Bill O’Reilly Takes on Atheist Richard Dawkins and His New Children’s Book

"If atheism spread, it would become a religion as intolerable as the ancient ones." –Gustave le Bon


Dumbbell Nebula-Courtesy of NASA


Richard Dawkins, a respected evolutionary biologist,  is arguably the most famous atheist of our day. He is Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at The University of Oxford. We have written regularly about the New Atheists, particularly Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Bart Ehrman (well, he calls himself the happy agnostic).

Richard Dawkins and his pals are not your village atheist. They are bright and media savvy and have achieved a sort of rock star following all over the world. TWW wrote a post in 2009 called The New Atheists Are Bright and You Are Stupid. Link

Many Christian assume they can go to a 1-hour seminar such as “ 5 Arguments to Win Over Atheists” and be ready to take charge of a discussion. Those who apply such formulas quickly learn that they are in over their heads. To understand the difficulty in dialoging with atheists, I suggest you visit the following three atheist websites to educate yourself.

  • The Church of the Flying Spaghetti MonsterLink
  • Why Won’t God Heal Amputees–  Link
  • Ex Christians.NetLink

I spent about three years trying to understand this issue at the Ex Christians site. I also have read, among others,

  • The God Delusion-Richard Dawkins
  • Letter to a Christian Nation-Sam Harris
  • Misquoting Jesus -Bart Ehrman

These men are both bright and charismatic. Christians need to educate themselves on their arguments as well as find ways to intelligently to debate the issue. I find many Christians unwilling to dialogue. In fact, TWW has received numerous emails asking us to remove atheist commenters from our site because they were either argumentative or not worth the trouble. TWW is a place of dialog and we welcome, in the Spirit of Christ, all who come to reasonably debate or ask questions. Here are some of the excuses that we have heard.

  • They are blaspheming the Holy Spirit and are therefore going to hell so what’s the use.
  • I want to focus on the Bible and not on them.
  • I want to spend my time witnessing to people who will listen.

Deep down inside, I suspect that many Christians are afraid to take these guys on and are not willing to take the time to learn how to compassionately dialog. I have watched as Christians get huffy when these new atheists make derogatory statements about the faith. We must learn to "turn the other cheek" and continue to exhibit the Spirit of Christ in the face of strong rhetoric. Remember, we have the Holy Spirit; they do not. We must love when they do not.

Folks, we have a problem.  Atheism, statistically, is on the rise throughout the world and even in the United States. These men are influencing millions of people with their well thought out “Gospel of Atheism.”

Now, it appears, that Dawkins is taking his crusade to the most vulnerable, our children. He has written a book called The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True.

Here is a review of the book on Amazon. Link

“Magic takes many forms. Supernatural magic is what our ancestors used in order to explain the world before they developed the scientific method. The ancient Egyptians explained the night by suggesting the goddess Nut swallowed the sun.

Packed with clever thought experiments, dazzling illustrations and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena. What is stuff made of? How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? This is a page-turning, graphic detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.”

The Huffington Post , 10/6/11, posted an article entitled Bill O'Reilly, Richard Dawkins Debate Creationism Heatedly. There is apparently a push to get this book into the public school system. O’ Reilly, a Catholic, is known for his belief in creationism. By this term I mean that a Creator God created the heavens and the earth. He is a believer in an ancient earth and evolution as God directed.

The article states:

“Bill O'Reilly debated creationism on Wednesday's "O'Reilly Factor" with biologist and famous atheist Richard Dawkins. Not surprisingly, things got a little heated.

Dawkins was pushing a new book, aimed to teach adolescents and adults that science can explain ancient myths. O'Reilly told Dawkins that his book "mocks God," which propelled the two into a heated discussion about the beginning of time.”

I disagree that the exchange was heated. In fact, I thought O’Reilly did a good job sticking to his points. Before I present the video, which is 4 1/2 minutes long, I want to point out some highlights of the discussion.

  • Dawkins is cleverly painting the Christian faith as a myth by lumping it in with other pagan beliefs such as Egyptian gods, Roman gods and goddesses.
  • O’Reilly calls him on this assumption, clearly stating that the Christian faith is true. He implies that just because other beliefs are not true, does not mean the Christianity is a myth.
  • O’Reilly cleverly refers to a previous conversation in which Dawkins had said that scientists were looking for a cause for the existence of the universe. He asks how that was coming along. Dawkins, once again, says that it is a process and that scientists “will” figure it out.
  • O’Reilly then posts pictures of three atheistic dictators claiming that their atheism led to mass slaughter of people. Dawkins attempts, as do many atheists, to say that these men adhered to political solutions that have nothing to do with atheism. O’Reilly would have none of it.
  • Carefully note the words "truth" and "magic" in the title of his book. 
  • Finally, O’Reilly states his belief that religion puts boundaries on behaviors that can be destructive to a civil society. I believe that this was the most interesting of his arguments.

I enjoyed this exchange and was impressed by O’Reilly’s comfort in debating Dawkins. O'Reilly, who is not trained in science, took on the underlying assumptions of atheism that have nothing to do with complex scientific understanding. Christians should take a clue. I look forward to the opinions of our readers.



Lydia's Corner: 1 Chronicles 24:1-26:11 Romans 4:1-12 Psalm 13:1-6 Proverbs 19:15-16



Bill O’Reilly Takes on Atheist Richard Dawkins and His New Children’s Book — 39 Comments

  1. Appalled

    I went to that movie “Expelled”. That was a funny scene. Have you read Dawkins followup to that question? He apparently thought it was unfairly presented because he said he thought he was being asked to speculate about other reasonable, natural explanation for the appearance of man. Frankly, he should have said he was caught and say he would “do better” the next time. he came off as a whiney butt.

  2. I’m a Christian. I believe that “God” brought the material universe into existence out of literally nothing. I’m as orthodox as a follower of Jesus can be – I think. But I found O’Reilly in this interview and in his previous interview with Dawkins (whom I have a VERY hard time loving as a Christian should love) to be embarrassing. I wish O’Reilly wouldn’t do this kind of stuff. He makes Christians sound exactly like Dawkins says we are, stupid.

  3. (I’m sorry, I got the bold and premise/ conclusion words wrong last time. You are welcome to delete my previous comment, Dee.)

    Deep down inside, I suspect that many Christians are afraid to take these guys on and are not willing to take the time to learn how to compassionately dialog. I have watched as Christians get huffy when these new atheists make derogatory statements about the faith. We must learn to “turn the other cheek” and continue to exhibit the Spirit of Christ in the face of strong rhetoric. Remember, we have the Holy Spirit; they do not. We must love when they do not.

    I absolutely want to have the spirit of Christ in my way of dialoging with atheists. But my approach differ from that of many other believers. Here is my way of thinking on the matter. Tell me if I differ from a Christian attitude, and if so, where:

    Premise 1: People like Dawkins, Harris and fans got a proud attitude of “I’m smart and you are stupid. We atheists are better than you. Religion should be ridiculed.”

    Premise 2: God opposes the proud, but give grace to the humble. Jas. 4:6
    Surely He scorneth the scorners: but He giveth grace unto the lowly. Pro. 3:34

    How did Jesus treat those proud leaders who were convinced they did not need Him, who told others not to follow Jesus? All his harshest sayings were aimed at them. You may protest: “But those Pharisees were religious and New Atheists are not.” So? Jesus never divided people according to religious-irrelligious, but according to how they respond to Him. By that division, New Atheists fall squarely in the Pharisee camp.

    Conclusion: I truly believe Jesus loved the Pharisees too. But that is exactly why he treated them harshly: They had to know they could not continue as they do.

    As such, I do not treat atheistic commenters on my blog gently. Many of them are provably dishonest. (For example would make a false argument like “Hitler was a Christian,” only to get solid historical evidence that, despite one or two quotes in election speeches, he was not. And then they would repeat the exact same assertion somewhere else.) It is true that it is harder to oppose them than just reading a few short articles, but it is also true that, whenever I actually study what they say, it is logically and factually full of holes. On my mother tongue blog, I’ve often treated their comments with disrespect. I believe that is what Christ would do.

    Any Christian who disagree, is welcome to tell me what truths about Christianity I miss.

  4. I don’t believe Jesus would treat anyone with disrespect. He said nothing when He was brought before the Sanhedrib; He did not berate or belittle them. When He was on the cross, He spoke:”Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.”

    There is one incident where Jesus called them vipers, and when he called them out on their hypocrisy he compared them to white-washed tombs. Yet at other times he patiently answered their questions and deftly stepped over the situations they set up to try to discredit him.

    You, on the other hand (and I might be misunderstanding) seem to be claiming to be systematically rude to atheists. I Cor 13 “Love is patient, love is kind”, I Timothy and I Thessalonians both contain calls to live in such a way that outsiders will respect you as a person, and Colossians 4:46 says that our speech should be gracious when we converse with those outside the faith.

    I for one find that extremely difficult and I don’t always attain gracious speech, kindness and/or patience in the face of open hostility. My brothers in Christ are helping me get there though, by behaving openly hostile to me for asking questions they don’t want to consider. (Think the scene in Princess Bride where Humperdink roars, “I would not say such things if I were you!”) This gives me practice in holding my tongue and squelching the immediate and very human instinct to attack back.

    But alas, I have a long way to go. It’s so hard to be patient in the face of open hostility. Kudos to the illustrious blog queens for being better at it than many. My hat is off to you.


  5. Retha
    Thank you for your well expressed opinion. However, i have a differing perspective. So here goes.

    1. Jesus went after the Pharisees because they, who had knowledge of the faith, had corrupted it so that the people were burdened with rules and regulations. Jesus came to free His people and specifically went after the Pharisees because they knew the prophecies and chose to reject Him.This was an in-house debate and did not involve those outside of the faith. I do not think that we can used the Pharisee argument fro anything but the Pharisees. Now we can perhaps use their example for religious leaders today who burden the people with legalism. This is not applicable to non-Christians.

    2. As for the pride issue, atheists do not have a corner on the market on pride. All of us struggle with this issue. For example, how many of us are embarrassed when our kids act out in front of other people? Why are we embarrassed? Our kids are sinners and so are we. Yet, we try very hard to pretend that we are “good” Christians when, in fact, we are regular screw ups. Pride is at the heart of many issues for both atheists and Christians.

    3. Now, let’s take a look at the early Christians. Have you ever wondered how the Christian faith went from a handful of believers in @30AD to becoming the predominate faith by @300s. Did they do it by attacking the Roman government, calling them hateful and disgusting? They could have, you know. Instead, the Christians were called to martyrdom. They were used as torches at Nero’s garden parties, they were flung into arenas filled with lions and used as sport for the blood thirsty Romans. They went to their deaths, proclaiming the love of Jesus and singing hymns. One female martyr, Perpetua, helped her executioner steady his hand so he could cut off her head. It was this love and joy that the crowds saw that slowly changed their hearts to these amazing Christians.

    4. Did you know that the early Christians formed burial societies. In that culture, the poor did not bury their dead.They threw them into the burning garbage dumps. These Christians would go to their pagan neighbors and offer to care for the body, wrapping the body after cleaning it and then respectfully burying the body. This loving act caused many “proud” Romans to take a second look at these loving Christians.

    5. Let me leave you with a quote by Richard Wurmbrand. He was imprisoned by the Soviets for smuggling Bible into communist countries. As you know, communists are devout atheists. And yet, in the face of horrible persecution and mistreatment, did he point fingers and call his jailers “proud atheists?” No, he loved them unconditionally. I still remember a statement he made that has travelled with me in my journey as a Christian. “When you crush a flower, it rewards you by giving you back it’s perfume. When you crush a Christian, he rewards you by giving you back his love.”

  6. Eagle

    You get it, far better than many Christians who inhabit the pews. It is about love. Christians are saved by grace but struggle with sin. It is the “want to” to change that is the basis of the faith. Yet, so many pretend that they are practically sinless except for a few “little” sins. We aren’t. We should express our belief in grace and our understanding of our neediness.

    Eagle, the longer that I am a Christian, the more aware I am of my fallen nature.

  7. thesauros
    (like you name)

    I think O’Reilly did something very important in this interview. He saw through Dawkins’ smoke. Dawkin’s had cleverly listed many of the more bizarre historical myths of various gods and goddesses to Christianity. There is a war of semantics going on. He who first defines a situation has the leg up in a battle. He defines all religion as a myth . if left unchallenged, this places the faith in a defensive posture. O’Reilly called him on it and distinctly said the faith was truth, not a myth. He therefore leveled the playing field.

    He also went after the latest atheist argument that atheism did not lead to the abuses of Stalin, etc. These folks are rewriting history. He called him on it and said that their atheistic beliefs led to their political views and hence the slaughters. Having spent years talking with atheists, I know that this is one of their pet arguments.

    Did you know that this group-Harris, Dawkins, etc,-are now attempting to portray Hitler as a Christian? It is showing up all over the place. They have “quotes” from Hitler that they say proves it. This then moves Hitler out of the atheist camp into the Christian camp. This is a very dangerous historical revisionism that must be firmly rejected. I believe that O’Reilly did a good job with this by exposing some of this rhetoric. He is not perfect but I think he did his job in this instance.

  8. Shadowspring

    You said “Kudos to the illustrious blog queens for being better at it than many. My hat is off to you.” Thank you for your kindness but I would suggest putting you hat back on. We can identify what we need to do but we fail just as much as everybody else. Our goal is to keep trying with the help of the Spirit. As one of my former pastors, Pete Briscoe, said. The Christian life looks like this. You walk along the road, fall, roll around in the dust, pick yourself up, brush yourself off and continue. The committed Christian will keep falling and keep getting up, pressing on towards the goal which is to hear the phrase “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

  9. Dee
    Challenging the Definition In the war of semantics Is a large part of what you journalists of TWW are doing. I’m reminded of an interview of a Hezbollah spokeswoman “journalist” by a “fair and balanced” male journalist. When he asked about Hezbollah hiding their soldiers amongst women and children, she replied (in a condescending tone), “Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, since that’s what you’ve been taught.” He went right on to another question, leaving her definition of truth totally unchallenged. I was shouting at him through my radio to stop and deal with it. The next time someone on this site says “where’s the Gospel”, I’m thinking of dozens of passages we could quote from Christ or the Apostles, where they did just this same challenging of faulty definitions. Just one, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it” in response to a wrong focus on the “family”.

  10. Thanks, Dee and Shadowspring, for teaching me. Shadowspring, I was not systematically rude towards them. But no need to explain now. What I was need to change anyway.

  11. Appalled

    Well, you made my day! You called us journalists. I sure have moved up in the world from an insignificant middle aged homemaker! Thanks!

    Yes, semantics IS the name of the game. Watch very carefully how Christians place the words “Biblical” or “Gospel” in front of what some would think are debatable issues. For example, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are strict complementarians and many adhere to patriarchy. So, if one is a “soft” complementarian or an egalitarian or one who believes in a radical mutual submission. that person is now defined as “unBiblical” because, obviously, the Council is Biblical. If you disagree with them, you must not be.

    We plan to be writing more about this in the future. Watch for it coming to a church near you.

  12. By all means Dee, do an article on Biblical Schmiblical, and how it’s used as a cudgel to beat the poo-poo out of those who disagree.

  13. Homemaker, blogger, journalist,
    It was the CMW which got me reading TWW to begin with. Due to my womenfolk’s strong concerns over “Feminine Appeal” and other church-ladie’s frequent CMW quotes to them, I decided to do more research. Wanting to find out what Dr Piper might have shared about his sabbatical, I did a web search and discovered TWW and Mr Mahaney’s sabbatical instead. Then I went to the SGM site for more info and found “Male and Female For a Purpose” as the second newest blog entry. As maddening as some of the statements are there, I was even more incensed at the build-up– several paragraphs putting down anyone who might disagree as worldly, self-centered, and unbiblical. I’ve always been pretty much a soft complementarian without being aware of the terms, but the more I read the more egalitarian or radical I become (see 10:6 blog).

  14. I find atheists like Dawkins insufferable. They are the most evangelistic people I have ever seen. Before we know it, they are going to start going door to door like Jehovah’s witnesses trying to convince people.

    These folks have a right to speak and evangelize all they want. Most of propagandists are not really open to dialogue. My advice to the average Christian is not to dialogue with propagandists.

    And while atheists have every right to speak and write like anyone else, they don’t have the right to use government authority and force to propagandize. They should be opposed on that front. And it’s good that there are people who are effective at debating with them. Most Christians are not. The typical Christian is not trained in that, and shouldn’t get into that business. We are called to be witnesses, not debaters. But that doesn’t mean that we should not understand the arguments being made and be able to mentally process that.

    I think that we often make it too tough for someone like O’Reilly to really go hard at a propagandist like Dawkins by misapplying Jesus’ teaching. Anyone who is facing a propagandist shouldn’t play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules (sp?). If a propagandist, atheist or not, makes bad arguments and says things that are silly, they should be called on the carpet in the most effect, and if necessary, harsh, terms possible.

    Having said that, I saw this interview live. I thought O’Reilly did fine. He wasn’t ugly or too tough on Dawkins.

    We may see more of Dawkins and people like him in the future. We should be wise about dealing with them. Most of the time that means to understand what they are saying so that we can help the flock. Most of the time it means not to give them a fight.

    But some have the opportunity and ability to engage in debate. Those people should be prepared and tough.

  15. Anonymous

    Might I recommend Dr. John Lennox to you? He is a colleague of Dawkins and has effectively debated him. He has a CS Lewis mischievous style and is both courteous and thoughtful in his style. I believe he is even smarter than Dawkins. Dawkins respects him just as Christopher Hitchens respects the great Frances Collins.

    I have spent years debating atheists on various sites and have learned a great deal. Even Dawkins has his weak spots as exhibited by Ben Stein in Expelled.

    Lastly, I believe that many Christians have been led down the bunny path when it comes to science. Christians must be prepared to face the issues that are being presented and the stuff on Ken Ham’s site is ridiculous.I pray that the YE people wise up because they are beginning to look more and more like fools in this debate. Lennox is not YE.

  16. Anonymous 10:46 pm, I still agree with you: “If a propagandist, atheist or not, makes bad arguments and says things that are silly, they should be called on the carpet in the most effective, and if necessary, harsh, terms possible.”

    These people are propogandists, and even if I took my reactions too far to one side, I still don’t believe Christians (those who can reason with them)should let them get away with nonsense.

  17. Dee:

    Thanks for the John Lennox reference.

    I have heard that some of Dawkins’ colleagues do not treat his public atheistic arguments and treatises with much respect. They respect him as a scientist but believe that in his public atheistic ventures he crosses the line into other fields where he is not trained.

    Thanks, Retha. My own experiences with propagandistic atheists shows that they are bullies when they can get away with it. Then when they are busted they talk about how uncharitable Christians are. That is a card often played by atheists. When that card is played, It is very telling, in my view. Christians should not be cowed into quitting the debate, especially when they score points.

    Again, most of the time, it’s not worth debating. We should just work and disciple and not spend our time debating these guys. But sometimes, it happens.

  18. Anonymous

    I find that the Lord leads these folks across my path. I think that, if we are willing, God allows us to encounter others, atheists and those of differing faiths. I have grown so much in my understanding of Christianity by learning to answer the objections of others.

    Also, I have made some friends along the way. It is my hope that their exchanges with me will be remembered for both their intelligence and kindness as they walk through life. I want to be the one Christian that they liked. You never know what that will mean years down the line.

  19. Retha

    I don’t believe that we should let them get away with nonsense. I argue steadfastly for the cogency of the faith. Yet, i do so while i show them how much I care about them as people. Most people, except the extremely angry, will soften a bit with a smile and a show of humility.

  20. Dee:

    Having read you for a while, you would be one of the Christians atheists like, by your very nature.

    I am sure that you will agree, however, that trying to be a Christian that atheists like never works out.

  21. I don’t think dee is trying to be a “Christian Atheists like”. I think she is trying not to be an unnecessary “stumbling block”. The Cross is a sufficient stumbling block for the Jews and sufficient foolishness for the non-Jew. There is no need, nor is there reason to, add to it with foolishness of our own invention. Indeed, I would say we become a hindrance to the Gospel when we arrogantly speak of things ‘we know nothing of’ and so create additional roadblocks to faith.

    Here is an example if just absolute idiocy on behalf of some Christians in the YEC camp. Idiocy that borders on the paranoid/delusional. Do you suppose this kind of thing goes unnoticed by those who already have the impression Christians are hateful, arrogant, and ignorant? Do we HAVE to hand them our heads on a platter with garland and dressing?

    From the aptly named “creationwiki” on ‘atheists’ who debate ‘creation (pseudo)science’

    The basic rule of thumb is: never trust what they say, because the anticreationists’ motive is almost always to destroy one’s faith in God and His creation (more than 90% of the time). And this motive is in everything they say and do. Deceptions are an obsession to them because they basically have no moral code when it comes to their beloved theory of evolution; it must always “look” correct.

    “The only time religion is accepted to any degree by an anticreationist is when theistic evolution is what is being talked about. The anticreationist knows that what is “seen” is more of a draw than what takes “faith” to believe. They get a Christian to compromise his or her faith and allow evolution to dictate truth at some level, which will only lead to the believer’s foundation of faith in God to be weakened. This is why they will push so hard to try and get theistic evolution to be accepted in a Christian forum. Evolution is the direct opposite of creation, and will challenge the Christian faith at every turn.”

    I put ‘atheists’ in quotes because this particular entry lumps any and all who debate ‘creationism’ into the camp of ‘atheists’ who sit around divining ways to ‘decieve’ hapless little creationists.

    So, for example, if Francis Collins went on a creationist blog to try to persuade the people posting there that their pseudo-science was harming the very thing they thing they want to support – the cause of Chrisrt – he would be considered an atheist anti-Creationist whose only ‘motive’ was to destroy the faith of others using any method he could.

    This site, and AIG and others, serve up Christianity for dinner, associating Christian faith with absolute ignorance and even delusional paranoia. And the difference here between this and say Westboro Baptist Churh, is that this kind of thing has the FULL support of the MAJORITY of evangelical leaders!

    Once an unbeliever has been directed to this kind of examples of what it means to ‘truly follow Christ’, getting past all that to get them to consider their own mortality or sin in light of the cross becomes almost impossible. You can’t even GET to the issue of the cross. It becomes just one more silly thing we believe (their perspective) among a whole list of PROVABLY idiotic things we think and believe!

    It THAT what we are called to be?


  22. Addenda: This quote is also from the creationwiki page, I forgot to put it in italics:

    “The only time religion is accepted to any degree by an anticreationist is when theistic evolution is what is being talked about. The anticreationist knows that what is “seen” is more of a draw than what takes “faith” to believe. They get a Christian to compromise his or her faith and allow evolution to dictate truth at some level, which will only lead to the believer’s foundation of faith in God to be weakened. This is why they will push so hard to try and get theistic evolution to be accepted in a Christian forum. Evolution is the direct opposite of creation, and will challenge the Christian faith at every turn.”


  23. Zeta

    Awesome thinking. So, when are you going to write a book? Or start a blog? I’ll help you.

  24. Dee:

    “Never” is too strong. You’re right.

    I try to be friendly to all people, and hope that people will like me.

    But I don’t try to make atheists like me. You did not say that, but that’s what I was reacting against.

    The atheists I have known a sharp enough to pick up on when evangelicals are trying to butter them up and play nice.

    I guess it depends on context. Like most things in life.

    If the parents of some other kids on my children’s soccer team and I meet, and they happen to be atheists, I would want them to like me.

    If I meet atheists in a setting where we are discussing atheism, I have found it counter-productive to try to hard. Atheists know when they are dealing with an evangelical who is trying to distinguish themselves from other evangelicals. It’s just so predicatable.

    Atheists are like normal people in most ways (except for their belief in pagan dieties (emoticon missing). They like for people to be themselves.

    I know that you did not mean what I am reacting to, but I hope you catch my drift.

    I heard you to say that you want to live your life and talk about your faith in a way that, to the greatest extent possible, will be attractive to all people, atheists included.

    I would not want to be the one Christian atheists liked. I would just want to be a person that all people, including atheists, would like – who just happened to be a Christian.

  25. Hey, did you guys see the CNN interview of the Westboro Baptist family on Saturday night?

    It was fascinating.

    It was a real adventure in modern anthropology.

    I actually found the mother interesting, in a weird sort of way. She is as smart as a firecracker, but stupid at the same time.

    The kids, who were public schooled, were sad.

    The Patriarch, Fred Phelps, acted senile. I did not feel sorry for him or find him interesting.

    If that comes back on, it is must see T.V.

  26. Anonymous

    Perhaps I need to try again. Jesus said that the world will know us by our love. If I am being authentic, I will be known for my love by all that I encounter. However, it has been my observation, on various sites run by atheists, that Christians come across as angry and arrogant. My intention, with all that I meet, is to be a person inspired by the indwelling Spirit to be a light to those I meet and this includes, but is not limited to, atheists.May they see something in me that is attractive and compelling.

  27. Anonymous

    OB is an awesome person who knows me quite well. And he can testify to the fact that I am very human and given to irritation and frustration. I must remind myself to listen to the Spirit and not my natural instincts on a minute by minute basis. And he is one of the kindest, long-suffering people that I know.He also has good taste in friends. 🙂

  28. RE: dee on Mon, Oct 10 2011 at 03:23 pm:

    “…I must remind myself to listen to the Spirit and not my natural instincts on a minute by minute basis…”

    Sometimes our gut feelings are the ones that are right. If this runs counter to some cherished Pauline texts? So be it. Where else could I say it if not at TWW?

  29. The characteristic of our Lord that is most attractive to the unsaved is his love and mercy, which fit together into grace. If we do not show that, we are showing a false picture of the personality of God.

  30. Muff
    You are always welcome to say it. However, I can think of a few times when I might have slapped someone upside the head who cut me off without the prompting of the Spirit who appears to be concerned about my physical well-being. 🙂