Redstate

The other diary came up while I was making this one.  But reading the other one, I figured it is one best left alone.  Anyway, please delete this is you see fit.  Wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.

Maybe he's just hearing things in his head and mistaking it for God ;)

Thanks for the compilation of his quotes.  That is good work.

Of course he is insane.  (I would leave it to the pros to come up with the diagnosis, but there is some mix of megalomania, paranoia, and senility at work.)

The real question is not, though, is he insane.  The real question is whether he is in any way "Christian" or even religious.   I think that question has an obvious answer too.

...Pat should've gone to Gitmo after the nuke-Foggy-Bottom statement.

And why do I care who?

I forget who the Christian target of the Left is from moment to moment, because a good sized portion of you will always hate the Pope, and he's ma boy-ee. I thought y'all had moved on to Dobson or Colson or somesuch.

At any rate: He's right about Chavez. A couple of other things, too. Wrong about a good bit, too. Imagine that: It's like he's human or something.

Nuking Foggy Bottom would be wrong; too much collateral damage.

Chavez is hardly the sort of threat Robertson makes him to be. He's just a little tinhorn tyrant, with a big mouth but not much to back it up.

A desire to destablize the region, a chummy relationshop with Castro, and an avowed hatred of us.

We tolerate communists and their fellow travelers at our own peril. Sadly, fifty years of that lesson didn't seem to stick.

We tolerate communists and their fellow travelers at our own peril. Sadly, fifty years of that lesson didn't seem to stick.

How's that Communist Revolution doing these days?  

why start now tolerating the commies?

He is apparently a sponsor of FARC.

I'd consider him a potential threat, and I would not be surprised if he did something pretty freakin' stupid.

It appeared to be petering out, but the embers are glowing again.

Hey, what's a few hundred million murdered here and there, right? Government grown and civil liberties hampered to stand against the dark?

All mere popkins.

as they take turns waxing stupid.  I don't particularly appreciate being labeled anti-religious unless you have reason to back that up.  I am against religious extremism such as calling for murder in the name of God, or showing your son your penis to make him admire you, or a holy crusade against Tinky Winky and Spongebob, or for whites to have their votes count more than blacks, or to commit violence against other religions, or to protest soldier funerals, or mule-loving abortion activism.  Yes, I strongly oppose those types of religion and those that support it.  If this means I am anti-religion, well yes, I guess I would be.

As you don't pay attention.

I said nothing about you being religious or anti-religion. I said something about you and your ilk having, traditionally, one prominent Protestant in your cross-hairs at a time.

If y'all got another rifle, so be it, but really, I think y'all rally your troops much better by sticking to one target at a time.

because a good sized portion of you will always hate the Pope

You suggest I am part of a group that is likely to hate the Pope.  Close enough, and unsubstantial I would add.

Only when "you" in context refers broadly to the Left, unless you're implying that your several body parts think for themselves.

That's still not anti-religion. That's anti-Catholicism. Keep trying.

In direct response to my comment, you imply that it is my position.

That's still not anti-religion. That's anti-Catholicism.

I still ask your basis in trying to label me anti-Catholic.

Are closely related. But it's just correlation, and usually not 1:1.

Which of your body parts do you contend that I believe are anti-Catholic? I probably don't know you, but even if I did, I doubt I could isolate specific impulses to specific body parts with any certainty.

If I "try" to do something, I will do it.

why bring pope hating into the discussion?

because a good sized portion of you will always hate the Pope

You are saying that is likely I hate the Pope.  If you were not trying to label me as an anti-Catholic bigot, there would be no need to add this.

Pay me to flood comment boards with comments like these.

I am saying that a good sized portion of either the Left, or your body, hates the Pope. Anything more than that is your own inference, and the latter conclusion suggests a caricature of schizophrenia.

and some things right.  Specifically, assassinating communist dictators is a Good Thing, when they threaten our interests, as Chavez manifestly does.  It is a Bad Thing to talk about doing the necessary publically.

Communism "glowing" again. In fact it appears to be fairly well rotted down to the dust on history's ash heap. The world's premiere "communist" state could give the old 19th robber barons leassons in cutthroat capitalism. North Korea has become a sort of starveling theocracy under the cult of Dear Leader, significant only because the fruit loop running the place has gotten his hand on some fissile material. Cuba is a basketcase in which Communism's days are numbered with the lifespan of old Fidel.

Calling little thuglets like Chavez "Communist" does them too much honor (and runs the risk of fighting the last war not the next one). Chavez has no real ideology beyond his own egomoania. I rather doubt he even knows what "dialect" means. He's just a garden variety old demagogue, of a sort that was already old when the Greeks coined the term.

All flippancy and red-baiting -- though I acknowledge Chavez has set the hook himself in this case -- aside there are reason(s) why it is US policy to not assassinate world leaders, and these reasons are well-known and well-understood. You may want to characterize assassinations as a "Good Thing," and one hopes you've given this some thought beyond the very immediate effect of dead reds. Well, in contrast to your no doubt well-reasoned justification for assassinating world leaders, Robertson didn't think this through at all. He just said whatever came into his mind because that's the basis of his ministry, impulsive and unlearned musings on politics with a squinty-eyed muttering of "Jesus" or "God" thrown in every so often. It's a QVC ripoff that sells easy salvation.

My vote is yes. He's a loony. The man is praying for openings on the Supreme Court (lifetime appointments, so he's pretty much praying for people to croak), and calling for the assassination of the duly elected leader of a sovereign nation. This is what happens when religion is sullied by power and politics.

Indeed, I would suggest there is little or nothing about Robertson that is Christian.  He is at best a self-promoting con man, and, at worst, a manipulative demagogue.  If anyone is anti-Christian, it is Robertson himself.

If you have any questions about this, read Elmer Gantry and get back to me.  Americans have a proud history of finally unmasking charlatans.  If someone hasn't figured out Robertson is one of them, then, gosh, I wouldn't even know where to start explaining the world to that person.

Gosh, if I'd said being anti Pat Robertson was being anti-Christian, you'd have an excellent point. But to someone who doesn't understand what I was actually saying, I wouldn't even know where to start explaining the English Language to that person.

You wrote:

I forget who the Christian target of the Left is from moment to moment, because a good sized portion of you will always hate the Pope, and he's ma boy-ee. I thought y'all had moved on to Dobson or Colson or somesuch.

Suggesting, clearly, that Robertson is "the Christian target of the left.

I answered by saying Roberston is not Christian.

Explain to me what I have wrong exactly?

And have you read Elmer Gantry by the way?

(I know the answer to this question already.)

I have no idea if Robertson is Christian or not. I don't judge that aspect of men's souls.

Prove he's not Christian. (Proving he's a braying cretin is easy, usually; this might be a tad trickier.)

something about being the first to cast a stone.  As a Christian, I can honestly say that if you are looking for perfection, you will be sorely disappointed.

Who is to say Robertson is a Christian -or not- other than God?  While I would agree his recent comments certainly fall into "not good" category, I can't help but remember that I myself have thought similarly.  I think most, at one time or other, have also.  Then again, maybe me and Pat are the only ones.  

I converted from DYI Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy; I KNOW that many of these guys, especially the ones you never hear about, just verbally ejaculate whatever flits through their minds.  

I understand that there is a potential downside to a policy - unspoken, I would hope - of assassination.  Nevertheless, in the present world, we get the blame whether we kill the thugs or not; in fact, we are blamed for simply having the temerity to be, as when our adversaries become celebrity martyrs, even in life, apparently on the assumption that to exist in a US-led world is to walk the way of the cross or something.  There are those on the left who lionize Chavez merely because he hates us and chafes under the limits our power imposes upon his malign ambitions; if it talks like a martyr's hagiography, it is.  

What we ought to have done was support the coup that had Chavez overthrown for a few days a couple of years back, allow the plotters to disappear him so that he wouldn't serve as a focus of opposition, and move on.  Frankly, in many of these situations, we are damned if we do and screwed if we don't.  The left still screeches about Allende, even though the alternative to supporting the coup of Pinochet was a civil war and eventual Cuban and Soviet influence, with a body count likely much higher than the few thousand lefties who disappeared during the dictatorship.  Would suspicion that we had eliminated Chavez be worse than a threatened oil embargo, ties to China and Castro, the use of Venezuela as a transit point for drugs and terrorists of the Middle Eastern stripe and the fomentation of unrest and incipient "Bolivarian" revolution in several other South American nations, often under cover of indigenous-people's rights movements?  I doubt it.  Killing Chavez would be somewhat costly in the short term, and profitable thereafter; leaving him in is cheap, but the long term costs are going to be dear.

Rule out decisively dealing with someone who sponsors a terrorist group and cozies up to our enemies?

I think we ought to at least make plans for regime change, in case FARC carries out a serious attack that kills Americans, or if Chavez crosses any borders (note, he has threatened Guyana in the past).  This is one punk who needs to be taken down.

...then yeah, I think we should definately rule that out. The other scenarios you list -- and US intervention following those scenarios -- are quite different than a pre-emptive assassination.

in any of the Robertson quotes. What's wrong with praying that a couple of anti-American, anti-constitution justices would retire? As for the 9/11 quotes, Robertson is after all a Christian minister and the only document on which Christianity is based is filled with passages about God bringing harsh judgement on nations that turn from Him. The "true christian" and "fit to rule" quotes are a bit goofy, but there are whole christian denominations that have embraced heresy. The "feminist agenda" quote is spot-on provable fact. The "male dominance" and "female inferiority" quotes are just straight out of the bible - if they offend you that's ok, but it's what christianity teaches. if you don't like the teachings of the bible that's your choice, but you certainly shouldn't pretend to be a christian. I don't subscribe to anything taught in the koran - is it ok if i call myself a muslim? As for the quotes having to do with homosexuality, again remember Robertson is a christian preacher. if you can't stand what christianity teaches about homosexuality, join some other religion or start your own. but about 2 billion people on the earth are christians and christianity teaches that homosexuality is evil. the "white supremacy" quote is misattributed to Robertson. that is actually a Harry Reid quote, "protecting the rights of the minority." And finally, Robertson should have suggested sacking the entire state department instead of nuking them. that was probably just hyperbole. the state department is filled with anti-american appeasers.

The "nuke the State Department" comment appears to be dowdified:

PAT ROBERTSON: I read your book. When you get through, you say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside of Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." I mean you get through this, and you say, "We've got to blow that thing up." I mean, is it as bad as you say?

JOEL MOWBRAY: It is. Everything I read in the book, sadly is true.

It appears from the actual exchange that Robertson was asking a guest who wrote a book critical of the State Department's practices about a comment the author had made (later it turned out that the author had actually said "gutted" rather than "nuked" which the author did not correct him on and Robertson later clarified).  Either way, Robertson clearly was not suggesting blowing up the State Department and it was dishonest to suggest that he was.

we ought have supported the coup that briefly ousted him three years ago. But I cannot countenance political murder. Chavez could have been sent into exile, maybe in Cuba. A small risk perhaps, but ethical behavior sometimes requires that. And in fact it is very rare for deposed tyrants to return to power in today's world. The only case I can think of is that of Juan Peron, and that was after many years of exile, and through peaceful electoral means.

I wonder what Pat would have to say about Chavez, if his diamond mines where located in Venezuela.

Do you remember him defending Mobutu

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/diamonds.html

Good old Pat, what an embarrassment to the faithful.

is why pat robertson, a good and decent man and a mainstream conservative republican, is being maligned on a website called redstate.org. i'm not a great fan of robertson and i have some serious theological differences with him, but this seems more like a thread for daily kos.

...that I have a strong distaste for some of the things Robertson says. This isn't one of them. Chavez is a tyrant. While it may or may not be strategically wise to assassinate him, I don't think simply putting the idea forward is a statement deserving moral condemnation.

And even if Chavez was democratically elected, who cares? Being a tyrant who's a threat to the United States and being democratically elected are not mutually exclusive. A dictator's threat level to the United States does not change if his popularity changes.

of any of these "a good and decent man and a mainstream conservative republican"

Any evidence.  Please.

to the contrary? i notice that you're a fan of mccain, who led the greatest assault on the constitution of the united states that has ever been launched.

the "y'all" was directed at liberals-you know the ones who think that Benedict is too Catholic.

Well back to talking about Robertson.  Did you not read the diary.  There is ample evidence that he is not a good nor decent man.  And I'm not sure what makes you think he is a "mainstream conservative."  He hates gay people and blamed 9/11 on America's moral depravity.  That's not mainstream.  That's called extremist.

They have Michael Moore.  We have Robertson.  Both are wrong and neither are mainstream nor decent men.

that John McCain was alive back in 1860-1861, when a bunch of guys down South decided to toss the Constitution right out the window entirely.

that good and decent men don't advocate the assassination of others purely because of political differences?

How the fact that good and decent men don't say that the lord said he needed to raise money for his political cause?

Good and decent men don't say that women should submit to their husbands and they should never be allowed to teach men?  

The list goes on and on.

top which he threatens us is pretty small. Anyone think that the Venezuelan army will be landing on the coast of Florida any time soon? I would put him more in the "irritant" than "threat" category.

robertson has said nothing with which any decent, red-blooded american would disagree. robertson doesn't hate gays...can you back that up with a quote? he is a christian preacher. christianity teaches that homosexuality is a sin. there are 2 billion christians on the earth. the base of the republican party are christians. robertson anti-american? have you ever actually heard the man speak or read any of his writings or do you get all of your opinions from dan rather?

Did you read the diary entry?

disagree with Robertson are you telling us we are not "good red-blooded Americans"?

try to discuss theology. the bible says that women should not teach men. robertson didn't say it. i didn't say it. do you mean to tell me that anyone who adheres to the teachings of the bible is not a good and decent person?

It is arguable which side threw the Constitution out the window.  Morally one side was right.  Legally much more murky.

but i completely refuted it. scroll up.

and kossites who are attacking robertson are definitely not decent, red-blooded americans.

This "decent, red-blooded american" definitely disagrees.  My Christian, Oklahoman, Republican roots do not see Robertson as a "good and decent man."  And you have still done nothing to back up your claim.

He blamed 9/11 on gays.  That's flippin' nuts.  It's like lefties blaming 9/11 on Bush or the French blaming 9/11 on the Jews.  It's all flippin' nuts.  And it is extremist.  Not mainstream, but extremist.

First, not all 2 billion Christians agree with your sect of the religion.

"homosexuality is evil"

This in particular is not a widely accepted interpretation of the Bible.  Many more would agree that it is a sin, but "evil" is pushing the envelope.

And even fewer would agree that homosexuality caused 9/11.  Which is why Mr. Robertson is an extremist.

Stop insulting the long standing members of the community if you don't want to be warned.

if robertson or falwell or dobson or any of the others that katie couric tells you are evil people made some comments to the effect that 9/11 might be god's judgement on america...that would square with many passages in the bible. does your christian church actually use the bible? have you ever read it? are you ready yet to back up your claim that robertson hates gays?

...because, like the Vulcans, our blood is copper-based instead of iron-based. Alas, we were born that way.

...and with the new Messianic convenant in place, what possible reason -- that would be concordant with the whole idea of Jesus saving folks via their free will -- would God have for such an action? Nostalgia?

Thusly, he has not given you the booting that you so ruchly deserve.

As a former full-time minister of a very conservative church, I can still say that your position - namely, that God caused 9/11, as opposed to some Muslim extremists - is an extremist position.

If you want to advocate such an extremist position, you should at elast have the decency to do it with tact, and drop the snarky tone with one of the most universally respected people on this site. Consider this your One Bite™.

anybody who attacks pat robertson and supports john mccain should be blogging on daily kos. mccain is a coward and a traitor. he hates the constitution of the united states and he hates free political speech.

But here's your warning. Cut the personal attacks on Adam, now. I take equal joy in banning unruly righties and lefties.

My opinion of McCain could not be lower absent catching him in bed with underaged children, but you're over the line attacking another commenter. Stop. Now.

Many more would agree that it is a sin, but "evil" is pushing the envelope.

Theologically speaking, sin and evil are inextricable.

However, the major point that you're making that homosexuality is an especially evil class of sin, is indeed a debatable point.

christianity is based on the bible. the bible says homosexuality is a sin, an abomination. if you don't like what the bible says, then you shouldn't call yourself a christian...start you own religion and write your own holy book.

But sin is a parting with God, frequently without fully understanding the nature of that act. It is not the same as "evil," broadly defined. All men sin; this is bad, but not "evil." Truly, evil may be an incredible sort of sin, but sin is not a kind of evil.

Is the theological "definition" of sin traditionally thought of more as the negative absence of God or the positive presence of evil? Or is this just splitting hairs? If it's not splitting hairs I think it could explain the tendency to ascribe "sin" to homosexual behavior while not labelling it "evil."

And you're wandering into a theological dispute of some heat.

First, Pat Robertson never said it was the will of God to assassinate Chavez. He clearly expressed that as his own opinion, never claiming divine guidance for any such notion.

Second, compared to the long list of Latin American strongmen we have either assassinated or "helped" on their way out of power, Chavez is probably more deserving of such treatment than most.  His regime is explicitly anti-American, and oppressive, and may very well serve as a conduit for terrorist influence in the future (if it isn't already).  I'm not saying I'd have him assassinated, but I wouldn't shed one tear for him if somebody did kill him.

Having said those two things, I must admit that Robertson probably is insane. He should have taken a trip to the funny farm a long time ago, but not necessarily because of this particular faux pas.

Can you provide me proof that Chavez is in fact a tyrant? It is clear that he is a socialist, but a tyrant?

 I do take issue with your disregard to the will of the people of Venezuela , if a government is elected by its people we must respect it.

It is not our place to police the world, unless of course they are a real to our nation.

Please give me some links.

I found this article interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR200507140
2133.html

Remember Tony Blair is a socialist, do we hold Latin America to a different standard?

against the divine will of God, thus, by definition, evil.

However, this is not to say that one evil act, or sin, is worse or more evil, than another, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

it is doing the things you shouldn't do, and not doing the things that you should, and leave it at that?

Sin pretty much is sin, and God doesn't like any of it, be it murder or the sharing of a juicy bit of gossip.

Who cares if he once was a influential voice, he's a loon now. Nothing to do with his religious views, he's just plain nuts...as we used to say in Bayou country..a Coot, Crazy as a Loon.  

About the only religious thing I would bring into this debate would be his turning his back on the admonition "Thou Shall Not Kill". I'm not sure how he reconciles his brand of Cristian belief with advocating the murder of another human, but that's me...I'm dense at times.

Far as the lefties having a go at him, another phrase that comes to mind is something about urinating in the wind.

I think Pat Robertson and Robert Tilton and some others are simply scam artist.  They just use the patter to get rich.  That's it.

When I watch him pray on TV and say people are getting healed of serious diseases, I pretty well know that his product is all spit and bees wax.

What I don't understand is why real theologians don't call him on it.  They didn't call Tilton either.  Oli Anderson does but that's about it.

It is sad really.  He feeds on really desparate people.

imho,

Stanford

We need to normalize relations with Cuba.  There is no reason for what we do.

Beside, it would be a great place vacationing.  Wonder if they would bring the casinos back?

Stanford

I won't question Tilton's Salvation, I certainly agree with you on the 'scam-artist' assertion.  Ya know, he has a new book out on how to become rich?  I'll tell ya, if I could I'd reach through the TV and smite him real good!

or isn't a Christian-that is a heart matter, and only God knows the heart.

I will say that Robertson certainly has produced some pretty rotten fruit at times.

I also find him to be on the arrogant side.

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

Who can argue with that blunt assessment!?!

Yes, Pat was overreaching with his comments on the tinhorn commie dictator, but some of these quotes, if accurate, are just plain hilarious...though they would get him fired from WMAL.

Only lefties with no sense of humor (redundant?) would take this guy seriously. Pat is just one of those guys who doesn't think before he speaks.

And your response uses the appropriate analogy.

We have to make some judgements.  We do so in extreme cases.  I can name examples but you know some your self - kool aid comes to mind now.

But back to your analogy, yes we know the tree by the fruit.

Stanford

along with Castro, Kim Jong and a few Iranian mullahs.

Anyone that supports or comforts people who wish to do us harm i.e. Castro, who almost allowed the Soviets to store ICBMs 90 miles off the coast of Florida needs to get shot. However, I would prefer leaving it to the boys at Langley then some old senile fool who hates gays.

...is that it wouldn't make a bit of difference. You gotta have a government of "national reconciliation" ready to take over after the kill. Otherwise, his henchman just step up.

Pat needs to put together a full-blown plan together before I sign on.

but I think someone needs to be banned.

My cousin used to date his wife.  Isn't that wierd.  

But there is some pretty decent research back on Tilton in the old days.  ABC did a number on him and Oli Andersen was involved in debunking him.

I actually discussed Tilton with James Randi once - was lucky enough to talk to him on the phone.  James Randi is a magician and well known skeptic and scam artist debunker.  Anyway, Randi tells a pretty funny story about being on the same plane with Tilton.  Tilton had a lot of various paperwork spread out and Randi said he told his companion to watch Tilton's reaction when he made himself apparant.

So Randi gets up goes to the bathroom, comes out and clears his voice or otherwise makes a bit of noise.  Tilton looks up and sees him and just grabs all his papers and hides it away, somewhat in a panic.

I can't write it as well as Randi told it.

Stanford  

Hopefully without stepping on too many toes, sin can refer to original sin, that being the state of mankind after falling from original grace per the Adam and the apple story and sin as an act in contravention to God's will causing the sinner to fall out of a state of righteousness once a person has re-attained a state of grace.

Everyone is in the state of original sin until they accept the redemption of Christ as provided by his crucifixion, his descent into hell, the resultant abscence from the grace of the Father and the triumph over that state as evidenced by  his resurrection. Once a person has accepted that redemption, they enter that original state of grace and are in right standing(righteousness) with the Father. If they commit an act(sin) that is against the will of the Father, they do not fall from grace, but they do fall from a right standing. That right standing can only be gained by asking for forgiveness for the act. God is compelled by his Word to forgive and forget that sin. You can only fall from grace and re-enter the state of original sin if you subsequently reject the redemption you accepted, as provided by Christ.

The concept of evil is related to the schism between God and Satan rather than sin in either form. Good flows from God, evil flows from Satan. A person in a state of grace, even one not in righteousness, can sin without being evil. To be evil would require that they reject their redemption exit  the state of grace and embrace the goals of Satan.

However, only the individual can know if they are in a true state grace and if they have right standing in that state. This is the factor we cannot and should not judge and are admonished not to in the Bible. However, we can certainly judge if some one has committed an act that would be in contravention to God's stated will, such as murder. In short, we can judge sin as an act but not original sin as it pertains to a person's state of grace. This is why it is not advisable to say "He is not a Christian" in that you would be judging that person's state of grace.

surely this person is a (badly, though no so badly as some) disguised lefty troll.

If he crosses it, or more accurately doesn't step back, the situation will be resolved.

Blair is a mere liberal, perhaps a democratic socialist. Unlike Chavez, he does not consider Fidel Castro, a totalitarian socialist, to be an ideological soulmate.

Chavez is a socialist, but not a democrat. Give Chavez enough time and Venezuela will resemble Cuba (more that it already does).

...but unrestrained in speech.

is buying a boat and scouring the seas around Cuba SCUBA diving in search of sunken Spanish Galleons.

I know, I won't be the first guy in line.

though, how do you reconcile your statement that:  You can only fall from grace and re-enter the state of original sin if you subsequently reject the redemption you accepted, as provided by Christ. with "Faithful is He who calls you, and He will also bring it to pass."? (1Thess 5:24)

I would also disagree that all evil comes from Satan in that our flesh itself is corrupt (Rom 8:2-13).

I got to go snorkeling in Cuba once when we ported at GITMO for fire-fighting training.  I agree that it would be a great vacation spot.

If I am not greatly mistaken I believe that the Act of Secession passed by South Carolina quite explicitly repudiated the US Constitution by name.

I really didn't provide the post to discuss theology, just to provide some context. However, for clarity, you are either in grace or out. Once you get in by accepting Christ's redemption, you can't get out until you subsequently renounce that redemption.

While people can do things which can be judged evil/bad/sinful etc., evil in the context of the Kingdom of God, both in heaven and on earth, is represented by Lucifer's rejection of his original state of angelic grace and an embracement of a state of evil to literally rule in hell. Hence, we have the ongoing battle between good and evil.

The state of original sin that man is born into is more like a neutral area between good, the state of grace, and a conscious choice for the state of evil. This is where the devine attribute that God gave man of free choice between good and evil comes into play, but that is another part of the story.

that women should not teach men. Rather St. Paul (speaking in the 1st person only) states that he does not allow this. That is very different from saying "God does not allow..."

walk through this whole thing.

But my understanding is that the federal government overstepped its bounds on several occasions prior to South Carolina's secession.  It can also be argued (although it won't be by me) that the Constitution did not ban states from leaving the Union.  Post-civil war that ambiguity is no longer present, but pre-war it was not clear illegally.

The notion that God was behind 9-11 (or the Holocaust or any other human atrocity) is theologically unsound for several reasons. First and foremost because it makes God the author of human evil, which is preposterous. But also because it contradicts Our Savior's own warning, that we will not to enjoy riches and safety and the esteem of others when we follow Him, but rather we will earn hate and slander and persecution for doing so. A  better case can be made that 9-11 was the result of our virtues than that it was the result of our sins.

the subject of Pat Robertson came up with a friend who knew him back in the early 700 Club days. My friend (who has long since Robertson's brand of Christianity) said that Robertson, at least back then, gave every appearance of being a sincere believer in his own pronouncements and he did not think him a Tartuffe or Elmer Gantry type of con man.

and appreciate your reply.  However, I don't see any Scriptual foundation for your statement.

If an Islamic cleric called for his government to assasinate a head of state, he would be vilified as a terrorist.  This isn't about what kind of person Hugo Chavez is -- it's about what kind of country America is.  Robertson is hiding his wackjob views behind his Bible, but it's evident that he's little more than a murderous thug with his own TV show.

The values he represents are the antithesis of those that we hold dear and true as American values: namely the right to have an unpopular opinion without the powerful threatening to kill you for it: remember this is the same guy who prays for the death of SC justices and openly wishes for a nuclear device to be lobbed at his own government when it doesn't kowtow to his designs.

We wouldn't tolerate Osama bin Laden freely broadcasting his nutcase views on our airwaves, and frankly I don't know why we tolerate Robertson.

too much credit, and are at some risk of falling into the old dualist heresy. The Devil is best seen in the light of the Book of Job, as the divine prosecutor, not as a sort of demi-god of evil holding any power in his own right.

Robertson called for assasinating (1)ONE  person--Hugo Chavez.  OBL has called for murdering millions of people.  You don't see any diffrence?

Israel (Assyria) and later Judah (Babylon) for their sins.  Although I think you can make the argument that God withdrew his protection, more than that God caused the armies to rise up against Israel.

...which is why I referenced "nostalgia" as a "possible" (read: silly) reason for the 9/11 attacks. As noted Christ said his followers would be persecuted not protected.

And furthermore, I think most Christians would believe that God decreed the Anno Domini years are all about the decision to come to and accept Christ via free will, and not about killing people who don't.

I just don't see any reason for a Christian believing God would keep up the Old Testament stuff in the interim between the resurrection and Revelations.

Will you still be saying that when oil hits 100+ bucks a barrel because Venezuela has decided to cut off supplies?

your are correct when you say that 9-11 was an act of evil perpetrated by the hands of treacherous men.  However, if you agree that God is omniscient and omnipotent, you must also agree that evil is also within the scope of God's creation. Hence, because God created within man the great power of will and opportunity of choice, there must decidedly be something from which to choose, namely, good or evil.  Otherwise, we do not, in fact, have free will, for we would all be mindless drones, unable to freely, without obligation, return the love He has first given to us.  

Different christian sects have different views on the gradations of evil or sin.  There are quite a large variety of discussions on this.  For a glimpse into the Catholic definition of sin and its many manifestations go here.

I am not comfortable with pronouncing things a judgement from God, but I also am not one to limit or put "God can't" into God's mouth either.

And Christ does promise protection (revelation 3 section on the faithful church).  

I am also not one of those people too keen on declaring the Old Testament irrelevant-there is much to learn from the Old Testament, there is much in there about Christ, and about God's Grace.  There is also a lot in there on why God desires our obedience.  

Should have cleared his comments with Venezuela Solidarity and Common Dreams and Z Magazine before broadcasting them on the 700 Club.  

He should go to the Gulag, along with Rupert Murdoch!

Or what about his quip about a nuke over "foggy bottom?"  That doesn't count?

This isn't the first time he's called for the death of someone whose opinions he finds inconvenient.

More importantly, his total disregard for rule of law makes evident that he believes a lot of people whose existence offends him ought to be killed.  I've perused one of his books, and believe me if given the opportunity he wouldn't stop with just one.  He has zero respect for the precepts of human dignity and freedom of thought that are the foundations of American society.  And I have zero respect for him.

I think you're right about the dualist heresy, but he's called the Adversary for a reason, and not because the Israelites had a firm grounding in English common law.

hold quite a bit of power and authority.  He is also called the prince of this world-but you are also right that he doesn't hold it in his own right, he is given that ability because God allows it.

I think Christians in general do one of two things-we either act as if Satan has no consequence and no power, or we tend to give Satan too much credit and too much power.

The fact is that we shouldn't take Satan likely-Paul makes that pretty clear in Ephesians where he goes into the armor of God analogy.  

but the Foggy Bottom comment is taken way out of context.  He was asking an author if that was what he meant by a certain passage.  He was not making a suggestion in any way.

There are a lot of legitimate things to hang Robertson on, that is not one of them.

I retract that.  Although Pat appeared in agreement, the quote was referencing a book.  The white supremecy in Africa was Pat Robertson.  It was on the 700 Club March 18, 1992.

But just one more for you to chew on since you seem so in tune with what a true Christian is to believe.

He came out in support of China's forced abortion policy:

"Well, you know, I don't agree with it, but at the same time, they've got 1.2 billion people and they don't know what to do... If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable... so I think that right now they're doing what they have to do."

Just more values from good ole Pat.

"I am not comfortable with pronouncing things a judgement from God, but I also am not one to limit or put 'God can't' into God's mouth either." -you

I agree, and perhaps I overreached. I meant only, as I said a couple times but not each time, I didn't see the reason why Christians would think God would do such a thing.

my vote:

insane : no

wildly out of line : yes

a laughable clown: if only

Cheers -

was Pats career as a swindler... I mean faith healer.

"Satan has gone! God has just healed somebody! A hernia has been healed! Several people are being healed of hemorrhoids and varicose veins! People with flat feet! God is doing just great things to you!"

Lying to sick people while making millions of dollars seems like extremely rotten fruit to me.

But with respect to God, only in the little mind of the Prince of High Places. The Omnipotent can have no true adversary.

Your qualification -- that he's not really God's adversary -- is the reason I thought the question deserved to be asked.

I'd note that the real Slippy wouldn't be so harsh on someone he'd never met, and wouldn't lie or stretch the truth to make a point.

I admit the Nuke quote was out of context, I found bad info, that was my fault.  But that was the nuke one.  That does nothing to do with the rest of the quotes calling to kill others, treat other denominations with disrespect, wish death upon ailing judges, hate homosexuals and call them Nazis, agree with forced abortion, and tell sick people that they are healed.  Pat Robertson is not, to me, a good person.  I'm a bit suprised how fast the sin of homosexuality is argued, but you don't even pause to mention Thou shalt not kill (I think assassination is considered killing).

Chavez should be handled?

Were replace with the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus.  As was God's role in the day to day living on Earth.  That's my understanding of it anyway.

...with a heavy emphasis on not assassinating him in violation of American law and stated foreign policy.  What form this "legal option" to either weaken or depose him will take will depend in large measure on Chavez.

were replaced with the new is what I meant to say.

The reason I worry is that many people rely on him as a member of clergy and a person that delivers God's message.  I think Pat takes himself seriously, and I fear many viewers take him seriously.

The rules are moral principles, and are tied up in two commandments-Love God and love others (nope not a direct quote).  Faith in Christ frees us from the law, but as children of God with Christ in us we are to live Christlike-and Christ was righteous-we are justified (made righteous before God) through our belief in Christ, but we are sanctified (purified) throught the growth proccess.  We can't be perfect until we are released from the flesh.  So we are going to fail-that's why we confess and ask forgiveness and repent and move on.

A life in Christ is not freedom to do whatever we please, a life in Christ means we offer ourselves as living sacrifices to do God's will-we are however freed from the burden of the law, because our salvation is assured.

I was talking about Old Testament customs such as holy war, stoning women, polygamy, and man being the bringer of judgement to others were replaced with the New Testament teaching of Jesus.  He taught to love all others, especially those that trespass against you.  Not to bring the wrath of God upon them yourself.

Now this is something we will find impossible to live up to, and why we do not justify our retaliations in the name of God as Robertson and Falweel are fond of doing.

While it is true that Satan does not hold devine power in the realm of heaven, he does hold power over this natural world. This concept is best represented during his temptation of Christ when he offered to make him "Ruler over this world". Christ certainly would have known that Satan had the power to do that, or, it would not have been a true temptation. This concept is the basis for Christ's eventual return to earth to re-establish the Kingdom of God which Adam foreited when he exercised his free will and chose poorly.  

God does not inhibit Satan's power on earth. That is left to his followers exercising their own faith in "binding the power of Satan" and in changing natural circumstances. Note how often Christ states to those who received miracles, "Your faith..." In fact, if you review the miracles, they were not the result of Christ's divinity, but of the exercise of his own faith and invoking(saying aloud) that faith. This invoking or saying aloud to exercise one's faith is first evidenced in the story of creation as in, "the Lord said, let there be..."

The catalyst or energy source for the type faith that can move mountains is the Holy Spirit, but that is another part of the story.

Does Chavez deserve to be killed if he doesn't play ball with his oil?  Should we go back to punishing Allendes and supporting Duvalliers?

It amazes me how so many Americans feel that the resources of other countries should not be denied to us but that there is nothing wrong with us cutting off Cuba from OUR resources because we don't like their politics.

Should we kill off Koizumi the next time they raise a tarriff?

But I really think you're blowing this out of proportion. I've represented people who watch him, ahem, religiously, for crying out loud, and it's not like they're a waiting robot army.

I think we need to force you lefties to spend some time out in the country in the South with the locals for a little while, just so you'll understand that it ain't Conservatives in the Mist out there.

(I already spend plenty of time in urban areas, the North, and Florida, so I don't need any more forced anthropology.)

What I don't understand is why he's relevant to this site, given that his anti-American ravings are as relevant to this site as those of Markos Moulitsas.

The reason to off Chavez is only tangentially about the oil. It's what he can and is doing with the oil money.

you misquoted him on nuking state. you probably misquoted on everything else. you say that he wants to kill justices, then your quote has him praying only for their retirement. not one of your quotes backs up the claim that he hates homosexuals, according to your (mis)quote he said that there were many homosexuals in the Nazi party. do you know whether there were or not? forced abortion? where did that come from? do you have a (mis)quote on that one? as for saying sick people are being healed, i have some problems with that, but do you know whether any were healed or not? john edwards and john kerry said that christopher reeves could get out of his wheelchair and walk if he could just get a few babies' brain cells in him.

But if Chavez was in charge of Bolivia would anyone care?  

Are we now going to simply look to kill anyone we don't like?  Shouldn't they at least pay LIP SERVICE at being a threat to the United States?

when he said that God was going to smote him if he didn't raise, IIRC, a Million dollars in a year?

God does not inhibit Satan's power on earth.

Read Job, chapter 1.

As for the rest of your post, I think you know just enough to be dangerous.  Please be careful before treading further.

I am a very conservative Christian.  I have never looked to Pat Robertson as any spiritual authority in my life.  Which leads me to point two.

Protestants in general (very general, because Protestants come in many flavors) don't consider the position of clergyman as being super duper important with regard to spiritual leadership-because in general the theology is more open to personal interpretation.

Also, most people do have BS detectors, and while they may like Robertson's points on some things, they are going to dismiss and filter out the BS.

There isn't some rule that says Christians must march in lockstep and support everything that comes out of the mouth of media preachers.  

We didn't think Russia a grave threat back when.

If you let that old parasite out, it'll start running fevers all over the place all over again.

if only 1% of Protestant Christians in this country supported Robertson that would mean he had MILLIONS of supporters.  

I think that most Christians see through the charlatans.  But there are enough people that can be easily duped that we need to worry about people like Robertson.

that was oral roberts

1.  We DID think they were a grave threat.  So much of a threat that we sent TROOPS to intercede.  They failed to stop the Reds.
   
2.  Comparing Venezueala to Russia seems a little silly. Chavez has relevance SOLELY because of oil.  No other reason.  Russia is a HUGE country with vast resources, albeit historically squandered resources.

him off?  Nope.

I was merely responding to why we might pay a little attention to him instead of writing him off as a nuisance.

Geez-get a grip.  

Had we thought them a real threat, we wouldn't have stopped with a token, quickly withdrawn force;

and

Russia was an economic, political, and military basketcase back when.

You give the infection one cell, and it's back.

that our government is paying attention to him.  

The context here is about killing Chavez.  If you don't agree with that position perhaps you should have said so.

Well hindsight always helps.  While there is no question that Russia was a basketcase they still had HUGE resources, as evidenced by the militarization of their industry in the 40s and 50s.  

FTR, I think that we most certainly DID take them as a real threat but we simply thought that a "token" force would be able to do the job.

I think he's right on this one.  And I think it was several million dollars.  As one who lived a few miles from Oral Roberts University, it was definitely several million dollars.

Stick with the post 9/11 diatribe and the pro-forced abortions viewpoint.  Those are the really dispicable ones.  The others could be poor taste or a lack of discretion.

I admitted that the nuke quote was him referring to a book.  They were his words, it appears he was speaking of someone else's opinion.

As for the justices, if he was only wishing for retirement, why did he go on to say their age and ailments?  And given that a vast majority of supreme court justices leave of ailments or death, it would appear to be his intentions.  That is my take on it.  I quoted Pat Robertson, and my view of what he was getting at.  The quote is correct.

Homosexuals?  First, I don't think I said he hates them, thats your overactive imagination.  And you are even misquoting me in your attempted rebuttal of actual quotes.  The quote:

Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together.

The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993

And he did blame 9/11 and natural disasters on them.  Those quotes are also from the 700 Club and correct.  And given the combined effect of calling them Nazis, satanists, evil, and blaming the world's tragedy on them, yes, I would say he might actually hate them.  I didn't even bring up his numerous AIDS quotes.

The forced abortion quote concerns China's policy of 1 child per family, and the abortion of children thereafter.  And yes, that is a real quote. Reported by The Boston Globe (April 26, 2001)

You say they are misquoted, give me some specifics.  Which are misquoted and why.  I will admit what I get wrong.  But you're going to have to do much better than simply imply they are.

1.  He has a large following.  They generally vote Republican.  It is not as large as it once was.
   
2.  Image.  He is associated with Republicans the way Michael Moore is associated with Democrats.  Whether we like it or not, we have to manage our image vis-a-vis this man.  I suggest a policy of person non gratis and a dare of the left to treat Moore the same way.

That's what happens when you post late at night and don't bother to check your facts.

what was the last major GOP event Robertson attended and had any role in?

If he was at the GOP convention last summer I don't recall seeing any interviews.

I think mostly he is a media whore, and when the news channels or news media want the conservative Christian GOP social conservative position, they call on him, and he is always willing to oblige.

For the most part Robertson is marginalized in the party outside of his followers who aren't going to marginalize him anyway.

That is probably why the left has shifted so much ammunition towards Dobson, because Dobson does have some political clout in the GOP.

making a starting assumption that it is Job's faith in God, under the Old Testament Covenant, making him a righteous man, that causes Satan to perceive, (wrongly) that God had erected a hedge of protection around him. Read the story from the new perpective that it is not about that God, for some unknown reason, allows us to suffer, the usual presentation, but that it is a lesson about exercising our faith to overcome the power of Satan in this natural world. Consider that Job wrongly assumes it is God that is causing his suffering, when in fact it is Satan.

If you consider that Satan's sole purpose is to destroy our faith, causing us to turn from God and our redemption, understanding the Bible and understanding the bad things that happen in this world gets a lot easier.

When it comes to this world, God, just as he is in he entire universe is the ultimate power plant. However, until Christ returns here, it is our faith that flips the switch.

I have to retract my retraction

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/index.html

In a June interview with Mowbray on the "700 Club", Robertson made similar remarks.

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up like Newt Gingrich wants to do," he said.

In full context of the original remark, it was unclear whether he was talking about the authors opinion of the book, or his own.  But seeing how he clarfied this days later, I'd have to stand by it.

"hate homosexuals and call them Nazis"

but in your (mis)quote robertson did not say that he hated homosexuals or that homosexuals were nazis. another redstater with whom i am no longer allowed to disagree also said that robertson hates homosexuals. but where's the proof? those who believe that homosexuality is wrong do not necessarily hate homosexuals. i do not believe nor do robertson or falwell that god caused 9/11. ubl and mohamed atta and other muslims are to blame for 9/11...and maybe bill clinton, janet reno and jamie gorelick. but the concept that god may have temporarily removed his protection in order to chastise his people squares with teachings of the entire bible. finally, thou shalt not kill is one of the commandments...but they were given to individuals, not nations. nations were actually encouraged to destroy evil peoples. you obviously have a thing for robertson and probably all christians, i just can't stand to see a good man attacked by the good guys. want to talk about a well-respected preacher losing his marbles? how about billy graham holding hands with bill and hillary and endorsing hillary for president.

Sorry, I will have to say even the Nuke quote was correct.  Link downthread.

In the thread directly above yours there why I feel he hates gays and calls them nazis.  Once again, the quotes are correct, instead of using the term (mis)quotes, why not back up your arguement?

Insult at your own peril.

Robertson is not unabashed about his disdain for homosexuality or gays.  If you want to defend him, go for it.  But acting as though he loves gays is rather disingenuous.

And his pro- forced abortion stance wrt China should be appalling to any pro-lifer.  I know it is to me.

to urban.  Granted, houses become glorified igloos half of the year.  So I may not be in tune with other rural areas.

you post a quote that you say proves that robertson hates gays and calls them nazis, but the quote backs up neither assertion. am i having a conversation with the tar baby?

I would not attribute a large crossection of Christians to his flock, but given he is still on the air, there has to be a sizable group.  Hopefully, they have BS filters.  I don't identify with them very well, and that's why I like the discussion on the topic.

You're talking strategy, i.e. is it prudent to do it. I'm not debating the strategic aspect of this, all I'm saying is that talking about offing a dictator who's pals with Castro isn't in itself reprehensible.

making a starting assumption that it is Job's faith in God, under the Old Testament Covenant, making him a righteous man, that causes Satan to perceive, (wrongly) that God had erected a hedge of protection around him.

God does indeed declare to Satan that Job is righteous.  However, Satan does not state (to God, mind you) incorrectly that God has provided a hedge of protection against assail on Job.  Satan, in fact, not only knows of this hedge, but states such as both the protection of Job's prosperity and, albeit incorrectly, the source of Job's reverence of God.  From here (1:11) we have Satan's accusation that were God to remove this hedge, Job would curse God.  God allows, in v.12, Satan authority over Job's posessions.  God could not have given over to Satan what He did not posess, thus, again, evidence of God's hedge of protection.

Read the story from the new perpective that it is not about that God, for some unknown reason, allows us to suffer

Have you actually read the book of Job, or are you just workin' off the fly here?  Please tell me where God ever gives a specific explanation to Job for the cause of his suffering.  

Though sometimes we know the reasons why we suffer, often only God Himself knows.  One of the reasons why the book of Job is so important and comforting is because often we encounter suffering, seemingly needlessly and without explanation or reason.  Such was the suffering of Job. The Apostle Peter (1Pet4:12) says to not be suprised by trials or suffering, but offers the admonition to resist and be faithful (1Pet5:8-10).    

Finally, to say that God does not allow suffering is to deny His omnipotence, which is impossible.

was when God went into the whole "where were you when I laid out the foundations of the earth . . ." spiel that goes on for quite a while.

God never says why, but Job certainly grasped the soveriegnity of God.

Robertson on homosexuality:

Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together.

Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993

If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.

The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998

I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation.

The 700 Club television program, May 24, 1994

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."

The 700 Club television program, January 18, 1995

"Every society which has embraced homosexuality -- normalized it, legitimized it, et cetera, embraced it as part of their culture -- every one of those societies has gone down in flames. And if we want to destroy the United States of America, take it down, this is the best way to do it. So the homosexuals will have managed to win what's known as a pyrrhic victory -- they may win their temporary battle, but they'll lose the war 'cause they will destroy the society, and that's happening."

The 700 Club television program, October 14, 2003

"Many observers say that AIDS is the hammer and gun of the homosexual movement, an effective vehicle to propel the homosexual agenda throughout every phase of our society."

The 700 Club television program, June 20, 1990

"...What kind of craziness is it in our society which will put a cloak of secrecy around a group of people whose lifestyle is at best abominable. Homosexuality is an abomination. The practices of those people is appalling. It is a pathology. It is a sickness, and instead of thinking of giving these people a preferred status and privacy, we should treat AIDS exactly the same way as any other communicable disease..."

The 700 Club television program, June 6, 1988

"Since our nation was founded, we have discriminated against certain things. We discriminate against kidnappers. We discriminate against murderers. We discriminate against thieves...There are laws that prohibit that kind of conduct. And there have been laws since the founding of our country against what are considered unnatural sex acts, sex between members of the same sex."

The 700 Club television program, December 24, 1993

And yes, I lied, this is yet an abridged version.  He has equated homosexuals to Hitler, terrorists, murder, kidnappers, disease, infection, and the destruction of nations.  I think it is safe to say he does hate them.  He said they want to smear AIDS infected blood on the walls of churches and spit in the face of preachers.  That's my reasoning for thinking he hates homosexuals.  I don't think that is too drastic a conclusion to make.  And with that, I leave you the last word.

See the articles clancyphile linked to in the Standard, plus this WSJ article, this Oliver North article, and this article in Front Page Magazine.

Also, why must we respect the will of the Venezuelan people if (and I stress the word if) their choice is a man who is a threat to America? Assume for the sake of argument that Hitler was supported by 51% or more of the German people (if anybody could get me a link to the real #s on this I'd be grateful). Should Churchill, as the bombs fell over London, have said to his people "Folks, I'd love to do something about this guy, but he has majority support in his own country"? I know Chavez isn't dropping bombs over America at the moment, but we're speaking hypothetically here.

And there's no comparing Chavez to Tony Blair. Blair is a welfare state/multi-culti standard left winger. Chavez is buddies with Saddam, Castro, and the government of Iran.

Explain how Chavez is a threat to the United States.  Bonus points if you can do this without using oil.

(a) I disagree. We can't go around destroying democracies we don't like because they turn red. If, like Hitler, he starts invading other countries or killing an ethnicity, then we can talk. As it is now, sometimes democracy is ugly and sometimes -- especially in countries that aren't ours -- democracy leads to situations we really don't like.

(b) Results of 1932 German election:

• Hindenburg 49.6 percent
  
• Hitler 30.1 percent
  
• Thaelmann 13.2 percent
  
• Duesterberg 6.8 percent

      Runoff:

• Hindenburg 53.0 percent
  
• Hitler 36.8 percent
  
• Thaelmann 10.2 percent

Hitler never won even a plurality of the German vote. He came to power via political machinations and burning/breaking things.

Which is a good start.

There is a complete, deranged, bouncing loon wandering around the edges of the religious wing of the Republican party, throwing verbal fireballs every couple of months. And, he was a credible contender for the 1988 Republican nomination -- so rightly or wrongly, he is associated with the mainstream of the religious wing of the Republican Party.

Party leaders, and conservative religious leaders should publicly criticize his comments, lest they be painted with same brush as him. I'm glad to see that this is beginning to happen.

Frankly, he is worse than Micheal Moore, because he has had a standing within the party. He's closer to a Howard Dean or a Jerry Brown, except preaching hatred and publicly calling for assasinations just to secure oil.

stops selling oil it will cry uncle long befoer the rest of the world does, as the country will have no revnue coming in. Nor is it feasible to embrago the US alone since (as the Arabs found out in 1973) oil is fungible; any oil that Venezuela does not sell us would be made up in sales elsewhere.

Russia was historically one of the great powers, so even if it was temporarily a mess back in 1919, it was definitely on everyone's radar as one of the top contenders geopolitically.

Venezuela has never been a great power, even in Latin American terms (that honor belongs to Brazil, Argentina and Mexico).

I find it astonishing and dismaying that people who call themselves Christians are advocating cold-blooded murder for political and economic convenience. This is the morality of a mafia don.

not God's. The Devil serves God's will, whether he realizes it or not. It is not in fact possible to be God's adversary, unless one embraces some sort of dualism whereby there is a source of power and being outside of God.

so when he offered Christ power he was not offering anything that he could give. Rather he was tempting Christ to assert His own divine power and authority in the world, to full Himself back up with His godhood and become not the Servant but the Ruler. Such a course of action would have precluded the Crucifixion and Resurrection and hence prevented our redemption.

The Devil has no power that is not given to him, either by God, or by our own compliance with his temptations.

But we do need to remember that the relationship between God and Israel was one-of-a-kind, and is duplicated no where else. America is not Israel neither is any other country, Leaving aside the question of whether God's covenant with Israel is still in place, God's relationship with the rest of us is not through that covenant but through the Incarnation.

thart what they did was illegal (although I believe it was treason, pure and simple). I said they tossed the Constitution out and that is precisely what they did.

Party leaders, and conservative religious leaders should publicly criticize his comments, lest they be painted with same brush as him. I'm glad to see that this is beginning to happen.

Robertson hasn't had power in the party for years, and he doesn't have that much power among the Christian right either.  

And when Robertson opens his mouth and says stupid things, there are GOP and other Christians around to say he said something stupid.  I haven't seen much head nodding in Robertson's direction for years.  The man has been on the fringe for years.

I agree with Addison's comparison to Sharpton-or maybe Jesse Jackson-and he appears to be quickly moving into Lyndon Larouche territory, where the only influence he has is in his own mind and the few people who support him.

Do we let Hugo Chavez start trying to pursue WMD?

Pat Robertson has said some stupid things.  He's been dumb enough to become involved in some shady stuff as well.  But that said, Hugo Chavez is someone we may need to deal decisively with.

A Vietnam POW who spent years of his life being tortured?  A man who is permanently disfigured from wartime injuries is a traitor to the United States?  A man who could just as easily not returned alive from his ordeal?   And upon return, he chooses a career of public service to the people after risking his life for his country, and you call him a traitor?  Surely the word traitor has lost it's meaning.

I find it astonishing and dismaying that people who call themselves Christians are advocating cold-blooded murder for political and economic convenience. This is the morality of a mafia don.

Chavez is a nuisance to this country.  He is Jacques Chirac with more charisma and less power.  WHAT has he done to warrant his assassination?

Do we let Hugo Chavez start trying to pursue WMD?

OK.  So now the standard isn't even that a leader is ACTIVELY trying to get WMDs, it's that he might SOMEDAY try and get WMDs.  

And what, praytell, would Chavez DO with these WMDs?

Explain to me WHY we might need to deal with him decisively.  What is the POTENTIAL threat this guy poses?    Is Venezuela with its 25 million people and juggernaut economy of 145 Billion annually(about 1% of the US GDP) going to start vying for regional control of South America?  Is their daunting military, which they spend 1.6 billion on annually, going to start dictating terms to Brazil?  

Not only have I read Job, I understand its implications. However, if you want to argue theology, go find someone else or go study until more is revealed to you. However, please consider this:

1. I did not say that God does not allow suffering. God does not cause suffering, Satan does. I said that the book was not about suffering, it was about the operation of faith as a protection from and a solution to that suffering.
   
2. However, the original point was about God's power on earth. God chose to limit his power on earth when he made man a free moral agent. While Satan does not possess a supreme power, like God, he is a great salesman,(note his descriptions as a liar, etc) and he can control circumstances in the natural world. He uses his powers to influence men to exercise their free moral agency to choose poorly and turn from God.
   
3. Finally, let's consider the verses you cite considering the above. "From here (1:11) we have Satan's accusation that were God to remove this hedge, Job would curse God.  God allows, in v.12, Satan authority over Job's posessions.  God could not have given over to Satan what He did not posess, thus, again, evidence of God's hedge of protection."

"11: But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

12: And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

In 11, Satan tells God to put forth his hand, God does not do this because he would be interferring with the free moral agency that he granted Job and all other men. However, in his role, Satan can do this. This is the point God makes with Satan in verse 12. The key word in 12 is Behold. God says, in effect, Look! there is no hedge all that he has is in your power. God does not remove the hedge or remove his protection from Job nor does he grant special powers to Satan. He actually just opens Satan's eyes to the power over Job's circumstances that Satan already possessed in his role as influencer of bad choices. I think you wrongly assume that God removed the hedge and gave Satan power over Job's circumstances. In fact, God did nothing. He just said, Look! No hedge. And then restated the pre-existing fact that Satan already had the needed power to try to get Job to curse God.

My point, it was Job's faith that caused Satan to percieve a hedge of protection and it was Job's continued faith, inspite of his circumstances, that restored his prosperity.

It is really not important that I convince anyone of anything. I just wanted to provide a different perpective. If this is not for you, that is fine. May God continue to bless you.

Given Chavez's ties to FARC, his cozying up to unfriendly regimes (Iran and Saddam's regime are but two), and his rhetoric, I'm not going to take unnecessary risks.

If he starts a WMD program, we ought to consider action.  Or would you rather wait and see what he does with the WMD, in which case, our options for responding would be very limited?

We're just going to have to disagree about that first point. However, thanks for the info on the German elections.

Cute.

Well, the fun part about being Catholic is that we're always right, right Aleks?

He's buddies (and apparently business partners) with the regime in Tehran, which of course is one of the world's leading sponsors of terrorism. He was a friend of Saddam, another dictator who was cozy with terrorists. He's also close to Castro, who of course was willing to put nukes 90 miles from Florida.

If we ourselves don't take direct action against the guy, we should definitely be supporting any  liberal democratic reformers in the country, as we should in all countries run by dictators.

I am a Christian, as you well know, and I am calling for the assassination of this terror-abetting lunatic.  Abetting terrorism, particularly the sort that involves Muslims intent upon the destruction of American society and its replacement with some sort of hommage to the Caliphate, and actually imposing an oil embargo that could crater our economy are ACTS OF WAR.  Chavez has terrorists traipsing all across that great country of his, so that's strike one; I doubt he'd be so foolish as to impose an embargo, but his overtures to the Chinese, and the consequent ChiCom military presence there is at least a close called strike.  So he's 0-2 in the acts-and-almost-acts-of-war department.

Fair game.  

Um, last time I checked Chavez has neither embargoed any oil nor has he participated in any known way in any terror attacks in the US or anywhere else. And indeed any cooperation between him and the likes of Al Qaida would be quite bizarre since he is no at Muslim (and at a guess may be a thorough-going agnostic and quite militantly secular) and as such would have no reason to want to see any kind of Caliphate, global or otherwise--a gear which I regard as quite silly anyway.

His dealings with the Chinese do bear watching, and indeed here we are in the territory of legitimate concerns. But even here surely there are measures considerably short of cold-blooded murder that can warn off the Venezuelan government from feckless actions. They are after all considerably closer to our shores and our military and their Chinese friends would be of no avail to them should they choose to challenge us openly.

One of the cardinal virtues which the Christian faith recognizes is Justice. And while there may be times when it necessary to put a severe malefactor to death, there is absolutely nothing, nada, zip, nihil in all Christain moral thinking to suggest that it is permissible to kill a person before he has commited any misdeeds out of a fear that he may someday, somehow do something wicked.

What is the evidence that he is even CONSIDERING starting up a WMD program?  

I did not state that he had embargoed any oil, only that it would constitute and act of war were he to do so.  In the second place, he is a patron of the FARC, which is believed to have relationships of convenience, at the very least, with some of the usual middle eastern suspects, and has established ties of his own with such organizations, and even with nation-states known to be sponsors and abettors of terror.  

In the third place, his ties to terrorist organizations and terror-sponsoring entities is alone an offense sufficient to justify his forced removal from the earth.  Such connections are not neutral matters, to be discussed with equanimity as though we were talking about Franco-German relations; they are relationships of aid, support and mutual advantage among avowed enemies of our nation.  That is already prima facie evidence of misdeeds and ill intent, especially in light of the terror connections.  

Finally, enough with the laughable notion that because Chavez is apparently a secularist, he cannot cooperate with Islamists to achieve certain objectives each share.  Evil men cannot engage in collaborative efforts to practice evil unless they are in complete and universal concord on all things pertaining to their beliefs?  Please.  This is so counterintuitive that I cannot stifle the guffaws.

Here's the deal with Chavez. He is indeed an elected leader. He also is a socialist.

Castro is indeed his best buddy. They meet together, they party together, they vacation in each other country's ... and recently, Chavez was suspected to making Chavez the "godfather" (adored idol) of the new graduating class of military cadets. (the military objected, since the older guys remember fighting Castro inspired guerillas in Venezuela awhile back)

Castro and Chavez are trying to form a coalition of Central and South American countries to oppose US interests. It is perhaps the only really good reason for CAFTA. I blogged on it here; there's some real good links to the Venezuela blogs. http://cuppapolitics.blogspot.com/2005/06/chavez-makes-energy-pact-with.htm
l

Chavez has meet with and lauded the new Iranian leader. He also hung out with the old one. The Iranians run a couple of his oil refineries.

Couple of months ago, Chavez entertained the leaders of alot of Middle Eastern countries. The US government was not ALLOWED to attend the meeting.

THere's some evidence that Chevez has been at least bankrolling some agitors Bolivia.http://cuppapolitics.blogspot.com/2005/06/chavez-makes-energy-pact-with.htm
l Which isn't really surprising, since he also permits terrorists to travel in Venezuela ... and a coupld have been busted here with Venezuelan passports.

Now, also a couple of months ago, he started building up his military to the goal of a million  ... and he has accordingly bought something like 200,000 AK 47's (I think) from the Russians ... all with the stated goal of protecting Venezuela from US invasion.

http://cuppapolitics.blogspot.com/2005/06/connect-dots-with-hugo-chavez-for
-us.html

Now, I haven't even mentioned the fact that we import about a fifth of our oil from Venezuela. Or that Chavez will be setting up a state run oil company office in China (first ever) next week, or that China is also giving "foreign" aid to Chavez.

I also haven't mentioned that the guy's truly wacky. Everytime he has a dip in popularity, or an accident, or hiccups, he claims Bush is trying to assasinate him. Pat Robertson's comments will really play into that paranois.

THat's what I know about Hugo Chavez. There have been charges of election fraud down there, and beginning persecution of journalists.  The poor love him, have not put together yet that they're still miserable while he's getting richer and bankrolling his buddies.

These days, election fraud in Venezuela is rampant. Please check one of the Venezuelan blogs for documentation.

He blames the US for the attempted coup a couple of years ago, perhaps with some justification, although frankly, I have very little confidence that our CIA has been in any kind of competent shape for twenty years.

That's what I know about Chavez; wish I could put it together a little better. The gist is ... this guy is not our friend, and not the most confidence leader to have running around in this hemisphere.

That having been said .. Pat Robertson is a nutcase, trying to act like an old testament prophet ... and failing miserably. I tuned him out after 9/11. Wish he were more into "silent" prayer.

Mant to try to etermine at what point Addison would start to consider Chavez a threat.

...and still disagree with his assassination. So the point at which I would consider Chavez a threat is irrelevant to the question of assassinating him. If he becomes a threat to the lives of Americans we should deal with him legally and forcefully in a manner that, whatever else it does, neutralizes that threat.

the we are falling down the slope pretty quickly if what you presented is the the body of evidence that demands that Chavez be assassinated.  

Nearly everything you've mentioned could be said about the Russians.  

I have no love for Chavez.  I simply don't believe in murdering an elected official simply because he is annoying.

Please provide a link that shows he has ties to Al Qaeda?

Calling Senator McCain a traitor exaggerates the case, surely.

However his service in the war does not excuse his relentless attacks on our basic freedoms.

While Hitler did lose that election, he did turn around and lead the NSDAP to a plurality in the next Reichstag elections.

And that eventually forced Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor.

but close enough to make my case that Chavez is not a benign tumor in the hemisphere.

to go to war against this man and his country by all means make the case. I am not a "peace at any price" booster. "Just war" is within the Christian tradition even if our Orthodox Church has never signed onto to the theology formally.

"Just murder" however is not something you will any of the Fathers, nor the Councils nor any sort of tradition advocating.

I consider harbouring and having truck with terrorists, consorting, collaborating and conspiring with our enemies, and threatening to do one's utmost to crater our economy acts of war, in the former cases, and threats of the same, in the latter.  And I don't even propose going to war against Venezuela, merely performing the one action that will enable the saner heads in that country to begin their work of cleaning out the stables.

Remember, in my last comment, I said that I think Pat Robertson is a wack job, and has been.

And, of course, Chavez sounds a little like the Russians used to be (well, hope it's past tense, anyway) -- his best friend and role model is Fidel Castro.

I'd post Chavez a couple of notches more serious than merely annoying, but maybe that's just me.

And, it was real wrong for Pat Robertson to call for his assassination. It's not a Christian, or reasonable statement.

but Al Jazeera and Al Qaeda are nothing close to the same.  Nothing.  

what you said is exactly my point.  

I'm wondering, because between the two stories, I found nothing that could plausibly be construed as a conflation of the two entities.

The first story deals with reports of ex-intel and military officials who served under Chavez; the latter story seems to indicate that our intel services believe that wheres there's smoke, there's fire in regard to various unsavouries prancing around Venezuela.  

But whatever.  You can lead a lefty to facts, but you can't make him learn.