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 5 6 7 Next »
Other people have given different meanings of the turn the other cheek thing, meanings that would have been relevant in New Testament time.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I would personally like to welcome our new overlord Professor Blather… :p
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Great – now we’re getting somewhere, thanks. I’ll be back with questions.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I was typing after you’d already posted it.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Even though you weren’t addressing me specifically, thanks.
I’m guessing (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you were responding to this in particular
when you said
Not to address the *will* aspect of the assertion, but Esthier isn’t referring to this world, but to the afterlife in which Christians believe. Therefore, she isn’t saying that atheists and agnostics are living in Hell right now.
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Esthier,
Trust me, Christians have called me much, much worse than that. I call it “Christian love”.
That’s a contradiction. Blasphemy is speaking disparagingly of your God, which, as far as I can tell, is the being you worship. Then again, maybe you have some weird “blasphemy, but not really” definition of blasphemy.
It would not be the same at all. The key differences are:
1. You don’t worship your children
2. Your children (were they to exist) are flesh and blood and have feelings
3. You don’t expect the society at large around to stick up for your children as the basis of morality and law
It’s hard to tell. Christians typically view this kind of thing as “spiritual warfare”, so even if they were bothered by it I would expect some of them to put up a strong front and pretend like they weren’t.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Of course you have that belief when you take the liberty to INTERPRET Jesus’ words so inaccurately in order to fit your claim.
That’s not what you’re doing here Justice Ginsberg. If so, explain how “Do not resist an evil person” magically becomes “ignore and refuse to punish anyone.”
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 2:31 PM
My response when this was in the headlines a few days ago:
Kathy Griffin to Jesus: “Suck it”
Jesus to Kathy Griffen: “Burn in Hell”
And who should I believe will make good on their threat?
I was of course, playing off the Nietzsche to God quotes.
Nietzsche: “God is Dead.”
God: “Nietzsche is Dead.”
In reality Jesus would actually forgive her or try to help her out, but we all know Jesus had a rapier wit.
BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 2:31 PM
It really is necessary to understand the culture of the times during which the New Testament was written and how the things Jesus and the Apostles said were understood by the people hearing them.
Rose on September 14, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Yes, I am aware that Christians have spun “turn the other cheek” really, really hard.
Do you give a different meaning to “Do not resist an evil person.”? I think it means what it says. I’m guessing you disagree, and I would praise you for disobeying Jesus in this instance. Of course we should resist evil people, no matter what Jesus Christ says.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Congratulations. Your free “Suck It, Mohammad!” t-shirt will be delivered within 24 business hours.
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Indeed, we do all know about that. Do you remember when Jesus said this?
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” Lk 14:26
Hilarious!
(Wait for it: “It says ‘hate’ but it means ‘love less’”)
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:35 PM
You’re baiting, and I’m not really in the mood to bite. Suffice it to say, I’ll by the original over the translation no matter what that means.
Jesus very clearly said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is a call to action.
I personally would hope that others would assist me if an evil person is harming me, so I can see no other better call for action against evil than the “Golden Rule.”
Christianity is unique this way too. Many other religions say “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.” This is a call to do nothing.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I didn’t write that. Jesus said, “Do not resist an evil person.” and I insist that it means what it says and it says what it means.
I’ll make it more clear for you.
“Do not resist an evil person.”
means
Do not resist an evil person.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:37 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.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Where there is no controversy, there is no belief. So what you’re really saying is that you look forward to a day where religious belief no longer exists. When such a day comes, there will no longer be any controversy generated by insulting/defaming/denigrating/blaspheming any religion.
What I don’t really understand is why you wish to eliminate such controvery. It is this religious controversy that stirs debate and intellectual pursuit. St. Thomas Aquinas and Spinoza are two cases in point. Both were religious men, both were controversial, and both added to the texture of literature, philosophy, religion, and reason. The movements of Empiricism and Rationalism were formed in part because of these men respectively. These were the movements which opened up the Enlightenment of western civilization. To my mind, that’s a good thing.
kayawanee on September 14, 2007 at 2:37 PM
In what language? In English, it certainly doesn’t come even remotely close to what you seem to think it means.
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Yes, Loundry you are free to read and interpret the Bible literally – every verse and not just the one’s that seem to support an argument you’re attempting to make.
Matthew Chapter 5 literally deals with 1:1 interactions, does it not? Where does it say that collectively we can’t be saddened and angry towards those who would do us harm? Where does it say that as a society we should ignore these things?
CliffHanger on September 14, 2007 at 2:40 PM
How about – it’s all an act for attention, she is playing a character on TV like the rest of them – comedians, entertainers, wrestlers, political pundits….
AprilOrit on September 14, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Interestingly enough, they met on a Blind date, she had surgery for a condition that could render her blind and she lacks any foresight.
Zaire67 on September 14, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Our Pastor covered this last week. Unfortunately, the Hebrew doesn’t translate that well and it essentially means you can’t prefer your family or idols over God. Hate has a stronger meaning in English than the original words, but some things don’t transfer well.
BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 2:44 PM
No, it’s not a contradiction. I’m not saying that she wasn’t being blasphemous. I’m only saying that Christians are upset about her blasphemy.
Cursing God is blasphemy, but not all blasphemy includes cursing God.
To blaspheme God, all you have to do is claim He doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t insult Christians.
Many people do.
If my children were dead (if I had any) and no longer were flesh and blood and no longer had feelings the insult would actually be worse, so I don’t agree with this point.
And I don’t expect anyone to stick up for God on any basis.
However, people do expect society to stick up for children. Haven’t you heard anything about Laura Ingraham’s new book about the pornification of our culture and other things she believes are harmful to children?
That’s a weird response. I don’t see how spiritual warfare would preclude the desire to show human emotion, especially on a website.
But even if what you say is true, then the end result is still the same. Christians are not responding to instances of blaspheme as though they are shocked or hurt.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Are you admitting that “Biblical Truth” is wholly dependent on your culture? I’d love to see a clean break from the “God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow” dishonesty.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Whoopee, cant wait…er, there is going to be a Kevlar lining in it right????
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I agree, the Bible is meaningless and can be safely ignored.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:46 PM
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 14, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Actually, Jesus never said “Do not resist an evil person.”
He spoke Aramaic.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:50 PM
That’s not what is being said. Cultural norms help explain the words being used.
The NIV is an adaptation of the King James Version, which was not a good translation at all.
Look, in today’s culture if I say someone is gay, I’m calling that person a homosexual. Years ago, it just would have meant that person was happy. Cultural context explains the meaning of what’s being said there. It doesn’t, however, change what was said.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:53 PM
If history is any indication of business success, then let me be the first to suggest it would be MOST lucrative if we somehow actually turned the Professor’s “Suck It Allah” T-shirts into a cult religious following where our followers are only allowed to wear our line of clothing and read only our published works.
Hmmm. Now we need a holy site. I think maybe Antelope Oregon is vacant these days.
Just sayin’.
CyberCipher on September 14, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I’ve never known cults to be a large enough audience. If it were my business venture, I’d target the high school and college teens who have plenty of disposable income without much to actually spend it on.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:56 PM
You obviously have a serious language comprehension problem. It’s no wonder you’re so confused.
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I love it when non-believers attempt to use the Bible to restrict the activity of believers.
Anyway, Loundry, turn the other cheek doesn’t mean we are not permitted to have discussions about our faith. In fact, we have been called to do just that.
The message of that portion of the Sermon on the Mount can most easily be understood as don’t seek vengance; or don’t follow the path of reciprication.
As far as discussing the situation with your assailant well I challenge you to look at what Jesus did when he was, quite literally, struck on the cheek.
12thman on September 14, 2007 at 2:57 PM
It insults some Christians. Others aren’t quite so sensitive. I’m hoping to help move Christians to complete insensitivity on this issue.
Yes, but *you* don’t and that’s why the comparison is invalid.
Furthermore, any parent who worships their own children is an idolater and will flambé in hell for zillions of years for it, correct? Don’t blame me, I didn’t make up the rules.
You didn’t mention that the first time around, and it would certainly change things. Speaking ill of the dead is not harmful toward the (dead) one being spoken ill of.
I regard your numb attitude and low expectations as progress, and I thank you for it.
I think divorce is much, much more harmful to children than “pornography” (whatever that happens to be nowadays). The reason why “pornography” is seen as harmful to children largely (but not completely) deals with Christian prudishness and sqeamishness about sex. Yet Christians continue to destroy their own families with divorce thousands of times per year causing untold harm to their own kids.
Planks and splinters come to mind, Laura Ingraham, lover of the “blue laws”.
I agree. They’re not *acting* that way. Christians will lie for Christ. I’ve seen it both as a Christian and a non-Christian. When I was a Christian, I completely took a “end justifies the means” view of it, because we were preventing people from being tortured in hell for all eternity.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Okay. Now we’re talkin.’ We need a sound track. A music video. Some MTV time. How about “Suck It Mo!” tattoos? How about “Suck it Mo!” body piercings? The possibilities are endless.
CyberCipher on September 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 2:24 PM
This is a useful modification to your original post. Thank you.
The notion of the “place” you refer to, Hell I presume, baffles me. The fact that human beings would, in the name of God, judge other human beings, is what’s repellant. There is no cognitive dissonance, just lack of communication between us, I think.
I’m guessing (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you were responding to this in particular
Those who do not want to worship God do not want to be in Heaven.
when you said According to Esthier, atheists and agnostics are living in Hell.
Not to address the *will* aspect of the assertion, but Esthier isn’t referring to this world, but to the afterlife in which Christians believe. Therefore, she isn’t saying that atheists and agnostics are living in Hell right now.
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 2:28 PM
No, I specifically stated that Sentence 2 provoked my reaction:
I fervently hope that we are not going to have to have a discussion on the meaning of *is*.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 3:00 PM
rats, I was afraid my quote tags were off. Baldilocks, my above comment is to you, too.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 3:01 PM
I don’t claim that there are no militants within religions. In fact it is proven almost daily that there are very violent and deadly religious militants. You asked what a Christian would consider a militant atheist and I answered with a few of my opinions. As far as religious symbols in public or on currency go. Who cares? How exactly does it harm? “In God we trust” What god are they talking about? Who does it hurt having it on the bills? I do mean hurt and in a real way, not some “I feel intimidated” way or “it’s so unfair to others” way. I want real world “I was denied”, “I was jailed”, “I was fired” type examples for this country during my lifetime. The Spanish Inquisition, Crusades and one abortion doctor being capped by a nut doesn’t cut it. As an added bonus you can provide studies on why taking religious symbols out of public view would make us safe from said crazies or how everyone’s lives would be so much better.
jmarcure on September 14, 2007 at 3:03 PM
My language comprehension is fine. I read the Bible, and I tell you what it says.
It is you who says, “it certainly doesn’t come even remotely close to what you seem to think it means.”
So perhaps when Jesus said, “Do not resist an evil person.” it actually means, “Go make lots of money in a capitalistic society.” Or maybe it actually means, “Butterfly Unicorn Pizza Tower!” Both of those interpretations would qualify as not remotely close to what I think it means (and I think it means what it says, nothing more and nothing less), but if it ends up meaning what you want it to mean instead of what it says, then it means nothing. That is precisely how deep the “interpretation” rabbit hole goes.
Let me say it again so you understand it: if scripture means what you want it to mean instead of what it says, then it means nothing because no one can say whose “interpretation” is the correct one.
That’s why I wrote that the Bible is meaningless and can be safely ignored, and that is that.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 3:07 PM
THAT”S IT! Anyone want to sign a petition to have the U.S. mint strike “Suck It Mo!” on all of our coins?
CyberCipher on September 14, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Either way, the end result is the same to you, so why would it matter? Lying is their sin and their problem, not anyone else’s.
By the way, I’ve decided to work backwards…
I don’t know anything about what she thinks of those. Then again, I don’t see how that makes her a hypocrit if she does support them.
You get no argument from me. Divorce is a horrible thing. This doesn’t mean that people don’t also try to make laws to protect children from things they believe children need protection from.
Personally, I’m not even against porn.
Of course it’s not. They’re dead. Speaking ill of God doesn’t hurt Him either. He’s God.
I don’t know. I’m not God, and I don’t make the rules. People who worship their own children are a little nuts in my mind, but maybe I’m just saying that because I don’t have any children.
Second, whether or not they’ll spend eternity in the great BBQ of the after life has nothing to do with my analogy.
I don’t because I don’t have any children. If I did, who knows, maybe I’d be one of the crazy ones. Maybe I’d kill my daughters rival in cheerleading.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Loundry, I would be interested in seeing what your reading comprehension score was on your SAT. I said the culture of the people hearing the words is important to understanding what they were hearing. Thank you Esthier for explaining what I meant.
Rose on September 14, 2007 at 3:13 PM
They are following you, your phone is tapped, they know your every move…keep looking over your shoulder…they are in the shadows…you hear words that no one else hears.
Well at least your never lonely, you always have someone to talk to.
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I see you’re ignoring the information I’m giving you in this post (or at least not replying) but I’ll try one more time.
The scripture you “quoted” is only part of the one verse, taken completely out of context and misquoted by you.
Here is verse 38 and 39 in their completeness with your part highlited:
But this wasn’t written (and certainly not spoken) in English. The original Greek for verse 39 reads:
That word you’re reading as resist is more fully understood to mean standing in battle and striving for victory.
Even when we are debating a topic like this with you Christians should not be seeking revenge… or even our own victory. Really what we should be seeking is your victory.
12thman on September 14, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Why would we have such a discussion about the word “is?” My name is not Bill Clinton.
I apologize for not going back into the thread to clarify what you meant. However, I tried to make allowance for that lack of action by including the phrase “please correct me if I’m wrong.”
Again, you said:
I reiterate: E. wasn’t talking about the colloquial meaning of Hell-on-Earth but in the next life. I realize that you believe that there is only *this life* and no other, which, it seems, was part of the misunderstanding about what she said and what you though she meant.
If this isn’t correct, again please say so–minus the inferences that I’m a WWBCD sort of individual. Thanks.
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I like your pugnacious attitude because that makes the conversation much more interesting for me. Unfortunately, you’re seeing demons where none exist. I don’t want your activity to be restricted. Instead, I’d rather you undergo a personal transformation toward being a numb and lukewarm Christian. You should be free to be outspoken and pushy, but just not feel like doing it. Lots of Christians have made the change and many more will continue to do so.
And that’s what we’re doing right now. I like it!
What about the path of resistance? Did Jesus tell you not to follow the path of resistance? Do you think that is what “Do not resist” means?
What about when Jesus was, quite literally, arrested, beaten, unfairly tried, and tortured to death?
Did he resist those evil men?
I think that’s called “leading by example”. When Jesus said, “Do not resist an evil person”, he didn’t merely talk the talk. He walked the walk!
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Congratulations, Allah on another fine baiting of the commenters! You are truly the master.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM
I fail to see how you get that Christians are judging other people. That certainly was not something I intended to put into my post.
All I am saying is that an after life with or without God is the ultimate choice that individuals must one day make for themselves.
Whatever you choose is what you choose and has nothing to do with me.
Satan didn’t want to be ruled by God. In Hell, he finally gets his wish, as its the only place God will not go.
As a Christian, I believe life with God is better than life without God. I’m convinced that my belief is more than just a preference, like saying Coke is better than Pepsi (though both are worse than Dr. Pepper), but if you’re unconvinced, then you’re not required to agree with me.
And if you don’t agree with me here on earth, I don’t see why you’d agree with me after dying.
I honestly didn’t realize it was necessary, but I’m glad it helped.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Those men were doing what He wanted them to do.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Indeed.
I’m just here for the chicks.
And to sell my patented line of “Suck It, Mohommad” t-shirts and sports apparel.
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 3:24 PM
“Standing in battle” and “striving for victory” are NOT the same as “seeking revenge”. You changed the meaning of the word. And you have to in order to somehow turn “do not resist” into “it’s okay to resist”, which is your goal.
In any case, why should I take your word over the word of those scholars who translated the NIV or the KJV (which you crazily quoted, given how flawed it is)? Both of them though “resist” was the best word. Not “standing in battle”, “striving for victory”, and certainly not “seek revenge”.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Some of us chicks are over at the hot Mormon beefcake thread.
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 3:25 PM
She, like most comedians, has severe emotional problems.
I pity her, not only because of her celebration of immorality, not only becuase of her inferiority complex and self-loathing, not only because of her manic behavior – but – mostly, because of her denigration of the Messiah and her callous disregard for the only One that can save her.
To mock Jesus is to deny Him. And to deny Him is to destroy yourself. Funny, huh?
OhEssYouCowboys on September 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Well, I’d like one of those tees, only I think I like “Suck it, Mo” better.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM
You can clarify the meaning with a mo cartoon on the back.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Again, the KJV was a bad translation. The NIV was taken from the KJV.
These days there are much better translations to work from, translations which went straight to the source.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Perhaps we can agree that religion is the most controversial subject we discuss here at HA. And many of us get in hair-trigger mode. Since this is the case, I think it’s important to consider the words we say, for they are open to all kinds of unexpected and unintended interpretations. Words mean things, and the only safe way to interpret them is quite literally. The good thing about this forum is that we are free to challenge each other and, in response, to clarify, expand, and explain. I appreciate your point of view, and thank you for the civil discussion.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM
That is a lovely sentiment.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM
As long as Mo is depicted naked on the back of the T.
Agreed.
CyberCipher on September 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
No, he wasn’t.
Those are not the words of a willing human sacrifice.
Loundry on September 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Completely agreed.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM
A tortured man with tortured logic.
Do you understand the complexities of interpreting a dead language?
The general description and writtings are accurate, when taken in context. But when you begin to dissect them word by word, then you have to go to the original text, the Greek or Hebrew, and discern (from their historical presence) the meaning of the word. Which means you have to actually study something, and not just blabber about it.
That is what makes the bible so extrordinary, when you actually begin to try to “break” it down (as you have), it becomes even more strong and viable when you have researched the actual texts. For 2,000 years people much smarter than you have tried to punch holes in it. The best they can come up with is that Jesus was an incredible con man, able to deceive thousands in dozens of countries. They rely on their faith of non-believing, despite the huge amount of historical content backing up every piece of biblical history.
Here is an example: English to Spanish back to English
He scored a hat trick: Él anotó un truco del sombrero:it wrote down a trick of the hat
He made three goals in consecutive tries:Él hizo tres metas en intentos consecutivos:He did three I put in consecutive attempts
You would say, “he wore a hat and did a trick”? It does not translate well now, think about 2,000 years from now.
Get it?
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 3:38 PM
These days there are much better translations to work from, translations which went straight to the source.
Esthier
Just a quick note on that. There’s a punctuation issue with all the translations, as the originals are lacking in punctuation. There’s a couple of passages that either have a comma, or don’t. The addition, deletion or position of the comma utterly changes the meaning.
I’m not to interested in poking around for the actual chapter and verse, but it has to do with Jesus and the thief on the cross.
“I say to you, this day you will be in heaven”
“I say to you this day, you will be in heaven”
The movement of the comma has actually allowed for two utterly different schools of thought within Christian theology regarding the afterlife. One is you go to heaven after you die, the other is you are waiting for the whole Armageddon thing.
So, going back to the original source will be fraught with the same interpretation errors.
Krydor on September 14, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Kathy Griffin hates black
peoplerappers…The Ugly American on September 14, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Unless you’re Loundry, in which case you’re free to simply change words in order to mean whatever it is you WANT them to mean. If you’re Loundry, then the words …
magically become equal to …
“Ignore all evil acts and refuse to do ANYTHING to stop them.”
Gregor on September 14, 2007 at 3:40 PM
The tracks are worn long and deep now, Folks. :)
I say we all turn our attention and money to Professor’s tee endeavor.
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 3:42 PM
At times, Kathy Griffin will come across as your basic likable-but-sometimes-obnoxious entertainer, and other times like she is a graduate of The Andrew Dice Clay School Of Less Than Ethical Comedy. I have no idea where she was coming from this time with this one.
pilamaye on September 14, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Thanks, Tickled. I mean it sincerely that I consider everyone here to be my friends, and I am full of gratitude to be here, learning, loving, and growing.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Trying to be funny.
Apologist.
Kini on September 14, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Dudes,
We need a promotional gimmick. Ya’ know how people are always cutting open a vegetable and finding an image of Jesus? — we need to do something like that. How about we plant some “Suck It, Mo” images in unlikely places, let people find them, and see if the MSM picks up on it?
CyberCipher on September 14, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Hmmm chicks like beefcake’s…well dang it all, who would have ever thunk it… :p
doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 3:53 PM
ask your collie. he knows more than you.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I couldn’t agree more. These discussions, while certainly controversial, can be the most rewarding ones, from my perspective anyway.
In fact, it was discussions like these that caused me to fall in love with the man I married. At the time he was an atheist.
He said, “let Your will be done, not mine,” fully knowing that His will was for Jesus to die.
Jesus wanted God’s will done, and that’s what those “evil men” were doing.
Jesus didn’t want to die, but more than that, He wanted God’s will done. He had two competing wills but ultimately allowed the one that wanted God’s will done to win.
Yes, but at least in going to the original we can better understand the meaning or words like “resist” and “love” versus “brotherly love”.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Sigh. Thanks so much for using my words to cudgel another commenter.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Your collie suggested something like this.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 3:56 PM
The background on my computer has an eggplant that says “GOD”.
If I cut one open, and it says “SUCK IT, MO” I’ll send a link.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 3:58 PM
I envy you that. To have a mutually …sharpening… relationship is a special kind of bond indeed.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 3:58 PM
What are you doing? What exactly is the matter with you?
You’ve made the exact same point over and over. In at least 20 posts.
In comment after comment, you’ve intentionally shown disrespect. You’re purposefully engaging in the most dishonest of semantic arguments.
What are you doing? Is it about your own insecurity? Does it make you feel better – since you abandoned your faith – to try to denigrate the faith of others? Is that what it’s about? Do you think your enormously dishonest attempt to parse thrice translated Biblical verses with the most Clintonian arguments I’ve ever seen is going to suddenly make these people renounce their faith and join you? If they all just admit that there is no God (other than Jessica Alba), will you feel better?
What exactly is the point? I mean, besides making you look like an ass? Do you have any idea just how ludicrous your pompous posts sound – as you simultaneously claim to both ignore and have a deep understanding of the “meaningless” Christian texts? Do you know how goofy the semantic crap is if you don’t at least tell us you’re fluent in ancient Greek and Aramaic and have some scholarly background in theology?
Because if you’re not, well, you’re just talking out your ass while simultaneously telling everyone else they’re talking out their ass. Right? And that’s funny. I should make that a t-shirt. Want one? What size do you wear?
And do you really not grasp the vast irony that you are acting exactly like what you claim to oppose – that you are coming across as closed-minded, zealous, and as rabid as any fundamentalist?
Grow up. Quit poking the Christians. They get it. You’re smarter and better than they are. Okee-dokee. If they start proselytizing and you don’t like it, tell them to shut up. For now, maybe you should.
Or at least engage in a good faith, adult, friendly discussion. Leave the Clintonian semantics somewhere else.
There are plenty of ways to discuss religion and still play nice. Try that, if you can’t keep your predictable former-Christian-now-atheist opinions to yourself. And do you realize you people are the only people more intrusively, self-righteously annoying than former smokers? Now those are some bastards.
Or – here’s an idea – talk about the actual topic of the thread. Kathy Griffin? Ring a bell.
This thread can suck it. Especially you.
You can all suck it as far I’m concerned. I heard there are chicks in another thread, and none of you people are ordering t-shirts.
I’m going to find those chicks who are off fawning over Mormon guy flesh. Cuz that’s hawt.
My apologies if I forgot to offend someone.
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Thanks, and normally it’s great. I could do without his defense of Clinton though (unfortunately are differences are thorough).
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Before you go. You’re a Professor in the Common Sense Dep’t I seem to remember. But which school? I’ve got two kids.
JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Kathy Griffen is on the “D” list…D for dumb.
It was funny when I first wrote it…
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I know you’re just going to take this as another sign of Christian superiority, but you were never a Christian. There’s no such thing as being unsaved; you either are or you never were.
And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away. Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.”
- ( Matthew 13:3-9)
2Brave2Bscared on September 14, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Kewl. That’s one nice post.
inviolet on September 14, 2007 at 4:20 PM
The grand setup. Kind of like, “I have many friends that are black, however”, or “some of the kindest people I know are Joooos, however…”, “I have a friend that is gay, and I tell you…”
Yeah, yeah, right. Put you on the same level as Kathy…”some of my best friends are Christians, and they…”
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:23 PM
The reason that this twerp can say this and get away with it in this wonderful country is because we were founded by a bunch of people that believed in Jesus’ teachings of “turn the other cheek” and “tolerance”…however this does not mean that the Creator of the Universe is going to tolerate this forever! But, we live in a country where she can say whatever she wants! And we can can reply with whatever we want! And neither one of us need fear that the Government will cut our heads off!
sabbott on September 14, 2007 at 4:36 PM
The Christians are going to riot in the streets and threaten the life of …. wait a minute, wrong religion.
mcptek on September 14, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Professor Blather on September 14, 2007 at 10:09 AM
…and 2:18, and previous,
…and 3:59, and all other PB comments on HA,
you’re simply the best in logic and creativity! Something’s always lacking when you retreat for a while. Thank you and regards,
Entelechy on September 14, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Hon, I can feel the warmth from here. Cheers!
tickleddragon on September 14, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Exit question: Why do athiest, agnotistics, and non-believers sound like Muslims? Kathy’s rant could be heard in 100 different incantations on YouTube Jihadi feeds… Just saying…
Sultry Beauty on September 14, 2007 at 5:17 PM
BTW~ Where is it written that turning the other cheek means you can’t defend yourself? I hate having scripture deciphered for me by non-believers. It also says resist not evil. Does that mean Jesus wanted us to be overrun by OBL, Al-Queda, and the Taliban and not fire a shot? Jesus also said this: Matthew 10:32-39. I’m not here to tell you what to believe, but if someone trashes my faith without so much as a provocation on my part, I’m gonna defend it. And it doesn’t make me hypocritical.
Sultry Beauty on September 14, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Jesus died a long time ago, and there is no bearded man in the sky ruling humanity, so it seems Kathy has her head on straight.
The Sinner on September 14, 2007 at 5:30 PM
She has her head on straight by telling someone who doesn’t exist to suck it?
By that understanding, she’d also have her head on straight if she told the Easter Bunny to suck it.
Esthier on September 14, 2007 at 5:35 PM
RushBaby and tickleddragon, you two are adorable, mostly very polite and a joy to read and have around. Best regards and have a great weekend,
Entelechy on September 14, 2007 at 5:36 PM
The Sinner on September 14, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Well, she’s got her head on. And that, in our times, sends a message to our friends in the Middle East who may someday decide that a measure of toleration has a place in their society.
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 5:37 PM
((((E))))
RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM
…maybe I can help make this a bit clearer to some of the more reasonable non-believers.
Image Kathy got up there instead and sead something like:
“Mother Theresa can kiss my a%%!”
-or-
“You know those soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq to preserve our freedom… well screw them they’re haven’t done a damn thing for me! Dead soldiers can suck it!”
Does the fact that they’re dead, especially in the case of the soldiers who sacrificied their life for yours, make it ok to say such things?
It can’t be made any clearer than this.
12thman on September 14, 2007 at 5:46 PM
(please excuse the typos, speaking Tagalog and typing English = many errors)
12thman on September 14, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I can say that she errs in judgment and she is wrongheaded, but when I pray for her at night and wake up the next day with a smile and warm hello to all I meet, still makes me meek… but thanks for the scripture lesson Ernesto.
Sultry Beauty on September 14, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I have a web poll going on here. Just in case anyone is interested.
terryannonline on September 14, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »