ROTFLOL...
I needed that laugh...
Definitely an Old Testament kind of perspective...
Posted by Roy Batty at August 31, 2005 02:29 PM*blink*
Why is it I'm still shocked by these conservative wingnuts?
Why?
I hope Marcavage is visted by the Ghost of Mardi Gras past - a repentent Fred Phelps in drag and rouge.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 31, 2005 02:37 PMThis was the original story...
Posted by Roy Batty at August 31, 2005 02:42 PMof course the more mainstream Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on the gays and decadence
would expect anything less from these crackpots
Posted by distributorcap at August 31, 2005 02:43 PMFunny, I don't see JWest posting here calling for "unity" and condemning the hateful words of these allegedly religious leaders in a time of catastrophic disaster...wonder why?
Posted by emal at August 31, 2005 02:56 PMhahahahahahahahahah
wow
i thought it was god punishing the red states for putting curious george in office a second time.....
Posted by at August 31, 2005 03:35 PMYes, Biloxi and Gulfport Mississippi have always seemed like bastions of dirty gay porn sex. God was smart to destroy them.
I think I'll stay right here in San Francisco where it's safe.
I think I'll stay right here in San Francisco where it's safe.
Well, from hurricanes.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 31, 2005 03:56 PMI agree. May we all begin to think about what we tolerate with our "city limits" and begin to throw these mouthbreathing religious nuts out.
Posted by roamer at August 31, 2005 03:58 PMActually, Katrina was God's rebuke to Pat Robertson and his pals for that clarion call to assassination. I'm sure of it, cause God told me so herself this morning through my little fluffy dog - and she never lies. Woof! Oh, and she says that there is no gravity - the world just sucks. (;>
Posted by Donald Cormac at August 31, 2005 03:59 PMLucky for these people, we don't lock up psychotic loons. Do they really believe that God is involved in this destruction? Obviously, they have not read the New Testament. If God was that revengeful, he would have smitten their ass a long time ago.
Posted by Judith at August 31, 2005 04:16 PMSteve, you're working overtime today...and doing a fine job I might add....now where are Tubby, and Muckmind, JWest and the rest of the scum that love to rail at you...I read the Repent America site...whew, man there are some sick s.o.b's around......maybe boxing this bunch up and shipping 'em to South Carolina isn't such a bad idea....maybe we can get the Berlin Wall builders to cement these morons inside....in fact I was so choked, I showed them the way to true salvation!!
Posted by Goyo at August 31, 2005 04:27 PMFools. What has been one of New Orlean's nicknames for over two centuries? I think it's something like "The City that care forgot" That town has had so many disasters, not least from epidemics and floods, that it is a wonder that it survived at all. And why was the French Quarter spared the worst destruction? There is still enough there to loot. That means it is in a lot better shape than most of the rest of the city, or the cost of Mississippi.
Anyway, same story with SF in 1906, the Catholic cathedral went down, but Hotelling's distillary was still standing proud after the quake and fire.
Funny how these fundamentalist sectarian nuts forget about collective morality when the find it convenient (it's all about personal salvation, so poverty social justice or peace be damned) but call down damnation on whole peoples (of whatever individual beliefs) when it suits their purpose. Fools or kanves or both. Definitely opportunistic hate mongers. But Jesus is coming back to kick ass, kill, exterminate, and torture anyone not in His club next time, according to them, so it's all OK.
The people of Lousiana are so nice, have built such an interesting culture, and so friendly, both the red blue and purple part of the state, that to condemn them in their distress in this way is disgusting, and only filth would do that.
Posted by loosiana lover from CA at August 31, 2005 04:39 PMCome to mind, there is a verse from the New Testament that explicitly contradicts their hate speech. There apparently was some contemporary accident, a building fell down and crushed a bunch of people who had ignored Jesus' teachings, and apparently the disciples ask if that happened because of their lack of belief. Jesus said something like "Do you really think that tower fell down and crushed them because of their beleifs? You fools!"
I can't think of the book or verse now. Anyone know of it? I hope I got it correct, but that is my distinct recollection. If I have it correct, it shows just how Bible believing these people are.
Then there is the parables of the wheat and the tares, and several more... another ball o' wax that directly contradicts what they say, on their own terms.
Posted by loosiana lover again at August 31, 2005 04:51 PMYeah... not a surprise there are as many (if not more) loons on the far right as the far left... to quote the one prediction http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025098.php#025098 unders collect your bets. (the bet was over/under at 3 days before a loon blamed it on sin)
I just can't figure out how God could have missed Key West. The storm was so close and one jog south would have taken out another batch of sinful folks.
Jesus warned, and prophesied, of False Teachers. So did New Testament writers, again and again. The most devastating obstacle to the progress of Christianity among men has been its ruthless corruption at the hands of its own promoters, besmirched almost beyond recognition.
Loosiana, the verse you mentioned is probably Luke 13:4. Perhaps this verse says more about no sin being greater than another, but it is clear that sin leads to the death of the spirit or soul, not destruction from God.
Posted by Judith at August 31, 2005 08:35 PMthanks, Judith
Here is King James Version (public domain)
Luke 13
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Dn't mss th pnt f th Bbl qt, tht nlss y rpnt, y shll lkws prsh. Nn f s dsrvs ny bttr thn wht th vctms r sffrng, bt vryn stll bl shld tk th pprtnty t gt rght wth Jss Chrst bfr thr wn rntn.
[Editor: ignore=off]I'm a Pentecostal who disagrees with this view. Unfortunately many, many Christians believe erroneous religious teachings instead of the Bible:
To put it simply, God didnt do it. There is a different relatioship between God and man since the Resurrection:
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" JAMES 1:17
"The thief comes not but to steal, kill, and destroy, but I have come that you may have life, and have it more abundantly." (JN 10:10)
If, you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in Heaven give unto those who ask? (MT 7:11)
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good ? (NUM 23:19)
Posted by PaidFor at August 31, 2005 09:45 PMThe preceding have been paid political messages on behalf of the Invisible Cloud Being.
Please don't miss the point that the Bible is a lot of old myths and survival doctrine cobbled together and spun so that the Jeebus myth would replace the pagan legends in the hearts and minds of the godless heathens of the time. Or that a decreasing but volatile majority of the population believes in one form of said Invisible Cloud Being or another. And they've killed others who don't share their religious insanity, or commit what they consider to be blasphemous behavior, in our lifetimes.
Posted by (: Tom :) at September 1, 2005 02:59 AM"The Bible is a lot of old myths and survival doctrine cobbled together."
Tom, while you have the right to believe what you want, I would ask that you respect those of us who believe in a God. I will never show distain towards those who don't believe because their path is different than mine.
Posted by Judith at September 1, 2005 04:39 AMPaidfor, of course God didn't do it. It's like blaming God for the suffering of mankind.
Posted by Judith at September 1, 2005 04:41 AMTom,
Human beings don't need religion as a reason to kill each other. They find plenty of reasons without it.
Judith,
Tom has no respect for those who believe in God so why bother asking him to express some? Simply accepting his lack of respect as his right will serve you better than seeking to confront it.
Posted by muckcat at September 1, 2005 06:10 AMExcuse me? I did not say anywhere that I have no respect for those who believe in God.
I did point out that I have seen a few other explanations for how the content in the bible got to be in the bible. Perhaps I was not as tactful as those who believe in that book are when they condemn sodomites, adulterers, and others who do not ascribe to their beliefs as spelled out in that book. Perhaps.
I would also like to point out at this time that, by the tone and nature of your comments, you do not have the same level of respect for those who don't believe in your god. And that, while you ask me to respect your faith, there are those among the faithful who feel obligated to save those who are not, and will go to almost any length to do so. Including forcing me to hear all about their beliefs and what their holy book says and how I need to believe in it if I hope to be respected as a human being. I suppose I should be happy - at least people like me are not being burned at the stake anymore, right?
I would be more than happy to be completely silent on this matter, provided that those of you who believe in that sort of thing are completely silent about it too. However, I have to say that in my opinion I do not challenge the beliefs of the faithful nearly as much as they challenge the perceived lack of faith in my belief system.
I apologize if I have offended any of those who have faith in a religious system with my comments. When exactly can I expect some sort of apology for dragging the Invisible Cloud Being into the conversation from those of the faith?
Posted by (: Tom :) at September 1, 2005 07:21 AMTom's reference to the "Invisible Cloud Being" indicates the existence of said being. He did not say "Imaginary Cloud Being."
As for PaidFor's quotations from the Bible...how does your quoting the Bible help anyone in New Orleans or Biloxi or Mobile or any of the other small towns in between that get no media coverage? Or for that matter help anyone reading this post? Are your quotes going to convert anyone?
I am not opposed to religious belief. But with what certainty can you say that one group (or all groups other than yours) has erroneously interpreted the Bible or had erroneous religious teaching? You only believe (or have faith as you say) that you are right. Well, those others believe (have faith) that they are right and you are wrong. So what do we do/how do we settle the dispute? We can't. God cannot be understood by man...it is that simple.
Live and let live. Or as some of my more fundamentalists friends would say, live and let burn in hell.
Posted by the professor at September 1, 2005 08:01 AMTom,
Why bother denying it? Your use of terms like "Invisible Cloud Being", "Jeebus myth", "volatile majority" and "religious insanity" are clear enough indications of the contempt you have for people who hold serious religious beliefs. Why not just admit that? My point to Judith was that her asking you to express respect was exactly the thing that you would expect her to say and that she would be better served by simply ignoring your comment. Your response was exactly what I expected.
Posted by muckcat at September 1, 2005 08:36 AMI must respectfully disagree with you on this, muckcat, and suggest you look to the professor's comments previous to your own.
And I would like to point out that my comment was mainly in response to this from Usama Ben Ditto:
Don't miss the point of the Bible quote, that unless you repent, you shall likewise perish. None of us deserves any better than what the victims are suffering, but everyone still able should take the opportunity to get right with Jesus Christ before their own ruination.
Posted by Bendito at August 31, 2005 09:29 PM
Believe whatever you want to believe in the privacy of your own home. But when we've got Pat Robertson praying for assasination, and no major religious organizations condemning that statement (but a lot of people who have faith don't approve of misusing the faith in that way), Fred Phelps blaming everything on the gays because somebody wrote in a book somewhere that he should, proseletyzers ringing my doorbell on Saturday morning to tell me how I need to believe the way they believe, religious leaders trying to blame a natural disaster on sinners in New Orleans, and others telling me that this is a sign that I need to be more religious, then I tend to be a bit sensitive on the issue.
I have tried not to let my religious beliefs intrude into any arguments I make. They're private, and I have no business using them to judge others. I wish that some of these people claiming to speak in their god's name could do the same thing...
Posted by (: Tom :) at September 1, 2005 08:50 AMTom,
I have no beef with you whatsoever.
But that doesn't change the fact that nothing you've written since denying you have no respect for those with religious beliefs expresses that you have any such respect. Telling people to keep it to themselves does not equate to respecting their beliefs. That was and is my only point. So again, why deny it? Why not just be straight about it.
Posted by muckcat at September 1, 2005 09:09 AMMuckcat,
So if I think someone is ugly/stupid, I should tell them? After all, ...why deny it? Why not just be straight about it.
What does it benefit anyone for me to say what I think in that situation?
If what one has to say does not add to the debate, but is only personal beliefs/opinions about someone else, it doesn't belong in the debate. You can think/believe it all you want...everyone has that right. And yes, before anyone rails against me, yes one has the right to say what one thinks. But the key is knowing when to exercise your rights and when to exercise self-control.
Simplified rule for everyone...if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Shucks, I learned that from watching the movie 'Bambi'.
Posted by the professor at September 1, 2005 09:30 AMSo if I think someone is ugly/stupid, I should tell them? After all, ...why deny it? Why not just be straight about it.
If you malign someones appearance and the person calls you on it and you deny that your remarks belied a derogatory opinion of their appearance you're either fooling yourself or expressing an even greater lack of respect for the person than your original comments did. Your analogy does not fit the circumstances here professor. No one is asking anyone to express every feeling they have. But if you tell someone that you think Person A is ugly, it gets back to Person A and they confront you about whether you think they're ugly or not what would you do? Deny you said it? There's a model for open communications and relationships built upon respect for each other.
But the key is knowing when to exercise your rights and when to exercise self-control.
Hence my original advice to Judith;
Simply accepting his lack of respect as his right will serve you better than seeking to confront it.
A direct appeal to Judith to to display some self-control because her responce to Tom did nothing, I'd imagine, but reinforce his attitude about religious people.
Posted by muckcat at September 1, 2005 10:31 AMYou can keep your imagination to yourself as well as what you think I need to admit, muckcat.
You are correct, I have said nothing one way or the other about giving or denying respect for an individual's private beliefs. I have said quite a bit about what I consider to be inappropriate public displays of faith. I have said quite a bit about people who, in my opinion, abuse others' faith for their own ends. Because they have done so in public.
I notice that there is only one person (so far) who figured out that I was not attacking anyone's religion, but rather their belief that certain books were written by their god(s). I was brought up to believe that the bible was divinely inspired, and after extensive research, I discovered that an awful lot of things in the bible have uncanny parallels to pagan rituals - almost like they were based on them and then spun to support their (new at the time) religious beliefs. And that a lot of the advice on what to eat, what to do, etc. sounds an awful lot like a what to do in order to survive manual. Where exactly do I disrespect others' faith in these statements?
I would like to say that when someone says something like:
Tom, while you have the right to believe what you want, I would ask that you respect those of us who believe in a God. I will never show distain towards those who don't believe because their path is different than mine.
Posted by Judith at September 1, 2005 04:39 AM
I feel as though they don't disdain me, but they do not respect me as much as they would if I believed the same way they did.
And when I see:
Paidfor, of course God didn't do it. It's like blaming God for the suffering of mankind.
Posted by Judith at September 1, 2005 04:41 AM
it crosses my mind that god never gets the blame for the suffering, but gets all the credit for everything good. And it sounds an awful lot like Putsch didn't do it if it's bad - that's all Clinton's fault. Neither of which, in my opinion, seem to be logical. I mean, if god created satan (as I believe it is written in that bible the faithful extensively quote), then he is ultimately responsible for the evil that is created, right? If god is all-knowing then god would have known that this sort of thing would happen when satan was created.
Judith's response did not reinforce my attitude about religious people. It did reinforce my belief that progressives are on edge everywhere and overly sensitive to what they perceive to be attacks directed at them*. And I believe, based on the comments she has left here before, Judith shares my sense of moral outrage that people's faith is being shamelessly exploited by conservative religious extremists. I wouldn't have even bothered to try and explain any of this if it was one of the more ideologically inflexible who frequent this site who had suggested that I have a lack of respect for those who believe in any religion.
Ben Ditto's response, however, did reinforce my belief that Publicans have an almost religious fervor about the Illegally Installed Usurper. As has most of the major televangelists; the people involved in Just Us Sunday Too; and most of the faith based initiatives that my tax dollars have helped pay for over the last five years. And I don't see many of the faithful spending their time and effort to say they don't speak for me or they're abusing my faith. All I see is some progressive people wanting me to admit that I am prejudiced against a certain segment of the population because of what they believe in their hearts. When I can only admit that I am prejudiced against those who use their religion as a tool to judge and influence their peers, or feel that it is their duty to make everyone else believe the way they do.
* - and, yes, I am as guilty as the next progressive of that failing these days...
Posted by (: Tom :) at September 1, 2005 11:26 AMI'm not really looking for a confrontation with you. Frankly I don't care what you think about God or the bible or organized religion in general. My comment to Judith stands. Why ask for respect when the better route is to accept the attitudes of others and move on. Perhaps I could have been more tactful in my phrasing as well.
Posted by muckcat at September 1, 2005 12:12 PMmuckcat,
Sorry...I misinterpreted your post. I am glad we agree that speaking one's mind (the personally perceived truth) is not always the best policy.
I also did not intend to incite or perpetuate a confrontation...there are greater things that we should be debated. My last comment on the communication issue is that it is the responsibility of the sender of a communicaiton to ensure it was 1) received and 2) understood by the receiver to mean what the sender intended. If there is a misunderstanding, the sender needs to 1) resend the message if it wasn't fully received or 2) rephrase the message so it can be better understood.
Can all have one big group hug now?
Posted by the professor at September 1, 2005 12:27 PMCan all have one big group hug now?
Sorry I don't hug blasphemers.
Kidding!
Just kidding! A little joke. That's all.
Posted by muckcat at September 1, 2005 01:02 PMJeez guys, all I was saying is that it hurts me when someone makes fun of my religion, which is exactly what I thought Tom was doing. All I was asking for was just a little respect, not that someone not express himself with a different point-of-view. I guess it was the delivery that got me.
Posted by Judith at September 1, 2005 10:12 PMMuckcat, I will listen to your good advice in the future.
Tom, I have no problem with you, as you and I are on the same wave length almost 100% of the time. And yes, you know the problem I have with so-called "religious" people. Let's kiss and make-up. ;)
Posted by Judith at September 1, 2005 10:19 PMLOL Judith! I didn't even know we were fighting - that's what passes for a mild disagreement in my (very very very Catholic) family. The kissing and the making out, er, making up, is still more than appreciated ;)
I felt like I had to say something because I couldn't bear the thought that you felt like I was disrespecting the beliefs of people like you. It appears that that message has gotten through...
Posted by (: Tom :) at September 2, 2005 08:49 AMThanks Tom.
Posted by Judith at September 2, 2005 03:19 PM