Pat Robertson on natural disasters

How very nice of you bkelly. It is unfortunate and also true. I was also lumped together with the rest of the "towel heads" and "A-raabs" when I was a middle schooler during the first gulf war. People lump people together all the time. The position I was trying to fight here is that such lumping is in anyway valid intellectually. There may be valid reasons to stereotype. I can't think of any so you might have to dig out those examples. But it is when one adds hatred and condemnation to that stereotyping that they being to have a problem and an intellectually dubious position to defend. Which is terrible and if I might add highly hypocritical of Christians who do so. As you predicted it is quite easy for me to answer in the affirmative. My wife is certainly not Christian although I would probably put her in the category of a Deist. I have a number of very good friends who are athiest or at the very least agnostic. They know where I stand and I know where they stand. We have the occasional conversation about God and Christianity. I feel that the example of my life says more about the benefits of my religion than any proselytization would ever do. Being curious one of my good friends recently converted of his own accord. He attends a church and even carries some new ideas that I do not agree with. I give him a hard time sometimes because of his literalism. He is a psudo-YEC and I make no attempt to quelch my chagrin at that.In fact one of my very best friends is not only athiest but specifically very anti-Christian. Had it not been for me I am not sure but he might be on the same band wagon as our fellow posters. We both agree that one of the biggest threats today to our nations progress is the institutionalization of fundamentalist Christianity and the revisionist crusade against our education system.You asked for some deep introspection so I was forced to ask my self why do I accept these people as my friends. MY answer would be simply that I do not judge people based on what they believe. I judge people based on what they do and over the course of our relationships there has been nothing but a spirit of mutal respect in terms of both action and speech. That is what I consider to be one of the building blocks of good friendships. Common religious beliefs never even factored into the equation.Is that what you were looking for? Why is that? Is is because of the prejudice you experienced? If so then I find that vastly unfortunate and I am terribly sorry. Do you live in an area where fundamentalist Christianity is widespread? I certainly hope that you might find somewhere someday an example of a "better" Christian than what you may have been exposed to.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 10-20-2005 05:35 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

How can they be active in vocally opposing Robertson, while at the same time they practice "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

And if you don't understand that that's exactly what I did, then you shouldn't be throwing around accusations about who doesn't understand logic. No, it's really not. I don't have the financial wherewithal to move to Canada or Mexico; nor can I legally gain employment in either of those two countries.Without me doing anything at all, my citizenship remains American. On the other hand, Jazz takes the action of identifying as Christian.Apples and oranges, Holmes. Or, if you can understand this, "fallacy of the false analogy." I'd probably say that I was Canadian, in fact. The question at hand is whether or not my association was errant. I believe that I have supported an argument that it is not errant. Pat Robertson is widely recognized as a leading figure and a spokesman for a large number of Protestant Christians. Irrefutable.Jazz knows this. Yet, he takes the active step of identifying with the same label Pat Robertson chooses, when other equivalent lables would suffice. Actions that belie his claim that he's not associated with Pat Robertson. For what reason should I believe that Christianity represents such a broad category, when its very vocal, appointed figureheads are typefied by a narrow range of views?Jazzn, and you, seem to imply that it's my responsibility to interview every Christian to determine their views, when much of the Christian community itself has already appointed Pat Robertson as its spokesman.Bush? The streets are filled with Americans demonstrating to the people of other nations that he doesn't speak for everyone. Where are the Christians opposing Robertson? Uselessly posting on internet forums, apparently, instead of revoking their tacit mandate for Robertson to represent him. I'm not generalizing all Christians based on Pat Robertson. I'm not an idiot; I know that there's a wide range of opinion on Christianity.What I'm asking is why, after outrage after outrage, Christians continue to remain silent about this guy, when they're so vocal about taking down other figures.

Yeah. They have their own guy, who's even worse. Maybe you've heard of him? He's called "the Pope." And that guy, they actually did elect to represent their whole church. I don't recall claiming that every Christian did. But a majority of Christians, either by contracting the services of, or donating to, or by being members of churches that do these things, have considerably more ties to Robertson than they seem prepared to admit.

I'm I was acting like a complete dick I'd want my neighbour to tell me to stop.

Your common or garden catholic does not elect the pope. he is elected by the cardinals.

You're invoking Godwin's law because I called myself a Nazi? That's original. And what are those reasons? Change what? You changed to begin with. You made the choice to start calling yourself a "Christian", with all that entailed.What's the problem, then? You're not changing anything about yourself. You're simply changing a term you use to group yourself, because it means something slightly different than what you thought it did.People do that all the time, when the associations of a group identity change. It's not a big deal. Why are you so special, all of a sudden, that the rules don't apply to you? So stop meeting them. Stop allowing those you have influence over to meet them. Try to convince others not to meet those demands, either.Or, do nothing, and give him your tacit permission do keep on doing like he's been doing. But I guess that's the choice you've already made, isn't it? Every minute you do nothing, you grant your approval. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

quote:

---

nwr writes:

​

How can they be active in vocally opposing Robertson, while at the same time they practice "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

​

I'm I was acting like a complete dick I'd want my neighbour to tell me to stop.

---

I expect that Robertson has been told many times to stop being a complete dick. Not that it has done any good.

Who are appointed from the bishops. Who are appointed from the priests. Who became priests because they entered seminary from the laity.

You mean, you believe that you have every right to join a group, identify as part of that group, and yet not have people consider you part of that group?And that's supposed to make sense to us? You really find that reasonable?

You implied that "catholics" as a whole elect the pope. This is not true.I'm not even sure that cardinals are 'elected' by the bishops, I believe existing cardinals do this. (Although I could be mistaken)Of course priest, bishop, cardinal are all catholic and the cardinals do elect the pope. If that's what you meant, fair enough.But your statement suggested that 'catholics' as a religious grouping elect the pope.
Not true.This message has been edited by Creavolution, 10-20-2005 08:14 PM

Well, no, I didn't. I said that they elected the Pope. Naturally, I was referring to those who elect Popes, which are cardinals. Who are Catholic.Thus, the Pope was elected by Catholics. All Catholics? No, of course not. But that's not what I said. Surely it's not your contention that the papal function is not to lead the Catholic Church and set its position, which is to be adopted by the laity, on doctrinal issues? No? Then my point stands.

I just spent a good hour researching and typing up the prophecies of Jesus concerning the latter days before the end of the age and his 2nd advent to earth as per the Olivet Discourse prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. My server disconnected when attempting to review and I lost it all. Sorry, but I don't have time to do it all again.
In short, he prophesied the return of Jewish occupation of Jerusalem, the perplexity of nations about roaring seas, billowing waves, diverse earthquakes, preaching of the gospel worldwide, threat of end of life on earth, TV tech where one event in the sky is viewed worldwide by all nations, persecution of Christians, signs in the sky, et al.Pat Robertson has made his share of goofs and doesn't speak for me on quite a bit, but as per the thread OP, you people who ridicule Pat as a fool on these end time events relative to the Biblical prophecies simply have not done your own homework on what the OT Biblical prophets, Jesus and his apostles have written and taught on this. You need to do some Biblical research on your own as he has done and as I have done on this. Then come back and refute the points of his statements in the thread OP, rather than eating up thread bandwidth, bashing the man. Get off the messenger's back and focus on the messenger's statements.

---

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

His points are easily refuted. There is no Christian "God" therefore Jesus isn't returning and this can't be the end times. Now we can go back to bashing this follower of a false god.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

The message in question is Message 64: I know you didn't mean it but the fact there is nothing in your reply to differentiate the 'they' and 'their whole' from the 'they' identified as 'the single largest Christian denomination in the US' does give the impression that you meant that all Catholics elect the Pope.A trivial digression but I can't sleep and I'm bored - and can't face talking to randman about whales again

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then