|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,575 Year: 2,832/9,624 Month: 677/1,588 Week: 83/229 Day: 55/28 Hour: 1/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pat Robertson on natural disasters | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Is simply claiming to be a Christian good enough to become one?
No. Actions speak louder than words. But see below.
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.
Nothing comes to my mind either. But that's what they should do.
For the same reason they (the Christian Community) need to publicly condemn him when he makes outlandish statements as well.
No, they shouldn't. That would be distinctly non-Christian. That they do not applaud him is sufficient condemnation. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Are you telling me that various Protestant denominations do not generally agree on their rejection of Robertson's cooption of their voice?
It is my assumption that most protestant denominations reject Robertson, but that they have never come together to reach any agreement between them on that position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
I think the issue under discussion is that all of the various Protestant groups that do not agree with Robertson are not vocal and not active in opposing Robertson, ...
How can they be active in vocally opposing Robertson, while at the same time they practice "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
quote:I expect that Robertson has been told many times to stop being a complete dick. Not that it has done any good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
crashfrog writes:
This is a very misleading way of putting it. Jazzns chooses to put himself in the same broad group as Robertson when alternatives exist. What else am I supposed to draw from that except a conclusion that Jazzns offers his tacit support of Robertson? Let's suppose that tomorrow, Robertson were to decide to stop being a christian, and to instead join a satanic cult. Would Jazzns then join the same satanic cult? Your way of describing it suggests that he would. However, I don't believe Jazzns would do anything of the kind. Jazzns has, by his own choice, joined a group. Robertson has also joined that same group. The relation is coincidence. As far as I can see, Jazzns is not giving any tacit support to Robertson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
But if Robertson began claiming that he represented the views of all Satanist cult members, and that there were millions of Satanist cult members all across the country, comprising many different sub-groups, and many of them did not agree with the way Robertson promoted Satanism, yet those people did nothing to oppose his misrepresentations, then it would be reasonable for people to assume that all or many of the Satanic cult members were OK with what Robertson was saying about the views of all Satanic cults.
That's not so obvious. Let's take it back to the situation that Jazzns is in. If Jazzns believes that Robertson discredits all christians, then he should be speaking out. If, however, Jazzns thinks that Robertson is a flake, that Robertson is widely recognized as a flake, and that Robertson discredits only himself, then Jazzns doesn't have to do anything. It seems to me that the second of those better describes what Jazzns faces. In any case, it is up to Jazzns to judge that. I don't know why people are second guessing him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
All of them routinely appear on mainstram national news broadcasts to present the "Christian" viewpoint on various issues.
There are no "mainstram national news broadcasts" - unless you consider PBS and NPR to be mainstream. All of the other outlets are entertainment media which present entertainment programs that they mislabel as news. Robertson appears, not because he is important, not because he is representative, but because he introduces drama suitable for these entertainment programs. I expect that most of Jazzns's friends already know how he feels about Robertson. Why is that not sufficient speaking out? Sure, there are some people who are quite obviously not christian -- Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps for example -- but who masquerade as christians. I don't hold that against those of my friends who are christians. I consider myself a mathematician. I don't spend a lot of time denouncing mathematicians who happen to be flakes. Unless they are creating a specific problem for me, it is usually wiser to live and let live. Why should it be different for christianity and Jazzns? I think some of you are giving Jazzns a hard time for no good reason at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Well, every group has a consensus, by definition.
Can you point me toward the definition that does this? Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
quote:You sure took that out of context, crashfrog. Let's restore the context:
quote:I would still like an answer to this question. The definition you just gave for "group" says nothing whatsoever about consensus. I'm not looking for a definition that you make up on the spot. I am looking for a reference to a commonly accepted definition of "group" where the definition clearly specifies that a consensus is involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
quote:You are being evasive, crashfrog. In Message 139 you made an assertion that I believe to be false. That assertion was:
Well, every group has a consensus, by definition. I have twice asked you to back up your assertion. The first time you quoted part of my message out of context such as to distort the meaning of what was asked. The second time you tried changing the subject to whether I understand the meaning of "consensus". Just provide the evidence to backup your assertion, crashfrog. Either that, or withdraw your assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
quote:There was no ad hominem. Perhaps you need to lookup the meaning of "ad hominem". Check here for the wikipedia entry on ad hominem. You made an assertion of truth by definition. If you really don't know what that entails, then you shouldn't be making such assertions. You can find an explanation of truth by definition toward the beginning of this web page.
quote:You have been debating holmes and Jazzns over whether there is a consensus. Given that both holmes and Jazzns disagreed with you, it should be clear that the meaning of "group" does not establish that there must be a consensus. In any case, that's just another evasion. You clearly asserted that there was a consensus by definition. You need to either support that assertion with evidence, or withdraw it.
quote:That's yet another attempted evasion. You claimed proof by definition. Show us the definition from which the truth can be derived, or withdraw your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
quote:That's really beside the point. You claimed truth by definition. It is up to you to support your claim.
quote:No, crashfrog. It is up to you to consult a dictionary, and to provide the reference to a definition of "group" that supports your dubious claim. quote:No, crashfrog, we are not done here, although perhaps you are done for The rules of EvCforum state (rule 4):
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions. You have given a bare assertion. Now it is up to you to support it with evidence (if you can). ----------- You know crashfrog, we all make mistakes. As the saying goes, "To err is human." Sometimes it is better to admit you were wrong, instead of repeatedly attempting to defend an indefensible assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Asked and answered. If you don't know what words mean it's not my job to do your homework for you.
No, crashfrog, it has not been answered. You were wrong crashfrog. You made a false statement. And all we have seen from you since then is several rounds of bluster. The proper and decent thing for you to do is to admit your mistake. The dishonorable way out is to walk away and to pretend that you have answered the challenge. Which is it going to be, crashfrog - decent or dishonorable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
quote:On the contrary, I do know what the words mean, and I have checked the definitions. That's how I know your statement is false. quote:Too late, crashfrog. That's another false statement. You have been discussing what words mean for several rounds. Here are some of the statements that you have made:
quote:Yes, crashfrog, it is insufferably boring. But you started this in Message 139, where you were debating with Jazzns. No, I am not trying to portray myself as a winner. I am trying to persuade you to do the honorable thing, and admit that you made a mistake. If you are really really honorable, you will also apologize to Jazzns for using that false statement in your debate with him.
quote:We will be done as soon as you admit your mistake. Until then, we are not done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6407 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Satisfaction is not going to be possible for either of us, nwr.
I'm not looking for satisfaction. I am looking for honesty. It seems unlikely that I will see that honesty.
You're unwilling to recognize the fundamental truth of my statement; and you won't be satisifed until I've debased myself before you.
Your statement was false, and clearly false.
Neither of these outcomes is going to occur. Like I said, we're done, and we're way off-topic. Next time I suggest you make it way less personal. The record stands, crashfrog. It is there for anyone to read. You can change that by posting a retraction. Nobody else can change it. As the record now stands, nobody can take your posts seriously. You know a lot, and you have a lot to contribute. But you refuse to admit that you have made a mistake. That's a serious flaw in your character. When you post something in the future, nobody will be able to tell whether you are stating it from your knowledge, or whether you are making it up and stubbornly refusing to admit that you were mistaken. All you have done is discredit yourself. For the record, this is in reference to messages 139-153, 158, 160 in this thread. This message has been edited by nwr, 10-23-2005 09:57 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024