It’s one of those coincidences…over at Drudge tonight there are two links.
Pat Robertson says Ariel Sharon’s stroke is divine retribution.
Iranian president Hopes for Sharon’s Death.
A 77 year old overweight man suffered a second massive stroke. His family is going to be making hard decisions over the next while if a natural course of events doesn’t make it for them.
And I wonder - what the difference is in the expression of two faiths?
Not much in this case.
Both are hateful and foolish.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Why Robertson would believe that Sharon’s stroke is a divine punishment is baffling. I read a comment on another blog earlier today that I thought was interesting. To paraphrase, has Pat Robertson become so convinced that he’s the infallible voice of God, that he now believes God was made in his image?
I agree with Mattingly on this issue.
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=58&aid=88799
Robertson makes coffee spewing remarks. He’s a master - every once in awhile it occurs to me he might actually believe what he says. Tonight was one of those nights.
With friends like Pat, who needs enemies?
It amazes me that people are still listening to what Pat Robertson has to say. He is a loose cannon who no longer represents or speaks for the Christian community. Pat, please give it a rest; stop embarrassing yourself and me.
The difference is that Robertson though that Sharon wasn’t doing enough to expand Israel and Ahmadinejad thought he was doing too much (although its mere existance is too much for him). Both are bad examples of their respective faiths, at least as they relate to geopolitics.
I guess I’m one of those who believes that Israel shouldn’t divide it’s land. I guess those who believe that will continue to get blasted unnecessarily. Also, does anyone believe in divine retribution of any kind? Just curious and this comment is not an endorsement of what Pat said but it seems to me that people don’t believe in the concept altogether when the Bible shows many, many incidents of divine retribution as pary of God showing us we need Him for redemption. For I feel there is a bigger purpose of God that many don’t understand or want to understand because it doesn’t make sense in the natural. Natural events and even events between nations or within nations not in a majority of cases by any means can be God showing His glory for His greater purpose. It is a balance between those who feel it is every incident as compared with not at all.
Pat Robertson is a dominionist DH.
His speech is hateful because he actually thinks He speaks for God.
His branch of apologetics is presuppositionalism and it’s tenacles in geo-politics is disasterous.
Mark is correct. Robertson believes Sharon has betrayed Israel - a warrior turned soft by seeking alternative paths to peace.
Pat Robertson has spent his life building the kingdom of Robertson, and I believe God will show him more mercy than he has shown others.
This is not about the character, power, sovereignty and glory of God.
While I don’t endorse what Pat says. I too feel that Sharon betrayed Israel. Do I feel that God is judging Sharon? I don’t know. Do I feel Pat is speaking for God? we all can if our heart is right. Is Pat’s heart right? I don’t know for only God knows the heart Is the fruit of what Pat is saying give an indication as to the harshness of his heart on this particualr subject? possibly Would I have said what he said? absolutely not. Do we need to attack all who feel Sharon let the Jewish people down? absolutely not I could easliy say it is disasterous to give up land for peace when the Palestinians want all of Israel. Is this dominionist? I don’t think so
Off the rhetorical questions (although I would like to see what you think on the above) and onto some other questions. What is so wrong with looking at the Bible in a geo-political way when to me it is clear that God blesses those who bless Israel. I just don’t see how the Muslims can be included in this physical blessing of land when God chose the Jewish people in this physical blessing. (This previous sentence doesn’t address the balance I have in that all people can be apart of the Spiritual blessing of Salvation by being “grafted in” by Faith in Christ. “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.”) For me the physical covenent of land to the Jewsish people is a promise that God has never changed. Have other people controlled Israel? yes and I feel that it was God who gave the land back to Israel in 1948.
Most of the world has never heard of Pat Robertson, he just bought up/aquired what - 1500 acres? for a christian theme park in Israel.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/010406_jewish_theme_park/
I think discussing land, history, people groups, scripture and world faiths can be left for another time.
The only reason I brought this up is the whole “divine retribution” thing. In fact in your original post you discuss the difference between the two faiths. Seems to me a double standard. Also, if most of the world has never heard of Pat why bring him up or present him in such a negative light? For every one weird statement like he said above I could give hundreds of others that were right on.
To me I see nothing wrong with having a Christian theme park. What is wrong with it? It wasn’t done “in the temple” like Christ’s day. Why discuss it another time when your original posts mentioned some of these things?
[dh on Jan 6th, 2006 at 6:32 am
I guess I’m one of those who believes that Israel shouldn’t divide it’s land.]
So, if we think Robertson is foolish to assert that God punished an obese 77 year-old man with a stroke (rather than it occuring for natural reasons) we must want to destroy Israel? Are you for real?
Hey, Bene! It’s fascinating that you and I came to the same conclusion (see one of my blog posts from today, http://www.acupofrich.com) about the Iranian Prez’s comments compared with those of Roberts. Difference…NOT. Great minds think alike and all that…Lol!
I believe there is a difference between being faithful and being superstitious. Pat Robertson is a superstitious man, just like many Christians in this country. Although they indirectly acknowledge that bad things happen to saints and sinners alike, they attribute the cause of hardships differently depending on whether or not the sufferers look, act, and think like them.
If Jim and Bob both have strokes, the cause of the strokes (in the eyes of the superstitious) will depend on what political parties Jim and Bob support, which church they attend, their attitudes toward gay people, who they voted for, etc. If Jim is a Bush-supporting Republican who tithes at his Southern Baptist Church and believes homosexual behavior ought to be criminalized, the superstitious will assert that the stroke must be due either to natural causes, or perhaps to God in an attempt to strengthen Jim’s faith. If Bob is a war-opposing Democrat who attends an ELCA church and believed that gay people ought to be left alone, then the superstitious will assert that God is exacting his divine vengeance, and punishing Bob for his evil ways. God does everything the way the superstitous want him to.
I need to make a correction. The proposed theme park in Israel is 125 acres.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1677557,00.html
Do you suppose Palestinian and Arab Christians or curious Muslims or Hindus would be welcome? Agnostics? Atheists? Jews? Catholics? None Americans? Hard to say eh? If they can afford to pay, maybe they get to play.
Pat Robertson is closer to the grave than the cradle, I cannot wish him ill. His own words and deeds undo him in the eyes of his fellow citizens.
DH:
Why bring him up?
Oh I don’t know, he makes good copy.
Why would the White House condemn his statement today?
I’m told to discern by fruit.
Let’s see.
Let’s pick 2003.
Pat Robertson - Charles Taylor, Liberia. Gold
Freedom Gold Ltd.
Pat Robertson - Mobutu Sese Seko (Congo). Diamonds
African Development Co.
Pat Robertson - Investigated by the state of Virginia for the use of Operation Blessing planes in mineral exploration in Africa. Virginia’s Attorney general who received 35 thousand dollars in campaign donations from CBN declined to prosecute if the charity arm agreed to tighten control.
2003 - CBN donations received. 150 million
2003 - CBN’s Operation Blessing receives 500 thousand dollars from the Faith Based Initiatives program, the one Robertson called a narcotic until he received the money.
Why bring him up?
Because what he said was hateful and foolish DH and does not represent orthodoxy and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I can’t stop his theme parks or his business practises. I can say words are hateful and foolish when they are.
I agree that they are foolish and hateful to a point. It is just that the people who get attacked are the ones who don’t want to see Israel split up.
Drina, you misunderstood what I said. If you read I didn’t agree with what Pat said. I just mentioned that we should assume that it is or isn’t from God but we can get an idea. I think you will see that a majority of Christians love gay people it is just that don’t condone the behavior. Heck even Jesus said to the adulterer “go and sin no more” but in this day of age if Christ said that to somebody now He would have been considered “intolerant”. To me this is hypocritical.
Bene your 2003 deals were all aligations. Are we to believe every aligation? I say not. Also people take things out of context. I also read the Pat quote and it appears it could have been taken out of context. To agree with you, was it follish to mention things like this? absolutely
Just because CBN raises money doesn’t mean they are a bad organization. To me the most important thing is that the message of Faith in Christ alone for Salvation is preached.
DH, reread the section of your post I quoted. You alleged that those who criticized Robertson for making his statements believed that Israel should be divided. Your statement about Christians loving gay people had virtually nothing to do with what we’re discussing. You didn’t address anything I said…
Gee DH, if you perceive facts as allegations, there isn’t much more any one can say.
Playing the poor Pat Robertson, his remarks were taken out of context and he is attacked for loving Israel card, doesn’t cut it.
His remark was taken for what it was. It’s not an attack, it’s reasonable reaction to foolishness and hate.
Thanks for keeping us on topic, Drina:^)
Eh, something I learned from the last five years of blogging. Never give in to an attempt at changing the topic. It’s just a distraction, and it doesn’t add to the discussion; it takes away from it. I know that I touched on the issue of varrying attitudes toward homosexuality in my previous post, but it was done in the context of the discussion, i.e. the way unfortunate events are viewed by superstitious people like Pat Robertson. The latest tangent doesn’t really fit here. It’s a separate discussion all together.
In any case, I agree with you, Bene, that calling a spade a spade shouldn’t be viewed as an attack on Robertson. He’s not a martyr; he simply says foolish things. And it definitely shouldn’t be viewed as an attack on Christianity, because it’s not really the Christians who have made these superstitious assertions; it’s been Christians who have stood up and said, this is nuts.
We shouldn’t be smiting Sharon or accusing people who care about his health of hating Israel/God/Scripture/etc. He’s an overweight, old man who suffered a stroke. What he needs is not fire-breathing Christians proclaiming God’s vengeance. He needs good doctors and prayer. And that’s what we should give him.
How can you say Drina was on topic when she was the one who brought up gays first which is not part of the original post? Drina was on topic by mentioning the gay issue? It sure didn’t seem in the context of the discussion to me. I also never thought he was a martyr but I will say that those who support a greater Israel are more and more being looked at in a negative light and for that I will stand in defense of the Israeli people for their land. Your final sentence? I agree with. However, we do need to look at whether a person’s support for Sharon is based on. I feel to truly support Israel is to truly support Israel not being broken up.
Was Pat foolish and overly harsh for what he said? I will agree with you Drina 100%. I hope you can see somewhat of a balance on this and I hope this takes the “emotion” away from what you and I our saying. Drina lets move together on topic on this and focus ton the fact that Pat was foolish and harsh on his statements rather than overreact to Pat based on predispositions.
Bene, I could say the opposite as well by you calling alegations facts. Okay Bene we agree but to a point. I guess I agree with you except the term “hate. I personally would replace it with the words “overly- harsh”. So Pat was foolish and overly-harsh in his statements of his conclusions being indirectly associated with Sharon. Calling “woe” on Sharon was harsh and foolish. Do I fully understand what Pat meant by “woe” I don’t know. On the surfacr it makes sense but how he said it was overly-harsh and foolish.