Pat Robertson says all UFO believers should be stoned!

[Kefka]

Heh, that's pretty close. But I suppose it all boils down to your heart. As you said, we are not free of sin ourselves (actually we are, but we still commit it.) Yet we continue to point out the sin of others... which I'm not entirely against, but in retrospect it does seem to have a hypocritical element. But I don't understand how you can have a "heart for God" if you're too busy throwing petty insults at people you see sinning.

If you murder my mother, and I call you an "idiot," it does nothing other than create negativity. It doesn't change my situation or yours, other than you'd know I thought you were an idiot. I, personally, believe that as christians we have a responsibility to let Jesus, the light of the world, shine through us. That light in you dims every time you sin or create more negativity.

I agree that his antics need to be stopped or changed, but I know for a fact that you don't really believe that putting him down is going to help. And if you don't believe that it's going to help, I would very much like to see you justify it.
[/quote]

 

[Ajax 777]

"What's with this guy? First the Sharon comments, now this."

Uh, not to defend this fellow's statements, but he did make these statements almost ten years ago. The Sharon comments are more recent, aren't they?

Sorry. I just don't really want to see displeasure with Pat's statements extend all the way to Pat himself. As true children of the Living God, we're not supposed to gossip. And although I, too, find the things Mr. Robertson spoke regarding "losing your salvation" because of being deceived by demons ENTIRELY incorrect, I'll just remember that Jesus warned His disciples to be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees.

I'd need to hear it from Jesus himself before I'd accept a radical claim like that...but I won't judge Pat for having said it. Instead, I'll just remember that God is love, Jesus Christ is my salvation, hope, and glory, and the Holy Spirit ministers to whomever He chooses. Paul wrote that life, death, angels AND demons can't separate us from His love for us.

So if you think poorly of Pat Robertson's claims, just dismiss them and instead pray for him. Men are more easily seduced these days then they care to admit....and we are even supposed love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. Let's not forget this or become faint in doing our part, lest we backslide in our minds into the old, sensationalist worldly ways we used to follow.

 

[Soma-Sight]

And although I, too, find the things Mr. Robertson spoke regarding "losing your salvation" because of being deceived by demons ENTIRELY incorrect, I'll just remember that Jesus warned His disciples to be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees.

Thats comforting...

So it seems putting a child in a crib with a diabolical demonic force and expecting the child to win is what you imply?

 

[Ajax 777]

If that baby is a child of the Living God, yes. Either that, or jump in and RESCUE the child...don't just write him or her off and decide "thank God that didn't happen to me" or something selfish like that. THIS is why we need to pray for one another, and remember we are like sheep among wolves.

And I'm not just implying it....I'm standing on the Word of God because of it, and on the promises He made to us.

 

[ArtGuy]

If you murder my mother, and I call you an "idiot," it does nothing other than create negativity. It doesn't change my situation or yours, other than you'd know I thought you were an idiot. I, personally, believe that as christians we have a responsibility to let Jesus, the light of the world, shine through us. That light in you dims every time you sin or create more negativity.

I agree that his antics need to be stopped or changed, but I know for a fact that you don't really believe that putting him down is going to help. And if you don't believe that it's going to help, I would very much like to see you justify it.

Gladly, although I said this once before.

Expressing strong disapproval of certain individuals, even to the point of personal attacks, can have two effects. First, it shows others, particularly non-Christians, that we - as a community - reject this sort of behavior in the strongest possible way. We object to his actions with such force that we object to the person himself. While he's not beyond reform - nobody is - as he currently stands, we want nothing to do with him. As I said before, it's a PR move. People judge you by the company you keep. If we don't object to Pat, others take that as tacit approval of what he does. If our goal is to turn people to the light of God, we must make them see what we do and don't support. Saying "I disapprove of that action" doesn't get people's attention. Saying, "Man, what a jerk" does.

Secondly, and more importantly, it establishes a strong social taboo against such behaviors. If you know that you can act however you want, be as cruel or hateful as you please, and your friends will never leave your side, isn't that less of an incentive towards acting good than if you know you have to be a decent person? If I can go around kicking homeless people and spitting on random passerby and all it ever nets me from my buddies is, "Well, gee, that's not too nice," I may not be inclined to change. If, instead, such behavior leads to my friends saying, "Wow, you're a real jerk. Piss off, I'm not associating with you anymore," I'm probably going to pay attention. Taboos work wonders at keeping society in line, because people crave the acceptance of their peers. By calling Pat a jackass, we help create social pressure for him to change his actions, and also for every other person out there to refrain from such actions. Harsher rhetoric yields stronger results.

And at the end of the day, I don't feel too bad about telling someone who routinely does cruel and spiteful things that he's a jerk.

And, of course, there's also the definitional defense. If you define a "jerk" (or insert your favorite invective here) as someone who routinely does bad things, then Pat is a jerk by definition. He, of course, has the capacity to change, but as long as he elects not to, he continues to be a jerk.

 

[Kefka]

Gladly, although I said this once before.

Expressing strong disapproval of certain individuals, even to the point of personal attacks, can have two effects. First, it shows others, particularly non-Christians, that we - as a community - reject this sort of behavior in the strongest possible way. We object to his actions with such force that we object to the person himself. While he's not beyond reform - nobody is - as he currently stands, we want nothing to do with him. As I said before, it's a PR move. People judge you by the company you keep. If we don't object to Pat, others take that as tacit approval of what he does. If our goal is to turn people to the light of God, we must make them see what we do and don't support. Saying "I disapprove of that action" doesn't get people's attention. Saying, "Man, what a jerk" does.

Secondly, and more importantly, it establishes a strong social taboo against such behaviors. If you know that you can act however you want, be as cruel or hateful as you please, and your friends will never leave your side, isn't that less of an incentive towards acting good than if you know you have to be a decent person? If I can go around kicking homeless people and spitting on random passerby and all it ever nets me from my buddies is, "Well, gee, that's not too nice," I may not be inclined to change. If, instead, such behavior leads to my friends saying, "Wow, you're a real jerk. Piss off, I'm not associating with you anymore," I'm probably going to pay attention. Taboos work wonders at keeping society in line, because people crave the acceptance of their peers. By calling Pat a jackass, we help create social pressure for him to change his actions, and also for every other person out there to refrain from such actions. Harsher rhetoric yields stronger results.

And at the end of the day, I don't feel too bad about telling someone who routinely does cruel and spiteful things that he's a jerk.

And, of course, there's also the definitional defense. If you define a "jerk" (or insert your favorite invective here) as someone who routinely does bad things, then Pat is a jerk by definition. He, of course, has the capacity to change, but as long as he elects not to, he continues to be a jerk.

Saying, "What a jerk" does indeed get their attention... but at what cost? Calling someone a jerk, first of all is nearly always a hypocritical thing to do. You are labeling them because of their behavior, yet are resorting to petty name calling. If your intention is to speak out as a christian, what are you representing the rest of us as when you call him a jerk? Just because it grasps their attention easier than saying "the way he behaves is terrible," doesn't mean it's right. I bet murdering him would get even more attention, and it would get it alot faster too. But that is bad... because it's murder.

And the definition of jerk is meaningless to me. There are many racial slurs that did not always exist, someone made them up. Wow, that guy is african/african american... by definition he is a *insert one of many atrocious racial slurs* I have found that many women/girls are offended by being referred to as a "chick", but it is a slang term for female right? So by definition they're all chicks... yet if it's considered offensive to them, how is it right?

Harsher rhetoric does yield stronger results, but not always good ones. As much as I agree with you about Pat Robertson... who do you think has more influence in many of the christian circles? You, or him? Even though there are many that strongly disagree with him, there are also many who agree with him. Do a google search, there are so many people who enjoy his teachings.

Another example:

The Queen of England orders a man to death because he... steps on her foot. We both know it'd never happen, but regardless. There would obviously be a lot of people who disagree with her decision. If I, being one of those people, jump up and publicly call her an idiot (or something similar) what will it do? I end up looking like an idiot myself, because I accomplished nothing except angering the Queen. And because I was one of those people who disagreed with her decision, I was speaking for all of them (at least in people's minds). So not only do I look like a fool, but I lose all credibility and I also take it from everyone I was representing. Just like me, being Canadian... if I were to announce on a public broadcast that Americans were idiots, the relationship between the two countries would undoubtedly feel strain because of said comment, no?

 

[ArtGuy]

You keep speaking as if there's a functional difference between saying, "You consistently do really awful things that adversely affect thousands of people, and your actions serve to make the world a worse place," and, "You're a jerk."

According to you, the former would be fine, and the latter would be bad. In the real world, though, people don't much discern between the two. (Well, in reality, they'd probably think the former was much harsher and more pointed.) They're more or less interchangeable. I'm not quite sure why you insist upon such a distinction when dealing with random media figures who will never even actually hear the comments in question.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Kefka]

I'm not quite sure why you insist upon such a distinction when dealing with random media figures who will never even actually hear the comments in question.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

If he's never going to hear it, what's the point? And as for the comments not having that distinction, I will plainly say that you are wrong. If I were a little kid, and I was playing with matches, I GUARANTEE you that if my mom were to say "That's a stupid thing to do, because *insert obvious reasoning here*" It would affect me in a more positive way, and impact me greater than if she simply said "you're an idiot." The latter comment is simply inconstructive, it helps nobody. And no, it doesn't "help christians by informing them," it lets us know that you have a negative attitude and that we better watch out in case you don't agree with something we're doing.

But if, after your entire argument, you must basically resort to "what he doesn't know, won't hurt him" then it shows me that the debate is regressing instead of progressing. It's been fun, but one of us has to walk away, thanks for the debate :wink:

 

[ArtGuy]

I regret that you were unable to grasp what I was saying, but no hard feelings. I agree, this argument is going in circles, and it's best to end it gracefully.

 

[Guest]

Pat robertson is a religious crazy who gives all christians a bad name, nobody should belive anything he says, he often takes the bible way out of context and wants christians to act out in violent ways like this, he must be stopped.

 

[Guest]

I'm convinced that Pat is on a mission to make every successive comment the most idiotic thing he has ever said up to that point.

Really, does anyone here actually listen to him? I mean, other than for comedic value?

yes.. and then they donate money to him.

there are even some on this forum :-?

Yeah I sent money to operation blessing for hurricane relief and would have no problem doing it again...plus I am very blessed by the 700 club. They have some awesome testimonies as to the power of God!
Comes on everyday at 3 oclock eastern time on tbn...plus at 10 oclock a.m. on abc I believe. FYI... :-D

through supporting him, you only serve to give christians a bad name

 

[destiny]

I assure you that some 'christians' are quite adept at giving their own selves a bad name, far removed from Pat robertson.
What you think of Pat Robertson is your opinion and what I think is mine, so far this thread has only served to make me like him better.

 

[Guest]

I assure you that some 'christians' are quite adept at giving their own selves a bad name, far removed from Pat robertson.
What you think of Pat Robertson is your opinion and what I think is mine, so far this thread has only served to make me like him better.

He only makes cristians look ignorant and crazy, how can you support him? Him saying that we should break the first commandment to get rid of people he doesn't agree with, do you really think that he has good morals?


http://wantingseed.com/weblog/2003/07/1 ... _me_up.php

 

[destiny]

I assure you that some 'christians' are quite adept at giving their own selves a bad name, far removed from Pat robertson.
What you think of Pat Robertson is your opinion and what I think is mine, so far this thread has only served to make me like him better.

He only makes cristians look ignorant and crazy, how can you support him? Him saying that we should break the first commandment to get rid of people he doesn't agree with, do you really think that he has good morals?


http://wantingseed.com/weblog/2003/07/1 ... _me_up.php

He's got more morals than what some christians support on this forum. :wink:

 

[Guest]

I assure you that some 'christians' are quite adept at giving their own selves a bad name, far removed from Pat robertson.
What you think of Pat Robertson is your opinion and what I think is mine, so far this thread has only served to make me like him better.

He only makes cristians look ignorant and crazy, how can you support him? Him saying that we should break the first commandment to get rid of people he doesn't agree with, do you really think that he has good morals?


http://wantingseed.com/weblog/2003/07/1 ... _me_up.php

He's got more morals than what some christians support on this forum. :wink:

you can't have less than none :wink: