My Guilty Pleasure: Watching Pat Robertson’s “700 Club”

It is difficult to write in a manner responsive to the writing, rather than to the generative ilk of the writing, but here goes:

So, now that you have been forbidden by your masters from referring to Webb’s filth or to Kerry’s latest, the mantra is defending the ‘right’ of homosexuals to destroy the social structure of the US?

Where is your righteous indignation at the lack of understanding offered Mark Foley as he struggled for years with the shame of his homosexuality as imposed by the hypocrisy of our Christian culture?

Where is the moral outrage at the way the elite media treated his inner turmoil so unfeelingly?

Yep, your assertion that the Christianity needs more leaders such as the political lesbian now in charge of the Episcopal Church in the US only shows more clearly your true intent:

To crucify Christ all over again, with statements such as her assertion that Christ is not the only way to salvation, is your goal as it is hers and those like her.

Since you are not a Christian, you have no right to even offer an opinion on anything going on within any Christian community.

At least, not any more right than do Christians to opine on matters moral relating to homosexuality…

As usual, I dare you to respond to this.

As usual, you will turn your tail to any challenge wherein you cannot depend on lies to win.

It is difficult to write in a manner responsive to the writing, rather than to the generative ilk of the writing, but here goes:

So, now that you have been forbidden by your masters from referring to Webb’s filth or to Kerry’s latest, the mantra is defending the ‘right’ of homosexuals to destroy the social structure of the US?

Where is your righteous indignation at the lack of understanding offered Mark Foley as he struggled for years with the shame of his homosexuality as imposed by the hypocrisy of our Christian culture?

Where is the moral outrage at the way the elite media treated his inner turmoil so unfeelingly?

Yep, your assertion that the Christianity needs more leaders such as the political lesbian now in charge of the Episcopal Church in the US only shows more clearly your true intent:

To crucify Christ all over again, with statements such as her assertion that Christ is not the only way to salvation, is your goal as it is hers and those like her.

Since you are not a Christian, you have no right to even offer an opinion on anything going on within any Christian community.

At least, not any more right than do Christians to opine on matters moral relating to homosexuality…

As usual, I dare you to respond to this.

As usual, you will turn your tail to any challenge wherein you cannot depend on lies to win.

It is difficult to write in a manner responsive to the writing, rather than to the generative ilk of the writing, but here goes:

So, now that you have been forbidden by your masters from referring to Webb’s filth or to Kerry’s latest, the mantra is defending the ‘right’ of homosexuals to destroy the social structure of the US?

Where is your righteous indignation at the lack of understanding offered Mark Foley as he struggled for years with the shame of his homosexuality as imposed by the hypocrisy of our Christian culture?

Where is the moral outrage at the way the elite media treated his inner turmoil so unfeelingly?

Yep, your assertion that the Christianity needs more leaders such as the political lesbian now in charge of the Episcopal Church in the US only shows more clearly your true intent:

To crucify Christ all over again, with statements such as her assertion that Christ is not the only way to salvation, is your goal as it is hers and those like her.

Since you are not a Christian, you have no right to even offer an opinion on anything going on within any Christian community.

At least, not any more right than do Christians to opine on matters moral relating to homosexuality…

As usual, I dare you to respond to this.

As usual, you will turn your tail to any challenge wherein you cannot depend on lies to win.

As an American with the right to free speech I can opine on Christianity, Islam or anything else, as the spirit moves me.

Don’t tell me that you don’t offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?

As an American with the right to free speech I can opine on Christianity, Islam or anything else, as the spirit moves me.

Don’t tell me that you don’t offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?

As an American with the right to free speech I can opine on Christianity, Islam or anything else, as the spirit moves me.

Don’t tell me that you don’t offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?

Want some cheese with that whine, Robert?

The only ‘spirit’ moving you is the spirit of willingness to be a mouthpiece for foulness unspeakable in the form of Democrat leadership talking points.

‘…offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?’

So, you now admit that you find Islam repugnant, or is it still just Judaism and Christianity you abhor so much?

May we take your statement above as a confession of your true opinion of Christianity as ‘insane’?

Or, are you just throwing ‘macaca’ poo as usual, in your pathetic attempts to discourage and distract?

Want some cheese with that whine, Robert?

The only ‘spirit’ moving you is the spirit of willingness to be a mouthpiece for foulness unspeakable in the form of Democrat leadership talking points.

‘…offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?’

So, you now admit that you find Islam repugnant, or is it still just Judaism and Christianity you abhor so much?

May we take your statement above as a confession of your true opinion of Christianity as ‘insane’?

Or, are you just throwing ‘macaca’ poo as usual, in your pathetic attempts to discourage and distract?

Want some cheese with that whine, Robert?

The only ‘spirit’ moving you is the spirit of willingness to be a mouthpiece for foulness unspeakable in the form of Democrat leadership talking points.

‘…offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?’

So, you now admit that you find Islam repugnant, or is it still just Judaism and Christianity you abhor so much?

May we take your statement above as a confession of your true opinion of Christianity as ‘insane’?

Or, are you just throwing ‘macaca’ poo as usual, in your pathetic attempts to discourage and distract?

“So, you now admit that you find Islam repugnant”

In the last four or three years I have written many essays condemning Islam. I didn’t just have an ephiphany that Islam is a dangerous religion.

Your logic is beyond me, I have never branded Christianity as insane.

“So, you now admit that you find Islam repugnant”

In the last four or three years I have written many essays condemning Islam. I didn’t just have an ephiphany that Islam is a dangerous religion.

Your logic is beyond me, I have never branded Christianity as insane.

“So, you now admit that you find Islam repugnant”

In the last four or three years I have written many essays condemning Islam. I didn’t just have an ephiphany that Islam is a dangerous religion.

Your logic is beyond me, I have never branded Christianity as insane.

RPR said:
‘Your logic is beyond me…’

Not surprising, as most logic is beyond your political sort, Robert.

‘…I have never branded Christianity as insane.’

You do not openly ‘brand’ Christianity as ‘insane’ because doing so would expose your hypocrisy in working to destroy it, while claiming you are only reasonably debating some esoteric points of it.

As long as there is no Christ in Christianity, you are quite satisfied, right?
Like the new EC Bishop K J-S said, no need for the divinity of Christ, as an expression of the Grace of God; therefore no need for Divine Grace, especially in a faith which is founded on that need, right?

Yep, Christianity needs more leaders like that.

Once again, i dare you address the factual issues in my comments, Robert, rather than continue to rely on your fog of confusion to distract us from the facts.

RPR said:
‘Your logic is beyond me…’

Not surprising, as most logic is beyond your political sort, Robert.

‘…I have never branded Christianity as insane.’

You do not openly ‘brand’ Christianity as ‘insane’ because doing so would expose your hypocrisy in working to destroy it, while claiming you are only reasonably debating some esoteric points of it.

As long as there is no Christ in Christianity, you are quite satisfied, right?
Like the new EC Bishop K J-S said, no need for the divinity of Christ, as an expression of the Grace of God; therefore no need for Divine Grace, especially in a faith which is founded on that need, right?

Yep, Christianity needs more leaders like that.

Once again, i dare you address the factual issues in my comments, Robert, rather than continue to rely on your fog of confusion to distract us from the facts.

RPR said:
‘Your logic is beyond me…’

Not surprising, as most logic is beyond your political sort, Robert.

‘…I have never branded Christianity as insane.’

You do not openly ‘brand’ Christianity as ‘insane’ because doing so would expose your hypocrisy in working to destroy it, while claiming you are only reasonably debating some esoteric points of it.

As long as there is no Christ in Christianity, you are quite satisfied, right?
Like the new EC Bishop K J-S said, no need for the divinity of Christ, as an expression of the Grace of God; therefore no need for Divine Grace, especially in a faith which is founded on that need, right?

Yep, Christianity needs more leaders like that.

Once again, i dare you address the factual issues in my comments, Robert, rather than continue to rely on your fog of confusion to distract us from the facts.

Oh yeah, I forgot: RPR said:
‘…I have written many essays…’

How come you virtually never cite your sources, and,
When you do so, the sources virtually always are earlier essays by you,
and,
When you use your own work as source material, you virtually never give dates, titles, or locations, let alone links to, where the reader may find those earlier essays,
and,
When you do finally give in and provide links or locations to your ‘cited’ ‘scource’ material, (meaning earlier essays by you), those essays usually turn out to be as sourceless, and lacking in citations of outside sources, as the original piece in question?

Huh?
How come?…

Oh yeah, I forgot: RPR said:
‘…I have written many essays…’

How come you virtually never cite your sources, and,
When you do so, the sources virtually always are earlier essays by you,
and,
When you use your own work as source material, you virtually never give dates, titles, or locations, let alone links to, where the reader may find those earlier essays,
and,
When you do finally give in and provide links or locations to your ‘cited’ ‘scource’ material, (meaning earlier essays by you), those essays usually turn out to be as sourceless, and lacking in citations of outside sources, as the original piece in question?

Huh?
How come?…

Oh yeah, I forgot: RPR said:
‘…I have written many essays…’

How come you virtually never cite your sources, and,
When you do so, the sources virtually always are earlier essays by you,
and,
When you use your own work as source material, you virtually never give dates, titles, or locations, let alone links to, where the reader may find those earlier essays,
and,
When you do finally give in and provide links or locations to your ‘cited’ ‘scource’ material, (meaning earlier essays by you), those essays usually turn out to be as sourceless, and lacking in citations of outside sources, as the original piece in question?

Huh?
How come?…

Didn’t you hear RPR? Ted Haggard’s accuser FAILED a lied detector test. Now I know that they are not 100% accurate, but a person who is very good at lying, like an actor or a prostitute (which is what the accuser here is), should have no problem passing one. So before jumping the gun here, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, and learn all the facts here, instead of getting egg all over your face because YOU got it wrong once again.

Didn’t you hear RPR? Ted Haggard’s accuser FAILED a lied detector test. Now I know that they are not 100% accurate, but a person who is very good at lying, like an actor or a prostitute (which is what the accuser here is), should have no problem passing one. So before jumping the gun here, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, and learn all the facts here, instead of getting egg all over your face because YOU got it wrong once again.

Didn’t you hear RPR? Ted Haggard’s accuser FAILED a lied detector test. Now I know that they are not 100% accurate, but a person who is very good at lying, like an actor or a prostitute (which is what the accuser here is), should have no problem passing one. So before jumping the gun here, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, and learn all the facts here, instead of getting egg all over your face because YOU got it wrong once again.

Jeez, there’s so many gaffes in your writing it’s hard to get them all in one reading, Robert.

RPR said:
‘Don’t tell me that you don’t offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?’

Your logic is beyond me, Robert.

We were discussing your condemnation of the right of Christians to express verbally and politically their religious belief that homosexuality is sinful.

You have claimed that Christians are disqualified from opining publicly on the morality of practicing homosexuality, due to what you term the ‘hypocrisy’ of all Christians for espousing the ideals they do, even as individuals fail in the integration of those ideals in their lives.

My comment was intended as a parody of your position that such ‘hypocrisy’ of Christians disqualifies them from opining on the practice of homosexuality, and to illustrate how the application of that standard to your assertions about Christianity results in your disqualification from opining on anything Christian.

BTW, how many ways do you spell ‘hypocrisy’?

Jeez, there’s so many gaffes in your writing it’s hard to get them all in one reading, Robert.

RPR said:
‘Don’t tell me that you don’t offer your opinion about the insane beliefs of Muslims?’

Your logic is beyond me, Robert.

We were discussing your condemnation of the right of Christians to express verbally and politically their religious belief that homosexuality is sinful.

You have claimed that Christians are disqualified from opining publicly on the morality of practicing homosexuality, due to what you term the ‘hypocrisy’ of all Christians for espousing the ideals they do, even as individuals fail in the integration of those ideals in their lives.

My comment was intended as a parody of your position that such ‘hypocrisy’ of Christians disqualifies them from opining on the practice of homosexuality, and to illustrate how the application of that standard to your assertions about Christianity results in your disqualification from opining on anything Christian.

BTW, how many ways do you spell ‘hypocrisy’?

‘…I have never branded Christianity as insane.’

No, only it’s practitioners. Do you know the meaning of the word “truth”? You can’t answer the simplest question honestly. You may be the perfect liberal.

‘…I have never branded Christianity as insane.’

No, only it’s practitioners. Do you know the meaning of the word “truth”? You can’t answer the simplest question honestly. You may be the perfect liberal.

‘…I have never branded Christianity as insane.’

No, only it’s practitioners. Do you know the meaning of the word “truth”? You can’t answer the simplest question honestly. You may be the perfect liberal.

Comment #7:

“Ted Haggard’s accuser FAILED a lied detector test…. So before jumping the gun here, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, and learn all the facts here, instead of getting egg all over your face because YOU got it wrong once again.”

NO EGG ON MY FACE.

From the New York Times, the most respected newspaper in the world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/us/05haggard.html?hp&ex=1162702800&en=f7f895bdc87226cc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

“an independent oversight board at Mr. Haggard’s New Life Church found that he had “committed sexually immoral conduct” and recommended on Saturday his dismissal as senior pastor.

In a one-page statement issued Saturday afternoon, the board said, “Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”

Patton Dodd, a friend of Mr. Haggard’s who has edited seven of his books, said Mr. Haggard called him on Saturday and apologized. Mr. Dodd said that Mr. Haggard did not go into detail, but admitted that it did involve sexual transgressions.

Comment #7:

“Ted Haggard’s accuser FAILED a lied detector test…. So before jumping the gun here, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, and learn all the facts here, instead of getting egg all over your face because YOU got it wrong once again.”

NO EGG ON MY FACE.

From the New York Times, the most respected newspaper in the world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/us/05haggard.html?hp&ex=1162702800&en=f7f895bdc87226cc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

“an independent oversight board at Mr. Haggard’s New Life Church found that he had “committed sexually immoral conduct” and recommended on Saturday his dismissal as senior pastor.

In a one-page statement issued Saturday afternoon, the board said, “Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”

Patton Dodd, a friend of Mr. Haggard’s who has edited seven of his books, said Mr. Haggard called him on Saturday and apologized. Mr. Dodd said that Mr. Haggard did not go into detail, but admitted that it did involve sexual transgressions.

Comment #7:

“Ted Haggard’s accuser FAILED a lied detector test…. So before jumping the gun here, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, and learn all the facts here, instead of getting egg all over your face because YOU got it wrong once again.”

NO EGG ON MY FACE.

From the New York Times, the most respected newspaper in the world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/us/05haggard.html?hp&ex=1162702800&en=f7f895bdc87226cc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

“an independent oversight board at Mr. Haggard’s New Life Church found that he had “committed sexually immoral conduct” and recommended on Saturday his dismissal as senior pastor.

In a one-page statement issued Saturday afternoon, the board said, “Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”

Patton Dodd, a friend of Mr. Haggard’s who has edited seven of his books, said Mr. Haggard called him on Saturday and apologized. Mr. Dodd said that Mr. Haggard did not go into detail, but admitted that it did involve sexual transgressions.

Squiggy said: ‘You can’t answer the simplest question honestly. You may be the perfect liberal.’

Hey Squiggy,
You may have perfectly defined what it means in human terms to be a liberal today.

AND RPR said:
‘…the NYT, the most respected newspaper in the world…’

Yeah, they sure know how to get all the details of a Christian conservative leader resigning, apologizing, and publicly acknowledging his sin as well as his lies.

I sure am disappointed that Foley, Haggard, and those among the Republican / conservative ‘cabal’ who get caught in their ‘hypocrisy’, don’t have the same spunk as Democrat leaders who never give up the Big Lie no matter how heinous the wrong, or how innocent the victims.

Hey, Campers, here’s a fun question:
How come similar stories involving Democrat liberal leaders from Studds to McGreevey (sp?) are not covered in the NYT this way?

Answer: They can’t be, because in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those Democrat cases there was no resignation, no apology, and no acknowledgment of sinful behavior, in some cases even of wrongdoing.

(Geez, Robert, your excreta just keeps on giving, don’t it?)

Squiggy said: ‘You can’t answer the simplest question honestly. You may be the perfect liberal.’

Hey Squiggy,
You may have perfectly defined what it means in human terms to be a liberal today.

AND RPR said:
‘…the NYT, the most respected newspaper in the world…’

Yeah, they sure know how to get all the details of a Christian conservative leader resigning, apologizing, and publicly acknowledging his sin as well as his lies.

I sure am disappointed that Foley, Haggard, and those among the Republican / conservative ‘cabal’ who get caught in their ‘hypocrisy’, don’t have the same spunk as Democrat leaders who never give up the Big Lie no matter how heinous the wrong, or how innocent the victims.

Hey, Campers, here’s a fun question:
How come similar stories involving Democrat liberal leaders from Studds to McGreevey (sp?) are not covered in the NYT this way?

Answer: They can’t be, because in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those Democrat cases there was no resignation, no apology, and no acknowledgment of sinful behavior, in some cases even of wrongdoing.

(Geez, Robert, your excreta just keeps on giving, don’t it?)

Squiggy said: ‘You can’t answer the simplest question honestly. You may be the perfect liberal.’

Hey Squiggy,
You may have perfectly defined what it means in human terms to be a liberal today.

AND RPR said:
‘…the NYT, the most respected newspaper in the world…’

Yeah, they sure know how to get all the details of a Christian conservative leader resigning, apologizing, and publicly acknowledging his sin as well as his lies.

I sure am disappointed that Foley, Haggard, and those among the Republican / conservative ‘cabal’ who get caught in their ‘hypocrisy’, don’t have the same spunk as Democrat leaders who never give up the Big Lie no matter how heinous the wrong, or how innocent the victims.

Hey, Campers, here’s a fun question:
How come similar stories involving Democrat liberal leaders from Studds to McGreevey (sp?) are not covered in the NYT this way?

Answer: They can’t be, because in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those Democrat cases there was no resignation, no apology, and no acknowledgment of sinful behavior, in some cases even of wrongdoing.

(Geez, Robert, your excreta just keeps on giving, don’t it?)

OOPS:
McGreevey did resign, but only so he could go on Oprah, etc. with no limits on his profiteering off the sordid details of his private life.

And, i forgot to Include the whole list of Barney Frank’s dirty-influence peddling / homosexual pimping / homosexual whorehouse-laundry, as well as that of Clinton Himself.

So there.

OOPS:
McGreevey did resign, but only so he could go on Oprah, etc. with no limits on his profiteering off the sordid details of his private life.

And, i forgot to Include the whole list of Barney Frank’s dirty-influence peddling / homosexual pimping / homosexual whorehouse-laundry, as well as that of Clinton Himself.

So there.

OOPS:
McGreevey did resign, but only so he could go on Oprah, etc. with no limits on his profiteering off the sordid details of his private life.

And, i forgot to Include the whole list of Barney Frank’s dirty-influence peddling / homosexual pimping / homosexual whorehouse-laundry, as well as that of Clinton Himself.

So there.

Katharine Jefferts-Schori : Relativist adrift in beliefs and morals.

Ted Haggard: hypocrite and guilty, of living an immoral separate life and covering it up with lies, not a relativist because he agreed that what he was doing was wrong.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley: Guilty of the committing the type of predatory behavior he successfully wrote legislation about. Not a hypocrite because he was not living a life he covered up, and not a relativist because he was passing laws against this type of behavior and he agreed what he did was wrong.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: Simply want church and government leaders to be held to high standards, for them to lead the churches and the government in a way that hold everyone else to high standards, to which they hold themselves, not guilty, not hypocrites, not relativists.

I think the relativism is more dangerous to the church and the country than all the rest, because it tolerates all behavior. I have lived in Detroit in the seventies and I can tell you relativism results in everyone who can get out get out, and everyone who can’t get out puts bars on their windows.

But I really have to agree with your basic premise, I get annoyed watching them, too.

Katharine Jefferts-Schori : Relativist adrift in beliefs and morals.

Ted Haggard: hypocrite and guilty, of living an immoral separate life and covering it up with lies, not a relativist because he agreed that what he was doing was wrong.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley: Guilty of the committing the type of predatory behavior he successfully wrote legislation about. Not a hypocrite because he was not living a life he covered up, and not a relativist because he was passing laws against this type of behavior and he agreed what he did was wrong.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: Simply want church and government leaders to be held to high standards, for them to lead the churches and the government in a way that hold everyone else to high standards, to which they hold themselves, not guilty, not hypocrites, not relativists.

I think the relativism is more dangerous to the church and the country than all the rest, because it tolerates all behavior. I have lived in Detroit in the seventies and I can tell you relativism results in everyone who can get out get out, and everyone who can’t get out puts bars on their windows.

But I really have to agree with your basic premise, I get annoyed watching them, too.

Katharine Jefferts-Schori : Relativist adrift in beliefs and morals.

Ted Haggard: hypocrite and guilty, of living an immoral separate life and covering it up with lies, not a relativist because he agreed that what he was doing was wrong.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley: Guilty of the committing the type of predatory behavior he successfully wrote legislation about. Not a hypocrite because he was not living a life he covered up, and not a relativist because he was passing laws against this type of behavior and he agreed what he did was wrong.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: Simply want church and government leaders to be held to high standards, for them to lead the churches and the government in a way that hold everyone else to high standards, to which they hold themselves, not guilty, not hypocrites, not relativists.

I think the relativism is more dangerous to the church and the country than all the rest, because it tolerates all behavior. I have lived in Detroit in the seventies and I can tell you relativism results in everyone who can get out get out, and everyone who can’t get out puts bars on their windows.

But I really have to agree with your basic premise, I get annoyed watching them, too.