301. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104826 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I think there is a baic question that needs to be asked.

Why would an exorcist be requested in the first place? What would the circumstances be?

Lets say someone was acting oddly, maybe dangerously - presumably if it wasnt due to alcohol or drugs, then the first port of call would be medical help or the police

And if it was someone with a history of mental illness, then presumably the pieces would fall into place.

I suspect that the exorcism / demon possession thing kicks in when we are dealing with a cult / sect or whatever. Where the first diagnosis on encountering weird behaviour is "demon possession - get an exorcist" And then anything is possible

Surely it would be family or close friends of the "patient" who would request this service.

I am just trying to think of examples.

1) If someone threw a wobbler in the main street, they'd probably get picked up by the police.

2) If the same thing happened in a traditional church, I suspect soemthing similar would happen if it were bad enough.

3) If it happened during a pentecostal assembly....

Its easy for rationalists to say "its all crap anyway, theres no god, no demons, none of that stuff" So for most of us here, then bizzare behaviour is probably mental illness

If however you have been indoctrinated to believe in this sort of woo-woo, its a different matter. Beside, you have already bought into the "spiritual" realm, all that stuff about "principalities and powers" and higher orders that are not earthly. So demons become a matter of fact. Biblical, incontrovertible fact.

Presumably they can distinguish between real mental illness and their perceived "demon possession" cant they? Or are all mental health disorders demonic?

Wouldnt surprise me, after all, the evangies consider all physical illness to be a consequence of sin.

302. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104778 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Sleep of Reason:

2 points:

1) Hey, chill.. Mr DArcy mentioned Magnum Force and when on the movie theme I immediately thought of the Police Academy movies.... never mind... I'll shut up.

2) On a serious note, that story of yours is horrendous. There was also an incident in New Zealand where someone died during an "exorcism" which shows that this sort of stuff has a deadly side to it.

There is an interesting Wikipedia entry on Demon Possession in the bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession#Demonic_possession_in_the_Bible

Notice that nearly all of it is in the Gospels, very little in the OT or the NT letters. Given that Christians set a very high value on the Gospels, you would think that the business of demon possession would rank a lot higher and be discussed a lot more.

Thankfully, this doesnt seem to be the case certainly amongst the mainstream churches, but it sounds like it is more common among pentecostal and charismatic ones.

And as the traditional churches decline and the pentecostals / charismatics take their place, thne presumably we will hear more about it in due course.

All the more reason to challenge it now.

303. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104759 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 11:14 am

Mr DArcy, LOL! Police Academy!

You know this exorcism story represents an incredibly rich seam of "un-reason" content. A real "gold in them thar hills" type of report.

- I suspect that the postings and the humo(u)r will go on for quite some time.....

:-))))))
SG

304. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104692 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 6:04 am

The original web site interview is here:

http://www.papanews.it/dettaglio_interviste.asp?IdNews=4691#a

Unfortunately, I dont speak Italian!

Of course as has been hinted at, it could just be a kite flying exercise to see what the reaction is. However, there is still widespread belief in exorcism throughout the churches.

There is an "exorcism centre" apparently on the Polish - German border.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20071219/93249816.html

And in this article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4300005a10.html

the pastor involved talks about exorcism at length. And as I would have suspected, he mentions it in connection with, guess what? You'll never guess, "pentecostalism and charismatic churches" Yep, the good old "shine jesus shine" brigade.

Actually, I have a theory that this "demon possession" thing is actually a faith-head achilles heel. Few talk about it. I suspect most of them are slightly embarassed about it (like in the same way they dont mention hell). Its the sort of subject they should be challenged on up front and have their noses rubbed in. Certainly, the only ones I ever hear talking about this sort of thing are the real charismaniac whack-jobs.

SG

305. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104656 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 4:44 am

Paula:

He apparently uses the Old Rite of Exorcism because he says the New Rite does not work.


Yes, thats a cracker. Immediately brings to mind that WONDERFUL film, "The Devils" with Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave. The scene where the witchfinder (or whatever hes called) is beating the f*ck out of Reed, screaming "Confess! Confess!!"

I presume that what is portrayed in that scene is the "Old Rite"....

SG

PS As for Oliver Reed, well, his quotes are something else:

"You meet a better class of people in pubs."

"My only regret is that I didn't drink every pub dry and sleep with every woman on the planet."

"I'm not a villain, I've never hurt anyone. I'm just a tawdry character who explodes now and again."

306. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104638 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 3:38 am

Hah! Good thread this one - havent laughed so much since the heady days of the Wee Flea.

Here's an obituary to a recently departed whack job who was also very much into this "Satan" stuff but from a position 180 degrees from old Ratty

Pastor Jack Glass - obituary:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/27/db2702.xml

Heres a little excerpt if you cant be arsed reading the whole thing:

When he was diagnosed with lung cancer last year, he regarded the tumour as a "personal attack" by Satan, who was trying to steal his voice "to destroy Christ's message". When doctors gave him the all clear around the turn of this year, he proclaimed his recovery an "amazing miracle". The Devil had suffered a tremendous defeat. "I've lived to see the Devil run away. I'm like Lazarus, who rose from the grave."

But a few weeks later it emerged that the cancer had spread to his brain.

307. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104630 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 3:16 am

Ah, f*ck it.

Heres a good pic:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/220105dio.jpg

Go on Ratty, deal with that!

(Good album as well....)

308. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104628 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 3:11 am

Its not just the RCs either. A lot of evangies (esp the charismaniac types) are right into thius "demon posession" BS as well. They HAVE to be. Its in their holy book whcih CANNOT be wrong.

I know of a couple of evangie fundies who, when they fell on hard times and had various illnesses and stuff, reckoned that "they were under attack" from evil forces. I kid you not.

And I rememeber reading not so long ago about how a preacher was bemoaning the fact that we dont pay enough attention to the "middle order" - angels, demons and all that stuff. (Middle presumably between heavenly state and earthly state)

This sort of woo-woo nonsense is only useful for one thing: providing lyrics for heavy metal music a la Dio, Blackmore, Iron Maiden et al!

(Mind you - these guys are probably demon-posessed according to the religites...)

309. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104594 by scottishgeologist on December 29, 2007 at 1:20 am

Brian Coughlan brings up a point which I think is a whole debate in itself. Justy how does religion actually infect people the way it does? One of the things that I have often wondered about is the "conversion experience" For a lot of people this is a powerful life changing (literally) experience when they "get saved"

It would be easy to say "Pah! emotional crap" but there must be a lot more to it than just a cozy feeling. For many people this is it, proof of God, proof of the Holy Spirit working in the unbeliever's heart.

I am not talking about the types who "decide" to become christians ( a lot of calvinists would dismiss that anyway as works and not grace) but those who seriously believe that their lives are changed.

In a lot of cases, and a lot of evangies I know, we are not talking about wing nuts - these are people who otherwise seem quite normal and sane.

I would really like to know what actually goes on "in there"

310. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104417 by scottishgeologist on December 28, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Roger

Gonna have to disagree with you here, mate. I think there are some YECs who are VERY intelligent. The best example I can think of off hand is Kurt Wise

See here:

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

Dawkins himself has referred to him on this site as an "honest creationist"

A lot of the evangie types I know are actually highly qualified, some of whom are undoubtedly YECs. That Ken Ham tour of Scotland a few months ago took in a LOT of the types of churches that these otherwise intelligent people go to - I am talking hospital consultants, accountants, doctors, middle managers, people like that.

OK, some of them wont be YEC, but I know several who swallow it all.

I think it all boils down to this business of compartmemtalisation.

In fact, I honestly think that the toughest nut to crack is the middle class, well heeled SUV driving, suburb living type evangie. The so called "successful" churches in this country are full of this type of person. And they are absoultely sure that they have got it right.

I know many of them. This is the type that prays for a sick person, the person dies, they explain it away as being "god had other plans for them"

Every way you turn with this sort of evangie delusionist it is win-win (for them) every time.

311. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104224 by scottishgeologist on December 28, 2007 at 6:39 am

And again:

the best support our new church would offer was to "pray"

312. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104162 by scottishgeologist on December 28, 2007 at 3:04 am

One of the worst of the prosperity evangelists is Robert Tilton. He claimed that poverty was a consequence of sin.

Tilton got mercilessly parodied in the "pastor Gas " videos. These used to be on YouTube but must have got pulled. Absolutely hilarious so it was.

However, just noticed that there are new "farting preacher" videos. Try this one for a laugh (and aparently, she is a prosperity theologist as well...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI-7UMzMc5k

313. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104148 by scottishgeologist on December 28, 2007 at 2:39 am

Two words that explain the root and cause of this evil, (for there is no other word for it) : "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic"

Even the preacher Campbell Morgan described pentecostalism as the "last vomit of satan"

Morgan was wrong of course. Vomit comes from the stomach. This f*cking evil BS has its provenance in the rectum


This sort of thing is also found in that irritating "Prayer of Jabez" nonsense that was fashionable a few years ago:

If you can stand it, there is an article here:

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

NB: the ussual Wikipedia caveats apply, but AFAICS, and from what I already know, it is accurate

SG

314. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #103976 by scottishgeologist on December 27, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Mr DArcy:

Still from Mary's point of view, better to have been shagged by a god, than never to have been shagged at all.

315. Top Ten Stories of 2007

Comment #103908 by scottishgeologist on December 27, 2007 at 9:54 am

Hey, speaking about Pat Robertson, it will soon be time for more of his failed predictions:

http://exchristian.net/2/2007/01/pat-robertson-prophecies-mass-killing.html

Wonder what bunnies he'll pull out of his hat for 2008?

316. Top Ten Stories of 2007

Comment #103906 by scottishgeologist on December 27, 2007 at 9:49 am

beauroland

I remember reading somewhere an explanation that the "earth as it is is a place of sin and banishment, that it is no longer the "garden of eden" and that as such it will only be redeemed when there is a "new heavens and a new earth"

Which after all, is standard bible based stuff.

Thats why a lot of evangies dont care - Jesus is due back real soon now, so go ahead, evangies, drive your SUVs, consume like theres no tomorrow and live your prosperity theology lifestyle. As for the poor and the 3rd world, f*ck em, they're either muzzies, Latin American "liberation theologists" (ie Marxists) or other such "unsaved trash".

Besides, if you care for the planet, you are probably a hippy, tree-hugging, homo, feminist enabling, liberal, evolutionist, atheist, pagan, abortionist type. And another thing, you caused 9-11. Pat Robertson said so. And he's annointed. He gets "words" from "The Lord"


Praise the Lord!!!

317. Top Ten Stories of 2007

Comment #103832 by scottishgeologist on December 27, 2007 at 2:20 am

"The events, people, and debates of the past year that Christianity Today's editors believe have shaped, or will significantly shape, evangelical life, thought, or mission."

Interesting that they recognise the significance of Point 2

Reminds me of a comment made by Margaret Thatcher, something along the lines of: "In 1979 no-one would have foreseen the effect we had on the economy. But it was nothing like the effect we had on the opposition"

In other words, Labour had to become Tory to become electable.

Wonder if the rise of rationalism will have the same effect on the faith heads? Religion has had the "ball at its foot" for too long now. Time for them to face up to the new reality. The emperor lies naked.

Just remembered: almost 2 years since RD's program on Channel 4 "Root of all Evil?" Just think what has happened since then.

Have a good, rational, realist New Year when it comes!

SG

318. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100861 by scottishgeologist on December 19, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Epeeist, that story is wonderful! Please go into story-telling mode more often. Havent laughed so much in ages!

Actually, the way you told that reminded me of the late great Dave Allen, whose approach to catholicism was sublime.

Regarding the catholic thing generally, I know a lot of catholics - most of them are seriously cool about religion - I would call them "cultural catholics" as much as anything else. Most I know enjoy a good drink, a bit of gambling, plenty of sex, the odd "substance" , loads of dancing and "worldly pleasures" - hey these folks are cool to be with! OK, they go to mass, but how much of that is cultural and habitual?

I reember being on a cahrter flight from Shannon to Aberdeen in the early 80s when I worked offshore (did a stint offshore Ireland) The stewardess sitting opposite me was the most gorgeous woman I had ever seen - long red hair, piercing green eyes and a voice you would kill for! And she crossed herself as the plane took off.

Man, I would have "converted", that minute, just to spend an evening with her.

By the way, the Irish crew of that rig I worked on, had an hour long strike and ran a black flag up the derrick the day that Bobby Sands died....

319. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99511 by scottishgeologist on December 17, 2007 at 12:11 am

Just hada thought, and if you think it is pish, then shoot it down...


Maybe this is some sort of "kite flying" exercise - you know, suggest something without it being totally serious, just to see what the reaction is.

And if it looks like a total lamer, then drop it and quickly move on, no big fuss, no great PR disaster, no great waste of time.

On the other hand, if the idea attracts a lot of positive interest and decent promises of funding, then re-frame it with a serious professional business plan and PR exercise.

Of course, this guy might just be an atheist winding everyone up!

:-)

SG

320. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99380 by scottishgeologist on December 16, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Brian, you're a very naughty boy! I've just posted a comment on that blog.... (the hell one)

SG

321. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99367 by scottishgeologist on December 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Hey, before I go, heres a page that says a bit more about this nutjobbery:

http://www.prattle.net/archives/002311.html

Brilliant!

SG

322. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99362 by scottishgeologist on December 16, 2007 at 12:50 pm

A bit of googling:

the web site for this lunacy is www.ahtrust.net Warning: It tries to throw a pop-up window, from every page - the window seems to have the "zebraagency.co.uk" in the title.

There is an annual report on the site:

http://www.zebraagency.co.uk/hall/7articles/Annual_Report_07.doc

Notice that the zebr agency is hsting the site. Although the ahtrust.net address is registered through UK2, it actually re-directs to the zebr agaency site, although the URL is masked. ie a cheap operation!

Did a google for this "Dennis Rodenko" chap. Who the F is he? Nothing at all comes up. New creationist kid on the block?

I really dont know how this thing will work out. They are right abou one thing though, the churches ARE beooming more liberal, and the evangies dont like it. What we have in the UK is a situation where the major denominations are evaporating through liberalism and the fundy evangie types are being concentrated in the charismaniac independent churches that are less easy to monitor IMO.

From what I gather about Ken Ham's recent tour, the Scottish leg wasnt exactly a raging success. And interestingly, he stuck to exactly the type of church I outlined above.

Any of you English correspondents here know how he did in England?

There was also that tosser John Mackay doing the rounds. According to his website:

"After a very succesful visit to Britain in Oct. & Nov. 2007 John Mackay will be next here in the second part of 2008"

Great.

Cant find any references to how "succesful" it was anywhere else though.

SG

323. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99243 by scottishgeologist on December 16, 2007 at 3:49 am

Anyone remember that incident where a guy was shot dead in an argukment over bible quoting:

http://www.thisistrue.com/graven_image_5043.html

FFS....

SG

324. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #98258 by scottishgeologist on December 13, 2007 at 11:42 am

There is another aspect to all this "hijab head covering" business, and it isnt all just Islam.

In the conservative presbyterian tradition that I was brought up in, women wore hats to church. Not as a fashion statement, although there was probably a competitive element of that in it,but because "the bible said so" In particular, in 1st Corinthians:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

AND:

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head

AND

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

Pure Genesis style misogyny.

And there are several churches in Scotland which adhere to this today. Strictly in some cases.

The interesting thing for me is that , if you were to look at a Church of Scotland (ie absolute mainstream) congeregation about 50 - 60 years ago, ALL the women would have had hats. Few today, only the fundies.

The question for the evangelicals in particluar is why? Was it just a "tradition" to be dispensed with (and as such wasnt the "word of god" anyway?)

Or did "god" appear to someone with a "word" and say, "hey guys, you know that "head covering" rule? Its now null and void. Because I say so. No more hats" cool? yo, dude.

The answer of course, is the liberalising of the mainstream churches. They are slowly drifting from the fundie, misogynist BS.

Hopefully Islam wil catch up

SG

By the way, the same churches that demand women to wear hats, also insisty on "no trousers" (or if you are American , "no pants" an absoilutely HILARIOUS idea to us Brits! :-) Only teasing guys.

And just to add to thisd heady mix, some REALLY fundie types dont let their women cut their hair. OK, dont get excited, it doesnt hang dowmn, mane like , like some porn actress, its usually up in a bun.

Mind you, some of them still manage to look kinda hot, in that "milf" sort of way......

325. The art of the soluble

Comment #95761 by scottishgeologist on December 9, 2007 at 6:41 am

More Tudge stuff here:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,,1042375,00.html

This guy sounds liek some sort of liberal. Cant imagine his POV going down to well amongst the evangies...

326. The art of the soluble

Comment #95759 by scottishgeologist on December 9, 2007 at 6:31 am

First came across reviews of this book on Amazon. You all might like to see what your old chum David "Wee Flea" Robertson (banned from this site I believe?) has to say about it- (its on this Amazon page, second one down):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A17G1ZDVI3CXE1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview



But just one point on that review above:

Religion, by contrast, accepts the limitations of our senses and brains and posits at least the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye - a meta-dimension that might be called transcendental. Dawkins talks of religion not simply as "faith" but as "blind faith" - yet this, as Lennox points out, is a simple calumny. The greatest theologians, beginning at least as early as St Paul and continuing through Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Newman and again into modern times, have never been "blind". All have stressed the need to take account of the facts of the case (the thing that science is good at) and to engage the intellect: absolutely not to believe things blindly

327. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #94939 by scottishgeologist on December 7, 2007 at 3:05 am

This reminds me of a thread that appeared on the web forum of Wee Fleas church a few years ago. One of the posters (a christian, or at least a "church goer") had posted soemthing about "theistic evolution", the idea that "God" used evolution to bring about the present day species diversity over a long period of time

In other words, evolution, old earth, no YEC, no 6 day creation etc etc. Or if you like a way to fit religion and science into the same bed

However, one of the other posters, who was obviously a lot more conservative, pointed out that theistic evolution drives a coach and horses (his words) right through Christian theology, in particular the idea of Fall - Sin - Redemption. If there is no "Adam" then there was no "Fall". No "FAll" no "SIn" no "Sin" no need for a "Saviour"

And presumably no Hell, no eternal suffering etc

The second poster was actually correct to point this out IMO

If Christians REALLY believe what there holy book tells them, there is no way that theistic evolution can be shoe-horned in. It simplly does not work

Once mionisters start talking about theo-evo, they are well down the road to atheism. It is an inevitable end point

And finally, this very point was picked up on by the Victorian preacher Spurgeon, reckoned to be the greatest evangelical preacher of his day. Spurgeon reckoned that "there was no stopping off point between Calvinism and atheism" Once a church starts to become liberal and starts to move from a fundy position, this process becomes irresistable

This is exactly what we are seeing, and may in part explain the degree to which evangies have become so vociferous and conservative.

328. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94662 by scottishgeologist on December 6, 2007 at 7:37 am

Ah Philip, that reminds me. Havent yet seen the sign "Jesus is the reason for the season" Only a matter of time....

Any other sickening, mawkish cliches out there?

Yes I know "Christmas Time, Mistletoe and Wine, Children singing Christian rhyme..."

(puts 2 fingers down throat and chunders violently)


:-)

SG

329. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94645 by scottishgeologist on December 6, 2007 at 6:36 am

Phasmagigas - re Christmas trees. I just love it when they put these pagan symbols up in churches. Even evangie churches do it. And that amuses me even more.

Just goes to show, what I have often suspected, esp about the evangies.. They CLAIM to believe one thing and be all "godly" and "bible believing" In practice, its another thing entirely.

But then, put on a Christmas show in church and you'll get lots of people in. Good for church funds.

Keep it austere and anti-pagan (ie biblical) and do you think they'll turn up?

Hypocrites the lot of them

330. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94640 by scottishgeologist on December 6, 2007 at 6:26 am

Re the slaughter of the innocents. I think it was the historian Josephus who referred to these times in a lot of detail, yet makes no mention of the slaughter.

Of course, the apologist get round this by saying that Herod was so bad, that massacres happened all the time and this was just another one. No need for any special note.

Note also that it is "children under 2" who get killed. This is one of the pointers that shows that Christ was NOT a baby at the time. Just like how Mattehew refers to the Wise Men visiting a "house" And also that Jesus is described as a "young child" not a baby

It is clear that even if the biblical accounts in Matthew and Luke have even a shred of truth in them, that they relate to two totally different periods in the life of Jesus, possibly 2 years apart.

Yet children (and adult) get indoctrinated with this crap every year.

And all played out against a soundtrack of ghastly embarassing Christmas carols "we three "kings" for example and that awful "away in a manger" Note the line "no crying he makes" Jesus, supposedly fully Man and Fully God, yet being a baby doesnt cry. Yet he wept over Jerusalem.

You can go on and on and on picking holes in this junk till theres nothing left but holes holding the whole tissue of BS together

Man, the whole thing must be an incredibly powerful comfort blanket.

Think I'll now just head off for "carols by candlelight" followed by "mince pies and mulled wine" fellowship . Gosh, that'll be so fantastically spiffing wont it? Accompanied of course by Cliff Richards "Misteltoe and Wine"

Puked yet, you lot?

Sorry! :-))))))

SG

331. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94547 by scottishgeologist on December 6, 2007 at 1:18 am

Northern Bright, et al, just a couple of little points - Luke doesnt mention the "star" - it is only mentioned in matthew.

Also, it is never described as bright. This is something that has been read into it. Herod is described as having to ask about the star, so it couldnt have been too obvious (if visible at all)

Regarding conjunctions, when astronomers talk of conjunctions, they dont normally refer to a planet directly positioned over another planet or star. That is an EXTREMELY rare event. Conjunctions ususally refer to two planets being CLOSE together, maybe a couple of degrees.

By using astronomical planetarium type software, you can plot all the conjunctions going back 1000s of years - there certainly werent any "two planets appearing as one" type events anywhere near the dates in question.

There are actualy only 2 explanations for the SOB -

1) It was "midrash" Basically Matthew made it up (lied like a cheap rug in other words...) This keeps the liberal christians happy

2) It was a supernatural event, visible only to the wise men. An example, perhaps of the "shekinah" the glory of God that appears as a bright light (Cf Pauls conversion, the transfiguration etc.) This explanation keeps the fundies happy (and is completely unfalsifiable)

I actually studied the SOB in great detail several years ago during my fundie days (shame, shame, shame... yes I know....) What Christians actually think they believe and what the Bible actually says are almost two different things

Of course, looking for an explanation is a waste of time anyway, since the whole thing is a pile o' pish....

Have a cool Yule, y'all!

SG

332. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92303 by scottishgeologist on November 30, 2007 at 8:59 am

The terminology in this is confusing. It makes out that there are 3 subsets of Christians - BAC's, Protestants and Catholics. And then it goes on to say that BACs are a subset of evangelical Protestants.

Of course, as far as the real BAC fundies are concerned, "cathylicks" (thanks to landover for that one!) are not real Christians. Mind you I did hear an evangie refer to a RC woman she knew as a "Catholic Christian"

Neither would liberal protestants be considered christians either.

In fact in my own experience, among evangelical types here in Scotland, unless you are a BAC, then you are not "saved" and are not really a Christian either. OK, they might claim you are a "nominal" Christian, but you're not "truly saved" They talk pish about "having that blessed assurance" and "being converted" or "coming to know the Lord"

I reember being quite shocked the first time I heard an evangie say that his "minister was definitely a Christian". FFS. Apparently there are a lot that arent.... (Kinda like being an MP, but not being a politician?!?). Fundies say the darndest things....

I know quite a few evangie types who are into this "satan" crap and who think that when they have misfortune in their lives , its because they are "under attack" and need to be "prayed for", that there are evil spirits out there and all this woo-woo crap.

Mind you, on the other hand, if you believe that tere is a big angry fairy in the sky and a big eternal hot fire that he's got for you, and that there is such a thing as a "supernatural realm" then it kinda behoves you to believe in all the other ghosts and ghouls and woo-woo stuff....

333. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92221 by scottishgeologist on November 30, 2007 at 4:49 am

Incredulous, you are quite right. The kids are the ones that are going to miss out, all because of this medieaval BS called religion.

Hitchens comment that religion poisons everything is indeed most apt here, except of course, the evangie types in the west will get round it by claiming that its all because of the FALSE religion of Islam, not the version of the venom that they hold dear of course because only they HAVE THE TRUTH!!!

And of course the liberal christian types will come out with that appeasement BS about "extremists" and "majority of MODERATE muslims"(surely an oxymoron)

I notice that that bearded hippie wizard, the archbishop of Canterbury was singing the praises of how muzzies "do " faith the other day:

"Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, commended the Muslim practice of praying five times a day, which he says allows the remembrance of God to be "built in deeply in their daily rhythm."

But it appears that he is also on the offensive:

"As the diplomatic war intensified, the Most Rev Rowan Williams launched a stinging attack on the decision, branding it "self-destructive absurdity".

He said: "I can't see any justification for this at all. I think this is an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at worst a cultural faux pas."

Wow! That'll really have them quaking. Go on Bish, wave a balloon on a stick at them, tell them you are rather cross, and watch them cower. Twat.

334. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90806 by scottishgeologist on November 26, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Regarding the way that these guys try to reconcile contradictory viewpoints, you only need to read about people like Andrew Snelling:

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

This article is an excellent read and just about says it all. Here are a couple of quotes from it, both from the same guy:

"For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."


AND:

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

"The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

And as the author of the article (Alex Ritchie) states "There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years

The bottom line is that when these guys have their "missionary" hats on, they come out with this 6000 year old, YEC, 24 hour day BS.

When they put on their hard hats to pay the bills, then its back to established geological truth.

Chancers the lot of them!

335. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90803 by scottishgeologist on November 26, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Guys,

I was wondering what happened to the Wee Flea - got banned did he?

Oh boy, is that church magazine link not something else? David Robertson is obviously obssessed by Dawkins now - I wonder what his other church buddies make of it? I actually think I know the answer to that one....

Anyway, how about this:

The Monthly Record asked Richard Dawkins to write a 1,000 word article responding to the printed critiques of his work
by Christians. We assured him that this piece would be unedited and initially he seemed to be interested. However, we
received a message from his office stating that he could not do it in the time scale. So we offered him another month. We
have received no further reply. So we are delighted that Daniel O'Hara, a former atheist and fan of Dawkins, offers us his
own perspective.

336. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87821 by scottishgeologist on November 13, 2007 at 9:04 am

Hah! Remember the Polo advert featuring a car bomber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbcADoSz9bg

Brilliant!

Oh yeah, theres an article about Clarkson slagging off another Malaysian car:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/news/article1618049.ece

You know, I have never heard him talking about it, but something tells me that Jeremy Clarkson on religion would be very funny...

337. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87790 by scottishgeologist on November 13, 2007 at 6:16 am

Philip

Yeah, I saw that one - what a cracker!

Just missed a Darwin award by the sounds of things

Almost as bad as the Turk, several years ago, who tried to remove a tooth by shooting it out with a handgun. Killed himself....

338. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87605 by scottishgeologist on November 12, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Oh boy, I just cant wait till Jeremy Clarkson gets let loose on one of these.

That'll be a "Top Gear" worth treasuring....

And probably a fatwa as well!

339. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87496 by scottishgeologist on November 12, 2007 at 9:41 am

For church signs and kitsch, one of the best places is "Ship of Fools"

www.shipoffools.com

In particular, Church Signs:

http://www.shipoffools.com/Signs/signs/index.html

And if you want a laugh and a half, try the "Gadgets for God"

http://www.shipoffools.com/Gadgets/index.html

Actually, worst, absolute worst ever church sign I ever saw was:

"C-H- -R-C-H"
Whats missing?

"U" are.....

Honest, it was that bad. I felt sick.

SG

PS: Oh yes, ther is that horrible, cloying, wakish piece of verbal pish: "Carpenter seeks joiners"

340. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87267 by scottishgeologist on November 11, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Dr Benway:

PhD in physics working as a special needs teacher? Something is wrong with that dude

341. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87253 by scottishgeologist on November 11, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Fuck em. Pull up the drawbridge and enforce a strict immigration policy: If you're a muzzie, you dont get in. End of story. No .not quite. FUCK OFF! There ,I feel better.... :-)

342. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #87011 by scottishgeologist on November 11, 2007 at 1:47 am

Steveroot "Yes, No , Wait"

I once had the misfortune to attend a "mens retreat" which was full of charismatic types praying the usual "Lord we just want to ...." repeated ad nauseam

There was this pompous git who stood up at one point and gravely announced "God has 3 answers to prayer -Yes No and Wait" and then sat down.

Of course, there was much "amen brother" and sage nodding of heads. Man, it was embarassing. I think it was possibly that event that caused the trickle of doubt to turn into a full blown flood.

Actually, this business of "praying for rain" is actually quite useful. A lot of Christians would be embarassed by this. But why should they? After all their holy book promises them that whatever is asked for in "his name" they shall get.

Of course, what they tend to do is to pray like: "Father grant healing on this land" or "Lord we pray that your blessing might not be withheld" or " Grant us understanding Oh Lord to accept that your ways are higher than ours" or "we pray that your hand may be upon this child of god" and so on and on and on

In other words, when it is couched in verbose diarrhoea like this, it is sort of comforting, cozy, and acceptable. Gives them a warm fuzzy feeling and it sounds all very grand and stately.

Its all a pile of poo.

There is no difference whatsoever between praying this sort of stuff and asking specifically for rain, lower gas prices (honest, follow this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1898442&page=1


or for suuccess on the sports field.

And of course, "nothing fails like prayer"

SG

PS: Just noticed that the outfit that were resposnible for the "pray for lower gas prices" thing , praylive.com currently have a suspended web site:

www.praylive.com

However there is no escape for them. The whole sorry tale has been ensnared by web.archive.org and you can see it here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060911002919/http://praylive.com/events/LA_Prayer.htm


To quote Peter Cook and Dudley Moore: "Laugh? I nearly shat!"

343. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86715 by scottishgeologist on November 10, 2007 at 2:44 am

This nonsense happened last year as well, in Lubbock:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2006/07/24/lubbock_texas_plans_to_pray_for_rain/3430/

....sigh....

344. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86696 by scottishgeologist on November 10, 2007 at 1:53 am

The Bish is head of "Christ is the Answer Ministries" www.citam.org Looks like standard pentecostal, charismatic woo-woo stuff.

From what they believe:

"In the eternal conscious bliss of all true believers in Christ and in the eternal conscious punishment in the lake of fire for all Christ rejecters"

345. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86549 by scottishgeologist on November 9, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Its the same African Evangelicals of course who are fiercely homophobic.

And I must say, that "35 evangelical denominations" makes me wonder. 35? WTF? 35 denominations, and tht presumably doesnt include the Catholics?

So do they have names like "Free Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Kenya" as opposed to "United Presbyterian Reformed Evangelical Kenyan Church"?

Or maybe theres a "Reformed Orthodox Evangelical Presbyterian Free Baptist Charismatic Church of Kenya (Continuing) " in this heady mix of faith-head teams as well. The Judean Popular Front was nothing like this!

FFS, its bad enough here in Scotland where you have all these evangie churches with all sorts of subtle distinctives based on how the "inspired inerrant infallible WORD OF THE LORD" is read and applied.

And just think every one of those denominations will be SO SURE that their way is the only true way, that they possess THE TRUTH.

Religion poisons everything

SG

346. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85736 by scottishgeologist on November 7, 2007 at 1:05 am

Goldy,

That BBC link is horrifying:

"Like Ms Gough, Ms Underhill had said "no" to receiving blood while giving birth to twins because of rules on transfusions laid down by their religion.

Having been brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, Ms Underhill, now 32, from Peacehaven, near Brighton, says she believed she had no choice but to sign a form refusing blood treatment which had been handed to her by religious elders.

She says she feared being "disfellowshipped", or being rejected by the religion if she declined to sign. "

It is hard to find words strong enough to describe ones feelings of anger about this sort of cultishness.

347. Jesus Camp: A scary movie that should frighten us all

Comment #85614 by scottishgeologist on November 6, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Philip

Relax! Dont do it! Landover is a spoof site. Honest! Mind you, it is so brilliantly done (Chris Harper has to be one of the funniest guys around) that you really have to blink twice. Whenever I go to it , I ALWAYS come away grinning. It is the ultimate tonic and shows how humo(u)r is one of the most powerful of rationalist weapons. Oh yes and ridicule.

Be sure to check out the "Baptist sexuality" section and for a real hoot, try the "Hackers for Jesus" link:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0201/hackers.html

It is quite simply pant-wettingly funny....

348. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85525 by scottishgeologist on November 6, 2007 at 4:10 am

Quetz said:

I suspect that the husband will cling ever more tightly to his faith

349. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85470 by scottishgeologist on November 6, 2007 at 1:32 am

This story reminds me of another one involving another form of religious lunacy which can leave kids without parents. The story of Punkin Brown and his family. They were into "snake handling"

http://www.freeminds.org/legal/divide.htm

Heres part of it:

Evangelist John Wayne "Punkin" Brown picked up the three‑foot yellow timber rattlesnake while delivering one of his raucous sermons in Alabama in 1998.



"They say it won't bite," Brown bellowed as the rattler twisted itself into the shape of a V. "If it won't bite, there ain't no sense in being scared." But he had been bitten 22 times during his 18‑year career as a "snake‑handling" pastor of Southern Pentecostal churches.



"The Lord told me it was all right," Brown continued. "The Lord said it would be all right." But he knew things didn't always turn out "all right." His wife, Melinda, had been fatally bitten by a rattlesnake at a revival three years earlier.



Then, as the preacher hopped across the stage, history repeated itself. The rattler struck, biting Brown on his left middle finger. The ‑preacher paid little attention to the bite, and it took a while for the congregation to grasp the sad situation unfolding before them.



"God's still God, no matter what comes," said Brown, his voice fading. A woman in the congregation screamed, and other members anxiously mopped the dying preacher's forehead. "No matter what else, God's still God." Ten minutes later Brown was dead, and his five young children had become orphans.

350. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #82615 by scottishgeologist on October 27, 2007 at 1:24 am

Another example of the Scientific Method and how science is ultimately self-correcting and self-refining.

Well worth considering what Dawkins wrote, quoting Douglas Adams on the SM:

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says "I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday," you say, "I respect that."