Say Anything Blog

Even Robert Spencer admits that there was nothing terribly unusual about the sexual practices of Muhammad. If it weren’t for his exaltation as the “perfect man”, we wouldn’t be discussing it today. But since everything he did was held up as a virtue for Muslims, it is still a problem today.

Quite a few biblical figures would also be guilty of pedophilia, if we use the standards of today.

A. Pat Robertson is a douche.

B. If I am a politician, I don’t start looking into the folks that vote for me.  Take for instance other Religious Leaders that make endorsements, say Jesse and Al.  Hillary doesn’t reject millions in donations from convicted felons, so why should Rudy reject endorsements and votes from Right Wing nutjobs like Robertson?

C. Did I mention what I think of Robertson?

Justin:

A. Pat Robertson is a douche.

I concur wholeheartedly. Note my disclaimer in the above article.

And Kenny:

He consumated the marriage to a very small child when she was 9. Sorry, but that’s beyond norms even in a time when women married very young. And you’re defending this….why?

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Gratuitous Romney Update:

WOWSERS!
Rasmussen: Romney surges to 15-point lead in NH!
Zogby: Romney surges to 16-point lead in Iowa!

Romney’s lead over Fred Thompson in NH: 25 points!
Romney’s lead over Fred Thompson in Iowa: 21 points!
Romney’s lead over Fred Thompson in SC: 6 points!

Fred Thompson comes out against:

1. Pro-life plank of Republican Party.
2. Pro-marriage Amendment.
3. Not raising taxes.

Toast.

Honestly, given these kinds of numbers, WHO is gonna give money to the Thompson Campaign? 

Thompson just came out in South Carolina saying that Romney is trying to “buy the state”.  Why did he do that?  Simple, Fred is broke and wants to frame his dime-store campaign on the fact that South Carolinians can’t be “bought”.

A. Pat Robertson is a douche.

Meaning no disrespect, that is a non-sensical statement! It contributes nothing to the debate, it only makes you appear foolish and biased for engaging in personal attacks without just cause!

why should Rudy reject endorsements and votes from Right Wing nutjobs like Robertson?

It is becoming all too common for people to call others in the public eye stupid names when we disagree with their beliefs or actions. Nutjob: “an offensive term for somebody with a psychiatric disorder;” or, it can mean “somebody with a deep, passionate interest in something.” A) If I am not mistaken, you are not qualified to diagnose anyone with a psychiatric disease, unless you are a board certified psychiatrist. So, you appear to be practicing medicine without a license for malicious reasons. B) Having a deep, passionate interest in Christ and the Church does not, according to my research, qualify as a psychiatric disorder and of itself is not a bad thing. C) So, on both counts it appears you were in error in using a demeaning epithet for Robertson.

Roberston has very little influence on voting evangelicals and I must suggest that your mindless attacks on his character does not do your anti-Christian cause any good. I do not support Robertson’s ministry and I am concerned about many of his public statements and beliefs; but disagreeing with someone’s words and actions can be done decently and without need to attack their character.

Many very sincere, devoted and decent Christian ministers get corrupted by their entanglements with the world system and by the constant praise of men, it is an age old story and a sad one. But, despite their failures and the disrespect they may bring to the cause of Christ, it doesn’t mean they have stopped being true Christians with sincere and good motives, it only demonstrates how frail we all are and prone to evil. Yes, some are truly evil men and women and God will one day separate the wheat from the chaff and those men who were false ministers will suffer for their folly.
In this case I cannot see what either Rudy or Pat did that would justify your attacks on Roberston. It won’t change anything and Rudy will still have to earn the nomination of his own and eveangelical votes, but if this takes the edge off Rudy’s more socially liberal image and helps him gain the nomination, I cannot see anything false about the affair or a just cause to attack anyone.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Pat, who I have seen and heard for 30 years is what he is, and now is diminished further for his endorsement.

I was angry when James Dobson came out against Gullini, I’m less impressed when Robertson comes out for him.

It’s like they think we conservative Christians are incapable of thinking for ourselves.  David Limbaugh just wrote a piece that I think is worth considering.  The Hitchen’s crowd of Atheism (God is not Great) has even Christian Leadership thinking we are without a brain in our head.

So, If it’s OK with both MR Dobson and MR Robertson, as a Christian I think I can make up my own mind.  Save the opposition, save the endorsement.

Read David Limbaugh’s piece, it’s pretty darn good.

Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this is their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce.       
And they go down fighting.

... but disagreeing with someone’s words and actions can be done decently and without need to attack their character.

Neiman,

You underestimate the virulence of those on the left…especially the more radical “progressives”... while vastly overestimating both their rationality and their decency.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Limbaugh’s piece is good.  Thank you for the link.

I am not going to go into the claims Pat Robertson has made that make him a nut job.  Dover PA, assasinating Chavez, his statements about 9-11.

I am also not going to get into all of the reasons that his opinion is completely meaningless and I think he gives the entire Conservative movement and Christianity a bad name by making offensive and mindless statements sprinkled into his show about actual people of deep belief and their lives.  His show is about 1/3 Oprah for Christians of how God helps them with their problems (as opposed to Oprah relying on Dr. Phil or others to help people), 1/3 news about the world filtered through misinterpretation of the Bible, and 1/3 just fucking nuttiness of a borderline senile man spouting bullshit about 9-11, Muslims, non-Christians, and the voting patterns of folks being contrary to HWGV-how would God vote.

Yeah, I make attacks against Robertson that are not only personal, but go above and beyond his opinions and statements.  He spreads mistrust of Christians and my beliefs that keeps people away from the true message and provides the Secular Humanists with ammunition that makes Christians appear naive and small minded.  And he does it on a nationally and internationally broadcast TV show.  He turns people off to Christianity.  In a big way.  And you would call me an “anti-Christian” for thinking that this asshat isn’t out doing actual HARM to the spread of Christianity in his preaching and soliciting donations from people that are already Christians?  Which is more important in the grand scheme?  In his mind, political endorsements, voting, and his own position of power and authority are more important than spreading a message of hope for non-Christians.  He spreads distrust of Islam and it harms our missionaries in the field in foreign countries.

Why exactly do Robertson and Dobson believe it is necessary for them to make political endorsements or even enter into this arena anyway?

Justin,

The piece referred to by Gene is bay DAVID Limbaugh, Rush’s brother.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I don’t think I said Rush.  Yeah, saw that it was David.

I have read a decent amount of David Limbaugh’s writing.

That these two can share more intellect between them than Code Pink does in their entire organization.  Amazing.

Why exactly do Robertson and Dobson believe it is necessary for them to make political endorsements or even enter into this arena anyway?

1st: I find it strange that we don’t hear Robertson’s supporters complaining or those of Rudy, just atheists, agnostics and those otherwise hostile to people of faith. If the followers of these people are not bothered, why does it matter so much to their enemies?

2nd. Why is it wrong for these religious leaders to consent to endorse or come out against certain candidates. Don’t they have a right to a voice in the political process? Being Christians do they surrender their citizenship and all the rights assigned thereto? Are they less entitled than to these rights than illegal aliens, well it seems so! Where in the Constitution is such activity prohibited? Would you be as upset if the leading atheist or Wiccan endorsed Rudy?

3rd: When certain people are identified as being in the leadership of the Evangelical or Catholic communions, they are often asked to endorse candidates in order to encourage their followers to give greater consideration to their candidacy and in feeling these people are not serious enemies of people of faith. Evangelical leaders are like other people, they like feeling important in the political process and find it hard to resist that appeal to their flesh (ego). It is because they are saved, not perfect, being what we like to call human beings.

4th: Had more religious leaders inside Germany, Europe and especially in the Vatican opposed Hitler in public, being willing to take a strong moral/spiritual position against him in public, often and loudly; it is possible that he would never have risen to absolute power, as a Catholic and Lutheran German population would have heeded such spiritual advice and prevented Hitler’s rise to power. So, it is important even in a political context that religious leaders express their spiritual opinions on public matters to help guide the faithful in more carefully examining political candidates, political promises and political movements.

5th: All that being said, I have often taught and written about the need for the clergy, including religious leaders to keep their distance from political parties, candidates and elected officials; and to avoid unnecessary entanglements with this world system, which will only corrupt them to varying degrees in the process. In other words, speak only about political matters as they have an impact upon the faith and practices of believers and not be engaged in political endorsements. It is a tricky balance between direct endorsements and spiritual advice to maintain at times; and I have no doubt that Robertson and others have leaned too far towards intimate political affiliations versus providing pure spiritual leadership to their flocks, which entanglements brings them into ridicule, sometimes disrepute and is not healthy for those under their ministry. But, that does not mean they should be condemned for having human failings, or that I would join anyone in attacking them as I know neither their motives nor their heart attitude. The answer to both is no!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

What exactly is spiritual in nature about one candidate or another?  I see absolutely no moral or Christian distinction between the Republican candidates in that Rudy does not separate himself in beliefs or in practices in any discernable way that Robertson should make any endorsement that his positions are superior to any other Republican Candidate.

Second, it runs contrary to his 501c3 that allows his organization to be tax exempt.  As a religious leader, either come out and pay taxes for your organization as a “Lobbyist” or stop endorsing political candidates.

This kind of thing was squashed within the Mormon Church when people were using mailing lists for Romney.  Edicts came down that were very clear—Mormon Church leaders are not to endorse candidates from the pulpit.  They are not to use their positions within the church to advocate for any candidate.  And that was for a reason.  It invalidates the purpose of a church for it to intertangle itself into the world of politics on an election by election candidate by candidate basis.  Certain issues of moral relevance to religious leaders like abortion being a notable exception. 

Christ and the Apostles were never politicians that I am aware of.  When you use Christ’s name or his authority to involve yourself in secular affairs that clearly have nothing to do with Christ’s mission, you are not doing his work.  But I never claimed Robertson was doing Christ’s work.  Robertson sure likes to though.

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.”  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

  1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

  2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

It seems to me that Pat Robertson has every legal, constitutional right as a private citizen to endorse any candidate he chooses. He does not represent a denomination, so he cannot be censured as the LDS can censure their ministers, as they do represent a religious organization. His ministry is actually a privately owned broadcasting business with a spiritual message and when he ran for President he surrendered his ministerial credentials and has not taken them back. So, he made his endorsement as a private citizen only with some spiritual credentials, not even speaking on behalf of the broadcast business or any Christian sect, rather he was solely expressing his private opinions, which may or may not impact the votes of a small number of evangelical Christians.

Robertson made it clear that he felt Rudy offered the best leadership against Islamic terrorism and for our national security; and he felt after they met that Rudy’s social positions would not be a barrier to voting for him;  additionally, because Rudy said he would only appoint Supreme Court Justices and other judges that were conservative and held to the doctrine of original intent, Robertson felt Rudy would not appoint socially active judges that would make decisions contrary to his faith.

When you use Christ’s name or his authority to involve yourself in secular affairs that clearly have nothing to do with Christ’s mission, you are not doing his work.

That is your personal opinion, not totally alien to my own, yet not necessarily objective fact; plus Robertson and other Christians have a right to view Scripture otherwise, to retain their rights as citizens and to follow the dictates of their own conscience. I should add that the Catholic Church has long been entangled with political activism here and around the world, as have most African-American Churches and both endorse candidates based on their social/moral positions.

I would be interested to know what theological background you might have or religious credentials your possess that make you feel better able to say what Christ would or would not do as compared to those people having invested their lives in Christian ministry? You seem to have absolutist beliefs about what Christians should or should not believe and do, with little tolerance for those that practice their faith as they feel God intends. I am not defending Robertson or many other leading evangelicals of his ilk, nor am I saying you are absolutely wrong, only that I find it odd you seem to claim a right to determine what Christ and the Apostles would or would not believe or do and it appears you want to deny that right to others having invested their lives in the faith.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Baldwin,

Who was those commands given to or to whom did they apply?

That would be Israel approx. 4000 years ago.  They were given to no other nation and that nation according to the OT experienced the literal presence of God himself among them. 

That said, what is your point?

Baldwin Huey: You are only demonstrating your gross ignorance of Scripture and the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Under the dispensation of Grace (New Testament) there are no such commands, it is the dispensation of God’s Love in and through Christ to all that believe, and the doctrine of Grace (Mercy) is wholly alien to the intent of the passages you quoted.

Jusin B is making reasonable, rational arguments, in a decent and civil manner, while your comments appear to be the wild ravings of a Christian hating, lunatic mind and I won’t waste time debating such nonsense!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

It’s like they think we conservative Christians are incapable of thinking for ourselves.

Gene,

I don’t know of any other conclusion that would fit.  The guys like Robetson act as if they are God’s spokesmen to the church and the church should listen and obey.  It is highly un-Chrisitan and without any Scriptural basis, not to mention highly offensive.

First let me say I don’t normally like Pat Robertson.  We just don’t get along, as he spends too much time on legalism, and not enough time on the Gospel.  But then again, since I don’t normally listen to him firsthand, I might be getting a biased view. (As I found I was with Falwell, after his death.)

I am not sure about the legitimacy of his holding a high position in a nonprofit and endorsing a candidate, but as a celeberity endorsement, I will listen to him before I listen to anyone in Califoria.

In general, I would prefer to vote for Thompson, but since it is a close call with me, having someone who is on record as standing up against Islamists endorsing Rudy will get me to rethink my position.  It is somewhat irrelevant anyway, as I will vote next Nov for whichever one wins the primary. 

Someone asked, and I think it is quite observant, why is it that it is so important to the atheists, who Pat Robertson endorses?  Must be important to get the atheists and the Islamists in an uproar.  Think about it.

As a side note, Neiman, it is good to see someone in here with a good understanding of the Bible, and not just what they see on TV.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

HG

The guys like Robe[r]tson act as if they are God’s spokesmen to the church and the church should listen and obey.  It is highly un-Chrisitan and without any Scriptural basis, not to mention highly offensive.

As someone often posing here as a Christian, I challenge you to find anything loving, charitable or Christlike in your statement above. Who made you to be the judge over Robertson and his ministry? Even Jesus when confronted with disciples he had not called who were baptizing people into the faith, He said we are to leave them alone, not criticize them, as those who were in word and deed for him were not against Him; that is, they were not his enemies. Who made you the final arbiter of Spiritual Truth? That is, why can’t Robertson or others view Scripture, their ministerial calling and avenues of Christian service in a different way from you and still be sincere, albeit flawed servants of Christ? When did Robertson lose his rights as a citizen to express his personal political opinion and endorse a candidate?

I don’t defend Roberston on many matters and as I told Justin twice, I don’t like ministers getting much entangled with political candidates and the world system; but I also don’t think Christians should judge and condemn other Christians for serving Christ with the degree of light they might possess. Rather, wouldn’t a good Christian pray for Pat, pray that he would focus on Christ and stay away from politics wherein he exposes himelf to ridicule and the Church to unfair attacks?

When I disagree with a brother in Christ in such a public leadership position, I contact them directly and express my concerns directly to them in a loving manner, I do not join with thse people of the world in condeming them. I am sorry you so often choose the latter approach!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Who made you to be the judge over Robertson and his ministry?

I prefer not to blindly follow, if that is judgment you oppose, then we disagree.

Who made you the final arbiter of Spiritual Truth?

Every Christian has a bible and a brain.  I think God gave us both for a reason.

That is, why can’t Robertson or others view Scripture, their ministerial calling and avenues of Christian service in a different way from you and still be sincere, albeit flawed servants of Christ?

Good question.  Sincerety is not the measure or means of Christianity, truth is.  Robertson is sincere, no doubt, but quite often (publicly) he is sincerely wrong.

When did Robertson lose his rights as a citizen to express his personal political opinion and endorse a candidate?

Never.  When did I lose my right to judge what he says against what the bible says?

Rather, wouldn’t a good Christian pray for Pat, pray that he would focus on Christ and stay away from politics wherein he exposes himelf to ridicule and the Church to unfair attacks?

Got me there Nman.  You’re right on this one.  But, I reserve the right to disagree and point out his error when I see it.

I don’t think I would have much luck contacting Robertson.  Since he chooses to make absurd public statements, I reserve the right to publicly disagree and attempt to clarify what I believe is inaccruate and subsequently painting Christianity in a bad light.

I take offense at those who make themselves out to be the spiritual authority on matters where either God has not directly spoken or in direct contradiction to what God has said. 

Acknowledging the accuracy of criticism leveled against Pat by “the world” is to acknowledge the truth in some instances.  Just because the world gets it right doesn’t mean Christians should pretend they don’t.  Just because Christians and non-Christians agree on something doesn’t make for worldly Christians.

Titus 1:12-13 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Nman,

The aposltle Paul didn’t have any problem agreeing with non-Christians who leveled accurate criticism against Christians.  And you can’t get much more public than recording your disagreement in the bible.

I should add that I commend Robertson for such a pragmatic endorsement.  I would have expected him to oppose Guliani for his position on abortion.

His ministry is actually a privately owned broadcasting business with a spiritual message and when he ran for President he surrendered his ministerial credentials and has not taken them back.

With a tax subsidy.  Not that the government is actually funding his business, but by providing him with tax exempt status because his business is a non-profit under 501-c3, he does not pay taxes.

But that nature of that is that tax exempt religious organizations are barred from lobbyist activities.  Lots of organizations call themselves religions then make political endorsements, but notice how Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson are always saying “as a private citizen this is what I believe” and are quick to point out that this is not their organization’s view.  Just them personally.  Focus on the Family is Dobson.  700 Club is Falwell.  Just like Die Hard is Bruce Willis, just like Rocky is Stallone.  So Stallone showing up with boxing gloves is essentially Rocky doing the endorsement, even if the owners of the Rocky trademark do not sanction what he does.

you do not lose your rights to have personal beliefs and voting opinions just by being a celebrity.  Or by owning or running a church.  I am not advocating that.  I am stating that these folks do more than operate a church through their non-profits.  They use untaxed funds for lobbying activities.  It is a fine line and an area that lots of organizations run into.  Being an ordained minister is not the issue with Robertson or the LDS Church.  Using tax exempt status to raise funds and personally advocating political positions outside of the realm of your ministry is.

Robertson is allegedly a journalist on 700 Club.  He is also a minister.  In both of these aspects, he should rightfully take a candidate neutral stance.  Especially primary candidates.  He chooses not to do this as does Dobson.  So we need to question his motives for feeling the need to publicly endorse a specific candidate.  He has some motives in doing this Neiman.  Love of Christ is not his motiviation for making this political statement.  So explain why he feels the need?

He is trying to “endorse” the frontrunner so that when Rudy is the nominee, Robertson can maintain the “kingmaker” status that the Religious Right thinks they have.  He and Dobson want to be kingmakers.

I don’t defend Roberston on many matters and as I told Justin twice, I don’t like ministers getting much entangled with political candidates and the world system; but I also don’t think Christians should judge and condemn other Christians for serving Christ with the degree of light they might possess.

I disagree.  I level criticism where criticism is deserved, whether the person is Christian or not.  You don’t get some magical cloak of invisibility just because your first name is Father or Reverend or Bishop or Mullah.  We must challenge all of our leaders and all statements of fact, whether we challenge them openly and publicly or we simply challenge them by applying thought, reason, and maybe spirituality to question their authenticity.  And if a Christian is leading other Christians astray, what does challenging a guy like Robertson privately via an anonymous e-mail really do?  Yep, he is going to read it and give me a call.  We all have an obligation to speak the truth.  I don’t sit back and keep my mouth shut simply because I respect Robertson as a Christian.

Ummm, HG, your quote from Titus is Paul talking about ALL men in a region, not the Church there.  He is telling Titus to insure those in the Church are visably different than those outside of it.

Also, the Letters to Timothy and Titus are the basis for Church leaders giving instruction to their Churches.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

  He is telling Titus to insure those in the Church are visably different than those outside of it.

The fact is he is telling Titus to “rebuke” the Cretian believers (Christians) because they are “always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies”.  This accusation was leveled by a non-Christian and Paul says it is true.  He is publicly agreeing with criticism directed at believers. It makes no difference whether it is true of all Cretians, the point is it was true of Cretian believers.

It is very obvious.

Titus 1:12-13
Wherefore rebuke them sharply
“Because these things personally and particularly belonged to the persons described; whom the apostle would have rebuked, both for their bad principles, teaching things that they ought not; and for their immoralities, their lying and deceit, their intemperance, luxury, and idleness, things very unbecoming the Christian name; and therefore since their offences were of an heinous nature, and they lived in them, and were hardened and obstinate, and were like to have a bad influence on others, they must be rebuked “sharply”: rebukes ought to be given according to the nature of offences, and the circumstances of them, and the offenders; some are to be given privately, others publicly; some should be reproved with gentleness and meekness, and be used in a tender and compassionate way; others more roughly, though never in a wrathful and passionate manner, yet with some degree of severity, at least with great plainness and faithfulness; laying open the nature of the evils guilty of in all their aggravated circumstances, without sparing them in the least; doing, as surgeons do by wounds, though they take the knife, and use it gently, yet cut deep, to the quick, and go to the bottom of the wound, and lay it open: and so the phrase may be rendered here, “rebuke them cuttingly”; cut them to the quick, and spare them not; deal not with them as Eli with his sons, (1 Samuel 2:23) but speak out, and expose their crimes, severely reprove them, that others may fear: that they may be sound in the faith; that they may be recovered from their errors, to the acknowledgment of the truth; that they may receive the sound doctrine of faith, the wholesome words of Christ, and speak the things which become them, and use sound speech, which cannot be condemned; and that they may be turned from their evil practices, and appear to be sound, as in the doctrine, so in the grace of faith; or that that by their works may appear to be genuine, true, and unfeigned; and that they may be strong and robust, hale and healthful, and not weak and sickly in the profession of their faith. Rebukes being to persons infected with bad principles and practices, like sickly constitutions, a means of removing the causes of disorder; and in rebukes, admonitions, and censures, this always ought to be the end proposed, the good of the persons rebuked, admonished, and censured.”

1. The rebuke advised by Paul was warranted because of the shockingly evil and wicked behavior of the people involved. I seriously doubt that that a Christian minister simply endorsing a political candidate rises to a pattern of sin of a heinous nature.

2. All true Christian criticism is always to be delivered directly to the person in love with the sole goal of aiding the errant Christian in recovering their Christian moral principles, faith and the testimony of their lives.

3. Paul and other Church leaders having demonstrated that they were full of the Holy Spirit and submissive to God would administer such rebukes, as these words of admonition and correction would come directly from God: yet I must admit that I find it very hard to see by their writings how either HG or Justin B are thus qualified.

4. Spiritual rebuke by elders in the Church directly to the frail and faltering Christian and those people having a critical spirit used to attack fellow Christians in public are entirely different things in the Divine economy. Any true Christian would apply the entire teaching on such rebukes, which would dictate that such rebukes are done in private by elders of the Church.

5. Rebuking a false prophet/minister is another matter entirely, although even then having little value unless conducted by one having a reputation for holy living within the Church.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

I seriously doubt that that a Christian minister simply endorsing a political candidate rises to a pattern of sin of a heinous nature.

Nor do I.  In fact I commended his pragmatic endorsement. 

yet I must admit that I find it very hard to see by their writings how either HG or Justin B are thus qualified.

Any true Christian would apply the entire teaching on such rebukes, which would dictate that such rebukes are done in private by elders of the Church.

What I pointed out was the arrogant and unscriptural practices of many of Robertsons public statements.  Neiman, I agree the attitude of Christians is important in all that we do.  I disagree with your interpretation and apparently so does Scripture…

1 Timothy 5:19-20 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.  Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

...nothing private about that.  And again, Paul’s agreement with accusations against Christians was public—in the passage I noted earlier.

I’m not in a position to personally rebuke Robertson, and that doesn’t mean I should not take opportunity to correct it for the benefit of others.

Once more, without defending Robertson’s ministry entirely or his actions in the political arena:

1. He has a Constitutional right to endorse a candidate as a private citizen. If he makes it clear he is speaking as a private citizen, then there is no question of his rights in this matter, no matter the nuances that Justin B might, reasonably feel are involved.
2. The average Christian needs to study the Word daily (be a Berean Christian) that they might be led of the Spirit into the all Truth and approve that which is holy and turn from that which is profane; but they should be very careful indeed should they believe they are anointed to criticize ministers of the Gospel, as they are in most cases criticizing children of God; and therefore are taking upon themselves the duty of disciplining them and thereby usurping God’s sole Authority in the matter. That does not mean we need support errant or false ministries or approve of teachings and behaviors which are contrary to God’s Word.
4. I seriously doubt if any of Robertson’s critics at Say Anything have first prayed for him that the Holy Spirit might correct and heal him and help these critics to only think and act in love towards him. Rather, they rush out without first seeking God’s Will to criticize a member of the Church as a matter of personal bias and wanting to bring down someone that they feel doesn’t meet their standards.
5. David was terrified to even touch the cloak to King Saul, because he knew that to touch one of God’s anointed absent such a clear calling could bring down Divine discipline on the one daring to try and harm God’s anointed. Remember, Saul, despite many terrible failings, great wickedness and attempts to kill David was anointed King by God and David knew that it was not up to him to touch God’s anointed, as that role was for God alone.

I continue to see no harm in Robertson as a private citizen, even though he is an evangelical leader, in endorsing Rudy. As to his being a minister, I measure his teachings, attitudes and behavior by God’s Word and when and where Robertson fails that Divine test, I will not support his ministry, but I will pray for Robertson that God will send to him a spiritually mature leader or leaders to rebuke him in love as necessary, with the sole goal of turning him back to pure service to God rather than his flesh.

I think I have exhausted this issue, I canot think of any more to add!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

but they should be very careful indeed should they believe they are anointed to criticize ministers of the Gospel,

Having a bible and a brain in not an anointing.

As to #4 & #5:

There was no intent to bring Robertson down on my part whatsoever. 

Alluding to Pat as one of God’s anointed equal to being King of Israel is false equivalence IMO.  This is the kind of doctrine that causes many Christians to blindly follow these Robertson types.  I am very familiar with this type of error and have experienced it firsthand.  There is not command in Scripture applicable to Pastors as some sort of untouchable.  It is people like yourself who have “anointed” these men far above what God may or may not have equipped them for.

I Timothy 5:19-20
“but before two or three witnesses; good sufficient ones, who are capable of well attesting the fact of an offense: a charge against a pastor of a church is not to be easily received, unless it clearly appears to be true by the testimony of such a number of witnesses; nor should it be brought publicly before the church, until it is privately and previously proved, by a sufficient number of credible witnesses, that it is really fact. The sense is, not that judgment shall not pass against him but by such a number of witnesses, or that the evidence upon his trial shall consist of such a number; for this is no other than what ought to be in the case of a private member, and of every man, according to (Deuteronomy 19:15) . But the sense is, that the affair of an elder shall not be put upon a trial, much less sentence pass, until it has been privately proved against him, by proper testimonies, beyond all exception; only in such a case, should a church admit a charge against its elder. The reason of this rule is, because of his high office and the honour of the church, which is concerned in his, as well as of religion; for it carries in it some degree of scandal for such a person to be charged, even though he may be cleared; as also because of his many enemies, who through envy, malice, and the instigation of Satan, would be continually pestering the church with charges, could they be easily admitted.”

I am sorry, but the whole witness of Scripture would demand private investigation and proof before Spirit filled elders, and only if thus clearly established by 2 or more witnesses, should it be brought by these elders before the Church; that is the Church, not the world. Nonetheless, if a sin against others is involved there may be occasion, such as child molestation, when it needs to be made public immediately

Again, while I am no defender of Robertson, I have not heard of the Church establishing in front of any elders of any sins by him in this matter of endorsing Rudy, but I have seen people claiming to be Christians attacking him openly without having clear evidence of any guilt of sin on his part. This should not be done! If he has broken the law, shouldn’t we wait for his trial and conviction before condemning/hanging him? Yet, I am am sure even in this you will say he deserves to be attacked publicly based solely on our personal bias against him.

Oh, one more point, I have strong views about the many money grubbing false ministers among us today, wolves among sheep; but I would fear attacking them absent qualified elders rebuking them privately first.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Its interesting to me that so many of those who disparage Pat Robertson and his moralistic ministry, and snort at his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani’s candidacy suggesting that the Mayor should disavow the endorsement, go all aflutter when one more air-headed Hollywood celebrity, whose entire career and notoriety are built on fantasy and make-believe comes out in fulsome favor of Barack Obama, Global Warming, and whirled peas.

Talk about your liberal hypocrisy.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

It is people like yourself who have “anointed” these men far above what God may or may not have equipped them for.

Now we are attacking and judging me? Very Christian!

If you read more carefully, I have made it clear in this thread and elsewhere that I do not support or sit under the teachings of those I feel are not living and teaching according to God’s Word, I cannot give you examples because I would be guilty of criticizing these ministries and needful of Divine correction. That is quite different than assuming I am anointed to attack and bring errant ministers down from ministry. After all, I am not their judge, God is the only Judge!

The reason I believe you are wrong, in my opinion, about the David and King Saul analogy, is that many evil speaking people have sowed seeds of division within congregations and denominations, bringing down sincere, anointed ministers of the Lord and causing terrible, harmful schisms with the the Body of Christ. That is why we must fear being thus guilty, as I’ll bet most of these people destroying other ministries and dividing the children of God felt they were right and doing God’s Will. Thus, we need leave these matters to God and simply find other places of fellowship wherein we feel God’s Word is being truly taught and practiced and leave the attacks on ministers to Him alone, lest we find ourselves working against God’s anointed.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

but I have seen people claiming to be Christians attacking him openly without having clear evidence of any guilt of sin on his part.

Clear evidence?  Give me a break.  The guy says things in public like 9/11 is God’s punishment, and all sorts of crazy stuff.  He says God tells him these things, like tsunamis will hit the US and Sharon’s stroke was divine retribution.  These aren’t matters needing investigation.  Jeez Nman, open your eyes.  These guys are misleading people and have twisted doctrine to say they are untouchable.  They have set themselves up as the authority within the churches.

Oh, one more point, I have strong views about the many money grubbing false ministers among us today, wolves among sheep; but I would fear attacking them absent qualified elders rebuking them privately first.

Whatever Nman, there is plenty of Scripture which says otherwise.  Letting these guys take advantage of others is no Christian servcie.

Now we are attacking and judging me? Very Christian!

Wow!  Talk about hypocrisy.  What have you been doing to me, Nman?

I am passing judgment on your very public statements.  Nothing wrong with that from where I sit. 

Your apathy towards error is nothing I wish to emulate nor do I find anywhere in Scripture.

From the first, in my humble opinion, admitting I am probably in error, you seem to have established your sense of your own moral and scriptural superiority above others, by always standing with people outside the faith and against people that, while being far from perfect Christians, are still sincere members of the Body of Christ. Whether it is Christians commenting here or ministers of the Gospel, you have always set yourself against them and have joined in that judgment with people clearly oustide the faith.

I told you many, many times I did not and I do not support Robertson’s ministry nor would I choose to play the role of his defender. But, not having your omniscience, I am not qualified to judge whether Robertson is simply an errant but sincere Christian minister or a self serving heathen. I would rather pray for him, treat him in the Love of Christ with mercy, desire his spiritual healing and leave the criticism of his public pronouncements to those of the world, people that are only too anxious to attack anyone in the Body of Christ that they might thereby destroy faith in Christ for their own selfish and wicked motives.

You have chosen your path and I am not qualified to judge if you are right or I am wrong, but according to my reading of God’s Word, I choose not to play God in this matter or play the role of Christian hater, as I know I too am a lowly sinner, I am only saved by God’s grace. I want others in the Body of Christ to treat me with charity when I fail and falter, and so I choose to treat everyone claiming the name of Christ the same way I want to be treated in similar circumstances. In the same way, Roberston may have stumbled during his life, but I know I am easily capable of stumbling in the same manner and so as I don’t want to be judged by him or others, I refuse to harshly judge him, but leave that role to the only true Judge and you of course.

I am sure you are right and I am completely wrong, and that you are the superior Christian. I only hope the Lord will show me that you are truly his anointed teacher and I can learn from you how to publicly attack all people claiming to be Christian ministers whenever I dislike anything they say or do and when the mood hits me!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Whether it is Christians commenting here or ministers of the Gospel, you have always set yourself against them and have joined in that judgment with people clearly oustide the faith.

Nman,

True.  And like I pointed out so have others, specifically Paul.  There seems to be no room between agreeing with non-christians and condemning Christians in your mind.  This is a problem in Christianity today IMO.  To agree once again with many non-christian’s perspective of Christianity, it is an overly sensative religion today.

“There is some danger of falling into a soft and effeminate Christianity, under the plea of a lofty and ethereal theology. Christianity was born for endurance; not an exotic, but a hardy plant, braced by the keen wind; not languid, nor childish, nor cowardly. It walks with strong step and erect frame; it is kindly, but firm; it is gentle, but honest; it is calm, but not facile; obliging, but not imbecile; decided, but not churlish. It does not fear to speak the stem word of condemnation against error, nor to raise its voice against surrounding evil, under the pretext it is not of this world, it does not shrink from giving honest reproof, lest it come under the charge of displaying an unchristian spirit. It calls sin sin, in whomsoever it is found, and would rather risk the accusation of being actuated by a bad spirit than not to discharge an explicit duty. Let us not misjudge strong words used in honest controversy. Out of the heat a viper may come forth; but we shake it off and feel no harm. The religion of both Old and New Testaments is marked by fervent testimonies against evil. To speak smooth things in such a case may be sentimentalism, but it is not Christianity… It is a betrayal of truth and righteousness. I know that charity covers a multitude of sins; but it does not call evil good, because a good man has done it; it does not excuse inconsistencies, because the inconsistent brother has a high name and a fervent spirit; crookedness and worldliness are still crookedness, though exhibited in one who seems to have reached no common height of attainment. - By Horatius Bonar. 1818-1899”

I am sure you are right and I am completely wrong, and that you are the superior Christian.

I missed the part where I claimed superiority.  Rather, your comments have pointed out time and again the superiority of Robertson.

HG;

I missed the part where I claimed superiority. [You claim to have a superior interpretation of Scripture that excludes all others!]  Rather, your comments have pointed out time and again the superiority of Robertson.

That is a deliberate, unChristian lie on your part and you know it to be! I never said or even hinted at any such thing as Robertson having any spiritual superiority over anyone, in fact I have time and time again made it clear that I strongly disagree with many of his words and actions. Apparently, at least it seems to me, that besides your preferring the company and fidelity of non-Christians to Christians, you often appear to engage in deliberate lies solely to denigrate Christians and make yourself appear more valuable to the cause of non-Christians.

I told you many, many times I did not and I do not support Robertson’s ministry nor would I choose to play the role of his defender.

Again, while I am no defender of Robertson,

I don’t defend Robertson on many matters

I am not defending Robertson or many other leading evangelicals of his ilk,

I do not support Robertson’s ministry and I am concerned about many of his public statements and beliefs;

You knew about these statements above strongly and repeatedly made by me to the effect that I do not support or defend Robertson or many of his beliefs; but in order to further promote your anti-Christian bias, you chose to deliberately accuse me of something I specifically disavowed. But, it has always been this way, you always attack fellow Christians and stand by, defend and work in harmony with people you know to be hostile to people of faith and yet you still claim you are a Christian. Please explain how you can consistently act like an enemy of Christ and His Church (believers) and still feel you are a Christian? Where is the brotherly love? I find it a very strange way to express belief in someone or something, by constantly attacking anyone believing in Christ, mostly because they don’t submit to your views of Scripture. But, I do sincerely defend your right to claim Christian faith while acting quite unloving towards people of faith.

My point has always been that publicly attacking Robertson on the issue of endorsing Giulliani without: a. At least trying to contact him directly and/or his board of directors and/or the elders of the Church he regularly attends to express your concerns, is wrong. b. Praying for him that the Lord would either bring discipline to his life if he is in the wrong and hurting the Church; or to open your mind and heart about where you might be in error in this matter. c. Giving Robertson the benefit of the doubt in this case that, he might be sincere in making a private endorsement of Giulliani and not violating his Christian faith in the process.

Lastly, as a person claiming Christianity as your faith, do you really, honestly think that constantly aligning yourself with enemies of the Church and failing to show love towards Robertson and other Christians is what Christ would command you to do? If He created and died for everyone, is it right for you to refuse to love, pray and care for all His children without favor, even those with whom you strongly disagree, the weak among the faith? Would Christ attack Robertson publicly without going to him first in Love and gently, clearly reproving him privately? Is your anger towards other Christians that may disagree with you how Christ would react to them in a similar case? If the answer is no to any of these questions, perhaps you should prayerfully reconsider your actions.

I DO NOT DEFEND OR SUPPORT PAT ROBERTSON’S MINISTRY OR MANY OF HIS EXPRESSED BELIEFS!

I DO NOT THINK CHRISTIANS SHOULD ENGAGE IN PUBLIC ATTACKS AGAINST OTHER CHRISTIANS ABSENT A CLEAR CALLING FROM GOD TO DO SO, LEST THEY HURT THE PERSON (Robertson in this case), GIVE COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES OF CHRIST AND CAUSE SPIRITUAL HARM TO FELLOW CHRISTIANS THAT DISAGREE, ALL WITHOUT JUST CAUSE!

In all of this you seem to take an absolutely opposite position, preferring to harm a fellow Christian(s) and the cause of Christ for your own peculiar motives and to the benefit of the enemies of Christ.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

You claim to have a superior interpretation of Scripture that excludes all others!

I claim the Scripture is the final authority over which no “anointed” one has any authority.  If it be merely a matter of interpretation, then both of us are claiming the superior interpretation by your standards.  I’m claiming the obvious interpretation of passages I noted is the right interpretation.

That is a deliberate, unChristian lie on your part and you know it to be! I never said or even hinted at any such thing as Robertson having any spiritual superiority over anyone

Neiman,

I inferred this from your interpretation that led you to state that Robertson or other “anointed” elders or pastors should not be criticized by other Christians not “anointed” to do so.  This sounds like superiority to me.  So no, I was not lying, just inferring.

Please explain how you can consistently act like an enemy of Christ and His Church (believers) and still feel you are a Christian?

Neiman read the statement by Horatius again.  I am not condemning Christians when I disagree with them.  Rather, I am attempting to correct what I believe to be error.  I point out scripture which backs my claim.  If you disagree, that is your choice and I don’t hate you or Robertson for doing so.  I simply pointed it out.  No hateful language was used.  At the most I may have been a little stern which is far from hateful. 

Neiman, do you think it loving and kind to allow fellow Christians to believe a lie, or to be led astray by professing Christian leaders?  I don’t and I think the bible tells every believer no to do so. 

We clearly disagree about the place of a Christian to voice disapproval for another Christian.  Although, you don’t seem to have any problem addressing such to me. 

Neiman, I don’t hate you or wish you ill whatsoever.  I’m confident you will do what you believe to be right, but in all honesty, consider some of the things you have said here and check it out for yourself.  BTW, I often defend Christians on this site as well.

Neiman, do you think it loving and kind to allow fellow Christians to believe a lie, or to be led astray by professing Christian leaders?  I don’t and I think the bible tells every believer no to do so. 

We clearly disagree about the place of a Christian to voice disapproval for another Christian.  Although, you don’t seem to have any problem addressing such to me.

Precisely.

We come on here to speak about public issues and have discussions. If you take issue with how I speak of other Christians or my beliefs or my statements, why not contact me and say “Justin, my Christian brother, you are errored in such and such”.  See, you don’t do that.  You, instead of talking to me privately as a Christian, instead call me and others “Christ haters” or “anti-Christians” and so on.

Look, I have told you a dozen or so times that I am a Christian.  I speak ill of folks like Robertson because he is fraud and is leading good Christians astray with his rantings about assassinating folks and 9-11 and Dover, PA, and so on.  You want me to privately talk to him as a Christian, as opposed to blogging it on a site that is created solely so that we can discuss political issues.  If there is some test that says I can only say negative things about Godless Heathen Liberal Athiests, but not about self righteous Christian leaders that lead folks astray, you are gravely mistaken.

Christians have a natural distrust of secular folks that do not have a Christian background guiding their morality.  And rightly so.  But they also have an inherent “trust” that folks that call themselves “Christian” will in fact uphold the teachings and principles of Christ.  If the self described “Christians” are not held to account for their inaccurate statements and hateful comments that are made “as messengers of Christ” which Robertson claims he is, we cannot differentiate between the true message and the snake oil salesmen.  And these folks do need to be challenged.  Publicly.  And intellectually.  Being a simple member of a church flock and your “private conversation” standard is completely different than being the leader of a flock of over a million people and being immune to public criticism because he is a “Christian”.

In all of this you seem to take an absolutely opposite position, preferring to harm a fellow Christian(s) and the cause of Christ for your own peculiar motives and to the benefit of the enemies of Christ.

What if the person is spreading false doctrine in the name of Christ.  Do we publicly rebuke that person?

Robertson does far more to benefit the enemies of Christ by his fucked up 9-11 and Hugo Chavez statements than me and HG can do on some damned blog.  But whatever.

For those of you who seem to be saying that the laws of the old testament can be ignored, what about this verse from the new testatment.I believe the verse is referring to the old testament.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Baldwin Huey: Yes, he did come to fulfill.  And he did just that, on the cross.  And it is fulfilled for all of us who are in Him, for we are now dead to the Law, but alive in Grace.

I suggest, that you look at Acts 15, and Romans 8.

Justin B.: Good to know there are Christians around this neck of the woods. (I suspect quite a few read here)

I too, have some problems with what Pat Robertson says and does, I just don’t rant as loudly.  I am not certain that he is “a fraud,” but could just be a little off of the narrow path.  Not one of us Christians are perfect, only forgiven.

TRex

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

TREASON AGAINST GOD AND COUNTRY
When did Giuliani’s Christian God give him the right to support Human sacrifice, women killing their own children? 
When did his American Constitution give him the right to sacrifice the wealth and blood of the American People, on behalf of domestic and foreign lobbies? 
If neither his Christian God, nor his American Constitution, are sacred to him; why would his promises to the American People be sacred to him?