Pat Robertson

[Boxlicker101]

I also skipped the selukid and ottoman turks come to think of it

The Seleucids, founded by one of Big Al's generals, were mostly just conquerors, as were the other heirs of Alexander. The Ottoman Turks mostly conquered territory that was already Muslim. They did spread Islam somewhat in their conquests in the Balkan Peninsula but that was not their prime reason for the conquests. They were basically just imperialists, like the Persians or the Romans or the Macedonians or the Hurrians, et al.

 

[sweetnpetite]

In view of Robertson's record of failed predictions, he might want to reconsider a message he received from Satan in the early years of his evangelical career. Robertson maintains that while at a retreat in Canada, he was lying on a cot and heard Satan say, "Jesus is just playing you for a sucker, Robertson." Although Robertson opposed the devil at the time, a strong case can made that Satan's message turned out to be more accurate than those from God.

Robertson's incorrect prophecies cause him to flunk even his own Bible's test for determining whether someone is receiving messages from God. The book teaches: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

And just two verses earlier, the Bible gives instructions for dealing with those who falsely claim to convey the Lord's words: "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, . . . even that prophet shall die." (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Robertson is fortunate to live in a secular nation that, unlike the theocracy of ancient Israel, does not execute false prophets. But those who take the man seriously might not be lucky enough to escape severe injury or death. Some of Robertson's alleged messages from God can be extremely destructive to individuals and society.

for more on Robertson's failed predictions:

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Pat_Robertson_Prophecies.htm

 

[sweetnpetite]

How is it mean to rid the Earth of someone who publicly calls for the righteous death of Supreme Court justices and foreign leaders and entire towns?

This guy spreads hate like peanut butter.

He would pour gasoline and light a match on people sight unseen. This is what he does.

Would you shoot a dog who has rabies or is that too mean?

well, being mean to mean people is still mean.

being as bad as they are means you're just as bad as they are. you can't lower your own standard of behavior and blame it on the other guy. That would be no different from him saying, "how is it mean to persecute gays and evolutionists when they are the spirit of the anti-christ?" or whatever his justification is.

 

[Recidiva]

well, being mean to mean people is still mean.

being as bad as they are means you're just as bad as they are. you can't lower your own standard of behavior and blame it on the other guy. That would be no different from him saying, "how is it mean to persecute gays and evolutionists when they are the spirit of the anti-christ?" or whatever his justification is.

I don't make that distinction.

There are offensive and there are defensive actions.

I do believe in follow through.

I think that if someone were to attack me physically, I would try to stop them and if I hurt them in the process, I wouldn't want to hurt them, but it might be part of it and I wouldn't be mean to do it. I'd be defending myself.

The same way that if I catch a virus or get cancer, I don't talk to it or corral it and put it somewhere safe. I make it stop attacking me.

I think we have so much crime and so much hate and so much inability to confront actual disease and hatred and fear because we don't deal with it and we let it continue to spread and we don't drop it in its tracks.

It's like saying a dog with rabies just needs love or someone with smallpox just needs a hug. It's not mean to excise cancer with surgery. It's not mean to call hatred what it is and refuse to listen to it or call it religion when it's using religion as a vector to spread hate and fear.

 

[CopyCarver]

KO'd by Christ

In addition to the failed predictions and being publicly branded as a liar in open court when he threw down on Congressman McCloskey, there’s a truly revealing measure of the prevailing ignorance and/or blatant hypocrisy quotient lurking in the diatribes against “secular humanism”—the religious right’s code for social justice and social action. Anyone who has ever read the Book of Matthew will recognize:

33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

But, that’s only Jesus Christ speaking. I guess He’s not as good a Christian as Pat Robberson or Jerky Foulball, or the rest of the Praise the Lord and Pass the Collection Plate crowd.

If anyone feels the need to question the sincerity of a self-identified agnostic quoting the Bible, please remember that Robertson claims to believe in "the literal word of God"--and violates it anyway. Hence, the hypocrite label.

(I’ll bet that being classified to “the left” will piss him off even worse than Hell.)

 

[mcopado]

The "Eye of the Needle" was part of a trade route and you had to unburden your camel before the camel could pass through, then repack the camel on the other side, from my studies. I've heard it from at least four separate sources in that form.

Yeah that's what it was, I couldn't remember if the eye was to enter the city, or just go through on the route...

Rocco' Errico's work is the best for learning about Jesus' use of idioms as translated from the aramaic. I can't recall if LLamsa did any comentaries of just did the 1st gen Aramaic/English Bible...I do recall his introduction was quite thorough.

 

[cantdog]

Agreed.

Religion makes the best propaganda, that's all it is. And it's easier for the masses to understand and get behind "We good/ they evil; This is for/about God." Also, it's a lot harder to argue with that sort of rational isn't it? You might be able to argue that your country isn't always right, but how do you argue your god isn't always right?

Claiming to speak for God is a garentee of success- at least as far as success of God's followers (who believe that you are indeed his spokesman)

Some will argue that this is what makes Religion dangerous, but I would say that it's what makes any source of power dangerous. It all depends on how you use it.

Nope. The Ottoman thing is a case in point. They didn't field a jihadist army year after year as a 'thin veneer.' They attacked the infidels to the north one year and then the ones to the south the next. I'm afraid there is no more accurate reading of the thing than a religious war extended over four or five hundred years. Surte, there were sometimes secular gains to be made. But greed for the next iron deposit or city to loot didn't keep them doing it so long. And it especially didn't keep them in troops.

St. Bartholomew's Day and all the rest of the anti-Huguenot thrust, the catholic/protestant wars which went on generally for centuries-- that's another. Rulers may have harnessed these forces for temporal gains, but the rank-and-file recruits were actuated by purely sectarian hatreds.

Slaughters are being carried out right now in Palestine because of the Jews and the muslims, in Sudan because of the muslims and the Christians and animists. The cynical reading of these events as only secondarily religious is an illusion.

Faith is hatred, a lot of the time. Most creeds include instructions not to tolerate false doctrines. It's lovely that some people can rise above that and refuse to hate people for believing differently. Tolerance and modernity are no doubt wonderful things. I mean that sincerely.

But if you, Colly, can be tolerant and prefer to look for the other motivators of religious conflicts, you may still rest assured that there are plenty of less spiritually advanced people out there, who really do, no bullshit, hate and kill for no other reason than confessional differences. The infidels and idolaters are a pollution, and they must die. It is written explicitly in most of the holy books. And even though you can discern ancillary reasons for wanting to attack foreign devotees of other faiths, for a lot of people, these reasons don't apply. Especially the ordinary rank and file of the struggles.

Consider Islam. There is hardly a way in which to make an insulting error in one's proper way of interacting with God that a practicing Hindu neglects to do, every day, form the point of view of a devout muslim. And the most important thing about our presence in Iraq, for some of the pious, is that we are infidels attempting to rule the faithful.

The Koran is amazingly and formidably tedious and repetitive, worse even than the Epistles. But anyone can do it:

Take just the first five surahs of the Qur'an. You don't have to wade through all of it, just skim for the mentions of the unbelievers and what God thinks of them, what is recommended that the faithful do with regard to them. There are dozens and dozens of such references. It's inescapable. The Qur'an urges the faithful to waste their asses. Not to have any mercy. Allah has hardened their hearts, they can't be reasoned with. Read it once.

The story that the peaceful religion of Muhammad has been hijacked by extremists may be true, but anyone who reads the Book knows that the only rationale needed for hatred is right there in the revelation of God itself.

Faith is corrosive, destructive, irrational, and intrinsically intolerant. For every reasonable and compromising modern adherent of a western faith there are at least the same number of bigoted, inimical adherents of it. Just because you see other, more practical aims which intolerance serves doesn't mean that the ordinary follower is motivated by anything less than pure sectarian hate.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

some of the greatest minds in math and science embraces the spiritual realm in one way or another. I don't think it's fair to say that it's 'weak minded people' or those with blinders. I blame the leaders who have a stong understanding (either learned or instinctual) about human phychology. In effect they mesmerize their believers with there charisma and personal strength. We are all suseptable, we are all human, we all have the same needs and desires for answers. 'Week minded'- means, in my oppinion, all of us. It's not only some ignorant, backwater, barefoot fool that goes out for religion, god or spirituality- or even Pat Robertson. If it were so, he would never be able to have the personal worth that he does.

my 2cents

Well said. And true. I think you more or less said what I was saying, but with a better smattering of eloquence. Mesmerizing and blinders create the same effects; they only allow people to see a certain way, and therefore think a certain way. Mind you, I never said that I denounced spirituality, just religion(s). The powerful minds that you made example of will know this difference as well.

 

[sweetnpetite]

It's like saying a dog with rabies just needs love or someone with smallpox just needs a hug. It's not mean to excise cancer with surgery. It's not mean to call hatred what it is and refuse to listen to it or call it religion when it's using religion as a vector to spread hate and fear.

No, but it is mean to wish a horrible fatal desease on a human being.

"It's not mean to excise cancer with surgery." How is it different for you to equate PR with cancer than for him to equate homosexuality with cancer? You beleive that his hate is dangerous, he believes that gay sex is dangerous. You have no more moral right to wish a painful death on him than he does to declare that gays deserve AIDS.

Love won't cure your dog's rabbies, but if he's your dog, you don't stop loving him because he has it. You might have to kill him, but you don't rejoice at his death. And even if it's not your dog, you shouldn't be rejoicing at his death.

 

[sweetnpetite]

But, that’s only Jesus Christ speaking. I guess He’s not as good a Christian as Pat Robberson or Jerky Foulball, or the rest of the Praise the Lord and Pass the Collection Plate crowd.

Robertson claims to believe in "the literal word of God"--and violates it anyway. Hence, the hypocrite label.

Like I said, he's basicly created his own denomination or 'brand' of christianity. Maybe his followers should be called "Patians" rather than "Christians."

 

[Recidiva]

No, but it is mean to wish a horrible fatal desease on a human being.

"It's not mean to excise cancer with surgery." How is it different for you to equate PR with cancer than for him to equate homosexuality with cancer? You beleive that his hate is dangerous, he believes that gay sex is dangerous. You have no more moral right to wish a painful death on him than he does to declare that gays deserve AIDS.

Love won't cure your dog's rabbies, but if he's your dog, you don't stop loving him because he has it. You might have to kill him, but you don't rejoice at his death. And even if it's not your dog, you shouldn't be rejoicing at his death.

There are actual victims of his hate, I believe. The people whose money he's taken. It isn't going to God, it's going in his pockets. So I don't think he's victimless. They have free will and they gave it freely. He asked for it, he took it. That makes him responsible. So yes, I can draw a straight line from cause to effect. To me, that's not meanness, that's sense.

There's always someone willing to prey on the weak. I didn't put the cycle in action, but I'm not going to accept the label of "mean" for recognizing it as an age-old scam no matter what you call it, religious, political or social.

He has called for death, persecution and suffering in the name of God. I just think he should have a taste of his own prayers, judged by his own standards. He set the standard, he should be measured by it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

He has called for death, persecution and suffering in the name of God.

I think you misread his statement.

 

[Recidiva]

I think you misread his statement.

Oh no I didn't

 

[Boxlicker101]

No, but it is mean to wish a horrible fatal desease on a human being.

"It's not mean to excise cancer with surgery." How is it different for you to equate PR with cancer than for him to equate homosexuality with cancer? You beleive that his hate is dangerous, he believes that gay sex is dangerous. You have no more moral right to wish a painful death on him than he does to declare that gays deserve AIDS.

Love won't cure your dog's rabbies, but if he's your dog, you don't stop loving him because he has it. You might have to kill him, but you don't rejoice at his death. And even if it's not your dog, you shouldn't be rejoicing at his death.

I see nothing wrong with wishing a painful death, such as an incurable cancer, on evil people. If wishing would make it so, I would roll up my sleeves and start wishing painful deaths on many, many persons, and Robertson would be one of the first. By no means would he be the last. This part of me is not something I am proud of, but neither does it cause me shame.

 

[Amy Sweet]

I see nothing wrong with wishing a painful death, such as an incurable cancer, on evil people. If wishing would make it so, I would roll up my sleeves and start wishing painful deaths on many, many persons,

who gets to decide who is evil?

some people think gays are evil, some people think liberals are evil. ect. Is it ok for them to wish gays/liberals/blacks/feminists/prolifers ect to die because they really and truly believe that they are evil and are doing harm?

what makes Boxlicker and Recidiva better judges of who is 'evil' than anyone else? Becaus honestly, if it's ok for you to think like that, it's just as ok for Robertson and Fred Phelps and anybody else to think that.

To think otherwise is to have an incredibly ego-centric view of the world. You are saying the same thing they are "I know what's right and you don't. My way is the only right way."

 

[Recidiva]

who gets to decide who is evil?

some people think gays are evil, some people think liberals are evil. ect. Is it ok for them to wish gays/liberals/blacks/feminists/prolifers ect to die because they really and truly believe that they are evil and are doing harm?

what makes Boxlicker and Recidiva better judges of who is 'evil' than anyone else? Becaus honestly, if it's ok for you to think like that, it's just as ok for Robertson and Fred Phelps and anybody else to think that.

To think otherwise is to have an incredibly ego-centric view of the world. You are saying the same thing they are "I know what's right and you don't."

I think the part where they did it first

 

[Amy Sweet]

I think the part where they did it first

You're kidding right?

What kind of ethics is that

 

[Recidiva]

You're kidding right?

What kind of ethics is that

It's mature ethics.

It goes on a ramp.

In order to raise a human being to have ethics:

You have to educate someone, teach them how to do something.

In order to prevent them from becoming unethical, you have to ask them not to do it.

You have to teach them the consequences and circumstances and results.

You have to be absolutely certain they know the difference.

If they are sick, they need to be treated or separated and kept from getting other people sick.

If they are completely unrepentant and know the difference between what they are doing and the results of their actions and they keep doing it, you can't explain it away as "they don't know better." You have to face it and separate them from their potential victims.

You can either continue to assume they don't "know better" or you can face the queasy fact that that is exactly how predators function. By preying on the good will of people who want to believe, who want to give one more chance.

It's very difficult to know the difference, and I don't like to make that call easily. I'm not Pat Robertson's case worker. But he desperately needs one. And unfortunately for many people, they can't look a predator or a liar in the eye and call them one.

Lots of people really do think you can look a liar in the eye and he can't lie to you and that's one of the absolute worst lies ever told. That only works for bad liars.

Does anyone really think this guy is doing anybody any good on earth or in heaven?

If you could separate the person from the religious delusions and the attachment to his ego and morality, and addiction to power, maybe he'd have the opportunity to not be a megalomaniac. But first he would actually have to say "Huh. Maybe praying for the deaths of supreme court justices, foreign leaders and entire cities because I say so is a BAD thing."

Not holding my breath.

In the meantime, he's teaching people...if you really believe in something, it's okay if you're rich, to say anything you want and say God told you to wish death on people. What do you think his message is?

I think maybe he could give some of the money back and say "Here. I shouldn't have taken your money. Go have lunch. Believe in yourself. Not me. Have a good life. Let me make amends for my ego. I'm going to travel the country and start planting trees with the 1% of the money I kept."

That I could get behind.

 

[Boxlicker101]

who gets to decide who is evil?

some people think gays are evil, some people think liberals are evil. ect. Is it ok for them to wish gays/liberals/blacks/feminists/prolifers ect to die because they really and truly believe that they are evil and are doing harm?

what makes Boxlicker and Recidiva better judges of who is 'evil' than anyone else? Becaus honestly, if it's ok for you to think like that, it's just as ok for Robertson and Fred Phelps and anybody else to think that.

To think otherwise is to have an incredibly ego-centric view of the world. You are saying the same thing they are "I know what's right and you don't. My way is the only right way."

I have the right to decide whom I think is evil, and I think that is a description of Robertson. He, of course, has the same right, to think that anybody else is evil, be they gays, pro-choicers, liberals, me, or whatever. The difference is that he feels that way about individuals who are harming nobody, and minding their own business, and tries to inflict injury on them. I do not, and that is the difference between us.

The same could be said about many people. Generally speaking, Hitler is regarded as having been one of the most evil persons in history. However, there are those who believe he would have been the saviour of mankind if he had been allowed to do what he wanted. The same thing coud be said about Stalin or Saddam or many others.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

who gets to decide who is evil?

Oh, philosophy!

Speaking in very literal terms, "good" and "evil" do NOT exist. There is only what people choose to label as "good" or "evil" by their own personal moral standing. This brings up "right" and "wrong," which, again, do NOT actually exist. Only those things that people label as such due to their own personal views.

Yesterday, in Florida, a man was found guilty of kidnapping, raping and murdering an 11yr old girl. By my standards and the standards of the mass majority of people, he was both evil and wrong for what he did, and I can thing of a whole laundry list of very cruel things that I'd love to see happen to him because of what he chose to do. On the other hand, I have no doubt that there are those individuals out there who saw nothing wrong or evil in what this man did.

By my standards, Pat Robertson is both evil and wrong. He fights daily to promote an automaton society that's governed by practitioners of a "faith," not anything factual, just a faith. While I don't wish any diseases on him, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him having to live the same way as his lowliest follower for however many years his lowliest follower has already lived that way. From my point of view, Pat's faith doesn't actually get tested because he has separated himself from the facts of daily life that the mass majority of us have to deal with. He likes it that way and to me he is evil and wrong for being as such.

By his standards, I should probably be packing to go to Hell.

 

[Amy Sweet]

The difference is that he feels that way about individuals who are harming nobody, and minding their own business, and tries to inflict injury on them. I do not, and that is the difference between us.

.

It's your oppinion that they are harming nobody, it's his oppinioin that they are.

 

[Amy Sweet]

It's mature ethics.

Wow. Kindergardeners have mature ethics.

"He did it first"

You are no better than he is. You can't see any other point of veiw than your own.

I'm out of this conversation. It's rediculous that you can't see wishing a horible wasting disease on another human being as MEAN. It's obvious that you have never actually seen anyone go through a fatal wasting disease (Philelphia with Tom Hanks doesn't count- I'm talking real life) or you wouldn't be so eager to wish it on your enemies.

 

[Recidiva]

Wow. Kindergardeners have mature ethics.

"He did it first"

You are no better than he is. You can't see any other point of veiw than your own.

I'm out of this conversation. It's rediculous that you can't see wishing a horible wasting disease on another human being as MEAN. It's obvious that you have never actually seen anyone go through a fatal wasting disease (Philelphia with Tom Hanks doesn't count- I'm talking real life) or you wouldn't be so eager to wish it on your enemies.

Uh oh, someone says they're done talking after talking bigger. I'm in trouble now.

 

[amicus]

Wow....after reading the last several posts, you folks really don't have a moral base from which to function.

You really don't seem to know how to judge right from wrong, good from bad.

Don't you think you should?

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

who gets to decide who is evil?

some people think gays are evil, some people think liberals are evil. ect. Is it ok for them to wish gays/liberals/blacks/feminists/prolifers ect to die because they really and truly believe that they are evil and are doing harm?

what makes Boxlicker and Recidiva better judges of who is 'evil' than anyone else? Becaus honestly, if it's ok for you to think like that, it's just as ok for Robertson and Fred Phelps and anybody else to think that.

To think otherwise is to have an incredibly ego-centric view of the world. You are saying the same thing they are "I know what's right and you don't. My way is the only right way."

In purest form, good and evil are dictated by the individual's perception. Intelligence is no guide, since even very intelligent people followed hitler. Albert Speer being a very good example. reynhard heinrich was a good family man. Joseph Mengele loved children. Adolph eichmann was a modle citizen. None of them condsidered what they were doing to be evil. Or at worst, they saw it as a neccessary evil.

Lenin didn't consider himself evil, but he ordered the execution of the entire royal family. An act most would say was evil, as the daughters and son were blameless even if a case could be made the tsar and tsarina were responsibile for crimes.

Pat dosen't preach religion. he preaches the politics of hate with religious trappings. Is he evil? That depends totaly on your own moral compass. He is a successful bussinessman, which for some here is indication of Evil of the worst sort. For others, that's a sign of near saintlyness.

In fiction, good and evil are often clearly dileniated. Aragorn is absolutely good. Sauron is absolutely evil. In reality, there are few absolutes. People, in general are evil and good in measure, the overall being a perceptual matter.

In robertson's case, you must measure the good deeds attributable to him vs. the evil ones. Do so and you synthesize a picture of the man. Box has no trouble saying he is evil. He can make fairly strong arguments he is right. Most here will probably agree with his line of thinking.

If we accept your line of thinking, then we must accept there is no evil or good. Everything is value neutral. Adolph Hitler is just as worthy of praise as Mother teresea and she, conversly is just as worthy of scorn. As an itellectual exercise it's worth looking at, but most people would have a difficult time living with a value neutral creedo.

Each of us has built our own perceptual code and we judge others by the precepts of that code. By my code, robertson isn't evil, he's absurd. By box's code he's evil. By the code of his faithful followers, he righteous. Value neutral, he's successful at what he does.

In the broader context of who decides what is evil, we all do. Each to his own, on an individual basis. Using our own, unique code based on experience and eaducation. If you want to brand him evil, I'll not argue, his acts and words are certainly damning evidence against him. If you want to argue he is good, I might or might not take you up on that argument, I think I can make a good case that he isn't, but it would have to be an argument I considered worthmy time. In my view, he's an absurdist drama queen. I think i can make a pretty convincing argument of that.

But at the end of the day, you will make your own call, based on your code. And so will everyone else. So you will decide what is good and what is evil. And so will I. And so will box. And so will Amicus. And our decisions probably won't mesh. But that's the nature of good and evil.