Pat Robertson: “Don’t turn to God if you need help”

[Nbadan]

Robertson tells Dover, PA citizens, after the election: “Don’t turn to God if you need help”


On today’s 700 Club, Rev. Pat Robertson took the opportunity to strongly rebuke voters in Dover, PA who removed from office school board members who supported teaching faith-based “intelligent design” and instead elected Democrats who opposed bringing up the possibility of a Creator in the school system’s science curriculum.

Rev. Robertson warned the people of Dover that God might forsake the town because of the vote.

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453)

:wtf

So, Robertson is God's v-bookie now? Why is this insane man still on TV influencing millions of shepple?

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's his job. That's what he does.

[Marcus Bryant]

Funny, but some advocate voting for those who are perceived to be offering policies to stick it to those with faith. Both sides kind of cancel each other out.

[DarkReign]

Wait...is he Christian?

I always thought his God was all forgiving? The whole "take a million steps away, God will be there when you take one step back"

*shrug*

Humans...silly creatures really.

[Mr. Peabody]

Wait...is he Christian?

I always thought his God was all forgiving? The whole "take a million steps away, God will be there when you take one step back"

*shrug*

Humans...silly creatures really.

Pat Robertson knows what he is talking about. He is a man of God. Who are we to doubt him?
________
Roxy cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Roxy)

[DarkReign]

Pat Robertson knows what he is talking about. He is a man of God. Who are we to doubt him?

:lol

[blaze89]

You would have thought he would have learned his lesson about speaking out.

Does he have a direct line to God? He sure knows how the Big Guy thinks.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Pat pretty much has an open forum on the 700 club. I like to think of him as the Gtownspur of christian broadcasting.

[gtownspur]

^^You must have an obssesion over me, get over it. I don't care what you think of me, and i don't give a rat's ass if you put me on your ignore list. I wear it like a badge of honor.

But anyway, Pat Robertson was just stating how he sees it. He basically said, you can't reject God cavalierly and then ask for his assistance. If people get their panties in a twist then my advice to anyone is to move on. Pat's words are not an edict of God. He just strongly sympathyzes for His message and in effect gets too zealous at times.

[gtownspur]

The catholic church has denied communion to people who don't support their views on reproductive life. Clergy's arena is religion. If you want to debate them, then go ahead. But don't think that your PC thoughts will hold water in a theoligical debate.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't understand why it's not enough to leave the teaching of intelligent design to Sunday Schools and sermons, but that's probably just me.

[gtownspur]

^ because more than a majority believe in a creator who influenced the beggining of the universe. Schools should teach both.

[FromWayDowntown]

^ because more than a majority believe in a creator who influenced the beggining of the universe. Schools should teach both.

But there's a significant minority that doesn't believe in that. Why doesn't that matter?

If the majority voted to teach that the Holocaust never happened or that there never was a slave trade, would that be okay too?

[boutons]

"majority believe in a creator who influenced the beggining of the universe"

US public schools don't teach religious beliefs.

Religion and ideology produce closed-minded dumbshits in enormous quantities.

[gtownspur]

^Your the magnificent proof that atheism doesnt safeguard one from horrible reasoning.

[jochhejaam]

Quote=PatRobertson “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city".
I respect Robertson's right to air his opinions but in my opinion he should have stopped it at this point.









"And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do,...And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”
Consider the following quotes; "If they begin", "I'm not saying they will", "if they do", "if that's the case", and "he might not"
I've never seen so many qualifiers and disclaimers in two sentences in my life!
I think he cautious in what he said to the point of making his statement laughable, if you have something to say, say it!

[BronxCowboy]

[QUOTE=gtownspurBut anyway, Pat Robertson was just stating how he sees it. He basically said, you can't reject God cavalierly and then ask for his assistance. [/QUOTE]

I believe that he was just stating it how he sees it, which leads me to ask, why do Christians still think that Robertson is one of them? Robertson's statements are not congruent with what Christianity teaches.

[JoeChalupa]

Pat is gone.

[Extra Stout]

I've seen other Christian media spoof Robertson. I remember one fake Bill Moyers interview:

Bill: "So tell us about that hurricane."

Pat: "Yes, Bill. The storm was bearing down on North Carolina and our studios, but we and thousands of other prayer warriors knelt and prayed, and that power stopped the storm in its tracks and sent it back out to sea."

Bill: "But didn't the storm just turn up the coast and hit New York?"

Pat: "Well, ah, yes Bill, but see, there's sin in New York."

[Oh, Gee!!]

^^You must have an obssesion over me, get over it. I don't care what you think of me, and i don't give a rat's ass if you put me on your ignore list. I wear it like a badge of honor.


I would never put you on ignore, I love reading your posts too much.

[Mr. Peabody]

^ because more than a majority believe in a creator who influenced the beggining of the universe. Schools should teach both.

The problem, my dear boy, is that people like yourself would not be happy with schools just teaching that there was a generic "creator" who "influenced" the beginning of the universe.

Oh sure, maybe at first you would be satisfied, because your myths and fables are being propagated in the minds of young, impressionable children, but eventually, you would insist that the creator be the God of Chrsitianity and that he not only just "influenced" the universe, but he created it in six days, people lived to be 900 years old, two of every animal lived on a boat, a man lived inside a whale and everything else that you wacky people say.

Your agument would be that the majority of people in the US that believe in a creator are Christian; therefore, their views should be represented. Where does it end?
________
Yourhotgoddess (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/yourhotgoddess/)

[Extra Stout]

Since Texas voted to outlaw gay marriage, does that mean we won't get any hurricanes next year?

[RandomGuy]

Pat Roberson is simply an example of the nutjobs that gravitate towards that end of the political spectrum.

The left has it's own nutjobs to be sure, and that is one of the reasons I am something of a centrist on many issues.

I think Pat Roberson is one of those "Christians" who makes a lot of sound and fury about being a Christian, but in the end consistantly demonstrates a lack of true understanding of basic Christian tenets. He is spiritually "stunted", for want of a better term.

[DarkReign]

The problem, my dear boy, is that people like yourself would not be happy with schools just teaching that there was a generic "creator" who "influenced" the beginning of the universe.

Oh sure, maybe at first you would be satisfied, because your myths and fables are being propagated in the minds of young, impressionable children, but eventually, you would insist that the creator be the God of Chrsitianity and that he not only just "influenced" the universe, but he created it in six days, people lived to be 900 years old, two of every animal lived on a boat, a man lived inside a whale and everything else that you wacky people say.

Your agument would be that the majority of people in the US that believe in a creator are Christian; therefore, their views should be represented. Where does it end?

Exactly. ID is just a stepping stone for religous zealots to not just have a "creator" recognized, but to ultimately make it a specific creator. Thereby bypassing freedom of religon in the sense that Muslim kids will learn that Ala doesnt exist and Jesus's father created everything and all things.

Basically, its political fodder best left to barren mid-Western states where it wont offend anyone. Its not a testing area, its an isolated phenomena. A quickly fleeting generalization held dear by the religously righteous.

[spurster]

There must be big money to be a demogogue.

[gtownspur]

Exactly. ID is just a stepping stone for religous zealots to not just have a "creator" recognized, but to ultimately make it a specific creator. Thereby bypassing freedom of religon in the sense that Muslim kids will learn that Ala doesnt exist and Jesus's father created everything and all things.

Basically, its political fodder best left to barren mid-Western states where it wont offend anyone. Its not a testing area, its an isolated phenomena. A quickly fleeting generalization held dear by the religously righteous.

Oh great. Liberals and others who cried foul when they spotted slippery slope arguments on gay marriage, now are using the same tool to advance their belief.

[Ocotillo]

Pat Robertson is evidence that God has a sense of humor.

[DarkReign]

Oh great. Liberals and others who cried foul when they spotted slippery slope arguments on gay marriage, now are using the same tool to advance their belief.

???

I dont have the slightest clue as to what the hell you mean.

Edited

[Oh, Gee!!]

???

I dont know have the slightest clue as to what the hell you mean.


post it in the gtown thread

[Spurminator]

Gtown actually has a point, sort of, with regards to the slippery slope... ID should not be rejected based on the fear that it will open the door to Creationism.

Of course, that's a very small part of the argument against ID. The reason it should be kept out of Science class is because it's not Science.

[Mr. Peabody]

Gtown actually has a point, sort of, with regards to the slippery slope... ID should not be rejected based on the fear that it will open the door to Creationism.

Of course, that's a very small part of the argument against ID. The reason it should be kept out of Science class is because it's not Science.

Sure it's science. It explains how the universe was started.
________
Avandia Class Action (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[TheSuckUp]

God loves me!!

[Mr. Peabody]

God loves me!!

Wait a minute! He told me He loved me. :depressed
________
Meltinghorny (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/meltinghorny)

[Medvedenko]

"God's an astronaut"

[boutons]

PR spouts crap that his fans (aka $contributors) want to hear.
People really suck his shit down, and believe it.

[Mr. Peabody]

PR spouts crap that his fans (aka $contributors) want to hear.
People really suck his shit down, and believe it.

I think he is one of the most dangerous men in society today.
________
INFANT NEXIUM (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

[Dos]

he is about as bad as jesse jackson have a love in with hugo chavez... lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think he is one of the most dangerous men in society today.


shhh. don't say that or god will hear you.

[exstatic]

Pat Robertson is evidence that God has a sense of humor.

Pat Robertson is only proof that God has a sphincter, and he lets go occasionally.

What he runs there at the 700 club cannot be called anything but a cult. His little acolytes would believe that the sky was red if he told them it was.

[Spurminator]

Pat Robertson is only proof that God has a sphincter, and he lets go occasionally.


:lmao

[gtownspur]

???

I dont have the slightest clue as to what the hell you mean.

Edited

You should edit it again to "I don't have a clue."

Anyway, you did. You just were fuck studdering about defending yourself once you were caught being a hypocrite for calling out conseravites own slippery slope arguments.

Don't try it again.

[efrem1]

Pat Robertson really hurts the good Christians out there with his remark about taking out President Chavez. I find him to be an off-the-wall person. But why should you liberals out there get all worked up about this latest remark. After all, you believe there is no heaven, no hell below us and above only sky. Maybe you do believe in god?

[jochhejaam]

Robertson tells Dover, PA citizens, after the election: “Don’t turn to God if you need help”



Link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453)

:wtf

So, Robertson is God's v-bookie now? Why is this insane man still on TV influencing millions of shepple?
I do take exception to you being the one to call him insane dan. Many of your views seem just as extreme on the other side of the political/religious aisle as Robertson's do to you.

That being said God hears the call of those who seek him in a humble, heartfelt way, he doesn't mute an entire city because of perceived injustices against him by some. Consider the following;

Abraham was told by God that He was going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual immorality and perversion.
Abraham became an advocate for the people of that city and prayed to God and asked him to spare the city if he could find 50 righteous people in the city, God agreed to do so.
Abraham continued to beseech God on their behalf and continued to ask God to spare the city, at different times lowering the number of righteous people he could find in the city to 45, 40, 20 and finally 10, God agreed each time. (10 righteous were not to be found)

The point is that God was willing to spare an entire city because of the prayers of just one.
With that in mind it would seem out of line for Pat to suggest that God would ignore the prayers of those in a city because they had voted to oust school board members that were against the teaching of Creationism in the Schools.

Conclusions:
-God has patience with people but that patience is not without end when circumstances become extreme.
-God will respond to a minority view.

[gtownspur]

I think what ROberts was basically saying is that even though GOd is merciful, he's not a cosmic santa clause. God will judge everyone of us by his own will. People can't expect God's mercy on one hand and then reject him on another. It doesn't work that way.

If it did work that way, then GOd is just our genie in a bottle and we're his master.

[Guru of Nothing]

If it did work that way, then GOd is just our genie in a bottle and we're his master.

So close, and yet, so far.

[gtownspur]

oh great,. the poor man's Mo rocca.

[Spurminator]

Look, no matter what your interpretation is, defending Pat Robertson is similar to arguing that the KKK might have some kind of valid cause when they assemble. You may be right, but why bother? It's Pat Fucking Robertson.

We'd all be better of if he were simply ignored.

[gtownspur]

Cuz i don't think Pat Robertson is an evil guy. And how could you compare a man who has fed many starving children and has helped relieve poor countries with the KKK.

His worse crime was that he suggested the US should assasinate Hugo Chavez.(HE didnt say he'd do it under his own will. That is unlawful since a christian personally is not supposed to take vengeance into his own hands.) Big whipptee do. Honestly do you care? Even though he's christian, he's also a private citizen who has views on world politics. Even after all the hate from libs, he's left of center of john mccain on economic issues.


The way i interpret this Roberts bashing, is that it's a condemnation towards any evangelical christian who has an asshole. Affuential Evangelical Christians according to the media have no right to oppine on foreign affairs or any issue. One can imagine them saying,..[ "They're better kept just telling the masses to raise their hands, say "i believe", shake them knees, and say "allelujah!", "PTL and pass the tithings!". Because you know, if them crazy snake handlers ever oppine on policy, they'll demand that the public take personal responsibility for their actions, and we can't have that can we? No way!THey can run the aisles, play gospel, eat at Golden Corral on sundays, but they can stay away from influencing the public..]

I mean, i just look at this and conclude that the media has a hatred towards social conservative christians. You look at Pat's misdeeds, and you'll notice he's never excommunicated anyone from church for their view on abortion or anything; Never compared a politician to a segregationist like Charles Rangel did, never called the democrats terrorist sympathizers or anything evil. He just saw his ooposition as misguided.

This whole ordeal was just an oppurtunity for leftist to bash evangelical figures. You and i know that if one was an evangelical christian, he/she would have to wear proverbial "mittens" when defending their beliefs.

Pat say's "You can't expect to take advantage of God's grace and then ask for help when it suits you.", and the media lashes at him because he's supposed to examplify a fictional ultra pacifist christian. Even though christian doctrine teaches about both unlimited grace as well as consequences for sin, the media in order to discredit Robertson apply only one tenet for him to oppine about. I mean what is Roberts supposed to say, "Oh don't worry people of Dover, God is our santa clause, you can deny him and he'll be there for us like a loyal cannine, to do anything we please." ..No!
He's a man of scripture, along with knowing that he's not perfect himself, he knows that His God is a righteous God and wont stand by and continue to let us take advantage of his grace. As a christian he will speak his mind. If you think of it, what's the difference of wether he says it in private or in public. One is ok and the other is anathema? Cmon! The criticism is getting so virile that even chicken christian conservatives are distancing from Pat Robertson, even though they privately agree with him at the same time.

Screw perceptions. If Robertson because of his faith cannot have a political oppinion asking of a removal of state, then that means that if an evangelical were to win office, he'd have to recuse himself if we were attacked by a nation and had to retaliate... Because after all, doesn't the bible say to "turn the other cheek."
This is ridiculous.

[Spurminator]

Robertson is a Pharisee. There's a hot place in hell for people who use religion for money and political influence.

[gtownspur]

^If he has used his money for gain then he will be judged. You and i don't know that, i think you just have a preconcieved idea of all evangelicals wich is totally false. I'm not one myself but i dont generalize them the way you do. There's some good and some bad. WE don't know anything about him personally. IF he's guilty of being a hypocrite that's between him and God at the moment. As far as political influence, the pope uses his image for political influence, is he gonna rot?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]Look, no matter what your interpretation is, defending Pat Robertson is similar to arguing that the KKK might have some kind of valid cause when they assemble.
No comparison between the two Spurm, be reasonable when making comparisons please.






We'd all be better of if he were simply ignored.
Except for the hundreds of thousands of starving people he provides food and other necessities for year in and year out.

[exstatic]

His worse crime was that he suggested the US should assasinate Hugo Chavez.(HE didnt say he'd do it under his own will. That is unlawful since a christian personally is not supposed to take vengeance into his own hands.)
So, he wants others to do his dirty work? That is soooo weak.


Screw perceptions. If Robertson because of his faith cannot have a political oppinion asking of a removal of state, then that means that if an evangelical were to win office, he'd have to recuse himself if we were attacked by a nation and had to retaliate... Because after all, doesn't the bible say to "turn the other cheek."
This is ridiculous.
He wasn't "asking of a removal of state". He wanted a man dead. And just what the hell is wrong with turning the other cheek? WWJD?

[gtownspur]

^^A military coupe! whatever. He didnt personally want him dead, he wanted him dead for US interest.

And finally, Turning the other cheek is fine in your personal life. When one is in charge of a nation, that's totally different.

But it's pointless, your probably indifferent towards christianity so whatever anyone tells you wont matter.

Your pointless to discuss with on this topic. you seem to have your mind all made up anyway. Robertson according to you is evil regardless of his statements.

[Spurminator]

No comparison between the two Spurm, be reasonable when making comparisons please.

Be logical when interpreting a valid point. I wasn't comparing Robertson to the KKK, I was comparing defense of the two. Robertson's words have done severe and irreparable damage to Christianity. When smooth-talking Partisans become the Faces of modern Christianity, it does nothing to attract would-be Christians. Furthermore, it alienates those who see through their motives.

And don't give me the crap about feeding starving children. Every moderately powerful person in the history of Civilization has made goodwill gestures to gain support. All of them. But they should be judged by their most significant contributions to society. Robertson's contribution is Republican Propaganda under the disguise of Evangelism. And now that he's getting older and more senile, he's making some really, really STUPID statements. And as a Christian that offends me greatly.

So I fail to see why anyone would jump to his defense, regardless of whether or not he is being misinterpreted. It's like jumping to the defense of the Klan just because you hate the liberals who are opposing them.

Modern Christians have taken God's command not to use His Name in vain to mean not using phrases like "god damn"... But I believe God is much more offended by those who use His Name for blatant political and self-promoting propaganda. That is true vanity.

[gtownspur]

^^He hasn't said anything that is outside of christian doctrine that would portray christianity in a wrong way. If he has, prove it.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]Be logical when interpreting a valid point. I wasn't comparing Robertson to the KKK, I was comparing defense of the two. Robertson's words have done severe and irreparable damage to Christianity.
Oh really? How so?

Being a part of the Christian community I would have a better take on whether he has done irreparable damage and he has done nothing of the sort.
(I see later on where you too claim to be a part of that community)








When smooth-talking Partisans become the Faces of modern Christianity, it does nothing to attract would-be Christians. Furthermore, it alienates those who see through their motives.
It only alienates those who already have a jaded opinion of his ministry for Christ and devotion to the tenents of Christianity.









And don't give me the crap about feeding starving children. Every moderately powerful person in the history of Civilization has made goodwill gestures to gain support.
His ministry of providing for those in need is done without ceasing, that is on a daily basis, far more than a gesture in any reasonable persons opinion (which you obviously are not).
His throwing out an occasional opinion that the far left enjoy bashing or taking him to task on in no way diminishes the success of his mission.

You can't see the trees for the forest because you don't choose to do so.
Inobjectivity at its finest!





All of them. But they should be judged by their most significant contributions to society.
That would be providing for those that would literally be starving to death if not for his ministries intercession.
A few personal opinions hardly offset that fact Spurm.






Robertson's contribution is Republican Propaganda under the disguise of Evangelism. And now that he's getting older and more senile, he's making some really, really STUPID statements. And as a Christian that offends me greatly.
His views don't offend me at all, on the other hand I take great exception to at least one of your views Spurm.







So I fail to see why anyone would jump<ing> to his defense, regardless of whether or not he is being misinterpreted. It's <is> like jumping to the defense of the Klan just because you hate the liberals who are opposing them.
As I stated previously, you juxtapositioning the two is absurd, unconscionable and incredulous!







Modern Christians have taken God's command not to use His Name in vain to mean not using phrases like "god damn"... But I believe God is much more offended by those who use His Name for blatant political and self-promoting propaganda. That is true vanity
His views are much less extreme than yours it's just that his ministry is Worldwide and because of that his views are magnified.
He need not maintain a code of silence because of that.

[DarkReign]

Religous zealots scare me. This thread just got weird...

[jochhejaam]

Religous zealots scare me. This thread just got weird...
:wtf Did you even bother to read the thread title?

Bah! What, were you expecting everyone to join in on the "Let's Bash Robertson Bandwagon"? :lol

If you're scared by an opinion that differs from yours then "frankly this forum probably isn't for you". -ES-

[gtownspur]

Religous zealots scare me. This thread just got weird...


Good! :lol Go and hide like the lightweight you are.

If you think we're advocating a theocracy, that's your own ignorance.

[DarkReign]

Gtown, you heavy-weight gangster you, I have been threatened endlessly by online e-peens like yours before.

Do you really think you are original or funny? Do you truly think you intimidate me in some shape or form? Save it dude.

-------

So quick to judge! My, my...sensitive issue with you? No one jumped on your throat. Damn, calm down...

Yes, Pat Robertson is a religous zealot. So are the people who support him and his asinine views. Those kinds of sheeple scare me because they seem to be reproducing at an alarming rate. What to do? When reason and logic fall on the deaf ears of the devout, how does one move forward?

Whatever...like I said...the thread got weird. You can have fun arguing the virtues of a nut-job like Robertson and only look at all the wonderful things hes done for people. But only for people who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, of course. Always a caveat with his graciousness. Surely to be rewarded from a truly virtuous God, Im sure.

Fallacies abound! Aghast!

Does my opinion bother you? I certainly hope not.

[smeagol]

If Robertson because of his faith cannot have a political oppinion asking of a removal of state,
To some people (that would be gtownspur and the likes), reading about somebody saying such and such head of state should be removed is not a shocker at all. That speaks volumes of how some Americans view international relations and what America can or cannot do in the international arena.

I find it a shock that a politician would suggest the US should assassinate a democratically elected president, even if the president is Chavez, whom I despise (my views on Chavez are documented on various other threads in this political forum). Particularly because Venezuela is not an enemy of the US (unless they are part of the axis of evil and nobody told me).

You and joch are willing to overlook that a man of God is calling for this assassination because he feeds the hungry.

I don’t agree with your point of view.

[gtownspur]

Your oppinion bothers me as much as mine freaks you out.

YOu have no clue about Pat Robertson. As far as reason and logic go, we already discussed that about his actions. We discussed them already on this board ad naseum and if you wish to refute them go right ahead.

Robertson's words are theologically sound when he spoke to the residents of Dover. He was just stating that you can't take God for granted. Nothing he said was taken out of line in a biblical sense. IF you don't like that, then your the sensitive one. People need to be told the truth and not be coddled and massaged.

Whats nutty about you is your own statement about Roberts only feeding Christian Children. That right there showed your antichristian bias and ignorance.

Like I said, you want to refute his words in a theological sense, go ahead.

IF you want to refute his words in a constitutional sense, right on.

But don't bring your 8th grade stoner "all evangelicals are nazis" argument. You can think all you want, but since you proclaim to be independent and nonpartisan, i'm calling you on your bs.

[Oh, Gee!!]

IF you want to refute his words in a constitutional sense, right on.

how does one refute somebody's words in a "constitutional" sense? You sure love to throw that word around as though you know what it means.

[gtownspur]

To some people (that would be gtownspur and the likes), reading about somebody saying such and such head of state should be removed is not a shocker at all. That speaks volumes of how some Americans view international relations and what America can or cannot do in the international arena.

I find it a shock that a politician would suggest the US should assassinate a democratically elected president, even if the president is Chavez, whom I despise (my views on Chavez are documented on various other threads in this political forum). Particularly because Venezuela is not an enemy of the US (unless they are part of the axis of evil and nobody told me).

You and joch are willing to overlook that a man of God is calling for this assassination because he feeds the hungry.

I don’t agree with your point of view.


First of all, if Robertson is a politician, i'd gladly like to know what office he occupies. Second, Hugo CHavez has stated that he supports alqueda and wouldn't care if they attacked us. Maybe you think rulers like that deserve a state dinner with a roast, but we crazy americans don't tolerate that nonsense. Robertson is a Christian first and an American second. He just stated what anybody whose aware of the situation has been advocating.

[gtownspur]

how does one do refute somebody's words in a "constitutional" sense? You sure love to throw that word around as though you know what it means.

Well, If he has been advocating a threat (like in the case of DOver, hugo is another story.)like many people have suggested, then he is going way of above and beyond free speech.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, If he has been advocating a threat like many people have suggested, then he is going way of above and beyond free speech.


I think he should be arrested and put to death

[gtownspur]

^^And i think, anyone who wants america's defeat abroad should be castrated along with those who make idiotic statements like yours. But....I'm only kidding just like you are.

[DarkReign]

Your oppinion bothers me as much as mine freaks you out.

YOu have no clue about Pat Robertson. As far as reason and logic go, we already discussed that about his actions. We discussed them already on this board ad naseum and if you wish to refute them go right ahead.

Robertson's words are theologically sound when he spoke to the residents of Dover. He was just stating that you can't take God for granted. Nothing he said was taken out of line in a biblical sense. IF you don't like that, then your the sensitive one. People need to be told the truth and not be coddled and massaged.

Whats nutty about you is your own statement about Roberts only feeding Christian Children. That right there showed your antichristian bias and ignorance.

Like I said, you want to refute his words in a theological sense, go ahead.

IF you want to refute his words in a constitutional sense, right on.

But don't bring your 8th grade stoner "all evangelicals are nazis" argument. You can think all you want, but since you proclaim to be independent and nonpartisan, i'm calling you on your bs.

I dont claim to be anything. I am non-partisan.

Overly religious people are by far the most dangerous men and women in all the world (imo). Pat Robertson caters to, and intentionally or unintentionally, has become the voice of the radically religious (both those on the right and left...religious hedonism bound not by political leanings).

Yes, I do in fact despise those who follow without question or curiosity. So sure that the words long written down were in fact the words of Jesus without ever so much as a batting of their eyes at the very concept of it all. So self-important and ego-manical that they become almost violent at the very conjecture that man just MAY have misinterpreted what was actually said. Or (OMG!) actually lied about what was said to further their postion in their culture.

Humans are by far the most defunct, caniving, hateful breed of animal the world has/will ever see. To think the purity of God's word could actually be held onto by the vile filth that is humanity for thousands of years without it being re-interpreted or re-invented all together is naive (to be nice). Along the way, as is with all things, men were in power who would not bow to the glory of God, but think it possible that His glory be bent to him.

And alllllll the while, which cultures peretuated Christianity as we know it? The same vengeful, hateful, crusading Kings who thought the world was their oyster. The same men who had popes killed for any number of reasons. The same thing happens to any centralized institution based on theology. The intent may be divine, but the execution of those words can never be realized in the hands of man. Much, much too flawed.

So, in my limited understanding of the divine, would God approve of ONLY feeding the poor who accept Christ as their savior? Because thats what PR does, man. Its a furthering of his CHURCH'S cause, not the cause of God. The two are mutually exclusive. Church craves money and power, currying favor, and delineating the actual path of righteousness. The hungry masses are worth nothing to the Church unless they proclaim faith and maybe one day donate 10% of their lively-hood to them. Who do you think originated the very idea of Big Business? Do some research...the Church has been the biggest business since its inception. It will ocntinue to be with the likes of you rolling the earth in search of some society-accepted truth about why youre here. So desperate for meaning, but not ANY meaning, a meaning by which you can be accepted, and share, and conform. A meaning that others believe as well, so as not to look different, or practice different beliefs. These arent the pressures of your God...these are the pressures of man. From cave to the grave, men create Gods of one sort or another, they just didnt have a pen and paper handy to write it all down like Christians did. Lord knows the only reason you, Gtownspur, are Christian is not because Jesus saved and God forgives, its because Guttenberg created the worlds first printing press and he just so happened to be a Christian with King James' Bible (notice the King James, why dont you surprise yourself and look up why it was called that....then tell me the bible was never re-interpeted). Mass proliferation of idea.

They arent giving things away for free. Never free. Nothing is free. Always a caveat. IMO, do not use the Lord's name in vein never meant the use your mother taught you it was. No, it means do not use His name as a tool for the furthering a man-made agenda. Do not put His name on a banner of War. Do not use His name on the price of food for the hungry. etc.

These things you wont understand because you have been brainwashed by mankind. I am brainwashed by man, we all are. Some more than others. We all bend to society's nuances. That is a creation of man. But I believe EVERYTHING begs to be questioned. ALL things. Even the generationally accepted concepts of religion. Specifically, those very subjects. So many of the worlds problems start and end with the differences between Gods' worshipped, it behooves us to think that those problems will be solved by the more fervent solidification of our own value/religious system.

Thats where I lose my patience. ALL things BEG to be questioned. Without questions, what have we truly learned?

[smeagol]

First of all, if Robertson is a politician, i'd gladly like to know what office he occupies.
You don’t need to be part of the Government to be a politician. He ran in the Republican Primaries in ’88. That makes him a politician. He is also one of the many voices of the Republican Party, very much like J. Jackson is one of the many voices of the Democratic Party. Therefore, he is a politician.


Second, Hugo CHavez has stated that he supports alqueda and wouldn't care if they attacked us.
Chavez is an imbecile. That does not mean he has to be assassinated by the CIA. Please drill this into your thick head: It’s not America’s business to assassinate every leader that does not agree with its policies. If anybody should kill this guy, it should be the Venezuelans. How the fuck would you feel if foreigners whacked W?


Maybe you think rulers like that deserve a state dinner with a roast
Link?

I can link the hundreds of times I’ve said this guy is a nutjob, which obviously means I don’t think he deserves a state dinner with a roast.


Robertson is a Christian first and an American second. He just stated what anybody whose aware of the situation has been advocating.
Who else aside from you and Robertson advocate that the US go ahead and kill a sovereign country’s president?

[Marcus Bryant]

You know, this is like taking anything Michael Moore, Jesse, etc...says seriously. One side's true believers are going to make it out to be something significant, while most sane peeps could care less.

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh yeah, and before I forget, if you are going to abscribe to a faith all of its perceived faults, then you might as add in all of it's positives while you're at it.

[gtownspur]

I dont claim to be anything. I am non-partisan.

Overly religious people are by far the most dangerous men and women in all the world (imo). Pat Robertson caters to, and intentionally or unintentionally, has become the voice of the radically religious (both those on the right and left...religious hedonism bound not by political leanings).

Yes, I do in fact despise those who follow without question or curiosity. So sure that the words long written down were in fact the words of Jesus without ever so much as a batting of their eyes at the very concept of it all. So self-important and ego-manical that they become almost violent at the very conjecture that man just MAY have misinterpreted what was actually said. Or (OMG!) actually lied about what was said to further their postion in their culture.

Humans are by far the most defunct, caniving, hateful breed of animal the world has/will ever see. To think the purity of God's word could actually be held onto by the vile filth that is humanity for thousands of years without it being re-interpreted or re-invented all together is naive (to be nice). Along the way, as is with all things, men were in power who would not bow to the glory of God, but think it possible that His glory be bent to him.

And alllllll the while, which cultures peretuated Christianity as we know it? The same vengeful, hateful, crusading Kings who thought the world was their oyster. The same men who had popes killed for any number of reasons. The same thing happens to any centralized institution based on theology. The intent may be divine, but the execution of those words can never be realized in the hands of man. Much, much too flawed.

So, in my limited understanding of the divine, would God approve of ONLY feeding the poor who accept Christ as their savior? Because thats what PR does, man. Its a furthering of his CHURCH'S cause, not the cause of God. The two are mutually exclusive. Church craves money and power, currying favor, and delineating the actual path of righteousness. The hungry masses are worth nothing to the Church unless they proclaim faith and maybe one day donate 10% of their lively-hood to them. Who do you think originated the very idea of Big Business? Do some research...the Church has been the biggest business since its inception. It will ocntinue to be with the likes of you rolling the earth in search of some society-accepted truth about why youre here. So desperate for meaning, but not ANY meaning, a meaning by which you can be accepted, and share, and conform. A meaning that others believe as well, so as not to look different, or practice different beliefs. These arent the pressures of your God...these are the pressures of man. From cave to the grave, men create Gods of one sort or another, they just didnt have a pen and paper handy to write it all down like Christians did. Lord knows the only reason you, Gtownspur, are Christian is not because Jesus saved and God forgives, its because Guttenberg created the worlds first printing press and he just so happened to be a Christian with King James' Bible (notice the King James, why dont you surprise yourself and look up why it was called that....then tell me the bible was never re-interpeted). Mass proliferation of idea.

They arent giving things away for free. Never free. Nothing is free. Always a caveat. IMO, do not use the Lord's name in vein never meant the use your mother taught you it was. No, it means do not use His name as a tool for the furthering a man-made agenda. Do not put His name on a banner of War. Do not use His name on the price of food for the hungry. etc.

These things you wont understand because you have been brainwashed by mankind. I am brainwashed by man, we all are. Some more than others. We all bend to society's nuances. That is a creation of man. But I believe EVERYTHING begs to be questioned. ALL things. Even the generationally accepted concepts of religion. Specifically, those very subjects. So many of the worlds problems start and end with the differences between Gods' worshipped, it behooves us to think that those problems will be solved by the more fervent solidification of our own value/religious system.

Thats where I lose my patience. ALL things BEG to be questioned. Without questions, what have we truly learned?

Excuse me. First of all Robertson is only advocating that intelligent design be taught along evolution. Intelligent design does not negate that evolution occured, only strict Creationist doctrine does. But ofcourse you knew that. Intelligent Design only allows for a broad definition that life on earth, from its primordial soup was the plan of a Creator. Roberstson is not advocating that evolution be taken off. He's not even advocating anything more radical than what the general public believes. Evolution does not awnser the fact whether a Creator did not or did take part in life.


According to your lame argument that christianity is held hostage by only one interpretation, Your acting like i never heard the same tripe. First i proclaim christian due to the fact that The Guttenberg PP has allowed me to be around such knowledge. But the Guttenberg Print wont save me, God's grace will, and it was becuase of GOd's providence that i got to recieve that right to read the bible. BTw I am aware of the KJV's bias in its interpretation, but at that you still have the Young's literal Translation, which does not discredit any of the moral tenets Robertson has.

As for the crusades. Christianity had been taking a beating from Muslims before the Crusades. The muslims raped and pillaged all of North africa and Byzantine up till spain. Christianity only acted in defense at first to all the massacre. Not that Christianity itself was clean of wrongdoing, but it was at first an act of defense to stop the aggression.


To equate advocacy of Intelligent design to a Religous war in which blood is shed, is more proof of your loopy logic.

You said it yourself, that man is the most defunct species on the planet. Yet you want that same man to have absolute control of morality and not being able to awnser to a higher being. You yourself are a contradiction like the same radicals you berate. Need i say Hypocrisy?

[gtownspur]

You don’t need to be part of the Government to be a politician. He ran in the Republican Primaries in ’88. That makes him a politician. He is also one of the many voices of the Republican Party, very much like J. Jackson is one of the many voices of the Democratic Party. Therefore, he is a politician.


Chavez is an imbecile. That does not mean he has to be assassinated by the CIA. Please drill this into your thick head: It’s not America’s business to assassinate every leader that does not agree with its policies. If anybody should kill this guy, it should be the Venezuelans. How the fuck would you feel if foreigners whacked W?


Link?

I can link the hundreds of times I’ve said this guy is a nutjob, which obviously means I don’t think he deserves a state dinner with a roast.


Who else aside from you and Robertson advocate that the US go ahead and kill a sovereign country’s president?


You seem to convenienty skip the fact that he offered aid to Alqueda.

[smeagol]

You seem to convenienty skip the fact that he offered aid to Alqueda.
It's a fact that I was not aware of. Care to link a credible source?

[DarkReign]

Excuse me. First of all Robertson is only advocating that intelligent design be taught along evolution. Intelligent design does not negate that evolution occured, only strict Creationist doctrine does. But ofcourse you knew that. Intelligent Design only allows for a broad definition that life on earth, from its primordial soup was the plan of a Creator. Roberstson is not advocating that evolution be taken off. He's not even advocating anything more radical than what the general public believes. Evolution does not awnser the fact whether a Creator did not or did take part in life.

...

As for the crusades. Christianity had been taking a beating from Muslims before the Crusades. The muslims raped and pillaged all of North africa and Byzantine up till spain. Christianity only acted in defense at first to all the massacre. Not that Christianity itself was clean of wrongdoing, but it was at first an act of defense to stop the aggression.

To equate advocacy of Intelligent design to a Religous war in which blood is shed, is more proof of your loopy logic.

Who in the hell was talking about (un)Intelligent Design? Wrong thread, dude.

Wow...nevermind...


According to your lame argument that christianity is held hostage by only one interpretation, Your acting like i never heard the same tripe. First i proclaim christian due to the fact that The Guttenberg PP has allowed me to be around such knowledge. But the Guttenberg Print wont save me, God's grace will, and it was becuase of GOd's providence that i got to recieve that right to read the bible. BTw I am aware of the KJV's bias in its interpretation, but at that you still have the Young's literal Translation, which does not discredit any of the moral tenets Robertson has.

Thats typical. No, God did not 'bless' you with the opportunity to read the Bible. Guttenberg mass produced a religious volume, thereby inundating the known world with it and its teachings...there wasnt a divine intervention of any kind. If Guttenberg hadnt, maybe a Muslim of the time would have. If that were the case, you would be ardently defending Ala instead of Jesus. See the fallacy? Oh....wait...youre hardcore Gtown...I forgot....

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign]

Yes, Pat Robertson is a religous zealot. So are the people who support him and his asinine views.
How much do you know about Robertson's views besides the 1 out of 10,000 that makes headlines in the mainstream news mediums? And if every one was violently opposed to someone based on that miniscule percentage of their views we'd all be at each others throats.

So quick to judge.
Not partisan but heavy on the bashing? Care to offer your opinion on which is less honorable?





Those kinds of sheeple scare me because they seem to be reproducing at an alarming rate. What to do? When reason and logic fall on the deaf ears of the devout, how does one move forward?
Of course your views are superior, that's what makes them the minority view.

Alarmingly faulty logic.








Whatever...like I said...the thread got weird.
Right DR, the view that differs from yours is wierd. ooooooookay








You can have fun arguing the virtues of a nut-job like Robertson and only look at all the wonderful things hes done for people.
I'm going to argue the positives he's done and leave the mindless stone-throwing and insults to you and your ilk.

I'll bet the house that his ministry does more good in an hour than you will in a life time.

[gtownspur]

Who in the hell was talking about (un)Intelligent Design? Wrong thread, dude.

Wow...nevermind...



Thats typical. No, God did not 'bless' you with the opportunity to read the Bible. Guttenberg mass produced a religious volume, thereby inundating the known world with it and its teachings...there wasnt a divine intervention of any kind. If Guttenberg hadnt, maybe a Muslim of the time would have. If that were the case, you would be ardently defending Ala instead of Jesus. See the fallacy? Oh....wait...youre hardcore Gtown...I forgot....


You've got to be kidding? The whole thread is about how Robertson condemned Dover residents for outing Intelligent design out of Public Schools. Dude, why do you even post?

And since God is sovereign, he did allow for the Gutenberg Press to become what it was. That's biblical doctrine. And let's not discuss what ifs, becuase in that case we all know you'd be running the Gulags against all "radical zealouts" in the USSR.

[Guru of Nothing]

And since God is sovereign, he did allow for the Gutenberg Press to become what it was. That's biblical doctrine.

Where's the okey-doke smiley?

[gtownspur]

on a stripper's left teat.

[Guru of Nothing]

I'll bet the house that his ministry [Pat Robertson]does more good in an hour than you will in a life time.

Unbeknownst to you, he defiles Christianity like a razor on flesh; but hey, lets look on the bright side.

[gtownspur]

^Besides using your typical Sunday School cartoon depiction of CHrist's ministry, Or the fuzzy religous hallmark cards with Jesus and a baby lamb adorned with feel good verses, show us how that's so. Use Biblical scripture.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign] I am non-partisan.

Non-partisan? So your views about Robertson are original and you are the leader of that anti-Robertson pack with a legion of followers.
If not then you are not non-partisan. You're just another brick-in-the-wall (follower of those that unashamedly bash PR)






Overly religious people are by far the most dangerous men and women in all the world (imo).
Excellent stereotypical generalization! I commend you for your total lack of insightful commentary regarding that pointed charge!
Without qualifying that it's a totally meaningless statement!







Pat Robertson caters to,... and has become the voice of the radically religious
Dayum! He simultaneously caters to and leads them! He's both the servant and the master is he?
True characteristics of a leader of multitudes of sheeples as you so irreverently refer to them. Like many people, I have been around religious/Christian people my entire life and I don't recall even one time where someone has brought PR's teaching or philosophy into a conversation.
Care to qualify and quantify this radically religious naive following of his with anything approaching factual information?
Just a couple articles about him and his following being the voice of the religious right will suffice. (and if you find these articles you'll be able to adequately articulate why they're dangerous and what present danger they present)







Yes, I do in fact despise those who follow without question or curiosity.
And of course you have personally interviewed a large enough sampling of these non-questioning, uncurious people in an objective, unbiased, non-partisan manner to be able to justify "despising" them.
If you haven't, yet you despise them, that's scary!







So sure that the words long written down were in fact the words of Jesus without ever so much as a batting of their eyes at the very concept of it all. So self-important and ego-manical...
You are the expert (for some unknown reason) about how and why people come their conclusions...of course you are.
Who's the ego-maniac here?






that they become almost violent at the very conjecture that man just MAY have misinterpreted what was actually said. Or (OMG!) actually lied about what was said to further their postion in their culture.
I'm sure you have the truth about what they have interpreted and are able to substantiate what they thought was truth but were actually lies.








To think the purity of God's word could actually be held onto by the vile filth that is humanity for thousands of years without it being re-interpreted or re-invented all together is naive
And of course, once again, you have facts to prove that it has been both reinterpreted and re-invented. If so please present it now so that they are no longer subjugated to their naivete.





(to be nice).
So now you're going to "be nice" to those you "despise". You pompous hypocrite!

.












So, in my limited understanding of the divine, would God approve of ONLY feeding the poor who accept Christ as their savior? Because thats what PR does, man.
What God doesn't approve of is someone who describes himself as non-religious coming up with some lame, false statement regarding a ministry that he obviously knows little to nothing about.
PR unconditionally feeds the mortal physical body of those starving while simultaneously attempting to feed the spiritual immortal soul with information that if adhered to would lead them to eternal life with God.
<GASP> What treachery! <sarcasm>



But I believe EVERYTHING begs to be questioned. ALL things. Thats where I lose my patience. ALL things BEG to be questioned. Without questions, what have we truly learned?
Stop with the melodrame and read up on the life of Martin Luther and tell us again how "everything" needs to be questioned as if it had never been.
Scripture has been questioned over and over, again and again and will be until the end of time.

[Puppy Dog]

Robertson tells Dover, PA citizens, after the election: “Don’t turn to God if you need help”



Link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453)

:wtf

So, Robertson is God's v-bookie now? Why is this insane man still on TV influencing millions of shepple?


God will always be there for those that truly believe, and even those that are lost...

but i agree with Roberstons premise...if you turn your back Him, you really shouldn't expect Him to be there for you...even though He will be as His will dictates...
:angel

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=smeagol]
I find it a shock that a politician would suggest the US should assassinate a democratically elected president, even if the president is Chavez, whom I despise
Hello smeagol. You mention that you are shocked that a politician would suggest the assasination, who is this politician you're referring to?






You and joch are willing to overlook that a man of God is calling for this assassination because he feeds the hungry. Robertson's a private citizen and has a right to speak his mind.
He apologized and there's no way to ascertain his level of remorse or if he did so because of the uproar from those that had never retracted an opinion after introspection. Unless someone can prove his insincerity he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure you would want the same for yourself.
Give me a good reason why we shouldn't overlook someones faults if asked to do so.

Would it make you feel better if he stopped his ministry of feeding the starving? What do you want from the man?

[Spurminator]

What do you want from the man?

I want him to STFU and stay out of Politics and I want Christians like YOU to stop sticking up for him and perpetuating his status as a spokesperson for Christianity. It makes it harder on the rest of us who would like to see the growing number of cynics in this country/world open their hearts to the Message of Jesus Christ.

And that message is not "If you love Jesus, you'll vote Republican."

[xrayzebra]

I want him to STFU and stay out of Politics and I want Christians like YOU to stop sticking up for him and perpetuating his status as a spokesperson for Christianity. It makes it harder on the rest of us who would like to see the growing number of cynics in this country/world open their hearts to the Message of Jesus Christ.

And that message is not "If you love Jesus, you'll vote Republican."


Ah, so you like censorship? Or is it your particular religion is only the correct one? And I really like the phrase "STFU" from such a religious person who supports Jesus Christ. All in the same paragraph.

[DarkReign]

Joch, I may not particularly like Gtown or his opinions, but at least he has the common decency to repond to a person's entire post without breaking it into bite-size pieces as to be able to digest it better.

I am sure we here post in more forums than this, and if one thing can be said that is true in all forums...

The people who breakup an entire post as to thwart segments as they see fit, are usually very counter-productive posters.

Is it so hard to respond with your own diatribe, or must you always stand on the shoulders of the person you criticizing?

Look, again, you are a drone. I am not partisan. Yes, ultra-religious people ARE the most dangerous people in the world (ie terrorism). Just because one religion is mostly based in under-developed nations whilst another is worshipped in an industrialized nation doesnt make one less dangerous than the other.

If you flipped the script, and put America in a position similar to what these maniacs from the MiddleEast think they are in, who would be more dangerous? The people who have to make home-made bombs and strap them to willing individuals? Or the people who fly planes with REAL weapons of mass destruction?

Oh, and maybe you are unclear on the usuage of 'cater'. You can be a leader and cater your constituents. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Dont attempt to attack with some convoluted form of logic.

[Spurminator]

Ah, so you like censorship? Or is it your particular religion is only the correct one? And I really like the phrase "STFU" from such a religious person who supports Jesus Christ. All in the same paragraph.

Saying "shut up" is not censorship.

And it's pretty telling that you're more concerned about a regular everyday Christian using an abbreviation for "fuck" than a Nationally-Broadcast Christian Leader calling for the assassination of a foreign leader and aligning himself along partisan lines.

[gtownspur]

^^there is no partisan lines when it comes to Hugo Chavez.

ONce again you assume he's (pR) the spokesman for EVangelicals. You don't know Didly squat about Evangelicals. If Robertson called for the assasination of Hitler, i bet you'd jump on the bash Evangelicals bandwagon. You have not proven as to why he shouldnt say anything he did based on his religous code.

And to associate Evangelicals with Muslims like DR does is stupidity at its finest. While we're at that lets associate secularist areligous Liberals with the Bloody Soviet revoulutianaries that slaughtered more jews than hitler ever did. After all, just about all liberals and secularist always bash Israel after a palestinian suicide bombing.

[Extra Stout]

Why is everybody taking it at face value that opposition toward teaching intelligent design in pubic school science classes is turning one's back on God?

I thought ID proponents clearly maintained that ID is a purely scientific endeavor with no religious overtones whatsoever.

And even if it does have religious overtones, but people think it's pseudoscience, are they still turning their backs on God?

Will a tornado strike my house if I say I think the human knee is poorly designed?

[boutons]

"Why is everybody taking it at face value that opposition toward teaching intelligent design in pubic school science classes is turning one's back on God?"

because red-state dumbshit hicks who propose ID/Creationism are laughable simpletons who can only make the coarsest of distinctions with great difficulty, can only hold one or two ideas in thier head at once, preferably feel-good ideas, paradoxes and contradeictions are simply forbidden or ignored, and are so insecure and threatend in their understanding of the world that they simply say "too fucking complicated for me, only God could understand it, and only HE could make it so complicated. ergo, science sucks"

OTOH, you have Eastern religious leaders like Dalai Lama and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who are either trained as scientists and/or welcome the mutual benefits and interaction between intuitive knowledge of religious discovery and the rational knowledge of scientific discovery. They are ready to change their religious ideas (world is flat, the moon is flat, the earth is stationary and the universe rotates, etc, etc) in the face of scientific knowledge, because their true interest is in discovering the Nature of Reality and not in shaking down a bunch of dumbshit hicks for "tithes" and "Christiain" merchandise.

[Mr. Peabody]

OTOH, you have Eastern religious leaders like Dalai Lama and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who are either trained as scientists and/or welcome the mutual benefits and interaction between intuitive knowledge of religious discovery and the rational knowledge of scientific discovery. They are ready to change their religious ideas (world is flat, the moon is flat, the earth is stationary and the universe rotates, etc, etc) in the face of scientific knowledge, because their true interest is in discovering the Nature of Reality and not in shaking down a bunch of dumbshit hicks for "tithes" and "Christiain" merchandise.

Those guys worship elephants and people that are blue and have six arms.

Like we're really going to listen to them. :rolleyes
________
BUY E CIGS (http://www.ecigarettes123.com/)

[Spurminator]

^^there is no partisan lines when it comes to Hugo Chavez.


There are Partisan lines when it comes to saying "God told me George W. Bush will win."

Do you think the Chavez comment was the only time he has discussed politics? Had you heard of Pat Robertson before two months ago?



ONce again you assume he's (pR) the spokesman for EVangelicals.


He is a leading evangelical voice in this country and in the world. Anyone with that size of an audience who is misrepresenting my faith will be called out by me.

[Mr. Peabody]

There are Partisan lines when it comes to saying "God told me George W. Bush will win."

Do you think the Chavez comment was the only time he has discussed politics? Had you heard of Pat Robertson before two months ago?



He is a leading evangelical voice in this country and in the world. Anyone with that size of an audience who is misrepresenting my faith will be called out by me.

Some Pat Robertson quotes:

"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

"It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all Christians"

"That (separation of church and state) was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the communist Sovi"
Pat Robertson quotes

"...There is no such thing as ... separation of state and church ... in the Constitution. It's a lie of the left."
Pat Robertson quotes

"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many were homosexuals - the two things seem to go together"

"(Regarding his prayers to keep Hurricane Gloria away from Virginia Beach) It was 'extremely important because I felt that if I couldn't move a hurricane, I could hardly move a nation"

"I know one man who was impotent who gave AIDS to his wife and the only thing they did was kiss"

"Communism was the brain-child of German-Jewish intellectuals"

"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?"
Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."
-- on 9/11 attacks

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office

I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 1998

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992, suggesting that South African white people's votes ought to count more than other votes because they are in the minority
________
Vaporizer (http://vaporizers.tv/)

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm George W. Bush and I approve of this post

[gtownspur]

Oh great! i get the honor of posting after the village twink.

Extra Stout. If Roberts had said that GOd would punish Dover for voting the way they did, you'd have a point.

ID does not have a bias towards Christianity, which is even more reason to have it in schools alongside evolution.

But the efforts to vote against it, was to shut Religion's role in our pshyce and legitimate voice in the public arena. The theory that Acid Rain would diminish the earth's population is and was psuedo science. Science initself has had agenda items and belief systems. Science has taken its share in atrocities. IF faith and ethics cannot be discussed along science, then the human race will once again conduct eugenic experiments which are highly unethical. The campaign to silence ID was not a spirited one in which involved debate. ID was intended to say that Government does not chose sides on the debate of religion and secularism. It was to bring balance.

But people want government to only endorse secular philosophy.

[Mr. Peabody]

Extra Stout. If Roberts had said that GOd would punish Dover for voting the way they did, you'd have a point.



Like when he said this --

"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?"
Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."
-- on 9/11 attacks
________
CALIFORNIA DISPENSARIES (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[gtownspur]

^^At the time many people were wondering why GOd would lift his protection from us. He gave an explanation. So what. This wasn't his first reaction to the 911 attacks. This was only what he thougth could be a reason why. He did not in the statement say that God did however lift his protection from the US.

[Spurminator]

So was his statement wrong or not? And is that viewpoint one that you want people to associate with Christianity?

[Mr. Peabody]

He did not in the statement say that God did however lift his protection from the US.

He didn't. Did I just misread the part where he said --

"Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."
________
GreekGODDESSN1 (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/GreekGODDESSN1)

[gtownspur]

He was just giving an explanation. And so what? what happens if it's true. I'm not the one to judge what God allows. But that's a whole different topic.

[Spurminator]

He was just giving an explanation. And so what? what happens if it's true. I'm not the one to judge what God allows. But that's a whole different topic.

You're avoiding the question.

[smeagol]

Hello smeagol. You mention that you are shocked that a politician would suggest the assasination, who is this politician you're referring to?
Hello joch. When I started righting the post, I meant to say “any politician who suggests the US should assassinate a world leader is shocking”. My intention was to add that “it is even more shocking if the one calling out for an assassination is a man of God”. I guess that’s not what my post reads.

In any case, I do believe Robertson is a politician (I stated my reasons in a response to gtown.



Robertson's a private citizen and has a right to speak his mind.
When you are considered one of the most important evangelical leaders, with a TV show watched by millions, you have to be careful with what you say.


He apologized and there's no way to ascertain his level of remorse or if he did so because of the uproar from those that had never retracted an opinion after introspection. Unless someone can prove his insincerity he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure you would want the same for yourself.
Give me a good reason why we shouldn't overlook someones faults if asked to do so.
If this were his only speech mishap. But it’s not (see someone else’s post above with quotes from the man)


Would it make you feel better if he stopped his ministry of feeding the starving? What do you want from the man?
I want him not to say the things he says. Just because he feeds the needy the man cannot be criticized?

[smeagol]

If Robertson called for the assasination of Hitler, i bet you'd jump on the bash Evangelicals bandwagon

Chavez=Hitler?

Stupid analogy.

[Dos]

PR doesn't speak for me... I would say someone like Erwin Mcmanus from Mosiac Church in LA is more in line with my views..

[DarkReign]

Some Pat Robertson quotes:

"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

"It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all Christians"

"That (separation of church and state) was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the communist Sovi"
Pat Robertson quotes

"...There is no such thing as ... separation of state and church ... in the Constitution. It's a lie of the left."
Pat Robertson quotes

"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many were homosexuals - the two things seem to go together"

"(Regarding his prayers to keep Hurricane Gloria away from Virginia Beach) It was 'extremely important because I felt that if I couldn't move a hurricane, I could hardly move a nation"

"I know one man who was impotent who gave AIDS to his wife and the only thing they did was kiss"

"Communism was the brain-child of German-Jewish intellectuals"

"We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?"
Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."
-- on 9/11 attacks

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office

I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 1998

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992, suggesting that South African white people's votes ought to count more than other votes because they are in the minority

In-frickin-defensable!

Only religious zealots and the sheeple they command could ever justify these quotes, whether in or out of context.

His intent is obvious, his delivery is direct.

How can a logical person defend this drivel? Look, its ok to admit when you have been conned. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Wow...I mean....WOW. Keep going, I dont even have to try. Google FTW!

[Dos]

we can easily post qoutes by jesse jackson or al sharpton even farrakhan... aren't they all religious leaders that lean left..?

[smeagol]

because red-state dumbshit hicks who propose ID/Creationism are laughable simpletons who can only make the coarsest of distinctions with great difficulty, can only hold one or two ideas in thier head at once, preferably feel-good ideas, paradoxes and contradeictions are simply forbidden or ignored, and are so insecure and threatend in their understanding of the world that they simply say "too fucking complicated for me, only God could understand it, and only HE could make it so complicated. ergo, science sucks"
I agree with ID but your description of the ID proponents does not agree with me. What is your position? Science has explained where we come from? How we came here? Etc etc


OTOH, you have Eastern religious leaders like Dalai Lama and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who are either trained as scientists and/or welcome the mutual benefits and interaction between intuitive knowledge of religious discovery and the rational knowledge of scientific discovery.
Your point is? Eastern Religions > Christianity?


They are ready to change their religious ideas (world is flat, the moon is flat, the earth is stationary and the universe rotates, etc, etc) in the face of scientific knowledge,
Your point is that Christians believe the World is flat?


because their true interest is in discovering the Nature of Reality and not in shaking down a bunch of dumbshit hicks for "tithes" and "Christiain" merchandise.
And the true interest of Christianity is to sell “Christian” merchandise?

Altogether a stupid post.

[smeagol]

we can easily post qoutes by jesse jackson or al sharpton even farrakhan... aren't they all religious leaders that lean left..?
So one thing justifies the other?

That's silly logic, if you ask me.

[DarkReign]

we can easily post qoutes by jesse jackson or al sharpton even farrakhan... aren't they all religious leaders that lean left..?

So very, very true. I wasnt analyzing his political leanings NECESSARILY. But some his statements concerning the whims of God are outlandish! Does he have a Red Phone we arent aware of or something?

Plenty of loons in the world...on all sides, no doubt.

[Mr. Peabody]

we can easily post qoutes by jesse jackson or al sharpton even farrakhan... aren't they all religious leaders that lean left..?

Why does it have to be a right/left thing? Why can't we just admit that Pat Robertson is insane and says insane things?

[DarkReign]

Why does it have to be a right/left thing? Why can't we just admit that Pat Robertson is insane and says insane things?

We have a winner......

Tell him his prize!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why does it have to be a right/left thing? Why can't we just admit that Pat Robertson is insane and says insane things?

insane things that other equally insane people believe whole-heartedly and send $$$

[Spurminator]

It all goes back to defense... You can say he doesn't speak for you, but when you line up in droves to defend his statements it gives the impression that he does and you're just afraid to say it.

If he doesn't speak for you, then criticism of Robertson (or other Theocratic blowhards) should not bother you.

And it's absolutely not a Right/Left issue.

[Extra Stout]

Extra Stout. If Roberts had said that GOd would punish Dover for voting the way they did, you'd have a point.
What exactly is this thread about again? Did Robertson not say something to the people of Dover? Was that made up?


ID does not have a bias towards Christianity, which is even more reason to have it in schools alongside evolution.
What difference does a lack of religious bias make? If I claim the moon is made out of Limberger cheese, my claim has no Christian bias. Should it therefore be taught in public schools?

If I say no, is that an affront to God?


But the efforts to vote against it, was to shut Religion's role in our pshyce and legitimate voice in the public arena.
So ID is not a religious theory, but if you vote against it, you're shutting out religion? What?


The theory that Acid Rain would diminish the earth's population is and was psuedo science.
I thought the theory was that acid rain injured trees. Did your school teach that it would kill people? Sounds like that district needs to vote out its school board too.


IF faith and ethics cannot be discussed along science, then the human race will once again conduct eugenic experiments which are highly unethical.
Are we discussing scientific ethics or are we discussing intelligent design?

Are you claiming that without teaching intelligent design, we're doomed to conduct eugenics experiments?

What?


The campaign to silence ID was not a spirited one in which involved debate. ID was intended to say that Government does not chose sides on the debate of religion and secularism. It was to bring balance.
I thought that ID had nothing to do with religion. I thought it was a scientific theory. Now you're telling me it's supposed to be a government message to bring balance between religion and secularism?

What?


But people want government to only endorse secular philosophy.
Are we discussing philosophy or are we discussing science in the public schools?

[Marcus Bryant]

It all goes back to defense... You can say he doesn't speak for you, but when you line up in droves to defend his statements it gives the impression that he does and you're just afraid to say it.

If he doesn't speak for you, then criticism of Robertson (or other Theocratic blowhards) should not bother you.

And it's absolutely not a Right/Left issue.


Well, it's just like taking the pronouncements of a few on the 'left' like Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore or PETA and abscibing them to all. Does the average 'liberal' feel that is fair?

[Spurminator]

Who said anything about it being fair? It's reality. People DO associate Michael Moore with the Democratic Party. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't want Michael Moore as a spokesperson, so I would probably take issue with any stupid statement he made that harmed my cause. And I certainly wouldn't jump to his defense anytime he was criticised. I'd want to disassociate myself (and my worldview) as much as possible from his.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I like the fact that the Big Guy takes interest in the results of local school board elections. Very comforting thought

[Marcus Bryant]

While Moore may be a bit out there, his basic argument is that the US should not have invaded Iraq, which, of course, is a majority view on the left. So inevitably criticism of Moore in re Iraq is bound to draw in those who don't subscribe to his views as to why the US invaded Iraq.

[Spurminator]

Sure, and Robertson's basic view may not be all that extreme either... But it's all about the way that message is conveyed.

Moore being against the war sounds like "GW Bush has Nazi Ancestors and is Sending Millions to Die in a Meaningless War Based on Lies All for His Rich Oil Buddies."

Pat Robertson preaching Christianity sounds like "Your Sins Have Provoked the Wrath of God and You Are Dying in Hurricanes and Terrorist Attacks Because of Your Immorality. Oh, and Vote Republican."

[Mr. Peabody]

While Moore may be a bit out there, his basic argument is that the US should not have invaded Iraq, which, of course, is a majority view on the left. So inevitably criticism of Moore in re Iraq is bound to draw in those who don't subscribe to his views as to why the US invaded Iraq.

My question is, what does this have to do with Pat Robertson and his crazy ass comments? Are his comments ok because Michael Moore says stupid things as well?

Why are all of you so intent on defending these people no matter what crazy shit they say?

Just sack up and admit that, yes, his comments were idiotic.

[Marcus Bryant]

um, the point is that Robertson does not speak for all conservatives just like Moore does not speak for all on the left.

Have I stated that Robertson's comments were not so?

[Dos]

My question is, what does this have to do with Pat Robertson and his crazy ass comments? Are his comments ok because Michael Moore says stupid things as well?

Why are all of you so intent on defending these people no matter what crazy shit they say?

Just sack up and admit that, yes, his comments were idiotic.

I am not defending PR in my views he doesn't really represent my views at all..

but I do believe a person has right to freedom express in this country... that's what I am defending... not the comment but the right to have that say...

[Oh, Gee!!]

I am not defending PR in my views he doesn't really represent my views at all..

but I do believe a person has right to freedom express in this country... that's what I am defending... not the comment but the right to have that say...


I may not like you what you say, Dos, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. :rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

um, the point is that Robertson does not speak for all conservatives just like Moore does not speak for all on the left.

Have I stated that Robertson's comments were not so?

Where did anyone in this thread say that Robertson speaks for all conservatives?

The only people I have seen in this thread associating Robertson with conservatives are the conservatives themselves.

[Mr. Peabody]

I am not defending PR in my views he doesn't really represent my views at all..

but I do believe a person has right to freedom express in this country... that's what I am defending... not the comment but the right to have that say...

No one said his statements violated any law or that he should be arrested for what he said. People are merely saying that his comments are outrageous and a little insane.

[Spurminator]

but I do believe a person has right to freedom express in this country...

I believe the KKK has a right to assemble and say whatever they want, but I'm not going to jump to their defense if someone calls them racist.

[Mr. Peabody]

I believe the KKK has a right to assemble and say whatever they want, but I'm not going to jump to their defense if someone calls them racist.

But I think if a Black extremist or a Jewish extremist made crazy comments, then the KKK's racist comments are OK.

I think that's how it works.

There might be some kind of treaty between the groups, but I am not sure.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]I want him to STFU and stay out of Politics
and I want Christians like YOU to stop sticking up for him and perpetuating his status as a spokesperson for Christianity.
Spurm, I did not support Robertson's thought about "taking out" Chavez nor did I support the statement he made to the residents of Dover.

PR has the same freedom of speech that you and I have and I strongly support that freedom. If you interpret that as unqualified support of Robertson then you are mistaken in your interpretation.
That being said I strongly disagree with your assertion that the opinions of those who are not in harmony with your own should be muted or are in need of censoring.




And that message is not "If you love Jesus, you'll vote Republican."
Spurm, I have never, ever heard anyone say that, not even once!

Like it or not the Rep. platform embraces moral issues much more so than the Dems and that gets votes. There is a way for the Dems to siphon off some of those votes but they don't appear to be willing to do what it takes to swing those votes into their column.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign]Joch, I may not particularly like Gtown or his opinions, but at least he has the common decency to repond to a person's entire post without breaking it into bite-size pieces as to be able to digest it better.
I don't particularly care to adhere your so called "forum response protocol". The last thing I'm going to do is to allow someone to dictate how I'm going to respond to a post.

I
am sure we here post in more forums than this, and if one thing can be said that is true in all forums...
The people who breakup an entire post as to thwart segments as they see fit, are usually very counter-productive posters.
Everyone has their own preference in how they wish to debate an opposing view. When someone submits a post like the one you did where most of the points you make are ridiculously vague then I prefer to comment point by point in order to highlight the weakness of your thoughts.

Addressing the style of debate, as you have done, rather than addressing the weakness of the points you attempted to make should be interpreted as nothing less than an admission that you post in unsubstantiable sound-bites. It just serves to highlight the superficial nature of your thoughts.




Is it so hard to respond with your own diatribe, or must you always stand on the shoulders of the person you criticizing?
:wtf Again, I'm impressed with your ability to stay on task. It's definitely you , and this quote of yours underscores the point, who is attempting to stand on someones shoulders. Consider it a failed attempt.






Look, again, you are a drone. I am not partisan. :blah :blah







Yes, ultra-religious people ARE the most dangerous people in the world (ie terrorism). Just because one religion is mostly based in under-developed nations whilst another is worshipped in an industrialized nation doesnt make one less dangerous than the other.
If you're going to qualify the dangerous, ultra-religious as the terrorist's presently terrorizing the world then of course I would agree. If you're putting PR into that category then you need to back it up with more than superfluous rhetorical cant.

[jochhejaam]

... and aligning himself along partisan lines.
Morality is an inextricable part of political issues and PR is under no obligation whatsoever to portray himself as a neutral observer of these issues.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=smeagol]
[QUOTE]When you are considered one of the most important evangelical leaders, with a TV show watched by millions, you have to be careful with what you say.
I understand what your saying but the truth of the matter is that he really doesn't have to be careful and because he's not he finds himself as the focus of attention he'd probably rather not have.





If this were his only speech mishap. But it’s not (see someone else’s post above with quotes from the man)

I want him not to say the things he says. Just because he feeds the needy the man cannot be criticized?
I don't have a problem with the right to critisize PR or the fact that he is critisized and I would suppose he also supports that right.

I'm not going to look it up but you may be familiar with the scriptures where a father asked his two sons to do something;

The first son told the father that he would do it but he ended up not doing it.

The second son told the father that he would not do it but he ended up doing it.
The question posed was, "which of the two sons was justified"?

The point being is that the actions of a person are far more important than the the words of a person.

And that's why I put much more emphasis on what PR does than what he says.
That does not equate to supporting PR's words.

[boutons]

PR is a lot different from MM.

PR is a "religious" and "party political" (pres candidate) with a committed following, a group of people who support him financially, and actually believe what he says (that's why he keeps saying this shit), and he claims he's channels God, rouses the rabble and the rabble believes him, probably vote the way he says God tells him they should vote.

MM is film maker, a joker, and enterntainer with left-wing politics. He has an influence through his film-making, but hardly a dues-paying following, or any official Democratic standing.

[Marcus Bryant]

Jesse Jackson ran for president I guess he's just like PR.

Just go.

[gtownspur]

Robertson believes what he believes. Its no different than when leftist blamed 911 for being capitalist and imperialist. At least Roberstson doesn't sympathize with the terrorist or claim neutrality through all this. And so what if what he said inflames people. If what he said was biblicaly sound, then take it up with the bible. THe bible says GOd is soveriegn. That means he allows good and evil and he's the ultimate arbiter. Nothing happens with out GOd's approval. Satan cannot tempt or destroy without the approval of God. And since 911 happened, according to Biblical doctrine it happened because GOd let it. Therefore there is a reason why GOd let it so. And if you don't believe that way becuase your areligous, fine. But don't try to say what he said was not christian-like if you have no clue.Obviously Robertson being a man of the faith believes this and will not sell out to get approval from enemies who desire his defeat. Yes, the bible has been translated many times, but theoligians do have the early manuscripts, and they don't refute any of modern Christianity's basic tenets. If i were an evangelist, biblical truth would come first and idiotic political correctness would be last.

When he advocated HC's death, he made it quite clear that it's in the best interest of the U.S. and not his own. Nobody would of given a damn if Pat Buchanan said the same thing. This was a clear attempt on behalf of a radical secular minority's plan to paint PR as a monster to the american people.

I believe that if your a minister you should put biblical doctrine above political correctness. But if you serve an office you should follow the law first and then your faith second.

I'm not going to apologize for what PR said about HC. THis has nothing to do with Christianity to his critics. This has to do with Ideology.

[Spurminator]

That being said I strongly disagree with your assertion that the opinions of those who are not in harmony with your own should be muted or are in need of censoring.

Why the hell do some of you have such a hard time discerning the difference between censorship and criticism?

I want certain people to keep their mouth shut. I don't want to the Government to shut it for them. I want the public to ignore them so their comments are no longer relevant. That's not censorship.

[gtownspur]

^^well let the public speak out instead of launching your own crusade if that's your point. So far the public doesnt give a rats ass.

[Spurminator]

The entire concept of Free Speech seems to be way above your head.

[gtownspur]

^You have all the free speech you can have. But to spin what RObertson says and tell it to the public that he's a hypocrite, thats different and you should expect harsh criticism.

With all the free speech you have, you still cannot use it to prove that what he said was contradictory to scripture.

[Spurminator]

Luke 18:10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."


I'm done here.



EDIT: Okay, one more...

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:2-9 RSV)

[jochhejaam]

Why the hell do some of you have such a hard time discerning the difference between censorship and criticism?

I believe everyone knows the difference between the two Spurm but when your cirticism equates to the silencing of someones opinion you're splitting hairs when it comes to delineating between the two.

If I were on your side of the Robertson issue (I'm obviously not) it wouldn't be difficult to formulate arguements against what he says other than wishing he'd shut the heck up.

[Guru of Nothing]

for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Mystery Men - I love that movie.

[gtownspur]

Luke 18:10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."


I'm done here.



EDIT: Okay, one more...

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:2-9 RSV)


If we're gonna look at scripture through DNC lenses and thus come away with the interpretation that public giving is a crime, then we should withdraw monies from foreign aid since it is known publicly that we give.

But once again this is a futile attempt to discredit the man. Had you known him personally and you knew that his personal life is at odds with his public, then you could unload your venom on him. But rigth now, his only sin was to say Politically Incorrect statements.

[jochhejaam]

I believe everyone knows the difference between the two Spurm but when your cirticism equates to the silencing of someones opinion you're splitting hairs when it comes to delineating between the two.

If I were on your side of the Robertson issue (I'm obviously not) it wouldn't be difficult to formulate arguements against what he says other than wishing he'd shut the heck up.

Responding to someone by telling them to shutup means you have lost the arguement. It's hard for me to think of a reply that would carry less weight or be less substantial.



You know what...I give up with you Spurm, just shut the heck up yourself!!! :pctoss :jack :cuss

[jochhejaam]

Responding to someone by telling them to shutup means you have lost the arguement. It's hard for me to think of a reply that would carry less weight or be less substantial.



You know what...I give up with you Spurm, just shut the heck up yourself!!! :pctoss :jack :cuss

I was just kidding of course but it should be easy to see how weak and ineffective we are when our response to someones point of view amounts to nothing more than that.

Conclusion: Everyone in our Country enjoys the right to express himself. If our response is limited to unabashed anger, hostility and wishing the other person hadn't said something we are probably better off not responding or at least waiting until we can argue with something approaching constructive dialogue.

[DarkReign]

Did...

Did you just quote yourself? Twice?!

Right-e-o, then

[jochhejaam]

Did...

Did you just quote yourself? Twice?!

Right-e-o, then
You have a knack for secreting substandard deposits.
Just goes to show ya almost everyone's good at something.

[boutons]

The New York Times
November 18, 2005

Op-Ed Contributor

Shaking the Foundation of Faith
By SCOTT M. LIELL

Madison, Conn.

AN event that occurred 250 years ago today stands as a singular reminder that the war between faith and science in America did not start in Dover, Pa., where several school board members who promoted the teaching of intelligent design were voted out of office last week, or even in that Tennessee courthouse in 1925 where John Scopes was tried for teaching evolution. It has been a recurring theme in our history since the very seedtime of the republic.

In the early hours of Nov. 18, 1755, the most destructive earthquake ever recorded in the eastern United States struck at Cape Ann, about 30 miles north of Boston. "It continued near four minutes," wrote John Adams, then a recent Harvard graduate staying at his family home in Braintree, Mass. "The house seemed to rock and reel and crack as if it would fall in ruins about us."

The shock was felt as far away as Montreal and Chesapeake Bay. Throughout the New England countryside familiar springs stopped flowing and new ones appeared; stone walls were thrown down and cracks opened in the earth. Two hundred miles out to sea one ship was knocked about so violently that its crew believed it had run aground. In Boston, 100 chimneys toppled into the streets and more than 1,000 houses were damaged. A distiller's new cistern collapsed with such force that it brought down the entire building in which it was housed.

For Bostonians, the experience was unlike anything they had been through and their reactions varied widely. On the one side were a few who absorbed the experience with keen interest; as a natural phenomenon with natural causes. In this group were people like Adams and his favorite Harvard professor, John Winthrop, who gave a lecture on the science of earthquakes the following week.

To such people, the Cape Ann quake was an opportunity to learn something about a kind of event that was quite rare in their part of the world. While they knew nothing of plate tectonics and fault lines, the written accounts of these observers are replete with the sort of details that a modern seismologist would value. This was the reaction of men inspired by the still-new principles of natural philosophy, as science was called then, to believe that there were laws governing the operations of the world and that man could come to understand these laws through careful observation and reason.

The more typical mid-18th-century response to these kinds of events, however, was a desire to find supernatural explanations that while short on empirical detail, were usually long on ominous foreboding. To these folks earthquakes and hurricanes were simply just deserts for sins ranging from loose morals to having strayed from the true religion of their pilgrim forefathers.[/B]

The weeks after Nov. 18 saw an outpouring of sermons preached and articles published on the subject of the quake's divine origin. One strain of faith-based explanation, however, stands apart from the rest, not only for its popularity but also for its downright strangeness. According to a prominent Boston minister, the Rev. Thomas Prince of South Church, and his adherents, one novel practice in particular, together with its originator, was to blame for provoking this act of divine wrath; no, not that unlucky Boston distiller, but the lightning rod and its famous inventor, Benjamin Franklin.

It was a widespread belief in the 18th century that lightning was God's instrument of choice when manifesting his displeasure. In fact, it was a common practice to ring a town's church bells upon a storm's approach in an 11th-hour plea for mercy. To the grief of many a poor bell-ringer's widow, it was not a tactic that met with much success. But Franklin's idea of mounting pointed iron rods to the tops of tall buildings was so effective that their use quickly spread around the globe, making Franklin internationally famous two decades before he fixed his name to the Declaration of Independence.

And it was precisely the effectiveness of Franklin's invention that drew the blame of some in the city he had run away from at the age of 17. Lightning rods meddled with God's usual mode of reprimand, went this line of thinking, causing God to reach for another, more terrible weapon in his arsenal. "God shakes the earth because he is wroth," insisted Prince in a sermon he published soon after the quake. He warned his flock that the more lightning rods were erected around Boston, the more earthquakes would afflict the city as a result.

While not present at this sermon, Adams wrote that he heard idle talk of the "presumption of philosophers in erecting iron tods ... attempting to control the artillery of heaven," and dismissed it a drunken nonsense. For his part, Franklin was amused by the reaction. Why, he wryly asked, was it acceptable to build a roof to keep out the rain but blasphemy to place a rod upon the roof to keep out the lightning?

At the end of the day, it was never faith per se that stood in opposition to science; Franklin was ultimately as much a believer as Thomas Prince. Many people of faith - Unitarians, Quakers and those who, like most of the founding fathers, were deists - were prominent members of the scientific community. Rather, it was (and is) a specific type of belief that consistently finds itself at odds with science, one that is not found merely in America and is not limited to Christianity. It is the specific brand of faith that devalues reason and confers the mantle of infallible, absolute authority upon a leader or a book. It is only the priests of these sects, as Jefferson said, who "dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight."

IF people are dismayed to find fresh examples of the type of faith that blames victims of natural disasters - like Hurricane Katrina, the Asian tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake - for causing their own misery, it is comforting to see that the other kind of faith is also alive and well. For that, we need look no further than Franklin's adopted home state, Pennsylvania. No doubt many of those who voted for science on Election Day in Dover went to church the following Sunday.

For Franklin and his like-minded contemporaries, scientific pursuit was the ultimate act of faith; faith that there was an order to be discovered and faith in our ability to discover it.

Scott M. Liell is the author of the forthcoming "Founding Faith," about the religious beliefs of the founders.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[FromWayDowntown]

The bashing of Pat Robertson has gained some relatively conservative critics. Charles Krauthammer recently wrote a compelling piece on the issue of teaching intelligent design in schools as opposed to churches, and applauds the citizens of Dover for voting out those school board members who would have their schools teach ID. A good read:


Phony Theory, False Conflict
'Intelligent Design' Foolishly Pits Evolution Against Faith

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, November 18, 2005; Page A23

Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous: that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

Newton's religion was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and a member of the Church of England. Einstein's was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. "He believed he was doing God's work," James Gleick wrote in his recent biography of Newton. Einstein saw his entire vocation -- understanding the workings of the universe -- as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. Newton was trying to supplant the view that first believed the sun's motion around the earth was the work of Apollo and his chariot, and later believed it was a complicated system of cycles and epicycles, one tacked upon the other every time some wobble in the orbit of a planet was found. Newton's God was not at all so crude. The laws of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine.

Which brings us to Dover, Pa., Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education, and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.

Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose "intelligent design" -- today's tarted-up version of creationism -- on the biology curriculum. Pat Robertson then called the wrath of God down upon the good people of Dover for voting "God out of your city." Meanwhile, in Kansas, the school board did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curriculum.

Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions -- arguably, the most important questions in life -- that lie beyond the material.

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html)

[George W. Bush]

Woudl everybody just shaddup for a second so i can think! :pctoss

[Extra Stout]

At the end of the day, it was never faith per se that stood in opposition to science; Franklin was ultimately as much a believer as Thomas Prince. Many people of faith - Unitarians, Quakers and those who, like most of the founding fathers, were deists - were prominent members of the scientific community. Rather, it was (and is) a specific type of belief that consistently finds itself at odds with science, one that is not found merely in America and is not limited to Christianity. It is the specific brand of faith that devalues reason and confers the mantle of infallible, absolute authority upon a leader or a book. It is only the priests of these sects, as Jefferson said, who "dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight."
I agree with that.