[Goober5000]

Also I find his view of feminists enlightening: "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Yup, sounds like he got everything.

[Flipside]

Chicken.

LOL Maybe, but regardless of his views, I like Sandy too much as a person in his own right to start getting into an argument over this

I'll suffice to say that I don't agree with him

[Corsair]

Yeah... I saw that yesterday. I don't really think it's something that ought to be said on TV... but it's fine, whatever, he can keep talking out his ass. It just goes to show what's wrong with America.

[pyro-manic]

The scary bit is that people actually listen to this guy. Otherwise it'd be hilarious...

[MicroPsycho]

Do I go so far as to say Pat Robinson is a comic genius?

Yes I do.

[Goober5000]

Who's Pat Robinson?

[Rictor]

I'm ****ed, cos my house doesn't have battlements on the roof, either.

You live in Scotland, no? Your house is a battlement. Useful for when those British longbowmen start advancing through the marsh.

/ignorance

[Sandwich]

If that's true, I'm still waiting for justice regarding the rule in Bob's sig.

That's the one about "wearing a garment of divers (sic) sorts", no? I don't pretend to understand that, I freely admit. But this page does have an explanation that fits in with other areas of Scripture that have had a contended meaning.

In the end, though, I'm just thankful for God's grace; nobody's perfect, and according to the laws set down in the Bible, we should all be dead.

[Ace]

I believe that God keeps His promises, and in the Bible, there's warnings against those who divide His land.

As my god asked(), "what does God need with a Starship?" I ask - what would God need land for? Nor care who used it except for whether all human beings (His creation by the teaching of your own faith) were suffering on it or not?

Darn, you beat me to it.

It all comes down to:
"Why does god need a starship?"

(More specifically the Palestinians, and the Phoenicians before them, were asking "Why does god need my starship?")

[redmenace]

Whos more foolish, the fool, or the one that follows?

[Sandwich]

"Why does god need a starship?"

You're asking the wrong question. It's like the way people look at tithing - the whole give 10% to your home church thing? Most people see it as giving 10% of their money to church. Instead, they should see it as being allowed to keep 90% of what God gives them for their own use.

It is also like asking why the Jews are the chosen people according to Judeo-Christian belief. It's not that "They're special, therefore God chose them", but rather "God chose them, therefore they're special."

God repeatedly says in the Bible that the land which He brought the Hebrews to from Egypt is His land, and is not to be sold or divided forever. It's not the Palestinian's land, it's not even the Jews' land - it's God's land. Why? I don't know. But He chose to plant the Tribes of Israel there, to be caretakers over the land.

So, what does God need with a starship? Nothing - He doesn't need one. But if He chooses to make use of one (just like He chose the Jews, or the Land of Israel, etc), then, well... that's His choise, ain't it?

Now, of course, none of any of that seems to be relevant to you in the slightest if you don't hold a Judeo-Christian belief system. I don't expect it to convince anyone that "Hey, he's right!" or anything like that. It's just there to explain, from an insider's point of view, what the deal is. It's what I believe in, personally. You all know me well enough to know that I'll never take my beliefs and impose them on anyone in any way shape of form - heck, it's mighty unlikely I'll even take any of this outside this thread (unless similar threads arise - which they do). But I hope it may help some of you see the reasoning going on inside Pat - and my - heads regarding this whole issue.

[karajorma]

Every time you vote for someone who wants to keep hold of the West Bank or Gaza Strip you take it outside this thread. So unless you don't vote you're kidding yourself.

[Sandwich]

Oh please. I'm talking about here on HLP.

[karajorma]

Ah. Okay. Gotcha.

[aldo_14]

I think the question should be - is religion a valid pretext for killing people (through action or inaction) in Christianity?  Because when you look at Pat Robertson, that's really the crux of it; their intolerance of opposing belief (or even different forms of belief in the same religious creed) leads them to - for lack of a better phraseology - hope people die.  Y'know; would God prefer it if the Bible was used to perpetuate this cycle of violence, intolerance and death - or if people compromised and maybe sacrificed that for peace? (isn't there something along the lines of 'blessed are the peacemakers' in the bible?  How does that figure in, if peace is only - realistically - possible through this division?)

[Mental Menace]

In the early days of Mankind religion(polytheism back then) was a way of trying to understand life. The world was utterly composed of things that didn't seem to make sense so a greater power must be at work. Through the years (centuries, millennia if you will) as we evolved explainations for natural fenomona were found and the number of gods dwindled, until we reached the point of Monotheism. But the fact that everyone makes his own destiny scares most; some because it means that they'll have to do it all by themselves, others because it robs them of the power over other people. Study history and you'll never find a person with a religious position dying of starvation(save for a few extreme examples).

I could go on but I hope you see my point: In an age where we venture into space to study or even colonize other planets and conquer diseases that used to decimate populations still 90% of the planet still beliefs that there is someone up there with the power to strike down a person. Whole continents follow the rules dictated ages ago by some messiah, who heard God's word in a dream.

We live in a world were the majority still beliefs in Santa Claus.

That a person like Pat Robertson has followers painfully reveals the inabilty of some to reason and see logic.

[vyper]

[q]We live in a world were the majority still beliefs in Santa Claus.[/q]

Screw you man, Santa and I had coffee last week.

[q]But I hope it may help some of you see the reasoning going on inside Pat - and my - heads regarding this whole issue.[/q]

Sarnie, the reasoning going on inside "Pat's" head is: Ooh, lookie people are staring at me for speaking. I'll do that again.

Your reasoning, I hope, is somewhat different.

[Sandwich]

I think the question should be - is religion a valid pretext for killing people (through action or inaction) in Christianity?  Because when you look at Pat Robertson, that's really the crux of it; their intolerance of opposing belief (or even different forms of belief in the same religious creed) leads them to - for lack of a better phraseology - hope people die.

I think you're reading into Pat's statement things that aren't there. I don't see it as anything but a statement that Pat believes that Sharon's stroke is a punishment by God for dividing God's land. Where Pat and I differ is that I believe that it could very well be such a punishment, but I'm not sure of it by any means. Anyway, I don't see how Pat's statement is in any way related to an encouragement to kill....

[aldo_14]

I think the question should be - is religion a valid pretext for killing people (through action or inaction) in Christianity?  Because when you look at Pat Robertson, that's really the crux of it; their intolerance of opposing belief (or even different forms of belief in the same religious creed) leads them to - for lack of a better phraseology - hope people die.

I think you're reading into Pat's statement things that aren't there. I don't see it as anything but a statement that Pat believes that Sharon's stroke is a punishment by God for dividing God's land. Where Pat and I differ is that I believe that it could very well be such a punishment, but I'm not sure of it by any means. Anyway, I don't see how Pat's statement is in any way related to an encouragement to kill....

Well, that would relate to hoping people die, firstly.  The killing by inaction refers to his other statements (basically trying to dehumanise any group he doesn't like; i.e. inciting hatred by describing them as if evil - so trying to stop help to them).  In terms of killing through action; well, he's not been afraid to incite hatred; like calling for the Venezuelan president to be assasinated, or suggesting that destroying the state department with a nuke would be good for the country ("What we need is for somebody to place a small nuke at Foggy Bottom").

He also claimed Rabins assasination was for the same reason; which would be trying to justify murder with those reasons and thus encouraging it.

Worth noting though that it's pretty obvious Sharon was a stroke waiting to happen..... just look at the guy (77 years old and obese).  I'm sure there are quite a few Muslims who could claim it as God punishing Sharon for not giving the Palestinians there land or somesuch; it just would depend how you wanted to analyse it.

[Sandwich]

Well, just so you don't think all Christians are nut-jobs, I want to say that in every prayer meeting and church service I've been to in the last week, the only thing related to Sharon that has been brought up is prayer for his salvation. Now, whether you agree with the Christian concept of salvation or not, to a Christian, it's a very good thing, it's something we pray for our extended families and such; praying that for Sharon shows the level of maturity of the body of Christ here, and I'm "proud" of them for it.