Home > George Noory, Michael Savage > Michael Savage vs. the Bible, George Noory vs. Reason

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

Update 1/18/2010:

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).

Advertisements
  1. January 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM

    May I assume from your post that you ARE a biblical literalist? If so, may I ask how you define that point of view? As I understand it, a biblical literalist believes that everything in the Old and New Testaments is factually and historically accurate and that, since the Bible is the word of God, it is perfect and infallible. Do I have that right?

    • January 15, 2010 at 11:06 PM

      Haven’t you read anything I said or to wisdom?: ASSUMING IS FOR MORONS. And why are you still talking like you’re an elitist snob Mr. May I Assume? Shut up already. God bless you, bye.

      • January 15, 2010 at 11:15 PM

        What, exactly, is your problem? You have a public blog, yet you don’t really seem to want anybody to read it. Or maybe it’s that you don’t want anybody who is smart enough to challenge you to read it? I asked you a simple, genuine question. I didn’t attack you, insult you, or disparage you in any way.

        As far as my style of speech is concerned, I don’t know where you went to school, but “May I assume” is simply proper English. Which word was too much for you? May?

  2. January 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM

    I’ve repeatedly told you and others what my problem is, narcissist, yet you, narcissist, keep repeating the same folly. You are spiritually blind and your hatred keeps it that way. What is your problem? Why do you keep repeating the same mistakes, like thinking asking me a mere question with an accusatory emotion makes you right? Yes it’s public, and? Am I hiding your stupid comments? No. Am I allowed to reply and not read your whole comment? Isn’t that my right too, if I perceive that what you are saying is repetitious stupidity? Why aren’t you thankful I’ve allowed you to speak and have read a little of your folly? I hope you don’t treat your own kind with the same ungratefulness. Oh and, the “Supernovae makes stars, Kaboom!” moron said that you are his hero – at least he’s wise enough to realize that you are very similar to him intelligence. I tried to ignore his dumb comments but hadn’t marked his folly as spam yet, so caught a glimpse of it. I’m not biased, but I do hate stupid unlearned attacks, whether using foul language or not, threats or not, and it’s my right to get angry at them. Deal with it.

    • January 15, 2010 at 11:39 PM

      Of course you have the right to get angry. I’m just trying to understand WHAT is making you so angry. People, generally, keep blogs to explain themselves or their points of view. That certainly seems to be your goal. That’s great. That’s why I write mine. The difference is that when somebody asks me a question–especially one as innocent as the one I presented to you in this post–I don’t launch directly into a tyrade of insults. I just wanted to understand a little more about your position on the Bible because I find the literalist point of view interesting. Why would my asking that question anger you?

      • January 16, 2010 at 3:19 AM

        Now most of that except the end, was a plain speech comment with no accusations based on emotion, I read the whole thing, though you lied at the end, which upset me when I realized it a few minutes later (my browser was freezing and computer froze). I told you and everyone what makes me angry: disobedience to God’s laws. They are summed up in the two greatest laws, and further explained in the 10 commandments, with the exception of the seventh day sabbath command, which is in part symbolic, symbolizing not working for God’s forgiveness/trying to earn it, but rather resting of that (and accepting Christ as the salvation worker instead, for forgiveness of sins and the sufferer of eternal punishment, which is not symbolized in that command, but implied elsewhere in Scripture), I’m not a literalist – literalists are Arminians and are stupid and mentally ill. I accept the Bible as both literal and symbolic, and it’s possible to tell which using what is known from non-Biblical speech from any large civilization, but without God’s Spirit, you’ll often get your interpretations wrong, and always when it comes to salvation, unless someone explains it to you clear enough that you can’t deny what you’ve heard.

        You weren’t simply asking me “that question”, you were insulting me as I pointed out, and using pretentious speech, as if you were some high royalty or elite scientist who was so smart you didn’t know how to use plain speech. I told you I hate hearing stupid phrases like you use which are a waste of time and which you seem to think makes you wise just because you’re using them.

        What angers me most is seeing youths, especially little kids and babies being abused or murdered by adults who deny the truth that they’ve heard, truth that can lead that children to eternal life, and who casually treat murder like it’s okay, even when they see the cut up parts of a baby, because the ones they are murdering, they assume, and say as if they were a true prophet, “Won’t have a good life” and as if these murder justifiers care about anyone other then themselves having a “good life”, which they disgustingly think is merely getting whatever they think you should want, and usually shallow things like a lot of “great sex”.

        Is it really so hard to take, “You shall not murder” and “You shall not lie” literally? Is there anything symbolic about that speech? What is symbolic about God saying, “I will punish the world” and that he will judge the world and punish them continuously without giving them rest? Does “without” mean “with? Does “rest” mean “work”? When the Bible is using symbolism, it always lets you know. It lets you know that some of the historical records God recorded, happened, but were also allegories, stories symbolizing who God would save, who he would not save, but instead punish, and how he would save and punish them. A symbolic punishment, was Lot’s wife, turned into a pillar of salt, the salt represents judgment and that her entire body was turned to salt represented total punishment of her entire self, not just her hands or eyes, and she died that way, a possible hint that once given the the final judgment, there is no second chance at forgiveness. An example of forgiveness of sins and rescue from Hell, symbolized, was Job, the most righteous man in his time, and one of the most righteous who ever lived, suffering over his whole body, and in extreme sorrow from having nearly everyone he loved murdered by Satan, and being falsely accused and persecuted by some either false or genuine friends, and when God healed Job, he sacrificed an animal, which was symbolically asking God to forgive them. Job was being used to portray what Jesus went through for those he loved (suffering the loss of those he loved due to Satan’s hatred of them, as in Satan murdering Christ-followers, and Job symbolically suffering God’s eternal punishment for the sins of those who persecuted him, and the animal he sacrificed represented Christ). Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt’s harsh slavery represented Christ leading those he loved out of their addiction to disobeying God and the life of Hell that sin leads to. Joshua also was symbolic of Christ.

        Some would like to claim the Bible is all symbolic, since that conveniently, in their minds, makes it possible to interpret away the reality of God judging them in his anger, terrifying and humiliating them, rather than only loving them. and the reality of sin leading to an eternal prison without light or rest. But to claim that the Bible is only symbolic, is without evidence, and unless God explains the symbolism, how can you even know it’s symbolism God is using? And who has ever claimed that God’s Spirit told them that the entire Bible is symbolic and that it can mean whatever you want it to mean? I’ve never heard anyone make a claim, not in ancient times or modern, and if it were to come now, it would be conveniently late, now that I’ve pointed out it’s absence. And even if someone made such a claim, what would their evidence be that the Bible is all symbolism and no explanation except what God’s Spirit reveals to you? There is none and only evidence against anyone who would make such a claim.

  3. January 16, 2010 at 3:04 PM

    Thank you, Daniel.

    I think I understand a little better where you are coming from. Here’s the thing…I don’t have to agree with you to be curious about what you think. When I read your blog and comment on the things you write, I’m not trying to pick a fight or insult you. I’m legitemately trying to understand a point of view which is extremely different than my own. I know you think that is a lie, but I assure you it isn’t. If I’m completely honest with myself and with you, I would also say that when I comment on your blog, I’m also trying to get you to understand a little more about MY point of view. I am NOT trying to get you to agree with it though. I know your religion is important to you–just keep in mind that when you defend it as violently as you do, the only people that will want to hear you talk about it are the ones who already agree with everything you say. What is gained by a conversation between people who are already in 100% agreement?

    • January 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM

      Do you notice other comments I reply to? You’re not the only one making comments to me, don’t talk to me like were in a vacuum together and nothing else is going in my life but you. And why is my way “violent” and how violent is “as violent”0. By whose standard, God’s legal standard, or yours? You keep assuming there is a universal standard of good, there is, it’s God’s, but you assume that how you feel and believe it to be, is the same for all, clearly it’s not, but you are so focused on how you feel you repeatedly forget that.

      You are wrongly judging me and assuming I’ve not already read things like what you say to me, how many times must I tell you I’ve already written down all the arguments against the Bible? Is over 400 of them not enough to cover all of them in general? Are multiple refutations of each one not enough? I was able to come up wit 26 distinct arguments against one. You can’t tell from my journals I’m”constantly” looking at all angles?

      And why would complete agreement be a bad thing? Must someone disagree to point out something new or interesting, another relevant angle? And have I said anywhere I don’t want anyone pointing out any mistakes I made? I told you it is the way in which someone talks to me that can upset me, just like anyone else, and you, being self-righteous and ignoring your own faults, pretending passive aggressiveness is not “violence” but that me rebuking you for it IS violence, is not good, it is instead hypocritical.

  4. Footy
    January 17, 2010 at 9:05 PM

    Not going to post that comment, huh? Colour me NOT surprised…Cowards run from the truth. That’s why you refuse to have a civilized debate about evolution. Instead you just call names and run away.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: