Sunday, March 21, 2010

The power of prayer

It's amost worth seeing the Waihopai vandals get away with the crime when you see just how much it annoys Michael Laws.

But I'd go further - Christians around the country will be rejoicing at the sight of what, to them, must be an awe-inspiring demonstration of the power of prayer. Consider: the three are patently guilty. It's inconceivable that a jury should aquit them. How then has it come about that a jury did aquit them, knowing full well they did the deed? Only one answer suggests itself: all three are Christians, all three and their supporters have presumably prayed fervently for their release. It appears God heard their prayers and softened the hearts of the jurors. It also appears God is a hippy commie terrorist-lover, which is more than a little worrying...

26 comments:

JC said...

"But I'd go further - Christians around the country will be rejoicing at the sight of what, to them, must be an awe-inspiring demonstration of the power of prayer."

Its an awe inspiring demonstration of a fuckup is what most Christians will be thinking.
And Christians would know better than most about people claiming God on their side for nefarious purposes.

JC

Psycho Milt said...

Really? This is the least-hopeless contender for claiming prayer can influence real-world events I've ever seen. Previous examples have been along the lines of God seeing to it that you weren't one of the people killed in some disaster, or healing your sick relative (Hannah Tamaki is peddling that one in the SST today). Those are fairly obvious 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacies - this one though, is way beyond the bounds of probability. What's the likelihood that a jury would unanimously decide to just let them away with it?

Lou Taylor said...

you're scrapping the barrel with this one Milt.
Far more feasible that the jury were brain dead Labour/Green voters.

Barnsley Bill said...

Surprising. Not really when you consider that the fairy tale that most christians hang their lives on has the son of god as a kaftan and sandal wearing beardie. If he were alive today he would look like Nandor.
On the subject of Jury trials. Somebody mentioned here the other day that this is the fault of those of us who would rather hack off a nut than serve on a jury. Some truth in that I should think.
The thought of sitting in kaikohe district court for a few days with nannas that smell like wee and cabbage does not appeal and when you consider the "clients" of the kaikohe court and then the highly paid scumbags who game the system while they preach solemnly about civic duty... Well, let me just say I would definately rather hack lefty off than go through that again.

Inventory2 said...

You should know better than to mock the Almighty PM. Don't moan when a randon lightning bolt shatters your roof, or when all four wheels drop off the Rover ...

Inventory2 said...

BB - same goes for you, although in Kerikeri it's more likely to be a flood to end the drought ...

Barnsley Bill said...

A flood we could use actually. Not too much worry about the rover wheels falling off. When it does actually spend time with the bonnet closed I don't imagine it ever nudges 30mph.

Psycho Milt said...

God is not mocked, IV2. Not by the likes of me, anyway...

BB: hmm, as usual there is a plausible explanation unreliant on God interfering. I haven't been called up for jury service since 1999, but back then I promptly weaseled out of it. The theory clearly has some merit to it.

Psycho Milt said...

When it does actually spend time with the bonnet closed I don't imagine it ever nudges 30mph.

And that only on a Sunday. It's certainly what I tell my insurance company, anyway. HM Govt also clearly shares your view, since my rego for the next 12 months came to $96.80...

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt, I hope you're not suggesting on the seventh day God went for a spin in a Rover?

Inventory2 said...

Adolf - getting a Rover to run properly might even be beyond God. That would TRULY be a miracle!

Barnsley Bill said...

As the saying goes. There are no agnostics in a rover. Or somefink like that.

Psycho Milt said...

Drivers of lesser vehicles are naturally subject to a certain level of jealousy. I like your thinking Adolf, but have to admit that if the almighty creator of the universe had really been involved in developing these vehicles he presumably wouldn't have made the handbrake cable and rear brake pads so difficult to get at. On the other hand, he did equip humans with an appendix, so design flaws can't be completely ruled out...

Barnsley Bill said...

Aaaaah. The inboard rear brakes on a Rover.
Designed by the same committee that tried to design a horse and ended up with a camel.
My knuckles still show the scars from replacing rover brakes in the early eighties.

WebWrat said...

"Designed by the same committee that tried to design a horse and ended up with a camel."

Was it the same committee that set out to design the mouse and ended up with the elephant?

WAKE UP said...

Religio-niks always manage to avoid the Rule of Omnipotence, which is: the One who saved them must also be the One who got them into trouble.

Which makes Him, in my book, perverse, incompetent and pointless.
----------------
I much prefer Peter de Vries's great line: "It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist" :)

Anonymous said...

"...all three are Christians, all three and their supporters have presumably prayed fervently for their release."

Yep, I certainly prayed for an acquittal of all 3, and it worked!!! Praise God! (or he might smite you with a deflating spy dome -hehe)

"It also appears God is a hippy commie terrorist-lover..."
Ummm, yep again. Actually, God loves us all. Nice that really, isn't it? After all, who do you think Karl Marx borrowed those ideas from? (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - check out the 11th hour vineyard workers parable in Mt20:1-16).

Or Mt6:24 - "You cannot at the same time serve God and money." Boy, the capitalists must love that one :)

Seriously though - the 'burglary' charge by police was pathetic (does anyone seriously think the 3 were there to steal something? when they waited to be arrested?). And the other charges got acquittals because the 3 had no intent to commit a crime - their actions destroying property were for what they thought (as do I) was the saving of lives by disruption of the US war machine in their illegal slaughter of Iraqis and Afghans.

The Waihopai 3 could not prove the spy base was linked to the deaths of civilians, but they convincingly showed they truly believed that it was. Not any easy thing to prove, and not precendent setting. But a very good outcome in this case!

Question - why aren't more iwis annoyed at paying oiver $20m a year for a base that has never stopped terrorism in NZ or the Pacific? (Fijian coups, Somali nutters wielding knives on planes, Israeli spies stealing passport identities, etc)? Shut it down.

Happy Clappy Commie.
P.S. Rovers are held together by the power of prayer - another illustration of God's love in the face of engineering exasperation.

Dexter said...

"
Seriously though - the 'burglary' charge by police was pathetic (does anyone seriously think the 3 were there to steal something?"

Your knowledge of the law is pathetic. Could your ignorant arse not even spend 20 seconds to look up what burglary consitutes in the Crimes Act before making yourself look even thicker than you obviously are.

"could not prove the spy base was linked to the deaths of civilians, but they convincingly showed they truly believed that it was. Not any easy thing to prove,"

What? It wouldn't take the Jury much to believe that religous fanatics such as these would believe in anything, regardless of evidence, fact or truth.

WAKE UP said...

Love that phrase "the US war machine" . Of course, no one else has one. Not even random, feral, mad Muslim terrorists with nukes up their sleeve.

KG said...

"And the other charges got acquittals because the 3 had no intent to commit a crime"
Breaking in and destroying property isn't a crime now?

"The Waihopai 3 could not prove the spy base was linked to the deaths of civilians, but they convincingly showed they truly believed that it was. Not any easy thing to prove.."
They didn't prove it, merely asserted it and the jury believed them.

"Question - why aren't more iwis annoyed at paying oiver $20m a year for a base that has never stopped terrorism in NZ or the Pacific?"
You know that for a fact? Are you privy to intelligence briefings?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Keith, please don't feed the trolls.

KG said...

Adolf, a couple of others also replied to the troll--and before I did.
If I'm not welcome you only have to say so.

KG said...

Further, I'd appreciate the courtesy of being addressed by the pseudonym I use--a courtesy you extend to other commenters. Thanks.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Woops! Sorry about that.

People will think you are that aging Rugby commentator who has been waiting to die on television for at least three years now.

KG said...

lol! God forbid. Although there may be a few people waiting for me to die....

WAKE UP said...

I can't wait for the failure to stop some negative event, resulting in death/s, to be traced back to the fact that Waihopai was out of action.