This is vile and unspeakable and the least Christian attitude and sentiment someone could express, how is such an individual put on television as a 'preacher'. This is entirely against the teachings of compassion and helping one another that Christ taught.
I am not a Christian, but I ask those who are, is this man not an affront to what the bible teaches? He certainly is from how I read it.
This is vile and unspeakable and the least Christian attitude and sentiment someone could express, how is such an individual put on television as a 'preacher'. This is entirely against the teachings of compassion and helping one another that Christ taught.
I am not a Christian, but I ask those who are, is this man not an affront to what the bible teaches? He certainly is from how I read it.
Evidently someone spiked his coffee with some of my dog TBone's anti-seizure meds. I saw that and went "ok the old boy has Alzheimers or a brain tumor or something."
We had this her when the floods happened and a bishop came out as saying god was punishing the UK because of gays, the main problem with his 'theory' was that Brighton was left unscaved. Why are these people Christian if they don't believe in the compasion and caring taught by Jesus.
Yeah, I posted this in the Haiti earthquake thread allready, but anyway, it's coming from Pat Robertson. So why does anyone really care? It's just as valid as if it were coming from Jesse Jackson or any other media whore.
I mean what's offensive about it to me is not the words themselves but the very fact that people like him think that they know for a fact this is some kind of curse from God. When no one can really know this. Not to mention the fact that many people in Haiti are Christians themselves, therefore breaking any possible generational curse that a so called devil pact may have generated.
PACT WITH GAIA
454 Comments | Permalink Tim Blair Blog
Tim Blair
Friday, January 15, 2010 at 04:59am
Actor Danny Glover believes that the Haitian earthquake was caused by climate change and global warming:
Says Glover: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?” His obscene opinion would be bigger news if Glover had – in the manner of others – idiotically blamed a less-fashionable deity.
Why don't other Christians band together to get people like this out of the limelight and try to put some genuine Christian values in the 'Christian' media?
Re Danny Glover: I've always considered B grade actors to my first point of call for important scientific matters. Maybe you could make him president or something. It's clear to me he knows what he's talking about. Does Sean Penn has an opinion on the subject? That's when I'll know the science is settled.
I'm amazed that man doesn't get physically assaulted more often. Hopefully Pat Robertson and Glenn Becks limos are both in the same deadly accident soon.
Actor Danny Glover believes that the Haitian earthquake was caused by climate change and global warming:
Says Glover: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?” His obscene opinion would be bigger news if Glover had – in the manner of others – idiotically blamed a less-fashionable deity.
Well the release of carbon sequestered in the ocean and the redistribution of mass from melting ice could have some geological consequences, but earthquakes are fairly common in the ring of fire so lets chalk this up to glover being an insensitive prick.
Because we have something called freedom of speech. If both Robertson and Glover want to espouse their uber loontown rantings, thats their call. Just like its our right to point at them and laugh.
Frazzled wrote:Because we have something called freedom of speech. If both Robertson and Glover want to espouse their uber loontown rantings, thats their call. Just like its our right to point at them and laugh.
Freedom of speech and the economic viability of giving an insane, racist, extremist a forum consistently on major news networks are two different things. There's something wrong when it makes them more money than they lose when they interview him every few weeks.
Frazzled wrote:Because we have something called freedom of speech. If both Robertson and Glover want to espouse their uber loontown rantings, thats their call. Just like its our right to point at them and laugh.
Freedom of speech and the economic viability of giving an insane, racist, extremist a forum consistently on major news networks are two different things. There's something wrong when it makes them more money than they lose when they interview him every few weeks.
Yep of course you can say the same about most media sensations. Of course we have no knowledge of the blowback this is causing to any of them.
mattyrm wrote:Pat Robertson is a thunderc*nt of monumental proportions.
Thats such an insult, to thunder s everywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PR statement:
Statement Regarding Pat Robertson's Comments on Haiti
CBN.com – VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 13, 2010 --On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.
Frazzled wrote:Because we have something called freedom of speech. If both Robertson and Glover want to espouse their uber loontown rantings, thats their call. Just like its our right to point at them and laugh.
You don't have to shut him up you just need to steal his airtime, schedule someone else into his slot. There's a connection between arseholes like this spouting and mainstream Christian viewpoints being sidelined.
Christians are not a monolith. We have lots of viewpoints. The best one is the easiest one. Do unto others before they do unto you. Oh wait, thats not right...
Factious doesn't begin to cover it. Aside from agreeing that the guy's name was Jesus Christ and that he had something to do with god that's about it. Some segments agree with one another more than others but lumping Christians into one giant group makes about as much sense as trying to divide the political opinions of an entire country into two groups.
You know what looks good? Your land. *begin war of conquest*
Secular beliefs and needs have been responsible for the vast majority of wars in history. Land has killed more people than religion ever could.
OOO DEAR GOD THE WORLD HAS ENDED.. I for once agree with shuma, and leave religon out of this please. I understand where your comming from but attack the reason for the post, not faith as a whole.
ShumaGorath wrote:
You know what looks good? Your land. *begin war of conquest*
Secular beliefs and needs have been responsible for the vast majority of wars in history. Land has killed more people than religion ever could.
At least those wars are over something material.
Not really. The concept of land ownership and national borders are at best ethereal concepts creating differentiation where none materially exists. A lot like religion actually.
Material beliefs like manifest destiny? King and country? Our culture is superior to your culture? Freedom and democracy?
Wars are started for material resources, but people are convinced to fight on the basis of immaterial motivators. Religion is one of them, but anything similarly compulsive will have the same effect.
ShumaGorath wrote:Pretty good. Hopefully it'll become thick enough to choke them to death soon.
Look and learn, boys and girls. The true face of intolerance.
"Think like me or you need to die".
Intolerance is not inherently bad. You are intolerant of terrorists, I am intolerant of terrorists and idiotic self serving tools (and a fantastic range of other things. I am a fething hateful person).
Bah, NO was god's wrath, so was Aids,so was Hitler, according to those nuts. Worship at home, that's what me and my wife do. One of my big regrets is, besides being a bully in high school, I got caught up in christan rage and spending a few years running off and beating up wiccans. Even mentioning it makes me ashamed. I'm out.
sexiest_hero wrote:Bah, NO was god's wrath, so was Aids,so was Hitler, according to those nuts. Worship at home, that's what me and my wife do. One of my big regrets is, besides being a bully in high school, I got caught up in christan rage and spending a few years running off and beating up wiccans. Even mentioning it makes me ashamed. I'm out.
Wow so behaving like a neo nazi skin head is called "Christian Rage" now. That's hardly Christian behavior. So what you should do is call it ideological rage and not Christian rage because true Christian's don't go around in rages and beat up anybody. And before anyone starts bringing up crusades, segregation and so forth, just remember that many people claim Christianity that aren't.
GG
edit..and by the way... Pat Robertson doesn't represent my Christian beliefs when he makes ignorant comments like these. I find it shamefull in fact.
sexiest_hero wrote:Bah, NO was god's wrath, so was Aids,so was Hitler, according to those nuts. Worship at home, that's what me and my wife do. One of my big regrets is, besides being a bully in high school, I got caught up in christan rage and spending a few years running off and beating up wiccans. Even mentioning it makes me ashamed. I'm out.
Wow so behaving like a neo nazi skin head is called "Christian Rage" now. That's hardly Christian behavior. So what you should do is call it ideological rage and not Christian rage because true Christian's don't go around in rages and beat up anybody. And before anyone starts bringing up crusades, segregation and so forth, just remember that many people claim Christianity that aren't.
GG
edit..and by the way... Pat Robertson doesn't represent my Christian beliefs when he makes ignorant comments like these. I find it shamefull in fact.
Way to restate exactly what sexiest_hero said, just with personal attacks mixed in. Kudos.
As for Pat Robertson, hell, he is not as bad as Rush Limbaugh.
sexiest_hero wrote:Bah, NO was god's wrath, so was Aids,so was Hitler, according to those nuts. Worship at home, that's what me and my wife do. One of my big regrets is, besides being a bully in high school, I got caught up in christan rage and spending a few years running off and beating up wiccans. Even mentioning it makes me ashamed. I'm out.
Wow so behaving like a neo nazi skin head is called "Christian Rage" now. That's hardly Christian behavior. So what you should do is call it ideological rage and not Christian rage because true Christian's don't go around in rages and beat up anybody. And before anyone starts bringing up crusades, segregation and so forth, just remember that many people claim Christianity that aren't.
GG
edit..and by the way... Pat Robertson doesn't represent my Christian beliefs when he makes ignorant comments like these. I find it shamefull in fact.
Way to restate exactly what sexiest_hero said, just with personal attacks mixed in. Kudos.
As for Pat Robertson, hell, he is not as bad as Rush Limbaugh.
Are you reading a different post somewhere in bizarro world? What I posted is nothing like what that guy did and no personal attacks.
Altered_Soul wrote:As for Pat Robertson, hell, he is not as bad as Rush Limbaugh.
No, he is worse. At least Rush Limbaugh is entertaining...and the man enjoys cigars...
I meant regarding Haiti, look up Limbaughs comments. Not entertaining in the least.
generalgrog wrote:Are you reading a different post somewhere in bizarro world? What I posted is nothing like what that guy did and no personal attacks.
GG
I beg of you, try reading S_Hs post again and then read yours. He is mentioning about how is blindness under a "Christian" cause led him to things he doesn't believe is "Christian". Then you singled him out for expressing how Christians aren't all bloodsucking aholes, while saying that Christians aren't all bloodsucking aholes. Seems pretty similar to me.
Listen, i dont want to start a flamewar about Religion, heck, after talking to such pleasent subtle cultured believers like JEB here, i dont have any real issues with religious people other than Creationists (think of the childrens minds!) and Islamonazi's but come on GG, you cant use the old "No true Scotsman" Argument.
If the Crusaders werent "real" Christians, then what were they? Muslims?
mattyrm wrote:If the Crusaders werent "real" Christians, then what were they? Muslims?
From what I have learned recently, glowing red things meant to be stabbed in the face with a hidden blade. Easily avoided by sitting on a bench and looking emo.
I think the Crusades happened because no one could agree how to pronounce Acre.
generalgrog wrote: So what you should do is call it ideological rage and not Christian rage because true Christian's don't go around in rages and beat up anybody. And before anyone starts bringing up crusades, segregation and so forth, just remember that many people claim Christianity that aren't..
Altered_Soul wrote:I beg of you, try reading S_Hs post again and then read yours. He is mentioning about how is blindness under a "Christian" cause led him to things he doesn't believe is "Christian". Then you singled him out for expressing how Christians aren't all bloodsucking aholes, while saying that Christians aren't all bloodsucking aholes. Seems pretty similar to me.
No he called what he did "Christian rage", and I know he said that he realized that he was wrong when he did those things, and I also know what he was trying to say.
The point I was making, that you missed, was that to call that "Christian rage" is incorrect since it wasn't a Christian thing to do. Much like the skin heads do when they talk about "Christian Identity" to justify their racial superiority. It is not a Christian viewpoint, so therefore it isn't Christian.
I was simply educating, not intending to offend anyone.
generalgrog wrote:No he called what he did "Christian rage", and I know he said that he realized that he was wrong when he did those things, and I also know what he was trying to say.
The point I was making, that you missed, was that to call that "Christian rage" is incorrect since it wasn't a Christian thing to do. Much like the skin heads do when they talk about "Christian Identity" to justify their racial superiority. It is not a Christian viewpoint, so therefore it isn't Christian.
I was simply educating, not intending to offend anyone.
GG
Except you are stereotyping all Christians, and Christian beliefs, as non-violent. Which ironically missed the point entirely. Hence why people are picking on your comment.
mattyrm wrote:Listen, i dont want to start a flamewar about Religion, heck, after talking to such pleasent subtle cultured believers like JEB here, i dont have any real issues with religious people other than Creationists (think of the childrens minds!) and Islamonazi's but come on GG, you cant use the old "No true Scotsman" Argument.
If the Crusaders werent "real" Christians, then what were they? Muslims?
See... the thing you are missing is just because someone raises there hand and says "Hey look at me I'm a Christian" doesn't mean they really are one. They may be classified that way through some sort of census or some such thing. But Christianity is a heart and soul thing not a "lip service" thing.
Jesus talks about this sort of thing all the time in the gospels about hypocrites and wolves in sheeps clothing.
See... the thing you are missing is just because someone raises there hand and says "Hey look at me I'm a Christian" doesn't mean they really are one.
Given that it's a broad terminology used to explain those who believe in the christ and at least portions of christian ideology it's rather difficult for me to understand the concept of "true believers". There are bad christians, just as good ones, being poor at following the tenets of a faith doesn't preclude you from it unless thats a basic tenet of the religion itself. Which in christianity it most certainly is not.
Listen, i dont want to start a flamewar about Religion
Keep in mind, if you had good points to make it wouldn't be a flame war. Believing that your own opinions will start one means this is either an incredibly polar community or your opinions are at times incredibly derisive (in actuality it's the second one).
generalgrog wrote:See... the thing you are missing is just because someone raises there hand and says "Hey look at me I'm a Christian" doesn't mean they really are one. They may be classified that way through some sort of census or some such thing. But Christianity is a heart and soul thing not a "lip service" thing.
Jesus talks about this sort of thing all the time in the gospels about hypocrites and wolves in sheeps clothing.
GG
Ok, we are done here, moving on. Clearly you can't see through the mist of your own conviction. No True Scotsman indeed.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Keep in mind, if you had good points to make it wouldn't be a flame war. Believing that your own opinions will start one means this is either an incredibly polar community or your opinions are at times incredibly derisive (in actuality it's the second one).
Totally agree with this, as long the proponents are respectful then heated debate is just fine and can be quite beneficial.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Altered_Soul wrote:Except you are stereotyping all Christians, and Christian beliefs, as non-violent. Which ironically missed the point entirely. Hence why people are picking on your comment.
OK trying this again.
What I was trying to do was illustrate (and apparantly doing a very poor job of it) that someone performing an ideological hate crime in the name of Christianity is not Christianity. Christians do fall into sin, of course we all know this. But to use Christianity to justify an ideology much like Al queda and the Taliban use Islam to justify their ideology is not what Christianity is about.
For example the neo nazi skin heads believe themselves to be Christians through their cult called "Identity" these cultic teachings, teach that the white race is superior and therefore justifies their hate and rage as "protecting the white race". If you think you that havng a "boot party" on some defenseless Jew or immigrant is somehow Christianity then I suggest you read the four gospels of the Bible to educate yourself.
What I was trying to do was illustrate (and apparantly doing a very poor job of it) that someone performing an ideological hate crime in the name of Christianity is not Christianity.
Christianity is just a collection of people. A religion can be viewed by the aggregate actions of it's practitioners because it can't be rated on it's own merits. Those methods are ethereal and only exist because of their practitioners. During the time of the crusades the christian religion was a violent and repressive one.
Said Gibbs when asked about the comments, “it never ceases to amaze that in times of amazing human suffering somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid. But it like clockwork happens with some regularity.”
On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh was asked by a caller about the president urging Americans to go to Whitehouse.gov to contribute to the Red Cross to help Haitians.
“Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?” Limbaugh said. “Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes?”
isthatmycow wrote:so you use the minority extremists to say, well all religion is bad, so i are atheist nows.
that is a bit of bs.
Pretty standard, really. Extreme black and white views are much easier to hold for people that don't actually think about what they believe. When you're sitting around a basement with your friends it's much easier to say "religion are bad" than "boy, some members of that faith sure act like tools."
It's why we should judge all Christians on Pat Robertson's comments, all Muslims on Osama Bin Laden's actions, and all black people on Idi Amin's.
Shadowbrand wrote:Yea, yea I make fun of religon now im a infidel.
I get it.
See.... the problem here is twofold.
First you take a cult (Westboro Baptist Church is a cult) and equate them to Christianity. This is similar to why I was pointing out the "Christian rage" error. If people like me don't say anything than uninformed people like Shadowbrand get all confused and think cults and such are Christian organizations.
Second. YOU didn't make fun of religion, George Carlin did. The only thing you did, was copy paste something he said, because you have no originality.
For the record,not all Skinheads are racist neo nazis,and most of the ones who are racist arn't part of the "Christian Identity church",the majority of "nazi skinheads" claim to be "Odinist" or some variation of "warrior religion".
Anyway,to get back on topic,IIRC Robertson spouted this same sort of nonsense back in 2004 when the "Indian ocean" Tsunami killed a qaurter of a million people.
I'm not "Christian bashing",but I can not understand why this man is still allowed to have an open forerum to express his twisted ideas.
I'm all for freedom of speach,but this sort of "speach" shouldn't have a billion dollar bankroll & telivision networks backing it up.
generalgrog wrote:Fitzz I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
As far as Robertson he is the head of CBN, I think, so he's there until he dies as far as I know.
GG
Yeah,I see your point,but would it not ultimantly benifit Christians like yourself to publicly denounce a man such as him?
Most people who "have problems" with Christians honestly have problems with people like Robertson..not with Christians in general,and it would seem that Christians such as yourself would wish to put distance between yourself and the likes of Robertson.
I think pretty much everyone has publicly denounced what Robertson said. I'm agnostic, but I don't know of any Christians who have said "You know who I think makes a lot of sense? Pat Robertson."
He takes a beating in the public arena, and other Christians shake their heads in embarrassment.
Shadowbrand wrote:Yea, yea I make fun of religon now im a infidel.
I get it.
i'm saying you are judging entire religoins and peoples on their stereotypes. You use those stereotypes to make your judgemnet on religions, so you asy, oh well west boro church is this and this, so all christians are bad, like saying becasue 9/11 was caused by terrorists who are muslim, so then therefore all muslims are terrorist. Its slowed thinking
True,Not a single christian I know (and I do know a few) have said "Gee...that Pat Robertson sure knows what he's talking about.",and as I said I'm certianly not trying to bash Christians.
However,this man is a disgrace and should have his "soap box" yanked out from under him.
Surely CBN has to rely on some advertising dollars?
FITZZ wrote: True,Not a single christian I know (and I do know a few) have said "Gee...that Pat Robertson sure knows what he's talking about.",and as I said I'm certianly not trying to bash Christians.
However,this man is a disgrace and should have his "soap box" yanked out from under him.
Surely CBN has to rely on some advertising dollars?
I imagine that a lot of what they rely on is donations from viewers.
It's just a sad fact that if you own a broadcasting network you can pretty much say whatever you want. Or in the case of Fox News and MSNBC, your proxies can say whatever you tell them they are allowed to say.
I think it is time for someone to smuther grandpa with a pillow because he is starting to spout out crazy talk. On second thought, he needs to live since his rantings are becoming comedic gold. Just watch the video. That women is hang off his even word. Stupis !
Listening to the audio he sounds like a drunk Bill Clinton trying to pick up an overweight intern. I can just see him there at a bar, cigarrette in one hand, whiskey in the other with the old testiment resting up his right hand all the while trying to crack those panties.
He is scum just like most of those tv preachers. Just praying on the stupid and the elderly who are trying to cram for the final exam. "If you do not send all you social security to me you are a sinner!"
I really don't care about what he says. Let him. Let Pat Robertson, Keith Olbermann, Al Sharpton, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore all say whatever they want. That's what freedom of speech is.
We don't have to agree, or even watch. It's better to keep our maniacs right out in the open where we can keep an eye on them.
Deff Dread red Edition wrote:As mum always says, God needs more fruits of the spirit and less religious nuts.
Quoted for fething truth! sounds like your mum is a wise lady.
Please, please, please dakka! Don't think that all christians are like this robertson guy! For that matter please don't lump us in with any televagelist.
Yeah cant we get off slating Religion on the macro level? I mean, not all Christians are bad, gak, even most arent. The issue here is that Pat Robertson is an absolute [Mod Edit - DO NOT try to get around the swearfilter]. Its nothing to do with the whole broadbrush thing as Ive not once seen another Christian ever come up to me and say "Pat Robertson is awesome!" They all think he is a tool as well. ;D
mattyrm wrote:Yeah cant we get off slating Religion on the macro level? I mean, not all Christians are bad, gak, even most arent. The issue here is that Pat Robertson is an absolute [deleted]. Its nothing to do with the whole broadbrush thing as Ive not once seen another Christian ever come up to me and say "Pat Robertson is awesome!" They all think he is a tool as well. ;D
Well,their are obviously some (Christians) that agree with him and are keeping him(and all the other televagelist) in business,however I do agree that one shouldn't label all Christians intolerant fethheads simply based on Robertsons statements.
The Green Git wrote:So... how do you guys know that Haiti DIDN'T make a pact with the Debbul?
<ducking and running>
Becuase the pacts I've made with the Devil have yielded no neggative results....oops,wait...I forgot about that whole Hurricane Katrina episode..nevermind.
garret wrote:although i do have to admit some of the stories in the show were heart warming. without him it probably would be a greater show.
Call me cynical,but most of the "heart warming" momments in these types of broadcast are desighned to get the viewer to "dig deep" into their souls (and pockets) to keep the show and indeed the agenda rolling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, bear in mind that the KKK was a christian sect, and most people do NOT judge the entirety of christianity's actions on them.
Goliath wrote:
Also, bear in mind that the KKK was a christian sect, and most people do NOT judge the entirety of christianity's actions on them.
Again... like neo nazi skin heads. The KKK was not, nor ever has been a Christian sect. Do I really need to go over this again?
Christians don't go around lynching people because of their skin color. The KKK was and is an ideological organization, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
Yet you keep dodging mine.
Lol I think that's called ignoring.
So you admit to picking and choosing easy targets for response because you don't have a sound foundation for or understand of your beliefs. Good to know.
Norwulf wrote:Not at all. I'm just teasing you because GG didn't respond to your post is all lol. It has nothing to do with my beliefs, just havin a laugh man.
Oh, my bad, I didn't make the separation between you and GG at all. I thought you were he. Not sure how that happened, I guess I just sort of blanked. I apologize.
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
Yet you keep dodging mine.
Hmmmm I scrolled back through the entire thread....I'm not sure what your on about. If you have a particular point you would like me to adress please repeat. :-)
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
Yet you keep dodging mine.
Hmmmm I scrolled back through the entire thread....I'm not sure what your on about. If you have a particular point you would like me to adress please repeat. :-)
GG
I was arguing against the concept of violent action denying the status of "christian", i posted a few times about it, but it was seemingly glazed over. Don't be insulted by my last post, that was a total mistake, I had read a post by norwulf thinking it was you which led me to take what he said totally wrong.
generalgrog wrote:
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
So, basically, if you fail to do something (say, turn the other cheek) that Christianity dictates you cease to be a Christian.
There must not be very many Christians in the world.
General Grog, there was a point made two pages back which you didn't seem to quite get. Allow me to try and render it a bit more understandable (no sarcasm intended).
You say that people like this guy are not really christians because they are doing unchristian things. Therefore even if they say they are christians, like the KKK, they are not because they are doing things that you believe are fundamentally at odds with what it means to be christian.
However, these people believe they are christian. In fact, it's all too possible that they believe YOU are not a real christian, because they think what you believe is fundamentally at odds with what they would call a christian.
So now we have an impasse. Both sides believe the other is not a christian and that they are. Both can point to appropriate tracts of the bible advocating either peace or the killing of gay people. As a very conflicting book, either side can pull anything out of there to support themselves. Not only that, but they can pull out a quote to show the other side is fundamentally unchristian. Does this mean neither side is christian? No, because both sides believe and proclaim themselves to be the real christians.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on, sees two guys with different viewpoints announcing completely different things, and condemning the other. However, the one thing both sides agree on is that they personally are christian. So the rest of the world goes, 'ah, so they're both christians', and then proceeds to make smarmy comments about Christianity in general which will encompass the views of both self-proclaimed christians. For the non-believer, it is impossible to separate one from the other, as what it is to be christian is completely subjective by this stage of the game.
generalgrog wrote:
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
So, basically, if you fail to do something (say, turn the other cheek) that Christianity dictates you cease to be a Christian.
There must not be very many Christians in the world.
Wow.... so "Lets lynch the Negro....get em boys!!" is equivalent to not turning the other cheek in your eyes?
generalgrog wrote:
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
So, basically, if you fail to do something (say, turn the other cheek) that Christianity dictates you cease to be a Christian.
There must not be very many Christians in the world.
Wow.... so "Lets lynch the Negro....get em boys!!" is equivalent to not turning the other cheek in your eyes?
GG
Well I don't think anyone would claim those two situations are equivelent,but when your "on the outside looking in" things do look a bit odd.
KKK-" We are Christians and we can use the bible to prove we are better than other races."
Robertson & supporters-"We are Christian and we can use the bible to prove god pulverized Hatti for their sins"
GG " there not really Christians and I could use the bible to prove it."
For a person who isn't a Christian,this begins to look like no one in the "club" can agree on what the "club rules" are.
Ketara wrote:General Grog, there was a point made two pages back which you didn't seem to quite get. Allow me to try and render it a bit more understandable (no sarcasm intended).
You say that people like this guy are not really christians because they are doing unchristian things. Therefore even if they say they are christians, like the KKK, they are not because they are doing things that you believe are fundamentally at odds with what it means to be christian.
However, these people believe they are christian. In fact, it's all too possible that they believe YOU are not a real christian, because they think what you believe is fundamentally at odds with what they would call a christian.
So now we have an impasse. Both sides believe the other is not a christian and that they are. Both can point to appropriate tracts of the bible advocating either peace or the killing of gay people. As a very conflicting book, either side can pull anything out of there to support themselves. Not only that, but they can pull out a quote to show the other side is fundamentally unchristian. Does this mean neither side is christian? No, because both sides believe and proclaim themselves to be the real christians.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on, sees two guys with different viewpoints announcing completely different things, and condemning the other. However, the one thing both sides agree on is that they personally are christian. So the rest of the world goes, 'ah, so they're both christians', and then proceeds to make smarmy comments about Christianity in general which will encompass the views of both self-proclaimed christians. For the non-believer, it is impossible to separate one from the other, as what it is to be christian is completely subjective by this stage of the game.
Did that help at all?
Very nice post Ketara. Although I see what you are saying and it seems similar to what Shuma and Mattyrm were trying to say earlier. I thought I had answered that. I will answer your specific point in hopes that answers Shumas question as well.
I agree with the principle that people believe different things and may both call themselves Christian. However as a Christian myself that studies the Bible regularly, although I wouldn't call myself a scholar. There is a principle of bible study called exegesis whereby you study the Bible and let the Bible interpret itself. When you follow these principles you develop a set of doctrines(teachings/beliefs) that has come to be called orthodox Christianity. For example someone who claims to be Christian cannot also claim that they worship Baal for example. This would immediately classify them as an Idol worshiper, and therefore outside of the vale of orthodox Christianity. In the same manner you have all kinds of cults that have sprang up in the 2,000 years since Christ. You also have ideological organizations like the KKK and others that distort the orthodox doctrines of Christianity to their own ends and try to put on the clothing of Christianity. These are classified as "wolves in sheeps clothing".
Christians do fall, into sin but they do so as mistakes, that's why its' called falling. Christians do not make detailed plans on how to sin and how they are going to do all kinds of terrible things. For example Adolf Hitler was a professed Catholic. Would anyone in their right mind really believe Adolf Hitler was a Christian, Just because he said he was? Of course not, he was a fasle professor. Jesus talked a lot in the Gospels about these people, these weeds that grow up amidst the wheat. The wheat representing Christians and the weeds representing hypocrites.
Indeed I think the same principle of false profession can be applied to other institutions outside of the Church. For example, someone may join a hippy protest group to try to get to know more girls, without really ever believing in their heart in the mission of the group they joined.
Now, onto Christians expressing different viewpoints. It is of course possible for Christians to disageree over certain doctrines. This is why we have Roman Catholic, Baptist, Pentacostal, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox to name but a few. Even in those denominations there are sects that disagree, like Southern Baptist, Northern Baptist, FreeWill Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Liberal Baptist, etc. The thing is, most of these organisations while disagreeing over minor things they all agree on the main things that make up Christian Orthodoxy, such as The Virgin Birth of Christ, Resurection of Christ, Christ's atonement on the Cross, etc. None of these orthodox Christian denomination's would consider the KKK a Christian organization.
I hope that explains where I'm coming from adequately.
GG
edit..also I never said Pat Robertson wasn't a Christian.(He may or may not be) However, I am deeply offended by some of the shameful things he has said over the years.
generalgrog wrote:
Goliaths post only goes to reinforce the reason why I have been so vehement in trying to pioint out that people that claim Christianity aren't always Christian.
So, basically, if you fail to do something (say, turn the other cheek) that Christianity dictates you cease to be a Christian.
There must not be very many Christians in the world.
Wow.... so "Lets lynch the Negro....get em boys!!" is equivalent to not turning the other cheek in your eyes?
GG
Well I don't think anyone would claim those two situations are equivelent,but when your "on the outside looking in" things do look a bit odd.
KKK-" We are Christians and we can use the bible to prove we are better than other races."
Robertson & supporters-"We are Christian and we can use the bible to prove god pulverized Hatti for their sins"
GG " there not really Christians and I could use the bible to prove it."
For a person who isn't a Christian,this begins to look like no one in the "club" can agree on what the "club rules" are.
Well my only suggestion would be to have you read the Bible for yourself and develop your own opinion on the matter. :-)
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:These threads have no purpose but to QQ about ignorant, slowed bastards being what they are: a DUMBASS.
My blood pressure raises just a bit more when I see these.
generalgrog wrote:
Wow.... so "Lets lynch the Negro....get em boys!!" is equivalent to not turning the other cheek in your eyes?
GG
I normally enjoy good dissembling, but this certainly isn't an example of it.
If you really think the point of my post was the comparison of lynching and general conflict (even though one is a form of the other), then there really is no point in me going further in this argument. You won't be able to understand it because you'll allow yourself to be come too caught up in your defense of the Christian church.
In any case, I'll give it one more shot, for the fun of it.
The KKK is not a Christian organization. However, it is populated by a significant number of Christians. The Bible, and Christian teaching in general, does not forbid the use of force. What's more; disqualifying people from Christianity for violating your understanding of its teachings is a very poor way to defend your faith. Really, you should just admit that there are reprehensible Christians just as there are reprehensible Muslims, Jews, and Hindus.
Yeah GG, you seem like a nice fella mate, im sure your hearts in the right place, but you really are onto a loser if you think that you can back up your statement here. Your idea of Christianity is in the majority, you know, nice peaceful do unto others Christianity and all that, but still, there are extremeists in all Religions, but by definition, they ARE Christians!
Bin Laden IS a Muslim right? Lots of Muslims say he isnt a "true" Muslim, but its the same thing.
It sucks for decent guys like you if you feel you are being tarred with the same brush.. but thats the way it goes. Im sure we all kinda feel the same when people say bad things about English/American people for the actions of a few.
garret wrote:wow. i watched the 700 club before. like 5 times. i never knew they were this crazy. i am never watching this again.
Outstanding! now if only a few million more of his viewers would follow your example.
You can find a few million people to watch any kind of drivel though. How else would American Idol be so popular?
I'm also of the opinion that Pat Robertson isn't a completely evil guy, he just says stupid things. Let's not forget that as he was making this statement that he was raising money on his show to aid the people of Haiti.
Edit:
On the subject of "true Christians:" In Protestant theology, the only real qualification for being a Christian is believing that Jesus is your savior. The idea is that once you decide on this that you will attempt to emulate his example, i.e. doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and loving your neighbor as you love yourself, and not judging people because everyone sins and no one is better than anyone else. It's why these splinter groups like Westboro Baptist get so much press, because they're such an aberration. Catholic theology there's a few more hoops to jump through for salvation, but the basic tenets once you're in the club are more or less the same.
Generally, when you behave outside of these parameters you're not, according to the community at large, a very good Christian.
Since I'm apparantly doing a rather poor job of helping people see my position, I'll just let the words of Jesus speak for me.
Matthew chapter 7:15-23 (NIV)
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
The phrase "I never knew you" equates to being an unbeliever, because belief is a heart thing, not an intelectual assent to a fact.
So basically according to a few people on DAKKA
Adolf Hitler, unrepentent child molesting priests, white supremacists, Phony televangelists, Cult leaders like David Koresh, Jim Jones of Jones town fame and a slew of other people that have claimed themsleves to be Christian are indeed Christian just because they professed it, even though there lives didn't project Christianity, then you really are blind.
I'm really starting to wonder if some of you are just arguing for the fun of it now, since I find it hard to believe you can really believe some of the stuff you are saying. :-)
The bottom line.... you can believe that anyone that makes a profession of belief is a Christian if you want. The fact remains, that not all people that make such a declaration are for real. The Bible is full of warnings against false professions and I am well backed up by the Bible in making that statement.
Ketara wrote:General Grog, there was a point made two pages back which you didn't seem to quite get. Allow me to try and render it a bit more understandable (no sarcasm intended).
You say that people like this guy are not really christians because they are doing unchristian things. Therefore even if they say they are christians, like the KKK, they are not because they are doing things that you believe are fundamentally at odds with what it means to be christian.
However, these people believe they are christian. In fact, it's all too possible that they believe YOU are not a real christian, because they think what you believe is fundamentally at odds with what they would call a christian.
So now we have an impasse. Both sides believe the other is not a christian and that they are. Both can point to appropriate tracts of the bible advocating either peace or the killing of gay people. As a very conflicting book, either side can pull anything out of there to support themselves. Not only that, but they can pull out a quote to show the other side is fundamentally unchristian. Does this mean neither side is christian? No, because both sides believe and proclaim themselves to be the real christians.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks on, sees two guys with different viewpoints announcing completely different things, and condemning the other. However, the one thing both sides agree on is that they personally are christian. So the rest of the world goes, 'ah, so they're both christians', and then proceeds to make smarmy comments about Christianity in general which will encompass the views of both self-proclaimed christians. For the non-believer, it is impossible to separate one from the other, as what it is to be christian is completely subjective by this stage of the game.
Did that help at all?
Kind of like the holy wars between Protostents and Catholics, or between Muslim sects? If I understand you correctly, I think that's kind of the direction this point you brought up could take.
Da Boss wrote:GG do you feel the same way about muslims who act in ways that are not supported by their holy text?
I want to start by saying that I have some Muslim friends who are really beautifull people. And they themselves would say that Bin Laden and such were not "true" muslims and more of a cult of Islam. I don't know enough about it to say so.
I really don't know much at all about the Koran. What I have seen is that the Koran is much easier to come up with "wacky" interpretations that can be backed up by the Koran itself than the Bible. By that I mean that the Bible is written in such a way that when people try to take passages out of context you can usually find other passages that bring more light to help you find the true meaning. The Koran apparantly is much harder to do this, and leaves it open to more extremism.
The Bible itself has many 100's of thousands of manuscripts that make it relatively easy to narrow down the true intent by comparing them to each other and weeding out the descrepencies. While I think the Koran has very few different manuscripts, so it would be less of an easy task to "prove", using the Koran only, that extreme views on Jihad and the treatment of women for example are Koranically wrong.
Please keep in mind that my view is based on my limited understaning of the subject.
GG
This thread has gone from saying that Pat Robertson was out of line to you having to explain to these people why the KKK doesn't represent mainstream Christianity.
Either the people making these claims know that they're full of or they're too deluded to be convinced otherwise.
It was pointed out as an example of an extreme christian sect.
I know it's more fun to by hyper defensive and outraged but try reading what people write down in future.
GG understood that, he was putting forth his view that these people are not real christians. Others were then disagreeing with him for various reasons. I don't think anyone is being rude to GG.
I'm not going to bother digging up the quotes, but if you read through the thread you'll see my point.
And I'm not being hyper defensive. I just know a red herring when I see one and was simply pointing it out.
I'm agnostic, I don't care about people's opinion of Christianity in the slightest. I just like people to have their facts straight. I didn't say anyone was being rude, I said that they were busting balls. There's a big difference between those two statements and I stand by the one that I made.
Did you read page 3? As soon as Westboro Baptist is held up as why someone's opinion of Christianity is the way that it is all sense has left the conversation.
Also, on Page 4, GG directly responds to the idea that the KKK is a Christian Sect.
This thread has gone from saying that Pat Robertson was out of line to you having to explain to these people why the KKK doesn't represent mainstream Christianity.
Either the people making these claims know that they're full of or they're too deluded to be convinced otherwise.
This thread has gone from saying that Pat Robertson was out of line to you having to explain to these people why the KKK doesn't represent mainstream Christianity.
Either the people making these claims know that they're full of or they're too deluded to be convinced otherwise.
generalgrog wrote:
So basically according to a few people on DAKKA
Adolf Hitler, unrepentent child molesting priests, white supremacists, Phony televangelists, Cult leaders like David Koresh, Jim Jones of Jones town fame and a slew of other people that have claimed themsleves to be Christian are indeed Christian just because they professed it, even though there lives didn't project Christianity, then you really are blind.
You know, there is an ongoing debate about this sort of thing: orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. The question is unanswerable via logic, so at best your playing from a position of whim and emotion. Its a poor argument.
Regardless though, since none of you recognize accepted Nicene orthodoxy as the standard for what defines the realms of Christendom, you denied him one of the most valid arguments he could possibly have. Regardless of your feelings, it is the standard and measure of what defines our faith. But we have already had this discussion....
dogma wrote:Actually, it isn't regardless of feelings at all. The concept of denial in an argument of historicity is based upon feeling with respect to evidence.
Ok, so you ignore the history of the Church. The denial of Nicene orthodoxy as the standard, doesn't eliminate it as the standard. That is why they had the Ecumenical Councils in the first place. The leaders of the Church deemed it necessary to define the Doctrines and beliefs of Christianity. Ergo, those that fall outside of those bounds are not members of Christendom, but merely imitators. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking on your part IMHO. I say we stop this discussion, before we go on again for another 10 pages. You refuse to acknowledge orthodoxy as the standard, as you have stated previously, and in contrast, I disregard attempts to redefine Christendom from a secular point of view. This is not an argument you or I can win because this delves into the realm of the metaphysical. As a last note though I will say this: I do not presume that my exact interpretation of the Bible, and by extension the doctrines of Christianity, is the most complete Truth in existence. I fully regard it as only being completely understood by God and God alone. Many of us may be wrong on many points, but I take my beliefs on Faith. Faith supported by Scripture, logic and tradition. And since this deals with matters of specific faith and ideas, there will be no fruitful discussions between Believers and non-believers, so I suggest we lock this thread and move on.
No one should care what Christians think about their own categories.
To an extent I agree with dogma on this one. I certainly think that a 'sect' such as this to be christian is very much possible. They may not be a mainstream christian, but they're are still a christian of sorts.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
To believe otherwise is wishful thinking on your part IMHO.
Well, that sates my interest. None of the Christians here professed sympathies with the views of the televangelist.
I think perhaps the US would be better served if more Christians stood up as people of faith and spoke out against this individual, or perhaps more importantly complained to the broadcasters about him and his kind.
I often snarl about the Islamic people's unwillingness to publicly decry the 'mad mullahs' and hate-inciting 'men of Allah', I can see no reason to not ask the same of Christians for creatures like this one.
Whatever else we agree or do not on these boards, one thing is clear, the people of Haiti need help and kindness, not the ignorant hate of one man masquerading as a follower of Christ.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I often snarl about the Islamic people's unwillingness to publicly decry the 'mad mullahs' and hate-inciting 'men of Allah', I can see no reason to not ask the same of Christians for creatures like this one.
I'm sorry but comparing the "Mad Mullahs" who incite people to kill is hardly a good analogy to an old man who makes ignorant comments. If Pat Robertson started a 21st Century Crusade calling for the killing of all NonChrstians, you would see more people standing up against him. As it stands now he is looked at, as more of a joke than a serious problem.
).
s everywhere. 
