Pastor Mark Driscoll: Obama Isn’t a Real Christian

From earlier today, Mark Driscoll remains as classy as ever, pretending the President isn’t a Christian.


I can’t tell if that’s more or less demeaning than flat-out calling him a Muslim…

From the looks of it, at least, even his Christian followers are pushing back against him. Which I don’t get. As far as Shit Mark Driscoll Says, this is hardly the worst of it. Given all the things he’s said about gay people and women, suggesting that the President isn’t a True Christian because he’s not as big of a dick as Driscoll himself is hardly surprising.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • C Peterson

    Obama is smart and educated, so it’s certainly possible he’s an atheist. I’d like to think so, although the evidence that he’s a Christian seems rather strong. If he’s an atheist, he’s doing a fine job of hiding it.

    That said, the biggest piece of crap that Driscoll is spewing isn’t the insult towards Obama, but the suggestion that the Presidential Oath is made to God. Besides being completely false, it also extends the insult to every American who doesn’t believe in Driscoll’s god.

    Obama’s hand may have been on a bible. He may have added the unrequired and ill-advised “so help me God”. But the oath was made to the citizens of his country. The oath was made to me and to you. It was not made to God or any other god, and to suggest otherwise is un-American.

    • Philbert

      I have also wondered about Obama. He often sounds like someone who doesn’t really believe in the man in the sky but still wants to hold onto the moral / inspirational stuff. Anyway, he hardly has a choice in the matter. Only a believer can be president. People like Driscoll do their best to keep it that way. They’ve only themselves to blame if that results in presidents being less than forthright about their true religious beliefs.

      • Laughing Boy

        Obama believes what his own Reverend Wright believed.
        “Gawd Dammmmm America!”…Reverend Wright.

        • Carpinions

          I’ll see your Reverend Wright and raise you the pantheon of every right-wing pastor in America.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Is that overly abused, thoroughly disproven, ripped out of context quote all you have? You might want to bow out, then. The educated adults are talking here.

        • Pam

          Read the Old Testament. Start with Habakkuk. That’s a much stronger condemnation than Wright ever made.

    • Rain

      “If he’s an atheist, he’s doing a fine job of hiding it.”

      Same goes for Driscoll too. If Mark Driscoll is an atheist, he’s hiding it pretty well. Bonus points for praying for the president and then deriding the president all in the same sentence. More extra bonus points for the “Bible he does not believe” jab, when nobody knows what the hell it means. Could mean anything. Talking donkeys? Could be. Who the hell knows.

    • Random_acct

      Like I said, it’s funny hearing atheists defend Obama, who they apparently believe was wrongly accused of not being a Christian!

      • coyotenose

        And it’s sad watching hate-filled people like yourself who can’t grasp the idea of not completely despising someone because you disagree with them on a point. Jesus would be so proud of you.

        • Laughing Boy

          But that is exactly what atheists do. They dispie someone because they disagree with them on a point…God.
          They also like to refer to Jesus when it suits their purposes. Amazing double standards.

          • cipher

            No, we despise psychopaths who gleefully condemn all of humanity to eternal torture.

          • RobertoTheChi

            What’s a dispie? Is that like an apple pie?

            • Cecelia Baines

              What about dat pie? Dat pie, over there….

          • Gus Snarp

            You can’t despise something that you recognize does not exist. And we generally refer to Jesus when pointing out his followers apparent inability to follow his directions, that’s hardly a double standard. Do at least make an effort to understand what you’re talking about.

          • coyotenose

            Meanwhile you can’t be bothered to refer to him when making moral and ethical decisions despite your claims of belief, and in fact you will, like right now, try to distance yourself from him because you think it will get you talking points.

            You can’t disagree with God, only with his supporters. Even if he existed, he isn’t here to disagree with. We only have the say-so of your Special Magic Knowledge to tell us what he supposedly thinks. For the same reason, God can’t be despised by anyone who doesn’t believe in him.

            Please learn how basic logic and English work and then get back to us.

            Man Jesus, you had a couple of good points, but your followers are fucking dimwits.

        • Rwlawoffice

          That is hilarious coming from you. And a crock. Most people here, yourself included, absolutely despise Christians who take a opposite stand on gay marriage or abortion. It’s in every insult laden post. Every time a Christian says they love the sinner but hate the sin, you guys laugh and say that’s not possible. Now, when you are called on it when you defend you positions regrading your messiah you claim that is what you are doing. The hypocrisy is astounding

          • PietPuk

            Says the king of of hypocrisy.

          • cipher

            I saw your reply to me (although for some reason, it didn’t post here; perhaps you changed your mind and deleted it):

            As a pastor, Mark Driscoll doesn’t want anyone to end up in hell. That is why he spends his life spreading the Gospel. There is no glee about the outcome for those that reject it

            This is unmitigated nonsense. You are the least introspective people on the planet; you have no understanding of your own motivation. (And yes, I am arrogant enough to say – to INSIST – that I have a better understanding of your motivation than you have. Half a century of observation has equipped me.)

            You’re operating, individually and collectively, at an extremely primitive developmental level, a level at which only reward and punishment make sense to you. You can’t see beyond it, and it’s impossible to explain it to you. Primitive people don’t know they’re primitive. In addition, you’re genetically programmed for authoritarianism, the need to conceptualize reality in terms of rigidly-defined hierarchical structures of authority and to invest yourselves completely in those who embody that authority. As a result, you consider what you perceive to be rebellion against that authority to be the most heinous crime imaginable, deserving of consequences that people who are not so afflicted would consider outrageously excessive.

            Furthermore, your statement is dishonest. The two most prevalent influences within your subculture are Calvinism and Domionism, even upon those who would define themselves as neither Calvinists nor Domionists. One of the core teachings of Calvinism is that the bliss of heaven will be enhanced by witnessing the torments of the damned. Millions of you are convinced that the large part of your “heavenly reward” will consist of hanging around a mezzanine, chugging beer with Jesus and Dubya, while peering over the balcony watching billions of your human siblings being tortured unimaginably for all of eternity, while you point and giggle like schoolchildren. It is the most obscene belief system ever devised in the sordid history of our sorry excuse for a species, and says far more about you than it does about a higher reality, if one exists.

            The bottom line is that the vast majority of you qualify as psychopaths, and there is absolutely no point in attempting to explain that to you, either. Psychopaths don’t know they’re psychopaths.

            • Rwlawoffice

              I did not delete the post, so i don’t why it did not show up as you say. But i did notice that you failed to quote the other portion of the post where i ask for your evidence that mark Driscoll feels this way or that he was a misogynist. You offer no proof and now simply say that we wouldn’t understand so you won’t explain it. How convenient.

              As for Calvinsim, your understanding of it is very limited and even at that, you have no evidence that Mark Driscoll takes that view. if you do please present it. I have not studied Driscoll much and if you are right I will acknowledge it. However, to simply through around derogatory remarks about a person without evidence is not rational.

              • Cecelia Baines

                You are one of the most truly worthless pieces of shit I have had the misfortune of reading or seeing. Seriously, I feel sorry for your kids and wife – being tethered to such a myopic and inculcated jackass.

                Shrivel up and die.

                • cipher

                  The worst thing about Robert Wilson, aka rwlawoffice, is that he isn’t the worst thing out there. You know the “bigger fool” principle of investing – that whatever one pays for a stock, there’s always a “bigger fool” who’ll pay more? I subscribe to the “bigger bastard” principle of evangelicalism – no matter how big a bastard an evangelical is, there’s always a bigger one.

                  Psychopaths, the lot of them.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  +1 for making me look up a word. I now know what “inculcate” means.

                • JohnnieCanuck

                  And because you did, I had to as well. Did you see the origin of the word? It comes from ‘to tread in’ where culc is heel. Quite the image.

              • Brian Scott

                http://pastormark.tv/2011/10/12/faq-predestination-and-election

                He holds the “Augustinean” view, though, unlike what he says, single predestination is held in Calvinist circles as well. The very language of “elect” pretty much lands you square into the Reformed side of Christianity.

              • cipher

                Driscoll is reprehensible, but I wasn’t singling him out as far as
                Calvinism is concerned. I said quite clearly that it’s one of the two dominant influences within the evangelical subculture.

                As far as Driscoll’s misogynism is concerned – it’s all over the freaking web, Wilson. There are many people in your own subculture who find him offensive. The evidence is really is not at all difficult to come by, even on your side of the fence.

                Are you really an attorney?

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Yes and a very good one. That is why I understand that when you make an assertion about someone you bear the burden of proof. You have been asked twice now and have refused to provide it. I have read the info on te web about Driscoll and some of his comments about women and men. To classify those as misogyny is a stretch at best.

                  As for your comment that he enjoys seeing people in hell, I have yet to find that. What I see is a pastor who has dedicated his life to evangelism trying to help people not end up there.

                  By the way, posting my name doesn’t scare me away. I know who I am and am not ashamed of my beliefs. What is funny is that you do it hiding behind your fake one. Typical.

                • cipher

                  By the way, posting my name doesn’t scare me away. I know who I am and am not ashamed of my beliefs. What is funny is that you do it hiding behind your fake one. Typical.

                  You know, of all the things you keep saying here, I think that one annoys me the most. I have told you, repeatedly, that I am not accusing you of hiding, nor am I trying to “out” you.

                  This is one of the many reasons it’s impossible for us to take you seriously. You really don’t pay attention, although I’m sure you think you do.

                • rwlawoffice

                  That is exactly what you did and what you were trying to do, but like a liberal when you are called on it you deny it. There would be no other reason to mention it as the normal practice here is to post by nicknames. In fact, you had to go and investigate me in order to find out my real name and then find the opportunity to mention it here. That is a little stalkish to say the least and shows your motive. Regardless, we have gotten off topic and once again you have failed to offer proof of your assertions. You have been posted at least three times after you were asked to do so and have avoided it on every occasion. I’m done.

                • PietPuk

                  you have failed to offer proof of your assertions

                  Yet your proof for anything remains totally absent.
                  That is one of the reasons why people call you a hypocrite.

                • cipher

                  I probably shouldn’t bother, but I’m going to try one more time.

                  I have not been stalking you. I did not “investigate” you. It took no great feat of detective work. I think I originally saw your name on Twitter. It is simply because you make no attempt to hide your identity that I address you by your name on occasion. If you were making an attempt to remain anonymous, I wouldn’t have bothered to try to find out who you were, and if for some reason that information came to me, I wouldn’t reveal it online. I take internet anonymity seriously.

                  I am not trying to threaten you or frighten you away. I do think you should walk away voluntarily, as you are disliked and unwanted here and contribute nothing of value. If you refuse to walk away, I think Hemant should ban you, which I have urged him to do.

                  Regarding this:You have been posted at least three times after you were asked to do so and have avoided it on every occasion.

                  I am not avoiding anything. I have already told you that you mistook my meaning re: Driscoll and Calvinsim. Re: his misogyny – again, the web is full of examples. I can’t be bothered to ferret them out for you because whatever I show you, you’ll dismiss it. This is demonstrated by your earlier response on the matter and frankly, by every comment you’ve posted on this blog.

                  but like a liberal

                  Oh, please. It always comes down to this. Always. You’re a stereotype, a caricature of a conservative evangelical. I’m sure you see that as a virtue.

                  Why are you here? I’ve asked you this before, and it’s a question to which I don’t believe you’ve given an answer. As I say, you are disliked and unwanted. No one values anything you have to say. You aren’t converting anyone, either to conservatism or to Christianity. Not one person has said, “You’re right; I didn’t see it that way before.” Your presence here is simply inflammatory and disruptive. What are you trying to accomplish? Aren’t you supposed to be attempting to spread the “love of Christ”, and if rejected, aren’t you supposed to walk away and “shake the dust off your feet”?

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Interesting. My name is not on twitter just as it isn’t on here. I use a nickname just like everyone else. If you take that as not staying anonymous ok. Regardless, I am here to discuss the issues from a different point of view. I have no delusions that I will convert anyone. I know that is pointless.

                • cipher

                  My name is not on twitter just as it isn’t on here

                  https://twitter.com/rwlawoffice

                  Regardless, I am here to discuss the issues from a different point of view. I have no delusions that I will convert anyone. I know that is
                  pointless.

                  Non-answer. WHY ARE YOU HERE?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  “like a liberal”

                  One thing liberals and conservatives have in common is that they make many of the same argumentative accusations against each other. “Arguing with an X is like playing chess with a pigeon. They end up knocking over the pieces shitting all over the board, and flying away.”

                  Insert whatever you want for X, liberal, conservative, atheist, theist.

                  And yes, I’m sure the others in the argument are doing the same, but yours popped out at my confirmation bias.

                  And by the way, your name has been mentioned on this blog many times in the past, and I’ve never noticed you take exception to it.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Yes and a very good one. I know for example when you make an assertion about someone you have the burden of proof. You have been asked for evidence twice but you have refused. I have looked at some of the supposed evidence of his misogyny and I find it lacking. As for your comment about him gleefully seeing people in hell his writings proof otherwise.

                  By the way, using my name doesn’t bother me, I am not hiding. Ironic though that you do it behind your fake name.

              • PietPuk

                And we are still waiting for your evidence that hell is real.

            • Blacksheep

              “One of the core teachings of Calvinism is that the bliss of heaven will be enhanced by witnessing the torments of the damned.”

              Not at all accurate.

              These are the “5 Points of Calvanism”, and not one ever mentions anything of the sort:

              Total Depravity
              Unconditional Election
              Limited Atonement
              Irresistible Grace
              Perseverance of the Saints

              But it’s not “Calvanism” that matters, it’s what the Bible says – is there scripture to support your claim? There’s lots about hell, but I can’t recall anything about people in heaven somehow enjoying the sufferings of anyone else.

              • Brian Scott

                TULIP is the summary of the prime teaching of Calvinism: the utter sovereignty of Yaweh. I.e. Calvinism teaches that there is nothing that does not occur except by Yaweh’s will. Those who are saved are saved because Yaweh wills it, those who are damned are damned because Yaweh wills it.

                From this, you get that the elect will be pleased with Yaweh’s “justice” and thus be pleased with the sight of the damned’s torment, because they deserve it and, being ordained by Yaweh, it must be “good”.

                Also, Augustine of Hippo made the same argument.

              • cipher

                Brian Scott is correct. “TULIP” is a summary; the belief I’ve described goes back to Augustine, and Aquinas utilized it as well. It’s merely become associated with Jean Calvin, who took the ball and ran with it.

                I will not argue this with you. As I told you several weeks ago about Biblical accuracy – you’re simply wrong, and there’s an end to it.

                • Blacksheep

                  just saying, “You’re wrong” does not make it so, the fact is that you are 100% wrong in your comment.
                  (Especially as it pertains to Biblical accuracy).

                • cipher

                  I offered you evidence last time. I’m sure you didn’t read it.

                  You’re a pompous ass. Please do not address me again.

                • Blacksheep

                  I am hardly the pompous one here, cipher. You did not in fact offer any “evidence” nor did you respond to my comments.
                  So – I would ask the same of you. You are too easily agitated, which is no fun.

                • cipher

                  Oh, no… I WILL NOT allow that one to stand. Last time, you pulled the typical Christian bullshit – “Since you can’t provide any evidence… “, so in disgust, I threw you a link. You might not have seen it here, because the threading becomes confusing, but you had to have seen it in your inbox.

          • C Peterson

            I don’t generally despise people for their views. I don’t despise Christians for their beliefs (although I despise the beliefs themselves). I don’t despise people for being opposed to abortion, and I don’t despise people for being opposed to homosexuality.

            I do, however, despise those who would seek to use the rule of law to impose their beliefs on others who think differently. That is unforgivable.

            • Random_acct

              That is also what is known as democracy. HTH.

          • coyotenose

            You hate “sins” that don’t harm anyone at all. I hate bigotry that directly harms people for no reason. You’re still a stupid, lying shit who misrepresents arguments in order to have talking points, RW.

          • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

            Composition is not your strong suit is it?

          • Cecelia Baines

            No diddledick, the hypocrisy comes from you. You routinely advocate opporesion, repression and support known organizations that allow felony actions against children. If anyone should be mocked, it is you. I think coyotenose is an asshole. Frankly, she is just asinine, but you, you take the cake.

          • Baby_Raptor

            No, lying liar who lies. We despise people who try and force everyone else to live by their personal beliefs. We don’t despise you for believing what you believe. But, hey. If you admitted the truth, you couldn’t claim to be persecuted.

          • Random_acct

            And you expect the “friendly atheists” on this site to see their hate? They cannot possibly see this as they are in darkness. They don’t have “ears to hear and eyes to see”.

      • C Peterson

        I don’t hear atheists making any blind defense of Obama. Most criticize him for his conflation of religion and government. Many are skeptical of his reasoning abilities, since religious belief demonstrates a degree of irrationality. That doesn’t mean that atheists can’t simultaneously approve of at least some of Obama’s political views and actions.

        We are able agree with some aspects of a person’s beliefs while at the same time vigorously opposing others. It is you who seems to have a problem with shades of gray, not atheists.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      i couldn’t help it, i read this whole thread. man, there is some dumb in the jeebus believer world.

      that said- i won’t pretend to know what obama believes. i will say this: very few faculty at the university of chicago, or students at elite schools like harvard and columbia, profess faith enthusiastically. it simply “isn’t done” and is considered bad form for people who represent the academic top 10% in this country. there are stories of irreverence i could tell you that take place in their divinity schools, heh. i suspect obama “believes” in god only as much as he needs to for political purposes. i could be wrong, but in my opinion that’s much more likely than profound belief. for the record, i feel the same way about bush, and many republican politicians. i lived in DC for a while, and you know who goes to church regularly there? hint: not most of the politicians, staffers and assorted hookers/lobbyists who service them.

      • Random_acct

        Would you like a long list of the most famous/significant scientists in history who also believed in the Christian God? I’ll be happy to provide.

    • Pseudonym

      So… you agree with Mark Driscoll, then?

      Most people who agree with Mark Driscoll are wrong. Just sayin’.

  • Kirby_G

    So what would his response have been if Obama didn’t swear on a bible, but on the constitution?

    Is there any way Obama could win in this guy’s eyes?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Patrick/100000027906887 Adam Patrick

      People like Driscoll can’t see anyone in a positive light unless they are exactly like them. If he swore on the Constitution, he’d be raising hell about how he’s doing that to “undermine our Judeo-Christian heritage” or something like that. Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.

  • http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/ Jeffery Jay Lowder

    It seems pretty rude for Driscoll to pretend he can read Obama’s mind and declare he isn’t a Christian.

    • J-Rex

      He’s said before that he can look into people’s eyes and see their past experiences and current sins and struggles. And you know he’s telling the truth because he’s a Christian.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

        I think there was a Star Trek movie with that theme.

        • coyotenose

          Oh dear god you’re right. That’s so funny!

    • Stev84

      He also pretends to read his god’s mind, so reading Obama’s is a step down

      • coyotenose

        I think other writers would agree with me that it’s easier to read a fictional character’s mind (if not much). I think Obama’s would be harder.

    • ortcutt

      He actually believes that he’s “sees things”.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVyFyauE4ig

      The megalomaniacal delusions are strong with Mark Driscoll.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        I’ve “seen things”, too… but then the drugs wore off.

      • Gus Snarp

        I think the scariest thing is that the first thing he claims to have “seen” is someone being abused as a child, which he immediately told that person as fact. If that account is even remotely true, it’s grossly irresponsible and downright dangerous.

    • Laughing Boy

      But its OK for atheists to read his mind and tell us he is probably an atheist?

      • Gus Snarp

        No, it’s a little annoying, and you’ll find in most threads a number of atheists responding and saying that we shouldn’t assume that he’s really an atheist.

        But there’s also a difference between stating a possibility and wondering about it without judgment and pronouncing a judgment made up entirely out of whole cloth.

      • coyotenose

        As Gus Snarp pointed out, no, it’s bothersome. The default is to assume that people belong to the belief-based group that they claim.

        Funny how you have no criticism for the pastor who claims to have special magic knowledge of Obama’s inner self that conflicts with everything he has ever said and done.

      • http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/ Jeffery Jay Lowder

        No, that’s not okay either.

  • guest

    more demeaning pretending this guy knows more about Obama than Obama.

  • JD929

    Mark Driscoll isn’t a real pastor.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Well, he’s probably right. Obama doesn’t know the god Driscoll worships. Obama has some faults, not denying that, but I’m pretty sure he’s above worshiping sexist, bigoted cult leaders.

    Driscoll doesn’t worship any god but himself.

    • Random_acct

      The only god that Obama worships is the one he sees when looking in the mirror.

      • RobMcCune

        Really? I thought that was Driscoll.

        • Random_acct

          Again, I think it’s funny that atheists are defending a self-professed Chrisitian who, according to you, mixed church and state at his inauguration. I have to give you guys credit for clarity of thought though. Ha.

          • RobMcCune

            I hope you’re serious about the clarity of thought, you’re entire response is a non-sequitur.

            • Random_acct

              Non sequitur? Not at all.

              • RobMcCune

                Repeating the same crap you posted elsewhere has what to do with Driscoll admiring himself in the mirror? Of course the clear thinker just asserts it and won’t do a thing to demonstrate it.

                • Random_acct

                  That’s your opinion. I was the one who first stated that Obama looks in the mirror and sees god. He is probably the most narcissistic president we’ve ever had (ignoring Bill Clinton for now).

                • NickDB

                  As a non yank that is some of the funniest shit I’ve read. Obama is more of a narcissist than Bush Jr?

                  Hahahahahahahahahah :)

                  You’ve made my day, thanks for the laugh.

                • Random_acct

                  Your bias is showing “non-yank”. Lol.

                • coyotenose

                  Evidence of narcissism in Obama, please.

                  Oh wait, you’re just desperately making up things and aren’t aware of the actual definition of “narcissism”? Poor dear.

                  Meanwhile, GWB spent millions of other peoples’ money so he could ride in a fighter jet and land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op where he pretended to be a military man and conquering hero. It was pure Kim Jong Il. Learn to read.

                • Laughing Boy

                  And Obams spends millions on vacations. What else is new?

                • cipher

                  Idiot. Why are you here? Isn’t Fox News on?

                • Glasofruix

                  As opposed to Dubya who actually spent half of his terms on vacation.

                • coyotenose

                  Nice job of changing the subject to avoid acknowledging your horrific ignorance of even recent history. No wait, my bad. Piss-poor job. Grow up, coward.

                • cipher

                  You’re a moron. You have nothing of value to say on this or any other matter. Toddle off.

                • Random_acct

                  Ah yes. The old name-calling ploy when you lose the argument. Good work!

                • coyotenose

                  You had to change the subject when beaten. You’re just projecting now, dimwitted coward.

          • Sindigo

            It is possible to defend someone whilst disagreeing with them on a different issue. If a single transgression so blinded you to a person’s other qualities you would never agree with anyone. Perhaps you don’t.

          • RobertoTheChi

            And you’re here why?

          • martin

            We aren’t defending the President, as we would probably all love if he were atheist, we are just defending reality, which is that Obama is a Christian.

          • Gus Snarp

            You’re confusing clarity of thought with ideological purity, something atheism simply doesn’t demand. The simple truth is that there’s nothing about not believing in god, advocating for the right to not believe, and even encouraging others to give up their belief, that in any way commands that we not be able to respect a Christian, or that we not see that picking and choosing who is and isn’t a Christian isn’t wrong. And while we may not like the fact that the Bible and the word God have become entangled with the inauguration, it’s not inconsistent or unclear to simultaneously recognize that Obama is a better President for secularists than W was.

            Just because certain religious and conservative movements encourage rigid ideological purity does not make such purity a universal goal for everyone, nor does it mean that clarity of thought or intellectual consistency mean rigid ideological purity. A lot of people seem to have become confused about the difference between those concepts.

      • Thackerie

        Jealous, much?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chengis-Khan/100003317165064 Chengis Khan

        And that is a good thing. Firstly, one ought to appreciate the self.

        • Random_acct

          Appreciating the self is fine. Worshiping the self? Not fine.

          • coyotenose

            And yet magically you have still failed to provide any evidence of such. Does Jesus love that you’re a liar?

      • CoboWowbo

        Flagged for being a troll

        • Random_acct

          Oh no! Not that!

      • Baby_Raptor

        You’re projecting again. You really should seek help for that.

        • Random_acct

          Ok. I got help. Now it’s your turn.

  • David Marshall

    Well, in his defense, Mark Driscoll hasn’t increased the National Debt by $5 trillion dollars. Nor did he launch wave after wave of taudry, dishonest attacks on Mitt Romney through his surrogates, even while talking piously about improving the tone of political discourse. Nor does he play constant class warfare games, pretending that a small increase in taxes on the rich is somehow going to solve America’s fiscal problems.
    In fact, you atheists can have Barack Obama, as far as I’m concerned. I much prefer Mark Driscoll. And I think it’s rather hypocritical of atheists to complain about Mark Driscoll’s speculations, when many atheists have speculated exactly the same thing — as does Peterson here.
    Given Obama’s record using religions for political advantage, who can deny Driscoll’s essential point, that the man is a hypocrit and religious fake?

    • Baby_Raptor

      All religious people are hypocrites and fakes. It’s par for the course. You just proved it with your fake talking points, strawmen and lies while claiming to worship someone who told you to love everyone and not judge.

      • David Marshall

        I’m a voter; it’s my job to judge, and try to judge accurately. Even a raptor needs to judge, or he’ll eat rotten carcasses and get sick to the stomach. I don’t think Jesus meant, “Be as much of a dupe as you possibly can.”

        $16+ trillion dollars in debt is hardly a “fake talking point,” though, nor is it a lie. It’s real, and every American owes it. Were I to wish that debt on my fellow Americans, that would be a genuine lack of love.

        • pagansister

          Call Mark. He can “pray the debt away”. After all, he IS almighty or so he thinks.

        • TnkAgn

          While the deficit (not the debt, but related) has gone down each full year of Obama’s presidency, why not stick to the issue raised by the charlatan and mountebank Driscoll. Truth is, neither you or Driscoll can divine the nature of Obama’s relationship with the bible, and his oath, which is not to any god, but to the Constitution, “…so help me God.”

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          That $16 Trillion-plus? Is all because of your Golden Boy George and his stupid, pointless wars.

        • cipher

          David, you’re incapable of judging anything accurately. You wouldn’t recognize consensual reality if it walked up to you and introduced itself.

          You prefer Mark Driscoll – a misogynist who gleefully condemns the vast majority of human beings to unspeakable, neverending agony? that says quite a bit about you, David. You’ve insisted for years that you don’t adhere to such a theology. I find it deeply significant that you apparently have little problem with those who do.

          Run along now and pretend to be a scholar.

          • Rwlawoffice

            As a pastor, Mark Driscoll doesn’t want anyone to end up in hell. That is why he spends his life spreading the Gospel. There is no glee about the outcome for those that reject it.

            If you have proof he hates women and laughs as some people choose hell, show it. Otherwise, you can quit claiming the rational high road.

            • PietPuk

              If you have proof that a hell exsits we would like to see it.

              • Random_acct

                Reminds me of this….

                “If you could prove God to me, I would believe him all the less”. – Nietzsche
                You get the point…

            • cipher

              Your comment didn’t show up until now, so I posted the following reply elsewhere in this thread. I’m now posting it here.

              As a pastor, Mark Driscoll doesn’t want anyone to end up in hell. That is why he spends his life spreading the Gospel. There is no glee about the outcome for those that reject it.

              This is unmitigated nonsense. You are the least introspective people on the planet; you have no understanding of your own motivation. (And yes, I am arrogant enough to say – to INSIST – that I have a better understanding of your motivation than you have. Half a century of observation has equipped me.)

              You’re operating, individually and collectively, at an extremely
              primitive developmental level, a level at which only reward and
              punishment make sense to you. You can’t see beyond it, and it’s
              impossible to explain it to you. Primitive people don’t know they’re
              primitive. In addition, you’re genetically programmed for
              authoritarianism, the need to conceptualize reality in terms of
              rigidly-defined hierarchical structures of authority and to invest
              yourselves completely in those who embody that authority. As a result, you consider what you perceive to be rebellion against that authority to be the most heinous crime imaginable, deserving of consequences that people who are not so afflicted would consider outrageously excessive.

              Furthermore, your statement is dishonest. The two most prevalent
              influences within your subculture are Calvinism and Domionism, even upon those who would define themselves as neither Calvinists nor Domionists. One of the core teachings of Calvinism is that the bliss of heaven will be enhanced by witnessing the torments of the damned. Millions of you are convinced that the large part of your “heavenly reward” will consist of hanging around a mezzanine, chugging beer with Jesus and Dubya, while peering over the balcony watching billions of your human siblings being tortured unimaginably for all of eternity, while you point and giggle like schoolchildren. It is the most obscene belief system ever devised in the sordid history of our sorry excuse for a species, and says far more about you than it does about a higher reality, if one exists.

              The bottom line is that the vast majority of you qualify as psychopaths, and there is absolutely no point in attempting to explain that to you, either. Psychopaths don’t know they’re psychopaths.

              • coyotenose

                Psychopaths don’t know they’re psychopaths.

                And Sociopaths think they’re decent people. And with few exceptions, anyone who consciously considers him/herself a good person… isn’t. Good people may like themselves, but they also tend to be very critical of themselves.

              • Random_acct

                Your intellect is truly dizzying.

            • coyotenose

              Driscoll’s vile statements are public record, much like yours. Learn to Google before you come claiming to have an argument.

              Otherwise, you can quit claiming the rational high road.

              Getting lonely, are we?

            • piet puk

              If you have proof that a hell exists, we would like to see it.

        • coyotenose

          The current deficit was created under President Bush, who covered it up by not accounting for war expenditures. He massively inflated the budget, and Obama got stuck with it. If Obama were to drastically reduce spending, the resulting job losses would create a GLOBAL depression very, very fast. In point of fact, he has been reducing it, only at a pace that won’t result in starvation for people on your street.

          This is common knowledge these days. Whatever basis you use for your judgments, it isn’t documented facts.

          In fact, you atheists can have Barack Obama, as far as I’m concerned. I much prefer Mark Driscoll.

          That you pretend this is a matter of picking a sports team and not of criticizing someone for making up things about someone else’s personal beliefs in order to foment anger speaks volumes about YOU. Most of us here have the magical powers of being able to disagree with both sides to varying degrees and of having enough ethics to call out dishonesty rather than defend it.

          And I think it’s rather hypocritical of atheists to complain about Mark
          Driscoll’s speculations, when many atheists have speculated exactly the
          same thing

          You don’t get to call us hypocrites for what OTHER people do. Please grow up and learn what words mean.

          Given Obama’s record using religions for political advantage, who can
          deny Driscoll’s essential point, that the man is a hypocrit and
          religious fake?

          Citation needed, but since it doesn’t exist, I won’t hold my breath waiting for it to pop out of your ass.*

          Enjoy being the sort of person who defends liars because he doesn’t like their targets. Me, I very vocally dumped the only politician I liked because he was quote-mining his conservative religious opponent who didn’t have any worthwhile positions. Some of us don’t have your twisted pick-a-side-and-close-ranks attitude.

          Still butthurt over POOR POOR Mitt Romney. Over the guy who terrorized auto workers by lying to them and telling them that Obama was sending their jobs overseas. Nasty prick.

          *That mixed metaphor turned out much grossed than envisioned.

          • coyotenose

            BLOCKQUOTE FAIL.

            Jesus, I double-checked them all.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

      So are you expressing your anger that Obama might meet or exceed Bush’s debt record?

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

        Bubbasters dictionary defines Christian Conservative as: an individual who believes that a 2000 year old book is the law of the land but who also asserts 4 years ago there was nothing wrong with that land.

        • allein

          And in another 4 years we will be a third world country (or so my uncle says).

          • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

            The terminology 3rd world or 1st or 2nd comes from how a country is defined by its living standards, i.e. running water, waste removal, quality of utilities. So I can see how people can become confused by this misnomer. A Third World Nation sounds far worse than a First World Nation but only because we emphasize a valuation upon the difference. United States standard of living would have to be reduced to mud huts and sewage filled streets for us to be a third world nation. Our education standards are a different matter.

            • allein

              Oh, I know. My uncle also told me once that evolution is impossible.
              And that if I voted for Obama he’d never speak to me again. :)

    • Lagerbaer

      Ah, but none of the Republican candidates use religion for political advantage? Where you can become a high-ranking party member by simply putting on a show of piety? Where your track record on jobs and the economy doesn’t matter as long as you paint yourself as a staunch defender of Christian Values™?

    • http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/ Jeffery Jay Lowder

      Nor does he play constant class warfare games, pretending that a small
      increase in taxes on the rich is somehow going to solve America’s fiscal
      problems.

      1. “Games” implies that Obama is being insincere. How do you know that he is insincere?

      2. Here are two possible explanations.

      (a) Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy because he believes it is morally good (and maybe even morally required) to do so, not because he thinks it will somehow solve America’s fiscal problems.

      (b) Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy because he thinks it will somehow solve America’s problems.

      How do you know that (b), not (a), is the best explanation?

      • cipher

        Re: Romney: Nor does he play constant class warfare games

        That has to be the money quote of the day.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      Re: “Well, in his defense, Mark Driscoll hasn’t increased the National Debt by $5 trillion dollars.”

      I don’t recall the previous evangelical-in-chief, G.W. Bush, having been especially thrifty, either. Yet none of you Rightist types could be bothered complaining about that.

      Re: “Nor did he launch wave after wave of taudry, dishonest attacks on Mitt Romney through his surrogates, even while talking piously about improving the tone of political discourse.”

      He didn’t use surrogates to insinuate that Romney was a secret Muslim, that he planned to turn the US over to the Muslim Brotherhood, that he wasn’t a US citizen, either. But I wonder who was doing that to Obama? Could it have been your own crew on the Right?

      Re: “Nor does he play constant class warfare games, pretending that a small increase in taxes on the rich is somehow going to solve America’s fiscal problems.”

      As though condemning “the 47%” for being lazy and shiftless wasn’t also a form of class warfare, coming from your side over on the Right. Nice one.

      Re: “I much prefer Mark Driscoll.”

      Bully for you. Did you think I’d find that impressive or something? Really?

      Re: “And I think it’s rather hypocritical of atheists to complain about Mark Driscoll’s speculations, when many atheists have speculated exactly the same thing — as does Peterson here.”

      Maybe atheists are hypocrites, but whether or not they are, doesn’t really matter. You Christian types are under Jesus’ explicit and clear orders never to be hypocritical. (See Mt 7:4-5 & Lk 6:37, et al.) Yes, this puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Yes, it means your dire enemies get to be hypocrites, and you don’t. But you know what? Too bad. It’s your religion. You picked it. Obey it. And stop whining and crying that others don’t have to.

      Re: “Given Obama’s record using religions for political advantage, who can deny Driscoll’s essential point, that the man is a hypocrit and religious fake?”

      And you’re saying the Right never uses religion for political advantage? You must be joking. You cannot seriously have said that. Freaking hilarious!

    • LesterBallard

      Thanks for the chuckle, Mr. Marshall.

      • Random_acct

        In other words, you have no rational retort to his excellent points.

        • LesterBallard

          No, I have no rational retorts to his points.

        • NickDB

          If he gave some rational points we’d have a rational retort.

        • coyotenose

          Coming from the coward who keeps changing the subject when refuted.

          • Random_acct

            Your lack of substance is showing once again.

    • Random_acct

      Yes. There is no doubt that Obama is a hypocrite and a religious phony. Whatever will help him politically is his only concern.

      • cipher

        Right, and Mitt is such an honest man.

        You really are a fatuous imbecile. Run along, now. Grown-ups are talking.

        • Random_acct

          Diversions for $200 Alex.

          • cipher

            Useless moron. Fuck off.

            • Random_acct

              Now now. Let’s not get emotional here. We must be rational. You know, like all atheists proclaim to be…vs those “irrational” Christians. LOL.

              • cipher

                Apparently, saying the same thing over and over and putting “LOL” at the end of it makes it true.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Random_acct Likes reading what he posts it makes him feel important LOL

                • Random_acct

                  I love Internet tough guys.

                • cipher

                  Saying that makes me a “tough guy”?

                  Idiot.

                • Random_acct

                  Well it had me quaking in my shoes. The point is that cowards like you would never talk like that in person. If you did, you’d be missing more teeth.

                • cipher

                  Yes, I’m sure that would be your reaction.

                  And you’re right; I wouldn’t talk that way to you in person, because in person, I wouldn’t waste my time with you.

                • Random_acct

                  That hurts.

          • Gus Snarp

            Did you miss that David Marshall’s whole post was a diversion? He’s the one who brought Mitt into this, it’s perfectly fair to pick on Mitt in response.

      • coyotenose

        And yet magically you still lack evidence for your claims. Why do you scummier theists and neocons always think that you’re psychic? Are you not aware that Jesus rebuked people like you?

        • Random_acct

          Neocons? Now that is funny.

    • PietPuk

      I see you have learned nothing from the constant asswhooping you get at Debunking Christianity.

      • cipher

        He’s incapable of learning anything. He gets his ass handed to him time and again, sulks for a while then returns with the same nonsense. Like all fundamentalists, he thinks saying something over and over makes it true.

        The only positive thing about him has been that he’s claimed not to be a salvific restrictivist, and not to believe in eternal torture – but now that he says he prefers Driscoll, I have to wonder about even that.

      • coyotenose

        Ohhhhh, I was wondering what the reference above to “years” of him was about, but didn’t want to bother wading through his other comments. Been meaning to remember to check out Debunking though, thanks!

    • Gus Snarp

      Let’s be clear here, what C Peterson is doing is speculating, and he makes that quite clear in his language. What Driscoll is doing is stating his opinion as if it were a hard fact.

      C Peterson is speculating about what is possible based on the available evidence of what might be going on in Obama’s head. Driscoll is making a judgment based on his own perceived ability to determine what constitutes “real” Christianity. To Driscoll, it doesn’t even matter if Obama believes in God and believes himself to be a Christian. He doesn’t share Driscolls precise beliefs, and is therefore not a “real” Christian. I’d be careful, you probably don’t meet Driscoll’s definition of a “real” Christian either, though I’m sure he’d let it slide if you’re willing to generally toe the line and make regular contributions to his church.

  • Jeremy Conner

    I personally don’t know if the president is or is not a christian. It is not an issue for me nor should it be an issue for the rest of the country. But unfortunately this is an example of an uninformed, biased old man speaking out of ignorance. I honestly don’t think the bible needs to be involved in the inauguration at all. We are in no way a christian nation, so we shouldn’t involve such things in our politics

    • Random_acct

      Maybe he should have placed his hands on a science book! You know, the type of book that those who are in their final days of life always request. Lol.

      • coyotenose

        Flagged for being a trolling dimwit. Does Jesus love you for being snotty?

        • Laughing Boy

          More calling on a Jesus you don’t believe in. I love it!

          • PietPuk

            Hey! Another troll.

            • http://twitter.com/docslacker MD

              More like a sock puppet.

            • Random_acct

              You better look up the word “troll”. It’s not about those you disagree with. You should be better than that.

        • The Captain

          As much stupidity as he is spouting out, I do hate the flagging of comments to remove even the ones from idiots. Nothing was treating so while shut down his comments. It just looks like you (we) are trying to silence someone. That’s what the xtians did on CNN last week and I would think we are better than that.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            I’m bothered by seeing thoughtful comments that ‘we’ don’t happen to agree with get down voted (blacksheep and RWLawoffice seem to get down votes as a matter of course, no matter what they say). But voting is useful in distinguishing which comments add to the discussion. Pure troll crap can sit at the bottom of the ‘useful’ sort that Disqus gives us. They’re not really flagged, so much as down voted off the first page of comments. I’m not sure if Hemant gets an alert at a certain level, but I’m pretty sure it’s his ultimate decision to remove something.

            • coyotenose

              Blacksheep seems to have improved greatly from the commenter I remember and was… shall we say, unfond of in the past. He doesn’t get a lot of downvotes from this direction these days. But I don’t engage him all that much either, because by the time I’m online, you or someone else has said everything that needed to be said.

              • Blacksheep

                I was a stranger in a strange land coyote – but i discovered that I like the discourse, and many of the people here too…

                • Cecelia Baines

                  We don’t like you, and for me, I don’t want to associate with someone like you. So, do not ever use the words “friend” and “Cecelia” in the same sentence.

                • Blacksheep

                  You have made that abundantly clear, Cecelia! Funny how much hatred and vitriol that a difference of opinion can cause!

            • C Peterson

              I prefer sites that allow up votes, but no down votes. I think it keeps things more honest, and more friendly. Most sites that allow down votes seem to get particularly nasty at times. There’s no need for them. This recent change on this forum is unwelcome.

          • coyotenose

            I don’t flag comments that aren’t clear trolling, or at least try not to. Disagreement isn’t trolling, nor are stupidity, callousness, or bigotry in most cases, However, this ignoramus is just jumping around and throwing out nonsense to derail things. As well, some of them (maybe just one guy) clearly post with several names, and sock puppeting should be flagged.

            By way of comparison, while I could be mistaken, I don’t think I’ve ever flagged Rw.

            • The Captain

              I see where you’re coming from, but I still think the voting option makes “troll” comments appear as what they are. My problem comes from the definition of “troll”. Everyone seems to have their own definition of what is and what is not a “troll” so the whole thing becomes kinda arbitrary. A thoughtfully comment of a xtian blog often gets labeled a “troll” and removed, I don’t want to see the same thing happen here. “troll” has become a catch all phrase used to remove ideas some people may not like. As it is, I would much rather “troll” post stay, from a freedom of speech standpoint (and yes I know it’s a privet blog, but it’s the sprit of free speech I think is good) and from the idea that a troll will show himself what he is and I think people are smart enough to see through that. Let people make up their own minds if something is a troll or not. Don;t decide for them.

        • Random_acct

          Ooh. Flagged? How thin-skinned are some apparently?

    • Laughing Boy

      But Christians are citizens and they pay taxes. So they have a right to get involved in politics.
      And you have a right to oppose them.
      Isn’t democracy messy?

      • Glasofruix

        They have the right to get involved, thay don’t have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

        • Random_acct

          FYI…democracy is all about some folks “imposing” their beliefs on others. The lack of thinking from atheists on this site is stunning.

      • RobertoTheChi

        They do not have the right to have their archaic dogma legislated into laws.

    • Gus Snarp

      I’d like to point out something that some people seem to have missed: at no point in this comment did Jeremy Conner in any way insinuate that Christians cannot be involved in politics. He said the Bible should not be involved in the inauguration, and at the most liberal interpretation of his comment argued for the constitutional principle that no religious test be required to hold elective office.

      If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with the Constitution.

  • anniewhoo

    Mark Driscoll likes to keep caterpillars in his underpants… when he wears them. See? It’s pretty easy to make up crazy stuff and post it on the interwebs. Quite honestly, I think he’s lying… he probably doesn’t pray for anyone or anything, except his bank account.

    • A3Kr0n

      I can’t think of a better place to keep caterpillars, so I’d give him a thumbs up for that.

      • ggsillars

        But think of the poor caterpillars!

      • coyotenose

        Um, I have a cup we could keep them in.

        Wait… that came out wrong.

  • ortcutt

    On a day like today, I’ll just sit here enjoy looking at all of the crestfallen conservative douchebags who spent four years fighting for no other goal that defeating Obama and still losing badly. Conservative Christians were certainly the biggest losers of the last election, thinking that “religious freedom” and gay demonization were going to sweep them to victory. Sorry, Billy Graham. Sorry, Mark Driscoll. Sorry, Cardinal Dolan. Sorry, Rick Santorum. Sorry, Pat Robertson. Sorry, Maggie Gallagher. You lost, we won. Welcome to Obama’s America.

    • Random_acct

      Recession? What recession? Please prove your assertion with a link to data.

      • L:aughing Boy

        Good point. There is no recession. There is no unemployment. There is no inflation. And a National Debt that exceeds the GDP never hurt anybody. You are all rich. Now go back to sleep. Everything is find.

    • Laughing Boy

      But wait! Isn’t Obama a Christian?

      • ortcutt

        He’s a liberal Christian. There are plenty of liberal Christians in this country. One of the most absurd things that conservative Christians try to do is write tens of millions of people out of existence.

  • http://twitter.com/WoodwindsRock Emma

    The less a president believes in the Bible, the better.

  • pagansister

    Does it really matter what President Obama believes when it comes to “religion”? Haven’t we had this discussion before—for the last 4 years? It is old news. Mark can park his ideas where they belong—-up his ***.

  • http://www.theaunicornist.com Mike D
  • Greg G.

    I agree with Driscoll but on the basis that “real Christian” is an oxymoron.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I haven’t followed Mark Driscoll’s history, but I didn’t read that as saying Obama is a Muslim, but that True Christians who Know God know that butt sex is an abominations, unless you’re using the no pre-marital sex between a man and a woman loophole.

  • WoodyTanaka

    Clearly Mark Driscoll is a racist. (If he’s going to, we all should…)

    • coyotenose

      Also he ingests, whole, Ken Ham’s leftover violated piglets.

      • WoodyTanaka

        And Driscoll STILL hasn’t addressed the rumor that he murdered a young girl in 1990. hmmm.

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

    So, Pastor Driscoll is judging Obama to be “not a ‘Real’ Christian”? Doesn’t he realize that, by doing so, he’s violating several of the scriptures he claims to revere? Among them are Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37. He’d best be careful, his mortal soul is in jeopardy.

    • Random_acct

      Judging? He gave his opinion. You got your panties in a wad objecting to his opinion.

  • Pureone

    Technically ‘Bamer used, what, 3-4 bibles to be sworn in? How many does Driscoll require?

    • coyotenose

      Heh!

      Well, it has to be the right kind of Bible, you see. Like say, a Bible that only someone who believes in the religion of Trickle-Down Economic Theory can touch.

  • LesterBallard

    I hope he doesn’t really believe it, and I hope that he doesn’t really believe that he “knows god”.

  • Random_acct

    Why does it not surprise me that so many were offended by Driscoll’s accurate critique of the god Barack Obama? It is particularly funny that atheists were so offended given their hatred of Christianity.

    • J-Rex

      Opinion = accurate critique?

      • Random_acct

        No. Accurate critique, just as I stated before.

        • J-Rex

          And calling an opinion an accurate critique doesn’t make it one.
          Mark Driscoll would have no way of knowing whether or not Obama really believes in God. That makes it his opinion.

          • Random_acct

            Even demons believe in God. Not to suggest that Obama is a demon, but the point is not belief, but whether Obama follows Christ. I would submit that is unlikely given his stated beliefs on such things as abortion and gay marriage, just to highlight two examples.

            • David Starner

              Abortion is hardly a definitively Christian position, given that the Bible never talks about it and until the 1970s most Protestants considered it acceptable or at worst questionable. Gay marriage, of course, is part of that whole love your brother and call no man unclean thing. Defining those to be the litmus tests of Christianity above the whole love your neighbor as yourself and take care of the poor things does seem to be pretty typical of a self-righteous group of Christians who object to any form of Christianity that would restrict themselves.

              • Glasofruix

                There’s something in the bible about magic abortion water, i’m quite sure of it.

              • Gus Snarp

                Well, the Bible does talk about it, when it gives instructions to induce one in an unfaithful wife. So the one Biblical mention of abortion commands it, which makes it awfully hard to argue that the Bible condemns abortion.

              • Random_acct

                Loving another person as we are commanded to do does not mean we should encourage actions that will separate them from God and destroy them. That is not love.

                • coyotenose

                  Actions that will separate other people from God… you mean like presenting yourself as a Christian and then intentionally trolling and lying to and about those people? Those kinds of actions?

                  Enjoy your stay in Hell, sinner.

                • Random_acct

                  You are an atheist, correct? So atheists believe in Hell? Who knew?

                • David Starner

                  I would believe that more if such Christians focused on divorce and other nitpicks of the law that applied to them instead of the Other.

                • David Starner

                  Again, you’re willing to change marriage to make divorce freely available. Are you going to start shunning divorcees again? Otherwise, you’re picking your targets as per what doesn’t bother you. Plank in your eye and speck in your brothers, and all that.

                • Random_acct

                  I made no such changes. I would make divorce much more difficult if I were king. Marriage has always been a male/female proposition. That is the only logical arrangement.

            • Thackerie

              So, could you remind us again of what your Christ said about abortion and gay marriage? Book, chapter, and verse, please!

              • Random_acct

                Not that it really matters to you, but see marriage defined and described here…

                http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A4-5&version=NIV

                Also, Luke 17:34-35…http://www.helium.com/items/1210434-jesuss-view-of-homosexuality?page=2

                Again, this exercise in “proving” what Christ finds acceptable in intimate physical relationships doesn’t really matter to you, so you should at least be honest about that.

                • Thackerie

                  I didn’t ask you how some apologists interpret parts of the Bible. I asked what your Christ said about abortion and gay marriage. As I recall from the gospels, it was ” ” and ” .”

                • Random_acct

                  FYI…the verses were referenced. That is what you should focus on. HTH. But let’s get real here, you don’t care what Christ said about marriage as you have made up your mind.

                • coyotenose

                  Translation: You have no argument to back up your claims, so you’re playing the sour grapes card in advance. Bless your heart.

                • Random_acct

                  The fact is, it doesn’t matter what Christ says about gay marriage to you or any atheist. Let’s at least be honest in this discussion.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  So your going to denounce The Stranger as a reliable source of news but then use http://www.helium.com as a reliable source for your argument?

                • Random_acct

                  Let me help you out a bit. Writers for The Stranger consider themselves professional journalists. As for helium.com, those are not professional journalists. HTH.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Well that’s a relief for a moment there I thought you were using helium.com as an authoritative source for factual information.

                • coyotenose

                  1. Matthew 19 is about divorce (which magically you don’t oppose.)

                  2. It does not say or even imply that other relationships can’t exist. It’s saying that people who marry shouldn’t divorce.

                  3. Jesus, are you illiterate?

                • Random_acct

                  1. And how did you conclude this Einstein?
                  2 and 3. Reference prior comment about being honest.

                  You aren’t fooling anyone bud.

            • Gus Snarp

              Even pink unicorns believe in the tooth fairy.

              • Random_acct

                Pink and invisible? Hmmm…someone has a logical fallacy problem going on here…

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Who said anything about invisible? Someone has a reading comprehension problem going on here.

                  Oh shit, I dropped another kibble! Damn, and now it’s going to be harassing me all day!

                • Random_acct

                  Rich, you are trying too hard.

            • The Captain

              Abortion and gay marriage are not mentioned on your holly text. So you must think you speak for god then. Or do you think you are god?

              • Glasofruix

                There’s also some stuff in the bible for people who pretend to know skyfairy’s thoughts, it’s not a very nice place.

              • coyotenose

                Oh it’s the first one; he’s a false prophet. And Jesus did actually have some unpleasant words about them.

            • coyotenose

              Jesus didn’t say or even imply anything about either topic. And the Bible indicates the OPPOSITE of what you believe about abortion. Why do you dimwits not even read your own book of magic spells?

              And why are you now lying about Christ?

              • Random_acct

                You are so foolish. You can’t even read something so clear and understand it. Again, you don’t want to know the truth. You only want to see what you want to see.

            • CultOfReason

              Where in the bible did Jesus offer his teachings on Abortion and Gay Marriage? Please point me to some clear and concise verses, not some generic statements that can be misconstrued or interpreted in multiple ways.

            • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

              Re: “Even demons believe in God.”

              Really? They do? Can you prove that? You can start by first demonstrating there’s even such a thing as “demons” in the first place. Then you can prove you know what they think.

              Good luck. You’ll need it.

              • Random_acct

                Can you prove scientifically that you were alive yesterday? Good luck. You’ll need it.

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  Actually I can prove I was alive yesterday. I used an ATM, and would have been pictured operating it. All I need is the security footage from the timestamp on my receipt (which functions as an added objective piece of evidence that I was there).

                  Now that I’ve answered your question, how about you answering mine? Don’t dodge it. Answer it. If you dare.

                  My own hunch is, you haven’t the courage to answer my question, you’ll just come up with another evasion. You can either live down to all my expectations, or impress me with an answer I hadn’t anticipated. It’s entirely up to you.

                • Random_acct

                  That does not provide scientific proof you were alive yesterday. Understand what scientific proof means.

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  I knew you were going to continue to evade the question I asked. Thanks for proving once again that religionists like yourself are nothing but evasive liars.

                  As for you being especially privy to the definition of “scientific” … it’s clear you have no idea what it means, so pardon me if I’m not impressed with your lame and juvenile attempt to dress me down where it’s concerned.

                  Demons do not exist. They never have and never will. If you have objective, verifiable evidence of their existence, then provide it … or not. Until you do you will remain an evasive liar when you claim they exist but, persistently and childishly, dig your heels in and refuse to substantiate them.

                  It’s your belief system. Either you respect it enough to demonstrate its veracity, or you don’t. You have no one but yourself to blame if you refuse to do so.

                • Random_acct

                  If I’m evasive, how can I be a liar? You better look that word up.

                  I specifically stated “scientific proof”…which demands requirements that you cannot meet in my challenge to you.

                  I’ll close by quoting the most famous atheist of the 20th century…

                  “If you could prove God to me, I would believe him all the less”. – Nietzsche

                  You get the point…

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  I gave you the proof you childishly asked for, in place of summoning the courage to answer the question I originally asked.

                  Which, I remind you, you have yet ever to come near to answering.

                  I neither know nor care what relevance the Nietzche quote has for me. I asked you a question, Instead of answering it, or admitting you have none, you dodged and swerved around it, and made me out to be the problem instead of yourself.

                  And that, my friend, is what makes you a liar. You imply I am the reason you cannot answer my original question. But I am not. And you know it. None of your juvenile antics has been able to change the fact that you’ve refused to substantiate your own beliefs.

                  As I said, you either respect them enough to do so, or you don’t. You’ve made your choice. I will repeat: I am not stopping you from answering the question; you are. Grow up and admit it. I have no time to deal with children like yourself.

                • Random_acct

                  So you simple-mindedly believe that a security camera with a time stamp somehow scientifically proves you were alive yesterday? No, it doesn’t. But you don’t understand the concept of scientific proof….clearly.

                  The Nietzche quote is entirely relevant because it gets to the heart of the matter. That is, that you have chosen not to believe in God (or any spiritual being for that matter). Of course, you are also completely inconsistent with regard to other things you would readily admit exist, even though their existence can’t be proven scientifically either.

                  And by the way, one who is “not answering the question” as you suggest does not make one a liar. That is an absurd charge, and shows me that you don’t understand the definitions of basic words you use.

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  Keep whining and bellyaching about me. All it will do is continue to prove you’re just a little whiner who refuses to substantiate your own beliefs. I am not the reason you won’t do so: You are.

                  You ARE a liar because you keep implying that I am preventing you from answering the question. It is not true. Therefore it’s a LIE. That you are LYING makes YOU a LIAR. It also makes me even less inclined than I was before, to adopt your beliefs (which I’m not clear on, since you childishly and impulsively refuse to substantiate any of them).

                  Grow up and stop being a sniveling crybaby. You might actually get a convert somewhere if you acted more than, say, 2 years of age.

                • Random_acct

                  Lol. Are you familiar with the term “projecting”?

                  I am simply stating the truth. Apparently you are completely missing the point about proof. Your question is irrelevant if you would understand the point. But you continue to base the foundation of your belief system on whether or not the existence of such things can be proven scientifically using selective application of this criteria.

                  If you were consistent and honest about this, then we could move forward.

                  Name-callling just shows your position is weak too.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  He’s a troll in the classic sense. He gets his kink on by stringing people on for as long as possible. Which is fine if you’re bored and playing along, but is pretty low priority in the grand scheme of life.

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  I know he’s a troll. I just like playing with these guys. That, and the fact that the other believers who see their antics can’t or won’t take them on, shows their own lack of character and conviction … but that’s another matter entirely.

                • Random_acct

                  And yet you still don’t understand the basic point I am making.

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  And you still childishly refuse to answer my question. Instead blaming me for your refusal to do so.

                  Each time you reply to me with snivelly, whining, cowardly evasions, your effective demonstrated age goes down. Keep it up. Eventually you’ll reach the age of -2.

                • Random_acct

                  “Eventually you’ll reach the age of -2.”

                  Atheist “logic” on full display.

          • Random_acct

            So are are suggesting that there it not possible to determine if someone is a Christian? Interesting.

        • cipher

          Typical fundie. “Accurate critique” = “What I want to believe”.

    • PietPuk

      Troll

      • Random_acct

        Ooh. The ultimate put down. Now go run back to your mommy and she’ll provide you comfort I’m sure.

        • PietPuk

          Double troll

          • Random_acct

            Let’s make it a triple troll!

            • PietPuk

              Sad troll

              • Random_acct

                No triple troll? How disappointing.

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

          Mental Masturbating troll

          • Random_acct

            You’re cute.

    • The Captain

      The only thing we get “offended” by is it shows what amazingly dumb douche bags you are. It shows us how either how stupid and self centered your kind is that you think anyone who is not following your one very specific set of christianity is not a “true christian”. Or it show us how you are conducting a politically motivated smear campaign by painting someone you don’t like as a follower of a religion that’ not yours, contrary to everything you same folks where yelling 4 years ago when attacking his christian preacher. And on top of that, being a different religion than you is not even a insult for anyone with half a brain in their head.

      So the only things we are really “offended” by is your brazen stupidity and bigotry.

      • Random_acct

        Once again…

        Now now. Let’s not get emotional here. We must be rational. You know, like all atheists proclaim to be…vs those “irrational” Christians. LOL.

        • The Captain

          Nothing I said was “irrational”. My analysis of your actions are all based on evidence of past experiences the wording you used and the strengths of your accusations.

          I can also rationally come to the conclusion your a douche bag too.

        • coyotenose

          Outrage is not synonymous with irrationality. Why are you such a stupid troll?

          • Random_acct

            Name-calling is the refuge of those who have lost the debate. HTH.

            • Pam

              You’d have to enter the debate in the first place for there to be any discussion on who won and who lost.

              • Random_acct

                Like I said, name-calling is the refuge for those who have lost the debate.

    • Cecelia Baines

      Did you get laid off from Wal-Mart? Do you have too much time on your uneducated little hands? Lemme ask you something, down at the library where you BM and shave, do they make you sign in to use the Interwebs, or do you sneak in and do it when no one is looking?

      You are the poster child of American Ignorance. So, if that is your end game, I mean kudos, because you hit that one outta the park.

      • Random_acct

        Cecelia…Cecelia. You are better than that. Let’s focus on the issue, not the person.

        Is it just me, or does the use of a capital letter for the word “ignorance” in your comment exude irony?

        • Cecelia Baines

          Because arguing actual issues with someone like you is akin to competing in the Special Olympics. No matter the outcome, I still go home with unwanted hugs, uncalled for touching and a medal that is highly suspect as to the special “achievement”.

          • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

            The irony here is that random_acct is a “last word” troll. To him as long as he gets the last word in he thinks he wins the suspicious special achievement award. Mark my words everything I trolled him on he will have to get the last word in, it gives a modicum of meaning to his otherwise pointless existence.

          • coyotenose

            Because arguing actual issues with someone like you is akin to competing in the Special Olympics

            And this is a perfect example of how most of us here don’t have to pick sports teams, unlike Randomly_ActingOut. After this quote and the Wal-Mart one, I can merrily tell both sides to fuck off.

          • Blacksheep

            So you’re criticizing people who work for walmart and you reserve more detailed scorn for Special Olympics?

            Bless your heart.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              That’s the best laugh I’ve had all day.

          • Random_acct

            Your intellect is truly dizzying Cecelia.

        • Cecelia Baines

          And oh yes, to answer you question, it is just you.

          • Random_acct

            No. It was you.

        • coyotenose

          yes, it is just you here who is ignorant of the proper use of capitalization in writing.

          “Keynesian Economics”.

          “Evolutionary Theory”.

          “Blue Period”.

          She was doing it right.

      • coyotenose

        Did you get laid off from Wal-Mart?

        Bless your little heart.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      Can you demonstrate, using objective, verifiable evidence, that President Obama doesn’t believe in the Christian God? If not, how can you call Driscoll’s drivel an “accurate critique”?

      To me it looks a lot like sour grapes and crybabyism. Driscoll’s candidate (whoever that was) didn’t win, so he’s kvetching and moaning about it. What a childish act. Driscoll and the rest of his ilk ought to grow up and act their ages.

  • Michael

    Now if only people could take this just a little bit further and start investigating how many of the world’s Christians are actually Christian.

  • njew84
  • njew84

    I think the video I have posted will give us more than enough reason to believe Obama favors Islam to Christianity. If he is in fact a Christian he sure fooled me.

    • PietPuk

      What is it with the trolls today?

      • njew84

        Honestly, the only reason I found this website is because the sign that was hung in my town a year and a half ago. Since then I have been fairly regular around here. If you don’t want trolls infecting your chat boards, don’t put up signs in my city that have your website on them. I figured it was an open invitation.

        • PietPuk

          It is not my website.

        • The Captain

          What sign had an add for this website on it? As far as I know the person who runs this site has never advertised it on a sign anywhere. Are you really this dumb are just a lier?

        • Sindigo

          So, you admit you’re a troll then? Why should anyone respond to you?

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

        they got the day off from work

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          You’re assuming these slime-molds are employable.

    • http://twitter.com/docslacker MD

      I don’t really care if Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. He could be worshipping Zeus. What I care about is politicians imposing THEIR particular flavour of religion on everyone else.

      The reason people take issue with accusations of secret Islamic practices is the racist tinge they carry. Obama has stated he is Christian. If a white politician says he’s Christian, he is believed, period. But noooo, the black man that has been elected to the highest office in the land can’t be Christian.

      So unless Obama actually tries to make eating pork illegal, he can be whatever the hell he wants to be.

      • njew84

        I find it particularly insulting that you are basically calling me and anyone that has an issue with Obama a racist. Race has nothing to do with my influence in choosing whom I vote for. That fact that he has ties to Islam in his family might have something to do with that. If he is not Muslim I still cannot completely believe he isn’t at least influenced a tiny bit by the Muslim faith.

        Let me ask you this, do you believe as Americans we have too many rights? Do you believe the United States has too much power over the rest of the world? It seems to me your precious president does. All these executive orders he has been signing suggests he wants us as powerless as the jews in a nazi war camp. Just sayin’

    • Pedro Lemos

      So what? What if he really favors Islam to Christianity? Does it make him a worse president? Only a Christian could be a good president?

      • njew84

        The title of this article is “Pastor Mark Driscoll: Obama isn’t a real Christian.” The video I posted suggests this statement to be true.

        What if he favors Islam to Christianity? It doesn’t unless he has some sort of hidden agenda with terrorist of the Muslim faith.

        Does it make him a worse president? No again unless accusations of his hidden agenda are true.

        Only a Christian can be a good president? Personally I would rather have a Christian president however that is not the only credential I look for in a presidential candidate. I know plenty of Christians who I would never vote for for president of the United States. Could a Muslim president be a good president? Sure. Could an atheist president be a good president? Probably. Could they be a better president than a Christian president? Absolutely. Are Christians better people than everyone else? No!!!

    • coyotenose

      He sure fooled everyone, what with the way EVERY SINGLE THING HE HAS EVER DONE OR SAID SINCE CONVERTING DECADES AGO HAS BEEN IN LINE WITH BEING A LIBERAL CHRISTIAN.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

        NO YELLING!

    • Pam

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslimfaith.asp

      Drop the whackjob conspiracy stuff, please. It’s been tired and false for years.

  • cipher

    You know, the really pathetic thing is that the fundies who are posting comments here are doing so in defense of Mark Driscoll – hardly the best they have to offer. Many of them are also troubled by the things he says, but when they perceive an attack upon a “brother [or sister] in Christ”, look out.

    I see it among Orthodox Jews as well. Orthodox groups often despise one another and will criticize one another privately among themselves, but should a secular or liberal Jew criticize that same group or individual, especially if it’s done in public, it becomes an entirely different matter; they’ll band together and defend them shamelessly. Even the Modern Orthodox, who try so hard to show liberal Jews they aren’t as backward as the Haredim, are not immune to this behavior.

    No one does “wagons is a circle” better than fundamentalists and people of conservative faith in general. It’s their primary fallback position.

  • Cecelia Baines

    Here is the thing. If it weren’t for your blog (Hemant) I wouldn’t even know who this dillhole is, so it brings up the question:

    Why are you giving him any mention in the first place? His name is not consistently on CNN, MSNBC or even Faux News, so why give him attention?

    It is a bit like your blog Hemant; outside the Internet and a very esoteric group of followers, who are you? Why would Driscoll pay attention? It is like kids in a sandbox, tattling on each other.

    Driscoll is a nobody, so who gives two rat’s buttocks what he thinks of Obama?

    • Noelle

      It would be nice if Driscoll were a nobody with no money and no books and no followers and no friggin empire of a church with people hanging on his every word like their own personal ambassador to God. Ignoring evil doesn’t make it go away.

      You personally are not required to care though.

      • Random_acct

        Looks like he’s gotten in yo’ head too. :-)

    • Stev84

      Driscoll is one of the more influential voices in American Calvinism and runs a hugely successful cult with thousands of victims

    • coyotenose

      No. This line of argument has been disproven. These people get stronger when they aren’t exposed to the moderate public.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

        Kinda like Hitler. Had to throw that out there because every forum discussion has a reference to Hitler at some point.

        • http://twitter.com/docslacker MD

          Ooh, I was missing that. HITLER!

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

      Hemant is a leader of an increasingly visible and growing group of like minded people and has been published in the Washington Post and other places, in addition to writing popular books that have been widely discussed by many in religious and media circles. He’s hardly a nobody.

  • Noelle

    Liberal Christians are Christians too. Their god is just as real as Driscoll’s. So yes, Virginia, many real Christians are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and pro-evolution. And they do for-realsies pray and read the bible and believe in god.
    Having an ultra-conservative evangelical Christian yelling that Liberal Christians aren’t real and going to Hell with the rest of us atheist heathens is nothing new. Driscoll is even more worrisome than some of his more rational conservative brethren. You don’t have to look far to see him condemning stay at home dads and working moms. His words on female ministers are vile. Parishioners who differ with the almighty Mark’s opinion are subject to harsh church discipline and shunned if they don’t comply. Young women who are having marital difficulties that most would see as pretty normal are accused of being possessed by demons.

    • Random_acct

      They have a different god? Now we are getting somewhere…

  • http://twitter.com/hmwoohoo Heroic Hal

    Dennis Prager condemns Keith Ellison because he doesn’t place his hand on a Bible (choosing instead the Qur’an, as one would expect from a Muslim) and then Mark Driscoll carps at Barack Obama because he does.

  • Carpinions

    “Praying for our president…”

    Why do I always get the sneaking suspicion that this has become a dogwhistle pejorative in Religious Right circles for “stabbing the public icon of my hate in effigy while hoping he meets an untimely demise”?

    • http://twitter.com/docslacker MD

      Haven’t you heard? In some evangelical circles “I’ll pray for you” is the polite way of saying “fuck off.”

      • Noelle

        It’s the Southern US equivalent of “bless your heart”

        • coyotenose

          “Bless your heart” is basic Southern for “fuck you”. “I’ll pray for you” is *usually* a combination of “fuck you” and “I just walked in blind and smug and got my argument shot down really hard”, but can mean only the former.

          Now that I think about it, it gets remarkably subtle. “I’ll be praying for you” is the phrasing used by a person who means you well but will probably not pray physically. “We’ll pray for you” means they’ll actually ask their kids to pray for you. “I’ll pray on this/what you said” means that they plan to not ever think about it again if they can help it.

          And of course it varies by state and region. I bet there’s a couple of fun articles to be written on this..,

          • Random_acct

            You can be cured of our cynicism and unhappiness.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              I’m long since cured of your cynicism and unhappiness, thanks. Also your habit of lying on behalf of the Savior and driving people away from Him with your hypocrisy, deceit and spite.

    • Gus Snarp

      Has become? It’s been that way a long time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tomincolo Tom Fox

    I don’t care if the President takes the Oath of Office on the DC phone book. Come to think of it, that would be more significant since the DC phone book can be shown to be true and the bible is nearly total fiction.

  • Gus Snarp

    Could there be a more clear example of why separation of church and state is so important and why you can’t have freedom of religion without freedom from religion? Even among Christians someone will always come along who says your version of Christianity isn’t “real” and when religion is entangled with government, this leads directly to discrimination. Christians should recognize that they’re equally likely to end up discriminated against by other Christians, like Driscoll.

    • coyotenose

      Seriously, they don’t even grasp, despite it being well-documented, that Separation of Church and State was heavily promoted by Christians because of interfaith discrimination. It was put in place to protect THEM.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chengis-Khan/100003317165064 Chengis Khan

    Neither est Monsieur Driscoll un Chretian. Is not Dricoll a berry vendeur ou something comme ca? His god is a rotten berry. No, not the star trek guy.

  • Christo Christopher

    Sorry Hemant, “as big of a dick as Driscoll” doesn’t qualify someone as a “friendly atheist”. Rather it qualifies someone as a “bears his teeth atheist”.

    When a serious topic like gays or women arises, diplomacy is not always possible.

    That makes Hemant a bully, and someone who has to be handled just as much as Mark Driscoll – even IF Mark isn’t always diplomatic. HandleBullying.Com

    • cipher

      That makes Hemant a bully

      Um, no. It makes him honest. That comment, however, reveals you as an idiot.

      I suppose saying so makes me a bully.

    • Christo Christopher

      “bares his teeth atheist” sorry…but then again, “bear” may not be too far off the mark either. HandleBullying.Com

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Tone Trolling.

    • Gus Snarp

      When a minority or powerless person is ridiculed and mocked for who they are, that’s bullying. When someone in power is ridiculed and mocked for their behavior, that’s comedy.

      Driscoll is the pastor of an enormous church, who has virtually unchecked power over his followers. In addition he has a chain of affiliated churches across the country. He is an influential member of the dominant religious group in America.

      Hemant is an influential member of a minority group in terms of belief, as well as a minority in terms of ethnicity and sexual orientation (I think, but I don’t keep track so I may be misremembering). He writes a blog popular with some atheists.

      So ask yourself who the person with the power is in this scenario.

      And calling someone a dick hardly rises to the level of bullying. Perhaps you’ve never been bullied? I have, and one person calling me a dick would have meant nothing, it was the people who harassed me continually every time they saw me with threats and vicious insults (“dick” is hardly vicious), and occasionally with real physical violence. Don’t pretend that a blog post Driscoll will likely never read calling him a dick is on par with that, much less with the much worse that many gay people and other minorities face every day. Just don’t.

  • David H

    why do you cal yourself Friendly Atheist? I don’t see much friendliness happening here.

  • http://twitter.com/Fake_Andrew Andrew Parker

    A demonstrably uninformed atheist commenting on whether Obama is a christian or not? Oh this is going to go well


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X