I will always remember the tragedy of September 11th. For that was the day when Kaye Grogan wrote her last column: “Like it or not . . . 9/11 is forever a part of history”. Eerily prophetic, as it turned out, like Babe Ruth’s called shot, or Tupac anticipating his own death, for 9/11 is indeed a part of history. And so, I fear, is the political “commentary” of Kaye … Grogan.
But I think I may have found a new love. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present the Rev Michael Bresciani, and his latest column: “Dawkins on Haiti – Robertson true to Christian theology?” A good title should draw the reader in, pique his or her curiosity, by artfully constructing a tantilizing mystery in the reader’s mind. In this case, the tantilizing mystery is “huh?” Let’s read on, and see if we can solve it (SPOILER: no).
Bill O’Reilly was the first to bring up Pat Robertson’s statement on the Haitian pact with the devil to rid them of French rule. Bill said he didn’t agree with Pat but Dawkins says in an article posted online that at least Robertson is true to his own theology.
There’s no link to the article posted online by “Dawkins”, nor are we privileged to yet know his first name. Mysteries within mysteries! And now my mind is racing! What Dawkins is famous enough to need no first name? My first thought was NFL safety Brian Dawkins, but now I’m leaning more towards NBA dunkmeister Daryl Dawkins.
Dawkins starts his article by side stepping the usual requirements and protocol for standard article submission. His name appears before and after the title. He follows that with bold article sub headings and bold parenthetical statements made for effect, all that remains after that is the Dawkins style of solipsistic banality for which he is so noted. Most authors would have their articles rejected out of hand regardless of content if they broke this many rules.
Now, obviously, nobody talks that way about Chocolate Thunder (if I am correct in assuming that the quoted gibberish about submission guidelines was meant to be derogatory.) We have to go another couple of paragraphs before Rev. B. gets around to telling us the name of the person whose argument he is referring to (it’s Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist), and by that time I’m bored and just skimming for rank stupidity.
To be truthful exactly what happened 15 miles beneath the earth on that day is as speculative as deciding that God doesn’t like the pact the Haitians are reported to have made with the devil. Science has no leg on either assertion and should stay out of it entirely. But to be fair if the prophetic record is called into play then the theology of God’s judgments by means of natural disasters or catastrophes is on much firmer ground.
On the Big Bang, the dinosaurs, John McCain losing his virginity, or something:
It takes a great deal more faith for most people to believe in a 400 million year old speculation, un-witnessed by anyone than the straight up prophetic/historical record of the bible.
On fundamental concepts in classical mechanics and/or thermodynamics, and/or something:
How does an atheist assign the word “force” to nature, randomness, or disorder and argue that an intelligent God would not use force for any purpose at all. It seems they are satisfied to say that nature which has no intelligence can use force but God who is supremely intelligent is impotent. To borrow a phrase from the Apostle Paul it would seem that Mr. Dawkins and his fellows are simply “beating the air.” (1Cor 9:26)
Burn. On everybody who he doesn’t like getting pulverized while he watches from a cloud with Jesus and laughs and laughs and laughs:
On a personal level I wonder what Dawkins or anyone else for that matter will say when every major city in the world is toppled by a worldwide earthquake at the close of the rule of the antichrist.
“Oh, shit”? That’s probably what I’d say. But right now I’m just going to express amazement that someone with crippling ADD can become an online Rev before their eighth birthday. Only in Real America.
And that’s just my opinion!