Oh give me a break

[Son Goku]

OK, this might likely pose a controversial subject, but it isn't the ruling so much I'm siding with or against, but prayers of "mal-intent" if one would consider them as such... At least it fell short of prayers such as "God, I humbly ask that his house catch fire and kill him and his family, and you force Congress to put our guy up", but still...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/17/robertson.supreme.court.ap/index.html

VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia (AP) -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Thursday he was not talking about any particular Supreme Court justices when he asked his television audience to pray that three liberal justices retire.

"I don't care which three, I mean as long as the three conservatives stay on," Robertson told reporters after an event at Regent University, which he leads as president and chancellor. "There's six liberals, so it's up to the Lord.

"I'm not telling God what to do," he added. "I'm just saying, 'Lord, help us."'

Robertson, as host of "The 700 Club" on his Christian Broadcasting Network, earlier this month began the 21-day "Operation Supreme Court Freedom." He is asking people to pray to God to change the court after its 6-3 decision in June that decriminalized sodomy.

Robertson said in a letter posted on CBN's Web site that the ruling "has opened the door to homosexual marriage, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest."

Robertson's letter did not identify anyone, but appeared to refer to specific justices, saying: "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer, and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

Justice John Paul Stevens was born in 1920 and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had colon cancer surgery in 1999.

Well Pat Robertson, and this goes for Robert Tilton who tried to impress people by suggesting he got preminissions from Jesus that "someone is having financial difficulties" (course very vague and during the middle of a recession) "but if you send $1,000 to my ministry all your financial difficulties will go away.

So now I wonder how they'd like the suggestion of praying to this self same God of theirs to coerce them in retiring from their show, irregardless of what they would call free will. Well it could be worse, people could start praying for bad things to befall people while chastizing others for not being Christian enough, but sheesh...

[Sazar]

I just watched clips of this guys 'prayers'

lol.. pat's always been a little nutty but seriously.... how the hell can you 'pray' for bad things to happen to people ?

in the name of jesus ? lol... pat robertson needs to be locked up in a looney bin some place with a homosexual named bubba to 'hammer' things out...

lol...

[Riptide]

I thought he just prayed for them to retire? Since when is retirement necessarily a bad thing? Last I checked, a lot of people actually look forward to it.

[PsychoSy]

As long as the Inconsistant Unholy Trinity (Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell) keep speaking on behalf of Christianity, the bride of Christ will have a perpetual black eye and a fat lip. :mad:

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Riptide
I thought he just prayed for them to retire? Since when is retirement necessarily a bad thing? Last I checked, a lot of people actually look forward to it.

did you actually hear what he said ?

he didn't just ask them to retire... he asked god to take steps to... well... watch it and you will see :D

he pointed out in specific detail the 3 judges he wished god to take 'action' against...

'let your hand rest heavily against them'

sure... thats just a call for them to retire :rofl

[Riptide]

Well, I read the article at the link from the original post. I see nothing in there near as bad as you guys seem to be implying. He doesn't appear to be wishing for them to die at all. That would be really stretching things, IMHO.

[joltcola]

Well... what I get from what Rev. Robertson said.



- Liberals are the work of the devil

- That homosexuals are the work of the devil

- That people with cancer, heart problems, and are above 60 are the work of the devil


Thank you 700 Club, I was confused on on most of these issues...
:D :D :D :D

( im not serious)

-- jolt

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Riptide
Well, I read the article at the link from the original post. I see nothing in there near as bad as you guys seem to be implying. He doesn't appear to be wishing for them to die at all. That would be really stretching things, IMHO.

watch the guy during the telethon... lol... the guy is crazy... just watching his prayer alone was hilarious...

oh jesus blah blah blah... do such and such to these judges blah blah blah...

:D

[UDawg]

I know liberals will go nuts over this as usual but I am not worried about that. What I am worried about is televangelists. I am not supposed to put down fellow Christians in public, It is supposed to be face to face and in private when we tell them they are not being true to God.....but....

I have no way of meeting these people and they would not listen to me anyway. First off I do not watch these shows. I do not trust them. Any one who asks you to send money before they pray for you I do not trust. I hope they are sincere because only they and God know. I am just calling it as I see it. Many of them I think are fake. The one I do trust is Billy Graham. He had done so much good in his life and is respected by liberals and conservatives.

That being said I don't know what praying for 3 liberal judges has to do with spreading the gospel but it is their show and they can spout out all they want. I pray they will retire also but I don't go out and blab about it. I only said it here to make a point.

I don't think what he did was terrible or wrong but just silly.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg
I know liberals will go nuts over this as usual but I am not worried about that. What I am worried about is televangelists. I am not supposed to put down fellow Christians in public, It is supposed to be face to face and in private when we tell them they are not being true to God.....but....

I have no way of meeting these people and they would not listen to me anyway. First off I do not watch these shows. I do not trust them. Any one who asks you to send money before they pray for you I do not trust. I hope they are sincere because only they and God know. I am just calling it as I see it. Many of them I think are fake. The one I do trust is Billy Graham. He had done so much good in his life and is respected by liberals and conservatives.

That being said I don't know what praying for 3 liberal judges has to do with spreading the gospel but it is their show and they can spout out all they want. I pray they will retire also but I don't go out and blab about it. I only said it here to make a point.

I don't think what he did was terrible or wrong but just silly.

:rolleyes:

great going getting a liberal potshot in...

you see anyone else here saying anything about liberals/conservatives ?

[Son Goku]

I hadn't seen the actual prayers, but even praying "God, set aside free will and force that guy to retire whether he wants to or not" seems to be stretching things. I don't know, if someone "believed" that the person's decision was based in ignorance (and again I don't care to get into the rightness or wrongness of the rulling, but rather the issue of praying for God to make someone do anything, let along for harm to befall another); then a more constructive prayer would be to pray for their eventual enlightenment, while keeping open the possibility that the prayer might not know as much as he/she thinks he/she does.

But prayers of mal-intent, now I did not see clips of this nor watch his telethon. But if Pat Robertson in fact prayed for these people to be killed, or harmed...then fitting would be that either that what Robertson kept asking to be done to others is done to himself...or something similar to what is written in the book of Johnah. You know, where he was angry at God for sparing the Ninavites (sp?) and not taking out wrath on them.

Pat Robertson, I'll make another reference to your own Bible where you pray for bad things to happen to people...book of Revelation and mention of the accuser of the brethern who accused them before God night and day.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Sazar
:rolleyes:

great going getting a liberal potshot in...

you see anyone else here saying anything about liberals/conservatives ?

Why was that so offensive? It was the truth. I read the posts and I know who here is liberal and who isn't among the usual posters of political threads.

It was not a potshot at all. I don't understand why liberals get so offended by being called liberals? I have no problem being called right wing wacko extremist religious nut or what ever you want to call me. Just don't call me late for dinner. :D

Relax bro not ill will was intended.


/stomach says to brain "you make nice....and the pie is ours."


BTW yes Pat Robertson was talking about liberals. That is part of the topic.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Son Goku

Pat Robertson, I'll make another reference to your own Bible where you pray for bad things to happen to people...book of Revelation and mention of the accuser of the brethern who accused them before God night and day.

I don't know what you are talking about. Show me the chapter and verse. The accuser in the bible is the Devil, so I am not sure what your point is. Besides that is not a prayer.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg
Why was that so offensive? It was the truth. I read the posts and I know who here is liberal and who isn't among the usual posters of political threads.

It was not a potshot at all. I don't understand why liberals get so offended by being called liberals? I have no problem being called right wing wacko extremist religious nut or what ever you want to call me. Just don't call me late for dinner. :D

Relax bro not ill will was intended.


/stomach says to brain "you make nice....and the pie is ours."

the word itself is not offensive... it is the manner in which it is used... especially by certain members of this board that MAKES it seem offensive... and therein lies the problem...

any well to do word can be made to sound offensive... especially when there is a continued stereotypical attachment to it of going nuts and having ones 'panties' up in a bunch (among other things) at every given opportunity.. which is what the clear implication is... routinely...

fair enough commenting about a liberal's thought process... but the continued imagery assosciated is hardly harmless...

ill will may not be intended... but unfortunately the implication is still there of a lesser group of people... ones are incapable of controlling their emotions or whatever the case may be...

[Son Goku]

Originally posted by UDawg
I don't know what you are talking about. Show me the chapter and verse. The accuser in the bible is the Devil,

Hey if the shoe and the deed fits :p Now you're catching on, that's what I'm comparing such an act to... Yes nice "Christian" act to pray "God, do this to that evil.... He is such a such and such, harm him now" If he was mouthing such a prayer, then such an act would be more akin to the devil or a wolf in sheeps cloathing, then a real devout man.

Besides that is not a prayer.

Mere trifals. Prayer, aka communicating with God...so what if they aren't before the throne so to speak.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Sazar
the word itself is not offensive... it is the manner in which it is used... especially by certain members of this board that MAKES it seem offensive... and therein lies the problem...

any well to do word can be made to sound offensive... especially when there is a continued stereotypical attachment to it of going nuts and having ones 'panties' up in a bunch (among other things) at every given opportunity.. which is what the clear implication is... routinely...

fair enough commenting about a liberal's thought process... but the continued imagery assosciated is hardly harmless...

ill will may not be intended... but unfortunately the implication is still there of a lesser group of people... ones are incapable of controlling their emotions or whatever the case may be...

First off I can slap up just as many times I have been called a conservative nut.

Second, I am not responsible for any ones emotions. If they have a hard time dealing with my use of a major political though then maybe just maybe they might want to grow some thicker skin. You did not see me get all bent our of shape from this thread which could be taken as a potshot at Christians especially political Christians. No I coulld care less but I will challenge you on it and to me seem fair.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Son Goku
Hey if the shoe and the deed fits :p Now you're catching on, that's what I'm comparing such an act to... Yes nice "Christian" act to pray "God, do this to that evil.... He is such a such and such, harm him now" If he was mouthing such a prayer, then such an act would be more akin to the devil or a wolf in sheeps cloathing, then a real devout man.



Mere trifals. Prayer, aka communicating with God...so what if they aren't before the throne so to speak.

No it is not mer trifals. A prayer ends with the request to be done in Jesus' name. That is not a prayer. I am not even sure who was saying what was being said in the verse quoted. So until we find out the chapter and verse then it is not a legit quote. In fact I think you may be misquoting and misinterpreting its meaning.

BTW if they are praying for bad or evil things to happen then they are not praying to God because will not hear them. There for they are not being Christians.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by PsychoSy
As long as the Inconsistant Unholy Trinity (Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell) keep speaking on behalf of Christianity, the bride of Christ will have a perpetual black eye and a fat lip. :mad:

lol, if it wasn't for all the stupidity these guys throw out I wouldn't know who any of them were:rofl

whats with all these televangelists and crap?

[PsychoSy]

Originally posted by UDawg
BTW if they are praying for bad or evil things to happen then they are not praying to God because will not hear them. There for they are not being Christians.

I dunno about that one...

I remember a Psalm where David, sick and tired of being chased by his enemies, prayed to God, "Do this, this, that, this, and the other to them!" If my memory is correct, David asked God to have his enemies choke on their dinner, give them a false sense of peace, give them blidness, quivering genitals, desolate their camps, add even more iniquity than they have, to not let them come into God's righteousness, and to "blot their names out of thy book".

Granted, this "book" David speaks of isn't the Lamb's Book Of Life as many Christians have been led to believe. It can't be - if this "book" was the "Lamb's book" found in Revelation, that would imply that David's enemies DID come into God's righteousness and I can't see how someone after God's heart would dare pray for someone's name to be blotted out of THAT book. And even if they did, it wouldn't work - God's pen doesn't have an eraser.

Therefore, this "book" David eludes to must be a metaphor for a record of the living, and by David to ask God to blot their names out is the equivelent of having their earthly existance snuffed out - i.e. "Yo God, kill these enemies of mine!!"

It wouldn't surprize me if their exists some southern fundamentalist, thinking Liberals are the enemies of God, would be praying for the deaths of "all those damned Liberals" and it wouldn't surpize me if some northern fundamentalist, convinced that the Conservatives were God's enemies, would be praying for the deaths of "all those money-grubbing conservatives".

I'm confident there are quite of a few of these lunatics. :angel:

[Son Goku]

Originally posted by UDawg
No it is not mer trifals.

Oh yes it is mere triffals, and it is the same sort of thing.

A prayer ends with the request to be done in Jesus' name.

That is one definition, but not necessarily the only kind. Prayer can also be communication with God. Some religionists would argue that one doesn't have to particularly need something to pray.

Well heck, by your definition one couldn't pray to give thanks for what they already have...of forget them Christians now who prayed before a meal to give thanks for the food that is on their plate, because they aren't asking for anything.

In both cases people are calling to God and communicating. And in this case, asking for bad things to fall upon another is asking, even if it is asking with evil intent and evil desire.

This is really no better then when a practitioner of voodoo performs a ceremony on some enemy "so harm will befall them" in desire or in intent. And sitting there while in human embodiment and saying

Dear God. That is a most horrific person. There politics are so different then mine. Please kill them and save us from their politics.

would be no better then sitting at the throne of the lamb and saying "that person is evil. See that? I want you to destroy them now" The desire and intent wouldn't be that far off, and it is that which matters...

That is not a prayer. I am not even sure who was saying what was being said in the verse quoted. So until we find out the chapter and verse then it is not a legit quote. In fact I think you may be misquoting and misinterpreting its meaning.

Believe what you want...it is of little consequence to me. And BTW, it's called paraphrasing, not quoting, and even there a reference. Yes there is a reference to the accuser of the brethern, and it is this that is being compared to the act and expressed intent, albeit not necessarily the specific individual here.

BTW if they are praying for bad or evil things to happen then they are not praying to God because will not hear them.

Actually that is debatable. God probably hears, but won't answer in the way they expect. However looking at what some claim to have seen in near death experiences...at the end of that there tunnel they might find themself face to face with that being of light. And in that life review some talk of "prayers of mal-intent" might be presented to them, along with a "Do you really think this is how a devout man you claimed to be, should act? Would you like to see what it feels like to be the recipient of what you requested?..."

If the image many hold of God be true, then God would probably try to instruct and teach the one givign such a prayer the wrongness of their course of action (showing more mercy then they would have shown on their prayer victims), unless they show themselves truly beyond redemption...

There for they are not being Christians.

On this we agree, which means their pretence while giving these sorts of prayers, are well dubious in how it reflects on them...

[UDawg]

That is one definition, but not necessarily the only kind. Prayer can also be communication with God. Some religionists would argue that one doesn't have to particularly need something to pray.

Then you know nothing about the essence of Christianity.

All prayers go through the Son. The Father cannot hear the prayer unless it first goes through the Son. This is constant in all of Christianity. To say other wise is just false. This may be different than other religions but then this is what makes Christians uniquely different than other religions.

I am not going to comment further on your posts because you really don't understand Christianity. I am not flaming but it is evident by your posts.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by PsychoSy
I dunno about that one...

I remember a Psalm where David, sick and tired of being chased by his enemies, prayed to God, "Do this, this, that, this, and the other to them!" If my memory is correct, David asked God to have his enemies choke on their dinner, give them a false sense of peace, give them blidness, quivering genitals, desolate their camps, add even more iniquity than they have, to not let them come into God's righteousness, and to "blot their names out of thy book".

Granted, this "book" David speaks of isn't the Lamb's Book Of Life as many Christians have been led to believe. It can't be - if this "book" was the "Lamb's book" found in Revelation, that would imply that David's enemies DID come into God's righteousness and I can't see how someone after God's heart would dare pray for someone's name to be blotted out of THAT book. And even if they did, it wouldn't work - God's pen doesn't have an eraser.

Therefore, this "book" David eludes to must be a metaphor for a record of the living, and by David to ask God to blot their names out is the equivelent of having their earthly existance snuffed out - i.e. "Yo God, kill these enemies of mine!!"

It wouldn't surprize me if their exists some southern fundamentalist, thinking Liberals are the enemies of God, would be praying for the deaths of "all those damned Liberals" and it wouldn't surpize me if some northern fundamentalist, convinced that the Conservatives were God's enemies, would be praying for the deaths of "all those money-grubbing conservatives".

I'm confident there are quite of a few of these lunatics. :angel:

Yes but the lesson of Davids trials are quite well known.David paid a dear price for his sins. David had many troubles because of his selfishness adultry. Many of the things David did wrong are lessons that we can all learn from. My point is that it is wrong to pray like this and Jesus never said we should. BTW there is a different between a mortal enemy and a political enemy. I still would not pray for some ones death but I would pray for my safe passage.


I can't see how someone after God's heart would dare pray for someone's name to be blotted out of THAT book.

Moses did. He asked that his name be left off the list if the people of Israel were not on it after what they did with the golden idols.

I'm confident there are quite of a few of these lunatics.

Me too but they still are wrong and in defiance of God's will.

[Son Goku]

Originally posted by UDawg
Then you know nothing about the essence of Christianity.

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions. I know plenty having grown up in a Christian home (my parents went to the Presbyterian church then, mother was a Baptist minister), going to Sunday school, yadda, yadda, yadda. At about 16 I went through all the Catechism (Catholic church), was baptized, recieved first holy communion, and latter Confirmation, and Father Rice also did a Baptism of the Holy Spirit (the courses he coincided and the former he did before the confirmation).

Though I don't consider myself a Christian today, or even necessarily religious does NOT mean I know not where of I speak. It was actually after this that I began to grow away from the organized Church, organized religion in general, and also had much to say about things such as this and other things, though more often then not I've chose not to say what is on my mind.

Again, believe as you will.

All prayers go through the Son. The Father cannot hear the prayer unless it first goes through the Son. This is constant in all of Christianity. To say other wise is just false. This may be different than other religions but then this is what makes Christians uniquely different than other religions.

Of course the Gnostics would have said different then the Orthodox Christians of time ago, and well I don't care to get in a doctrinal debate. Personally I abhore rigidly held dogma, or the game of semantics some care to play.

But do not assume that because someone doesn't word something "exactly as your dogma says to word it" they know nothing of what in fact was their religious upbringing for the first 20 or so years of their life.

I still stand by what I said, and if Robert Tilton was here I would have said exactly what I did that got you in an uproar, as I had said it. If he was so firmly aware of what is printed there, he would have known what was implied by the reference I was giving...and any attempt to try to doctrinally finesse it would only weakin the implication given.

I think you mis-understand, when I said "Pat Robertson, I'll make another reference to your own Bible" I was speaking as if I was speaking to him, but in proxy as he isn't in this NG or where I could speak to him.

Anyway, I suppose more discussion probably will yeild nothing of value, so I'll leave it at that.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Son Goku
You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions. I know plenty having grown up in a Christian home (my parents went to the Presbyterian church then, mother was a Baptist minister), going to Sunday school, yadda, yadda, yadda. At about 16 I went through all the Catechism (Catholic church), was baptized, recieved first holy communion, and latter Confirmation.

Though I don't consider myself a Christian today, or even necessarily religious does NOT mean I know not where of I speak. Ironically it was after the Confirmation (and also the thing with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which the priest performed) that I began to seriously question some of what is done in the name of Christianity (such as prayers of mal-intent mentioned here) and started to turn away from the organized church.

Again, believe as you will.



Of course the Gnostics would have said different then the Orthodox Christians of time ago, and well I don't care to get in a doctrinal debate. Personally I abhore rigidly held dogma, or the game of semantics some care to play.

But do not assume that because someone doesn't word something "exactly as your dogma says to word it" they know nothing of what in fact was their religious upbringing for the first 20 or so years of their life.

I still stand by what I said, and if Robert Tilton was here I would have said exactly what I did that got you in an uproar, as I had said it. If he was so firmly aware of what is printed there, he would have known what was implied by the reference I was giving...and any attempt to try to doctrinally finesse it would only weakin the implication given.

I think you mis-understand, when I said "Pat Robertson, I'll make another reference to your own Bible" I was speaking as if I was speaking to him, but in proxy as he isn't in this NG or where I could speak to him.

First understand I was not mad or trying to put you down but you did have a few things wrong.

Second I could care less what you think about Pat. I don't trust any of those guys. So it isn't a big deal to me.

My main problem was that I could not get from you the chapter and verse you were paraphrasing. What your conclusion came to seemed way off. You might be on but from how you woreded it and your conclusion did not add up. You just seemed to be making conclusion that just arn't there.

Psy brought up King David and his prayers about his enemy. This is diferent because the enemies were mortal and in the article the enemies are political. Also the stories of David are meant to teach us lessons of what happens when you stray from God's will.

I know lots of people who have been raised in churches and still don't understand what they are leaning. Just as you guys point out those who go wacko with Christianity and pray for bad things. They do not understand that they are not being heard by God because their prayer is evil. The main point is they still are wrong.

I was brought up Presbyterian but left in jr. high school because it was well I'll be nice and say not what I wanted my worship to be. So I am Nazarene now and have been for a long time. I do not stick to one denomination but I do like the people at my church.

I am sorry for being as blunt about my accusation about what you understand about the bible.

[Son Goku]

Originally posted by UDawg
First understand I was not mad or trying to put you down but you did have a few things wrong.

In your opinion. Again people talking about belief structures and saying "I'm right, no your wrong". Good grief, some people do love to argue about semantics, and get so caught up in the "letter that killeth" if you will, that beyond that everything loses meaning. Seriously I hate arguing semantics, and get no pleasure in life doing so. It is the substance which is important for me, and as to semantics...yes I've seen how this goes before.

My main problem was that I could not get from you the chapter and verse you were paraphrasing.

And perhaps at this time of night, I don't care to go looking for what I had read many a year ago. And this is not to mention that I first posted, not at home, but at the university in the computer pod and none of my books here at home, are present there.

Secondly, I was giving a reference to him. Yes I know that Pat Robertson wasn't mentioned in a book written nearly 1,900-2,000 years ago by name. But if the act fits...

Third, I was speaking as I would speak to him. I wasn't giving an argument or a conclusion, but simply saying "Pat Robertson, take a look at your own Bible...this is in fact how you are behaving...like that..."

Psy brought up King David and his prayers about his enemy. This is diferent because the enemies were mortal and in the article the enemies are political. Also the stories of David are meant to teach us lessons of what happens when you stray from God's will.

First, who cares if the "enemies are mortal", and secondly accusations can be made against living souls. Needless to say, you want to say "I thought that is a reference to the devil", good grief. I won't bother to get into the book of Enoch or the question it raises about whether fallen angels can inhabit human bodies "if one wants to look at what one author had to say about the fall, a Jewish author by the name of Zechariah Stitchen looked into it, with some conclusions some would perhaps rather not consider).

However, embodied or not, one's behaviour can be akin to that of "the devil", and if Adolph Hitler was standing here today, I would have no problem telling him that his actions during the Halocaust were along the same lines.

Also you might say the prayers aren't heard, I might say they are but that the answer might not be in keeping with what they expect. You might say "you're wrong, my doctrine is right", I might say "no you are..."...there is a reason they call it belief. This gets into a doctrinal argument, and quite frankly I'm not even a lover of dogma. I could care less how one choses to see it, and really don't like getting into the nit picking over "what my doctrine says"...

I am sorry for being as blunt about my accusation about what you understand about the bible.

One should not assume what another person does or does not know. And neither current beliefs nor specific wordings (as one gets embroiled in semantics and word games) is not all revealing as to what one's level of knowledge or understanding of something is.

This would be no more legitimate then a test that was conducted of scientific literacy in which it asked just 2 questions would be. Neither were matters of knowledge, but rather only belief.

"Do you believe the universe was formed by the big bang?"

"Do you believe that humans evolved from lower primates through the process of natural selection?"

Of course these aren't asking "what you know" but rather "what you believe", and a no answer to either one was interpreted that the person was completely illiterate when it came to the sciences.

Needless to say, one famous Plasma Physicist, who came up with the basic frame work for our understanding of the aurora borealis, among other things he came up with, would have been considered a scientific dunce by this test because he didn't believe the former. He also proposed the idea of plasma cosmology (as distinct from big bang cosmology) as many plasma physicists have done.