Richard Dawkins ran off the rails when he wrote, “there is no good historical evidence that he [Jesus] ever thought he was divine.” Dawkins really stepped in deep doo-doo here. He would have non-thinkers believe that highly intelligent Christian believers willingly went to the stake and to the wild beasts of the arena believing that their Leader was a mere human and remained in the grave! Nonsense! Dawkins is brilliant in his field of biology but out of his field he is dumb as a sack of hair from a barbershop floor.

Jesus said in John 14:9, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” Also, John 5:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” In John 10 Christ declared, “I and my Father are one.” Moreover, Dawkins is so uninformed that he doesn’t know that Christ was crucified because of His profession of deity! There is no reason to pile on supporting texts in this regard. Christ forgives sins. Only a sovereign, omnipotent God can do that. The Apostle Paul surely taught Christ’s divinity in I Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” I think that settles that.

Dawkins declares that the Gospels are not reliable accounts “of what happened in the history of the real world.” He clearly asserts that they were written “long after the death of Jesus.” He tells us that they were written after Paul’s epistles. I have dealt with this elsewhere but will provide one proof that it is Bible haters who are dishonest or uninformed. Dr. John A. T. Robinson launched the “Death of God” movement, so he was far from being a conservative; yet, even he confessed that the complete New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: “One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period–the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple–is never once mentioned as a past fact.” It is impressive when a major enemy confirms the validity of your belief!

The destruction of Jerusalem and the most magnificent Temple in the world is not mentioned in the New Testament books because they were written before that world shattering event! Dawkins and his New Atheist comrades are wrong; probably intentionally wrong.

Then Dawkins takes a hatchet to Luke’s Gospel, where he deals with the birth of Christ, claiming that there was a local census but not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Roman world. Therefore, the Bible is unreliable. No, it is Dawkins who is unreliable. Dawkins asks, “Do these people never open the book that they believe is the literal truth? Why don’t they notice those glaring contradictions?” Those “contradictions” are not glaring contradictions and Dawkins makes a fool of himself by using anti-biblical arguments that have been answered for hundreds of years.

He says “rapture Christians” yearn for nuclear war since it (“this Armageddon”) will bring on the Second Coming of Christ. In my entire ministry I have never met one person who yearned for Armageddon nor have I met one who believed that that great battle will hasten Christ’s return to rapture His saints. The battle of Armageddon does not precede the Rapture of the saints but the Revelation of Christ; however, Dawkins evidently has never heard of the two aspects of Christ’s coming. Dawkins is much more reliable with bugs than with the Bible.

I document scores of Dawkins and his fellow-atheists’ mistakes in my eBook, The God Haters: Angry Atheists, Shallow Scholars, Silly Scientists, Embattled Evolutionists, and Pagan Preachers Declare War on Christians. It is shocking, startling, and surprising that scholars would be so careless, clueless, and crazy to make so many mistakes in their polemic against God. It seems these people who call themselves the “brights” (as opposed to us dims!) are more evangelistic in their hatred of a God “who doesn’t exist” than those of us who believe in Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls.

They would say that they are trying to set the record straight and correct everyone’s thinking; however, they don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Peter Pan, and the Tooth Fairy yet they haven’t mounted a crusade against those iconic figures. Maybe after they defeat God they will go after the others.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 15 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His shocking book, ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse!; Christian Resistance: An Idea Whose Time Has Come–Again!; and The God Haters are all available at Amazon.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Those who are Bible-oriented and Bible-directed have problems with her chosen life of perversion. Yes, I could have been less direct and offensive but some slow readers would not have comprehended my message which is Bible-sourced in Rom. 1:26: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” The Bible teaches that when a person comes to Christ, he or she is a new person. Old things pass away and everything becomes new. New includes a bed partner of the opposite sex to whom one has made a lifetime commitment in marriage, or no bed partner.

From my limited reading about her, she seems to be very sincere and very dedicated to helping the displaced, the discouraged, and the diseased. All very commendable, but the social gospel (where social work is emphasized and the true Gospel is eliminated) has never worked, is not working now, and will never work. It will serve some helpless, hopeless, and hapless people but such activities did not take my grandmother or “Mother” Teresa to Heaven and good works won’t help Sara.

That said, my big concern is her “conversion” experience. Now, all conversion experiences are not identical; however there are some common denominators: the risen Christ; the Word of God; repentance; and belief. It doesn’t have to be in church with an organ playing and the choir singing “Just as I am” but it does have to be a New Birth experience. If not, there is no conversion. Sara gives no indication of such a Bible experience. In fact, she said that “Salvation is not an experience; it is a journey.” False! The New Birth is comparable to the physical birth and all birth certificates have a name, place, time, and parents listed. Rather definite like the New Birth. Both births are the starting point of a new life.

Sara wrote, “Eating Jesus, as I did that day to my great astonishment, led me against all my expectations to a faith I’d scorned and work I’d never imagined. The mysterious sacrament turned out to be not a symbolic wafer but actual food—indeed, the bread of life.” What a twisted understanding of the Gospel. There is no salvation in a ritual. It is the old Roman Catholic heresy of the bread and wine actually becoming the body of Christ. A reviewer of Sara’s book, Take this Bread: A Radical Conversion, wrote, “But she ate a piece of bread, took a sip of wine, and found herself radically transformed.” Afraid not. She became a doer of good but that is not salvation. Good works proceed from the New Birth; they do not produce the New Birth.

In The Jesus Freak: Feeding Healing Raising the Dead (Rob Bell said: “one of the most inspiring books I’ve ever read.”) she writes, “that Jesus has given us the power to be Jesus.” No, He gives us power to live so that we remind people of Him. Such godly living would determine our sleeping arrangements. Christians cannot become “little gods” or “human Christs.” Such teaching is heresy. Sara continues her heresy when she wrote: “You have the authority to forgive sins. Raise the dead.” No, that is not true. No human can forgive sins, only God does that. Additionally, Christ gave authority to the Apostles that He did not give to other followers. And none of her Episcopal or Catholic fiends are raising the dead either.

She compares John the Baptist (calling him a “nutcase”) to an unwashed guy with “skanky dreadlocks” sleeping at the library entrance. She shows no understanding or appreciation for the local church that Christ died for.

One reviewer wrote, “Sara Miles shows genuine transformation and her life has clearly been changed. Repentance in the Bible is often NOT about contrition but about ‘metanoia’ which means ‘to live in a new direction.’ Miles seems to display this in clear and meaningful ways as a part of her conversion and encounter with Christ.” The shallowness is appalling. Yes, there was a change in her life. She stopped being an atheist but that commendable change did not make her a Christian. When a person becomes a Christian, change follows that experience.

Furthermore, the reviewer’s differentiation between repentance and contrition is bogus. Paul clearly wrote in II Cor. 7:10 “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation.” Repentance is a change of mind and heart that results in a reverse of direction. It means “to change one’s mind, repent, a fundamental change of character.”

Christianity Today, in a review, was unable to be judgmental about Sara’s conversion and her subsequent lifestyle; however, it can be very judgmental about Fundamentalists! It reported, “Miles became pregnant. She and the father, Bob, another journalist, settled in San Francisco, where their daughter Katie was born. Here Miles’s life took on a new domesticity, rooted in one place. Bob, ‘who had come out as a gay man,’ lived nearby. And Miles and Katie…began to share their home with Martha, an editor with whom Miles had fallen in love.”

The review continues, “But it would be a shame if such lapses kept evangelicals from reading Miles, who has no doubt been at the receiving end of plenty of caricatures (not least, the preposterous claim that living arrangements such as hers constitute a great threat to ‘the family’).” Yeah, a real shame.

So, Christianity Today recommends her books and even defends her lesbianism (although characterizing such as “lapses”) saying it is “preposterous” that such a life could be a threat to “the family.” I wonder if the magazine could muster up enough courage to declare that such a life is not conducive to a normal, Christian family? Does the magazine recommend that homosexuality be accepted and recognized as normal? Just asking.

Maybe someday CT will acquire enough biblical certainty, courage, convictions, and candor to make a judgment about sin even if it agitates, angers and alienates their subscribers.