That there might be someone out there who thinks Pat Robertson is in any way indicative of the "thought process" of a typical American...
The man has about as much wherewithal to speak on international topics as an orangatan, much less to speak for the mind of God.
I try not to suggest that anyone has anything less than the right to speak their mind. But that this guy has an audience- that anyone might take him seriously...!
<incoherent rage>
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
*clears throat* *sings* Robertson roasting over an open fire...
Unfortunately, I like that Christmas Carol, and this is ruining it for me. Too dang many syllables in that name.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
Is there anything that Mr. Robertson would not label "divine retribution" if it would get his name in the press?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
*clears throat* *sings*
And here's to you, Mr. Robertson, Papers love you more than you will know. Spew hatred, please Mr. Robertson. Hell opens a place for those who spew, Hey, hey, hey
[/warbling]
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote: "He seems to think God is ready to take out any world leader who stands in the way of that agenda," Lynn said in a written statement
Yeah, he wishes. Can you imagine Robertson with the hand of god behind him????? I know I'D be dead. Would YOU ????!!!!
::sings:: ::divinely, by the way::
Wouldnt it be nice if he were Satan Then he wouldnt have to wait so long And wouldnt it be nice if he could smite them Send em all to hell where they belong
::really high pitched:: You know its gonna make it that much better When he can say go to hell and staaaay forever ::end really high pitched::
Wouldnt it be niiice
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Least Christian guy EVER. Except for that other guy. You know, that guy. Eh, maybe you don't.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Gee, I think I might have started a new trend...
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Nuh uh, Quid. That song ALWAYS pops into my head when I contemplate evil.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Robertson said God's message is, "This land belongs to me. You'd better leave it alone."
As opposed to, say, marking it up with arbitrary political boundaries or creating nation states that have nothing to do with any kind of divine fiat. Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
I'm a Christian and Pat continues to appall me. Take note people: Pat Robertson does not represent most Christians. At least not the ones I know.
Btw, I happen to disagree that handing over the Gaza strip was the right thing to do, but God did not cause Sharon's condition. I'm sure it had to do with the foods Sharon ate, how much exercise he got, and the fact that he is getting old. He's 77 years old for crying out loud! Old people sometimes have strokes!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crotalus: Old people sometimes have strokes!
Or, maybe, just maybe, G'd hates old people.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
Thanks Pat...
I am sure you just converted thousands over to Christianity with that comment. Now that everyone has seen the love of Christ just flowing from you they will flock to the churches.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Or, maybe, just maybe, G'd hates old people.
I knew it!
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Oooh! Saying Pat Robertson will go to hell because he (basically) just said that someone else is going to hell.
Irony!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Good point.
Is it bad of me to keenly anticipate the day when I can feel sympathy for Pat Robertson's widow?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
No, but I'm more inclined to just hope someone will figure out a way to quietly shove him under the mat so we all just forget about him. I mean, honestly, I don't give two farts about the guy until he says something stupid- and he seems to be doing a lot more of that lately.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I hope that he truly finds Christ and spends the rest of his life making personal amends to all the people that he's slandered and hurt.
This is because I'm a better person than all the rest of you.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Crotalus: Old people sometimes have strokes!
Or, maybe, just maybe, G'd hates old people.
Only Toys-R-Us can save us now!
"I don't wanna grow up, I'm a Toys-R-Us kid..."
*Rocks menacingly in chair*
-Bok
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I wonder what they will say when Pat, himself, passes away....
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Is it bad of me to keenly anticipate the day when I can feel sympathy for Pat Robertson's widow?
Yes, it's a very bad thing.. and I'm equally as guilty.
The only real problem is when Mr. Robertson is gone, we're going to have to listen to a long line of people sing his praises because it's uncouth to speak ill of the dead.
Pix
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pat Robertson is such an isolated voice that he only has the most watched Christian show in the country and founded and is the face person for the largest Christian political advocacy group and Christian broadcasting network. When you are talkign about the worlds of politics and media, Pat is just about the most prominent Christian figure in America.
You may just as well claim that almost no Christians read the Left Behind series. Or that almost no Christians are behind the "Justice Sunday" things.
There are a large number of people who believe that God has a plan for Israel and that he will strike down people who get in his way. There's a significant block of Christians that are actively trying to help build a full Jewish state of Israel in order to bring about the end of the world. I don't think that claiming that they don't exist or that they don't respect Pat Robertson because you don't agree with their views is a responsible thing to do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The only thing I saw in this thread about whether Christians that respect PR exist was this:
quote:Pat Robertson does not represent most Christians.
Where do you see someone claiming such people don't exist or that they don't respect Pat Robertson?
The only other statement I saw that could be remotely connected to your post was someone claiming PR was the "least Christian guy EVER," in a manner that strongly suggests a joke.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Does anyone here agree with Mr. Robertson's appraisal of the situation?
I can find 5 quick logical inconsistancies with Mr. Robertson's idea all before delving deep into the subject. Those inconsistancies make God out to be far less than the omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving diety that Christianity purports God to be.
Yet we must realize that Mr. Robertson is an important figure in Christianity. He has a lot of power and a very familiar face. Writing him off as a fanatic is like writing Islamic Terrorists off as just a fanatic fringe of Islam. While both are true, continued repeated and heavilly covered disasters makes the rest of the world question the majority of the religions morality and sanity.
The solution is for a loud and oft-repeated condemnation of such stupidity by every member of the religious leadership that can find a microphone.
We want neither the non-Christian world, nor Christians themselves, to believe that blaming an illness on a person's morality is what Christianity is all about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
While I very much agree that Pat Robertson does not represent most Christians, he does represent many of the "loudest" ones. He also represent a political power block. This means he has a certain amount of influence with our government. Writing him off as a fringe lunatic is dangerous. I feel that Christians that don't agree with him should make that known to their political representatives.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And, once again, Dan was first and better.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
I believe he is the western equivalent of a terrorist. If a man with that fanatical of a viewpoint was brought up with a religion whose doctrine contains some references to violence he would be the one sending the "believers" off with bombs on their chests.
He is Christianitys version of Osama Bin Laden, and given the chance would probably resort to the same tactics.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Or, maybe, just maybe, G'd hates old people.
...and amputees.
So, we've got a God who hates old people, fags, and amputees. Also, we all know that he doesn't listen to the prayers of Jews.
What else do we know?
(BTW, I'm being horribly facetious here; I got the vomitous shakes just writing half of that stuff.)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I hate to point this out, but how is heaping hateful remarks on someone not-hateful?
And at least to make things fair, this is his company's statement on the outrage over his quoted comments about Sharon:
I'll be honest and say that I don't know anything about Pat Robertson. He's been attributed some pretty ugly press. I don't watch his show, don't contribute to his organization. But I do contribute to Focus on the Family, and know that James Dobson has been ill-treated by the press in the past. I don't agree with everything Dobson has to say, or even with everything his organization does, but they do quite a lot of good as well. And I believe that some of his bad press has been deliberately malicious in intent. That leads me to believe that some of Pat Robertson's bad press has also been deliberately malicious in intent as well.
I can't defend him at all...as I said, I don't know a thing about him. But it seems that this gleeful dismantling of the man is a bit unseemly. He's the equivilent of a terrorist? Like people who wear bombs, walk into a restaurant and then blow themselves (and everyone around them) up? Please.
addited: Well, it appears we have given money to one of his organizations (the ACLJ). I took them off our list of charities in early 2005 because I didn't like their fundraising tactics.
[ January 06, 2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
quote: Least Christian guy EVER. Except for that other guy. You know, that guy. Eh, maybe you don't.
Airman: I think you are referring to Fred Phelps in Topeka, KS, who loves to come up on my campus (The University of Kansas) with several others and hold up signs that are hate filled.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
Squicky makes a good point. I know of no Robertson officianado's but I hail from the bay area, and have only recently left. Who has given him the boatloads of cash, and television ratings to build such a huge empire over the past several decades? It's not oompa loompa's or mythical Leprechauns creating the cash flow to give this village/continental idiot such a loud and public voice. He speaks for a lot of people, unfortunately, and clearly he does not and did not regret the things he's said recently that got him in hot water (ID vote meaning God will turn his/her/its back on Dover, PA, divine assasination is a must in regards to Chavez etc) no matter what half-hearted PC apologies he has given to keep the bad press off his doorstep from time to time.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I think he built his following before he started saying these outrageous things.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Foundling, I think that if I see the Hand of God behind Robertson, it's probably just winding up to smack the crap out of him.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"He's the equivilent of a terrorist? Like people who wear bombs..."
How about like selling the US on continuing to support SouthAfrican slavery in exchange for blood diamonds from his own mines given to him by a grateful Apartheid government? Robertson would be in prison right now for his diamond smuggling operations except the Republican State AttorneyGeneral was elected through the support of Robertson's followers. Similarly bought, Reagan and by extension his AttorneyGeneral.
Posted by Ray Bingham (Member # 9006) on :
PS> Link credit, instapundit...
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Links, aspectre, please. Or something to substantiate what you're saying. As I mentioned above, I do have personal experience with one of his organizations, and don't think very highly of them. It strikes me as more productive to figure out how to reduce his financial base with facts -- the ACLJ is very effective at raising money, btw, and use a lot of fairly creative ways to do it, which is why we don't contribute to them anymore. I had heartburn with them getting a credit card in their name, of which they get a percentage of the interest you pay. Since scripture is pretty pointed about debt, this struck me as a very bad way to raise money for a Christian charity. I told them so and they got kinda snotty with me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
jeniwren, this isn't the first hateful and outrageous thing PR has said and subsequently been called on the carpet for by the media. In all the other cases, the quotes were not taken out of context except insofar as the additional context made the remarks even more offensive. (IMO).
quote:Originally posted by enochville: I think he built his following before he started saying these outrageous things.
Actually, I think he built his following before ill advised comments could shoot around the world and onto every wire service nearly instantaneously. Also before such remarks were considered something to be embarrassed about. 20 years ago comments like he's made about homosexuals were fairly commonplace and usually expected from religious leaders. I don't think that Robertson has changed so much as society has changed around him and he's failed to keep up. Then again some could admire him for his consistency.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Oh, I know it hasn't been his first. I remember being on the bandwagon with everyone else in the last thread on one of his reported comments. It just bugged me this time. No particular reason why. Maybe I'm feeling kinder and gentler today.
And since looking up more info on him, from his own site even, I'm less disposed to think kindly of him. I used to have a site that rated charities and I can't find it now. But I'd be really interested to see what they said about it. They were pretty cutting on Benny Hinn's ministry...which takes in millions and does not, it reported, disclose where that money goes. I found a similar report in my quick lookaround, where one of his charities that is supposed to do international aid had been investigated and found had taken in funds for Katrina but not actually spent them on relief. Robertson was reported as having paid the discovered discrepency personally.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Jeni--it can be a bit personal this time. Robertson claims that Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for Sharon's work to bring peace to his country by dividing up the Biblical state of Isreal.
My father sits in a wheel chair, hardly able to talk, due to a stroke. What was his sin?
Should we take care of stroke victims or condemn them for whatever sin God is punishing them for?
Posted by Ray Bingham (Member # 9006) on :
Dan: His sin is being born...
--Ray
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Think about how angry y'all are at Robertson, and just for saying something. While Ariel Sharon bulldozered the homes of businesses of 9,000 innocent men, women and children who hadn't done a thing to deserve it.
Did you know that some of the victims of Sharon's deportations only now have managed to get into some semi-permanent apartments? Of course, they used to own their own houses, and they still have to pay the mortgages on those, even though the homes no longer exist, but hey, anything for peace, right? Except... oh, wait. It didn't further any peace in the region. It just gave the Arabs a new place to put rocket emplacements to attack other Jewish towns.
Sometimes I wish there was such a thing as hell, because while Robertson might belong there, Sharon certainly would as well.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
What boggles my mind is that a person who says these things can retain his position of prominance and still retain a following.
The guy openly called for the assassination of a foreign leader, called various natural disasters and ill events "Gods retribution". Its amazing that any broadcasting network would allow his shows to continue, and scarier still that there are a million viewers each day.
And regarding my calling him a terrorist, I'm not saying he is one or has been responsible for anything of that magnitude, I just believe he has it within himself to either commit or instigate such acts under the flag of his religion. However, Pat robinson lives in an economically and militarily dominant country so uses different tactics. It scares me, and shows that no matter where in the world you are or what your religion is there are a few messed up people that rise to power.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Think about how angry y'all are at Robertson, and just for saying something. While Ariel Sharon bulldozered the homes of businesses of 9,000 innocent men, women and children who hadn't done a thing to deserve it.
And Israel has been bulldozing the homes and businesses of Palestinians for decades.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Think about how angry y'all are at Robertson, and just for saying something. While Ariel Sharon bulldozered the homes of businesses of 9,000 innocent men, women and children who hadn't done a thing to deserve it.
No one is going to suggest that Sharon's words and actions are a stand-in for my own as typically American.
They may, in Robertson's case.
I haven't been a serious biblical student in some time, but it strikes me that the biblical God has never had a lot of trouble getting the point across that an event was divine rather than natural or man-made. He hasn't dealt in a lot of strokes and natural disasters, let alone political assasinations (possibly excepting the story of David and Goliath.) It doesn't just rain; it pours for weeks. It rains fire. It rains toads.
Robertson is a snake-oil salesman in reverse. Something bad happens to someone he doesn't like, it's God; something bad happens to someone he likes or doesn't care abput? <shrug>
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Think about how angry y'all are at Robertson, and just for saying something. While Ariel Sharon bulldozered the homes of businesses of 9,000 innocent men, women and children who hadn't done a thing to deserve it."
I think the classification of "not having done a thing to deserve it," is... off the mark?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I met a patient this week who is a huge fan of Robertson. She is pretty scarey. She goes on three, seven, or ten day fasts when she prays for something extra difficult. She's been healed multiple times by touching the TV set while Robertson or other religious men are on. She can't stay sick, can't get diabetes, doesn't need preventive medicine, because GOD is on her side. She's successfully sued several people including her former boss and is now suing her plumber and her dentist. Apparently she thinks this is her right and that she'll always win because God will always help her prevail against her enemies. She said a lot of other things, too.
I've been thinking a lot about him since then. Is he partly to blame for her crazy thinking, or would she have been crazy anyway? I feel an irrational anger towards him right now.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think a little of both.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Some one need to shove a sock in this guys mouth.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
He doesn't remind me so much of Bin Laden as of the President of Iran
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Oh yeah! Thats it! Ahmadinezhad! PR's unChristianity can only be matched by the unChristianity of my favorite international loudmouth. The only reason I think Iran's President beats out PR is the scary thought of one loudmouth trying to get nukes and the other just spouting "divine retribution" after the fact.
Like G'd actually talks to PR. I'm much more personable. Fred Phelps was a pretty good bet, too, I must admit.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
I think it's time to review Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. There is a preacher in there who earns a special place in 'heaven' as a reward for his earthly crusades.
If there is 'Divine justice' Robertson already has reservations, and if there is no Divine justice, it's still fun to imagine him there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Think about how angry y'all are at Robertson, and just for saying something. While Ariel Sharon bulldozered the homes of businesses of 9,000 innocent men, women and children who hadn't done a thing to deserve it."
I think the classification of "not having done a thing to deserve it," is... off the mark?
Hardly. Do you think they were like outlaw gangs, squatting in some fort? That's the problem with the term "settlement".
These were families living in suburban towns and farms. You've clearly never been there, or any of the towns in Judea and Samaria.
Many of them moved there because there were good deals on houses with yards and room for children to run around.
Many moved there because they believed it is an important mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel, of which that land is a part.
Some felt that they were serving an important national purpose by creating a strategic depth in the Gaza Strip that would make it more difficult for the Arabs to attack towns within the Green Line.
A belief, incidentally, which was immediately proven correct when the Arabs moved their missile batteries up to the ruins of the Jewish towns and started firing missiles into Israeli villages inside the internationally recognized borders.
Kids got on the bus in the morning and went to school. People had block parties to get to know new neighbors. Neighbors commiserated about the crummy contractors who screwed up the plumbing in their houses.
None of these people danced in the streets when Arabs died. None of these people trained their children to chant "With blood and fire, we will liberate the land." None of these people sent their children with explosive belts to blow up innocent civilians.
You have a lot of nerve suggesting that the victims of Sharon's machinations had done anything whatsoever to deserve the destruction of their homes and livelihoods.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: Think about how angry y'all are at Robertson, and just for saying something. While Ariel Sharon bulldozered the homes of businesses of 9,000 innocent men, women and children who hadn't done a thing to deserve it.
And Israel has been bulldozing the homes and businesses of Palestinians for decades.
Bulldozing the homes of people who actually carried out terrorist attacks against civilians. Every action taken against the Arabs has been for the purpose of protecting us against their homocidal/genocidal attacks. When they stop, we stop. Every single time. Of course, they never stop for more than a few days at any time, so when they start up again, we do as well.
They call checkpoints repression. And yet dozens of suicide bombers have been caught at these checkpoints in the last year alone. Had the checkpoints not been there, countless innocent Jews would have been murdered.
This is what happens over and over. Israel takes defensive measures, sometimes active, like assassinating terrorist leaders, sometimes as a deterrent, like destroying the homes of actual terrorists who have carried out attacks, and sometimes passive, like the security fence (the so-called "wall").
And people with absolutely no sense of proportion whatsoever compare these defensive acts to the brutal murders they're intended to prevent, or even to the destruction of the homes and businesses and communities of towns and villages full of people who never lifted a finger against another human being in their lives. It really is kind of disgusting. I expected better of you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Bulldozing the homes of people who actually carried out terrorist attacks against civilians.
Bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers is pointless. You aren't punishing the person who actually committed the crime, you're punishing their family.
The point is entirely lost on them. And for that matter, everyone else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Bulldozing the homes of people who actually carried out terrorist attacks against civilians.
B.S. I personally know at least two families with absolutely no involvement in terrorism who had homes bulldozed.
quote:And people with absolutely no sense of proportion whatsoever compare these defensive acts to the brutal murders they're intended to prevent, or even to the destruction of the homes and businesses and communities of towns and villages full of people who never lifted a finger against another human being in their lives. It really is kind of disgusting. I expected better of you.
No one has, in this thread, compared them to terrorist acts. They've said that innocent Palestinians have had their homes bulldozed.
I tend to sympathize far more with Israel than the Palestinians, but pretending that the Israelis have done no wrong is pointless and weakens your ability to defend them.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Uhh, person-for-person, Israel is doomed. By like 1000:1, as long as this dumb crap continues Israel is the clear loser, which leads me to believe that in the in the area of self-defense, Israel has the right to do anything it needs to to stay alive. But that's from a guy who lives an ocean away and doesnt know enough hebrew or arabic to understand the actual arguments. I do read the Iranian press though, and the "Zionist Regime" almost never comes off well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:which leads me to believe that in the in the area of self-defense, Israel has the right to do anything it needs to to stay alive.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make kmboots statement that innocent Palestinians' homes have been bulldozed false. If one wants to proceed with the kind of justification you've made for bulldozing innocents' homes, then one shouldn't deny it's been done.
I think much of what Israel has done - including at least some seizure of land controlled by Palestinians - is justified by the security threat. But that doesn't mean that those seizures didn't occur.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: Bulldozing the homes of people who actually carried out terrorist attacks against civilians.
Bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers is pointless. You aren't punishing the person who actually committed the crime, you're punishing their family.
The point is entirely lost on them. And for that matter, everyone else.
Except that the families of suicide bombers get paid a lot of money for it. Some suicide bombers do it to make that money for their family, and/or to give their family a higher status. Knowing that it's also going to lose them their home may very well reduce the number of them who do it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kind of a mixed message when you screw up and bulldoze the wrong houses though isn't it? They probably figure there's no harm in doing it anyway, if there's a chance you might bulldoze their houses even if they are innocent.
Your reasoning, and their understanding of your reasoning are two different things.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Most of these people don't reason. They've been crapped on for so long, by Israel and the rest of the Arab world, that all there is left is anger. Unfortunately the average Palestinian doesn't have access to even a relatively free press, all they get is pre-digested demagoguery. And then they tell their friends.
The whole situation sucks more than a little bit, and I worry about what's going to happen in the near future, when the new Israeli Administration get situated.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Happy Monday! Did we all have a good weekend?
Lisa,
My point was simply that being forced to leave your home when the people in charge draw and redraw boundaries is unfair and terrible no matter which side you are on.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Ooh. Israel. Y'all have fun. I'll be standing over-
here. Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
What Theaca wrote about that scary patient reminds me about a couple of “devout” Christian guy’s I used to work with. One of them liked to read his Bible . . . while driving like a maniac in his pickup . . . with worn down tires . . . down the public highway. His attitude was that God would surely protect him ‘cause he was, after all, reading the Bible.
The other guy, who happened to be my supervisor, was pretty much sympathetic to folks who shoot abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics. He told me, “Abortion is such an abomination that we are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop it.”
I found out later, after he moved to another city, that he also considered my church to be an abomination. Talk about scary! I was almost glad that we have legal abortion in this country because that gave him something else to focus on instead of me and my “abominable” church.
With Christians like these the lions wouldn’t have had a chance. At any rate, about Pat Robertson, do you want to know what strikes me as ironic? I’m going to tell you anyway. I’m willing to bet that here is a guy who vehemently, with foam flecked lips, repudiates the very concept of modern day direct revelation from God. And yet he sits there with his smug little grin and presumes to know what God is thinking.
(Help me out here, is that irony or hypocrisy ? I can’t decide which.)
Hmmm, I wonder, did Pat Robertson said anything similar when Yasser Arafat died?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I’m willing to bet that here is a guy who vehemently, with foam flecked lips, repudiates the very concept of modern day direct revelation from God.
I doubt this is true. Can you cite it?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I’m willing to bet that here is a guy who vehemently, with foam flecked lips, repudiates the very concept of modern day direct revelation from God.
Um, I thought you were saying Robertson is a guy who vehemently, with foam flecked lips, repudiates the very concept of modern day direct revelation from God (based on " At any rate, about Pat Robertson, do you want to know...").
If you weren't, then disregard my comment entirely because it is based on a mistaken understanding of your intent.
If you were speaking of Robertson, can you expand on the connection the article you linked has with your comments on Robertson's belief in direct revelation?
Thanks.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Um, I'm not the source of the original quote, and I misread it ("bet there is a guy who..."), so... Disregard my comment. Irrelevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Too dang many syllables in that name.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)