Pat Robertson: Other Religions Are “Demonic Powers”
A viewer to Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” asked:
“Why do Christians tell non-Christians that Jesus is the only way to heaven? Those who are Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, etc., already know and have a relationship with God. Why is this? It seems disrespectful.”
I did not expect an ecumenical answer from the fiery televangelist, but I was stunned by his insensitive and disrespectful response.
Instead of remaining true to his evangelical faith, but showing respect for other religious disciplines Robertson replied:
(Quotation as it appears in Bob Cesca’s blog)
“When you see L-O-R-D in caps, that is the name. It’s not Allah, it’s not Brahma, it’s not Shiva, it’s not Vishnu, it’s not Buddha. It is Jehovah God. They don’t have a relationship with him. He is the God of all Gods. These others are mostly demonic powers. Sure they’re demons. There are many demons in the world.”
Pat Robertson literally demonizes everyone who is not a born again Christian. His perverted conception of Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.
Pat Robertson’s disdain and contempt for everyone who is not an evangelical Christian makes it very easy for him to see them as less than human beings. That’s why he so casually calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez and fiercely supports the Iraq war. So what if Bush’s occupation of Iraq has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians — they are only demon-worshipping infidels.
I don’t know why Pat Robertson demonizes Muslims, he has a lot in common with bin Laden and other radical Islamists. The leader of al Qaeda sees everyone who is not a Sunni Muslim as an infidel dog who is worthy of death and damnation.
Word to the wise: Don’t tune in to Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” in hopes of spiritual enlightenment.
I write a weekly column for a small town newspaper in Virginia, and I also write for several Web sites. Please leave a comment or send me an email at: rreyes4966@aol.com | More from Robert Paul Reyes
Stumble It!
November 24th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Religion isn’t like a favorite football team. Pat Robertson truly believes that if you don’t believe as he believes, you’ll spend all eternity in Hell. To Pat Robertson, to “show respect” for other religions would be to condemn someone to an eternity of suffering. You don’t say, “all religions are equally valid” if you think all other religions are wrong.
Pat Robertson replied appropriately according to his beliefs. Shouldn’t you be respectful and tolerant of his diversity?
November 24th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Mr Reyes,
This passage from your article seems a bit of a stretch:
“I don’t know why Pat Robertson demonizes Muslims, he has a lot in common with bin Laden and other radical Islamists. The leader of al Qaeda sees everyone who is not a Sunni Muslim as an infidel dog who is worthy of death and damnation.”
I do not believe that Pat Robertson or the 700 Club are responsible for any terrorist murders or are funding any terrorist organizations. Mr Robertson is a Fundumentalist Christian who literally believes that Christ is the only way to salvation. He stands firm in his beliefs and I admire him for it even If I don’t agree. I have heard of Mr Robertson prozetlizing and advocating that people accept Christ and Christianity but I have yet to hear him preach forced conversion and the spread of Christianity through force of arms. I have heard Osama Bin Laden preach spread of Islam(IT MEANS SUBMISSION NOT PEACE) through force though.
November 24th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Why should you have any problem with Mr Roberstson? You automatically think if you are disagreed with, the disagreer is wrong. Likely you’re just jealous because you’re a nobody…
November 24th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
RPR, if you accept the validity of the Bible as a descriptor of what Jesus actually said, you must also feel like Jesus is a demon. The Bible quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father, except through me.” Doesn’t seem consistent with your “can’t we all just get along” sentiments.
John Dias
November 24th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Paging Rev. Robertson. Please book into Amfortas’s ‘Recognising Demonic Powers, 101′ program. I am the only accredited Demonic Powers identifyer in the world. All the others are fakes.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
RPR are you serious? I like some of your writing because it is thought provoking and argumentative, but you can’t actually be credible and not know that what Pat Robertson stated is indeed exactly what the G-d of the Tora teaches, it just so happens that Jesus is that very same
G-d. Is San Fransico so much different than the rest of America that you really have no idea how hollow your incredulity sounds?
November 25th, 2006 at 2:05 am
If I felt the urge, for my own amusement, to have an extended debate or discussion, to convince you that PR is right, I would first of all begin, with helping you determine, if this lashing out, is rational or irrational. It is clearly irrational; I have studied all the major religions and I can prove to you that none claim to be able to do the things to which you referred, except Judaism and Christianity. I would go, step by step, through all of your statements, and help you weigh the evidence. I think we would soon discover that you have the depth of understanding, typical of our dumbed down public school education. Because of the pressure for tolerance, to never say one child’s idea is right or better than another’s, you were educated, in public schools, that replaced absolutism with relativism, and replaced objectivism with subjectivism, that instead of saying all people are equal, they said all ideas are equal. This has caused you to be permanently scarred, with this notion that all the religions of the world are equal and no one should judge. This is what you refer to as ecumenical thinking. You probably think all political systems, economic systems, and all cultures are equal and no one should judge. I would also help you, to examine your own personal beliefs, to understand if you have any moral basis, to judge PR or anyone else. Your statements expose you to be a relativist. If that is the case, you have no moral basis, to judge anyone. You were born and raised, in the greatest religion in the world, and the greatest country in the world, and can defend neither. You sound like you gained your patriotism and spiritual enlightenment at Starbucks.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:43 am
You were born and raised, in the greatest religion in the world, and the greatest country in the world, and can defend neither.
Mexico? Roberto is an illegal which is why it’s so easy to get his panties in a wad. Not to mention, proof positive why we’ve got to stop the illegal invasion.
Is San Fransico so much different than the rest of America that you really have no idea how hollow your incredulity sounds?
This statement boggles the mind. You obviously have never been there. If the “inhabitants” of Frisco were green and had tentacles it wouldn’t feel any weirder.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:14 am
I wrote a snail mail letter to Pat Robertson. I asked how there could be Christianity without the possibility of a Christian marriage? I got no response.
In the Holy Bible, the man is to be in charge – no iffs, ands, or buts about it. But such a marriage, where the authority of the man contiues in the event that the marriage fails – man gets full and complete authority over said children from such a marriage has been outlawed. In the end, it wasn’t any devil that defeated Jesus. Instead it was the Child Support Slavery laws that made Jesus into both a liar and a sinner. That’s why Christianity is simply not taken seriously anymore.
It’s interesting that Pat Robertson is too cowardly to take on a true opponent. I would of welcomed the chance.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:39 am
It’s interesting that Pat Robertson is too cowardly to take on a true opponent. I would of welcomed the chance.
I’m sure Pat is just quaking in his boots at the thought of “taking on” a blog troll.
November 25th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Pat Robertson and his ilk have a myopic, literal, materialistic viewpoint about a spiritual message and it doesn’t work. James Dobson wrote in his newsletter that born again Christians have the same rate of divorce as people who have no religious affiliation whatsoever. That doesn’t say much for the effectiveness of Robertson’s message or organization. Further, Christian nations have the highest rates of suicide in the world and we in America have the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Robertson needs to get his own house in order, but he can’t with his limited understanding of matters spiritual.
Truth is not provable, it is understood. Only information is provable and it is transitory.
Christians spend too much effort trying to prove they are right and too little effort on living the life the message calls for.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
EJ – If Pat Robertson is materialistic why is he talking about demons? It is easy to criticize Christianity for how bad things are. But the reality is, what calls itself Christian, today in the West, is the apostate carcass, which has been devoured by hippy vultures for all of my lifetime. The high rates of suicide, are the resulting state of despair, left after we have been, intentionally stripped of everything that gave meaning, to our lives. Christians have little power, to force their truth on our free society, because it’s illegal. The hippies knew this, and took advantage of it. Vatican II, was a suicide pact agreed to by Catholic hippies, in the sixties. James Dobson is just another hippy Psychologist, contributing to the apostasy. Attempts to stand for revealed truth, in the middle of apostasy, tends to make people like Pat Robertson, look ridiculous. Whatever he says, to wake up the people, gets reported and ridiculed endlessly. If we are not to be literal, or take the scriptures seriously, than just how much more of the scriptures are you willing to let go, and what will the consequences be? How much longer will it be until you are kicked to death by your own children for no reason?
November 25th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Wow!
I love the crypto-religious threads at MND!
All the true wackos come out with their ideological switchblades flashing!
Plus, it’s the best source of real comedy that MND ever attempts.
(Some regligio-savaant commented):
“I have heard of Mr Robertson prozetlizing and advocating that people accept Christ and Christianity but I have yet to hear him preach forced conversion and the spread of Christianity through force of arms…”
Any history majors in the crowd? (Or spelling bee champs?)
Anybody who can type C-R-U-S-A-D-E-S?
And just for yucks, The Inquisition?
How about genocide in the Americas? The Amerindians, the Arawaks, the Caribs, the Mayans, all those sorry unchristian souls saved by virtue of the sword? etc. etc.
Now, I would never blame Pat Robertson for any of this historical Christian slaughter.
He’s obviously innocent by virtue of his ignorance.
That’s even better than counting on the gamble of being saved “by grace,” right?
Surely not by deeds…..
November 25th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
DadWithGirls,
I am the person you sought to insult with the “religio-savant” jab. I will let that slide.
You posted this in your comment:
“Any history majors in the crowd? (Or spelling bee champs?)
Anybody who can type C-R-U-S-A-D-E-S?
And just for yucks, The Inquisition?”
I am a history buff and I seem to remember the Crusades taking place but a few years removed from the Norman invasion of England. Since that was nearly 1000 years ago so I don’t think Pat Robertson had anything to do with them. That brings me back to my point that I have never heard of Pat Robertson calling for the forcible conversion of Non-Christians on pain of death. I have heard of Mr Bin Laden calling for us to convert to Islam(IT MEANS SUBMISSION NOT PEACE)and renounce our entire way of life. More to the point the Crusades, since you brought them up, were a response to the Seljuk Turks invading the Eastern Roman Empire and sacking
Constantinople, Damascus and Jerusalem. They penetrated up through the Mediterainian across the Dardenelles Straits into the Balkans and made it as far as the gates of Vienna before being turned back. The Muslims have been waging war on the west for a long time.
This brings me back to my point. Comparing Pat Robertson stating his belief that Islam(IT MEANS SUBMISSION NOT PEACE) and other Non-Christian religions are “Demonic Powers” with Bin Laden calling for the murder of all Non-Muslims is a big stretch.
November 26th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Well, apparently we live in the age of convenient mutually entertaining demonization.
Both Christians and Muslims express that their creeds are screeds of peace and love.
They have been contesting this point with great earnestness at a terrible price for the majority of disinterested humanity for over 900 years and still counting.
Religion has slaughtered more people than cancer.
At least we’re seeking a cure for the latter…
November 26th, 2006 at 2:12 am
I don’t see what is the purpose for playing one religion against another, or singling out a religious figure for his statements about his faith. To me, believing in something is done when you believe it to be true. You might think that goes without saying, but a lot of people “believe” in a religion because it is their custom, not necessarily because they believe it is true. If Robertson believes anything — really believes it — then logic dictates that he MUST reject the validity of anything that conflicts with his beliefs. Why hold it against him that he believes that his religious faith is true? Ergo, conflicting faiths are false in Robertson’s view, and that is perfectly fine.
Robert Paul Reyes apparently believes that no religion should claim that other religions are invalid and embraced by hell-bound followers; he would rather no religion make such absolutist claims. That is his belief. He opposes objective or absolute beliefs that conflict with his relativist premise. (Begin sarcasm:) How dare he oppose beliefs that are different from his, implying that they are wrong! (End sarcasm)
The criticism of objective or absolute truth (or one’s claim to it) is itself based on an absolute premise: that there are no absolutes. It follows that there is no basis for judging anything on a moral basis, even with one’s own personal opinions. For example, how can one condemn another’s racism when the racist’s beliefs are self-justified? The same logic holds for any other behavior that you abhor.
Robertson is simply voicing what he believes. Robert Paul Reyes (RPR), in turn, writes a column communicating what he believes. RPR considers his view to have greater merit; Robertson considers his faith to be true regardless of who embraces it (including Robertson himself). To condemn another person’s beliefs simply because they differ from your own seems to me a little immature. To then marry that childish way of thinking to government policy is to embrace outright religious repression, the very thing RPR was implying that Robertson was guilty of.
John Dias
November 26th, 2006 at 10:12 am
If I believe in one God…(Montheism)
And you believe in Multiple Gods… (Polytheism)
One of us may be right
Both of us may be wrong
But it is logically impossible for both of us to be right.
Simple, High School level, elementary logic, sirrah.
You only resent Pat because he is a Christian, and because you are a bigot.
November 26th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
DadWithGirls said:
If you count atheism as a religion, this statement would be profoundly true (especially if limited to atheism). In the 20th century alone, more were killed by ideological atheist governments than any were ever killed by the state or a theist religious movement.
64 million by Mao’s communist cultural revolution
30 million by Stalin’s purges and repression
7 million by the Nazis
2 million by the Khmer Rouge
That’s over 100 million in one century alone, all by atheistic governments (not just religiously neutral, but atheistic), dwarfing the number that had been killed by ANY kind of previous government or movement combined.
You want to assign blame for religious beliefs? Assign it to violent atheism.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
November 26th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Feminism is a pagan ideology – anti-family, pro-homo, pro-self, pro-abortion…
Feminists have killed about 50 million American children by abortions. American women kill about one in five American children. In 2004 for example, about 4.1 million babies were born but 1.3 million babies aborted.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
Since the 1970s the total number of aborted babies in the world is about 922 million.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp337sd.html
Feminists have killed more people than any organization or sex or government or ideology.
The total number Americans killed in all wars since the Revolutionary War for the last 230 years is about 1.7 million dead.
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
November 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
The total of all people killed in the Crusades for about 170 years is about 1.5 million.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showpost.php?p=8466245&postcount=36
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
God commands us not to murder (Exodus 20:13), so God is not the author of murder.
November 26th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
It is this Christian religion that is the bases for all the freedoms we have in the USA and other free countries.
These other religions that you say are equal to believing in Jesus don’t inspire freedom and integrity of the individual.
Besides isn’t the very bases of believing in any religion, the belief that only my religion is the only way to salvation.
Freedom of speech means that I can say “I believe in Jesus” without you feeling offended.
Orville J. Berg
Okoboji, Iowa
November 26th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
“I did not expect an ecumenical answer from the fiery televangelist, but I was stunned by his insensitive and disrespectful response.
Instead of remaining true to his evangelical faith, but showing respect for other religious disciplines Robertson replied…”
I never said that Robertson doesn’t have the right to say that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation.
Certainly, Robertson can preach Chrsit as the only way to heaven without denigrating other religions.
Billy Graham, the greatest evangelist of the modern age, preached the Gospel of Christ without ever insulting other faiths.
If nothing else it’s bad business sense to insult the folks you are trying to convert.
November 26th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Hal wrote:
“Mexico? Roberto is an illegal which is why it’s so easy to get his panties in a wad. Not to mention, proof positive why we’ve got to stop the illegal invasion.”
Hall are you such a racist that you have to interject your racist foolishness into a discussion about religion?
November 26th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
An exerpt from Brian:
“I have heard of Mr Robertson prozetlizing and advocating that people accept Christ and Christianity but I have yet to hear him preach forced conversion and the spread of Christianity through force of arms.”
An evangelist for Christianity for example simply ask one to “read the bibleâ€. A muslim convert is told to memorize the Khoran in Arabic (without understanding what they are saying). They then avoid learning the rest (in their own language). When they do they refuse to put it in context of their own lives and the events in the world.
The whole history of Christianity and Islam are built up on histories of “compelling” nations to convert. Though people aren’t forcing you to convert to Christianity now, there were many times when you had too, and not just any Christianity, either.
Many Christian denominations teach that they alone are the true church. They believe that they alone can trace their lineage directly back to the primitive, first century Christian church. They view the ten thousands of other Christian denominations in the world as having split away from their own church at some point in history. You have all these denominations and agree to very little. Some of the Roman authorities thought some of these Christians were nothing more than a bunch of arsonists.
Sounds familiar when we talk about Muslims, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the Koran has these verses:
Koran 9:29
â€Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the last day; nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger; nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth,(even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.â€
Koran 9:5: “Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.â€
Not much room for interpretation is there?
November 26th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
I agree with you, Robert. Christians are subject to the same human frailties as us all. Some are quite literalist, and leave no room for disagreement–or understanding of their own faith. I have often been left chagrined by some of their peremptory attitudes and presentations.
This is not to say that all religions are equal, nor have the same capacity to elevate men in brotherly love and economic prosperity as Christianity has done for the West. Nonetheless, the Pope has shown quite a bit more grace in his dealings with other religions, notably Islam, than it would appear Pat Robertson desires to evince.
November 26th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
John Dias wrote:
“RPR, if you accept the validity of the Bible as a descriptor of what Jesus actually said, you must also feel like Jesus is a demon. The Bible quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father, except through me.†Doesn’t seem consistent with your “can’t we all just get along†sentiments.”
I have nothing but admiration for the Jesus of the Gospels. He could rightly be described as a socialist/progressive. He preached the “kingdom of heaven” but he didn’t neglect he earhly disenfranchized. He ministered to the lepers, prostitutes and other social outcasts.
Jesus didn’t engage in wedge politics; he didn’t condemn gays or any other minorities. He reserved his harsh criticism for the religious hypocrites: Pharisees, Sadducees and the scribes.
In preaching to a Jewish audience, Jesus proclaimed himself as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. That’s why he told the Jews: I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father, except through me.â€
“I AM” is one of the names for God in the Old Testament. Jesus was proclaiming himself to be God.
If you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then yes Jesus is the only way to God.
But for the vast majority of humankind who believe that the Bible is only great literature, allow them to love the Jesus who thou he may not be God, was a great compassionate visionary.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
RPR The problem is that your Jesus is a hippy. The scripture contains the revealed truths of what God wants us to understand about God, and what God expects of us. But there are always cultural and personal perspectives, in the way these are understood and explained by us. You only notice what is important to you, and the culture of which you are a part. Castro said Jesus was a communist. Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton think Jesus was a Democrat. This is the nature of theology everywhere in the world; God is what he is, has explained what he is, but we attempt to explain God in our culture and with our personal perspective. Whenever we discuss God, because we are limited by our cultural and personal ways of description, God always ends up looking a lot like us. Let me challenge you to look a little deeper, at the reality the original cultural context of the scriptures, and let it judge your cultural and personal perspectives, and then God will begin to challenge your world, and you may realize your cultural and personal perspectives are totally out of line, with the scriptures and two thousand years of church history.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:31 am
Chas – “The scripture contains the revealed truths of what God wants us to understand about God, and what God expects of us.” Simply assering doesn’t make it so, no matter who asserts. I haven’t heard God say that the bible is the ‘revealed’ truth of the matter. Just other, mere mortals, saying it.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:19 am
Robert Paul Reyes said,
Hall are you such a racist that you have to interject your racist foolishness into a discussion about religion?
It’s not a discussion about religion. It’s a discussion about how much you hate religion.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:43 am
amfortas You have a natural skepticism in your personal perspective. This is a good thing. It protects you from being scammed by every new idea or being swayed by every breeze. I don’t have to convince you the stories will. If you find a modern translation like the NIV, (not postmodern translation that has a feminist agenda) and start reading the stories, as they would have been understood by the people to whom they were written, the stories will eventually convince you that this is about God, wanting people to know God, wanting them to live in a way that doesn’t offend God. It is a about God trying to explain to people, about what he didn’t expect. Try to understand what the other competing religions taught about their gods, and expected of their people. Many of the ancient religions, everywhere in the world, thought the gods expected human sacrifice. God has Abraham place his son on an alter and then says it’s okay for him to offer an animal. Everything Moses did in Egypt was God attempting to demonstrate he was superior to the gods of Egypt. Many of the gods expected temple prostitution, for the crops to grow every year, but Elijah made it stop raining. God is always trying to prove he is superior to the other gods.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:02 am
More liberal feminists (read: Godless) abort babies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/28/nabortion28.xml
Religion does not kill people. People kill people.
Jesus: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matt 5:21-23).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%205:21-23;&version=47;
Jesus places the bar high for us, yet he knows that we may error, however, each of us ought to aim for perfection as he asks so that when we fall short we are excellent.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
mruffolo said:
“Religion does not kill people. People kill people.”
Unfortunately, often religious people kill people. Or it could also be stated that “People kill because of their religious beliefs.”
Relgion is the root of most evil in the world. Genocide, wars, murder, and all sorts of mayhem have been committed in the name of God.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Robert,
Read Exodus 20:13.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020;&version=47;
Mark
November 29th, 2006 at 1:18 am
RPR wrote:
As I wrote in a previous comment on this thread (comment #18), it is ideological atheism that has been the biggest killer in history, and that by totalitarian governments and dictators. Over 100 million dead at the hands of the Nazis and Communists, whose ideology specifically rests on a foundation of atheism.
No matter what you believe, RPR, the facts are what they are.
John Dias
November 29th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Islamists kill in the name of “Allah”. During the Inquisition and the Crusades, Catholics killed in the name of Jesus.
Communists did not kill in the name of atheism. They killed to terrorize the population and maintain their dictatorship. Atheism was not a central tenet of their socialist ideology.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:40 am
And the Nazis did not commit genocide in the name of atheism. Their ideology was largely based on Norse Mythology and sundry occult traditions.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:41 am
One of the points of the bible is that violence and wars are inevitable, and unavoidable. History has demonstrated that, whether religious people or atheists are in power, there will be wars. The belief level of our thinking is the deepest; religion is, the most difficult thing to change. Religion is one of the things people fight to the death to defend, but not the only thing. “If a face could launch a thousand ships†was about a woman I think. The reality of the world is that, if a society is weak in any way, the surrounding societies will conquer it, dominate it, or replace it, as soon as they can. Christianity was protected, by the Roman Empire until the Roman Empire became weak, and the Muslims conquered, taking advantage of a power vacuum that existed, due to a weakening Roman Empire. Jesus had avoided the violent approach, because he wanted his followers to survive, “not one stone will be left upon another†when in 70 AD, the Romans would level Jerusalem, to stop the rebellion. Jesus’ pacifism was only temporary, and probably left the church, unprepared to face, the loss of that protection. Jesus said, “You will need to carry a sword,†and he said “there will be wars.†It’s the curse of Babel. When the Muslims, six hundred years later, realized the growing weakness, of the Roman Empire, took advantage of it and conquered. Christians, who had always been under the protection of the Romans, were weak and much of the world, where Christians had thrived for six hundred years, was conquered and became oppressed, by Muslims. Prayer did not protect one Christian. God did not protect one Christian. That is our job not God’s. All of Europe, would have been conquered and fallen under Muslim domination, if Christians didn’t finally become defenders of the faith, that were stronger than the Muslims and one battle at a time for hundreds of years push them back into Africa and into Asia. This is the reality of the world, if you are weak, someone will conquer you, dominate you, or destroy you. Prayer did not stop, God did not stop, the horrible things the Soviets did, to the Russian Orthodox Church, and I think the rest of the churches are guilty, of being too weak to fulfill our duty, to defend them. The idea that somehow people can bring world peace is a lie. People who assume, there could or there should, be world peace make the country weak, and our enemies will see this weakness and take advantage of it. Stop the lies. “Carry a sword.“ “There will be wars.†Stop dishonoring, the people who fought the wars, which contributed to survival, of your way of life. Stop honoring weakness, at every level of society, and start honoring strength.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Robert,
Abraham Lincoln was fond of asking, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? “Five”, his audience would invariably answer. “No” Lincoln would politely respond, the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”
If a follower of Christ is a divorcing homosexual murderer, they are not be a follower of Christ. By engaging in divorce, homo sex and murder, this precludes them from being a Christian.
Robert Abraham Lincoln expected the obvious to remain obvious, not to change the definition of words to fit a claim.
I observe that liberals like to change the definition of words to support their conclusion (words like abuse, marriage, among others). It appears that you may be doing the same, but I do not want that. I want definitions of words to remain true.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
mruffolo:
It’s not necessarily against Christian beliefs to get a divorce. If you accept the Bible as accurate, you should know that it quotes Jesus as saying that if your spouse has been unfaithful, you can get a divorce:
Not that I dispute the premise of what you’re saying about objective reality trumping public perception, but accuracy is a good thing.
Now just how to define “marital unfaithfulness…” That could be a challenge.
John Dias
November 30th, 2006 at 12:10 am
John,
Read a versus before Matt 19:9 that says “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
Also read Mark 10:1-12. Moses permits divorce because of our hard hearts, but this is not God’s intent. Jesus warns, what God puts together [marriages] let no one separate.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010;&version=47;
Malachi 2:16 quotes God saying “I hate divorce.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202:16;&version=31;
The Greek word in Matt 19:9 is “porneia” that is undefined. You have it translated as “marital unfaithfulness.” I’ve also seen “fornication” and “pornography” and “sexual immorality”.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:18 am
John Dias and mruffolo illustrate the fact that scripture can be interpreted any number of ways. Even evangelicals can’t agree on what a specific verse means.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Robert,
Good evening.
There are about one million words in the bible. A scholar said that about 1/3 of the words are either not defined or ill defined.
Yet after 4,500 years people still share its words. Over 50 million copies are printed yearly in hundreds of different languages.
Pick up a bible and read it to share your insights too.
A favorite web site is:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
Blessings,
Mark Ruffolo, MS, MBA
November 30th, 2006 at 2:07 am
Mruffolo, thanks for sharing your faith in a polite and courteous manner. I have read the Bible more than once. The King James Version of the Bible is a great work of literature, it’s right up there with Shakespeare.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Pointless argument.
The Bible tells us that we who believe will be scorned and hated for that belief. Who cares what Robert thinks? This is an individual who believes that we are better off with Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House and Harry Reid as Majority Leader in the Senate and you are concerned with what he says about Pat Robertson?
BTW Robert,
You state that Jesus was a socialist He was anything but that. He did not preach that the state should care for the poor and underprivileged, he preached that the individual should do so. He preached self responsibility, not foisting your obligations off onto the government. He, in fact, was very specific about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.
Any bibile edition you read, whatever translation you choose, unless you are reading it in the original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, it is an interpretation only. We have only an inkling of the original contextual meanings of most passages of the Bible. Since we are not members of the society in which the books were written, we can only guess at the exact meaning. Understanding what the Bible says is a highly personal and individual thing. If you listen to any “authority” other than God as he is revealed to you, you are listening to an interpretation only.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
RPR wrote:
It is true that the Bible can be interpreted any number of ways. BUT, if the Bible is the word of God (and this won’t have any meaning to you unless you believe it does, and this assumes also that you believe one God as creator exists) then there is only one valid interpretation.
Not everything is a democracy, and not everything depends on consensus (including objective truth). The fact that there are many views (or even a consensus) disproves nothing, and in itself also fails to prove that what the masses believe is true because they believe it. This is called objective truth. No one may ever have a complete grasp of it, but reality is reality regardless of who embraces it (or hides from it).
John Dias
November 30th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
John,
“…there is only one valid interpretation.”
Oh really, and which one is that? The one that the Southern Baptists claim, or is it the one that the Catholic Church proclaims? Maybe it is the predestination of the Calvinists, or perhaps it is the Bible beating evangelicals who are correct (if so, please tell me which it is).
Your claim is absurd. Outside of a few central precepts, that Christ is the Son of God, that He was crucified, that He has arisen, that He brought us a new Covenant, the taking of Communion, there is very little that Christians agree upon, but all are still Christians.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Will Maven wrote:
As I explained in my post, if you believe in God, and if you believe the Bible is the word of God, then there is only one valid interpretation (God’s). Determining how close your perception is to God’s meaning is every believer’s task. Yet multiple people will have multiple interpretations. Therefore, since there is only one valid interpretation and multiple differing interpretations, a LOT of people are going to be wrong at some point or another. The whole idea behind your question daring me to identify which humans have the correct interpretation disregards the Christian belief that there is one God, and therefore one meaning behind the scriptures that God wrote (again, assuming that you believe that God is the author of scripture).
According to the Bible itself, there is no valid private interpretation of scripture:
Assuming you believe in God, only God’s interpretation matters. What is God’s interpretation? You do your best to identify what God means, and live by that. But all along you assume that there is only one valid interpretation, that being God’s.
John Dias
December 1st, 2006 at 10:35 am
The problem we are experiencing is one of definition of terms. Talking cross purposes, as it were.
There may indeed be only one meaning for the Scriptures, but there are many interpretations. Determining which is correct is between you and God.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
The way I describe this:
1) The scriptures contain, in the ancient languages in which they were written, the revealed truths, about what God wants us to understand about God, and what God expects of us; God is what he is, has explained to us what God is, in scriptures that are what they are, regardless of what any of us say think or about them.
2) There are always cultural ways we attempt to explain God and scriptures. Every denomination has grown in a specific society, over a specific period of time, and is an expression of that culture at that time. The Greek Orthodox Church reflects the Ancient Greek culture. The Roman Catholic Church reflects the culture of the Roman Empire. The Lutheran Church reflects the German culture in the colonial time period. The Anglican Church reflects the English culture in the colonial time period. The Baptist Church reflects the culture of the US, in post colonial times. In fact, there are thousands of cultures in the world, which have scriptures in their language, and a church that reflects their culture. The Churches I listed by name, are all orthodox expressions of Christianity. They have their own cultural ways to explain God and the scriptures, and are an expression of the culture and time, in which they grew. They tend to only notice the things about God and scriptures, which are important to their culture. They are all limited, in their ways of explaining God and scriptures, by the culture and time, in which they grew. If they have been in a theological battle, against other Christians, they will tend to only notice and emphasize the scriptures, which support their side of the battle. The growth of that denomination tends to be limited, to the culture in which it grew. Also, there have been movements within these churches, at various times in history, the caused them to emphasize different things.
3) Also, each person has a personal perspective, within the culture. This effects the way leaders explain, and the way individuals understand, God and the scriptures.
While reading theology is an enjoyable academic pursuit, it is not the way to understand, God or the scripture. We must attempt understand, the original cultures to which the scriptures were written, and what the scriptures meant to those people to whom they were written. Then we must communicate this message, to our own culture in a culturally meaningful way, which they can understand. Just be warned, that everyone who is attempting to discredit and diminish God and the scriptures, is also doing this, and intentionally twisting the meaning of scriptures, to achieve their agendas.