Pat Robertson wants US to assissinate Chavez

Ah, shades of Allende and Chile!

 

And these all belong to different denominations within Christianity.

There are those who belong to the same denomination who "would struggle to find common ground on how they practice their faith."

 

Quite true, Jimmy.

And this is just as one would expect. But there are certain essentials that we know, for G-d has hammered them into our heads:

Salvation is by grace alone, unmerited by man.

Jesus is the way, the truth, the life, no one gets to the Father but through Him.

And that's about it as far as my list of essentials goes.

But on the many many other matters that are less essential, there's room for debate and occasionally tons of wiggle room. Hence the different denominations and divergent views within the same denomination. But when you have finite minds trying to wrap their minds around a G-d who could waive a universe 13 or 14 billion light years from end-to-end into existence with a crick of a finger, you can expect that there will be controversies and confusion. I run into this on a much smaller scale all the time with my own children. They ask question after question: Why this? Why that? Why the other thing? And even when I happen to know the answer, it's often of a sort that they can't begin to comprehend. So I scale it down to their level, and in the process, it loses about half (or sometimes 99%) of its meaning.

One of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity said: "We see through a glass, darkly."

 

Remember, Pat Robertson is a private citizen speaking for no one but Pat Robertson. He doesn't speak for me nor many within evangelical Christianity.

As a matter of fact, he really doesn't have much influence anymore and certainly unlike 1988 when New Hampshire Repbulicans feared he would win the GOP primary and pull off the upset at the nominating convention.

 

Robertson's star does not shine as brightly as it did in the early days of that campaign. He placed second or won Iowa or New Hampshire, didn't he? He came to my wife's UG school on the campaign trail, and shook her hand (as well as about 500 others in the room that day).

I've never been a huge Pat Robertson guy, but I could certainly stomach him. But it seems that as his elective office ambitions have faded a bit, he's gotten a bit more shrill, made the occasional outlandish comments.

I don't believe he's a pure charlatan, though, just a little too political and shrill for my tastes. Not my cup of tea. I like Billy Graham better. I like the late great C.S. Lewis best.

 

I have to stop allowing myself to get drawn into these discussions. I have taken a few days off from the church to work on my FLET studies. I should have all but the paper and final exam for this, my second course, completed by Friday.

Anyway, Robertson won no primaries or caucus states. His best showing was in Washington state. The Swaggart and Bakker scandals severely damaged his campaign and he withdrew before the end of the primary season.

 

Say it ain't so!

My GAWD!

The Rev. Pat Robertson did well IN MY HOME STATE!!??!! (WA)

Oh, well, maybe there's a reason I moved to New Mexico...

 

Re: Say it ain't so!

Actually, I misspoke and meant to say he won the Washington caucus. It was his only victory.

 

I could've sworn there was one early state--Iowa, I think, where my wife was in college at the time--where George Bush 41 finished third in the primaries behind Robertson and somebody. The Bush supporters were in a mild panic.

 

Something in my gut feels like you're right about Iowa. I will have to check. I know the GOP was splintered in some states where the Christian Coalition had a huge following. Michigan was such a state. I will do some checking.

 

Yeah, well, winning the Washinton State caucus is BAD ENOUGH!

 

So much for my gut.

Quote from Internet source on Iowa caucus history.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nosborne48

Apparently the U.S. favors democracy abroad so long as the people democratically elect someone we LIKE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ike

True... It's a democracy only and only if the people that agree with us are elected or selected by whatever means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, here we go again. The United States has done more for world-wide democracy and freedom than any country in history. Still the "Hate America First" crowd loves to belittle this great nation at any and every opportunity. The United States while far from perfect, remains that "shining city on a hill." Go ahead nosborne48, Ike, where's a better nation?

 

I LOVE these blanket "you must hate America" statements.

Nonsense.

Of COURSE the U.S. has done a great deal to spread liberal democracy throughout the world. I am immensely PROUD of that fact.

But I am NOT a "faith based American". My country CAN do evil, HAS done evil, and likely WILL do evil in interfering with the internal affairs of foreign countries, usually for some commercial purpose.

If you reject the CIA's own admission that it murdered the elected President of Chile, I can't do anything to open your eyes.

 

I think that hatred is highly corrosive whether it's directed at persons or at abstractions. In the latter case it remains an affliction of the hater him/herself. Hating is not good for one's mental and spiritual health.

But we are talking about all the world's religions besides Christianity. Equating them with Naziism is a real stretch.

No, to tell the truth, I don't think that I hate any of those things. At least I try not to.

I try to treat them dispassionately. For an illustrative analogy, imagine a physician addressing a disease. The fact that the physician doesn't hate the disease doesn't make him any less effective in dealing with it. By retaining his objectivity and by keeping his cool, he becomes more effective.

But in this instance, there's no reason to imagine that non-Biblical religions are diseases. So I see no reason to oppose them, however dispassionately that's done.

I do think that there are reasons to oppose some forms of militant Islam. I oppose some forms of militant Christianity as well. But in neither case is that a blanket condemnation of the entire religion. I'm quite drawn to the spirituality of both the Christian mystics and the Sufis, for example.

The problem is that all of us live in a world of religious diversity. People like yourself grasp tightly to your own faith. Others grasp equally tightly to very different things. And the ever-shrinking world throws us into closer and closer proximity.

In that environment, hating everything that's different can be dangerous. That's doubly so if the hater has no justification for his or her own beliefs beyond the fact that they are his or her own beliefs. The possibility that others might be persuaded and convinced evaporates, reason drops out of the equation and oppositions of ideas have to be adjudicated by cruder means.

 

If what I believe is correct, then Islam or any other faith that leads people down the path to damnation is far worse than Naziism! The latter killed the bodies of those with whom they disagreed, but had no bearing upon their eternal destination; the former would destroy a soul for an eternity.

If I'm right, Naziism in all its evil is a trifling matter by comparison.

You should.

I don't hate everything that's different; I love things that are different. But I hate lies, especially when I believe they are of the sort that damns. Boy, from that persepctive--again, assuming a priori that my religious beliefs are correct--if I claim to love people, I can't but hate those things that would destroy them.

 

Do you have a citation? When did the CIA say it murdered Allende?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml

I have no doubt the CIA was involved in Chilean internal affairs and the internal affairs of other countries. I think this needs to be looked at in its historical context. However, to say the CIA murdered Allende seems to be more than a bit of a stretch, again.

You said "Apparently the U.S. favors democracy abroad so long as the people democratically elect someone we LIKE". What do you mean? It reads like you mean the present day. Yet you cite the American involvement in Chile over 30 years ago to support your statement.

 

A United States that does not engage in murder and torture to undermine other governments would be a better country in which to live.

A United States whose foreign policy is not driven by greed would be a nicer place to live.

A United States where one isn't labled an "America Hater" for expressing dissent would be a nicer place to live.

 

Japan, Korea, Philippines, Somalia, Haiti...

You can argue motives but that is always so.