Richard Dawkins, George Pell and Lawrence Krauss are a Few Screws Short of a Bolt

I watched a debate between a Roman Catholic George Pell and Agnostic Richard Dawkins, and two things struck me as very strange what George said.

He said: "The Germans suffered greatly and there was no good reason for the Jews to have suffered" and "The Jewish people are not a very intelligent race of people because they did not excel like the great empires of the Romans or the Persians."

No good reason for the Jews suffering? Jews suffered because evil was perpetrated upon them by Hitler. Secondly, God works evil for good. The good that came about out of it was the League of Nations allowed Israel to become a state again fulfilling a prophecy by Ezekiel who predicted the month and year Israel would become a nation again. What an amazing prophecy!

It occurred to me why George Pell is anti-Semitic because the Roman Church which is the great harlot of religious Rome (Rev. 14.8; ch. 17) places its center on the 7 hilled city of Rome, whereas the Bible places the center in Jerusalem.

The Roman Catholics reject the Jesus who returns to reign on earth with His overcomers over the nations with a rod of iron for 1000 years (Rev. 2.26.27; 20.4-6). They reject the Jesus who houses Himself in the newly constructed 3rd Temple (cf. 2 Thess. 2.4, Rev. 11.2).

Richard Dawkins said the usual stupid stuff claiming something comes from nothing, not realizing even Lawrence Krauss admits his definition of "nothing" is still something. Richard doesn't even realize that Darwin was a theist. Funny! You could see the steam coming out of Richard's ears when he was made aware of this for the first time by the exact page number where Darwin said this of himself in his autobiography.

You can disregard Richard and Lawrence, because you don't need to redefine "nothing" as "in fact something." That's totally stupid! That which does not exist (non-existence) can't cause anything. Even the way Lawrence puts it is wrong, because he says there was nothing that caused a split into matter and anti-matter. My response would be: for it to do so would require a cause from something. Lawrence says "nothing caused a split". If nothing caused a split then nothing in terms of nature should exist, yet here we are. How can such smart people be so stupid? What that tells me is smart people don't have a privileged access to salvation over not so smart people. Therefore, it is about one's conscience with respect to God rather than raw brain power.

Realize what's really going on. Lawrence and Richard are just getting off on their book tours and presentations and debates. They think it is awesome they can make money just babbling mindless rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8hy8NxZvFY