Fundamentalism says: “God must fit in my box”, and then creates a god in its own image.
Liberalism says: “God must fit in my box”, and then creates a god in its own image, after its own likeness.
Christianity teaches: “God is God and doesn’t have to do anything” because God isn’t accountable to you- you are accountable to God.
Fundamentalism and Liberalism are both creators of idols and therefore neither are Christian. And they both prefer the idol they create in their own malarkey festooned fertilized minds to the God who actually is, simply because that God, the real God, is beyond their control.
As public disagreements go, few can have boasted such heavy-hitting antagonists.
On one side is Richard Dawkins, the celebrated biologist who has made a second career demonstrating his epic disdain for religion. On the other is the theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, who this year became a shoo-in for a future Nobel prize after scientists at Cern in Geneva showed that his theory about how fundamental particles get their mass was correct.
Their argument is over nothing less than the coexistence of religion and science.
Higgs has chosen to cap his remarkable 2012 with another bang by criticising the “fundamentalist” approach taken by Dawkins in dealing with religious believers.
“What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,” Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. “Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.”
What makes Dawkins so useless is precisely his fundametalism. He’s a spoiled whiner, nothing more: the reprehensible child in the room everyone finds contemptible and are relieved when the brat departs. His idiotic pronouncements are of the same nature as Harold Camping’s senseless end of time predictions. They may differ in substance, but their form is exactly identical. Dawkins is Camping. Camping is Dawkins. Dawkins is Terry Jones. Dawkins is Fred Phelps.
Nice job, Bob. These maniacal heretics need to be exposed to the light of day. But truth told, Driscoll’s lunacy isn’t the most disturbing part. The most disturbing part is that there are SO MANY people willing to lap up his theological vomit. That’s the truly disturbing thing. But of course people prefer ignorance to truth and pseudo-Christianity to authentic faith.
You have absolutely got to be kidding me! Mark Driscoll is becoming the Glenn Beck of Evangelical Neo-fundamentalism. Scott has an excellent commentary on Driscoll’s latest diarrhea of the mouth. In sum, the words “delusional,” “bully,” “non-discerning,” “terrible scholar,” and “Mickey Mouse” are involved. Please allow me to add “nutjob.” (And I agree, Scott, methinks the Driscoll train is about to go off the rails.) It’s not enough to be a bully … Read More
Steve has some really excellent observations in this one.
Earlier this week I had the occasion to find myself in Newark’s Liberty Airport. I had mentally prepared myself for a government-sponsored groping (I find full-body scanners immoral and, no matter what the Patriot Act says, illegal) but I managed to make it through with just emptying my pockets and walking around in my stocking feet. Once I arrived at the gate area, I was once again struck by the duplicitous use of religion in America. Posted abo … Read More
Yes, fantastic! Rossing’s book needs to be read by every ‘rapturist’ inhabiting the planet.
In the light of last month’s failed rapture attempt, I decided to read a book that I picked up some years ago that had been written in the wake of the millennial scare. Having grown up with nightmares of the rapture, I learned during my first college class on the book of Revelation that it was relatively modern meme, invented in the nineteenth century. Barbara Rossing’s The Rapture Exposed seemed a good way to refresh my memory without having to … Read More