lol -- we don't "need" the Episcopal church? Um, gee, thanks, Pat -- you know, sometimes I feel like we don't need the Baptists. Maybe I should go on the air and disparrage *your* denomination.

Gotta love his haughty little laugh through the whole thing. His runway analogy is among the worst I've heard. Sure, each individual *plane* only needs one route to the runway, but obviously we're not *all* flying from Texas. And thank God for that. Literally.

i really like his "side runway" thing in there, too... pretty funny... because, well, i'd figure god's got a pretty big airport, so there's plenty of alternate runways... and, well, if all the planes tried to land on the same runway at the same time, it would end in fiery death...

kind of like the christians, jews and muslims... all using the same runway to get to the control tower and crashing into each other left and right...

love. it.

Look at this classic first comment on the Youtube page.

pwfinn (1 week ago) "Theres only one way to god, the Air Tower of the male gender. Otherwise known as a penis, and everyone knows that god and jesus both have a penis. So the only way to get to god is to be connected in oneway or another to a penis. So if your a Man, your set; if your a woman you cant know god in ANYWAY unless you find a penis to connect to -so shut your mouth unless your connecting to my penis bitch!" My translation of what Pat Robertson just said.

Not to diverge here from the topic, but I'm a pilot too. Unlike Pat, I'm a good one, because bad pilots end up dead. Now, I'm not a very experienced pilot, but I will explain to Pat a few things:

1. I'd like to see him land on a 50 foot runway unless he's flying a helicopter. Even the most agile airplanes need 1000 feet.

2. As Pat knows most major airports have more than one person working in a control tower, bringing planes of different sizes and speeds in from different directions to land on different runways. Airports would be a mess if we all insisted on landing on the same runway.

I must say that the Bible is clear on this one. It says in very plain words that Jesus is the way to heaven and salvation.

IF we choose to ignore that then God will ignore us.

There isn't any other way you can get there. The fact that she refers to Jesus and God as a 'mother' is another blantant disreguard for what the Bible says.

While I don't always agree with Pat on things, I will say this about his airport and plane story.

He was saying that if you are a passanger on a plane want someone who knows very little about flying and landing then jump on board with this lady.

But be careful becuase when it comes to the important things she will crash and burn, and you will be with her.

Actually, Blackhawk, according to those I know who study the history of Christianity, it's not as simple as that. There is a long history of using maternal imagery to describe God and Christ, and I'm told that in the actual Aramaic, is it, of the Bible, the phrase you cite about Jesus being the way to heaven and salvation is far more ambiguious than the accepted English translation.

I've studied religion extensively along with Sociology of Gender, and I know for a fact that the very first image of a divinity was a female one. God was always originally female.

Also, the original (ultimately altered for the publication of the Bible) version of Adam and Eve included them being created at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

I'd do some quoting from the books I have on Sociology of religion, but I'm far too lazy to go and get them. *yawn*

Anyway, if you're going by the Bible, Blackhawk, go by the WHOLE Bible, not just the published version. Throughout history everything relating to women having any sort of significance has been purposefully edited out to keep the status quo of women beneath men. The (very)little I've read of the unpublished gospels seems to parallel what this new bishop (I didn't catch her name) is saying. But don't quote me on that, because I've really only just begun studying religion. (It's fascinating!)

Also - and I'm assuming a presumably devout Christian like you, Blackhawk, will agree with me - God is better than both man and woman, so God is neither . . . or even BOTH! So if we insist on referring to God as male sometimes, then we MUST refer to God as female EQUALLY as often. To only refer to God as male would be blasphemous, because it's bringing God down to the level of man.

Okay, I'm done stating and analyzing stuff other people have written. Now it's my turn to give an opinion (yippee!). I was always bothered, being raised a Christian, with the concept that only Christians get to go to heaven. What, does this mean that my Sikh friend Jordan goes to hell when he dies?! What about my Buddhist friend Jackie?! (this was when I was in Kindergarten, so it was a very traumatizing notion) So I developed a notion similar to this new Bishop's: there is indeed more than one way to get to heaven, and it essentially consists of being a good person.

Now, I lost faith in the Bible when I read the Texts of Terror (yet another traumatizing experience), but historians say that Jesus (or, more accurately, Yeshua) preached that women should hold positions of importance and power. The historical Jesus counted women among the most important of his apostles.

So when the Bible refuses to give God any other gender but male - well, I don't exactly put much faith in that concept either. I'm on board with this new Bishop, resolutely.

Jes writes:
Also, the original (ultimately altered for the publication of the Bible) version of Adam and Eve included them being created at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

Historians disagree about which story came first in the oral tradition, but the J source--generally regarded as the older source--is the breathing-life-into-clay one that has Adam created first, and Eve from his rib. The male-and-female-God-created-them story is actually attributed to P, as it reinforces the idea of the Sabbath (humanity being created on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God resting).

Personally, I think science has pretty much sent both accounts to the scrap heap, but the priestly redactors get so little credit for stuff that I do like to point out those rare occasions when they did something really cool, and the egalitarian sixth-day creation account definitely qualifies. :o)

Cheers,

TH,
author of The Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible (Que/Pearson, 2005)

Ah, indeed! Thanks so much for correcting me! That's some really interesting stuff. I ought to check out your book, Tom.

I agree, I think we've eliminated both versions from actual fact . . . but it's still oh so fascinating :-)

Incidently, I'm not too religious myself, but I sure enjoy reading about it!

His comments are less hate filled on the surface than I would have expected. He limits his concerns to divertion from the original doctrine, which some may consider valid. He doesn't say her post is wrong solely because of her gender.

Wow - I know I'm new around here but I don't think you should be giving "Tom" such an easy ride. From my perspective he is trying to present you all with the psychological 'fait accompli' that only arises from the victors incumbent enforced orthodoxy. The fact is that so called mens rights groups are now beginning to challenge the reality of our oppresion by suggesting that MEN are the chief victims of oppresion wrought by men!!
The worst and perhaps most popular offender of this kind of backlash is exemplified by a man hiding behind the handle of 'Angry Harry' ( http://www.angryharry.com/). Now this is the kind of website and writings that really must be challenged because although he writes in a very 'downhome' sort of way his arguments at first sight appear very persausive! His main thrust seems to be that whatever MAN has wrought it is MEN (not women and children!!!)that are always the chief victims!! Please don't underestimate this mysoginist however because I once made the mistake of trying to challenge this bigot on a rape issue and quite frankly his arguments were verey well prepared indeed! From reading some of the posts here I think that at least some of you here may be far better equipped to successfully challenge the pro mens rights mysoginsitic b\s that he churns out almost daily. Don't get me wrong |I really value sites like feministing - it is just that guys like Angry Harry are now being mentioned in places like Wikipedia when it comes to gender issues and therefore such dangerous bigots cannot be ignored lest they stand in way of 4 decades of progress for womesn rights!
Now I'm not saying that Tom is another 'Angry Harry'but his very seeming 'reasonableness' is as bad as a drug to put 'sentries asleep' whilst another agenda is stealthily put in place!

I agree, I think we've eliminated both versions from actual fact . . . but it's still oh so fascinating :)free online games