Mullah Robertson speaks again

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:22 pm

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 812S67.DTL

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:49 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 812S67.DTL

Robertson is a fricking moron, and I seriously believe he has gone completely crazy.

He stated that the tsunami and earth quake in Pakistan where part of the prophecies of the end of times but I guess the part about peace in the middle east being the beginning of the rapture was a typo in the bible. It's just really hypocritical in my view, Whether you believe the bible or not. Robertson claims to but picks and chooses what to interpret and what not to.

I think Robertson my be the Anti-Christ.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:10 pm

Can't argue with the anti-Christ theory. It's as good as anything I can come up with.

The really scary thing is, people are still sending money to this guy.

I honestly think that if this guy was a Muslim leader and was saying these same things, donations to his organization would have been frozen by the Justice Department by now and he would have been arrested for inciting terrorism. In a truly blind legal system, he would be getting himself very close.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:36 pm

They have different reasons, but it looks like Robertson and Iran's President have something in common via Sharon.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 002&sc=761

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:41 pm

"Wolf in sheeps clothing" - Pat Robertson, I can see it. This guy is so far out there, wow...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:51 am

Kudos to the White House:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 152S14.DTL

It would have been even better had the messenger been someone with more standing in the administration than Trent Duffy, but regardless, it is reassuring to know that our leadership is asserting that our government doesn't condone Robertson's antics.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:40 pm

Ponycat wrote:...ut I guess the part about peace in the middle east being the beginning of the rapture was a typo in the bible...

I believe you'll find most eschatologists believe the 7-year peace accord will occur after the Rapture, not before.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:48 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Ponycat wrote:...ut I guess the part about peace in the middle east being the beginning of the rapture was a typo in the bible...

I believe you'll find most eschatologists believe the 7-year peace accord will occur after the Rapture, not before.

I'm not the bible scholar that you obviously are but thanks for making my point. All of the judgements that Mr. Robertson claims have already occured are supposed to come after the rapture as well, according to post-rapture theory, but a large number of bible scholars (who aren't on TV begging for money) don't have a real definate position as to whether the rapture happens before during or after the judgements. EIther way the peace comes before the judgements.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:31 pm

Ponycat wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Ponycat wrote:...ut I guess the part about peace in the middle east being the beginning of the rapture was a typo in the bible...

I believe you'll find most eschatologists believe the 7-year peace accord will occur after the Rapture, not before.

I'm not the bible scholar that you obviously are but thanks for making my point. All of the judgements that Mr. Robertson claims have already occured are supposed to come after the rapture as well, according to post-rapture theory, but a large number of bible scholars (who aren't on TV begging for money) don't have a real definate position as to whether the rapture happens before during or after the judgements. EIther way the peace comes before the judgements.

I wouldn't call myself a "Biblical scholar"--but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. At any rate, your assertion is correct from everything I've read from real-life Biblical scholars and eschatologists.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:56 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Ponycat wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Ponycat wrote:...ut I guess the part about peace in the middle east being the beginning of the rapture was a typo in the bible...

I believe you'll find most eschatologists believe the 7-year peace accord will occur after the Rapture, not before.

I'm not the bible scholar that you obviously are but thanks for making my point. All of the judgements that Mr. Robertson claims have already occured are supposed to come after the rapture as well, according to post-rapture theory, but a large number of bible scholars (who aren't on TV begging for money) don't have a real definate position as to whether the rapture happens before during or after the judgements. EIther way the peace comes before the judgements.

I wouldn't call myself a "Biblical scholar"--but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. At any rate, your assertion is correct from everything I've read from real-life Biblical scholars and eschatologists.

I would simply weigh in and say that most "eschatologists" that are out there talking about Israel and putting all "end times" eggs in that basket, ( believing national Israel is the key to the end times), are dispensationalists.
Historically however, the teaching of mainline Christianity does not teach a "Left Behind" theology. That is a recent doctrinal position that people liek Robertson have hung their hat on.

Make no mistake about it, Pat Robertson may sound like a loose cannon, but he is simply spouting dispensationalist theology, which in my view is completely misreading what will happen with all peoples including Israel.

I agree with the tone of this thread however, Pat needs to keep his pronouncements to himself in these cases.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:59 pm

Sorry Honolulu-- I enclosed my post in your quote by mistake. Please feel no need to endorse my view.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:03 pm

catsrback76 wrote:Sorry Honolulu-- I enclosed my post in your quote by mistake. Please feel no need to endorse my view.

There I fixed it.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:27 pm

he's a bigot, however, as "practicing" Christians we must love him anyway. If he is to grow with understanding you must lead him there with the agape love given to you. i personally think he's shaming the pulpit with his remarks - forgetting JEWS are the chosen people of God. To wish death on Sharon and to say it is God's wrath is neither Christian nor intelligent. Just because the man can hold up a Bible does not mean he lives by the Lords teachings. As the greatest thing Christians are commanded to do is LOVE. In both the books of 1 Tim and in luke you can see for yourself that God directly commands you to do this, Love not only those that love you back, but those that curse you, harm you, and wish you ill, so i'll love Pat, and pray for him to stop being stone hearted.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:33 pm

Pat just needs to Love the Jews and Isreal if he is to claim he is a man of God.

Love is the sole aim and purpose of the Bible’s teachings (1 Timothy 1:5).
There are six reasons why God’s love is important.
It’s the whole meaning and purpose of your life.
It’s the only way others will know you are a Christian.
It proves you are abiding with God.
It shows you are filled with the fullness of God.
It’s proof that you love God.
It’s the perfect bond of union between you and others.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:16 pm

briannell wrote:Pat just needs to Love the Jews and Isreal if he is to claim he is a man of God.

Love is the sole aim and purpose of the Bible’s teachings (1 Timothy 1:5).
There are six reasons why God’s love is important.
It’s the whole meaning and purpose of your life.
It’s the only way others will know you are a Christian.
It proves you are abiding with God.
It shows you are filled with the fullness of God.
It’s proof that you love God.
It’s the perfect bond of union between you and others.

Granted. My point about his theology is simply this, he believes whole heartedly in everything you say. He is convinced that what he says IS the loving thing to say about Israel. He doesn't want anyone else to experience "God's judgments" for carving up Israel.

I think his theology on Israel is wrong, but, I cannot see anyway that Pat Robertson is being unloving in what he is saying, when he truly believes what he says.

Pat is convinced he is saying the loving thing. ( again I'm not advocating for him simply clarifying his position as I see it)

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:22 pm

My point about his theology is simply this, he believes whole heartedly in everything you say. He is convinced that what he says IS the loving thing to say about Israel. He doesn't want anyone else to experience "God's judgments" for carving up Israel.

I know that everyone is entitled to their view points, so please don't take this as rude. I am simply pointing out (my view ONLY) that although in his mind he is not doing anything wrong, his actions are not consistant with God's Word. God is clear on what we as Christians are to do and how we are to behave. I think Pat is doing what HE feels is correct, HOWEVER, emotional feelings/love is different than spiritual/agape love. What Pat is doing and saying (judging) are of the flesh not the spirit.

Agape love enables the Believer to do as God commands, which is to respond to his or her enemies with forgiveness, prayer and words of blessing (John 14:15).

how are Pat's words blessings?

Believers who walk in agape love have the power to edify members of the Body of Christ by considering others first; praying for them and showing compassion whenever possible (John 13:34).

how is Pat doing this?

I know that there's a lot of confusion these days when you throw the word love around. there's a difference between love of the flesh (sexual/romantic) and love of the spirit (agape). I know that personally I have people in my life that when you hug them and say "i love you and need you in my life, you enrich me and are a blessing unto me" they automatically think you want to marry and bare their children. So I now have become aware of this after making several uncomfortable - and when i "unload" on them now say "I love you in Christ". (should have remembered that part from my grandpa - and those male friends of mine would not have ran like jack rabbits

) Pat is not loving in Christ. He is not loving with the spirit. I have a problem with a preacher not being loving towards others. just my two cents.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:11 pm

briannell wrote:
My point about his theology is simply this, he believes whole heartedly in everything you say. He is convinced that what he says IS the loving thing to say about Israel. He doesn't want anyone else to experience "God's judgments" for carving up Israel.
I know that everyone is entitled to their view points, so please don't take this as rude. I am simply pointing out (my view ONLY) that although in his mind he is not doing anything wrong, his actions are not consistant with God's Word. God is clear on what we as Christians are to do and how we are to behave. I think Pat is doing what HE feels is correct, HOWEVER, emotional feelings/love is different than spiritual/agape love. What Pat is doing and saying (judging) are of the flesh not the spirit.

Agape love enables the Believer to do as God commands, which is to respond to his or her enemies with forgiveness, prayer and words of blessing (John 14:15).

how are Pat's words blessings?

Believers who walk in agape love have the power to edify members of the Body of Christ by considering others first; praying for them and showing compassion whenever possible (John 13:34).

how is Pat doing this?

I know that there's a lot of confusion these days when you throw the word love around. there's a difference between love of the flesh (sexual/romantic) and love of the spirit (agape). I know that personally I have people in my life that when you hug them and say "i love you and need you in my life, you enrich me and are a blessing unto me" they automatically think you want to marry and bare their children. So I now have become aware of this after making several uncomfortable - and when i "unload" on them now say "I love you in Christ". (should have remembered that part from my grandpa - and those male friends of mine would not have ran like jack rabbits ) Pat is not loving in Christ. He is not loving with the spirit. I have a problem with a preacher not being loving towards others. just my two cents.

Rebecca, I'm not disagreeing with you. I am only saying that you would be shocked to know how many Christians there are that hold the very same views that he publicly declared. He put voice to a "Left Behind" eschatology that many people have convictions about.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:48 pm

And just to put the conversation in another perspective, the leader of Iran is only speaking from a fanatical literal interpretation of religious doctine as well.

All people who take this stuff (their ancient religious texts of choice) literally and say/do irrational things as a result scare me. If we manage to destroy the world, it won't be because of rational "secular" people ... it will be due to someone doing something awful because they are convinced that their religion is telling them to do it.

And Pat Robertson is saying things that are exactly like the terrorist leaders we are fighting against. Fortunately, his followers haven't started strapping bombs to themselves yet, and I hope it stays that way. I also hope that his deranged worldview doesn't pollute our government's decisions as to when and where we decide to use our military.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:44 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:And just to put the conversation in another perspective, the leader of Iran is only speaking from a fanatical literal interpretation of religious doctine as well.

All people who take this stuff (their ancient religious texts of choice) literally and say/do irrational things as a result scare me. If we manage to destroy the world, it won't be because of rational "secular" people ... it will be due to someone doing something awful because they are convinced that their religion is telling them to do it.

And Pat Robertson is saying things that are exactly like the terrorist leaders we are fighting against. Fortunately, his followers haven't started strapping bombs to themselves yet, and I hope it stays that way. I also hope that his deranged worldview doesn't pollute our government's decisions as to when and where we decide to use our military.

With all due respect BAC, your thoughts are not in the least accurate regarding the "literal" teachings of Jesus Christ. There is a dramatic difference between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Mohammed in the Koran. Mohammed in fact did endorse jihad in the Koran as a way of purging the infidels who pollute Islamic beliefs.
Jesus by contrast when invited to endorse similar responses from his followers rebuked even the thought.

"And they went, and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make arrangements for Him. And they did not receive Him, because He was journeying with His face toward Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them." Luke 9:53-56

I can hear the classic response, "what of the Crusades etc etc..." The reponse is the same, "you don't know what spirit you are of". Huge black marks on the face of not what Jesus taught, but what politicized religious imperalism preached/preaches. The reason why you have heard almost universal condemnation against Pat Robertsons statements is that they do not represent Christ and His "literal" teachings at all.

On the comment about the destructions of humanity caused by sincere believers, and not "rational secularists", I have to chuckle. I believe rational secularists, though rare, need only look in the mirror and check their conscience to recognize that murder lies in every human heart, particularly in light of Jesus' teaching that to "call another a fool " you have in essence already committed murder. The world will collapse under the human condition called sin, whoever pushes the button.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:11 pm

I never said anything about the literal teachings of Jesus Christ. In my mind, nothing Jesus ever said in the Bible squares at all with any of the crap that guys like Robertson stand for. If self-proclaimed "Christian" leaders such as Robertson and Falwell actually followed the Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ, I would have zero concern. They would do nothing but be nice to other people and talk a lot about how they weren't in a position to judge others. That would be great.

Robertson = radical Mullahs. I don't care about the underlying philosophies in the equation, because both of them bastardize the philosophies they claim to represent.

BTW, I think Robertson relies more on Old Testament clips to get his more fiery material. The New Testament just doesn't lend itself to hatred and radicalism in quite the same way.

And while you chuckle about secularists, keep in mind that atheists are the perfect enemy as they are actually afraid of death. They don't have some fantasy world built up in their minds about what is waiting for them in the afterlife, so they aren't going to rush into a world-consuming war if it increases their chances to die (such as a nobody wins nuclear war). On the other hand, you give the power to make such a decision to a radical fundamentalist of either Muslim or Christian faith, and they just might think that the murder they are carrying out in their God's name will rewarded in the afterlife. That's a scary scenario to me. That's why I am much more concerned about Muslim countries than North Korea.

Mullah Robertson speaks again

Mullah Robertson speaks again

Re: Mullah Robertson speaks again

Re: Mullah Robertson speaks again

Re: Mullah Robertson speaks again

Re: Mullah Robertson speaks again

Re: Mullah Robertson speaks again