Author Topic: Religious Leaders Should Denounce (Read 1626 times)

Nash · « **Reply #30 on:** November 12, 2005, 12:37:45 AM »

When I read the title of this thread: "Religious Leaders Should Denounce".... I thought this was another one of those threads we used to see all the time here.

eg.

"Why aren't the Muslim/Islamic clerics/leaders denouncing the terrorist nutjobs?"

I guess we finally have our answer: "They aren't really one of us."

Hey, if it works for you, it works for me.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #31 on:** November 12, 2005, 01:32:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
When I read the title of this thread: "Religious Leaders Should Denounce".... I thought this was another one of those threads we used to see all the time here.

eg.

"Why aren't the Muslim/Islamic clerics/leaders denouncing the terrorist nutjobs?"

I guess we finally have our answer: "They aren't really one of us."

Hey, if it works for you, it works for me.

wow Nash you are a very astute person. You took the opinion of one person and made it a group thought for everyone.

Do you have to take classes for this liberal ideology or is this type of logic only developed after years of experience?

Yeager · « **Reply #32 on:** November 12, 2005, 01:44:01 AM »

ok....Im going out on a limb here, trust me.......

Roberston speaks for God. Beware you heathens....

Nash · « **Reply #33 on:** November 12, 2005, 02:06:01 AM »

Do you have to take classes for this liberal ideology or is this type of logic only developed after years of experience?" - Gunslinger

It aint "liberal ideology," Gunslinger. In fact it aint even ideology. It was just a dumb observation.

Holy non sequitur...

Classes?

Of course, it may have sounded academic to you (why? Beats me.).... And we all know that academia = liberals run amok = bad.

Stoopid = good.

(two can play at the non sequitur game, pal.)

I too love the smell of Fall.

(non sequitur triple threat!)

NUKE · « **Reply #34 on:** November 12, 2005, 02:08:01 AM »

Okay, I havent read anything in this thread......but what are we fighting about? I want to start some watermelon and bust some liberal arse!

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #35 on:** November 12, 2005, 07:39:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ask yourself this...if Bush was in office and had a BJ in office, do you think NOW would have spoke up? You can bet your house on it.

Lets not forget the Vaginal Ashtray

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #36 on:** November 12, 2005, 07:47:03 AM »

Does anybody actually know anyone who is a big time Robertson fan?

I know most of us if not all of us have watched him from time to time if for no other reason the comedic value.

But does anyone really know anybody who takes him seriously?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #37 on:** November 12, 2005, 10:53:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Does anybody actually know anyone who is a big time Robertson fan?

I know most of us if not all of us have watched him from time to time if for no other reason the comedic value.

But does anyone really know anybody who takes him seriously?

That's what I'm trying to tell Nash. He thinks all of us Bush type fans worship Robertson every day at sunset.

Seagoon · « **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2005, 11:51:30 AM »

Hi Chickenhawk,

Quote

Originally posted by ChickenHawk
Perhaps I didn't get my point across very well. Unless a pastor is a Southern Baptist, he doesn't have any reason to denouce Pat Robertson because they are not affiliated with him.

Even that is more complicated than it seems. While Pat was ordained in a Southern Baptist church in the 60s, his theology is much more Charismatic/Pentecostal and certainly wouldn't correspond with what is being tought in say Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In fact, theologically Pat is more in step with the sliding all over the place theology of the TBN network, and isn't tied to any particular creed or confession. Additionally, as you are probably aware, the Southern Baptists are congregational and are technically an association rather than a denomination. Censure and church discipline in such an association is haphazard at best, and is really only vested in the local congregation. Since Pat doesn't serve a particular local congregation, who would censure him and whose authority would he recognize? He doesn't even mention his affiliation or ordination on his "official website" which probably has a lot to do with the fact that most American Fundamentalists are fiercely independent and many view denominational affiliation, seminary training, and ordination as "bad things" - the idea for instance that any body could censure a minister for being completely off the theological reservation is fiercely resisted in many quarters and this attitude only encourages the spread of bad theology, politicizing the church, meglomania, and crazy antics.

So, while I can answer in a heartbeat who you would need to write in order to begin the process of church discipline and censure against me, its unclear if anyone could officially censure or ecclesiastically discipline Pat.

Other biographical trivia for Pat (whose real name is Marion Gordon Robertson) includes the fact that his father was a Democratic Congressman and Senator, and that Pat saw combat as a Marine in the Korean war.

- SEAGOON

SirLoin · « **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2005, 02:15:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger

Pat Robertson is an a.s.s.h.a.t

i would go further and say most televangelists are a.s.s.h.a.t.s...

was watching some faith healing shcmuck(the one that likes posh wHiTe suits) the other weekend...huge production set in a capacity filled soccer stadium in some impoverished African nation...on comes this lady,blind as a bat all her life...he touches her forhead,she falls back into the arms of his "aids"... and by God..she can see!!!..He leads her around the stage back and forth as proof she can indeed see!

She comes back for more...He places his hand on her forhead again"Praise Jesus for you are healed!"...this time she stumbled forward and fell on her face,her head bouncing off one fo the stage monitors..I didn't see any blood but had she cracked her head i'm sure Mr Evangelist would have healed her.

The mass of starving & destitute Africans sucking it up made me feel sick.

Oral Robert's son is another faith-healing tool...the fake-healing was pretty sad"I'm gonna prove to you that there's a God!" he said as he fixed someone's cancer(or something)...then the "Sow a Seed of $1000" pitch came on....I'd give him $10 if i knew i could sue him for fraud.

Faith is irrational and religious intolerence is the cause of more killing than anything else.(Islam being the most intolerant & dangerous of all religions)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #40 on:** November 12, 2005, 02:28:06 PM »

I would agree with you Sir loin, the problem is that in all religions you have your fundamental extremests. This causes pain for everyone else wich leads to posts like this from MT saying you guys should denounce him, when most of us who are christian don't assosicate ourselves with him in the first place. It's like saying all blacks follow luids farakan or Al Sharpton. It's like saying all leftist socialists like Nash beleive in what the Cindy Shehans of the world are saying and beleive the US actually used Chemical weapons on Falluja. The truth is that most average folks on this board don't associate themselves with ANY of these extreme views.

SirLoin · « **Reply #41 on:** November 12, 2005, 02:48:16 PM »

Oh..Don't want to forget Jerry Fallwell..He used to regularly sit in on security breifings with President Reagan...No theocracy there...nope!

Religion has no place in politics or public schools..

or Supreme courts...you want to see the Ten Commandment's monument as you make your way up the stairs?...as an athiest i would feel my belief's were not being respected and that the court was already judging me.

if you gonna put up the Ten Commandments,why not have another monument that spells out the punishment for breaking them?

"Though shall not commit adultry"...punishment according to Bible?

Death.

"Though shall not take the Lord's name in vain"..or else..

Death..

etc..

Gunslinger · « **Reply #42 on:** November 12, 2005, 03:00:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
Oh..Don't want to forget Jerry Fallwell..He used to regularly sit in on security breifings with President Reagan...No theocracy there...nope!

Religion has no place in politics or public schools..

or Supreme courts...you want to see the Ten Commandment's monument as you make your way up the stairs?...as an athiest i would feel my belief's were not being respected and that the court was already judging me.

if you gonna put up the Ten Commandments,why not have another monument that spells out the punishment for breaking them?

"Though shall not commit adultry"...punishment according to Bible?

Death.

"Though shall not take the Lord's name in vain"..or else..

Death..

etc..

Last time I checked chritians weren't stoning woman for adultry. The problem with your asertation of removal of religion from all aspects of public life is that you are now infringing on their right to freely practice religion. Not teaching in schools is like not teaching english lit. to me it needs to be in schools because it needs to be taught (from an educational/historical stand point) not to mention if you teach kids the differences of theology it promotes the "D" word that liberals and colleges fawn over....diversity. Removal of all aspects of it leads to book burning, ignorance, and intollerence.

ChickenHawk · « **Reply #43 on:** November 12, 2005, 03:23:37 PM »

Nicely put Seagoon. Thank you for clearing that up.

midnight Target · « **Reply #44 on:** November 12, 2005, 03:39:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Okay, I havent read anything in this thread......but what are we fighting about? I want to start some watermelon and bust some liberal arse!

You never seem to let not knowing anything stop you before.