Listen to this hillarious speech by Pastor Deacon Fred of the Landover Baptist Church during the 2002 Godless Americans March on Washington. Click the pic to launch and enjoy the show.
Related posts:
- Robert Tilton Is Pastor Gas
- Swedish Pastor On The Defense
- Good Evening Godless Sodomites
- Pastor Ted Haggard The Horrible
- Speechless–Silencing The Christians
February 17th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Makes me wonder whether you know that landoverbaptist.org is a spoof site. Enjoy beating the straw man.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Thanks for pointing out the obvious Patrick :)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:36 am
landoverbaptist.org is indeed a spoof site… but the only reason it’s funny is because it’s sooooooo close to reality, Patrick.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:47 pm
phatbob, I want to apologize on behalf of all Christians for so misrepresenting my Lord. Please, please don’t discount Jesus and what He did for you on account of His followers.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Just to make sth clear, this guy IS kidding, or is he?
March 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I had a guy tell me the other day that Judas sold Jesus to the Romans for 30 silver pieces!
Can you believe that!? I’d have done it for free!
June 26th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Thank you Yahweh for this web site. I have found the light.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:47 am
i think its a spoof site.. the way he mocks the true first chirstians(which are catholics, because the first church was the catholic church) is appaling. baptists wouldnt even exist or have bible either if it wasnt for the catholics.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Okay, here we go…I’ve read your “Dang Catholics” story on one of your websites…and let me tell you…hahahahaha!!!! It was sooooooo FUNNY!!!!! And another thing…I will pray for you brother because you are going so far down in Hell that it isn’t funny!!! Now who’s laughing??? And NO! We don’t Worship Mary!!!! We look at her as a sign of purity and we’re thankful of her that she took the responsibility of raising Jesus. And we are for sure not Pagans!!!! Catholic was the FIRST Christian religion!!!! There would have NEVER been a “Babtist” if it weren’t for us. And the Puritans did not separate from our church because we were sinners. They wanted more freedom and the preacher wanted to get married, by the way, a Priest cannot get married because he doesn’t want anything getting in the way of him and God. Now what do you think of that???? I am 16 years old and I seem to know wayyyyyy more than you do about GOD!!!! Now brother, send me an email in reply. I would LOVE to tell you more about the God I know and love.
Britney
April 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“And another thing…I will pray for you brother because you are going so far down in Hell that it isn’t funny!!!”
Oh snap gas, this chick is calling you out.
“a Priest cannot get married because he doesn’t want anything getting in the way of him and God.”
…or those hot prepubescent boys.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Cute. Britney doesn’t recognize satire when she sees it. Than again, neither do I every time.
I thought that according to your mythology (Mathew 7:1 in particular) judging salvation is strictly reserve by God?
If you ignore all of the hundreds of other versions of Christianity that proliferated before the Council of Nicea, much of which was violently eradicated by the newly formed Catholics.
I think that it is foolish, like many other religious behaviors.
Redundant. Approximate age can be gleamed via briefly examining the prose.
No, you only believe you know more about God than I do. But certainty is one of those beautiful characteristics of youth. Enjoy it now, but it is best if you loose it later.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Britney –
“a Priest cannot get married because he doesn’t want anything getting in the way of him and God.” Actually, priests used to get married and have children, and passed on cardinalships, bishoprics, and such as if they were titles of nobility. Public outcry over illiterate priests and nepotism within the church ended that. But Irish’s answer is so much funnier than mine . . .
April 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
hahahahah!
sidfaiwu VERY FUNNY!
You make me laugh!!!!…Well, everyone is intitled to their own opinion, this is very true. But isn’t it also morally wrong to say that a religion is stupid????? I don’t think that God is happy with people spreading around that people who love him are stupid. And when this Pastor says, “Dang Catholics” this literally means dang catholics to hell…hmmm…hows that any different???? So, are you taking up for him, or just making a point???? Either way, I do know that it was wrong to say that…but it was also a terrible point to make about my Christianity.
Peace be with you…
April 15th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Howdy all,
Britney,
“But isn’t it also morally wrong to say that a religion is stupid????? I don’t think that God is happy with people spreading around that people who love him are stupid.”
I think the answer to your question (and assertion concerning God’s feelings) may be more complex than you realise.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Depends on the perspective of those involved. If you take the view that morality must come from God then possibly, it can be viewed as morally wrong to judge the stupidity of a particular religion. It is very important to realise however that not all people base their concept of morality on any form of the Christian doctrine. In this case the judgement of the followers of a particular faith or doctrine as stupid could even be considered as a moral imperitive.
From reading your post it seems to me that you have only considered these questions from the point of view as dictated by your own beliefs. You haven’t paused to to consider how people of either different faiths or beliefs may view these questions. From my point of view, God is a mythical figure. Therfore I believe he doesn’t give a flying fat rats arse about what I say (or think) about those who “love” him. I also don’t think that people believeing my beliefs to be stupid are commiting some moral sin.
Consider this, you consider (I’m assuming) that calling Catholics stupid is immorall. What about when Catholics tell me that becuase of my belief system I am going to be condemed to eternal torment from the moment I die. Not becuase of any particular evil I have commited but because I did not see enough evidence to believe in (their) God. They are judging my beliefs based on their beliefs. The same thing that you have decried above about some calling Catholics stupid.
If you guys can judge someone elses beliefs then it follows that other people can judge yours. It would seem to me that any other way smacks of hypocrisy and in my view would be immorall.
Cheers
Simon Bond
April 24th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Simon Bond: “…but because I did not see enough evidence to believe in (their) God.”
So you have seen evidence but continue in disbelief? What is “enough evidence” to you? Seeing with your own eyes? By then, what’s the point?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Hello Providence,
“What is “enough evidence†to you?”
I’ve addressed the topic of sufficient evidence before here, at least with respect to Christianity. I’ll quote it here for your convenience:
“Seeing with your own eyes? By then, what’s the point?”
I fail to see the point now.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Howdy all,
Providence,
“So you have seen evidence but continue in disbelief? What is “enough evidence” to you? Seeing with your own eyes? By then, what’s the point?”
Firstly I would like to point out a misconception in your statement. Not enough evidence can include no evidence at all. No evidence is after all “not enough” to prove something. This being the case your assumption that I have seen evidence is clearly falacious. (In the “logically unsound” definition of falacious)
The second point I would like to make concerns the implied assumption in you statement that some evidence is synonymous with proof. (In the “evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth” definition of proof) With this I must disaggree. For the sake of this discussion let us assume that I have seen evidence that indicate the existance of God. The reason some evidence may not be enough is because of several factors.
Is there another explanation that would explain the evidence.
How does this evidence for, stand up against the evidence against.
What is the value of the evidence. Is it merely an indicator of likelyhood or closer to a proof.
Can the evidence be tested for validity.
Is the evidence subjective.
Am I viewing the evidence objectively.
How much of the concept does the evidence support. (i.e. the Existance of a God versus the existance of the Christian God. Just because the evidence may show that there is a God that doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be the God described in the bible.)
There is of course alot more to it than that, but I hope that will give you a general idea as to why having seen evidence for something a person might still disbelieve in that something.
To address the “What is enough evidence” question I must say that I pretty much aggree with Sid’s post above. There are plenty of things that would cause me to believe in God without having to see God with my own eyes. Though a personal appearance by the big fellow would certainly make it easy. I won’t go into a list of things that would cause me to change my beliefs but let you surmise what they could be based on the concepts indicated in Sid’ post. Let me also respond with a question of my own. What evidence would cause you to change your belief that God does exist?
In closing I would like to say that I find it interesting that in a post that was primarily concerned with the different ways one can view morality you jump straight to a rather insignificant part of the post. Did you take that particular statement in context with the rest of the post and see my point? Also I find your choice of handle interesting. I take it you mean it in the foreseeing care and guidance of God sense rather than having foresight, taking care and caution meaning of the word. For it seems to me that your views on evidence contained very little providence. I also hope you don’t consider youself to be the foreseeing care and guidence of God. I believe that would be very conceited. I do hope you were merely trying to bring attention to the concept in support of your belief in God.
Cheers
Simon Bond
May 26th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Simon Bond,
Excuse me, but I don’t think any of those things that you said about Catholics. And I haven’t met any other Catholic that does. So…your opinion is okay…but you have made a very false statement….sorry doll.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Britney,
Simon’s statement about what Catholics think,
is actually supported by the first of the ten commandments. See here
for example, where it states, at least in this English translation,
So, if as you say, you don’t think that way about Simon, then it would seem that you disagree with one of Catholicism’s most basic rules, and therefore you can’t be considered Catholic. Probably a good thing, since it seems like the Catholic god is a pretty vicious one (and by its own acknowledgement, jealous to boot). Maybe you should revisit your religious affiliation if you aren’t willing to accept what would be standard Catholic dogma in regard to Simon as well as in regard to other non-believers and believers in other gods.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Howdy all,
Britney, I am quite prepared to be wrong and learn from my mistake if I have made one. However if I am wrong it would be helpful to tell me what you think Catholics actually believe in this case and why you hold to that position.
Further to the point that Korgan has already brought up I would like to add the following. From the “CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” I submit the following in suport of why it seems to myself that the Catholics believe I am going to be condemed to eternal torment.
1. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1037.htm
This section states that a willful turning away from God is a mortal Sin.
2.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#I
Starting at paragraph 2123 this section describes athiesm from the Catholic point of view.
Paragraph 2125 once again states that the sort of athiesm I follow is a sin.
3.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p1.htm#p1
This section concerns Jesus descending into hell after he died on the cross and before he rose again. I would like to bring your attention to paragraph 633. which states that the evil and the righteous lot are not identical. giving the parable of Lazuras as an example.
4.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus
The parable of Lazuras and dives, please note the following quote:
“Both men died, and the beggar received his reward in the Hereafter, in Abraham’s bosom at the everlasting banquet, while the rich man craved a drop of water from Lazarus’ finger to cool his tongue as he was tormented with fire.”
So as far as I can understand my refusal to believe in God means that if I was to die still holding to that point of view means that I will spend eternity in hell being tormented. If you have something to add which may shed a different light on this situation please enlighten me.
Also please address some of the other points made in my previous post to you. Can you see why considering the Cathloic religion as stupid may not be a sin? Do you agree that morality can be approached from many different angles and is not a necessarily a simple question? Further that morality is different for everyone particullaly those with different beliefs?
If the part of my post you addressed is the only part of my post that you disagree with or can argue with then you are merely nitpicking. Even if you invalidate that part of my post it does not mean that the other parts and points I brought up are false or invalid.
Please excuse any spelling and or gramatical mistakes in this post as I’m a bit short on time and haven’t checked over it.
Cheers
Simon Bond
September 11th, 2008 at 4:28 am
slotsroyale…
cyanide snowmen differentiable isthmus?…
September 30th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
help to fix credit problems…
applauding detach unparalleled stipulating canvasses,horizontal …