Pat Robertson on Dover

I take it we will be seeing a significant decrease in tornados across the plains of Kansas, now that they've accepted God into their lives, and earned His protection?

Robertson's Offensive Fundamentalist Thought of the Month

It would be interesting to see what he says tomorrow after he's realized that he's gone too far again.

If God really is that petty, then Pat Robertson can keep him.

One wonders why god let them vote him out in the first place.

I take it we will be seeing a significant decrease in tornados across the plains of Kansas, now that they've accepted God into their lives, and earned His protection?

— Tiax

Despicable hardly begins to describe what he said about these people. Even defenders of ID should be appalled by this excrable statement.

Frankly it's about time the TV stations that agreed to carry that travesty of a show--the 700 Club--reconsider their decision. (But they won't - too much money at stake.)

Also, to anyone who's reading this - remember that "Operation Blessing" is Robertson's charity (I assume he'll be withholding any assistance to Dover should that disaster hit - wouldn't want to interfere with God's wrath now, would he?)

If you contribute to that charity, please consider some other worthy cause instead. There are plenty of other good, honest charities to choose from.

And how long before we get a "I misspoke" from him, I wonder? Would fit the ID defender's pattern, after all.

I can't believe some fundagelicals could be simple-minded enough to possibly believe such stupid prvidential threats from the likes of Pat Robertson. Ohhh...now he's put a CURSE on Dover! Be afraid, be very afraid.

Frankly it's about time the TV stations that agreed to carry that travesty of a show---the 700 Club---reconsider their decision. (But they won't - too much money at stake.)

I'm not worried about anything God might or might not do to Dover since I don't believe God exists - and even if he did, he wouldn't pay any heed to what Robertson was spouting, that's for sure.

But it is still a gross insult to the good people of Dover, even more so to those who, as Christians, voted their conscience on the matter. He deserves every piece of bad publicity he's going to get from this.

One wonders why god let them vote him out in the first place

— snex

Now, to be fair, Robertson did not curse Dover. He just said that God would no longer protect them. Rather like God removed his protection on 9/11/01 because of abortionists, homosexuals, and liberals. Though maybe that explains Katrina with all those gamblers, drunkards, and partiers. Though perhaps the gamblers are not that bad, as God has made bets with Satan in the past. Remeber Job was a good guy until God stopped protecting him; then he lost his cattle, servants, and children. Of course, he came out fine in the end because he received more cattle, more servants, and more children than before. I doubt the children lost matter much in Robertson's world.

Dover, Pennsylvania, disaster assessment:

1) Hurricane activity? No.
2) Near major, active faults? No.
3) Near active volcanoes? No.
4) Risk of tsunami? No.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

Speaking of ABC News stories, they've put another ID-related story under "Entertainment." I spent a few minutes after reading this item looking for author Nancy Chandross's e-mail address to point out that the Scopes trial was in TN not KS, and that Woodrow Wilson was involved in WWI not WWII. Sloppy writing!

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers

Death by boredom?

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?I'm going locusts, or maybe really, really angry crickets.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

Pepper Hamilton's legal fees, maybe.

I bet if you were within 100 feet of the Discovery Istitute today, you could have heard the groan.

I LOVE it.

Hope Judge Jones watches the news.

No, because as The Onion reported awhile back, a psychiatrist has found that God suffers from bipolar disorder.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

They voted "God" out of office?

Don't you mean they voted OxyContin out of office?

Or is Pat Robertson trying to tell us that OxyContin is God?

Hmmm...

Actually, Robinson simply speaks to the converted. Real scandal today is another screed by the NPR religion reporter, Barbara Hagerty, here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

This is unbelievable junk about "biologists" being persecuted because ... they don't believe in the science of biology. It was a disgraceful, one sided montage of ID talking points.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty is a known quality -- a right wing, anti-evolution reporter. Protests should, I think, be directed at Richard Harris, the NPR science reporter who has been given the Sagan award the "for improving the public understanding of science" by the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. Why give awards to members of an organization that is systematically spreading ignorance? As it says in the good book, you can't serve God and Mammon. You can't serve science and ID.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

what wrath will God bring? Well in eastern Pennsylvania the future will be large burly Amish men in 8 piece suits zipping thru town on inline skates yakking on cell phones.

the other possibility is gay frogs (too warm for gay penguins).

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

the other possibility is gay frogs

Actually, Robinson simply speaks to the converted. Real scandal today is another screed by the NPR religion reporter, Barbara Hagerty, here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?sto... This is unbelievable junk about "biologists" being persecuted because ... they don't believe in the science of biology. It was a disgraceful, one sided montage of ID talking points.

— roger

"God only controls the weather, earthquakes, the creation of life, the creation of the universe, and the end of the world."

— steve reuland

Now if we can just get Pat to be a bit more straightforward and tell us that intelligent design creationism is nothing but a way to get his bipolar god into the classroom. Let's hear it, Pat!

Actually, Robinson simply speaks to the converted. Real scandal today is another screed by the NPR religion reporter, Barbara Hagerty, here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?sto...

Could somebody point me to a reliable source of information on exactly what sort of review Meyer's article *did* go through? I've been trying to figure out exactly what Sternberg's role in the whole debacle was, and I've seen all sorts of conflicting information.

--Brian

Don't want to jinx the good citizens of Dover, but they do live in one of the safest regions of the country.

Last year, [Sternberg] published in the journal a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, an idea which Sternberg himself believes is fatally flawed.

"I'm not an evangelical, I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not a young earth creationist, I'm not a theistic evolutionist." Richard Sternberg

Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this.

So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong."

I wrote Robertson a note:

Who are you to suggest God's movitations? Do you think the citizens of my state are comforted in the least by your ravings? For the good of the world, shut up.

Then, a day later, he took it back. I'm not writing him this time, he can suck it.

ID is not "religious?"

Take this quote:

"The process of transformation of the classes is for Darwin a logical necessity, in order to avoid recourse to successive emergencies that might require repeated interventions of the Creator. In two words, the theory of evolution is a revision of Genesis, or, in religious terms, a Biblical heresy."

Pat Robertson? Duane Gish? Scott McClellan?

No, it is from the Discovery Institute website (see hear)

Yes, it is posted in the context of "Of religion, I have heard not a word." Maybe not, but the author, Giuseppe Sermonti, sure spoke of it and did what he could to cater to the base. And the base will fall for it.

Someone needs to remind Brother Pat of what Jesus said when actual disaster struck,

"Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them---do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." Luke 13:4-5

Pat Robinson has issued a clarification of his comments. I got this from the AP, and like Dave Barry always says, I swear I'm not making this up:

Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences."

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

"We have sinned against Almighty God, at the highest level of our government, we've stuck our finger in your eye," said Robertson.

I heard Haggerty's NPR report on the way home tonight.

After Behe let loose his verbal flatulance about the Big Bang I had to play Metallica for two hours just to get the stench out of my ears.

lest we forget, 'ol pat ran for Pres not too long ago, and several current congressional representatives don't sound too much less looney:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18077-2002Apr19¬Found=true

er, Delay is the guy who was indicted on about a dozen ethics violations and is awaiting his current court date.

I guess his "worldview" got found out, huh?

these people literally make me sick.

"I'm not an evangelical, I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not a young earth creationist, I'm not a theistic evolutionist." Richard Sternberg

Really? What does that leave?

Apparently everything Pat knows about God he learned by watching the Three Stooges.

Has anyone got any info on the psychoanalysis of Pat Robinson ?

He needs some serious ego reducing pills.

What a fantastic public display of onanism.

oh man, all you need do is do a google search on the man (whose name is Pat Robertson, btw).

don't blame me if you lose your dinner after reading a few choice bits from this guy.

or perhaps you can stomach his comments... until you realize that 10's of thousands of americans worship his sorry ass.

Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them---do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

The author of "Luke's gospel" wrote: Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them---do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Does anyone know who the reviewers for the PBSW article were?

— Brian Spitzer

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Would not the moral thing on ol' Pat's part have been to shriek warnings like this from the pulpit before the election? Of course, he'd be investigated by the IRS for mixing preaching and politics, but losing his non-profit (HAH!) status would be a small price to pay to keep sin from the world, no?

Shorter version: Robertson's a coward.

Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. ---- They are? Is there any evidence to support this statement?

Indeed, the PBSW came out with a statement saying that Sternberg had violated the journal's editorial practices, pointing out that, among other things, the subject matter isn't even appropriate for the journal.

Isn't part of the problem that the fundamentalists believe we think just like they do; that we believe that Darwin was divinely inspired and literally believe every word of The Origin of Species?

Darwin loves me
This I know
The Origin of Species
Tells me so
Little ones just don't belong
Death to the weak and
Survival for the strong

Yes, Darwin loves me
Yes, Darwin loves me
Yes, Darwin loves me
The Origin of Species tells me so

Isn't part of the problem that the fundamentalists believe we think just like they do; that we believe that Darwin was divinely inspired and literally believe every word of The Origin of Species?

Sternberg oversaw a rigorous peer review a la Behe: talked to a few people on the phone who had no expertise in the subject and that had no familiarity with the actual paper. ;)

Sternberg claims it was reviewed by "three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions."

I come from PA. Dover might have a bad snow storm that could close school and work for a few days. It couldn't be that bad, though, a foot or two at most.

Robertson's remarks verge on blasphemy.

Anyway, there's more evidence that HE is too busy punishing those states that voted for Bush to bother Dover right now.

Florida gets double hurricane doses for voting two Bushes in.

"In two words, the theory of evolution is a revision of Genesis, or, in religious terms, a Biblical heresy."

Pat Robertson is now the word of God???

Isn't there something in the bible really, really bad that happens to those who assume to speak for God???

"Isn't part of the problem that the fundamentalists believe we think just like they do; that we believe that Darwin was divinely inspired and literally believe every word of The Origin of Species?"

This is absolutely true and really shows how little most IDists understand about modern evolutionary theory. We can politely try to explain to them how much we have learned in the 150-odd years since then, with mountains of new fossils, a much greater understanding of biochemistry, the discovery of genetics and the advent of comparative genomics, but that is usually met with either blank stares, a change of subject or outright denial. They can't seem to comprehend that we don't pray to Darwin, we just study life on earth.

Isn't there something in the bible really, really bad that happens to those who assume to speak for God???

— Steverino

That's an interesting point. I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't claim to know what they believe, but I always felt that the personalization of evolution as "Darwin" was a little strange. Many (I would say most) working scientists have never read the seminal works in their fields. Theories are named after their originators, but the further development is a collaborative effort, and part of this effort is the distillation of core ideas into textbook treatments. The ideas are ultimately so important that their history is usually lost or known only in terms of disconnected anecdotes. Without being able to read minds, I think it is a safe bet that most creationists simply have no idea how science is practiced or what scientists actually care about.

The area around Dover is NOT safe. Don't forget the coal seam fire STILL burning under Centralia, PA, only about 70 miles north of Dover.

Isn't there something in the bible really, really bad that happens to those who assume to speak for God???

— Steverino

Dear Pat Robertson,

thanks for making or point for us.

* Signed, the people who said ID was about religion all along

"I think ultimately this is a sign that fundies indeed have no idea how science or even mere empiricism works, but it also serves their 'culture wars' purposes --- if science and religion are 'the same thing' it makes it easier to convince the gullible that they have to pick one or the other."

Very true. They filter everything through their lens of limited experience, so that everything becomes a "faith" or "belief system." Like Behe's comment on the Dover witness stand that "all science is appearances." It's hard to believe that any working scientist would say something this ridiculous...real scientists know that "appearances," whatever these might be, can be quite deceiving and NOT reflective of reality.

But how many fundies with pneumonia would opt for prayer healing over antibiotics?

Unfortunately the public is more likely to identify with "believing" in something than understanding the scientific method.

Yes, the creationists project their approach onto scientists. To them, everything is based on faith, so they believe science is based on faith as well. Evolution becomes "Darwin worship", which is heretical.

But this coin also has two sides. Scientists continue to think that all they need to do is provide airtight (or enormous quantities of) logic and evidence, and the creationist will recognize his error and change his mind. And this shows that scientists are projecting THEIR orientation onto creationists just as much as creationists are doing the same thing.

So we have whole threads (and links) showing how profoundly dishonest Dembski is, that he can't admit error even when unambiguous facts are shoved at him; he simply deletes any such threads from his blog and lies about what others have said. But from Dembski's viewpoint, it's the scientific people who are being dishonest: they are denying Jesus. By (Dembski's) definition, anything that supports or defends Jesus can NOT be dishonest, facts be damned.

Now, some people point out that " fundies with pneumonia would opt for prayer healing over antibiotics" as though this were inconsistent. But consistency isn't part of the creationist's value sytstem. Staying alive to praise Jesus is good, therefore it's honest. Doublethink (the ability to sincerely believe mutually contradictory things simultaneously) is a creationist requirement, but it's still honest because it supports Jesus.

Kay,

You got that right!...If there was any doubt that religion was behind ID, Pat (Open Mouth Inset Foot)Robertson just confirmed what we all knew to be true.

Perhaps he can be called as a hostile witness in Kansas???

A supposition: the majority of currently working scientists in the life sciences haven't read *Origin of Species*. I would bet it's a pretty sizeable fraction, but less than 50%

A certainty upon which I will wager my daughter's dowry: Fewer than 10% of fundamentalists, evangelicals, etc. have read the ENTIRE Bible. They've "studied" it, sure, which means listening to some bozo in their church point out passages to back up their own prejudices (and conveniently omitting all the embarrassing parts).

They're dead certain every word of it is literally true, but somehow they've never actually managed to read the thing.

Isn't there something in the bible really, really bad that happens to those who assume to speak for God???

I think God pokes them in the eye, much as Robertson accuses us of doing. I'm not sure if it's God the Moe, God the Larry, or God the Curly who does it. Needless to say, Shemp and Curly Joe are not part of the Stooge Trinity and anyone who says otherwise gets a shovel to the noggin'

I think God pokes them in the eye, much as Robertson accuses us of doing. I'm not sure if it's God the Moe, God the Larry, or God the Curly who does it.

Needless to say, Shemp and Curly Joe are not part of the Stooge Trinity and anyone who says otherwise gets a shovel to the noggin

Steverino - as regards your query

"Isn't there something in the bible really, really bad that happens to those who assume to speak for God???" ...

have a look (without prejudice) at Matthew 7:15 - 23.

But this coin also has two sides. Scientists continue to think that all they need to do is provide airtight (or enormous quantities of) logic and evidence, and the creationist will recognize his error and change his mind. And this shows that scientists are projecting THEIR orientation onto creationists just as much as creationists are doing the same thing.

Scientists continue to think that all they need to do is provide airtight (or enormous quantities of) logic and evidence, and the creationist will recognize his error and change his mind.

Robertson is the gift that keeps on giving.

There's actually been a fair deal of discussion here over the past year of how Creationists really do conceptualize science as being the 'same thing' as religion. That is, that you need to have 'faith' for it, it depends on single crucial texts and historical figures, and that if you can invalidate certain key figures, even by proving they were 'bad people', the entire thing collapses. (Hence gibberish like Darwin 'recanting on his death bed'.)

If there was any integrity left in American churches, Pat Robertson's "career" would end on Sunday, November 13, 2005 at 11am EST. It won't, which says a great deal about the "faithful."

Speaking of ABC News stories, they've put another ID-related story under "Entertainment." I spent a few minutes after reading this item looking for author Nancy Chandross's e-mail address to point out that the Scopes trial was in TN not KS, and that Woodrow Wilson was involved in WWI not WWII. Sloppy writing!

Remember that the Republicans rejected Robertson as their nominee in 1988, then the entire country, even after knowing that Robertson had declared himself ready, willing and able to lead it, listened to SATAN and did not elect him president in 1988 in a massive write-in campaign.

If Robinson is right about the people of Dover voting God out of town by refusing to elect his fave school board members, then how can he not assume that the people of the USA, by not electing Robinson president 17 years ago? No wonder Al Qaeda attacked! No wonder New Orleans was flooded and Biloxi blown away!

Perhaps we need to heed Robinson's advice and cease singing "God Bless America", since he no longer does that, having been impressed by the majority noe nominating or electing his Holy Self to leadership.

If the Amber Waves stop waving, if the Purple mountains majesties abdicate, now we know the reason.

Wouldn't he want to sing
"Intelligent Designer Bless America" ?

No wonder Al Qaeda attacked! No wonder New Orleans was flooded and Biloxi blown away!

Robertson was once a Klansman, back when God told him that he favored segregation.
But the fact is that these TV preachers are so utterly bizarre that it is impossible to do a parody of them.
You could not do a parody as weird as Benny Hinn's usual schtick. Robertson is as weird, but in his own unique way.

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1666 on November 10, 2005 05:11 PM

I just look at the national slide in Robertson's credibility as evidence of the tremendous service he has provided in helping to inoculate the country against mass psychosis. McCarthy did much the same, disco too.

So let the guy spew, give him airtime. His hubris shall set us free.

If Pat Robertson were truly a scholar of the Bible, then he would know that, when Northern Israel was to be condemned and sent into exile by God in the 8th Century BCE, that Hosea, Amos, and Isaiah had indicted the "chosen" for turning their backs on the poor, the oppressed, the orphan, the widow, and mostly because the political leaders were takers of bribes, that they did not do good, and that they did not seek justice.

In America, where our leaders are completly given to the idolatry of power and money, there will be no exception. Particularly when they outwardly profess piety. In the case of so called religious leaders, God holds his most terrible judgements and even states that the "Day of the Lord" will be a terrible and dark day for those who pretend to know God but really don't do what He requires.

Finally, if Robertson believes that he can Curse Dover, PA, then he is direct opposition to the words of Jesus himself. Judge not lest you be judged, I believe is the commandment. In addition, that by the same measure that Robertson has judged, the scriptures state that he will be judged.

Woe to them on the day of judgement.

McCarthy did much the same, disco too

In America, where our leaders are completly given to the idolatry of power and money, there will be no exception

Woe to them on the day of judgement

Sir TJ said:

"i just noticed that this is:

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1666 on November 10, 2005 05:11 PM

aaaaahhhh! everybody run, Ed Brayton is the devil!!!"

I'm just waiting for my creationist students to figure out that my car is the one with 666 on the license plate. I didn't recognize the significance, myself, until I'd had the plates for a year or so and a recovering fundamentalist friend of mine laughed at my car...

recovering fundamentalist

"I saw the light"
and its name was .......

seriously, we could hand out "recovering fundamentalist" t-shirts at pro-science rallys.

It's amazing what a good slogan can do.

"the god of the bible is undeniably a Malignant Narcissist. He exhibits grandiosity, and is willing to torture people for eternity in order to provoke adulation and worship."

There you go, judging God by the foibles of men...

Actually, the God of the New Testament is an incredibly patient and selfless Being. He exhibits His great love for those who despise Him, and patiently waits for them to understand who He really Is, instead of relying on some twisted charicature thrown out by the likes of Pat Robertson.

God is UNwilling to see people suffer for eternity, actually. He also DOESN'T want to see anyone perish. Which is WHY he sent Jesus, so you wouldn't HAVE to perish.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

Don't you at least know THAT one?

Thanks Kevein we need more of that.
It seems to me that religious leaders don't take on massive errors of their peers for fear of starting a spat.
Its easy to take some of the early reportage just a bit too seriously

Courtesy of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore

Gospel Truth

[...We hear bleating sheep]
Shepherd: Here, stop that will you, get off her, she's only a young one. Get off!
Matthew: (singing) Oh when the saints, come marching in... (speaking) How's that then?
S: Hallo....
M: I believe you are Mr Arthur Shepherd.
S: That's right - shepherd by name, shepherd by nature. Lo! My flock are lowing.
M: Allo allo.
S: Ha ha ha ha. That's rather good that one, I never heard that one before.
M: Yeah, it's a new one on me.
[...We hear a bleating sheep]
S: That's a new one on her.
[bleating]
Will you get off!
M: Let me introduce myself Arthur. My name is Matthew.
S: Allo Matthew.
M: You may have heard of my colleagues, Mark, Luke and John.
S: I know you lot, you're celebrities, let me shake you by the hand.
M: Certainly.
S: Could I, err, touch your raiment?
M: By all means.
S: Thank you.
M: All right.
S: Best raiment I ever touched.
M: Jolly good. Let me explain, Arthur, we are doing an in-depth profile of Jesus.
S: Oh yeah?
M: You may know him as the Messiah.
S: No I don't, no.
M: What, you don't know him?
S: Yeah, I know him as Jesus -
M: Oh, fine...
S: Not that other thing.
M: Oh, I see, right....
S: Er, which newspaper do you work for?
M: I work for The Bethlehem Star.
S: Ah. The wife and I take the Star actually.
M: Oh, jolly good.
S: Don't think much of your racing tipster.
M: Oh?
S: I had three shekels on that camel in the 3:15 at Galilee, it's still bloody running that one is.
M: Well, I don't work on that side of the paper myself. You know, I work on the more serious side, reportage.
S: Oh, reportage, yeah, very serious work.
M: Yes indeed. Um, as I was saying, Arthur, we are doing this in-depth profile of Jesus, and I gather that you were actually in on the very first moments surrounding the birth of the holy child.
S: Yeah I was, yeah.
M: That is marvellous.
S: Oh good.
M: Now what I'd like you to do, if you're willing of course, is tell me what happened, in your own words.
S: Well, it's quite simple really.
M: Oh, marvellous.
S: Basically what happened was that me and the lads were abiding in the fields.
M: Abiding in the fields.
S: Mind you, personally I can't abide these fields.
M: No?
S: No. I mean, look around you, they are unabidable fields.
M: Yes.
S: I say these are the most unabidable bleeding fields I've ever had to abide in.
M: Yeah. I'll abide by that. Oho, o-ho, oho..... Umm, you were abiding in the fields, Arthur?
S: Yeah, and we were watching our flocks by night.
M: Watching our flocks by night, yeah...
S: Yeah, 'cos that's when you've got to watch 'em.
M: Oh yeah?
S: Yeah. That's when they get up to all their rubbish.
M: Oh right, yeah.
S: Hot summer nights, the rams go mad.
M: Yeah?
S: Specially that one over there, he's a filthy little bugger. [We hear bleating.] Will you cut that out?! Doing that in front of you, a holy man!
M: Yeah, well, it's only human.
S: I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I don't like to see one ram doing it to another.
M: Oh yeah!... Cor blimey, he's an enthusiast, isn't he?
S: Oh yeah, top marks for enthusiasm, zero for accuracy.
M: It's a bit distracting, isn't it?
S: Yeah, I'm sorry about all those ramifications going on down there. I've got no control over them.
M: No, well, they're only young once, aren't they?
S: Yeah, I think I'll get my next lot from Gomorra.
M: Oofh! [uproarious audience laughter.]
Arthur, you were abiding in the fields -
S: Yeah -
M: ...and you were watching your flocks by night.
S: Yeah.
M: Then what happened?
S: Well much to our surprise, the angel of the lord flew down.
M: That must have been a fantastic experience!
S: Well it made a break, you know... a bit of a change just from abiding, him suddenly flashing down like that.
M: How did you know it was the angel of the lord?
S: Tell you what the give-away was, Matthew: it was this ethereal glow he was emanating.
M: Oh.
S: He was emanating this ethereal glow.
M: Right.
S: And as soon as I saw him emanating, I said Hello, Angel of the Lord.
M: Yeah. Halo?
S: Halo certainly, yeah.
M: Yeah.
S: Halo and goodbye, we said afterwards. He wasn't there for long - he just delivered his little message, and he was off like a bat out of hell.
M: Wings, I s'pose?
S: Oh wings, I have never seen such a gorgeous pair on a man.
M: Really?
S: They were outstanding wings. All gossamer, shimmering there in the starlight.
M: Oh, it must have been remarkable.
S: It was - I noticed it.
M: Yeah. What did he say to you, Arthur?
S: Well, he sort of singled me out from the other lowly shepherd-folk like -
M: How marvellous.
S: - and he said: Unto ye a child is born -
M: Yes.
S: Unto ye a son is given.
M: Yeah, what was your reaction?
S: Total shock. I mean I wasn't even married at the time. I thought, blimey, what was I doing this time last year, you know?
M: Yeah, yeah.
S: Could have been that little bird I met down the Shepherd's Delight.
M: Oh yeah.
S: Yeah. But the angel of the lord, the angel of the lord went on to explain that when he said Ye, he didn't mean me personal like, he meant Ye in the sense of the Whole World. Unto the Whole World a child is born, unto the Whole World a son is given.
M: Yeah, he was using the Universal Ye.
S: Was he?
M: Yeah.
S: Oh, I wouldn't know that, cos I'm not educated.
M: No, that's what he was using though, the Universal Ye.
S: Oh, good for him.
M: Yeah, lovely use of it too.
S: I'm sure.
M: Yeah.
S: And he went on to say, Ye shall find the child, lying in a manger, all meanly wrapped in swaddling clothes.
M: Ooh, lovely language.
S: He was very effluent.
M: Yeah. I suppose your first reaction was to whip over there and have a peep.
S: Naturally. We all dashed down the stable. But when I arrived I was in for a bit of a shock.
M: Go on.
S: I will. Cos when he said Ye shall find the child all meanly wrapped in swaddling clothes, I thought to myself, fair enough, it will be fairly meanly wrapped, you know, nothing flash, nothing gaudy -
M: Yeah, right.
S: But when I got there, it was diabolical. The meanest bit of wrapping I have ever seen. And what's more, that kid was barely swaddled.
M: Good lord.
S: I say it's the worst job of wrappin' and swaddlin' I've ever seen in me life. Terrible wrappin', atrocious swaddlin'.
M: Oh, how very distressing.
S: It was alarming to behold.
M: I'm sure it was Arthur. Now, Arthur, I want you to think back in time -
S: I'll do it now if you like.
M: No, no, no. What I meant was think back now, to then.
S: That's what I meant. Think back to then, now.
M: Right. Now then - What was the atmosphere like in the stable, on this joyous, historic occasion?
S: The atmosphere in the stable was very, very smelly.
M: Oh, -
S: There were all these cows and goats and sheep and camel about -
M: Yeah, no -
S: ...and they had no sense of occasion.
M: No, no no...
S: They were -
M: Right, no, that's a fascinating side-light, but what I was really after was, what was the atmosphere like amongst the members of the holy family?
S: Oh, the personal atmosphere?
M: Yeah.
S: In one word - tense.
M: Tense - you surprise me.
S: Joseph, in particular. He was sitting in the corner of the stable, looking very gloomy indeed.
M: : He might have been feeling a bit disgruntled, not being the real father.
S: I think that was it.
M: Yeah.
S: I think he felt left out of the whole thing.
M: Yeah right, right.
S: Personally, I think this is why he done such a rotten job on the swaddling.
M: Yes, yes.
S: You know, he just couldn't be bothered to swaddle.
M: No, yeah.
S: And, let's face it, there had been a lot of tittle-tattle about his wife and the holy ghost.
M: Oh, yes.
S: I mean, rumours had been flying round Bethlehem.
M: Yeah, right -
S: As indeed the holy ghost must have been.
M: Yeah. Was the holy ghost there?
S: Hard to say.
M: Yeah.
S: He's, er, he's an elusive little bugger at the best of times.
M: Yeah.
S: And I didn't see him, and I was very disappointed, because I felt very strongly at the time that he should have been there,
M: Yeah, mmm
S: You know, in his capacity as the god father.
M: Yeah? Well, especially after his treatment of the Virgin Mary, making her an offer she couldn't refuse.
S: Yeah, making her an offer she didn't even notice.
M: Yeah.
S: Hu-choo!
M: Yeah! Anyway, Arthur, I gather later on in the evening, three wise men came by, am I right there?
S: Three wise men arrived, yeah.
M: Yeah?
S: Three bloody idiots if ever I saw any.
M: Yeah?
S: In they come, call themselves Maggie.
M: Three blokes come in and call themselves Maggie?
S: Yeah, they peered round the stable door, said Hallo, we're Maggie.
M: How very embarrassing.
S: We didn't know where to look.
M: No.
S: And, er, they were bearing these gifts, you see.
M: Yeah.
S: Gold, frankincense, and [nasally] mhhhhhhhyr.
M: That's M, [nasally] hhhhhhhyr, H, isn't it?
S: I think so, yes.
M: [nasally]: Very nice of them to have brought those along.
[normally]: Very nice of them to have brought those along, eh?
S: Well, I think the gold was probably welcome. But what's a little kid going to do with frankincense and [nasally] mhhhhhhhyr? I ask you.
M: I suppose you're right actually.
S: I mean, mhhhhhhhyr is that stuff what poofs put behind their ears, isn't it?
M: Yeah
S: Over-perfumed, ointment muck.
M: Yeah, right.
S: But Jesus! He was so polite about it. I'll never forget: he sat up in the manger, he adjusted his swaddling -
M: Mmm
S: He said Thank you gentlemen for these lovely prezzies. I hope you have a safe trip back, Merry Christmas!

I am not yet a minister, but I'm studying to be one. I am a member of a conservative, evangelical denomination (the Wesleyan Church).

Pat Robertson has displayed a profound ignorance of God's Word. He has deplorably misrepresented God. One of my professors said that he's not amazed that God doesn't send His wrath on the world, but he's amazed that God doesn't send His wrath on the church. He said, "We shoot ourselves, and God, in the foot too many times."

As an evangelical, I believe in intelligent design. This is not due to blind faith. The Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I have done my homework. I have looked towards science and determined that the Earth is too perfect to have been created randomly. God must exist because the universe exists.

However, I can't help but think of the Israelites of the Old Testament. They constantly rejected God, yet God was faithful in providing a redeemer who is Christ Jesus. It's amazing how many times we tell others that God accepts you as you are (with a clear call to holiness and sanctification), yet we, in the same breath, say that you're sin is too horrible, and you need not look to God at all.

God is not bipolar. God is not schizophrenic. God is holy and just. I do not always understand why he chose to send His perfect message through imperfect people. I may never know. But I know this fact; God did not come to earth to condemn us, but rather, to show us a way that we may be made new in Christ's image. The image of the "good man" or the "good teacher" who many call Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and he has come to restore us to the state in which God called us to live. I believe that God's heart is broken when we chose to reject Him and explore the limits of our human intellect. But unlike Roberson, I know that God is wanting us all to turn to Him and love Him as He loves us. If you mock Him, if you reject Him, He is still there waiting for you to return His love. Many in the Church may not preach this message, but it is true nonetheless. Won't you simply trust and belive?

No

Kenny what would happen If you got Pat Robertson into a preaching match do you think he would listen?
What if you got your whole organization to call him would that help?
Why is it that Pat Robertson can get away with his nonsense ?

As an evangelical, I believe in intelligent design. This is not due to blind faith. The Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I have done my homework. I have looked towards science and determined that the Earth is too perfect to have been created randomly. God must exist because the universe exists.

— Kenny

Kenny - you'll find a very wide range of religious views on this forum. For myself, and for what that is worth, I believe that to "explore the limits of our human intellect" is something that is required of us, as far as we are able, by Matthew 25:14-30. Some may share this view but others will differ. That's not really the issue here.

You may not be able to accept evolution because of your particular flavour of Christianity. That's down to you. But you should be aware that there is a material difference between belief in God as creator of all things and the efforts of a few people to market "intelligent design" as science. Think of science as one of Caesar's pennies, and you'll be OK.

As an evangelical, I believe in intelligent design. This is not due to blind faith. The Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I have done my homework. I have looked towards science and determined that the Earth is too perfect to have been created randomly. God must exist because the universe exists.

.. sorry Kenny didn't mean to be rude. You choose to have faith - I just don't. I have a lot of respect for Christians and others that come here to defend science, and can accept what it says about evolution. I suppose in that we have Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, FSM's, others no doubt, as well as Atheists like me - well that is a bit of a bigger tent that the I.D people have.
We can all agree on the fundamental tenets of science, and get on with life. If you push any one of those guys they'll fall out with each other at the drop of a hat.
The irony is that religion itself evolves - Christianity branched off from Judaism - Islam again later - then into catholics/ protestants - protestants into methodists baptists, - into snake handlers and so on. At every split there is a new version of 'the Truth' created - and nowadays thousands of variants of that truth in Christianity alone.
Science doesn't work that way. When competing ideas arise we put all our efforts to test them and to try to edge nearer the 'real' truth. Which we never claim to have 100%.
Remember that when the Pilgim fathers and other colonists went to America for religous freedom - they weren't fleeing atheists - they were fleeing their co-religionists. Which it was a good idea to seperate religion and the state in the constitution.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

— Isaiah 55:8-9

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I appreciate your responses. I appreciate the respect in your responses. A few things:
-Pat Robertson and I won't ever get into a preaching debate. I know that he wouldn't listen to me. I guess I get frustrated that people like Falwell and Robertson end up being the spokesmen for Christian thought, and many Christians, including myself, think that they are idiots who distort God's Truth.
-There is a difference between special and general revelation. I would like to think that proponents of ID are coming from the angle of general revelation, which simply states that creation points you to God. This does NOT say that creation points you to God in Jesus Christ, which is an example of special revelation. In other words, by looking at creation, you should come to the conclusion that God exists, but you may not be able to figure who He is personally.
-As for the evolution of religion, you are right to an extent. Christianity is not Judaism evolved, but it is Judaism fulfilled. Catholics and Protestants differ over the application of Scripture and tradition. Protestant denominations differ slightly over interpretation, but our differences, which are few, tend to grossly overshadow our many similarities. Our school has Baptists, Metodists, Prebyterians, Wesleyans, and many other denominations, and we agree on most things. Islam, while claiming to be from Ishmael, the (we believe illegitimate) son of Abraham, is really a syncretistic religion and can only loosly claim that it is from Judaism.
-Science also evolves. As we get more evidence, we are constanly checking old truths to see if they mesh with new evidence. The way that we understand this world is much different than it was two centuries ago, and it will be much different two centuries from now. And, we must readily admit that we will never know everything that there is to know.
-Science is not necessarily opposed to religion. It is when it claims that there is no God. I have always loved science. Sadly, many Christians would rather condemn it then deal with seemingly problematic issues. This is surely a black mark on the Church, but it is changing. From what I'm observing through school and other areas, young Christians aren't believing because their parents tell them to. They want to know if it's real, and are finding that it is by asking tough questions.
-I'm not a young earth creationist. There is overwheliming evidence that the Genesis 1 account of creation was a theological statement meant to combat the polytheistic creation stories of the time. It is unlikely that it was meant to be taken as a blow-by-blow, scientific description of how the world was made. The point was not that God created the earth in six days, the point was that God is the creator of things that people were worshiping as gods.
-I do believe that God is outside of time.

Again, thank you for your respect. I realize that I'm somewhat of an outsider on your site, and I hope that you don't see me as a rambling, loud-mouthed fool.

Science is not necessarily opposed to religion. It is when it claims that there is no God.

— Kenny

Q: "About five years ago, I came out to the rest of the world as a lesbian. I am in a committed relationship with another woman. I don't understand why you say that homosexuality is wrong. Isn't my happiness the most important thing? Isn't that what God wants? I think that is what matters, not telling people what is right and wrong." Pat: "I didn't write the Bible. I really didn't. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by wonderful men like the Apostle Paul, like Moses, people like that, very highly respected people, and right down the line, they said that homosexuality is an abomination to God. The Apostle Paul said that nobody who is a homosexual is going to get into heaven. That doesn't mean you have a tendency. It didn't say nobody with homosexual tendencies is going to miss getting into heaven."

Pat Robertson is not only out of line but has no basis in which to speak. He does not live here in Dover. He has not seen what the incumbent board has been up to the past year. There are many reasons why the incumbent board lost and they all do not stem around Intelligent design. Pat has not seen the lies and the mudslinging the incumbent board has done. He has not seen the drug addiction, the "I do not recall" syndrome on the witness stand of the incumbent board.
Here are a few reasons why we voted for a new school board. First, we moved into Dover in October of 2004. We moved into this district because of the Dover Eagle Marching Band under the direction of Mr. George Bradshaw, and because of the honors program. We did our research into all of the districts around here. It was the reputation of the Dover band that finally drew us here. We did not know anyone on the board. Therefore, we were able to vote with an open mind.

Mr. Buckingham started this whole mess. He refused to tell the public where the book "Of Pandas and People" came from. Knowing all along it was his doing. When you did not believe as he did, you were replaced only with someone who did. Qualified candidates presented themselves to fill vacant seats. Buckingham and his court would not have any of it. At public school board meetings, the public was not allowed to speak unless you believed in what the board was saying. This is a public school, hence public meetings. Tapes of meetings were destroyed. Since when do we destroy tapes of public school board meetings?

The teaching of intelligent design consisted of the superintendent walking into a classroom to read a statement and walking out. That is not teaching intelligent design. That is this board mandating what is being said in class. To teach you must also give the students time to learn, and to learn they must be able to ask questions. This was not done. It was one-sided, and that one side was the incumbent school board. Period.

Buckingham twice underwent treatment for drug abuse. Shortly after creating this mess, he leaves Dover. Now what message does that send? These people are supposed to be setting examples for our children. Instead, they have made a mockery of our town.

We do not know many of the candidates personally, so we were able to see the picture more clearly and not base our votes on friendships. We truly based our votes on the truth. It is time for the new school board to be sworn in and bring respect back to the board, negotiate a teachers contract fairly and without threats to the teachers. It is time our town begins to heal.

Does Mr. Robertson have all the facts? No. Therefore, he should stay out of our town. He has no right to say what he did. He owes us all an apology.

Oh, by the way, see you in church, Mr. Robertson. You can find us filling the seats at Calvary Lutheran on Sunday mornings. Services start at 9 a.m. if you would like to join us.

Jill R Dover PA

I would like to think that proponents of ID are coming from the angle of general revelation, which simply states that creation points you to God.

— Kenny

Posted by Kenny on November 17, 2005 06:35 PM (e) (s) I appreciate your responses. I appreciate the respect in your responses. A few things:...

There is a document called "the Wedge" (which was published by the DI some years ago)