Pat Robertson and Alzheimer's. Is this a GD or a Pit?

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@R.P.McMurphy

Still, as I said before, Robertson’s comments have to be taken in the context of Pat Robertson, the Bible thumping, self-appointed morally superior evangelist that he pretends to be.

Exactly, you can’t claim life starts at conception and then ends at some undefined point after a person’s mind starts to go.

[Lamia]

@R.P.McMurphy

Still, as I said before, Robertson’s comments have to be taken in the context of Pat Robertson, the Bible thumping, self-appointed morally superior evangelist that he pretends to be.

I don’t get this. Are we supposed to be upset that Robertson has failed to thump his Bible hard enough here? That he wasn’t judgmental enough about the man whose wife has Alzheimer’s?

I’m certainly no fan of Robertson’s, and if he were creating loopholes to excuse his own behavior I’d be happy to call him a hypocrite. I can also see being upset by his remarks on this subject if one personally believes that Christians should never divorce, or that divorce would be morally wrong in this situation. But if the problem is that Robertson isn’t fully living up to his narrow-minded reputation then I don’t think that’s really a problem at all.

[Captain_Amazing]

@R.P.McMurphy

Still, as I said before, Robertson’s comments have to be taken in the context of Pat Robertson, the Bible thumping, self-appointed morally superior evangelist that he pretends to be.

I’m sort of wondering what Pat Robertson could have said here that would have made you happy. I mean, I can see both sides, but I have family members who have died of Alzheimers, and it’s a hell of a thing for the survivors, so I’m not going to judge this guy too harshly for seeing other people. So, I guess, unusual as it is, I agree with Pat Robertson on this one.

But you seem to have set up a situation where Pat is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. You’re condemning him for his position, but it seems if he took the opposite position, you’d be condemning him for his harshness.

[DSeid]

Let’s start with the question he was asked: one spouse is extremely far gone with Alzheimer’s and the other is lonely. Is it okay to develop a relationship with another person? I think many would say that yes it is. Many people do indeed continue to care for their established partner and develop another caring relationship with someone who is also capable of caring for them back.

PR clearly has some compassion for that circumstance but can’t get around the not cheating part, so figures divorce is the more moral option. I can’t agree but given his past takes on things this one seems pretty benign, compassionate even, in comparison.

[RTFirefly]

@Captain_Amazing

I’m sort of wondering what Pat Robertson could have said here that would have made you happy. I mean, I can see both sides, but I have family members who have died of Alzheimers, and it’s a hell of a thing for the survivors, so I’m not going to judge this guy too harshly for seeing other people. So, I guess, unusual as it is, I agree with Pat Robertson on this one.

But you seem to have set up a situation where Pat is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. You’re condemning him for his position, but it seems if he took the opposite position, you’d be condemning him for his harshness.

Well, he IS damned either way, isn’t he? He can either respond to this dilemma by thundering, “THIS IS THE WORD OF THE LORD!!” or he can respond like a human being. The problem is, responding like a human being ought, is in direct conflict with his decades of being a “this is the Word of the Lord!!” thunderer.

The only way out for Pat is to acknowledge the conflict, and repudiate his past.

[RTFirefly]

@DSeid

PR clearly has some compassion for that circumstance but can’t get around the not cheating part, so figures divorce is the more moral option.

The problem for Pat is that Jesus said divorce and remarriage IS adultery. (Mark 10:1-12, for those keeping score at home.) He’s basically saying, “the Bible says one thing, but I say another,” which is fine if you don’t claim, as Pat does, to believe in the Bible’s inerrancy.

[Shodan]

@Lamia

I don’t get this. Are we supposed to be upset that Robertson has failed to thump his Bible hard enough here? That he wasn’t judgmental enough about the man whose wife has Alzheimer’s?

I’m certainly no fan of Robertson’s, and if he were creating loopholes to excuse his own behavior I’d be happy to call him a hypocrite. I can also see being upset by his remarks on this subject if one personally believes that Christians should never divorce, or that divorce would be morally wrong in this situation. But if the problem is that Robertson isn’t fully living up to his narrow-minded reputation then I don’t think that’s really a problem at all.

I think this covers it pretty well.

I am also not much of a Pat Robertson fan, to say the least, but when he at least tries to cover a subject with some nuance condemning him no matter what is kind of silly.

Thanks for the article, otternell.

Regards,
Shodan

Oh, and PS - Jesus did not teach that divorce was always sinful for everyone. Matthew 19:9-12.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@DSeid

Let’s start with the question he was asked: one spouse is extremely far gone with Alzheimer’s and the other is lonely. Is it okay to develop a relationship with another person? I think many would say that yes it is. Many people do indeed continue to care for their established partner and develop another caring relationship with someone who is also capable of caring for them back.

PR clearly has some compassion for that circumstance but can’t get around the not cheating part, so figures divorce is the more moral option. I can’t agree but given his past takes on things this one seems pretty benign, compassionate even, in comparison.

PR has a history of declaring what God’s views are on several subjects. And these views are rarely compassionate.

Now, I would say that it’s possible and maybe even appropriate for the spouse of an Alzheimer’s patient to develop a caring relationship with someone who is not the spouse, as long as the patient is not simply cast aside. But with PR’s history, I think that it’s hypocritical for him to say that divorce is OK in this situation, or even that it’s the lesser of two evils. His take on this is more benign than his usual stance on other situations, but I think that he’s not being self consistent here.

[R.P.McMurphy]

@Captain_Amazing

I’m sort of wondering what Pat Robertson could have said here that would have made you happy. I mean, I can see both sides, but I have family members who have died of Alzheimers, and it’s a hell of a thing for the survivors, so I’m not going to judge this guy too harshly for seeing other people. So, I guess, unusual as it is, I agree with Pat Robertson on this one.

But you seem to have set up a situation where Pat is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. You’re condemning him for his position, but it seems if he took the opposite position, you’d be condemning him for his harshness.

I think I well answered that in the earlier post when I said,

So what should he have said that would have prevented the firestorm? Here’s what he should have said (this is not necessarily what I would have said):

“You married the woman for better or for worse, in sickness and in health until death do you part. She can no longer provide you with the companionship and comfort you seek. That does not justify adultery. That also doesn’t mean that you can’t have friends, male or female. There is nothing wrong with a platonic relationship with a person of the opposite sex as long as there is no adultery.”

If he had said that I wouldn’t be typing. As it is, he exposed himself as a hypocrite who really doesn’t follow the Bible unless he can use it for his own agenda. It’s the picking and choosing of the Bible by the evangelists that makes me view them as a big problem.

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

Oh, and PS - Jesus did not teach that divorce was always sinful for everyone. Matthew 19:9-12.

But the lone exception Jesus mentions in the Matthew passage doesn’t seem to apply here, unless we equate sexual immorality with Alzheimer’s.

Seriously, why are you even bringing this up?

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

But the lone exception Jesus mentions in the Matthew passage doesn’t seem to apply here, unless we equate sexual immorality with Alzheimer’s.

Seriously, why are you even bringing this up?

Because it seems that some in the thread think that divorce is never OK for anyone.

You didn’t read the passage, did you?

R.P. McMurphy claimed -

As it is, he exposed himself as a hypocrite who really doesn’t follow the Bible unless he can use it for his own agenda. It’s the picking and choosing of the Bible by the evangelists that makes me view them as a big problem.

Saying that Jesus always condemned divorce for everyone is picking and choosing the Bible passages in support of an agenda - in this case, hatred of Pat Robertson.

Regards,
Shodan

[R.P.McMurphy]

@Shodan

R.P. McMurphy claimed - Saying that Jesus always condemned divorce for everyone is picking and choosing the Bible passages in support of an agenda - in this case, hatred of Pat Robertson.

Regards,
Shodan

I never said that Jesus always condemned divorce and I don’t see the Bible as being the absolute on anything. I don’t condemn divorce. Evangelicals do see the Bible as an absolute. It’s not hatred of Pat Robertson, it’s hatred of his hypocrisy and his sense of moral superiority.

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

Because it seems that some in the thread think that divorce is never OK for anyone.

You didn’t read the passage, did you?

Many times, dude. Many times.

Saying that Jesus always condemned divorce for everyone is picking and choosing the Bible passages in support of an agenda - in this case, hatred of Pat Robertson.

OK, but what we actually have is that in one Gospel, Jesus condemns divorce for everyone; in another, Jesus condemns divorce for everyone except those whose spouses cheated on them.

Not that I can understand how Biblical inerrantists such as Robertson resolve such contradictions, but either way, he’s repudiating the plain meaning of Scripture without repudiating Biblical inerrancy.

That’s the same either way, with Mark alone, or with the addition of Matthew.

Status of the discussion: unchanged.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Shodan

Oh, and PS - Jesus did not teach that divorce was always sinful for everyone. Matthew 19:9-12.

I’m not sure that your cite necessarily says that. It says that sexual immorality (out of interest; what would sexual immorality be defined as?) is grounds for a divorce and remarriage that is not adultery, but it doesn’t say that that isn’t still a bad thing to do. It’s just not that specific sinful act, if that makes sense. It seems like someone saying “Stealing is wrong”, and then “unless you steal a car, it’s not grand theft auto” - a specific crime is, under some circumstances, not committed, but that doesn’t mean you haven’t committed a sin under the large, overall idea. You can divorce your wife and remarry and not be guilty of adultery - but that doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty of some other sin, just that you aren’t of that particular one.

[Monty]

Here’s a question for the legal-minded among us: How can the husband obtain a divorce from the Alzheimer’s inflicted wife? Doesn’t a court require that both parties be mentally capable?

[BigT]

Actually, all Jesus says is that divorcing someone who has already committed adultery is not adultery against them. They already broke the marriage vows, so you can’t be the one who breaks them.

And, as everyone continues to point out, it doesn’t apply in this case and bringing it up means you don’t actually have an argument against what was previously said. I really wish Shodan would realize that proving something is not 100% correct does not necessarily destroy an argument.

The thing that annoys me most about this subject is that his answer is reprehensible to far more than Christians. How many people are there that believe that divorcing someone because they are sick is okay that also believe in life long marriage? In other words, not only is he ignoring the Bible, but he’s still also ignoring the consensus morality.

[Boyo_Jim]

It seems to me that Robertson can’t mean anything other than “sex” when he says “companionship”. If he meant something else, I can’t see any reason why a divorce would be an acceptable choice from his fundamentalist point of view.

So I conclude that Robertson is indirectly saying that divorce is a lesser sin than extramarital sex. And the “she’s already gone” part is comforting rationalization to give christians permission to get a divorce in cases like this. An I would bet he would say the same thing about someone in a persistent vegetative state as well – though I’m skeptical he would give the same advice to a woman as he would a man.

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

OK, but what we actually have is that in one Gospel, Jesus condemns divorce for everyone; in another, Jesus condemns divorce for everyone except those whose spouses cheated on them.

No, what we actually have is Jesus saying rather clearly ‘this doesn’t apply to everyone’. That’s why He says -

Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.

@Revenant Threshold

I’m not sure that your cite necessarily says that.

It does. See above.

Jess teaches a hard doctrine, that divorce is wrong, and only reluctantly acceptable in cases of adultery. His disciples then say, if that’s the case, it’s better not to get married at all. And Jesus explains that, yes, it is hard, but it doesn’t apply to everyone - only those to whom it is given.

Pat Robertson is agreeing with Jesus - it is possible that spouses of Alzheimer’s patients fall into the class of those to whom it is not given to avoid divorce.

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

His disciples then say, if that’s the case, it’s better not to get married at all. And Jesus explains that, yes, it is hard, but it doesn’t apply to everyone - only those to whom it is given.

What Jesus says is hard, and not for everyone, is a celibate life. From your link:

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

As written here, Jesus is saying that not everyone is called to celibacy, but those who are able to live that life should. He’s not talking about divorce anymore, he’s used the “if that’s how it is, it’s better not to marry” remark as a jumping-off point to talk about whether it’s better to forgo marriage for the celibate life.

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

As written here, Jesus is saying that not everyone is called to celibacy, but those who are able to live that life should. He’s not talking about divorce anymore, he’s used the “if that’s how it is, it’s better not to marry” remark as a jumping-off point to talk about whether it’s better to forgo marriage for the celibate life.

The “this saying” refers to the same thing the disciples meant when they said “such”. It refers to the teaching that divorce is always wrong. You are correct that Jesus starts talking about a celibate life, but He does so to explain the reason why the prohibition on divorce is not absolute - because not everyone is called to a celibate life.

Since not everyone is capable of life-long celibacy, marriage is the alternative. And “this saying” - the teaching that divorce is always wrong - is not given to everyone either.

So life-long celibacy is not for everyone, and neither is life-long marriage. Life-long celibacy is the ideal, and everyone who can should aspire to it, but some won’t make it.

Pat Robertson, as mentioned, agrees with this, and applies it to the spouses of Alzheimer’s patients. Ideally, one would stick with “until death do us part”. Unless it is not given to you to receive this saying.

Regards,
Shodan