Mark Driscoll is debating the existence of Satan tonight on Nightline. He's joined with a woman named Annie Lobert from Hookers for Jesus (huh??? That's just weird but I've never heard of them before.) for the "yes" side and Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson on the "no" side. Looks promising and I have been watching some of the videos on the ABC site and Mark Driscoll starts out with declaring the Gospel! Woo-hoo! Go Mark!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Watch Nightline tonight - "Does Satan Exist?"
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
- Status
OK - I'm thinking these are all of the videos of the show on the ABC site. It would be about 50 minutes of video! Cool!!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
It also has the first Faceoff with Kirk Cameron debating the existence of God. Looks good too!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
It also has the first Faceoff with Kirk Cameron debating the existence of God. Looks good too!
ray Marshall
New Member
Ann, I just got through watching nightline and I say, "Yes" GOD exist and the Devil absolutely exist also.
Marcia
Active Member
It is ridiculous to have Deepak Chopra discussing this. He doesn't even believe in a personal God. So of course he doesn't believe in a personal Satan. Good grief.
(Btw, I have heard of Hookers For Jesus).
Such programs are the biggest waste of time, and one would gain more by reading the Reader's Digest or some such magazine.
It is like a preacher appearing on one of the talk shows. They are always limited as to what they can say. Oh, a few fundamenalist may get their "hoorays" by the odd statement, but that is all they will get.
Cheers,
Jim
It is like a preacher appearing on one of the talk shows. They are always limited as to what they can say. Oh, a few fundamenalist may get their "hoorays" by the odd statement, but that is all they will get.
Cheers,
Jim
I didn't think it was a waste of time. I think it's important for believers to see how to practically defend their faith. I wish the show on TV would have shown more but Mark Driscoll gave the Gospel right out of the gate (he was the first commenter) and finished out (he was the second to last commenter) reading Scripture. He did very well but I think it would have been more interesting to have seen Piper or Grudem up there instead. 
Deepak would have seen his head spin.
What was interesting was seeing the emotions:
Mark - slightly humored and addressed things right on
Annie - very emotional but without a lot of substance
Deepak - actually got angry at some points toward the Christians - contradicted himself numerous times
Bishop - condescending ("I was there - I believed as you do) and knew Scripture well but didn't make any solid points.
Of course I'm biased and my team was the best. LOL The other side made no sense and made themselves "god" instead of having Someone else with the truth. It was pretty interesting.
Deepak would have seen his head spin. What was interesting was seeing the emotions:
Mark - slightly humored and addressed things right on
Annie - very emotional but without a lot of substance
Deepak - actually got angry at some points toward the Christians - contradicted himself numerous times
Bishop - condescending ("I was there - I believed as you do) and knew Scripture well but didn't make any solid points.
Of course I'm biased and my team was the best. LOL The other side made no sense and made themselves "god" instead of having Someone else with the truth. It was pretty interesting.
Deepak Chopra "All belief is a cover-up for insecurity"
So of course he can't believe in God. He can't believe in anything.
Although he did confirm to an audience member that he fully believes that belief is a cover-up for insecurity. LOL
So his belief that all beliefs are a cover up for insecurity was in fact a cover for insecurity. How "differently abled" of him.
I disagree. Paul engaged the culture at Mars Hill...the forum of the masses at the time. How is this different?
Paul did not "engage the culture at Mars Hill". Paul was "taken", "forced", taken by force to Areopagus. This was a court of judges. And he had no concern about culture. Scripture no where indicates that, he addressed false gods. Pulling a concern for culture out of this passage is reading into it what is not there.
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw the heavily edited version on Nightline last night. Here's what struck me: Driscoll pointed out the contradiction in Chopra's view because, while he says God cannot be defined and he says, therefore, all views of God are valid if they work for the individual, he condemns the Christian for holding to myths. Driscoll said something to this effect, "so you are way up here and we are way down here, yet you say all views are valid". At another point, Driscoll flat-out said "you seem to be filled with pride". Chopra, by his facial reaction and his non-response, effectively admitted that this is true. At that point, I thought of Lucifer's words: "I will ascend..., I will exalt myself". Chopra turned out to be a mimicker of the being whose existence he denies. How deceived can one be?
So...Paul did not engage in apologetics? And we are not to, either?
I'm not insinuating we should compromise with culture. But we should not be afraid to discuss our faith in the public arena.
Do not know where that question came from.
"Culture" is the latest post-modern buzz word that works to make the gospel more palatable.
- Status