[ November 11, 2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: johnsonweed ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No. I'd bet that yours is inaccessible to him, being in your house and all. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Um.
How about reducing it to a quote and adding a link?
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
So far as I can tell, Pat Robertson is in possession of a version of the Bible that is unique unto itself and is not comprehensible to *any* sane human being.
I occassionaly agree with something he says, but I think that's because he has to at least make an attempt to endorse Christian principles as understood by people who don't like to watch thinly-veiled money grubbing disguised as spiritual nourishment.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Pat Robertson is, in his own way, as much an idiot as Fred Phelps. And speaks for the mainstream Christian just about as much.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Um.
How about reducing it to a quote and adding a link?
Thanks KQ. I missed that.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Pat Robertson is, in his own way, as much an idiot as Fred Phelps. And speaks for the mainstream Christian just about as much.
I must disagree with you there. Pat Robertson may be an idiot, but Fred Phelps is in a class all his own. I firmly believe him to be under direct demonic influence.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Something about Pat Robertson that makes me want to become a heathen just to annoy him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, he does, actually. He just chooses to ignore different bits.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
<-----Ignoring obnoxious bits of Hatrack....
What's that noise? Who's there?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Pat Robertson inherited Jack Chick's bible. You know, the bible that is mostly illustrations of people getting chucked into a (real) lake of fire and brimstone by a merciful God. Repent and watch the 700 Club, or buy asbestos swimming trunks and bone up on your swimming lessons.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Swimming in a lake of fire and brimstone does seem to be the more attractive alternative. But following PatRobertson's path is more likely to lead to that lake: he sold his soul a long time ago. Phelps merely has a brain dysfunction.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I agree Robertson is a nutcase, but I also share KoM's cyncism about Christians who so easily dismiss him. God killed people all the time in the Bible for flouting him, and he also cut people off from his presence.
To those Christians that think Robertson is wrong, do you think he is wrong in this instance, or wrong in principle?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think he's just wrong about most things he says, unless it's very, very basic stuff. Like, "Jesus said love your neighbor." (And even then, what he continues with is usually wrong.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:To those Christians that think Robertson is wrong, do you think he is wrong in this instance, or wrong in principle?
both.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And I totally disagree with any assessment of PatRobertson as a nutcase. He is a sociopath well aware of what he is doing, and highly skilled at manipulating both the gullible and the powerseeking. His sociopathy is tolerable in that its focus is on personal wealth. Any appearance of malice is pure showmanship to con the gullible out of their money, and for control of their votes to keep the powerseeking in line as shields against criminal prosecution.
[ November 12, 2005, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Pat Robertson is, in his own way, as much an idiot as Fred Phelps. And speaks for the mainstream Christian just about as much.
His vast media empire and wealth say otherwise, unfortunately.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KoM, hypocrisy does exist within Christianity. It's made up human beings. Thanks for pointing that out.
Now back to the topic at hand...Does PR read the same Bible was intended, I think, to ask if the umbrella term "Christian" includes people as extreme as Pat Robertson. He is a man who, in addition to using Scripture selectively (as we all do) also seems to be particulary hate-filled and willing to use his position as head of a Christian Broadcasting syndicate to promote a particularly anger-filled version of our mutual faith.
One of the problems many Christians face, I believe, is trying to reconcile their personal faith with some larger standard that would somehow define "CHRISTIANITY." The question is one of community -- being involved in a group of like-minded believers as well as one of wanting sincerely to "get it right."
But there isn't an ecumenical standard. There's no board of Christian leaders to say which particular interpretations are THE right ones. We're each in it alone with God and our conscience, IMHO, to decide ultimately what is right.
Scripture and church doctrine are guides, to be sure, but there are some conflicting statements. And as Robertson proves (and KoM has so succinctly pointed out) there is scriptural support that can be found for practically every/any position one wanted to take.
So is there a difference that's more than one of degree between someone like me/us and someone like Pat Robertson? I'd like to think so. But more importantly, I'd like to NOT think about it. Each of us has a responsibility to be the best we can be and to strive for the end goal. It's easy to point to the Pat Robertsons of the world and say "well they just don't get it." Or even to predict that there will be a day of reckoning for them. But that is true for all of us.
Ultimately, the only thing most Christians can do when faced with ugliness spoken (and all PR is doing is talking...) in Christ's name is calmly disagree and hope that more will listen to God's spirit within than to people like P.R.
So, in answer to Foust and KoM, yes, I also use Scripture selectively and I personally believe that Pat Robertson is seriously wrong about what he said to those folks in PA.
In answer to everyone else: I don't know what the heck else to do about it but calmly disagree and hope that more people see that PR is wrong than believe that he is right.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think this thread points out quite nicely why 'natural law' isn't really very natural. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: [QB] KoM, hypocrisy does exist within Christianity. It's made up human beings.
I know it was a misprint, but that's hilarious.
quote:But there isn't an ecumenical standard. There's no board of Christian leaders to say which particular interpretations are THE right ones.
Well, actually, there is. To wit, the Pope. Only you Protestant schismatics insisted on having a nice little war (a whole sequence, in fact) to prove him wrong. And it worked very nicely, too. Only now, of course, there are thousands of little cults; just as the Catholics predicted.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Even before the Protestant Reformation the Eastern half of the church didn't consider the pope the head of the church.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's true, but I believe they did (at least formally) recognise him as Patriarch of Rome, equal in power to the other four patriarchs. Whether they actually listened to him is another matter, to be sure. And then there are the Coptic and Celtic churches. But after the fall of Byzantium, and before the Reformation, there was a good century when almost all Christians with any actual power would have recognised the Pope's authority.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
The Pope was very bad at administration.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
God has told me that I must raise 8 million dollars or I am going to die. Please. Help me. The lord hath commanded.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
So, how high do you have to raise it? And who will do the measuring? And what denominations are involved? I mean, I would think an $8 million cashier's check would be a piece of cake. Now, $8 million in pennies, that'd be impressive!
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I must raise it 30 feet, and lower it into a giant bags with dollar signs on it. The money, however, must come from everyone who hears my message.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Huh? Whaddya say?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
T_Smith.
I'm glad to see that hasn't been forgotten.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, I don't believe it was Pat Robertson who said it, but those guys all sort of run together for me after awhile.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It was Oral Roberts.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
::giggle::
Ok, now that thats out of the way, send me my life money.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, you could always read the "Left Behind" series if you want to know if there are others who read the Bible the same way he does. Those are, by the way, very popular.
However, to ask if he reads the same Bible you do is silly. Rhetorically speaking not many Christians read the Bible the same way. I think Pat says what other Christians wish they could say; and some with almost no clout do say sometimes.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I think Pat says what other Christians wish they could say
And that statement says more about YOU than it does about others.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Umpteen million believers, remember? You can dismiss him as a crackpot if you like, but he's hardly a lone crackpot.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Isn't Pat Robertson the same guy that bought Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez a ticket to Dover, PA?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I was talking to a friend this afternoon about Pat Robertson. Doesn't he represent the Christian Mafia?
"Um, people of Dover, I just want you to know, that...um...accidents happen, you know? Towns catch fire all the time. You know, any day now, you could have...terrible hailstorms. You could have [ahem] devastating earthquakes, you know what I mean? Not that I'm saying you would, mind you; it's just that...these things happen, you know?"
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
How about, "what (some other, many other, Evangilical? ) Christians wish they could say. I have to agree with King of Men on this one. You can dismiss him all you want, but he does speak for a larger group of Christians than you probably want to acknowledge.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: God has told me that I must raise 8 million dollars or I am going to die. Please. Help me. The lord hath commanded.
Sure. Do you want a sweet poison or a sharp knife. Normally I'm against assisted suicide, but if the Lord hat commanded it....
quote:he does speak for a larger group of Christians than you probably want to acknowledge.
No, he speaks for a larger group of Christians that really, really frighten me.
I remember one such person emailed me a note saying that God let 9/11 happen because we kicked God out of our schools, our companies, and our government. I responded by reminding them that the terrorists that caused 9/11 did so for only one reason. They wanted God in our schools, our companies, and our government. The only difference between the two was which name God would have.
Will God strike down a whole community because most of them voted against ID in the schools? I believe that God is a much better marksman than that.
As far as the main question, it strikes me that he is a bit jealous of the Koran and the law created since the Koran. He's been stealing from the fanaticly fundamentalist islamic teachers. First he put a Christian Fatwah on the president of Venezuala. Not satisfied with that limited attack, he's now put a Fatwah on the entire city in PA. Next? Perhaps anyone who votes Democratic?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:To those Christians that think Robertson is wrong, do you think he is wrong in this instance, or wrong in principle?
both.
So Robertson is wrong in principle? He is wrong to believe that God punishes people for various reasons through various means?
You believe God did so in the Bible, right? When did that cease?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Foust--along about the New Testament.
Even in the old testament sinners were rarely punished en-masse, having whole towns feel the wrath of God was the result of a lot of sin going on there, not just the chosen voting to keep church and state separate.
And when such punishment was dealt out it was special chosen "Prophets" or "Judges" that gave out the dire warning. It appears that Robertson, tired a seeing himself as presidential material, has decided that he is special enough to be a modern day Prophet.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think the inhabitants of Midian (good old Numbers 31, favourite example of atheists everywhere) might disagree with your assessment. Though it's true that the virgin girls weren't killed. I mean, in the grand scale of things, I suppose raping a twelve-year-old after enslaving her is marginally better than killing her. So maybe that's what was meant by 'not punished en masse'?
But, hey, let's be fair to Robertson. At least he hasn't put out a fatwa against football. (The NY times article doesn't mention it, but other places on the 'net say this is satire. But there are also those who claim that it was published for real by an imam, then picked up by the Saudi newspaper the NYT is quoting. Take your pick.)
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
What I wish we would learn from this is that Islamic people are no more well-represented by Osama Bin-Laden then Christian people are by Pat Robertson. Pat obviously has followers and substantial donations, yet the vast majority of Christians in the world do not harbor or support the ignorance, hatred, and bigotry that Pat Robertson so often promulgates. This is very true of Islam too. The vast majority of Islamic people don't endorse or support ignorance, terrorism and hatred. If we Christians don't wish to be characterized by this man's speech and actions, we definitely should extend the same commen-sense understanding to those of other faiths.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: What I wish we would learn from this is that Islamic people are no more well-represented by Osama Bin-Laden then Christian people are by Pat Robertson. Pat obviously has followers and substantial donations, yet the vast majority of Christians in the world do not harbor or support the ignorance, hatred, and bigotry that Pat Robertson so often promulgates. This is very true of Islam too. The vast majority of Islamic people don't endorse or support ignorance, terrorism and hatred.
Just to play devil's advocate, what evidence do you have for any of these statements?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I think the opposite lesson is to be drawn. If a relatively mushy religion like Western Christianity can throw up fanatics like Robertson, even in this day and age, what can we expect from Islam, a much sterner religion held by a far less technologically advanced segment of the world's population? Therefore, Islam should be forbidden, along with Christianity and Judaism; this to be enforced, if necessary, by nuclear war.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I thought that the related article about the school board being voted out was one of the best stories that I've heard in a while.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pat Robertson is the founder and popular face of the largest Christian political advocacy group and the largest Christian braodcasting company. I think equating him with an isolated fringe nut like Phelps is ridiculous. When he speaks, he speaks for millions of American Christians. You may not like what he says, but I don't think pretending that there aren't a whole lot of people who do is tenable.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Therefore, Islam should be forbidden, along with Christianity and Judaism; this to be enforced, if necessary, by nuclear war.
I hope that you're tongue in cheek about this - but there are those who really do feel this way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, actually, nuclear war is rather indiscriminate. Reeducation camps, maybe. Siberia would be a good place. We should set up Atheist Courts to determine whether people are sufficiently atheistic to be permitted to walk around in the open. Of course, you might have to go to war anyway to push this on the Moslems. Or the Americans, come to that. Which is why the Creationist movement is such a good thing; Europe, Russia and China need to recover their proper, dominant positions so they can enforce this on the rest of the world. An ignorant, superstition-mired America is precisely what we require.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Robertson's not using the Bible for this-- this kind of declaration takes a prophet. I wonder how his constituency feels about having a prophet at their head?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Slate had a good article about this. Robertson responds with threats and old testament destruction. The Pope responded by reminding people that Love was the ID behind the creation of the universe.
So the next question, which ID is right? Is this Pennsylvania town a laboratory test for the ID crowd? If it melts in a freak volcano then OT-ID is right? If it survives despite its anti-God attitude, then NT-ID is correct?
And those foolish critics said ID wasn't science because there were no lab tests to prove or disprove it.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I think he's just wrong about most things he says, unless it's very, very basic stuff. Like, "Jesus said love your neighbor." (And even then, what he continues with is usually wrong.)
I agree totally KQ.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Well, actually, there is. To wit, the Pope. Only you Protestant schismatics insisted on having a nice little war (a whole sequence, in fact) to prove him wrong. And it worked very nicely, too. Only now, of course, there are thousands of little cults; just as the Catholics predicted.
A good friend of mine who is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church would disagree with you KOM. He is always calling Roman Catholics like me "the First Protestants" Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Squick said:
quote:Pat Robertson is the founder and popular face of the largest Christian political advocacy group and the largest Christian braodcasting company. I think equating him with an isolated fringe nut like Phelps is ridiculous. When he speaks, he speaks for millions of American Christians. You may not like what he says, but I don't think pretending that there aren't a whole lot of people who do is tenable.
I wanted to respond to this because Squick's summation comes closest to my own feelings on the issue. (I also wanted to try to keep it from getting lost and forgotten on the first page)
Like it or not, Robertson is watched and respected by millions of Americans who think of themselves as Robertson's type of Christians.
Dismissing him as "fringe" is not accurate. It's not really safe, either. Comfortable, maybe, but not safe.
He has a lot of supporters, money and influence. And all those resources are being used to influence attitudes and policies in the United States.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
T_Smith.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)