Pat Robertson says Haiti under a Curse

[Autodidact]

God will deliver the needy and the one who cries for help, the poor also, and the one who has no helper. He will save the poor and afflicted....He will redeem their souls from oppression and violence. Why? because their blood is precious in his eyes.- Psalm 72.

1st Thess 5:2,3 is a precursor to the Great Tribulation of Matt 24:21; Rev 7:14. When the political world is saying 'peace and security' then the world's political 'kings' (Rev 17:2) will go against, or turn on the world's religious sector, (the false religious 'queen' Rev 18:7) that plays false to God. Starting with turning on Christendom who claims to follow Jesus but instead has used his name to further their own agenda instead of Christ's.

Can you prove that with backing the United Nations can Not be strengthened?
Being strengthened the U.N. can turn on the world's religious sector that has run afoul playing false to God and Scripture.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[sojourner]

Yahweh will make their lives much better in the next life.

Jesus came that we might have life now, and have it more abundantly. Please stop chasing away the atheists!

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Jesus came that we might have life now, and have it more abundantly. Please stop chasing away the atheists!

I am not chasing no one away. I am participating in a religious debate. I am sharing my religious viewpoints the same as you and everybody else in this forum is doing. Just because you don't agree with my exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't mean that I am chasing someone. I resent that statement because it is utterly false. Sometimes these kinds of viewpoints are something that needs to be discussed no matter how unpopular it may be. I back my view point up with the Holy Scriptures which testifies that I am not the only one who share this viewpoint. Furthermore, many holy men (like Jeremiah & Isaiah) in the past and today (like Pat Robertson) still share this viewpoint and they don't sugar coat what is written in the Holy Bible.

You quote Jesus. I quote Yahweh. You quoted the New Testament. I quote the Jewish Tanakh and other Scriptures. It is not new that every scholar, pastor, pope, teacher, or rabbi will believe on the same subject. But they respect each other's freedom of speech to voice their opinion. Therefore, if you want to debate, then let us debate without the shouting and false accusations. I don't agree with everyone here on this forum but I respect their right to voice their opinions with shouting at them or insulting them. Now I know how Jeremiah felt when the men slapped him in the face for saying unpopular things about future destructions.

It is written that God is control of everything in the earth, including earthquakes. If he is not, then he is not God.

 

[sojourner]

Jeremiah felt when the men slapped him in the face for saying unpopular things about future destructions.

You're no Jeremiah. Benson said the same thing to Quayle.

It is written that God is control of everything in the earth, including earthquakes. If he is not, then he is not God.

but God doesn't micromanage.

Just because you don't agree with my exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't mean that I am chasing someone.

I have yet to see exegesis.

I back my view point up with the Holy Scriptures which testifies that I am not the only one who share this viewpoint.

No it doesn't. It testifies that you have interpreted the scriptures in a certain way. But I have yet to see you present supporting argument for your viewpoint.

Furthermore, many holy men (like Jeremiah & Isaiah) in the past and today (like Pat Robertson) still share this viewpoint and they don't sugar coat what is written in the Holy Bible.

Pat Robertson is no Isaiah. And I'd hesitate to call him a "holy man." "Charlatan" is more like it.

 

[sojourner]

I am not chasing no one away.

Autodidact, an atheist, responded this way to one of your recent posts:

How shall I put this? This form of Christianity absolutely disgusts me. I cannot overstate how morally abhorrent this so-called religion is. I can't contain the horror I feel at the callous disregard for human suffering that you're expressing. If that's what Christianity causes, then I want no part of it.

Once again, you're not helping our cause. Please stop chasing the atheists away.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Autodidact, an atheist, responded this way to one of your recent posts:

Once again, you're not helping our cause. Please stop chasing the atheists away.

Once again, this is a debate. Which means that I am presenting an point of view that he finds offensive. Other reading may find it intriguing. Others may find it worth debating or researching. That is the power of debate and freewill thinnking. I may find many other religious views and opinions in this world offensive; but I am able to see that they are not chasing me away. I just take their views as simply that: Their views.

Once again, stop accusing me of chasing atheists away. Besides, where is it that I am allegedly chasing them from and to? And if debating is chasing; then I guess agreeing is bringing them. To agree on every issue defeats the purpose of debate.

How is it that you don't know if your views don't chase athiests away? After all, you follow the same God as I do. What impact have your viewpoints have on athiests?
Freewill debates allow all people from all walks of life to think on their own. And I welcome that freedom of speech and debate.

 

[McBell]

The 'Devil' Writes Pat Robertson A Letter

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is written that God is control of everything in the earth, including earthquakes. If he is not, then he is not God.

To prove that God is in control of say, the earthquake in Haiti, you would have to show that it was not the result of natural plate tectonics.
Since it cannot be shown that your god is in control of naturally occurring phenomena, then by your own statement, he is not God.
What a relief.....

 

[challupa]

The 'Devil' Writes Pat Robertson A Letter

LOL Ya dear ole Pat does have a way of making everyone and everything he touches look bad doesn't he!

 

[challupa]

I am not chasing no one away. I am participating in a religious debate. I am sharing my religious viewpoints the same as you and everybody else in this forum is doing. Just because you don't agree with my exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't mean that I am chasing someone. I resent that statement because it is utterly false. Sometimes these kinds of viewpoints are something that needs to be discussed no matter how unpopular it may be. I back my view point up with the Holy Scriptures which testifies that I am not the only one who share this viewpoint. Furthermore, many holy men (like Jeremiah & Isaiah) in the past and today (like Pat Robertson) still share this viewpoint and they don't sugar coat what is written in the Holy Bible.

You quote Jesus. I quote Yahweh. You quoted the New Testament. I quote the Jewish Tanakh and other Scriptures. It is not new that every scholar, pastor, pope, teacher, or rabbi will believe on the same subject. But they respect each other's freedom of speech to voice their opinion. Therefore, if you want to debate, then let us debate without the shouting and false accusations. I don't agree with everyone here on this forum but I respect their right to voice their opinions with shouting at them or insulting them. Now I know how Jeremiah felt when the men slapped him in the face for saying unpopular things about future destructions.

It is written that God is control of everything in the earth, including earthquakes. If he is not, then he is not God.

I think you have no idea of how you come across. Auto isn't the only one on this forum that finds your comments abhorrent. You chase away in the sense that people that have any sense of decency at all will never want to serve a god as ugly as you paint yours to be. I guess the saying "give them enough rope" is right. You and Pat only appeal to people who like to think they are superior and everyone else is evil. Personally I am sorry for people who hold these beliefs because I can't even start to imagine what these beliefs do to your psyche.

 

[sojourner]

Once again, this is a debate. Which means that I am presenting an point of view that he finds offensive. Other reading may find it intriguing. Others may find it worth debating or researching. That is the power of debate and freewill thinnking. I may find many other religious views and opinions in this world offensive; but I am able to see that they are not chasing me away. I just take their views as simply that: Their views.

Once again, stop accusing me of chasing atheists away. Besides, where is it that I am allegedly chasing them from and to? And if debating is chasing; then I guess agreeing is bringing them. To agree on every issue defeats the purpose of debate.

How is it that you don't know if your views don't chase athiests away? After all, you follow the same God as I do. What impact have your viewpoints have on athiests?
Freewill debates allow all people from all walks of life to think on their own. And I welcome that freedom of speech and debate.

Ya just don't get it, do ya!
Many atheists have come not to believe in God because of the horrific, scary and entitled way in which God is presented. God is, first and foremost, hospitable. Jesus met people where they were and allowed them to be who they were. God is also ultimately loving, merciful, and kind.

yet you present God as wrathful, indignant, petulant, demanding, conditional...shall I Go on? Nobody can approach a God like this! If God isn't approachable, what good is God to us? This isn't about a system of belief, it's about building relationships -- reconciling one with another. How can we reconcile with the "angry God" of Jonathan Edwards???

I prefer to present God as ultimate, Love, ultimate Hospitality, ultimate Assurance, ultimate Affirmation of the Self and Humanity. Because that's really who God is, after all. The Bible is not a textbook. It's an historical record of the theology of God's people. What the ancients knew about God has transformed into what we know about God, in light of our own experiences. The world needs less Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelpses, and more Mother Teresas and Jimmy Carters. Personally, I believe that Mother Teresa embodied more who God is than Pat Robertson could ever, ever hope to. I'd be willing to bet that most atheists here -- if persuaded to believe that God exists -- would be more persuaded by Mother Teresa than by Pat Robertson.

 

[challupa]

Ya just don't get it, do ya!
Many atheists have come not to believe in God because of the horrific, scary and entitled way in which God is presented. God is, first and foremost, hospitable. Jesus met people where they were and allowed them to be who they were. God is also ultimately loving, merciful, and kind.

yet you present God as wrathful, indignant, petulant, demanding, conditional...shall I Go on? Nobody can approach a God like this! If God isn't approachable, what good is God to us? This isn't about a system of belief, it's about building relationships -- reconciling one with another. How can we reconcile with the "angry God" of Jonathan Edwards???

I prefer to present God as ultimate, Love, ultimate Hospitality, ultimate Assurance, ultimate Affirmation of the Self and Humanity. Because that's really who God is, after all. The Bible is not a textbook. It's an historical record of the theology of God's people. What the ancients knew about God has transformed into what we know about God, in light of our own experiences. The world needs less Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelpses, and more Mother Teresas and Jimmy Carters. Personally, I believe that Mother Teresa embodied more who God is than Pat Robertson could ever, ever hope to. I'd be willing to bet that most atheists here -- if persuaded to believe that God exists -- would be more persuaded by Mother Teresa than by Pat Robertson.

Probably, but she would still not be any good for me. She also let people suffer in her hospitals because of her held beliefs about suffering. These beliefs were her's based on her religious beliefs. While she did alot for the world she still held beliefs I cannot ever agree with. She is better than old Pat though, I agree with you there.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not chasing no one away. I am participating in a religious debate. I am sharing my religious viewpoints the same as you and everybody else in this forum is doing. Just because you don't agree with my exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't mean that I am chasing someone. I resent that statement because it is utterly false. Sometimes these kinds of viewpoints are something that needs to be discussed no matter how unpopular it may be. I back my view point up with the Holy Scriptures which testifies that I am not the only one who share this viewpoint. Furthermore, many holy men (like Jeremiah & Isaiah) in the past and today (like Pat Robertson) still share this viewpoint and they don't sugar coat what is written in the Holy Bible.

You quote Jesus. I quote Yahweh. You quoted the New Testament. I quote the Jewish Tanakh and other Scriptures. It is not new that every scholar, pastor, pope, teacher, or rabbi will believe on the same subject. But they respect each other's freedom of speech to voice their opinion. Therefore, if you want to debate, then let us debate without the shouting and false accusations. I don't agree with everyone here on this forum but I respect their right to voice their opinions with shouting at them or insulting them. Now I know how Jeremiah felt when the men slapped him in the face for saying unpopular things about future destructions.

It is written that God is control of everything in the earth, including earthquakes. If he is not, then he is not God.

Well you're definitely persuading me not to worship whatever God you're talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

Once again, this is a debate. Which means that I am presenting an point of view that he finds offensive. Other reading may find it intriguing. Others may find it worth debating or researching. That is the power of debate and freewill thinnking. I may find many other religious views and opinions in this world offensive; but I am able to see that they are not chasing me away. I just take their views as simply that: Their views.

Once again, stop accusing me of chasing atheists away. Besides, where is it that I am allegedly chasing them from and to? And if debating is chasing; then I guess agreeing is bringing them. To agree on every issue defeats the purpose of debate.

How is it that you don't know if your views don't chase athiests away? After all, you follow the same God as I do. What impact have your viewpoints have on athiests?
Freewill debates allow all people from all walks of life to think on their own. And I welcome that freedom of speech and debate.

You win the debate! You're right! God inflicted the earthquake on the poor Haitians! *runs as far away from any such God as she can get*

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Sometimes the poor and disenfranchised do get caught up in God's punishing earthquake: ---- OneThatGotAway

"Getting caught in fallout" is much, much different than being the focus of the wrath. Haiti is a whole nation of poor and disenfranchised people. biblically speaking, that would exempt them from any wrathy scariness of God.

I already know that. That is why I said earlier that the evil ones were the focus of his wrath, not the good. But you don't know if all of Haiti are good people. Some of them may be evil. Only God knows which ones are evil enough to deserve this kind of punishment. Do evil people deserve earthquakes? God thought so; and he acted.

Yes, it is written that Jesus spared and condemned. It is also written that God spares and condemn people both great and small. Their merciful examples does not suggest that they will always allow all of the innocent to escape harm and danger in every circumstance. ---- OneThatGotAway

Read above. Why in the world would God act outside God's precedent and bring such destruction upon someone who is already being systematically destroyed? The answer: God would not.

Read the Book of Ayuub (Job). According to this holy man, God was not acting outside of his precedent and yet he allowed horrific destruction to come upon his family and unspeakable pain to himself. The answer: It is written in the Holy Scriptures (especially in the Holy Book of Job). And that is a major example among many in the Bible. Why did Ayuub deserved this kind of treatment; if so, then why? If not, then why did it happened?

Yes, God brought about this devastation through the Roman Empire. ---- OneThatGotAway

Well, this is a 180 degree departure from Pat Robertson. In Pat's scenario, God would have destroyed Rome for their nefarious, pagan ways and spared Jerusalem.
Additionally, I don't believe that for a minute. God didn't "work through Rome to destroy Jerusalem." Further, Jesus alludes to that in the Gospels which, incidentally, were all written post-destruction. It's not a prophecy. It's an allusion.

Well I that goes to show that Pat Roberson and I don't always share the same views on every subject. I've read in the Holy Scriptures that the Almighty YAHWEH use other nations to punish other nations for the evil doings. Rome is just one of those examples. Whether you believe it or not doesn't change what was recorded in the Holy Bible. It doesn't matter when the latest copy of these messages were written; the fact is that Jesus' ministry and his prophecies took place before the destruction of Yerushalyim. For it to be an allusion alludes to tampering of the original message in which neither you nor I can confirm nor deny. Hence, we are left to believe whether the prophecy was authentic or false. I chose the former.

I don't know what passage that you are referring to about God retreating somewhere. Because I read no scriptural passage where God retreats. ---- OneThatGotAway

There is no one single passage. Read the context.
[FONT=&quot]After Babel, God was no longer made visible to all humanity. Throughout the Old Testament account, God retreats further and further into humanity’s background. The last person to whom God was said to be “revealed” was Samuel, in the temple. The last person to whom God was said to have “appeared” was Solomon. The last public miracle occurred on Mount Carmel, when Elijah had a showdown with the priests of Baal. Gradually, the prophetic experience of God becomes one of visions and dreams. After Hezekiah, the experience of God is largely one of personal experience.[/FONT]

If by retreat you mean that God stop speaking directly to mankind. Then I know that already. But if you think that this retreat means that God also stop doing things in mankind's life, then I would have to disagree. Because that is an assumption in which the even the context of the Holy Scriptures do not support. He may not speak to mankind but he still acts for the good and against the evil.

The author does have to state that because the cause of the disaster may not have been the focus of his message. Many people of his day probably knew that God causes natural blessings and destructions according to the circumstances; and thus, they may see no need to remind everyone of the author of every natural event. They have the Holy Tanakh to remind them that God is the author and controller of these events. ---- OneThatGotAway

That's improper exegesis. That's not why the author does that.

Actually, it is improper exegesis to think otherwise. If the author wants to drive a point; then he have idea of what the intended audience commonly know without having to remind them. Unless they forgot it or it becomes an issue. And this author was divinely guided to put these events in writing.

Just because you said it doesn't make it true. I trust what is thus written in the Holy Scriptures more than someone's opinion. ---- OneThatGotAway

Fine. You find one single instance where God specifically brings down wrath upon the poor and disenfranchised -- making them the very target of God's wrath -- not just the "fallout" -- and we'll talk.

I have already quoted previous Holy Scriptures including the entire Book of Job. Ayuub was innocent and yet his innocent family was killed and he was subjected to much pain. And I never said that they were the direct target of God's wrath but the innocent caught up in the wrath against the evil-doers.

I didn't know that. I don't know you. Therefore, I spoke in general and make my observations from what I read from your responses; I stand by this statement. ---- OneThatGotAway

Your generalization is incorrect. I'm a witness to the contrary. Stubbornness is a poor substitute for steadfastness.

You know I was going to say the same thing. So it seems we both have something in common.

"And there are some Christians who do not read all of the Bible. " ---- OneThatGotAway

No, it didn't get away. I told you that I am a Christian who has read all of the Bible, and that I know specifically of several others. None of us see it your way. Your generalization is incorrect.

"It didn't get away"? What are you talking about? You might want to show me specifically where you quoted that you have read all of the Bible before I made that statement. Furthermore, even if you did read the Bible, it is possible that you may have forgot some of the Scriptures in which I have quoted. I don't know that about you. I know that I haven't memorize all of the Bible. Who is the "us" that you are talking about? And your opinion about my generalization is just that: your opinion. I disagree.

"And there are some Christians who do not read all of the Bible. " ---- OneThatGotAway

No, you said specifically that every Christian who has read the Bible knows...
I said that I am one of them, and since I am included in the set of "every Christian who has read the Bible," that renders your generalization moot.

But clarify that statement after you have made your statement. I think you should re-check your chronology of our threads again. Let's just agree to disagree on this point. Don't take it personal, I am not trying to pick a fight with you.

No, I am not wrong, because I did not know that you were one of those Bible-reading Christians. Just because your friends call you that doesn't get published in my area. My experience has shown me that there are Christians out there who do not read their Bible. Furthermore, there are Christians out there who don't read all of the Bible. And even yet, there are some Christians who pick and choose which Scriptures they like (out of context) while ignoring the others. Again, I don't know if you are those Christians because I don't know you. Therefore, I am not wrong. ---- OneThatGotAway

Now you've been made aware. You may be able to say "most," or "many," or even "the ones I'm aware of," but to say "all" -- especially after you've been made aware of ones that do not fit your statement, smacks of stubbornness. A truly wise person will change his mind when further details are brought to his attention that renders his first theory incorrect.

Again, I disagree with your chronology and your stubborness. Furthermore, your accusations borders on trolling in which I am going to end this sidebar 'to agree to disagree'. So let's say we just drop it and get back to the topic. OK? Shaluum (Peace).

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Jeremiah felt when the men slapped him in the face for saying unpopular things about future destructions. ---- OneThatGotAway

You're no Jeremiah. Benson said the same thing to Quayle. [/quote]

Benson also said that he knew the man. Do you know Jeremiah? Besides you don't have to be the man to follow walk and experience some of Jeremiah's circumstances. You're not Paul and yet Paul said to "Imitate me as I imitate Christ". I do the same, except I am using one of Jeremiah's example.

"It is written that God is control of everything in the earth, including earthquakes. If he is not, then he is not God." ---- OneThatGotAway

but God doesn't micromanage.

Only God knows, but the main point is that the buck stops with him on what is all allowed to happen on earth. And we don't know specifically which event he has delegated or which events he has acted himself. But what we do know is that nothing gets done without his approval; that is what makes him God.

"Just because you don't agree with my exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't mean that I am chasing someone. " ---- OneThatGotAway

I have yet to see exegesis. [/quote]

If don't see it now, then I can't be much clearer. I was going to ask you the same thing.

"I back my view point up with the Holy Scriptures which testifies that I am not the only one who share this viewpoint. " ---- OneThatGotAway

No it doesn't. It testifies that you have interpreted the scriptures in a certain way. But I have yet to see you present supporting argument for your viewpoint. [/quote]

Like I said, I have already presented my scriptures which supports my viewpoint. I believe that your interpretation of the scriptures differs from mine. I disagree with your interpretation and viewpoint. I don't see how I aligns with other events in the Bible. If you still don't see my point then do a word search on "wrath" and see the context of each verse that mentions God or Yahweh. Then you will see my point on what God has done and will do to evil-doers in this word.

"Furthermore, many holy men (like Jeremiah & Isaiah) in the past and today (like Pat Robertson) still share this viewpoint and they don't sugar coat what is written in the Holy Bible." ----OneThatGotAway

Pat Robertson is no Isaiah. And I'd hesitate to call him a "holy man." "Charlatan" is more like it.

I am not saying that Pat is Isaiah, I am saying that both men are holy. Now some of Pat's preaching may be questionable but I believe that he lives a life like holy men today. Charlatan? Perhaps. I think his followers will pray for him on that one.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Remember, if you write your entire post in large bold letters, you will win the debate!!

 

[sojourner]

remember, if you write your entire post in large bold letters, you will win the debate!!

i win!!!

 

[JMorris]

I already know that. That is why I said earlier that the evil ones were the focus of his wrath, not the good. But you don't know if all of Haiti are good people. Some of them may be evil. Only God knows which ones are evil enough to deserve this kind of punishment. Do evil people deserve earthquakes? God thought so; and he acted.



Read the Book of Ayuub (Job). According to this holy man, God was not acting outside of his precedent and yet he allowed horrific destruction to come upon his family and unspeakable pain to himself. The answer: It is written in the Holy Scriptures (especially in the Holy Book of Job). And that is a major example among many in the Bible. Why did Ayuub deserved this kind of treatment; if so, then why? If not, then why did it happened?



Well I that goes to show that Pat Roberson and I don't always share the same views on every subject. I've read in the Holy Scriptures that the Almighty YAHWEH use other nations to punish other nations for the evil doings. Rome is just one of those examples. Whether you believe it or not doesn't change what was recorded in the Holy Bible. It doesn't matter when the latest copy of these messages were written; the fact is that Jesus' ministry and his prophecies took place before the destruction of Yerushalyim. For it to be an allusion alludes to tampering of the original message in which neither you nor I can confirm nor deny. Hence, we are left to believe whether the prophecy was authentic or false. I chose the former.



If by retreat you mean that God stop speaking directly to mankind. Then I know that already. But if you think that this retreat means that God also stop doing things in mankind's life, then I would have to disagree. Because that is an assumption in which the even the context of the Holy Scriptures do not support. He may not speak to mankind but he still acts for the good and against the evil.



Actually, it is improper exegesis to think otherwise. If the author wants to drive a point; then he have idea of what the intended audience commonly know without having to remind them. Unless they forgot it or it becomes an issue. And this author was divinely guided to put these events in writing.



I have already quoted previous Holy Scriptures including the entire Book of Job. Ayuub was innocent and yet his innocent family was killed and he was subjected to much pain. And I never said that they were the direct target of God's wrath but the innocent caught up in the wrath against the evil-doers.



You know I was going to say the same thing. So it seems we both have something in common.



"It didn't get away"? What are you talking about? You might want to show me specifically where you quoted that you have read all of the Bible before I made that statement. Furthermore, even if you did read the Bible, it is possible that you may have forgot some of the Scriptures in which I have quoted. I don't know that about you. I know that I haven't memorize all of the Bible. Who is the "us" that you are talking about? And your opinion about my generalization is just that: your opinion. I disagree.



But clarify that statement after you have made your statement. I think you should re-check your chronology of our threads again. Let's just agree to disagree on this point. Don't take it personal, I am not trying to pick a fight with you.



Again, I disagree with your chronology and your stubborness. Furthermore, your accusations borders on trolling in which I am going to end this sidebar 'to agree to disagree'. So let's say we just drop it and get back to the topic. OK? Shaluum (Peace).

Jeremiah felt when the men slapped him in the face for saying unpopular things about future destructions. ---- OneThatGotAway

You're no Jeremiah. Benson said the same thing to Quayle. [/quote]

Benson also said that he knew the man. Do you know Jeremiah? Besides you don't have to be the man to follow walk and experience some of Jeremiah's circumstances. You're not Paul and yet Paul said to "Imitate me as I imitate Christ". I do the same, except I am using one of Jeremiah's example.



Only God knows, but the main point is that the buck stops with him on what is all allowed to happen on earth. And we don't know specifically which event he has delegated or which events he has acted himself. But what we do know is that nothing gets done without his approval; that is what makes him God.

"Just because you don't agree with my exegesis of the Scriptures doesn't mean that I am chasing someone. " ---- OneThatGotAway

I have yet to see exegesis. [/quote]

If don't see it now, then I can't be much clearer. I was going to ask you the same thing.

"I back my view point up with the Holy Scriptures which testifies that I am not the only one who share this viewpoint. " ---- OneThatGotAway

No it doesn't. It testifies that you have interpreted the scriptures in a certain way. But I have yet to see you present supporting argument for your viewpoint. [/quote]

Like I said, I have already presented my scriptures which supports my viewpoint. I believe that your interpretation of the scriptures differs from mine. I disagree with your interpretation and viewpoint. I don't see how I aligns with other events in the Bible. If you still don't see my point then do a word search on "wrath" and see the context of each verse that mentions God or Yahweh. Then you will see my point on what God has done and will do to evil-doers in this word.



I am not saying that Pat is Isaiah, I am saying that both men are holy. Now some of Pat's preaching may be questionable but I believe that he lives a life like holy men today. Charlatan? Perhaps. I think his followers will pray for him on that one.

 

[sojourner]

I already know that. That is why I said earlier that the evil ones were the focus of his wrath, not the good. But you don't know if all of Haiti are good people. Some of them may be evil. Only God knows which ones are evil enough to deserve this kind of punishment. Do evil people deserve earthquakes? God thought so; and he acted.

You and Pat are using good/evil as the indicator upon which God's action swings. I refute that by saying that God never punishes the downtrodden, the poor, the disenfranchised. Those are precisely the people whom God saves. Therefore, I'd have to say that, from a Biblical POV, poverty, disenfranchisement, and oppression are the greater evil that begs God's attention.

According to this holy man, God was not acting outside of his precedent and yet he allowed horrific destruction to come upon his family and unspeakable pain to himself.

First of all, Job is not a "real-life" paradigm. It's a theological treatise on theodicy. Second, there's a big difference between "allowed to happen" and "caused to happen."

I've read in the Holy Scriptures that the Almighty YAHWEH use other nations to punish other nations for the evil doings. Rome is just one of those examples.

Why? What had Israel done that was so horrible? They were the oppressed and disenfranchised ones in the Rome/Palestine epic. They were God's chosen people. You'll have to do better than that.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't change what was recorded in the Holy Bible.

No, it doesn't. But what was recorded should be subject to exegesis, and not merely taken at "face value."

It doesn't matter when the latest copy of these messages were written; the fact is that Jesus' ministry and his prophecies took place before the destruction of Yerushalyim. For it to be an allusion alludes to tampering of the original message in which neither you nor I can confirm nor deny. Hence, we are left to believe whether the prophecy was authentic or false. I chose the former.

Actually, it does matter. It matters a great deal. Authors and editors can make Jesus say whatever they want to. The exegetical and critical process takes dates of writing into consideration for just such reasons. We don't know that Jesus really predicted the fall of Jerusalem. We have to determine why the author chose to include this particular saying in his gospel account.

If by retreat you mean that God stop speaking directly to mankind. Then I know that already. But if you think that this retreat means that God also stop doing things in mankind's life, then I would have to disagree. Because that is an assumption in which the even the context of the Holy Scriptures do not support. He may not speak to mankind but he still acts for the good and against the evil.

How does God act? By speaking. God spoke the universe into existence.

If God still acts in the broad affairs of humanity, then why hasn't God saved Haiti, which is in desperate need of Divine intervention???
Let's just brush them off as "evil." God must hate them. Yeah, that's the ticket! It couldn't possibly be that God chooses to remain silent in this arena.

Actually, it is improper exegesis to think otherwise. If the author wants to drive a point; then he have idea of what the intended audience commonly know without having to remind them. Unless they forgot it or it becomes an issue. And this author was divinely guided to put these events in writing.

I don't believe it was Mark's intention to speak to God's direct manipulation of nature. It was his intent to speak to God's works through Jesus. Exegetically, that puts a whole different spin on what we may -- or may not -- infer from the text.

I have already quoted previous Holy Scriptures including the entire Book of Job. Ayuub was innocent and yet his innocent family was killed and he was subjected to much pain. And I never said that they were the direct target of God's wrath but the innocent caught up in the wrath against the evil-doers.

Job is not cogent to this issue.

"It didn't get away"? What are you talking about? You might want to show me specifically where you quoted that you have read all of the Bible before I made that statement. Furthermore, even if you did read the Bible, it is possible that you may have forgot some of the Scriptures in which I have quoted. I don't know that about you. I know that I haven't memorize all of the Bible. Who is the "us" that you are talking about? And your opinion about my generalization is just that: your opinion. I disagree.

I don't have to have pointed it out before hand. You stated an assumption. I stated that the assumption was wrong, because not "all Christians who have read the Bible" agree with you, and pointed out myself as an example. The proper way to respond would have been: "Oh, guess my generalization was mistaken." Instead, we get klutzy backpedaling and verbal smoke-and-mirrors.
Wonderful.

But clarify that statement after you have made your statement. I think you should re-check your chronology of our threads again. Let's just agree to disagree on this point. Don't take it personal, I am not trying to pick a fight with you.

I'm not taking it personally. You need to acknowledge that not "Every Christian who has read the Bible" knows what you claim he or she knows, and then refrain from using that incorrect generalization as evidence of your point.

I disagree with your chronology

Chronology is not cogent here.

Benson also said that he knew the man. Do you know Jeremiah?

Probably at least as well as you do.

you don't have to be the man to follow walk and experience some of Jeremiah's circumstances.

This is not one of Jeremiah's circumstances. you're not God's Prophet.

the main point is that the buck stops with him on what is all allowed to happen on earth.

God has turned some of that "buck" over to us.

But what we do know is that nothing gets done without his approval; that is what makes him God.

Lots gets done without God's approval. Why do you think sin is so prevalent? That's what makes us "like God." As in our systematic screwing over of the Haitians for our own benefit.

Like I said, I have already presented my scriptures which supports my viewpoint.

You're going to have to do a little exegesis in order to present your scriptures as support. So far, you havent' done that.

I believe that your interpretation of the scriptures differs from mine.

That's the first thing upon which we agree.

I disagree with your interpretation and viewpoint.

Obviously.

I don't see how I aligns with other events in the Bible.

That's not my problem.

If you still don't see my point then do a word search on "wrath" and see the context of each verse that mentions God or Yahweh. Then you will see my point on what God has done and will do to evil-doers in this word.

This activity is not germane to the topic of Haiti. Haiti (as I've already pointed out) are not the evildoers here. They are the victims.

I am not saying that Pat is Isaiah, I am saying that both men are holy.

Isaiah was the Prophet of God. Pat is not. That indicates a fundamental difference between them. Isaiah's words carry a LOT more weight than Pat's. The impetus for the words of either are not the same.

Now some of Pat's preaching may be questionable but I believe that he lives a life like holy men today.

Is Isaiah's preaching "questionable?" Isaiah is not a holy man of today. Neither is Pat, for that matter.

Charlatan? Perhaps.

I don't see how you can mitigate that status, after what he has said about the people of Haiti.