Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 46 of 302 (253340)
10-20-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by FliesOnly
10-19-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I will not dispute the first half of this. However, I disagree with the last part...I think it's not the point.
I should have been clearer. I meant that belief in Christ as a deity is the point of Christianity. We believe we are saved through faith.
The point, as I understand it is as follows: When someone claiming to be a Christian says it's ok to murder the freely elected leader of another country, or that the thousands of people killed as a result of the 9-11 attacks deserved it because some people in this Country are gay, or that Katrina was retribution on New Orleans because some of the people in that city are considered evil (judgment...how very unchristian like), don't be surprised when non-Christians consider Christians to be evil people. That's the point.
Sure that is your point. Mine is that such a stance is stereotyping by definition. Stereotyping + condemnation then equal bigotry.
Ok, "club" was a poor choice of words. What would you call them...a community? Seriously...I have no idea.
Same thing. There is no such thing as a Christian community. Christianity is one of the most vastly segmented and diverse religions in the world. Do you disagree? American, right wing, fundamentalists Christians are a subset of the American Christian population and furthermore the world Christian population.
I disagree. Look, if someone joins the KKK because they like the hoods and enjoy getting together to have a few drinks and eat cookies...fine. But when a cross is burned or racist remarks are made by the leaders of that group...to sit back a claim that "hey...I'm not like that" is a bit ridiculous.
The KKK is a centralized organization. They keep membership lists, rosters. You have to do and wear certain things to be in KKK. No such similarity exists for Christianity as a global religion. Yes certain churches or denominations do this but again those are widely segmented.
Let me clarify. If I was a member of a church and my pastor was Pat Robertson then all of these arguments you have been raising would be perfectly correct. If I said nothing and continuted to go to church then that would 100% be tacit approval of his views.
Now, I know that you're probably going to claim that Pat Robertson is NOT your leader...but if you think that, then you are missing the point. He certainly his a leader in the Christian Community...and when he speaks, many people assume (correctly or incorrectly...it does not matter) he speaks for that community...like it or not.
No I am not missing the point you are not understanding mine. A consequence of my point is that the only people who are claiming that Pat is a leader of a "Christian Community" are those in this thread who are taking the view of the stereotypist. You do not get to say who my religious leader is. You can believe it all you want but when you say it I am going to tell you that you are flat out wrong and you are.
And neither Crashfrog nor myself are saying he should be denied that right
Actually crashfrog is actually saying that he should be denied or is not guaranteed that right. Look at last section of his immediatly preceeding post.
What we're (or at least I'm) saying is that he is speaking for the Christian Community and if the Christian
Community doesn't agree with him then they should say so.
Christian Community = No such thing.
Hey, some Christians probably agree with every word he says...but I also hope that a goodly number do not. Of course, no one knows because no Christian leaders that I know of have spoken out against his words.
That is because there is no such thing as a Christian Community. Should the rest of the splintered and fragmented groups get together to condemn Pat? Sure maybe. Will they? Probably not or else they wouldn't be splintered and fragmented to begin with.
Ah...but see, I'm a bit more cynical than this. I think that at the grass roots, down home, country bumpkin level, you are correct. However, on a much broader scale...a National scale...I believe that the deafening silence we "hear" has more to do with the political sway and power Pat Robertson has than it does to do with stupidity. They (other Christian Leaders) are afraid to alienate Pat Robertson because of his close ties to this Administration.
Could be. For those different groups who are also right wing fundamentalist Christians who are different from Pat enough to fall into that category. That still dosen't take away from my argument.
I'm not saying it's valid...I'm saying that, like it or not, that is how it is perceived...so don't complain when people lump you together with him.
Why not complain? Your perception is wrong. You are welcome to have it but if you talk about it I am going to correct you.
That is the point I have been trying to make. I thought that that was what this was all about. Crashfrog basically lumped all Christians into one group and you said that that wasn't fair. We've been trying to tell you that maybe it isn't fair...but tough shit dude (and I mean that in a fun...high on dope sorta way )...that's how it is.
No that is not how it is. That is how it is for you all but that does not make it reality in general or right for that matter.
Speak out in other ways. Send letters to the TV stations that broadcast his show. Send letters to the Gov pointing out the political aspect of his tax free organization. Let people know that he doesn't speak for the Christian community and doesn't seem to portray himself as a very good Christian. I don't know...you tell me.
According to some that is not enough. Apparently my inability to rally and organize people, who are purposfully distinct for purposes of one of the strongest driving factors in our humanity, makes me a Pat lover by default.
I agree. And this "Christian public" should do some of the things I listed above. But it sounds to me as if you're saying that to be a proper Christian, you should just sit there and keep your mouth shut.
Yea actually. To some that is what you are supposed to do. The profile of a Christian taught by Christ is not someone who rages agaist your adversary.
Ok, to be a Christian all one has to do is accept the Deity of Christ. Fine, I can agree with that...it takes very little effort to call yourself a Christian. But what about actions, do they not count for anything? To be a Christian by name is one thing...apparently a very easy thing...but to live as a Christian? Hey, I don't know, but it seems to me that asking for our Government to murder someone we don't like is not very Christian (just to mention ONE of the things Pat Robertson has done). But as long as he accepts Jesus as his savior he is a Christian? Far be it from me to judge, but...well...fine...he's a Christian.
No one judges who is really a Christian except for God. It is not up to me or any other Christian to go out and say that Pat is not a Christian. It would be un-Christian of me to do so. I certainly have my opinion on the matter but I leave that up to your guess as to what that opinion actually is. I certainly have not had any reservations about calling Pat certain names especially in this thread.
I'm not asking you to judge his heart...I'm asking you to speak out against his actions.
Again in many cases it is the profile of a Christian not to do just that. Why you singled this out from the next quote I do not know.
Jazzns writes:
Despite the unfortunate failure to do so on many occasions, outrage is something that many Christians, that I know at least, try to avoid as part of doctrine.
Ok...again maybe my choice of wording was poor. But are all Christian really suppose to just sit idly by, while another one says on national TV that it's ok to murder someone?
Kinda, yea.
See, this is where I think you are not quite understanding what I'm trying to say. Those of us who don't claim to be Christians often adopt a poor view of Christians because of people like Pat Robertson saying and doing the things they say and do. That's a fact of life and if you (a Christian) don't like the association, then you should do something about it, OR not get upset when the association is made.
Your right but that might also explain why I am the only Christian responding in this thread. I tend to be a bit more vocal and more of an activist in my life then most that I know who are also Christians.
With regards to the rest of the world I would presume that you are 100% correct. If Christians want to correct the perception then they need to say something.
But that does not make the perception any less wrong or any less bigoted.
I'll say it in another way. The inaction of the other splintered and divided Christian groups does not validate the personal stereotypes and bigotry of the position being argued. It is still stereotyping regardless of the volume of the voice that would correct it.
Bull, Jazzns. To say that there is no Christian Community is a bit naive. YOU may think that none exists, but a great many other people (including myself) do. This is what I (we?) have been trying to get across.
No it is not naive. Like I said before. Christianity is one of the most divided and splintered religions in the world. DO you disagree? If so based on what? You DO have a reason for believing there is a Christian Community right?
And I suppose he also has to right to say whatever he wants in the name of a Christian, so don't be upset when I assume all Christians feel that way.
I am not necessarily upset (anymore at least). I just think you should know that your assumption is stereotyping and can also be considered bigoted.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by FliesOnly, posted 10-19-2005 11:08 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by FliesOnly, posted 10-20-2005 2:49 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 47 of 302 (253341)
10-20-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
10-20-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Extremism
Shouldn't Protestants be doing the same thing with Robertson?
Certainly if there was a central Protestant authority similar to the Vattican I would say yes.
If I was a 700 club watcher, donator, and member of a church with close ties to Pat, then my silence would most certainly be tacit approval. But that would be only MY tacit approval and not that of all Christianity as the others would have it.
My favorite recent example to help illustrate how protestantism is divided comes from the humor thread. Quite funny in my opinion:
Message 10

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 10:21 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 2:57 PM Jazzns has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 48 of 302 (253434)
10-20-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 11:21 AM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Jazzns writes:
Sure that is your point. Mine is that such a stance is stereotyping by definition.
I disagree. It becomes a stereotype only after I learn that there are others in the group that do not fit my notions or ideas of what I thought constituted a member of that group. If no Christian(s) speaks up . .
What if I said that I think Pat Robertson speaks for a majority of the Christians in this Country. Would that still be a stereotype? Would that be acceptable to you? What if I said he only speaks for Eastern U.S. Christians, or most Southern White Christians, or what ever?
Jazzns writes:
Stereotyping + condemnation then equal bigotry.
And here is your error...as I see it. A bigot is someone that holds strong to their stereotypes or opinions, despite evidence to the contrary. But how am I to change my opinion if no one tells me my mistake . if no one shows me evidence to the contrary? Get it? You call me a bigot but yet you don't tell me why (Actually you personally have been telling me why...but in this sense by "you", I'm speaking of this non-existent Christian Community).
If there really is no “Community” then I guess these subcultures (the “American, right wing, fundamentalists Christians” which you say “are a subset of the American Christian population and furthermore the world Christian population”) need to speak up for themselves, as these subcultures, or continue to be associated with Pat Robertson.
Jazzns writes:
But that does not make the perception any less wrong or any less bigoted.
Maybe so...BUT IT"S STILL THE PRECEPTION! That's all I'm saying. I am not saying that I agree with it. I'm not saying that those are my views. All I have been trying to say is that if Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian (and says and does the things that he says and does), then how am I to know that all the other people also claiming to be a Christian don't agree with him UNLESS THEY FRIGGEN TELL ME OTHERWISE?
Here’s the way I see it. If Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian and then says something outlandish such as . oh . I don’t know . maybe that he thinks that the U.S Government should murder a certain individual in another Country . or that Christians should all pray to God, asking that he strike dead a Supreme Court Justice (guess he needed to be a little more specific on that one) . and I say “Wow, them there Christians sure is an ornery bunch a nut jobs”; don’t call it a stereotype or call me a bigot until you show me otherwise. I mean hey, you’re the one that claims to also be a Christians so why shouldn’t I associate you with Pat Robertson. If you disagree with his position and remain silent, how am I to know?
Again, let me just make it clear that I kow you personally do not endorse or agree with Pat Robertson because you have told me so. My postion is that I do feel he speaks for quite a few Christains in this Country (perhaps even a majority) and it is to these groups I am referring. For all I know, you are the lone exception to the rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 11:21 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 3:28 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 5:33 PM FliesOnly has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 302 (253437)
10-20-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Extremism
Shouldn't Protestants be doing the same thing with Robertson?
quote:
Certainly if there was a central Protestant authority similar to the Vattican I would say yes.
Are you telling me that various Protestant denominations do not generally agree on their rejection of Robertson's cooption of their voice?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-20-2005 02:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 11:28 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 3:23 PM nator has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 50 of 302 (253450)
10-20-2005 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
10-20-2005 2:57 PM


Re: Extremism
Are you telling me that various Protestant denominations do not generally agree on their rejection of Robertson's cooption of their voice?
It is my assumption that most protestant denominations reject Robertson, but that they have never come together to reach any agreement between them on that position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 2:57 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 7:09 PM nwr has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 51 of 302 (253451)
10-20-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by FliesOnly
10-20-2005 2:49 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I will ask you the same thing that I asked Crash, if someone said that since you are an american you must be for Bush and everything Bush has done would that be correct or incorrect?
But there appears to be something more...
It becomes a stereotype only after I learn that there are others in the group that do not fit my notions or ideas of what I thought constituted a member of that group. If no Christian(s) speaks up . .
So a person with negative experiences of a racial group gets to say bad things about every member of that racial group as a whole, until one of them speaks up to that person to disprove that person's ignorance?
Sorry but a stereotype is a stereotype. It is an overgeneralization regarding a group based on basically irrelevant criteria.
Robertson is not just a Xian, he is also a prominent US leader and a rich white person and a human being. Do all of those groups have to distinguish themselves as separate? If not, then why do all Xians have to?
He represents specifically one ministry within an evangelical community that is a Protestant denomination of Xianity. It seems that if one is to claim something other than stereotyping, comments related to that specific ministry would be the only appropriate ones.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by FliesOnly, posted 10-20-2005 2:49 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 3:44 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 60 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 7:14 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 81 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 9:07 AM Silent H has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 302 (253458)
10-20-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Silent H
10-20-2005 3:28 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Hi, holmes.
quote:
It seems that if one is to claim something other than stereotyping, comments related to that specific ministry would be the only appropriate ones.
How do we determine whether certain characterizations really are appropriate to that ministry or whether those characterizations are more stereotyping?
Would it be a stereotype for me to say that most Southern Baptists feel that homosexuality is abhorrent? Where do we draw the line between unjustified stereotypes and justified generalizations?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 3:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 4:27 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:42 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 53 of 302 (253471)
10-20-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Chiroptera
10-20-2005 3:44 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Would it be a stereotype for me to say that most Southern Baptists feel that homosexuality is abhorrent? Where do we draw the line between unjustified stereotypes and justified generalizations?
That is a very good question. I don't think that that example qualifies as stereotyping specifically because of how you said it.
...Most Southern Baptists feel that homosexuality is abhorrent.
Not
Why do all you Southern Baptists hate homosexuals?
One of them is a generalized statement that you can qualify and also provide evidence for. The other is a demeaning and stereotyping.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 3:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 4:56 PM Jazzns has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 302 (253475)
10-20-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Nice reply. Thanks.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 4:27 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 55 of 302 (253486)
10-20-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by FliesOnly
10-20-2005 2:49 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
I believe that holmes' reponse also sums up my disagreement with your position quite well.
And here is your error...as I see it. A bigot is someone that holds strong to their stereotypes or opinions, despite evidence to the contrary. But how am I to change my opinion if no one tells me my mistake...if no one shows me evidence to the contrary? Get it?
Yes I do get it but I still think you have it backwards. In this case we are talking about a lack of evidence to the contrary. The stereotype is being held with the only positive evidence being Pat Robertson and his statements. You may consider this justified but remember there are no headlines of, "Average Christians contintue to live their lives not making statements like Pat Robertson". We have the same problem in this country when people base their sole opinion about Islam based on the promulgated issues in the news. By your argument you could say that the basis for their hatred of Islam is validated by their ignorance. Not a very good position to hold Flies.
If there really is no "Community" then I guess these subcultures (the "American, right wing, fundamentalists Christians" which you say "are a subset of the American Christian population and furthermore the world Christian population") need to speak up for themselves, as these subcultures, or continue to be associated with Pat Robertson.
Only because you are grouping them as such by default based on ignorance. I am sorry but ignorance is not a very good defense for bigotry because you could just as easily be ignorant and not bigoted.
Maybe so...BUT IT"S STILL THE PRECEPTION! That's all I'm saying. I am not saying that I agree with it. I'm not saying that those are my views. All I have been trying to say is that if Pat Robertson claims to be a Christian (and says and does the things that he says and does), then how am I to know that all the other people also claiming to be a Christian don't agree with him UNLESS THEY FRIGGEN TELL ME OTHERWISE?
What caused you to assume they were the same to begin with? That is the problem. Are all Democrats the same? Are all Republicans the same? They believe similar things right?
How about all Americans or all Canadians? What about {insert offician or unofficial arbatrary grouping of people here}? Are they all the same?
Why do you start from a position of a stereotype? Before you apply all the adjectives that Pat brings to that stereotype, what caused you to create that stereotype to begin with? That is what I am talking about.
I mean hey, you're the one that claims to also be a Christians so why shouldn't I associate you with Pat Robertson. If you disagree with his position and remain silent, how am I to know?
Why are you assigning me his position by default? Pat's beliefs are Pat's beliefs? Why because we both call ourselves Christian is it the default to make us the same? There are few better examples of stereotyping.
In closing, just to be clear, I want you to know that I am trying not to call you a bigot just the position.
Thanks FO,
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 10-20-2005 03:34 PM

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by FliesOnly, posted 10-20-2005 2:49 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bkelly, posted 10-20-2005 6:20 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 92 by FliesOnly, posted 10-21-2005 11:38 AM Jazzns has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 302 (253490)
10-20-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jazzns
10-20-2005 5:33 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Hello Jazzns,
You have made some excellent points and I have decided that what I perceive to be your fundamental position is correct.
But in living our lives, we do have to deal with human nature. Be it right or wrong, and it is frequently wrong. Human nature is that you will be lumped in with all Christians who are in turn lumped in with Pat Robertson. There are some very old and valid reasons why we stereotype. I learned a few of them in a college course on prejudice and racism. (I was going to provide an example, but it is not needed.)
When conversations of this nature begin, there is a strong predisposition to start on an antagonistic path. As someone who has grown more and more to dislike religious belief and behavior, I am subject to an incredible prejudice by almost all Christians. (So to with Muslims and most religious people) If everyone could immediately detect the religious position of other people, I and all who believe as I do would have a very difficult time in life.
This does indeed fit for the general case, but there are individuals that do not fit that case.
Now I would like you to answer a question. Are there any atheists who you seek out to, shall we say, share the experience of life? If you knew (and you may well, this is rhetoric) of atheists that liked many of the things you like and did not actively seek to argue religion, would you seek their friendship? Could you treat them as equals? It is easy for anyone to answer these sorts of questions in the affirmative, but I respectfully ask for some serious introspection.
As for me, I will admit to having a hard time with that.

Truth fears no question.
bkelly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 5:33 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 6:29 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 61 by Jazzns, posted 10-20-2005 7:28 PM bkelly has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 302 (253491)
10-20-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bkelly
10-20-2005 6:20 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Hello, bkelly.
quote:
Human nature is that you will be lumped in with all Christians who are in turn lumped in with Pat Robertson.
Oh dear! this is not true at all!
It may or may not be a natural part of the human condition to stereotype, but the exact stereotypes will depend on the actual culture as well as the personal experiences of the individual.
Now it was true that at one time I stereotyped Christianity as the Pat Robertson type, but that was because at that time my only experience was with the Pat Robertson type of Christians.
However, that is a result of my own experiences. I do not believe that, in general, it is "natural" to lump all Christians with Pat Robertson. Seeing how Pope John Paul II got far more air time on TV (at least the TV I was watching) it is just as "natural" to lump all Christians as Catholic, which are very different. Or, seeing how I once dated a woman who had close relatives who were Quakers (and left wing religious writers often write in the left wing periodicals I read) I could just as easily lump Christians in with the Quakers.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bkelly, posted 10-20-2005 6:20 PM bkelly has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 302 (253493)
10-20-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Chiroptera
10-20-2005 3:44 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
jazzns covered for me perfectly, so I won't add anything. Just letting you know I'm not ignoring your questions.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 3:44 PM Chiroptera has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 302 (253505)
10-20-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nwr
10-20-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Extremism
quote:
It is my assumption that most protestant denominations reject Robertson, but that they have never come together to reach any agreement between them on that position.
Well, then it seems to me that if there is confusion among people if all of the various Protestant Christian groups want or do not want Robertson speaking for them, then they only have themselves to blame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 3:23 PM nwr has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 302 (253508)
10-20-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Silent H
10-20-2005 3:28 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
quote:
I will ask you the same thing that I asked Crash, if someone said that since you are an american you must be for Bush and everything Bush has done would that be correct or incorrect?
It is quite well known that there is a sizable, very vocal and active segment of the American people who do not agree with Bush and are against much of what he does.
Besides, he actually IS supposed to represent all of us. That's what we have elections for.
I think the issue under discussion is that all of the various Protestant groups that do not agree with Robertson are not vocal and not active in opposing Robertson, who claims to represent the Christian voice in America but was never chosen by anyone other than him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 3:28 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 7:29 PM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024