I must have missed the vote. Can you tell me when the elections were?
1988. Or in 1985 when he was honored by the National Association of United Methodist Evangelists. Or in 1979 by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. Or by Newsweek in 1992. Moreover, its a vote of confidence in Robertson every time Christians refuse to censor him, or request that his program be taken off the air.
I mean, let's not joke around, ok? Christians get what they want in this country. If they made it clear that Robertson offended their faith, that he was an embarrasment, ABC would pull him off the air.
But they don't, so ABC doesn't. Christians like you deliver a vote of confidence every time you refuse to take him on. Every time you let him speak for you.
Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. It's Robertson that you oppose. So why people like you continue to allow him to speak in your name is beyond me.
There aren't that many religions out there that operate with one voice.
No, and I'm not saying that Christianity doesn't encompass a range of beliefs.
But the name itself has meaning. "Little Christ" is what it means. There's an implicit claim there of following the teachings of Christ as found in the Bible. If words have meanings, its inappropriate for you to call yourself that if you don't at least follow the teachings of Christ. And the only source of those is the Bible.
It would be as incoherent as if I were to deny the reincarnation of the soul, the enlightnement of the Buddhas, and the neccessity of the perfection of the self, and yet refer to myself as "Buddhist". Words have meanings, and the words used to describe religion imply at least a very minimal set of required doctrines.
Yet you would like to bundle us all together.
Do you employ the term "Christian" to define yourself? Does he? Looks like you're bundling yourself, if you ask me. Look, there's over 30 world religions, with hundreds of sects each. Asking an outsider like myself to keep track of your insiginficant little disputes in doctrine is ridiculous. If you don't like that referring to yourself as "Christian" puts you in a certain company, then either change how you refer to yourself, or convince Robertson to change. It's really not my problem.
We all don't think like Pat Robertson.
And I can appreciate that. But yet, the Christian community as a whole is still allowing Robertson to speak for them. Robertson, and Falwell, and Dobson, and The Pontif Formerly Known as John "Hide the Molestors" Ratzenburger. I don't see your community doing much to reign these guys in. And let's not kid ourselves; the power of Christians in America is enormous. The President is appointing Harriet Meyers to SCOTUS, after all - a woman whose sole qualification is that she's a Christian.
I can appreciate that there are moderate or even liberal voices within the church. And year after year I hear about how you're going to "take back Jesus" from the religious right.
But nothing ever happens. At this point we have to conclude that its because you don't have the numbers within your churches. And you don't have the numbers because the vast majority of Christians find Robertson much more appealing than they do your side.
Robertson's prominence isn't an accident, Jazz. I know he doesn't speak for people like you. So why do you people let him?
If there was anything like that with regards to literature at any of the churches I have ever attended it was not publicly made available to the congregation.
Look more closely. "Pastor's Weekly Briefing." It looks totally innocuous, and is, most of the time. And it appears in literally millions of churches.
Your understanding of Christianity based on Pat Robertson is not even close to the Christianity that I and many others follow. My beliefs are not defined by Pat Robertson and most certainly not by you.
I'm not trying to define your belief. But if words have meanings then your adoption of the term "Christian" means certain things. You need to sort out if you want those things to apply to you. But that's your issue to deal with, not mine.
Until then, you are no better proclaiming some kind of Christian consensus lead by Pat Robertson then CanadianSteve is proclaiming that all of Islam is under consensus by some of his quotes from the wacko imams out there.
At least in the Muslim community there's a very vocal majority loudly proclaiming to the world that the jihadist terror groups don't represent them. But when Robertson clamors for the assassination of elected leaders, Christian groups are mum. His comments are described, at best, as "regrettable" or "inappropriate."
Christians fall all over themselves to avoid taking this guy on. Is it any wonder that he appears to speak for you all? Instead of getting all pissed at me, you need to look at your own situation and see what
you can be doing to clean house. Curse the darkness all you like. You have to be the one to light your own candle.
™ Version 4.2
