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.
“That he steals peoples money over them is even more of a sign of his devout piety, sick and twisted as it is.”
Wrong.
Nothing in the gospels he claims to worship provides for stealing money from ones followers to fatten his own pockets.
In fact that is a sign that he is not devout or pious.
It shows that he does not believe in the Gospels.
“Pat Robertson prays and attends church regularly to prove his devotion to his religious beliefs.”
That doesn’t prove religious devotion.
Of course he prays in public.
Of course he attends his own services.
It’s kind of hard to present yourself as a preacher if you don’t pray or go to church.
None of that proves anything, other than he wants to be “seen” as religious.
Pat Robertson prays and attends church regularly to prove his devotion to his religious beliefs. That he steals peoples money over them is even more of a sign of his devout piety, sick and twisted as it is.
What Im saying is as long as Robertson believes in what hes doing and that it is right, there is no difference between the two.
“And I wasn’t trying to be rude so I apologize if it seemed that way.”
No problem. Its just telling someone their opinion doesn’t matter doesn’t exactly seem to be a logical way to debate opinions.
But no worries. I appreciate your clarifying that.
“How can can you justify labeling Bin Laden a Muslim and religious and not label Robertson a Christian and religious.”
Bin Laden fasts, lives in caves and poverty for his religious beliefs. That he kills people over them is even more sign of his devout piety, sick and twisted though it is.
Robertson’s a hack. A Flim Flam man. He’s an entertainer who pretends to be religious and to believe in something in order to fleece the masses.
Bin Laden believes in killing people who do not believe in his interpretation of Islam.
Pat Robertson believes in stealing peoples money based on his interpenetration of Christianity.
How can can you justify labeling Bin Laden a Muslim and religious and not label Robertson a Christian and religious. The hijacking of Islam by Bin Laden is the same thing that Pat Robertson has done with regard to Christianity.
And I wasn’t trying to be rude so I apologize if it seemed that way.
“Most people do not agree with Bin Laden’s interpretation of Islam. That does not mean that Bin Laden isn’t a religious zealot.”
True. Fortunately for me I never made any case with regards to Bin Laden. Apparently that doesn’t seem to matter though.
Bin Laden isn’t a TV Evangelist, making money and living the high life off the donations of the people whom he’s capable of suckering. Robertson is.
Hence I stand by my original statement in that Robertson isn’t a Christian, and isn’t religious.
He just claims to be because he wants your money.
“30%er
Your opinion of his motivation doesn’t really matter.”
Well I’d say my opinion matters as much or as little as anyone’s.
Only I wouldn’t be so rude as to tell someone whom I disagreed with that their opinion didn’t matter.
I’d simply state that I disagreed and explain why.
30%er
Your opinion of his motivation doesn’t really matter. All that matters is his motivation, which is his faith in God, as expressed by Pat Robertson himself.
Most people do not agree with Bin Laden’s interpretation of Islam. That does not mean that Bin Laden isn’t a religious zealot.
Elaine,
Buddhist Hells are transitory. Think of it as the sleazy end of the pub crawl. 😀 Nicer places are around the corner. IRL Mojitos are also perfectly acceptable.
“As fun as this was, I’m done. You’re going to be stuck in your “No True Scotsman” mode for the foreseeable future, and I can only point it out so many ways before getting bored.”
There’s an noticeable bellicose tonality in your posts, why is not clear. I’m sorry if you don’t like the simple facts I present but they are facts nonetheless. That I view them as facts leaves me no other way to present them.But the gospels are clear. You like many of the neoconservatives are clinging to one, sole idiom (Jesus was a Hebrew after all) that stands alone in stark contrast to the entirety of his teachings, and like the neoconservatives you are attempting to leverage that to cast an overall doubt on what Christ actually taught.
This has been the actual scourge of Christianity for 2000 years actually. The ability to take a plain, simple and clear message of peace, and twist it into whatever one wants.
There’s no ambiguity in the gospels. That one quote has long since been understood by scholars.
Bill Maher Talks about Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School & Monica Goodling
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFloSHzvuQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
“So we agree, you can take the words of Jesus (as written in the Bible) and come to different conclusions?”
No. That one passage you referred to is among Bible Scholars a commonly known defense for those like you who wish to pretend the Gospel was not clear, and open to interpretation. In fact it is the one common passage used by most neoconservatives to justify war and killing.
However in every lesson given by Christ throughout the 4 gospels we see a common thread. “love, compassion, mercy and faith”. These are the common threads that make up the teachings of Christ. An attorney I suppose might call that “precedent”.Since we have the precedent of these things we can leverage those in understanding that one, sole passage you refer to.
We know that Christ wasn’t suggesting severing your mother in two with a sword, so we’re left to interpret that one passage based on what he had said throughout the rest of the gospels. That and the fact that it was a common Hebrew Idiom referring to divisiveness (the sword). So the meaning of that one, sole passage is clear based on his consistent, unwavering message throughout the gospels.
“Before you come in with “that’s just playing a semantics game.” This IS about semantics”
Ok you really sound angry now. I’m not sure why and I doubt this well help, but please point to the sentence where I said anything about this being a “semantics game”.
30%er,
So we agree, you can take the words of Jesus (as written in the Bible) and come to different conclusions? You could almost even say that different “interpretations” of verses exist?
As fun as this was, I’m done. You’re going to be stuck in your “No True Scotsman” mode for the foreseeable future, and I can only point it out so many ways before getting bored.
Thank you Swathmore mom
“30%er,
O.k. time to show your work. Show me where Jesus defines what it means to be a Christian”
You sound angry. This is just a discussion, right?
Jesus never used the word Christian. Being a Christian means you follow (or as the dictionary you found says, profess to follow) the teachings of Christ.
And the teachings of Christ are found in one place and one place only in the bible. The 4 gospels.
30%er,
O.k. time to show your work. Show me where Jesus defines what it means to be a Christian. Just so we’re clear, I mean the word we’re talking about the definition of, the one with a C, two Is, etc. The thing is, I’m sure you can come up with lots of quotes about what it means to follow him, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t define Christian.
Before you come in with “that’s just playing a semantics game.” This IS about semantics, you started by trying to define the word Christian. My point is: You don’t get to define that word. Since it only dates back a little under 500 years, Jesus obviously didn’t define that word. Common usage defines that word, and common usage includes people who disagree with you in the Venn Diagram Circle labeled “Christian.”
This isn’t a theological discussion, it’s a etymology and linguistic one. The people whose job it is to know what words mean and why they mean that support my definition, not yours.
“So, let me ask you: Do you hate your Mother? Because it’s right there in Luke Jesus said that you need to hate your Mother or you can’t follow him. Or would you say that you need to read the rest of the context of the passage to correctly interpret what was meant”
I was wondering how long it’d take you to beat that old dead horse. Obviously he was not implying on using a sword on your mom. It was a Hebrew idiom that was quite common that addresses the divisiveness in families where some members accept the gospel, and some do not.
Now, find me another.
“According to my quick survey of dictionaries, the majority have some variation of the following (from Merriam Webster, emphasis mine):
1 a : one who PROFESSES belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Just because they don’t agree with your idea of what it means to be a Christian doesn’t mean they’re not Christian”
Once again its not “my idea” of being Christian. Christ spelled that out in the 4 Gospels. All one has to do is read.