28 April 2011

Afterbirthers and bloody bedsheeters

From the Onion:
WASHINGTON–In the continuing controversy surrounding the president's U.S. citizenship, a new fringe group informally known as "Afterbirthers" demanded Monday the authentication of Barack Obama's placenta from his time inside his mother's womb. "All we are asking is that the president produce a sample of his fetal membranes and vessels—preferably along with a photo of the crowning and delivery—and this will all be over," said former presidential candidate and Afterbirthers spokesman Alan Keyes, later adding that his organization would be willing to settle for a half-liter of maternal cord plasma. "To this day, the American people have not seen a cervical mucus plug, let alone one that has been signed and notarized by a state-certified Hawaiian health official. If the president was indeed born in the manner in which he claims, then where is his gestation sac?" Keyes said that if Obama did not soon produce at least a bloody bedsheet from his conception, Afterbirthers would push forward with efforts to exhume the president's deceased mother and inspect the corpse's pelvic bone and birth canal.

And the bloody bedsheeters have a point here, too. If you believe in the Bible, that is.

The Bible says this about a woman that cannot produce a bloody bedsheet on her wedding night:

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her.

... And say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid.

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.

...

But if ... the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

So Alan Keyes and the bloody bedsheeters are just obeying the Bible by asking Obama to "bring forth the tokens" of his mother's virginity.

Is that too much to ask?


April 29 note: The Onion article is not far from the truth.

Alan Keyes is demanding a forensic investigation of Obama's birth certificate.

21 comments:

The Pathway Machine said...

Politics is such a stupid little game. Even more stupid and destructive than force than is religion. I can't understand why someone as intelligent as Barack Obama would want to play the game of politics.

Steve Wells said...

Politics may be stupid, PM, but necessary, don't you think?

Or do you think the world is controlled by Satan and therefore you shouldn't participate. (Like the JWs)

Do you vote, PM? (I know that's kind of personal; if you don't want to answer, that's fine with me.)

The Pathway Machine said...

Steve,

I personally don't think that politics is necessary at all. At least not as we know it. It only causes division and breeds corruption.

The world is controlled by Satan and man, which is why it is what it is, and why Jehovah will put an end to it.

I do aggree with the JWs stance on the world, for the most part, and I don't vote or try and influence my beliefs in a political way.

I don't protest abortion or get involved with anything like that.

Keep in mind, though, that I didn't start my study of the Bible until I was 26 years old and even as an atheist I didn't do those things.

Shawna said...

*headdesk headdesk headdesk*

When will this insanity END?

Steve Wells said...

So you think politics is unnecessary, PM?

You don't think we need schools, police, roads, or laws? They are all evil products of Satan?

It seems to me that Satan does a pretty good job with these things. Why would you and Jehovah (why do you call Yahweh that?) want to destroy them?

Daystar said...

Steve,

You don't think we could have those things without corrupt politics? How much money, manpower, and lives do you think we could have saved over the last 2,000 years if it were not for the political divisions that are nothing more than lines drawn in the sand?

Consider the internet . . . since July of 2009 I spend about 10 - 16 hours a day working on The Pathway Machine

How much time have you spent on Skeptic's Annotated Bible as well as this blog?

Without getting paid or government assistance?

Are you really so conditioned to think that we couldn't build roads or teach our children better than the governments?

Why do I not call Jehovah Yahweh? Yahweh is an acceptable term to me but the proper English is Jehovah, so those who insist that Yahweh is the proper form of the name have two problems.

1. No one knows for sure the correct Hebrew.

2. They are bound by the language they speak. You can't insist on Yahweh and accept Jesus. It would be Yahweh and Yeshua or Jehovah and Jesus. The latter is English. I speak English.

Steve Wells said...

PM,

You say we could have schools, police, roads, laws, etc. without government. How is that supposed to work?

If we get together and decide to pay for public schools, build bridges, have police departments, and make laws, we will do it through government. That's what government is, PM. It's us working together to get things done.

Are you suggesting we should have no laws, police, public schools, roads, parks, libraries? We will only have them if we create them by working together. Satan will not do it for us.

Do you and Jehovah think we should have laws, PM? If so, how should we create them? (Or should we just let Satan do it for us while we wait for Jehovah to slaughter us all at Armageddon?)

Daystar said...

Well, you are absolutely right, Steve. In a sense we do, at this stage, need government. That's why I said "government as we know it." If we replaced it as I suggested we would only be creating more government.

You and I differ only in that you don't believe in God and you think man needs to be in control.

Keep in mind that I don't think we, in a perfect world, need a government and in an imperfect world government is a bad joke and we don't need a governing body.

I see organized religion and politics as pretty much the same only politics is more harmful than organized religion. All of the most horrendous crimes of organized religion were accomplished through governments.

It is interesting to me that the atheist stance is really a political stance against the moral majority. It really is just politics.

As a believer in the Bible I am asked do I and my God, Jehovah, think we need laws? This depends upon the stage we are in. There were no laws in the garden of Eden before sin. But as a Believer in Jehovah God and his son, Jesus Christ at this stage I must respect the government and obey the law unless in conflicts with God's purpose.

Steve Wells said...

PM,
What do you mean by this statement?

"The atheist stance is really a political stance against the moral majority."

twillight said...

Heh, even anarchists go for a political body. I do not understand - because PM does not tell - what PM's idea about governments.
Government is about how to split our money and effort to live better. The only thing what'd make politics better if all politician would be atheist!

Now on the other hand (organised) religion is about decieving people. So it is more harmful from the two, as it doesn't even have the chance to do any good.

Atheist being against the "moral majority"? Interresting point of view, when we notice most teism (aka. religion) are amoral (= don't know the concept of moral), and their techings are immoral.

No law in the GoE? How about the "do not eat this fruit" law?

And you only follow government-law until it doesn't conflict with your god's law? So you think genocide is ok, and you should (you do) go around killing people (and so on)?
Someone call the police please...

The Pathway Machine said...

Steve,

I should rephrase that from "the moral majority" to "the so-called moral majority."

If Christians, or any other religious force in the majority, or in control, were not in any way political there would be very few atheists in opposition of them.

Its a political thing.

Steve Wells said...

PM,

You say, "If Christians, or any other religious force in the majority, or in control, were not in any way political there would be very few atheists in opposition of them. It's a political thing."

That's not true. You and he JWs are non-political and I am in opposition to you, them, and anyone else that promotes beliefs that are harmful, cruel, absurd, and untrue.

It's not a political thing.

The Pathway Machine said...

twillight,

You are allowing your emotion to obscure your reason. Why do atheists always do that?

twillight - Now on the other hand (organised) religion is about decieving people. So it is more harmful from the two, as it doesn't even have the chance to do any good.

Pathway - Politics isn't about decieving people? Besides, not that I disaggree with you on organized religion, but just because you don't aggree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.

twillight - And you only follow government-law until it doesn't conflict with your god's law? So you think genocide is ok, and you should (you do) go around killing people (and so on)?

Pathway - Historically speaking, "Genocide" is as if not more likely without God than with, and if God is real he is a) far more likely to have authority to determine its necessity than is man and b) in a perspective where he sees all mankind as one limiting the scope of possiblility regarding "Genocide."

Besides I don't recall Genocide being mentioned anywhere as a law in the Bible.

The Pathway Machine said...

Steve,

You said: "That's not true. You and he JWs are non-political and I am in opposition to you, them, and anyone else that promotes beliefs that are harmful, cruel, absurd, and untrue."

Now, how can my beliefs be harmful or cruel if they are not political?

Also, I don't think you are qualified to judge whos beliefs are absurd or untrue. That is simply a question of xenophobia. You just want me to think like you.

Steve Wells said...

PM,

You said, "How can my beliefs be harmful or cruel if they are not political?"

Beliefs don't have to be political to be harmful and cruel.

Do you believe it is harmful and cruel to stone a woman to death on her wedding night if her father can't produce the tokens of her virginity? (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

How about the things on this list?

"Also, I don't think you are qualified to judge whos beliefs are absurd or untrue."

Your absurd and untrue beliefs speak for themselves, PM. Here are just a few examples:

God created Adam in 4026 BCE.

Jesus returned invisibly to earth in 1914 (2520 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE in fulfillment of some bat-shit crazy JW interpretation of Daniel 4).

Those who willfully reject these (and other equally absurd and untrue beliefs) will soon be destroyed by Jehovah at Armageddon. (And PM is looking forward to it!)

You can read more about PM's harmful, cruel, absurd, untrue, and thoroughly non-political views here.

The Pathway Machine said...

Steve,

Yes I believe it is harmful and cruel to stone a woman to death on her wedding night if her father can't produce the tokens of her virginity (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) but that is an ancient law no longer in effect.

The things on the list from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible I am working very hard on, in fact I just sent you 11 more updates.

I don't think its fair of you to lump me in with the JWs, you know I'm not one of them. I refused to become a JW because I don't believe in organized religion. Even if non political.

I couldn't condone or support an organization which dictates to parents that if their child needs a blood transfusion they should die instead. I think that is a personal choice, especially in light of the Watchtower's history with similar bans on vaccinations, organ transplants and neutrality.

Steve Wells said...

That's great, PM. I'm glad you think God's command in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is harmful and cruel. But why would a kind and loving God command people to do something harmful and cruel? Or was it a good thing to do back then, but not now?

And why do you say that this law is no longer in effect? That's not what God said in Deuteronomy 7:9, or Jesus in Matthew 5:18-19.

Still, I like the way you're thinking.

You said: "I don't think its fair of you to lump me in with the JWs, you know I'm not one of them."

I'm not lumping you with the JWs, PM. You say you're not a JW, and I believe you. But I also believe that you believe in many of their core beliefs, such as the three that I mentioned in my last comment. Am I wrong about the magic dates and numbers (4026, 607, 2520, 1914)? Do you disagree with the JWs on their significance?

Your beliefs seem about as similar to the JWs as an Eastern Orthodox Christian's views are from a Roman Catholic's. They disagree on whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father only. You must have your own "Filioque" with the Governing Body, otherwise I suppose you'd be a JW. It probably has something to do with the number of Archangels that can dance on the head of a pin or serve as aliases for Jesus.

Someday maybe you'll tell us about it.

twillight said...

"Pathway - Politics isn't about decieving people?"

"twillight - Politics is about how to split our money and effort to live better."

I don't know why religious people never read the already given answers.

-------

"Historically speaking, "Genocide" is as if not more likely without God than with, and if God is real he is a) far more likely to have authority to determine its necessity than is man and b) in a perspective where he sees all mankind as one limiting the scope of possiblility regarding "Genocide.""

Answer:
-Who cares about "historically speaking"? (I could argue that thing also, but let's skip it, as it is OFF to the question).
- genocide can NEVER be an option. And I don't care about "perpective".

---------

"Besides I don't recall Genocide being mentioned anywhere as a law in the Bible."

Oh, it is there. Check these (examples):
A) 1Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
B) Jesus speaking - Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

The Pathway Machine said...

Steve,

I just don't understand. What do you think of violent video games? Are they cruel and harmful?

I ask becuase I don't understand what harmful effect you could imagine religion to be if it isn't true?

twillight said...

@PM
You don't use videogames the standard of moral, the way you shall live your life, while you do with religious stories.

See? Consequences. The religious people never think on the CONSEQUENCES.

Now as according to the Bible the only difference between humans and god(s) is the lifespan, and humanity is declared capable to be equall, or even better then The Lord of Hosts, you can figure yourself my opinion on christians with their defective god.

trog69 said...

As a believer in the Bible I am asked do I and my God, Jehovah, think we need laws?

This is telling. "We" is apparently you and whatever thought patterns you superimpose on your beliefs. The "my God, Jehovah" is merely dragged into the argument as an portable authority-fallacy strawman. If there were such an entity, it must be getting awfully tired of this stuff.