Video: Kathy Griffin invites Jesus to “suck it”
posted at 9:38 am on September 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »
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
You’re kidding - right? I can assure you there are much more meaning things to anticipate….LOL.
AprilOrit on September 14, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Of course, “we” made up all of the rules. All 66 of your books along with every other “sacred” text was written by humans.
One important thing Jayhaw…written by his diciples and written by humans filled with the Holy Spirit. TO deny the revelancy of the Bible…is to be expected from one who denies there is a God…for doesn’t it only make sense that if there is a God..which there is…he wouldn’t want his truth put in a form that would guide us through his teachings for us till the time came when he claims his children? I think YES!!!!
hotvol on September 14, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Whoops, meant to say meaningful….
AprilOrit on September 14, 2007 at 12:46 PM
No, but, remember: we’re turning the other cheek. ;-)
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Let’s see, that would be approx 33 for women, and around 40 for men?
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 12:47 PM
You have a choice, except God or don’t. If you don’t want God, He won’t force Himself on you.
As I said, hell is literally the absence of God, not just some ultimate time out for nonbelievers.
Those who do not want to worship God do not want to be in Heaven.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Watching people try to iron out all the paradoxes, and assuming that we have all the tools to do so, always amuses me, and I mean that sincerely and affectionately.
It reminds me of an article I read somewhere about a dog’s inherently limited capacity for making sense of a trip to the vet. They feel loved by their human masters, and they love their humans, yet their humans allow them to be taken to cold rooms and jabbed with needles, which hurts. How can their loving masters allow this to happen to them?
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 12:48 PM
First of all…….the Emmys happened? I’m over the Oscars. I never even paid attention to the Emmys in the first place.
And second, I will agree with the notion that we need to pray for our culture.
Because this is where we are going. The secular-progressives, as Bill O Reilly calls them, want to do away with all Judeo-Christian religious elements completely.
Meanwhile, the Democrats invite an imam to give an opening prayer at their convention, asking us to not follow the path of those whom Allah has condemned (i.e. everyone who is not Muslim).
And finally……what an incredibly hateful, terrible person. This was completely unnecessary. Whatever happened to “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”?
I truly wonder if, in fifty or so years when I am on my deathbed, if I will still recognize my country.
Hawkins1701 on September 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I prefer ignoring her than stirring up more press for her. I am hardly interested in putting more money in her pocket. First off she is not that funny, I’d rather her fade away.
AprilOrit on September 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Esthier,
Well, let’s split the difference. In some cases, they actually get up there and thank whomever for the talent. In others, they are being thankful for the award and the success. I see a world of difference between the two.
Krydor on September 14, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Turn the other cheek was a sign of defiance and a way to humiliate an opponent, not a sign of the modern day twisted idea of humility. Furthermore, it applied to personal enemies, not public ones, so this shouldn’t even factor in if someone decides to slam Katie back. I’m not even sure it still applies to those of us who don’t live in a culture similar to that of 1st centuy Israel in ANY situation.
Darth Executor on September 14, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I’m with Kensington regarding Baptism. Baptism isn’t about our choice to be Baptized, it is about God’s choice for us to be Baptizsed.
Whether we are brought to Baptism as a child or bring ourselves to Baptism as an adult, the active element is what God does for us, not what we decide God should do for us. And I can’t find any place in the Bible where God puts an age limit on what He does for us.
Lawrence on September 14, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Leave Kathy Griffin alone!
All she did was tell Jesus to ’suck it’, and you people keep tearing her down.
LEAVE HER ALONE!
John from WuzzaDem on September 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I guess the entertainment industry has to promote their own award shows because no one else is likely to.
Though not exclusively I do agree with this part of the link/response.
Kathy Griffin, just because you “can” say something, doesn’t mean you “should.” When you say “suck it, Jesus,” you didn’t just insult Christianity … you insulted the very reason you’ve prospered.
Speakup on September 14, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Me, too. I guess the major difference here is I’m not out trolling.
Have a good day…
wccawa on September 14, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Eh, doesn’t matter to me, just like it doesn’t matter to me when I hear another Hollywoodite criticize Bush. If she really means it, she’ll have to answer for it on Judgement Day.
revolutionismyname on September 14, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I can accept that.
Maybe so, but I likewise can’t find a limit on what God does for us based on the actions others do for us. I don’t understand why God would do something for us simply because our parents decided to do something that we had no choice in doing.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:47 PM
This whistles in like cold air over a sore tooth. I am not saying that you, Esthier, are antagonistic, but it is bald statements such as this that harden the agnostic’s resistance to accepting belief.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 12:56 PM
I think Kathy’s comment was awesome. We need more of that, not less.
What I also find interesting is all the Christians here proving how tough they are by saying, “I don’t care.” This is a step in the right direction, but the kind of world I want to live in is the one where the name of Jesus Christ is blasphemed so frequently that it becomes commonplace. At that point, Christians won’t have to prove how resilient their faith is and they’ll just say nothing. It will all become a non-issue, which is what it should be.
Even after I lost my faith, I still felt nervous about saying bad things about Jesus. I’ll always remember that day I first claimed to be the Messiah and then dared God to kill me if I was wrong. Naturally, I survived. It really clarifies things especially after God had Herod killed immediately after merely not praising God (Acts 12:23).
Of course, I don’t really think I’m the messiah — it was solely done to prove a point. There is no messiah because there is no need for one. All of Christianity is a bunch of hogwash. If Christianity feels good to you, then go ahead and get high on it. Just try not to take it too seriously, because then you end up hurting people.
And stop worrying about “God’s” reprisal. You already have enough *real* danger in the world to worry about, so don’t add any more pointless anxiety on top of it.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Indeed.
It is our innately-human sinful rejection of God that make us (tempts us to) not want to believe that God exists in the first place.
This is definitely a paradox for the unbeliever, but for us believers it is a simple black and white issue with an easy answer.
Lawrence on September 14, 2007 at 12:59 PM
I have no idea why you would say that.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Please note my post somewhere above about the smugness of christians.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 14, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Absolutely agree, Bryan.
AP - u r being manipulative by even posting this thread. Don’t like that. Not at all.
aqvik on September 14, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Actually the Emmys are this Sunday and she was obviously at the “D” ceremony, the lesser one they hold for technical wins etc. I am not sure what that Emmy was for, but she didn’t win it at the main ceremony, so please, in her industry that lesser show disignates a less-than endeavor.
GOD: “Exactly April, so why are you still talking about it or her…send her away with love and light.”
April: “You are right as always, thank you God, I will try not to waste the life You have so generously given me on such ridiculous mishigas.”
AprilOrit on September 14, 2007 at 1:00 PM
And an even further step would be if we all insulted each other so regularly that we don’t even remember what being kind is anymore.
Wouldn’t that be an awesome society?
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 1:00 PM
People were bringing little children
to Jesus to have him touch them,
but the disciples rebuked them.
When Jesus saw this,
he was indignant.
He said to them,
“Let the little children come to me,
and do not hinder them,
for the kingdom of God
belongs to such as these.
I tell you the truth,
anyone who will not receive
the kingdom of God
like a little child
will never enter it.”
And he took the children
in his arms, put his hands on them
and blessed them.
Mark 10:13-16
Modern day Apostles have chosen a wide interpretation of this and other biblical passages involving children to include infant baptism as well as the act of Holy Sealing.
However in the passage above, one can argue the children willingly approached the Lord Jesus and that an infant cannot physically do this. Yet, because we don’t know what lies within another person’s soul, including an infant’s, then it’s possible there may be a longing to be with the Lord and therefore why limit a soul to the fruits of salvation? Why not baptize and seal the child?
CliffHanger on September 14, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Well actually according to the Old Testament it would be 20 for both, however that was for people of Moses’ times, when people weren’t quite so narcissistic self-centered arrogant egotistical and in need of instant gratification, which is to say that they grew up and matured by 20. By today’s standards you are probably closer to accurate.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Then you must lack empathy.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Because it’s not about us. It’s not about our parents. It’s not about what age we are. It’s not about whether or not we understand it. It is all about what God does for us, despite us.
Lawrence on September 14, 2007 at 1:02 PM
So how is that vitriolic anti-Christian militant atheism working out for you?
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Maybe its a percentage thing, if you tell a little lie its 5 min. in the bad place, a big lie, an hour if you tell Gods son to “suck it” well that could be a few days.
Could be an old adding machine scenario, one lie-15 min. cha ching, one cheating on taxes-half hour-cha ching, one molesting a child-hasta la bu-bye cha ching.
Speakup on September 14, 2007 at 1:07 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
This analogy would suggest that G-d has “seen our movie” BEFORE that supposedly free choice between good and evil was made. If the movie has not yet been made (i.e. our choice has not yet occurred), then there is nothing for G-d to have seen. And if our movie has already occurred, then there was no choice in the first place. We are simply spinning our wheels in a movie with no beginning, no end, and with no choices to be made.
kayawanee on September 14, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Please explain to me exactly where I am wrong, dorian.
Dork B. on September 14, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I’m a gnostic. It is statements such as that that harden my belief in organized religion.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I don’t know, Jay. I consider all these people my friends, and I cringe with all the smearing - from both sides. I reckon it’s lack of self-discipline.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 1:10 PM
That’s obnoxious. Esthier wrote that Hell is the literal absence of God. That’s a perfectly normal, non-controversial tennant of Christianity. That’s a terrible things for non-believers, but there’s no happy-clappy way of avoiding it.
Facts, including the facts of religious dogma, are stubborn things, and there’s no more conflict between empathy and a belief that Hell is the literal absence of God then there is between empathy and a “belief” that the Sun rises in the East.
How would you have her respond more empathically? Deny that there is a Hell or that non-believers will experience it? I think perhaps you lack empathy for those with religious faith.
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Dude, you gotta make a webvideo or the inherent hilarity is lessened.
ScottMcC on September 14, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Absolutely not. Of course you were being sarcastic and it was a throw-away comment, but I do take this seriously.
Remember, you don’t have to listen to anyone when they skewer your most precious and tender sacred cows. Likewise, they don’t have a right to force you to listen. If you don’t like what people say, don’t listen to them. It’s as simple as that, and since I don’t like what Christians say most of the time, I can tell you from personal experience that you’re pretty easy to ignore.
The reason why this situation is interesting is because it’s “controversial” that Jesus Christ is blasphemed. I want to live in a society where it is not controversial to denigrate any religion to any extreme at any point. It should simply be a non-issue. Right now, it’s an issue. But decreased sensitivity on your part will make it be more of a non-issue, and that’s the direction our culture is headed.
And I think that rules.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Esthier stated that she had no idea why I would write what I wrote. From which I concluded that she could not acknowledge my point of view - note I am not saying agree with my point of view - ergo, lack of empathy.
I emphatically and categorically deny that.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I agreed with RushBaby because I thought she was stating her opinion as dogma. I didn’t know it was a tenet of Christianity. My “view” of Christianity’s hell was from Dante only.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I’m still waiting for a Christian to tell me what, exactly, makes an atheist “militant”.
I think that “not accepting Jesus Christ as personal lord and savior” is enough to render an atheist “miliant” to many Christians, but I’d like to hear some different opinions from other Christians here.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Come back after the war and we’ll talk. Next.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:23 PM
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Wow did I misinterpret what you said.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Eternal separation from God after death is what some describe as “Hell”, which I don’t believe is a term you’ll find in traditional translations of the Bible.
CliffHanger on September 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I have no idea what that means. Would you explain, please?
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Hebrews 4:12 states, “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
The word of God is alive. It makes a person realize the state of their souls and the darkness within. It brings imperfections to light which humans hate. People rail against it because of it’s truth and power.
I used to hate it and Christians.
GoodBoy on September 14, 2007 at 1:26 PM
If only Christians would just chill, everything will be Kool?
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism#Militant_atheism
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
May I take a stab at it? I think that Esthier couldn’t understand why her description of Hell as the literal absence of God should harden an agnostic’s skepticism. Why is that hard to understand?
Honestly, what does an agnostic expect, for a Christian to assert that there is no Hell? I’ll grant you Hell is not a pleasant prospect, but for a Christian its truth is unavoidable.
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Sorry for the confusion. I meant that as a “gnostic”, but not particularly connected to any organized religon, I found her comment on the “literal” meaning of hell to be too dogmatic. Because other religious traditions obviously have either no hell, or different hells. But if she was stating Christian dogma, I have no problem with hearing that.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
May the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on her unregenerated soul and on all those here who do not know him.
apostle53 on September 14, 2007 at 1:31 PM
i.e. atheism that takes you to the political left, as opposed to the right.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Dorian, Christians are not subject to the law insofar as it has been fulfilled by Christ. Would we say that there is something special about the age 35 that makes you presidential material?
Arguing specifics from the Old Testament will not, probably, gain you much. Both the content of the bible and the traditional interpretation of it are important. Also, you cannot from a Christian standpoint correctly interpret the Old Testament without the context of the whole.
RiverCocytus on September 14, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Loundry, Nonfactor, JayHaw Phrenzie, Allahpundit, and others:
I found this website
as well as this website to be extremely informative and helpful concerning a rational defense of Christianity.
I just thought you all would like to know about these websites due to our past excellent conversations about the question, “Is Christianity rational or not?”
Plus, I wanted to add a comment here just to increase “page views” so Allah can get his iphone.
ColtsFan on September 14, 2007 at 1:33 PM
I want to live in a society where it is not controversial to denigrate any religion to any extreme at any point.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I can understand wanting to live in a society where an individual is FREE “to denigrate any religion to any extreme at any point.”
But to suggest that such a thing should not be controverial only makes sense in a world where words and ideas have no meaning. If it’s not controverial, then you really aren’t denigrating it, now are you?
It seems that you have a lot of anger. Maybe you should look inward, instead of finding ways to be denigrating and controversial.
kayawanee on September 14, 2007 at 1:33 PM
I see a militant atheist as being someone like Hitchens and Hawkins. Someone who despises belief so much that they wish to see it eliminated. These people are so antagonistic that they can’t even pretend to be civil on the subject. The only reason Hitchens is so gung ho on the Iraq war is because it is against a religion.
Rose on September 14, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Every point you made is valid, and beside the point. You attacked my response, which did not adress the content of Esthier’s post, but which addressed her lack of empathy, as obnoxious.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 1:36 PM
It’s uncomfortable peering into one’s own soul and finding serious flaws. Once a person gets beyond the introspective nature of the faith, admits their faults, seeks foregiveness and turns himself over to a new way of life, then he has truly found freedom and the pathway to Eternity with the Lord!
CliffHanger on September 14, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Heh, this thread is too long… I think Jesus may have had something to do with Kathy winning her award, because I certainly don’t think it was because of her great talent, I don’t think she’s funny, and she looks a bit like a man in drag.
4shoes on September 14, 2007 at 1:37 PM
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. This is a thread about someone who told Jesus to “suck it” and you’re ranting about Christian smugness.
New Flash: Christians are human beings. We have the same flaws as you do JayHaw.
Anyway, I feel sorry for Kathy. She worships a carved rock she received to commemorate being chosen #1 at make believe in 2007. And the moment she finally had it in hand she could think of nothing better to do than to insult the best friend of billions of people.
12thman on September 14, 2007 at 1:38 PM
We are not condemned because of our actions (or intentions), whether they are done in ignorance or not. We are not pardoned because of our actions (or intentions), and thus cannot earn our way to Heaven.
We are condemned in Adam, and are born with Original Sin.
Knowledge of Right and Wrong has no bearing on our Sin Nature.
It is the grace and Mercy of God ALONE that saves us. The only “pass” that we get is given by God, at His discretion.. And it was made posible by the atonement of Christ.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:5
Dork B. on September 14, 2007 at 1:39 PM
No it is considerably more than that, it is a aggressive sect of atheism that actively seeks to eliminate all religions. not just Christianity but all beliefs systems other than itself.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 1:40 PM
yeah, like some guy said above, medicine is often delivered with a needle.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:42 PM
That is one of my favorite verses. Thanks!
For some reason, I’m also thinking of this one:
Philippians 3:14
I MUST get back to work!!
CliffHanger on September 14, 2007 at 1:44 PM
That about sums it up. And for what it’s worth, as a nonbeliever who loves and accepts believers, her insult stung me as well.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 1:44 PM
It seems to me that a clarification of the facts is in order. A brief synopsis of those facts would be along these lines:
1) God went to a great deal of trouble in order to create a universe where Kathy Griffin would possesses the free will that would enable her to pursue her goals in life.
2) God created the heavy metallic elements in that shiny little statue she was holding by forging them in the nuclear furnaces of one or more stars many eons ago.
3) God created the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen atoms in Kathy’s body in those same aformentioned stellar nuclear furnaces.
4) God authored the DNA code in the nucleus of each cell of Kathy’s body which contains all of the instructions required to build an instance of Kathy Griffin (either her or her clone) out of organic, amino acid based proteins constructed from the hydrogen-nitrogen-carbon-oxygen atoms that were forged in the aforementioned stellar nuclear furnaces.
5) Echoing Lauren Green, it should be duly noted that western civilization, and the free society that Kathy Griffin lives in, owes much to Christianity. Do I need to point out that there are no “emmy awards” in Muslim society — where women are relegated to the status of merely being a man’s property.
Beyond these basic simple basic truths that many people would view as “mere technicalities” (and others like them that I have omitted here for the sake of brevity), Kathy Griffin has spoken the truth. She is exactly correct in saying that:
A) Jesus had nothing to do with her award. I can’t imagine that He would soil himself with such a vulgar exhibition (such as the award ceremony) or a temporal thing (like the award itself). Jesus was ALL about the eternal spiritual things of God, and registered His contempt for “the things of this world” on a pretty regular basis.
B) The award is Kathy’s god. No contest. If she says that it is her god, why would anyone disagree with her? Seems to me that it is pretty much up to Kathy to choose her god. We are back to point number 1 - viz. God created a universe where Kathy would be free to do exactly that.
So. Where’s the beef? I’ve got no problem with what she says (other than the fact that she is SO predictable, she is dreadfully boring and not the least bit funny). Is she spewing hatred and/or advocating violence against people? If not, then who cares?
What is it about human nature that enjoys looking at a train wreck? Hollywood celebrities like Kathy Griffin are human train wrecks. Why the fascination with them, what they say, how they live? The fact that she appears here in a thread on HotAir AT ALL is the REAL mystery.
My collie says:
Hmmm. How are we doing so far Professor?
CyberCipher on September 14, 2007 at 1:44 PM
I guess I just don’t see a rational basis on which you can accuse her of lacking empathy, and I confess my own failure to grasp it as well. I can empathize with agnosticism, and even with a fear of eternal punishment.
However, you were criticizing her for her statement about Hell on the basis of it “hardening resistance” on the part of agnostics, and I don’t understand that. Are you suggesting that Hell shouldn’t be discussed?
Regardless!
I have my own unfortunate tendency towards occasional hot-headedness and defensiveness, and I apologize for subjecting you to both.
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 1:45 PM
For the very same reasons as why some kind of kids with particular circumstances are drawn to gangs. She’s not being effectively offered a rigorous enough alternative, like so many others throughout the West.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I’ve known many atheists that don’t care if someone believes in a god or gods. Then I’ve meet the ones that condemn, insult, verbally attack and degrade those that believe. Take a look at the Randi forums on religion. Few if any kind words towards the faithful and quite a bit of outright hateful comments. Then there are those atheist that write books condemning and belittling the faithful or those that are consumed with removing all religious objects from public view. Those are what I would consider militant atheists because they can not just let the faithful alone. They always whine about Christian oppression and theocracy infringing on their rights but can never give examples. It’s always the Crusades, the Inquisition or abortion bombings but never anything current or widespread.
jmarcure on September 14, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I agree, there is an element of athesism that has a problem with everyone, not just Christians, they want to wipe out all organized religion, period. And here in Manhattan they are not all completely Left learning, some are strong Libertarians.
They want to believe their higher power is a doorknob or a radiator and we are all supposed to follow suit.
AprilOrit on September 14, 2007 at 1:48 PM
RushBaby,
To be honest, I didn’t understand your reaction to Esthier’s assertion about the definition of Hell either. Just saying and not trying to be obnoxious or anything. I look forward to your further commentary on the subject.
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM
That comment reminded me of a scene from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. It begins approx 4:20
allie on September 14, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Allah, I know you’re smarter than this.
“Turn the other cheek” does not suggest that we IGNORE everything anyone might do wrong. It simply instructs us not to pounce on the offender or dismember them on the spot.
Your attempt to use this in yet another bashing of Christianity is highly predictable, but intellectually it’s not up to your usual standard.
Should all Christians just shut their mouths and ignore crimes? Should we turn the other cheek and not call for murderers to be punished? How about shoplifters? Should Christians not punish their children when they act up, because we’re supposed to “turn the other cheek? Should we Christians just laugh off the 9/11 terrorists because we’re supposed to “turn the other cheek?”
Does God just “turn the other cheek” and admit anyone into heaven regardless of how they live their lives?
Come on! You do understand this, right?
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Fixed it for you.
You know, I won’t even argue the point. I feel you, dawg (Randy Jackson is my idol).
I get annoyed at Christians, too, and for that very same reason. (Of course, I get EXACTLY the same feeling from a lot of zealous atheists, too! Only their not spiritually my superior … just vastly intellectually superior …)
But I will say that you are very clearly 100% wrong in one minor detail: that smugness may indeed be the overwhelming message that comes from a lot of self-proclaimed Christians (and from plenty of intellectually superior atheists!) … but it is clearly not the message of Christianity.
There is a difference, you know.
I’m pretty sure all those annoying, holier-than-thou Christians would be just as annoying if they were of any other faith … or no faith … some Muslims (falsely) use their religion as an excuse to blow stuff up; some Christians (falsely) use their religion to be annoying, self righteous twits).
Such is life. But don’t blame Jesus. It probably annoys Him more than it annoys us. How’d you like it if people went around acting that way in JayHaw’s name?
:)
Amen, brother JayHaw. Amen.
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 1:57 PM
I think Kathy’s mom failed miserably at teaching her manners. Because ultimately that is what she is revealing. She lacks the ability to be civil and gracious, but most of all she lacks class.
Rose on September 14, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Your analysis is incorrect.
If blaspheming Jesus Christ is NOT controversial, then that means Christians are taking Christianity a lot less seriously. And that’s the world that I want to live in.
I’m pleased to report that our culture is moving closer to that world, not farther away from it. Even Christians admit this.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 1:59 PM
grin
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 2:02 PM
If you’re a Christian, then you are supposed to. Jesus said so. And he didn’t say it with the “Turn the other cheek” quote you keep bringing up (to interpret it away). He did it with this statement:
“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.” Mat 5:39, words of Christ
Now is Editor going to write, “We don’t make the rules, Dude. Got a problem with it, take it up with the rules guy.” when faced with the words of Jesus Christ telling him “Do not resist an evil person”? My sources say no.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Actually most of them want everyone to believe that there is nothing to believe in. The do not believe that God or any gods exist and they believe that everyone should have this same lack of belief, which is in itself a belief. To quote Geddy Lee “If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice.”
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Loundry, why is it so important to you to denigrate other people’s beliefs? Maybe your mom forgot to teach you manners also.
Rose on September 14, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Some of this stuff reminds me of when I was a teenager and use to troll Christian chat rooms.
EnochCain on September 14, 2007 at 2:07 PM
There’s a Catholic radio program which airs from 3:00-5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday. It’s called Catholic Answers Live, and it’s really interesting. It’s basically a Catholic Q&A program which addressed a lot of the issues brought up in threads like this.
The show can be heard on some radio stations, streamed live over the Internet or downloaded. I subscribe to daily podcasts via iTunes. It’s a good listen for anyone curious about the nuts and bolts of modern Catholicism.
Kensington on September 14, 2007 at 2:07 PM
It’s important to him because by his own admission he has lost his faith. Having lost his faith he must now justify to himself the validity of his new faith or lack thereof by condemning that which he cast off as being false and unworthy of his having previously believed it.
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM
As for why Griffin makes a comment such as this, I believe it’s most likely related to the death of her father. I believe it was her father, or it might have been her mother. Her television show chronicled the emotional troubles she had during the time leading up to the death, and she made similar statements during the show. Some people tend to blame God when family members die and it’s possible that this is a result of that anger.
I experienced this with a family member who was very religious before her father suffered through cancer, ultimately leading to his death. She actually cursed God, saying that if there was a God he would not allow such suffering. Aside from the fact that God is not standing up there holding puppet strings, dictating everything that happens, it’s tough for me to understand what these people would have a God do. Eliminate death, and what sort of world would we live in? Think Soilent Green.
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 2:09 PM
We’ve got a long way to go, but I’m looking for investors interested in becoming part of a company that will design, manufacture, and market a high-quality line of “Mohammad can suck it, baby!” t-shirts. Cartoon Mohammad on the front, slogan on the back.
I’m talking top of the line stuff here, high thread counts, classy colors, maybe even some workout gear.
Are you in? We’ll make a
killingbundle of money.I’ll be back. I gotta go put a claim on mohammadcansuckit.com.
Spread the offense, baby. Spread that offense around. Let everybody get a taste, then we can have a laugh and a beer.
But I think we ought to consider Kevlar liners for our shirts. For liability reasons.
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 2:09 PM
LOLOL!
You mean 73?…OH FORGET IT :)
**Leave Jesus ALONNNNE! *cries**
Seriously, I agree w/ the poster who said that Jesus loves her so much and here she is, insulting Him and for what? A little attention. I tried to be outraged but it’s kinda sad really.
inviolet on September 14, 2007 at 2:10 PM
jmarcure,
Thank you for your response. I do have some questions for you, and these are curious questions, not combative questions.
Do you think Christians have done anything in the past to earn their ire, or is the wrath of atheists completely unprovoked?
I have no problem with removing religious works from government property, and I definitely want “In God We Trust” off of the money. I think personal religious beliefs should be personal and not imposed on anyone else without their consent.
Do you also think it’s unfair for Christians to write books condemning and belittling atheists or other religions?
Do you think it’s unfair when non-believers ask Christians to leave them alone? Consider street preachers, door-knockers, Gideons, etc.
I agree. Christians seem pretty tame nowadays, and I like that very much. Christians practically have to apologize for looking anti-gay! Things are going in the right direction, and there are many atheists who need to get over feeling so bitter.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:10 PM
For hot babes?
Damn. Never thought to try that.
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 2:11 PM
lol, Actually I did meet a hot babe there and a lot of nice people.
EnochCain on September 14, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I don’t blame you for coming to Esthier’s defense, and appreciate what you have said to me here. It would appear by your invitation to further discussion that you speak true when you say you can empathize with agnosticism.
As for my suggestion that Hell should not be discussed, I am aghast that my words could ever be interpreted as such. I read and participate here for discussions of all things controversial. That being said, I obviously need to expand and clarify my response to Esthier. First of all, to be fair, let me quote her in full context:
Sentence 2 provoked my reaction:
My reason for this is quite simple. According to Esthier, atheists and agnostics are living in Hell. And to suggest that my life, or any other nonbeliever’s life, is a living Hell, or that Hell awaits me in the afterlife, is so repellent to me, that I am further inclined to reject dogma that so casually damns other human beings.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Really? Funny. Than Jesus, Moses, and God himself didn’t follow their own rules very well, did they?
Huh? Interesting interpretation. You should be a Supreme Court Judge. Maybe you copied and pasted the wrong quote. I certainly hope so.
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Typo. “Then”
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Because sometimes other people’s beliefs are harmful.
Do you remember when Madelyn Murray O’Hair was “The Most Hated Woman in America?” Our culture used to be such that a person who openly rejected God was worthy of public harassment. Atheists are still viewed with mistrust and skepticism, and that kind of harmful public disapproval is based on hogwash. It should be shown that your religious beliefs, no matter how true you feel they are, are not true, and that other people can reject them safely and without fear of public disapproval.
Essentially, what I’m aiming for is this: If you want to be a Christian, fine. If you don’t want to be a Christian, fine. But we’re not going to get to that point before the widespread and baseless respect given to one particular set of religious beliefs is eliminated. We’re getting there. Today, Christopher Hitchens gets a book tour instead of being “The Most Hated Man in America”. Pretty rad if you ask me!
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:17 PM
I just read through this thread and … wow.
Do you guys realize just how Pavlovian we all are in response to these threads?
Allah tosses this out and we all come running like hungry pit bulls hearing a dinner bell. Salivating. Just like Pavlov’s pooches.
And then we all have the same conversation we have last time and the time before and the time before, with all the same people saying all the same things.
I wonder if it ever occurs to any of us that we’ve already done this a few dozen times.
Meanwhile, the thread is approaching 300 comments. Carbon copies of the last thread.
I personally feel sheepish.
And I still don’t know why Griffin won an award … or why Andy Dick is funny … or why Jesus can suck it but Mohammad can’t have pictures of him drawn. Or why self-righteous atheists can call self-righteous Christians self-righteous (and vice versa) with all parties not detecting the faintest trace of irony.
—————-
All I know for sure is that I’m quitting my job, starting a blog … and tossing out random incendiary religious commentary once or twice a week.
With the ad revenue from that and the income from my Suck It Allah! t-shirts … I’ll soon own you all.
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM
No, not empathy. I literally have no idea what you’re saying there, nor do I understand how my post could generate the reaction from you that it did.
I was hoping you’d explain. Is that possible?
Then wouldn’t it follow that God does these things even if we don’t baptize children?
My response wasn’t purely sarcastic. It’s about as sarcastic as the “Modest Proposal.”
Everything you’re saying here can be applied to what I was saying above. If I insult you here and call you a cow (just as an example. I have no idea if you’re a cow and don’t care), you can easily ignore it if you choose to.
She didn’t insult Christians because she was blasphemous. She insulted Christians because she spoke disparagingly about the being we worship. This would be the same as if she had said, “Esthier’s hypothetical children (since I don’t have any), suck it!”
But as you yourself noted, few Christians here were startled by it anyway. So blaspheme isn’t so taboo anyway.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:19 PM
It is a funny thing about Christians. Leave them alone and they will turn on each other. Give them a common foe and they band together and become stronger. The strongest Christians are those who have endured persecution. The stronger the atheist movement becomes the more unified believers become. We are not going away. So, I suggest you not hold your breath Loundry in your anticipation of a totally secular society!
Rose on September 14, 2007 at 2:19 PM
I completely agree with you. The Bible is pretty nonsensical when it’s not boring or disgusting or occasionally charming, and that includes Jesus, Moses, and God himself.
Go open your Bible and read it. Matthew 5:39. I used the NIV if that makes a difference to you.
And by the way, I’m not interpreting what Jesus said. He said, “Do not resist an evil person.” It means what it says and it says what it means. “Interpretation” is SPIN and it’s what Christians do when scripture gets them into trouble. Jesus said some really screwy things, and interpretation is your friend in those instances. I am not a Christian so I am free to read the Bible literally.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Technically speaking, you’re almost correct but not quite.
1. Hell is the only place one can be separated from God, so living human beings whether agnostic or whatever, are not in Hell.
2. I have no idea what awaits you in the afterlife. All I know for a fact is that if you do not want to spend eternity with God, then God will not force Himself on you and will let you spend eternity in the only place you can get away from Him.
3. If you don’t want God, then why would Hell, such as I described it, be repellent to you at all anyway? Do you not see the cognitive dissonance?
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »