Below is from Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday:RUSH: As you people know, I really do not like to stray into religion, because religion is personal and it's faith-based, and to argue about it is not productive. So I very rarely like to stray into it, but there's a news story out that's been out there for a couple days that I have to address, because it bugs me. The liberal Christians out there, these wacko Christians that are liberal just try my patience. It's that time of year again just before Christmas, when some religious leaders feel the need to explain that the miracles of the Bible never happened, or that the homeless roaming the streets in Buffalo are the modern equivalent of Mary and Joseph. We get the bastardization of the story of the Bible this time of year by liberal Christians. Today's violator, if you will, is no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, and what he says is that the star of Bethlehem, the star of Bethlehem "rising and standing still," he said stars "they just don't behave like that." Now, that is the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is a man of the cloth, and he said that it's just not possible. Stars don't just stop up there.
He also says that "belief in the Virgin Birth should not be a 'hurdle' over which new Christians had to jump before they" can be signed up as Christians. You can be a Christian without believing that. No big deal. I mean, who really thinks that happened anyway? says the Archbishop of Canterbury. Well, a lot of Christians know where his reasoning is going to end up, or where this line of reasoning will take you, because it ends up denying the fundamental basis of Christianity, which is the Resurrection. Because if that didn't happen, then the whole thing is in trouble, and if these biblical miracles didn't happen, the star of Bethlehem didn't stop, if there was no virgin birth, then, of course, there probably wasn't a resurrection. In which case, what the hell is the Archbishop of Canterbury doing in the business, if he wants to rewrite it this way?
...Now, the Resurrection. I've told you about the French philosopher, Pascal. Blaise Pascal. He was just agonizing over trying to find earthly proof of the existence of God, aside from inanimate objects and the existence of human beings. He was looking for some sign, and, of course, there is no sign that we knowingly receive. So he began to philosophize about it, and the Resurrection was his problem point. He said, "If that didn't happen, then all of this might be bogus." So he said, "How do I explain the Resurrection?" This is the thing about religion and the Bible, people take it on faith, but truly inquiring minds, curious minds, are going to examine it and try to establish proof for themselves rather than just have to accept the word of others. It's natural. It's part of the way we're created; there's nothing wrong with it. So Pascal set about to explain to himself in a satisfactory way the Resurrection, and I'm going to paraphrase, because I don't have it right in front of me, but he basically said, "It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that's never been can be," which takes me back to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. He said that the star didn't stop, and he said that the virgin birth, you don't have to believe that. Why would anybody not believe in these things?
Isn't it because they are contrary to scientific laws, contrary to how we observe nature operating? If we don't see it operating a certain way, scientists say, "It couldn't have happened that way." Yet -- yet, ladies and gentlemen -- our very existence cannot be explained by science. The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?
What law of physics explains that? We don't have one. They've had to create it because they haven't observed it. The Big Bang is as much an article of faith as anything else is in any other religion. It's just like the other day. We found out nobody in the world of science or medicine has yet to prove that unsaturated fats, saturated fats, whatever, clog your arteries and make you sick. Nobody has ever proved it. Yet we all believe it, and a lot of people run around believing the Big Bang. Nobody can prove it, and the laws of physics as we know them cannot explain it, and yet we accept it. So what's the problem with Dr. Rowan Williams? You can claim that the universe has always existed, if you want, on the other hand, but if you do that -- if you say that the universe has always existed -- now you're violating the next most important law in science, which is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything is running down and wearing out...
Therefore, here's the bottom line: Whether he knows it or not (and this is the key point here for the Archbishop of Canterbury), his very existence is a miracle, as is all of ours a miracle. That is, it cannot be explained by modern science. By the way, the Archbishop of Canterbury also said the nativity scene is a "legend." Not real, just a legend. So for those of you out there who feel compelled to take some of your Christian beliefs, discard the miracles, and replace them with modern science and thereby invent a new religion, go right ahead -- and if this is what Dr. Rowan Williams wants to do, if he wants to throw out the things in Christianity that he just can't explain in his "superior mind," go ahead, Dr. Williams. But just don't call it Christianity. You are distorting and debasing it. Call it whatever you want. Call it Williamsism. I don't care what you call it, but do not call it Christianity. When you start cherry-picking things that you want, cherry-picking things that your superior mind says you can't possibly accept because stars don't stop; there's no virgin both, and nobody can rise from the dead, fine. Go base your own religion on that; find the flock that you want, but don't call it Christianity.
Read the Background Material:
• UK Times: It's All a Christmas Tall Story
• FOX: Archbishop of Canterbury Dismisses Nativity Scene as Nothing but 'Legend'
