Rev. Pat Robertson often attributes horrific events to God’s wrath as when he explained that the 9-11 attacks and the Katrina disaster were punishments for our sins. Now, Robertson has proclaimed that the earthquake in Haiti was sent by God to punish Haitians for a “pact with the Devil” made to overthrow the French.
Robertson favors that Old Testament God filled with anger and wrathful impulses. On this occasion, in Robertson’s mind, God wanted to kill over 100,000 people because of something that some of their ancestors allegedly did. Makes perfect sense. Here is what the good Reverend said “happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it”:
You know, Christie, something happened a long time ago in Haiti. And the people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third or whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you get us free from the French. True story. And so, the Devil said, Ok, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another — desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God, that out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come, but right now we’re helping the suffering people — and the suffering is unimaginable.
He may be taking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reference to “Biblical damage” a bit too literally. However, President Obama seem to be offering a rebuttal by promising the Haitians that they “will not be forsaken.”
Native Haitians defeated French colonists in 1804 and declared independence. If only they had stayed virtual slaves under French rule, God would have been pleased and they would have been earthquake free.
This is line in with Robertson’s prior explanations of God’s wrath in terms of killing people in New Orleans and New York as God’s way of “vomiting” us out:
My only question is why we want to spend eternity with God if he is this horrible being filled with rage and wrath who speaks to guys like Pat Robertson? Isn’t God supposed to be better than us? Even my four-year-old does not hope that her classmates are wiped out in earthquakes when she is mad at them. If this were true, God would be in serious need for intense therapy over his anger issues and violent disposition. It is a bit hard to imagine Jesus saying “serve’s em right, Pop, for that stuff that their ancestors did over two hundred years ago.”
By the way, I missed that history lesson about how all of the Haitians swore a pact with the Devil. There are sacrificial and voodoo practices certainly on that island, but I was unaware that the whole revolution was one big Satanic movement.
There is no such “true story” about a nationwide pact with the devil. There were various revolutions by people like Padrejean in 1676 and François Mackandal in 1757. Robertson seems to be referring to Dutty Boukman who helped led the uprising in August 1791. He was a houngan, or Haitian priest, who held a traditional ceremony in which a pig (symbolizing the power of nature) was sacrificed and an oath administered to the fighters to be fearless in battle. However, accounts of his words notably omit Robertson’s alleged pact:
h! Eh! Bomba! Heu! Heu!
Canga, bafio té!
Canga, mouné de lé!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, do ki la!
Canga, li!We swear to destroy the whites
and all they possess.
Let us die rather than fail
to keep this vow.
Indeed accounts have him referring to God not Satan for some old-fashioned wrathful justice (which would seem to appeal to Robertson:
“The god who created the sun which gives us light, who rouses the waves and rules the storm, though hidden in the clouds, he watches us. He sees all that the white man does. The god of the white man inspires him with crime, but our god calls upon us to do good works. Our god who is good to us orders us to revenge our wrongs. He will direct our arms and aid us. Throw away the symbol of the god of the whites who has so often caused us to weep, and listen to the voice of liberty, which speaks in the hearts of us all.”
For more on this oath, click here.
Of course, even if there was a pact with the Devil, God can really keep a grudge. Over two hundred years later, he kills over one hundred thousand people to teach their long-dead ancestors a lesson. I find that hard to believe, though I am warming to the idea of God sending Pat Robertson to punish us for our sins.
Duh, I made no arguments on global warming other than referencing the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in confirming it in order to contrast it to the overwhelming consensus of the scholarly community on the historical existence of the man Jesus.
So I’m not sure what it is you’re asking, or why.
30%er,
What is the extent of your expertise on the causes and effects of global warming? Are you a scientist?
Of course the irony here is one doesn’t have to believe in any sort of divinity in Jesus to accept him as a historical figure. But for some reason some individuals seem intent on proving he didn’t even exist as a man.
We readily accept many characters from history based on a line or two regarding them from a single letter, document or inscription. This is how historical information is gathered. And often when it comes to obscure figures, i.e those not of great power or wealth, its simply a mention in someones journal or letter to friend. Yet we readily accept the information because usually people don’t write about the everyday mundane actions of a mythical figure in letters to friends or people in positions of authority. Yet when it comes to the man Jesus, there’s been a concerted effort by many to deny that he ever existed even though we have more evidence that he did than we do with most historical figures in his social class.
Some claim they do this by mentioning and then mocking the miracles attributed to him. They leverage this as a sign of the fallacious nature of the records. Since the records speak of things that no human could do, (i.e. water into wine, walking on water, etc) they point to this as proof the documents are flawed, and then demand alternative proof of the mans existence.
Of course most people are aware that throughout history mythical powers and events have been attributed to a myriad of individuals. Dragon slaying royalty, magic powers, etc have all been attributed to real life historical figures yet no one has a problem accepting those figures as real, or separating the myths from the facts. But when it comes to the historical Jesus, the very fact that some supernatural powers and events are attributed to him negate the possibility of the guy ever existing. At least according to the “mythers”.
The fact is from a historical perspective you don’t have to believe in his divinity to believe he existed. There are plenty of scholars and even religious figures from other religions who widely accept his historical existence without accepting his divinity. Accepting his divinity is a personal spiritual decision but accepting his historical existence is not. That’s based on the evidence and for Jesus as we’ve seen, there’s more than enough to conclude that he actually lived. Was he divine?
Therein the petitioner must petition themselves.
“30%er:
I have recently read where there are scholars who believe neither Jesus nor Mohammed even existed. They believe they are made up figures to teach parables.
What say you?” – Byron
Byron I wanted to get back to you on this question as promised. And this response should also address Anon-Yours questions and comments as well. I think its important to recognize here that the scholars you speak of who believe Jesus did not exist are a very small minority.
Much like the Global Warming deniers in the scientific community they merely represent a handful of the overall scholarly community. Both believeing and non believing scholars alike unamiously have laid to rest the “mythers” as they’re known and their arguments. The fact is we know more about Jesus of Nazerth (except for perhaps Saul of Tarsus) than any other preacher or religious leader of the time.
You asked about Josephus. Josephus was of course a famous Judeo\Roman historian. He was Jewish by descent but became a naturalized Roman citizen after surrendering to Roman soldiers at a battle similar to Masada. He was one of the priests who performed temple sacrifices and during a battle Josepus was one of the priest called on to perform the ritual suicides to keep the people from falling into the hands of the Romans. Once everyone was dead, Josephus surrendered to the Romans essentially saying “see, I killed all of them for you”. Anyway that’s a long story for another time. You asked about Josephus mentioning Christians, well yes, he did account for the crucifixion of Christ. While there is strong evidence to suggest that part of the passage was later appended by Christian or Arab scribes however it is generally accepted that the passage did originate with Josephus but was built on by scribes with an axe to grind.
There’s other referemces too that reference either Christ or Christians. (once more demonstrating the antiquity of the word).For example the Provincial Governor of Pontus wrote to Emperor Trajan in the early 1st century referencing Christ and the Christians;
– “Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged.
Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.”
– – Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96–97
Obviously a Roman Governor would not be writing to the Emperor about a character who never existed. Obviously both Governor Pliny and Emporer Trajan knew who Jesus was and did not see him as a mythical figure. This is compelling evidence on its own merits that demonstrate the unlikelihood that Jesus was a mythical figure. After all its more than we have on other historical characters of the time who scholars have no problem accepting their existence. But there’s more evidence out there. Like the “Yeshu” character from Hebrew writings like the Babylonian Talmud, which appear to be references to Jesus as seen by those who he spoke against (the Pharisee’s). These date back to 70 AD.
And of course lets not forget the veracity of the Hebrew Oral Tradition, which is often more accurate than written text. Ever see a Jew a the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? The prayers they’re offering are often stories, detailing events. Much like in Farenheit 451. Every word is repeated exact word for word, passed on in perfect form. No deviations are permitted. Thus the Gospels are more accurate than the “mythers” would like you to believe. They were passed on painstakingly using the Hebrew Oral Tradition and then written down shortly before the deaths of the Apostles. We do not have all the orignal manuscripts but we have enough fragments to confirm the veracity of the accounts. Not to mention Paul of Tarsus was a historical figure who’s own accounts are accepted by a wide variety of historians, both Christian and non Christian.
The fact is there is a small handful of scholars who are the “mythers” just like there is a small handful of scientists who call Global Warming a myth.
A handful of scholars deny the existence of the historical Jesus but the overwhelming consensus says otherwise.
“Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame.” – Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, 21 March 1801[1]
Pat Robertson = perverted charlatan indeed.
What you are reading in the bible as you see it is more fiction written that includes all sorts of wives tales and drunks than facts.
It includes all sorts of irrelevant information. If you hand someone 6 pages they usually file it and say thanks. If you hand them a book/bible they are grateful before they put it on the shelf. Alls you really need to know in the new testament is those 5 0r 6 chapters of James. Period.
Link: http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/JamesIntro.htm
If you want to search for a book that is called “The lost books of the bible and the forgotten books of eden” you will be amazed. It is written and translated from the Aramaic tongue about the 3rd century.
If I am wrong I stand to go to hell and be burnt. But the way I see it, if I am wrong and others are wrong about somethings. I will be busy meeting up with old friends.
This was my Mom’s favorite poem. And she was a God fearing Catholic.Oh yeah. I have recovered for the most part.
“There are only two things in life to worry about:
Whether you are well
or whether you are sick.
If you are well,
then there is nothing to worry about.
But if you are sick,
there are only two things to worry about:
Whether you are going to get well or whether you are going to die.
If you get well,
then there is nothing to worry about.
But if you die,
there are only two things to worry about:
Whether you are going to go to heaven or whether you are going to go to hell.
If you go to heaven,
then you have nothing to worry about.
But if you go to hell,
you’ll be so busy shaking hands with all your friends,
that you won’t have time to worry!
So, Why Worry?
Be Happy!”
~~ Author Unknown
“The Oedipus man was a soliloquy which was designed to tell you the information that you needed but have to know the code spoken. So if we are dealing with the information that is purported to be valid, is it really?” – Anon Yours
I really am lost here on what you’re trying to say. Oedipus was a mythical Greek figure that has nothing to do with the bible so I’m having trouble figuring out what you’re trying to say and how it ties into anything we were discussing. Am I missing something here?
“Code spoken”? What does that mean? Is this some sort of Masonic thing? I am not a Mason if that’s what you’re asking.
Ay:
Its not that I am biased ,it seems that Olberman is the only person who has really given an opinion about limbaugh and his comments.
I see other commentators have mentioned it and went on to the next story.
It seems to me that there are storys coming out of HATI that a lot of people didn”t know about,such as people over there on missions of mercy who were there because they were trying to make a difference in these peoples lives and doing it without fanfare or trying to become famous.
In the meantime limbaugh is back hear taking shots at the effort,and making ignorant statements from his $44 million dollar house.I guess that why he can’t relate.
“Ok a lot of stuff was going on. You had Nero burning stuff. Maybe maybe not. Even misinformation about that. We will never get the truth.” Anon Yours
I think you didn’t read my comments to closely. I said Nero burned Christians to illuminate his gardens. I said that not to you but to Bdaman, or are you Bdaman as well? I’m just meeting you so I don’t know.
My comments were to Bdaman about Johns the Revelator’s account of the war in heaven and the possible allegorical nature of it given that Nero was burning Christians to illuminate his gardens and throwing them to the dogs, thus John wanted to obscure his meanings often to avoid direct persecution from Nero or the government.
Ok a lot of stuff was going on. You had Nero burning stuff. Maybe maybe not. Even misinformation about that. We will never get the truth.
Christians were burned because of it. They were underground and not tolerated until after the 300’s.
The Oedipus man was a soliloquy which was designed to tell you the information that you needed but have to know the code spoken. So if we are dealing with the information that is purported to be valid, is it really?
That is where Faith does come in. I am not a Mason but parts of my family are. They speak in a code about certain things. The original purpose of the Masons was god central. Now it has turned to golf central.
Well you didn’t say Nero, you said Oedipus.
No problem but either way I’m trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make. Could you summarize your point?
Of course and yes he did sleep with his mother. Yes it is alleged that he did in fact start the fire so that he could build a more that he wanted.
According to Tacitus, some in the population held Nero responsible.[18] To diffuse blame, Nero targeted the Christians.[18] Christians confessed to the crime, but it is unknown whether these were false confessions induced by torture.[18] Also, the passage is unclear as to what the Christians confessed to — being arsonists or Christians. Suetonius and Cassius Dio favor Nero as the arsonist with an insane desire to destroy the city as his motive.[19] However, major accidental fires were common in ancient Rome. In fact, Rome burned again under Vitellius in 69[20] and under Titus in 80.[21]
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome
FYI. It would seem that the elite were setting the stage for the establishment of Arkansas. Some really perverse things were going on. But then again it could be DC as you don’t know whose sleeping with whom….
“30%er would you re-read this post. Do you think I am off base.” – bdaman
I reread it and this looks like more of a philosophical discussion that would depend on the beliefs of the individual so I wouldn’t really want to get too deep into that. I will say you’re correct as to the concept of a “war in heaven” at least that was relayed by John the Revelator.
– Revelations 12:7-9 – Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. –
So obviously there is that basis for that. However keep in mind that the author of revelations was prone to allegorical references, often to avoid persecutions. After all with Nero illuminating his gardens with “Christian Lamps” as it were, or tossing them to his dogs to be torn to shreds it wasn’t exactly prudent to be publishing writings that spoke ill of Nero or the government.
In fact one of the most common misconceptions I think from the bible is this notion of “666” being the mark of some yet to come antichrist. The fact is John was referring to Emperor Nero in this very instance. For example, in the Hebrew language there is a numerical equivalent to each letter. 666 was the numerical equivalent to Nero. Hence when John was speaking of the great beast, he was referring to Nero and his armies who tortured and horrifically murdered Christians for sport.
Nero was a beast but John had to find a way to say it without drawing direct attention to it. Being on “Nero’s most wanted” was not a popular place to be.
“Don’t leave out that Oedipus man that Fiddled whilst Rome did burn. The question is was the saying “painting the town red” literally or figuratively? Did he really use paint? -Anon
I’m not sure if this question was directed at me so if I am answering out of turn please accept my apologies. I am assuming it was so I’ll have to ask you to rephrase it as I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Oedipus was a mythical Greek character who killed his father to marry his mother. The person you’re thinking of was Emperor Nero. Of course actually he didn’t fiddle while Rome burned (they didn’t have fiddles in Rome, although he did play the Lyre), that was more of an expression. He was sort of the “George W Bush” of Rome and the great fire of 64 was sort of his Katrina. He was well known for his performances though, mostly song and oratory. He may have given a performance during the fire though to raise money for the victims which could have led to this saying.
Anyway that’s another topic for another time. I’d like to address Bdamans and then Byron’s question a little more now that my belly is full.
Bdaman,
That is the point. The devil is many forms and in many substances. It can be anything, from money to superiority, from condescending adultery. From not helping your neighbor to stealing from throwing the widows out and not taking care of the orphans.
Q. What are some of the names or titles the Bible uses for the devil?
A. Here is a list of thirty-three names and references to Satan / Lucifer / Devil in the Bible:
* Abaddon – Revelation 9:11
etc etc etc.
link: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/list-of-different-names-bible-uses-for-devil.html
Ay I wasn’t counting you as most here.
30%er would you re-read this post. Do you think I am off base.
bdaman
1, January 14, 2010 at 7:39 am
Bdaman,
Not all who wonder are really lost. There are some of us here that do not mind thinking outside the box. That is what got most of us here to start with.
I am not really a doubter just not to trusting of our government and the people who work it. Some have the morals of a dog in heat.
Don’t leave out that Oedipus man that Fiddled whilst Rome did burn. The question is was the saying “painting the town red” literally or figuratively? Did he really use paint?
If memory serves me correctly it was about 64 AD so about the time the gospel did write.
Was this revisionist? I do not know except what one wants me to see as the word of the last person that wrote his story. Good or bad it is what I read.
“30%er:
I have recently read where there are scholars who believe neither Jesus nor Mohammed even existed. They believe they are made up figures to teach parables.
What say you?”
Wow. Tomas Torquemada has nothing on you guys, lol. Just kidding. Lots of questions for me. Anyway I’ll take a stab at yours, at least with regards to Christ. I cannot elaborate on Mohamed as I am not very knowledgeable on the Koran.
I am absolutely aware of these positions held by some however with regards to Christ and I am also aware of the absolute viability of them in some respects. After all come on, if you wanted to control a restless, impoverished population what better way to do it than to invent a religion that teaches them that its;
1. Good to be poor
2. Good to pay taxes
3. Good to honor governmental authority
I mean if I were Constantine and I were dealing with a diverse and volatile Rome, I’d have sold em on Christianity too.
But there are problems there. Lots of them. The main ones being the evidence produced by archeological digs, cross references by historians like Josephus, and the fact of course the date of the early manuscripts of the Gospels lending credibility to eyewitness accounts. Of course there’s no solid proof which is why it becomes a matter of faith for many. After all by the Bibles own account Jesus was a lowly unimportant figure and would have hardly merited a mention by most of contemporaries.
Jerusalem was packed with Jewish prophets and preachers of which Jesus was just one. Thus the fact that we do have the evidence we have of his existence points to the unlikelihood that it was made up.
That’s a great question though and quite valid. I may expound on it a little more but I have to step into the family room for a bit. I’ll try to follow up if I can later.
30%er:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”
Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
That was sometime before 101 AD, looks like you are right on reference to Christians. Unless they are called something else and this is just added in the modern translation.