Increase in Natural Disasters? Prophesied?

' Morning, buz.

quote:

---

Then until someone refutes it, it stands unrefuted for us all to judge for ourselves as to it's significance and credibility.

---

Well, if that's the way you see it. I still think, though, that it is the responsibility of the first person to make the claims (and that would be the writer of the op-ed piece) to offer some sort of substantiating evidence before anyone else really has the responsibility to try to refute it.I'm not even sure what the writer of the op-ed (or you) would accept as evidence that Chavez is not a despot.Added by edit:
Oops. I just realized that this whole Chavez thing is getting way off-topic. Sorry folks.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 13-Nov-2005 02:36 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I actually opened a thread where I more than substantiated my personal attacks on Pat Robertson, and conclusively demonstrated that he's a man of reprehensible moral character. It's closed, now, but I don't recall any Robertson defenders being able to rebut my basic points.Oh, no, wait, it's not closed. Here's the thread: EvC Forum: A Closer Look at Pat Robertson

As I said at the gitgo, Robertson doesn't speak for me on a lot, but on the OP quotes from him regarding disasters and the latter days he does. That OP is mostly what you people were bashing him for before I came on that thread in defense of his statements quoted. My comments in these threads are relative to the statements of the original thread on Robertson. Like Faith, I don't know a lot about the man and his financial matters. I have no intention of going beyond the particulars of the topic at hand on Robertson.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-13-2005 11:30 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

who is pat robertson

A prominent Christian leader, former Baptist minister, former leader of the Christian Coalition, and one of Bush's close spiritual advisors.

"Close spiritual advisor".......close spiritual advisor?? I don't think so. Please document. Big deal. He met with Robertson two years ago once about Iraq and Bush appeared at a Robertson function. What else do you have?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

The fact that Bush's people call him up so he can approve or disapprove their court picks?Look, Buz, they've met more than twice. A lot more. Trying to paint this guy as some kind of fringe figure just isn't going to wash. He's got very close ties to the Bush Administration.

quote:

---

I guess my point is to show that the character of Christian notables such as PR, Falwell and Dobson are so often viciously attacked by posters here when these Christian notables suggest the same of the things others, even including presidents don't consider to be madness.

---

Buz, the following are a few (JUST a few, mind you) statememnts Robertson has made over the years.He's a bigot. Hateful. A divider.He is in love with money and power and himself, and that's all.He hates homosexuals, women, and people of any other religion.It's all there in his own words, buz, for everyone to see."Well, I totally concur." -Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen.""(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." -Pat RobertsonThe media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'""When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals - the two things seem to go together."“You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. [...] We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” -- 22 August 2005, in a broadcast of his Christian Broadcasting Network's program, The 700 Club"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991"The key in terms of mental ability is chess. There's never been a woman Grand Master chess player. Once you get one, then I'll buy some of the feminism..." (According to the Chess Federation of the U.S. there were already two women Grand Masters at that time, both from Georgia. Since Robertson's gaffe, three more women became Grand Masters)This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-15-2005 09:39 AM

Hi,wrote: "Is there any difference between Osama Bin Laden and Pat Robertson?"The lamb: the "Word that became flesh" remains the same: "..not to pay evil for evil to anyone"and for that, spiritually, there's no difference between those doctrines and the doctrines[beasts] of who ever call himself by the title "spiritual authority; priest; spiritual father..".For the proposal of the beasts[doctrines] is to intimidate, spiritually, the *sheep's understanding. (*sheep who don't listen to the lamb). That is the reason the spiritual ministries of the beasts were created and established in their ordinations: 1.To keep the right ones out [of that doctrine/beast] by letting the wrong ones in. 2.To help the division/separation between fish who are reclothed with the scales of the Spirit and the fish that are not..

I have followed this thread long enough and it seems that you have summed it up with your "suppose" and "assume."Suppose and Assume are not a valid basis for a position. You appear to hold the position that disasters have been increasing, but I have not seen any justification to your statement. I see you have over 3300 posts so rather than attempt to go through them, please tell me why you think disasters are on the increase and where you substantiated that position. Where have you defined what you mean by the concept of disasters are incresing? I need a clarification.While I have not read all of this thread, I have not seen where anyone takes into consideration that the population has been constantly incrasing. For example, the earthquate in New Madrid in, I think the late 1800s was not a disaster. If that same intensity earthquate occured today, it would be carnage. Would that mean that disasters are becoming worse, or just that there are more people to be hurt? A biblical prophet is not needed to predict that when the population increases similiar events will cause more death.Lets conclude with two questions:1: Assume there are two idendical events and the second causes more people to die that the first because there are more people there to die than before. Do you define that as a greater disaster?2. The question asked of you is valid and correct: As comparted to what? When you say someting is more or less then you must state your reference point. If not, the statement has no meaning.

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

I suspect, deep down, there is not. (answers the subtopic question)Hello schrafinator,
As I read your post I just had to repeatedly go back to the top and remind myself that you were quoting him, not agreeing. His positions are so damn nasty that it's difficult to keep an even keel when listening to him or reading about him.The problem is: a review of Christian history shows that all too many christian leaders have and do carry the same torch.Our president consults with this man. I shudder in my sleep to think that we have three more years of this moron.

1. Again and again, I've said Robertson doesn't always speak for me, but he does on the OP and topic pertaining to this thread.2. To equate this man to terrorist BenLaden who murders thousands as some here are charging is blatant hateful bash. Worse yet they include such people as Dobson and Falwell, et al.

They are not being equated by their actions, but by their common "believing":They both did "believe" that the ends do justify the means; They both did "believe" that the action of killing a man can be justified by their faith[abomination].They both did not retain the Eternal's words that remain the same:"..not to pay evil for evil to anyone"And for that,Spiritually, there is no difference between those doctrines[beasts]
and the theologies[false prophet] of their faith[abomination]..This message has been edited by Zsafira, 11-17-2005 04:22 AM

Uh, can you show where any of these men such as Robertson and Falwell believe their faith justifies them personally killing people?This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 02:22 AM

as opposed to impersonally killing people?you know how jesus said we were committing adultery just by looking? wouldn't pat robertson be committing murder by just advocating?

---

אָרַח