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

[bit_pattern]

^^ Nice. I think i got my world/europe fatality statistics mixed up

 

[John]

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

This comment by you. I just put it out of place in my reply. My reply was probably out of context in hindsight so I apologise.

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

The worlds population is higher than it has ever been. We are living longer. Any form of death and destruction is easily communicated. Once there were wars in far off places and peasants such as you and I knew nothing of these events.

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.

Haa haa, I should read up on history! Very good. As to my news viewing habits that is an absurd statement. Considering that I am actually arguing that there is no difference between the past and the present and the news services of all ilk get their jollies off on reporting bad news as if it was some new phenomenon I am at a loss to understand your point.


I do not hate anything and I do not hate something that does not exist. If you believe in a personal superior being that is your choice but lets try and talk about what we know about as opposed what we can only have faith in. Biblical history has been discussed around here before and by better informed people than me. What I would say it that it is fine to have faith if you so wish but I would suggest that to except without question the bible as a Carte Blanche historical tome is short-sighted. Perhaps you would like to read a very interesting book that was recommended to me by someone around here. The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of the Ancient Israel And The Origin Of It's Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. You never know what you may get out of it.

If you have stuck with me so far please read on. These are verifiable facts that I have read from various books and have been able to verify them from various sources on the WWW.


There have been ever occurring wars through history. It has been suggested that Post WWII Europe is as peaceful a period as has ever been. In fact other than the Warsaw pact invasion of Hungary and the break up of Yugoslavia I am unable to think of any other conflict.

There is no denying that due to modern weaponry that the number of casualties are, in raw figures, higher than ever but they can also be correlated as percentage of population. Lets have some rhetorical questions and examples.

Is the destruction of the entire population of coastal settlements by Vikings any different than the vast majority of the population of Dresden? The percentage of death is the same and the economic consequences are the same.

It is estimated that 25,000 people were killed at the Battle Of Towton in the War Of The Roses. The population of England at the time was about 2.5 million. To put that number into a simple perspective if there was a civil war in modern Australia then the death rate would be 2 hundred thousand.

Under Mao it is estimated that 40 millions died during the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward etc. The same numbers of deaths are also estimated for the Mongol conquests in the 3rd century. I will let you compare the population difference between the two centuries.

Some sources state that the Bubonic Plague killed half of the population of Europe. There are also claims that it took about 150 years to recover economically. Do you think that half of Europe was killed in WWII and it has not yet recovered economically?

Look beyond what you know. These are facts and are not attacks on your faith in your god.

 

[Roylion]

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.

Like any century, the world certainly had it s fair share of strife during the 20th century. Technological developments certainly made wars in the 20th century more destructive than they had been before.

Balanced against that though was the fact that during the 20th century, accelerating scientific understanding, more efficient communications, and faster transportation transformed the world more rapidly and widely than at any time in the past. By the end of the 20th century, more technological advances had been made in the past one hundred years than in all of preceding history.

The century started with horses, simple automobiles, and freighters but ended with luxury sedans, cruise ships, airliners and the space shuttle. Humanity explored outer space for the first time, even taking their first footsteps on the Moon.

Mass media, telecommunications, and information technology (especially computers, paperback books, public education, and the Internet) put the world's knowledge more widely available to people.

People's view of the world also changed as they became more aware of the struggles of others and, as such, became increasingly concerned with human rights. For example most western countries have given women the right to vote.

Advancements in medical technology also improved the welfare of many people: the life expectancy of the world's population increased from 35 years to 65 years during the 20th century. This was despite the increased destructiveness of wars.

For the first time in history the 20th century saw the development of an international forum in which the world's nations could get together and discuss issues diplomatically, rather than resort to war. Of course this hasn't stopped all wars. However the United Nations has helped to enact laws on conducting warfare, environmental protection and human rights, amongst other things. Peacekeeping forces consisting of troops provided by various countries have helped to relieve famine, disease, and poverty, and to contain some local wars and conflicts. Of course not all of their efforts have been totally successful, but there's no doubt that millions of lives have either been saved or improved by the actions of the UN over the second and most recent part of the 20th century.

As well as the above, Europe is mostly at peace for the first time in recorded history. The people of the Indian subcontinent, a sixth of the world population have independence for the first time in centuries. China, comprising a fifth of the world population, has opened itself to the rest of the world. The end of colonialism has occurred with nearly a billion people in Africa becoming citizens of new independent nation states, free from centuries of foreign domination. Many (not all) are slowly taking advantage of the rapidly developing technology available, to further improve the lives of their citizens.

Who knows...the period from 1945 to sometime in the 21st century may well be looked upon by future generations as a 'golden age'.

There's certainly no doubt in my mind that I'd rather be living right now (at least in Western society) as opposed to any previous period in human history.

You over look the factual history of the bible.....

I don't think any Biblical scholar or archaeologist would argue that the Bible is wholly factual. If that's what you're claiming.

 

[John]

You write far me articulately than me Roylion.

 

[sherrinorburley]

The Pat Robertson ancestral home made deal with Haiti-

Modern update for US interests

[YOUTUBE]0F5TwEK24sA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[tesseract]

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.

Your efforts into trying to skew a known and factual answer into one that fits your beliefs is fail. I don't know why anyone disputes that the 20th century brought unprecedented levels of death as well as other ills.
The info should be pretty easy for you guys to find.

Who believes that what I'm saying is not fact, and who's debating me on this because I'm a theist and therefore they must oppose?

 

[John]

Your efforts into trying to skew a known and factual answer into one that fits your beliefs is fail. I don't know why anyone disputes that the 20th century brought unprecedented levels of death as well as other ills.
The info should be pretty easy for you guys to find.

Who believes that what I'm saying is not fact, and who's debating me on this because I'm a theist and therefore they must opposed?

No one is disputing that there are unprecedented levels of death in sheer raw numbers but in terms of numbers against the higher level of population nothing is much different. I am not sure that you are understanding the points made from the various replies. I have replied to you on face value and backed my belief with a few stats. You believe those stats and if not prove them wrong.

I could not care about your religious beliefs. Your the one who brought them up first.

 

[tesseract]

No one is disputing that there are unprecedented levels of death in sheer raw numbers but in terms of numbers against the higher level of population nothing is much different. I am not sure that you are understanding the points made from the various replies. I have replied to you on face value and backed my belief with a few stats. You believe those stats and if not prove them wrong.

I could not care about your religious beliefs. Your the one who brought them up first.

At last someone who answered the question directly. If you said it couldn't be disputed, I don't know why you jumped around the question with your first and subsequent answers in the first place. Either the 20th century was, or it wasn't.
I didn't ask the question about percentages in comparison. You directed it that way for your own arguments sake. That just side tracked everyone else into not answer the question directly. I typed my quotes in post 65.

You may not care John, but some others are fickle enough to use theist or non theist leanings as an excuse to argue for the sake of arguing. It's not uncommon on this board.

Your last question is very presumptuous, telling me what I think, considering that I've already said what I think.
The question I asked was you initially was related to this thread. Since you've asked your question which is not related to the thread, it's been side tracked. Make a new thread for it.

 

[tesseract]

This comment by you. I just put it out of place in my reply. My reply was probably out of context in hindsight so I apologise.




The worlds population is higher than it has ever been. We are living longer. Any form of death and destruction is easily communicated. Once there were wars in far off places and peasants such as you and I knew nothing of these events.




Haa haa, I should read up on history! Very good. As to my news viewing habits that is an absurd statement. Considering that I am actually arguing that there is no difference between the past and the present and the news services of all ilk get their jollies off on reporting bad news as if it was some new phenomenon I am at a loss to understand your point.


I do not hate anything and I do not hate something that does not exist. If you believe in a personal superior being that is your choice but lets try and talk about what we know about as opposed what we can only have faith in. Biblical history has been discussed around here before and by better informed people than me. What I would say it that it is fine to have faith if you so wish but I would suggest that to except without question the bible as a Carte Blanche historical tome is short-sighted. Perhaps you would like to read a very interesting book that was recommended to me by someone around here. The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of the Ancient Israel And The Origin Of It's Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. You never know what you may get out of it.

If you have stuck with me so far please read on. These are verifiable facts that I have read from various books and have been able to verify them from various sources on the WWW.


There have been ever occurring wars through history. It has been suggested that Post WWII Europe is as peaceful a period as has ever been. In fact other than the Warsaw pact invasion of Hungary and the break up of Yugoslavia I am unable to think of any other conflict.

There is no denying that due to modern weaponry that the number of casualties are, in raw figures, higher than ever but they can also be correlated as percentage of population. Lets have some rhetorical questions and examples.

Is the destruction of the entire population of coastal settlements by Vikings any different than the vast majority of the population of Dresden? The percentage of death is the same and the economic consequences are the same.

It is estimated that 25,000 people were killed at the Battle Of Towton in the War Of The Roses. The population of England at the time was about 2.5 million. To put that number into a simple perspective if there was a civil war in modern Australia then the death rate would be 2 hundred thousand.

Under Mao it is estimated that 40 millions died during the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward etc. The same numbers of deaths are also estimated for the Mongol conquests in the 3rd century. I will let you compare the population difference between the two centuries.

Some sources state that the Bubonic Plague killed half of the population of Europe. There are also claims that it took about 150 years to recover economically. Do you think that half of Europe was killed in WWII and it has not yet recovered economically?

Look beyond what you know. These are facts and are not attacks on your faith in your god.

These events you've highlighted are interesting. But these events, even combined, don't add up to make it the worst period for conflicts, wars, death, strife and other ills in human history. Hence it didn't answer my initial question.

Why do you say it's short sighted to accept the bible as a historical tome?

 

[Oakland Raider]

The Pat Robertson ancestral home made deal with Haiti-

Modern update for US interests

[YOUTUBE]0F5TwEK24sA[/YOUTUBE]

Not much point staying on the threads topic as you have sorb. Many see the mainstream media spin as accurate with 'total disregard for the problem's root(s). Having Pat Robertson and the likes sprouting absolute opposites to history truth's only comforts the redneck America sector.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

He's obviously just shitty that Haiti is still predominantly Catholic and not his mob.

 

[John]

At last someone who answered the question directly. If you said it couldn't be disputed, I don't know why you jumped around the question with your first and subsequent answers in the first place. Either the 20th century was, or it wasn't.
I didn't ask the question about percentages in comparison. You directed it that way for your own arguments sake. That just side tracked everyone else into not answer the question directly. I typed my quotes in post 65.

You may not care John, but some others are fickle enough to use theist or non theist leanings as an excuse to argue for the sake of arguing. It's not uncommon on this board.

Your last question is very presumptuous, telling me what I think, considering that I've already said what I think.
The question I asked was you initially was related to this thread. Since you've asked your question which is not related to the thread, it's been side tracked. Make a new thread for it.

Good grief. Talk about being taken out of context. There must be a job waiting for you in the media. You said

The answer is in the bible as to why God doesn't intercede on behalf of humankind at this time when bad things are happening the world over.

I am saying that bad things have happened since the beginning of recorded history. I will quote back to you what I said

"Human misery due to natural events and man's inhumanity to man for example are not some modern phenomenon."

I stand by everything that I have said and agree with what others have said to you in reply. Sheer weight of numbers do not make the last century some unique 100 year period in the history of mankind.

 

[John]

These events you've highlighted are interesting. But these events, even combined, don't add up to make it the worst period for conflicts, wars, death, strife and other ills in human history. Hence it didn't answer my initial question.

Why do you say it's short sighted to accept the bible as a historical tome?

Based on raw numbers only but when taken into consideration the population at the time of each example they are as appalling and as devastating as anything that the last century can throw up.

As far a biblical history goes read the book I recommended if you have the courage.

 

[tesseract]

Like any century, the world certainly had it s fair share of strife during the 20th century. Technological developments certainly made wars in the 20th century more destructive than they had been before.

Balanced against that though was the fact that during the 20th century, accelerating scientific understanding, more efficient communications, and faster transportation transformed the world more rapidly and widely than at any time in the past. By the end of the 20th century, more technological advances had been made in the past one hundred years than in all of preceding history.

The century started with horses, simple automobiles, and freighters but ended with luxury sedans, cruise ships, airliners and the space shuttle. Humanity explored outer space for the first time, even taking their first footsteps on the Moon.

Mass media, telecommunications, and information technology (especially computers, paperback books, public education, and the Internet) put the world's knowledge more widely available to people.

People's view of the world also changed as they became more aware of the struggles of others and, as such, became increasingly concerned with human rights. For example most western countries have given women the right to vote.

Advancements in medical technology also improved the welfare of many people: the life expectancy of the world's population increased from 35 years to 65 years during the 20th century. This was despite the increased destructiveness of wars.

For the first time in history the 20th century saw the development of an international forum in which the world's nations could get together and discuss issues diplomatically, rather than resort to war. Of course this hasn't stopped all wars. However the United Nations has helped to enact laws on conducting warfare, environmental protection and human rights, amongst other things. Peacekeeping forces consisting of troops provided by various countries have helped to relieve famine, disease, and poverty, and to contain some local wars and conflicts. Of course not all of their efforts have been totally successful, but there's no doubt that millions of lives have either been saved or improved by the actions of the UN over the second and most recent part of the 20th century.

As well as the above, Europe is mostly at peace for the first time in recorded history. The people of the Indian subcontinent, a sixth of the world population have independence for the first time in centuries. China, comprising a fifth of the world population, has opened itself to the rest of the world. The end of colonialism has occurred with nearly a billion people in Africa becoming citizens of new independent nation states, free from centuries of foreign domination. Many (not all) are slowly taking advantage of the rapidly developing technology available, to further improve the lives of their citizens.

Who knows...the period from 1945 to sometime in the 21st century may well be looked upon by future generations as a 'golden age'.

There's certainly no doubt in my mind that I'd rather be living right now (at least in Western society) as opposed to any previous period in human history.



I don't think any Biblical scholar or archaeologist would argue that the Bible is wholly factual. If that's what you're claiming.

My initial and simple question to John has seemingly broadened in scope, and it's not of my doing.

Despite all the technological advances, it hasn't slowed the rates of deaths from conflicts, it hasn't slowed down the outbreak of conflicts whether large, small or in between.
My original point was to say that the world over, these aforementioned things are occuring on an unprecedented scale with an unmatched amount of victims.

Btw, I do believe the bible is wholly factual. There are many bible verses which show why scholars, academics and intellectuals can't grasp and understand the deeper things of the bible.

 

[tesseract]

Good grief. Talk about being taken out of context. There must be a job waiting for you in the media. You said I am saying that bad things have happened since the beginning of recorded history. I will quote back to you what I said

"Human misery due to natural events and man's inhumanity to man for example are not some modern phenomenon."

I stand by everything that I have said and agree with what others have said to you in reply. Sheer weight of numbers do not make the last century some unique 100 year period in the history of mankind.

Initially at post 46, I asked you the question, "John: Would you agree that the problems and bad things which are occuring the world over have reached an unprecedented and extreme level since the beginning of the 20th century."
I didn't deny that bad things have happened throughout human history. I asked you in my question, were these bad things occuring on an unprecedented and extreme level in the 20th century. Not whether bad things were or were not occuring.
There is a massive difference between times of old and the onset of the 20th century.

 

[John]

Initially at post 46, I asked you the question, "John: Would you agree that the problems and bad things which are occuring the world over have reached an unprecedented and extreme level since the beginning of the 20th century."
I didn't deny that bad things have happened throughout human history. I asked you in my question, were these bad things occuring on an unprecedented and extreme level in the 20th century. Not whether bad things were or were not occuring.
There is a massive difference between times of old and the onset of the 20th century.

No.


We are not going to agree Tess so lets leave it at that.

 

[tesseract]

Based on raw numbers only but when taken into consideration the population at the time of each example they are as appalling and as devastating as anything that the last century can throw up.

As far a biblical history goes read the book I recommended if you have the courage.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I enjoy reading history books and discussing mostly religious based history with friends of mine. I'll research what it's about before I'd ever sit down to read it. I won't read it if it happens to be apostate material.

 

[Rooface]

Not much point staying on the threads topic as you have sorb. Many see the mainstream media spin as accurate with 'total disregard for the problem's root(s). Having Pat Robertson and the likes sprouting absolute opposites to history truth's only comforts the redneck America sector.

Just another day at the office for the US.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Btw, I do believe the bible is wholly factual.

I am sorely tempted to take up the $9.99 "best deal in town" option, just so that I could quote this nutjob in my signature.

 

[tesseract]

I am sorely tempted to take up the $9.99 "best deal in town" option, just so that I could quote this nutjob in my signature.

Be my guest. Spread the word brother.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Be my guest. Spread the word brother.

Chief doesn't need the money.
And everyone already know that fruitloops like you are ten a penny.

 

[tesseract]

Chief doesn't need the money.
And everyone already know that fruitloops like you are ten a penny.

And here I was thinking that you were going to stop with the insults after your live and let live comment.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

And here I was thinking that you were going to stop with the insults after your live and let live comment.

And here I was thinking that you had stepped off the pulpit.

 

[Roylion]

My initial and simple question to John has seemingly broadened in scope, and it's not of my doing.

I was more referring to the question you posed in Post #65. where you asked... "What about the many millions of other non war related deaths from the modern ills in all it's forms that plague mankind."

Modern ills? I would be suggesting that in the 20th century humanity has been freed (or is in the process of being freed) of many of the ills that have plagued human-kind throughout its history.

Despite all the technological advances, it hasn't slowed the rates of deaths from conflicts, it hasn't slowed down the outbreak of conflicts whether large, small or in between.

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been relatively peaceful. I certainly don't think the increased deaths from wars in the 20th century is an indication that the 'end times", supposedly prophesied in Revelations, is nigh.

My original point was to say that the world over, these aforementioned things are occuring on an unprecedented scale with an unmatched amount of victims.

Not at the moment they're not.

Btw, I do believe the bible is wholly factual.

I don't think archaeology and expert Biblical scholarship would support your contention of the Bible being 'wholly factual'. For example some of the latest archaeological findings have cast considerable doubt on the events described in the Book of Joshua, the Book of Exodus and most certainly the Book of Genesis. There is no evidence for a world-wide global flood and clearly the story of Adam and Eve, as described in Genesis is not factual.

There are many bible verses which show why scholars, academics and intellectuals can't grasp and understand the deeper things of the bible.

You mean their interpretation is different from yours? That I don't doubt. However I would be more inclined to believe that many archaeologists and Biblical scholars are genuinely trying to establish the truth and as experts in their fields, I would tend to take a little more notice of their opinions and/or findings. No doubt some might have vested interests in their interpretation (as you do). Others would not though.

 

[Pie eyed]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I enjoy reading history books and discussing mostly religious based history with friends of mine. I'll research what it's about before I'd ever sit down to read it. I won't read it if it happens to be apostate material.

How do you make the decision what is and what is not apostate material if you do not read it?

Do you rely on "guidance" from others?

Some would rightly regard the writings of Martin Luthor as apostasy. The same would go for many religious works including the bible. It all depends on which position you take in regard to each publication.
One man's apostasy is another man's epiphany.

If you do not read any apostate material how can you possibly make a decision on what you truly believe? Aren't you simply submitting to dogma?