[QUOTE]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?
Of course your views are superior, that's what makes them the minority view.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?
Alarmingly faulty logic.
Right DR, the view that differs from yours is wierd. ooooooookayWhatever...like I said...the thread got weird.
I'm going to argue the positives he's done and leave the mindless stone-throwing and insults to you and your ilk.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'll bet the house that his ministry does more good in an hour than you will in a life time.
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.
Where's the okey-doke smiley?
on a stripper's left teat.
Unbeknownst to you, he defiles Christianity like a razor on flesh; but hey, lets look on the bright side.
^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.
[QUOTE]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)
Excellent stereotypical generalization! I commend you for your total lack of insightful commentary regarding that pointed charge!Overly religious people are by far the most dangerous men and women in all the world (imo).
Without qualifying that it's a totally meaningless statement!
Dayum! He simultaneously caters to and leads them! He's both the servant and the master is he?Pat Robertson caters to,... and has become the voice of the radically religious
True characteristics of a leader of mul udes 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)
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.Yes, I do in fact despise those who follow without question or curiosity.
If you haven't, yet you despise them, that's scary!
You are the expert (for some unknown reason) about how and why people come their conclusions...of course you are.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...
Who's the ego-maniac here?
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.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.
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 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
So now you're going to "be nice" to those you "despise". You pompous hypocrite!(to be nice).
.
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.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.
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>
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.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?
Scripture has been questioned over and over, again and again and will be until the end of time.
Robertson tells Dover, PA citizens, after the election: “Don’t turn to God if you need help”
Link
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...
[QUOTE] o smeagol. You mention that you are shocked that a politician would suggest the assasination, who is this politician you're referring to?
Robertson's a private citizen and has a right to speak his mind.You and joch are willing to overlook that a man of God is calling for this assassination because he feeds the hungry.
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?
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.What do you want from the man?
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.
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 cons uents. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Dont attempt to attack with some convoluted form of logic.
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 " " than a Nationally-Broadcast Christian Leader calling for the assassination of a foreign leader and aligning himself along partisan lines.
^^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.
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?
"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 dumb 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 ing 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 dumb hicks for " hes" 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.
________
BUY E CIGS
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 07:01 PM.
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.ONce again you assume he's (pR) the spokesman for EVangelicals.
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 sexuals who want to destroy all Christians"
"That (separation of church and state) was never in the Cons ution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Cons ution! Such language only appeared in the cons ution of the communist Sovi"
Pat Robertson quotes
"...There is no such thing as ... separation of state and church ... in the Cons ution. It's a lie of the left."
Pat Robertson quotes
"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many were sexuals - 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
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 07:01 PM.
I'm George W. Bush and I approve of this post
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.
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
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 07:01 PM.
^^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.
So was his statement wrong or not? And is that viewpoint one that you want people to associate with Christianity?
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
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 07:02 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
