx And why should we conclude that israel didnt wander in the desert for forty years just because there is not archeological trace of them? Not only is that the fallacy of argument from silence, but in fact it is more than credible to believe they wouldnt leave anything behind to discover seeing that the only things the ancient scythians left behind in way of archeological evidence for their presence was a few royal tombs, and thats after several centuries of habitation! Www.tektonics.org/af/exoduslogistics.html As to why anyone would want to believe in a mythical tyrant that commands genocide? Who knows? I dont think anyone would want to. Certaintly I dont.8kuartus
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
There is a third possibility. He heard a voice for real but he mistook this voice for God's. A lot of such cases are described in the patristic literature of the Christian East (the first centuries AD), e.g. refer to Philokalia, a collection of writings on prayer by prominent Orthodox Christian saints. In Orthodox Christian tradition, it is strictly forbidden to listen to any voices during prayer or to stimulate one's imagination in any way. Such mental states in Russian are called 'prelest' (delusion). They may or may not lead to diagnosable mental illnesses.Eugene S
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
A blind leading a blind. As Aesop has it in one of his fables, people say, well perhaps that dog barking at the elephant is strong and brave. But the elephant walks past not even noticing the pathetic bully. This chap with all his books is not even worthy of being taken seriously.Eugene S
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
Liz: "how do you tell?" I already said, but I'll say it again, it should be taken case by case. Auditory-command hallucinations are tied to psychosis, schizophrenia etc. Martin Luther King claimed to hear the voice of God telling him to move foreword with the struggle, which he admitted to on several occasions. If Martin Luther King had an auditory-command hallucination, then provide evidence of his mental illness. If you cannot provide evidence for his mental illness (temporary or otherwise), then you can consider him a liar, who deceived his people and put them all in danger. In that case, please support any claim that MLK was intentionally deceiving the people in his movement by claiming that God spoke to him while he sat at his kitchen table.junkdnaforlife
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
No, I don't get the point. Why would anyone want it to be true that the god they worship had commanded one tribe of people to massacre another on order to take the land they lived in? Please explain. Also why it is a good thing to have faith in a putative god that delivers such commands. I used to have faith in a good God. There's a sense in which I still do. I have never regretted the lack of a faith in a mythical tyrant.Elizabeth Liddle
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
That's not dim, Axel. Dawkins is not focussing on the ethical merits of God. He's focussing on the ethical merits of a man who worships a putative deity who allegedly commanded people to commit genocide, and who can say, with a straight face, that something that would normally be wrong is not wrong if commanded by said deity. Of course it has nothing to do with science. It has to do with the evils of such a worldview - a worldview that defines good as that which is commanded by a putative deity, rather than one which reifies good as a deity. Dawkins is quite happy with that second thing, as he makes explicit in his book, The God Delusion. Some people here have no problem getting that point. But, bizarrely, several people are defending Craig. I find myself flabbergasted.Elizabeth Liddle
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
junkdnaforlife: My question seems invisible here. I asked: "How do you tell whether a voice that claims to be the voice of God is really God or a hallucination?" I didn't say it was; I didn't say it wasn't. I asked: how do you tell? Both generally, and specifically in the cases that what it is telling you to do is go out and massacre people, as was the case, reportedly, with the Israelites and with Peter Sutcliffe. It is not a rhetorical question, I am not trying to say the Israelites were psychotic, I'm asking exactly what my words indicate I'm asking. And I'd really appreciate an answer. I have my own answer, which is very simple, but I'd really really like to hear yours.Elizabeth Liddle
February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Liz: "I’d be a rational person who normally doesn’t assume that a voice in someone’s head, or from some kind of vision, is the voice of God, especially as a) it is generally considered a hallucination and possibly the sign of potentially dangerous psychosis if the content of the hallucination is incitement to murder and b) if the document in question was written by a successfully invading force." Delusional, hallucinations[...]?
One night toward the end of January I settled into bed late, after a strenuous day. Coretta had already fallen asleep and just as I was about to doze off the telephone rang. An angry voice said, Listen, nigger, weave taken all we want from you; before next week you'll be sorry you ever came to Montgomery. I hung up, but I couldn't sleep. It seemed that all of my fears had come down on me at once. It reached the saturation point. I got out of bed to walk the floor. Finally I went to the kitchen and heated a a pot of coffee. I was ready to give up. With my cup of coffee sitting untouched before me I tried to think of a way to move out of the picture without appearing a coward. In this state of exhaustion, when my courage had all but gone, I decided to take my problem to God. With my head in my hands, I bowed over the kitchen table and prayed aloud. The words I spoke to God that midnight are still vivid in my memory. I am here taking a stand for what I believe is right. But now I am afraid. The people are looking to me for leadership, and if I stand before them without strength and courage, they too will falter. I am at the end of my powers. I have nothing left. I have come to the point where I can't face it alone. At the moment I experienced the presence of the Divine as I had never experienced Him before. It seemed as though I could hear the quiet assurance of an inner voice saying: Stand up for righteous, stand up for truth; and God will be at your side forever. Almost at once my fears began to go. My uncertainty disappeared. I was ready to face anything. Three nights later, on January 30, I left home a little before seven to attend our Monday evening mass meeting at the First Baptist Church. A member of my congregation, Mrs. Mary Lucy Williams, had come to the parsonage to keep my wife company in my absence. After putting the baby to bed, Coretta and Mrs. Williams went to the living room to look at television. About nine- thirty they heard a noise in the front that sounded as though someone had thrown a brick. In a matter of seconds an explosion rocked the house. A bomb had gone off on the porch. The sound was heard many blocks away, and word of the bombing reached the mass meeting almost instantly. Toward the close of the meeting, as I stood on the platform helping to take the collection, I noticed an usher rushing to give Ralph Abernathy a message. Abernathy turned and ran downstairs, soon to reappear with a worried look on his face. Several others rushed in and out of the church. People looked at me and then away; one or two seemed about to approach me and then changed their minds. An usher called me to the side of the platform, presumably to give me a message, but before I could get there S.S. Seay had sent him away. By now I was convinced that whatever had happened affected me. I called Ralph Abernathy, S.S. Seay, and E.N. French and asked then to tell me what was wrong. Ralph looked to Seay and French and then turned to me and said hesitantly: "Your house has been bombed." "I asked if my wife and baby were all right." "They said, We are checking on that now." Strangely enough, I accepted the word of the bombing calmly. My religious experience a few nights before had given me the strength to face it. I interrupted the collection and asked all present to give me their undivided attention. After telling them why I had to leave, I urged each person to go straight home after the meeting and adhere strictly to our philosophy of nonviolence. I admonished them not to become panicky and lose their heads. "Let us keep moving, I urged them, with the faith that what we are doing is right, and with the even greater faith that God is with us in the struggle."
Was Martin Luther King delusional? If MLK was not delusional, why then, should we assume that all other cases of people with these types of experiences are delusional. Some might be. A good indicator would be, how consistent is their behavior in other aspects of their life. Simply put, if one person claiming to hear God and kill hookers is crazy, it does not logically follow that all people that claim to hear God's voice, or that Divine experience = delusion. It should go case by case. In this case, you have a man on a mission to free his people from the inequalities of their nation, claiming to have experienced the Divine and heard the voice of God. After a bomb attack, he encourages his people to push foreword with the struggle, telling them that "God is with us." He is later killed and his people are eventually granted equality. There is absolutely no difference in this story, than any other similar biblical event. The only difference is the treatment of the event by secular-atheist-darwin thumpers. If this was a biblical text treatment it would read something like: "And God spoke to Martin, and said fear not, I am with you. And Martin continued foreword against the evil tribes of America, his people followed him, and he was martyred and his people were free." And this statement would be accurate, inline with everything we understand about the history of MLK. No delusions or hallucinations. If you wish to challenge this, provide evidence of Martin Luther King's metal illness.junkdnaforlife
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Barb,
It is obvious from his posts here and elsewhere that Champignon hates God.
I was the one defending God from your accusation that he wrote the Bible!champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply