Video: Kathy Griffin invites Jesus to “suck it”
posted at 9:38 am on September 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I don’t get Steve Doocy here. She’s trying to be funny, he says, but then she’s not trying to be funny when she says “this award is my god now”? And this too from Lauren Green, whose op-ed you’re going to swoon over:
When she accepted her long-awaited award, she said: “A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.”
Now I could have been mildly insulted at that and turned the other cheek, as the founder of Christianity taught. But then she went on to say “Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now.”
Aren’t you supposed to turn the other cheek at precisely the moment when it’s hardest to do so? Otherwise, what’s the great moral value in it?
Someone will explain it to me below, I’m sure. Caution — comment bait ahead.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »
JayHawPhrenzie –
I agree with you. When the overwhelming message we communicate is “we are better than you,” and the emphasis of our message steers into a perverse joy in discussing eternal damnation, I think we have deviated from the core of our faith.
nailinmyeye on September 14, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Yes.
And honestly, I’d only be offended if I cared at all about her. Her special is called “My Life on the D-List” for a reason.
I just miss the time when comics were funny.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 11:00 AM
That’s an interesting interpretation which nobody ever said to me before. Is that a common interpretation?
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Green’s version of turning the other cheek is even more meek than usual. She meant she would not have been offended but… and as we already agreed, that does not constitute retaliation.
jihadwatcher on September 14, 2007 at 11:00 AM
I think it was just poor writing, and it is being taken a little too literally here.
nailinmyeye on September 14, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Look at this comment:
Not using the phrase the way you mean.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:01 AM
As I pointed out, turning the other cheek does not mean ignoring an offense, and in that context Green’s response makes perfect sense. She is in effect saying I feel no need to demand equality in this situation. she does however make it clear that she found Kathy Griffin remarks quite offensive, but not personally demeaning.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 11:02 AM
In order to strike a person in front of you on the left cheek you have to back hand them, in our society this is know as bitch slapping
You are right. For some reason, that had me cracking up. Like I said, Im christian, my attitude “ehh whatever”
JVelez on September 14, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Allah
How would you define ‘turning the other cheek’ in the context of Miss Griffith’s comments?
Renae on September 14, 2007 at 11:05 AM
I just think it’s sad to see someone so angry at One who loves her so much.
simon on September 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Of course not, hence my explanation of the actual meaning of the phrase. People who do not understand what the phrase actually means nearly always use it incorrectly, assuming it to mean something that it in fact does not mean.
I for one am quite tired of people who don’t know what the phrase does mean trying to use it to beat up on Christians when they do not act with the passivity they mistakenly believe the phrase instructs Christians to behave with.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM
oh lord.
jesus freak was a poor choice of words, nothing more. im no militant atheist, im not even an atheist. im just used to throwing that phrase around casually, i didnt mean it to be some indicator of my closet bigotry. i apologized already for it.
do i still feel that there are many teachings of jesus that go ignored by the larger christian community? OF COURSE.
-do unto others
-love they neighbor
-may he without sin cast the first stone
-judge not, lest ye be judged
-turn the other cheek
-blessed are the meek
its that kind of stuff that gets lost in the “gotcha” shuffle. especially blessed are the meek. they will inherit the earth people…
inherit the earth
ernesto on September 14, 2007 at 11:09 AM
I agree. I mean she doesn’t go on to call for any action to be taken against Kathy at all.
The way I read it is that she was about to just ignore the comment but then the second statement made her take notice.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Sorry. Didn’t make myself clear. I was just asking if you thought most Christians use the phrase your way, or in the passive sense. Wasn’t really addressing how enemies of Christianity use it to score a point.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:10 AM
You know, it’s not the religion (any religion) that creates or maintains that “holier than thou” attitude. It’s the PERSONALITY of the one speaking. Your particular comment COULD suggest to me that you’re an arrogant Atheist (or agnostic or non-believer). Should I demean Atheism because you choose to insult believers? Nope. I’d be wrong. In that case, I should just demean you for being so uncouth as to insult believers.
ANYONE that says someone else should be harmed because they don’t believe what you believe is a horrible human being…regardless of whether they prescribe to a particular faith or not.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Christ gave a definition of the ideal way to behave. However, God knows we can never live up to those standards. That does not mean that you can not be a good Christian just because you can not be like Christ. All of us fall way short. Christ was a deity. You can not match a deity. But that does not make Christians hypocrites. Someone is only a hypocrite in relation to standards they may apply to others, not in relation to ideals laid down by Christ.
jihadwatcher on September 14, 2007 at 11:12 AM
We don’t make the rules, Dude. Got a problem with it, take it up with the rules guy. I’m sure he’ll be more than happy to explain it to you. Infact, there’s 66 books dedicated to it.
Editor on September 14, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Bryan, I’m not saying we should sit back and take it. Throw it right back at them, defeat them intellectually, no problem. I’m talking about time and place. If you’re on tv, or in person, take that comment and feed it to them. Talking to other conservatives, however, and responding to liberal talking points defensively (’I can too walk upright!’) is self congratulation. Libs and secularists are propagandists and Stalinists. Their interest is creating social and class discontent and hatred. They lie. We don’t need to respond to those lies amongst ourselves, in my opinion.
austinnelly on September 14, 2007 at 11:14 AM
This is pathetic, Griffin and the overblown reaction. She’s just attention whoring to boost her failing career.
Beyond that, really, whats new here? Militant atheists are like a like a bunch of screeching monkeys, flinging their own crap at anything that even looks like a cross or six-pointed star. Kathy is just doing what all the other kewl godless kids are doing today.
Bad Candy on September 14, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Bloody smug Christians, having the nerve to actually believe in what their Bible says.
Guilty as charged. If it causes you heartburn, then that’s your problem too.
I’m merely pointing out that blaspheming is an issue between the blasphemer and G-d. It’s none of my business, and I have no interest in making it my business.
Too smug for you?
Oh well.
Misha I on September 14, 2007 at 11:15 AM
It isn’t self congratulation. It’s pointing out factual and logical error, even when made by my colleague on this site. And as long as the error is made, it ought to be pointed out.
Bryan on September 14, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Suck it, vishnu. This marble is my god now.
jaychandra on September 14, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Don’t really agree that there’s nothing here. First, Christians, and people interested in the role of religion/God in society are interested whenever the topic enters the public square, especially in light of radical Islam’s (re)appearance. Secondly, poor Kathy Griffin is so pathetic. She clearly such a nice Catholic girl under all that cultural sh+t trying as you say to be cool enough to have a career. She’s not godless. She’s scared. And she’ll be the first to don the Hijab if it will make her safe.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:20 AM
ROFLMAO… Now THAT was funny. (*Oh, wait…Sorry for laughing, Hindu Friends.)
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Agreed. The whole “turn the other cheek” part doesn’t even, really, make a whole lot of sense there. I think she meant it as you stated, and probably should have wrote it that way – but was trying to make a clever connection.
nailinmyeye on September 14, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Dude – Jay – That was funny!
nailinmyeye on September 14, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I cant really say, I have the good fortune of living in a part of the country where the majority of churches are non-denominational and the preachers teach right out of the bible instead of giving expositions on their own interpretations of scriptural idea’s.
The result is that if you ask a church going Christian here in southern California what turn the other cheek means they probably do know. I cant speak for any other part of the country though.
I have heard many horror stories about Christians in other parts of the country who have never been taught directly out of the bible or for that matter ever even read the bible themselves.
All I can tell you is that as a Christian here in San Diego over the last 25 plus years I personally have never seen anything even remotely resembling such a creature.
So while my natural inclination based upon my personal experiences here in SoCal would be to say yes I do believe that most Christians do know what the phrase actually means I am forced based on those horror stories to say that I do not know.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Here’s a theory on why “this award is my god now” is a step too far for Lauren Green and perhaps millions of other Christians…
By saying that any single object is “your god,” you’re calling attention to one of the very obvious sticking points of Christian faith. On one hand, we’re supposed to reject idols and worship only one god, yet the crucifix is the single most common idol in our society. The image of the crucified Christ is iconic in our culture, and it is an object that is worshipped. When I went to church as a young’n, I didn’t pray to some imaginary being, I prayed to the giant-ass Jesus on the cross at the front of the church. It was right there – what else are you supposed to pray to when you’re at church?
The status of the cross in our society is no different than the status of the golden calf in the Old Testament. When Kathy Griffin says “This award is my God now,” she’s butting up against a very inconvenient aspect of faith – that ALL RELIGION is idol-worship. This creates a psychological inconsistency in Lauren Green, who can accept that someone may not feel gratitude toward Jesus, but she can’t accept that someone would worship a different idol. Worshipping the crucifix idol is a signifying practice of Lauren’s faith, and to suggest even in jest that another idol should be worshipped is blasphemy.
This of course underscores Hitchens’ point that religion is man-made – Lauren’s offense that Kathy Griffin would worship an award over Jesus is no different than my offense that anyone would root for the Chicago Cubs. People who root for the Cubs aren’t like me, they don’t represent what I consider to be the best of humanity; in fact, they represent the dark underbelly of human existence, and therefore it is my deep-down desire that anyone who worships the Chicago Cubs should be strongly condemned and sanctioned for their expressions of what I consider to be a false faith. And that may be irrational, but irrationality is a regrettaly integral element of the human condition.
The only difference between my dislike of Cubs fans and a Christian’s dislike of Kathy Griffin is that there isn’t a 2000 year old tradition of worshipping the Cubs.
Well I kind of rambled on a bit, but I’m sure there’s a good point in there if you look hard enough.
Enrique on September 14, 2007 at 11:25 AM
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 11:24 AM
So true Dorian, that is why there are always debates within the christian community on biblical issues.
JVelez on September 14, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I think many of you are missing the big picture here: That even after 20 years in the public eye and 10+ years of enduring the incredibly stressful day to day life of living and working in New York City, Lauren Green still has a high nailability factor.
C’mon, guys. Let’s focus on what’s important.
ScottMcC on September 14, 2007 at 11:27 AM
And for you atheists and anti-religous types, the Kathy Griffins of our country, and there are millions and millions of them, can’t do without religion and God. Secularism leaves them empty, and they don’t have daily parties with their own intellects. They feel the void, but they don’t know why it exists. Wait til they meet Islam. Wham!
They’ve been waiting for something like that their whole lives. Sheep wait to be led, by anybody.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:28 AM
False, and it would take probably a solid month or two to sort out all of your wrong presuppositions.
The overwhelming message of your post, however, is, “I am a boorish jackass.” I’m sure you were going for “insightful and provocative,” but you failed miserably.
Maybe next time.
Harpazo on September 14, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I don’t know… God?
Either way, I don’t see how your post lines up with her article. She’s not calling out Kathy for not being a Christian or for worshiping an idol. She’s calling her out for insulting Christ.
There is a difference between the two.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Besides, when Kathy said the award was now her god, she was only being honest.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Just as soon as the Current Wisdom becomes “All people pee at the dinner table” and “All Senators cruise bathrooms for sex” then yes… we’ll congratulate them for not doing those things.
So congratulations all you Christians/Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses! Having listened only to the View and the BBC for the last decade I assumed you’d chop someone’s head off for this. Will wonders never cease.
Lehosh on September 14, 2007 at 11:33 AM
The reason some Christians might take offense is that a remark like that is referring to someone Christians love. It’s no different, or should be no different than someone saying the same thing but replacing the name of Jesus with the name of a loved family member or friend.
If someone used your elderly Mothers name in that context (assuming you love your Mother) would it upset you? How about your childs name?
I don’t get upset because I remember what Jesus said when he was being crucified “Father forgive them, they know not what they do”.
Remarks like those make a lot of us cringe because we DO know what is in store for them.
When Sam Kinison died I literally shook with fear for the man. Although I thought some of his act was funny, his anti-Christian jokes were now going to be judged.
I will pray for Kathy Griffin, because I am supposed to.
GoodBoy on September 14, 2007 at 11:34 AM
pithy
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:37 AM
This comment speaks from a strictly Catholic background. In the South you do not see nearly as many crucifixes than you do in other parts of the country. So the statement that “Christians” worship the crucifix…is mostly anecdotal on your part, and not nearly accurate. I, myself, rarely see – and never would worship – crucifixes. Protestants may carry and revere crosses…but not crucifixes.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 11:37 AM
…but that is not idol worship, as you’re suggesting.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 11:37 AM
That’s always puzzled me as well. It’s the condition of her soul which we should be praying for.
Attempts at anti-Christian humor, if done well, I think can be funny even to Christians when it embellishes or magnifies Christian stereotypes. I often lol when the creators of South Park poke fun at JC, not because I believe the message, but because I recognize and understand the chasm between people of faith and those who are still searching.
There are a few creative and irreverent people out there who are attempting to communicate their spiritual struggle through biting satire, and some manage to do it in a very prescient manner. Perhaps this is the pathway that’ll lead some of them to Christ.
CliffHanger on September 14, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Let’s see now. How many commandments can we break in a single joke.
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
-Check
2)You shall not make for yourself an idol…You shall not bow down to them or worship them.
-Check
3)Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
-Check
Looks like three. I’m not a particularly pious man, but I think if I were standing next to her at that moment, I probably would have stepped away…just in case.
kayawanee on September 14, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Well said!
Dork B. on September 14, 2007 at 11:40 AM
*gasp* Not the venetian one!
MikeZero on September 14, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I understood everything you said. It sounds nice, and Kathy Griffin is a lost sheep from your flock. But what about “god-fearing” Jews/Hindus/unbaptized infant Christians who die, etc. What about the rest of us? Convert or burn in hell?
That makes me scared.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Kathy Griffin is one strange lady. I actually caught a glimpse of her show one time. Her father was on his death bed preparing for that ultimate day. She goes to visit him in the hospital and she is really sad over the whole ordeal. In the end, she leaves him at the hospital because she has to get ready to leave for a trip on Rosie’s cruise fro homosexual parents.
For a brief moment, Griffin breaks down over idea of leaving her father behind to die while she goes on a cruise for homosexual parents to vacation together.
gabriel sutherland on September 14, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Enrique, Your theory doesn’t work. Only Catholics have the crucifix. Protestant churches celebrate the empty cross. You won’t find a protestant church with a crucifix.
Rose on September 14, 2007 at 11:44 AM
That’s kind of the idea behind separate religions.
Except the infant part… that depends on who you’re asking.
Lehosh on September 14, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Your exactly right Allah. There is no “unless” clause following the admonition to turn the other cheek.
Troy Rasmussen on September 14, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Someone had to fill the void Rosie left as the biggest low-life be-atch in the world. This ugly woman (inside and out) makes me hurl every time I see, no, hear her. I would feel sorry for the ‘man’ who’s married to her, but he made the decision…
My question is: What is it that Kathy wants Jesus to suck?
I don’t get it.
Christine on September 14, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Dude! No Christian can eternally condemn another man for any reason. If he does, just keep in mind that it’s a sin against you.
Truth is, the only one who will sort your ashes from mine is God Himself.
All I can ask is that you don’t condemn an entire religion based upon the actions of a few misguided souls who think it’s their job to breathe fire and brimstone. I might ask that you forgive them as well.
CliffHanger on September 14, 2007 at 11:49 AM
So far as I can see, only Catholics believe they go to hell.
We concentrate on hell so much, because it’s unknown, but really hell is nothing but the complete absence of God. This is why those who seek God will find Him, it’s a biblical promise.
If you’re interested in spending time with God, then it’s very simple, you will.
If you want nothing to do with God, then that is also very simple, He’ll spare you from His presence.
The way you get to God is completely meaningless compared to what you decide after you’re there. Christianity teaches that those who reject God will go to hell. It states that all will get the opportunity to consider God and reject or accept Him. That’s really it.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 11:53 AM
How long have you been among us that still you know so little about us? This speaks a sorrowful thing about us, but a truly tragic thing about you. 50 percent of America’s founding fathers were seminarians in case you don’t know what that means they went to collage and studied to be pastors.
The values they enunciated in the United States Constitution should have been your first clue as to what the Christian response to Kathy’s intentional provocation would be. But somehow sadly you missed that, instead choosing to believe something vile and untrue that either came from your own ignorant angry and rebellious mind or from accepting blindly the propaganda spewed forth by a militant Christian hating liberal/socialist main stream media.
You have chosen to believe what you want to believe and apparently no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change your mind.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Scared of what, exactly?
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Am miles and miles from that my friend. And thanks.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:56 AM
At least one prominent Christian isn’t turning the other cheek. Bill Donohue is nothing more than an aspiring religious dictator.
Lazarus on September 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM
They give Emmies for that crap? What don’t they give Emmies for? Best Beheading on a Reality Based Jihad Program: Taliban. Best Fatal Car Bomb Video: Al Qaeda in Iraq. Best Rambling Incoherent Jihadist Threats Against the Infidel: al-Zawahiri. Best Islamist Riot in a non-European Setting: Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Best Candidate for a Permanent Burkha: Kathy Griffin!
Thanks everybody. Good night.
Thomas the Wraith on September 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM
He was being sarcastic. You misread him.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM
From what I understand, God will know what those who have never heard the Gospel would have chosen if they had been given the choice. Children, babies and those who don’t have the ability to understand will not be judged. For the others, all I have is what the Bible says. If you don’t accept the Son, you don’t accept the One who sent Him(God). Passages are linked below for reference.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%205:16-23;&version=31;
GoodBoy on September 14, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I think it’s more complicated than that. Unbaptized Christian infants would not be condemned to Hell because the Church teaches that God recognizes intention, i.e., the intention to baptize a baby.
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 11:58 AM
You can always go to the dark side Luuuuke.
Don’t worry, God sorts them out, not us. We talk like we know what God wants, but he says if it was shown to us, we would even know less. We just know what is written, and he allows us to understand. By Gods grace.
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 12:02 PM
But isn’t that the intention of the infants parents? So far as I understand it, I can only be saved through my own actions, not the actions of my parents?
And even still, what about those who never had an intention of baptizing their infant? Then the baby is sent to hell or what?
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:02 PM
>
First, the unbaptized infants thing is a non-sequitor. God is loving and the whole idea that little babies are going to burn in Hell because they haven’t received a sacrament is one of those things that is brought up by non-believers to indirectly attack Christian beliefs. Many denominations don’t even baptize children! I’ll leave it there lest this turns into a theological debate.
Secondly, yes, non-believers will not recieve salvation. It’s not about converting or burning in Hell it is about accepting Christ as your saviour. If you don’t accept Christ, how can you benefit from salvation? That’s as muddled as liberals who want “fairness” by reaping the benefits of others efforts.
highhopes on September 14, 2007 at 12:03 PM
oh man.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Well, speaking just for this Christian, I am outraged!
And I intend to respond in the fearful way my Lutheran descendants always did… make another pot of coffee (required) and probably cook lasagne for dinner (optional).
What others say is their business and has no effect on my faith. None.
wccawa on September 14, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I understand the overall point of what Griffin is getting across. Don’t find her all that funny. When someone thanks Jesus for an award, the implication is that Jesus helped them because Jesus likes them better.
We can extrapolate from this that Jesus really dislikes Cleveland sports franchises.
Krydor on September 14, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Great read! Thanks for the link!
Tennman on September 14, 2007 at 12:10 PM
We can extrapolate from this that Jesus really dislikes Cleveland sports franchises.
LOL! And the Baltimore Orioles.
JVelez on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 PM
That’s not the implication I draw from it. The way I see it, those who thank God or Jesus do so because they acknowledge that their talent comes from God.
It’s the same thing as thanking your parents for giving you a great voice or good skin.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 PM
and Boston at 7:06 tonight.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Well, look, I can only speak for Catholicism, and the Catholic Church is not going to take such an uncharitable position on the fate of an unbaptized infant’s soul. It makes all kinds of allowances for those who are not capable of “saving” themselves.
Also, since the Catholic Church does not preach that “actions” alone are what “saves” people, and doesn’t really even spend a lot of time taking about “saving” people, I think you might be confusing it with other, more fervent sects of Christianity. The Catholic Church simply don’t use the same vocabulary as born-agains, for instance.
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 12:14 PM
We can extrapolate from this that Jesus really dislikes Cleveland sports franchises.
Well, He’s only human…
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 12:15 PM
From what I know of Luther, I think that fits a little better. Man I love that guy!
nailinmyeye on September 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM
From what I understand, God will know what those who have never heard the Gospel would have chosen if they had been given the choice.
GoodBoy on September 14, 2007 at 11:58 AM
If that explanation is true, then it would untimately lead to a free will/deterministic paradox. According to the Church, all people have free will, the ability to look both options of good and evil, and to choose one.
Now if G-d knows what we would choose, before we actually chose it, OR if He knows what we would choose even if not actually given the choice, then our actions are, by definition, determined.
In a deterministic universe, there is no free will. So Church teachings tell us we both have and don’t have free will at the same time.
Paradoxical to say the least.
kayawanee on September 14, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Yeah I was outraged and offended allah..and offended that you treated it so flippantly, even as an athiest. But I guess it should be understandable..that you wouldn’t take something like that offensively. The first thing I did when I first read it was cry out and look above and say I’m sorry..sorry that we’ve come to the point where something like this is even thought of, much less said out loud and allowed to be said. I started to feel outrage..then all of a sudden I felt pity for her. Pity that one day..unless something happens in her lifetime that changes her blindness and she realizes what she did, and gets down on her knees for forgiveness..that she will have to answer for this one day. As a Christian, I will take heed to this, and pray for her that she will come to this point in her life before it’s too late, as well as those who see nothing wrong with it and for those who embraced it by not walking out of the amphitheater at that moment or who laughed at it. That’s the difference allah, with Christians…we don’t go around burning things and chomping off heads for these deeds..we pray for those who will be seperated from God in the everlasting.
hotvol on September 14, 2007 at 12:19 PM
You do not have a clue as to what the message of Christianity is.
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. – 1 Timothy 1:15-16
The apostle Paul suggests the total opposite of your misconception of Christianity.
shick on September 14, 2007 at 12:19 PM
The thing is this.
The media falsely portrays this as some brave insurrection flying in the face of the credible threat of violence. She may face the verbal wrath of the offended, or maybe a fledgling boycott, but she knows intrinsically that she will not have her carotoid artery opened at the stoplight over this.
Anecdotally, this should evaporate any claim made by seething, corpulent View co-hosts about the alleged “equality” between Islam and Christianity.
I never thought I’d see the day that Christopher Hitchens would say anything I admire, but his recent take on this subject got my applause.
-T
The Therapist on September 14, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Forget religious arguments – them are real fightin’ words!
nailinmyeye on September 14, 2007 at 12:20 PM
By saving, I just mean saving from hell. I’ll be quite honest in saying I don’t understand the concept of baptizing an infant.
Protestant churches have dedication ceremonies where parents state in church before God that they will raise their child in the church and with Christian principles, but the decision to become baptized is one the individual person makes.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Note: The Academy has chosen to edit this out of the broadcast. So even the liberals found the comments out of line.
gabriel sutherland on September 14, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I can’t wait till eternity and God asks her, “So this Emmy here is your God? Will this Emmy keep you from going to hell? Can that Emmy protect you from me tossing you into the lake of fire?”
….
“Didn’t think so…”
Tim Burton on September 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM
God has already condemned us to hell. Yes, before birth. Babies go to hell too. There is no intent considered; there is no “age of accountability” mentioned anywhere in the scriptures. We are born in sin – sinners from birth.
We only escape punishment because of the mercy of God, whose death provided the atonement for the sins of the elect.
Or, for my Wesleyan friends, God’s death provided atonement for all mankind, and anyone can be saved, provided the Spirit moves them to repent and become born again.
I think only the Catholic Church teaches that water baptism is required for salvation, but I could be wrong.
Dork B. on September 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I think there’s a difference between someone knowing what you will do and your choice as having been predetermined.
Just because I’ve seen the Titanic before and no Leonardo DiCaprio’s character will sacrifice his life to save some rich girl he met on board, it doesn’t mean that he didn’t choose to sacrifice himself.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM
May I encourage you to direct your focus away from individual Christians, sinners, like myself, and instead focus your attention on the historical person and work of Jesus of Nazareth?
ColtsFan on September 14, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Wouldnt it be better to see what the bible itself actually teaches regarding this subject?
So as you can clearly see according to the Old Testament God is fully aware that children do not know the difference between good and bad and does not hold them responsible. So obviously god has set an age of accountability, a point at which prior to you are not accountable for your actions and afterwards you are accountable for your actions. Based upon the Old Testament that would appear to be 20 years of age.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 12:27 PM
There are some baptist churches that say similar things.
They are both wrong.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. – Romans 11:6
shick on September 14, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I would suggest that you see what the bible actually does teach before making any more declarations on the subject.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Actually, the only unforgivable sin is denying/blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Someone here out up a link to a site link at which people were invited to do so. Even our beloved atheist AllahPundit was creeped out by it.
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Actually, you are completely wrong.
Of course, “we” made up all of the rules. All 66 of your books along with every other “sacred” text was written by humans.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 14, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Murder, Rape, Genocide all can be forgiven, but fail to worship the Giant Ghost in the sky and you will pay for eternity.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 14, 2007 at 12:34 PM
question
if it offends me and I’m jewish, am I then a ………. Jewish jesus freak?
Defector01 on September 14, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Coffee is my god! /kidding
out=put
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Am I the only one that notices 100% sneer and 0% substance in this poster’s “contributions?”
wccawa on September 14, 2007 at 12:40 PM
You got it.
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 12:41 PM
this thread isn’t any fun anymore
edgehead on September 14, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Individual choice is not necessary in Catholic baptism. The sacrament which address choice is known as Confirmation and generally takes place after the age or reason is reached.
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM
This is another non-story getting air time thanks to Bill O’Reilly. Who cares what she says….LOL, she another comedian/celebrity needing attention and O’Reilly bit the bullet.
AprilOrit on September 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM
This is like getting an award for reaching a new lows in Hollywoods worst career category.
She’s always saying how rought it is being a ‘D’ list celebrity, and now she can create her own ‘E’ list.
I want to be angry at her for this, but all that I can muster is pity.
Lawrence on September 14, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »