1
   

Pat Robertson

 
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 12:01 am
pachelbel wrote:
'Nevertheless, Christians should publicly disavow people like Robertson who bring the religion into disrepute. Christ lived in the Roman Empire and never advocated its reform or overthrow. His message was, "See to your own soul." The idea of involving Christianity in political wars, assassinations or as allies of Zionism or any other "ism" is heresy. Christianity is about the next world, not this one.'

These are not 'my' words, just to clarify. The person who wrote the article/essay was trying to convey the message that Christians should not involve themselves in wars but should look out for their own salvation, ultimately. Nowhere in the New Testament is war advocated or condoned. The author was paraphrasing/condensing Jesus' meaning, in a nutshell. Thanks for letting me clear that up!


We might add that nowhere is it forbidden. The question of : Is there a just war? has been debated for a long time. Your quoted source adds nothing new to this debate except to try using an argument from silence, which is notoriously weak. (The New Testament never condones or advocates driving automobiles either. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing.)

If you want an argument from silence going in the other direction, Jesus interacted with soldiers and centurions on several occasions and never rebuked them for their profession.

In fact, the NT does say:

Quote:
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 02:20 am
pachbel,

Glad to see that wasn't a quote from you.

I find it so ironic that there are those that don't believe in Christianity (or even God in some cases) that still find it necessary to tell others how to be a Christian or what Christians should believe. They want us to adhere strictly to something they do not believe or have no faith in. Boggles my mind.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 08:34 am
Momma Angel wrote:
pachbel,

Glad to see that wasn't a quote from you.

I find it so ironic that there are those that don't believe in Christianity (or even God in some cases) that still find it necessary to tell others how to be a Christian or what Christians should believe. They want us to adhere strictly to something they do not believe or have no faith in. Boggles my mind.


I don't think it's so much telling you how to believe, but more along the lines of "distance yourselves from the flamboyant radicals". You have to admit MA, some of the televangelists out there are little more than stage actors out to get a quick buck. It's those types that, if embraced by christianity as a whole (or seen to be embraced) that give christians their bad rap.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 08:42 am
Well, I can't deny there are some that I tend to disagree with wholeheartedly on some things.
0 Replies
 
mrcolj
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 10:36 am
Quote:
You won't find these words you have quoted in the Bible.

You will, however, find: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord."

I think that's what he meant. The Lord, through his appointed mouthpiece Paul, said that man's duty is to see to his own soul instead of baptizing others by force. He, however, followed that up very quickly and very strongly by saying that once your own soul is somewhat on track, "it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." So no, Christianity shouldn't be used as an excuse to kill people, but let's not pretend that "work out your own salvation" was meant to dissuade real missionary work.

FYI, I think righteous wars are justified (self-defense, defense of others, etc.)

Aside #2, I'm a Mormon, and I've never found a definition of Christian that doesn't include me.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 10:43 am
Quote:
I'm a Mormon, and I've never found a definition of Christian that doesn't include me.

Original sin might get a bit sticky for you.
0 Replies
 
mrcolj
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 11:02 am
Original sin is not a Christian concept per se for two reasons: a) not all Christian churches believe in it (not even most I'd say), and b) there are some non-Christian sects who do believe it (certain Jewish and Muslim sects.) Even if it passed both the above tests, it still has to pass a third test of whether its being a part of 51% or more of Christian religions makes it a necessary requirement for entrance into Christianity.

The idea that we are inherently going to hell because our great-great-great-to-the-Nth-grandfather ate a piece of fruit is not a prerequisite for believing that Jesus Christ died for our sins.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 12:34 pm
Quote:
Original sin is not a Christian concept per se for two reasons

Certainly an interesting proposal, however, I'm inclined to disagree. It is certainly a basic foundation of the catholic theology; the protestants, having no theology, would require a poll of all it's self-described adherents to draw such a conclusion.
0 Replies
 
mrcolj
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 09:41 am
Wait, you just backed up my point. Original sin is a Catholic doctrine, not a universal Christian one. Which protestant religions it made it into still probably does not constitute enough people nor enough universality to make belief in it a requirement for calling oneself Christian.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 01:37 am
I see Pastor Pat has his foot in his mouth again.

The really scary thing about this fellow is not that he is a deranged buffoon, but that there are zillions of people who send him money.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:49 pm
Quote:
The bible clearly states that all that follow Jesus will be no part of this world. So this means political too pat robinson is not staying politically neutral is he. So you know that hmm he is not from God.


I would be interested to see what scriptures you are talking about here Jamesdg...
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 01:25 am
A fool and his money are soon parted and then there is Pat Robertson to take advantage of the situation.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:12 am
hephzibah wrote:
Quote:
The bible clearly states that all that follow Jesus will be no part of this world. So this means political too pat robinson is not staying politically neutral is he. So you know that hmm he is not from God.


I would be interested to see what scriptures you are talking about here Jamesdg...
Probably John 17:16: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. "

Or James 4:14: "Adulteresses, do YOU not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God."

I'm sure I could find more, considering that Satan is the ruler of this world. ( John 14:30)
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 08:29 am
God acknowledges Satan as the ruler of the world then sends peple to hell for following him.

And for a blueprint to breakaway from Satan we are given a religion that no one can agree on denomination to denomination and a savior that only makes an appearance every few thousand years.

I'm not being disrespectful because I believe in God, but that's sort of like givng us a leaky bucket to bail out the Titanic isnt it?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 09:13 am
neologist wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
Quote:
The bible clearly states that all that follow Jesus will be no part of this world. So this means political too pat robinson is not staying politically neutral is he. So you know that hmm he is not from God.


I would be interested to see what scriptures you are talking about here Jamesdg...
Probably John 17:16: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. "

Or James 4:14: "Adulteresses, do YOU not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God."

I'm sure I could find more, considering that Satan is the ruler of this world. ( John 14:30)
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 12:05 am
Jesus ministered to sinners, but he did not join with them in their sinful activities.

So, isn't that pretty much what Paul is saying?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:56 am
neologist wrote:
Jesus ministered to sinners, but he did not join with them in their sinful activities.

So, isn't that pretty much what Paul is saying?


neo! Where have you been??

Actually it's been awhile since I posted this... hmmm... I honestly don't remember right now... It's been awhile since I've been on this thread... I'll have to go back and re-read some stuff and get back to you on this one... Sorry about that!
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:38 am
hephzibah wrote:
neologist wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
Quote:
The bible clearly states that all that follow Jesus will be no part of this world. So this means political too pat robinson is not staying politically neutral is he. So you know that hmm he is not from God.


I would be interested to see what scriptures you are talking about here Jamesdg...
Probably John 17:16: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. "

Or James 4:14: "Adulteresses, do YOU not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God."

I'm sure I could find more, considering that Satan is the ruler of this world. ( John 14:30)


Corinthians... That would be Usurper Paul speaking, wouldn't it? Sorry, it's just I cannot respect that man.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 09:55 am
The main problem with rejecting Paul or any part of the canon is the doubt it casts on the veracity of the remaining texts.

If any part of the bible is in substantive error, then those who follow it are to be pitied.

Er, just stuck my neck out, didn't I?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 10:00 am
neologist wrote:
The main problem with rejecting Paul or any part of the canon is the doubt it casts on the veracity of the remaining texts.

If any part of the bible is in substantive error, then those who follow it are to be pitied.

Er, just stuck my neck out, didn't I?


That's okay, we all do it every now and then.

I just don't trust Paul. He's a shifty character and I question his motives, hence I disregard everything he says. Jesus on the other hand... Well, I can't quite bring myself round to disregarding what he says, it just doesn't feel right to do so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Pat Robertson
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 06:18:31