Pat Robertson has cancer

[gmol]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/02/13/robertson.cancer/index.html

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy or anything. But I have seen this guy on TV claiming to melt and issolve those silly tumours away....

I wonder if any of his followers are questioning why he couldn't pray away his cancer....

[J3K]

well i wish the guy all well and luck to get better. You make a good point though.

Do you think his god is punishing him for something? Like when god punished the US on Sept 11 cuz of the homosexuals?

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Do you think his god is punishing him for something? Like when god punished the US on Sept 11 cuz of the homosexuals?

Hi,

I trust that you are being sarcastic.
But to answer you anyway - No.

Take care,
Sort
:)

[kerfer]

Originally posted by gmol
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/02/13/robertson.cancer/index.html

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy or anything.

Nor am I. Cancer sucks. It is a terrible, devastating, horrible disease that affects not only the person who contracts it, but also everyone in that person's life.

But I have seen this guy on TV claiming to melt and issolve those silly tumours away....

I wonder if any of his followers are questioning why he couldn't pray away his cancer....

I doubt it. They'll probably send him more money to help him to get over it.

The cynic in me hopes this isn't just another shtick to fleece the flock...sigh.

All that being said, the irony of this particular conman getting cancer is certainly not lost on me...;)

[Hazelip]

Am I the only one who thinks this is good news? I can't stand that self-righteous judgmental prick, and I sincerely hope he hurts all the way to his final moments.

Let him ask god to kiss his boo-boo and make it go away. See how much faith he has in god as opposed to his physicians. Of course, I'm assuming it was a doctor who told him he had cancer and not an angelic messenger... :rolleyes:

[evildave]

Um, nope. Lost too many family members to cancer. Wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Besides, Cancer doesn't mean "death".

Being born does.

Lots of people live a long, long time after being diagnosed with cancer. Treatable, and every day more curable.

I wonder if he'll visit a fellow faith healer, or go to a real doctor?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For someone who blamed 9/11 on gays and atheists, I say f*ck him. Good riddance.

[gmol]

My humble opinion is that the very situation of being informed you have a terminal illness is almost worse than actually having the ilness.

They guy is a dweeb, but it's easy to just not listen to him. It's not like he has ever substantially affected my life or threatened it or my hapiness. I'd really hate to ever (knock on wood) get the news he did.

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
For someone who blamed 9/11 on gays and atheists, I say f*ck him. Good riddance.


Those damn gay black atheist women! They really get a bum rap.

Sorting....It is really commendable for you to show compasion for someone who wouldn't hesitate to dance on your grave and tell your grieving family that you are now rotting and burning in hell for your sins.

Pat Roberson is one of the wealthiest men in the states. He can afford the world's best care no matter the cost. He got that money from people that are taken advantage of and lied to.

I ask again, if god can punish a three year old in the twin towers, blaming it on homosexuals why can't he punish Pat Robertson for the same reason. Or an even better reason; because Pat Robertson is a malicious, coniving, judgemental, hurtful and smug bastard.

[gmol]

Originally posted by jimmygun

I ask again, if god can punish a three year old in the twin towers, blaming it on homosexuals why can't he punish Pat Robertson for the same reason. Or an even better reason; because Pat Robertson is a malicious, coniving, judgemental, hurtful and smug bastard.

Now it would be interesting if someone stood up and CNN published the fact that "Joe Schmoe says that Robertson's cancer is punishment for being a dweeb"...but it could only come from someone who was really hurt and was close to someone lost on 9/11.

But people who really did suffer loss probably just ignored his idiotic comments anyway, so I doubt someone would stand up and say it. I have to say though, I'd probably giggle if someone did..

[Renfield]

He ought to lay hands on himself,instead of messing around with doctors. Let God's will decide...

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Renfield
He ought to lay hands on himself,instead of messing around with doctors. Let God's will decide...

An interesting point...he's done a little healing, I believe, maybe he will heal himself and proclaim himself a miracle...I don't think, however, he wants Benny Hines hands on his ass...

[HarryKeogh]

1. i hope he makes a full recovery

2. i hope he realizes in this hour of darkness that maybe he's been a tad bit closed minded throughout his life.

[FFed]

Hopefully he dies. Fast, slow, painfull, painfree, I don't care. We don't need idiots like this around.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by FFed
Hopefully he dies. Fast, slow, painfull, painfree, I don't care. We don't need idiots like this around.

So how are you any different to him?

Sou

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Am I the only one who thinks this is good news? I can't stand that self-righteous judgmental prick, and I sincerely hope he hurts all the way to his final moments.

Let him ask god to kiss his boo-boo and make it go away. See how much faith he has in god as opposed to his physicians. Of course, I'm assuming it was a doctor who told him he had cancer and not an angelic messenger... :rolleyes:

Are you the same Hazelip I know?

It does not matter what people believe or not. Why would we laugh at his pain ?

Many people assume that theists or paranormal gurus are stupid or evil just because of their beliefs. Maybe in some cases it is true. But do they deserve to get a bad lesson in order to change?

[FFed]

Originally posted by Soubrette


So how are you any different to him?

Sou
What does that have to do with anything? Like I said. I hope he dies. I am not one of those persons that will say only good things about a total idiot once they die. This world would be better off without people like him. Should I have to change my opinion of him since the guy has cancer?

It seems that some people are just scared to admit they would like to see some people dead.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't hope he gets better. I don't hope he dies. I really don't care what happens to him.

I do, however, hope he can muster the decency to not use his illness as a way to part even more money from his 'flock.'

Qsource...Those theist seem to think there is no experience bad enough for others to go through in order to change them.

They picket funerals of murdered gays, shouting that the victim is in hell suffering for his sins.

They blame the victims of the twin towers. It is their fault god allowed them to die.

They harass, beat, even kill those that would not heed their warnings. They think it is alright to murder a doctor to put their anti abortion views forward.

They are the first to step up and denounce someone's suffering as their own fault. Should they be immune to the ridicule if they suffer? Why are god's rules different for them then others?

It is too bad but Robertson will not suffer. He has enough money for the best care in the world. He will continue to lead his life as he does now, formenting hatred for others and scamming the poor and vulnerable. Check www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7027/quotes.html and find some interesting tidbits of things Robertson has said and done.

Denise asked in another thread "Where is the compassion?" Certainly not on its way from me to him.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by FFed

What does that have to do with anything? Like I said. I hope he dies. I am not one of those persons that will say only good things about a total idiot once they die. This world would be better off without people like him. Should I have to change my opinion of him since the guy has cancer?

It seems that some people are just scared to admit they would like to see some people dead.

Well I assume that there are reasons why you think he should die?

And I assume from the person he seems to be that he would say similar things about people like you?

And that is the reason why you think he is an idiot thus don't care if he dies?

And the reason why he would think you were an idiot and thus wouldn't care if you died?

So there is no appreciable different between him and you :(

Sou

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Are you the same Hazelip I know?

It does not matter what people believe or not. Why would we laugh at his pain ?

Many people assume that theists or paranormal gurus are stupid or evil just because of their beliefs. Maybe in some cases it is true. But do they deserve to get a bad lesson in order to change?

I don't really give a damn if he, or anyone else, gets a lesson out of it. I loathe that man, his hatred, and condemnation of people for being unlucky enough to be in the WTC at the wrong damned time.

I just would like to watch him whither away and experience the same pain of chemotherapy my "sinful" aunt did.

Since there isn't a god to judge us, I get to do it to some random jackass like Robertson every now and again. ;)

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by FFed

It seems that some people are just scared to admit they would like to see some people dead.

FFred, I couldn't agree more.

[Goodboy]

He should go to one of Benny Hinn's concerts get up on the stage and let Benny go to work on him,good old Benny cures everyone. :confused:

[gmol]

You know it's funny, I am not as infurated by Pat as I am with Benny...if he was the one with cancer I might've actually laughed about it...

Originally posted by Goodboy
He should go to one of Benny Hinn's concerts get up on the stage and let Benny go to work on him,good old Benny cures everyone. :confused:

[Ladewig]

Qsource...Those theist seem to think there is no experience bad enough for others to go through in order to change them.

They picket funerals of murdered gays, shouting that the victim is in hell suffering for his sins.

They blame the victims of the twin towers. It is their fault god allowed them to die.

They harass, beat, even kill those that would not heed their warnings. They think it is alright to murder a doctor to put their anti abortion views forward.

They are the first to step up and denounce someone's suffering as their own fault. Should they be immune to the ridicule if they suffer? Why are god's rules different for them then others?

I don't like P.R. and I think that his teachings have prevented this country from moving forward, but in the interest of fairness, P.R. actually condemned the picketing of gay funerals. The only statement that P.R. ever made that I can agree 100% with is "Fred Phelps is a first class kook."

[rikzilla]

I feel sorry for him

He's just a human being. I don't much care how big a prick he is, he hasn't murdered or tortured anyone. He's just a religious leader who is about to find out first hand that he's devoted his life to an age-old lie.

That's kind of sad, don't you think?
-zilla

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

How do I see this....

When a con man, a fraud is convicted and goes to jail, we feel good because there is justice in action.
But some con man and frauds are smart enought to avoid justice. They pick subjects that are not punished by law. But the outcome for the victims is the same: Death, financiall loss, time spent and so on. Why should I not be glad if one of those frauds suffers?

[gmol]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
How do I see this....

When a con man, a fraud is convicted and goes to jail, we feel good because there is justice in action.
But some con man and frauds are smart enought to avoid justice. They pick subjects that are not punished by law. But the outcome for the victims is the same: Death, financiall loss, time spent and so on. Why should I not be glad if one of those frauds suffers?

But the thing is that the 'victims' generally don't consider themselves as such. It makes the situation a little different than somone like a bank robber...

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by jimmygun


They are the first to step up and denounce someone's suffering as their own fault. Should they be immune to the ridicule if they suffer? Why are god's rules different for them then others?


I am really surprised. I still don't understand why you and Hazelip assume that religious people deserve suffering just because they believe in God.

God has nothing to do with this. I mean, the believer's beliefs do not make a person better or worse than you.

Q

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I am really surprised. I still don't understand why you and Hazelip assume that religious people deserve suffering just because they believe in God.

God has nothing to do with this. I mean, the believer's beliefs do not make a person better or worse than you.

Q

I didn't write that.

I wrote that Pat Robertson deserves pain and suffering. Not the clergy as a whole.

Cripes, could you even pass a basic reading comprehension exam?

Rikzilla...Check out the site I mentioned above and ask yourself if he hasn't tortured anyone. Read about his meddling in the middle east and ask yourself if his actions haven't killed anyone.

Think about the fear, loathing, and guilt he spreads and ask yourself if anyone has ever committed suicide or murder because of him.

While you are at it, write him a letter and ask him how much of his billions (yes, that's billions with a 'B') ever reach the sick and dying of the world.

[Jabberwock]

He's going to the hospital http://www.pilotonline.com/news/nw0214pro.html

Apparently, "Robertson's surgeon pioneered laparoscopic prostatectomy in the United States."

He's already addressing the faith healing aspect, "Carolyn Maiorino, who leads visitors on tours of the CBN studios and prayer center, said she didn't view Robertson's illness as discrediting his faith-healing and fitness routine.
`God said that he would not keep us from corruption or destruction, but that he'd walk us through it,' Maiorino said. `None of us are exempt.'"

I pass his place everyday on the way to work, he's just finished adding a Liberal Arts building to his Regent U. It looks like he's wanting to expand into undergraduate education (to match his widely renowned law school . ;))

As much as I dislike the guy and his policies, I've watched a grandfather die of prostate cancer and don't wish that on anyone.

[Q-Source]

I'd prefer "lack of basic reading" than lack of compassion towards any human being.

Originally posted by Hazelip

I wrote that Pat Robertson deserves pain and suffering.


I am not going to waste my time on anyone who is capable of thinking this way.

Good Bye.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I'd prefer "lack of basic reading" than lack of compassion towards any human being.
Not to argue with you, Q-S, but just to clarify your position.

Is there anyone, living or dead, who "deserves" pain and suffering?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Tricky

Is there anyone, living or dead, who "deserves" pain and suffering?

You got me there, Tricky. ;)

In a perfect scenario, nobody should deserve pain and suffering.
I find it difficult to wish that someone gets a painful illness.

In reality, I think that only people who consciously hurt others deserve to get the same pain and suffering back. But, this is subjective and as such it is not fair.

What do you think?

Tricky....Is there anyone living or dead that deserves pain and suffering?

Are you being serious or sarcastic?

We have Mr Paul Bernardo up here in a prison cell suffering and in pain because he can't get out and rape and murder anyone. Should we let him go? Maybe just for a little while?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You got me there, Tricky. ;)

In a perfect scenario, nobody should deserve pain and suffering.
I find it difficult to wish that someone gets a painful illness.

In reality, I think that only people who consciously hurt others deserve to get the same pain and suffering back. But, this is subjective and as such it is not fair.

What do you think?
Q
My question there was to accertain if you didn't think pain and suffering was warrented in this case, or if you simply thought it was never warranted. If it was the latter, then I wouldn't attempt to discuss it further.

And yes, it is a difficult thing to deal with. I will not deny that revenge is a powerful motive even in the best of us. For example, you may recall the Ira Einhorn case where a "new age guru" murdered a girl in Philadelphia, stuffed her body in a trunk and kept the trunk in his closet for two years. (A very dear friend of mine is the sister of the murdered girl). A rich friend got Einhorn out on bail while he was awaiting trial, and he promptly fled for Europe, where he remained at large for more than ten years. He was finally recaptured, extradited, tried and convicted, but I am still angry that he got to spend much of his life living a life of luxury (he had lots of rich friends) after commiting so heinous a crime. Yes, I admit, I want him to suffer.

Pat Robertson, on the other hand, has never commited an act so awful, but in the long run, he may be worse. He has influenced so many other people to hate and intolerance that one could make a case for him being worse than Einhorn. But I will not make that case. I believe Robertson thought he was doing good, even if I think he was doing the opposite.

Jimmygun
I was not being sarcastic, but trying to find out where Q-Source stood. However, I would say there is a world of difference between being deprived of your "hobbies" versus being in physical pain.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Tricky

Q
My question there was to accertain if you didn't think pain and suffering was warrented in this case, or if you simply thought it was never warranted. If it was the latter, then I wouldn't attempt to discuss it further.

Me no understand what you said... sorry :confused:

I couldn't find any reason to wish any other people physical pain or torture in the way some posters have mentioned. No matter how much I hate that person or how much damage has caused. Really, it sounds foolish, but it is true.
It would be like putting ourselves in an irrationally position, where only we are exchanging roles.

Q-S

[FFed]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Well I assume that there are reasons why you think he should die?

And I assume from the person he seems to be that he would say similar things about people like you?

And that is the reason why you think he is an idiot thus don't care if he dies?

And the reason why he would think you were an idiot and thus wouldn't care if you died?

So there is no appreciable different between him and you :(

Sou

Now why would I care if someone wants me dead?

There are lots of people I would like to see dead. I don't see what the big deal is in saying you would like to see someone dead.

I laughed when I heard Pat Robertson had cancer. Doesn't he have some god protecting him?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by gmol
My humble opinion is that the very situation of being informed you have a terminal illness is almost worse than actually having the ilness.

They guy is a dweeb, but it's easy to just not listen to him. It's not like he has ever substantially affected my life or threatened it or my hapiness. I'd really hate to ever (knock on wood) get the news he did.

Pat Robertson is much worse than a mere dweeb. He exploits people in a way not very different at all from the way John Edward does. I have seen that bastard on TV claiming to heal suffering people and telling them that giving him money is giving it to god. He is not an innocuous, misguided innocent. He is a user of other human beings, and I'm sorry, but I have precious little sympathy for a d*ck like him. F**k him and all of those of his ilk.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I'd prefer "lack of basic reading" than lack of compassion towards any human being.



I am not going to waste my time on anyone who is capable of thinking this way.

Good Bye.

So...you're wrong and you won't admit it, instead choosing to pretend to be offended?

Nice.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by FFed


Now why would I care if someone wants me dead?

There are lots of people I would like to see dead. I don't see what the big deal is in saying you would like to see someone dead.

I laughed when I heard Pat Robertson had cancer. Doesn't he have some god protecting him?

Hmmmm I see I'm not making myself very clear.

You appear to be lacking the very humanity which makes you say that he deserves to die a horrible and painful death.

You are no better than he - just in a position where you are not able to disseminate your hate to such a large audience.

Whether you care or not is of no relevence to my point.

Sou

Originally posted by Hazelip


So...you're wrong and you won't admit it, instead choosing to pretend to be offended?

Nice.

Well, no. She's rightfully offended at your unbelievably inhumane opinion. No one "deserves" cancer.

You are exactly as bad as Robertson - wishing death and destruction to people you hate. Your hate has blinded you.

I hate him too, but I'm not going to be subhuman about it.

[Q-Source]

H,
I have a personal policy which is unbreakable. I cannot tolerate people insulting me. In fact, I don't think that anyone should offend others just because our ideas differ or because there was a misunderstanding. In this regard, I am a coward; I prefer to put an end to any discussion immediately.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Q-Source
H,
I have a personal policy which is unbreakable. I cannot tolerate people insulting me. In fact, I don't think that anyone should offend others just because our ideas differ or because there was a misunderstanding. In this regard, I am a coward; I prefer to put an end to any discussion immediately.


But, I have to accept you insulting me by claiming that I think all people who believe in god deserve a painful death? If you're such a believer, why don't you try a little "do unto others" for a bit, hmmm?

"Hello, Standard." "Oh, hello, Standard."

[FFed]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Hmmmm I see I'm not making myself very clear.

You appear to be lacking the very humanity which makes you say that he deserves to die a horrible and painful death.

You are no better than he - just in a position where you are not able to disseminate your hate to such a large audience.

Whether you care or not is of no relevence to my point.

Sou
I never said he deserves to die a horrible and painfull death.

You want the guy to live, I would like to see him dead. Deal with it.

[scotth]

Originally posted by gmol


But the thing is that the 'victims' generally don't consider themselves as such. It makes the situation a little different than somone like a bank robber...

I don't see how. I don't see how someone being gullible gives anyone the right to defraud them.

Finding it ironic that a phony like Roberson has cancer and not caring if he lives or dies, does that make me exactly the same as him?

Absolutely not. I do have compasion for others and the pain they go through. Just not for him. I do not lie and cheat and extort money and guilt from others. I do not blame victims for terrorist acts. I do not encourage people to hate and shun others. I do not condem others and their loved ones to an eternal torture.

I repeat, Robertson is rich and he will not suffer. He will receive the best care in the world no matter the cost. He got that money through the suffering and gullibility of others. There are people dying of cancer right now who could be cared for with just Pat's chump change yet I would hazard a guess that he will demand more money from his listeners.

Perhaps if he turned 180 and gave away all his possessions and really saw the light, I would hold some compassion for him. I doubt that is going to happen.

[gmol]

Good points...maybe I should be happier than I am about this news.

Originally posted by jimmygun
Finding it ironic that a phony like Roberson has cancer and not caring if he lives or dies, does that make me exactly the same as him?

Absolutely not. I do have compasion for others and the pain they go through. Just not for him. I do not lie and cheat and extort money and guilt from others. I do not blame victims for terrorist acts. I do not encourage people to hate and shun others. I do not condem others and their loved ones to an eternal torture.

I repeat, Robertson is rich and he will not suffer. He will receive the best care in the world no matter the cost. He got that money through the suffering and gullibility of others. There are people dying of cancer right now who could be cared for with just Pat's chump change yet I would hazard a guess that he will demand more money from his listeners.

Perhaps if he turned 180 and gave away all his possessions and really saw the light, I would hold some compassion for him. I doubt that is going to happen.

[Fade]

Sou, in the interests of fairness: I think you're wrong.

Ffed wishes Robertson dead because of the things he's done.

Robertson wishes people were dead because of what they are.

Big difference.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Fade
Sou, in the interests of fairness: I think you're wrong.

Ffed wishes Robertson dead because of the things he's done.

Robertson wishes people were dead because of what they are.

Big difference.

I have never heard Robertson claim that he "wished" anyone dead. If you mean terrorists who attack the US and Israel then yes, they deserve to die at the earliest possible convenience. If you are referring to others, who are you talking about?

JK

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, but I remember years ago working in "Christian" radio, listening to guys like Robertson spewing their hateful bilge on a willing audience, demanding death and damnation for people who had done little, if anything, wrong. Most of the gays and lesbians I've known over the years have been far kinder, and much more honest to me over the years than Pat Robertson ever was to anyone else.

Robertson will take your money, and he'll give you a pat on the head and tell you what a faithful person you are. You might get a nice warm feeling, but if that's all you wanted, you could have gotten the same thing from a hot shower. Funny, but it seems the very people he condemns may charge you more, but at least they give good value for the dollar.

My reaction to this is that I'm hopeful he finds himself in the very place he deserves. He's gleefully pronounced such a fate on millions, I say let him join them.

Sorry, I realize this sounds hard, but when you've been where I have, you learn to deal with hard.

[Upchurch]

Not really "wishing" someone to be dead, but certainly advocating their deaths:

"The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they know what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry; they sacrificed their children; they had all kinds of abominable sex practices; they were having sex, apparently, with animals; they were having sex men with men, and women with women; they were committing adultery, fornication; they were worshipping idols, offering their children up; and they were forsaking God.
"God told the Israelites to kill them all -- men, women and children, to destroy them. And that seems to be a terrible thing to do. Is it? Or isn't it?"
"Well, let us assume there were 2,000 of them, or 10,000 of them living in the land, or whatever number there was of them. I don't have the exact number. Pick a number. God said, 'Kill them all.'
"Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? That would be 10,000 people who would probably go to Hell. But, if they stayed and reproduced, in 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 100 more years, they could conceivably be -- 10,000 would go to a 100,000 -- 100,000 could conceivably go to a million. And then, there would be a million people who would have to spend eternity in Hell! And it's far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a 100 years down the road, and say, 'Well, I have to take away a million people that would forever be apart from God, ' because the abomination was there like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change; their hearts weren't going to change; and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites, and pull the Israelites away from God, and prevent the truth of God from reaching the Earth."
"So, God, in love, took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number."
--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, May 6, 1985

[I'll_buy_that]

is it just me, or does Ralph Reed look inbred?

[I'll_buy_that]

I found this quote interesting...

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

apparently he has never seen a termite mound, they are pretty large buildings for an insect.

I wonder how he can explain how nations are built by non christians? there are quite a few of them out there.

[corplinx]

I think its fine that xians preach that their God heals. What I do however dislike is that they do not act responsibly and inform their flocks of the outright charlatans cleaming God heals at their meetings and fleecing the gullible.

I hope Pat Robertson apologizes for his past after realizing that all of Oral Roberts', Richard Roberts', and Benny Hinn's won't heal him.

Its fine to have beliefs, but I feel evangicals are basically setting their flocks up to be marks for the Hinns of the world.

[Yahzi]

Tricky
A very dear friend of mine is the sister of the murdered girl
Wow, that Einhorn thing always burned me up. I was glad when they finally caught the bastard. He was hiding in France, I believe.

yet another reason to ditch the French and give thier spot in NATO to Russia

[DialecticMaterialist]

Hallelujah! :)

Though its strange how he's powerful enough to heal people through the TV but not able to heal himself.....;)

[scotth]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Hallelujah! :)

Though its strange how he's powerful enough to heal people through the TV but not able to heal himself.....;)

Obviously he doesn't believe strongly enough.:D

[Finella]

I'm not sure myself what to think about Pat and cancer...

What I do find interesting is that most people here hate the message of hate he preached/preaches. He wished death on others, he blamed people for their apparent damnation, whatever. Obviously not a very loving, Christian way to look at the world.

Now whatever you think about Christianity, there are some basic ideals that it espouses, one of which is, basically, to love others. Another rather topical ideal is to not judge others and to let God do the judging. These, I think, are pretty decent ideals for humans to live by, whether one is a Christian or not.

To wish Pat Robertson pain and suffering goes against these ideals we wish he lived by, and the ideals that are reasonable for all of us to live by.

I, for one, as a Christian, pray that this can be a transforming and meaningful experience for Pat Robertson. We all have the ability to f*ck up and to get things right, and the rules aren't any different for him, despite just how badly he's f*cked up.

---,---'--{@

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Fade
Sou, in the interests of fairness: I think you're wrong.

Ffed wishes Robertson dead because of the things he's done.

Robertson wishes people were dead because of what they are.

Big difference.

Yet the basic underlying emotion is the same is it not?

And if that emotion is ok to have in certain situations but not in others - then it becomes relative, open to interpretation.

So if it's relative then who are we to say that Robertson is less moral than FFed?

But you make an interesting point - thank you :) As always you make your point lucidly :)

Sou

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Tricky

Wow, that Einhorn thing always burned me up. I was glad when they finally caught the bastard. He was hiding in France, I believe.

yet another reason to ditch the French and give thier spot in NATO to Russia
He hid in a number of places all over Europe, including Sweden. The US eventually gave up chasing him and he was only caught through the diligent efforts of the victim's family who refused to give up. Was theirs a quest for justice or vengence? Can you tell the difference?

But this ties in again to the purpose of this thread. The French would only agree to extradite Einhorn if the US agreed not to seek the death penalty, which they regard as barbaric. They apparently have no problem with barbaric murderers living freely within their borders. Were the French wrong to insist on this condition, or were they humane?

Finella...I have to disagree with you that Christianity is about loving others. It is not. It is about bringing the message of Christ to those that have not heard it that they may be saved. Those that do not choose Christ are doomed. The "Christians" are in an exclusive club. They do not love those that choose differently. They may pity them but if they are not saved the Christians give it little other thought. Hell fire an brimstone for eternity. Too bad.

This is the view of most organized churches. Please do not tell me that the "real" Christian doesn't think this way. It is a cop out. Talk to any Christian long enough and you get the same answer...they are going to heaven and you are going to hell. End of story.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Tricky

He hid in a number of places all over Europe, including Sweden. The US eventually gave up chasing him and he was only caught through the diligent efforts of the victim's family who refused to give up. Was theirs a quest for justice or vengence? Can you tell the difference?

But this ties in again to the purpose of this thread. The French would only agree to extradite Einhorn if the US agreed not to seek the death penalty, which they regard as barbaric. They apparently have no problem with barbaric murderers living freely within their borders. Were the French wrong to insist on this condition, or were they humane?

Sounds to me, Tricky, as though it was more about justice, than anything else. Einhorn was able to run around loose and escape justice, living well in Europe.

France might have helped its cause far better if they'd even bothered to lock Einhorn up, instead of allowing him to run around loose. The man had already been convicted in absentia for murder, for God's sake.

As far as Robertson goes, I find it funny that Doctors aren't good enough for anyone else, but they're the first ones Pat turned to when things got tough.

I can't help but be reminded of ol' Brother Oral, and the time he said that if he didn't get a million bucks, God would "call him home."

My Grandmother had sent ol' Brother Oral a one-time "donation" of $5.00. Not long after that, (a few months), she started getting dunning letters, telling her that if she didn't cough up another $5.00 a month, it would "negatively impact" her credit rating. Not long after that, ol' Brother Oral made his declaration.

I sent him a note saying, "SEE YA!"

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Finella...I have to disagree with you that Christianity is about loving others. It is not. It is about bringing the message of Christ to those that have not heard it that they may be saved. Those that do not choose Christ are doomed. The "Christians" are in an exclusive club. They do not love those that choose differently. They may pity them but if they are not saved the Christians give it little other thought. Hell fire an brimstone for eternity. Too bad.

This is the view of most organized churches. Please do not tell me that the "real" Christian doesn't think this way. It is a cop out. Talk to any Christian long enough and you get the same answer...they are going to heaven and you are going to hell. End of story.

Sorry, Jimmy.

As a Christian, I kind of had to check my expectations at the door. I don't know if you're going to heaven or hell. The last time I checked, God hadn't died, and I hadn't been promoted to the job.

[Finella]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Finella...I have to disagree with you that Christianity is about loving others. It is not. It is about bringing the message of Christ to those that have not heard it that they may be saved. Those that do not choose Christ are doomed. The "Christians" are in an exclusive club. They do not love those that choose differently. They may pity them but if they are not saved the Christians give it little other thought. Hell fire an brimstone for eternity. Too bad.

This is the view of most organized churches. Please do not tell me that the "real" Christian doesn't think this way. It is a cop out. Talk to any Christian long enough and you get the same answer...they are going to heaven and you are going to hell. End of story.

It certainly isn't the view of me or my church. Then again, the Episcopal church hasn't been known to have hard doctrine on much of anything. :)

I certainly most disagree with your statement that Christians "do not love those that choose differently." I do. Maybe I'm naive, but this is what Jesus himself did: he died for every person because he loves every person. Not for the "exclusive" members as some denominations of Christianity preach, but for the whole world. Many theologians don't think of hell as a place that God damns people to, but rather that it is a chosen destination for those who refuse the love of God.

Thus, yes, love is at the heart of Christianity. And as a Christian who believes that, I disprove your statement that "any" Christian divides up the world's population into future inhabitants of heaven and hell. That's not something I can wrap my mind around metaphysically -- it's a far larger question that, I believe, has absolutely nothing to do with me anyway.

Au contrair mon frair...JC did not die for everyone. He died for only those that would except him. The rest can go to hell. Boil it down and you will find the underlying impatice is to be better than or better off than those that disagree with you.

If you really loved someone would you tell them tales of horror and everlasting agony and blame them for their own fate? No, if you really loved someone you would try to comfort them and make them at ease.

That is something that is beyond the Christian mentality in my opinion. Sort of a tough love thing, but the end result is that you go to heaven and eternal bliss while the other guy goes to the lake of fire. You wash your hands of the sinner and accept the ruling of an unjust, unrelenting, unfeeling, sadistic god. That is not love.

[Finella]

That is not Christianity. Sorry, but whoever represented it to you as the evil thing you are describing misrepresented it.

It seems you had a limited experience with Christianity, a really fundamentalist one, which is not necessarily what every Christian believes.

In regards to this thread, though, it doesn't behoove us as human beings (which we all are) to wish suffering on one who wished it on others. We can be bigger than that.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Au contrair mon frair...JC did not die for everyone. He died for only those that would except him. The rest can go to hell. Boil it down and you will find the underlying impatice is to be better than or better off than those that disagree with you.

If you really loved someone would you tell them tales of horror and everlasting agony and blame them for their own fate? No, if you really loved someone you would try to comfort them and make them at ease.

That is something that is beyond the Christian mentality in my opinion. Sort of a tough love thing, but the end result is that you go to heaven and eternal bliss while the other guy goes to the lake of fire. You wash your hands of the sinner and accept the ruling of an unjust, unrelenting, unfeeling, sadistic god. That is not love.

But I think you've hit the nail on the head, Jimmy. You're right, that ain't love at all. I have never been able to simply wash my hands of people, especially friends. (Family... that's another matter. I'll tell you later...)

Just what sort of Christians are you running into up there? Sounds like the crowd I used to hang with, until I kept getting hit time and again with hard realities. (Family and friends dying of AIDS, who lived better lives than we had and had given more than I ever imagined; God fearing people who had done nothing more than filled the hearts of those in their presence with nothing but unvarnished malice... What sort of God allows this unholy swap?)

Here's an even bigger question for you: Pat Robertson would tell you that someone like Stephen Hawking is destined for Hell because he denies Christ. Yet, in his search for a unifying principle (or perhaps that ought to be "unifying principles"), I see an honest search for God, or at least God as best Hawking can understand. (And given Hawking's displayed compassion, not to mention what else we've seen elsewhere, he can understand a great deal.)

I have a hard time justifying the notion that Dr. Hawking would spend an eternity in damnation. I don't buy it. How would you justify that? I can't.

Sorry, I guess I'm not much of a Christian. I have a broader idea of what God would accept than most people. But I've also said it before: No one has ever put me in charge.

Believe me, Robertson would have something to worry about then.

[gmol]

Originally posted by Finella
That is not Christianity. Sorry, but whoever represented it to you as the evil thing you are describing misrepresented it.


But what was described *IS* Christianity. It's hard to preface every useful discussion with the standard caveats of the fact that we are individuals and there really is no such thing as an "-ic", "-ian", "-ist", "-ity, " or "-ism".

Given that caveat, I have met many people in my life who think just like Pat Robertson (or at least show me that on the outside that they do).

I have many examples, but this one seems to come to mind.
I worked at a place once where I used to always to say hi to the janitor and thank him when he came around to clean out the trash in my office every single day. The day before I was leaving that job, the guy tried to sit down with me for like 20min to convince me to become a chirstian (I have brown skin, so most people think that there are no Christians from India :rolleyes:). If I didn't get saved I'd be going to hell. I just smiled politely and thanked him for letting me know, poor guy was brainwashed....I was still a little insulted though. I mean the guy does not know what my life is like or what I have been through that day...it's terribly insensitive/rude and somehow selfish to feel that you can walk up to somone you don't know and allow yourself to purge your mouth of stupidity.

I have seen innumerably stupid, fraudlent child-like fibbing and zealousy in the media and from people who call themselves Christian....(the Southren Baptists and Pentacostals come to mind more quickly than anyone else).

Like it or not, in any sense of the word; the picture painted by Jimmy is a very big and relvant part of Christianity here in America. Of course, I know that there are people far more wonderful than myself who profess the faith; but I you can't honestly say that Jimmy is misrepresenting Christianity; it's a very real part of what it is, particularly to non Christians.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Of course it is beyond absolutists to make distinctions. If you are callous/humored about Robertson dying; then you are just as bad as he is for wanting people to be tortured forever. You are either one way or another....period. No exceptions. No inbetween.

If only reality was that simple.....

Dialectic...where the hell do you get off jumping from not caring if Pat Robertson dies to wishing he is tortured for ever. That is a pant load. I do not believe in an afterlife so if he dies he is just gone and the evil he does goes with him (except that his minions will continue it).

I find it ironic that he has cancer and cannot heal himself. I find it humerous that he claims to be able to heal those that send him money but can't do a thing for himself. I don't wish that he suffer, I know he won't unless it is in his own mind, knowing what a hypocrite he is and fearing his own god's rath. If that is his suffering then good on him.

Finella...If you are a Christian it means you believe what Christ said. He said unless you accept him then you go to hell. He didn't say maybe, he didn't say his mom would get you in. He made it perfectly clear that if you do not accept him you do not go to heaven. If you dispute his teaching then you are by definition not a Christian.

That you might not get in the face of someone about your religion and people like Pat do is just a matter of degree. In the end it all boils down to who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.

You can claim love for your fellow man, nurse him to health or comfort him in pain. You can give all of your money and time helping the homeless and the unfortunate. You can do all these things but at the last minute you can also step back, wash your hands of that person and consign them to everlasting torture.

Some ask what kind of Christians I have come into contact with? Every kind from born again lunatics to sincere, devout believers. In every case it is the same. When the rubber hits the road they are all capable of cutting the unbeliever loose, including their own family.

My wife who is a devout Catholic is the same. When she dies she is convinced she will go to heaven and when my son and I die we will not. When I asked how she can reconcile having her loved ones in hell while she basks in heaven her reply was that God will erase all memory of us. You draw your own conclusions from this type of thinking.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I never said anything about wanting Pat to be tortured forever, I was reffering to how Pat wants others to be tortured forever.

Dialectic...Quote...


"If you are callous/humored about Robertson dying; then you are just as bad as he is for wanting people to be tortured forever."


You compare me on the same level as PR. You equate my not carring and amusement with his situation, with him wanting to see people tortured forever.

A=B=C?

I take what you say to its logical conclusion that you think I am equal in depravity to PR.

You are wrong.

[Finella]

Originally posted by jimmygun

Finella...If you are a Christian it means you believe what Christ said. He said unless you accept him then you go to hell. He didn't say maybe, he didn't say his mom would get you in. He made it perfectly clear that if you do not accept him you do not go to heaven. If you dispute his teaching then you are by definition not a Christian.

That you might not get in the face of someone about your religion and people like Pat do is just a matter of degree. In the end it all boils down to who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.

You can claim love for your fellow man, nurse him to health or comfort him in pain. You can give all of your money and time helping the homeless and the unfortunate. You can do all these things but at the last minute you can also step back, wash your hands of that person and consign them to everlasting torture.

Some ask what kind of Christians I have come into contact with? Every kind from born again lunatics to sincere, devout believers. In every case it is the same. When the rubber hits the road they are all capable of cutting the unbeliever loose, including their own family.

My wife who is a devout Catholic is the same. When she dies she is convinced she will go to heaven and when my son and I die we will not. When I asked how she can reconcile having her loved ones in hell while she basks in heaven her reply was that God will erase all memory of us. You draw your own conclusions from this type of thinking.

I, and several other theologians (not that I'm a theologian, of course!), don't think heaven and hell are that clear-cut. And I'm not entirely sure that Christ is "the way", as in, the only ticket to heaven. Many, many Christians struggle with this. I think there are many roads to immortality. Christians could very well have gotten it wrong, but it seems to work for me thus far, and based on my personal experience I have a gut feeling it's the right spritual path to follow -- for me.

I think you'll find many Christians are like myself, and some are more black and white and like your wife. I personally can't reconcile how a God can lovingly create us and then punish us with hell -- therefore I don't buy the instant damnation thing.

All I know for sure that I can try to do as a Christian is to live a Christ-like life as best I can. I am not concerned with anyone else's status with God, unless they ask for ways to get closer to God. And then I leave Jesus out of the picture unless they say they are Christian. My job is to "serve Christ in all persons, loving [my] neighbor as myself", "strive for justice and peace among all people" and "respect the dignity of every human being"; these are the things I vowed when I confirmed my baptism and I continue to renew these vows several times a year. Nowhere in these does it say to judge others, nor does it say that I am now a member of some exclusive immortal club and non-believers are doomed forever. Yes, it says I believe in the resurrection, but not that I know I will be resurrected. Because we don't really know.

So, basically, I ask you to not dump all Christians in the hypocritical, judgmental, Pat-Robertsonesque pile you conceive. Sure, some belong in that pile, and all I can say is that people created religion and people f*ck up.

---,---'--{@

[Finella]

Originally posted by gmol

Like it or not, in any sense of the word; the picture painted by Jimmy is a very big and relvant part of Christianity here in America. Of course, I know that there are people far more wonderful than myself who profess the faith; but I you can't honestly say that Jimmy is misrepresenting Christianity; it's a very real part of what it is, particularly to non Christians.

Oh, Gmol, I don't doubt that. My mother grew up in a nondenominational "fundie" church. The stories I know from her experience are bad enough. I have seen my Jewish friends in high school be told by their supposed friends that they were going to hell. Yeah, it is significant, and these people are the most visible Christians out there. Their motivation and actions are going to get the most attention out of any kind of Christianity. I'm not defending Bible-thumpers, and I disagree with their theology on a fundamental level (no pun intended).

I think Christianity gets a bad rap because of these people, and it does make it harder to come into a skeptics forum and confess my faith -- because I don't want to come across as one who will judge and condemn. Hardly. I barely understand what I believe anyway. I've got enough questions for myself, thank you. :)

I'm just trying to say that Christianity -- as I experience it -- is far deeper, far more loving, and far more accepting than these fundie dorks will ever be able to comprehend.

(oops... I guess I'm calling fundies "dorks"... my bad. :) )


---,---'--{@

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Finella


I, and several other theologians (not that I'm a theologian, of course!), don't think heaven and hell are that clear-cut.

When you start making the rules for your religion, this fact will be relevant. Until then, you are still terribly wrong.

Christianity is about who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell. That's it. Earn enough christian merit badges, and you get the fluffy cloud real estate. Fail to do so, and you get to take a lava bath. Any revisionist spin you put on it, based on your own personal experience, is invalid as you do not run the churches.

Finella....perhaps I am not making myself clear. If you claim to be a Christian, you are by definition a follower of Christ. If you accept that he is the son of god, that he himself is god then you cannot pick and choose what part of what he says is okay for you and what is not. I realize that most of the bible is open to interpretation but it is very clear on one point....You must accept Jesus or you go to hell. I don't think it could be any clearer.

If you decide that isn't the case you have removed yourself from the teachings of JC and are no longer a Christian. You may be something else that believes in something else but not a Christian.

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
But some con man and frauds are smart enought to avoid justice. They pick subjects that are not punished by law.

Hmm, so who decides what is justice? you? I submit to you that if acts of that kind are not considered crimes today, the whole judicial system of 200 plus years has decided it is not unjust.

Why should I not be glad if one of those frauds suffers?

Maybe because it is immoral?

Hazelip wrote:
I wrote that Pat Robertson deserves pain and suffering.

Would you consider the idea that wanting pain and suffering for another human could be wrong? Please consider that the modern State prohibits pain and suffering for any human being. There is a UN proclamation, you know, about this (1948). Even if Robertson were to be convicted and sent to prison, the pain and suffering of encarceration would be of a completely different nature than the one cancer causes.

Tricky wrote:
Is there anyone, living or dead, who "deserves" pain and suffering?

Me, me, me, let me answer that. :D No, not the kind we are talking about, not if you believe in universal human rights (of the living, of course)

Scotth wrote:
I don't see how. I don't see how someone being gullible gives anyone the right to defraud them.

You have used a legal penal term defraud. If you believe this is the case, then it would be possible to press charges, prosecute and convict (is he eligible for due process?). I'm just suggesting that it might be possible, even if you believe he is a criminal, that to the judicial system, he is not defrauding anyone, and so the bank robbery reference sounds "sound".

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Christian
Would you consider the idea that wanting pain and suffering for another human could be wrong?

Yes, it is. I have no problem with being wrong once in a while.

[DialecticMaterialist]

You compare me on the same level as PR. You equate my not carring and amusement with his situation, with him wanting to see people tortured forever.

A=B=C?

I take what you say to its logical conclusion that you think I am equal in depravity to PR.

You are wrong.

Totally misread what I was saying Jimmy. In that statement I was merely summarizing my opponents position. I in fact do not believe you are as bad as PR for being callous/humored by PR's cancer.

Dialectic...Then please take me out of the equation.

Christian..."Because it is immoral" By who's standards? Yours? Mine? Osama's?

Who says that I can't be glad if someone gets their comeupance?

I damn sure know PR has no feelings for the victims of homophobic hatred other than that they got what they deserved.

I am damn sure he has no compassin for those sinners that died in the WTC.

I am damn sure he is not going to get one iota of compassion from me unless he stands up before the entire North American population and apologizes for his ignorant and unfeeling behaviour.

[Finella]

Hazelip and Jimmygun....

It seems you have a literalist interpretation of who is a Christian...

and thus you and Pat Robertson agree on more than you thought.

---,---'--{@

[Christian]

Jimmygun wrote:
Christian..."Because it is immoral" By who's standards? Yours? Mine? Osama's?

I define moral acts as those that seek the common good. There seems to be a basic concensus about prolonged physical pain on a person. That is not good. That someone thinks is good, IMHO is immoral.

The universal proclamation of human rights and most primary law documents (of most countries) contain specific prohibitions on this regard.

Now, because it is the law worldwide, (even if in your country it is not, you can be internationally prosecuted, althought I believe in the US it's a crime), no one can inflict prolonged physical pain on anyone (that, I believe, is called torture).

If someone wants to indulge and derive pleasure from someone else's prolonged physical pain just because he or she doesn't agree with that person's views and lawful actions, he or she has every right to. I have every right to respecfully disagree and run like mad in the opposite direction.

Who says that I can't be glad if someone gets their comeupance?

Yes, you do. But, please think that you might be paying a steep price for this happiness. By showing no compassion for someone with oppositive views, what can be said of your overall compassion for humans.

I damn sure know PR has no feelings for the victims of homophobic hatred other than that they got what they deserved.I am damn sure he has no compassin for those sinners that died in the WTC.

It is an excellent point to bring out, if this is true, his lack of compassion for others that do not share his views is exactly the same coin.

I am damn sure he is not going to get one iota of compassion from me unless he stands up before the entire North American population and apologizes for his ignorant and unfeeling behaviour.

But doesn't this defeat the purpose of compassion, if we only are to those who merit it, then what is our merit?

[gmol]

Originally posted by Christian
The universal proclamation of human rights and most primary law documents (of most countries) contain specific prohibitions on this regard.

Now, because it is the law worldwide, (even if in your country it is not, you can be internationally prosecuted, althought I believe in the US it's a crime), no one can inflict prolonged physical pain on anyone (that, I believe, is called torture).


Irrespective of the rest of your statement, the above is Simply Not True.

[Christian]

gmol wrote:
Irrespective of the rest of your statement, the above is Simply Not True.

Can you point out why and what part is not true?

Please refer to UN Declaration 1948.

http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/un_udhr.html

From there
Art. 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I understand causing prolonged physical pain is considered torture.


And this manual covers aspects of International Human Right Laws which is based on the 1948 Declaration signed by the member States.

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu6/2/pocketbook.pdf


And in here you will find the specific UN document regarding torture:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

From there:
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[gmol]

The 'most countries' caveat *may* be true, but I am quite sure that you can't just walk into another country and accuse them of torture; as people don't do it (the accusing, that is).

Forgetting about the fact that Taiwan and our good ol neighbour the Vatican are not members of the UN; I think it is fair to say that it is an accepted world-wide law, is plainly distant from the practical truth.

Government sanctioned torture happens all the time, everywhere (all you need do is google 'torture'). Take a look at Iraq and North Korea, Isreal; within those UN countires lay unequivocal examples of sponsered torture (per definition of your cited Article 1). Nobody has taken any of those countires to international court on the charge of torture....

There are people accusing the US of torture for the obvious reasons....I don't see an international court case; and I would fall off my chair if I ever heard a guilty verdict.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by jimmygun
My wife who is a devout Catholic is the same. When she dies she is convinced she will go to heaven and when my son and I die we will not. When I asked how she can reconcile having her loved ones in hell while she basks in heaven her reply was that God will erase all memory of us. You draw your own conclusions from this type of thinking.

Sorry to jump in like this, Jimmy, everyone, particularly at this point in the discussion. But this line from Jimmy literally kept me up all night. I had to say something...

First of all, Jimmy, who died and put your wife in charge? On what basis does she make claims regarding your salvation? If she's a devout Catholic, as you say, then there's some question here in her rather callous remark as to whom she believes is God.

Tell me where she gets this idea that God will suddenly erase all memory of others? I read the exact same Bible she does, and I don't see it. (Well, maybe not... I read both the NIV and the Jerusalem Bible. I've also got a comparative text version, with four different versions of the Bible next to one another, plus a copy of the Greek New Testament. I was once studying for the ministry...) I see lots of suggestions that God will be drying a lot of tears, but I sure as Hell don't see any evidence that God is suddenly going to do a brain-wipe on us.

Holy ****, if that's the sort of thing I can expect from God, to suddenly find myself in His arms, only to have Him blot out all memory of love from those I knew and loved...

Let me put another view on this...

In November of 2000, I lost my Dad. He never, (and I mean NEVER) forgave me for being tossed out of the Army, particularly after he spent over 20 years of his life in this nation's service. When he died, it was perhaps one of the greatest heartbreaks in my life.

See, he was my Hero.

I also never once heard him tell me that he'd ever "Accepted the Lord Jesus as Lord and Savior," so I'm sort of in this situation where I don't know what's what with all of this.

I have a hard time with people who are so damned quick to condemn a guy like my Dad to Hell, simply because no one ever heard my father declare what his faith was or wasn't. It's really not my place to know: I was just his son. I watched a good man who gave his nation years of service, and receive so very little for what he gave. But, he gave so willingly to those who asked. He was perhaps one of the most generous individuals I've ever known, and I've never forgotten those lessons. (I've not really been able to live up to them as well as he did, but it's not for lack of desire or trying. I did learn that much from him.)

My dad lived what would be called a "Christian life," even if he didn't jump through all the hoops that a jackass like Pat Robertson thinks he should have. I've got a real problem with people who are so damned quick to send men and women like my dad to Hell. On what basis do Robertson, Roberts, Humbard, or Falwell make their declaration? Which Bible are they reading? Obviously not one I've been reading. (Last time I checked, God Himself decided who entered His courts, not some jerk dressed in Gucci. Geez, you listen to these clowns, you'd think that in California, Jesus wears Armani...)

(I have a real hard time, too, with the notion that Soubrette, RandFan, Girl 6, Rikzilla, Hazelip, Shanek, Doctor X, or any number of posters here, for the lack of crying "Praise, Jesus!" would be damned to an eternity of misery. I thought Christian Faith was a search for Truth, based on Fact, not mindless submission to a dogma. So I don't agree with them. Thank God! Maybe one of us will get it right!)

For months after my dad died, (and sometimes, I still do), I had the most vivid dreams of driving my Kenworth with a full load. (As a gear jammer, I don't usually double-clutch. I "float" the gears, which means I shift using the tach, slipping the shifter out of gear and into the next one when I hit the sweet spots.) I'd be rolling out, with the sun sliding down in the sky, and for whatever reason, Dad sitting in the Buddy Seat.

"I'd feel better if you used the clutch."

"Don't need to," I'd tell him.

"Don't you think you should upshift...?"

"Can't. You don't shift when you're crossing railroad tracks..."

It would go like that. I know, it's off topic, and not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. But, that was the way he was while I was growing up, when I was learning to drive, and when I finally grew into an adult, and started raising my own family. Why would I want to forget the man who still, even in the midst of my failure, still gave of himself to me?

Why would I want to forget the love I've shared with my wife, or with my sons? Why would I want anyone to strip me of the love shared with friends from all over? What sort of a hateful, evil God would strip me of something that has in fact defined me, and helped me to strive to become better? You're wife actually looks forward to forgetting you and your son? What sort of vicious God does your wife worship?

If that's what I have to look forward to at the end of my life, forgetting love and honor shared, then that's no Heaven where I'd want to go, and that's no God I want to worship.

Sorry, all. I realize I've taken a lot of time here. I didn't mean to, but this really got to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm living a fantasy in my Christian beliefs, that God is more merciful than legalistic, but I'd rather bring comfort than pain. Please forgive the hijack.

Christian... if you define a moral act as something that is for the common good then we must agree. It is my humble opinion that removing Pat R from the list is for the common good. I never said I would enjoy his suffering, on the contrary, I don't think he will suffer. He will be able to buy every known drug available and pay a doctor to deliver them. He won't suffer unless it is mentally.

I do reserve my compassion for those that deserve it. I am not bound by some religious duty to feel compassion for every one or thing. Compassion like respect is earned, it is not a given.

You ask what is our merit in that? Our? I happen to be talking about my merit not ours.

Roadtoad...I used my wife's slant as an example that religion and this whole god thing is so screwy. That a person like my wife who is one of the most compassionate people I know still can turn on a dime and be comfortable that others are condemned to the pit is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

In all fairness she also thinks that god is going to change my son's and my own heart and we will all be in glory for ever together.

You lost your father. From what I read you and he had a very strained relationship. You and he probably went through all kinds of emotional termoil. Your lives may have been as ****** as can be. What kind of compassion would PR have piled on you as you mourn your father? Instead of trying to comfort you and ease your pain he would heap more ******** on you for his own gain. That is exactly why I think he and others are such slime balls. And as such they do not deserve my pity or compassion.

Finella...PR and I do not agree on your point. I only state his positon. He is absolutely and totally wrong. Jesus is not the only way to heaven. There is no heaven and there is no way of getting there.

Somewhere along the line, in order for you to argue your point you deemed it necessary to draw comparisons between me and PR. I am the opposite of PR. I think all that he says and does is wrong and mean. If you wish, give me a list of all the things PR stands for and says and does and I will give you my counterpoints as to what I stand for, say and do.

[Doctor X]

Wow . . . rather sad stuff. . . .

If a deity exists that proves so venile that it would condemn good men to some place of eternal torture then I wish to have nothing to do with the cur.

I only deal with gentlemen.

What is sadder is the need of some to have a justification of a faith so badly that they can except the obscene.

--J.D.

[Finella]

Originally posted by jimmygun

Somewhere along the line, in order for you to argue your point you deemed it necessary to draw comparisons between me and PR. I am the opposite of PR. I think all that he says and does is wrong and mean. If you wish, give me a list of all the things PR stands for and says and does and I will give you my counterpoints as to what I stand for, say and do.

I only deemed it "necessary", as you put it, to draw the comparison, when it was obvious that you seem to think you -- as well as PR -- can tell me whether I am a Christian or not. I think that's rather amusing.

I don't know what else you and PR agree on... perhaps you can tell me?

---,---'--{@

[Ceinwyn]

I hope Pat Robertson suffers every ailment he prayed his enemies to have.

[Christian]

gmol wrote:
The 'most countries' caveat *may* be true, but I am quite sure that you can't just walk into another country and accuse them of torture; as people don't do it (the accusing, that is).

Listen, this is way of topic here but, this is not the procedure, international laws has its own protocols of how things are done.

Forgetting about the fact that Taiwan and our good ol neighbour the Vatican are not members of the UN; I think it is fair to say that it is an accepted world-wide law, is plainly distant from the practical truth.

This is a valid point, but please consider it is irrelevant. That many laws are not positive has nothing to do with our understanding of right and wrong.

Government sanctioned torture happens all the time, everywhere (all you need do is google 'torture'). Take a look at Iraq and North Korea, Isreal; within those UN countires lay unequivocal examples of sponsered torture (per definition of your cited Article 1). Nobody has taken any of those countires to international court on the charge of torture....

Again, discussing this is way of topic. And in no way disproves what I've said.

There are people accusing the US of torture for the obvious reasons....I don't see an international court case; and I would fall off my chair if I ever heard a guilty verdict.

I'm not sure if you are aware that you are arguing a strawman here.

Christian... if you define a moral act as something that is for the common good then we must agree. It is my humble opinion that removing Pat R from the list is for the common good.

It's good that we agree on the definition. Now, please consider the term common good. It is a relative term. The common good keeps expanding as the perspective does. The common good for the family, the neighborhood, the city, the state, country etc.

When you say removing PR from the list is for the common good, I understand you mean the common good of some.

The thing is that, IMHO, to be moral, we must look for the greater common good.

I submit to you that removing him is not for the greater common good. The reason is simple. If we are going to have the power to remove those who we believe spread the wrong, destructive message then, we have taken away one of the most fundamental freedoms.

But, I don't want to argue strawmen here. To me it is immoral to rejoice or be glad that someone we dislike for their views is dying of cancer simply because that is the door to the logical step you just took, which is "Why don't we just remove those type of people from society? Hey, everyone will be happy about it. The world will be a better place."

To me, the sword cuts both ways.


Jimmygun wrote:
I do reserve my compassion for those that deserve it. I am not bound by some religious duty to feel compassion for every one or thing. Compassion like respect is earned, it is not a given.

I agree with you, you are not bound to feel compassion for anyone you don't want. The only thing that binds any person anywhere is the State.

The thing is that the State uses morality and justice as its guides to create the laws that bind us.

So, if you are ever in a situation were someone you utterly hate, who does not deserve your compassion, is in dire need of help and you are the only one who is able to help, it is your duty to have compassion and help them. (This is the case were you find someone runover in a desert, and you just happen to be passing by. In most countries, you are required to take them to a place were they can be assisted. Sure, someone can always argue they never saw them or could help, but that would only make them more immoral.)

You ask what is our merit in that? Our? I happen to be talking about my merit not ours.

Jimmy, what I meant is that compassion is not compassion unless there is the forginess component within.

To put in another way, if you are only compassionate with those who merit your compassion, you are not being compassionate at all.

Christian...You assume too much. Removing PR from the list is for the greater good. Can you imagine if by some quirk he was elected president? I can assure you that there would be a lot less freedom of anything and a lot more suffering. There would be no compassion or tolerance of others. There would be no none Christians or Jews in his government (as per his own words). Atheists Budhists, Muslim, Hindi, you name it would be second class citizens again (best case scenario).

I have no control over PR's predicament. If he dies of cancer tough, if he lives with cancer too bad. I simply do not care. I simply have no compassion for him and his ilk.

The state cannot legislate morality. It can only legislate behaviour. It can force me to help someone to safety or medical treatment but it cannot force me to donate a kidney. It can force me to help to an extent, but it cannot force me to care.

Compassion? Do you argue that your compassion is legitimate and mine is not? Pretty high handed isn't that? I could argue that my compassion has more validity and meaning simply because it is uncoerced and sincere.

For the record one more time...I do not rejoice that PR will suffer with cancer. I do not think he will. I would be willing to entertain the thought of forgiving him if he came clean and asked for that forgiveness (kinda Jesus like huh?) but I don't see that forthcoming.

[Christian]

Jimmy wrote:
Christian...You assume too much. Removing PR from the list is for the greater good.

My only observation here is that removing people based on their convictions and beliefs is not on my list.

Can you imagine if by some quirk he was elected president? I can assure you that there would be a lot less freedom of anything and a lot more suffering. There would be no compassion or tolerance of others. There would be no none Christians or Jews in his government (as per his own words). Atheists Budhists, Muslim, Hindi, you name it would be second class citizens again (best case scenario).

I can understand why you speculate this way.

I have no control over PR's predicament. If he dies of cancer tough, if he lives with cancer too bad. I simply do not care. I simply have no compassion for him and his ilk.

You have made this point quite clear.

The state cannot legislate morality. It can only legislate behaviour.

No disagreement here.

It can force me to help someone to safety or medical treatment but it cannot force me to donate a kidney.

Obviously.

It can force me to help to an extent, but it cannot force me to care.

Actually, the State can force you to care and that is one of its purposes.

Compassion? Do you argue that your compassion is legitimate and mine is not?

I don't know personally about your compassion, it is impossible for me to judge that. I can say (and this only being my opinion, for whatever it's worth) that it is immoral to be happy about a another person's suffering.

I could argue that my compassion has more validity and meaning simply because it is uncoerced and sincere.

Yes, you could.

For the record one more time...I do not rejoice that PR will suffer with cancer.

And you know, I didn't think you did.

I would be willing to entertain the thought of forgiving him if he came clean and asked for that forgiveness (kinda Jesus like huh?) but I don't see that forthcoming.

Don't hold your breath :D

It was nice exchanging with you. :)

Allow me to get the last word in.

I do not wish to get rid of PR because of his convictions and beliefs. I wish that he were gone because of his track record of bigotry and hatred, hypocracy and fear mongering. He is an open wound on society.

I do not see how a government can force me to care? They can force me to pretend but that is just behaviour. They do not control my thoughts.

I do not speculate that PR would be a dangerous president. I take his word on it.

[EvolveNow]

http://www.700club.com/communitypublic/antioxidants.asp

------

My opinion of Pat Robertson is that he is morally corrupt, mentally unstable, and an all-around nasty person. So I guess you could make the case that I am happy to see that he may die (sooner than later). I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying it.....but I can't deny the truth:
Pat, I'm glad you're sick and I hope you die soon. ....I feel so bad saying that....hmmm...ah yes! A walk down the "quotable Pat Robertson memory lane" may ease my ill-comfort ....

"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti- family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/ 21/93

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992, suggesting that South African white people's votes ought to count more than other votes because they are in the minority

Yep!!! That did it!

Cheers
M

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Christian
Jimmy wrote:
[b]Actually, the State can force you to care and that is one of its purposes.

No, it can't; and no, it isn't.

To make the above post more clear the statement about the government being able to force me to care is a response from Christian. I said the government cannot make me care.

In a private message Christian felt the thread was at its useful end and I agree. He said if I wanted to further explore how the government could force me to care, that I should start a new thread. I have.

It is entitled 'Government Role in Society'