Robertson suggests God smote Sharon

[coemgen]

The main thing to remember is it was God in the form of the Holy Spirit that lead to the Bible. The H.S. is God dwelling within us. It's the great Counselor or "guide." It's not like all these people heard a voice telling them what to write.

BVS, I actually agree with your last point. People's individual writing styles and backgrounds are in the Bible. It's not as if every book sounds the same. Each of the Gospels has a different writing style. Some left info out that others put in. That doesn't mean God's guidance in writing them wasn't there.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, God.

The easy answer is that this is a matter of faith.

There are plenty of academic materials supporting this - the scope of which are certainly beyond this thread. If you are interested, I can forward references to you when I get home tonight.

i suppose what i'm most interested in is seeing if we can get beyond the "God says the Bible is inerrent, and the Bible says that God is inerrent." we've taked about this kind of circular, North Korean logic, "he is great because he leads, and he leads because he is great." which i understand to be a part of faith. i really do. and i am not comparing God/Jesus to North Korea.

i am just wondering if it's possible to find some kind of external validation.

i also hope it underscores the point that this undermines any sort of Biblical authority for anyone other than strict believers. it makes the Bible less true, less in errant, more of a text of convenience, in my eyes.

which is fine; it's not necessarily meant for me, at least it's authority isn't meant for me. but it also undermines, for me, things i have heard from other people who might hold beliefs that are against their better judgement, but they must hold them because the Bible tells them to do so. the most obvious example of this would be a friend of mine who's sister is born again -- she has said (and this was before i came out) that she doesn't like thinking that homosexualty is wrong and she has many gay friends, but the Bible tells her it is wrong, and so she feels she must speak out about it whenever she can. which is her right to do so. but if she's pointing to the Bible as the reason, and nothing else, i have every right to tell her to fuck off.

another example might be the idea that there can only be one path to god, and that non-Christians are going to hell.

 

[Irvine511]

If Scripture isn't inerrant, how can it have any authority? How can you even say that Jesus Christ is God? Christianity can quickly become a social services club or self esteem methodology.

i think this gets at precisely how many have come to understand Christianity, because this is how Christianity functions in the lives of many believers. it looks exactly like a self-esteem methodology (Jesus Loves You! bumper stickers and what not) and the club aspect is reinforced by the interpretation of religion enabling people to feel perfectly good about excluding other groups and deeming themselves superior to other groups (gays, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.)

 

[Irvine511]

It's not like all these people heard a voice telling them what to write.
\

but isn't that exactly what it's like?

 

[coemgen]

No. I mean, God can speak to people however he wants, he's God. The Holy Spirit moves by convictions and guidance of your heart, I guess you could say. People often think of God in terms of big, loud, amazing signs. That can happen, but God also works in small, quiet ways.

 

[Irvine511]

No. I mean, God can speak to people however he wants, he's God. The Holy Spirit moves by convictions and guidance of your heart, I guess you could say. People often think of God in terms of big, loud, amazing signs. That can happen, but God also works in small, quiet ways.

as a believer, how would you seek to confirm that the Holy Spirit was working through someone? how would you confirm that someone had, indeed, spoken to God and received (in effect) a message from him? are there criteria to be met? how can you sniff out the sincere from the charlatans?

 

[coemgen]

Great question. I'm off to an interview and I'll reply when I get back.

And yes, Robertson fails at meeting some of the criteria.

 

[coemgen]

as a believer, how would you seek to confirm that the Holy Spirit was working through someone? how would you confirm that someone had, indeed, spoken to God and received (in effect) a message from him? are there criteria to be met? how can you sniff out the sincere from the charlatans?

Hey Irvine, here's what Paul writes are the "fruits of the spirit," meaning if you truly have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you, these are the results. This is the evidence. I included the first part (19-21) to show some of what is simply referred to as sin, or the "deeds of the flesh," meaning acts that we do on our own, without the Holy Spirit and against God.

Galatians 5:19-23 

 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.


As many are claiming, Robertson's claims seem to fall into the "selfish ambition" category. There's no point in saying what he's saying, especially when he's telling the world what (he thinks) God is thinking. It's absurd. It doesn't help the peace process any either, which I would think, goes against the fruits of the spirit -- namely "peace."

Having the Holy Spirit within you is easy -- you just have to accept Christ as your lord and savior. However, the Spirit's presence in you grows stronger the closer you are to God.

As far as knowing if someone has actually gotten something from God in the form of communication, it just has to align with the Bible. There's a LOT of frauds out there, even within "Christianity" (especially within "Christianity"). These people claim God is telling them something, but it might not jive with what the Bible says. They twist the Bible to make it fit their claims too. Benny Hinn is a master at this.

 

[nbcrusader]

i think this gets at precisely how many have come to understand Christianity, because this is how Christianity functions in the lives of many believers. it looks exactly like a self-esteem methodology (Jesus Loves You! bumper stickers and what not) and the club aspect is reinforced by the interpretation of religion enabling people to feel perfectly good about excluding other groups and deeming themselves superior to other groups (gays, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.)

Interesting that you say that.

To me, a critical element of basic Christian belief is that we are separated from God because of our sin.


This really doesn't lend itself to "feel good" or superiority beliefs.

 

[hiphop]

how can you sniff out the sincere from the charlatans?

you see thieves, dishonesty and treachery everywhere
while you are unaware of God being everywhere

 

[coemgen]

^nice, whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

 

[Irvine511]

Interesting that you say that.

To me, a critical element of basic Christian belief is that we are separated from God because of our sin.


This really doesn't lend itself to "feel good" or superiority beliefs.

your stripe of Christianity doesn't seem to be the of the mainstream -- believe it or not, i do know many different kinds of Christians, from born again to Main Line to the ethnically Catholic to Mormons, and virtually all focus on that feeling of specialness due to being a child of God and being loved by Jesus.

and, yes, i have always felt the presence of implied superiority ... or, perhaps, less superiority, and more pity for others, if not downright fear that friends who aren't christian -- who might be Muslim, or gay -- are going to hell.

perhaps one has to be an observer to notice this.

 

[BVS]

If Scripture isn't inerrant, how can it have any authority? How can you even say that Jesus Christ is God? Christianity can quickly become a social services club or self esteem methodology.

To me it's never been any authority. God is the authority not the Bible and the two are separate.

 

[Irvine511]

Hey Irvine, here's what Paul writes are the "fruits of the spirit," meaning if you truly have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you, these are the results. This is the evidence. I included the first part (19-21) to show some of what is simply referred to as sin, or the "deeds of the flesh," meaning acts that we do on our own, without the Holy Spirit and against God.

Galatians 5:19-23 

 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

could this be any more vague? can we validate Scripture using something other than Scripture?


[q]As many are claiming, Robertson's claims seem to fall into the "selfish ambition" category. There's no point in saying what he's saying, especially when he's telling the world what (he thinks) God is thinking. It's absurd. It doesn't help the peace process any either, which I would think, goes against the fruits of the spirit -- namely "peace."[/q]

could this not be just as subjective as anything else? is Robertson not necessarily saying that God is speaking through him, but using The Bible as historical precedent to understand why Sharon has had a stroke? 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?

after all, it is inerrant, isn't it?

Having the Holy Spirit within you is easy -- you just have to accept Christ as your lord and savior. However, the Spirit's presence in you grows stronger the closer you are to God.

As far as knowing if someone has actually gotten something from God in the form of communication, it just has to align with the Bible. There's a LOT of frauds out there, even within "Christianity" (especially within "Christianity"). These people claim God is telling them something, but it might not jive with what the Bible says. They twist the Bible to make it fit their claims too. Benny Hinn is a master at this.

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?

 

[Irvine511]

you see thieves, dishonesty and treachery everywhere
while you are unaware of God being everywhere

cooooool ...

can i get another hit?

 

[coemgen]

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?"

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?

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.

 

[Rono]

my dad had a stroke 2 weeks ago,..is he punished by god ?

 

[Irvine511]

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.

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?

 

[yolland]

who authorized the Bible?

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?

(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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

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?

 

[yolland]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[yolland]

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!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

from SNL

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002776.html

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.

 

[verte76]

Someone put a sock in this guy's mouth! Honestly...........

 

[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.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.