Pat Robertson: Haitians Were Punished By God for “Pact With the Devil”

Rev. Pat Robertson often attributes horrific events to God’s wrath as when he explained that the 9-11 attacks and the Katrina disaster were punishments for our sins. Now, Robertson has proclaimed that the earthquake in Haiti was sent by God to punish Haitians for a “pact with the Devil” made to overthrow the French.

Robertson favors that Old Testament God filled with anger and wrathful impulses. On this occasion, in Robertson’s mind, God wanted to kill over 100,000 people because of something that some of their ancestors allegedly did. Makes perfect sense. Here is what the good Reverend said “happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it”:

You know, Christie, something happened a long time ago in Haiti. And the people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third or whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you get us free from the French. True story. And so, the Devil said, Ok, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another — desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God, that out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come, but right now we’re helping the suffering people — and the suffering is unimaginable.

He may be taking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reference to “Biblical damage” a bit too literally. However, President Obama seem to be offering a rebuttal by promising the Haitians that they “will not be forsaken.”

Native Haitians defeated French colonists in 1804 and declared independence. If only they had stayed virtual slaves under French rule, God would have been pleased and they would have been earthquake free.

This is line in with Robertson’s prior explanations of God’s wrath in terms of killing people in New Orleans and New York as God’s way of “vomiting” us out:

My only question is why we want to spend eternity with God if he is this horrible being filled with rage and wrath who speaks to guys like Pat Robertson? Isn’t God supposed to be better than us? Even my four-year-old does not hope that her classmates are wiped out in earthquakes when she is mad at them. If this were true, God would be in serious need for intense therapy over his anger issues and violent disposition. It is a bit hard to imagine Jesus saying “serve’s em right, Pop, for that stuff that their ancestors did over two hundred years ago.”

By the way, I missed that history lesson about how all of the Haitians swore a pact with the Devil. There are sacrificial and voodoo practices certainly on that island, but I was unaware that the whole revolution was one big Satanic movement.

There is no such “true story” about a nationwide pact with the devil. There were various revolutions by people like Padrejean in 1676 and François Mackandal in 1757. Robertson seems to be referring to Dutty Boukman who helped led the uprising in August 1791. He was a houngan, or Haitian priest, who held a traditional ceremony in which a pig (symbolizing the power of nature) was sacrificed and an oath administered to the fighters to be fearless in battle. However, accounts of his words notably omit Robertson’s alleged pact:

h! Eh! Bomba! Heu! Heu!
Canga, bafio té!
Canga, mouné de lé!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, li!

We swear to destroy the whites
and all they possess.
Let us die rather than fail
to keep this vow.

Indeed accounts have him referring to God not Satan for some old-fashioned wrathful justice (which would seem to appeal to Robertson:

“The god who created the sun which gives us light, who rouses the waves and rules the storm, though hidden in the clouds, he watches us. He sees all that the white man does. The god of the white man inspires him with crime, but our god calls upon us to do good works. Our god who is good to us orders us to revenge our wrongs. He will direct our arms and aid us. Throw away the symbol of the god of the whites who has so often caused us to weep, and listen to the voice of liberty, which speaks in the hearts of us all.”

For more on this oath, click here.

Of course, even if there was a pact with the Devil, God can really keep a grudge. Over two hundred years later, he kills over one hundred thousand people to teach their long-dead ancestors a lesson. I find that hard to believe, though I am warming to the idea of God sending Pat Robertson to punish us for our sins.

For the full story, click here and here.

383 thoughts on “Pat Robertson: Haitians Were Punished By God for “Pact With the Devil”

  1. Repost fromthe other thread.

    Pat Robertson made a stupid comment, it happens, I’ve done it a few times as a commenter here. Think about this, his club was one of the first to have millions of dollars worth of aid on the ground. His club had boots on the ground yesterday before 5 pm ready to unload the aircraft that brought it. His club has been in Haiti for years helping the Haitian people. For those of you who wish to bash the man for what he said, go ahead, but he is and has been doing more for those people than what you will ever do

  2. Jews don’t believe in the devil, It’s just an internal adversary like temptation that needs to be resisted. Yin and Yang… Dante helped clarify the idea of Satan and the burning hell for Christian problem solving.

    . ..and christians practice cannibalism when they take sacrament, a little sacrifice ritual now and then, In Voodoo, one kills a chicken – the other eats their dead God.

    Yeah.. good ole Pat.. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that he’s always in country when right-wing mercenary death squads are there too, giving them cover.

    Those damn ingrates… slavery was the best thing for them….

  3. Pat Robertson: Haiti ‘Cursed’ By ‘Pact To The Devil’ (VIDEO)

    “Later that evening, Raymond Joseph, Haitian Ambassador to the U.S., began his appearance on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show by shaming Robertson and pointing out that Haiti’s freedom led to freedom across Latin America. And they weren’t they only beneficiaries from those historic events. “The U.S. was able to gain the Louisianna Territory for $15 million,” Joseph added. “That’s three cents an acre. That’s 13 states west of the Mississippi that the Haitian slaves’ revolt in Haiti provided America.”
    WATCH:”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html

  4. The story goes God cast Satan from the heavens to earth. Some believe, such as myself that Satan rules the earth hence why I believe we are living in hell on earth. When and if you make it to heaven, then you will be in the presence of God.

    God also made a deal with the devil in the book of Job. God allowed satan to destroy Job’s earthly possessions to test Job’s faith. God is good, God is great, but he can also be unmerciful.

    If you are a believer you must ponder this. The closer you try to get to God the more the devil will try to pull you back. The devil wants you for his, God wants you to choose him but doesn’t care if you don’t. It’s your choice he gave you, free will.

  5. Holly Molly! “Bomba… Canga bafio té!” I never knew about this! Wow! Maybe Pat Robertson was on to something. Not like Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan (though I don’t know where I got the idea it was the general of the American occupying forces of Haiti who wrote this in a letter to his wife): “Imagine! Niggers speaking French!”
    Still, I like Pat Robertson’s idea of a pact with the devil (“to the devil,” he says) at some crossroads… A pact being a contract and Mobutu being a tropical devil, it seems that Pat Robertson, the dollar-monger, had his own version of a pact with the devil with Mobutu. I just read about this Mobutu connection of Pat Robertson in a fascinating post here.

  6. I just thought of another Nobel idea. President Obama has not yet choosen which charity to give his Nobel Peace Prize money to.

    No, not Pat Robertson but the people of Haiti. He can added it to the millions the American tax payers will be sending.

  7. Kristie Mansfield:

    “Jews don’t believe in the devil, It’s just an internal adversary like temptation that needs to be resisted.”

    *****************

    Proof of the old Spanish saying:

    “There is a devil,
    of that, no doubt,
    But is he trying to get in us,
    or trying to get out?”

  8. Pat is one giant error, badtraoll.

    He’s had his foot in his mouth for twenty years so you apologize for the hateful Fundie sack of crap all you want: it just proves you are on the payroll.

    There isn’t a decent bone in his con-artist body – here’s just what the scrubbed Wiki has to say about him:

    “Robertson is outspoken in both his religion and his politics. His actions, business relations, and statements have often made headlines.
    Controversies surrounding Robertson include his earlier work as a faith healer,[34] his claim that some Protestant denominations harbor the spirit of the Antichrist,[35] and his claims of having the power to deflect hurricanes through prayer;[36] he has also denounced Hinduism as “demonic”[37] and Islam as “Satanic.”[38] Robertson has issued multiple condemnations of feminism,[39] homosexuality,[40] abortion[41] and liberal professors.[42] Robertson also had financial ties to former presidents Charles Taylor[43] (Liberia) and Mobutu Sese Seko[44] (Zaire), both internationally denounced for their systemic human rights violations. Robertson was criticized worldwide for his call for Hugo Chavez’s assassination[44] and for his remarks concerning Ariel Sharon’s health as an act of God.[45]
    In addition to sociopolitical controversies, Robertson was criticized for involvement in a racehorse scandal,[46] misleading claims about his leg pressing abilities[47] and his response to an unflattering Facebook photograph”

    He’s a vile, divisive hate monger who only cares about money. He will be that still no matter how much smoke you want to blow, badtroll.

    You continually belie every assertion you make about yourself with your very own actions. At least you are consistent by apologizing for this Death Cult asshole as you are in apologizing for the fascists. That means a lot from a demonstrated bigot and a Birther.

    See that? That’s you reputation accumulates. You carry your mistakes with you just like Pat does. What you do with them comports to how people react. What did Pat do to earn his reputation as a Fundie war mongering death clown?

    Here’s a list of stupid Pat Robertson quotes from About.com. They have a lot more than 10 too.

    10. “Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.” –Pat Robertson

    9. “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.” –Pat Robertson

    8. “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you, This is not a message of hate — this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.” –Pat Robertson, on “gay days” at Disneyworld

    7. “(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” –Pat Robertson

    6. “I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.” –Pat Robertson

    5. “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.” –Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial

    4. “God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says ‘This is my land,’ and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, ‘No, this is mine.’ … He was dividing God’s land. And I would say, ‘Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.’ God says, ‘This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'” –Pat Robertson, on why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke

    3. “Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up” –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department

    2. “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” –Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

    1. “It may be a blessing in disguise. … Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it’s a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.” –Pat Robertson, on the earthquake in Haiti that destroyed the capital and killed tens of thousands of people, Jan. 13, 2010

    And the dumbass also thinks he’s a Constitutional scholar.

    “That was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the Communist Soviet Union.” –Pat Robertson, on the constitutional separation of church and state

    This is when he’s proven incapable of reading and using the Bible correctly that he asserts he’s an expert on our most important legal document. Pardon me if I not only dismiss him as a fool but laugh in his uneducated, fraudulent face. Man of God? Pat’s going to be one of the first Jesus puts the thump on if He comes back as lion like the death cults think He will. He’s a buffoon fleecing sheep with fear.

    See the rest at: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/patrobertson.htm

    So again . . .

    File Under Christians Who Flat Don’t Get It (although political humor may be an appropriate cross reference):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html

    I have an urge to slap the crap out of Pat Robertson right now but I’d probably have to get in line behind Jesus. Not a beat down mind you. That’s neither The Prince of Peace’s style nor mine. But just an old fashioned slap. You know the one. A “What are you? A moron?” with emphasis. A Bogart to his Cook, Jr. Way to go Pat, cheap gunsel for Mammon you!

    Woo.

    Hoo.

    Since I know you consider me a heathen I won’t be saving you a seat in Hell, Pat. You’ll have one somewhere though. I’ll be in the Mojito section making fun of you with Elaine and Hemmingway. Steer clear, freak. Poppa has a much shorter fuse for unmanliness than I. And Elaine will just whip out some caustic poetry that’s likely to leave a mark too, buddy.

  9. If God cast Satan from Heaven, his Fallenness now works as a programmer at CBN or a dean at Regents University.

    You remember Regents, don’t you troll?

    Pat’s “law school” where Bush got all his indoctrinated Christo-fascists to stack the DOJ with in his and Beelzebub Cheney from spending the rest of their lives in prison.

    Pat’s an outstanding human being and a fine American. (Read with enough sarcasm to induce nausea.)

  10. Theocratic.

    Narcissistic.

    Sociopathic.

    Lying.

    Homophobic.

    Bigoted.

    Racist.

    Asshole.

    You can scrub it an clean it all you want. Pat is what Pat is. And it smells like the decay of America.

  11. bdaman

    So your god created the earth in six days, although some are willing to concede might have actually been about 10,000 years equalling all of “recorded” Biblical history, and then lost it to Satan? Or did he/she give it to Satan? Nonetheless, you concede Satan rules earth, not your god. I know that Catholics do not share this interpretation. Nor do Jews nor most Protestant sects. It seems each brand of religion has their own twist, like detergents. I doubt Muslims share this view. With so many variations, how any one faith can claim themselves the one true faith any more than Procter & Gamble can claim theirs the one true detergent is, therefore, beyond a reasonable person’s comprehension.

    You then refer to this god as being “good” immediately after relating a Biblical story of a malicious, manipulative and destructive alliance with Satan to deliberately bring harm to one of Satan’s subjects. Real nice. Real good.

    And then we have Robertson. What a piece of Christian charity he is. A pact with the devil to expell the French from Haiti, huh? I guess Robertson’s god had control of Haiti for a while, but when those darned Haitians wanted freedom and release from the oppression of French cruelty and exploitation they went to Satan. Why does your “good” god hate freedom?

    I’d say your god has some ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy.

  12. What would you expect from God own. Where is Moses when you need him? Oh yeah Pats got him in his pocket.

  13. “True story. And so, the Devil said, Ok, it’s a deal.”

    I guess when Robertson eventually dies, it will be God’s wrath because of a pact he made with the devil to start a university to pollute the brains of innocent children….

    Did this cook ever lose any relatives? Ever lost a game of chess? Did this tool ever even trip?

    God’s wrath, man, I’m telling you. True fucking story.

    How do these evil people still get in the MM, that’s my question. No don’t tell me. The Devil, I’m sure.

    God told me to tell Robertson he’s a jackass. True story.

  14. Um, two missionaries, a box of bibles and a stack of autographed Pat Robertson glossies doesn’t really count as aid in this situation.

  15. Robertson is saying something new or weird only to ignorant modern American heathens unaccustomed to the teachings of the Biblical worldview.

    The following quote appears (written in stone, by-the-way) on the 3rd panel of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C.–that’s in the United States of America–it reads:

    “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

    God’s justice cannot sleep forever? Why would Jefferson tremble or fear judgment by God?

    Indeed.

    Gee, I wonder where Jefferson got the notion that corporate punishment from God could be executed upon a people (nation, country, etc). I guess it would be from the Biblical worldview that Robertson is referring to.

    Jefferson wrote these words against slavery (yes, I know he owned slaves).

    My point is from Jefferson to Robertson and going way back to Moses, the Christian worldview has been that God judges nations.

    How does God do that?

    By direct punishment? With the Jews, yes.

    And among the heathen nations? Yes, by turning away from those who turned away from him.

    God has to turn his back on those who flip him the bird. How is it that a blog dealing with the issue of law and justice doesn’t grant God (if assumes he exists) some level of rendering justice in the universe he created?

    That doesn’t make sense to me.

    The people of Haiti have had two hundred years (since liberation) to get their act straight. They continue to reject the light that has been shed abroad their land by Christian ministries who populate the land taking care of their orphaned children.

    Don’t worry, I’m not prejudiced, I don’t think just the people of Haiti have received the judgment of God. America’s neck is currently on the chopping block.

    We are having an earthquake of a different kind as we are currently going into slavery (of the communistic and totalitarian variety). That will level us to rubble and darkness.

    Our leaders are taking us there, but it is the immoral condition of the people which is causing it: homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, abortion, political corruption in the highest places, and corrupt lawyers and judges.

  16. empirecookie,

    I had to flush the cache on this computer so I could get your new avatar to display . I must say it is quite lovely. The tiara really sets off your eyes. :D

  17. At the risk of getting spanked empirecookie. 2 missionary, that was funny. They know best. Don’t they now.

  18. ec,

    Seconded. Adroitly and conventionally delivered. I am in the slow lane this AM, but it’s nice to see I can depend on AY to catch any dry suggestive humor I might miss in my caffeine depleted state (rapidly being remedied).

  19. Who is the creator anyway?

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  20. I would just like to point out that Pat Robertson is a product of Yale Law School.

    Make of that what you will.

  21. rcampbell,

    I couldn’t have said it better. In fact that is the reason I have never been religious. With every religion having a different explanation for things how can anyone of them claim to be correct or have all the answers.

    However you can also find many different opinions concerning global warming. Why would you not apply that same logic to global warming?

  22. BIL–

    “Since I know you consider me a heathen I won’t be saving you a seat in Hell, Pat. You’ll have one somewhere though. I’ll be in the Mojito section making fun of you with Elaine and Hemmingway. Steer clear, freak. Poppa has a much shorter fuse for unmanliness than I. And Elaine will just whip out some caustic poetry that’s likely to leave a mark too, buddy.”

    Pardon me??? I was under the impression that there was no such place as Hell. I wasn’t planning to spend time reclining on a chaise longue and imbibing alcoholic beverages in the netherworld post mortem. However, I’d be happy to make and share a few batches of Mojitos with you while making cutting comments and whipping up some caustic verses about the likes of Pat Roberston, Dick & Liz Cheney, Rushbo, Beck, Hannity, et al–while I’m still suckin’ air.

  23. “The story goes God cast Satan from the heavens to earth. Some believe, such as myself that Satan rules the earth hence why I believe we are living in hell on earth.”

    Finally troll you fully explain yourself. Being a Jew and therefore to you a Christ Killer, I don’t believe in Satan or Hell. Job has no place in the Jewish canon and indeed its’ writing shows that to be so. Some religious Jewish fanatics, yes we have them too, got it wrong and put it in there. Satan was a construct made up by religious fanatics who wanted to control their flock through fear. What I find so stupid is that if Satan is to be believed and if Job is to be believed, then all those believing it are in a state of blasphemy, because they conceive God to be an irrational creator getting off on torturing those of his creation. If God exists then the Deity is not some eternal puppeteer putting on a show for its own amusement. To believe such is truly blasphemous, but even more so the thoughts of an ignorant mind and an unholy spirit.

  24. chris

    Who said I don’t? I find the overriding question for both sides to be “What if they’re wrong?” If climate change advocates are wrong but we do some of the things they recommend to improve the environment anyway, we are left with cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner energy, a human population in better sync with nature, a cleaner planet. If the climate change deniers are wrong and we take their approach and do nothing……

    If I’m wrong about the non-exisitence of a supreme being, I have the same right as all these other sects to conjure up whatever attributes I choose to assign to that supreme being I was wrong about and so I think she’ll forgive me.

  25. If God exists then the Deity is not some eternal puppeteer putting on a show for its own amusement.

    So as a Jew does he or doesn’t he exist.

  26. “So as a Jew does he or doesn’t he exist.”

    In the Jewish religion of course God exists. The difference is that for Jews original sin is an unknown concept and not at all the teaching of Genesis; God made this world as a paradise and it is humanity’s mission to live up to that: there is no promise of an afterlife, the idea is to live a good life here: there is no Hell, nor is there a Satan. That’s just a few of the concepts and one would think that any thinking person would know this before making up their minds about religion. However, as I’ve clearly stated before I am an ethnically Jewish person, who believes as a Deist, but practices that Deism in Jewish format and ritual.

    As a Deist I believe there is a positive creative force behind life and the universe, but that humanity cannot possibly understand that force, or truly perceive its’ thinking. I’ve also stated that I believe in what Christians call “The Golden Rule” as the basis for all religions and the key philosophy to live by. That rule is so often ignored by people claiming to love God, but really rarely live lives that approximate it. This would include believers in Pat Robertson, who make a mockery of religious belief, but lack the insight to understand their own travesty.

  27. I haven seen the interview yet; but did I see that he said; they should have stayed slaves? Its for that exact reason Jesus said; the Queen of the South would rise up in the day of judgement and condemn men for the idle words they say.

    I am to death of white male racist, sexist, subversive and oppressive hypocritical pimps in a pulpit and politicians who also made a pack with Satan. Thats why I like Tom Jefferson tremble in FEAR of GOD for our nation. America is filled to the brim with all kinds of strange bedfellows and harlots constantly getting caught in bed with lobbiest or members of in their own
    “FAMILY”!

    Personally, I think the “Sins of the fathers now revisits the Sons” of Guns who ran away from home and came to lands not their own. They came “In the name of GOD, Amen”, Raped, robbed, stole and For-Got failed to Affirm the 1st AMEN-dment, Oaths or Promise made to GOD and US. History shows after they were given All Power to make Laws and Wars, they Declared Independence and chose to “Make No Law Respecting an establishment of Religion” i.e., the Laws of Nature and Nature’s GOD even with their hands on a KJ version of the Holy Bible. Although our US Supreme Court allowed use of this book as an “Instrument of Law” to Affirm testimony and presidential Oaths, they removed it from public schools and views. Now We The People are forced to pledge our allegiance to A Flag of a Republican, Pray to Judges in Petition to Court and tell the Whole Truth when they cant even be tested on their Religion.

    The coins in our hands show how All turned their back on the Wills of forefathers i.e, Abraham, Lincoln, Melchisadac and Red Cloud, except the Native American Indian Woman. The Name of the GOD We are told to Trust is used in Vain and Denied US. Our Most Valuable Resource was Infected with AIDs, Corrupted by Any Ways or Means to Statutorily Rape & Severely Retard DAR’s, Daughters of Government or GOD who are treated like DOGS. Or as DC’s Mayor Barry said via public air waves “a Bitch who set him up”.

    Men like Pat Robinson wont ever change and are still waiting for a Fat Lady to sing, cause they vowed never to give the Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin, Queen of the South or our First Lady A Decent Respect Cause they All Black.

    Me Thinks the 1st thing they need to do ie Remove the Blindfold from Lady Justice and make it Known neither SHE or Lady Liberty is Deaf, Dumb, Blind or A Blond. Then Lady Justice can identify the Masonic brothers who Blindfolded Her & Use that Double Edge Sword that She and Lady of the Lake holds aka the Word of GOD, to Cut then Men back to the Bone; where She Came from.

    Then I as the real Satan, Risen, Reborn, In the Flesh of a Woman and a New Creation like Pat can Sioux a body of White Christian government men for the Anticipatorty Tort in the 1st Amendment, Mass Religion Fraud & Breach of Contract, Honor, Mottoes, Name sakes, Oaths and Promises all president have sworn on a Bible.

    Especially since since women were not allowed to Vote, did not get a choice, never asked or given a decent respect as it relates to their opinions or religious convictions. So if the whole truth and nothing but the Truth, so help me GOD be told; the SHAME NOW BEFORE ALMIGHTY GOD is that I choose YES but they chose NO, Hated Jesus Christ without a Cause and DARK SKIN People Negro or Indian Just Because. Thank GOD now Women have the Right to Abort, Dissolve, Divorce, Separate or Throw Off Men now too accustomed to thinking about Sex or using the wrong head to Right themselves. Although God created All Men Equal and 1st, GOD created Women Second and Greater as their Beta. So either Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death because I as Satan Need God’s Help and GOD is my Only Witness I didnt do half the stuff Pat and people like him blamed on me.

    Peace out

  28. Robertson is a senile bigot with nary a shred of Christian love within him. What staggers my imagination is the number of otherwise sane people who subscribe to his drivel.

  29. Only a charlatan blinded by greed and a propensity to corrupt would risk going to fundi hell for self-enrichment. What a sickening corporate whore. From one of many articles regarding Rev. Charlatan’s behavior:

    http://www.skeptictank.org/robem2.htm

    Let’s hope that fake, godly smile is wiped from his face before he kicks. I’d like nothing less than to send along a tool kit, minus the lube, of course.

    http://www.light-to-dark.com/repub_tool_kit.html

  30. Mr. Robertson’s statement should come as no surprise to those of us who are familiar with his history of racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism. At its core, his position is that God is punishing the Haitian people for having the temerity to rebel against their slavery. It should be remembered that he comes from a family of staunch segregationists who despised Martin Luther King and believed the decision in Brown v. Board of Education to be the evil work of radical “activist” judges. During the hard days of the civil rights movement in the ’60s, while many people of good will, both black and white, were fighting and dying, Mr. Robertson, along with other white Southern Baptist pastors like Jerry Falwell, stayed on the sidelines, continuing to preach to their segregated congregations and praying for a return to the “good old days” of white supremacy and a docile black population. Those are his beliefs and bigotry and hatred will be his only legacy.

  31. BIL – why thank you, darlin!

    AY – you are a cheeky devil

    Tootie – You sure have gone off the deep end since The Facts of Life ended. If Mrs Garrett was dead, she’d be spinning in her grave.

  32. Ah,

    But Tootie went to Law School and when she dies, she go the only way an attorney can be buried and thats to be screwed in the ground, nice and tight.

  33. Why yes, Bdaman, I too like George the 2nd was a Cheerleader. and boy did he take one for the team. Or was that give one to the team.

    You know, Scooter Libby will never get his law license back. Why? Because he was convicted of four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. You buddy with all of his mite tried to get his buddy Valdemar Cheney to Pardon his fall guy. The best George would do for his was commute his sentence. Not a Pardon. So you buddy George and Valdemar Cheney must have really had some hard feelings. I understand it on good authority that George was tired of taking it laying down and finally put the screws to Cheney.

    If you understand they family dynamics Cheney was owed big time by Daddy Bush for his role in the Iran Contra Affair. He paid him back by making him the Veep. Little did he know that he would also cost the moron son all credibility with honest folks.

    George has only been tolerated by folks because of daddy’s connections. He loused up 2 oil companies and the 3rd one sold before he could screw that one up as well. The fool that bought it for over a million dollars eventually lost all of his investment. I understand it was tied to enron.

    So Bdaman, are you ready for the country?

  34. “I couldn’t have said it better. In fact that is the reason I have never been religious. ”

    Pat Robertson is many things but religious is not one of them.

    What he does is equivalent to a traveling salesman in the old west, selling the “curative”. Snake oils and liniments. With a lot of pomp, show and splendor around it to get the people to give generously.

    Robertson’s an entertainer who placates to an ultraviolet extremist non Christian crowd. That they call themselves Christian is merely a ruse. Much like the Snake Oil salesman of the old west used to call himself a Doctor, or Medicine Man.
    What they sold wasn’t medicine (unless you were suffering from a hangover) and they weren’t doctors. And Pat Robertson and those who follow him worship guns, violence and hatred. But they are not Christians. Don’t let the name fool you.

  35. 30%er,

    Why do you get to choose who’s religious, and who’s Christian? Those you claim aren’t real Christians would no doubt say the same of you. For every “love thy neighbor” there’s a “If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” The difference is in which part you choose to ignore and which you choose to follow. I’d hope people would choose to follow the nobler ideals, but those who follow the baser are still following Christian doctrine.

  36. Buddha,

    Did you catch the Daily Show last night? If not you should check out the first segment on the web.

    That said, were you really surprised by Pat Robertson’s comment?

    Seriously?

  37. I guess christian doctrine is very open to interpretation. You have christians that preach love and tolerance and those that preach hatred and condemnation.

  38. “Why do you get to choose who’s religious, and who’s Christian?”

    I don’t. The books of Matthew, Mark Luke and John took care of that. What defines a Christian is in there, and there isn’t any ambiguity about it. No gray areas. The gospels spell out what it means to be a Christian.

    I’m just going by the book.

  39. To Tootie & Marsha Christ:

    You’ve referenced Jefferson in reference to god, but did you wonder, “which god”? Jefferson was no christian, he was a deist believing in an impersonal creator god, the architect of the universe who has little to do with his creation. All gods/religions end up on the same footing. The Vaudou practicing Haitians worship Loas in concert with/masked by Catholicism. Jefferson likely would have seen it as primitive worship, but likely not less valid that the gods with which he was familiar.

  40. “I guess christian doctrine is very open to interpretation. You have christians that preach love and tolerance and those that preach hatred and condemnation.”

    That’s a common fallacy that is pushed by men like Robertson to obscure the fact that they omit the Christian gospel in their teachings and preachings. There was no room left to wiggle in the 4 Gospels with “Do unto others” being the cornerstone and our “golden rule”.

    Christ was adamant about civility, integrity, decency, mercy, compassion and faith. On the other hand the 4 gospels clearly demonstrate his intolerance for pious hypocrisy and religious leaders without compassion, mercy and human kindness. In fact he spent a good part of his ministry condemning them.

    Make no mistake about it. You cannot read the 4 gospels and come away with an “interpretation” of gun worship or hatred of those caught up in sexual transgressions like adultery or homosexuality. He just didn’t preach that and thus any “interpretation” that he did would be based on complete fabrications.

  41. You are correct about that but not all christian religions follow the teachings of Christ as you present them. I wish more would do that but it is not the case.

  42. 30%er,

    And who decided that only the first four books of the New Testament were relevant? (BTW the verse I quoted was from Luke, Jesus explicitly says you have to hate your Mother to follow him). I mean the whole thing’s the basis for Christian doctrine. You don’t get to limit Christianity to “those people who agree with my interpretation of the Bible” any more than other Christians do.

    Now, if you want to say “this version of Christianity is unhealthy and counter to many of Christ’s teaching,” and I’m there. The second you trot out a reworded “no TRUE Christian” you fall into a logical fallacy. I’d say the same thing if you were claiming that Pat Robertson’s version was the only true Christianity.

    You’re talking about personal interpretations of a thousands of year old translation of a translation written down a generation or so after the events it describes. One which often contradicts itself. You can choose what you get from it, but you don’t get to choose what others get from it.

  43. 30%er

    Just because he doesn’t fit into your definition of a Christian does not mean he isn’t religious. Muslims aren’t Christians either, but they are still religious.

  44. “And who decided that only the first four books of the New Testament were relevant?”

    Well since they are the only four books in which he delivers his “new law”, where else would you suggest we look?

  45. “Just because he doesn’t fit into your definition of a Christian does not mean he isn’t religious”

    Lets see, how much more clear about this can I be?

    Its’ not “my definition”.

    A Christian is by definition someone who follows the teachings of Christ.

    And the ONLY place you will find the teachings of Christ, is in the 4 gospels.

  46. “You’re talking about personal interpretations of a thousands of year old translation of a translation written down a generation or so after the events it describes.”

    No, I’m not talking about any “interpretations”. I’m talking about what is printed in the literal translation of the 4 gospels, which were passed on by the Hebrew Oral Tradition (which is more accurate than most newspapers today) and written down as early as 70AD, just 47 years after the death of Christ.

    The oldest fallacy in the world with regards to Christianity is this politically correct way we have of speaking about it as if there’s all these “interpretations” of what it means.

    Just how much “interpretation” does one require of Christ’s commandments to “love one another”, or even to “love your enemies”? What interpretation do you need for “do unto others as you’d have done unto yourself”?

    Pretending there’s more than one way to interpret simple, easy to understand commandments is why we have over 2000 Christian denominations and growing.

    And its why we have neoconservatives out there using the bible to sell gun worship, hatred of those not like you and war.

  47. AY

    Make a statement get an education, what a great country. Now I know I’ve been accused of being a troll to hijacking threads but how did you go from Pat Robertson, Haiti, God and Religion to Bush, Cheney, Iran Contra and Scooter Libby all by the mention of cheerleader. Remember I’m slow and not the sharpest tool in the wood shed.

  48. An “interpretation” would be like trying to discern the meaning of the word Camel in Christ’s message on it being “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”.

    That would be a valid question open for “interpretation”. Most preachers and clergy interpret it by basing it on a non existent “Eye of the Needle” gate that was supposedly in the wall of Jerusalem during the time of Christ. But given there is no such wall its clear that the word was mistranslated from the Greek “Kamilos” which means “rope”. Thus it was clear that he was referring to threading a needle, with a rope.

    A logical conclusion.

    But when we see simple, plain easy to understand instructions like “love one another” and “do unto others as you’d have done unto you” there is no question of “interpretation”.

    That’s just the great fallacy that’s kept Christianity from being Christianity, ever since the days of Constantine.

  49. bdaman Robertson was a big supporter of Bush. It is easy to make that transition. Robertson thought Bush was divinely inspired.

  50. “30%er,

    I said, in response to rcampbell, that I had a problem with religion, because there are so many, and each one thinks they are 100% correct. You in turn said that Pat Robertson is not religious.

    religious: : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity ”

    And I stand by that statement too. He’s not religious. He’s not devoted to God. He’s not devoted to anything other than fooling saps into handing him their money.

    Do you really need that explained?

  51. 30%er,

    According to my quick survey of dictionaries, the majority have some variation of the following (from Merriam Webster, emphasis mine):

    1 a : one who PROFESSES belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

    Just because they don’t agree with your idea of what it means to be a Christian doesn’t mean they’re not Christian. Claiming otherwise is just an attempt to deny that your religion can be used to justify things you feel are bad.

    So, let me ask you: Do you hate your Mother? Because it’s right there in Luke Jesus said that you need to hate your Mother or you can’t follow him. Or would you say that you need to read the rest of the context of the passage to correctly interpret what was meant?

  52. How many of these TV Evangelists do we have to catch sleeping with their neighbors wife, (or worse their kids), embezzling funds and condemning the very traits that they themselves possess (can you say Ted Haggard?) before we figure out they are no more religious than Bozo the clown?

    They’re just paid entertainers and nothing more.

  53. “According to my quick survey of dictionaries, the majority have some variation of the following (from Merriam Webster, emphasis mine):

    1 a : one who PROFESSES belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

    Just because they don’t agree with your idea of what it means to be a Christian doesn’t mean they’re not Christian”

    Once again its not “my idea” of being Christian. Christ spelled that out in the 4 Gospels. All one has to do is read.

  54. “So, let me ask you: Do you hate your Mother? Because it’s right there in Luke Jesus said that you need to hate your Mother or you can’t follow him. Or would you say that you need to read the rest of the context of the passage to correctly interpret what was meant”

    I was wondering how long it’d take you to beat that old dead horse. Obviously he was not implying on using a sword on your mom. It was a Hebrew idiom that was quite common that addresses the divisiveness in families where some members accept the gospel, and some do not.

    Now, find me another.

  55. 30%er,

    O.k. time to show your work. Show me where Jesus defines what it means to be a Christian. Just so we’re clear, I mean the word we’re talking about the definition of, the one with a C, two Is, etc. The thing is, I’m sure you can come up with lots of quotes about what it means to follow him, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t define Christian.

    Before you come in with “that’s just playing a semantics game.” This IS about semantics, you started by trying to define the word Christian. My point is: You don’t get to define that word. Since it only dates back a little under 500 years, Jesus obviously didn’t define that word. Common usage defines that word, and common usage includes people who disagree with you in the Venn Diagram Circle labeled “Christian.”

    This isn’t a theological discussion, it’s a etymology and linguistic one. The people whose job it is to know what words mean and why they mean that support my definition, not yours.

  56. “30%er,

    O.k. time to show your work. Show me where Jesus defines what it means to be a Christian”

    You sound angry. This is just a discussion, right?

    Jesus never used the word Christian. Being a Christian means you follow (or as the dictionary you found says, profess to follow) the teachings of Christ.

    And the teachings of Christ are found in one place and one place only in the bible. The 4 gospels.

  57. 30%er,

    So we agree, you can take the words of Jesus (as written in the Bible) and come to different conclusions? You could almost even say that different “interpretations” of verses exist?

    As fun as this was, I’m done. You’re going to be stuck in your “No True Scotsman” mode for the foreseeable future, and I can only point it out so many ways before getting bored.

  58. “Before you come in with “that’s just playing a semantics game.” This IS about semantics”

    Ok you really sound angry now. I’m not sure why and I doubt this well help, but please point to the sentence where I said anything about this being a “semantics game”.

  59. “So we agree, you can take the words of Jesus (as written in the Bible) and come to different conclusions?”

    No. That one passage you referred to is among Bible Scholars a commonly known defense for those like you who wish to pretend the Gospel was not clear, and open to interpretation. In fact it is the one common passage used by most neoconservatives to justify war and killing.

    However in every lesson given by Christ throughout the 4 gospels we see a common thread. “love, compassion, mercy and faith”. These are the common threads that make up the teachings of Christ. An attorney I suppose might call that “precedent”.Since we have the precedent of these things we can leverage those in understanding that one, sole passage you refer to.

    We know that Christ wasn’t suggesting severing your mother in two with a sword, so we’re left to interpret that one passage based on what he had said throughout the rest of the gospels. That and the fact that it was a common Hebrew Idiom referring to divisiveness (the sword). So the meaning of that one, sole passage is clear based on his consistent, unwavering message throughout the gospels.

  60. “As fun as this was, I’m done. You’re going to be stuck in your “No True Scotsman” mode for the foreseeable future, and I can only point it out so many ways before getting bored.”

    There’s an noticeable bellicose tonality in your posts, why is not clear. I’m sorry if you don’t like the simple facts I present but they are facts nonetheless. That I view them as facts leaves me no other way to present them.But the gospels are clear. You like many of the neoconservatives are clinging to one, sole idiom (Jesus was a Hebrew after all) that stands alone in stark contrast to the entirety of his teachings, and like the neoconservatives you are attempting to leverage that to cast an overall doubt on what Christ actually taught.

    This has been the actual scourge of Christianity for 2000 years actually. The ability to take a plain, simple and clear message of peace, and twist it into whatever one wants.

    There’s no ambiguity in the gospels. That one quote has long since been understood by scholars.

  61. Elaine,

    Buddhist Hells are transitory. Think of it as the sleazy end of the pub crawl. :D Nicer places are around the corner. IRL Mojitos are also perfectly acceptable.

  62. 30%er

    Your opinion of his motivation doesn’t really matter. All that matters is his motivation, which is his faith in God, as expressed by Pat Robertson himself.

    Most people do not agree with Bin Laden’s interpretation of Islam. That does not mean that Bin Laden isn’t a religious zealot.

  63. “30%er

    Your opinion of his motivation doesn’t really matter.”

    Well I’d say my opinion matters as much or as little as anyone’s.

    Only I wouldn’t be so rude as to tell someone whom I disagreed with that their opinion didn’t matter.

    I’d simply state that I disagreed and explain why.

  64. “Most people do not agree with Bin Laden’s interpretation of Islam. That does not mean that Bin Laden isn’t a religious zealot.”

    True. Fortunately for me I never made any case with regards to Bin Laden. Apparently that doesn’t seem to matter though.

    Bin Laden isn’t a TV Evangelist, making money and living the high life off the donations of the people whom he’s capable of suckering. Robertson is.

    Hence I stand by my original statement in that Robertson isn’t a Christian, and isn’t religious.

    He just claims to be because he wants your money.

  65. Bin Laden believes in killing people who do not believe in his interpretation of Islam.

    Pat Robertson believes in stealing peoples money based on his interpenetration of Christianity.

    How can can you justify labeling Bin Laden a Muslim and religious and not label Robertson a Christian and religious. The hijacking of Islam by Bin Laden is the same thing that Pat Robertson has done with regard to Christianity.

    And I wasn’t trying to be rude so I apologize if it seemed that way.

  66. “How can can you justify labeling Bin Laden a Muslim and religious and not label Robertson a Christian and religious.”

    Bin Laden fasts, lives in caves and poverty for his religious beliefs. That he kills people over them is even more sign of his devout piety, sick and twisted though it is.

    Robertson’s a hack. A Flim Flam man. He’s an entertainer who pretends to be religious and to believe in something in order to fleece the masses.

  67. “And I wasn’t trying to be rude so I apologize if it seemed that way.”

    No problem. Its just telling someone their opinion doesn’t matter doesn’t exactly seem to be a logical way to debate opinions.

    But no worries. I appreciate your clarifying that.

  68. Pat Robertson prays and attends church regularly to prove his devotion to his religious beliefs. That he steals peoples money over them is even more of a sign of his devout piety, sick and twisted as it is.

    What Im saying is as long as Robertson believes in what hes doing and that it is right, there is no difference between the two.

  69. “Pat Robertson prays and attends church regularly to prove his devotion to his religious beliefs.”

    That doesn’t prove religious devotion.

    Of course he prays in public.

    Of course he attends his own services.

    It’s kind of hard to present yourself as a preacher if you don’t pray or go to church.

    None of that proves anything, other than he wants to be “seen” as religious.

  70. “That he steals peoples money over them is even more of a sign of his devout piety, sick and twisted as it is.”

    Wrong.

    Nothing in the gospels he claims to worship provides for stealing money from ones followers to fatten his own pockets.

    In fact that is a sign that he is not devout or pious.

    It shows that he does not believe in the Gospels.

  71. Well at least he’s consistent, because he also blamed the US for 9/11.

    He needs to get a tattoo to remind him not to blame victims for natural disasters. Like one of Job’s self-righteous friends, “this is all your fault you sinner”, its only a tragedy when its personal, but not for someone else.

    Not to mention the fact that something like a pact with the devil is basically impossible to prove, and if anything the french revolution and the likes of Napoleon were far more satanic than whatever happened in Haiti.

  72. How then would he prove himself as religious? Because there have been many people over the course of history who have done horrible things and were Christians. The fact that he is a bad person does not mean he isn’t a Christian.

  73. “How then would he prove himself as religious?”

    Well, one good way to start would be to start practicing and preaching the religion he claims to represent, wouldn’t it?

    Another good way would to be to not rob the poor for their donations and tithes to line his own pockets.

  74. Those are the actions of a charlatan and a con artist, or as Doctor Carl Sagan would call him, a “bamboozler”.

    The actions he takes on a daily basis, i.e. preaching hate instead of love, war instead of peace, and robbing people of their money to increase his own wealth are inconsistent with the Christian gospel and thus in order to do them on a regular basis, these purposeful and willful acts demonstrate someone who uses religion for gain rather than actually being religious.

  75. “Does anything in the gospels provide for the crusades? Pretty sure they were Christians.”

    Good question. No nothing in the gospels provides for the crusades. Once again we come to whether or not these people were Christians, or simply pretended to be to accomplish their own nefarious deeds. Most Christians, Catholics included revere Constantine as a great Christian leader when in fact he wasn’t even a Christian, nor did he actually believe in it. Rome was a religious melting pot and he needed an “official state religion” that would quiet and appease the masses. Christianity was one of many religions on the rise. This one however taught the people several key points that were important to Constantine.

    1. That the people were “blessed” when they were poor.
    2. That it was good to suffer
    3. That one should respect and pay tribute to the government
    4. That it is wrong to revolt physically against ones government (Christ’s kingdom was not of this world).

    So he invents this “vision” he has on the battlefield and the early predecessor of the redneck flocked to him. Thus in one felt swoop, Constantine managed to take a thriving religion and turn it into something that Christ never taught nor intended.

    Charlemagne, Innocent, Gregory, were also men who used religion to control the masses and fatten their own pockets in doing so.

  76. You can’t have it both ways. Bin Laden believes in oppression, preaches hate instead of love and war instead of peace. Yet he still a muslim but his beliefs are sick and twisted.

  77. “So then Bin Laden isn’t using religion for gain? Or you believe that he is in line with the teachings of Islam.”

    Well once again I wasn’t making a case about Bin Ladens piety or lack thereof nor am I very familiar with Islam so my opinion in that area is limited. But since you are insistent that I do comment on Bin Laden I’d have to say Bin Laden appears to believe that his religion calls him to do these things. That doesn’t make him any better than Robertson mind you in the belief area. What sort of person embraces a religion that he thinks condones murder?

    But he lives in caves, running for his life knowing we are just a step or two behind him ultimately, and he likely lives in squalor.

    Those are tokens of religious conviction, whether or not the religion is any good.

  78. “You can’t have it both ways. Bin Laden believes in oppression, preaches hate instead of love and war instead of peace. Yet he still a muslim but his beliefs are sick and twisted.”

    I’m not trying to have it both ways. As I clearly pointed out Bin Laden appears to believe his religion. There are calls in the Koran for killing “infidels” (you and me). And since he lives in squalor its clear there is no “gain” for him here. Other than complying with his warped religious beliefs.

    Robertson as I also clearly pointed out several times now knows the bible inside and out. And he knows what it says in the 4 Gospels.

    And he knows what he’s preachin, ain’t it.

  79. Skyhook:

    @ 1, January 14, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Irrelevant to my point which is that this business about the judgment of God (or the gods even) has been a common understanding in western civilization for 2000 years plus. And particularly common in America for three centuries in the framework of the Biblical worldview.

    The point is, Jefferson believed that a god, any god, could corporately punish a “people”.

    Just like Pat Robertson.

  80. Thats my point though. They both believe what they are doing and that it is what their religion calls for. But this will be my last post. Thank you for being civil.

  81. Before you come in with “that’s just playing a semantics game.” This IS about semantics, you started by trying to define the word Christian. My point is: You don’t get to define that word. Since it only dates back a little under 500 years, Jesus obviously didn’t define that word. – Gyges

    Actually Gyge’s I’ve been meaning to get back to you on this one but I got sidetracked by the flood of questions.

    I’m not sure who told you that the word “Christian” is only 500 years old but that’s false. The word dates back to around the time of Christ and is derived from the Greek “christianos” which literally means “Followers of Christ”.

    In fact, the word itself appears in the New Testament as early as “The Acts of the Apostles”. In Acts 11:26 we first see the word used by the people of Antioch (Herod’s old stomping grounds) to define the followers of Christ.

    — And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. — ACTS 11:26

    And lets not forget Herod’s (Agrippa II) famous line to (thought everyone knew this one) Paul;

    — “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” —

    The words been around for at least close to 2000 years.

  82. “Thats my point though. They both believe what they are doing and that it is what their religion calls for.” – Chris

    Well I get that that’s your point. That just happens to be where our beliefs diverge. I do not believe Pat Robertson “believes in what he’s doing”. In fact it would be impossible for a man as well versed in the bible as he is to believe that what he’s doing has anything to do with the Gospel of Christ, when he’s preaching hate, war and teaching people to be compassion-less to their fellow man.

    Your brain is binary. It cannot possess two thoughts concurrently that are in direct opposition to themselves. You cannot think “yes” and “no” simultaneously. At least that’s what the brain surgeons tell us.

    Therefore it would be impossible for Pat Robertson to know the 4 Gospels as well as he does, and believe that what he’s preaching is from them.

  83. Chris thanks for asking the questions, ThirtyPercenter thanks for the lesson. Try and keep it going.

    Thirty, If I may ask, what is the backround of your biblical education?

  84. Just curious, I grew up Catholic, alter boy for many years but I was what I like to call a church goer and not a church doer.

    Then there was a time where I drifted from the church and now my wife and I attend a Presbyterian church that meets at the local high school cafeteria.

    I really never studied scripture but over the last two years I’ve read more and god has personally answered a prayer when I thought there wasn’t any hope. People can say what they want but there is no other explanation to how everything came together to answer my prayer. All I can tell you is that I offered it to him by saying, Lord you said in your word to cast all of my troubles on to you and you shall handle them. I told him about a paticular problem I was having and gave it up to him, told him that I expect it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ. I had never done that before and I was desperate for a solution to my problem.

    Over the course of about thirty days many things came together and my problem was solved thru no real effort of my own.
    It was a combination of things happening thru a few friends whom I had not seen in years who I reconnected with, I say by chance but it had to be god. It just doesn’t work the way it did naturally.

    Anyways thats my story and I love to share it. I sometimes get the, well how come he doesn’t answer all your prayers then. I explain that he is the father and just like your father here on earth, did he give you everything every time you asked for it.

  85. Bdaman:

    Baptist domination is well known, I once spent a summer with a Baptist family and had, in the course of one summer, enough religion to last for 50 years. I still have a few years before I need to start attending church again.

  86. “Baptist domination is well known, I once spent a summer with a Baptist family and had, in the course of one summer, enough religion to last for 50 years. I still have a few years before I need to start attending church again.”

    Lol, yea but if you’re a kid they do give candy at evening services.

    Right before they start hollering at you.

  87. 30%’er:

    “No. That one passage you referred to is among Bible Scholars a commonly known defense for those like you who wish to pretend the Gospel was not clear, and open to interpretation. In fact it is the one common passage used by most neoconservatives to justify war and killing.

    However in every lesson given by Christ throughout the 4 gospels we see a common thread. “love, compassion, mercy and faith”. These are the common threads that make up the teachings of Christ. An attorney I suppose might call that “precedent”.Since we have the precedent of these things we can leverage those in understanding that one, sole passage you refer to.”

    ***************

    Gee I got to the theology debate too late. 30% tells us the Gospels are full of “love, compassion, mercy and faith.” Let’s see:

    Jesus said: “The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

    Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:

    “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

    How’d Jesus look upon those who rejected his teachings:

    “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” Mark 6:11 (KJV)

    Not too compassionate there by JC what with all that city-wide destruction and beating and killing of kids and all. Maybe ol’ crazy Pat had a point after reading Mark.

    But 30%’er tells us “no” so let’s look further in the New Testament. Surely slavery is rebuked!

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    Well that crazy old Roman Paul was a convert anyway, so maybe he just doesn’t feel it like 30%’er does.

    30%’er wants us to look only at the Gospels, because according to him, that’s where the law is. Stubbornly, Jesus doesn’t agree:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

    Obviously the problem is that I haven’t properly interpreted the damn thing. You really must know the correct scholarly interpretation as 30% tells us:

    “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

    Gee that doesn’t work either since every word comes from the Holy Spirit and no interpretation is needed.

    Yeesh this religion stuff is hard 30%’er.

    Maybe you can explain it to me.

  88. “Well most of them owned slaves wouldn’t that also not make them Christians?”

    I’m not sure of your reasoning there. I’m not seeing the connection. Christians owned slaves but owning a slave is not indicator of Christianity.

    You know, Sarah Palin was asked by Glenn Beck today which of the founding fathers were here favorite. She replied “all of them”. In other words I was looking for something a little specific. Which of the founding fathers are you referring to?

    Remember there were strong Deist trends with the founding fathers and many of them, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine were and are believed to have been Deists. So I’m trying to figure out which ones you’re referring to and what your question is regarding specifically.

  89. How can you be a Christian and own a slave? Do the gospels allow that? You can’t steal money from people, as Pat Robertson does, but you are allowed to own slaves. I guess I’m a little confused at how owning a slave is any different from what Pat Robertson does.

  90. “Yeesh this religion stuff is hard 30%’er.

    Maybe you can explain it to me.”

    There seems to be a lot of bellicosity here over this issue. It seems that its not sufficient to discuss it but to do so in a very disrespectful tone. I’m not sure why but I will try to answer your questions if I can. Try not to rocket fire them at me though. I’d rather not write a dissertation here and you’ve asked a lot of questions on a lot of different scriptures.

    I’ll start by trying to address your first one.

    You wrote this;

    “Jesus said: “The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)”

    Ok, first its important to include the entirety of the passages if there is a question as to the meaning. Otherwise how do we know the context of whats being said?

    Now, looking at this passage you’re referring to what’s called a “Parable”. Christ was providing a Parable to Peter here. Parables are not meant to be interpreted literally. A parable is a way of likening a concept or idea unto something the listener can easily relate to.

    Here we see that Peter actually asks Jesus to relate the Parable to him and those present.

    Here’s the actual verse in its entirety. It starts in Luke, Chapter 12 verse 41.


    Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

    42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

    43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

    44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

    45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

    46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

    47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

    48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

    So we see this was not Jesus telling people that the will actually be beaten, but instead likening the judgement day unto the relationship between a servant and his master.

    It was only a Parable and it was based on something the listeners could easily relate to, being the long standing bondage and indentured servitude laden upon the Hebrews for so very long.

  91. Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:

    “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB) – Mespo

    Now with this one it really seems like you’re attempting to be disingenuous. You left out the first part of the scripture which had you included would have shown the readers that the quote you attributed to Jesus and presented in a commandment like fashion was in fact, simply Jesus quoting Moses.

    Here is the actual scripture. It begins in verse 9.

    — Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

    So we see that Jesus wasn’t actually declaring that anyone cursing their father or mother should be killed or even should die. In fact, the term used was “the death” which refers to the second death in Hebrew tradition. Not physical death.

    So we see that its not even a threat of physical death for errant children, but its not even a point Jesus is trying to make. He’s quoting Moses, to try to make a point to some stubborn and cunning Pharisees who were trying to trap him in his words (if you scroll up in the verse you’ll see it was the Pharisee’s he was addressing, and leveraging the Law of Moses against). Jesus often quoted ancient scriptures when debating the Pharisee’s and this was one of such times.

    We see by the remainder of the passage that his argument had nothing to do with killing or even punishing with the second death, kids who were mean to their parents. His argument had to do with the Hebrew practice of “Corban”.

    Jesus was using it as an example of how the Pharisee’s had corrupted the Laws of Moses to the point of invalidating many of them. Observe his closing argument.

    – Mark 7:11 – But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

    12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

    13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

    So we see Jesus was using the practice of Corban as an example to demonstrate how far the Pharisee’s and elders had corrupted the Law of Moses (the law which the Hebrews lived by).

  92. Before I continue to address the rest of the questions you posed I think its noteworthy to mention the irony here.

    The very same way that you misquoted (not saying you did it on purpose but I’m having a difficult time figuring out how you could extract that quote without seeing the part where he points out he’s quoting Moses) Jesus in that last passage from Mark, by leaving out pertinent portions of it that completely change the meaning you’re trying to infer, ….is the exact same way the Evangelical Christian leaders like Pat Robertson misquote scriptures by paraphrasing or editing them for content, so that the actual meaning is obscured.

    Of course if one is going to extract sentences partially intact, scriptures and passages without key portions then obviously its easy to argue that the scriptures are open for interpretation. They use this technique on Fox News all the time by misquoting people out of context or leaving out key portions of their statements which if included would change the meaning of the point they’re trying to make.

    Anyway enough of that. I’ll see if I can address the rest of your questions. Please bear with me.

  93. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) – Mespsp

    These two I’ll address together, and quickly since they don’t deserve much attention.

    Perhaps you’re confused as to which books comprise the 4 Gospels. The quote of mine you’re responding to after all clearly indicates I am addressing the 4 Gospels and those alone.

    Ephesians and Timothy are not part of the 4 Gospels, and Jesus’s words do not appear in them.

    All I will say therefore on them is that the Apostles lived and grew up in a time when slavery was not considered an evil and was a given. Slaves however upon conversion were more and more demanding more rights and privileges and clearly the apostles were simply trying to keep the peace.

    Its easy to sit back in the 21st century and mock ancient people who’s customs, morals and more’s are different from ours but the fact is this was a common way of life for these people and to criticize the author for merely trying to keep the peace seems a little reaching at best.

  94. 30%’er wants us to look only at the Gospels, because according to him, that’s where the law is. Stubbornly, Jesus doesn’t agree:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB) -mespo

    Here you’re making a declaration about what I “want you to look at” however I said no such thing. I simply indicated that a Christian is a follower of Christ, and no where other than the 4 Gospels will you find the words of Christ. Hence if you want to follow Christ, you might want to start by learning his teachings.

    Now to your scripture.

    – Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    First the Law of Moses is something Jesus honored and nothing I nor any argument I’ve made suggested otherwise. It was the corruption of the Law of Moses that Jesus condemned. And that corruption is rampant throughout the Torah. The Pharisees along with the scribes, elders and the Sanhedrin after all were the guardians of the Torah. And the editors. Many of the Old Testament passages people use to attack religion were never part of the original Law of Moses, at least if Jesus was to be believed. The Law had been corrupted, and hence Jesus was providing his “new law” his “good news” (=Gospel) to the people even as he spoke this passage you refer to.

    If you take the time to read the following chapters, you’ll see what the definition of “fulfill” is.

    – Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

    22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

    24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

    25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

    26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. –

    Here we see that Jesus is in the process of providing his “new commandments” or his “new law”. He references the 10 Commandments (the original Law of Moses) and updates the law. He takes it from the simple, thou shalt not kill to a more cerebral and humanistic level. Now its wrong to even approach the situation where you might want to harm someone. He takes it to a whole new level.

    Then he proceeds to address the 10 commandments when he addresses adultery.

    – Matt 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

    28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. –

    Now here we see that not only does he elevate adultery to just lusting after a married woman, (that’s why I never look to long at my buddies wives:) but he demonstrates some of his typical allegorical narrative.

    Obviously in 29 and 30 he does not mean for someone to cut off their hand or pluck out an eye. These are figurative terms (common in Hebrew culture) addressing the importance of abandoning sin and the habits and situations which invite it. When he’s being figurative its usually obvious, but some people do struggle with it.

    Now in the next contiguous verse we see him step it up a notch and not just expand a commandment from the Law of Moses, but completely reverse it.

    – Matt: 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

    39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

    41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

    — 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

    Here we see Jesus actually reverse the Law of Moses’ decree on “an eye for an eye” and instead he introduces a higher law which if followed would lead to less contention and strife. Of course being in a legal blog I realize verse 40 is none too popular with the litigators, lol.

    Anyway we see that Jesus continues on in this vein, introducing an incredibly pacifist ideology.

    – Matt:5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

    44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

    46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

    47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

    48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    So we see Jesus did not instruct as you imply that the old Law of Moses should be followed but that HIS law, and HIS commandments should be followed. His law did not abolish the Law of Moses, it fulfilled it.

  95. “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB) – Gee that doesn’t work either since every word comes from the Holy Spirit and no interpretation is needed.

    Yeesh this religion stuff is hard 30%’er.

    Maybe you can explain it to me.” – Mespo

    Ok. Your final question. Here are the passages;

    – 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

    19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

    20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.-

    First, once again this is not Jesus talking. This is not part of his original gospel. This scripture is Peters death bed testimony, testifying to the world what he had witnessed and the surety of it. In it we see the one common thread he is referring to.

    Prophecy.

    Not scripture, as Jesus himself rebuked scripture as we saw with his argument on Corban.

    Therefore we see its not as your implication suggests a blanket suggestion that all words come from God but that PROPHECY comes from God.

  96. Ok, I think I’ve answered all of your questions.

    If you have more please only ask them one at a time if you don’t mind, and then wait for them to be answered. I only ask that as it is very time consuming and difficult to respond to so many questions asked at once.

  97. I guess I’m a little confused at how owning a slave is any different from what Pat Robertson does – Chris

    Well that’s an easy one Chris.

    That these slave owners you’re referring to may call themselves Christians does not mean they’re out selling Christianity to millions to make slaves of them. Unless of course you consider a voluntary meeting Usher being a slave. People can believe in Christianity and just be bad Christians.

    But teaching it is another thing altogether. And teaching it by twisting it in order to bilk the masses out of their hard earned money and sell hate and war which is the opposite of the Gospel of Christ is just deplorable. What Robertson is doing is often referred to as “Priestcraft”, i.e leveraging piety for personal profit.

    But in a nutshell and to answer your question, its one thing to be a bad person.

    Its another thing to teach others to be one too.

  98. chris 1, January 15, 2010 at 1:12 am

    I think you missed one and its one Im quite curious about. Mark 6:11.

    Well I left that one out because it’s really not worth mentioning. Anyone who’s studied the New Testament at all should be familiar with the concept here.

    Here’s the scripture;

    -Mark 6:11 “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

    Here we see Jesus giving instructions to his disciples on how to deal with a city which refuses their ministry.

    Observe the last sentence. See the phrase “in the day of judgement”?

    Christ makes it clear here he is referring to Judgment day which takes place after this world, not during it.

    I will point out an irony in your query though.

    Your questioning as well as Mespo’s on that scripture apparently is trying to determine whether or not Christ is warning of harsh physical retributions in this world, i.e. does the prediction have to do with this world.

    Pontius Pilate used a similar line of questioning in trying to determine whether or not Jesus was a political insurrectionist.

    Jesus was very clear to Pilate on that topic and his response to Pilate would be well applied to your query.

    – John:18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

    So we see plainly that Jesus is referring to after life results for failure to heed his message in this life. He is talking about the afterlife.

  99. The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and Abe Lincoln (not a Founding) were all well-known deists of their time.

    They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity.

    The nation’s Constitution specifies, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article 6, section 3)

    It was a radical move at that time to give equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike.

    The Constitution ensured that NO religion could make the claim of being the nation’s official religion. This was another radical move in opposition to all other “civilized” governments then in power. (England, France, Russia, Spain, etc)

    The Constitution does not mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words “Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God” are never mentioned in the Constitution.

    The Declaration of Independence states that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

    Deists believe God exists, but that He is not directly involved nor does He interfere in the affairs of men. Deists deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, miracles, and any supernatural act of redemption or salvation.

    The Founding Fathers were revolutionary and part of their “Grand Experiment” was to eliminate religion from government.

    People like Pat Robertson were pure anathema to them.

    Some may think of us as a nation of Christians but make no mistake, our Founding Fathers, (and our government) were, and are, not.

    (As an interesting aside: The words, “under God” in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were not in his original notes but were added later by others because people who heard the Address claimed he said those two words. Those claims were disputed by other listeners and by those people who knew him well. Lincoln often compared his views on religion to those of Jefferson and called himself a deist.)

  100. “I don’t understand why the last part of the verse is left out of the NLT version.” -chris

    Wow. I am getting a lot of questions tonight.

    The NLT (New Living Translation) is a adaption of the Living Bible and tries to rephrase things in a more clear modern English. Problem is they take even more liberties and so more gets lost in translation, and often parts are omitted. I stick with the KJV as it is a standard literal translation.

    You just have to get past the old English.

  101. By the way don’t take that to mean I frown on the NLT or other versions. In fact they often produce some key insights to passages as they are able to rely on more recently discovered texts.

    But for the most part its best to stay with the Authorized version. Its a little more Latin than some of the newer versions but it still remains the best overall translation for the purpose of study and research.

  102. Bob,

    No, I’m not seriously surprised a bit at any nugget of hate that spews from Robertson’s spiteful pie hole. That devil eats with his mouth open. Appalled and throughly disgusted without doubt but surprised not even an angstrom. I should mention “annoyed” too but that has less to do with Pat than with hypocrites in general.

  103. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.

    Craig Ferguson is probably the funniest guy on television today.

  104. Eniobob & Buddha,
    My wife and I DVR all of Craig’s shows and read his books. He is not only very funny, but very intelligent to boot. Most people in the community I live in have barely heard of him. It’s good to know there are others out there with discrimination.

  105. We are now moving away from the blame Bush for everything phase.

    Says Glover: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

  106. 30%’er,
    I’ve followed your counter punching through the entire thread with fascination. To me you win with a TKO. I’m especially impressed by your sourcing of the Gospels as the word of Jesus. Many don’t get that distinction. Also your continuing point throughout your writing that just because bad people call themselves Christian, doesn’t mean that they are really following Jesus teachings, is well taken. The problem with people like Bill Maher and Dawkins is they conflate much of their criticism and thereby show a lack real knowledge of what is actually written. I agree with you that Robertson doesn’t represent Christianity and is a con man because you would presume he really has the knowledge of the Gospels.

    There is another explanation for his decidely un-Christian attitude and that is that like many Christian Preachers today he diminishes the Gospels by casting Jesus as the avenger from The Book of Revelations, which is probably the most suspect part of the Christian canon. As an outsider it who has nevertheless read the Christian Scriptures I find
    this a confounding trend, whose explanation is this is how the State has used Christianity to justify its’ excesses. The short form of this is that Robertson may be quite familiar with scripture, but reads it in light of his own prejudice and personal greed.

  107. enibob–

    Thanks for the video clip. I LOVE Craig Ferguson. He’s IS the funniest guy on television. He’s on the list of My Favorite Men in the World.

    I love the song/dance/puppet numbers on his show.
    Ferguson Singing MmmBop

    Have you seen his movie Saving Grace? I believe he helped write the screenplay.

  108. Craih also wrote, directed and starred in a 2003 movie called “I’ll Be There,” which was a cute little comedy and quite enjoyable.

  109. 30%er where is the scripture where Jesus says there will be those that are coming in my name that are not of me.

    How bout those who have added to my word greater of that will be thrown upon you and those who subtract from my word greater of that will be thrown upon you.

    I know this is not exact but will you please reference.

  110. Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
    Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
    Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    I’m not throwing Robertson in that group, but suffice to say that they are out there.

    A Christian is defined as a follower of Christ, if they don’t follow Christ in both word and action then they are not a Christian. Obviously some are more loyal than others, and some just self-serving crooks.

  111. Sorry Mike S. but I see 30%’er as the classic bobber and weaver not a TKO specialist. The Bible is either the unerring word of the Creator or it’s not. If it is, it expressly sanctions slavery, sexual slavery, child killing, misogyny, and all manner of religious retribution. 30%’er promulgates the myth that words don’t mean what they say and context can make a word means its opposite. Sorry no sale here. Religionists all have the same flaw and the same burden: they allow that no evidence can falsity their beliefs. When one refuses to accept or even acknowledge contray evidence, their views should be weighed accordingly.

  112. Early Morning Swim: Keith Olbermann Blasts Limbaugh Comments on Haiti
    By: Blue Texan Friday January 15, 2010 5:00 am

    There isn’t a human tragedy too big for the drug-addicted draft-dodging sex tourist to politicize.

    RUSH: No, I’m not evading it at all. If I said it I meant to say it, and I do believe that everything is political to this president. Everything this president sees is a political opportunity, including Haiti, and he will use it to burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion. […]

    CALLER: [A]re you implying that the Huffington Post as the one and only resource that I [read]? I even watch Fox News once in a while.

    RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. I’m not implying that. … What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a blockhead. What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a closed-minded bigot who is ill-informed. … And if you had listened to this program for a modicum of time you would know it. But instead you’re a blockhead. You’re mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read

  113. Mespo “30%’er promulgates the myth that words don’t mean what they say and context can make a word means its opposite.”

    Article I Section 9 “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

    Oops! See Callard v. Bull

  114. 30%er,

    That’s not me being hostile, that’s me being terse.

    Just so we’re clear, I happen to agree with you about Pat and his ilk getting some of the message wrong. I just don’t think you get to distance yourself from them by declaring that they’re not Christians. That’s just as much a fallacy as an atheist saying that Communist Russia wasn’t an atheist state because they worshiped the state in place of a god.

    We all have to face the fact that as much as we want to define a group we belong to in a away that excludes people who we don’t want to be associated with, we generally don’t get to do that. That’s the whole basis of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The exception to which is if the group in question is by definition made up of individuals without whatever trait we’re seeking to exclude (No True Vegetarian Eats Meat). Unfortunately, nowhere in the definition of Christian do the words “in a manner approved by 30%er” or even “in a manner consistent with their original intent.” This is a linguistic discussion not a theological one.

  115. Edit, that should read: Unfortunately, nowhere in the definition of Christian do the words “in a manner approved by 30%er” or even “in a manner consistent with their original intent” come after the words “a follower of the teachings of Christ.”

  116. eniobob,

    Point. Match Set Scored.

    Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read

    So how do you let your opponent win your argument for you? Let Rush open his mouth.

  117. “30%er,

    That’s not me being hostile, that’s me being terse.

    Just so we’re clear, I happen to agree with you about Pat and his ilk getting some of the message wrong. I just don’t think you get to distance yourself from them by declaring that they’re not Christians.” -Gyges

    Well that’s some pretty disrespectful “terse”. There’s a pretty apparent interrogative almost mocking sort of bellicosity in your tone. When you present questions like “So, let me ask you: Do you hate your Mother?”, its difficult to see your questions as simply “terse”. However I shall do my best to answer them.

    As to your claim that I am attempting to distance myself from Robertson by claiming he’s not a true Christian, I don’t need that to distance myself from him. I don’t mock dying people in Haiti by claiming they are dying because of some deal their ancestors made with the devil.

    I think that’s sufficient to “distance” myself from him.

  118. “We all have to face the fact that as much as we want to define a group we belong to in a away that excludes people who we don’t want to be associated with, we generally don’t get to do that.” – Gyges

    Really? So all black people are the same? They’re defined by the actions of the most vocal or visible among them?

    You can’t lump all Christians under your umbrella no more than you can lump all Muslims under the terrorist umbrella.

  119. “Unfortunately, nowhere in the definition of Christian do the words “in a manner approved by 30%er” or even “in a manner consistent with their original intent.” -Gyges

    Well I never suggested such things. I’m providing you with the actual scriptures that define what it means to be Christian. Christ was the only one authorized to teach what a Christian ought to do or not do. And he spelled it out in the 4 Gospels (which are the most accurate of the scriptures we have since they reinforce each other) in no uncertain terms.

    And he warned us that in the last days there would be many “wolves in sheeps clothing” that would pretend to follow him but for their own nefarious purposes.

    And its clear to me that thats what Pat Robertson is. Not a true Christian. Not a true believer. A man who knows the scriptures, yet teaches something completely different.

    By the way, a cornerstone of part of your argument was that the word “Christian” was only 500 years old. Were you planning on retracting that fallacy?

    I corrected it last night but did not see a retraction.

  120. Sorry Mike S. but I see 30%’er as the classic bobber and weaver not a TKO specialist. The Bible is either the unerring word of the Creator or it’s not. If it is, it expressly sanctions slavery, sexual slavery, child killing, misogyny, and all manner of religious retribution. 30%’er promulgates the myth that words don’t mean what they say and context can make a word means its opposite. Sorry no sale here. Religionists all have the same flaw and the same burden: they allow that no evidence can falsity their beliefs. When one refuses to accept or even acknowledge contray evidence, their views should be weighed accordingly – Mespo

    So now I’m a “bobber and weaver”?

    It really seems like you and Gyges have a more personal stake here than a philosophical one. Your comments are more geared towards attacking the individual rather than addressing their words. Which is evident by the fact that this comment does not address any specifics I spelled out for you last night but instead labels me. Not my words.

    Nothing I said did you address. Instead you simply label me with a negative connotation and summarize with a general vague assertion that people of faith are essentially fools and charlatans. At least that’s what we’d have to be in order to meet your definition of us. Perhaps if you tried addressing the myriad of facts I so carefully provided to your barrage of questions last night and stowed the generalizations and blanket dismissal of a few billion people, you might better understand whatever it is you’re trying to understand.

    I answered your questions as carefully and honestly as I could.
    Blanket generalizations and what appears to be prejudice against people of faith is not the response I anticipated.

  121. The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars ‘Q’ (from German: Quelle, meaning “source”). This view is known as the “Two-Source Hypothesis”. [11].John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

    * Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
    * Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
    * Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
    * John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

    I guess they must have been divinely inspired.

  122. Mike Spindell 1, January 15, 2010 at 10:02 am

    “30%’er,
    I’ve followed your counter punching through the entire thread with fascination. To me you win with a TKO. I’m especially impressed by your sourcing of the Gospels as the word of Jesus. Many don’t get that distinction. Also your continuing point throughout your writing that just because bad people call themselves Christian, doesn’t mean that they are really following Jesus teachings, is well taken. The problem with people like Bill Maher and Dawkins is they conflate much of their criticism and thereby show a lack real knowledge of what is actually written. I agree with you that Robertson doesn’t represent Christianity and is a con man because you would presume he really has the knowledge of the Gospels.

    There is another explanation for his decidely un-Christian attitude and that is that like many Christian Preachers today he diminishes the Gospels by casting Jesus as the avenger from The Book of Revelations, which is probably the most suspect part of the Christian canon. As an outsider it who has nevertheless read the Christian Scriptures I find
    this a confounding trend, whose explanation is this is how the State has used Christianity to justify its’ excesses. The short form of this is that Robertson may be quite familiar with scripture, but reads it in light of his own prejudice and personal greed.”

    Thank you Mike. I appreciate your comments.

    Your possible explanation is well taken, however there’s one error with it that I can see and that is the core of course of my position, i.e. that Jesus’ words appear in the 4 Gospels and not in any other portion of the canonized Bible. Thus what John The Revelator said is not particularly binding in any way as far as being a Christian.

    A lot of the arguments have centered around other books in the New Testament and I think its important to point out at this point that when the Gospel’s were written there was no “Bible”. These passages that some people turn to to insist that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (not you mind you) omits the simple fact that when they were written, there was no Bible.

    Hence they could not be endorsing the remainder of a book that didn’t yet exist and that they had no knowledge of.

    The original definition of Christian was “follower of Christ”. In order to follow Christ one needs to first know what Christ’s instructions are. And the only place those instructions can be found is in the Gospel’s of Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

  123. It is my understanding is that none of the reading of what is in the gospels or new testament for that matter were in existent at the time of Christs birth, death or even resurrection.

    Also, less that 2% of the population could read. And less than .05% could write at that time. But then again those statistics are as good as the translation at the time.

    A lot of the writing were still done in codes and hieroglyphs.

    What is interesting to me is from the age of 12/13 to 25 where did this Jesus go? It is believe that he may have gone to India. Which was a real possibility at the time as they taught a hierarchical metaphysics, which was incomparable at the time.

    Now the word Christ. Greek Khristos

    The word is often misunderstood to be the surname of Jesus due to the numerous mentions of Jesus Christ in the Christian Bible. The word is in fact used as a title, hence its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning The Anointed One, Jesus. Followers of Jesus became known as Christians because they believed that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah, prophesied about in the Tanakh (which Christians term the Old Testament). The majority of Jews reject this claim and are still waiting for Christ to come (see Jewish Messiah). Most Christians now wait for the Second Coming of Christ when they believe he will fulfill the rest of the Messianic prophecy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

    Also Mike S., has very salient points.

  124. 30%er,

    The word “Christian” is under 500 years old according to every dictionary I’ve checked. The Greek and Latin words are certainly older, and you won’t find me saying that they aren’t. Since this is a discussion about the meaning of the English Word Christian, I would think it’d be pretty clear that I was speaking of the approximate time the word Christian appeared in the English language.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian

    BTW I never said we should judge all Christians by the actions of Pat Robertson, I said you don’t get to exclude him because you don’t like him. Nice red-herring though.

    Since you’re still stuck in “True Scotsman,” mode and much more interested in theology than the discussion I’d like to have, I’ll be on my way.

  125. It is my understanding is that none of the reading of what is in the gospels or new testament for that matter were in existent at the time of Christs birth, death or even resurrection. -Anonymously Yours

    Well think about what you’re saying. If someone writes your life story, do they follow you around with a notebook for 30 years jotting down every thing you do and say?

    Or do they compile it at the end of your life from their experiences with you, or those who knew you and the things they heard you say?

    Of course it wasn’t written during his life. That would make no sense.

  126. Look as much as I’d like to keep responding to these questions I need to step into a meeting here shortly. I’ll try to log on later this evening and follow up with any further questions, however I will leave this thought for the blogger Mespo.

    I spent a great deal of time last evening responding to your barrage of questions. In fact I spent several hours reviewing and answering them to the best of my ability. I anticipated either for you to address those responses but instead you simply and quite arbitrarily I might add, dismissed them with one sweeping paragraph condemning people of faith as effectively ‘duped’ and labeling me in a negative light.

    I find this unusual given the fact that the first two of the scriptures you presented me with you misquoted. In fact the one, where you quote Jesus you actually cut the sentence in half.

    You presented it as ““Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB) – Mespo”

    However the actual verse is much different.

    Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

    I cannot see how you could have done this as you literally had to dissect the sentence in order to present it as you did. It seems you purposely removed the portion that makes it clear Jesus was not presenting this as a commandment, but merely quoting from the Law of Moses. Of course I’m not saying you did, maybe it was a mistake. But I’m having a hard time understanding how you could have made such a mistake, given you appear to be fairly intelligent and well read thus I don’t see how one could look at a sentence and grab it, and leave out the beginning of it.

    You present it as a commandment of Jesus, then insist I refute it. Yet it wasn’t a commandment, you edited it to make it appear to be one, and yet you label me the “bobber and weaver”.

    It seems that if you’re going to misquote scripture to shore up your arguments that you might want to at least acknowledge it when someone calls you on it. Rather than simply arbitrarily dismiss their responses as “bobbing and weaving”.

    Enough said. I’ll be back later this evening and I’ll try to answer whatever question anyone poses to me but please try to not barrage me with them and please, when you quote a scripture don’t edit it to make it appear to support your position and if you get caught doing so please at least acknowledge it rather than dismissing my responses. It took a lot of time to respond to you last night and I did so because I thought you were serious. Your response this morning was disheartening to say the least.

  127. Gyges I immediately thought this when I read this.

    I’ll be on my way. I think it’s very fitting for the discussion at hand.

  128. 30%er:

    I have recently read where there are scholars who believe neither Jesus nor Mohammed even existed. They believe they are made up figures to teach parables.

    What say you?

  129. bdaman,

    Did you know that Clapton was refered to as “god” among classic rock-and-rollers during the late 70s?

    Duane and Greg Allman (of Allman Brothers Band fame) owned, at least partially, a bar in Daytona Beach named “The Wreck”. When Clapton was in town, he would frequent the bar. Clapton had a house in north Daytona (maybe Ormond Beach). I was there earlier on the night that Clapton’s bedroom caught fire.

    Ahh, the good ol’ days before paparazzi.

  130. I meant to say; sick to death above, but now that Ive seen the video and subsequent ones; I’m just speechless at someone him.

    I wonder if Pat said anything like that to R. Gulliani after 9/11 when Pat endorsed his for President. Of course now Rudy is claiming 9/11 happened under Obama’s watch. It appears they really think Obama is the Anti Christ who made a pack with Haitians. Never mind; scratch that; men like them are unable to think.

    Peace out

  131. Byron,

    If only there was some earlier example of that happening, you know like a famous philosopher or something.

    Also, I’m with AY.

  132. AY,

    This whole Multiple Personality Disorder thing can be very confusing. I should have known that bdaman already knows everything that know.

  133. Duh, thanks, yea I did. When his son died and wrote Tears in Heaven i’m sure it gave him a big big dose of reality. Even though My Fathers Eye’s was written about his relationship he never had with his biological father when ever I listened to it I always thought of god.

  134. AWWW AY do you want to be my friend.

    We could be the bess of friends, we could go out together,play together and even wear each others clothes, but let me tell ya, don’t mess wit my man Duh, or I’ll beat yo white ass like yo mama did evry saturday moannin. I aint playin wit you none either. Thats two snaps and a twist, get the gist.

  135. Empirecookie…

    For a minute there, I thought I was reading theonion.com!!

    He’s so full of it, he must be stepping in it everywhere he goes.

  136. “30%er,

    The word “Christian” is under 500 years old according to every dictionary I’ve checked. The Greek and Latin words are certainly older, and you won’t find me saying that they aren’t. Since this is a discussion about the meaning of the English Word Christian, I would think it’d be pretty clear that I was speaking of the approximate time the word Christian appeared in the English language.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian – Gyges

    Wasn’t it you who accused me of playing semantic games earlier?
    I’m starting to think I’m being suckered here into arguing against nonsense. I’m sure that’s not the case but come on. You’re not aware that the word originated with the early Christians at Antioch? It dates back just after the death of Christ. That’s a fact, as it appears in the texts that date back to just after the time of Christ. In fact, are you not aware of the long standing well known dialogue between Paul and Herod?

    “almost thou persuadeth me to be Christian” ACTS 26:28

    This I thought would be a well known passage among an intellectual crowd such as this, given that its been reused and paraphrased throughout the ages in literary and scholarly works. Thou “almost persuadeth me to be Christian” is a famous dialogue.

    And it comes from the book of ACTs, written around 90 AD.

    Of course the English spelling of the word couldn’t have existed at the time of Christ since there was no English.
    None of the words we have from the bible, or any ancient manuscript is in English. All of it was translated from some other language. Hence the word “Christian” first appears in the Greek about 90 AD, give or take. Hence the word is almost 2000 years old. Not 500.

    Do I actually have to explain that?

  137. In fact Gyges, I just checked your link to Websters and apparently you overlooked this part of the definition.

    “Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos”

    So we see the definition you’re using actually explained to you the origin of the word being “christianos”, as my response stated clearly.

    So I’m not sure what the intent of your argument is but the word first appeared in Antioch almost 2000 years ago.

  138. Here. Perhaps this will help. Here is the dialogue between Paul of Tarsus, and Herod Agrippa II. This is not the first place the word “Christian” appears in the New Testament, but it is the most memorable one.

    – ACTS 26:24 – And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

    25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

    26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

    27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

    28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

  139. Remember Gyges, we were not discussing when the word was translated into the English language.

    We were discussing when the word first appeared. And it first appeared almost 2000 years ago in the Book of Acts, Chapter 11, verse 26 as anyone can plainly see.

    – ACTS 11:26 – And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called CHRISTIANS first in Antioch.

  140. 30%er:

    “Festus said with a loud voice,”
    “I am not mad, most noble Festus” Matt Dillon

    you a “Gunsmoke” fan too?

  141. 30%er The thing that you may not understand is, IMO, most all here are from the anti religion anti god squad crowd. I know you sense it, but god has a way in order to have his message heard. It is up to the individual to open the eye and ear gates.

    Enter 30%er

  142. 30%er:

    correct me if I am wrong but wasnt the Bible, current version anyway written after that? And modified a few times?

    Did Josephus speak of Christians? Or are there any Roman writings calling the people who followed Christ Christians.

    I dont know if you can rely on the Bible for your defense.

  143. 30%er:

    “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

    Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

    That was sometime before 101 AD, looks like you are right on reference to Christians. Unless they are called something else and this is just added in the modern translation.

  144. “30%er:

    I have recently read where there are scholars who believe neither Jesus nor Mohammed even existed. They believe they are made up figures to teach parables.

    What say you?”

    Wow. Tomas Torquemada has nothing on you guys, lol. Just kidding. Lots of questions for me. Anyway I’ll take a stab at yours, at least with regards to Christ. I cannot elaborate on Mohamed as I am not very knowledgeable on the Koran.

    I am absolutely aware of these positions held by some however with regards to Christ and I am also aware of the absolute viability of them in some respects. After all come on, if you wanted to control a restless, impoverished population what better way to do it than to invent a religion that teaches them that its;

    1. Good to be poor
    2. Good to pay taxes
    3. Good to honor governmental authority

    I mean if I were Constantine and I were dealing with a diverse and volatile Rome, I’d have sold em on Christianity too.

    But there are problems there. Lots of them. The main ones being the evidence produced by archeological digs, cross references by historians like Josephus, and the fact of course the date of the early manuscripts of the Gospels lending credibility to eyewitness accounts. Of course there’s no solid proof which is why it becomes a matter of faith for many. After all by the Bibles own account Jesus was a lowly unimportant figure and would have hardly merited a mention by most of contemporaries.

    Jerusalem was packed with Jewish prophets and preachers of which Jesus was just one. Thus the fact that we do have the evidence we have of his existence points to the unlikelihood that it was made up.

    That’s a great question though and quite valid. I may expound on it a little more but I have to step into the family room for a bit. I’ll try to follow up if I can later.

  145. Don’t leave out that Oedipus man that Fiddled whilst Rome did burn. The question is was the saying “painting the town red” literally or figuratively? Did he really use paint?

    If memory serves me correctly it was about 64 AD so about the time the gospel did write.

    Was this revisionist? I do not know except what one wants me to see as the word of the last person that wrote his story. Good or bad it is what I read.

  146. Bdaman,

    Not all who wonder are really lost. There are some of us here that do not mind thinking outside the box. That is what got most of us here to start with.

    I am not really a doubter just not to trusting of our government and the people who work it. Some have the morals of a dog in heat.

  147. Ay I wasn’t counting you as most here.

    30%er would you re-read this post. Do you think I am off base.

    bdaman
    1, January 14, 2010 at 7:39 am

  148. Bdaman,

    That is the point. The devil is many forms and in many substances. It can be anything, from money to superiority, from condescending adultery. From not helping your neighbor to stealing from throwing the widows out and not taking care of the orphans.

    Q. What are some of the names or titles the Bible uses for the devil?

    A. Here is a list of thirty-three names and references to Satan / Lucifer / Devil in the Bible:

    * Abaddon – Revelation 9:11

    etc etc etc.

    link: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/list-of-different-names-bible-uses-for-devil.html

  149. “Don’t leave out that Oedipus man that Fiddled whilst Rome did burn. The question is was the saying “painting the town red” literally or figuratively? Did he really use paint? -Anon

    I’m not sure if this question was directed at me so if I am answering out of turn please accept my apologies. I am assuming it was so I’ll have to ask you to rephrase it as I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Oedipus was a mythical Greek character who killed his father to marry his mother. The person you’re thinking of was Emperor Nero. Of course actually he didn’t fiddle while Rome burned (they didn’t have fiddles in Rome, although he did play the Lyre), that was more of an expression. He was sort of the “George W Bush” of Rome and the great fire of 64 was sort of his Katrina. He was well known for his performances though, mostly song and oratory. He may have given a performance during the fire though to raise money for the victims which could have led to this saying.

    Anyway that’s another topic for another time. I’d like to address Bdamans and then Byron’s question a little more now that my belly is full.

  150. “30%er would you re-read this post. Do you think I am off base.” – bdaman

    I reread it and this looks like more of a philosophical discussion that would depend on the beliefs of the individual so I wouldn’t really want to get too deep into that. I will say you’re correct as to the concept of a “war in heaven” at least that was relayed by John the Revelator.

    – Revelations 12:7-9 – Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. –

    So obviously there is that basis for that. However keep in mind that the author of revelations was prone to allegorical references, often to avoid persecutions. After all with Nero illuminating his gardens with “Christian Lamps” as it were, or tossing them to his dogs to be torn to shreds it wasn’t exactly prudent to be publishing writings that spoke ill of Nero or the government.

    In fact one of the most common misconceptions I think from the bible is this notion of “666” being the mark of some yet to come antichrist. The fact is John was referring to Emperor Nero in this very instance. For example, in the Hebrew language there is a numerical equivalent to each letter. 666 was the numerical equivalent to Nero. Hence when John was speaking of the great beast, he was referring to Nero and his armies who tortured and horrifically murdered Christians for sport.

    Nero was a beast but John had to find a way to say it without drawing direct attention to it. Being on “Nero’s most wanted” was not a popular place to be.

  151. Of course and yes he did sleep with his mother. Yes it is alleged that he did in fact start the fire so that he could build a more that he wanted.

    According to Tacitus, some in the population held Nero responsible.[18] To diffuse blame, Nero targeted the Christians.[18] Christians confessed to the crime, but it is unknown whether these were false confessions induced by torture.[18] Also, the passage is unclear as to what the Christians confessed to — being arsonists or Christians. Suetonius and Cassius Dio favor Nero as the arsonist with an insane desire to destroy the city as his motive.[19] However, major accidental fires were common in ancient Rome. In fact, Rome burned again under Vitellius in 69[20] and under Titus in 80.[21]

    link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

    FYI. It would seem that the elite were setting the stage for the establishment of Arkansas. Some really perverse things were going on. But then again it could be DC as you don’t know whose sleeping with whom….

  152. Well you didn’t say Nero, you said Oedipus.

    No problem but either way I’m trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make. Could you summarize your point?

  153. Ok a lot of stuff was going on. You had Nero burning stuff. Maybe maybe not. Even misinformation about that. We will never get the truth.

    Christians were burned because of it. They were underground and not tolerated until after the 300’s.

    The Oedipus man was a soliloquy which was designed to tell you the information that you needed but have to know the code spoken. So if we are dealing with the information that is purported to be valid, is it really?

    That is where Faith does come in. I am not a Mason but parts of my family are. They speak in a code about certain things. The original purpose of the Masons was god central. Now it has turned to golf central.

  154. “Ok a lot of stuff was going on. You had Nero burning stuff. Maybe maybe not. Even misinformation about that. We will never get the truth.” Anon Yours

    I think you didn’t read my comments to closely. I said Nero burned Christians to illuminate his gardens. I said that not to you but to Bdaman, or are you Bdaman as well? I’m just meeting you so I don’t know.

    My comments were to Bdaman about Johns the Revelator’s account of the war in heaven and the possible allegorical nature of it given that Nero was burning Christians to illuminate his gardens and throwing them to the dogs, thus John wanted to obscure his meanings often to avoid direct persecution from Nero or the government.

  155. Ay:
    Its not that I am biased ,it seems that Olberman is the only person who has really given an opinion about limbaugh and his comments.
    I see other commentators have mentioned it and went on to the next story.

    It seems to me that there are storys coming out of HATI that a lot of people didn”t know about,such as people over there on missions of mercy who were there because they were trying to make a difference in these peoples lives and doing it without fanfare or trying to become famous.

    In the meantime limbaugh is back hear taking shots at the effort,and making ignorant statements from his $44 million dollar house.I guess that why he can’t relate.

  156. “The Oedipus man was a soliloquy which was designed to tell you the information that you needed but have to know the code spoken. So if we are dealing with the information that is purported to be valid, is it really?” – Anon Yours

    I really am lost here on what you’re trying to say. Oedipus was a mythical Greek figure that has nothing to do with the bible so I’m having trouble figuring out what you’re trying to say and how it ties into anything we were discussing. Am I missing something here?

    “Code spoken”? What does that mean? Is this some sort of Masonic thing? I am not a Mason if that’s what you’re asking.

  157. What you are reading in the bible as you see it is more fiction written that includes all sorts of wives tales and drunks than facts.

    It includes all sorts of irrelevant information. If you hand someone 6 pages they usually file it and say thanks. If you hand them a book/bible they are grateful before they put it on the shelf. Alls you really need to know in the new testament is those 5 0r 6 chapters of James. Period.

    Link: http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/JamesIntro.htm

    If you want to search for a book that is called “The lost books of the bible and the forgotten books of eden” you will be amazed. It is written and translated from the Aramaic tongue about the 3rd century.

    If I am wrong I stand to go to hell and be burnt. But the way I see it, if I am wrong and others are wrong about somethings. I will be busy meeting up with old friends.

    This was my Mom’s favorite poem. And she was a God fearing Catholic.Oh yeah. I have recovered for the most part.

    “There are only two things in life to worry about:

    Whether you are well
    or whether you are sick.

    If you are well,
    then there is nothing to worry about.

    But if you are sick,
    there are only two things to worry about:

    Whether you are going to get well or whether you are going to die.

    If you get well,
    then there is nothing to worry about.

    But if you die,
    there are only two things to worry about:

    Whether you are going to go to heaven or whether you are going to go to hell.

    If you go to heaven,
    then you have nothing to worry about.

    But if you go to hell,
    you’ll be so busy shaking hands with all your friends,
    that you won’t have time to worry!

    So, Why Worry?

    Be Happy!”

    ~~ Author Unknown

  158. “Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame.” – Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, 21 March 1801[1]

    Pat Robertson = perverted charlatan indeed.

  159. “30%er:

    I have recently read where there are scholars who believe neither Jesus nor Mohammed even existed. They believe they are made up figures to teach parables.

    What say you?” – Byron

    Byron I wanted to get back to you on this question as promised. And this response should also address Anon-Yours questions and comments as well. I think its important to recognize here that the scholars you speak of who believe Jesus did not exist are a very small minority.

    Much like the Global Warming deniers in the scientific community they merely represent a handful of the overall scholarly community. Both believeing and non believing scholars alike unamiously have laid to rest the “mythers” as they’re known and their arguments. The fact is we know more about Jesus of Nazerth (except for perhaps Saul of Tarsus) than any other preacher or religious leader of the time.

    You asked about Josephus. Josephus was of course a famous Judeo\Roman historian. He was Jewish by descent but became a naturalized Roman citizen after surrendering to Roman soldiers at a battle similar to Masada. He was one of the priests who performed temple sacrifices and during a battle Josepus was one of the priest called on to perform the ritual suicides to keep the people from falling into the hands of the Romans. Once everyone was dead, Josephus surrendered to the Romans essentially saying “see, I killed all of them for you”. Anyway that’s a long story for another time. You asked about Josephus mentioning Christians, well yes, he did account for the crucifixion of Christ. While there is strong evidence to suggest that part of the passage was later appended by Christian or Arab scribes however it is generally accepted that the passage did originate with Josephus but was built on by scribes with an axe to grind.

    There’s other referemces too that reference either Christ or Christians. (once more demonstrating the antiquity of the word).For example the Provincial Governor of Pontus wrote to Emperor Trajan in the early 1st century referencing Christ and the Christians;

    – “Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged.

    Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.”
    – – Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96–97

    Obviously a Roman Governor would not be writing to the Emperor about a character who never existed. Obviously both Governor Pliny and Emporer Trajan knew who Jesus was and did not see him as a mythical figure. This is compelling evidence on its own merits that demonstrate the unlikelihood that Jesus was a mythical figure. After all its more than we have on other historical characters of the time who scholars have no problem accepting their existence. But there’s more evidence out there. Like the “Yeshu” character from Hebrew writings like the Babylonian Talmud, which appear to be references to Jesus as seen by those who he spoke against (the Pharisee’s). These date back to 70 AD.

    And of course lets not forget the veracity of the Hebrew Oral Tradition, which is often more accurate than written text. Ever see a Jew a the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? The prayers they’re offering are often stories, detailing events. Much like in Farenheit 451. Every word is repeated exact word for word, passed on in perfect form. No deviations are permitted. Thus the Gospels are more accurate than the “mythers” would like you to believe. They were passed on painstakingly using the Hebrew Oral Tradition and then written down shortly before the deaths of the Apostles. We do not have all the orignal manuscripts but we have enough fragments to confirm the veracity of the accounts. Not to mention Paul of Tarsus was a historical figure who’s own accounts are accepted by a wide variety of historians, both Christian and non Christian.

    The fact is there is a small handful of scholars who are the “mythers” just like there is a small handful of scientists who call Global Warming a myth.

    A handful of scholars deny the existence of the historical Jesus but the overwhelming consensus says otherwise.

  160. Of course the irony here is one doesn’t have to believe in any sort of divinity in Jesus to accept him as a historical figure. But for some reason some individuals seem intent on proving he didn’t even exist as a man.

    We readily accept many characters from history based on a line or two regarding them from a single letter, document or inscription. This is how historical information is gathered. And often when it comes to obscure figures, i.e those not of great power or wealth, its simply a mention in someones journal or letter to friend. Yet we readily accept the information because usually people don’t write about the everyday mundane actions of a mythical figure in letters to friends or people in positions of authority. Yet when it comes to the man Jesus, there’s been a concerted effort by many to deny that he ever existed even though we have more evidence that he did than we do with most historical figures in his social class.

    Some claim they do this by mentioning and then mocking the miracles attributed to him. They leverage this as a sign of the fallacious nature of the records. Since the records speak of things that no human could do, (i.e. water into wine, walking on water, etc) they point to this as proof the documents are flawed, and then demand alternative proof of the mans existence.

    Of course most people are aware that throughout history mythical powers and events have been attributed to a myriad of individuals. Dragon slaying royalty, magic powers, etc have all been attributed to real life historical figures yet no one has a problem accepting those figures as real, or separating the myths from the facts. But when it comes to the historical Jesus, the very fact that some supernatural powers and events are attributed to him negate the possibility of the guy ever existing. At least according to the “mythers”.

    The fact is from a historical perspective you don’t have to believe in his divinity to believe he existed. There are plenty of scholars and even religious figures from other religions who widely accept his historical existence without accepting his divinity. Accepting his divinity is a personal spiritual decision but accepting his historical existence is not. That’s based on the evidence and for Jesus as we’ve seen, there’s more than enough to conclude that he actually lived. Was he divine?

    Therein the petitioner must petition themselves.

  161. Duh, I made no arguments on global warming other than referencing the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in confirming it in order to contrast it to the overwhelming consensus of the scholarly community on the historical existence of the man Jesus.

    So I’m not sure what it is you’re asking, or why.

  162. I don’t want you to get off topic but the tide has changed on a small handful of scientists who call Global Warming a myth.

    The evidence is clear on the fabrication of data and manipulation of others. Yes the globe has warmed and it’s cooled and it’s warmed and it is again cooling. We’ve been able to learn more about jesus over 2000 years. The idea of Global Warming, not that much.

  163. Ah But 30%er,

    St Germain was a great alchemist. He could turn base metals ubto gold. Water into wine as well. Why haven’t you heard of him….

  164. “I don’t want you to get off topic but” – Bdaman

    Then don’t try to get me off topic. I’m not discussing global warming. That’s for another time, another thread.

  165. “Ah But 30%er,

    St Germain was a great alchemist. He could turn base metals ubto gold. Water into wine as well. Why haven’t you heard of him….” -Anon Yours

    Who said I haven’t heard of St Germain? You’re not making any sense. I’m not sure what the points are here but from now on I’m only responding to coherent questions that make sense.

  166. 30%er,

    The reason I was asking was to be able to demonstrate that just because someone doesn’t question something that does not mean that they concur with the findings. Most people just accept the published report. They don’t have the time or the inclination to do the research, evaluate the data, and arrive at their own conclusions. To consider them to be in agreement is unfounded.

    Much the same can be said about religion. How many Christians have really questioned the historical accuracy of the bible? Most people 95+% don’t ever consider questioning what they are taught to believe.

  167. “30%er,

    The reason I was asking was to be able to demonstrate that just because someone doesn’t question something that does not mean that they concur with the findings. Most people just accept the published report. They don’t have the time or the inclination to do the research, evaluate the data, and arrive at their own conclusions. To consider them to be in agreement is unfounded.”

    Thank you for rephrasing that. I see what you’re trying to say.

    I do disagree with you however. You are misrepresenting the consensus I presented as being a “lay” consensus when in fact I made it clear it was scientific and scholarly consensus I was speaking about. Just as the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has collectively acknowledged the science of global warming, so too has the overwhelming consensus of the scholarly community acknowledged the existence of the historical Jesus.

    Here’s what I wrote.

    -“Much like the Global Warming deniers in the scientific community they merely represent a handful of the overall scholarly community. Both believeing and non believing scholars alike unamiously have laid to rest the “mythers” as they’re known and their arguments. The fact is we know more about Jesus of Nazerth (except for perhaps Saul of Tarsus) than any other preacher or religious leader of the time.” – ME

    Responding to my statements on the overwhelming consensus of the “scientific” community and the “scholarly” community by addressing it as if I had been talking about the average citizen is misleading as to my statements. I was clear on the consensus of the scientific community and the scholarly community. Not the lay person.

    I do agree however with you that most Christians don’t seem to know much about their own religion. But that’s another topic.

  168. I wasn’t trying to get you off topic but you brought the subject up in your discussion. It no longer is a consensus, the tide has turned. We can get into that discussion at a later time. Anyone here will tell you that is a subject that I like and would be happy to discuss at a moments notice, however this discussion is quite more interesting because I don’t know enough about it.

    I thank you for taking the time to spread the word. Please continue. I may not comment but I have read everyone of your post. Also I will be leaving for the airport shortly for an arrival so if a question is asked of me I may not respond until tomorrow. Again many thanks.

  169. 30%er,

    Most of the scientific community don’t possess the knowledge to challenge what has been presented. Only a limited number of them are experts in the field. The fact that a growing number are questioning the findings is a good indicator that they are questionable.

    For the most part, people just go with the flow. If a source that they consider to be reliable tells them something, they are not likely to challenge it.

    Did Jesus, the Son of God, walk the earth? Maybe. Did somebody named Jesus walk the earth, and the New Testament is directly related to his life? There’s a greater chance of that being reliable. Can I get a bunch of scholars to believe it based on their interpretation of data? I’m sure I could.

    Acceptance without verification is faith. You can choose to have faith in what you’re told, or not. That’s a personal choice.

    Did you ever ask yourself; if it is so important for us to believe in God, why doesn’t Jesus appear during a football game, where his words and image could be transmitted all over the world? Something tells me, God won’t be appearing too much in the “cell phone camera” age. God has likely seen the trouble it has caused for police officers.

    I was born and raised a Catholic. I received a Catholic education all the way thru 12th grade. It wasn’t until I was willing to do some serious questioning that I decided that the words could not be supported. I believe that we have a being know as our Creator, but anything beyond that is subject to question.

  170. I wasn’t trying to get you off topic but you brought the subject up in your discussion. It no longer is a consensus, the tide has turned. Bdaman

    I didn’t bring up the subject, I used it as a comparison example.

    And just because you say there’s not a consensus doesn’t change the fact that every leading scientific group in the world says there is. Even NASA, the only organization in the world to ever place a living human being on a foreign planet says there is so if you’re trying to seed the notion that somethings changed don’t bother. I have little time for neoconservative nonsense.

  171. “30%er,

    Most of the scientific community don’t possess the knowledge to challenge what has been presented. Only a limited number of them are experts in the field. The fact that a growing number are questioning the findings is a good indicator that they are questionable.” – Duh

    That’s a complete fabrication. There is no growing number of scientists questioning the findings. The only ones pushing such nonsense are the far right neoconservative loons.

    You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the process of heat from the sun being trapped by our atmosphere. That’s why the moon is either too cold or too hot for life. No atmosphere. Same with Mars which has atmosphere but not one capable of retaining heat. Thus the planets cool and get hot but never retain an even heat. Our earth however is able to retain heat thanks to our atmosphere. It traps heat from the sun and releases it gradually into space, thus the planets temperatures remain temperate enough to sustain life. That’s 3rd grade science.

    Thus it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if that blanket of atmosphere becomes too dense then heat won’t escape the atmosphere and hence the planet won’t cool. And it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that if you can’t breath it, pumping it into the air we breath 24 hours a day, 7 days a week probably isn’t too smart either.

    This countries sucked for far too long on the oil teat. Our kids are dying over it in foreign countries to satisfy a bunch of right wing parasites living off the public dole in a public shelter we call Congress. This isn’t the America I grew up in. This “can’t do” cling to the past nonsense. This country was built over the years by innovation and radical thinkers. Not this new neoconservative nonsense that worships ignorance over knowledge and retardation rather than innovation.

    This country needs a few new Thomas Alva Edison’s right now. A couple of Orville and Wilbur Wrights. And definitely a Ben Franklin or two.

  172. “Did you ever ask yourself; if it is so important for us to believe in God, why doesn’t Jesus appear during a football game, where his words and image could be transmitted all over the world?” Duh

    Well think about what you’re saying for a moment. Faith and belief indicate not knowing. If you know something you don’t need faith and you don’t need belief. I know that if I put down this keyboard right now and walk out my balcony window, that I’ll fall to the ground and injure myself. I don’t need faith or belief for that.

    Thus if Jesus appeared during a football game where his words and image could be transmitted all over the world, then he would have no more “believers”. He’d have “knowers”. Not believers.

  173. “I was born and raised a Catholic. I received a Catholic education all the way thru 12th grade. It wasn’t until I was willing to do some serious questioning that I decided that the words could not be supported. I believe that we have a being know as our Creator, but anything beyond that is subject to question.” – Duh

    I can appreciate your comment. I like you turned from the faith of my parents. Most people turn from the faith of their parents. Its pretty common. But have you ever heard the expression “don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater”? Just because of the obvious flaws of the Catholic church doesn’t mean that the gospels are wrong. The words of Christ still hold true for me regardless of how rotten the churches become. Do unto others, let him without sin cast the first stone, turn the other cheek, these lessons are timeless.

    Regardless of whether one believes Christ was divine his words still ring true and have for 2000 years. I’d much rather be friends with someone who doesn’t believe in Christ as divine yet embraces his message within their own life, than to be with a pious hypocrite who claims to believe in him but doesn’t practice or preach his message. Remember what the apostle James said.

    – James 2:19 “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble”

  174. Knowledge of gospels? incredible and outstanding.

    Global Warming and Climate Change? not so much.

    Question, why is Greenland called Greenland when 80% is white.

  175. “Jesus’ words appear in the 4 Gospels and not in any other portion of the canonized Bible. Thus what John The Revelator said is not particularly binding in any way as far as being a Christian.’

    30%’er,
    I totally agree with that but may not have been clear in exposition. In fact that is why I have enjoyed the bulk of what you’ve written because this truth is lost on so many. As a non-Christian, nevertheless familiar with Christian writing and thought, I have always been puzzled by how the voice of Jesus in the Gospels has almost been obliterated by many Christian religious leaders (i.e. Robertson)in favor of a belief that isn’t even consonant with the non Gospel part of the Christian Canon. My surmise therefore is that the truth of most prophets and their philosophy gets subsumed by those seeking power and motivated by greed.

    In any event you are far ahead on points, but most importantly you are providing educable information as you take on all comers. My butting in further would not replace your erudition, but I just wanted you to know that so far this regular supports your effort and enjoys your information.

  176. “Knowledge of gospels? incredible and outstanding.

    Global Warming and Climate Change? not so much.

    Question, why is Greenland called Greenland when 80% is white.” -bdaman

    I think a better question would be why you’re asking me questions that are silly neoconservative nonsensical talking points?

    First of all, Greenland doesn’t not mean the land is Green. The name comes from “Grønland” which means “Land of the People”. So you might want to do a little research before pushing out the anti-global warming talking points someone fed you.

    And of course lets not forget the irony that apparently escapes you of mentioning Greenland in regards to global warming. Much of Greenlands ice is melting, and if this happens since its bedrock is an ice sheet, would put much of the Island under water.

    It makes no sense in this day and age to listen to silly charlatans who are backed by big oil to deny a science that if the public embraces, would lead to their eventual extinction (unless they learn to adapt like T Boone Pickens). You really should stop listening to partisan politics for a change and try a little science. I’d start with NASA. You know, the guys who walked on the Moon. If you have a problem trusting NASA then try loosening the tin foil a bit.

  177. Wow Mike, thanks. I appreciate your kind words. And I’m glad someone else sees what these men really are. Not the prophets or priests they “play on TV”. But slicksters. Snake oil salesman who push hate and fear because for some reason in certain geographic locations, that stuff sells.

    I think a clean example of this besides Pat Robertson would be the Rev Ted Haggard, who’s mega church based its cornerstone on the hatred of gay and lesbian people. Think about it. Jesus never mentioned the sin once during his 3 year ministry. Yet Haggard built a church on teaching people to hate these people.

    Yet does anyone think for a moment that Haggard really believed what he was saying on Sunday, when on Monday he was out sleeping with male hookers and snorting their drugs? He did it for the money. He sold what sold easy. If Christ’s message of peace really sold with the masses then I’m sure he’d have been teaching that. But he found that the majority of the people who came to his church were motivated by other emotions. Hate. Fear. Spite. Prejudice. So that’s what he sold.

    Pat Robertson does the same thing. Gets old ladies all worked up that the gays are going to get them, and that God punishes people constantly with pain, suffering and death, (like the Haiti earthquake) and people respond. A certain demograph is motivated by such nonsense and that’s why Robertson says the things he does. Of course Jesus warned of these false prophets which he indicated would be rampant in the future. And he had some choice words for the “Pat Robertson’s” of his day;

    – Matt 23:15 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

    And …

    – Matt 23:27 ” Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

    28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

    Looks like Jesus had his own Ted Haggards, Pat Robertson’s, Jerry Falwell’s, Jim Bakers, and the rest. It never fails to amaze me how many people would rather listen to these men preach hate rather than simply reading the words of the man they profess to follow.

  178. “silly neoconservative nonsensical”
    “silly charlatans”

    Yesterday I asked if you were a scientist. You asked why I asked but never really answered the question. If this is an area that is outside of your expertise, you must have arrived at your conclusion based on your reliance on the expert(s) of your choice. You put your FAITH in someone else. You BELIEVE and consider others who do not believe to be “silly”. I won’t go into “neoconservative” because that is just a silly political tool.

    This isn’t as much about global warming as it is about FAITH and BELIEF. When we don’t have the time or knowledge to do our own investigation we rely on that of others. Much like organized religion. To call someone “silly” because they disagree, you must also provide conclusive evidence that you have personally gathered.

    What was the CO2 content of our atmosphere 150 years ago? What is it today? Did you measure it 150 years ago? Did you even measure it today?

    The only thing I find silly is for you to require me to accept your faith as fact.

    I’m not trying to be snarky. I just want to point out that facts, much like reality, are based on personal acceptance.

  179. “silly neoconservative nonsensical”
    “silly charlatans”

    Yesterday I asked if you were a scientist. You asked why I asked but never really answered the question. If this is an area that is outside of your expertise, you must have arrived at your conclusion based on your reliance on the expert(s) of your choice. You put your FAITH in someone else. You BELIEVE and consider others who do not believe to be “silly”. I won’t go into “neoconservative” because that is just a silly political tool.”

    Duh, I never answered because the question is erroneous. Are YOU a scientist? Do you study global warming for a living? I highly doubt it.

    Thus you, like me, must rely on the consensus of the experts on the matter. Just like neither you nor me is a aviation engineer, yet we still trust them to build aircraft that we fly in. Just like neither of us are dentists so we must rely on the guy with the doctorate to operate on our teeth.

    Obviously one does not have to be a watchmaker, to rely on a watch. We have experts who do that for us and we trust them because that’s what they’re trained to do.

    Thus with global warming, you, I and the rest of the population must rely on the information provided to us by scientists trained in the field.

    So when the bulk of the scientific community comes out and says to me the earth is round, I don’t need a partisan political opportunist to counter their information for me. When NASA says something is something, then I don’t need to go to the RNC to explain it for me. The jury’s in.

  180. And as for my comments about silly neoconservative nonsense, I don’t know what else to call it. The only people denying global warming are those propped up by big oil and or the GOP. I don’t see any other demograph denying it.

  181. “What was the CO2 content of our atmosphere 150 years ago? What is it today? Did you measure it 150 years ago? Did you even measure it today?” Duh

    My answer to that would be “duh” of course not. I’m not a scientist studying global warming.

    I’m also not trained in dentistry, but when my dentist tells me I have a cavity, I don’t need to go out and study dentistry for 8 years to confirm it.

    I like you, take his word for it.

  182. 30%er:

    the reason people want to deny the existence of Christ is to destroy Christianity. If Jesus did not live there is no basis for the religion; no sacrifice, no resurrection – no religion.
    If you cannot discredit the idea then destroy the source.

    Did you even need to ask that question?

  183. 30%er:

    I am suspicious of global warming based on what I have read. I wont discount the possibility but I seriously doubt it is a man made occurrence.

    It is a tool to control the economies of the world as certainly as it’s denial is a tool of big oil to control the economies of the world.

    The earth has gone from a very warm humid environment to a snowball and back again. Humans have a very small frame of reference, 20 years to us is an eternity. To the earth a million years is less than a minute in our lives.

    It is almost laughable to me that scientists are making conclusions based on a very limited amount of data.

  184. “30%er:

    the reason people want to deny the existence of Christ is to destroy Christianity. If Jesus did not live there is no basis for the religion; no sacrifice, no resurrection – no religion.
    If you cannot discredit the idea then destroy the source.

    Did you even need to ask that question?”

    I asked the question really more rhetorically than anything but your answer is clearly spot on.

  185. The fact of the matter is Greenland was green and it is now covered in ice. Meaning, yes the planet has warmed, the planet has cooled, the planet warmed and it’s cooling again.

    Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees[citation needed] and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree [10] What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.[11]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

    The vikings grew grapes in New Foundland. The Tutor Kings grew citrus trees in England. In Italy figs were harvested twice a year, why ? because it was very warm. This can not be duplicated at the present time.

    Sometimes it is better to look at evidence rather than something that is fabricated to be evidence.

  186. “New research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades, contrary to some recent studies.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

    “Thus with global warming, you, I and the rest of the population must rely on the information provided to us by scientists trained in the field.”

    Facts are not up for debate. Interpretation of those facts, and the method used to obtain those facts is too. Are any scientists claiming that the world isn’t round? Are any scientists claiming that water doesn’t flow downhill? Are any scientists claiming that the moon is made of green cheese? The answer to all is NO.

    When it comes to global warming, the experts don’t all agree. That’s a fact you can sink your teeth into.

  187. “30%er:

    I am suspicious of global warming based on what I have read. I wont discount the possibility but I seriously doubt it is a man made occurrence.

    It is a tool to control the economies of the world as certainly as it’s denial is a tool of big oil to control the economies of the world.”

    Well I’ve read as much as I as a lay person can get my hands on (and comprehend) and I have no suspicions in that vein. Clearly the consensus is in. And being that NASA endorses it I really don’t need to look any further. If you know of some other organization that has successfully sent human beings to other worlds who discredit the science I’d be happy to see what they have to say. Until then the jury is in.

    And besides. What’s the problem here? So we get off the teat of big oil, our kids stop dying for it in the middle east and the world turns to us for the new amazing technologies we develop, making us once more the world leader in innovation and technology. I don’t see the problem with it whether you accept the consensus or not.

  188. “When it comes to global warming, the experts don’t all agree. That’s a fact you can sink your teeth into.”

    Wrong. That is neoconservative lie designed to convince people that there is not a consensus.

    But feel free to produce a recognized major scientific body not affiliated in any way with Big Oil\Energy or the GOP that does not agree.

  189. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html

    In 2003, two Harvard-Smithsonian Professors, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific journal Climate Research which identified solar activity as a major influence on Earth’s climate. This paper also concluded that the twentieth century was not the warmest, nor was it the century with the most extreme weather over the past thousand years. These two scientists reviewed more than two hundred sources of data. The paper specifically examined climate variations observed to coincide with solar variations. One of the more notable correlations cited in this paper is the well-documented coincidence of the Little Ice Age and a solar quiet period, known as the Maunder Minimum, from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900. Soon and Baliunas asserted that the lack of solar activity resulted in cooler temperatures across the globe. The evidence they compiled also indicated that as the sun became more active global temperatures began to rise and the Little Ice Age ended.

    Then when you fast forward to Climategate we work this into the equation. The solar correlation became a lightning rod of more than a dozen e-mails from the Phil Jones group to discuss how to discredit Soon and Baliunas. Ultimately, the group decide to compile a new paper to counter the conclusion made by Soon and Baliunas.

    Detailed in an e-mail from Dr. Scott Rutherford dated the 12 March 2003. Dr. Rutherford does not go head-to-head with the data presented in the Climate Research paper, but he seemingly wishes to “cook” other data to counter the honest work of Soon and Baliunas, as stated by the following e-mail.

    “First, I’d be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second, regarding Mike’s suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely careful about the differences. Not having seen what this will look like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference period for both (1xxx xxxx xxxx). If you are willing to send me your series please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how we want to display the results.”

    Dr. Rutherford goes on to suggest that Soon and Baliunas should be dealt with severely:

    … “there is nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).”

  190. Climate Gate has now moved to the United States. For those who thought it was over, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Of course thats what happens when you lie, you have to tell another one to cover the last.

    Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

    These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century.

    Email from Demian McLean, Bloomberg to Jim Hansen, August 14, 2007: “The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…”
    Email Response from James Hansen to Damian McLean, August 14, 2007: “…We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”
    Email from NASA Scientist Makiko Sato to James Hansen, August 14, 2007: “I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page…” (Email includes temperature chart dated January 1, 2007.)

    According to the NASA email, NASA’s incorrect temperature readings resulted from a “flaw” in a computer program used to update annual temperature data.

    Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a “pest” and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.” Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.”
    “This email traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA. Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data. Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest manner,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
    =================================
    Here’s a large package of emails from NASA GISS in one large PDF with 215 page which I’ve made available on the WUWT server which can handle the traffic this is likely to get.
    783_NASA_docs (warning large PDF 11 MB)

  191. When I say it’s cooling again it’s because there has been no warming in the last ten years, there has been a slight cooling trend the last three to four but most of all wide spread reports such as this.

    …RECORD BREAKING COLD SPELL SLOWLY COMES TO AN END…AS OF TODAY…THURSDAY JANUARY 14TH…THERE HAVE BEEN 13 CONSECUTIVEDAYS WITH MINIMUM TEMPERATURES LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 32 DEGREES ATALMA GEORGIA AND GAINESVILLE FLORIDA AND 12 DAYS AT SAINT SIMONSISLAND GEORGIA WITH THE STREAKS STILL IN TACT.THIS SETS NEW RECORDS AT GAINESVILLE FLORIDA AS WELL AS ST SIMONSISLAND AND ALMA GEORGIA FOR CONSECUTIVE DAYS WITH MINIMUMTEMPERATURES AT OR BELOW FREEZING. THEY ARE NOW LISTED AT THE BOTTOMOF THE PRODUCT.

    Full Report here
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=jax&storyid=46354&source=0

    AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE JACKSONVILLE FL
    502 AM EST FRI JAN 15 2010

    SHORT TERM…THROUGH THE WEEKEND
    WE WILL CONTINUE TO THAW OUT TODAY FOLLOWING THE LONGEST DURATION
    OF COLD WEATHER IN RECORDED HISTORY. TEMPS WILL FINALLY CLIMB
    ABOVE SEASONAL AVERAGES FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR. HIGHS TODAY
    WILL RANGE FROM MID TO UPPER 60S NORTH TO LOWER 70S SOUTH. MOST OF
    THE AREA WILL REMAIN DRY BUT CANNOT RULE OUT AN ISOLATED LIGHT
    RAIN SHOWER OR SPRINKLE ALONG OUR FLORIDA COAST DUE TO WEAK
    INVERTED SURFACE TROUGH.

    We can even go as far south as Cuba who broke all time cold temperatures since record keeping began during the last two weeks.

  192. Thanks for the references bdaman.

    30%er, I have no interest in big oil, and I’m not a member of the GOP. I have changed all of my light bulbs. I haven’t put my boat in the water in over 3 years (even though I paid extra for a more fuel efficient engine). I cut my driving down from 20k miles per year to under 3k miles per year. Last summer I increased the insulation in my attic.

    I’m willing to take steps to protect the environment, but I think the jury is still out on global warming. Once you choose a side, and then start calling people names because they don’t agree with you, you have too much at stake (your reputation) to be impartial.

  193. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliuna have already been discredited.

    From Wiki-

    “The circumstances of the paper’s publication were controversial, prompting concerns about the publishers’ peer review process.

    An editorial revolt followed and the publisher subsequently admitted that the conclusions of the paper could not be supported by the evidence and that the journal should have requested appropriate revisions prior to publication.”

  194. Bdaman/30%er:

    there is a scandal brewing at NASA and NOAA, it appears they discarded 3 out of 4 data sets. the ones that were coldest. And changed the location of temp stations to lower latitudes and altitudes to “gin” the numbers.

    All the information isn’t in yet but it is being called “son of climate gate”.

    Mann Made Global Warming is not consensus by any stretch of the imagination. It literally appears to be Mann Made.

    if you dont have these sites:

    surfacestations.org

    http://icecap.us/index.php

  195. Look, I’m not going to spend my afternoon debating global warming science with you in a thread on Pat Robertson and his pious hypocrisy. If you’d like to discuss Pat Robertson further or peripheral topics dealing with religion that’s fine. But I think this thread has strayed far enough.

    If you’d like to discuss global warming I’ll be happy to engage you in another thread that is about global warming.

    Fair enough?

  196. Question. You based your down dressing of my right to input on the subject on whether or not I was a climate scientist.

    Are YOU a climate scientist?

    I’d still like that question answered.

  197. 30%er,

    Wiki is not a scientific reference. Further, the Wiki points to the opinion of one Otto Kinne for support. Here’s a link and his full statement.

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf
    “The paper that caused the storms (Soon & Baliunas,
    Clim Res 2003, 23:89–110) evoked heavy criticism, not
    least in EOS 2003 (84, No 27, 256). Major conclusions
    of Soon & Baliunas are: ‘Across the world, many
    records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the
    warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the
    last millenium.’ (p. 89) and ‘Overall, the 20th century
    does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millenium
    in most of the proxy records which have been
    sampled world-wide’ (p. 104). While these statements
    may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be
    concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in
    the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions
    of the manuscript prior to publication.”

    May be true!! Hardly a statement that their conclusions are wrong.

    The difference between those who believe and those who don’t, is that those who don’t are the ones willing to do the research and ask more questions.

  198. 30%er,

    Bdaman, Duh, Alan, and some others are one in the same. See the definition for troll.

    I try and not feel the trolls, especially if Buddha is around.

  199. Byron you now I do. I B Da Man, and ya know it!!! my brother from another mother.

    Get Down, Get Down, Get Down Get Down

    I’m Bdaman, thats who I am, I’m into, the global Warmin Scam

    I’m Bdamn, I’m Bdaman, it turns me on, I’m Bdaman, I’m Bdaman, say what you want.

    To toot to too toot toot I’m your Bdaman

  200. “Are YOU a climate scientist?”

    The answer is NO. I’m not trying to sell anything. You are. I’m not going around saying that those who believe in global warming are “silly”. Am I?

    I asked because I was interested in whether you were an expert spreading your knowledge, or just the bird repeating the words.

  201. “30%er,

    Wiki is not a scientific reference. Further, the Wiki points to the opinion of one Otto Kinne for support. Here’s a link and his full statement.”

    It quotes one. See the little numbers next to the quotes? That’s called a reference.

    Now please answer my question. I think I’ve answered more than my share of questions. Please answer mine now.

    Are you, or any of you a climate scientist?

  202. Duh and don’t forget this

    How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

    We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

    The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

    The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

  203. ““Are YOU a climate scientist?”

    The answer is NO.”

    Then your “opinion” is no more valuable than mine.

    And since the majority of the scientific community disagrees with you your opinion is even less valuable.

    Mine at least has the weight of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community behind it.

  204. Since neither of you are climate scientists your opinions are all you have to offer.

    Since this thread is not about global warming your opinions would best be put to use in a thread about global warming, at which point I’d be happy to discuss the matter further.

    But being as neither of you is a climate scientist then by your own arguments to me, you’re just the “birds” repeating what someone else told you.

    This threads about Pat Robertson and his pious hypocrisy. I’ll be happy to answer any other questions you want to present me with on that topic.

  205. You want a scientist how bout this one.

    According to IPCC scientist Mojib Latif in an article for the Daily Mail, it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze. Latif is known as one of the world’s leading climate modelers.

    Latif, is a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University and an author of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Latif is a prominent scientist in the UN’s IPCC climate research group.

    Latif thinks the cold snap Americans, Brits, and Europeans have been suffering through is the beginning of another cycle, this one a down cycle. He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures. While maybe it is a harsh prediction, he calls it a “mini ice age”. That phrase is sure to stick in the craw of more than a few people. His theory is based on an analysis of natural oscillations in water temperatures in the oceans.

    According to his He believes our current cold weather pattern is a pause, a “30-years-long blip”, in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

    At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation could mask over any “manmade global warming” for the next few decades. He said the fluctuations in the NAO could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.

    In a stunning revelation, he told the Daily Mail that:

    “a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 percent.”

    Quite a revelation, and a smack down of much of the climate science in the last 30 years that attributes the cause mostly to CO2 increases.

    In other news, Arctic sea ice is on the rise too.

    According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.I’m betting that summer 2010 will have even more ice retained.

    Right now, there doesn’t appear to be much of that “rotten ice” that one Canadian alarmist researcher squawked about to the media just a few weeks ago. In fact, we aren’t looking bad at all compared to 30 years ago.

  206. “Then your “opinion” is no more valuable than mine.”

    I didn’t try to say that it was. Did I?

    Has the majority of the scientific community weighed in on this?
    Did you get that from Wiki? How many of those that agree are experts in the field of climate change? I always put the burden of proof on the claimant.

    When and where did this vote of concurrence take place? We’re they influenced by peer pressure? Did many of them just go along because it sounded reasonable?

  207. Do we really need an in-depth discussion about Pat Robertson and his pious hypocrisy? I don’t see anyone here defending Pat Robertson or his statement.

  208. “You want a scientist how bout this one.”

    Unless that scientist you are quoting is you, then once more you’re just the bird repeating what it heard.

    Your opinion on scientific data that you are not trained to examine carries no weight.

    And worse, you’re starting to sound like a neocon troll.

    I’ve made it clear and as politely as I know how. I will not allow you to drag me further into a debate on global warming in a thread about pious hypocrisy.

  209. “Do we really need an in-depth discussion about Pat Robertson and his pious hypocrisy? I don’t see anyone here defending Pat Robertson or his statement.”

    One good way to ensure I do not engage you in the future in polite discourse is to continue to behave like a neocon troll. For two days now we’ve had an in depth and interesting discussion on Pat Robertson and Christianity.

    Now you’re trying to derail that discussion and that is a sure way to ensure that I ignore you in the future.

  210. 30%er:

    I am not a climate scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

    Of course anything I say is strictly my opinion based on what I have read and heard. I could be totally wrong, in which case I will change my opinion to match the facts of reality, but then at that point it ceases to be an opinion/hypothesis and becomes settled science. Will you? Or will you keep denying reality to support an agenda?

  211. “you’re starting to sound like a neocon troll”

    This must be where the debate/argument has the exit strategy introduced. It wasn’t Byron, bdaman, or myself that introduced global warming. It was introduced as supporting argument by the guy who ‘is a believer’.

    We don’t chastize you for having your beliefs. We didn’t return fire until we were fired upon. bdaman has been following the global warming issue for a long time. He has posted much information about it on this blog. If anyone here should be considered the resident expert, it is bdaman. He provides a link to everything he provides.

  212. Pat Robertson is a paragon of virtue and anything he says is true. Since he is the second son of God, just ask him.

  213. 30%er:

    I am a reformed troll but never neocon at least at core. I think I may have had some superficially neo-con beliefs but Buddha got my thinking straight on those. And thankfully so, I never had the make up to be a neo-con.

  214. “30%er:

    I am not a climate scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

    Of course anything I say is strictly my opinion based on what I have read and heard. I could be totally wrong, in which case I will change my opinion to match the facts of reality, but then at that point it ceases to be an opinion/hypothesis and becomes settled science. Will you? Or will you keep denying reality to support an agenda?”

    Byron, I was pretty aware that Bdaman was a neocon troll. I didn’t want to say anything as I wasn’t sure, but his posts seem to indicate that. At least some I’ve read. Yet he was polite with me and seemed to want to talk so I engaged him. For the most part he was civil and thus troll or not I’ll discuss the topics with anyone civil.

    What I will not do is be dragged into an off topic debate on global warming as I’ve made clear now several times. Your uneducated opinion on global warming is just that. An uneducated opinion. When you are a scientist, let me know. But until then I and the rest of the world has readily available at our fingertips the consensus of the experts.

    The only ones denying the majority consensus are the far right wing loons.That one or two scientists (most of whom have ties to the right wing or energy) deny it is moot. You’re not a scientist thus your interpretation of scientific data you are not trained in carries zero weight with me.

    Implying I’m ignorant for accepting the global consensus on the matter doesn’t improve your standing. You’re not trained, thus your opinion is just an opinion. When you have a degree on the subject, let me know. Until then your uneducated opinion on the matter is irrelevant. And I’ve asked several times now for you to stay on topic and not try to derail this thread.

    I’m starting to wonder if you also are a neocon troll.

    I hope not. You seemed ok.

  215. 30%er:

    I am a reformed troll but never neocon at least at core.”

    Well then perhaps this was just a minor relapse.

    The way to correct that is to stay on topic and not try to sell neoconservative ideas like denying global warming, or trying to derail the thread into a debate on global warming.

  216. Unless that scientist you are quoting is you, then once more you’re just the bird repeating what it heard.

    Maybe you should reread his credentials. He use to be part of that consensus you were talking about.

    and if I don’t provide a link, take any part of what I post that points to a specific statement and google it. That way you do your own homework.

  217. Bdaman = Neo-con troll nice 30%er, just call me a name and label me. What would jesus think of you doing that to someone who treated you with civility.

  218. “Bdaman = Neo-con troll nice 30%er, just call me a name and label me. What would jesus think of you doing that to someone who treated you with civility”

    Well since Jesus had no problem labeling hypocrites as hypocrites I doubt he’d have a problem labeling a troll as a troll. And I didn’t say you were a troll. I said I was pretty sure you were.

    And if you don’t like the label then a good way to avert it would be to stop acting like a troll.

    There’s a perfectly good Global Warming thread on the cover of this blog. Its the newest thread. If you want to discuss global warming, then that is where you should be. Derailing this thread as you’ve done is the actions of a troll.

  219. They tell me if a thread naturally progresses to a different subject it’s o.k. You opened the door for that to happen with your comparison. Fine, If you look back over the thread there were many times the thread could have shifted to another subject.

  220. 30%er:

    I am not looking for a debate on climate change. I believe something is going on but have no idea what it is.

    Why is it that when someone has a disagreement it is always “right wing nuts” who are wrong? Did you ever stop and think “left wing nuts” can be just as wrong?

    Neither side of an issue has a monopoly on truth unless it is settled science. And even “settled” science can be wrong until such time as more information is made available.

    I don’t think I ever called you a left wing nut because of your views on Christianity and the question I asked initially was raised by someone I know. You seemed to have quite a good deal of Biblical knowledge and so I figured you would give some good insight. You did.

    I especially enjoyed your thoughts on Constantine and his interpretation of Christianity for reasons of state.

  221. I Am Satan, Risen, Reborn and In the Flesh, a regular Christian, the Original Born Sinner and a BSer like you and anybody else.

    I know youve heard “It is more Blessed to Give; than to Receive” Or that GOD Gave He/r only begotten Son, Jesus Christ 2 Give His Life as a Ranson” 4 Your Dumbasses. I guess you never thought GOD could or would then send He/r only begotten Daughter, His Twin & Sister Spirit Satan aka the anti Christ, Miss Christ or Mrs. Christ as the Receiver or one created as Mrs. Takes. Due to His Giving, I was cast down with Great Anger by GOD like a Trump card S/He had up Her sleeve all along. Now T/His Angel of Death is sent to Take your Life, Collect His Rent, Ransom aka the Final Judgement. (John 12:47-49 &15:26 -16:27)

    Most dont know what a son of Doe Doe did or is so I’ll tell U. A Doe a is Deer a FeMale Dear, Ray a drop of golden son, Me a name I call myself, Far a long long way to run,…. Sew a needle pulling thread, La a note to follow So, Tea a drink with jam and B/Read. And it all leads us back to Doe, Ray, Me, Fa, So, La, T, Dough 4 U who dont know T/His T stands 4 His & T/He cross T.

    Now you probably think what Ive said is Blasphemy, just like the Romans and Jews who sent Jesus to the Cross, because He said he was the Son of Man and Son of GOD. So I Am sure if God could beget a son using a normal virgin woman that GOD could beget a daughter & a wife for Him as He slept on T/He cross using a Mother of Harlots as SHe did in the Beginning with Adam

    Well anyway, believe or not; I Am Satan Risen in accordance to the Book, Heb. 10:7-10 But I am known here as BurntOffering cause LOW I Come, IN THE FULL VOLUME OF THE BOOK, IT IS WRITTEN OF ME TO DO THY WILL O GOD.

    So T/His is A Blast 4 Me because I know Jesus Christ saved the very Best and Last 4 U & me. Sio T/Heir 4 My Friends, Romans, Countrymen Lend Me Your Ear! As One greater than Soloman and the Queen of the South is Heir 4 all you Deaf, Dumb and Blind so called witnesses of His.

    In Honor of the King of Kings & Lord of Lord, I say to you all to FEAR Almighty GOD. I Praise & Give Thanks to Our Fat Her in Heaven who sent ME in the name of the Lord. But before I go and in rememberance of Him and Martin Luther King I say:

    Free At Last; Free At Last, ThanK GOD Almighty I was ReBorn Free; Black and Last, especially since its the Last that shall be 1st 2 Inherit the Kingdom & why GOD sent me 2nd & in the last hour

    Peace out

  222. Duh:

    Sham wows at least work and only cost a few bucks and you can choose to buy one or not buy one. In other words they are the product of a free association. There is no government coercion or force to compel you to buy one.

  223. Byron,

    Good point. I guess what it really comes down to is that the arguments presented have not been strong enough to convince all of the scientific community, and when we find that lies were told to bolster the science it makes me want better research to be performed by a group that doesn’t have a stake in the results.

  224. Well since both of you by your own admission aren’t climate scientists your opinions on the issue don’t carry any weight.

    Except in your ability to convince others I suppose.

    Which leads us to our next thought. For what purpose do you two exhaust so much time into attempting to convince others that the scientific community is wrong in their conclusions? To what end?

    So what if everyone embraces it? So what if we stop suckling off the oil teat?

    So what if we’re no longer dependent on middle eastern terrorists for our nations energy needs?

    So what if we invent new cars that don’t pump unbreathable filth into the air we breath?

    What is it that drives you two so hard working to convince others that science is lying to them?

    There’s the real question to ask.

  225. “I’ll be in the Global Warming thread if you’d like to continue discussing this.”

    Welcome back.

    I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I don’t think Byron is either. I don’t care if you want to believe it. You’re welcome to your opinion. I only have a problem when you belittle those who don’t share your opinion. The science, and the facts supporting that science, are in dispute by those who are experts in the field. I’ve read the information presented by both sides and have concluded that more research needs to be perfromed, and better methods of obtaining the data must be put into place. Until that is achived, I am skeptical.

    I’m all for going green, but in a troubled economy, I’m not ready to throw all of our resources at a problem that we aren’t sure we have any influence over.

    You need to figure out that people who are just as intelligent as you, who are just as caring as you, and who have the same things at stake as you do, can disagree with you without being your enemy. The “bad guys” don’t have that many friends and they don’t bother discussing things on blogs. I’m sure you already know that you’re not going to win anyone over by calling them “silly”. So that must be used to try to keep others from thinking about the information. I welcome people to ask questions and explore all available information. If more people in this country asked more questions, and started examining all the information, we’d probably have a government that we could trust. That’s because they wouldn’t be able to continue fooling most of the voters.

  226. Bdaman, Guh, Alan, etc

    You really amuse yourself don’t you? I bet by the end of the day, you have to get a pin to pop that head of yours as it is so inflated.

    Does your hand or back ever get sore from the amount of patting its does and gets?

  227. “I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I don’t think Byron is either. I don’t care if you want to believe it. You’re welcome to your opinion. I only have a problem when you belittle those who don’t share your opinion.” -duh

    No, but I do tend to dismiss nonsense and I find those who push it suspect. I am fine discussing rational concepts with rational people as I think our discussion on Christianity and Robertson demonstrates. But I don’t abide nonsense. If you want to continue you’ll have to do it without me.

  228. 30%er,

    Since you’re not the expert either, who appointed you to be the one to determine what is truth and what is nonsense? Are you going to claim that the majority can’t be wrong?

    How often is your weatherman spot on with the 10 day forecast? Where do you think they get their information? How close could they get if they had to predict the average temperature for all of next year?

    Weather prediction is not very accurate, and the longer period of time, the less accurate they are. Why some are so willing to believe their long range predictions is beyond me.

  229. I told you I’m done. Your desperation is apparent. You clearly have an axe to grind here only you’re not going to grind it on me.

  230. I found this on AP tonight Byron. Given your questions earlier and our discussion I thought you and some of the others might find this interesting.

    Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests
    Clara Moskowitz
    LiveScience Staff Writer
    Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:40 am ET

    Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing – an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David’s reign.

    The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible’s Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)

    Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month. –

  231. I told you I’m done. Your desperation is apparent. You clearly have an axe to grind here only you’re not going to grind it on me.

    The only axe I’ve got to grind is exposing lies and manipulation.

    30%er just like you were asked questions and you gave answers, I do not see you asking any questions in return. You wish to just slam the door shut, there will be no more debate, the science is settled.

    No matter how much you think that that’s the case, you are wrong to presume such a silly notion.

  232. Latest from Joe Bastardi

    The January thaw is here and it will stay for a while. Now I dont know if you are hearing the same cries there that I hear from some sources in the states where we are in a thaw for the next 6-10 days before a harsh February descends , but there are folks saying.. aha see that its getting mild. The fact is the areas targeted for the cold winter in Europe and England and France were on the western side of this, have had the coldest start in over 20 years. That is the fact. It is not a mild winter, nor will it be a mild winter. The cold is retreating into its core area of our winter forecast and will reside there for 10-15 days. However if one goes back and looks at the idea I had, including my critics, you will find that we expected the core of the cold to be to the east and east southeast of england. So back and forth battles were going to occur between the air masses from the east and onslaught of maritime air, which of course brings more normal and even warmer than normal conditions. But winter is not over yet. The WORST is probably over in England and France, because the CORE of the worst is supposed to be to the east and southeast… back and forth means snow and cold but also that it can warm..

    In the states its the opposite to some extent. The areas that are going to get hit worst when winter comes back are the east and south. So far the winter there has spared the east a constant onslaught like you have just seen. The worst has been in the US south where the ag industry has taken a beaten not seen in many years. The US as a whole has had the coldest opening 45 days since the 70s as their winter of 00-01 faded enough so that the onslaught that came after jan one this year has pushed it over the top. Just like in Europe, Feb will be the decider as to how bad this winter was against history. I feel with NOAA rewriting records from the 60s and 70s to it their agenda of trying to make things look warmer now, we cant trust any measurements unless they are purely satellite derived. A site that can show you this is here:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    continue reading here:

    http://www.accuweather.com/world-bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

  233. His latest video forecast he warns us that the first openning days of Feb. could be in the top 10-15 worst winters.

    February Will Make You Shiver, with This Idea I Deliver
    Jan 15, 2010; 11:22 AM ET

    The coldest start to an El Nino winter since the ’70s, in the wake of the thaw, may have a top 10-15 cold February nationwide.

    http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=61867338001&channel=VBLOG_BASTARDI&title=February%20Will%20Make%20You%20Shiver,%20with%20This%20Idea%20I%20%20Deliver

    Febuary will make you shiver
    with each paper you deliver
    bad news on the door step
    I couldn’t take one more step

    Bye Bye the Global Warming lie, drove Chevy to the levee over the same kind of lie. And good ole boys were drinking whisky then cry,singing this will be the day global warming died.

    Oh, and while the king was looking down
    Al Gore stole his thorny crown
    The courtroom was adjourned
    No verdict was returned
    And while Obama read a book of marx
    The quartet practiced in the park
    And we sang dirges in the dark
    The day global warming died

    Bye Bye the Global Warming lie, drove Chevy to the levee over the same kind of lie. And good ole boys were drinking whisky then cry,singing this will be the day global warming died.

  234. There was a point where this was an interesting thread, but its problem was the content was beyond the capabilities of the troll and his new alter ego Duh. So as usual he hijacks it into a global warming discussion, in the past it was birther nonsense. The truth is that this man, who likes to complement himself with a fictitious sidekick, is basically a shill for the current faux conservative memes and propaganda. If he wasn’t so damn boring then at least there could be some decent debate. Unfortunately, he is merely a person who does research, but limits it to people he already agree with. Original thought and this troll are enemies.

  235. How long can people discuss the idiotic statement made by Pat Robertson? It was a stupid thing to say. End of discussion. There is nothing to debate.

    I don’t see anybody endorsing Pat Robertson here.

  236. “Goodbye global warming lie.” Wow. Now that’s willful denial your descendants would simply die for.

    The journal of Science reports that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere – about 390 parts per million – is higher today than at any time in measurable history_at least the last 2.1 million years.

    That’s a lot of peak sunspot cycles and more than six ice ages.

    Even Bush, after years of willful denial, yielded to reality and his own Pentagon’s 2004 warnings. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html Whats strange here is that the belief in such facts would actually encourage securing and defending oil reserves in the M.E., largely supported by Conservatives and other hawks.

    So I find it odd that you would continue to deny facts that might support staying in the Middle East to keep the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman open to Pakistani oil pipelines and tanker traffic.

    If the Pentagon in 2004 thought so seriously about our future, why don’t you? And if you think I’m cherry picking, go to the Google page and spend a day or two.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+on+global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    It’s foolish not to take GW seriously. Would you risk the well being of your children and their children on poorly-defended alternative rationalizations? Will great grandpa Bdaman be hailed as hero or corporate mole? From your writings, you could care less.

  237. Pitt,

    Why only go back 2.1 million years? Could it be because if you went back 2 billion years, it would indicate that the earth is recovering from a low?

    “Over the several billion years of geologic history, the quantity of carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere has been steadily decreasing.”
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html

    “Even Bush, after years of willful denial, yielded to reality and his own Pentagon’s 2004 warnings.”
    We call that caving to political pressure. Do you think George W. was able to understand the science involved? I think you willing to give him way too much credit.

    The rest of the post was just political rhetoric.

    Stephen, why don’t you change your mind and try to expose the lies behind global warming? Are you willing to risk the well being of your children and their children on poorly-supported rationalizations? Will great grandpa Pitt be hailed as hero or as one of the sheep who blindly followed? From your writings, you could care less.

    I’d don’t like to make things personal, but I have no problem throwing a personal attack directly back. When you learn to present ideas, and let others arrive at their own conclusions, you won’t have a need for personal attacks.

  238. Duh,

    “Stephen, why don’t you change your mind and try to expose the lies behind global warming? Are you willing to risk the well being of your children and their children on poorly-supported rationalizations”

    Yes. Risking our kids lives by designing new clean and efficient energy technologies.

    The poor dears.

    It never ceases to amaze me how many people the right wing finds to sell their nonsense with such dedicated fervor.

  239. 30%er,

    Do you live in the most energy efficient house that can be built? Do you drive the most fuel efficient car being manufactured?

  240. “30%er,

    Do you live in the most energy efficient house that can be built? Do you drive the most fuel efficient car being manufactured?” – Duh

    Yea, I figured you’d ignore that and try to shift the discourse from your nonsense about our childrens welfare. The actions of a troll.

    I drive a very fuel efficient car and my home is supplemented with Solar Power. We’re updating the Solar Panels and adding wind once we can afford to.

    Now, that being said, what does that have to do with your nonsense about our “childrens welfare”.

    How exactly do you equate the idea of developing clean, energy efficient technologies to a threat to our children’s welfare?

  241. 30%er:

    How does that change anything? The Greeks had an oral tradition and Troy was found based on that oral “history”.

    The more we learn, the more we learn.

  242. 30%er:

    how much do those wind turbines cost? I looked into one and they are quite pricey, 50k (at least from the company I called) to run a single family home. I believe that included installation. I also seem to remember the salesman telling me the government (US) has some tax rebates available.

    I do like the idea of selling excess power back to the utility company at their rates. But with an electric bill averaging around 250/month it would take 15-20 years to reach a return on investment and then the question is useful life and maintenance costs which are probably not inexpensive.

    If the wind turbine cost 10-15k then you are talking. But it seems to me these would only be good in sustained wind areas.

  243. “once we can afford to”

    The answer I was expecting. Why don’t you just go into hock that you can pass along to your children? And their children? Would you consider such a response to be an act that diregarded, not only your own welfare, but that of your children too?

    If you were really so convinced, why wouldn’t you lead by example? Aren’t you saying that we should collectively spend, but you’re not willing to do it unless everyone else is forced to?

  244. “30%er:

    how much do those wind turbines cost? I looked into one and they are quite pricey, 50k (at least from the company I called) to run a single family home. I believe that included installation. I also seem to remember the salesman telling me the government (US) has some tax rebates available”

    Byron, I’ll answer this one because I don’t know what your previous post is asking. Troy? Don’t know which comments of mine you’re addressing.

    As for the wind turbines 50k is a rip off. You can get them much cheaper. There are also some do it yourself kits you might look into. You can get them for much cheaper than that. You might want to check out Solardyne. They have some great prices.

    http://www.solardyne.com/windgenerators.html

    One of the benefits of doing this besides the environment is having a home with the lights on during power outages. Makes the neighbors green too. With envy.

  245. Oh and yes, the tax deductions can be huge. They’re based on what you spend to do it though so keep that in mind.

  246. ““once we can afford to”

    The answer I was expecting. Why don’t you just go into hock that you can pass along to your children? And their children? Would you consider such a response to be an act that diregarded, not only your own welfare, but that of your children too?”

    You really are a bellicose individual aren’t you. Going upside down into debt benefits no ones children. Something the average parent is well aware of. And since our single home going entirely green would not make any significant overall difference in the quality of the environment for our children’s children, the notion of bankrupting ourselves to put in a windmill is laughable.

    We’re working towards going green. As is most of the educated planet. Unfortunately the right wing has shill’s like yourself infesting blogs and chat rooms throughout the internet to sell their lies to try and keep us as a people from evolving.

    Of course, throughout history there’s always been your sort. When Ben Franklin discovered electricity there were plenty of your type there to decry it as the work of the devil.

    When Henry Ford introduced the first mass production automobile, there were plenty of your type there to mock and ridicule him and Model T owners by shouting “get a horse”.

    And when Orville and Wilbur Wright showed that manned flight could be done safely and routinely, there were plenty there to mock and ridicule them that manned flight would never provide a practical application.

    Whenever mankind has stood on the precipice of a great change or discovery, there’s always been the throwbacks there to heckle them and fight against progress. Fortunately mankind usually advances in spite of them.

  247. “Going upside down into debt benefits no ones children.”
    “[T]he notion of bankrupting ourselves to put in a windmill is laughable.”

    I agree.

    No one is saying that green technology isn’t a good idea. No one is suggesting that climate change isn’t something that needs to be explored. I (me, my personal opinion) suggest the we perfrom an independent investigation, using some well-regulated and accepted methods before we arrive at a conclusion that does include bankrupting our nation. We’re not exactly sitting on top of a gold mine, looking for a good place to spend our money.

    I’m looking to promote the general welfare just as much as you are. I’m just approaching it from a different direction. I’m a measure twice, cut once kind of a guy.

    I should just tell you to “nevermind”. You have already managed to convince yourself that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must have some kind of “evil motive”. I’ll never convince you otherwise.

  248. “I agree.

    No one is saying that green technology isn’t a good idea”

    Ever hear the expression “if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem”?

    You’re part of the problem.

    Trolls in blogs actively trying to discredit global warming to retard technological growth are the antithesis of progression. Trying to dissuade people from accepting the science, suggesting that there is dissent by pointing to a few lone detractors who’s arguments have already been discredited, when clearly there is no dissent among the general scientific community.

    These are not the actions of reasonable people who wish to rationally discuss a topic, as I first suspected you two to be during our on topic discussion of pious hypocrisy and religion. These are the actions of either a paid or volunteer shill for the far right wing neoconservative looney bin. And yes, they are a looney bin.

    I’ll discuss any rational discussion with most people and I do not mind talking with trolls as long as they are reasonably civil (which you appear to be) and interesting. Not boring and nonsensical or worse, pushing nonsensical right wing talking points and agendas. Which is what you’re doing now.

    Global warming is real. Get over it.

    And so is the evolving human desire to improve our abilities to create energy with clean and renewable sources and technologies. Doing so in now way threatens mankind, or our children or theirs. In fact it ensures their future by creating new and ever growing fields of industry. Did you happen to be awake when the Personal Computer revolution occurred and created more jobs and industries than this countries seen in a century?

    The green movement is guaranteed to produce job growth and industry like we’ve not seen in decades and will continue for decades to come. No one loses here except the big oil magnates for whom’s product our children our currently paying for with their blood in the middle east. Enough’s enough.

    The time has come to sweep aside the throwbacks and impediments to progress that are standing in the way and those of you who spend your hours working to defeat that progress are anything but part of the solution.

    Hence they are part of the problem and their 15 minutes are up.

  249. And one more thing. The idea that we’re bankrupting the nation to explore and invest in green technologies is laughable.

    First we print the money. When will people wake up and realize that? We decide how much we need. It only devalues our dollar internationally when we print our own money but we can offset that by investing that printed money into technologies that the entire world can use. America didn’t invent the airplane but we were the first ones to make one work and mass produce them. Same with the automobile. Our wealth as a nation has always stemmed from our innovation and technology and that innovation and technology has always been hampered by a vocal and active handful of naysayers who eventually the tide invariably sweeps over and progress occurs.

    The money we “invest” in green technologies is guaranteed to produce a return on our investment for decades to come. Jobs, technology, schools and technical education, by products and supporting technologies, service industries, transportation and distribution, and on and on.

    All we have to do is get past people like you.

  250. 31,000 Scientists deny global warming.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php

    That’s a mighty big handfull.

    “Trolls in blogs actively trying to discredit global warming to retard technological growth are the antithesis of progression.”

    Are they as bad as atheists?

    “These are not the actions of reasonable people who wish to rationally discuss a topic”.

    It looks like we were the ones who were willing to rationally discuss the topic, and you were the one who needed to resort to “These are the actions of either a paid or volunteer shill for the far right wing neoconservative looney bin. And yes, they are a looney bin.”

    You lost as soon as you relied on partisan politics.

    The rest of your diatribe is just a party line sales brochure. Are you going to create jobs like the stimulus bill did? How much will it cost, and how long will it take to pay for it? How much will the tax increase be?

    Are you a government employee? Do you work for yourself, or do you suckle from the government teet? I work for myself, and I don’t have any government contracts.

  251. “31,000 Scientists deny global warming.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php

    That’s a mighty big handfull.” – Duh

    Yes it is. A might big handful of crap.

    As most neoconservative trolls in blogs around the web produce so you too produce a bogus petition that was founded by the Exxon Oil Company via the George C Marshall institute.

    The petition is a well known sham that was debunked shortly after it was produced via the big oil behind it and the fact that only 1% of the signers have a background in climatology.

    Thanks for confirming my suspicions about you too. I knew Bdaman was a troll. Now I know that you are one too.

  252. Like I said. Progress will occur and the world will move forward in spite of the throwbacks like you.

    It always has and always will regardless of your desperate attempts throughout the web where you go to legitimate blog threads about one topic and transform them into your pamphlet campaign of looney bin neoconservative talking points.

    All we have to do to move forward into new green technologies and the massive job and wealth creation they will bring with them is to get past people like you.

  253. “1% of the signers have a background in climatology.”

    What percent of scientists in America have a background in climatology?

    Isn’t it a fact that there are a larger percentage of American climatologists who have signed the petition than there are the percentage of climatologists of the American scientists that support the claim of global warming?

    Who cares who started the petition? I’m more interested in the fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed it.

    “The petition is a well known sham that was debunked”
    Do you need prodding? Where’s the link to support your claim?

  254. “What percent of scientists in America have a background in climatology”

    No, its not that easy mister troll. You can’t just try to divert attention from the fact you produced a bogus petition funded by Exxon Oil and pushed by the GOP in that only 1 percent of the signers are climatologists.

    It doesn’t matter what the percentage of the worlds scientists are climatologists. That’s your distraction.

    What matters is what percentage of the worlds climatologists support global warming. And thats where the general consensus is as I pointed out originally. Your poll is a neoconservative lie and was discredited as soon as it came out.

    Which identifies you as a neoconservative shill. Nothing more.

  255. “The petition is a well known sham that was debunked”
    Do you need prodding? Where’s the link to support your claim?” Duh

    I don’t need a link mister troll. I read about that nonsense on media matters website when it came out. Now its been debunked all over the web.

    But you’re not interested in a link. You’re interested in dragging this out endlessly so you can plaster the bottom of the thread with neoconservative anti global warming nonsense and lies.

    Well have at it. Ain’t my blog.

    I’m done wasting my time with a throwback like you. Just know that progress will steamroll either past or over the throwbacks like you. It always has.

    It always will.

  256. If green technology is so beneficial and will create so many wonderful jobs; what are you waiting for? Start your business. (That would require you going into business for yourself.)

    What other great business opportunities and what other great jobs have needed a government mandate to make them great?

    If you’re worried that little old me is going to stop you, you better start looking in another direction. You need to change the minds of 31,000 scientists first.

  257. AY,

    I’m sorry. Did you have something to add about the comments made by Pat Robertson?

    If you look back to the reason for departure, you’ll notice that it was 30%er who brought global warming into the mix. I just defended my position.

  258. In your case, you get the exception prize. You cannot win the GW argument. Over 95% of legitimate Scientists support GW. That number would be included in your sampling, I’m sure. Is that correct?

    Please know it doesn’t matter how much trash science you and corporate toss at the facts, the worlds best scientific minds, including 35 Noble Prize recipients disagree. The Pentagon disagrees. You must have one helluva scientific background.

    Have you a Science degree? If so, in what discipline, exactly?

    By the way, I don’t mind toying with you a while, because its a wonderful way to reach others. So, you’re useful. I’m curious. Why do you use aliases, and not your real name? What could you be afraid of? Give us your real name, then I’ll have a further conversation with you.

  259. Well thats twice 30%er said he was done. Will there be a third.

    The public is growing increasingly skeptical about the supposed crisis we face from human-caused global warming.

    The drop off in public support for the idea that global warming is a fact mostly caused by human activity looks most pronounced in Canada. In November, 63% of Canadians supported global warming as a man-made phenomenon. By Dec. 23, that support had fallen 52%. Among Canadians, 13% are now not sure.A similar trend has been noted in the United States, where confidence in global warming theory has dropped to 46%, down from 49% in November — and down from 51% in July last year. In Britain, only 43% believe man-made global warming is a fact, down from 47% in November and from 55% in July. In all three countries, there are signs of growing skepticism.

    I think there are many good and rational reasons for the dramatic decline in public belief in global warming hysteria. In no particular order, and without attempting to be comprehensive, they are:

    Climategate: True, the scandal did not disprove global warming, but it shredded the myth that global warming scientists are objective investigators. Moreover, the clear intent of the global warming community’s top scientists to stifle heterodox thinking, exposed in the purloined e-mails, reveals a lack of faith in their ability to win the debate based on a full review of the scientific evidence.
    Al Gore: Al Gore’s is the face of global warming, and that has profoundly hurt the cause. His many factual “exaggerations,” his refusal to debate–if you really think the world is coming to an end, you take on all comers in every possible venue–his hypocritical lifestyle, the fortune he has made off of global warming hysteria, his inability to answer non fawning questions on the few occasions they are asked, the clear propagandistic nature of his movie, his imperiousness, the queasy feeling that something is off in his personality, his ridiculous persona, all combine to undermine belief in a climate crisis among regular folk.
    The Media’s Booster Mentality: The media’s credibility on this issue–among many others–is utterly shot because journalists have acted as boosters rather than skeptical reporters. People notice and tune out the increasingly shrill stories of the coming catastrophes of melted ice, dead polar bears, and planetary breakdown.
    Ignored Inconvenient Truths: Climate changes. Five thousand years ago the Sahara was green and the San Francisco Bay was an inland valley. Temperatures were warmer circa 1000-14000, so warm that grapes grew in England and Iceland, and Greenland sustained farming communities. The Medieval warming period has been often ignored in the climate models, adding to the belief that “the scientists” are stacking the deck.
    The Crisis is Always Years Away: The steady warming predicted by the climate models has not happened. Instead, over the last decade, temperatures have remained static, perhaps with a slight tick down. But, we are told, warming will begin again in ten years. As I pointed out in an earlier post, we have been told the end is about ten years away for almost ten years now. Eventually, such assertions come to seem akin to the deadbeat promising, “The check is in the mail.”
    The Weather: Global warming proponents have used every heat wave and serious hurricane as evidence that the catastrophe was almost upon us. Then, when the weather became arctic, they sniffed that the ignorant masses just don’t understand the difference between climate and weather. There is a difference, but people understand weather: It is something they experience, touch, and feel. When the warming trend was clear, people tended to believe. Now that it isn’t, people don’t.
    The Cure is Worse Than the Disease: People see that global warming alarmists want to raise their heating bills, increase the price of gasoline, dismantle entire industries, and give away tens of billions to developing nations, most of which, people suspect, will end up in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, the stated intent by the bureaucrats and technocrats to use global warming as a pretext to establish global governance–with themselves in charge–along with the statements by some alarmists extolling China’s tyrannical one child policy and their promotion of radical population control, leaves many preferring to face the risks of warming rather than be subjected to the policies supposedly needed to stop it.
    The General Collapse of Authority: “Trust us, we’re the experts,” used to go a long way. No more. With the sciences clearly politicized, with ubiquitous corruption across the breadth and depth of the governing and intellectual classes–both liberal and conservative–people no longer believe what they are told.
    Increasingly, the governing class seeks to push the governed where they don’t want to go. That works in autocratic societies. But we are still free. Unless the global warming alarmists change their ways, the public’s support for fighting “climate change” will continue to deflate like a tire punctured by a nail.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=e06924ca-91e0-4a18-8165-126656414605&p=1

  260. “I don’t need a link mister troll. I read about that nonsense on media matters website when it came out. Now its been debunked all over the web.”

    You could have just told me that you can’t find a link, or that a link to an impartial source has never been made available. That may be because the petition is not a sham, and 31,000 scientists have really signed it.

  261. “AY,

    I’m sorry. Did you have something to add about the comments made by Pat Robertson?

    If you look back to the reason for departure, you’ll notice that it was 30%er who brought global warming into the mix. I just defended my position.” Duh

    Now you’re just lying duh.

    That fallacy has already been exposed when I pointed out that I did not “bring it up” but instead simply used it as an analogy.

    You trolls derailed the discussion by completely ignoring the point I was making on the historical Jesus and turning it into a discussion of global warming.

    Now that I’ve informed you I will not further your discussion on global warming you like most neoconservative looney troll turn to outright lying.

  262. Notice how once you started to use the word troll you use it over and over again. Well you used the word s Global Warming and it had the same effect. Next time don’t use it as an analogy.

  263. “If green technology is so beneficial and will create so many wonderful jobs; what are you waiting for? Start your business. (That would require you going into business for yourself”

    I’m sorry troll, were you under the impression your advice was needed or wanted? The day I need the advice of a loonball who spends his time shilling for the global warming denying GOP I’ll let you know.

    Once we get past the throwbacks like yourself the technology will advance. Currently big oil is out working to conceal new technologies and or retard their deployment and of course out actively seeking to discredit the science behind global warming through their shills like yourself. Loons the lot of you.

    But sooner or later we’ll get past you and your big oil and GOP puppetmasters and the world will move forward. Cell technology will increase. Wind and Solar will become the norm for all new residential and commercial building and guys like you will be left with a barrel of your precious oil but not a pot to piss in.

  264. “Over 95% of legitimate Scientists support GW”

    That’s cute. Who gets to determine who is considered to be a “legitimate scientist”.

    Do you really expect me to give my personal information on a blog that has consistently demonstrated that they will resort to personal attacks?

    I haven’t tried to sell anybody anything. I’m not trying to coerce anybody. I presented my personal beliefs, and you can’t stand the fact that I have a personal belief that is different than yours. If that’s a problem for you or 30%er, you can both blow it out you asses. You can continue to present false claims of association, and fabricate motives all you wish, and I’ll still voice my opinion.

    If you want me to accept what your scientists are saying, tell them to quit making false claims. Tell them to quit destroying their data, and tell them to quit skewing the numbers to support their conclusions.

    What’s the high temp going to be in Miami, Florida two weeks from today? When your scientists can predict that with reliable accuracy, I’ll start to have a little more faith in their predictions.

  265. When one of you trolls get a degree in climatology you let us know.

    Until then your opinions are nothing more than posting articles you found on the web that you know nothing about.

    And what’s even more laughable are the articles you post, funded by big oil and the neocon right. Like that bogus poll you posted. The 700 Club was pushing that nonsense. You know the 700 club right? The neoconservative pseudo Christian looneybin that has their own show?

    When you guys get a degree you let us know. Until then the majority of scientists who actually research and work in the field are in agreement. As is NASA who is at the core of our atmospheric science.

    Given the word of NASA and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community or two looney neoconservative shills on a blog trying desperately to push right wing lies and nonsense, …I’ll choose the scientists and NASA.

    Here, I’ll put it in language that you can understand.

    Dey’s dem smart guys….yoooze not.

  266. 30%er,

    You do more to support big oil than I could ever do. Intelligent readers will see that you need to resort to personal attacks. You lost and you did it to yourself. Your friends won’t tell you this, but the results will. When you make use of the loser’s tools, you assume the role of the loser. Undecided readers will read your comments and see that the are emotional rants filled with borg-like party-line rhetoric.

  267. “What’s the high temp going to be in Miami, Florida two weeks from today? When your scientists can predict that with reliable accuracy, I’ll start to have a little more faith in their predictions.” -Duh

    Thanks for showing your incredible lack of any knowledge in this area in which you’re trying to lecture others. You’re one of those neocons who don’t even realize that it ain’t about how warm it gets in Florida. If you knew something about it you’d know that there is a growing consensus that it may lead to another Ice Age.

    Don’t hurt your head on that now troll.

  268. NASA? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration? That NASA?

    Not that you’re interested in facts, but I think NOAA is the acronym you were searching for. You know The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    “Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

  269. Duh

    “You do more to support big oil than I could ever do. Intelligent readers will see that you need to resort to personal attacks.”

    Lol, nice try troll. That I don’t abide nonsense or liars has little to do with personal attacks. That I call a troll a troll or a loon a loon merely testifies to my ability to define the obvious.

    And as for “losing” I lost the minute I thought you were a sincere blogger who had a point to make, rather than a neocon shill out stumping for big oil.

    Engaging trolls is always a loss because you cannot teach a fanatical loon anything. Like I said once before, its like going into an insane asylum and seeing a patient smearing feces on themselves. You wouldn’t try to talk with them. Doing so would be pointless. Anyone that far gone is beyond reason.

    All you can do is shake your head in sympathetic shame and walk away.

  270. “NASA? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration? That NASA?” -troll

    Yes. That NASA. The guys who deal with the atmosphere every day.

    Try their website some time.

    They’ll clear it up for you.

  271. “CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.” – John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain – literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a “pollutant” is an abuse of language, logic and science.” – Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction.” – S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

    “Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants’ photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned.” – Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

    “To suddenly label CO2 as a “pollutant” is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.” – Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

    “Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat ‘starved’ for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as ‘food’ and as a by-product.” – Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

    “I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land.” – David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth.” – Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

  272. “Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity.”

    Do you really want to take the veggies out of the mouths of your children? Do you want the majority of the planet to starve because you overreacted and reduced the CO2 levels needed to support the growing agricultural needs?

    http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=225&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

  273. How bout Dr. William Gray Colorado State University, Hurricane expert. Has studied the atmosphere for over fifty years. He doesn’t believe in man made global warming.

    How bout Dr. Neil Frank, director National Hurricane Center, retired. He’s stidied the atmosphere for thirty plus years, he doesn’t believe in global warming.

    There are many examples just like one of the top climate scientist from the U.N. IPCC who warns us we may be headed fro a cool down over the next 20 to 30 years. He still believes in global warming but that does not fit the theory that the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere the hotter the planet will get.

  274. Wow. 8 guys? What a consensus.

    Lets look at them.

    Roy Spencer? The guy that doesn’t believe in evolution? Tied to big oil.

    David Deming? Tied to big oil.

    Robert C. Balling Jr? More than 200,000 from Big Oil and Coal over the last 6 years.

    And Keith Idso? The Idso family? You’re kidding, right?

    Everyone of the 8 guys you put up is tied to big oil and energy and most are neoconservative loons like Spencer and his denial of evolution.

    Tell you what mister troll.

    You produce once actual recognized scientific group, not 8 guys, and a group NOT tied to big oil, and I’ll be glad to listen. But it better be an actual recognized scientific community. Not some right wing or big oil front group.

    Let me know when you have one.

    Until then the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that actually deals with climatology disagrees with your “experts”.

    And thus your uneducated opinions and the articles you google don’t mean a thing.

  275. “Sorry all. Human Target, followed by the season premiere of 24 is on now. Hasta la vista baby.”

    That completes the picture.

    Maybe this year Jack Bauer can shoot a couple more CTU agents in the head because a terrorist tells him to?

    Or torture some kids huh? That torture….boy Jack Bauer…what a hero. We need to know that torture is good and keeps us all snugly and safe like. Thanks Jack! You’re our bestest hero. Us patriots anyway.

    Lets all come together to worship at his feet.

  276. The head of the IPCC Dr. Rajenda Pachauri had said: “India was ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers.

    Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.

    Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.

    However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

    The Times, January 17, 2010

    World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

    Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings

    A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

    Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

    In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

    It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

    Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

    Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

    The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis. Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”

    The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

    When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

    However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

    Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”. Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.

    Pearce said the IPCC’s reliance on the WWF was “immensely lazy” and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.

    The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

  277. Who cares what you two think? Like you made clear earlier, you’re not scientists so therefore your opinion means nothing.

    And since the majority of the scientific community disagrees with you, your support for a handful of looneybirds, many of whom think the world is 6000 years old, counts for nothing.

  278. Well I guess I’m as much to blame as anyone Stephen. I should not have bothered to respond to these ridiculous neoconservative attempts to make any website they find a stump for denying global warming. They tend to bring out the worst in me, and I’m sorry.

    I should have just walked away. Something I am doing now.

  279. I should have just walked away. Something I am doing now.

    For the third time, will there be a forth?

    Seems to me
    you dont want to talk about it
    Seems to me
    you just turn your pretty head and walk away.

  280. In 2007, Professors David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer wrote a scientific paper in the International Journal of Climatology, which compared Global Climate Models (GCMs) with real observed data. GCMs were theoretically designed to forecast how greenhouse gases (GHGs) are warming the planet.

    There are certain rules that must be followed in scientific investigations in order to ensure that the results and conclusions are not erroneous. Basically, the process requires an investigator to operate under multiple hypotheses so that he is not blinded to facts that might contradict one of his hypotheses and leave him with a dead end. An investigator should start by working from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complex, and always bend the theory to fit the facts — not the other way around. This is exactly how the four scholars led by Professor Douglass conducted their investigation into the accuracy of the GCMs.

    The GCMs were touted by the now-discredited Dr. Jones as accurate predictions of how the planet is responding to GHGs, but no serious published work had been done to compare these GCMs with real observations to find out if the theoretical models agreed with the established facts. The results of these comparisons done by Prof. Douglass and his team were found to be significantly divergent. The paper states the following:

    Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean.

    In English, that says that the models could not be trusted. This news publicly enraged the group led by Dr. Jones. They fired off more than 29 e-mails concerning this one paper. But the real story is that these findings did not surprise them. In one of the recently uncovered Climategate e-mails from Dr. Fred Pearce to Dr. Keith Briffa, dated the 13th of October, 1996, Dr. Pearce delivers the bad news that the data does not agree with the models.

    The models’ error was not, perhaps, too surprising. As Barnett points out, they do not include vital “forcing” mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

    This statement means that as far back as 1996, the Jone group knew that the GCMs were producing significant errors and problems. This resulted an inability to reconcile the forecasts with reality. They seemingly knew that specifically excluding solar and El Niño influences would cause the forecast to be untrustworthy. But apparently they wished to keep these problems a secret. So to accomplish this, they chose to deal with the problem in a surprising way, as the e-mail further states:

    Of course we don’t have to believe the proxy data.

    So now are they suggesting that they alter or ignore the data rather than bend their theory to fit the facts? In other words, are they completely disregarding the scientific method?

    When trying to come up with a response to Prof. Douglass’s International Journal of Climatology paper, Dr. Ben Santer wrote to Dr. Jones and admitted that the basic premise of the work done by Prof. Douglass and his collaborators was correct. They had run head-first in to the cold, hard truth (ouch), as revealed in Sater’s e-mail, dated the 12th of December, 2007, when he stated the following:

    It is difficult to identify a subset of models that consistently does well in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.

    What Dr. Santer is saying here is that clearly, the GCMs are broken, but that even a broken clock is right twice a day. As any forecaster at the National Hurricane Center will tell you, such as Dr. William Gray or Dr. Neil Frank, the only forecast models that they trust are models that consistently perform well. When lives are on the line, you don’t take chances by using an unreliable forecast model.

    So in response to their dilemma of having to deal with the truth, the Jones Group seems to abandon all scientific methods and decides to proceed down the rabbit hole and embrace the tactics of attorneys. In law school, they teach the students that if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; but if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then you have no choice but to try to discredit the witness.

    The difference between scientists like Prof. Douglas and lawyers like Al Gore is that scientists seek the truth, while lawyers find the truth to be a simple matter of convenient choice to be used or obscured as needed.

    The choice that the Jones group appears to make is to impugn the reputation of these scholars by referring to them as charlatans and pondering how to get them fired, as is detailed in this e-mail Dr. Tom Wigley sent on the 10th of December, 2007, to Dr. Santer:

    … what Douglass has done would cause him to lose his job.

    It is true that five hundred years ago, when a scientist challenged the prevailing accepted view of things, he would lose his job (and even get locked up like Galileo), but this is the twenty-first century! The inquisition is over…or is it?

    The apparent plotting seems to take shape as this cabal begins to scheme and set traps for Prof. Douglass’s collaborators, as is suggested in this e-mail from Dr. Wigley, dated the 29th of December, 2007:

    Dear all,

    I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a participant. He was not on the speaker list, but, in advance of the meeting, I had thought he might raise the issue of the Douglass et al. paper. I therefore prepared the attached power point — modified slightly since returning from Rome. As it happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did not use the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members of this group so I am sending it to you all.

    Please keep this in confidence. I do not want it to get back to Singer or any of the Douglass et al. co-authors.

    If this were some floor fight in Congress, where the “honorable” members are duking it out over some piece of legislation, this kind of language could be expected, but these are supposedly scientists. Men of science are supposed to be ethical and motivated only by the pursuit of truth. These e-mails seem to paint a very different picture of the Jones Group.

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/

  281. Flurries hit southeast Australia as towns record their first-ever summer snowfalls
    By: Rod Mcguirk, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    18/01/2010 3:40 AM

    CANBERRA, Australia – Australia is following its second-hottest year on record with extraordinary snow flurries in its southeastern alpine region, where some towns have recorded their first-ever summer snowfalls.

    Australia’s temperatures during the summer months of December through February can be uncomfortably hot even on its highest peak, Mount Kosciuszko, which stands a modest 7,310 feet (2,228 metres) above sea level.

    Snow fell to 3,000 feet (900 metres) above sea level Monday in parts of New South Wales and Victoria states, Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Jane Golding said.

    “Any time of year, it’s unusual to have snow down that far,” she said.

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/81953342.html

  282. 30%:

    “I cannot see how you could have done this as you literally had to dissect the sentence in order to present it as you did. It seems you purposely removed the portion that makes it clear Jesus was not presenting this as a commandment, but merely quoting from the Law of Moses. Of course I’m not saying you did, maybe it was a mistake. But I’m having a hard time understanding how you could have made such a mistake,..”

    ***********

    I think it is you who needs the reading comprehension test for your magic book. In this episode from Mark, Jesus was admonishing the assembled Pharisees for perverting the commandments of God in favor of their own traditions (and themselves). He expressly cited the law of Moses and two of his commandments that were perverted by the Pharisees who changed the Mosaic “Honor thy mother and father” and the penalty for such disobedience (the infamous “death for dishonor” rule) by the Pharisees’ insistence on a reprieve for those who made their gift of gold to the Temple (Corban) instead of supporting their needy parents. Though admirably Jesus calls the Pharisees out for their selling of indulgences, NOWHERE does Jesus distance himself from the barbarism of Moses’ prescription for parental dishonor, and in fact, he expressly advocates strict obedience to the rule. As he said in his prefatory remarks “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” Mark 7:9 (NASB).

    Now who is truly being disingenuous here?

  283. You are.

    You’re first mocking my faith and the faith of a billion or so people with your childish “magic book” slurs.

    And you’re being disingenuous by ignoring the fact that in the following verses he proceeds to “fulfill” the law of Moses by changing the commandments to his commandments, and even completely reversing parts of it.

  284. And I can’t help but notice that after a disappearing in the middle of the discussion when called on it, …you come back the next week and still “bob and weave” rather than explain why you edited Mark 7:10 to meet your argument.

    I think given the fact I answered every one of your barrage of questions, and considering that after answering them you ignored being caught editing scriptures to meet your argument and insulted me and disappeared, … I think its time for you to answer at least one of mine.

    Please explain to us all how why you edited Mark 7:10 to leave out the first part of the sentence that shows it was a quote of Jesus.

  285. Here I’ll help with your selective memory.

    Here we see you presenting Mark 7:10

    “Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:

    “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)”
    – mespo727272 1, January 14, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    And here is the actual verse;

    – Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: –

    So we see not only did you use a newer translation that omits the “the death” (which refers to the second death, not killing someone now) , apparently because it fits you arguments better, but you removed the first half of the sentence.

    If you’d left that in then people would see he was merely quoting from the Law of Moses, not issuing a commandment or directive as your post presented it as.

    So please explain to me.

    Why did you remove the first half of the verse?

  286. 30%:

    “Why did you remove the first half of the verse?”

    ***********************
    To answer you directly, I left it out because it was irrelevant to my point. Jesus could have said exactly what he intended had he left out the barbarism that was the death for dishonor rule. Had he simply said you cannot avoid Moses law of honoring your parents by paying tribute to the Temple, his point would still have been made. Instead, he added the death sentence and emphasized that he was there to stand up for the law of Moses.

    It seems your charming veneer has worn off — much like the snake oil salesman who is confronted about the ineffectiveness of his pitch. That’s typical for those who’ve drunk the Kool-Ade and are confronted with their own intentional obtuseness. Your defense of the faith through anger or hurt feelings wins little sympathy in any rational argument. What say we let the readers decide who is the more accurate analyzer of the intent of the man who clearly said, “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.” (Matt. 5:17 NLT).

    Now answer me this: Do you believe cursing your parents warrants a death sentence? If so, you are on firm theological ground.

  287. Mespo:

    if cursing your parents should be a death sentence I imagine we would all be dead by now. In fact we probably would not have made it past 16.

    Dont you think that is more of a request to honor your mother and father rather than a literal statement? Did anyone get put to death for cursing their parents?

    Give the guy a little slack, the idea of oblivion is rather hard to wrap your mind around. But if more people could, they might be a little nicer to their fellow man and not so willing to go to war for stupid reasons.

  288. Jesus didn’t say when you would die for doing such things. It’s not like he said, let them die the death immediately. We all shall perish as sinners.

    What Jesus promised all of us was the chance for eternal life.

  289. And as a Troll, you have many more possibilities of resurrection and life than others do. How many incarnations may a troll have in its particular role?

  290. Oh Ay, the day that you can think clearly without your mind being in a fog is the day that you will have much appreciation for.

    I can see clearly now the fog is gone. It’s gonna be a bright, bright sunshinie day.

  291. Bdaman12,

    Is it really. I am so glad for you. Just take one day at a time. That’s all it takes. Ask your higher power and I am not talking that white powder for a daily reprieve. You can do it over and over until you get it right. But then again, you can always do what your Boss says and keep up the good work.

    The interesting quandary for you poses indeed a juxtapose. How can you be good at being a troll if you don’t have your gojo and the will to live? Thats where professional help can help you. Did it work the last time? How many times will your insurance pay until you have to start paying all expenses out of pocket? Well then you always have the County or Rush to rely upon….

  292. B:

    Amen to that.

    Bdman:

    I think Jesus did say, “Life – nobody gets out alive (except me, of course).”

    AY:

    Why over-feed the troll? He’ll just die — eventually.

  293. 30%:

    By the way, I meant to comment on this “newer translation” subterfuge you floated. It seems to me that the unerring revealed word of the omniscient Creator should have some agreed-upon translation – the penalty for disobedience being what it is and all. Especially given that hundreds were burned at the stake for disobeying the old version. Why don’t you Christians simply sit down and figure it out according to your own multitude of interpretations and then just let us know. The cacophony should be entertaining. Obviously, only one is right, or maybe, they’re all correct even those pesky diametrically opposed interpretations. Ooops, you tried that already and couldn’t work that little tribute to ecumenism out either. Gosh, what’s a skeptic to do? Maybe I’ll just adopt your cafeteria-style version. Call me an “Alice in Wonderland# Orthodox Christian”!

    #Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
    “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
    (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 5)

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
    (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

    Which is to be the master, indeed?

  294. B:

    “THAT Humpty Dumpty, he would make a good politician.”

    ***************

    Well, he looks like Karl Rove, so maybe.

  295. Here. Here’s a quote from the thread you referenced.

    “Mike Spindell 1, January 15, 2010 at 10:02 am

    30%’er,
    I’ve followed your counter punching through the entire thread with fascination. To me you win with a TKO. I’m especially impressed by your sourcing of the Gospels as the word of Jesus. Many don’t get that distinction”

    Looks like not everyone is fooled by your trolling mespo.

  296. 30%’er:

    “Looks like not everyone is fooled by your trolling mespo.”

    ***************

    Good retort. Let me know when you come up with something substantive to say. I can wait. Like most skeptics, we’ve been waiting for 2000 years.

  297. Once more so the smug mocking of myself between Mespo and a already identified troll calling himself “duh”, lets revisit Mespo’s original misquotation.

    “Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:

    “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB) – Mespo

    Seems like he’s found a good scripture to support his attacks on the Christian faith, right?

    Wrong.

    Here is the actual scripture.

    — Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: ”

    So we see that he actually EDITED the scripture.

    Removing a key part that made it clear Jesus was simply quoting Moses and not issuing a clear directive as Mespo tried to suggest.

    He removed a key part of the verse to make it fit his argument.

    Mespo?

    Why did you do that?

  298. “Good retort. Let me know when you come up with something substantive to say. I can wait. Like most skeptics, we’ve been waiting for 2000 years.” -mespo727272

    Just pointing out that not everyone agrees with your distortions of the facts.

    Now.

    Are you going to explain why you removed that first half of the scripture, or should we just assume that you’re too ashamed of being caught at being dishonest?

  299. 305er (or less),

    Moses had brought forth the commandments of God. Moses was preaching the commandments of God. Isn’t Jesus part of the trinity that makes up the one God of the Christian faith?

  300. Thirty how is it that you just started posting here and you call everyone a troll that does not agree with you. Although Mespo and I have rarely, if ever, agreed on anything, he is not a troll.
    Save that distinction for me.

  301. Until you can summon the courage to explain why you dishonestly presented a scripture that you edited to make it fit your argument I’ll not expect to hear further from you.

    Last week I answered each and every one of your barrage of questions as detailed and carefully as I could.

    Once I did answer your questions, one by one, you returned and dismissed me as a “bobber and weaver”, never bothering to address even one single answer I provided you with.

    And yet you still continue to prod me with your dishonest and misleading questions in your attempts to smear the faith of others. And I have even answered still, and instead of addressing my answers, you keep pushing new questions, forever moving the goal posts as if I were being interrogated or something.

    So until you can summon the intellectual integrity to explain your actions in editing a scripture to change its meaning to fit your argument, I see no further purpose in your asking me questions or my answering them.

  302. Mark 7:15 “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”

    30%er he is talking about you.

    I really want to know why you are hung up on Mespo’s redaction when in reality the context must be taken in a much larger scope than even your 1 or 2 verses?

  303. Byron if you go to the link Mespo provided you’ll see I carefully and painstakingly spelled out very articulate and detailed answers for the same questions you’re asking now.

    I refer you to the link. I don’t think I need to jump every time one of you repeat the same inane, mundane questions that have already been asked and answered several times over.

  304. If you have an actual question that is new, pose it.

    Asking me about Mespo however is just more juvenile trollish nonsense trying to start an argument.

    If you have an actual question, then ask it.

    If you want to stir up more trouble, go find someone else.

  305. Byron:

    “I really want to know why you are hung up on Mespo’s redaction when in reality the context must be taken in a much larger scope than even your 1 or 2 verses?”

    *************

    Because, my good friend, when you have blinders on you can have the luxury to see only what you wish to see.

    “You cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.
    ~ Navajo proverb

  306. I believe in freedom of speech, it should be respected. I seen the interview with Pat Robertson. Everyone has an opinion. I felt a connection between Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti. That was the way I felt.

    What seem to be somewhat scary to me was, the way those women on the View attacked him. They were so vicious and wicked sounding. They acted like a lynch mob. Watch the two shows.

    They hee hee and haw haw saying, Pat knows what the Devil think.
    No hee hee and haw haw when Elizabeth claim to reads Obama’s mind? saying Obama rebute Pat’s statements,

  307. This is OUTRAGEOUS. I really do not understand how this man is able to say this. That’s the trouble with “freedom of speech”. I find it horrible that this man is saying that a poor nation suffering from poverty and dept are being punished by God for making “a pact with Satan”. How on earth would you get in touch with Satan anyway? Do people actualy believe in these kind of things? If people do, i would appreciate if they could explain to me why if we have such a merciful loving God that he would do such a thing – and after such a long time. As if they hadnt suffered enough.

    I am 15 years old but able to distinguish a load of Sh** when I see it. I do not believe in God, but because I have many reasons why.Although I do try very hard to study and understand the mind of a “believer”.

    PEACE

  308. “How on earth would you get in touch with Satan anyway?”

    I’m pretty sure he has an office on Wall Street. Don’t worry if you can’t locate him. When you are old enough to vote, he’ll come calling.

  309. Hey ya’ll are missing the Present Day opportunity to contribute to the 700 Club telethon. Pick of the day….

  310. WOW. You sleep good at night with with all that judgement you preach on Hatia and others.What do reborn’s rednecks,and the K.K.K ALL have in common….THEY ALL VOTE REPUBLICAN..It’s true.Reborns are all againts abortions and healthcare.So you must have the child but after IT’S BORN and you can’t afford healthcare.You don’t seam to have a problem with them and the poor dying in the STREET… AFTER THERE ALIVE.WHAT HIPOCRACY.You look after the unborn at the expence of the living

  311. If Pat is so against gay’s cause of the bible.why does he not support stoning wives who do not OBAY there husbands and also support the right of men to be able to sell there daughter’s.IS THAT NOT ALSO IN THE BIBLE.Yes it is but you do not preach it.Must be nice to pick and choose what you think is right and wrong.

Comments are closed.