A man who believed he bore the "mark of the beast" used a circular saw to cut off one hand, then he cooked it in the microwave and called 911, authorities said.
The man, in his mid-20s, was calm when Kootenai County sheriff's deputies arrived Saturday in this northern Idaho town. He was in protective custody in the mental health unit of Kootenai Medical Center.
"It had been somewhat cooked by the time the deputy arrived," sheriff's Capt. Ben Wolfinger said. "He put a tourniquet on his arm before, so he didn't bleed to death. That kind of mental illness is just sad."
It was not immediately clear whether the man has a history of mental illness. Hospital spokeswoman Lisa Johnson would not say whether an attempt was made to reattach the hand, citing patient confidentiality.
The Book of Revelation in the New Testament contains a passage in which an angel is quoted as saying: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink the wine of God's fury."
The book of Matthew also contains the passage: "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
Wolfinger said he didn't know which hand was amputated.
OK, my question to any Christians here is this: why wouldn't Christians rise up to this guy's defense? Your buy-bull tells all about Satanic and demonic possession and your Jeebus tells you to cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. Seems like this guy is holier than most Christians.
Unless, maybe, you don't believe all of that crazy shit in the buy-bull?
Friday, January 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I remember seeing this one in the common newsfeeds. More evidence (to me) that organized religion can lead to mental instability.
Sorry, but you aren't going to find any correlation between organized religion and mental illness. I know that some of you think of Christianity itself as mental illness, linking it to brainwashing or stockholm syndrome. But it isn't.
Please forgive my non-PC language, but this guy is crazy. Crazy people often do crazy things. He just happened to warp the Bible (in a similar way that Hinkley warped a movie).
But this incident is an extreme example of the danger of just taking one or two Bible verses out of context to justify something. If he had read the rest of the book of Revelation, he would know that he can't have the mark of the beast yet because we are not in the tribulation period.
And biblically speaking, holiness is not a matter of the outward actions. It is an issue of the heart.
But the more relevant bible passage, that you chose to ignore, is Matthew 5:27-32 (similar passages are in Matthew 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43-48)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 “And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.
If somebody truly and honestly believed all that shit in the bible then wouldn't they actually be better off without a hand than with a hand that caused them to sin all the time?
I chose not to address that passage because I'm sure the explanation I give won't satisfy you. The simplest way to understand it is by taking in within the context of the entire Bible. Basically, neither your hand nor your eye can actually "cause" (or "make" in your translation) you to sin (or stumble, depending upon the translation). For example, you can have just as much of a problem with lust after your eyes have been plucked out. Cutting off a person's hand doesn't keep him/her from stealing.
Sin begins in the heart and mind. And the Bible does teach that we need a new heart and mind.
But the main point is clear... that hell is so awful that it should be avoided at all cost.
"why wouldn't Christians rise up to this guy's defense?"
1. Why?
2. They don't know him?
3. They hope he does get help?
4. And this, just wondering why would an athiest blog support a christian for president? Wouldn't that be hypocritical?
T'aint hypocritical at all, Al. I co-exist with many people on planet earth. If there were an atheist running with a snowball's chance in, err, ahh, a very hot place, of winning, then I would look at their policies and give 'em consideration. I don't define myself predominantly by what I do not believe. (For the purposes of this blog, though, I label myself an atheist and take the piss out of religious shit, as well as proselytize liberalism and naturalism.
I like the way you choose to interpret that passage, G. I wish I could type that sentence in such a way that it was impossible to interpret it as being sarcastic, because I'm not being sarcastic. I do like your interpretation.
I do think, though, that a book that is purportedly the inerrant word of god would say it like you did instead of the way in which it is worded.
csm,
I understand your point. But in this particular instance, it is direct quote of what Jesus said. And He spoke just as others do, sometimes using figures and pictures to increase the depth of meaning for the listener and reader.
I'm sure you know this, but inerrant simply means without error. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything is communicated in the simplest possible way, particularly for our western minds.
There are often times that I would prefer a simpler, more concrete expression. But many teenagers probably feel the same way about Shakespeare.
Probably, but Shakespeare wasn't god, nor is his work claimed to be inerrant. Nor is there any claim that Shakespeare "loves" me... and so on.
Furthermore, there are plenty of errors in the bible. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
Those are just the same claims of contradictions and errors that have been parroted for years. There is nothing to them.
For those who have not closed their minds, those contradictions are a good starting place to see what they have erroneously put their "faith" in.
The "closed mind" can be just as much of a problem for the atheist and agnostic. Most of those "problems" are resolved when we simply read carefully. Also, it is important to understand that a "contradiction" would require that there is no reasonable way for both to be accurate.
I have noticed a tendency from those who reject the Bible to take any reading that is not identical on its face and scream CONTRADICTION without digging in with an open mind.
If anyone has a truly open mind to the subject (rather than just trying to find support for already solidified beliefs), I would recommend looking into the writings (and lectures) of Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith. Whether you accept or reject his viewpoint, it should at least be thought provoking.
http://www.wildersmith.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith
Good luck with that G. I find that most members of most belief systems from athiesm to Chritianity to Islam tend not view their faith with an open mind. The desire to believe is so great they tune out those who point out their inconsitiency and focus in on the competition. There are a few exceptions but they usually are not surfing the web. The truth is, all belief systems have consitency problems.
Thank you for your recommendations G, and I will, in time, look them over.
Al, you remind me of someone (and it isn't a good thing). To clarify, because I just cannot allow insipid bullshit to stand unchallenged:
Atheism is not a belief system, but a lack of belief. There is a difference.
I was a christian before I became an atheist. I became an atheist only after years of study, thought, and reflection on the matter. I would gladly become a christian given proof. There is none.
And it is you, Al, a johnny-come-lately to this site, who is extolling the featurs you list in your post. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you're here... but I can see we will surely rarely, if ever, agree on anything.
Sorry csm if that offends, but a lack of belief in god is a belief system and I'm sure you live your life accordingly. I liken this to a student claiming the 0 = nothing. This is incorrect in that 0=0. We have no concept of nothingness outside imagination.
I don't see why you would really care if I classify atheism as a belief system. It’s no more consistent than Christianity as evidence by pro-lifers, believe in the supernatural and republicans all under the belief system of atheism. I believe atheism is a belief system just as you belief Christians are delusional and obviously support terrorism.
Sorry csm if that offends, but a lack of belief in god is a belief system and I'm sure you live your life accordingly. I liken this to a student claiming the 0 = nothing. This is incorrect in that 0=0. We have no concept of nothingness outside imagination.
I don't see why you would really care if I classify atheism as a belief system. It’s no more consistent than Christianity as evidence by pro-lifers, believe in the supernatural and republicans all under the belief system of atheism. I believe atheism is a belief system just as you belief Christians are delusional and obviously support terrorism.
No offense taken, Al. I was merely correcting an invalid assertion. Don't know how you inferred offense?
Furthermore, I do not "believe" anything. I make assumptions based on evidence (admittedly, sometimes, not enough evidence). I research to know what I can know based on current knowledge. But I do not "believe" anything.
And a further correction: I do not say, nor have I ever said, christians obviously support terror. What we are dealing with here is the inability to understand the concept of transitivity. I did (and do) claim that there are christian terrorists, not that all christians are necessarily terrorists (or support terrorism).
Was it religion or mental illness that caused this severing of the demon pimp hand?? Either way still funny!
I'm not sure there is a difference, disgustipated (love that moniker!)...
Post a Comment