I’ve mentioned before that I get lots of wacky email from creationists. I usually throw it out, but there’s this one kook who is persistent and sends me stuff like this:
Control must be taken from the people, and turned over to one individual, Satan!
Anyone with an eye towards God, and God’s word, can easily see the events of the Lord’s prophecies taking place around us today. The non-believers would have the world believe that mankind is in control of it’s own destiny without the benefit of our creator, Yeshua God. These Godless people today are preaching evolution, creation by accident, and that mankind has the answers to all of the problems we are facing today without the help or need of our creator.
It goes on and on in that vein for pages, with buckets of bible verses quoted to ‘prove’ that biblical predictions are true. Boring! Not even wacky enough to deserve a mention!
Except for one thing I happened to notice this time: the list of people it is being sent to. It’s a very short list which includes a few names I don’t know, but has a few I do. This guy thinks the best audience for his screeds contains me, Juan Cole, and … Ann Coulter.
It’s a discombobulating concatenation. I don’t think we’re exactly similar in our interests.
“High profile,” and not believing Exactly As Mr. Kook Does?
OK, PZ, so, if you want me to stop sending you emails, you don’t have to post it on the whole damn Internet. A simple note will do….
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Now we know where Coulter gets her ideas.
Somewhat off-topic, but I thought it would be nice to share the news that the “Explosive Evidence for Creation: Mount St. Helens” at Northwestern College next Tuesday is listed as a “Presentation on Creationism” under the “Faith Notes” section of today’s St. Paul Pioneer Press. Faith indeed… :-p
“The non-believers would have the world believe that mankind is in control of it’s own destiny without the benefit of our creator, Yeshua God.”
Actually, I really would prefer that mankind take control of its own destiny. Less work for me!
Yeshua:
And we tend to do a better job of it, anyway. No offense.
I thought it was funny that the English translation that was chosen for God’s name isn’t one of the two typically recognized archeological translations, Yahweh or Jehovah. Is this person attempting to look smarter or more ignorant by using either a made-up or obscure translation? Or am I proving my ignorance on this matter?
“Anyone with an eye towards God, and God’s word, can easily see the events of the Lord’s prophecies taking place around us today.”
Still boggles me that they use this line and think it will convince any nonbelievers. What’s that line about when all you have is a hammer?
Hah! Silly creationists can’t even use their apostrophes right!
Screech, I’m afraid it’s your ignorance, kinda. “Yeshua” is the same name as “Joshua”, and also the same name as “Jesus”; it’s not a variant of YHWH. It’s a bit unusual to equate Jesus and God quite so flatly; I suspect that the author of the demented e-mail PZ quoted is theologically slightly non-standard. Which is, of course, the least of his troubles.
Well, Greg, I did think to spare you some embarrassment by leaving your name off, but since you’re so willing to confess…
Uh-oh…I just remembered that the person on that other thread who called you the “sexiest man on the internet“* was named Ann.
So that’s why she was on the recipient list.
*A comment that I will make sure you never live down.
None are so blind as those who want to see something they have come up with before even opening their eyes. What about the following:
Anyone with an eye towards Nostradamus, and Nostradamus’ word, can easily see the events of Nostradamus’ prophecies taking place around us over and over again (as the interpretations change again and again).
But then, Nostradamus was (apparently) actually trying to be funny.
None are so blind as those who want to see something they have come up with before even opening their eyes. What about the following:
Anyone with an eye towards Nostradamus, and Nostradamus’ word, can easily see the events of Nostradamus’ prophecies taking place around us over and over again (as the interpretations change again and again).
But then, Nostradamus was (apparently) actually trying to be funny.
Well, Ann-Coulter actually IS Satan. He sometimes likes to change sexes.
Funnily enough, the modern Hebrew word “yeshua” means “salvation.” (I hate to admit, but I only know this because of a song by an Israeli artist named Madhuri who has a song by that title.) So “Yeshua God” might be a weird way of saying “the god of salvation.” But I doubt it.
I don’t think we’re exactly similar in our interests.
The word “interests” does not mean the same thing as “opinions”. I think it could be fairly said that PZ and Ann “Demented Harpy” Coulter have many interests in common:
Science and Religion
American Politics
Evolution vs. Creationism
University-level education
The fact that the demented harpy holds opinions directly opposite PZ doesn’t alter her list of interests.
As much as a person with so many malfunctioning neurons can be said to have interests.
Re Markus
The assumption that hermaphrodite Ann Coulter is female is somewhat optimistic.
Harping on Coulter’s masculine characteristics (her large hands and her prominent Adam’s apple) is a bit too ad hominem for me (ad feminem? I really don’t know my Latin), but there are plenty of solid reasons for criticizing her. She claims to support family values while remaining unmarried and childless (and bragging that it’s perfectly all right for her to hook up with a different guy every night). She claims to be a Christian while exhibiting none of the religion’s behavioral traits (unless you accept Torquemada in his less disciplined moments). She pretends to scholarly erudition while recycling intelligent design nonsense in her book Godless. A fraud.
My Latin isn’t that great, but I do know that homo, accusative hominem means “person” (and is the root for human). “Man” in latin is/was uir.
It’s not her gender I question, it’s her species and planet of origin.
Right on, Zeno. It’s a problem for all of us dealing with female wingnuts. Take Michelle Malkin. She wrote a book defending and promoting the internment of racial minorities and her blog encouraged a dude to send suspicious white powder and lunatic ravings to Pelosi, Letterman, and Olberman. Isn’t that enough evidence of her unstable authoritarian crazy without making fun of her hair or other physical characteristics?
Zeno: I’ll trade you some of my Latin for some of your Greek. The Latin would be “ad feminam”, or “ad mulierem” if you like. As Greco said (what is it with all the Greeks here? is this a liberal reaction to the likes of Tacitus et al.?) “homo/hominem” covers humans in general. You wouldn’t want to put women in a separate genus, Femina sapiens or Mulier sapiens, now, would you?