06 June 2010

Christian Groups: BP is an angel of God

In my last post, I included an Onion news story entitled, "Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming." It was, of course, a parody. But it was also based on fact.

Christian teabaggers are trying to force schools to stop teaching about global warming. The earth may be warming, they say, but if so, it's not caused by people; it's caused by God. God is going to burn all non-believers to death (and then burn them forever in hell) and the believers are looking forward to it.

Now believers are saying that the Gulf oil spill is a fulfillment of Revelation 8:8-9 and 16.3.

Here's Revelation 8:8-9.

The second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died.

But if that's true, what happened to the first angel? Where was the hail and fire mingled with blood? When were a third of the trees and all of the grass burned? Did God forget to send his first angel?

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up. Revelation 8:7

And here's Revelation 16:3.

The second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Which, of course, makes BP an angel of God.

But if so, what about the first angel? God was supposed to send some kind of nasty sores on everybody who had the mark of the beast. I'm pretty sure that if anyone had that mark, I'd have one. Where is my mark and "noisome and grievous sores?"

The first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. Revelation 16:2

No, until God's first evil angel gives me some hemorrhoids in my secret parts or something, the ocean is safe from God's nasty plans (though obviously not from BP's).

The believers are wrong about the oil spill.

Not even BP is evil enough to be an angel of God.

(Unless BL1Y is right and God is punishing us for ignoring his prohibition against eating shellfish.)

12 comments:

C Woods said...

Just goes to show there is a Bible verse that can support just about every lame-brained idea anyone wants to put out there and the world is full of ignorant fools to believe what someone says it means because they really have no idea what the Bible says ---and even less about what it means.

Steve Wells said...

C Woods,

Do you know what these two verses (Rev 8:8 and 16:3) mean?

Matthew Blanchette said...

Steve, that last bit about the shellfish made me crack up; where do you find these people? :-D

Opus Croakus said...

Why blood? And is it really blood? No. It's oil. The bible says "blood", not "looks kinda like blood, if you squint your eyes, but as for cells that carry oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body- no, not the same stuff".

Back to my first question. Why blood? There are alot more bodily fluids that the lord could have used, like urine, or saliva, or semen, or bile. Why does he always go with his trusty old standby- that mysterious fluid that symbolized life and death at one time, but is no longer so mysterious? There are other fluids the dieties seem to always neglect that we mammals an't live without.
Bllood looses it's mystery factor once you remove yourself from ancient bloodcult logic and decide to live in the 21st century.

Z

skanksta said...

Steve, you're a legend and I've never done this before, BUT...

for the first time I can remember your blog isn't the clear demolition it normally is.

You say, "surely I'll have the noisome et..." but there isn't a source - it's as confusing as the books you critique.

I sure - with a brief rewrite this case would be much clearer and more compelling.

Steve Wells said...

You don't like the word "noisome", eh skanksta? Or what?

C Woods said...

In answer to your question:
Do you know what these two verses (Rev 8:8 and 16:3) mean?

Of course I don't. But I'm not a Christian who claims I am in possession of religious truth. If I were claiming to know what the verses mean and that they were true, I would at least consult Biblical scholars who have read the Bible in its original form and studied the times in which the various parts were written. But then, I imagine I would get a different interpretation from each of them, and then, of course, my resulting opinions would only be second hand, at best.

I have read the Bible, cover to cover, several times. At least I've read it, which most of my Christian friends and family have not.

I doubt that anyone has a definitive answer about what anything in the Bible means. For one thing, it has been translated and retranslated, interpreted and then reinterpreted and misinterpreted.

As Mark Twain said in his autobiography:
“In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

skanksta said...

I LOVE the word noisome !

It's just that you quote it - noisome and grievous - apropos of nothing.

I'm left with no idea of why you should have 'noisome and grievous(another great word) sores"

Steve Wells said...

Well, skanksta, I quoted Rev 16:2, which says that anyone with the mark of the beast would get some "noisome and grievous sores." I figure I ought to have the mark and the sores if anyone on earth does, but I still don't have any. So the second vial hasn't been poured yet and BP didn't pour the second vial.

I don't know how it could be more clear.

But then I don't expect you or anyone else to like all (or even any) of my posts. I write what I write because it makes sense to me.

Matthew Blanchette said...

"I doubt that anyone has a definitive answer about what anything in the Bible means. For one thing, it has been translated and retranslated, interpreted and then reinterpreted and misinterpreted."

That's sidestepping the whole issue, C Woods; religion should not be nigh untouchable, but put to the same standards as any provable theory and tested as such.

Similarly, the Bible itself should be held to scrutiny and picked apart, similarly to how the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon have been by critics outside of each religious sect.

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

-- Douglas Adams

skanksta said...

Now I re-read it, it makes perfect sense - was being a douche obviously :(

On the plus side, that does now mean I DO love all your posts, lol :)

Steve Wells said...

No, skanksta, I think you were right the first time. I could have been more clear. But it's hard to be clear when you're talking about Revelation.

I was going to re-write it, but then I'd have to read the danged thing again.