Comments on: pat roberston, please…

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:21:44 +0000

I take Carl’s perspective view seriously because whether we agree with what he thinks or says, he represents a slew of the population we don’t see on Sundays, and it seems like folks were quick to jump on his word choice. I think the words that come from anyone (President, Pastor, etc.) who has a lot of influence (a big media microphone as Ken says) should be extremely cautious on how they respond in word…especially in times of devastation.

James uses the phrase “world of evil” in stead of hatred…. Carl may not be that far off or possibly Carl is understating the severity of the words used by PR.

Read James: 3:1-12 (posted below is just part of it)
5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

By: Heather Tenney

Heather Tenney — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:43:21 +0000

Jon, I don’t think either one caused the earthquake. Its in an unstable plate, they have earthquakes a lot in that region. Its also desperately poor, so the buildings are poorly built.

I’ve had a slightly different take on what commonman’s pastor said. PR is assuming that God would do such a thing, which I really don’t believe he does. Removes his hand to allow it? *Maybe* but not cause it. However, so many are assuming that *if* Haiti made a pact with the devil, that the devil has been protecting them. If we know anything about God’s enemy, we know he is the polar opposite of God. God is good, all the time, because that is his nature. Which means Satan is NOT good, all of the time, because that is his very nature. Which means he could very well have a lot of fun killing thousands, pact or no pact.

By no means am I saying that is what happened, because its not at ALL what I think happened. I’m just saying, if people are assuming God did this, why aren’t they pondering the other option? After all, what happened to Job wasn’t done by God, but rather by Satan.

By: Jon Miller

Jon Miller — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:55:41 +0000

Commonman’s post is very concerning to me, because it suggests that views similar to PRs are held by many of our pastors. I just don’t see how the story of Christ fits into these viewpoints. They suggest that anything bad that happens to a person must be the result of some invitation or agreement they made with the satan? Should we stop doing missions work and witnessing to these nations for fear we may get caught up in the destruction when satan decides to make good on the deal?

By: commonman

commonman — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:14:34 +0000

Ken,

I discussed this issue of Pat Robertson and God.s wrath on the Haitians with my pastor. His take on it was that it was the Devil who caused the earthquake to happen. I think he believes that the Haitians opened up the doors of darkness because of there occultic practices. To me it sounded like Pat Robertson just a different approach. I don’t know what to say?

By: ken

ken — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:26:16 +0000

Mark. Yes this is the point–not whether PR was or wasn’t justified (correct) in his assessment, but that the Bible itself urges caution on speaking up for God when it comes to cause & effect when tragedy strikes.

By: Mark Ramm

Mark Ramm — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:23:11 +0000

I think that a careful reading of Job shows that many of those who seek to explain disaster in terms of sin and judgement end up turning that very judgement on their own heads. God is not ours to rationalize, he is who he is, and he does what he does for his own reasons — which may never be clear to us.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:31:18 +0000

While I certainly agree Robertson occasionally says things it would better not to say, I have to agree with Cassady and Joao here regarding the animosity toward Robertson. It is interesting that the blog didn’t bother to mention, even once, the significant work that Robertson is doing to try to relieve suffering in Haiti.

It is also interesting that Carl so quickly throws around the word ‘hatred’ even though Robertson’s actions would indicate love rather than hatred.

Joao gets it right in my opinion in questioning whether this unfortunate statement has given Robertson’s critics ’cause to vent their hatred towards him?’

Ken, have you watched the entirety of Robertson’s statements? Carl, have you?

And Carl, what do you think of Danny Glover’s suggestion that the earthquake was a result of global warming, stating “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m saying?” Uh, no.

Anyway, I certainly wish Robertson wouldn’t say stuff like this. But if you see what he said in context he certainly comes off different than what his critics are presenting. Seems I remember something about ‘all meaning is context dependent.’

By: Jon Miller

Jon Miller — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:20:59 +0000

First off I just realized I called Pat “Robinson” instead of “Robertson” in my previous post. Sorry for that.

Also, I may be way off based here as I’m a few credits shy of my theology degree. But didn’t Christ die for us in order to pay the price and do away with these mortal punishments by God and offer us all eternal salvation? Isn’t this the primary difference between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God? If this is true, it stands to reason that God does not punish people at all in this life anymore.

By: joao

joao — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:49:21 +0000

Carl…hatred?

Ignorance and speaking without thinking, sure, but hatred? Did Robertson say anything hateful about Hatians?

It seems like the word hatred is flung around a lot these days.

Could it be that the hatred is really towards Robertson?
And a lot of it, from us, his brothers and sisters in Christ.

Could it be Pat’s openness in his criticism of our (and others) society’s open acceptance of some sinful behaviours is a cause of this backlash against him?

Could it be his many recent inappropriate remarks have just given his critics cause to vent their hatred towards him?

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:42:40 +0000

Thanks for responding Ken, and for responding the way that you did. I hear what you are saying about the potential for causing little ones to stumble, and that being the case perhaps some angry rhetoric is not completely inappropriate. (A clearing the temple type move perhaps.) In any event I can certainly agree that if one was going to make a ‘pact with the devil’ comment at a time like that, one would want to be well-researched on the validity of such a statement. Cheers!