Society/Culture US Evangelical Pat robertson on Haiti Quake: Haitians made deal with Devil.

[DeanoT]

Just for the record MSF is a "Secular" charity, not an "Atheist" charity.

There is a huge difference and I'm sure many of it's members have religious beliefs, which is totally irrelevant to MSF's activities.

While the official line is that MSF are independent, the truth is that they are highly critical of any religious policy which conflicts with commonly accepted medical practises, such as wearing a condom to prevent transmission of HIV. They are independent in the sense they favour no religion, nor are they officially an atheist charity, but the belief systems of many involved are definitely leaning towards anti-religion. Most charitable-minded people who have strong religious convictions don't offer their services to MSF, they sign up to the charitable cause associated with their faith.

 

[Pie eyed]

While the official line is that MSF are independent, the truth is that they are highly critical of any religious policy which conflicts with commonly accepted medical practises, such as wearing a condom to prevent transmission of HIV. They are independent in the sense they favour no religion, nor are they officially an atheist charity, but the belief systems of many involved are definitely leaning towards anti-religion. Most charitable-minded people who have strong religious convictions don't offer their services to MSF, they sign up to the charitable cause associated with their faith.

As they should be as they exist to provide medical treatment and advice. There are plenty of other organisation to offer prayer and salvation. Ask yourself which is the more effective?
This is what is meant by secular.
There is no prerequisite you be atheist and no handicap if you are religious.
Being a christian does not automatically make you against birth control or homosexuality or science or anything for that matter.

 

[TheBloods]

When did I say that God saves random people by means of miracles?

You've said that God doesn't save everyone because He doesn't save bad people. How do you know that every person He saves isn't bad (which is simply false in any case) and why doesn't he save good people or innocent people? What was the relevance of Matthew 7:6 to my questions?

Matthew 7:6 has nothing to do with the issue. It has to do with the posting history of 'The Bloods'. It's meaning to say that if he hasn't understood the thing referred to in the previous post in the bible, God or those in the know aren't going to share scriptural insights with him because they aren't for him.

You are full of crap. I have a Bible. I've read parts of it. Perhaps you can refer to the part where it says God hands out miracles randomly and why? After all, that is what I asked.

 

[Pie eyed]

John: Would you agree that the problems and the bad things which are occuring the world over have reached an unprecedented and extreme level since the beginning of the 20th century?

In the wake of hurricane Katrina, Pat Robertson blamed a lesbian comedian who happened to live in New Orleans.
This total whack-job was also a Presidential candidate.

Maybe you should speak to you God about these sorts of over-reactions.
Surely he was not blaming everyone in New Orleans? What about the thousands of Christian Fundamentalists who died, were injured or left homeless.

You can't be omnipresent, the creator of everything and still claim "not my fault".
You either run the show or you don't.

 

[bit_pattern]

Just for the record MSF is a "Secular" charity, not an "Atheist" charity.

There is a huge difference and I'm sure many of it's members have religious beliefs, which is totally irrelevant to MSF's activities.

Very much tongue in cheek, I'm sure they have dedicated doctors of faith working for them

 

[tesseract]

Well, since he let Lot and Lot's two daughters leave, you'd have to think that He supposedly considered them righteous enough. Though the two daughters immediately slept with their old man, so maybe not.



He was displaying humility? Well that's a lesson that would have been pretty much lost among the destruction of cities...



The people of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't God's chosen people either (as they weren't descendants of Abraham), but God offered to let them off if there were ten righteous people. So if what happened in Haiti was God's wrath, then he's a howling hypocrite, as I'd reckon there was somewhere approximating 100% chance there were well over the threshold number of righteous people.



Ah, the standard defence of the religious when someone quotes their own text back to them - it doesn't count. It doesn't even say in Genesis that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were or were not "God's people". And anyway, according to Christianity (notably the religion of Haiti), we're all God's people.

Ultimately, Pat Robertson is a genuinely nasty piece of work - if God was going to smite anyone personally, I reckon he'd be an excellent place to start.

Your looking at what Lot's two daughters did through modern law. It doesn't equate to those times.

I don't see the connection between humility and the destruction of the 2 cities. Punishing the wicked by destroying them has nothing to do with God's humility.

I don't believe what happened in Haiti to be God's wrath. As I've already stated, God doesn't directly interact with humankind anymore. Therefore the number of righteous people compared to non-righteous people is irrelevant.

No, it doesn't say those people were or were not God's people in Genesis. But it does make known who were and who weren't God's people else where in the bible.
As I've already said, God doesn't directly act on behalf of humankind any longer. There's a time that He will the bible says.
Also, not all professing to be Christians are Christians. The majority of Christian religions don't read or live by what is taught in the bible. If they don't, they're not true Christians. Doesn't the bible state that a person/religion will be known by their/it's works.

I agree. Pat Robertson will get what's coming to him from God. It won't be a favorable judgment for him. He may think he's a servant of God, but he's far from it.
Does not the Revelation 18:4 say: "Get out of her my people, if you don't want to share in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues."
Before God judges the rest of humankind, he'll start with His own house and clean that up first. Pretend Christians will be the first to go. Rev 18:4 basically means that those who are truly searching for God, to get out of false religion while there's still yet time, unless you share with her in her guilt for being associated with her.
* Everyone has ample opportunity to get out of her if it's their wish.

 

[Pie eyed]

Your looking at what Lot's two daughters did through modern law. It doesn't equate to those times.

I don't see the connection between humility and the destruction of the 2 cities. Punishing the wicked by destroying them has nothing to do with God's humility.

I don't believe what happened in Haiti to be God's wrath. As I've already stated, God doesn't directly interact with humankind anymore. Therefore the number of righteous people compared to non-righteous people is irrelevant.

No, it doesn't say those people were or were not God's people in Genesis. But it does make known who were and who weren't God's people else where in the bible.
As I've already said, God doesn't directly act on behalf of humankind any longer. There's a time that He will the bible says.
Also, not all professing to be Christians are Christians. The majority of Christian religions don't read or live by what is taught in the bible. If they don't, they're not true Christians. Doesn't the bible state that a person/religion will be known by their/it's works.

I agree. Pat Robertson will get what's coming to him from God. It won't be a favorable judgment for him. He may think he's a servant of God, but he's far from it.
Does not the Revelation 18:4 say: "Get out of her my people, if you don't want to share in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues."
Before God judges the rest of humankind, he'll start with His own house and clean that up first. Pretend Christians will be the first to go. Rev 18:4 basically means that those who are truly searching for God, to get out of false religion while there's still yet time, unless you share with her in her guilt for being associated with her.
* Everyone has ample opportunity to get out of her if it's their wish.

I'm glad we agree on something if only in sentiment.

 

[tesseract]

You've said that God doesn't save everyone because He doesn't save bad people. How do you know that every person He saves isn't bad (which is simply false in any case) and why doesn't he save good people or innocent people? What was the relevance of Matthew 7:6 to my questions?

You are full of crap. I have a Bible. I've read parts of it. Perhaps you can refer to the part where it says God hands out miracles randomly and why? After all, that is what I asked.

God is unable to act unrighteously. Being all knowing, don't you think God knows who is and who isn't righteous?
Matthew 7:6 has to do with your attitude towards scriptural insights. Your posting history shows that you don't value it, but act condescendingly and mockingly. Therefore it applies to people like yourself.

God doesn't hand out miracles randomly. Some professed Christians may believe that, but I certainly don't.

 

[tesseract]

I'm glad we agree on something if only in sentiment.

Fair enough. We don't have to agree on everything.

 

[John]

John: Would you agree that the problems and the bad things which are occuring the world over have reached an unprecedented and extreme level since the beginning of the 20th century?

No. The average person in Liberal Western democracies are better educated and the communicating of world events is better than ever. Consequently we are receiving information about world events that once we would not have heard about. In fact peace in Europe since WWII is the longest in recorded history. North America is as safe a place as there has ever been. Yes extreme events have happened such as the WW's but in general there has always been death and destruction. I draw your attention to the War Of The Triple Alliance, that was fought in South America in the 1860's. There are estimates that Paragauy lost 90% of the Male population. Consider that you and the vast majority have never even heard of this war does it not make you curious as to what other extreme events have happened in the past? There is no denying that there have been some appalling losses of life in the 20th Century but even a cursory glance at Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_lethal_battles_in_world_history must give you food for thought considering that these are battles and not just wars and we must also consider the aspect of deaths per total population. Did you know that some estimate that as many as 40 million people died during the Mongol conquests of the 13 century? it has been estimated that the population of the world at that time was 400 to 440 millions. Yes 55 million died in WWII but then the population was 2.5 billion.

The fact of the matter is for me that we have really never had it so good in terms of peaceful coexistence.

 

[Rooface]

An educated response but the truth is worse regarding the colonists.

"The media coverage of the earthquake is marked by an almost complete divorce of the disaster from the social and political history of Haiti," Canadian Haiti solidarity activist Yves Engler said in an interview. "They repeatedly state that the government was completely unprepared to deal with the crisis. This is true. But they left out why."

Pretty much covers the reasons and the ROOT of the problem(s) regarding "completely underprepared". Asking for donations is like putting a band-aid over one giant gaping wound. Point to the sword holders for compensation.

 

[Rooface]

http://www.africaspeaks.com/blog/?p=2814

As Tracy Kidder notes in a New York Times op-ed, many of the projects undertaken ostensibly on behalf of the Haitian people “seem designed to serve not impoverished Haitians but the interests of the people administering the projects.”

Consider, for example, the food aid we send to Haiti. Aljazeera’s Inside USA program ran a report last July called The Politics of Rice that explains how seemingly good intentions can have disastrous implications:

Twenty years ago, Haiti produced enough rice to feed its population. Importing rice from other countries like the US was unheard of.

Today, this country of less than 10 million people is the third largest importer of US rice in the world – 75 per cent of the rice eaten in Haiti is shipped in from the US.

Great for farmers in places like Arkansas and Missouri but devastating for farmers in the Artibonite valley, which used to be Haiti’s rice bowl.

In short, it has been our government’s policy to encourage Haitians to give up farming in rural areas and move to crowded cities like Port-Au-Prince to work in sweatshops manufacturing cheap garments for the US and other markets.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Pat robertson is a nut job and does not represent the philosophy of Jesus. He is a sad, pathetic example of a human being.

 

[Monniehawk]

The fact this ****rag is still alive is pretty definitive proof there is no god.

Could prove the opposite, though.
Maybe God don't want him, either.

 

[tesseract]

No. The average person in Liberal Western democracies are better educated and the communicating of world events is better than ever. Consequently we are receiving information about world events that once we would not have heard about. In fact peace in Europe since WWII is the longest in recorded history. North America is as safe a place as there has ever been. Yes extreme events have happened such as the WW's but in general there has always been death and destruction. I draw your attention to the War Of The Triple Alliance, that was fought in South America in the 1860's. There are estimates that Paragauy lost 90% of the Male population. Consider that you and the vast majority have never even heard of this war does it not make you curious as to what other extreme events have happened in the past? There is no denying that there have been some appalling losses of life in the 20th Century but even a cursory glance at Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_lethal_battles_in_world_history must give you food for thought considering that these are battles and not just wars and we must also consider the aspect of deaths per total population. Did you know that some estimate that as many as 40 million people died during the Mongol conquests of the 13 century? it has been estimated that the population of the world at that time was 400 to 440 millions. Yes 55 million died in WWII but then the population was 2.5 billion.

The fact of the matter is for me that we have really never had it so good in terms of peaceful coexistence.

There's a lot of distance between our beliefs if that's what you believe.

One Historian wrote, "The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history.... It was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organized armed conflict somewhere."

A report from the Worldwatch institute states: "Three times as many people fell victim to war in the 20th century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899."

More than 100 million people have died from wars since 1914.

Those figures are from war alone. What about the many millions of other non war related deaths from the modern ills in all it's forms that plague mankind.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yeah, but these days you don't get a 1/3 of the worlds population dropping dead from mysterious plagues either. Given the choice I'd want to live in the 20th/21st century over all others. To paraphrase Hobbes, pre-modern life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

 

[tesseract]

Yeah, but these days you don't get a 1/3 of the worlds population dropping dead from mysterious plagues either. Given the choice I'd want to live in the 20th/21st century over all others. To paraphrase Hobbes, pre-modern life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

This is beside the point. Look at the question I asked John at the top of page 4, this is where this discussion stems from.

 

[John]

There's a lot of distance between our beliefs if that's what you believe.

I do believe that and so should you. You and I have never had it so good. Consider that you have this communication device called the Internet that you can debate this with me. Lets not even bother thinking about all the mod cons that you have such a a choice of a motor vehicle, once described as the equivalent of 300 salves in a book that I read, a TV, radio, public transport, 3 meals a day, a health care system either private or pubic that was once the thing of dreams, a longer life span than ever before, a footy team you can see on demand and to be frank I could go on for ever and list things without thinking too hard about it all.

One Historian wrote, "The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history.... It was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organized armed conflict somewhere."

A report from the Worldwatch institute states: "Three times as many people fell victim to war in the 20th century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899."

More than 100 million people have died from wars since 1914.

And I suspect that little old me could also put forward figures like that as to how many people died in wars and battles in relation to the population of the times. All in perspective IMO.

Those figures are from war alone. What about the many millions of other non war related deaths from the modern ills in all it's forms that plague mankind.

Yes things were great when bubonic plague was around. I am of the opinion that you are just one of many that think that there was some golden age when man was not killing each other and lived with no illness. Yes there has been some appalling thing done this century, I am not going to deny that, but if you think that war and plague and various other phenomenon are some kind of modern issue then you live in a dream world. I would in fact suggest that the proliferation of Nuclear weapons has in fact spared us confrontation between super powers over the last few decades to actually make it one of the more peaceful periods. Especially in Europe. In fact the fall of the USSR can be considered a triumph for peaceful change IMO. Read some more history and keep away from bible study. You will find that truth is strange than fiction.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is beside the point. Look at the question I asked John at the top of page 4, this is where this discussion stems from.

But we're only on page 3 now

But surely plagues come under the "bad things" issue, especially when you are talking about the wrath of god, no?

 

[Monniehawk]

John: Would you agree that the problems and the bad things which are occuring the world over have reached an unprecedented and extreme level since the beginning of the 20th century?

(my emphases)
I'm not John, but...
No! (reasons mostly as per John's reply above)
Obviously you do. Any empirical data to support this or is it just a personal notion with its genesis in a fundie/revivalist paranoia?
Hint: take Daniel and Revelation out of the reading list.
Romanticising the past can be a trap. Think hard, as I suspect I have a few more years in the realities of the past and, on balance, we have it pretty scmick in the 21stC!
Careful quoting raw figures. Our population is doubling every 50 years or so and can distort the statistics. Might be better to use proportional values.

 

[tesseract]

I do believe that and so should you. You and I have never had it so good. Consider that you have this communication device called the Internet that you can debate this with me. Lets not even bother thinking about all the mod cons that you have such a a choice of a motor vehicle, once described as the equivalent of 300 salves in a book that I read, a TV, radio, public transport, 3 meals a day, a health care system either private or pubic that was once the thing of dreams, a longer life span than ever before, a footy team you can see on demand and to be frank I could go on for ever and list things without thinking too hard about it all.

And I suspect that little old me could also put forward figures like that as to how many people died in wars and battles in relation to the population of the times. All in perspective IMO.

Yes things were great when bubonic plague was around. I am of the opinion that you are just one of many that think that there was some golden age when man was not killing each other and lived with no illness. Yes there has been some appalling thing done this century, I am not going to deny that, but if you think that war and plague and various other phenomenon are some kind of modern issue then you live in a dream world. I would in fact suggest that the proliferation of Nuclear weapons has in fact spared us confrontation between super powers over the last few decades to actually make it one of the more peaceful periods. Especially in Europe. In fact the fall of the USSR can be considered a triumph for peaceful change IMO. Read some more history and keep away from bible study. You will find that truth is strange than fiction.

What has we've never had it so good got to do with the question I posed to you at post 46?

Nonsense. You've got nothing to substantiate your claims. Then please provide those figures which prove that the 20th century hasn't been the pinnacle of unprecedented death and suffering of humankind.

No I don't think that. I know mankind's history has been filled with strife and troubles, just not on a scale that's been reached during the 20th century. The bubonic plague and the troubles of those times has nothing on what occured during the 20th century.

Nuclear weapons hasn't stopped the ever growing number of conflicts and deaths which have been occuring since the beginning of the 20th century.
I suggest it should be you that should read up on history. It must be a wonderful life you live when it's viewed with the blinkers on, and when you get your info from 6pm news.

Your last two sentences is why I pity people like you. You over look the factual history of the bible, and choose to fill in the blanks with whatever sounds the best for yourselves.

The truth isn't stranger than you know, it's simple. The truth of these matters elude you because God only grants the truth to those who're honestly searching for Him and His truth.
Does not the bible say that Satan has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.
Why would God grant understanding to those who hate Him.

 

[tesseract]

But we're only on page 3 now

But surely plagues come under the "bad things" issue, especially when you are talking about the wrath of god, no?

Post 46 is where the original question was posed to John. It's at the top of page 4 on my computer, perhaps not yours though.

Plagues do fall under the bad things issue. It still wasn't as bad as the strife of the 20th century.

 

[tesseract]

(my emphases)
I'm not John, but...
No! (reasons mostly as per John's reply above)
Obviously you do. Any empirical data to support this or is it just a personal notion with its genesis in a fundie/revivalist paranoia?
Hint: take Daniel and Revelation out of the reading list.
Romanticising the past can be a trap. Think hard, as I suspect I have a few more years in the realities of the past and, on balance, we have it pretty scmick in the 21stC!
Careful quoting raw figures. Our population is doubling every 50 years or so and can distort the statistics. Might be better to use proportional values.

Post 65.

You would like to take the history of what is said in Daniel and Revelation away because it would the suit your current beliefs a lot better. Deny history all you want. It's common on this board.

Ignoring and denying the past is a trap. You can twist whatever stats to get your desired result. The truth though, is for those that want to find it.

 

[MacMum]

Who the hell cares about statistics of now or the past!!....all I know is that I'd rather be living now than 100 or more yrs ago....those poor buggers did it a helluva lot tougher than you and I will ever have it...

Back to topic...Pat Robertson is a goose!.....and lets all hope that the people of Haiti get all the help that they can from the rest of the world...
as soon as possible!

 

[TheBloods]

Plagues do fall under the bad things issue. It still wasn't as bad as the strife of the 20th century.

Consider the first half of the 20thC in Europe - 20% of the population died because of WWI, WWII, the Russian civil war and Stalin's purges.

For all of the 20thC, war and mass violence have accounted for deaths of less than 10% of the global population.

In the 14thC between a third and half of Europe's population died due to bubonic plague in the space of a decade, while the world lost 15-25% of its population.