Michael Savage vs. the Bible, George Noory vs. Reason
(Updated 1/17/2009/9:07 P.M. )
Michael Savage, as usual, trying to make himself out to be a righteous man, ends up attacking the Christian religion and God which he repeatedly claims to be in favor of, in his attempt to be fair and balanced, by attacking stupid comments by the pseudo-Christian Pat Robertson. Right after I typed that Michael was once again boasting about being one of the most influential conservatives. Tonight, Michael, making cheap shots at Pat Robertson’s own, “You reap what you sow” cheap-shot heresy, also said in response to Pat Robertson’s claim that a few sweat-lodge deaths were a result of not seeking enlightenment of God,
You say enlightenment is to be found in God. What do you tell a little boy who went to a Catholic priest and got the hand of man instead of the hand of God?
At the beginning of his show Michael claimed that he was attacking Pat, a republican, because he (Michael) often spent his time attacking Obama, a liberal, in other words Michael was merely attacking Pat to appear to be balanced. He also claimed that liberals stuck with “morons” like Obama because of what “born again Christians” like Pat Robertson said. Sure Michael, whatever you say is true because you said so; neither Wickedpedia, Absurdapedia nor Boring-to-death-pedia says anything about Pat Robertson claiming to be born again, and I wasn’t able to find such a quote, not that that doesn’t mean he never claimed to be one. So where did Michael get his info? A few minutes later, Michael said, that he wasn’t a Biblical absolutist”, and that “that is one of the points of my exercise: that you can’t take the Bible literally.” Then he attacked some absurd food laws and teachings in the Talmud, and used that as a reason not to be a Biblical literalist. To attack the work of man, the Talmud, which twists God’s word, and claim that makes God’s word corrupt, is illogical. If a man sins, it’s his sin, not someone elses, not God’s.
Michael illogically spoke of Judaics, “born again Christians”, all Christians, and Catholics, as if they were all of the same religion just because they used the Bible in their religion. Clearly Michael is not a scholar of any religion to keep stereotyping everyone who believes in the Bible, or who claims to, to all be at fault for believing the Bible to be true.
And yesterday, a Catholic woman called Michael Savage and ranted a defense for Pat Robertson, why then did Michael claim that it was “born agains” which kept liberals from becoming theists or embracing a religion that Michael sees as good? Why did he single them out? But later he made the child-molesting Catholic priest attack, as if Catholics were also “born agains”, and if that’s not what he meant, he was, regardless, speaking confusion then, being unclear. How, can Michael, claim to be a fair person, how can he complain about being singled out by Britain’s liberal government members to be banned from Britain merely so that they don’t appear to be biased against one kind of religion (Islam) and yet nearly state that he’s attacking P.R. to be balanced? I also wonder why he always gets Christian callers who make stupid arguments whether they are in favor of his drunken speech or against it on whatever topic. It causes me to wonder if the wise ones are being filtered out to keep Michael from looking bad. But it might be that the wise Christians are far out numbered by the stupid ones and that that is why the stupid ones keep getting through. I consider the stupid ones to be all Christians except Calvinists, and in comparison to all other types of Christians, Calvinists are a small number (Roughly 1,640,000,000 false Christians and 60 million Calvinists, which is 27.3 times more false Christians than true Christians).
“I like a certain amount of greed and corruption, I think it’s very healthy for society” – 8:23 P.M., Michael Savage – 1/8/2010
Michael, yesterday and today also repeatedly said that God has nothing to do with the occurrences in the universe, for example this statement from him on his show today:
“It never ceases to amaze me, in a time when common sense should reign – hello tektonic plates move?”
Yes Michael, the ground does move, things do happen in the universe, but how is that an argument against God have anything to do with movements in the universe? It’s not, and he might has well have said, “Things move because they just do” or “Nothing has anything to do with God because things just move on their own”. This is the same Michael who claimed that God was mocking liberals and Global Warming believers by having made it snow in Copenhagen during the recent international summit there to stop Global Warming/Climate Change, the same one who today remembered that God DOES INTERVENE TO HELP. But I can’t remember what he said after remembering that. So, does Michael who endorses belief in God over atheism and agnosticism believe in miracles (rare and amazing events in this universe that God has happen in order to especially have one acknowledge him and or his power)? Interesting how when God punishes Michael’s enemies, Michael magically knows that God is punishing them and takes joy in it, yet when a Bible-believer claims God is punishing someone other than God’s enemies, Michael speaks out against the Bible-believer. That is clear bias and hypocrisy. This is the same Michael who repeatedly speaks out against atheists, and indirectly, against agnostics, and who makes himself out to be a scholar, wise man and scientist.
Anyone can discover a few things as to why something happened, but as is evident, there is a nearly endless chain of previous events that led up to whatever event they are focused on, yet according to Michael, Darwinists have the universe all figured out, and the first event, just happened, because it just did.
Update 1/16/2:45 A.M.:
Yesterday night Michael said that he believed that if you do good good will happen to you, and that this is because of “karma”. What happened to Michael’s nature-did-it explanation? And does good only happen to those who do good? Not according to God, yet Michael in his bias, on the 14th, wanted us all to believe that hurtful events are only due to nature, and that God has nothing to do with them, and now he wants us to believe that good things happen because of karma. So now Michael has reversed his position and indirectly sad that bad will happen to those who do bad by his saying that good will happen to those who do good, and stating that it is because of karma. And what happened to God? So Michael has now robbed God both ways, of God’s just punishment and just rewards, God’s taking and giving to put it another way, and credits a mindless magical omnipresent force. But yesterday, on the 15th, Michael said that he believed that the major religions of the world were like a wheel and that God was at the center of them all (meaning that whatever religion you practice so long as it’s not harming others, according to Michael, will lead you to being in God’s loving presence and having peace with him). But according to Mike’s ranting, God is asleep at the wheel.
No doubt, like my dad, Michael has reached this conclusion based “life after death” claims made by people who have died or left their bodies and were in what they thought was God’s presence or the presence of angels. But his interpretation would be wrong, because, as God has implied in the Bible: One witness is not enough for an extraordinary event. The wisest skeptics know that humans are not reliable witnesses when there is only one witness, even for ordinary events. That doesn’t mean people who have died or left their bodies didn’t really experience anything supernatural, but that their interpretation of the supernatural event/s they experienced are not necessarily correct. Evidence is plentiful that demons exist and have a foothold in this universe, at least on Earth, and are able to twist human perception. I have no doubt that they can create a spiritual illusion for those who have died, surrounding their soul with an illusion, and either influencing their heart to feel wonderous emotions or using the illusion to provoke feelings of great joy and feeling loved. Satan deludes people all the time when they are still alive in their bodies, even to true Christians now and then, so it’s not hard for me to believe he’d do it to someone who is temporarily disembodied, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he does it to many people right after they’ve died, but who don’t come back to life, giving them a few last lies to believe to condemn them further. Somewhat might argue against me claiming that some people who have left their bodies experienced going into Hell and then became a Christian, and therefore Satan isn’t deluding anyone after they die, but there is no evidence to show that experiencing something bad after you die means Satan never deceives anyone who is temporarily dead. Further, there is no evidence to show that Satan (or people who lie in general) only use joy to deceive people. People cause others to suffer all the time to get their way with them, abusing each other into believing some lie. There is no evidence either that when people experience something terrible while dead, that they only become genuine Christians. Further, the Bible makes it clear that Satan doesn’t always succeed in deceiving people, so there is no reason to doubt that Satan doesn’t at times try and fool people into becoming something other than a true Christian using a negative experience/s, and sometimes fails, and the person instead does become a true Christian.
Now onto George Noory. Here are some stupid statements recently made by this man-pleaser:
“Something’s wrong with people, they just aren’t acting right” 1/7/2010
(Just before the January 7th episode of Coast to Coast A.M. ended, George mentioned that he had friends who lived in a haunted house, and then said, “I wonder why these apparitions get mean after a while, they start out friendly.” Because all ghosts are stricken with P.M.S. after meeting a human? Why ask a stupid question, why not just come out and say the obvious: that they are demons?
“Who created the Creator? Somebody had to… It truly is a paradox isn’t it?” – 12:18 P.M./1/8/2010
“[This universe came from] nothing. And how do you comprehend, nothing?” – 12:21 P.M./1/8/2010
Today Michael Savage said:
I don’t complain because then God would punish me.
I wasn’t going to note that for anyone here because Michael didn’t say when God would punish him (he could have meant that God would punish him after he died), but then he said at 9:54 P.M. (about thirty minutes later maybe):
“My guess is the children will be punished for the father’s thievery.”
This is the same Michael who bashed Pat Robertson for (allegedly) claiming that the children of Haiti were suffering for what their fathers did hundreds of years ago. What, the, Hell. Talk about a 360 degree reversal. That just proves (to people who aren’t insane or bigot) my claim that Michael was attacking Pat Robertson merely to appear to be unbiased/balanced/fair. It feels good to be proven right on a somewhat complex subject as this. (Note that today the Michael Savage Show was strangely repeating segments of the same show like it usually does on a holiday, so when I say that he said something afterwards, I’m not certain if it was really after wards, it did however come after what I heard while listening).