left biblioblography: MORE FANATICS WITH GOVERNMENTAL TIES

Monday, August 14, 2006

MORE FANATICS WITH GOVERNMENTAL TIES


“Creatures of the candle on a night-light-ride.
Dipping and weaving --- flutter through the golden needle's eye in our haystack madness.
Butterfly-stroking on a Spring-tide high.
Life's too long (as the Lemming said) as the candle burned and the Moths were wed.
And we'll all burn together as the wick grows higher --- before the candle's dead.
The leaded window opened to move the dancing candle flame.
And the first moths of summer suicidal came”
-Moths, Jethro Tull


More depressing news: these wack-a-doofs are getting heard:
Posted August 8, 2006 -



“Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is "a biblical imperative." CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.
The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.
CUFI's advice to the Bush Administration reflects the Armageddon-based foreign-policy views of its founder, John Hagee. Hagee is a fire-and-brimstone preacher from San Antonio who commands the nearly 18,000-member Cornerstone Church and hosts a major TV ministry where he explains to millions of viewers how the end times will unfold. He is also the author of numerous bestselling pulp-prophecy books, like his recent Jerusalem Countdown, in which he cites various unnamed Israeli intelligence sources to claim that Iran is producing nuclear "suitcase bombs." The only way to defeat the Iranian evildoers, he says, is a full-scale military assault.”

More info on Brog’s puppet master:

“Dr. Hagee is the author of 10 major books published by Thomas Nelson Publishers. BEGINNING OF THE END was a run-away best-seller on the New York Times Best Seller List, and the #1 book in America in 1996 in the CBA non-fiction division. DAY OF DECEPTION was also on the New York Times Best Seller List. FINAL DAWN OVER JERUSALEM, released in February 1998 was listed as the #1 book on the Best Seller List. Other books include: HIS GLORY REVEALED; FROM DANIEL TO DOOMSDAY; GOD'S TWO-MINUTE WARNING; followed by the release of his major prophetic book entitled THE REVELATION OF TRUTH. Then, in March of 2001, BATTLE FOR JERUSALEM was released and an updated version entitled, ATTACK ON AMERICA, which examined several reasons for the 9/11 terrorist attack was released in the fall of 2001. Dr. Hagee’s first fictional novel DEVIL’S ISLAND was released in September 2001, with his second in the series AVENGER OF BLOOD released the following fall. In 2004 the LIFE PLAN STUDY BIBLE, with Dr. Hagee as the General Editor was released with a follow-on daily Devotional entitle Life Lessons to Live By in the summer of 2005.”

As if it’s not bad enough we have these wild men pronouncing the End of Days (which our very own third president, Thomas Jefferson, who said of Revelation: “It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825), but that they have an inside track on our government is cause for terror.

For folks who claim that their ‘kingdom is not of this earth’, they sure have their fingers in the pie, don’t they?

What do their Beatitudes say? Oh, yeah:

5Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
7Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. 9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
They apparently cherry-pick their political agendas from that book of fables – they are not beholden to their own words: rather than await the prophesies, they instead seek to escalate the timeline, and my own humble opinion, is that somewhere, in the deepest recesses of that which passes for their collective/respective brains, they fear the prophesies will not come true – the fact is that none of the hallucinations of those that went before ever bore the slightest resemblance to reality, nor were they fulfilled in any way shape or form – and so thus, they must mold reality in their own askew world-view, retrofit the political landscape in a shape most pleasing to their cognitive dissonance.

I would respect these people if they held to their own ideals: put aside convenience for principle: allowed events to play themselves out, rather than become the potter for political clay: in short, if they played by their own damn rules rather than enforce them on others (free will, alas, only applies to choosing between up and down, and naught else).

Rather, with blood on their hands, they rely on some poorly compiled anecdotal unhistorical trash, written by nationalistic Iron Age savages, based on some feral mythology that would strip civilization to the bone, and ram the savage ideology down our throats.

And all for naught: all for nothing. The universe cares not that we exist. There is no figure that stands ‘tween us and the void – no celestial father who gazes down with love upon us. The sun’s fiery eye is simply the light of a star. The cosmos bears not our imprint: we cast no shadows outwards.

We are all dust – shall we hasten our plunge to become such? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust: I will be that soon enough. Less reason, then, for this moth to dive into the flame.

Till the next post, then.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

26 comments:

say no to christ said...

I've been reading about christians united for Isreal for a couple of weeks now and it scares me. I still find it hard to believe that people like Hagee are taken serious letalone having a lot of influence in government.

If any of us survive the self fulfill prophacies of these patriachal religionists lets vow to only let women rule the world from then on. ;)

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
I still find it hard to believe that people like Hagee are taken serious letalone having a lot of influence in government.
Yeah, pretty freaky thing is, all they have to do is be popular.
If any of us survive the self fulfill prophacies of these patriachal religionists lets vow to only let women rule the world from then on. ;)
Sure, as long as they abdicate on those crucial 3 days. ;)

GooseHenry said...

RA

"And all for naught: all for nothing. The universe cares not that we exist. There is no figure that stands ‘tween us and the void – no celestial father who gazes down with love upon us. The sun’s fiery eye is simply the light of a star. The cosmos bears not our imprint: we cast no shadows outwards."

Is your atheism rational or non-rational?

What is your philosophical position about God?

Krystalline Apostate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Was I unclear?
Rational.
No god.
I thought I was clear on this - the paragraph you cite states it clearly.

GooseHenry said...

RA

Rationality applies to states of mind/beliefs/positions about something.

It has to be supported by reasons.

What are your reasons for holding this position?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
What are your reasons for holding this position?
Teapots.

GooseHenry said...

RA

Teapots do not imply that there is no god.

Logically, your position is not sound.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Teapots do not imply that there is no god.
http://www.answers.com/russell's%20teapot
Logically, your position is not sound.
My position isn't sound?
Here's the wiki entry for irrationality:
" * fads and fashions
* crowd behavior
* offense or anger at a situation that has not yet occurred
* unrealistic expectations
* belief in logical fallacies
* falling victim to confidence tricks
* belief in the supernatural without evidence
* stock-market bubbles
* types driven by mental illness, including dwelling on obsessions or acting out compulsions driven by obsessive-compulsive disorder, or dwelling on a depressed mental state brought about by major depressive disorder. "

Of the 2 of us, I'd say I was the more rational 1.

GooseHenry said...

RA

First, It does not follow from Russells teapot that there is no God. This is a logical fallacy, apparently you believe in them.

Secondly, i don't believe in logical fallacies.

Thirdly, what is supernatural to you is natural to me.

And you still haven't shown the premises that leads you to conclude that there is no God.

Warm fuzzy feelings?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
First, It does not follow from Russells teapot that there is no God. This is a logical fallacy, apparently you believe in them.
Which fallacy would this be, pray tell? It was an analogy, to illustrate the silliness of believing in the supernatural.
Secondly, i don't believe in logical fallacies.
I dunno, I've seen you use them so often.
Thirdly, what is supernatural to you is natural to me.
Really? When was the last time you experienced a supernatural event? 1 that was seen by many?
And you still haven't shown the premises that leads you to conclude that there is no God.
I don't have to. No 1's provided any evidence whatsoever.
We gonna go round & round on the burden of proof?
Sell me the car. Convince me to invest.
Warm fuzzy feelings?
Again, entirely your venue.

GooseHenry said...

RA

Since no one can prove that there is no teapot between mars&the earth - there is no God.

That would be a non-sequitur

I might commit logical fallacies, but i normally correct myself when it is pointed out.

"Really? When was the last time you experienced a supernatural event? 1 that was seen by many?"

this is a red herring.

"I don't have to. No 1's provided any evidence whatsoever."

You explicitly state in your post that there is no heavenly Father. Unless this is based entirely on a non-rational feeling, can you proved some sound argument for this claim?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Since no one can prove that there is no teapot between mars&the earth - there is no God.

That would be a non-sequitur

No, it's an analogy - I say there's a teapot orbiting the earth - go look the rest up. Not a non sequitor.
I might commit logical fallacies, but i normally correct myself when it is pointed out.
That's true enough. 1 of the things I like about you.
this is a red herring.
No, it is not. You say the 'supernatural is natural to me', you need to have it in your life at some point, don't you?
You explicitly state in your post that there is no heavenly Father. Unless this is based entirely on a non-rational feeling, can you proved some sound argument for this claim?
There's no evidence.
For the very last time, burden of proof is on the believer.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"No, it's an analogy - I say there's a teapot orbiting the earth - go look the rest up. Not a non sequitor."

Non sequitor - does not follow. It does not follow from a possible teapot orbiting the earth that there is no God.

"That's true enough. 1 of the things I like about you."

Hey, thanks.

"No, it is not. You say the 'supernatural is natural to me', you need to have it in your life at some point, don't you?"

Me saying that the supernatural is natural is one thing. It could be based on personal experience and still be a valid statement.

Asking for a supernatural event witnessed by more than one on connections with this is introducing a new and irrelevant topic, a red herring.

"There's no evidence.
For the very last time, burden of proof is on the believer."

We are talking about the rationale for atheism, not proof of God. I must now conclude that there is no rataionale for atheism.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Non sequitor - does not follow. It does not follow from a possible teapot orbiting the earth that there is no God.
Look, you're being too literal-minded - the analogy here is that no 1 can prove the teapot orbits the earth, anymore than someone can prove there is a god.
Me saying that the supernatural is natural is one thing. It could be based on personal experience and still be a valid statement.
So it wasn't a red herring after all. Good. Don't like fish too much.
Asking for a supernatural event witnessed by more than one on connections with this is introducing a new and irrelevant topic, a red herring.
When I ask you for proof (on a statement YOU made, a comment YOU introduced), that's not a diversionary tactic, that's an honest question.
We are talking about the rationale for atheism, not proof of God. I must now conclude that there is no rataionale for atheism.
No way. THAT is a red herring. I can smell it from here (eewww!).
I might note that you were the 1 questioning my supposition, w/this statement:
What is your philosophical position about God?

My position, philosophical or otherwise, is the old Missouri adage:
"Show me."

GooseHenry said...

RA

"When I ask you for proof (on a statement YOU made, a comment YOU introduced), that's not a diversionary tactic, that's an honest question."

It is an honest question. However, the answer (which is no) has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that i think that the supernatural is natural. Which is why i consider it a red herring.

"No way. THAT is a red herring. I can smell it from here (eewww!).
I might note that you were the 1 questioning my supposition, w/this statement:
What is your philosophical position about God?"

Red herrings are not that bad;) I had some last week. Some in french mustard sauce. Some with onions.

Come on, the whole point of me posting here was to look for a rationale supporting the position/belief/state of mind called atheism. You can't accuse me of throwing red herrings at you when trying to stay on topic.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
It is an honest question. However, the answer (which is no) has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that i think that the supernatural is natural. Which is why i consider it a red herring.
But why do you think the supernatural is natural? The concept negates itself, from what I can see. I mean, are you surrounded by supernatural events on a regular basis, or are you presupposing supernaturality's existence?
Red herrings are not that bad;) I had some last week. Some in french mustard sauce. Some with onions.
If they taste anything like anchovies, ferget it! ;)
Come on, the whole point of me posting here was to look for a rationale supporting the position/belief/state of mind called atheism.
& I've given you my answer, on many occasions. There's simply no proof.
You can't accuse me of throwing red herrings at you when trying to stay on topic.
Well, really, when you drop a statement like 'supernatural = natural to me," it does beg an explanation.
For the record, I used to believe in the supernatural. I studied the occult, the bible, all sorts of daft things. Thought I'd even had some sort of experiences. All explainable. (I'll be doing a post on that soon, so be patient).
Truth of the matter is, I've never seen a supernatural event. Heard, tasted, touched or smelled 1.
Until that happens, I'm gonna have to go w/no such thing.

Jerret said...

The rationale for Atheism is the lack of rationale for Theism.

It's really that simple.

Krystalline Apostate said...

jerret:
The rationale for Atheism is the lack of rationale for Theism.
Well said.

GooseHenry said...

Jerret

"The rationale for Atheism is the lack of rationale for Theism."

What is atheism? Is it a belief that there is no God? A lack of belief in God (=recognizing that he might exist, you just don't believe in Him)

Can you present an argument for atheism, premises&conclusion?

Have you heard all rationale for theism?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
What is atheism? Is it a belief that there is no God? A lack of belief in God (=recognizing that he might exist, you just don't believe in Him)
What the hell? You know darn well what atheism is, you've been here & the NGB long enough to have all these items fleshed out for you.
Can you present an argument for atheism, premises&conclusion?
Again, you've heard them all.
Have you heard all rationale for theism?
Can't speak for Jerret, but I have.

Jerret said...

All rationale for theism? Like what?

GooseHenry said...

RA

"What the hell? You know darn well what atheism is, you've been here & the NGB long enough to have all these items fleshed out for you."

Yes, but it seems to vary. Some say it is a lack of belief, some say it it a statement that God doesn't exist, some say it is the "natural" state of man.

"Can you present an argument for atheism, premises&conclusion?
Again, you've heard them all."

I've only heard "no good reasons for believing". Which cuts both ways, could just as easily be used as an argument for theism.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Yes, but it seems to vary. Some say it is a lack of belief, some say it it a statement that God doesn't exist, some say it is the "natural" state of man.
I could say the same of your religion.
I've only heard "no good reasons for believing". Which cuts both ways, could just as easily be used as an argument for theism.
Wait: what? There's 'no good reason' for unbelief? Howzabout no evidence?

GooseHenry said...

RA

"I could say the same of your religion."

If you give a definition of your atheism, i'd be happy to give a definition of "my religion"

"Wait: what? There's 'no good reason' for unbelief? Howzabout no evidence?"

1) How do you know there isn't any evidence? Might there be evidence that you haven't seen?
2) There is no evidence whatsoever that atheism is true.

It must therefore be a blind faith.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
If you give a definition of your atheism, i'd be happy to give a definition of "my religion"
Simple. No supernatural. Events, entities. You know this already.
1) How do you know there isn't any evidence? Might there be evidence that you haven't seen?
2) There is no evidence whatsoever that atheism is true.

"Absence of evidence doesn't mean the evidence is absent"? Not this old chestnut. You gotta be kidding me.
It must therefore be a blind faith.
There's no faith involved. Literally.