http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49436-2002Feb21.html Most of you know that I'm a bit concerned about the religion, myself. Particularly from a global perspective. I just think it's quite possible that this religion is more susceptible to the kind of misinterpretation that Christianity was subject to pre-Reformation. But I find Pat's comments on Muslim immigrants in our country to be incredibly ignorant. My church has helped settle more than a few Muslim families (from the Middle East and from Bosnia)...I don't believe any of them came here "as missionaries" as Pat suggests. They are here because they were driven out of their homes...unfortunately, for the Bosnian family, they were driven out by those who used the name of Christ as a justification for murder and rape...to me that's evil, no matter how anyone else on these boards wants to define it! My business partner and fellow churchmember went to pick up the Bosnian family one evening to have them over to his house for pizza with his family. When the little girl got in the car, she started freaking out and crying. They don't speak English so it was very hard to communicate what was bothering her. They got a little way down the road and my friend looked in the rear view mirror and saw a look of terror in the little girl's eyes as she stared at a little paper cross his daughter had made him in sunday school that he tied around the rear view mirror. At the next light he quickly untied it and put it under his chair. How sad...for him and for me, the Cross has sooooo much meaning. To this little girl it meant fear...I can't tell you all how angry that makes me..and how sad.
Madmax, a moving story about the refugee. You also said: "I just think it's quite possible that this religion is more susceptible to the kind of misinterpretation that Christianity was subject to pre-Reformation." Maybe this will give you an idea of how many Christians who aren't of your sect feel about the interpretations the so called Christian Right make about many issues in our society and their insistence that they are the only true Christians etc. I applaud your good works, though.
Wow, what a powerful post. That is the thing with symbols that we take for granted (or, at least, do not consider all of their possible meanings). It is impossible to know all the possible signifieds of signifiers...when religion is involved, that can be even more powerful. Anyway, I don't really have a comment about Pat becauses, well, he doesn't really merit any. I mostly just wanted to mention something I read that you brought to mind. It was about world religions and the growth of new religions (NRM's), whether they be offshoots or completely new. Anyway, apparently the World Christian Encyclopedia has identified 9900 distinct religions, with 2-3 new ones being formed every day. I found this to be staggering. But, the point of this is that the experts interviewed (who were mostly Christian) felt that, while Islamic fundamentalism was the most dangerous religious movement of the 20th century, Christianity would actually be the most dangerous of the 21st. The reason is due to the number of sects being created in the South (of the world, not the US) that are growing and recently have been migrating into the North. Due to the varying beliefs, modifications, etc, there is a high probablility of serious clash with the more established Christians of the North, not to mention all of the other religions. Anyway, just thought it was interesting.
interesting...i would like to read more about that. agreed..pat robertson is nearly meritless when it comes to world commentary. we share many views, I'm sure...but I can't understand why he takes the approach he takes. and it bothers me that the rest of the world is left to say, "well, that's the church's take on it." while other church leaders more within the pale of orthodoxy remain silent. that really concerns me, as a Christian.
don't applaud my good works...they're not that good. you also might find that many of my viewpoints match what you would call the Christian right...like on abortion, for instance. but i'm still bothered by men like Pat who espouse "newspaper theology"...essentialy reading the newspaper each day looking for the signs of Revelations or other prophecy. Plus, Pat said he prophesized 9/11...he just got some of the facts wrong, like the date. If he is as true to a "literalist" as he claims to be, he would know that prophecy from God is 100% right 100% of the time!!!
I, honestly, don't think that you should be concerned. Robertson is generally associated with himself and his 700 Club and little beyond that. I would hope that outsiders would not view him as a true mouthpiece for Christianity. Of course that is the problem with just about every organization, association, etc - the loud ones are usually the bad ones. I had not heard about his claimed prophesy of 9/11...you are right, he needs to understand his beliefs first before he can claim benefit from them.
That's true... but at the same time, I always liked the theologian Karl Rahner's comment that one should do theology with "the Bible in one hand, and the morning paper in the other..."
it's dangerous, though, haven.... newspaper theologians are ALWAYS wrong!!! they thought Hitler was the anti-Christ and the end was near...and that has trickled down throughout history, with only the name changing. it's one thing to say, "yeah...i see a world of sin...i see a world broken." it's quite another thing to say, "oh, yeah...it's clear that this guy is the anti-christ...we're just days away now!" i'd call that irresponsible
Ah, Rahner wasn't that type of theologian . I think he was more interested in understanding historical/social/cultural events through a theological perspective. Rahner wasn't one to worry about hte anti-Christ coming soon... ...he thought too many people went to church on Sundays, and didn't relate such things to experience sufficiently.
It is interesting that just a couple of elections ago Pat Robertson was gathering quite a few votes while seeking the nomination for President as a Republican. Those same voters form a core support group for Bush. I would bet that Ashcroft and Robertson have virtually identical religious and political beliefs.
yeah...and i bet clinton and lenin had virtually identical religious and political beliefs!! until someone shares their faith with you, please don't put words in their mouths...or ideas in their brain...in some sort of stereotypical fashion. i thought that kind of stereotyping was the stuff enlightened liberals like yourself didn't engage in. it's mere conjecture, and yet you'd assasinate the man's character with it..as you've done in other threads.
I decided to test my thesis that Roberson and Ashcroft are religious and political buds. The buds Aschcroft and Roberson Pat Robertson's empire Who runs the Christian Coalition? "I have in my own, quiet way, been setting the agenda for a long time." — Pat Robertson, The New York Times Magazine, 8/9/98 Who does Pat Robertson support for President in 2000? A Republican, naturally. And it looks like it's Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, who's been featured and promoted on Robertson's "700 Club" many times. Robertson and his wife Dede have contributed $10,000 to Ashcroft's PAC. On August 15, 1998, Robertson and Ashcroft appeared together at a Florida Christian Coalition "Faith and Family Gala" in Orlando
I have no idea what Ashcroft's theology is!! The point is, neither do you!! You could say that Pat Robertson and I both have similar theologies, if you wish...you could say we both believe broad concepts about salvation, the nature of Jesus, the nature of the Trinity, etc....but we disagree entirely on matters like this. So we're similar...but we disagree...or you could go broader and say that I'm similar to anyone else who believes in any god or higher-being. I just don't like the idea of ascribing theology to someone whom I've never had a theological discussion with. I don't know this man's heart, and neither do you. Condemn him all you wish for his actions...but understand he may arrive at his actions through good motives. you do understand that what you're doing here is a mild form of persecution, right???
First, you seem to accept that Roberson and Ashcroft are politically "very similar" as we will now say. You don't seem to deny this. No, I haven't seen it as a mild form of religious persecution. Interesting idea. Never thought of it. I guess when an elected politician constantly hobnobs with a poltical organization called the Christian Coalition, politics and religion do tend to get mixed up. You want to focus on theological similarities. To me You are quibbling. However, I must admit when you start with your version of theology jargon, trinity, salvation etc. " what's in a man's heart" etc. i can't reply or keep up with you. Virtually identical is too strong, very similar is probably right and I suspect. you know that. However, I admit that what to me is splitting theological hairs and being invasive may not be what you are up to. Thinkin about religion often and reading the bible frequently you may be like an Eskimo who has 20 words for different types of snow and ice, able to see what are for an outsider not that important distinctions. To me both Roberson and Ascroft are evangelical christians with realtively little difference in their theology.
fine...then lump me in there with them...as an evangelical Christian (since Christ commands clearly over and over again that his believers are to evangelize, it's somewhat duplicative -- though I know you mean it more with its political connotations and stereotypes -- though i might have some serious disagreements about effective forms of evangelism) i may be quibbling to you...but to me it's not quibbling. all i'm saying, is don't pretend to know the theological or spiritual motives of another man unless you really know that man..or unless he makes those motives clear.
madmax, if i get the principles of the Assemblies of God that Ashcroft belongs to and the prinicples of the relgion that Roberson believes in and they look similar would that satisfy you? Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths View "Statement of Fundamental Truths" in Spanish. The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice. This Statement of Fundamental Truths is intended simply as a basis of fellowship among us (i.e., that we all speak the same thing, 1 Corinthians 1:10 [KJV/NIV]; Acts 2:42 [KJV/NIV]). The phraseology employed in this Statement is not inspired nor contended for, but the truth set forth is held to be essential to a full-gospel ministry. No claim is made that it covers all Biblical truth, only that it covers our need as to these fundamental doctrines. The Scriptures Inspired The One True God The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ The Fall of Man The Salvation of Man The Ordinances of the Church The Baptism in the Holy Ghost The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost Sanctification The Church and Its Mission The Ministry Divine Healing The Blessed Hope The Millennial Reign of Christ The Final Judgment The New Heavens and the New Earth Robersonis more difficult since he almost created his own church.. Shortly afte having a religious conversion he bought his first tv station to spread his beliefs. robertson bio
Madmax, to ,me having the Christian right through its many churchs contributing money to Republican election campaigns and then having the politicians repsonding by kicking back money to strengthen their organizations though "faith based initiatives" is sort of like the Enron's relationship to politicians? I see this as I work in what could be broadly called the social services field. I hear complaints of people who get funneled to Christian counseelling centers when they are just looking for psychological help. I admit it is good politica machine building -- one hand greases the other. How do you feel about this?
I hate Pat Robertson. When he speaks he just makes people hate Christianity . I wish someone would get him to shut his mouth. I'm Catholic and I hate when people talk about how bad Christianity is they always mention Robertson. i wish he could see that he hinders Christianity . If he cared about Christianity he would stop talking.
