the word is FANATIC fundamentalists. Not all who are fundamentalist in their beliefs become fanatic. But FUNDAMENTALISM Is a prime breeding ground.
Fanatics of any ilk have long ago left GOD in their dust as they pick an choose over select bits of scripture/theology/dogma to justify their inhumanity to their fellow man. Pat Robertson is as much a Self Styled MOG as VPW or LCM ever were. He should be treated with the same long stick as you would use around any venomous snake to ward it off..
Sounds like Mr. Robertson practices the same habit we were taught years ago in the so-called 'Advanced Class", namely, of finding the hidden demons lurking behind today's late-breaking headlines.
And to think that this guy at one time ran for president (!) - would you, Sudo, as a Republican, have wanted someone like this occupying a position of close proximity to the proverbial "big red button"? Such a one who might get the revelatory whim in the middle of the night to wipe out one godless country or another in order to help fulfill an angry god's "prophecies"?
I keep seeing a dvd in the bargain bins called "Tribulation", with the all-star lineup of Gary Busey, Margot Kidder and Howie Mandell. Whoa, talk about "scary"!
...it all comes down to two things: love God with the whole heart, mind, soul, with all that you are. And love your neighbor as yourself. It's my belief that God will show incredible mercy to all who truly obey those two commandments, whether Christian or not. It's also my belief that there will be a lot of people who call themselves Christians but pay only a passing regard to those two commandments will find themselves surprised...
That statement made on a different thread seems somehow appropriate in this case. IMHO arrogance is ugly, it's especially ugly when seen in a person who identifies himself as a Christian. That arrogance is the antithesis of Christianity.
What? He's a Republican? You hadn't told me that! Why that changes Everything!
Re:"would you, Sudo, as a Republican, have wanted someone like this occupying a position of close proximity to the proverbial "big red button"?"
And why not? You all are picking on Rev. Robertson just because he's a Republican and ya'll KNOW I'm a Republican! Give the guy a break. Hee-hee! Just kidding guys but didn't Jehova strike dead (or allow the Devil if you prefer) Ananias and his good wife Sapphira for just holding back a little?? And is this not the New Testament? With the all new loving Jehova? Not that nasty 'ole fellow from the Old Testament that was all the time wiping out whole populations or commanding others to do it for him?
>> ¶ But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things....
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead,
So the question to the FANATIC fundamentalists (I'll accept that Templelady) would be: How do you refute Rev. Pat when he can point to places in the Bible where God still does stuff like this? If God would kill Christians for a little lying and holding back some money how can you argue with Rev. Pat that he wouldn't do it to someone who isn't even born again?
To understand the story of Ananias and Sapphira you have to go back to the end of Acts 4
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet
Ananias wanting to look big in the eyes of the Church bragged he was selling the land and giving it all to the community of believers--knowing as he spoke that is was a lie. So there are a whole lot of dynamics going on besides lying and we don't know what kind of a promise he made--was it a binding oath?--did he swear by the horns of the altar? we don't know. But since Peter says they "tempted the Spirit of the Lord" I think it is safe to assume that this was a whole lot more than your garden variety lie.
As to Born Again --Sharon lives by the Law --He is Jewish one of God's chosen people--I would not dare to presume to even try to comment on his spiritual state vis-a-vis God.
So what you're saying is that Ananias and Sapphira had it coming, eh? Screw up that bad and you're going to drop dead on the spot?
Then how could Pat Robertson's position be considered so extreme? All he has to do is point to this little example and say God does things like that. But I think YOU know that mainstream Christianity doesn't cotton to saying God causes strokes. Actually, I'm not sure what the going theology is now-a-days. Does God ever chastise or punish people? It doesn't matter. Mainstream Christianity still doesn't believe he causes strokes in world leaders, I don't think.
What? He's a Republican? You hadn't told me that! Why that changes Everything!
Re:<B><I><font color=red>"would you, Sudo, as a Republican, have wanted someone like this occupying a position of close proximity to the proverbial "big red button"?"</font></I></B>
And why not? You all are picking on Rev. Robertson just because he's a Republican and ya'll KNOW I'm a Republican! Give the guy a break. Hee-hee! Just kidding guys but didn't Jehova strike dead (or allow the Devil if you prefer) Ananias and his good wife Sapphira for just holding back a little?? And is this not the New Testament? With the all new loving Jehova? Not that nasty 'ole fellow from the Old Testament that was all the time wiping out whole populations or commanding others to do it for him?
Well the Acts account of Ananias and Sapphira is mid-second century fiction of course, just like our modern myth of the "fiscal republican"
I recall Pat Robertson running in the Republican primaries, I think sometime during the 90s.
In all seriousness though, considering the fact that Christian "fundamentalists", or you call them, "the scourge of the planet" , are by and large attracted in large numbers to the Republican party -with some even ending up on the tickets - why would any thinking, rational athiest like yourself want to place in political, influential power over yourself such fundamentalist "scourge" whose positions run counter in certain areas to your own? Those who have been vocal in supplanting the teachings of evolution with "intelligent design", who want to restore "prayer" into the schools, and so on?
I'm not trying to pick on you, Sudo (in fact, I wish your fine practice was closer to me, because I could use some serious dental work). But I'm curious as to the dilemma you must undergo when stepping into the voting booth, if casting your votes toward that party line which encompasses those very "fundamentalists" you enschew.
And if I say any more, this could end up in the "Political" forum. But then again, there's a very fine line between religion and politics.
Yes, the fanatic religionists are the scourge of this planet. They are the source of most of humanity's suffering. How many innocent people were killed just today in Iraq by suicide bombers? Killed by people who believe that they are going to their eternal reward by killing these people? Don't think for a minute that I see Christian fundies any differently than I do the Islaamic variety. But you ask a good question..
Re:"But I'm curious as to the dilemma you must undergo when stepping into the voting booth, if casting your votes toward that party line which encompasses those very "fundamentalists" you enschew."
My alternative to voting Republican is voting for a party that rejects personal responsibility. And *THAT* is a bigger problem for the continued viability of our culture than a bunch of Baptists. The Democrats see criminals as victims of their upbringing. They promote class envy and are the force behind political correctness. They promote "rights" that couldn't be imagined a generation ago (folks with Tourette's Syndrome must be allowed in workplaces and classrooms even though they are cursing a blue streak) and negate consequences for personal laziness. In short, the Democrats don't want folks to feel guilty over any of their misdeeds or slothful habits. Just makes them lose self esteem doncha' know.
How about this latest example in Vermont? A liberal judge sentenced a child rapist to 60 days in prison because he doesn't believe in punishment. He's a dang judge and doesn't believe in punishment? Oh, he USED to believe in punishment but doesn't think "it works" . And because there were no facilities in prison for "treating" the rapist he gave said child rapist only 60 days. And you ask me with a straight face why I don't vote for liberals? A liberal judge who doesn't believe in punishment? Doesn't surprise me.
Liberals don't think you should even spank your kids. Heck, its child abuse if you do. What? You think conservatives are the ones who brought this thinking about? The child can be on the floor of the grocery store flailing his arms and legs, screaming like a banshee and the parent is helpless to deal with it in today's legal enviornment. What that child needs, is to be yanked up and beat like Hades for about 30 seconds. But no.. might ruin his psyche or some such nonsense. I might just ask *YOU* Danny how you could vote for Democrats who not only seem to have no common sense about human nature but are hellbent on destroying our society! Dang!!!!
Oh.. for a link on the fuzzy thinking liberal judge in Vermont?? Click HERE!
In all seriousness though, considering the fact that Christian "fundamentalists", or you call them, "the scourge of the planet" , are by and large attracted in large numbers to the Republican party -with some even ending up on the tickets - why would any thinking, rational athiest like yourself want to place in political, influential power over yourself such fundamentalist "scourge" whose positions run counter in certain areas to your own? Those who have been vocal in supplanting the teachings of evolution with "intelligent design", who want to restore "prayer" into the schools, and so on?
I can't speak for Sudo but that's a problem I deal with every election. The fundamentalist influence on the Republican Party has not yet been great enough to cause me to change my vote, but if they ever get enough influence to successfully implement policies such as those you listed, I'll vote for a Democrat if I can do so in good conscience or simply not vote. There are a few Republicans who will never get my vote, because of some recent stances they've taken on such issues.
I might just ask <B>*YOU*</B> Danny how you could vote for Democrats who not only seem to have no common sense about human nature but are hellbent on destroying our society! Dang!!!!
Oh, I don't disagree with you about the outrageous excesses of the wing-nuts on the other side of the aisle. Which is why I usually cast my votes toward the 3rd parties.
Other than that, I prefer to mix the tickets and determine each candidate on a case by case basis, rather than pull one lever (though they did away with the one lever option in my state years ago).
okay, I have to add my two cents here. I think the politicians who get the most press are often the nuts, be they dems or republicans. But I am idealistic or niave enough to think your average citizen is more rational and somewhere in the middle.
I would, by many standards, be considered a liberal, and yet there have been a number of issues where I've leaned more toward the republican view. In fact, I'm guessing if I were to post my opinions on a sight that were truly liberal in the fanatical sense, they would see me as conservative. In fact, I would vote again for our republican Attorney General over the democratic candidate (Feigher - gag gag gag) any day of the week.
That is why I dislike the labels so much. It paints people into a corner - leaves you with a false impression of who they really are.
Robertson is a nut, and I can't help but wonder how you would feel, Sudo (I'm pickin on you for an example) if you were painted with his brush simply based on what people know of him as a conservative, instead of what people know about you as a conservative.
I agree with Danny. I vote for the candidate, not the party. Though lately, it seems there aren't many candidates that are worth the trip out to the voting booth from either side.
Fanatics of any ilk have long ago left GOD in their dust as they pick an choose over select bits of scripture/theology/dogma to justify their inhumanity to their fellow man.
Pat Robertson is as much a Self Styled MOG as VPW or LCM ever were. He should be treated with the same long stick as you would use around any venomous snake to ward it off..
Boy, the more I read about what Pat Robertson has to say the more I ask myself, why am I reading about what Pat Robertson has to say? Wiith everything that's going on in the world today - is he news?
"Sort of" is being generous don't you feel? He apologized for being insensitive... saying what he did at an inopportune moment.. not that he was wrong about what he said. Is that an apology? (Click HERE!) and if one wants to be truly cynical... here's a good reason why he even offered THAT up for consumption... HERE! Israel was going to eliminate his new project. And did you notice it took a week for him to offer up what little he offered up in the way of an apology?
Still.. I think he's more mainstream than you might imagine. Remember my upbringing was Southern Baptist and I still hear my relatives blather on about these things. 'Ole Pat still has a LOT of followers who are behind him 100%.
Re:"Money talks alright, even in the 'spurchal' world."
Maybe *especially* in the 'spurchal' world, my man. How many 'teachings' have we both listened to concerning tithing? Getting back with interest what you give to the 'movement' of Gawd's Word? Here's one that seems familiar... Giving equals receiving. And do you think there's any LESS importance given to plucking the believers' money in the evangelical churches than it was in TWI?? I'll go even further... I attend a very liberal church. The only time the senior minister gets 'fundie' is when its time to make the annual pledges to the church. He marches out Malachi every dang year (Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.) and what gets me is... 90% of the church members seem to act like its the first time they've ever heard it!
I'd love to know how many skeptics there really are at this church like myself but I dare not bring it up. You know how true believers are, Garth... there's no greater sin than not believing. So I wonder in silence.
Maybe *especially* in the 'spurchal' world, my man.
Tis true, tis true! :unsure:
I'd love to know how many skeptics there really are at this church like myself but I dare not bring it up.
How about taking it further? As in how many skeptics are ministers themselves but especially dare not bring it up, hmmmm? Particularly since you read various polls where a good number of ministers themselves have doubts/disbelieve some, or even most of what they learned from their doctrine. :o
But alas, they are talking about letting the good Pat Robertson back into the theme park project. Apparently the $$moolah$$ from his supporters are speaking loudly to them too.
Recommended Posts
templelady
the word is FANATIC fundamentalists. Not all who are fundamentalist in their beliefs become fanatic. But FUNDAMENTALISM Is a prime breeding ground.
Fanatics of any ilk have long ago left GOD in their dust as they pick an choose over select bits of scripture/theology/dogma to justify their inhumanity to their fellow man. Pat Robertson is as much a Self Styled MOG as VPW or LCM ever were. He should be treated with the same long stick as you would use around any venomous snake to ward it off..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Sounds like Mr. Robertson practices the same habit we were taught years ago in the so-called 'Advanced Class", namely, of finding the hidden demons lurking behind today's late-breaking headlines.
And to think that this guy at one time ran for president (!) - would you, Sudo, as a Republican, have wanted someone like this occupying a position of close proximity to the proverbial "big red button"? Such a one who might get the revelatory whim in the middle of the night to wipe out one godless country or another in order to help fulfill an angry god's "prophecies"?
I keep seeing a dvd in the bargain bins called "Tribulation", with the all-star lineup of Gary Busey, Margot Kidder and Howie Mandell. Whoa, talk about "scary"!
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sudo,
Pat Robertson is an embarassment.
That statement made on a different thread seems somehow appropriate in this case. IMHO arrogance is ugly, it's especially ugly when seen in a person who identifies himself as a Christian. That arrogance is the antithesis of Christianity.
on edit: to turn the html switch on
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Danny,
What? He's a Republican? You hadn't told me that! Why that changes Everything!
Re:"would you, Sudo, as a Republican, have wanted someone like this occupying a position of close proximity to the proverbial "big red button"?"
And why not? You all are picking on Rev. Robertson just because he's a Republican and ya'll KNOW I'm a Republican! Give the guy a break. Hee-hee! Just kidding guys but didn't Jehova strike dead (or allow the Devil if you prefer) Ananias and his good wife Sapphira for just holding back a little?? And is this not the New Testament? With the all new loving Jehova? Not that nasty 'ole fellow from the Old Testament that was all the time wiping out whole populations or commanding others to do it for him?
>> ¶ But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things....
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead,
So the question to the FANATIC fundamentalists (I'll accept that Templelady) would be: How do you refute Rev. Pat when he can point to places in the Bible where God still does stuff like this? If God would kill Christians for a little lying and holding back some money how can you argue with Rev. Pat that he wouldn't do it to someone who isn't even born again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you don't want answers sudo
you just want to burn crosses in people's faces
are you having fun?
pat doesn't know what he's talking about
neither do you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
To understand the story of Ananias and Sapphira you have to go back to the end of Acts 4
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet
Ananias wanting to look big in the eyes of the Church bragged he was selling the land and giving it all to the community of believers--knowing as he spoke that is was a lie. So there are a whole lot of dynamics going on besides lying and we don't know what kind of a promise he made--was it a binding oath?--did he swear by the horns of the altar? we don't know. But since Peter says they "tempted the Spirit of the Lord" I think it is safe to assume that this was a whole lot more than your garden variety lie.
As to Born Again --Sharon lives by the Law --He is Jewish one of God's chosen people--I would not dare to presume to even try to comment on his spiritual state vis-a-vis God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Mo,
So what you're saying is that Ananias and Sapphira had it coming, eh? Screw up that bad and you're going to drop dead on the spot?
Then how could Pat Robertson's position be considered so extreme? All he has to do is point to this little example and say God does things like that. But I think YOU know that mainstream Christianity doesn't cotton to saying God causes strokes. Actually, I'm not sure what the going theology is now-a-days. Does God ever chastise or punish people? It doesn't matter. Mainstream Christianity still doesn't believe he causes strokes in world leaders, I don't think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Well the Acts account of Ananias and Sapphira is mid-second century fiction of course, just like our modern myth of the "fiscal republican"
I recall Pat Robertson running in the Republican primaries, I think sometime during the 90s.
In all seriousness though, considering the fact that Christian "fundamentalists", or you call them, "the scourge of the planet" , are by and large attracted in large numbers to the Republican party -with some even ending up on the tickets - why would any thinking, rational athiest like yourself want to place in political, influential power over yourself such fundamentalist "scourge" whose positions run counter in certain areas to your own? Those who have been vocal in supplanting the teachings of evolution with "intelligent design", who want to restore "prayer" into the schools, and so on?
I'm not trying to pick on you, Sudo (in fact, I wish your fine practice was closer to me, because I could use some serious dental work). But I'm curious as to the dilemma you must undergo when stepping into the voting booth, if casting your votes toward that party line which encompasses those very "fundamentalists" you enschew.
And if I say any more, this could end up in the "Political" forum. But then again, there's a very fine line between religion and politics.
:)
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Invisible Dan,
Yes, the fanatic religionists are the scourge of this planet. They are the source of most of humanity's suffering. How many innocent people were killed just today in Iraq by suicide bombers? Killed by people who believe that they are going to their eternal reward by killing these people? Don't think for a minute that I see Christian fundies any differently than I do the Islaamic variety. But you ask a good question..
Re:"But I'm curious as to the dilemma you must undergo when stepping into the voting booth, if casting your votes toward that party line which encompasses those very "fundamentalists" you enschew."
My alternative to voting Republican is voting for a party that rejects personal responsibility. And *THAT* is a bigger problem for the continued viability of our culture than a bunch of Baptists. The Democrats see criminals as victims of their upbringing. They promote class envy and are the force behind political correctness. They promote "rights" that couldn't be imagined a generation ago (folks with Tourette's Syndrome must be allowed in workplaces and classrooms even though they are cursing a blue streak) and negate consequences for personal laziness. In short, the Democrats don't want folks to feel guilty over any of their misdeeds or slothful habits. Just makes them lose self esteem doncha' know.
How about this latest example in Vermont? A liberal judge sentenced a child rapist to 60 days in prison because he doesn't believe in punishment. He's a dang judge and doesn't believe in punishment? Oh, he USED to believe in punishment but doesn't think "it works" . And because there were no facilities in prison for "treating" the rapist he gave said child rapist only 60 days. And you ask me with a straight face why I don't vote for liberals? A liberal judge who doesn't believe in punishment? Doesn't surprise me.
Liberals don't think you should even spank your kids. Heck, its child abuse if you do. What? You think conservatives are the ones who brought this thinking about? The child can be on the floor of the grocery store flailing his arms and legs, screaming like a banshee and the parent is helpless to deal with it in today's legal enviornment. What that child needs, is to be yanked up and beat like Hades for about 30 seconds. But no.. might ruin his psyche or some such nonsense. I might just ask *YOU* Danny how you could vote for Democrats who not only seem to have no common sense about human nature but are hellbent on destroying our society! Dang!!!!
Oh.. for a link on the fuzzy thinking liberal judge in Vermont?? Click HERE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I can't speak for Sudo but that's a problem I deal with every election. The fundamentalist influence on the Republican Party has not yet been great enough to cause me to change my vote, but if they ever get enough influence to successfully implement policies such as those you listed, I'll vote for a Democrat if I can do so in good conscience or simply not vote. There are a few Republicans who will never get my vote, because of some recent stances they've taken on such issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Oh, I don't disagree with you about the outrageous excesses of the wing-nuts on the other side of the aisle. Which is why I usually cast my votes toward the 3rd parties.
Other than that, I prefer to mix the tickets and determine each candidate on a case by case basis, rather than pull one lever (though they did away with the one lever option in my state years ago).
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
okay, I have to add my two cents here. I think the politicians who get the most press are often the nuts, be they dems or republicans. But I am idealistic or niave enough to think your average citizen is more rational and somewhere in the middle.
I would, by many standards, be considered a liberal, and yet there have been a number of issues where I've leaned more toward the republican view. In fact, I'm guessing if I were to post my opinions on a sight that were truly liberal in the fanatical sense, they would see me as conservative. In fact, I would vote again for our republican Attorney General over the democratic candidate (Feigher - gag gag gag) any day of the week.
That is why I dislike the labels so much. It paints people into a corner - leaves you with a false impression of who they really are.
Robertson is a nut, and I can't help but wonder how you would feel, Sudo (I'm pickin on you for an example) if you were painted with his brush simply based on what people know of him as a conservative, instead of what people know about you as a conservative.
I agree with Danny. I vote for the candidate, not the party. Though lately, it seems there aren't many candidates that are worth the trip out to the voting booth from either side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I thought that worthy to be repeated. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I have to agree with Mark on this. The man IS an embarassment.
A grown man, who should absolutely know better, to go on like this, sheesh, it's just shameful.
Last year he tried to order a "hit" on a world leader. Then he condemns a city to oblivion. Now this.
You've gotta wonder if they shouldn't be fitting him for one of those coats with the really long sleeves?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Boy, the more I read about what Pat Robertson has to say the more I ask myself, why am I reading about what Pat Robertson has to say? Wiith everything that's going on in the world today - is he news?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
I thought this might be apropos It is a Map of Mr. Robertson's Neighborhood making its way around the blogosphere- It includes quotes etc.
It is large enough that you will need to scroll around to see it all.
Pat Robertsons Map of the World
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
What a great map!! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
SHHHHHHH Pat hasn't "discovered" Alaska yet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He sort of apologized on Jan. 12.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Raf,
"Sort of" is being generous don't you feel? He apologized for being insensitive... saying what he did at an inopportune moment.. not that he was wrong about what he said. Is that an apology? (Click HERE!) and if one wants to be truly cynical... here's a good reason why he even offered THAT up for consumption... HERE! Israel was going to eliminate his new project. And did you notice it took a week for him to offer up what little he offered up in the way of an apology?
Still.. I think he's more mainstream than you might imagine. Remember my upbringing was Southern Baptist and I still hear my relatives blather on about these things. 'Ole Pat still has a LOT of followers who are behind him 100%.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hehehe. Yeah Sudo, you KNOW that when that $50 mill was cut OFF, he started singing a different tune pronto!
Money talks alright, even in the 'spurchal' world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Garth,
Re:"Money talks alright, even in the 'spurchal' world."
Maybe *especially* in the 'spurchal' world, my man. How many 'teachings' have we both listened to concerning tithing? Getting back with interest what you give to the 'movement' of Gawd's Word? Here's one that seems familiar... Giving equals receiving. And do you think there's any LESS importance given to plucking the believers' money in the evangelical churches than it was in TWI?? I'll go even further... I attend a very liberal church. The only time the senior minister gets 'fundie' is when its time to make the annual pledges to the church. He marches out Malachi every dang year (Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.) and what gets me is... 90% of the church members seem to act like its the first time they've ever heard it!
The Lord bless every one of these members' hearts because they are at this church to do good works... distribute Meals On Wheels©, food baskets to the poor and transportation to the aged and infirm etc. But the senior minister knows how to yank the chains to make folks feel guilty.. even if he doesn't do it a LOT.
I'd love to know how many skeptics there really are at this church like myself but I dare not bring it up. You know how true believers are, Garth... there's no greater sin than not believing. So I wonder in silence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
How about taking it further? As in how many skeptics are ministers themselves but especially dare not bring it up, hmmmm?
Particularly since you read various polls where a good number of ministers themselves have doubts/disbelieve some, or even most of what they learned from their doctrine. :o
But alas, they are talking about letting the good Pat Robertson back into the theme park project. Apparently the $$moolah$$ from his supporters are speaking loudly to them too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's why I said "sort of," Sudo. I thought the apology was positively Clitnonesque. Downright offensive, if you ask me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.