Pat Robertson: Haiti made a pact with the devil or something

posted at 4:10 pm on January 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

He may be a crank, but he’s consistent in his crankery. Anywhere there’s human misery — after 9/11, after Katrina, even after Ariel Sharon’s stroke — Reverend Pat will be there to explain to the victims why they deserved it. (And he’s not the only one.) He’s taking a beating on Twitter right now for having said this, including/especially from Christians who don’t want to see the faith smeared by his latest Old Testament thunderbolt theory. No worries there: Other Christian leaders, starting with the Pope and Franklin Graham, are taking a more New Testament view. But even conceding that he doesn’t speak for most Christians, he does still command a sizable following, no? Even after years of barfing up stuff like this.

If you’re wondering what the “pact with the devil” is all about (fact check: roughly 95 percent of Haitians are Christian), Tapper has some quickie background. Tongue-in-cheek exit question from MKH: According to the Harry Reid standard, shouldn’t Robertson’s charitable works absolve him from any and all offensive utterances?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Pat Robertson = Voodoo theology.

This kind of comment can be as damaging as those Christians who cheered Hitler during the 1930′s, as “God’s revenge” against the Jews for killing Jesus, when the Jews of Hitler’s time had nothing to do with Jesus’ death.

Even if some Haitians in 1791 had made a pact with the Devil, when they died, God dealt with them according to His justice in eternal life, and this earthquake long after their deaths has nothing to do with it.

A few years ago, a major earthquake struck Assisi, Italy. Did that mean that God was somehow angry with Saint Francis? In the New Testament, Saint Paul was shipwrecked several times by Mediterranean storms.

Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, severe storms, and volcanoes cause suffering to many innocent people, and many people wonder how a perfect, loving God can allow such things to happen. But Jesus Himself said that Satan is the prince of this world, and can inflict suffering on its people. But there is another life after this one, where God’s justice and mercy are absolute, where the innocent who died find their hope and reward.

What does God want for Haiti right now? That anyone who can do as much as possible to help its people.

Steve Z on January 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Ezekiel 18:20:

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity ; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

fusionaddict on January 14, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Taken out of context.

It is speaking of judgment in the hereafter, not in life. Read the entire passage, and you will see that it is referring to after earthly life is finished, and not during.

If we assumed that your point was true (ostensibly supported by Ezekiel 18:20), then how could this happen:

Ezekiel 18:18

“As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.”

If you are right, then the father should not have been able to “cruelly oppress” and “spoil…by violence”… The oppressed and spoiled should have been spared, right?

Not so. We still live in a sin-filled world, and will feel the effects of it until this life is ended.

;)

Shepherd Lover on January 14, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Good to see the old critter is still evolving but doesn’t that go against his supposed omniscience?

Annar on January 14, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Well, I say this with sincerity, you are smart enough to know that what ‘God’s omniscience’ actually means is open to interpretation, unless you are a member of a religious cult that has already defined it for you.

Religious dogmatists who trust their own righteousness, people like Pat Robertson, are the last people who should be taken seriously when it comes to theology.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM

I’m sorry, but seriously?! Maybe there’s more that I haven’t seen, but he didn’t say anything about God punishing the Haitians in this clip. Those of you that pulled that out of this clip are spending too much time trying to read into things and not enough time actually listening. If someone makes a pact with the devil, that doesn’t mean God curses them. A pact with the devil is a pact with the devil. The devil doesn’t want good for anyone. If you make a pact with him things are only going to get worse. I don’t know anything about the pact he’s talking about, but if it happened then he’s making an excellent point. There’s that, and the fact that the second half of the clip is talking about praying for the Haitians and helping them. What do you see as the problem here?

j_ehman on January 14, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Wow. One verse. You apparently have a full grasp of the Bible.

Someone like me who cares more about logic than dogma, and who emphasizes God’s love and downplays/dismisses His wrath as evidence of immaturity has a better understanding of Him than people who don’t.

How about this one verse:

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power…
Or this from the lips of the Lord:

Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
You make the mistake of confusing the differing conditions in different ages with God’s supposed change in character.

From the OT:

How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?
For scorners delight in their scorning,
And fools hate knowledge.
Turn at my rebuke;
Surely I will pour out my spirit on you;
I will make my words known to you.
Because I have called and you refused,
I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded…

No act of wrath was ever without an opportunity for grace, freely offered. That was true for Adam, for Noah, for Abraham, for Moses, for David, for Peter, for Paul… all of whom lived under different conditions in different ages.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM

How about this one verse?: 1 John 4:18 – There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Not everyone is as Ghoulish as Robertson…

Donate to Haiti Relief

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Where do you get the idea that the nature of God has changed, or ever will? The focus of the New Testament was different from the Old, but nothing in it negates the Old (Christ said He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it), or indicates that God “evolves.” And, love was not the only thing Christ spoke of–He very clearly spoke of God’s anger and wrath, as well. God does not change into what you want Him to be just because you find Him more comforting that way.

DrMagnolias on January 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM

You make the mistake of confusing the differing conditions in different ages with God’s supposed change in character.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM

I meant to address this in my last post to you.

The mistake you are making is misunderstanding that my belief that God’s behavior has evolved means that I believe that His character has too i.e I distinguish between a person’s behavior and his/her character.

I believe God is good, but that doesn’t mean I believe He always has made the best decisions. Good decision making comes through experience, and God has had to learn right alongside humanity how to do things better.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Where do you get the idea that the nature of God has changed, or ever will? The focus of the New Testament was different from the Old, but nothing in it negates the Old (Christ said He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it), or indicates that God “evolves.” And, love was not the only thing Christ spoke of–He very clearly spoke of God’s anger and wrath, as well. God does not change into what you want Him to be just because you find Him more comforting that way.

DrMagnolias on January 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM

God’s knowledge changes because of experience, not His nature.

If you don’t agree with this, then the OT is just a charade when it says things like “the Lord changed His mind”, “the Lord relented”, etc.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Someone like me who cares more about logic than dogma, and who emphasizes God’s love and downplays/dismisses His wrath as evidence of immaturity has a better understanding of Him than people who don’t.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:01 AM

And you base this system on what?

If you can’t trust the source concerning his wrath (then, now or in the future) how can you trust the same source for his love?

As for 1 John 4:18, that has always been true. When one is “in the beloved”… in any age… there is no fear. Fear is the beginning of wisdom, but not its end.

You also missed the context, which is a judgment (of which there are a number in scripture):

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment

From Adam until today, love, grace and peace are freely open and available to all.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

If I tell my children that if they don’t do something or stop doing something it will result in one thing… then “relent” when the condition changes… that is not a sign of a gain in knowledge.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

My understanding (I’m not a Hebrew scholar) is that the translation of “relent” or “repent” means “to be sorry for.” This means God’s heart can be pained by our bad choices (something that should resonate with all of us). When we choose to do better, He changes His response (if you’re a parent, or anyone who interacts with someone who chooses to do the wrong thing, you understand that your change in response is not a change in who you are, and it isn’t based on new knowledge–it is a reaction to the choices someone makes).

God can change a decision to do something without changing His nature. For example, in Jonah, He was going to punish Nineveh for their wickedness, but when they repented, He showed them mercy–He Himself did not gain new knowledge or change. “I the LORD do not change” (Malachi 3:6 declares) seems pretty clear.

DrMagnolias on January 14, 2010 at 11:38 AM

And you base this system on what?

If you can’t trust the source concerning his wrath (then, now or in the future) how can you trust the same source for his love?

How does anyone know for a fact that their understanding of “God’s wrath” is the right one?

Since my understanding that God is a being who has gained knowledge through experience makes rational sense in a way that the idea He knows all of the future doesn’t (for example, God couldn’t literally be free to change His mind like the OT says He did if He already knows everything in advance), I have no good reason to believe I’m wrong.

As for 1 John 4:18, that has always been true. When one is “in the beloved”… in any age… there is no fear. Fear is the beginning of wisdom, but not its end.

You also missed the context, which is a judgment (of which there are a number in scripture):

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment…

From Adam until today, love, grace and peace are freely open and available to all.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM

God is love, and those who fear of His punishment don’t know Him.

God has undoubtedly scared people, and I believe that He has scared people because He didn’t understand that much of His wrath was excessive and irrational at the time He was expressing it. But, He has figured this out as time has gone on, which is why I pointed out that the OT doesn’t mention “love your enemies” like the NT does.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:52 AM

If I tell my children that if they don’t do something or stop doing something it will result in one thing… then “relent” when the condition changes… that is not a sign of a gain in knowledge.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 11:35 AM

If you knew that your children would burn in Hell forever before you ever created them, and you still went ahead and created them, could you explain what would be loving about that?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:56 AM

How does anyone know for a fact that their understanding of “God’s wrath” is the right one?

No one can claim it. That’s the point. As an individual, however, we can review the evidence and draw conclusions. But that evidence must be objective to a great degree. I base my conclusions on the evidence presented to me by scripture. If that is my choice, I am bound to accept all of it.

Since my understanding that God is a being who has gained knowledge through experience makes rational sense in a way that the idea He knows all of the future doesn’t (for example, God couldn’t literally be free to change His mind like the OT says He did if He already knows everything in advance), I have no good reason to believe I’m wrong.

Your “understanding of God” is based on what? Your subjective and inadequate experiences?

God has foreknowledge, but that does not preclude Him from acting in the present as he is separate from time (which is a concept dependent solely on matter). God’s foreknowledge does not contradict free will or his response to it.

I can know what my kids are going to do, present them with a conditional set of results anyway and then, from their perspective, “relent.” I have 4 kids, this happens all the time.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM

If you knew that your children would burn in Hell forever before you ever created them, and you still went ahead and created them, could you explain what would be loving about that?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 11:56 AM

That would be interesting if, in fact, I believed that anyone is going to “burn” alive in a place labeled “hell” as generally accepted in modern parlance.

However, since I believe that God will punish the free will choices of those who reject his free offer of resurrection life with perishing, destruction, death and decay… your argument does not apply to me.

All of us are going to “hell” but only some will see “life” in resurrection. God knows who they are, but those who get life will get it as a result of their free will decision.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM

God can change a decision to do something without changing His nature. For example, in Jonah, He was going to punish Nineveh for their wickedness, but when they repented, He showed them mercy–He Himself did not gain new knowledge or change. “I the LORD do not change” (Malachi 3:6 declares) seems pretty clear.

DrMagnolias on January 14, 2010 at 11:38 AM

If God knows ahead of time what everyone’s decisions will be, including His own, and can’t learn anything new, then spirituality, freedom and creativity are illusions.

I am sorry, but to believe that spirituality, freedom and creativity are mere illusions isn’t rational, and it limits God.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM

If God knows ahead of time what everyone’s decisions will be, including His own, and can’t learn anything new, then spirituality, freedom and creativity are illusions.

I am sorry, but to believe that spirituality, freedom and creativity are mere illusions isn’t rational, and it limits God.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM

POI : that is a logical fallacy. You stated a conclusion, presented it as objectively accepted… then used it as the premise for another conclusion.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 12:09 PM

No one can claim it. That’s the point. As an individual, however, we can review the evidence and draw conclusions. But that evidence must be objective to a great degree. I base my conclusions on the evidence presented to me by scripture. If that is my choice, I am bound to accept all of it.

If no one can claim it, then how come so many people like you do, and believe you understand God’s wrath better than others?

Your “understanding of God” is based on what? Your subjective and inadequate experiences?

What makes you believe you interpret/understand God better than I or anyone else does? You don’t realize it, but you contradict yourself.

My understanding of God has no different basis than yours, except for then fact that we have different experiences of Him. You don’t know that you know Him better than I do, except in your own mind, and that isn’t objective and authoritative, according to you.

God has foreknowledge, but that does not preclude Him from acting in the present as he is separate from time (which is a concept dependent solely on matter). God’s foreknowledge does not contradict free will or his response to it.

If consciousness is a spiritual, not physical, exercise, time is not dependent on matter; time=change, as in there is a past, present, and future if you are a thinking being, regardless of the existence of matter. If God isn’t static, God is always aware that there is a past, present, and future.

If you know the future, and it’s unchangable, you aren’t free to change it. It can’t be both ways – either the future is changable and thus unknowable, or it’s completely knowable and thus unchangable, and no one, including God Himself, is free to do a damn thing about it. Pick your poison…

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 12:09 PM

God is THE objective standard.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I don’t read a contradiction in what you were responding to. If God is all-knowing, then He knows every single eventuality and outcome to any move we might make. This does not mean freedom and creativity are illusions – as a matter of fact, it says just the opposite, without limiting God. You might want to read up on alternate dimension theory.

Ryan Anthony on January 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

POI : that is a logical fallacy. You stated a conclusion, presented it as objectively accepted… then used it as the premise for another conclusion.

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 12:09 PM

There was no logical fallacy there.

Meaningful words refer to objects, which makes them objective. Rational people understand this.

If freedom has an objective meaning, which you imply and infer that it does, then you can’t have it both ways: if God factually knows I am gonna eat Cheerios tomorrow, I am not free to not eat them, even though I may perceive that I am free to do so. The perception that I could choose not to eat them would necessarily be a false one, meaning that my freedom to choose is just an illusion on my part.

If you don’t like that reasoning, take it up with Logic and God…

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM

I don’t read a contradiction in what you were responding to. If God is all-knowing, then He knows every single eventuality and outcome to any move we might make. This does not mean freedom and creativity are illusions – as a matter of fact, it says just the opposite, without limiting God. You might want to read up on alternate dimension theory.

Ryan Anthony on January 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

If God can’t be surprised by any decision anyone might make, define how He’d be free to surprise Himself.

Simply put, God is either free to be surprised, or He is not free. If God can’t be surpised, He can’t even surprse Himself by creating something He didn’t already know in advance that He was going to create, which defies the logic of what actual “creativity” is.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

…shouldn’t Robertson’s charitable works absolve him from any and all offensive utterances?

Don’t know much about Christian fundamentals, do you?

Check out the volumes of literature, including Christ’s and James’ comments about “good works”.

Do some reading. It’s bound to rub off at some point.

pabarge on January 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Knowing what will happen is independent from causing it to happen. Reacting to what you know will happen is independent from necessarily being “surprised.”

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 1:19 PM

God is THE objective standard.

Ryan Anthony on January 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Well, yes, but knowing what God thinks (to whatever degree he reveals that) is the starting point of objective analysis. For me, in my studies and journey, I have concluded from the evidence that the scripture, rightly divided, is the standard by which I can understand God. Muslims have concluded otherwise, but I reject their conclusions… but every person has an individual choice to make.

My allegorical book is about the subject of “seeking”. The introduction to the book can be seen by utilizing the “Look Inside” feature at amazon.

My username links to the book. :)

|
V

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM

I remember when he was roundly criticized for suggesting that it would have been a good thing to have offed Hugo.

cjk on January 14, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Knowing what will happen is independent from causing it to happen. Reacting to what you know will happen is independent from necessarily being “surprised.”

mankai on January 14, 2010 at 1:19 PM

The problem for religious dogmatists who insist that God knows all of the future is that God can’t then both be free of the future and thus able to change it, or know it all and thus be unable to change it. It just can’t be both ways.

When you can explain how God, or anyone, is free to change that which is unchangable (which, according to you, the future is an example of), I’ll gave you props for outdoing God Himself…if the future is unchangable, then God is trapped (i.e. not free) by it too.

If am wrong about what I am saying here, refute it with logic, not mere rhetoric!

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM

The problem for religious dogmatists who insist that God knows all of the future is that God can’t then both be free of the future and thus able to change it, or and know it all and thus be unable to change it. It just can’t be both ways.

FIFM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Good to see the old critter is still evolving but doesn’t that go against his supposed omniscience?

Annar on January 14, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Well, I say this with sincerity, you are smart enough to know that what ‘God’s omniscience’ actually means is open to interpretation, unless you are a member of a religious cult that has already defined it for you.

Religious dogmatists who trust their own righteousness, people like Pat Robertson, are the last people who should be taken seriously when it comes to theology.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Sorry, but I’m a pure unbeliever so I depend on dictionaries for the meaning of words and insofar as “omniscient” is concerned it means “knowing all things.” Freedom of choice, evolving and change in general would be impossible for an omniscient god entity.

Annar on January 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

The headline of Drudge says “Biblical Damage” – even Hillary apparently used this term.
What does this is mean- Bibles were destroyed in Haiti? Someone drop bibles on Haiti and caused the damage? Drudge and HRC can use this term and nobody blinks. Why? Because we know that the bible teaches that God can at times bring judgment for sin on a people or a nation.

We also know that sometimes calamities happen that are not judgment, but rather just that are common to man living in a fallen world.
But to rule out through PC any possibility that God would ever judge a sinful voodoo practicing people is foolish also. This should be seriously considered by our nation that has killed 50 million of its own babies, promotes homosexual sin, is the leading exporter of porn, glorifies adultery and fornication, a nation that foolishly has spent itself into insolvency, etc etc.
Who is it that is so foolish – God mockers or Pat Robinson? I personally believe our nation is under judgment, and far worse will happen to us unless we repent of our sins.

CertainVictory on January 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Sorry, but I’m a pure unbeliever so I depend on dictionaries for the meaning of words and insofar as “omniscient” is concerned it means “knowing all things.” Freedom of choice, evolving and change in general would be impossible for an omniscient god entity.

Annar on January 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I guess I’ll have to point out to you that omniscience i.e. “knowing all things” could fairly be taken 2 ways: it could mean, “knowing all that presently exists”, or it could mean “knowing all that ever will exist”. I pulled this from Wikipedia after I typed that: Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about.

If you couldn’t know the future because it doesn’t yet exist, but you know everything that has happened and is happening, that is an acceptable use of “omniscience”, just as defining it as knowing all that could possibly exist would be.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM

If you couldn’t know the future because it doesn’t yet exist, but you know everything that has happened and is happening, that is an acceptable use of “omniscience”, just as defining it as knowing all that could possibly exist would be.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM

These are complicated questions but one could maintain that a god who knows the future means that said future is preordained. This is essentially what the Calvinists and sundry lesser sects believe which means that the poor faithful have to hope that they are among the “elected” in a rigged lottery.

One difficulty with your proposition is that it would put the prophets, including the Nazarene, out of business ex post facto.

Annar on January 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

These are complicated questions but one could maintain that a god who knows the future means that said future is preordained.
Annar on January 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Being a spiritual counseler and an author of books about things like this, I have my own take, but this topic is exceptionally personal to each individual. So here goes:

What good would having this life be a personal learning experience if the future were ordained? We would all be puppets of God, which would be evil, and God isn’t evil. The future doesn’t exist until I’ve decided what to eat for breakfast (so to speak).

There is however, collective karma, just as there is personal karma, so in that vein, who knows why this may have happened to a particular people in a particular place.—and it may just be that earthquakes happen.

In any case, Pat Robertson does put his foot in his mouth entirely too often, but thats’ for his followers to figure out.

Nalea on January 14, 2010 at 4:17 PM

I say the sky wizard can only act on tuesdays…

what retarded bs that even a cursory knowledge of philosophy would answer. The question of does god cause earthquakes has been settled for hundreds of years and the answer is no. If your god will not call down fire when you pray to it, than it can’t act in the real world. If your god cannot act in the real world than it cannot cause disasters just like it cannot cause good events. If gods rewarded the good for being good than only the holy would have money or power, yet since this is clearly not the case religious leaders must than explain suffering. Either the gods kill children indifferently or it is simply the nature of life to live and die by chance and consequence. Some like the buddhists fall back to “all life is about suffering” a line similar to mother teresa’s “suffering brings us closer to the divine”. Even protestant religion teaches that suffering is normal and should be used to strengthen your faith. however cost christian religions have an odd blind spot for praising their god for the good but not the bad…
If your gods knew everything than the future is preordained and there is no free will, if they don’t know anything than there is the chance of free will but malleable to the whims of the divine, kinda like the ancient greeks.
All these people debating dogma and theology forget this though as they try to find their own truths to live by, most try to use the bibles and korans as an instruction guide to happiness that will help them avoid tragedy by being ‘proper’ but this is of course ridiculous in the broader view as different traditional faiths have remarkably different answers yet similar rates of success and happiness among their followers.

Zekecorlain on January 14, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Just because God knows what choices we will make with our own free will, does not make us puppets.
God is “omniscience”
We have free will and are responsible for our choices.
God knows what will happen in the future because he knows what He will do and because he knows what choices we will make in response to the situations he allows to happen to us through his sovereignty.
The route I take home tonight from work is known to God. He knows which route I’ll take in response to traffic conditions. Yet each turn I’ll make is my free choice. I am not a puppet and God is omniscience.

CertainVictory on January 14, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Now explain just why I should preserve these folk for the gene pool.

Caststeel on January 14, 2010 at 2:11 AM

Wow.

Take a look back at the 20th century and look at the people who held similar views concerning their fellow man.

Look at those in power today who want the ability to ration healthcare according to their own sense of who is worthy and who is not.

Do you really want to keep company with these people?

Niere on January 14, 2010 at 6:03 PM

I’d heard some griping earlier about whatever-it-was Pat Robertson had said about this earthquake and tragic aftermath.

After watching that tripe in the clip above this serves only to confirm (IMHO) what a friggin PUTZ Robertson is. His Blasphemy in attempting to further line his own damned pockets in unconscionable.

Katfish on January 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM

@CertainVictory well since your using the wrong word, it’s suppose to be ‘omniscient’, you might not have thought about the consequences of your philosophy in the wider picture. If time is a stream and someone or something can see what is going to happen than quantumly speaking they are setting this future in stone. Also if this same being knows what is going to happen and doesn’t change it they are liable for the damage that is done. For example if you knew that your neighbor was raping their children and you did nothing than to stop that you are liable for their pain and suffering. so unless you are saying that your god is to blame for all suffering than perhaps you should reconsider what you are saying

Zekecorlain on January 14, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Why does this crap surprise anybody? When I was a boy, this kind of paranoid nonsense was regularly spewed from the pulpit. Now 40 years later, with the advent of instant global communications, we are somehow shocked when we hear these old preachers still at it?

Pat and his fellow crackpots are just meeting a demand. If there were no demand, they would not have the audience that they do.

HeIsSailing on January 14, 2010 at 8:26 PM

I believe what is in the Bible. God is a God of love. He created all of this world and all of the people in it. All human beings have sinful natures. Look at children as young as 2 yrs. old. They will lie to get out of being punished by their parents.

God gives us all free will. He knows what we will decide to do, but we still have a choice. When God spoke in the Bible that he “changed” his mind, He already knew that is what would ultimately happen, but He showed mercy to the people making the requests. God wants us to learn and to desire to learn more about Him. He will “permit” trials and painful things to happen in our lives so that we will turn to Him for help and answers to our problems. By doing that and seeing him answer our prayers, our faith in Him grows stronger.

Bizarro No. 1, your statements are bizarre. It seems you look at God as being and thinking like a human being. He is not a human being, He is the person who made us and loves and watches over us every day.

You might ask “why is there so much destruction, sickness and evil in this world. Many of the bad things that happen to us is because of our own actions. For example, smoking and disobeying the laws in this country, can result in cancer or being imprisoned. Is that God’s fault, no, he told us to obey authority; He told us to obey His laws which is for OUR best interest and happiness, but people think they can live any way they want to, and when the bad things come, they blame God for it when it was because of decisions we make. God asks us to follow Him..than means live according to the Bible. Does that mean we won’t have sickness, no, but our faith will help us go through that sickness with the knowledge that God is in control of all things. He makes the decision about what He will allow. He knows what is best for all of us.

In the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, God tells us to place Him first in our lives (obey Him). If the human race constantly turns it’s back on God, eventually, according to Scripture, He will stop warning us about consequences and allow destruction to happen. In the OT he punished people a lot…why, because they sinned against Him. The people in America have been turning more and more away from God, and someday He will step out of the picture of protecting America and let us have our own sinful ways, AND the consequences of those actions.

Look at the children in schools now. Back when there was prayer in school, there were no children coming to school and shooting teachers and fellow students. You take God out of our lives, and let children grown up learning that they are in charge of their lives, you have God watching people turn farther and farther away from Him. Eventually we will get the punishment we all deserve whether it’s in this life or after we die.

VFT on January 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM

I researched what Pat was speaking toward and couldn’t find anything.

Just a moment ago, I stopped a gentlemen who is rather up there in age who is from the Dominican Republic, and without prompting, he said they practice black magic there. He said much of the world’s black magic comes from Haiti. I didn’t know that and nothing on Wikipedia about Haiti talks about it. So maybe Pat Robertson knows more than we give him credit for, but not from Napoleonic times, but more up front and now… I mean selling their souls to the devil… that’s something they apparently do TODAY!

Danzo on January 14, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Zekecorlain – Time had a beginning. This we know from science. It also then has an end. God is the creator of time. He stands outside of it. As was posted earlier – just because God knows the future in no way inhibits your choices. Because God created us in His image he gave us free will. Our exercise of free will (often resulting in evil) does not make God responsible for it. You and I as “moral free agents” are each responsible for our own actions. If He were to prevent evil from happening then that means He would be violating our free will. That would would not be love. God did not make us as robots to automatically love and obey Him. Love must have a choice. We have the choice whether to accept God or reject Him. In order to have that choice (or any) we must also have the opportunity to commit evil. God is not the author of suffering. Suffering is the unfortunate but necessary by-product of free will. The good news is that suffering has an end. There will indeed be justice and those who have committed evil will pay for it. The very fact that you can blame God for all the evil in the world is evidence of His love for you. Why? Because He loves you and everyone else – He gave you free will. Obviously – if had created you to automatically love and obey Him – you couldn’t blame Him because to pin the evil in this world on the only Person who is good – is, in fact, evil.

johnnybgood on January 14, 2010 at 8:49 PM

If you don’t know God well enough to know that He is more refined than now than He was in the OT, that’s your problem.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 14, 2010 at 10:01 AM

more blazing stupidity…still waiting for you to evolve some intelligence.

right4life on January 14, 2010 at 9:02 PM

right4life on January 14, 2010 at 9:02 PM

do not throw pearls after swine
Matthew 7:6

Bizarro No 1 is blazing stupid – but will never understand God is he doesn’t seek Him. Remember why Jesus spoke in parables.

whatzit2u on January 14, 2010 at 10:06 PM

While I can not deny the stupidity of Robertson’s remark, I don’t think he intended it as “they deserved it”, but rather as: “Their ancestors did something horrible, and the innocent descendants are still paying the penalty.”

Thus intended as an example and warning that when you do something wrong it harms not only you but your children and grandchildren, and generations yet unborn. Which is a pretty common theme for him.

So while his comments were stupid and insensitive, I do not think they were intended as a pronunciation of judgment or condemnation of the current people of Hati.

Note that I have never been a fan of Robertson, and usually wish he would just go away. After all he’s told me that I’m going to Hell, which tends to make me less friendly. But still, I think that it’s worth making an effort to understand his worldview, because it’s so different from most people that the meaning behind his words are not the same as if someone else said them- and I feel that if I get upset with someone it should be based on a correct understanding of his meaning, rather then getting angry over a misunderstanding. (Even if the misunderstanding is totally his fault).

Sackett on January 14, 2010 at 11:04 PM

@johnnybgood i appreciate your more careful nuance of your faith however it doesn’t hold up on reason only faith. I would love to say that I could prove something to you about this but when your premise is that scientific reasoning should be based on on biblical tenets than there is really nothing to discuss. After all, time does appear finite since it is entangled with matter, however the premise that your god created us in his image (often explained as a metaphor for a soul) and judges us on our actions seems reasonable only if you think that it is acceptable for higher level beings to impose their will on lessers and than impart punishments if their own creations don’t measure up? To put this in perspective say you had children and one of them ended up gay, now you didn’t say anything to them but one day you drive to their house shoot them in the head and than throw them on a fire. Your excuse? Your child’s natural feelings, and free will didn’t do what you wanted to so you had to kill the kid.
Or let’s look at this from my favorite perspective, You go to town and buy an ant farm, you set it up and you feed them and they start to grow. Now your getting pissed cause these ants aren’t worshiping you, they can’t see you but you control them and feed them and you expect them to worship you. So you start killing them for everyday they haven’t constructed a temple to you. than you pour water on them to get their attention, than you start burning them. Yet no matter how you treat them they still don’t worship you, so you kill them all. Who is right? you for being mad that they don’t worship you?
If a hyper dimensional, omniscient being wants to get your attention don’t you think they’ll have a better trick up their sleeves than a poorly translated book written by sheep herders? But more importantly why would it want to impose it’s will on you? any god conceived of in this light is cruel and capricious, and no sugar coating can mask that for long.

Zekecorlain on January 15, 2010 at 12:19 PM

seems reasonable only if you think that it is acceptable for higher level beings to impose their will on lessers and than impart punishments if their own creations don’t measure up?

God is God whether you want him to be or not. Is this notion found only in the Christian faith? No – since every culture in the world has it’s religious or spiritual beliefs and in practically every one of those beliefs systems the god or gods do in fact have the ability to “impose their will on lessers and impart punishments.” In effect you just brushed aside nearly every spiritual/religious belief system. Perhaps that was your goal. Regardless, God is in fact (one I accept through faith – you obviously do not) all powerful. If He were not then He wouldn’t really be God then would he? – by definition. What is God’s goal in creating the human race? I believe that it is to share His love, His goodness, His grace, His riches, His wisdom (etc.) with those who wish to receive it. In effect, He is throwing a big party – forever – in heaven. All are invited but none are compelled. How to figure out who wants to be there? That gets a bit tricky. If God revealed Himself in all His power and glory and might – then it would effectively compel everyone to choose Him. The full revelation of the person of God Himself would violate our free will. That’s why this “hyper dimensional, omniscient being” has chosen this way to “get our attention.” To piggyback on your illustration of the ant farm – God became an ant. God became a human being and He showed us the true nature of God and taught us about His kingdom and how to be a part of it. He also provided a cure for the disease of sin which ravages our world. Forgiveness for all sin was provided at the cross. Everyone is effectively forgiven BUT only those who receive it through faith get to enjoy it. I would contend that we become what we choose to worship. If you worship money you become greedy, thieving, scheming and you can never get enough. God desires that we would worship Him because He is the only truly good thing in the universe. If we worship what is good and true – then we will take on those attributes. However, Christianity is not about Christians and how much of God’s goodness they reflect. Christianity is about Christ – His love, His sacrifice, His goodness.

Regarding the bible being poorly translated – if you take the time to look into how it came to into being you will understand that is has indeed been accurately translated. The dead sea scrolls have proven that beyond any doubt. Also, 98% of the New Testament has been quoted in the writings of the early church leaders whose writings took place a few hundred years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Yes, most of the writers were uneducated but some (like Moses) had the best education in the world at that time. If God is big enough to create the world is He big enough to write a book? Apparently most of the world’s population thinks so as the bible is the best selling book of all time by an astronomical measure. Reason alone will not lead anyone to the truth. Why? Because God has arranged this world and our lives in such a way that we must employ faith in order to receive it. Don’t like that? Bummer. But it is not the lack of “reason” or the fact that there is insufficient evidence for the Christian faith that causes people to reject it. On the contrary, the evidences and logic surrounding the Christian faith are much more compelling than for any other belief system. That fact is that men love darkness rather than light.

johnnybgood on January 15, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5