Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,578 Year: 2,835/9,624 Month: 680/1,588 Week: 86/229 Day: 58/28 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 7 of 302 (250721)
10-11-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
10-11-2005 7:58 AM


Waaaaait a minute
Crash please. Some of us are not raving futurist apocolyptics. There is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the Apocolypse of John that does not include this notion of a future end times with all the suffering and craziness involved. So don't put us Christians all in one box please.

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 2 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2005 7:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2005 11:00 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2005 6:00 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 11 of 302 (250772)
10-11-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Omnivorous
10-11-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
What? I don't understand your reply at all.

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 10 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2005 11:00 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2005 11:59 AM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 15 of 302 (250825)
10-11-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Omnivorous
10-11-2005 11:59 AM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
No that is ok. Now that I get it it is kinda funny. But only in that way when you don't get the joke and have to have someone explain it to you.
Ha ha....uh...ha....

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 13 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2005 11:59 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2005 2:17 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 20 of 302 (251093)
10-12-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
10-11-2005 6:00 PM


Re: Waaaaait a minute
For all the times on this board you attack YECs for over generalizing thigns you sure have a pretty hypocritical way of over generalizing religion. You know (damned) well that there are a number of Christians on this board and all over the place who feel that Pat Robertson is the antithesis of Christian values.
Then, even more hypocritical, you go own to make at least one key unsupported and probably unsupportable assertion. Pat Robertson may be respected by some people and churches but in no way are you going to get that his filth is present in MOST churches in America. No church I have EVER been to supported Pat Robertson, sold his crap, or even made a passing mention of his sadistic ideas. So unless you feel like backing this up you are no better than a YEC coming in here announcing that there is no such thing as beneficial mutations.
What the (fuck) do you know crash? Well, ask youself that. What the (fuck) do you know about Christians in general? Really?
You have a bad experience in the past? You go to one of these Pat loving churches before? Fine but don't pretend to speak for the rest of us who are not you and have never had the experiences that caused you to disregard Christianity.
AdminPhat comments: Easy Jazz! Don't get emotional with the Frog. He is entitled to his soapbox..(or Lilypad)
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 10-12-2005 08:27 AM

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 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2005 6:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2005 4:21 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 22 of 302 (251241)
10-12-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
10-12-2005 4:21 PM


Invention of a Christian Consensus
And, yet, Pat Robertson is chosen by Christians to speak publically on their behalf. You are not.
You are making the claim that he is chosen. I certainly didn't choose him. I must have missed the vote. Can you tell me when the elections were? I must have not read that issue of Universal Christian Quarterly. Its really too bad because I would have wanted to make sure that my vote was counted along with every single other Christian who chose a single voice to describe their faith. You know, since we are all the same right.
How does that add up for you? Why would you expect a reasonable person to take your word over his when it comes to Christian thought on a subject?
I don't expect you to take my word on anything except what I believe in. You don't get to define that. There aren't that many religions out there that operate with one voice. Christianity certainly isn't one of them and I do not subscribe to anything that man says. In the various other discussion here you have also seen a whole bunch of other Christian condemnation of him. Yet you would like to bundle us all together. I personally resent that and do not know how you who so often holds objective and open minded views toward things can make such overboard generalizations about other people's beliefs. Then when I go and politely ask you to please exclude the subset of Christians from whom you KNOW do not agree with his filth you blow up at me.
Of course, I could just as easily reply that I've never been to a church that didn't have his literature on hand; on the other hand, I doubt you would take my anecdotal evidence very seriously. How do you suppose I'm going to react to yours?
Sure you could say that if it was true. I would give you the benefit of the doubt if you did. I even said that I don't doubt that some churches to subscribe to that crap. Just not all of them crash. We all don't think like Pat Robertson.
But I invite you to investigate your claim further. Go to any of the churches you're referring to. See if they subscribe to a one-page fax newsletter called "The Pastor's Weekly Briefing." My church hands out copies every sunday.
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. The only literature we ever received in service was printed by the church or by the offices of the denomination. Once again, I don't doubt that some churches, even ones you have been to, DO hand out that stuff. But not all crash and that is the point.
As Christians repeatedly tell me, I know nothing, because I lack the Holy Spirit, or the God-sense, or whatever the fuck it's called. So I really have no way of knowing what Christians believe except for what they tell me. And in this regard, I currently have two conflicting sources:
Well I apologize for saying it like that but I also said nothing about your understanding being based on your lack or otherwise of the Holy Spirit. 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.
No offense, but Pat Robertson is way, way more credible a source on the consensus Christian view than you are.
My point is that there is no such thing as the consensus Christian view. It is one of the most splintered religions in the world. Take that for what you will. It just seems that you would rather tie us all together and vilify us with the same stroke rather than recognize that there are some of us out there that aren't insane like Pat.
I'm sure that's gotta burn you up, but if Pat Robertson really doesn't represent the consensus view of Christianity then you Christians need to clean house and stop appointing this guy to speak on your behalf.
And how would I do that especially given that there is no such thing as a Christian consensus? Also, I don't know where you are getting this appointment thing from. I didn't appoint him. No one in my former church went to any vote or any conference to choose anyone to speak for us. We are not the RCC so there is no papacy. Even there the people don't get to pick who their leader is. Even if he was put in some kind of "power" due to a democratic system such a system could only CLAIM to speak for all Christians.
I don't feel like getting into the details of why I believe what I believe with you. Especially since you pretty much have written it off before I have ever even talked about it on this forum. If you are legitimately curious then ask and I'll be glad to discuss it with you in a more congenial environment.
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. A subset of people who consider themselves Christians, even if it was only ME, are not spoken for by ANY mortal "leader" with regards to our stance of faith and God. If you choose to believe that Pat does speak for all Christians then you are welcome to that opinion but I always had the impression that you were better than that.

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 21 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2005 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 10-12-2005 6:31 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2005 7:39 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 25 of 302 (251298)
10-12-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
10-12-2005 7:39 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Every time you let him speak for you.
So why people like you continue to allow him to speak in your name is beyond me.
I know he doesn't speak for people like you. So why do you people let him?
Well so far I have only ever met one person in the entire world that has not been able to realize that Pat Robertson does not speak for all Christians and that the lable of "Christian" is not a catch-all.
I do not LET Pat Robertson DO anything. Pat Robertson can DO whatever he wants with the money he recieves from the people he fools. I do not participate in his show. I am no viewer or sponsor of the 700 club on purpose rather than by apathy for it. Every time the issue is raised I will express my condemnation for his positions. What else can I do short of starting a multi-million dollar organization to try to shut him down? Even then how could I? I respect his right to free speech just as much as I hate that same speech and know the evil that is that man.
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.
I'm not trying to define your belief. But if words have meanings then your adoption of the term "Christian" means certain things.
I nor Pat Robertson nor any other human being on the planet owns the label "Christian". I don't want to call myself something else just so that I can distinguish myself from some crazy asshole who has his own tv show and zombie following. No one is asking you to be bother by following all the details. Just don't proclaim that any other human being speaks for me by default. It is not only incorrect, it is offensive.
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.
Being that you know nothing of what I believe specifically what you are doing now is pure speculation and is in fact an incorrect characterization of my take on Christianity.
Do you employ the term "Christian" to define yourself? Does he?
I am sorry but that you don't see anything wrong with this is amazing. So now everyone is completely defined by what they call themselves? So me being a "Christian" means I must adhere to some kind of objective definition of the word "Christian" which makes me equivalent to Pat Robertson? You are going to have to clarify because I don't think you really meant that.
My being a "Democrat" does not mean that I must subscribe to the same beliefs as Howard Dean. My being an "American" does not mean that I must subscribe to the same beliefs of George Bush. (and he even WAS chosen by the people!)
Crash you are completely welcome to have the belief that Pat and I are from the same cloth. I just want to make sure that my objections to such a narrow and fruitless position are made clear.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 10-12-2005 06:14 PM
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 10-12-2005 06:14 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 24 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2005 7:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2005 9:43 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 27 of 302 (251414)
10-13-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
10-12-2005 9:43 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Uh-huh. And is it your insular Christian community to which you're referring? Why don't you ask, say, a British Muslim if Robertson speaks for American Christians? Or a Chinese Buddhist? Or an Liberian under dictator Charles Taylor?
Have you spoken to any of those people? Because a lot of those people are talking about Robertson like he speaks for people
like you.
It seems as though you are having a problem understanding what I was saying in my previous posts. I don't know why but lets try again. I NEVER said that there were no Christians who follow or support Pat. Moreover the problem of external perception of our country as Christian is something that the US has been struggling with since its inception. Some of the first treaties ever made were to clarify to that the US is a secular nation specifically not Christian.
But that is not the main point. You have changed argument. Remember:
crashfrog previously writes:
How is it that you expect any of us to believe that the god you worship is not the god of death?
I am not talking to the British, Chinese, or Liberians. I am talking to you about your stereotyping and generalization. I could care less if a subset of the rest of the world is so bigotted that they must stereotype Christians and assume that some guy who is rich enough to have his own TV show speaks for all of us. If I could change that I would but my sphere of influence does not stretch that far nor do I want it to. If I had aspirations for that I would run for public office. My sphere of influence is here with my peers. The subset of those people that I am dealing with are people on this message board and others that I interact with in my daily life.
Like I've said, this guy isn't just some "crazy asshole." He's not some fringe fanatic. His popularity and position are not accidents. He wouldn't enjoy the success that he does absent a considerable base of support among your Christian community.
First off you are twisting my words. I never said fringe. I know very well that Pat has a large following and I even said as much in my last post. If you want to reply to my posts I would ask kindly that you actually respond to my post and not some characture that you have built of my post.
Second, I have repeatedly said that there is no such thing as a Christian community or Christian consensus. Does Pat speak for a large group of people who consider themselves Christian. Yes and I have said that time and again. Why would I try to deny that? That would be lying. But Pat DOES NOT speak for all people who consider themselves Christians because Pat Robertson does not own nor assign the label of "Christian". Even if that subset of Christians was only myself, and you know very well that it is not, then my point still stands.
The fact that you're so ready to dismiss him as a crank suggests to me that you're not ready or willing to face the fact that Robertson isn't just an exception; he's proof of a silent majority of busybody moralists and fatalists within the Christian community.
Well I never said that I dismiss him so again you are putting words that I never said into my mouth. If I didn't care I would never have responded to you. I think Pat and folks like him need to be challanged whenever possible and I do that whenever I can.
I never said he was an exception. Again with the mischaracterizations.
You can't just write this guy off, Jazz. Folks like you just writing him off is the reason that he enjoys the prominence that he does.
And once more responding to something I never said. I don't just write Pat off. Being that you have no idea what I do with my life outside this board I find it facinating that you can immediatly presume that I am some armchair whiner about this issue. Well maybe not. Since you have already demonstrated that you can come to sweeping conclusions about "all us Christians" I can see why you might predisposed to assuming my lethargy. Just because I don't have my own multi-million dollar TV show does not mean I do nothing crash.
How else would we define them? If a person claims to be part of a group, who am I to tell them different? If you say you're a Christian, and Robertson says he's a Christian, why should I believe that you aren't both Christians?
Like I said before. I am not asking you to be versed in the details of why we are different. I am just asking that you tread the phrase "Christian" in the same manner that you would treate another general catagory such as "Democrat". Are all Democrats the same crash? Do all democrats believe the exact same thing? If a prominent Democrat says something stupid does that mean he speaks for all Democrats?
To me. To the three people who are still reading this. Who gives a good goddamn? The people you need to be making it clear to are the people who pick up newspapers in England and China and Liberia and see Pat Robertson speaking, once again, for the community of Christians in America. And I don't see any overtures - absolutely none whatsoever - in the moderate/liberal Christian community to do any of that.
Well that is too bad. Enjoy your stereotyping.
For as much as you all whine - and you do whine - whenever someone points out that you and Robertson check the same box under "Religion",
It is good to know that everyone can be bundled together by what "box" they check. I'll remember that next time I check the box for my race.
none of you seem interested in advancing the least amount of effort to make apparent to outsiders the schism of doctrine that you so adamantly assert exists between your side and his.
Well I have no idea what you think I have just been doing. I sure am no ambassador to Liberia but we exist and we do speak up.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 10-13-2005 08:40 AM

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 26 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2005 9:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 10-13-2005 5:40 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 29 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 6:45 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 31 of 302 (252698)
10-18-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by bkelly
10-16-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
Its pretty clear that people like you and crash have made up your mind about this issue. I have no desire to try to convince you or anyone else of the effectiveness of how I conduct my public affairs with regards to political or other issues as long as my beliefs and social alliances are defacto dictated to me.
Like I told crash. You are welcome to group people however you like. That is part of what makes freedom great. I am not here to convince you or him of anything because you already have an opinion of Christianity that I will likely be unable to change. In fact most of the discussions that go on here are like that. Two sides have their own opinion. The only reason I even posted that first post here and continued with crash was to make sure that anyone else reading this had the counter argument available especially with regards to what I consider biggotry toward my religion.
Don't get me wrong. I hate what most Christians in US do and say just as much as the rest of you jaded folk. That is why I strive not to be like them in what I do both publically and privately. I just don't feel that it is either intellectually honest, or polite for that matter, to group people by absolutes for the reason of condemnation. There are good Christians out there who don't like the bad rep and terrible things that other people do in the name of God. As much as such a thing is hated though it is those folks right to believe how they believe and to call themselves Christian.
No matter what I do or how much I disagree with Pat Robertson I would disagree even more with limiting his right to say what he wants. TO me that is what being a good American is all about. To me that is also what being a good Christian is all about.

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 29 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 6:45 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by FliesOnly, posted 10-18-2005 4:05 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2005 6:32 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 10-19-2005 7:08 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 34 of 302 (252836)
10-18-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by FliesOnly
10-18-2005 4:05 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
First off, although I still disagree with you I would like to thank you for keeping it civil.
I have to sit back and say to myself: "Why do you think this way?" Sure, I guess it's their right to "call" themselves a Christian. Is simply claiming to be a Christian good enough to become one?
Like I said before, no one owns the label Christian just like any number of other generic labels that we use in society. There is no official central Christian organization that keeps membership information. You do not have to subscribe to any officially sanctioned doctrine. Pretty much the only thing required is the belief in the deity of Christ and that is potentially where the similarities end.
If not, and ones actions are considered as well, shouldn't you guys point out...LOUDLY...the very Unchristian-like things Pat Robertson has done?
Yes and no. I think it is important for people to know that there are Christians out there who are not similar to Pat and his cohorts. That is pretty much the only reason I am participating in this discussion. Not because it is not my job to police the subjective doctrine of those who claim to be Christian. Also, it is the attitude of many Christians that they are not to be the judges of the hearts of men. IMO, the stereotypical Christian that would probably have issue with Pat Robertson are going to be the ones who strive to be humble and not participate against worldly things. They most they would do would be pray about it asking God to take care of the situation. That pretty much describes the Christian side of my family to a tee. I tend to be a little bit more reactionary and unfortunately those like me seem to fall among the vast minority of Christians. IMO of course.
I mean come on Jazzns, what must someone do to be considered NOT a Christian?
Not believe in Christ as a deity. That’s it....that is also .....the point.
That is the kind of thing that I think helps to help make Crash's point. What I believe he's trying to say is that while he doesn't necessarily believe that you personally agree with Pat Robertson, by not publicly condemning what he says, you passively endorse his views.
And I completely disagree. You may choose to believe that lack of a substantial uprising is tacit approval of his ways but that would only be your opinion. I tend to take the position that people are diverse and that beliefs can be as granular as the individual. Therefore such a blatant grouping of people and their subjective beliefs is at the very least borderline bigotry IMO. There is little difference between that and saying that I passively endorse Osama Bin Laden because I consider myself Arab and yet do not "publicly" condemn him. Osama does not speak for all Arabs, Pat does not speak for all Christians.
By not saying "I know a Christian, Mr Robertson...and you are no Chirstian" (sorry, but I couldn't resist ), then you do accept him into the Christian club and his views become yours as well. It really is that simple.
The fatal flaw is that there is no such thing as a Christian club. Moreover, even if there was, default acceptance based on inaction is still invalid IMO.
Look, when Pat does something that one might view as a positive thing (and nothing comes to mind right now...), the Christian Community applauds his actions. For the same reason they (the Christian Community) need to publicly condemn him when he makes outlandish statements as well. And yet they don't. Why his he still on TV?
Because he has the right to be on TV and speak his mind. I care more about his right to do that then I do about any of this.
Why do people still send him money?
Because in general people are stupid especially Christians.
Why are his views supported by many that call themselves Christians? Any guesses Jazzns?
See previous.
I think we both know the answer, and it goes a long way towards supporting Crash's point.
No I think you are starting to assign opinions to me based on a point that you think you made. What we have here is an arbitrary grouping of a subset of society whose beliefs are highly subjective and variable. You may choose to group them as such but again IMO that is wrong and in crash's case it was offensive.
Do you understand what we're trying to get across here. If Pat Robertson does not hold Christian views, then it is up to you and all other Christians to let everyone know that Pat Robertson is no Christian.
Says you. Again the only objective requirement for honestly calling yourself a Christian is belief in the deity of Christ. I have no necessary imperative, morally, intellectually, or otherwise, to meet your requirement for appropriate denouncement of Pat.
And make no mistake...he definitely claims to be a Christian.
He is a Christian. Maybe I didn't make that clear before. I am not disputing Pat's "status" as a Christian. I am only disputing that characteristics prescribed by folks like Pat are ubiquitous among Christians. This is an issue of generalizations and stereotyping, not validity.
Personally, if I were lumped into a category that included this nut case, I would vociferously cry foul...
Well my point is that I do not consider there to even be a category so your are in a sense assuming your argument.
and I would demand that my leaders, the leaders of my Church also condemn and speak out against him.
What about those of us Christians who do not belong to a church and have no "leaders"? More generalizations but despite that it has been my experience that what the leaders of most churches would do would if it was important would be to address the situation to their congregation. That IS their "public".
But we do not see this happening do we? Where was the Christian outrage when he endorsed murder? Where was the Christian outrage when he blamed 9-11 on homosexuality ? Where was the Christian outrage when he claimed that God brought the Tsunami upon Indonesia, and the Hurricanes upon the Gulf States?
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.
If you want to claim membership in a group calling themselves "Christians" then you need to understand that Pat Robertson claims membership in that group as well,
Sure. No dispute here. Only that said "group" is then typed and condemned as such.
and since he has a rather large platform from which to speak, he probably voices his Christian view point to far more people than do you yours. So either he is a Christain and speaks for the group, or he is not a Christian, and his words should not be accepted as such.
False dichotomy. He can both be a Christian, say what he does, and also not be accepted by many who are also Christians.
Which is it Jazzns?
Black or white? Up or down? A or B? Do you really believe that people can be grouped in such a way simply on who they think is God?
If it's the former then why are you complaining? If it's the latter, then why is he allowed by the Christian Community to continue? That's what Crashfrog is trying to get across (I think...if not, sorry Crash).
Once again, fatally you create a Christian "community" that does not exist. That IS my point.
So, no, I don't think you're an evil person, nor do I think Crash holds that view. What we're trying to tell you is that unfortunately, because your "club" lets people like Pat Robertson claim membership, you are indeed lumped together with him and his ilk.
The issue here is not the actions of the members of the "club", it is the existence of said "club".
You can allow him to stay, or do all that you can to exclude him, but it's up to you (Christians) to take up the cause.
Once again says you. And also once again, being that there is no "club", no one is allowing him to say anything. Pat Robertson has the right to say what he wants to as an American.
And so far the Christian voice in opposition has been nothing but quite...so what are we left to assume...?
Assume what you like. I find that most of the time the people who assume, as my opponents have done thus far in this thread, are already predisposed against tearing down the stereotypes. It is a form of bigotry plain and simple. You are welcome to have a conception of Christianity based on whatever you like. You can base it off of Pat and his like all you want but please do so in full recognition that such a conception is limited by your very own choice.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by FliesOnly, posted 10-18-2005 4:05 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by FliesOnly, posted 10-19-2005 11:08 AM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 35 of 302 (252837)
10-18-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
10-18-2005 5:20 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
nwr makes a good point that I began to touch upon in my last post. Many Christians frequently do not get "all up in arms" over things. To assume that Christians should react in the way a political activist would react is just one more point against the stereotyping that is going on thus far.

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 33 by nwr, posted 10-18-2005 5:20 PM nwr has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 302 (253321)
10-20-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
10-18-2005 6:32 PM


Re: Invention of a Christian Consensus
It would be like, if I called myself a "Nazi", and you started to castigate me for my hatred of Jews and black people, and my aims of eugenics and Aryan supremacy, and I said "wait, hold on buddy, I'm not one of those Nazis. Hitler? Couldn't stand him. What an asshole. He certainly doesn't speak for me."
Hmm I thought I remember someone saying:
Message 7
crashfrog previously writes:
Also, there's a general internet loss condition called "Godwin's Law", roughly defined as "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The implication is that the first participant to make an improper comparison to Hitler or Nazis (generally in the form of an ad hominem) automatically loses the argument.
I guess it is all subjective what one considers improper and/or ad hominem but we have at least 2 dissenting voices so far...
Nazis, why on Earth would I call myself one? Why on Earth would you call yourself a Christian except to associate yourself with all the ideas, good and bad, that surround Christianity in our culture?
Just to indicate that you follow Jesus Christ?
Yes.
I've already given you three words that would indicate that without associating you with Robertson, but you've apparently dismissed them.
That is becaues I have good reason to dismiss them. Why should I have to change just because he and others are ruining things?
Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. Christans can badmouth other Christians all they like, but they're off-limits to the atheists.
I never said that. Once again you are putting words into my mouth. If you wanted to say that many Christians in America were mindless drones who are destroying progress towards an ideal America then I would completely agree with you.
You want to experience bigotry? Start telling people you're an atheist.
I am sorry for whatever bad experience you have had with regards to this. Really truly I am. But what does this have to do with anything that I said? People who group all athiests together for the purposes of condemnation fall exactly under the same category of what I was talking about.
I don't want to hear a Christian living in America, of all people and societies, whine about "bigotry" directed at their faith. In a country that bends over backwards and tramples its own constitution to magnify your particular faith at the expense of all others, and of those of no faith, it's absolutely ridiculous for a Christian to make any claim of bigotry or persecution.
I am sorry crash but we are not talking about the bigotry of some abstract entity towards Christianity we are talking about your bigotry towards it. It does not make it any less stereotyping just because it is something that we have a common political interest to fight against. I'll stand next to you any day either on the protest line or in the trench to fight those things you are talking about.
He has no constitutional right to demand to be on TV, or to demand concessions from state and federal governments that no others enjoy, or to be lofted as a leading figure in Christianity.
But he does have the constitutional right to demand those things crash. He does not have the constitutional right to have his demands met but I would give my life if necessary to protect his and my right to demand those things.
The fact that you're so ready to grant your tacit approval for those situations proves how hollow your weak protestations of unaffiliation truly are.
I have not once granted approval for those situations only for this right to say it.

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 36 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2005 6:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 10-20-2005 8:04 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 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 3901 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

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 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

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024