It’s Just Pat.
By on Jan 5th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
It’s Just Pat.
Right-wing evangelist Pat Robertson suggested that Ariel Sharon’s stroke occurred because he was “dividing God’s land.” Robertson: “I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course…God said, ‘This land belongs to me, you better leave it alone.’” (Video at Media Matters)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sharon could't be having this major stroke because he is nearly 80 and weighs 500 pounds. No, it's God. I thank Rev. Robertson for pointing this out to us.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:22 pm...and what does O'Riely have to say about this...slow news day?
January 5th, 2006 at 3:24 pmumm, if you believe in God, would not the entire earth belong to Him?
January 5th, 2006 at 3:25 pmIt's truly sad that Pat Robertson still has enough people supporting him that he can afford to run his program.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:25 pm...nearly 80 and weighs 500 pounds, and he's been on blood-thinners for several weeks, which frequently have the nasty side-effect of leading to cerebral hemorrhages.
I suspect whacko Pat has sprung a few leaks in his head too -- good thing for him, there's no gray matter in there to harm.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:27 pmwhy does any-body even listen to him anymore? He is as bad as O'lielly!
January 5th, 2006 at 3:27 pmAnd why pray-tell does Dick Chenney have all those precedures on his ol ticker? Well... I don't need Pat Robertson to tell me its because Darth Chenney has NO HEART.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:27 pm‘This land belongs to me, you better leave it alone.’
Yeah, like I can picture god saying something so stupid. The whole fvcking world belongs to god, not just some piece of desert.
Why exactly is the desert considered the promised land. I would be pissed if I wondered through the desert for 40 days and forty nights following a pillar of smoke during the day and a pillar of fire at night, just to end up finding out that the promised land was more freaking desert.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:29 pmSo, when is Pat Robertson planning on having his stroke, that is if he hasen't already had one.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:30 pmFunny stuff! Keep it up you Neocon freaks! You'll be laughed out of your own churches soon!
January 5th, 2006 at 3:31 pmOut own home grown religious whacko makes the same comment about Sharon that the religious whacko leader of Iran makes.
Coincidence?
January 5th, 2006 at 3:32 pmSomeone needs to smack some sense into robertson pudding brain..I am not a fan of Sharon's with the way he supports treatment of the Arab people but I have to say this
Robertson is a danger to Israel along with his "Theme Park for Christians". As a Jew I see this neo christianity as a threat to all of us Jews,Muslims and other world religions and the sooner we shut him down for good ie like taking away his mic and tv time the better the world will become.
This goes for every neo-christian .. tony perkins,james dobson and all their ilk ... I say POX on all of them...
We can start by calling his sponsors . We are refusing to purchase your products unless you stop adv on the 700 club and other neo christian programs. We really need to hit them the way they hit Progressive's and Liberals..
January 5th, 2006 at 3:32 pmAny conservative who has the gald to call himself a Christian lives in denile. Christianity has nothing in common with the Conservative ideology.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:32 pmAh. The mouth of Pat Robertson. Gotta love him. He's the American Christian's very own Ayatollah. How proud they must be.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:35 pmAwesome story.....
Tulsa Pastor Arrested In OKC On Lewdness Charge
http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/5845859/detail.html
Anti gay pastor solicits male prostitute - hilarious!!!!!!
January 5th, 2006 at 3:37 pmPat is such a parasite. Pat Robertson only believes in the word of God until the Bible contradicts him. Then Pat forgets who God is and what he teaches us. If you cut out all the verses in the New Testament that teachabout charity and social or economic justic, you have just enough room to smuggle Rush Limbaugh's drugs.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:38 pmAre these people ( Pat Robertson etc.) beginning to scare anyone? I'm more scared of them than the terrorists. I really am.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:38 pmAnti gay pastor solicits male prostitute - hilarious!!!!!!
Our current President did the same thing with Jeff Gannon. I found that hilarious too.
Squeaky tight ReichWingNutWackJob christians. It could happen only in America.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:39 pmOnly in America.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:40 pmNothing is as it seems anymore. I used to think my friends were being paranoid when they talked about goverment spying, fundies frothing at the mouth about homo's and abortion. This was back in the nineties, when the economy was chugging along, I could hang out in Europe without being dispised because of my goverments actions, when everything could be talked about openly without the fear of bieng labeled as complicit with terrorists. Now.. well, let's just say I watch a lot more tv. Ohh, Battlestar Glactica's on!
January 5th, 2006 at 3:41 pmDividing God's land, huh? Would that be by building a humungous concrete wall, or by withdrawing from designated Palestinian territory...
If I was any good as a cartoonist, I'd draw Pat Robertson taking a dump on the roadmap to peace. That's about as pleasant an image as I can think of.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:42 pmYikes!! Pat has scared me now...As a resident of Georgia, home of Zell Miller, Saxby Chambliss,Sonny Purdue, Bob Barr,and a whole host of various other whackos, I live in fear, of the plague of locust, god must surely be planning on decending upon us..
January 5th, 2006 at 3:43 pmPat Robbersin and Jerry Fartwell both preach the Prosperity Gospel--pretty much the opposite of what Jesus preached during his time on Earth.
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus"
January 5th, 2006 at 3:45 pmThe conflation of religion and real estate always leaves me cold.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:46 pmSci Fi helps, Brian, for sure. On the gays in Tulsa subject? There are some pretty hard core intense gay comminities out in good ole West Texas. VERY seedy!
January 5th, 2006 at 3:47 pmIsn't is convenient that Robertson is so attuned to God's thoughts? (Does a deity have thoughts?)
January 5th, 2006 at 3:50 pmIf there is a god in the heavens or wherever and he created the universe, then why is he taking ownership of a strip of land in the middle east on the planet earth in the milky way galaxy?
Why don't Robertsons' followers see the stupidity of their leader? Lest we get into another Biblical debate -- the Bible was written by man, over centuries, and revised by King James about 500 years ago. It was originally folklore, mythology, and paganism based upon natural occurrences, coopted by the early Christians (Jews).
Robertson is a lunatic.
Hmm, 26 comments posted and not a troll among them.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:50 pmPeople who believe that the gods interfere with our lives demean the power of god. If gods really needed to interfere in our lives in order to have a purpose, they sound like pretty pitiful and unsatisfied creatures. It's just the sort of religious hysteria one would expect from someone a straightjacket away from their birthday suit.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:51 pmAnother hypocritical conservative christian located in Oklahoma soliciting for male prostituion.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:53 pmHe claims he was "set up" -- these guys are so predictable and ridiculous. Who are the brainless ones who believe them?
Dear God,
There's a maniac named Pat Robertson saying evil things in your name. Please kill him.
Sincerely yours
JIMBO
January 5th, 2006 at 3:54 pmI've always been confused about this whole christianity thing.
Christianity says there's only one god.
Yet Jesus is supposedly the 'son' of god, and has the powers of god, including healing, walking on water, casting out demons, reversing death and any number of other godlike powers.
And Jesus had the power of re-birth as a god.
So doesn't that mean that Christianity is a poly-theist (pagan) religion?
Jesus can't be god, and the 'son' of god at the same time, so that means he's also a god.
It's just bizarre how people believe all of this stuff without using their brains for the 2 seconds to realize this is just some myths, just like every other myth that mankind has used to try to understand the world. Science gives us REAL ways to understand the world, myths just give us excuses to be lazy and not to make the effort.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pmDear God,
Please save me from your followers!
Sincerely Yours - ME
January 5th, 2006 at 3:57 pmMarie,
Did you hear if the minister was on his knees when he was arrested for soliciting a male prostitute?
January 5th, 2006 at 3:57 pm‘This land belongs to me, you better leave it alone.’
Yeah, like I can picture god saying something so stupid. The whole fvcking world belongs to god, not just some piece of desert.
Why exactly is the desert considered the promised land. I would be pissed if I wondered through the desert for 40 days and forty nights following a pillar of smoke during the day and a pillar of fire at night, just to end up finding out that the promised land was more freaking desert.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
And on the only piece of desert without oil. What's the chances of that?
January 5th, 2006 at 3:59 pmDear God: Are you reading what these people on Think Progress are saying about me? Please smite them. Maybe not as bad as you did those sinful people in NO, maybe just some uncomfortable indegestion or something, or maybe give them all turf toe. Thanks
Just me Lil' Pat
January 5th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#17 Yeah they scare me. They are definately worse than terrorist. At least terrorists state their objectives, Robertson is a liar that only wants power. He is as godly as Charles Manson. Wait, I trust Manson more too. Boy that really creeps me out.
Bunch of homosexuals for sure. If these wackos (Delay's word) would only admit it, they would feel much better.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:04 pmIt's always interesting to see the radical Christians trot out all the doom and gloom of the Old Testament.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:05 pmOkay, y'all made me post this
headline:
January 5th, 2006 at 4:07 pmProve Christ exists, judge orders priest
It's a good think for Pat Roberson that Atheists don't go around blowing themselves up for the naked virgin prize behind curtain #2...
January 5th, 2006 at 4:09 pmWhere would TP file this post?
Can't be under intelligence,none of that in Pat;can't be under foreign affairs,don't have an Israel category,politics?;does God vote?
we know it's not science; Pat's not truly religious.
I have it,file this under torture because it's torture to put this on display where I find myself staring at it much as I would a horrible accident.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:11 pm#34 - Like that. Surely this also casts further doubt on the idea that God knew what the heck he was doing when he came up with intelligent design.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:12 pmI've heard that 20% of all GOP votes come from Pat's 666 club , I guess that's how repugnentcans win elections .
January 5th, 2006 at 4:12 pmYikes!! Pat has scared me now…As a resident of Georgia, home of Zell Miller, Saxby Chambliss,Sonny Purdue, Bob Barr,and a whole host of various other whackos, I live in fear, of the plague of locust, god must surely be planning on decending upon us..
Comment by Tony W — January 5, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Don't forget the War on Evolution either... Cobb County should just be renamed Zealot Freak Show County.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pmI wonder if when the Devil finally takes Pat that someone will be able to fool the masses as well as he does. Let's all hope we see real soon.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:18 pmOkay, y’all made me post this
headline:
Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
Comment by Chris in AZ — January 5, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Do more! Do more! I love it...
January 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pmWow -- we're up to over 40 posts and still no trolls! They must all be watching the 700 Club or PTL or something, collecting their talking points for tomorrow...
January 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pmI think IRI might just be Pat Robertson.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:24 pmI’ve heard that 20% of all GOP votes come from Pat’s 666 club , I guess that’s how repugnentcans win elections .
Comment by MichDem — January 5, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
The same 20% that think the sun revolves around the earth?
The same 20% that think Iraqis were involved in 9/11?
The same 20% who don't know where the U.S. is located on an unmarked map?
January 5th, 2006 at 4:24 pm#38 Yes those people
January 5th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI've got proof that god exist . There is that one scripture that can be interpitated to pick up snakes . He put that in there to weed out people like Pat .
January 5th, 2006 at 4:29 pm"Don’t forget the War on Evolution either… Cobb County should just be renamed Zealot Freak Show County. "
Hey I live in Cherokee County just north of Cobb County, we replaced Bob Barr as our congressman because he wasn't right wing enough..it's a scary life indeed
January 5th, 2006 at 4:35 pmAmerica gets its jitter on...chb
http://cardcarryingmember.blogspot.com/2006/01/quaking-america.html
January 5th, 2006 at 4:36 pmassuming i am still entitled to my own opinion also, i think pat robertson is an idiot
January 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pmYou can only have your own opinion if it agrees with the bible or god told you your opinion. Pat is god
January 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pm#4 - apparently part of Robertson's contract when he sold the station to ABC was that he got to keep the 700 Club on indefinitely... they (and we) are stuck with him...
however, it'd be nice if we could get him for violating some FCC standards... he's used the airwaves to call for someone's murder on at least one occasion...
January 5th, 2006 at 4:51 pmMessage, message, message.
Rather than Right-wing evangelist Pat Robertson I would suggest 'Republican evangelist Pat Robertson'.
We have to get better about "message" and it is quite accurate to describe the former Republican Presidential candidate as just that, a Republican.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:56 pmthis is by far the funniest thread i've read to date.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:59 pmhilarious. i don't mean to laugh at someone having a stroke...but damn...#8 has me curled up laughing my a$$ off.
I wonder what God has to say about Pat's investments in corrupt and murderous countries?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:00 pmthis guy is really over the edge. logically, according to pat, "w" should be next for supporting the pullout. i wonder why pat's god kill those poor miners and put their families through such agony. were they drilling for coal on god's land?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:02 pmI'm curious to know what Pat's god has in store for him. I hope it involves fire ants.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:09 pmcatalyst,
Glad I could brighten your day?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:14 pm#59...I thought all of the right wing nuts preach absences not pull out
sorry, couldn't resist
January 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pmHe'll saying ANYTHING to get is ass on TV to get is drones to send in more money.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pmDoes Pat own a gold mine in Gaza, or something? Those kinds of things do cause him to make some amazing, if not ridiculous, statements:
“How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'"
Robertson statement re Charles Taylor, indicted for war crimes by a UN-backed tribunal, accepting a diplomatic solution to Liberia's civil war.
Wonder how Pat feels about Iraq.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:26 pmSo why does Pharisee Pat care about Israel anyway? Didn't the Jews hold responsibility for the death of his Christ? Maybe he wants the Jews to wipe out the Paleestinians in order for his Christian soldiers to wipe out the Jews and claim the Holy Land(tm) for their own as they await the Rapture(tm)?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:27 pmI'd call him the AntiChrist if I didn't have more respect for the AntiChrist.
Skid, I'm no expert, but I think the state of Israel must exist in order for the second coming of christ to occur. Or Armageddon. Something god-awful, of course.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:30 pmPeople listen to that anti-american idiot?
The guy doesn't even believe in The Constitution of the United States of America! He regularly speaks out against this nation. He deserves about as much attention as Louis Farrakhan... perhaps less.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:33 pmBush dont beleive in God watch my link
January 5th, 2006 at 5:42 pmTo All,
These are the ravings of a lunatic! No one should pay any attention to anything the whack job says!
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Stewart
January 5th, 2006 at 5:46 pmI didn't know God was into territorialism. So that piece of desert is his? What did the Devil get? The rest of this planet?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:47 pmIf I was God or a higher being, I'd be more damn pi$$ed over the damaged that is being done to this planet every day, with oil production, strip mining, water and air pollution, destroying natural habitats and the environment, in general.
And if I had any messages, to the people of this world, I wouldn't be using someone the likes of Pat Robertson.
#62 good play on words, lol
Off Topic:
Democrats to Delay Alito Confirmation Vote
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats plan to delay the Judiciary Committee's vote on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court for at least a week, slowing what could have been a quick confirmation process for President Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pmfrom Earthlink. Enjoy.
Alito, another elitist for Bush Co. I've already let both my senators know, my opposition to his confirmation and since both are republicans, I've also let them know if they vote to confirm him, I will remember them in November of this year.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pmdidn't the baptist miners families say it was a 'miracle' that their family members survived (until it was announced that almost all of them had tragically died) and then it all went religiously very quiet. I am not laughing at their tragedy, not even at their ignorance, I find it all just that, tragic.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:07 pmI trust that Evangelists know they have been praying to the wrong name for 2000 years? Jesus comes from the Greek version of the New Testament, which was subsequently translated into Latin and other languages. 'Jesus' was the Latin rendering of Iesos, which in turn was the Greek rendering of Yeshua - a common name for 1st Century Hebrews.
Pat Robertson must knows about mines because he ownes a gold mine in Liberia and he's buddies with the warlord, Charles Taylor. Pat and all these evnagelical decievers have a special edited version of the Bible. This little part gets the white out.
"For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
- LUKE
Hey nice gold mine.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:24 pmHas anyone notice how much Pat looks like George Bush............ Ever see the 2 of them in the same room together?
January 5th, 2006 at 6:33 pmPat's lovely words have at least garnered Earthlink's top story.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:39 pmLet's hope MSM picks it up and humiliates that bast...
and while we're on the topic of 'God', how about this.....
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (a Professor at Marburg University and a New Testament scholar from 1921 to 1951) discovered early christians had mistranslated the passage from Isaiah: the original text did not use the Hewbrew word for virgin (betulah), it used the word almah - a young woman!
The original text had predicted that a young woman would conceive and give birth to the Messiah. In the original gospel accounts, Jesus could still have been considered God's chosen son without the necessity of a virgin birth which fits precisely with Jewish beliefs concerning the Messiah.
The vatican later admitted the mistranslation was due to 'divine intervention'!
January 5th, 2006 at 6:41 pm#15 And it wasn't just any sex act, he wanted to perform oral sex on the cop!
January 5th, 2006 at 6:52 pmThe vatican later admitted the mistranslation was due to ‘divine intervention’!
What an out clause. God made us do it (sounds supsiciously like some of Bush's justifications). I guess God defers on editorial matters to the Vatican.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pm#78,
So he was planning to minister on his knees to the cop, he wasn't lying ;)
January 5th, 2006 at 7:02 pm#79, David, yeah I guess so. I love debunking religious zealots, how about this (it's more commonly known)
In the original Torah (the Jewish work that now makes up the first five books of the Old Testament) the Hebrew name for a shallow lake in the North East of Egypt was Yam Suph. In Hebrew Yam Suph means 'Reed sea' or 'Sea of Reeds'.
This was mistranslated to 'Red Sea' and you all know the rest!
January 5th, 2006 at 7:15 pmI really hope this is not a sweeps week stunt for the 700 Club.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:17 pmAs a Jew, I worry about Robertson's enmity towards Jews and am afraid his ignorant unChristian like attitude will cause more hate towards Jews than there already is.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:25 pmI hear you,I HEAR YOU, right now I'm busy!, I'm play astroids with the devil, and damn he's winning@..GOD
January 5th, 2006 at 7:25 pmThis is the same lunatic that was personally lobbied by George W. Bush's right hand brain Karl Rove to garner support for the Harriet Miers nomination.
He is clearly a sociopath and a wingnut and he is the oen of the top voices for the conservative movement.
Coo-coo, coo-coo.
Hopefully he won't pull a David Koresh and end up killing half of his braindead flock in a fit of narcissim.
-GSD
January 5th, 2006 at 7:30 pm78. Maybe he could find some more helpful volunteers for these activities in jail?!
January 5th, 2006 at 7:30 pm#70, the devil got Washington, DC, Kennebunkport, ME, Texas and a ranch in montana.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#26 Marie, the 'bible' was also extensively rewritten in the early middle ages when the Knights Templar invaded and occupied Jerusalem - it was found that their beliefs did not match with the information in the scrolls so the information was rewritten and many scrolls destroyed.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:41 pmOk... if "God" is really so "all knowing" as people of faith claim, didn't He know from the get-go that his "creations" would dissappoint Him? So was that whole "human sacrifice" thing really necessary? I mean, come on. Was God bored? Feeling neglected? Wanting attention? Wouldn't it have been easier to just "scrap" Adam and Eve and start over again? Seeing as how He is God and all, it might have been the way to go. And since one of His big NO-NO's, is " Thou shalt not kill" why would He set Jesus up like that? Talk about messed up! And He is Jesus' Dad?!? That is just wrong. No wonder Pat and pals are so messed up. Consider the source!
January 5th, 2006 at 8:18 pm#88, Gary, I didn't know that, but I am not surprised. It's further information that the church has always exploited the ignorant and superstitious for its own purposes of power and wealth.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:25 pmDid anyone else catch the news about the lawsuit in England that's requiring the Catholic Church to PROVE the existence of Historical Jesus? Apparently the first historical record of him doesn't get mentioned until almost 100 years after his 'supposed' death, and that was through Christians.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:27 pmHey I live in Cherokee County just north of Cobb County, we replaced Bob Barr as our congressman because he wasn’t right wing enough..it’s a scary life indeed
Comment by Tony W — January 5, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Cherokee? You must be the only liberal there... Georgia can get very scary the further away you go from Atlanta. Even for moderate conservatives... :). I grew up on the border between Walton + Gwinnett Counties - ironically enough, named for two of the Georgians who signed the Declaration of Independence...
January 5th, 2006 at 8:38 pmLike I said in another thread, Pat Robertson has lost his freakin' mind ... I can't believe the stuff that comes out of his mouth. It's embarassing for me to be linked with him in any way or form. (no need to pour salt on this wound, unbelievable)
January 5th, 2006 at 8:41 pmDid anyone else catch the news about the lawsuit in England that’s requiring the Catholic Church to PROVE the existence of Historical Jesus?
Comment by RightPunch — January 5, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
It's in Italy -here is a link:
Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
January 5th, 2006 at 8:42 pmThere are way too many whacko's running free in this country.
Time to round em up and strap on the ol straight jackets.
#91, RightPunch, didn't read about this lawsuit but I've heard about the supposed death lie.
I had a very interesting day today where I attended some court hearings for a research project I'm doing.
A lady challenged the judge and asked him to ban her ex-boyfriend from attending the church she attends.
I stared down that Judge, he knew everybody was listening...he ruled against her.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:43 pmTalk about a Judge sweating a religious case, it was priceless!
Did anyone else catch the news about the lawsuit in England that’s requiring the Catholic Church to PROVE the existence of Historical Jesus?
Should be interesting to see what they come up with ...
January 5th, 2006 at 8:46 pmLike I said in another thread, Pat Robertson has lost his freakin’ mind … I can’t believe the stuff that comes out of his mouth. It’s embarassing for me to be linked with him in any way or form. (no need to pour salt on this wound, unbelievable)
Comment by Giacomo — January 5, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
Not salt Giacomo - reality... :) am surprised you turned up in here, we seemed to be on a liberal streak in this one. I've yet to see one that got this far without a conservative jumping in. And yet, you didn't bash us, so I guess the streak is still alive until the sun sets in Texas and IRI arises from his coffin...
January 5th, 2006 at 8:46 pmUnbelievable, Giacomo is showing some sense of reality by not aligning with Robertson. Maybe, some of the brainwashed are waking up to the reality of this mafia wannabe regime thats been running things for the last 5 years. There may be hope for some.
Afterall, they can't blame Clinton for Robertson can they?
January 5th, 2006 at 8:53 pmDid anyone else catch the news about the lawsuit in England that’s requiring the Catholic Church to PROVE the existence of Historical Jesus?
Comment by RightPunch — January 5, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
It’s in Italy -here is a link:
Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 5, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
This actually made it on to prime time CNN! A brief mention, but still, I couldn't believe that Time Warner allowed it at all.
So, Jack Cafferty asks the question "What kind of Christian is Pat Robertson." He read three emails from viewers. One obvious wingnut zealot defending the guy and two others just being honest. One woman said that without the 700 Club Robertson would just be another crazy man preaching incoherently on the street while the rest of us just walked by shaking ut heads. After that one, Wolf Blitzer had a hard time keeping a straight face. Laughing about this to boot? 2006 is really off to a good year when the usually paranoid conservative media is poking fun at religious zealotry...
January 5th, 2006 at 8:53 pmAh, Pat. Nothing he says is by accident - which is why few, including W., will condemn him, at least publicly. You see, Pat's group of Christians believe that Israel must have all of the land supposedly outlined in the Bible, and that all of the world's Jews must relocate to Israel in order to fulfill Revelation and bring forth the Rapture and Armageddon. That's the only reason they care about Israel...it's not out of some love of God, but rather some ancient prophecy.
As others have written, I find it hard to believe (being an atheist) that the God of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed is really sitting around/above/beyond the universe, thinking, "Ok, I've given these people all the clues they need. Will you please finish everything so that I can bring forth the end of the world and start fresh?"
As Douglas Adams once wrote, you can't think much of a species that thinks that digital watches are still a pretty neat idea.
But praise be for BSG!
January 5th, 2006 at 8:53 pmAfterall, they can’t blame Clinton for Robertson can they?
Comment by Susan — January 5, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
Susan, give them time... just give them time :)
January 5th, 2006 at 8:55 pmAnd yet, you didn’t bash us, so I guess the streak is still alive until the sun sets in Texas and IRI arises from his coffin…
Well, I can't imagine anyone would support Robertson's statement (not just what he said, but the timing as well ... I'm surprised he didn't group the Miners in with Sharon) but I'm not as "creative" as IRI ... I'm not really big on bashing anyway ...
January 5th, 2006 at 8:57 pmYes, crazy whacky Pat has made the front page of CNN.
CNN
January 5, 2006
Robertson suggests God smote Sharon
As someone stated above: The easiest way to get rid of these whackos is to put them in front of a microphone and let them talk. They will be their own undoing.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:59 pmIf Pat keeps this up, perhaps God will give HIM the smack down. If he gets struck by lightening, would that be proof enough of the existance of God for you unbelievable? :-)
January 5th, 2006 at 9:05 pmGiacomo,
That would only be proof of the fact that lightning exists.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:27 pmThat would only be proof of the fact that lightning exists.
Some might conclude "intelligent" lightening then ..... :-)
January 5th, 2006 at 9:32 pmGiacomo,
I wish. Lightning like in War of the Worlds (new version)?
These are another of the guys that gives conservatives a bad name. You guys should disown his ass. Start calling him a liberal Christian or something. If I were conservative, I would not want him on my team.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:46 pm"Some might conclude “intelligent†lightening then ….. :-) Giacomo"
Unfortunately some would conclude this, but it wouldn't be true. Unless it can be experimentally proven, it's a 'myth', just like Christianity.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:46 pmPat rings a bell periodically, a bell which can not be unrung. He and Jerry (that other so-called Christian Preacher) have a wonderfully ignorant and hate-filled view of the world. The purpose of Pat and Jerry's ignorant rants is to bring attention to themselves from their zombie-base. The zombies give them cash and pander to them which keeps their old smelly egos going. Pat, and Jerry too, are very pathetic old firts. As the con men they truly are, they know there is no heaven or hell, except for the hell in their own minds, and they know that when they're dead, that will be it. It is too bad there is no hell after death for the likes of these morons, as for sure, if there were, there would be a very very special place just waiting for Pat and Jerry's arrival there.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:57 pmGiacomo, I was wondering why Robertson didn't say the the miners deaths were a result of Gods wrath.
I mean really, the trick played on the families there, its got Robertson written all over it.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:29 amI hadn't planned on watching "The Book of Daniel" on NBC until this great review came out....
tp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_en_tv/book_of_daniel
January 6th, 2006 at 12:51 amhere, better link...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_en_tv/book_of_daniel
January 6th, 2006 at 12:53 amIf god owns the universe, why does he need israel? Pat Robertson makes no sense. But I guess that's obvious.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:15 amPat Robertson and Bill O'Reily. Two of the most highly homosexually repressed individuals in need of a brokeback mountain moment.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:31 amI bet God's idea of Hell would be having to spend eternity with "Pat"(Marion)Robertson.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:35 amUnless it can be experimentally proven, it’s a ‘myth’, just like Christianity.
Well ... you do know that there are several scientific properties that can't be experimentally proven but very much inferred, don't you? One small example ... Gravitational Fields ... we do not know if such gravitational fields can be quantisized (they DO exist ofcourse) because we do not have the "observational power" to detect manifestations of this quantization. Thus, we see the field, but not the cause ... we surmise the cause ... the cause isn't a myth, we are just ignorant to it at this time. But I digress.
January 6th, 2006 at 7:00 amPat has been putting his foot in his mouth for decades...doesn't he ever learn?
January 6th, 2006 at 8:34 am#117, Giacomo, you are wrong. There is a new gravitational theory that not only explains how gravity works, but shows how errors can arise in determining the positions of space probes, in determining the mass of the earth and other planets and in determining the value of G, the universal gravitational constant. This new theory of gravity is part of a more general Unified Field Theory (UFT) that shows how all of the known force fields work together. Once understood, this new UFT explains several heretofore unexplained phenomena in nature.
The most significant aspect of this new theory is the discovery of diallel, gravitational-field lines.
First, two bodies of some energy density to interact with each other, and second, connecting diallel lines which provide not only particle flow between the bodies, but also the flow of photon and gravitational information as well.
In chemistry and molecular spectroscopy we take for granted the seven electron shells that describe the energy states of electrons in their various atomic and molecular configurations. These seven shells along with the number of protons, neutrons and electrons give us all of our elements and isotopes of which we are aware. As these seven shells include all the electrons’ configurations around an atom or molecule, similarly, there are seven channels or states of conductivity for the diallel lines included in the new theory of gravity and in the UFT. These diallel lines are made of the same matter, and can serve as a conduit for any and all of the fundamental particles, as well as for photons.
The diallel lines are the conduits for the gravity information as well — bringing about the interaction between the two bodies.
In the same manner that photons are associated with quantum transitions and all particles exist (interactively) in quantum states, the diallel lines have quantum states in which both particles and gravitational information travel. As particles and photons can be absorbed, refracted, or reflected, so can diallel lines when given the right local circumstances. A classic illustration of the refraction or bending of these diallel lines was determined by a team from the University of Alaska, who observed the bending of electron flow above extremely energetic thunderstorm activities.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:22 amGary
Does this new finding change the theory about the existence of gravitons (which is what I was really alluding to)?
January 6th, 2006 at 11:58 amAs an American I feel humiliated and embarrassed that this, this creature, Pat Robertson, is seen as representative of my country.
The only thing that keeps me from going insane is the sure knowledge I can flee to Canada if necessary.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:58 amIn addition, the point I was making is that just because something can't be fully explained yet (or as RightPunch put it, "experimentally proven") doesn't then mean that it's a "myth". As far as I know, the concept of the singularity isn't based upon experimental proof but emperical hypotheses ... doesn't make it a myth though, does it. Science itself uses "theory" instead of "law" because of the very nature of scientific discovery and revelation, no? Doesn't make these theories myth.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:02 pmIf Pat keeps this up, perhaps God will give HIM the smack down. If he gets struck by lightening, would that be proof enough of the existance of God for you unbelievable? :-)
Comment by Giacomo — January 5, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
See Spudge's comment below yours...
The only thing that would ever change my mind (because I'm not close minded, just certain) would be scientific evidence that has been as routinely challenged and examined as Evolution. I've 'seen' Evolution in the universe Evolution, so I know it exists. I have never seen a god. In fact every 'theory' presented to me on a god falls apart under initial inspection. How I went from being a Christian to being an Atheist. Not a lack of faith, but a lack of proof.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:21 pmIt was a tongue in cheek comment .....
January 6th, 2006 at 1:23 pmScience itself uses “theory†instead of “law†because of the very nature of scientific discovery and revelation, no? Doesn’t make these theories myth.
Comment by Giacomo — January 6, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Theory does not mean conjecture in this regard, it means 'open for challenge and revision based on new evidence'. Theory does not apply in this regard to god because the nature of faith excludes challenging and revising the belief. See the difference?
January 6th, 2006 at 1:29 pmIt was a tongue in cheek comment …..
Comment by Giacomo — January 6, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
Well, humor is based on reality...
January 6th, 2006 at 1:30 pmGiacomo a true renaissance man. There is not a subject that he is not familiar with and always knows more than the next guy. Wow, the first omniciant, omnipitant person since Geroge Bush.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:32 pmGiacomo, here's the difference between a scientific theory and a religious myth...
theory
n.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
myth
n.
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:39 pmAs an American I feel humiliated and embarrassed that this, this creature, Pat Robertson, is seen as representative of my country.
The only thing that keeps me from going insane is the sure knowledge I can flee to Canada if necessary.
Comment by ElectricBassPlayer — January 6, 2006 @ 11:58 am
Lately, I think that is all most of us have... well, until Heir Busch builds that Wall along our borders and rebukes our abilities to travel...
January 6th, 2006 at 1:42 pmTheory does not mean conjecture in this regard, it means ‘open for challenge and revision based on new evidence’. Theory does not apply in this regard to god because the nature of faith excludes challenging and revising the belief. See the difference?
and
Giacomo, here’s the difference between a scientific theory and a religious myth…
I'm not saying there's a one to one correlation people ... My point is, to say that if a phenomenon isn't able to be proven "experimentally" then it's a myth is false ... Science makes theories based upon the information that's available ... they're open because we understand that our knowledge is finite.
Many theories can't be experimentally proven ... evolution can't be yet ... but we can infer from the data and the observable world a valid theory (which I've said before, but will say again, I adhere to). Don't change the argument on me people ...
Giacomo a true renaissance man. There is not a subject that he is not familiar with and always knows more than the next guy.
Never said I do, Mark. Like I told unbelievable, I only post on subjects that I have a working knowledge with (or at least a grounded opinion) ... my posts don't reflect an opinion that "I know more" but that I have something to add.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:53 pmLately, I think that is all most of us have… well, until Heir Busch builds that Wall along our borders and rebukes our abilities to travel
I know you meant revoke ... you don't honestly think the slope is that slippery, do you?
January 6th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#122. Giacomo, you stated the following:
"As far as I know, the concept of the singularity isn’t based upon experimental proof but emperical hypotheses … doesn’t make it a myth though, does it. Science itself uses “theory†instead of “law†because of the very nature of scientific discovery and revelation, no? Doesn’t make these theories myth."
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language contains the following definitions for the operable terms in your statement above.
myth 1.A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
hypothesis A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
theory A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
By these definitions, the entire realm of religion (regardless of denomination or belief) falls under the category of myth because there is no empirical method to test it. We, as a species, have always attempted to explain that which we can not understand in the world around us. Myth and "religion" provided the underlying "explanation" for that which could not be rationally explained for thousands of years. That is, they provided said explanation until scientific method was discovered and we realized that the priests, shamans, etc. had been steering us wrong for thousands of years. It all comes down to one question, which is really a matter of faith (rather than empirically tested truths):
Did god create man in his image or did man create god in our image?
Regardless of your answer, ALL religion falls under the realm of myth because it is based on nothing more than blind faith which can NOT be empirically tested.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:23 pmFunny, you also claim to know that there is a God... I meant what I said (see definition below)
re·buke (r-byk)
tr.v. re·buked, re·buk·ing, re·bukes
To check or repress.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:27 pmMany theories can’t be experimentally proven … evolution can’t be yet … but we can infer from the data and the observable world a valid theory (which I’ve said before, but will say again, I adhere to). Don’t change the argument on me people …
Giacomo, there is much proof of evolution. It no longer requires speculation. Just a willingness to accept reality.
No one is changing the argument. We are simply addressing what yo have said.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pmmy posts don’t reflect an opinion that “I know more†but that I have something to add.
Comment by Giacomo — January 6, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
But they do reflect an inference that you know more... too many people have pointed this out for all of us to be misreading you...
in·fer·ence n.
The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:39 pmHis "Bible learnin'" is incomplete. He needs to read the Book of Job. I should have thought that was required reading for "men of God" but I guess Republican ministers get to read the abridged version, "Bible for Dummies".
January 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pmJ. Edgar Hoover’s directive to spy on the Rev. Martin Luther King because he was a subversive. If Bush’s latest acts are left unchallenged, the government will become bolder at spying on whomever it wants and secretly jailing those it deems a threat to national security — all with no troublesome warrants or messy public trials.
In this environment, acts other than terrorism will certainly be put on the subversive activities list, all in the name of protecting our freedom.
Why should law-abiding citizens fear these trends? Because the government cannot be trusted. I don’t trust President Bush to honor my rights, nor did I trust President Clinton, who was caught with secret FBI files on his political enemies.
It’s not that I’m unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government — either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government — by demanding, for example, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.'’
January 6th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Giacomo, there is much proof of evolution. It no longer requires speculation. Just a willingness to accept reality.
I agree there's proof (which is why I believe it accurate) but one can't prove evolution through an experiment yet ... then it would be the "Law of Evolution", wouldn't it. We all say "Law of Gravity" but technically, even it is still a theory, isn't it?
But they do reflect an inference that you know more… too many people have pointed this out for all of us to be misreading you…
You answer most of my posts ... you have differing supporting facts, ideas or opinions ... I don't think you're a "know it all". Perhaps because I'm not a moron and can actually articulate a lucid response that's the contrary to the majority opinion makes me annoying at times, but not a know it all.
However, if that's how I'm perceived, I guess I should defer to that "reality" ... I'm not sure how you expect me to debate without having information to back up what I'm saying or confidence in my opinion ... perhaps, if I agreed more I wouldn't be such a know it all, eh?
January 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pmGiacomo, you stated in #130 'I only post on subjects that I have a working knowledge with' yet you BS about evolution. During the day there has been a time difference between our countries (and my work) hence late reply. Others have replied to your earlier posts during this time delay. It is encouraging to others around the world that not all Americans are deluded by 'intelligent' design and you seem to be one of them, as are many others who post here.
If you think there is no proof of evolution pick up a Biology textbook, read any book by Richard Dawkins and then study some advantagous mutations monitored in Drosophila (rapid life cycle) by Molecular Biologists etc.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:31 pmBy these definitions, the entire realm of religion (regardless of denomination or belief) falls under the category of myth because there is no empirical method to test it.
and
ALL religion falls under the realm of myth because it is based on nothing more than blind faith which can NOT be empirically tested.
So for something to not be a myth we need to be able to either empirically measure it (as you said) or experimentally prove it (as RightPunch said) ...
OK ... then love is a myth. Try and empirically measure it ... you can't because it's entirely based upon personal experience and internal "measures". Try and experimentally prove it ... you'd only get testimonials or personal accounts from people that "know it exists".
Yup ... love is a myth ... we have passed it from generation to generation as a way to keep a family together and provide for the survival of the species. It's nothing more than a biological change ... the movement of hormones. No one loves, they just respond to basic biology ... it's pure myth.
If you're honest with me, then you'll see the point I'm trying to make. Science does not account for everything any more than religion does.
Unbelievable ... if I told you there was a tiger standing behind you ... you'd likely feel fear (if you believed me).
Now imagine if I told you there was a ghost (if you believed in them) behind you (and you believed me)... the feeling's different, isn't it ... fear perhaps, but a fear with a sense of unknown mixed in ... a fear unlike the first example.
Why ... because humans, on some level, understand that an unknown exists ... we don't know what or why it is, but we do have a general sense that it's there. Maybe this is a poor example for you, but with the constant repetition of the "if it's not scientifically tangible, it doesn't exist" I thought I'd give it a shot ... let me know if you get what I'm driving at ...
January 6th, 2006 at 3:49 pmIt is encouraging to others around the world that not all Americans are deluded by ‘intelligent’ design and you seem to be one of them, as are many others who post here.
If you think there is no proof of evolution pick up a Biology textbook, read any book by Richard Dawkins and then study some advantagous mutations monitored in Drosophila (rapid life cycle) by Molecular Biologists etc.
Intelligent Design is bad science ... it was a begin with the end in mind experiment ... bad science.
Refer to my post 138 ... as you can see, I believe that there's proof of evolution. At the same time, scientists can't (maybe they will someday) experimentally prove evolution ... we're not able to set up a controlled experiment and witness evolution ... it takes too long. As such, our proof is from the discovered fossil records, inferences from celestial study, and radioactive testing ... maybe I'm word parsing a bit but there's a difference in having proof of something and being able to experimentally prove it. The former infers an educated theory, the latter speaks to a scientific law ... does that make sense?
January 6th, 2006 at 3:57 pmIt seems to me that human beings find it very tough to imagine their own non-existance. It's easier to see the past without you, than it is the future. Trying to imagine those last moments... will it be;
January 6th, 2006 at 4:15 pm1) I'm here, I'm here, I'm here, wow, now I'm somewhere else!
or..
2) I'm here, I'm here, I'm here, ... uh oh...
???
At the same time, scientists can’t (maybe they will someday) experimentally prove evolution... we’re not able to set up a controlled experiment and witness evolution... it takes too long.
Comment by Giacomo — January 6, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Correction: "Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. (...) Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., "
maybe I’m word parsing a bit but there’s a difference in having proof of something and being able to experimentally prove it. The former infers an educated theory, the latter speaks to a scientific law … does that make sense?
Correction: "A theory, in the scientific sense, is 'a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena' [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. (...) What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others."
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
January 6th, 2006 at 4:52 pmGiacomo, 'So for something to not be a myth we need to be able to either empirically measure it (as you said)' Actually I never said that..........your comments are either spin or we are misunderstanding each other. I was referring to your comments in #117 of 'we do not know if such gravitational fields can be quantisized'. Actually, we do, within diallel lines.
You said religion does not account for everything. Religion does not account for anything - it's the difference between faith and belief. I believe the Eiffel Tower exists even though I have never seen it with my own eyes but I would need faith to believe in a God - faith is belief without logical proof.
I agree we cannot witness evolution per se but that does not mean we cannot prove it. I wish more Americans would rationalise as you do, maybe there would be no more 'intelligent' design postulated there.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:12 pmIntelligent design fits into none of these categories, not even hypothesis because it is based on no observable events or phenomena, it is strictly based on not being able to explain nature and natural occurances.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
Evolution is as close to fact as it can get since there is no way to go back 5 billion years and see the initial spark. However back in the 1970's scientists did mix the elements they thought were in the original make up of the earth, they introduced electricity and came up with Amino acids. What became of this study I do nto know. I just remember reading about it in Scientific American. I never followed up on it because I joined the military and was gone for a while.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pmI just saw Rev. Edgar of the National Council of Churches on Countdown. He agrees that Robertson has actually taken the name of God in vain. Theological interpretation of that commandment is "don't presume that God speaks to you, and you alone have the ear of God." (I think that is hubris.)
January 6th, 2006 at 8:48 pmHe also mentions the controversial (yet still unseen) NBC program The Book of Daniel, which is condemned by the right even before being aired. Apparently no one condemned Joan of Arcadia, or Touched by An Angel, or even the movie, Oh, God. But the religious right apparently think they have license, not to mention the power, to determine what Americans see on TV.
Edgar strongly indicated that Robertson is entirely wrong and unchristian.
Unbelievable … if I told you there was a tiger standing behind you … you’d likely feel fear (if you believed me).
And you accuse me of assuming... I'm not afraid of much. Certainly nothing physical in this regard because what is there to fear from a tiger? Death? I do not fear that. Thi sis what does not make sense to me. You believe in this utopian afterworld and yet you are all so afraid of dying. Seems as if you would all run around looking to die to escape this world of pain to get to your realm of angels and happily ever after. What I fear is wasting this life.
Now imagine if I told you there was a ghost (if you believed in them) behind you (and you believed me)… the feeling’s different, isn’t it … fear perhaps, but a fear with a sense of unknown mixed in … a fear unlike the first example.
I have an extreme wonder for this life that does not include fear of it. I gave up fear when I gave up religion. If you told me there was a ghost behind me, I would believe it was a natural phenominon and would want to experience it. I welcome experiences, I do not fear them.
Fear is a fraction of my life so small that I rarely consider it. There truly is nothing to fear but fear itself.
January 6th, 2006 at 8:52 pmOK … then love is a myth. Try and empirically measure it … you can’t because it’s entirely based upon personal experience and internal “measuresâ€. Try and experimentally prove it … you’d only get testimonials or personal accounts from people that “know it existsâ€.
Giacomo... I really wish, for your sake, that you would do some research before you post stuff that we can easily refute... Love is not a myth. And it can be empirically determined (blood pressure, dialated pupils, feelings of euphoria can all be measured quantitatively with modern technology). Also, if every person has experienced some form of love, then it doesn't need to be proven to begin with, because it's not in dispute... But the existence of a god is. And there is zero proof. Zero. Your opinion does not count as proof because it cannot be substantiated. Love can.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:04 pmWe're getting a little off topic. Way back at #12, THOTS mentioned boycotting Robert's sponsors. Sounds like a great idea to me. And O'Reilly's as well. I have a problem though, I can't stomach watching either of them long enough to see who those sponsors are. lol, can anyone help? And correct me if I'm wrong, I may very well be, but wasn't The 700 Club originally run by God's own Jim Bakker?
January 6th, 2006 at 10:31 pm#149 I do believe you are correct, Lily.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:53 pmIt's very interesting to learn of the connections between the television evangelists. All that love and brotherhood and all.
Pat Robertson is an extremely dangerous Fundamentalist no different that Islam extremist.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:32 amIf he is the definition of a CHRISTIAN give me vanilla!
He made his money the TV Preacher way, hardly different than the revival charlatans when I was growing up. A Christian does not judge, nor hates, nor wishes ill to his enemies or friends. That's in the NT. Practice what you preach!
And you accuse me of assuming… I’m not afraid of much. Certainly nothing physical in this regard because what is there to fear from a tiger? Death? I do not fear that. Thi sis what does not make sense to me. You believe in this utopian afterworld and yet you are all so afraid of dying. Seems as if you would all run around looking to die to escape this world of pain to get to your realm of angels and happily ever after. What I fear is wasting this life.
I can't have a debate with you if you're not willing to cede simple things ... what is there to fear from a tiger ... ask Sigfried & Roy ... Tiger's maim ... the point of my post was to bring you through a scenario ... instead, you reject the scenario in a stupid way and then attack me for fearing death (which I never said, nor do). So, if there's a tiger behind you, you'd turn around and smile as it possibly maimed you for life ... fine ... that means you lack a basic evolutionary instinct to survive. The difficulty is trying to debate a concept is when the other person just puts their fingers in the ears and says blah, blah, balh, blah.
I have an extreme wonder for this life that does not include fear of it. I gave up fear when I gave up religion. If you told me there was a ghost behind me, I would believe it was a natural phenominon and would want to experience it. I welcome experiences, I do not fear them.
Fear is a fraction of my life so small that I rarely consider it. There truly is nothing to fear but fear itself.
I don't think you're being honest with me (or maybe yourself). Fear has nothing to do with religion ... it's based on evolutionary survival (fight or flight). Your "welcoming of experiences aside" to say something supernatural is behind you, for most people, would be, at least at first, troubling. Most wouldn't turn around and say, "bring it on" ... maybe you're one of the ones that does. My point was to show the difference bewteen fear of harm and fear of the unknown ... humans innately know that the unknowable exists ... and our emotions respond differently. Fear should not be pre-eminent in people's lives or else it is crippling, but it is a necessary emotion to survive ... why you would argue this instead of just ceding that part of the argument is beyond me ... are you so interested in being right that you won't even allow yourself to agree on the smallest of details (and instead challenge me in some weird way therein "religion makes people fearful ....?")
Giacomo… I really wish, for your sake, that you would do some research before you post stuff that we can easily refute… Love is not a myth. And it can be empirically determined (blood pressure, dialated pupils, feelings of euphoria can all be measured quantitatively with modern technology). Also, if every person has experienced some form of love, then it doesn’t need to be proven to begin with, because it’s not in dispute… But the existence of a god is. And there is zero proof. Zero. Your opinion does not count as proof because it cannot be substantiated. Love can.
And you fell victim to your own argument ... "love" cannot be quantified ... biological change can, but love is uniquely personal. You say that love is an experience and thus not in dispute ... I tell you that I've experienced God and you tell me that personal experience isn't a valid indicator ... which is it? Again, I'll ask ... prove that Love exists. I'm sure, if you hooked a Christian up to the same measuring instruments during prayer or worship ... you'd also see a biological change. Does that prove anything other than the person believes their experience to be meaningful ... nope. Love cannot be substantiated although we all would agree that it exists based upon our experience ... again, don't confuse a biological response with a "spiritual" or "emotional" feeling ... we see how humans behave when they're in love ... but you can't measure love or else we could compare different people's love for others and rate that love ... can't be done. It is 100% individual experience. If you don't understand this concept ... then there's nothing else I can say.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:24 amOh and one more thing ... when I said that I felt said that you left Christianity (and you responded that you felt happier so I was incorrect in feeling sad) ...
Imagine if I told you I was an atheist (I never was) but converted for Christianity ... wouldn't you feel sad that I had left, what you think to be, the enlightened path and chose something worse for me ... anyone with an ounce of empathy would ... perhaps you would even pity me. That's all I was saying and I think you'd feel the same if it was the opposite.
As for rebellous college years ... I have the remnants of a skull fracture, punctured lung, broken jaw and 4 broken ribs to remind me (I got jumped in downtown New Haven and was so drunk, I couldn't defend myeself ... I got rocked). I wasn't a hellion ... but I purposely tried to act not like a Christian ...
January 7th, 2006 at 9:29 amI can’t have a debate with you if you’re not willing to cede simple things … what is there to fear from a tiger … ask Sigfried & Roy … Tiger’s maim … the point of my post was to bring you through a scenario … instead, you reject the scenario in a stupid way and then attack me for fearing death (which I never said, nor do). So, if there’s a tiger behind you, you’d turn around and smile as it possibly maimed you for life … fine … that means you lack a basic evolutionary instinct to survive. The difficulty is trying to debate a concept is when the other person just puts their fingers in the ears and says blah, blah, balh,
Giacomo, this is exactly why people think you are a know it all, and why Ryan calls you Passive-Agressive. You aren't willing to accept any answer except the one you would give. If you knew anything about Buddhism (which I studied for a while), you would understand that my answer is very valid and for you to insinuate otherwise is extremely naive, ignorant and condescending. I am not afraid. Pure and simple.
You are afraid of death, otherwise you wouldn't have used a sample in which you thought I would fear death.
Stop assuming. Not everyone sees the world the way you do. Not everyone fears what you do. And not everyone wants what you want.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:41 amI don’t think you’re being honest with me (or maybe yourself). Fear has nothing to do with religion … it’s based on evolutionary survival (fight or flight). Your “welcoming of experiences aside†to say something supernatural is behind you, for most people, would be, at least at first, troubling. Most wouldn’t turn around and say, “bring it on†… maybe you’re one of the ones that does. My point was to show the difference bewteen fear of harm and fear of the unknown … humans innately know that the unknowable exists … and our emotions respond differently. Fear should not be pre-eminent in people’s lives or else it is crippling, but it is a necessary emotion to survive … why you would argue this instead of just ceding that part of the argument is beyond me … are you so interested in being right that you won’t even allow yourself to agree on the smallest of details (and instead challenge me in some weird way therein “religion makes people fearful ….?â€)
Of course you don't, because you do not accept that people can feel differently than you do. You do not accept anything but your persepective.
Look, fear is pointless. If there's a tiger behind me, giving into fear will shut down the rest of my brain except for the cerebral cortex and I will be unable to do anything but either fight or flee. In that instance, neither fighting or fleeing would save my life. But, if I keep my wits about me, I can use my brain and actually try to think my way out of the situation. And I know this because I frequently leave my comfort zone and have been challeneged - not with a tiger, but with other scenarios that threatened my life or someone else. For instance, a friend of mine had fallen out of a raft in the middle of a class 4 rapid at the point that we were supposed to get off the river or we would go over a deadly water fall. They stressed this before we began the adventure that if we went over the falls, we would all die. As we were passing the ares in which we should exit the river, my friend was trailing the raft, and unable to stay above water except for a few seconds that one of the waves threw her forward. We had to react fast and get off the river or we would all die. Everyone in the boat froze. I stayed calm, didn't give into my fear, and reacted. I was able to use my paddle to quickly get to her and brought her to the boat where I could pull her in, and we could get off the river before we all died. While three grown men (including her husband) just sat there and watched. I was not afraid, and that lack of fear probaly saved my friend's life, and that of my own.
If you don't understand that, then I don't know what else to say. Not everyone is afraid.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:53 ambut you can’t measure love or else we could compare different people’s love for others and rate that love … can’t be done. It is 100% individual experience. If you don’t understand this concept … then there’s nothing else I can say.
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 9:24 am
Oh, I see, you say it can't be done, so I'm just supposed to accept that... sorry, I don't do blind faith, remember?
I think you are trying to convince me of something based on spinning semantics when I've already been convinced otherwise by evidence, science and reality. Love can be quantified. It's already been done. You saying it can't be doesn't change the fact that it has.
I think religion is delusional and dangerous. In fact, let's put it this way - I fear religion the way you fear that tiger...
January 7th, 2006 at 10:06 amImagine if I told you I was an atheist (I never was) but converted for Christianity … wouldn’t you feel sad that I had left, what you think to be, the enlightened path and chose something worse for me … anyone with an ounce of empathy would … perhaps you would even pity me. That’s all I was saying and I think you’d feel the same if it was the opposite.
No, of course not. Your choice to believe in invisible idols rather than reason and reality is your choice. It does not impact my belief system or my conviction that Atheism is best for me. The choices you make with your life do not impact me. I don't take them personally because I don't control them, and I don't live with them. It's a personal choice that has nothing to dowith me, so for me to be effected by that choice would be assinine.
As for rebellous college years … I have the remnants of a skull fracture, punctured lung, broken jaw and 4 broken ribs to remind me (I got jumped in downtown New Haven and was so drunk, I couldn’t defend myeself … I got rocked). I wasn’t a hellion … but I purposely tried to act not like a Christian …
Comment by Giacomo — January 7, 2006 @ 9:29 am
But that kind of behavior doesn't make you anything other than a self-destructive idiot. And as there are plenty of Christians who behave that way, it doesn't make your behavior un-Christian. It just makes your behavior stupid. And to infer that that kind of behavior was in any regard associated with a lack of religion is highly ludicrious and ignorant. There aren't more Atheists with concussions than Christians. You really are stretching at this point Giacomo. Anything to not for one second consider that anyone else has anything valid to say. You want us to be wrong so badly that you are throwing out anythng and everything. You've become irrational. And no rational person would ever buy what you are trying to sell here.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:16 amFear has nothing to do with religion
So the Bible is wrong?
Leviticus 19:14
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
Genesis 9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Genesis 42:18
And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God.
Deuteronomy 4:10
Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.
Exodus 1:17
But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
Leviticus 25:17
Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 18:21
Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
Leviticus 19:3
Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.
There's much, much more on fearing God...
January 7th, 2006 at 10:38 amHere you go, the Science of Love...
http://www.oxytocin.org/
http://whyfiles.org/033love/main3.html
January 7th, 2006 at 11:03 amIn reference to 157 ... you do know that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and that the translation from either of those languages is often difficult b/c English is somewhat limited (ie. one word for love, etc.).
Given that (and again you quote nothing but the OT b/c Jesus didn't really speak much about "fear" ... I've already spoken with you about "progressive revelation" but whatever) the word fear often connotes "respect" or "deep reverance" or "humility" ... since you were a Christian for 30 years (by the way, you said you were in your thirties and assuming that you've been an athiest for longer than a year or so ... even if your were 39 that would make you a Christian from age 8 to 38 - certainly you'd admit that a belief system from 8 to 18/21 in a child/youth is that of their parents and not their own) you knew that already though.
January 9th, 2006 at 9:23 amIn reference to 158 ... I must not be explaining myself well enough. Love as a concept can be seen in terms of the movement of chemicals, but science can't predict exactly why or when a mother would run into the street to protect her child (placing herself in harm's way). It is not explainable with just chemical movements. The concept of love, to most people, is more than just a chemical movement (like anger and fear seem to be).
One explanation for love is within evolution and the survival of the species. It's not, in fact, a higher order of love that drives relationships and parenting but a biological system that causes urges within us in order to keep our families safe (thus we survive). In this case, love is nothing more than biology and not really a willing nurturing and kind expression of tenderness from one to another ... it's humans responding in a biologically sound way ... not very romantic but that theory would fit in with evolutionary theory.
Another explanation is the esoteric one that most of us adhere to ... that love is free-expression and a giving of ourselves to another ... this reality is much harder to scientifically support since many of the harshest and most hurtful experiences occur when humans misplace affection or love. This explanation would say that love is more of a spiritual concept ... one perhaps "given" to mankind from a higher Deity.
What's important to note is that none of us would like to believe that love is nothing more than evolutionary processes driving us toward survival ... we all (or most) want to believe that love is an expression ... sometimes unexplainable (love at first sight) when two beings connect in a deep and fulfilling way.
There are likely other explanations for the phenomenon of love, but these two seem to be the most popular. What do you personally believe in ... "the biological impassionate one", "the spiritual and purposeful one" or "other"?
January 9th, 2006 at 9:37 amIn reference to 157 … you do know that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and that the translation from either of those languages is often difficult b/c English is somewhat limited (ie. one word for love, etc.).
But if it's the word of god.... (do you see that if you use that in your favor it also works against you?)
Given that (and again you quote nothing but the OT b/c Jesus didn’t really speak much about “fear†… I’ve already spoken with you about “progressive revelation†but whatever) the word fear often connotes “respect†or “deep reverance†or “humility†…
Giacomo, until they start printing the Bible WITHOUT the Old Testament, it counts!
since you were a Christian for 30 years (by the way, you said you were in your thirties and assuming that you’ve been an athiest for longer than a year or so … even if your were 39 that would make you a Christian from age 8 to 38 - certainly you’d admit that a belief system from 8 to 18/21 in a child/youth is that of their parents and not their own) you knew that already though.
I wasn't born at 8 - where do you get 8? I officially severed myself from Christianity when I was 33. I've officially been an Atheist for a couple of years. Were a couple of years of evolution in between.
How old are your kids? Because there are several kids in my classes who are not their parents' anything. Some of them already start thinking for themselves that young. They usually get labeled as trouble makers because they are just trying to understand why instead of swallowing hook, line and sinker. And I agree with them. In fact, I consider them to be my smartest students....
Quit trying to rationalize it. You can't. I don't disagree with the messages credited to Jesus because they were taken from Eastern philosophies that I personally uphold by choice. Where I have a problem with your religion is in its belief that it is morally superior, it's the 'right and only' way, and that it does not teach people to be accountable. We've argued it to death now, let's move on.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:26 pmIn reference to 158 … I must not be explaining myself well enough.
No, you are. I get you. I just disagree because I'm certain that I've studied it without a bias. I think you have biases that you cannot and will not overlook. (This is not judgment, just observation).
What’s important to note is that none of us would like to believe that love is nothing more than evolutionary processes driving us toward survival … we all (or most) want to believe that love is an expression … sometimes unexplainable (love at first sight) when two beings connect in a deep and fulfilling way.
I understand what you are saying, and it's part of my problem with your religion. It takes all the really great stuff that humans create and gives it all away to a higher supernatural authority that does not exist. I think people are the source of all the stuff we value. Because we don't give ourselves credit for that, we wind up with a Prozac Nation looking to gospels to define themselves and seek happiness. Why should it matter so much where it comes from rather than what you do with it? I don't care where (though I know it's a biochemical response necessary to survival of the species that evolved), but I care what... what we do with what we have. Because we have it. Regardless of it's origin... cause if we were ignorant to the origin, we'd still be faced with teh same opportunity. I don't like that religion takes away the best aspects of humanity and says that we are nothing without a saviour to give them to us. It's why people are blowing themselves and others us. I know you don't see it because you're focused on the wrong aspect of it, and as a result are missing my point. And I can keep at this until I'm blue in the face, but you want there to be a God so desperately that you won't consider anything that might take that away from you. And as a result I am and will continue to be an enigma to you. You think I gave up love and the sort when I gave up Christ. You don't want to know that I actually, only just found it.
There are likely other explanations for the phenomenon of love, but these two seem to be the most popular. What do you personally believe in … “the biological impassionate oneâ€, “the spiritual and purposeful one†or “otherâ€?
Comment by Giacomo — January 9, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Biochemical evolutionary response to compatable mates... coupled with a neurological connectivity toward preferences. Know it's not a romantic Valentine card, but it doesn't mean I don't value love any less. Or that I don't enjoy it any less either. The source is unimportant to me. I can't control where it comes from. But I can control what I do with it. That to me is the focus - the here and now.
And this may be the foundational difference between us. No doubt we are both responsible, compassionate, nice people who are ethical and kind. We just see the world from very different perspectives.
January 10th, 2006 at 3:40 pmBoyd
Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pmAuto Loans
Car loans could possibly be charming contributive verdict to run across a wonderful bad credit car loans endorser in the eletronic highway.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pmNaked Girls Beyonce Naked Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 10:47 pm