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.
Yes, we were Baptists. Why?
Sunday school in a paticular domination?
None other than maybe I paid attention better in Sunday School than most.
Chris thanks for asking the questions, ThirtyPercenter thanks for the lesson. Try and keep it going.
Thirty, If I may ask, what is the backround of your biblical education?
“Thats my point though. They both believe what they are doing and that it is what their religion calls for.” – Chris
Well I get that that’s your point. That just happens to be where our beliefs diverge. I do not believe Pat Robertson “believes in what he’s doing”. In fact it would be impossible for a man as well versed in the bible as he is to believe that what he’s doing has anything to do with the Gospel of Christ, when he’s preaching hate, war and teaching people to be compassion-less to their fellow man.
Your brain is binary. It cannot possess two thoughts concurrently that are in direct opposition to themselves. You cannot think “yes” and “no” simultaneously. At least that’s what the brain surgeons tell us.
Therefore it would be impossible for Pat Robertson to know the 4 Gospels as well as he does, and believe that what he’s preaching is from them.
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. – Gyges
Actually Gyge’s I’ve been meaning to get back to you on this one but I got sidetracked by the flood of questions.
I’m not sure who told you that the word “Christian” is only 500 years old but that’s false. The word dates back to around the time of Christ and is derived from the Greek “christianos” which literally means “Followers of Christ”.
In fact, the word itself appears in the New Testament as early as “The Acts of the Apostles”. In Acts 11:26 we first see the word used by the people of Antioch (Herod’s old stomping grounds) to define the followers of Christ.
— And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. — ACTS 11:26
And lets not forget Herod’s (Agrippa II) famous line to (thought everyone knew this one) Paul;
— “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” —
The words been around for at least close to 2000 years.
Thats my point though. They both believe what they are doing and that it is what their religion calls for. But this will be my last post. Thank you for being civil.
jimm: Your comments on Robertson are not very loving.
Skyhook:
@ 1, January 14, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Irrelevant to my point which is that this business about the judgment of God (or the gods even) has been a common understanding in western civilization for 2000 years plus. And particularly common in America for three centuries in the framework of the Biblical worldview.
The point is, Jefferson believed that a god, any god, could corporately punish a “people”.
Just like Pat Robertson.
“You can’t have it both ways. Bin Laden believes in oppression, preaches hate instead of love and war instead of peace. Yet he still a muslim but his beliefs are sick and twisted.”
I’m not trying to have it both ways. As I clearly pointed out Bin Laden appears to believe his religion. There are calls in the Koran for killing “infidels” (you and me). And since he lives in squalor its clear there is no “gain” for him here. Other than complying with his warped religious beliefs.
Robertson as I also clearly pointed out several times now knows the bible inside and out. And he knows what it says in the 4 Gospels.
And he knows what he’s preachin, ain’t it.
“So then Bin Laden isn’t using religion for gain? Or you believe that he is in line with the teachings of Islam.”
Well once again I wasn’t making a case about Bin Ladens piety or lack thereof nor am I very familiar with Islam so my opinion in that area is limited. But since you are insistent that I do comment on Bin Laden I’d have to say Bin Laden appears to believe that his religion calls him to do these things. That doesn’t make him any better than Robertson mind you in the belief area. What sort of person embraces a religion that he thinks condones murder?
But he lives in caves, running for his life knowing we are just a step or two behind him ultimately, and he likely lives in squalor.
Those are tokens of religious conviction, whether or not the religion is any good.
Same goes for Robertson. He is a Christian, but his beliefs are sick and twisted.
You can’t have it both ways. Bin Laden believes in oppression, preaches hate instead of love and war instead of peace. Yet he still a muslim but his beliefs are sick and twisted.
“Does anything in the gospels provide for the crusades? Pretty sure they were Christians.”
Good question. No nothing in the gospels provides for the crusades. Once again we come to whether or not these people were Christians, or simply pretended to be to accomplish their own nefarious deeds. Most Christians, Catholics included revere Constantine as a great Christian leader when in fact he wasn’t even a Christian, nor did he actually believe in it. Rome was a religious melting pot and he needed an “official state religion” that would quiet and appease the masses. Christianity was one of many religions on the rise. This one however taught the people several key points that were important to Constantine.
1. That the people were “blessed” when they were poor.
2. That it was good to suffer
3. That one should respect and pay tribute to the government
4. That it is wrong to revolt physically against ones government (Christ’s kingdom was not of this world).
So he invents this “vision” he has on the battlefield and the early predecessor of the redneck flocked to him. Thus in one felt swoop, Constantine managed to take a thriving religion and turn it into something that Christ never taught nor intended.
Charlemagne, Innocent, Gregory, were also men who used religion to control the masses and fatten their own pockets in doing so.
So then Bin Laden isn’t using religion for gain? Or you believe that he is in line with the teachings of Islam.
Those are the actions of a charlatan and a con artist, or as Doctor Carl Sagan would call him, a “bamboozler”.
The actions he takes on a daily basis, i.e. preaching hate instead of love, war instead of peace, and robbing people of their money to increase his own wealth are inconsistent with the Christian gospel and thus in order to do them on a regular basis, these purposeful and willful acts demonstrate someone who uses religion for gain rather than actually being religious.
Does anything in the gospels provide for the crusades? Pretty sure they were Christians.
“How then would he prove himself as religious?”
Well, one good way to start would be to start practicing and preaching the religion he claims to represent, wouldn’t it?
Another good way would to be to not rob the poor for their donations and tithes to line his own pockets.
How then would he prove himself as religious? Because there have been many people over the course of history who have done horrible things and were Christians. The fact that he is a bad person does not mean he isn’t a Christian.
Well at least he’s consistent, because he also blamed the US for 9/11.
He needs to get a tattoo to remind him not to blame victims for natural disasters. Like one of Job’s self-righteous friends, “this is all your fault you sinner”, its only a tragedy when its personal, but not for someone else.
Not to mention the fact that something like a pact with the devil is basically impossible to prove, and if anything the french revolution and the likes of Napoleon were far more satanic than whatever happened in Haiti.