Bad Christians
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10531
Printed Date: July 09 2025 at 18:22 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Bad Christians
Posted By: marktheshark
Subject: Bad Christians
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 13:12
Interesting article here. Stuff like this makes me sick.
Robertson Calls for Chavez Assassination
Aug 23 12:21 PM US/Eastern
By SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press Writer
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va.
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
An official of a theological watchdog group on Tuesday criticized Robertson's statement as "chilling."
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
On Tuesday, critics objected to Robertson's statements.
"It's absolutely chilling to hear a religious leader call for the murder of any political leader, no matter how much he disagrees with such a leader's policies or practices," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
David Brock, president of Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, said the remarks should discredit Robertson as a spokesman for the religious right.
Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.
A Robertson spokeswoman, Angell Watts, said he would not do interviews Tuesday and had no statement elaborating on his remarks.
A call seeking comment from the U.S. State Department was not immediately returned Tuesday.
Chavez was believed to be in Cuba, but his whereabouts were unknown and no media access was announced.
In Caracas, pro-Chavez legislator Desire Santos Amaral accused Robertson of shedding his Christian values.
"This man cannot be a true Christian. He's a fascist," Santos said. "This is part of the policies of aggression from the right wing in the North against our revolution."
Santos said she thinks U.S.-Venezuelan relations could still improve but comments by "charlatans and fascists" like Robertson only get in the way.
Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.
Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.
Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
|
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 13:24
(No further comment necessary - Frank Zappa: Jesus Think's you're a Jerk from Broadway the Hard Way)
There's an ugly little wasel 'bout three-foot nine Face puffed up from cryin' 'n lyin' 'Cause her sweet little hubby's Suckin' prong part time (In the name of The Lord)
Get a clue, little shrew Oh yeah, oh yeah Jesus thinks you're a jerk
Did he really choose Tammy to do His Work? Robertson says that he's The One Oh sure he is, if Armageddon Is your idea of family fun, An' he's got some planned for you! (Now, tell me that ain't true)
Now, what if Jimbo's slightly gay, Will Pat let Jimbo get away? Everything we've heard him say Indicated that Jim must pay, (And it just might hurt a bit) But keep that money rollin' in, 'Cause Pat and naughty Jimbo Can't get enough of it
Perhaps it's their idea Of an Affirmative Action Plan To give White Trash a 'special break'; Well, they took those Jeezo-bucks and ran To the bank! To the bank! To the bank! To the bank! And every night we can hear them thank Their Buddy, up above For sending down his love (While you all smell the glove)
Jim and Pat should take a pole (Right up each saintly glory-hole), With tar and feathers too -- Just like they'd love to do to you
('Cause they think you are bad -- And they are very mad)
'Cause some folks don't want prayer in school!
(We'd need an ark to survive the drool Of Micro-publicans, raised on hate, And 'Jimbo-Jimbo' when they graduate)
Conviced they are 'The Chosen Ones' -- And all their parents carry guns, And hold them cards in the N.R.A. (With their fingers on the triggers When they kneel and pray)
With a Ku-Klux muu-muu In the back of the truck, If you ain't Born Again, They wanna mess you up, screamin': "No abortion, no-siree!" "Life's too precious, can't you see!" (What's that hangin' from the neighbor's tree? Why, it looks like 'colored folks' to me -- Would THEY do THAT...seriously?)
Imagine if you will A multi-millionaire Television Evangelist, Saved from Korean Combat duty by his father, a U.S. Senator
Studied Law -- But is not qualified to practice it
Father of a "love child" Who, in adulthood, hosts the remnants Of papa's religious propaganda program
Claims not to be a "Faith Healer", But has, in the past, Dealt stearnly with everything from hemorrhoids to hurricanes
Involved with funding for a 'secret war' in Central America Claiming Ronald Reagan and Oliver North as close friends
Involved in suspicous 'tax-avoidance schemes', (Under investigation for 16 months by the I.R.S.)
Claims to be a MAN OF GOD; Currenty seeking the United States Presidency, Hoping we will all follow him into -- The Twilight Zone
What if Pat gets in the White House, And suddenly -- The rights of 'certain people' disappear Mysteriously?
Now, wouldn't that sort of qualify As an American Tragedy? (Especially if he covers it up, sayin' "Jesus told it to me!")
I hope we never see that day, In The Land of The Free -- Or someday will we? Will we?
And if you don't know by now, The truth of what I'm tellin' you, Then, surely I have failed somehow --
And Jesus will think I'm a jerk, just like you -- If you let those TV Preachers Make a monkey out of you!
I said: "Jesus will think you're a jerk" And it will be true!
There's an old rugged cross In the land of cutton -- It's still burnin' on somebody's lawn And it still smells rotten
Jim and Tammy! Oh, baby! You gotta go! You really got to go!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Logos
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 13:37
marktheshark wrote:
"This man cannot be a true Christian. He's a fascist,"
Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
|
This pretty much sums it up.
Incredible. 
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 15:27
Robertson is such a dipsh*t, Christian Fundamentalists are so stupid.
|
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 15:31
ha ha Pat Robertson make me laugh 
-------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 15:31
that's a generalization, KOL. but that doesn't mean i don't agree with you.
i think robertson should meet his maker himself if he's so eager to send others to Him.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: spectral
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 16:18
The issue with all this is how different people are treated in different ways. Robertson can say all this stuff and get away with it scott free. If a Muslim said anything remotely similar, he would be banged up on incitement to hatred charges, or a similar offence. The inequity is astounding and worrying. The likes of Robertson and most of the Fox News anchors (like O'Reilly) should be locked up!
------------- "...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 16:47
stonebeard wrote:
that's a generalization, KOL. but that doesn't mean i don't agree with you.
i think robertson should meet his maker himself if he's so eager to send others to Him. |
I don't think even Robertson is a fundamentalist. I look at a Christian Fundamentalist as like the Amish people here in this country. Anybody who is Christian and has a quest for power like Falwell and Robertson are not funamentalists. This quest for power totally contradicts the Christian faith.
|
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 16:47
King of Loss wrote:
Robertson is such a dipsh*t, Christian Fundamentalists are so stupid. |
Why, thank you King of Loss, I pray that your life will be as good as mine. 
I'd like to point out that according to Christian prophecy, the church
(people who follow) of YHWH and Yahshua, or Jesus, will be the first to
be judged.
------------- Epic.
|
Posted By: spectral
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 17:05
JrKASperov wrote:
I'd like to point out that according to Christian prophecy, the church (people who follow) of YHWH and Yahshua, or Jesus, will be the first to be judged.
|
Is this a good or bad thing? educate me...
------------- "...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
|
Posted By: jitu
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 17:13
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 18:40
spectral wrote:
The issue with all this is how different people are treated in different ways. Robertson can say all this stuff and get away with it scott free. If a Muslim said anything remotely similar, he would be banged up on incitement to hatred charges, or a similar offence. The inequity is astounding and worrying. The likes of Robertson and most of the Fox News anchors (like O'Reilly) should be locked up! |
Lets S T R E T C H this out a bit. 
Such a thing as free speach (sort of) left in this country. So what he said it on his own show. What muslim has been prosecuted for speaking his mind? Do you have some proof? As for Robertson oh well, . All he really said is If the guy is saying that the US is trying to kill him maybe the government should. He didn't say he was going to do it. Whether or not you agree with that is one thing to prosecute him is something else. Do what most of us in America do. Don't pay any attention to him.
-------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 18:47
Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate

David Brock, president of Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, said the remarks should discredit Robertson as a spokesman for the religious right.
Glad to see someone with a Prog Rock background has something sensible to say on the matter
|
Posted By: spectral
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 18:52
Garion81 wrote:
spectral wrote:
The issue with all this is how different people are treated in different ways. Robertson can say all this stuff and get away with it scott free. If a Muslim said anything remotely similar, he would be banged up on incitement to hatred charges, or a similar offence. The inequity is astounding and worrying. The likes of Robertson and most of the Fox News anchors (like O'Reilly) should be locked up! |
Lets S T R E T C H this out a bit. 
Such a thing as free speach (sort of) left in this country. So what he said it on his own show. What muslim has been prosecuted for speaking his mind? Do you have some proof? As for Robertson oh well, . All he really said is If the guy is saying that the US is trying to kill him maybe the government should. He didn't say he was going to do it. Whether or not you agree with that is one thing to prosecute him is something else. Do what most of us in America do. Don't pay any attention to him.
|
In the UK there are laws/bills relating to incitement to hatred. if a muslim cleric had uttered words similar to those he would have been arrested. However, I bet someone similar to Robertson uttering those words in the UK, the police/authorities/govt would not even batter an eyelid.
You're right though, the likes of Robertson should be ignored entirely.
------------- "...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 20:06
Look, let's call a spade a spade. Robertson is not simply out of line, but he is suggesting a course of action that is 180 degrees from any reasonable understanding of Jesus' life and ministry. To his credit, Robertson has done a great deal of good over decades of time, though most of you probably don't know it, and would not accept it. However, he has been making these types of statements - irrational, and often extremely non-Christian - with increasing frequency, especially over the past couple of years or so. All this means is that even Christians are subject to the vagaries of age, and the often accompanying diminution of mental powers, whether as a result of dementia, Alzheimers or other disease or condition.
Clearly nothing excuses this type of comment. However, it would be equally inexcusable coming from a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist - or an atheist. In this regard - and because I believe, from watching him over the years, that he is in fact "showing his age" vis-a-vis his mental faculties - I really don't believe his faith or religion has anything to do with it. Thus, I find the "pot shots" being taken at Christians and Christianity in this particular thread to be inappropriate, offensive and opportunist.
Peace.
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 21:46
^ Very true. The only group Robertson represents is a small cabal of
greedy, media-hungry people with more similarity to suicide cult
leaders and talk show hosts than to anyone who truly follows Christian
teachings. Trying to get spirituality from his ilk is much like trying
to get news from the Limbaugh/ Coulter faction (or life advice from
Drs. Phil & Laura)...all exhibiting near-total perversion and
abuse, with just enough trappings to hook the unwary.
Boo!
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 22:03
James Lee wrote:
^ Very true. The only group Robertson represents is a small cabal of
greedy, media-hungry people with more similarity to suicide cult
leaders and talk show hosts than to anyone who truly follows Christian
teachings. Trying to get spirituality from his ilk is much like trying
to get news from the Limbaugh/ Coulter faction (or life advice from
Drs. Phil & Laura)...all exhibiting near-total perversion and
abuse, with just enough trappings to hook the unwary.
Boo!
|
You got a point James, but I look at people like Rush as more or less entertainers or commentaors and not really preachers. And I certainly don't look at them as journalists either. But the difference between people like them and Robertson and Falwell is that Robertson and his ilk uses a religious faith as a vehicle to push these kind of agendas. To me that's real abuse.
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 22:11
^ I'm simply saying that what Robertson is doing with spirituality is
what the others are doing with journalism, psychology, et cetera. All
of these fields require a certain standard to be taken seriously and
used to their fullest extent...whereas combining them with
entertainment for the purpose of money (or power) degrades the real
value of the respective fields for everyone. When that happens too
much, people lose faith- even in what may truly be worthwhile.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 22:32
i have no problem with Christianity. i'm Christian, though i rarely attend church. what i do have a problem with is people like pat robertson trying to make America a overtly Christian authoritarian state. i think this is incarnated in his recent campaign to get Judge Roberts,(whom i personally have no big problem with) electedto the Supreme Court by making is a vote for God vs. a vote for Godless heathens.and with every action by Evangelicals and fundamentalists to insert as many extremely religious and what i would fanatical Christians into seats of power to serve their own special interests, i believe these "devout" Christians are trying to appeal to good Christians through manipulation and devious methods.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: August 23 2005 at 22:38
James Lee wrote:
^ I'm simply saying that what Robertson is doing with spirituality is
what the others are doing with journalism, psychology, et cetera. All
of these fields require a certain standard to be taken seriously and
used to their fullest extent...whereas combining them with
entertainment for the purpose of money (or power) degrades the real
value of the respective fields for everyone. When that happens too
much, people lose faith- even in what may truly be worthwhile.
|
Well, I don't agree with everthing Rush says. I do listen to him sometimes, but in his defense he has never claimed to be a journalist. He's never taken a journalist class in his life and he doesn't want to be looked upon as one. Sure he's biased as hell and he admits it which is more than I can say about Dan Rather and some others. Now Coulter on the other hand is a different breed. She presents herself as a journalist and turns around to reveal one sided slant. But it goes both ways with other figures like Chris Matthews (a lefty I happened to like) as well. These days if you want "fair and balanced" you have to use that little button on your remote labeled "Channel" and bounce around from Fox to MSNBC to CNN.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 03:55
The only solution to world peace is eradication of all religions.
Marx once said religion was the opium of the masses, and this is so f***ing true!
Brainwashing diddleheads incapable to believe in what is real! Religion is a tool of power, a way of doing politics and is used to have the upper moral superiority of those believers! 
Chavez supporters have now the right to eradicate Robertson from this planet!
Dickheads such as all televangelists are using God and religion to make a fortune! nothing more than that: Give me your dough , and I'll buy you a place in heaven. 
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 05:49
May I chime in and comment that your beloved 'logic' and 'reason' is a belief in what is real too?
------------- Epic.
|
Posted By: spectral
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 05:54
JrKASperov wrote:
May I chime in and comment that your beloved 'logic' and 'reason' is a belief in what is real too?
|
you talk in riddles!
------------- "...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
|
Posted By: spectral
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 08:53
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 10:44
Sean:
I would like to respond to your comments:
"Marx once said religion was the opium of the masses, and this is so...true!"
Marx was also a hypocrite, in that he stole the basic precept of the communist politico-economic state from the New Testament. Marx 101: "From each according to his ability to give; to each according to his need." Compare that with the following statement from Acts 4:32-35: "now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common...Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."
It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to base one's philosophy on a stolen idea, and then call the system that created that idea "the opium of the masses."
"Brainwashing diddleheads incapable to believe in what is real! Religion is a tool of power, a way of doing politics and is used to have the upper moral superiority of those believers!"
As has been discussed in other threads, a belief in science and other "rational, empirical" things - i.e., "what is real" - and a belief in God and Christ are not mutually exclusive. Also, religion can be a "tool of power" and a "way of doing politics," but it is not always, nor need be. As for "moral superiority," I know plenty of atheists and agnostics (and peoples of faiths other than Christianity) who have better "moral groundings" than many Christians I know.
"Chavez supporters have now the right to eradicate Robertson from this planet!"
I am guessing this was said in jest. Because if not, it is as absurd and inappropriate as Robertson's original statement, and you are simply lowering yourself to his level.
"Dickheads such as all televangelists are using God and religion to make a fortune! nothing more than that: Give me your dough , and I'll buy you a place in heaven."
Again, a totally incorrect and unnecessarily denigrating and demeaning "broad-brush" statement. Not all televangelists are "using God and religion to make a fortune." There are many televangelists who do not even ask for money, either from their congregations (except at regular services during the offering) or from the "home audience." Indeed, many of today's televangelists are not (as in the 70s and 80s) running their own companies and thus truly "lining their pockets" a la Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, etc. Rather, they are ministers of specific churches who make use of the broadcast media to expand their reach. In these cases, the ministers earn salaries determined by the Board of Trustees of the specific church they are employed by, and are not permitted to accept anything other than their salary and, in some cases, "speaking fees" or honoraria for guest preaching in other places. The "offering" made at a church does not belong to the minister - indeed, he is not even permitted to "touch" it even in the literal sense - but to the church, and is handled entirely by others.
As for "give me your dough, and I'll buy you a place in heaven," this is patently absurd. The days of "buying absolution" via "indulgences" is long, long gone. Even the most sheep-like Christian knows this.
You have every right to your cynical, even mean-spirited view of religion. However, if you are going to make mean-spirited, broad-brush statements, at least get your facts right.
Peace.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 11:53
maani wrote:
Sean:
I would like to respond to your comments:
"Marx once said religion was the opium of the masses, and this is so...true!"
Marx was also a hypocrite, in that he stole the basic precept of the communist politico-economic state from the New Testament. Marx 101: "From each according to his ability to give; to each according to his need." Compare that with the following statement from Acts 4:32-35: "now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common...Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."
It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to base one's philosophy on a stolen idea, and then call the system that created that idea "the opium of the masses."
Again all of those religious principle of "living in peace together and treating your neighbour as your equal "existed long before monotheistic religions appeared on earth and are the basis of a society. They are not religious beliefs but simply common sense for a society to exist. Religions adapted it to fit their needs , apropriated them by saying that all that came before them was primary pagan beliefs -and burned you down if you dared say otherwise. The stolen idea thing, all religions practiced that long before Marx accomodated it to his philosophy.
"Brainwashing diddleheads incapable to believe in what is real! Religion is a tool of power, a way of doing politics and is used to have the upper moral superiority of those believers!"
As has been discussed in other threads, a belief in science and other "rational, empirical" things - i.e., "what is real" - and a belief in God and Christ are not mutually exclusive. Also, religion can be a "tool of power" and a "way of doing politics," but it is not always, nor need be. As for "moral superiority," I know plenty of atheists and agnostics (and peoples of faiths other than Christianity) who have better "moral groundings" than many Christians I know.
Atheist do have a better right to be moral grounds (or reference as I understand you meant this) than religious , since they know better not to be believe into an un-natural and hypothetical supreme being. Sorry , but you set yourself up for that one!
"Chavez supporters have now the right to eradicate Robertson from this planet!"
I am guessing this was said in jest. Because if not, it is as absurd and inappropriate as Robertson's original statement, and you are simply lowering yourself to his level.
Of course, I was (but I did forget to put a winking emoticon next to it). Chavez would never stoop 1/10th as low as Robertson does! The man so far has had more to deal with US interferance against his economy than actually deal with inside issues. Whatever our friend Mirco would have to say!
"Dickheads such as all televangelists are using God and religion to make a fortune! nothing more than that: Give me your dough , and I'll buy you a place in heaven."
Again, a totally incorrect and unnecessarily denigrating and demeaning "broad-brush" statement. Not all televangelists are "using God and religion to make a fortune." News to me , Father! There are many televangelists who do not even ask for money, either from their congregations (except at regular services during the offering) or from the "home audience" . The fact that you put this in italic yourself proves my point: if not asked , it is severely implied and since those people are gullible enough to attend those services .....
Indeed, many of today's televangelists are not (as in the 70s and 80s) running their own companies and thus truly "lining their pockets" a la Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, etc. Rather, they are ministers of specific churches who make use of the broadcast media to expand their reach. I really don't think that their search for fame (or should I say "new-found fame") will come without the comfort of a filled pocket or having people enslaved due to moral debts consecutive to their healings from an imaginary disease.
In these cases, the ministers earn salaries determined by the Board of Trustees of the specific church they are employed by, and are not permitted to accept anything other than their salary and, in some cases, "speaking fees" or honoraria for guest preaching in other places. The "offering" made at a church does not belong to the minister - indeed, he is not even permitted to "touch" it even in the literal sense - but to the church, and is handled entirely by others.
I may not be aware of a newer type of televangelist other than the Oral Roberts type, but the principle is the same even if the money scheme is less relevant or obvious. I did leave North America in the late 80's and have only gone back three times on holidays and I can assure you I had other things to do than check sunday morning TV. 
As for "give me your dough, and I'll buy you a place in heaven," this is patently absurd. The days of "buying absolution" via "indulgences" is long, long gone. Even the most sheep-like Christian knows this. Not in the 80's US TV it was not long gone. "Relieve your anguish, by relieve yor wallet from the extra weight , you shall become more at ease with god , buy yourself a new conduct/profile and you may even find a place on his right hand side"
You have every right to your cynical, even mean-spirited view of religion. The only mean spirits are the ones driving diverse religious currents hating each other for not praying along the rites they think is right. However, if you are going to make mean-spirited, broad-brush statements, at least get your facts right. My broad-brush statements are not anyless than the televangelist broad-brushing religious beliefs into the face of gullible persons. Furthermore your facts are not anymore correct than mine even if your are a minister of a given cult . I use that word in a generic manner and not as a sect - although all religions are sectarian but some are inclusive , a bigger congregation is more power . And very few are exclusive - unless being a danger to the faith!
Peace. Peace, of course. Especially if I call for eradication of religions as the first step to global peace. Next step will be imperialism!!!!
It had been a while since we had a charming bout of feuding!!! I only realized I missed now! |
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 13:12
Here's his rebuttal:
Evangelist backs off Chavez assassination call
Aug 24 12:51 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said on Wednesday he was misinterpreted and there were a number of ways to "take him out" including kidnapping.
"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.
"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson added.
Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a presidential candidate in 1988, said on Monday of Chavez, one of Bush's most vocal critics: "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." He made the comments during his "The 700 Club" television program.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday dismissed Robertson's remarks, but the White House remained silent despite calls for repudiation from Venezuela and religious leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called "without fact and baseless" any ideas of hostile action against Chavez or Venezuela.
The leftist Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. Alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana on Sunday, Chavez scoffed at the idea that he and Castro were destabilizing troublemakers.
Chavez survived a short-lived coup in 2002 that he says was backed by the United States. Washington denies involvement.
Venezuelan officials said Robertson's remarks, while those of a private citizen, took on more significance given his ties to President George W. Bush's Christian-right supporters.
"Mr Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House," Venezuela's ambassador to the United States Bernardo Alvarez said.
|
Posted By: Paradox
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 14:29
King of Loss wrote:
Robertson is such a dipsh*t, Christian Fundamentalists are so stupid. |
Any form of religious fundamentalism is stupid.
-------------
|
Posted By: Toob-Wurm
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 15:52
There's millions of sh*t-heads that say that sort of thing. We choose to ignore these people. This makes me wonder: why do we listen to Roberson? Robertson has no actual political power. He doesn't have the power to assassinate/murder Hugo Chavez. People like him should simply be ignored.
At the same time, however, if someone said these things about any of us, it would be slightly scary. Especially in the tone. He just talks about assassination in such a non-chalant way. It's a little scary.
When one is raised to be a religious fundamentalist, that particular person begins to bypass science, logic, and true morals (in favor of what the religion "says" is right or wrong). We should worry more about religious fundamentalists that have actual power (the ones that start the inquisitions/crusades, etc...).
I thought some of his statements were rather funny though (escpecially the one about feminists). It's funny how he thinks that people can "become lesbians." Who gives this guy media coverage anyway?
If this man claims to be a Christian, he should indeed be a Christian. Who would Jesus assassinate anyway?
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 16:24
MtS:
He just puts his foot further down his throat, doesn't he? 
Toob-Wurm:
You said, "If this man claims to be a Christian, he should indeed be a Christian. Who would Jesus assassinate anyway?"   Right on target!
As an aside, let's not let Donald Rumsfeld off the hook, either. For him to state that the U.S. doesn't engage in political assassination is patently absurd. The U.S. has indeed engaged in covert ops - including the assassination of world leaders and/or the sub rosa destabilizing of governments - when it suited our needs. Any claim to the contrary is hogwash.
Peace.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 17:01
Not from a Christian but still on-topic because it relates to the Old Testament:
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses
advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said
that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any
circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a
east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as
well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
|
Posted By: Trotsky
Date Posted: August 24 2005 at 23:47
  Tony R
Not much to add, except to repeat that I'm quite amused at how similar the thinking of most (but not all) Christian fundamentalists is in relation to the thinking of most (but not all) Islamic fundamentalists ...
If I didn't know better I'd say that Robertson just issued a fatwa! 
I'd be more amused if I didn't think that some of them are capable of causing great harm ... albeit usually through indirect means
------------- "Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.”
"No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present."
|
Posted By: Starette
Date Posted: August 25 2005 at 02:29
Oh Moo...
Your'd think the long-lasting thread on ELP would be the end of religious discussion- but no.
Well- I'm happy so long as Destiny Church don't take over NZ by force.
------------- 50 tonne angel falls to the earth...
|
Posted By: nousommedusolei
Date Posted: August 25 2005 at 03:09
It is not right to blame the religion, I say. It's how people interpret it.
There are plenty of Christians that are reasonable and honorable people.
This guy, on the other hand, is f**king nuts. This is the same hate-filled extremist crap that has people in the Middle East blowing themselves up.
------------- I don't believe in demons
I don't believe in devils
I only believe in you
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 25 2005 at 07:04
Starette wrote:
Oh Moo...
Your'd think the long-lasting thread on ELP would be the end of religious discussion- but no.
Well- I'm happy so long as Destiny Church don't take over NZ by force.
|
What is the problem with discussing religion?
IMO anyone not comfortable with the subject is unable to approach it from an intellectual standpoint.Whether one "believes" or not,no adult should be afraid of sticking their head above the parapet so-to-speak.
It's a good way of routing out the brainwashed fanatics anyway.........
|
|