Karl Rove is the Antichrist

Okay, so we all know that a Rovian tactic is to attack someone's strengths rather than their weaknesses. So when the Republicans tried to yell, "Nigger!" at Obama and the crowd turned on them, they had to create a new myth. So now, Rove is trying to paint Obama, who is way too intelligent, educated and thoughtful to be painted as a spear-chucker, black panther and welfare cheat as the Republicans have chosen to represent African-Americans for years, they attempt an anti-snobbery route.

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Let me get this straight. A fifth generation hideously wealthy scion of Senators and Presidents is just the country boy you'd want a beer with and the biracial child of a single mother on food stamps is an elitist snob? Where do these people get off?

Rove is describing George W. Bush to a T, and insulting the intelligence of the American citizenry even more than usual.

Impeach, convict, execute.

Can you believe my luck!?!?

26/06/2008

NOTIFICATION OF BEQUEST

Attn: Sir/ Madam

On behalf of the Trustees and Executor of the estate of Late Engr.
Mahler Schaffer, I once again try to notify you as my earlier letter
returned undelivered. I hereby attempt to reach you again by this same
email address on the WILL. I wish to notify you that late Engr. Mahler
Schaffer made you a beneficiary to his WILL. He left the sum of Seven
Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars to you in the codicil and
last testament to his WILL. This may sound strange and unbelievable to you,
but it is real and true. Being a widely travelled man, he must have been in
contact with you in the past or simply you were recommended to him by one of his
numerous friends abroad who wished you good.Engr. Mahler Schaffer until his
death was a member of the Helicopter Society and the Institute of Electronic &
Electrical Engineers. He had a very good heart, and he was a philanthropist. His
great philanthropy earned him numerous awards during his life time. Late Engr.
Mahler Schaffer died on the 12th day of March, 2004 at the age of 80 years, and
his WILL is now
ready for execution. According to him this money is to support your
humanitarian activities and to help the poor and the needy in our society.

Please if I reach you this time as I am hopeful I will, do endeavour to get back
to me as soon as possible to enable me conclude my job. I hope to hear from you
in no distant time through my personal email address below.

Email: maxthorowgood_fieldcourt@yahoo.com.hk
Sincerely Yours,
Stella Marvin
Secretary to Collins Edward

I'm voting Republican

Shouldn't you?

I got an 8

Take the Jesus test. Should Dr. Dobson?

Spare the rod, spoil the gospel...

Anyway, I was having a chat with my extremely well informed nephew who tends (I imagine) to wish I wasn't quite so emphatic in my pursuit of Biblical truths, when we had a moment. He is father to the beautiful Genevieve, my grandniece whom I would forgive anything. I asked him, "Is it Biblical or from Benjamin Franklin that, "Spare the rod and spoil the brat" comes from?

He demurred that his own daughter received the occasional touch of a hand in a non-aggressive manner to let her know that she should do something different. Hell, I remember getting paddled 15 times in 5th grade (in a Christian school)for breathing out of place in choir practice. What this says to me is, can we evolve beyond bad social norms and still be consistent with Biblical teaching?

To believe that every written word in the Bible is perfect and true requires beating children with rods to be consistent, otherwise we can overlook other culturally outdated notions like vehement opposition to love between members of the same sex.

Absolutism is a stern master. When you believe something is 100% true, there are no corners to cut.

A question from Josh

Josh poses the question on the hell rant: Which is more outrageous: A God lets everyone do as they please or a God that judges those who disobey?"

I'd have to say the God who judges. People to a large degree do what they want. Christian do what they want by doing what they think God wants them to do, often with hilarious results. The judging those who disobey part is where God and I part ways. I find it mean and petty to offer billions of people thousands of relions and then punish those who were arbitrarily born into a "wrong" culture or religion.

I find I have a little more tolerance for converts; Barack Obama as an adult studied the religions and came up with Protestant Christianity.

Those who believe exactly as thei parents did give me a harder time. How could they be any more right than a person raised Buddhist or Muslim or Orthodox Jew?

That to me is the height of arrogance, and any God who supported that is not only outrageous, but downright cruel and unworthy of admiration, let alone worship.

I was proud to help pay for this

The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

(with credit to http://uath.org/english.php?news=26)

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball baat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

'Nuff said

Infallible scripture, Part 4

When I was a boy, it taught to me that every letter, every word, every "jot and tittle" (I kid you not!) in the Bible was perfectly correct and true. The concept of theopneustos meant that god breathed through the writers and translators and quoters of biblical writing and ensured that they never deviated from His original intentions.

My question then is, why can I type the following: "As the Gospel says Jesus leapt."

As I recall, the verse goes, "Jesus wept." but somehow I managed to type it wrong and the Holy Spellchecker didn't fix it.

Hmmm.

What belief in hell requires

Hell is really a horrible concept. The idea of punishing someone for missing something easy to miss is impossible for me to accept coming from a loving god. But here's where it gets worse; a careful reading of current evangelical doctrine (as opposed to, say, the Bible?) leads us to believe a few things:

First, all humans who don't accept JC as their personal bud and savior will burn in hell in unimaginable pain for billions of years.

Second, human life begins at birth.

You see where this is going? We had a miscarriage years back, and I never felt the loss of a child, just an unfortunate medical event. What modern Evangelicals believe is that my son, who only existed for a week or two as a small cluster of undifferented cells is as we speak suffering unimaginable torment at the hands of Satan's army. He will spend billions and billions of years there and then start over.

How anyone can believe this and try to say their god is loving and merciful is beyond me. I know one thing for sure; my son doesn't get it.

Tanned, rested and ready

Okay, it’s hard to rant in beautiful Maine, but a quick trip to Philly via JFK did the trick. I’d like to offer a few theological offerings and see if anyone can help me make sense of them. These came out of an ill-thoughtout economic/political/religious nighttime discussion with my aging parents. In my defense, she started it.

It was an interesting tidbit from our discussion that highlights the current Republican version of Christianity:

Me "Why would you support capital punishment when Jesus died from it?

Dad "Oh yeah, what if someone beat your wife to death?

Me "Well, I'm human, but I would hope I could forgive them eventually."

Dad "That's just nutty."

Me "Um, Dad, Jesus on the cross said of his killers, "Forgive them Father..."

Dad "That's not the same thing!"

In our little series here I’d like to address JC and the death penalty, the concept and practical results of hell, how much did JC give up by dying (less than my kid), an infallible Bible prior to spell checkers and original sin.


This should keep us going for a while.