Actually, from what I’ve seen, Lord Ashtar doesn’t necessarily publically agree with Robertson has to say - far different from ‘disagrees vehemently’.
But, YMMV.
-Joe
I think he agrees with nearly everything Pat believes in. Pat steps over the line . He is founder and leader of the Christian Coalition, an organization I have nothing in common with. Christians do.
He was on Meet the Press ,either Xmas or new Years. I turned it off. When the press needs a Christian opinion of a world event, he is their man.
On that we can agree. He is their man, not ours.
Gilded by religion? Read the Bible. Read the New Testament. It’s in the plain text. I support the liberal Christian movement in the sense that their beliefs line up with mine but it’s not theologically sound.
My strategy is really fairly simple…
If a person wants to discuss religion in an non-charged way, I am, and always have been, interested.
If they seek to convert me “from atheism” then for each argument they make I will, and need to, respond.
My best friend is fundamentalist, home-schooling and such. I have told him that I can and will respect his beliefs as long as he respects mine. But each attempt to change my thinking on the matter will be met with reasoned explanations that can only erode his faith.
So… I told him. If he wants to keep his faith, stop trying to proselytize me.
We are, in fact, a minority it is ok to suppress and ridicule. We don’t need to shut up.
I intend no disrespect whatsoever to the civil rights movement, but I do see SOME parallels in what happened. And the desire for the minority to “just shut up.”
Instead, I think, we need civil disobedience and reasoned arguments that cut their beliefs to the core. (i.e. We “need” religion to keep us moral - we DON’T.)
Please clarify. Do you think I’m a closet Robertson supporter?
Seems to me from what I’ve seen that you’re closer to him on the Reactionary Christian spectrum than you are farther from him, if you know what I mean.
If I’m wrong, eh. Wouldn’t be the first time. However, just because someone isn’t stupid enough to send him their Social Security check does not mean that they don’t think a lot of what he says has merit. Especially in regards to “those” people.
-Joe
Oh, baloney. Text requires interpretation, and the Bible’s more so than other books’. I’ve always read the NT as introducing compassion and mercy, what with the supporting prostitutes, adulterers, and tax collectors.
Huh. I have to disagree with you there, as would my father, who went through much of seminary, my sister, who got her Master’s in theology from Notre Dame, Polycarp, whose credentials I trust I don’t need to state, tomndebb, and probably zev_steinhardt (I don’t know how much he’s studied the NT).
(Argument from authority is fine if the authorities are relevant to the subject of the argument, which in this case they are.)
Welcome to the board, Anomalous Reading. You sound like the sort of person who would be an excellent contributor to the eternal debate. I look forward to many exchanges with you. And don’t worry about eroding my faith. If it is indeed unfounded, then I’m happy to be shed of it. But likewise, prepare to have your doubts and assumptions challenged. I hope you will stay around.
Sure they are. But the fact of the matter is that they are used as spokespersons (well, were used inre Madlyn Murray O’Hair, but the point stands). Primary difference is that Robertson is also being used as a representative spokesman for the Christian Coalition, whereas Murray O’Hair spoke for a group that was marginalized, that didn’t have the members, and that didn’t have the available scratch the Robertson has. They are absolutely radical and polarizing, but the membership list of the CC gives Robertson a leg up.
I’m enjoying it so far!
And that there can be a reasonably civil discourse and a tolerance for pluralism… is something I enjoy about America.
I would and will look forward to more discussions on this topic.
Yes, Anomalous Reading, prepare to have your “your doubts and assumptions challenged” when debating with old Liberal. Like he challenged all our assumptions by redefining “pretentious” in #257 by oh so validly re-building it up from it’s root. A toast to such imaginative debate! tink
Oh sure, you can do it. You could also do something similar with Islam. The problem is that it’s way easier to go the other way because going the liberal Christian/Islam route involves out and out ignoring (presumably) God’s word, or his inspired word, or whatever you want to call it. It seems to me it’d be way easier just to take the good bits and ignore the rest; then we could have a nice 5 page Bible filled with love and all that good stuff.
Actually, I’m going to have to disagree with you right there. The very first Commandment is “You shall have no other gods before Me.” That’s not inclusionary- it automatically sorts people into “them” and “us”, since anyone who worships a different god is by definition on the outside.
Just for fun, why don’t you state them anyway.
Redefining? Jesus, you’re dense. Try to follow this. I’ll type slowly.
Pretentious -> “full of pretense or pretension”
Pretense -> “pretending or feigning”
Pretend -> what Czar said I was doing
Then why didn’t you say Czarcasm accused you of pretending? Oh right, then people would understand what the fuck you are trying to say. That would be a rookie mistake for a seasoned bullshitter like you.
The funny thing is that by using a definition of “pretentious” that nobody else commonly uses, Liberal is being pretentious, in the way that we all understand. 
Nobody thinks you are a Robertson supporter as such. You are simply a member of the same religion and share his teachings and philosophies. He is a Christian and you are a Christian. Do you not see the relationship? Pat has said stupid things in public. I suppose you do not agree with all of them. However he can speak for you on the bible and religion. That is why he is called upon on TV. He speaks for the Christians. Do you think he is a jerk.? I guess so. But to the media he is you and he speaks for you.
To me ,he is your man. The face of the evangelical ,fundies. I see people like him in religion and do not consider him an anomaly. He is just out in front.
No, I think Lord Ashtar does not share Pat Robertson’s teachings or philosophies, for the most part. (They probably agree on stuff like the Trinity, for example.)
To the media, Pat Robertson speaks for Christians. We don’t need to be that idiotic. The fact that he is treated as being representative by people who need to get attention in order to make a living does not mean that Christians such as Lord Ashtar actually view him as their kind of Christian. Robertson claims to speak for Christians. That doesn’t mean he actually does.
And to Lord Ashtar, Robertson is not his man.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Lord Ashtar is evangelical or a fundamentalist?
He is out in front because he gets attention. He gets attention because he says inflammatory things. Those inflammatory things are not necessarily supported by people who share his religion, even if they are of the same denomination, which you have not demonstrated anyone to be thus far.
See, here’s the thing: you can be of the same religion as somebody, and still disagree with that person. Pseudotriton ruber ruber is an atheist, as am I, but I strongly dislike his stance of utter contempt for religion and those who adhere to it. On the other hand, you can agree with somebody who is not of your religion: I personally greatly admire Polycarp’s social philosophies, and I think most people here would say the same, despite not necessarily being Episcopalian.