Home grown crazies.

Hey, your signs are making God cry.

We’ve all seen the nutty mobs who want to kill folks for insulting their nuttiness. If they are half as crazy as the signs they tote around, it’s no wonder there’s an expendable supply of suicide bombers. One crazy blows up and another picks up the “kill more” sign and stomps around in the circle of outrage. When you see a scene like this one:

It’s easy to shake our heads at ‘them’ – to ask “Where are all those peace loving believers who say that the crazy few are giving them a bad name?” But of course, we have our own home grown crazies who are just as dangerously insane. Except, being in a culture where they must repress everything, it’s possibly a bit less predictable when one of these whack-jobs will open fire in an office building after getting fired for some bigoted comment or another.

Nothing cuter than a couple innocent girls in their “GotHatesFags.com” t-shirts! Another interesting lesson from these signs is that not only does God apparently hate fags, but he also hates fag enablers. Any guess on how prevalent evolution denial is among the god-hates-fags mob? I wonder if you could find one person on the face of the planet that would say, “Well, yeah, of course evolution is true. But God also hates fags.” Alas, given the menagerie of insanity around the globe, I’m sure maybe there’s one or two – but could you find the person? It’s probably easier to find someone with Klinefelter’s syndrome (a female has XX and a male has XY while one with this condition has XXY and clearly cannot avoid being hated by God, as s/he cannot avoid a problematic sexual existence.)

And check out this gal (Is that a little stick-pecker on the bent over stick guy?)

She seems to be thinking something to the effect of “Thank goodness this is only about gays, because I like it up the butt.”

Now lets move on to a whole new level of craziness. Tennessee crazies.  Let’s start with the fans of the ACLU

Worse than the Taliban? Really? I guess from the perspective of this God fearing Christian there’s a sort of perverse truth to the claim. While the Taliban makes even the wackiest Christian appear comparatively palatable, the ACLU is a constant thorn in the side of the theocrats. One supposes that there is a kind of tyranny-envy that such over-the-edge Christians suffer when looking at the Taliban, a kind of right-idea-but-wrong-religion dream. 

And then there’s the Obama-haters.

Well, I was on the fence, but this sound reasoning has won me over.  I like the seemingly random insult to the local police. There’s no shortage of crazy sign makers-

 

You had me at ‘got virgins?’… And “Obama’s Grandma is in Hell” – now that’s classic. Remember that article from a few months back about what it’s like to be a bat? To hell with that – what’s it like to be the guy who is making the sign “Obama’s Grandma is in Hell?” Who tramples on dead Grandmas? Jeese. Even with the 7 billion people on the planet – I’m thinking there actually may not be one who would say “Yeah evolution is true. And of course Obama’s Grandma is in hell.”  Another little amusing thing to wonder – How many of those who held one of the above signs (with that outraged look in their eyes) would claim that the Bible is pretty darn important to them? Not proof of anything, but a very interesting correlation.

At least there were a couple of poets in the throng…

Hades/Mercedes? – I think the cell phone you’re holding might have given you one of those brain tumors that makes you think you are more clever than you actually are.  And of course the cheap shot sucker-punch:

The only sane reaction to any of this nonsense is the perfectly expressive facepalm! (Plus one spontaneous combustion.)

Thankfully, amongst the stupid mobs and the scraps of lunacy they leave behind on their ridiculous signs – I did manage to find one inspiring message of hope…

jk

25 Comments to “Home grown crazies.”

  1. joek(old) 11 September 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    I agree, it takes a stupid person to carry a sign with a stupid message in a mob – including the message “Change”.

    How did you manage to get the Fine Arts theater to post an add for your web site?

  2. joek(old) 11 September 2010 at 6:38 pm #

    Still thinking about your signs. It is like trying to shout their hatred of some group or person louder than anyone else in the mob. But who are they shouting at?

    However, I can think of an effective sign to express my feelings today and it is the photo of the airliner crashing into the second tower. The message is ” This is what crazy religious zealots do”.

  3. MaryEl 11 September 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    I’m delighted that businesses are promoting this web site! I’m sure I’ll soon see a TryThought.com ad on a marquee in my area. Well done! As for all the signs you cite today–amazing what religion can do to some peoples’ brains. What ARE they thinking? Not thinking at all, I opine. Thanks (I think) for all the examples of utter stupidity. It is depressing, though.

  4. Kelly 13 September 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Have you ever THOUGHT to question those who actually live out the Christian life quite well or do you just have to consistently look to the wackos to prove your “points”?!

    • Jon K 13 September 2010 at 9:33 pm #

      Not when my point is that there are TOO MANY WACKOS! (I would include those who hold that the earth is six thousand years old, the creation story is literally true, a global flood happened, etc among the crazies. Such claims are equally as idiotic as ‘Obama’s a Muslim’ or whatever.) I would be more inclined to lend the system a bit of merit if there weren’t so many wackos and if their wackiness wasn’t completely consistent with much of the Bible’s insane messages. The problem with the system in general is that the crazies have the same shield you use – it’s my faith – Jesus is leading me. You can no more attack their spiritual revelation’s legitamacy than they can attack yours. That’s the flaw. I’ll agree that some Christians live a fine life in spite of these Biblical messages – but they usually treat the over-the-edge wackos taking such verses seriously like their crazy uncle who means well (after all – he is quoting the ‘good’ book.) Still, though, the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dynamics clearly has religious moderates aligned with these hate-spouting (but believing) extremests against perfectly civil non-believers. After all, even though the hate-monger is riddled with ‘sinful’ behavior (aren’t we all) – he still gets into club Jesus.

  5. Kelly 13 September 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    Hate-mongers in Heaven…, there won’t be any there, Jon.

    • Jon K 14 September 2010 at 8:14 am #

      You’ll have to correct my understanding of the entry rules. Since these folks are clearly
      1. Hate mongers and
      2. Believe in God (and misguided though they may be, meet the belief criteria embraced by protestant tradition.)
      My understanding is that in spite of sin state (1), belief state (2) is the gift which trumps any sin state (we’ll avoid discussion of “the unforgivable sin”.) The only way to keep hate mongers out is to take the position that even though the crazies ‘think’ they believe, their actions demonstrate that they surely do not because they violate the WWJD guidelines of kinder, gentler Christians. But then you are relegating the essence of belief away from the cognitive state of “I genuinely believe this to be true” and into a behavior qualification. Then there’s no such thing as a good-intentioned/behaved non-believer because in the same fashion, you must allow that they believe but simply aren’t aware of it. Slippery slope, however, because it is essentially the same thing as saying ‘belief’ doesn’t matter – only ‘works’ matter – which is emphatically expressed as not the case.

      So, looks like the God fearing hate-mongers have their 40 acres and a mule in East Nirvana. (Of course, you are free to claim that these nuts aren’t hate-mongers – but I think you have to take residence in Crazy-town to make that argument – kind of like arguing Hitler had good intentions.)

      (I should probably clarify, though I’d hope it’s obvious, that I’m referring to the many mean-spirited sign holders – not the girls in the video who fall into the moronic category.)

  6. Kelly 14 September 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    I would love to answer your question, for it is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer that makes the difference. It’s not enough simply to tout belief and act contrary to what you believe. A person is truly saved when Jesus is invited in as Lord. This is when true transformation took place in my life and a relationship between God and I began.

    “Hate signs” are not a part of God’s plan. He calls us to take the higher road. It doesn’t mean that morals suddenly dissipate and homosexuality for instance is promoted as great and healthy. Sadly, it is among other sins that people struggle with: hate, lust, addictions,etc.; none of which we would excuse as purely genetic and naturally good for us all. Can we have compassion for people? Certainly, yet it is the power of God that helps people overcome sin.

    If you’re really interested in this, check out James Ch.2:14-25, it’s excellent:-)!

  7. Kelly 14 September 2010 at 7:17 pm #

    Oops v.26 should be included in those: “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

  8. LeeS 14 September 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    I have not read the scripture yet, but the question I have is. You seem to be insinuating that someone who has accepted Jesus, really accepted Jesus is incapable of sin.

    Jon is simply stating that the person holding the signs more than likely are convinced that their belief in the salvation of Jesus pretty much assures them a spot in the cool place, vs the hot place.

    I mean we all sin, and we all sin all the time, right? That is the whole purpose of getting Jesus help, because without it, there is nothing we can do to get there.

  9. LeeS 14 September 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Oh one more thing. The girls that jon referred to is from the Poe post not this one. Interested in your thoughts on this one. Please do not let the beginning bias you to much.

  10. Kelly 15 September 2010 at 2:33 am #

    Lee, whether these people holding the signs are convinced or not, is not really the issue, it’s whether they are truly willing to let the Lord lead them and do they possess the Holy Spirit to even know the difference. Yeah, Christians with great intentions still sin from time to time, but there should be no willful disobedience or habitual sin, for the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. Fact is one who is filled with the Holy Spirit has very little desire to grieve the Holy Spirit.

    I did not watch whatever it was Jon posted on the girls. I just prefer not to.

  11. Jon K 15 September 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    Kelly, I understand the argument you are making and empathize completely. But there are a couple of important problems associated with your theoloical position. First, the people we are discussing are not hateful in all aspects of their existence. Most love their children and families, give to charities, provide support to those in their religious communities in need, etc. So, as Lee noted, they are not without good works – many most probably try hard to be good.

    The problem is that their hateful messages are not inconsistent with the Bible. If Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 are reflective of God’s perspective – then what’s inaccurate about the signs they hold? – if God’s law says they should be put to death, he hates them. You only kill the thing you love in the Oscar Wilde sense:

    And all men kill the thing they love,
    By all let this be heard,
    Some do it with a bitter look,
    Some with a flattering word,
    The coward does it with a kiss,
    The brave man with a sword!

    (Not in the all-loving divinity sense.) I certainly applaud the moderate Christian stance which holds that of course giving any credibility to these commands would be a vile, unacceptable, hateful way to treat people. The problem is that the book that is being held up before these people as the perfect, divine, infallible word of God (and you better heed it or else!) tells them that homosexuals deserve to die. You can hem and haw about interpretations and new covenants all you want – but obvious to one who uses his or her mind, the book is utterly wrong.

    Also, I’m sure you are aware of the verses that contradict James 2:17 & 2:25. Namely – Galatians 2:16 (A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.); Galatians 3:11-12 (The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith.); Romans 3:28 (A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.); Titus 3:5 (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us…)

    It is not the bible which guides contemporary social improvements, but a progressing sense of collective decency – respect for an individual’s rights to find his own course of happiness. While I do not deny religion has played an important part in human progress – it has been progress in spite of the scriptural dogma – not because of. Faith in the literal infallibility of the text has alowly given way to rational thinking (unlike the case of the Middle East.)

    To people like Lee and I, the ongoing necessity that Christians have in maintaining that the Bible is objective truth, the arguments of apologists come across as looking exactly like someone saying, “The Bible is the ultimate in truth, just like it always has been…only it MEANS something other than what it says.” Christians seem to find this notion profound, but what it really says is that it doesn’t mean anything at all. (Simply tailor the interpretation to fit the group in power’s agenda.)

  12. Kelly 15 September 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    The hateful messages are not consistent with the Bible, because God does not call us to vengence. He states very cleartly in the Old Testament that it belongs to Him. Jesus says in John 14:9 “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” So you misunderstand God and the Bible completely when you refuse to recognize that He and Jesus are ONE. Apart from Him there is no redeemption. The reedeemed know the Redeemer and love Him. God’s goal is that He conform us more and more into the image of Christ. There is no hate involved in the process.

  13. LeeS 15 September 2010 at 10:03 pm #

    Kelly, yes He does in the old testament. ie He does call on us, humans, followers, to kill in His name. I will leave it for Jon (he knows where to look) to find the exact verse(s). You just cannot say that stuff is not in there, because it very clearly is. So Jon find the one, or many, post. And then you can say why it is not there. But it pretty clearly is. Are you saying that there are no verses like that at all? I am confused.

  14. Keith 15 September 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    Thought I might add something here. I would consider my ability to thoroughly understand the Old Testament Scripture juvenile having received only basic Theological training and not having practiced indepth, detailed and, may I dare say, scientific study of the text.

    After reading through the posts above I would say the level of understanding of the text in question, in context with the culture/time, with deference to the Hebrew language and the Bible in total is infantile.

    I would highly recommend detailed study of the text in its original language taking into consideration the time and culture it was written in and the audience it was originally written for with the goal of understanding ‘what did it say then’ prior to trying to understand ‘what does it say now’. If this is done with an ‘open mind’ I submit there will be enlightenment and benefit.

  15. Jon K 16 September 2010 at 9:15 am #

    Lee, try Leviticus 24:16 – (to get the context start at 24:10). Here God commands the stoning for the sin of blaspheme. There are many similar death warrants issued in the old testament for various social crimes.

    I will go ahead and save Kelly the effort of replying, though. The justification involves Jesus’ new covenant with man as presented in the new testament (symbolized by Jesus’ recommendation on the punishment of a prostitute – “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” Not that blaspheme, or homosexuality, or working on the sabbath, etc, should be acceptable, but that you don’t stone these folk anymore, but rather they can either repent of their sins or not. Ultimately, according to these sins the signs are right, if you persist in your gayness (or whatever) God does have a plan for you…death or eternal torment, or however you interpret it. So the law is clearly stated, but superceded.

    Nothing changes with the penalty, though, which is the important part. I can comprehend the concept of a tyrant God constructed by the simpletons who wrote these old testament books, but this is not a loving God – even if he kindly defers your miserable death.

    Keith, if one can’t properly understand the translation without knowing the original, then the translation should not be wielded as it is. Cultural context cannot be used if you are arguing for absolute truths. Also, most Biblical historians hold that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. (And even if Jesus knew Hebrew, the common people of that time/region spoke Aramaic; therefore, he would have spoke that language.) I believe the earliest known new testament documents are Greek, so the new testament was already essentially a translation from the word of Jesus (not to mention recorded many decades later.) The idea of corruption through translation you seem to argue for would cast doubt onto being able to appropriately understand the new testament at all.

    My opinion is that the Bible is misunderstood not by failing to understand Hebrew, but by assuming it is the literal, absolute truth as revealed by a god, rather than simply as man’s fallible attempt at trying to understand the numinous. I don’t doubt that there are absolute truths, but the Bible doesn’t record them and we don’t know them.

  16. Kelly 16 September 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Keith’s not here to respond this morning, but I think you miss a very important point. The Bible was written over a 1,600 year period of time, and it contains 66 books. Each book was written to a specific group of people, church or person for a specific reason. So, Keith is not just saying study the Hebrew, but that you need to know and understand the audience to whom this was written.

    When I look at Leviticus 20:13 today: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have DONE what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads,” I see that God is clear and absolute on this that homosexuality is detestable, deserving of death. He in NO way insinuates that the persons involved are detestable to Him. As Keith mentioned the Bible is to be understood as a whole, you don’t simply point to Leviticus Ch.20 and say we better start putting these people to death, because God hates them. He doesn’t. What does the rest of the Bible say?! Now if you want to argue ignorance and “dangerous” ideology, we could look at Hitler’s firm belief in evolution, “the survival of the fittest” and his misguided determination to try and create a “supreme race” as dangerously wacked! Yet people who understand the Bible as a whole are NOT misguided when they live their lives according to His Word and as He would personally have them to. It’s the entire Bible that alone stands out when it comes to placing the HIGHEST amount of regard and value on human life. And YES, you need to read a lot more than the book of Leviticus before you draw your final conclusions.

    There is a small portion of the Old Testament written in Aramaic, but I’ll have to check your statement on Jesus speaking it mostly, I doubt that.

    Lastly, Jon, if you don’t mind, I’m curious where you get a lot of your Bible knowledge? Self study or have you had any formal training? Thanks.

  17. Kelly 16 September 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    Oh wow, I just discoverd one of your sources: “The Skeptics Annotated Bible”, that explains a LOT!

  18. Kelly 16 September 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    I regret not answering more simply. God wanted to set Israel apart as a HOLY nation, she was forbidden to live according to the customs of the nations around her. Sorry for the Hitler rabbit trail, already hashed a thousand times.

    Here’s some important facts on the cultures of that day:

    http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/torah/leviticus-b.html#21

  19. Jon K 16 September 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    I agree with your points about the Bible written over a long period for different people. But I don’t see any evidence (by its content or otherwise) that the author was divine. Once apologists tease out a meaning that is acceptable to contemporary cultures, it is clear that the meanings (if such interpretations are true) could have been much, much better expressed using different words. (And I mean across cultures , civilizations, and languages.) Importantly, there are better ways to state the lessons we extract regardless of language. Especially if the author had foresight. Any God who claims benevolence who knows how his Word will be abused if not stated in clear terms will not cobble things together in the manner of this book where they can be used to justify all manners of atrocities (which has been done.) I see it as a product of inspired (though not magically so) but flawed men; therefore, we can expect what we get – greatly inspired words intermingled with garbage.

    I did not follow your comment on homosexuality being detestable deserving death, but not the persons involved. I don’t know how to separate them. It’s like you are saying god hates killing but loves killers, but it doesn’t make sense to hate the concept. I guess you mean he hates the act, but he punishes the actor, so it seems to be misdirecting.

    Yeah Hitler was scum. But he didn’t understand evolution, but that has nothing to do with whether it is true. That’s like saying, wow look at how many we killed with the atomic bomb – we have to make sure people know atomic theory is untrue to keep this from happening again.

    Skeptics annotated bible is only good for locating a verse about something. The commentary is often too superficial to be helpful. (Though it is interesting to see the categorized arrangement of pretty nauseating things all lined up, but a lot is categorized out of context. As with any resource, it can only give you one perspective.) I get most my information from books written by academic theologians, independent study, and a handful of courses from The Teaching Company.

    Obviously, I don’t know what Jesus spoke, and it’s not unanimous, but there were more resources with better reasons (that I found) that favored Aramaic since the evidence indicates that is the language his followers would more likely have spoken.

    I understand the appeal to avoid picking the details and look at the bigger picture, as the saying goes, the devil’s in the details. But if one is trying to evaluate whether something is the divine word of God, the details are important to how seriously the claim can be taken. Note that I could argue the same way about homosexuality, as it is only mentioned about three times – don’t point to those verses and say we have to keep these people from marrying – God honors all forms of love, He’s not prejudiced like us and like those who improperly interpreted him.

  20. Keith 16 September 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    Jon – The intent of my entry was to look generally at Old Testament scripture and specifically at Leviticus which was most certainly written in Hebrew.

    Here are several English translations of Leviticus 20:13. I’m not arguing for corruption but understanding. Keep in mind different translations were written for different purposes. Do you know why each was written? Which are you using? Why?

    Your website is an example of why cultural context must be considered and is paramount to understanding original intent. Without cultural context what would people 4,000 years from now think your ramblings mean? It is impossible to fully understand you today if your context is not understood. You write from your background, education, upbringing, political position, religious affiliation (or lack of), using cultural norms, parallels and references of today. In fact, given those cultural cues one could predict fairly closely what you would write about. Not that anyone would care in even 100 years but it works for illustrative purposes.

    The Bible is misunderstood due to lack of due diligence.

    I much prefer quality of content rather than cleverness of argument.

    KJV “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    NAS “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act ; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    NIV “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    NKJV “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”

    NLT “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.”

    TM “If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths. “

  21. Kelly 17 September 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    “God honors all forms of love, He’s not prejudiced like us and like those who improperly interpreted him.” What is this the gospel according to Jon:-)? Talk about the devil in the details, just fill in the blank on “all forms of love” and suddenly there’s an ugly mess. No, God is clear that SEX is sacred and it is honorable between a man and a woman.

    Lastly I would like to point out the wonder that God used 40 human authors to communicate His message and it is POWERFUL 4,000 years later, it is understood by those with a mind and heart to understand it, it is simple enough for even a child to understand it. Yet if you want to attack it, you have a lot more homework to do. Reading books written by only those who hold your opposing view of it, would hardly be considered a scientific approach.

  22. Jon K 19 September 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    I would like to clarify that I am not claiming anything I write to be divinely inspired. So whatever biased or culturally skewed flaws are in what I write could be easily identified by later generations – I would expect no such biased flaws to appear in the divine infallible word of an all-powerful god. I don’t think your making the appeal that some of what the Bible says is clearly wrong – we see that now – are you? If so, the discussion is over; however, you still have the problem of how to justify which things are rubbish and which are not are not simply results of your own prejudices (in this case, against gays.)

    I would say the two options are that either the original Hebrew either says to kill homosexuals or it does not say it. Taking any of the translations, it would seem highly improbable that Lev 20:13 makes no such claim in Hebrew. So regardless of which of those translations you pick the heinous demand is the same – take the homosexuals and kill them. Quite independent of what the verse says and quite independent of any cultural context, I would say it is most definitely NOT acceptable to kill gays (or disobedient children, or heretics, or whatever blood cost is demanded of ancient, hateful text.) A thinking mind doesn’t have to excuse a book (s)he appeals to as perfect, divine command by blaming cultural contexts, selective supercession of godly law by new covenants, or completely ignoring significant details (any detail calling for execution cannot be written off as insignificant.) One can reach the conclusion that you don’t execute others for such offenses using rational means. (Which contemporary believers certainly do, and are then left with these very problems of explaining away a plain, unobscured demand to kill the offenders.)

    I really don’t see how you can argue that “God is clear that SEX is sacred and its honorable between a man and a woman” after our exercise a few months ago into the harem of King Soloman. The Bible condones the subjugation of women in many more verses than it forbids homosexuality, yet you have frequently written this off to suit your own context. This whole exercise is proof that God is clear about very little.

    Certainly the Bible is not simple enough for a child to understand it. The only things a child can appreciate are the mythical pleasantries or threats that are essentially equivalent to Santa myths – you will be rewarded if you are good and punished if you are bad. No child can comprehend the idea of atonement or of being inherently evil, they can only be indoctrinated into these ideas, but they can’t understand them (most adults don’t understand them.) It is what we teach the children, these literal myths of gardens, apples, and floods that keeps the idea of literal significance in all that these books say alive and well.

    Of course, we don’t show children the heinous death commands of the old testament Yahweh (probably a good thing) – most people never even know they exist. But I don’t think commands to kill can so easily be written off as just threads in a tapsestry that is immensely beautiful if you just stand back and look at it from a safe distance with your Jesus glasses on.

  23. Kelly 23 September 2010 at 12:20 am #

    Here’s one last parting gift from me on this subject:-) I sincerely hope it clears up your confusion concerning God and the Old Testament.

    http://www.gospelway.com/bible/old_testament_value.php


Leave a Reply