We are DOOMED, Sat may 21, 2011

But you are quoting the godless satanic New International "Bible", when you know in your blaspheming heart that only the KJV is the true word of God. And the KJV says: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man". Not "or" like it says in the atheistic sodomitical NIV.Clearly Camping can know the day so long as he doesn't know the hour. And presumably somewhere there's some prophet of the Lord who has no idea as to the day but who has determined that it'll happen shortly after lunch.---P.S: I just looked it up, and Camping maintains that the "son" referred to in this verse isn't Jesus but Satan.Hermeneutics is like solitaire for idiots.

Unique, eh? I wonder if, when God wrote the Bible, he knew that you'd be the only person in the world who'd understand it.

How did they manage to separate him from his entourage?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, to summarize: the imaginary things that the government hasn't actually done will cause an imaginary god who doesn't actually exist to do imaginary things that won't actually happen.

I noticed these things; but I missed the rains of blood and the giant locusts with human heads and the death of the firstborn and the other phenomena which we customarily associate with God being a huge dick. What we're seeing is the kind of normal, natural events that have been screwing with our fair nation since its founding. I hardly see that this can be blamed either on God or on a black man with a funny name continuing the pro-Israel policies of his WASP predecessors.

That's their story.Follower#1: "Camping? Camping? You mean that bastard who persuaded us to give away all our worldly goods 'cos the rapture was coming? No, we haven't seen him."Follower #2 (giggling): "And we certainly didn't dismember him in any way."Follower #1: "Shut up Brother Snevins."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Presumably God was aiming for the White House. Instead he hit the most Republican town in a Congressional district with a Republican Congressman, in a state that voted for John McCain.God --- he's wrathful but inaccurate. You want to watch out, he might smite you for my sins.

Joplin is neither.If God really had a beef against Obama, he could smite him like Nebuchadnezzar. Either he doesn't want to or he doesn't exist. Ooh, very sinful sins. You'll probably get a plague of frogs. Funny, I don't remember Jehovah saying that.And if you have told such silly lies, it's no wonder that people ignore you. You did; and how laughably wrong you were in every particular.

But Camping told people how to avoid the apocalypse: they should have faith (which apparently she did), turn to Jesus, and get raptured. In his theology, if she'd enquired, that despair and suicide would get one straight to hell, which is even nastier than Armageddon.If a doctor tells me that smoking has a high chance of giving me lung cancer, so I should quit, it's not his fault if I think that a better way to avoid this would be to cut out my lungs with a rusty knife. Again, if I'd bothered to find out about his belief system, I'd have found out why that was a bad idea.Of course Camping was wrong and the doctor is right, but I think the two cases are of a kind: you can't be blamed for the actions of someone who ignores your advice.

In the same way, you aspire to eat babies, but don't do it because you're scared of reprisals from the aliens who watch you from the skies. But you had no basis on which to bear false witness. You did so apparently ust because it pleases you to do so. And how wrong you were. But you're different, right?Oh, wrong. You're a false prophet. You know what the Bible says about those?

I didn't know that ministers were considered a manifestation of the wrath of God. A sermon would have to be really boring to be right up there with a plague of locusts.But in any case, there've been ministers and whirlwinds and fires since the year dot. Why do you say "Jehovah is now plaguing America from shore to shore" as though this was something different? Again, what is it with the "now"? By an unremarkable noncoincidence, all these "bad things" are just the same exact bad things that happened to the US even before the founding of the modern state of Israel; and also before whatever date your hyperactive imagination has identified as the point at which the "US cursed Israel". So either God isn't particularly wrathful, or his wrath is indistinguishable from sweet bugger-all.When we get the plague of the first-born and the rains of blood, then I shall concede that this is a manifestation of an invisible genocidal maniac who lives in the sky. Though it will still be an open question as to whether his killing spree was provoked by US foreign policy or something else entirely; if we can judge by the Bible, pretty much anything can set him off.

No, that's completely made up. He's continued the same policies, the same financial aid, the same military support, the same speeches of support as all the previous US presidents."Obvious", you say? Here's how the Arabs are taking it: It's "obvious" to them that he's rabidly pro-Israeli. The minor nuances between his support for Israel and yours are so fine that they would find them undetectable. Here's another such article. It's titled: "Emperor Obama versus the Arab people", which gives you its flavor if you don't care to read it.Meanwhile you, sharing the same hysteria and paranoia as your Muslim fundamentalist counterparts, find it "obvious" that he "shares the desire of the Muslim nations for Israel's demise".What seems rather more obvious is that nuts and extremists on both sides hate him; which suggests to me that he's doing something right.

Here's video of George Bush. He says: "The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realise this vision seems clear. There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967". He then goes on to say that the 1949 borders should also be revised "to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable".I must have missed the outcry from you and your chums when the white President with the WASP name said it.

I'm not so sure. Here's CNN's video of Bush kissing Abdullah. It can't be the same incident, Bush is wearing a different tie, but my point is why would anyone fake a photograph of something that has actually happened, and of which to judge from the clicking of cameras in the video there must be about a jillion actual photographs, not to mention the video itself?And here's video of yet another kiss.Faking a photograph of Bush kissing Abdullah would therefore be a complete waste of time.

The flaw in your otherwise ingenious hypothesis is that it implies that someone on the internet has wasted their time doing something entirely pointless.I think we all know how unlikely that is.