Robertson suggests God smote Sharon - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-15-2006, 10:56 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Irvine, I wasn't using scripture to validate scripture, I was using it to answer your question, which was, "as a believer, how would you seek to confirm that the Holy Spirit was working through someone?"


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

if The Bible is filled with stories of God intervening in the lives of powerful men and smiting them when they displease God, is it not perfectly reasonable for someone steeped in the Bible to simply try to understand present-day events in Biblical terms?
You could say that, but are you defending Robertson now?

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

but if the Bible is endlessly interpretable -- i think we can at least agree that a single understanding of the Bible is impossible -- doesn't it then come down to who can best defend their argument? so i could, for example, say that God wants me to kill all left handed people, and if i could prove with Scripture that this Godly commandment was in perfect jive with the Bible, then wouldn't you be unable to disprove me? you'd have to take me at my word, wouldn't you?
Actually, I don't think it's endlessly interpretable. You could say that God wants you to kill all left-handed people, but that would then go against the whole "Thou shalt not kill" theme.
Come on, I've seen you post better arguements than this.
__________________

__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 11:33 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 12:25 PM
my dad had a stroke 2 weeks ago,..is he punished by god ?
__________________

__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 10:45 AM   #78
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
You could say that, but are you defending Robertson now?



i am not defending his statement, but i am defending the logic of his statement if we are to take a literal understanding of the Bible combined with a millenialist outlook and topped off with a strong belief in the idea of a God who actively intervenes in our lives and the lives of political leaders. before making the statement, Robertson referenced Job and numerous examples of people in the Bible who had been smote by an angry, vengeful god who had done things to displease him. he said that giving away Israel would displease god, so therefore, the Stroke makes perfect sense, according to this viewpoint, and it's those who have millenialist views and literal understandings of the Bible who then turn around and distance themselves from Robertson who have the explaining to do, not anyone else.



Quote:
Actually, I don't think it's endlessly interpretable. You could say that God wants you to kill all left-handed people, but that would then go against the whole "Thou shalt not kill" theme.
Come on, I've seen you post better arguements than this.

the point i'm trying to make is that it's endlessly interpretable in the sense that biblical "authority" seems dependent upon whoever knows most about the source material, not upon independent verification of that source material. does that make sense?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 07:06 PM   #79
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
who authorized the Bible?
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If Scripture isn't inerrant, how can it have any authority?
I do believe that Scripture embodies a revelation of God to man. I don't take this to mean that it's inerrant, however--at least, not in the sense of regarding the most readily apparent, "face-value" meaning of every last line as the only possible correct one. Humans are inherently flawed and contingency-bound receivers of revelation, whether grace is involved or not--at least in my view. Perhaps this is not so different from what is implied by "wrestling with Scripture" (a time-honored metaphor in Jewish tradition if there ever was one !).

Authority? For me, the fact that my people have for 3000 years lived by it, died for it, cried with (and through) it, taken comfort in it, struggled with and sometimes even hated it, and above all, recognized and come to understand ourselves and the world we live in through its stories and strictures and lamentations and prayers--for me, there's the authorization, as well as this one imperfect human being can understand it. I suppose that this is a kind of faith in inerrancy.

Pat Robertson? I predict the legacy of his esteemed word and teaching will enjoy a cultural half-life of, ummm, maybe about three years from whenever God chooses to "smite" his mortal coil to the far side. To be fair, I don't particularly expect my own (likely paltry, given current productivity rates ) professional legacy to last much more than that either, but then I'm not claiming any sort of divinely revealed prescience underlying it. (In fact, I really hope there isn't, because I'm pretty damn pessimistic and growing more so all the time.)

BTW, does everyone remember the story a few months back about Robertson's theme park project in Israel?

Quote:
(from the Israeli daily Ha'aretz)

Following prominent evangelical Pat Robertson's written apology to the family of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Ambassador to the U.S. Daniel Ayalon stated Thursday that "Israel respects Rev. Robertson and accepts his apology."

Robertson sent a letter of apology to one of Sharon's sons, but Tourism Ministry official Ram Levi said Thursday Israel is still "outraged" at remarks implying that Sharon was struck down by God for giving up the Gaza Strip. An Israeli official said Israel has no plans to rescind its ban on Robertson's participation a multi-million-dollar Sea of Galilee tourism project.

It was doubtful whether Robertson would be brought back into the fold of the proposed Christian Heritage Center in the northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught. Israel's tourism minister, Abraham Hirchson, said Wednesday that Robertson's help was no longer welcome for the proposed center.

The blow carries a special irony for a preacher who helped define television ministries: the planned complex is to include studios and satellite links for live broadcasts from the Holy Land.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 08:06 PM   #80
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
[B]
I do believe that Scripture embodies a revelation of God to man. I don't take this to mean that it's inerrant, however--at least, not in the sense of regarding the most readily apparent, "face-value" meaning of every last line as the only possible correct one. Humans are inherently flawed and contingency-bound receivers of revelation, whether grace is involved or not--at least in my view. Perhaps this is not so different from what is implied by "wrestling with Scripture" (a time-honored metaphor in Jewish tradition if there ever was one !).

beautifully said. it seem as if the only logical way to deal with the Bible is that it is of, by, and for humans, and contians nuggets of wisdom, perhaps divinely inspired, perhaps not, but at the end it as as much authority and wisdom and divine inspiration that we are willing to allow it.

if it means nothing to you, it is then meaningless.

if it means everything to you, it means everything.



Quote:
Authority? For me, the fact that my people have for 3000 years lived by it, died for it, cried with (and through) it, taken comfort in it, struggled with and sometimes even hated it, and above all, recognized and come to understand ourselves and the world we live in through its stories and strictures and lamentations and prayers--for me, there's the authorization, as well as this one imperfect human being can understand it. I suppose that this is a kind of faith in inerrancy.

fair enough.

but, if this is the standard of authority, is it any better than, say, the Egyptian Book of the Dead?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 10:53 PM   #81
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
but, if this is the standard of authority, is it any better than, say, the Egyptian Book of the Dead?
Erm...well, not being a theological exclusivist, I don't really feel much sense of stake in contesting the religious authority of the EBD, but yes, unless I'm significantly misunderstanding you, I would indeed say the "standard" I'm describing is "better." To the best of my knowledge, the EBD never had the status of being the central text of a particular religion to begin with (though the texts it comprises were certainly very important). It is basically a collection of funerary texts and magical formulae intended to guide the individual (of a certain social class) on their journey through the afterlife. And the worldview it reflects pretty much disappeared into oblivion with the decline of Egypt as a major center of civilization. Today it is of interest primarily only to Egyptologists, professional and otherwise.

So I don't really see the analogy, but perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 11:14 PM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Erm...well, not being a theological exclusivist, I don't really feel much sense of stake in contesting the religious authority of the EBD, but yes, unless I'm significantly misunderstanding you, I would indeed say the "standard" I'm describing is "better." To the best of my knowledge, the EBD never had the status of being the central text of a particular religion to begin with (though the texts it comprises were certainly very important). It is basically a collection of funerary texts and magical formulae intended to guide the individual (of a certain social class) on their journey through the afterlife. And the worldview it reflects pretty much disappeared into oblivion with the decline of Egypt as a major center of civilization. Today it is of interest primarily only to Egyptologists, professional and otherwise.

So I don't really see the analogy, but perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you.


i suppose what i'm saying is i wonder if the Bible will, in a thousand years or so, be of interest to religious historians, professional and otherwise.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-16-2006, 11:43 PM   #83
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Ah. Well, on that I have no idea. But my reasons for believing in it right now have nothing to do with whether religious historians care about it. If they were the only people to whom who it meant something, and only for the intellectual purposes which characterize their approach, then it would mean nothing to me. This is why I could never make it as a Jewish Buddhist you know --I admire and enjoy reading all that nondualist, grand-synthesis-of-epistemology-and-eschatology stuff, but the truth is, once the intellectual megalomania of my college years fizzled out, I realized that in the end, I truthfully don't give a shit whether my religion adequately accounts for the totality of the universe or not. Whether this makes me lazy, wise, or both...not for me to judge.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 01-17-2006, 12:15 AM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Ah. Well, on that I have no idea. But my reasons for believing in it right now have nothing to do with whether religious historians care about it. If they were the only people to whom who it meant something, and only for the intellectual purposes which characterize their approach, then it would mean nothing to me. This is why I could never make it as a Jewish Buddhist you know --I admire and enjoy reading all that nondualist, grand-synthesis-of-epistemology-and-eschatology stuff, but the truth is, once the intellectual megalomania of my college years fizzled out, I realized that in the end, I truthfully don't give a shit whether my religion adequately accounts for the totality of the universe or not. Whether this makes me lazy, wise, or both...not for me to judge.


fair enough. i suppose i'm just skeptical of all religious text, they being so ripe for misuse and abuse and the like, due to the fact that they posit knowledge of the infinite, and i think the same rules of skepticism must apply to the Bible as well. perhaps it will all be debunked one day, or perhaps it will still be as central to all walks of life in 3,000 years as it is today. i don't think that 2,000 years is all that long a time in human history, and that the primacy of some religous text over others have more to do with culture and history than with the eternal and the infinite.

but i could be wrong.

no chance of you becoming Bu-ish?

i like Buddhism, or at least the American/Western understanding of it which is very groovy indeed. am working on a doc about China right now, and they've got a bit of a different style of Buddhism, it's got a bit more edge to it and is filled with some art every bit as creepy and disturbing and grotesque as medieval European dipictions of lakes of fire and such.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2006, 12:51 AM   #85
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:25 PM
lol--I know exactly the sort of thing you're talking about. Yes, American Buddhism is most strongly influenced by Zen (with the odd pinch of Tibetan esotericism thrown in for spice), which is not particularly representative of the broad spectrum of Buddhist practices across Asia.

I don't mean that to sound mocking, though--can't afford to, when we live in a world where Madonna can call herself a practitioner of Kabbalah.

Good luck with your documentary!
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 09:38 AM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:25 AM
from SNL

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002776.html
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 08:58 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:25 AM
there he goes again..

By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 13

Television evangelist Pat Robertson said Monday on his live news-and-talk program "The 700 Club" that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that radical Muslims are "satanic."

Robertson's comments came after he watched a news story on his Christian Broadcasting Network about Muslim protests in Europe over the cartoon drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.

He remarked that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoons "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with."

Robertson also said that "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination."

In a statement later Monday, Robertson said he was referring specifically to terrorists who want to bomb innocent people as being motivated by Satan. In the news story, he noted, radical Muslims were shown screaming: "May Allah bomb you! May Osama Bin Laden bomb you!"

Angell Watts, a Robertson spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview that the news segment also included comments from a moderate Muslim in the United Kingdom saying radicals don't represent most Muslims in that country.

Robertson's Virginia Beach-based network did not include his remarks when it posted the program on its Web site, however. That decision was made out of concern Robertson's remarks could be misinterpreted if viewed out of context, Watts said.

Monday's comments were similar to remarks he made on his program in 2002, when he said Islam "is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then, if need be, destroy."

Robertson has come under intense criticism in recent months for comments suggesting that American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.

Robertson recently told ABC's "Good Morning America" that he comments off the cuff after watching news segments. He later told the Christian magazine World that he's being more careful and reviewing news stories before going on the air.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Robertson's new comments "grossly irresponsible."

"At a time when inter-religious tensions around the world are at an all-time high, Robertson seems determined to throw gasoline on the fire," Lynn said in a statement.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 12:17 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Someone put a sock in this guy's mouth! Honestly...........
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 12:45 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:25 AM
If you take Robertson's name off the quotes, are they really that off-base?

It is clear he is refering to "radical" Muslims. That seems to be in line with the accepted way of describing these incidents.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 12:50 PM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If you take Robertson's name off the quotes, are they really that off-base?

It is clear he is refering to "radical" Muslims. That seems to be in line with the accepted way of describing these incidents.
" Islam "is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then, if need be, destroy."

"the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination." -that is way off base. Islam is a peaceful religion. He can backpedal all he wants. And even saying that about radical Muslims doesn't exactly help solve anything. Throwing more fuel on an already explosive fire if you ask me.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com