Harpo Bizarro

Apr 9, 2008 | Uncategorized | 17 comments

Ok ladies. How many times in the last 200 some odd posts have I encouraged you to TURN OFF OPRAH??? I know, I know, the “my favorite things” episode is so fun (though I haven’t seen it in years) and I know, I know, she educates about women and children being exploited around the world – but so does World Vision.
Oprah is out of control and yet many Christian women are still spending more time every week with her then they do in church, in the Word and in prayer combined.
Can I encourage you just one more time to banish this ego-maniac (said the girl with a giant photo of her face on her blog:) out of your house. While you are at it why not see how little time each week you can spend watching television.

Once probably 7 years ago, I had a sleep over (Beth and Jill do you remember?) and another girl and I were joking around that we knew who the AnitChrist was. A little blond haired creepy brainiac that Oprah had on as guest. It was so odd cause while watching it I had the thought that he was WAY too smart and WAY too into world peace for someone so young – turns out this fellow gal pal had the same thought.
These days it’s not too hard to get carried away and wonder if the great HARPO herself isn’t the AnitChrist!!! Women by the millions open their homes up to this Christ-denier every day. She is a feminist, pro abortion (oh, I’m sorry, I meant she is pro women’s health) she teaches crazy super, ooy, gooey, intergalactic one-ness and Christian singles, mothers and wives are still looking to her for advice in child rearing, dating and marriage (she won’t even get married herself!!!!) It’s just getting out of hand and I am sick of hearing Christian friends talk about this women like she sits at the left hand of God. I mean for Petes sake, I heard from Laura Ingraham that last week she had on the she-male that is pregnant. Is that really what you want to fill your head with? You might as well be watching Jerry Springer!
I could dissect the following video but I think it speaks for itself — if you are a fellow Christian it might make you sick. If it does not, you may want to reflect on how desensitised you have become to this pop culture of ours. If you do not profess to be a Christian (and I know I have dear friends that read this blog that don’t) then perhaps you are offended already (it’s not every day a fellow women bashes feminism AND Oprah in the same blog!) but that is OK. (post continued after video below)

THERE IS ONE TRUE GOD. He is not a feeling. And yes Orpah, He is a jealous God. Not jealous of you. But jealous of what we choose to love instead of Him. We were created by Him, created to love Him.
He loves us SO MUCH!!! Perhaps you don’t believe at all or perhaps you believe a little but think “to each his own”. I dare you to pray that the one true God would reveal himself to you. I dare you. If I am just a crazy Christian then you have nothing to loose – I believe you have everything to gain. As much as Oprah wants to believe that ALL roads lead to God, they don’t. (Rational thought quickly brings to light that that makes no sense).
There is one true God. We can live in relationship with Him from now into eternity or we can live apart from him – from now into eternity. Even the great and powerful Oprah will find that out.
Believing women, let’s turn off the T.V. but let’s pray for Oprah, her heart is OBVIOUSLY searching for something to believe in.


  1. HomemakerAng

    you go girl! i saw this video a few days and have wanted to do a post on it for the world wide web and tell them my humble opinion of it (tee hee hee) But I see here that you did just a fine job in sharing my thoughts girlfriend!

  2. cityfarmer

    The fast from TV has certainly made a difference in this farmhouse

    …I probably haven’t view her show in over a year…nothing lost.

  3. cottage remnant

    You said it all.
    I was just discussing the same thought about the “anitchrist”.What if it is a “movement” and she leads it. We need to remember that Dr. Phil, Raquel Rae and The Big Give are all Harpo’s….

    Interesting fact: Oprah comes from the name Orpah which is Hebrew and means “Runaway”. She is running away from the truth.

  4. Parisienne Farmgirl

    Cottage – great thoughts!!!
    I can’t stand the thought of “O’s Big Give” – it’s so self congratulatory. “I am the great and benevolent Oprah, I shall teach you all how to give.” Is it giving if the money is handed to you to give??? Wheres the sacrifice???
    Millions of Christians give to a point where their own lives are uncomfortable – they don’t make a T.V. show about it.
    OPRAHS big give. Her name sells advertising and she knows it. My husband wants to know if that million dollars she gives at the end comes from her own pocket or from the advertisers. Either way. Big deal. When you hold a 5 million dollar birthday party for yourself or build a school in Africa when the government ask you NOT to…her ego preceeds her.
    I should shut up now, lest mine preceed me.

  5. Julee Ann

    Love the title!

    I have a blog post in Word titled “Golden Calf” and now it will totally look like I’m copying you. Don’t care!

    I NEVER did think she was that great of an interviewer … she repeats the answers to all the questions and overuses “How did that make you feel?”

    I watched the Mistaken Identity Families because Melissa was on a TST with Whitney Cerak–and the two families oozed of true christianity and simple straightforward pointing to the power of prayer. Oprah was restless, avoided eye contact and could not keep their stories or names straight. It came across as though she did not care.

    Maybe Echkart Tolle is/was that creepy blonde-haired brainiac!

    The saddest part of the video is his comment on life after death = >”I don’t give it any thought.”

    My final thoughts are yours exactly:
    …but let’s pray for Oprah, her heart is OBVIOUSLY searching for something to believe in.

    Carry on.

  6. Joannah

    I like your style!

    I saw that video a few days ago and it turned my stomach.

  7. Shawna

    Amen Sista!!!

    Your post on Harpo is truly where it is at.

    I am a SAHM and I don’t watch Oprah — I do pray for her though.

    I pray she finds THE way and that her name is in the Lambs Book of Life.

  8. Farmgirl Cyn

    This was so odd to see this afternoon, as just a bit before my mil called and asked if we were watching O. Some kind of new agey stuff she loves so much (my mil) I have never really gotten into her for that very reason. Why my mil thinks we watch her at all is beyond us! Never cared for Dr. Phil, either. The problem lies in the fact that SOME of what they say makes sense. There is always a bit of truth mixed in with the lies…it’s easier for the devil to deceive when he mixes it up a bit. Blurs the lines. No black and white for the devil. Thank God for His Word. The truth shall make us free!!!

  9. Victoria

    harpo? try HARPIE. the feelings- and self-esteem-based faux doctrine, the “oneness”.. it’s all humanism, pure and simple. if oprah carried out these “revelations” to their logical ends, she’d find the depths of despair. how much more real to face the cross, behold our Savior and find real peace? good work on the post.

  10. Owen

    A bazillion frantic, possessed and screaming women across Judah (oops, I mean America) reply:

    “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you! But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble!!”

    Jeremiah 44:17

  11. Owen

    PS – The Antichrist is not a ‘person.’ It is a trait; a principled disposition of the heart. I’m sure you know that, but as you said you have non-believing readers, and I don’t think you’d want to mislead them on this point. So I thought that stating it clearly would be advisable.

  12. carra

    Never seen Oprah, never been to America, don’t want to, I am not interested, don’t follow any religion. However, JUDGING is not exactly kind is it?

    What about forgiveness that YOUR GOD taught you? Animals can cause their selves abortion if they are aware (which they are) that the season will not be good enough to insure their descendants survival… Can’t a woman do that knowing she won’t be able to provide for her child? I am not pro-abortion, but I do not judge either.

    You talk about GOD as if you knew who he is, but the truth is no-one knows, I am sure some Muslims or Buddhists would disagree with your view of GOD, would that make them wrong?

    God loves us (?), sure he does, but if we are naughty he will send us to hell to suffer forever et cetera is that a way of showing love?

    The world (and life) is not black and white, there is always a gray area, I’m sure though, you would find a reasonable way to justify inquisition next!

    Live and let live, do not judge!

  13. Faith

    Wow, I just had a chance to watch that and it it really sad. I am sad for all of the people who are being decieved into beleiving that load of crap.I am really dissapointed and never knew she had said the things she did years ago. It definitely makes me think twice about ever watching her again.Thank you for sharing that and opening my eyes.

  14. Owen

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. Owen

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. Owen

    An email to Carra:


    I was reading the comments you left at a blog (Parisienne Farmgirl), and they seemed very unreasonable. I’m curious to ask you some questions. Care to return for some good old fashioned rational inquiry?

    Hope so!


    A return email from Carra

    Hi Owen,

    thank you for your e-mail. If my comments appear unreasonable, it may be, because I can be unreasonable. I may appear cruel or cynical, but believe me I not, in fact, if my words, seem wrong to somebody, they’re are more than welcome to dismiss them. Still, you are more than welcome to ask as many questions as you like, I will answer them in earnest.
    Have a lovely day/evening (I really don’t know what time zone you’re in and when you will receive my response)

    Yours sincerely

    Response to Carra’s original comments.

    Thank you Carra.
    Whereas, as I said, some of your comments seemed very unreasonable, your statement that you will answer my questions “in earnest” seems very reasonable, and I appreciate it. I hope that you’ll hold to it. Below I will cut and past a few of the comments from you in question, and reply with what I see as the inconsistency in them. I hope that you’ll then either withdraw them, or amend them so as to establish their coherence.

    First, you say:
    “I don’t follow any religion…”

    That you don’t follow any religion is a controversial claim, and by many people would not go uncontested. When you say it, you are likely construing “religion” narrowly, as an organized body of creedal doctrine regarding matters of ultimate reality, purpose, etc. Now, defined as such, you might in fact follow no “religion.” But is it right for you to simply assume that your definition of religion is correct? Surely not. That would be an unjustified assumption on your part, and thus irrational.

    Construed more widely, a “religious” position is a body of assumptions about the nature of reality and one’s position within it. These assumptions are primitive/unproved precisely because they are the principles by which you interpret the rest of your experience. Now, on this wider conception of “religion” you are most certainly a religious person. In fact, obviously, everyone is, since everyone has a basic set of assumptions by which they interpret reality. So in this sense you (and everyone) are very religious, and if this is what the author of the blog in question would mean by religious, then your statement to her that you are ‘not’ religious would be to no effect, since you are presuming a definition of “religious” that she would not agree on. To so presume, again, would be irrational and unproductive.

    If this seems somewhat abstract and theoretical, it will become more clear and concrete in my following comments. That is, that you have these very assumptions that are themselves of an essentially “religious” nature (because they are taken on faith) will be very clear by the things you say. Therefore it will become clear that you are in fact “religious.” Again, if you say “oh but that’s not what I mean by ‘religious,’ fine, but neither is what you mean what she means, so your point (and comment) is moot (i.e. to no effect).

    Next you say:
    “…but judging is not KIND, is it?”

    In the first place, the definition that you yourself give to the word “kind” is essentially subjective. It is your own. I suspect that you would agree that “what’s right for me is right for me, and what’s right for someone else is right for them.” But if that’s so, then, equally, we may just substitute the word “kind” in place of “right” in that statement, and on your view, the statement would have to retain its truth.

    But notice what follows from this. In saying that judging is not “kind,” you seem to be presuming that there is some sort/definition of “kind” that both you and the author of the blog are beholden to. Now, how do you know what “kind” is? It certainly could be different for everyone, especially given your view of the world (i.e. anti-religious in the narrow sense). Therefore whatever definition you give to the word “kind” is going to be your own, and its going to be taken by you on FAITH, since there is no way of logically establishing it.

    Why then do you subject the writer of this blog to your own subjective definition of “kind”? Is this not judgmental of you? Indeed it is. For you are presuming the right to define her moral categories, which is the very thing that the flavor of your comments wants to decry. Observe now how this same problem appears again and again throughout the rest of your comments.

    Next you say:
    “What about forgiveness that YOUR GOD taught you?”

    Not only is this merely an off-handed statement by you that – if you were pressed on the point – you could not sustain. But what’s more, it is not even relevant. There is nothing essentially opposed to forgiveness, nor demonstrative of a non-forgiving frame of mind in her blog. To argue this point, you would first have to establish your assumption that you even KNOW the nature of the teachings on forgiveness that “her” God teaches, and you’d have to do this in a systematic way, since to simply pull arbitrary teachings out of a systematic body of doctrine is disingenuous and fallacious for your purposes. You’re not up to the task of so expositing the moral teachings of “her” God, so your rhetorical question is without force. That is, it lacks any point you might of thought you had in asking it. Thus one wonders why you would make it.

    Next you say:
    “Animals can cause their selves abortion if they are aware (which they are) that the season will not be good enough to insure their descendants survival… Can’t a woman do that knowing she won’t be able to provide for her child? I am not pro-abortion, but I do not judge either.”

    Why you simply assume out of hand that, given her position, what animals do has any logically bearing on human morality is beyond me. In fact, it only demonstrates more of the ignorance we’ve seen thus far. When you engage someone with comments/questions, your first task as a responsible/rational person is to UNDERSTAND the position you’re engaging. If you do not, then your questions/critiques are pointless.

    Now, further, and even more problematic for you is the following problem which we saw anticipated in my response to your opening comments: You are asking her, the writer of the blog, a question about morality… about right and wrong, and the tone of your whole set of comments is that you find something “wrong” with her judgmental tone. What is incumbent on you then is to first make intelligible and sensible how – on your view – (the non-religious one) ANYTHING could be right or wrong, let alone any specific thing, like abortion or being judgmental.

    Before you establish this (that is, establish how there can be any binding definitions of moral terms on a “non-religious” picture of the world) you are not even making sense in asking to be shown how any one/particular thing or another could (or should) be right or wrong. Thus it does not even matter when you say “I am not pro-abortion” OR when you say “I do not judge either.” These statements would only be sensible if you first had in place (in your view of the world) the conceptual tools necessary to talk in moral language.

    If you think that you can make sense or morality, you must show how FIRST, before it makes any sense for you to talk about particular moral issues. But any way you try to establish the validity of your moral categories is going to once again show you to be “religious” (in the wide sense), because moral statements cannot be “proven” in the sense that would allow you to talk about them as being matters of “reason” and not “faith.” Therefore in even expecting to be taken seriously in questions/matters of morality, you actually demonstrate that you are in fact religious (in the wise sense).

    Next you say:
    “You talk about GOD as if you knew who he is, but the truth is no-one knows.”

    If no one knows about God, then you do not KNOW that no one knows about God. To claim to KNOW that no one knows about God (as you do) is to claim to know something about God, which you claim no one can know. You contradict yourself. If “being known by no one” is a property that God has, then no one can know that He has this property, since to know a property that God has is in fact to know something about God. Thus you’re incoherent on this point too.

    Next you say:
    “I am sure some Muslims or Buddhists would disagree with your view of GOD, would that make them wrong?”

    The writer of the blog disagrees with your assumption that GOD can’t be known, would that make her wrong?

    Next you say:
    “God loves us (?), sure he does, but if we are naughty he will send us to hell to suffer forever et cetera is that a way of showing love?”

    I would be willing to bet that her religion’s doctrine is not correctly characterized by your summary statement above. Therefore you mis-represent her. Therefore, effectually, you’re talking to no one, only pretending to talk to someone (not to mention pretending to say something significant, when in fact it’s vacuous).

    But ignore that for a moment. Notice that you ask “is that a way of showing love?” as if ‘love’ were not just as subjective and relative as every other value term in your non-religious (in the narrow sense) world. Thus you cannot even generate the objection. Do you see? You cannot even claim that such a teaching is not “loving” since “loving” is – on your view – a completely relative term. Once again it seems that you cannot even make proper sense of your own question, let alone ask it.

    Next you say:
    “The world (and life) is not black and white, there is always a gray area, I’m sure though, you would find a reasonable way to justify inquisition next!”

    Do you really expect to be taken seriously in saying something like this?

    Last you say:
    Live and let live, do not judge!

    In telling her how to behave, you’re being judgmental yourself.


  17. carra

    The description of religion described in the World Book:

    Religion. No simple definition can describe the many religions in the world. Every society has a religion. For many people, religion is an organised system of beliefs, rituals (acts and ceremonies), personal practices, and worship directed toward a supreme power or deity (god). For others, religion involves a number of gods or deities. Some people follow religions that worship no specific god or gods. There are also people who practice their own religious beliefs in a personal way, largely independent of any organised religion.

    I totally agree with this concept of religion, and that is why I say I am not religious. If I can be said to be religious it is because I respect nature (but do not worship it), I respect people (but I do not worship them), I respect human life (but I do not worship it). I do not judge, but when I disagree, that happens to everyone, I will point out why. I dislike people who impose their views on somebody else, I suppose I have done this myself in the past, but I try to learn from my mistakes. That is one of the reasons why I say I am not religious, because I do not tell people, you should do this or that. Even though my tone of the previous comment was not very pleasant, I wasn’t telling Parisienne Farmgirl what to do, The statement live and let live, is purely used an expression, meaning, you do what you want to do (including believing your religion et cetera are correct) and let other people do the same. It would be a frightening world if we all thought the same and believed or disbelieved the same, somehow communism comes up to my mind, and that is a horrible thing (in my opinion), because even though the idea, was truly great, it does not work in real life, and unfortunately it can not (talking from experience and knowledge) however back to the subject.

    I don’t think that my concept of religion is narrow, in fact I believe it is pretty wide and open minded, I do not impose my view on others (because I do not tell them God is this or that, or God will do this or that, or God did this or that, and you or anyone should do this and that).
    I lived in Spain for almost a year, a very Catholic country, I saw a lot of hypocrisy, but I did not go round telling people what they should or should not do, because I was a guest in their country. However, I did write what I thought on my blog, because I express everything what I think there. I can delete my comment right away, if it is hurting someone, however I wrote it because it seemed appropriate at the time and because I felt that the post was saying, she is wrong (referring to Oprah) she is telling a big lie, and so on. The only thing I feel is wrong about Oprah is that she is also imposing her view on other people.
    No judging is not kind, and I wasn’t judging myself. Kindness which can be relative as everything else, if we go to that extreme, I think is understood between people as opposite of mean (or meanness). I think helping someone is kind, and hurting someone is mean, it is not because one or the other religion is telling me so, it is because one can see what effect one or the other has on people. I suppose, it may be, that for some people it seems right to be mean, or the opposite. I can not say that they are wrong, but I will express my opinion, which at the end of the day only I have to live with. As for being subjective, it is not humanly possible to be otherwise, as much as I’d like to say that I am totally objective, I can not be, like every other human being I have my values (maybe not related to any religion), and I protect them, the same way as I protect my family. I am not having a go at Parisienne’s blog, because to be honest, I visited it quite often, and still do. I love the way she writes. I am not however saying that she is wrong, it was a question, I was asking, what about judging is it kind, and therefor if my comment appears judgmental (which it was not intended to be) I am sure it doesn’t appear to be kind. The question is a question, and I throughout my comment say “Your God” because I am talking to one person, and their concept of God. She is stating that what Oprah is doing is wrong, it is judging, I am asking about forgiveness, that bible often teaches people about, about the love of God and so on, because I want a response telling me something. We ask questions because, we want to hear replies, questions whether they are pleasant or not are questions, that one can choose to answer or not.
    No I did not say she was not forgiving, but again she wrote Oprah is out of control and yet many Christian women are still spending more time every week with her then they do in church, in the Word and in prayer combined. That is not forgiving, and then further down the eternity is mentioned, yes Parisienne asked the fellow Christians to pray for her. Is that a sign of forgiving? You may say yes, but I don’t believe it, the same as Parisienne didn’t forgive to all those women who watch Oprah, yes the time in front of the television is a waste of time, you could do so many other things in the meantime (i.e. learn to bake bread, help in promoting world peace and so forth).
    I am yet again lost for words for me being religious, I suppose one could think that, I try to help my fellow human beings when I can, I try to help animals, I love nature, I recycle, but I don’t see any religious base for it, but purely my own character and nature. I can not stay ignorant of suffering, or pain, nor can I stay ignorant of poverty or dying children for the lack of clean water, that does not make me religious, these things simply make up who I am, and for a person to be kind (good, nice, pleasant – it’s the same girl with a different dress on…) there is no need for a set of rules or commandments, one can be like that because they choose peace rather than violence.
    No-one really knows, because there is no scientific proof. There is (so it’s said) a bottle of Jesus’ blood in Belgium, Brugge, that the church charges people to pay 2 euros (or similar amount) to see it, but they won’t let the scientists check it, a question comes up – why? And it is totally true I don’t know anything about God, therefor my statement may be futile, but I don’t know and I haven’t met a person, religious or not, to prove me otherwise.

    The writer of the blog disagrees with your assumption that GOD can’t be known, would that make her wrong? – no it wouldn’t make her wrong.

    The bible tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah, how God punished the whole city (including the innocent babies that were born that night) because it was a city of sinners. I may be misrepresenting her faith, but quoting one part of the bible would make it seem like the person believes what is written in the bible therefor, agreeing with what is written there, so therefor, my statement about God’s love and the way of showing it, would be correct or not? I will never deny if I made a mistake, however, I do not see how things like love, can be tied to religion, because people loved already before religion, before Christianity, even people who are not religious are capable of loving, but are they religious and they do not know that then? I don’t think so, believing that everything that is humane is related to religion is naive (my opinion only), and one dismissing the religious part does not make the other part relative.

    Do you really expect to be taken seriously in saying something like this?

    People took it seriously few centuries back, and inquisition was based on religion.

    By saying do not judge I am not being judgmental. If I said do not judge, because it is wrong, or bad, or evil, that would be judgmental.

    I would also like to add, as in my previous post I mentioned abortion. I am not pro-abortion, never had one myself, would not encourage a woman to have one, it may be because I can not have children myself, but I don’t think so. However it frightens me, when women who can’t look after their first 6 or so children and can’t provide them with sufficient amounts of food and clean water, have more just to watch them die, it is selfish and mean, because it is bringing suffering to an innocent. However it is my opinion and as they live in a free world they are entitled to it by birth. As I have mentioned I can not have children, but I do not intend to spend thousands on a baby from a test tube either, because that is unnatural and therefor not human to me to do so, but I would never tell a woman who is having a baby this way not to do it, because it is not my business. I would adopt. I want to adopt, but until I am sure that I can provide emotionally and financially for a child that needs a mother, I will not try and maybe ruin a life.

    My comment may have been rude, if so, I am really sorry. I did not want to insult, I merely wanted to challenge the statements in the particular post to hear more. I have religious friends, I know some theologists, some priests, and I do not go round telling people they are wrong. However I will always express my opinion even if it is totally irrelevant. I did answer all the questions in earnest promised.



Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Search Posts

Blog Categories

Archives by Date