Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Soy and sin is destroying America.

The Christian Right is filled with lunatics. There is no shortage of crazy there. I mean certifiably nuts. These are people clearly programmed to believe almost any piece of nonsense that comes down the pike. Virgins births, resurrections, and the evils of soy.


Well, so says James Rutz of Megashift Ministries and Open Church Ministries. He has taken it upon himself, with the help of the extremists at World News Daily, to warn Americans about the dangers of eating soy.

“Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.” In fact WND calls soy: "A devil food that is turning our kids into homosexuals."

Is anyone else rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter?

Typical of the trash fundamentalists turn out there is not one scientific reference listed. From reading the article it appears all Rutz did was pull out claims made by someone who presents himself as “Dr. Wong” one of these quack “naturopathic doctors”. You would be hard pressed to find any claims Rutz makes in his column that aren’t also found on the Wong site. It appears to be mostly plagiarism on the part of Rutz.

World Net Daily is one of those sites that has the most extreme lunatics on the Right. They are into secret conspiracies and Jesus, black helicopters and the Bible. I first ran into them when they were predicting that the blacks of South Africa had a secret plot hatched to slit the throats of all whites there.

I went to Rutz’s website as well. They were offering a video on-line which told the entire history of the planet in just three minutes. It didn’t download so I didn’t see it. But they also told me that there are millions of miracles happening all over the place including documented cases of people rising from the dead in 52 different countries. I told you these people would believe anything.

Rutz is also apparently any scientific research into life on other planets. It’s a plot by atheists wanting to find “life that has evolved on its own, without any help from our local God. ...So the moment they find even a microscopic fungus cell Out There Somewhere, you will hear the media chorus singing, ‘God is dead!’” We’ve been found out guys, pack up the bags and head for the hills. I’ll call atheist central at NASA and let them know the plot has been exposed. I think this man has watched too many episodes of the Twilight Zone.

I went to read some of his other articles. Loony stuff all around. He wrote “employees at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque are no longer allowed to have even a small photo of their family on their desks” because homosexuals “say such photos offend them.” He cites an anti-gay book by Janet Folger as the source. I was unable to find any reputable sources that backed this up. Christian loonies Concerned Women for America repeated the claim but cited Folger as the source. I could find nothing else, in other words, no evidence backing up the claim.

Folger is claiming that Christianity is about to be made illegal in the United States! She’s real reliable. She was the brains behind the ads which featured a “cured” gay man who was later found having drinks in a gay bar. She has run between various far Right political groups for years. Just a few days ago she told another fundie gathering that they were about to be persecuted by evil homosexuals.

She would be considered a truth source for Rutz. Maybe she was the one who saw all the resurrections.

But Rutz has more, you knew he did didn’t you. He claims there is “great progress in Iraq” because millions of Muslims are becoming fundamentalist Christians. I thought he said there was progress?

He is claiming that hundreds of thousands of Muslims all over the world are getting converted in a matter of just days! And it is happening because of a “mind-boggling array of supernatural healing.” “One woman had been in a wheelchair for 40 years, and the crowd was blown away when she suddenly stood up and ran back and forth across the stage, waving her hands and shouting in joy.” In that meeting he claims that 240,000 Muslims got converted in just three days. But he assures his readers that a some unnamed government agency “that officially counts crowds” stated that it was 300,000 people who got converted. Sure. I believe you. What he is saying basically is that 5 percent of the population of Lahore, Pakistan got converted in just three days and no body noticed except the unnamed government agency that counts crowds.

He also says that “roughly 1 million Muslims world-wide have reported having a very shocking vision of Jesus appearing to them” and most say he quotes the New Testament telling to become Christians. Rutz calls this “pretty compelling evidence for anyone skeptic or no. But we don’t need theology to tell us which way the wind in blowing in Iraq.” Please note that he seems to have a very weak idea of what “compelling evidence” means. He has not shown any widespread phenomenon of Muslims seeing Jesus and converting. He has merely asserted it. No sources are given, no evidence presented. He thinks that making a claim is the same thing as proving one and then used this proven claim as ‘compelling evidence” to make further unproved claims.

And the only reason people don’t know about all the wonderful progress in Iraq is because of “atheistic reporters”. For a moment there I thought he would claim they soy-eating gays.

And where did this “compelling evidence” come from. Well, from Pat Robertson who has such a stellar record at getting things right.

But Pat’s website says that the names of the Muslims who “saw Jesus” won’t be revealed for “security reasons”. Pat’s ministry reports on evangelist claiming “There is an end-time phenomenon that is happening through dreams and visions. He is going into the Muslim world and revealing, particularly, the last 24 hours of his life.”

As I said these people are quite literally mad. The Bible can do that to you. As for the picture: it's the soy slayer himself.


Blogger Greg said...

Ah, it all makes sense to me now... I always wondered why after I drank soy milk I had an overwhelming urge to have homosexual relations with my dog.

Oh wait, I am male and my dog is female, so I guess it is ok.

Whew, I was scared for a second.

Carry on!

December 13, 2006

Blogger Ethereal said...

Christians are crazy. Most often, they will believe anything if some pastor says it.

This is some of the reasons why I trying to leave the US.


December 14, 2006

Blogger Publius II said...

I am a Christian, and I don't think I'm crazy. I could be wrong I suppose. At any rate, I don't believe this guy about the soy. Believing what you're told is not a Christian trait by nature, but it is a trait of human nature. It's easier to not think. It takes less effort. Look at all the people (Christian and non-Christian) who believe the garbage the mainstream media feeds them.

December 14, 2006

Blogger GodlessZone said...

Well most crazy people I know never know they are crazy. Now if this means crazy in the sense of wacko thinking, bizarre, prone to absurdity, then I would say that the faithful are crazy. If you mean mentally ill, well that is a metaphor not a state of reality. It describes actions not an illness. Easy believism is most certainly a trait of Christians stronger among fundies and weaker among liberal christians. Believing an old book because it says that god wrote it is one example. Talk about less effort. Publius you don't need to think through the ethics and morality of human sexuality and all the nuances, etc. You have a formula handed to you and you believe it without hesitation.

The mainstream media gets some things wrong but that is often the nature of the format, instant reporting. TV is worse than newspapers which are worse than magazines which are worse than books. The amount of time one has to research a story is important. The reason the MSM presents what it does is because stupid Americans (remember I was born in the USA) want easy news. So they prefer a 30 second sound bite over real research for the same reason they prefer the Bible over academic books. And the results are ignorance. If people watched in-depth, serious reporting there would be more of it. That's how markets work Publius, remember? People get what they want. As I see then bad reporting and Bible preaching are pretty much in the same league. It is for people who can't think and won't research.

December 14, 2006

Blogger Publius II said...

I'd say your almost right. One thing I would disagree with, is when you say they prefer the Bible over academic books. I put the Bible in the same catagory as the academic books, in that most people want to be told what to think about the Bible, instead of reading it themselves. That's where you get so many sects and bits of whacko theology. If people took the time to research what it actually says (and what it says as a whole, rather than bits and pieces) you'd certainly have less sectarianism amoung though who claim to be Christians.

Anyway, I also want to correct your statement that I believe the Bible because it says that it was written by God. As I've said many times before, I believe it because it proves itself to be unique among books, and in my educated opinion, after 15 plus years of studying it, I have come to the conclusion that it cannot have been written by man alone, due to literally hundreds of prophecies fulfilled, among other reasons, such as its consistency across such a wide array of time and situations and writers.

There might be something to your conclusion about formats, but I also believe that the MSM has an agenda they're pushing in the stories they cover, as well as how they cover them.

December 14, 2006

Blogger GodlessZone said...

I think where you go off the track is assuming one author with one coherent message. The bible had dozens of authors and numerous individuals who transcribed along the way making small changes along the way which accumulated. It is a book of various viewpoints with many ideas not all of which are consistent with each other. I do believe one can academically study the Bible and it's origin, authorship, cultural influences, etc. But once you do that, the formula aof the liberal Christians, you move from fundamentalism. Right, just like people find the Bible code. Prophecies which are not seen as prophecies at the time but which get reinterpreted as such centuries later. It is the same thing with Nostradamus. He had no ability to prophesize the future. Instead you get vague references which get interpreted by humans after the fact. A prophecy before the fact that is not vague and is fulfilled would be impressive. If it said: Two thousands years from now in a great city in an unknown land two giant towers of man will be destroyed from the air. Then I'd be impressed. But we don't get things even this clear (none clearer for sure). We get comments which are historically interpreted to mean one thing at the time and then reinterpreted. In addition if you believe, as I do, that the authors of the New Testament were aware of the Old Testament and what it said and that they wrote the story of the gospel it is pretty easy to claim an event as happening that did not and say then say it was fulfillment of the OT.

As for the media your comments sound almost conspiratorial and that is not how it works. I know this field better than most though to protect my identity I can't say why. The typical journalist reports what he believes is true but is often wrong. Journalists have predispositions to their own beliefs and if a spokesman for a group comes alaong saying X and the journalist thinks X is correct he will assume that spokesman is correct as well. It is not intentional misleading of the public at all. Non left journalists are all over hte place and writing good material. The main problem with non Left (which can be conservatives or those of us who oppose but conservatives and socialists) often assume the worst and don't try. It is not impossible for a good writer of any political persuasion to get published. Crap writers have a hard time. And lots of what non left writers put out, even people I agree with, are not written properly. I will give one example. I get a letter from some Right wing Christian woman bitching the LA Times didn't print her letter. She attributed it to the left wing bias. In fact she totally ignored word length requirements. The typical newspaper has a 200 word limit for letters and 800 words of editorials (sometimes longer but not often). She wrote over 1,000 words. Now I disagreed with her sentiments (she was anti-immigrant) but I would not have published it in the editor's position. It was far, far too long. 800 words can take a quarter of a page with headlines and illustration. So 1000 would be bigger than most editorials. She was rejected because she didn't follow instructions which are there due to space limitations. As an individual I have often sent letters to the editor and more than half have been published because I follow the rules.

I was someone who looked forward to Fox News until I actually saw it. I was happy to see other viewpoints but I found Fox news and the conservative press these days to be even more extreme in their bias and more closed minded than the Left. I was a critic of CNN and now compared to Fox I admire them. The real reason the alternative doesn't get published is that too often it is just crap.

December 14, 2006

Blogger David said...

"If people took the time to research what it actually says (and what it says as a whole, rather than bits and pieces) you'd certainly have less sectarianism amoung though who claim to be Christians. "

I agree, but for different reasons. The Bible is a book. reguardless of whether you beleive it is the word of god, fiction or non fiction, it is still a book comprised of words. Like any book, aspects of it are up for interpretation. Whether you beleive it is the word of god or not should not influence this assertion, since surely if god really is all powerful, he understands our fallibilities, including our individual ways of interpretting the world around us. If god wanted us to beleive the same thing, he could remedy the problem of us interpretting the Bible differently very easily, he could appear in a blaze of light and tell everybody the same thing, answer all of our questions, and get us all on the right track. But he doesn't, so he's either stupid or he really doesn't mind about the particulars.

There are certain aspects of the bible that cannot be interpretted more than one way. Treat others like you want to be treated yourself. Stand up for yourself and others intelligently. Recognise yourself as an individual, and as belonging to a group. All of which make sense no matter what your religious beliefs are. Everything else, for the most part, is dogma.

December 14, 2006

Blogger Publius II said...

Good points NGZ. I feel exactly the same way about Fox News. I was really enthralled with it, until I actually saw it. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say I'm "conpiratorial" or not, but I do feel that the big two news networks seem to push an awful lot of statist crap down the public's throat.

Back to the Bible... Yes it was written by a whole lot of different writers under different circumstances. But your claim that they made changes along the way is unsubstantiated. There's no evidence of that and it would be strictly conjecture to assume that's what happened. You claim that "not all of it is consistent with each other." I challenge you to point out one thing that is inconsistent anywhere in scripture, and I gaurantee you that there's been more than one explanation that is pretty solid to explain the apparent inconsistency.

There are at least 20 prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ in one way or another, and many of them are very specific, such as the exact city he would be born in, the manner in which he was born, the reason he was born and was crucified, the fact that he would be preceded by a messenger (ie. John the Baptist), and more.

Apart from the prophecies fulfilled by Christ, there are at least 20 examples of prophecies that were given in the earlier Old Testament, and fulfilled at a later time in the Old Testament (recorded by seperate writers). Many of these types of prophecies that were given have even been archeologically proven to have been fulfilled. One example of this is in Jeremiah 25:11-12, the prophet said that the Jews would suffer 70 years of Babylonian domination. Jeremiah also said Babylon would be punished after the 70 years. Both parts of this prophecy were fulfilled. In 609 BC, which is about 2600 years ago, Babylon captured the last Assyrian king and took over the holdings of the Assyrian empire, to which the land of Israel previously had been subjugated. Babylon later asserted its domination by taking many Jews as captives to Babylon, and by destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. The domination ended in 539 BC, when Cyrus, a leader of Persians and Medes, conquered Babylon and brought an end to its empire.

There are many other examples of this sort of thing happening. These, I think, are even more compelling than the Messiah prophecies, because as you said, the NT writers COULD have invented the details to fit the prophecies (though I doubt that they would have all been willing to go their deaths to defend such a consipiracy).

December 15, 2006


Post a Comment

<< Home


Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites