Pat Robertson

[SensualCealy]

I only read the very first post that started this thread so dont jump down my throat if I interfeared in any way.

My personal opinion is that because of people like Pat, many of us "christians" are now saying we are spiritual instead of Christians.

Many of us have views that are altered from the narrow path of Christianity, (or we wouldnt be here, right?) so there for saying we have spiritual believes that align with Christianity, would be more appropriate.

It is too bad there are those few that are given the voice to represent a mass of people that say this is how things should be and this is how things are. Who gives them the right?

US- the ones that dont stand up and say, HEY thats not what I believe or when I read the Bible, I didnt interpret it in that mannor.

Either we stand up and say NO or Stop or continue to vote against those who are guided by those who are narrow minded, or we accept what is put before us.

I know too many on here that dont agree with the Bible thumping extremests that take EVERYTHING literally to sit down and accept their ways. Speak up and make your view known whether you are in the minority or not, you have the right if you live in a democratic society!

My 2cents worth,
c

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I only read the very first post that started this thread so dont jump down my throat if I interfeared in any way.

My personal opinion is that because of people like Pat, many of us "christians" are now saying we are spiritual instead of Christians.

Many of us have views that are altered from the narrow path of Christianity, (or we wouldnt be here, right?) so there for saying we have spiritual believes that align with Christianity, would be more appropriate.

It is too bad there are those few that are given the voice to represent a mass of people that say this is how things should be and this is how things are. Who gives them the right?

US- the ones that dont stand up and say, HEY thats not what I believe or when I read the Bible, I didnt interpret it in that mannor.

Either we stand up and say NO or Stop or continue to vote against those who are guided by those who are narrow minded, or we accept what is put before us.

I know too many on here that dont agree with the Bible thumping extremests that take EVERYTHING literally to sit down and accept their ways. Speak up and make your view known whether you are in the minority or not, you have the right if you live in a democratic society!

My 2cents worth,
c

Even considering all the the overly-intellectual hullaballoo, you're probably closer to having the correct mindset than most.

 

[SensualCealy]

Thank you - I think! lol
C

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I feel bad for Pat Robertson. He's a man out of time, really. Oh, I don't agree with him, not on hardly a thing--and those things we end up agreeing on, we do so for different reasons. But, that I don't agree with him doesn't mean I can't accept that he's saying and doing so very much of what he thinks is just right and best for people.

I can believe that and run not contrary to the events.

A hundred years ago, he'd have been in a more popular position, but popularity or not, the sad reality is that he's likely a good man who believes in what he believes so thoroughly... so uncompromisingly... that the only reasonable conclusion is to be at odds with a secular social progress.

I admire that he can be devoted that much, and take somewhat for granted that he's doing what he can to bring the world to a better place, in a time when so many people are wishy-washy about their faith... or find themselves believing the convenient or easy or merely interesting... or have a softness of dedication that they can take and leave what they want.

The world kinda moved on, Pat Robertson is one of the people left behind--so to speak. But, I guess that's just a part of growing up.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, thank you for the name, Oral Roberts...who even has a university by that name.

And as usual, well said in your disagreement....your contention that religion will never die out is interesting and perhaps you are correct.

However, within the context of your comments, by ommission, your agnosticism became, I think, a little more firm. I sense you do not attempt to purport the existence of a surpreme being, but deal only with the faith people have, regardless.

Not religious wars in the middle east? I think the historical record for millenia supports the assertion that since the beginning of recorded history, the Jewish religion has been at war with one or another religious faction. It is just that the names have changed a bit down through the years and now it is Christian, Jew and Arab.

Whether the sacred sites are Babylon, Mecca or Jerusalem or Constantinople, Rome through the Crusades and beyond, I truly don't see how you can identify that ongoing conflict as anything but 'religious.'

amicus...

I'm southern Baptist actually. But the group I belonged to had very solid views on witnessing. You try to live a christian life and people will know by our deds you are christian. Your witness is worthless, if the person you are witnessing to cannot see the fdifference accepting christ has made in your life. Idon't see any noticeable effect of being christina in the lives of Robertson, Falwell, Baker and their ilk. So their witness is to me, false witness. their hate filled iatribes and quasi-religious-political spew don't show any efect of christian love in their lives or attitudes.

In basic, if you life dosen't show a change for the better that accepting jesus and his message have made, the best witness you can give is to shut the fuck up. But you're pretty much spot on in my attitude. It is a relaxed agnosticism in most reguards.

If you want a historical discourse in warfare in the mideast, I can accomdate you. The assyrians, Hitites, Phonecians and Egyptians were merrily killing one another well before the Jews come on the scene. Alexander conquerored the whole smack and his motive was defintely not religious. His enemy was persia and the motive they had in claiming it all wasn't religious either. After him, there were 'sucession" wars as his generals carved up the empire. then the roman empire came along and their motive had little to do with religion, in fact, they allowed an amazing degree of religious freedom under them for the most part. the Bitish empire took over a good chunk of it and their motives were purely economic as were the motives ofmost of the colonial powers.

For true, religious war over there, you have the crusades and the modern warefare between israel and the arabs. In both cases, religion is not the sole reason they are fighting.

In today's mideast, religion is the thin vaneer over nationalistic, economic, and social forces. The palestinainas want a state of their own, that's a nationalistic aim. Eqypt got tired of getting their asses kicked over control of the saini. Their main interest is keeping control of the Suez canal and when a peace treaty came along that gave them reasonable promise of that, they signed a treaty with the jews. Syria needs an outside boogy man to keep the populace from revolting. Jews being of a different religion is just a bonus. Iraq, up until we kicked Saddam out was a secular state that repressed religion and religious extremeism with an iorn fist. Iran is a full baked theocracy, but the only one they have fought recently was Iraq. Shia vs. Shia, for the most part.

The forces that motivate the continous warefare over there are only tangenitally religious. In most cases, the real motivation is less etherial. the truth of thematter is this, there's a hell of a lot of sand and dessert over there. The amount oflandmass that will support a decent population is very small, limited mostly to the seaboard plains and the river valleys. And that's what they kill each other over, living space. It's why the jews drove the palestinians out in the first place. And why the hittites, assyrians, et al have been killing each other for milenia.

It's really oversimlification to call them religious wars.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I feel bad for Pat Robertson. He's a man out of time, really. Oh, I don't agree with him, not on hardly a thing--and those things we end up agreeing on, we do so for different reasons. But, that I don't agree with him doesn't mean I can't accept that he's saying and doing so very much of what he thinks is just right and best for people.

I can believe that and run not contrary to the events.

A hundred years ago, he'd have been in a more popular position, but popularity or not, the sad reality is that he's likely a good man who believes in what he believes so thoroughly... so uncompromisingly... that the only reasonable conclusion is to be at odds with a secular social progress.

I admire that he can be devoted that much, and take somewhat for granted that he's doing what he can to bring the world to a better place, in a time when so many people are wishy-washy about their faith... or find themselves believing the convenient or easy or merely interesting... or have a softness of dedication that they can take and leave what they want.

The world kinda moved on, Pat Robertson is one of the people left behind--so to speak. But, I guess that's just a part of growing up.

I don't feel bad for Robertson. He is a world-class asshole. Too bad he wasn't born hundreds of years ago. Without the modern communication, he never would have been able to pull so much crap; he would have never gotten rich and he would have long ago died of some wasting or painful illness.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm southern Baptist actually. But the group I belonged to had very solid views on witnessing. You try to live a christian life and people will know by our deds you are christian. Your witness is worthless, if the person you are witnessing to cannot see the fdifference accepting christ has made in your life. Idon't see any noticeable effect of being christina in the lives of Robertson, Falwell, Baker and their ilk. So their witness is to me, false witness. their hate filled iatribes and quasi-religious-political spew don't show any efect of christian love in their lives or attitudes.

In basic, if you life dosen't show a change for the better that accepting jesus and his message have made, the best witness you can give is to shut the fuck up. But you're pretty much spot on in my attitude. It is a relaxed agnosticism in most reguards.

If you want a historical discourse in warfare in the mideast, I can accomdate you. The assyrians, Hitites, Phonecians and Egyptians were merrily killing one another well before the Jews come on the scene. Alexander conquerored the whole smack and his motive was defintely not religious. His enemy was persia and the motive they had in claiming it all wasn't religious either. After him, there were 'sucession" wars as his generals carved up the empire. then the roman empire came along and their motive had little to do with religion, in fact, they allowed an amazing degree of religious freedom under them for the most part. the Bitish empire took over a good chunk of it and their motives were purely economic as were the motives ofmost of the colonial powers.

For true, religious war over there, you have the crusades and the modern warefare between israel and the arabs. In both cases, religion is not the sole reason they are fighting.

In today's mideast, religion is the thin vaneer over nationalistic, economic, and social forces. The palestinainas want a state of their own, that's a nationalistic aim. Eqypt got tired of getting their asses kicked over control of the saini. Their main interest is keeping control of the Suez canal and when a peace treaty came along that gave them reasonable promise of that, they signed a treaty with the jews. Syria needs an outside boogy man to keep the populace from revolting. Jews being of a different religion is just a bonus. Iraq, up until we kicked Saddam out was a secular state that repressed religion and religious extremeism with an iorn fist. Iran is a full baked theocracy, but the only one they have fought recently was Iraq. Shia vs. Shia, for the most part.

The forces that motivate the continous warefare over there are only tangenitally religious. In most cases, the real motivation is less etherial. the truth of thematter is this, there's a hell of a lot of sand and dessert over there. The amount oflandmass that will support a decent population is very small, limited mostly to the seaboard plains and the river valleys. And that's what they kill each other over, living space. It's why the jews drove the palestinians out in the first place. And why the hittites, assyrians, et al have been killing each other for milenia.

It's really oversimlification to call them religious wars.

Colly, you omitted the conquests of Muhammed. Apparently his motivation was religious as was that of some of his followers. I think most of them, though, were just out for power and booty and booties. (and, I don't mean what babies wear on their feet.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, you omitted the conquests of Muhammed. Apparently his motivation was religious as was that of some of his followers. I think most of them, though, were just out for power and booty and booties. (and, I don't mean what babies wear on their feet.)

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

 

[sweetnpetite]

In today's mideast, religion is the thin vaneer over nationalistic, economic, and social forces. The palestinainas want a state of their own, that's a nationalistic aim. Eqypt got tired of getting their asses kicked over control of the saini. Their main interest is keeping control of the Suez canal and when a peace treaty came along that gave them reasonable promise of that, they signed a treaty with the jews. Syria needs an outside boogy man to keep the populace from revolting. Jews being of a different religion is just a bonus. Iraq, up until we kicked Saddam out was a secular state that repressed religion and religious extremeism with an iorn fist. Iran is a full baked theocracy, but the only one they have fought recently was Iraq. Shia vs. Shia, for the most part.

The forces that motivate the continous warefare over there are only tangenitally religious. In most cases, the real motivation is less etherial. the truth of thematter is this, there's a hell of a lot of sand and dessert over there. The amount oflandmass that will support a decent population is very small, limited mostly to the seaboard plains and the river valleys. And that's what they kill each other over, living space. It's why the jews drove the palestinians out in the first place. And why the hittites, assyrians, et al have been killing each other for milenia.

It's really oversimlification to call them religious wars.

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.

 

[matriarch]

It was the council od Nicea, where they also developed the Nicean Creed, which every good Catholic resites to this day...Basically an oath of fealty to that brand of CHristianity.

I beg to differ. The Nicene Creed is recited as part of the Eucharistic Service in every Church of England church. None of which are catholic. True, there are many 'high' churches which call themselves Anglo-Catholic, and I've attended many, but the Creed is recited in every Church of England church in the land, be it 'low' or 'high'.

Just wanted to put the record straight.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't feel bad for Robertson. He is a world-class asshole. Too bad he wasn't born hundreds of years ago. Without the modern communication, he never would have been able to pull so much crap; he would have never gotten rich and he would have long ago died of some wasting or painful illness.

Well, that's just mean.

However, I don't feel bad for Roberton either. Nor do I particularly feel that he is devout. I do think that he is a... what is the word I'm looking for? conman? false proffit? getting closer, somebody help me out.

I mean- give me a break. He's so devout that he thinks that fellow christians who aren't in his denomination are the (spirit of the) Anticrist?

 

[sweetnpetite]

I feel bad for Pat Robertson. He's a man out of time, really.

the sad reality is that he's likely a good man who believes in what he believes so thoroughly... so uncompromisingly... that the only reasonable conclusion is to be at odds with a secular social progress.

I admire that he can be devoted that much, and take somewhat for granted that he's doing what he can to bring the world to a better place

He sure does feel strongly:

On January 14, 1991, on "The 700 Club", Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

No doubt, he feels the same way about Catholics if he feels that strongly about other Protostant denominations.

I don't know about the 'good man' part though:

He was an active member of the local Ku Klux Klan in his youth.


This part here (read between the lines a bit) tells me that he basicly created his own denomination. So only those who follow *him* are real christains/ not the spirit of the antichrist, as he seems pretty intollerant of anybody else.

He is a Southern Baptist and was active as an ordained minister with that denomination for many years, but holds to a Charismatic theology not traditionally common amongst Southern Baptists.

 

[Recidiva]

Well, that's just mean.

However, I don't feel bad for Roberton either. Nor do I particularly feel that he is devout. I do think that he is a... what is the word I'm looking for? conman? false proffit? getting closer, somebody help me out.

I mean- give me a break. He's so devout that he thinks that fellow christians who aren't in his denomination are the (spirit of the) Anticrist?

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?

 

[amicus]

Dear Colleen...guilty as charged. I do generalize and simplify much of the time.

My first love was philosophy, but I ended up doing graduate work in Colonial American History.

Historiography is a methodology that Historians use to do history. It really takes all the fun out of it. I wanted to do a 'Randian' study of American history and got bogged down in bills of lading, court house records, family records, births and deaths and inheritances and investment bankers; all of whom underly any particular year, month, week or even day of any given history.

In general, I think I am still accurate to simplify middle east conflict as essentially a continuing religious war.

There is also 'macro' and 'micro' history as well as economics. I enjoy a pursuit of understanding the history of art, the history of science, even of geology, geography, trade routes et cetera.

Most 'historians', if they publish, look for a trend, a generalized 'key' to understanding an era, a nation or a religion. The essential social structures and institutions that define a people, a nation or a time period.

A study of ancient trade routes, the 'silk road' from China into the middle east and on to Europe indicates that cultures and science was exchanged through that trade route and that religious ideas flowed both ways.

I tend to see world history from several angles, one of which I identify as the rise and eventual fall of religious thought as a base for moral behaviour.

I also see a long lasting trend of a movement from command economies to free market economies.

I view both of these trends as the logical progression of man's search for knowledge.

I always appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

amicus...

 

[sweetnpetite]

How do people like this get away with calling themselves Christain? it's appaling.

A very wise old priest at Notre Dame, who was willing to talk with a hardcore heathen like me, once told me his secret for "grading" Christians:
"If they say they're trying to be good Christians but not succeeding very well, then they ARE good Christians in my book. If they say they're not, but that they want to be, then they're honest people and there is hope for them. But whenever someone says he or she is a good Christian or the best of all possible Christians, I know they're lying either to me or to themselves. Christianity is a very tough gig, and nobody since Jesus Christ has been really good at it. The secret is to be sincere and to try, not to brag and feel superior to others."

Excellent.

That falls right in with what the bible sais: "anyone who sais he does not sin is a lyer and the word is not in him" or something like that.


As you said, "The secret is to be sincere and to try, not to brag and feel superior to others" that means, for the most part, you focus on your own shortcomings and not other peoples. That goes for preachers too. There are 2 kids of preachers, those who preach on the topics that they themselves struggle with, and those who speak out against the types of issues that they themselves never faced (or pretend they never faced). The second type are the 'god hates sinners' variety, and point out who those sinners are (wives who don't submit, homosexuals, teletubbies and democrats )- the first type are 'god loves sinners, but he hates the sin'- and they will admit to their own struggles. I had a preacher like that once- he was the best However, he was too imperfect for many church members who found fault with something he did and ran him out of the church. Funny thing, they refused to 'gossip' about what it was he did wrong (so I don't know what it was) but didn't feel bad about runing him. I guess holier than thou christians need a holier than thou leader.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Dear Colleen...guilty as charged. I do generalize and simplify much of the time.

My first love was philosophy, but I ended up doing graduate work in Colonial American History.

Historiography is a methodology that Historians use to do history. It really takes all the fun out of it. I wanted to do a 'Randian' study of American history and got bogged down in bills of lading, court house records, family records, births and deaths and inheritances and investment bankers; all of whom underly any particular year, month, week or even day of any given history.

In general, I think I am still accurate to simplify middle east conflict as essentially a continuing religious war.

There is also 'macro' and 'micro' history as well as economics. I enjoy a pursuit of understanding the history of art, the history of science, even of geology, geography, trade routes et cetera.

Most 'historians', if they publish, look for a trend, a generalized 'key' to understanding an era, a nation or a religion. The essential social structures and institutions that define a people, a nation or a time period.

A study of ancient trade routes, the 'silk road' from China into the middle east and on to Europe indicates that cultures and science was exchanged through that trade route and that religious ideas flowed both ways.

I tend to see world history from several angles, one of which I identify as the rise and eventual fall of religious thought as a base for moral behaviour.

I also see a long lasting trend of a movement from command economies to free market economies.

I view both of these trends as the logical progression of man's search for knowledge.

I always appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

amicus...

Nothing kills the joy of history like historiography and historical method. A class I dropped twice and saved till my last semester. It's just painful.

I'm totally with you on the trade routes. In a region where there is a whole lot of nothing, control of those vital arteries became imperative. that's basically why Rome was there. Kind of like we absolutely have to control Petra, so I guess we might as well just control all of it.

In terms of generalizations and simplifications, I'm willing to say religion is the best you can get for the region. I just thought it was noteworthy in the discussion to mention there are a lot of forces in play there that aren't religious.

 

[amicus]

For Colly...

 

[sweetnpetite]

It was the council of Nicea, where they also developed the Nicean Creed, which every good Catholic recites to this day...Basically an oath of fealty to that brand of Christianity.

The council went so far as to edit many of the books, combine many of the stories (You may notice odd disjoining of sentences where subject/verb/agreement or tense changes.)

Also many books which were later found at the dead sea and nag hamadi were left out. Including the Book of Mary which was through her eyes, the Gospel of Thomas, which talks about the God within or CHristos (anointing) that each of us was born with. Anything having to do with Gnosis, a personal experience of the Divine (as opposed to having a priest be the intermediary). Anything that showed the women around Jesus as having any power. Possibly anything counter to the idea of celibacy and some scholars believe any mention of Jesus having a wife and children....

If you are interested in the altering of the texts look for books put out by a bunch of scholars called the Jesus Seminar. I believe that there is a Jesus Seminar Bible out now which uses color codes to show what was moved around, where it came from, and what Jesus actually said (some of the red letter bibles are not so accurate after all.

Also if you are interested in reading a translation of the Bible with the least amount of Translational altering the is a bible called the LAMSA Bible by the Aramaic (The language Jesus spoke) scholar George Lamsa. Lamsa was from a sect in a part of the middle east where they still spoke Aramaic, and where they had little contact with the outside world. He took one of their "bibles" and translated it directly into English.

It shows that Jesus and his disciples spoke in metaphor and used slang and idioms of the times...

For example Jesus said something like, " it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of heaven"

Most interpret that to me that you must be poor and give everything away. What Lamsa says is that "The eye of the needle" was an actual physical place. It was either 2 boulders that framed a pass into a mountain road, or a narrow gate into some city. The travelers had to get off their camels and I believe pass through on their hands and knees to get through.

So Lamsa believed that Jesus was saying we must be humble, to enter into the kingdom.

Rocco Errico, PHD who was a student of Lamsa and became a an Aramaic scholar in his own right has written a bunch of books about the Lamsa translation. The books are very easy to read. You can get them off of Amazon.com or at least you could. I got to drive Erricco around Detroit one night, a fascinating guy.

any more questions? This is fun remembering this stuff again.
It's also great to be able to "come out of the closet" so to speak about being a minister. Thanks

Cool info- thanks.

About the eye of the camel though. I've heard that, but I'd really like something to back that up. I don't have any idea where I'd find this information (other that being used to prove that particular point) do you?

Also, they rich man going threw the eye- he would have to leave everything behind wouldn't he? I mean, none of his riches would fit through? So it would seem that jesus may have been saying 'be humble and leave your worldly goods behind' [you can't take it with you]

If this is true, how did the traveler get his camel and his other stuff on the other side (or in the town?)

This is the sort of story I would like to believe, but I have to wonder what the point of that would have been?

thanks.

 

[Recidiva]

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.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Its people like Pat Robertson that make me happy and proud to say that I denounced anything that even resembles religion years ago. I'm fortunate enough to have long since lifted the blinders that come with every embracing of religion, and I was brave enough to step forward and not look back.

Pat Robertson, "Glory, glory hallelujah" that, mother fucker!!!

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

 

[sweetnpetite]

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.

why?

I mean, why did the camel need to go through the eye, and you and the pack didn't? IF it were so, it must have had a reason.

also, do you remember what any of the sourses were? And what subjects where you studying out of curiosity?

thanks for the help, just need a few more details. thanks.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, that's just mean.

However, I don't feel bad for Roberton either. Nor do I particularly feel that he is devout. I do think that he is a... what is the word I'm looking for? conman? false proffit? getting closer, somebody help me out.

I mean- give me a break. He's so devout that he thinks that fellow christians who aren't in his denomination are the (spirit of the) Anticrist?

If you are looking for a relatively nice word, I wuld suggest "Charlatan". You can call him any nasty thing you want to, and I will probably tend to agree with you.

Judging by what he has said publicly, he is about as far from being a Christian as Usama Bin Laden is. He might even be the Antichrist, based on prophesy.

 

[Recidiva]

why?

I mean, why did the camel need to go through the eye, and you and the pack didn't? IF it were so, it must have had a reason.

also, do you remember what any of the sourses were? And what subjects where you studying out of curiosity?

thanks for the help, just need a few more details. thanks.

Lots of theories of the lost years of Jesus and some of them involve him having the name "Saint Issa" and some of them involve "The Essene Brotherhood" and the scrolls of Qumran. A good source is "The Other Bible" and the Gospel of Thomas and a lot of the Heretical scriptures and Gnostic ideals.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"

If the camel needs to pass through the eye of the needle, it must first unburden itself of the riches it has and pass. The rich man on the earth is burdened with riches. If you are born with them or you are burdened with the idea of them, you do not know what it is to be unburdened.

A camel unburdened can pass through the eye. A rich man often cannot choose to be unburdened of their riches ever. We become dependent on the comfort and solace and addiction and security of material wealth and don't reach toward the spiritual practice of good works or aiding others in need. Who would do that? Really give that away and trust that the love of money is evil? That to love your fellow man is the greatest gift you can give yourself. That's what Jesus's life became about. Trust that each day will give you what you need to help others and do what you can in each moment to fulfil that. Very few people unburden themselves of riches. That's what the parable means, and unless you can unburden yourself of the love of money, you can't know what it means at all and you can't enter into heaven on earth.

The Church after Jesus created Heaven after life, but Jesus was discussing, I believe, Heaven and Salvation on earth. Something you give to yourself. Something you unburden from yourself. He spoke of not believing the priests, they were corrupt. He was rejecting that they knew the answers.

"Consider the lilies of the field, they do not toil, nor do they spin." There is another one. We toil, we spin, and we all seek value in ourselves and in the sight of others. How many people think we're lilies, that we're worth the love of Heaven and Salvation just because we're on earth? He wanted to dismiss the idea that we needed to find value in each other through our toil and spinning. We were valuable because we were here. "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

These are parables that are simple, but the practice, the idea of fasting and unburdening, have to do with spiritual principles that have more in common with Zen practice than modern Christianity, so the idea that Jesus traveled to the East and picked up some tips really isn't that crazy.

 

[CopyCarver]

Originally Posted by sweetnpetite
Well, that's just mean.

However, I don't feel bad for Roberton either. Nor do I particularly feel that he is devout. I do think that he is a... what is the word I'm looking for? conman? false proffit? getting closer, somebody help me out.

I mean- give me a break. He's so devout that he thinks that fellow christians who aren't in his denomination are the (spirit of the) Anticrist?


Con man, false prophet, and charlatan are all perfectly applicable. I'd suggest "money changer" (as in the dudes that Jesus drove out of the temple with a whip) except for the fact that that Robertson and many of his televangelist cronies don't really change money--they shove it in their own Swiss bank accounts.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by sweetnpetite
Well, that's just mean.

However, I don't feel bad for Roberton either. Nor do I particularly feel that he is devout. I do think that he is a... what is the word I'm looking for? conman? false proffit? getting closer, somebody help me out.

I mean- give me a break. He's so devout that he thinks that fellow christians who aren't in his denomination are the (spirit of the) Anticrist?


Con man, false prophet, and charlatan are all perfectly applicable. I'd suggest "money changer" (as in the dudes that Jesus drove out of the temple with a whip) except for the fact that that Robertson and many of his televangelist cronies don't really change money--they shove it in their own Swiss bank accounts.

To make it worse, they probably get themselves classified as churches, or the equivalent, and don't pay income taxes on their wealth.