Pat Robertson on natural disasters

Yawn... Look, Holmes, what you're saying here simply isn't compelling to me. What you suggest doesn't sound like a way to make my point sunderstandable or compelling; it doesn't sound like a clear way to make the shortfalls in my opponents argument more apparent.So I'm simply not interested in it. It's worthless to me. No, Holmes, I throw out terms because precise terminology makes for a concise post. When terms are understood, as I know that they are in this case, terminology improves clarity and brevity. (You could stand to learn a few things about brevity.) I didn't say I was employing symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is fairly useless in a discussion; that's why informal logic, and its cousin rhetoric, are employed.Maybe that's why you didn't see any indication that I was using symbolic logic? Because I wasn't? C'mon. Try to keep up. Sure. By taking an action.On the other hand, not being a Christian is as easy as not taking an action. In order to be a US citizen, I need do nothing. In order to be a Christian, Jazzn has to take the repeated action of telling people he is one.Why does he do that, except to have people know that he belongs to a group of people called "Christians"? And why does he do that, except to have people associate himself with Christians? Why does he do that, except to have people assume, through his group identity, a set of conditions about his religious beliefs?Well, it turns out that what people might assume about his beliefs is slightly different that what he predicted they would assume. But instead of changing his identity, he's calling me a "bigot" for reporting this truth to him.And I'm the one with the problem? I don't see it that way. Only if people who know you know the religion of your parents. I don't see that to be the case with Jazzns. I wouldn't have known anything about his religion had he not taken the active step of identifying with a group. Neither would you. Neither would any of us here.Jazzn was label-free until he took the active step of labelling himself. Christianity may encompass many different beliefs, but it doesn't encompass all beliefs, or else the term is meaningless. If words have meanings, which no one has disputed, Christianity connotes a minimum set of required beliefs.From those minimum beliefs, on which Robertson's remarks were based, and which I go into detail about in post 98, I came to a conclusion about the god that Christians worshipped. Jazzns claims to not share those minimum beliefs because Pat Robertson believes them too, but it's not clear to me how he can deny the minimum beliefs of Christianity and yet call himself one. So far, no one has chosen to address that point, yet it's the heart of my position. If we're going to agree that words have meanings, then I am allowed to point out where someone's stated beliefs do not qualify for inclusion in a group where a minimum set of beliefs are required.I believe that I have done that with Jazzns. The rest of this thread has been him trying to weasel out of an association with Pat Robertson, which at best is only tangental to my argument. As it happens, moderate Muslims have done a great job of making clear the distinction between jihadist Muslim terrorism and moderate, peaceful Islam.On the other hand, moderate or liberal Christians have made no such effort to make clear the dogmatic rift between them and the Christianity of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and Benedict XIII.

That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is, how can anyone make a claim that Robertson doesn't speak for them about what the Bible says, when you can look in the Bible and see that it says exactly what Robertson says it says?And if you simply reject the Bible, how can you be a Christian? What other information about Christ's teachings exists? How do you know what to do if you're a so-called "Christian" who rejects the Bible?

When you feel like actually addressing my posted reasons for why Christianity is not ubiquitous rather than just repeating your argument then please tell me. I will be happy to engage you in a discussion where we actually read and respond to what the other person says. No offense intended.Thanks,

---

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

I did address it. It's ridiculous to assert that there isn't a "Christian group", that's why people call themselves Christians, to differentiate from those who don't call themselves Christians.Duh. It really is that simple, Jazzns. Words mean things. "Christian" means "follower of Christ", and that puts you in the same group as everybody else who says they follow Christ. That includes Pat Robertson. That includes 2.1 billion other human beings, all of whom you're in a very large group with.Here, you can even look and see. Here's the wiki article for "World Religions": World religions - WikipediaLook how they list Christianity, the world's largest religion. Not as a bunch of seperate, unrelated groups, but as several branches, or sub-groups, all given as part of one larger group.And that group is called "Christianity."If you feel that that rebuttal is insufficient, then you can either explain why, or make parting shots as you exit the debate. I guess it's obvious which path you've chosen.

Well you are almost right. It wasn't meant for you to improve your attack, it was meant for you to improve your understanding. You may not be interested, but it was not worthless.This is a sad commentary on your purpose for debate, and the way you evaluate logical tools. This is true. This is a problem of mine. However you need to increase your stamina in reading and your tools of comprehension and logic.Unfortunately you use concise points incorrectly even when you do correctly apply a label. I tried to make that point, but I guess you have not understood what I meant. Just to let you know, this is one of your "tells". When you are lost you almost always resort to the "try to keep up" claim.Let me try to explain this to you once again. You detailed your knowledge base to say that you did not need to pretend you had skills in logic. I said that two of the skills had nothing to do with logic, and you apparently did not use your skill in symbolic logic or you would have found the problem within your own argument. Then I challenged you to do it."Try to keep up."Oh by the way symbolic logic is not useful in discussion, but it is useful in comprehension. I keep trying to suggest ways to improve your comprehension so as to improve the level of debate, not how to present your argument to someone else.As I have already said you seem skilled in rhetoric. The problem is that if it is a cousin to logic, it is most certainly the black sheep of the family. It is more correctly known as sophistry. You need to use real logic to imrpove analysis before moving on to rhetoric. The problem is that the only people who will make those assumptions about his beliefs will be ignorant people. He wouldn't necessarily be right to say bigot, but he would be right to say errant and sterotyping.He is under no obligation to change his identity to solve someone else's ignorance. Why would anyone be? Yeah? And? That does happen.Jazzns identified himself in order to discuss your error. It seems odd for you to turn it around on him and say he should have identified himself as something else within YOUR system of knowledge, rather than you correcting your system. The first sentence is true, the rest is errant. I have explained why in a reply to the post you cited. If you believe moderate Xians have not made a clear distinction between themselves and the more extreme elements as muslims have then you are equating lack of equal media coverage, or your lack of media watching, with their inability to make a distinction.As I have already pointed out elsewhere, Robertson himself, on his own program has disputes with other Xian factions.And I might add to this, your point is still open with regard to muslims. Is it correct that a muslim who has not participated against the extremists is be default to be considered a terrorist?

---

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

I already understand his point; I don't need to post something of my own to understand. Understanding is in the listening and the reading, not the talking and the posting.Because I understand his point, I know that he's wrong. Otherwise I wouldn't be arguing with him. I understood what you meant. You just didn't give me any reason to believe you, so I ignored you. No, you told me that I hadn't done it. Well, I never intended to do it. I'm not writing mathematical proofs, which is the balliwick of symbolic logic; I'm trying to craft compelling arguments for my point of view, for which rhetoric and informal logic is the proper tool.The proper tool for the proper job, Holmes. We're done with this. You know, I'm starting to catch on when you make jokes. This one was almost funny. Because his action was predicated on his assumption of another's knowledge. Jazzn didn't choose to call himself "Christian" in a vacumn; he chose that term because he believed it to be associated in the minds of his peers with a certain set of beliefs.If Jazzn finds out that his understanding is wrong, that people think something different about Christians than he believed they did, it's his problem. He can either educate people about what he meant in the first place; or adopt as an identifier another term that lacks those connottations; or accept the connotations that go along with his group identity.But to complain that people thought something different than what he expected, and make that their fault, is petulant. What error? Does the Bible say what I said it said, or does it not? Nobody's advanced an argument that I was in error. They've simply cried "foul" because I accepted the theological reasoning of someone they don't like, reasoning that happens to be entirely, objectively valid. The Bible does say what Robertson, in this limited case, says it says. Then I'd be glad to be proved wrong. Where can I see these reports? Asked and answered.

Right. People who were contemporaries of Christ had an alternate source of his teachings.If it wasn't clear, however, the context of my remarks was the present day, where no other sources of Christ's teachings exist. Well, that sounds reasonable. What's the interpretation of those passages, then, that means that Christ's return will not be heralded by destruction? Interesting; are we to infer anything at all about the nature of God from Revalations? Does it have any merit as Scripture at all?

quote:

---

These views of Robertson's are his own interpretations of what he is reading and believing.

---

But Pat did very little in the way of interpretation. He stated them, plain and simple. They are no more mysterious than your statements here in this post. You mean what you have clearly posted and so do these.

quote:

---

I find it failed logic to subscribe that if anyone disagrees with Robertson's views that they are not a Christian. They may not be a "Robertson Christian", but his views are not a litmus test for inclusion into Christianity as a Faith.

---

Right. However, it does reveal that those Biblical Christians who fault and chastize Robertson for his quotes need to brush up on the scriptures of their book before criticizing Robertson here.

quote:

---

In a general sense he has some creadance to what he is saying. The End Times Events are nearing. But the Bible says that nobody knows the hour and day which means that prognosticators do not have enough information to start setting dates for end times events.

---

He didn't set specific dates, did he? After giving a number of things to watch for, Jesus himself said in Luke 21:28, "But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draws near." He goes on in the next couple of verses to tell of the fig tree and how you can tell by watching it when the harves is near. Then this in verse 31: Even so, you also, when you see these things coming to pass, know you that the kingdom of God is near.

quote:

---

The Bible is also clear that when the events start to occur, the Earth will curse God for the affair. This means that when it goes down, there will be no doubt as to why this stuff is happening. We are not at that point yet because few believe these events are nothing but Natural cycles. When the events take on End Times intensity, doubts of natural cyclic occurance will cease.

---

Not only are the natural disaster graphs spiking up, but they are soundly corroborated by other non-geological fulfilled prophecies, such as the one of Jesus that Jerusalem, after a long gentile occupation would again be occupied by Jews, all of the OT prophecies which predicted a scattering and latter day return of the Jews to Israel, the industrial revolution, high tech communication, signs in the sky, advanced knowledge and travel, consolidation of a mideastern Arab alliance against Israel, et al.Paul said that Jesus comes as a thief to them in the darkness, but to the children of the light he would not come as a thief. Why? Because the people of the light know the prophecies and what to look for. No we don't know the day nor the hour, but the scriptures are clear that those who search the scriptures prayerfully and carefully, will be apprised when the end times are near. Trust me. I've been doing my homework for 60 years, watching the prophecies relative to the news, et al. THE END TIMES FOR ARMAGEDDON AND THE 2ND ADVENT OF JESUS IS VERY NEAR! THE PROPHECIED WRATH OF GOD UPON PLANET EARTH IS NOW EMERGING UPON US. So is the tribulation/persecution of Christians. We're all caught up in it, but the rapture (catching up} and resurrection of the saved will come before the events of the 7th trumpet, i.e. the 7 bowls of God's wrath which will be upon the ungodly who missed the resurrection of the dead and the rapture of the saved living.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Are you all going to disappear like in the books? Because that's the part that I'm looking forward to.

quote:

---

Are you all going to disappear like in the books? Because that's the part that I'm looking forward to.

---

Not "the books?" Not really, but like the book. You know. That Book of books, the worlds best seller, ever -- the book of life......and the same book prophesies that people like you will regard us just as you're doing. You, my friend, are fulfilling Biblical prophecy! Why don't you smell the coffee and switch sides?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Because a book full of stupid beliefs makes the obvious prediction that some people will find those beliefs stupid? Color me not impressed.

I have already explained why it is insufficient. It is insufficient because it is simply repitition that does not begin to address the reasons I posted about why Christianity should not be considered a catch all. You may think that winning a debate is done by whoever can repeat their argument the longest. If you wish to engage me on the points I raised then this discussion can continue. If all you want to do is repeat yourself then you can have your parting shots and we can move on.

---

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

And I've rebutted that "explanation." Your assertion that there's no such thing as a group of Christians is incoherent. It's ludicrous. And most importantly, it's contradicted by the facts.And you haven't addressed a single point of that. You've accused me of repeating myself; but mine is the argument that has developed, expanded, and been supported by a growing range of evidence. On the other hand, you've brought nothing to the debate but "I know you're wrong but I won't tell you why." And you've simply repeated that for several posts now.Jazzns, you're being ridiculous. Do all Christians think identically? No, of course not, but that's not what's required for them to belong to the same group. All that's necessary is that they employ the same group identifier, which they do."Christian." It really is just that simple, and not a single thing you've said so far even approaches a challenge to that point. "Christianity" is a group because people who call themselves Christian do it to put themselves into that group.

But your example showed you did not truly understand his point, nor your own. I was suggesting a way to approach an argument so that you can examine your opponent's argument as well as your own.It appears all you are interested in is defending a preset opinion. As I said, that is a shame. But in an actual debate, these are not the sole proper tools. I think it is interesting that you condemn creos for doing essentially the same thing, yet feel it is sufficient for you. Faith and Canadian Steve are very good at crafting arguments for their point of view. The problem is they need to be examining their point of view because there is a flaw. The same goes for you here. Heheheh. Doesn't this beg the question of who is making the mistake you are describing? You said something based on your expectations of what Xianity is. You were being told that your expectation was wrong. This is being done not only by a Xian, but a nonXian who just happens to know more than nothing about Xianity, and something more about Robertson.You seem to be assuming that your expectation is accurate, and so he must conform. What you should be realizing is that your position is errant and he doesn't have to change a thing.For example let's say I never heard of evolution before outside of mocking derisive commentary that it says life appeared suddenly out of nothing, and that there is nothing but a natural world (ie no gods possible). Do I get to tell evos that do not believe this that they must choose a new name because that is not my understanding of what an evo is?How does that make any sense? Yes someone did, posts ago. I see you have replied to that after this post so I will discuss it there. I already said where you can find them. If you actually watched his show, or the news programs which feature him, they usually involve dissenting comments from other denominations.You might check out the Wiki entry on Robertson where it explains what he is and who he can speak for. In that you will find an interesting quote from Robertson... If you want to believe that that did not result in a reaction from those denominations, and a lasting enmity where they speak out against him, you are certainly a curious fellow. It also clearly delineates who he does NOT speak for.He even has infights with other evangelists. One of the larger recent flareups, was between him and Falwell prior to the 2004 election.What his common detractors don't get is completely equal airtime as they are not as outrageous in their commentary (so it is not as good "news" to spread around), and they aren't televangelists with their own networks and so can get their message out 24/7 in the media.Jesse Jackson is one of the few public Xian personalities who frequently spars with these guys and media like to pick up on his commentary.If a redneck didn't see Hussein and Iraqis deny their connection to 911 and WMDs, would that mean they didn't deny it, or that they had such things?Really, your defense of ignorance is repulsive.

---

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

Are you reading my posts or not? I addressed the present day. I moved from the past to show that the Bible was not considered completely literal and all sections inerrant in the past, then that modern denominations reflect those original divisions and Bibles can be different (with missing passages).Thus there is STILL NO SINGULAR SOURCE FOR THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST. Does bold help you read what I write?If you can show me the single copy of the Bible, identical among all Xians, and taught with the same interpretation between denominations (even if the same copy), then I'd be interested. Otherwise this is just more of your ignorance on this topic.What on earth do you think denominations mean, and why they have warred on each other, and continue to fight today? Oh yeah, you think they don't fight today. There are many different interpretations. The one I grew up with in my church was that revelations was allegorical in nature. It was discussing the types of tribulations men will suffer through before coming to an understanding that will bring lasting peace. In that state Christ will have returned or will return. I suppose that's much like the Buddhist concepts of working through the sufferings of this world in order to achieve wisdom on suffering and the true path to harmony.They certainly did not believe in an end time that was coming and that violence would be inflicted on many. My denomination focused on forgiveness and peace.That said they still believed a bunch of other stuff I disliked and so I parted from them. I find some interesting philosophy in Xianity, but cannot accept the actual underpinnings of the religion which all must ascribe to. Literal interpretation of every part, especially revelations is not one of those underpinnings. If you are really interested in the answer to this, why not look things up. I have actually addressed this topic briefly elsewhere at EvC. The short version is to say that you really can't say anything about what the Xian God is like, only what a specific denomination's version of the Xian God is like.My church was very nice (peaceful) and quite opposed to the lunacy and violence of evangelism. It was not deist in nature (it believed in some of the miracles), but did attributed violent aspects only to righteous anger and even then sometimes only as stories to let you know right from wrong.Do I think that is inconsistant? Yes. But the point is the Bible itself is inconsistant. You will find God described as generally incapable of such destruction and that in fact he is wholly destructive. It is a mish mash of writings on God with the only "true" message being what image you take out of the rorschach of ink stain on paper.Intriguingly you have to remember that Xianity was an addition to Judaism, so there are conflicts between the two. How is that explained? And there are some that claim that Xianity was solely a gnostic religion, in that the actual meaning was hidden within the more fatuous fairy tales, and the real meaning was lost when the original gnostic sect was crushed. Heheheh.

---

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