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.
chris 1, January 15, 2010 at 1:12 am
I think you missed one and its one Im quite curious about. Mark 6:11.
Well I left that one out because it’s really not worth mentioning. Anyone who’s studied the New Testament at all should be familiar with the concept here.
Here’s the scripture;
-Mark 6:11 “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
Here we see Jesus giving instructions to his disciples on how to deal with a city which refuses their ministry.
Observe the last sentence. See the phrase “in the day of judgement”?
Christ makes it clear here he is referring to Judgment day which takes place after this world, not during it.
I will point out an irony in your query though.
Your questioning as well as Mespo’s on that scripture apparently is trying to determine whether or not Christ is warning of harsh physical retributions in this world, i.e. does the prediction have to do with this world.
Pontius Pilate used a similar line of questioning in trying to determine whether or not Jesus was a political insurrectionist.
Jesus was very clear to Pilate on that topic and his response to Pilate would be well applied to your query.
– John:18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
So we see plainly that Jesus is referring to after life results for failure to heed his message in this life. He is talking about the afterlife.
I guess I’m a little confused at how owning a slave is any different from what Pat Robertson does – Chris
Well that’s an easy one Chris.
That these slave owners you’re referring to may call themselves Christians does not mean they’re out selling Christianity to millions to make slaves of them. Unless of course you consider a voluntary meeting Usher being a slave. People can believe in Christianity and just be bad Christians.
But teaching it is another thing altogether. And teaching it by twisting it in order to bilk the masses out of their hard earned money and sell hate and war which is the opposite of the Gospel of Christ is just deplorable. What Robertson is doing is often referred to as “Priestcraft”, i.e leveraging piety for personal profit.
But in a nutshell and to answer your question, its one thing to be a bad person.
Its another thing to teach others to be one too.
KJV
I think you missed one and its one Im quite curious about. Mark 6:11.
Ok, I think I’ve answered all of your questions.
If you have more please only ask them one at a time if you don’t mind, and then wait for them to be answered. I only ask that as it is very time consuming and difficult to respond to so many questions asked at once.
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB) – Gee that doesn’t work either since every word comes from the Holy Spirit and no interpretation is needed.
Yeesh this religion stuff is hard 30%’er.
Maybe you can explain it to me.” – Mespo
Ok. Your final question. Here are the passages;
– 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.-
First, once again this is not Jesus talking. This is not part of his original gospel. This scripture is Peters death bed testimony, testifying to the world what he had witnessed and the surety of it. In it we see the one common thread he is referring to.
Prophecy.
Not scripture, as Jesus himself rebuked scripture as we saw with his argument on Corban.
Therefore we see its not as your implication suggests a blanket suggestion that all words come from God but that PROPHECY comes from God.
30%’er wants us to look only at the Gospels, because according to him, that’s where the law is. Stubbornly, Jesus doesn’t agree:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB) -mespo
Here you’re making a declaration about what I “want you to look at” however I said no such thing. I simply indicated that a Christian is a follower of Christ, and no where other than the 4 Gospels will you find the words of Christ. Hence if you want to follow Christ, you might want to start by learning his teachings.
Now to your scripture.
– Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
—
First the Law of Moses is something Jesus honored and nothing I nor any argument I’ve made suggested otherwise. It was the corruption of the Law of Moses that Jesus condemned. And that corruption is rampant throughout the Torah. The Pharisees along with the scribes, elders and the Sanhedrin after all were the guardians of the Torah. And the editors. Many of the Old Testament passages people use to attack religion were never part of the original Law of Moses, at least if Jesus was to be believed. The Law had been corrupted, and hence Jesus was providing his “new law” his “good news” (=Gospel) to the people even as he spoke this passage you refer to.
If you take the time to read the following chapters, you’ll see what the definition of “fulfill” is.
– Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. –
Here we see that Jesus is in the process of providing his “new commandments” or his “new law”. He references the 10 Commandments (the original Law of Moses) and updates the law. He takes it from the simple, thou shalt not kill to a more cerebral and humanistic level. Now its wrong to even approach the situation where you might want to harm someone. He takes it to a whole new level.
Then he proceeds to address the 10 commandments when he addresses adultery.
– Matt 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. –
Now here we see that not only does he elevate adultery to just lusting after a married woman, (that’s why I never look to long at my buddies wives:) but he demonstrates some of his typical allegorical narrative.
Obviously in 29 and 30 he does not mean for someone to cut off their hand or pluck out an eye. These are figurative terms (common in Hebrew culture) addressing the importance of abandoning sin and the habits and situations which invite it. When he’s being figurative its usually obvious, but some people do struggle with it.
Now in the next contiguous verse we see him step it up a notch and not just expand a commandment from the Law of Moses, but completely reverse it.
– Matt: 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
— 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Here we see Jesus actually reverse the Law of Moses’ decree on “an eye for an eye” and instead he introduces a higher law which if followed would lead to less contention and strife. Of course being in a legal blog I realize verse 40 is none too popular with the litigators, lol.
Anyway we see that Jesus continues on in this vein, introducing an incredibly pacifist ideology.
– Matt:5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
So we see Jesus did not instruct as you imply that the old Law of Moses should be followed but that HIS law, and HIS commandments should be followed. His law did not abolish the Law of Moses, it fulfilled it.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) – Mespsp
These two I’ll address together, and quickly since they don’t deserve much attention.
Perhaps you’re confused as to which books comprise the 4 Gospels. The quote of mine you’re responding to after all clearly indicates I am addressing the 4 Gospels and those alone.
Ephesians and Timothy are not part of the 4 Gospels, and Jesus’s words do not appear in them.
All I will say therefore on them is that the Apostles lived and grew up in a time when slavery was not considered an evil and was a given. Slaves however upon conversion were more and more demanding more rights and privileges and clearly the apostles were simply trying to keep the peace.
Its easy to sit back in the 21st century and mock ancient people who’s customs, morals and more’s are different from ours but the fact is this was a common way of life for these people and to criticize the author for merely trying to keep the peace seems a little reaching at best.
Before I continue to address the rest of the questions you posed I think its noteworthy to mention the irony here.
The very same way that you misquoted (not saying you did it on purpose but I’m having a difficult time figuring out how you could extract that quote without seeing the part where he points out he’s quoting Moses) Jesus in that last passage from Mark, by leaving out pertinent portions of it that completely change the meaning you’re trying to infer, ….is the exact same way the Evangelical Christian leaders like Pat Robertson misquote scriptures by paraphrasing or editing them for content, so that the actual meaning is obscured.
Of course if one is going to extract sentences partially intact, scriptures and passages without key portions then obviously its easy to argue that the scriptures are open for interpretation. They use this technique on Fox News all the time by misquoting people out of context or leaving out key portions of their statements which if included would change the meaning of the point they’re trying to make.
Anyway enough of that. I’ll see if I can address the rest of your questions. Please bear with me.
Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:
“Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB) – Mespo
Now with this one it really seems like you’re attempting to be disingenuous. You left out the first part of the scripture which had you included would have shown the readers that the quote you attributed to Jesus and presented in a commandment like fashion was in fact, simply Jesus quoting Moses.
Here is the actual scripture. It begins in verse 9.
— Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
So we see that Jesus wasn’t actually declaring that anyone cursing their father or mother should be killed or even should die. In fact, the term used was “the death” which refers to the second death in Hebrew tradition. Not physical death.
So we see that its not even a threat of physical death for errant children, but its not even a point Jesus is trying to make. He’s quoting Moses, to try to make a point to some stubborn and cunning Pharisees who were trying to trap him in his words (if you scroll up in the verse you’ll see it was the Pharisee’s he was addressing, and leveraging the Law of Moses against). Jesus often quoted ancient scriptures when debating the Pharisee’s and this was one of such times.
We see by the remainder of the passage that his argument had nothing to do with killing or even punishing with the second death, kids who were mean to their parents. His argument had to do with the Hebrew practice of “Corban”.
Jesus was using it as an example of how the Pharisee’s had corrupted the Laws of Moses to the point of invalidating many of them. Observe his closing argument.
– Mark 7:11 – But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
So we see Jesus was using the practice of Corban as an example to demonstrate how far the Pharisee’s and elders had corrupted the Law of Moses (the law which the Hebrews lived by).
“Yeesh this religion stuff is hard 30%’er.
Maybe you can explain it to me.”
There seems to be a lot of bellicosity here over this issue. It seems that its not sufficient to discuss it but to do so in a very disrespectful tone. I’m not sure why but I will try to answer your questions if I can. Try not to rocket fire them at me though. I’d rather not write a dissertation here and you’ve asked a lot of questions on a lot of different scriptures.
I’ll start by trying to address your first one.
You wrote this;
“Jesus said: “The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)”
—
Ok, first its important to include the entirety of the passages if there is a question as to the meaning. Otherwise how do we know the context of whats being said?
Now, looking at this passage you’re referring to what’s called a “Parable”. Christ was providing a Parable to Peter here. Parables are not meant to be interpreted literally. A parable is a way of likening a concept or idea unto something the listener can easily relate to.
Here we see that Peter actually asks Jesus to relate the Parable to him and those present.
Here’s the actual verse in its entirety. It starts in Luke, Chapter 12 verse 41.
—
Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
—
So we see this was not Jesus telling people that the will actually be beaten, but instead likening the judgement day unto the relationship between a servant and his master.
It was only a Parable and it was based on something the listeners could easily relate to, being the long standing bondage and indentured servitude laden upon the Hebrews for so very long.
How can you be a Christian and own a slave? Do the gospels allow that? You can’t steal money from people, as Pat Robertson does, but you are allowed to own slaves. I guess I’m a little confused at how owning a slave is any different from what Pat Robertson does.
“Well most of them owned slaves wouldn’t that also not make them Christians?”
I’m not sure of your reasoning there. I’m not seeing the connection. Christians owned slaves but owning a slave is not indicator of Christianity.
You know, Sarah Palin was asked by Glenn Beck today which of the founding fathers were here favorite. She replied “all of them”. In other words I was looking for something a little specific. Which of the founding fathers are you referring to?
Remember there were strong Deist trends with the founding fathers and many of them, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine were and are believed to have been Deists. So I’m trying to figure out which ones you’re referring to and what your question is regarding specifically.
30%’er:
“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.”
***************
Gee I got to the theology debate too late. 30% tells us the Gospels are full of “love, compassion, mercy and faith.” Let’s see:
Jesus said: “The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:
“Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)
How’d Jesus look upon those who rejected his teachings:
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” Mark 6:11 (KJV)
Not too compassionate there by JC what with all that city-wide destruction and beating and killing of kids and all. Maybe ol’ crazy Pat had a point after reading Mark.
But 30%’er tells us “no” so let’s look further in the New Testament. Surely slavery is rebuked!
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Well that crazy old Roman Paul was a convert anyway, so maybe he just doesn’t feel it like 30%’er does.
30%’er wants us to look only at the Gospels, because according to him, that’s where the law is. Stubbornly, Jesus doesn’t agree:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Obviously the problem is that I haven’t properly interpreted the damn thing. You really must know the correct scholarly interpretation as 30% tells us:
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
Gee that doesn’t work either since every word comes from the Holy Spirit and no interpretation is needed.
Yeesh this religion stuff is hard 30%’er.
Maybe you can explain it to me.
Well most of them owned slaves wouldn’t that also not make them Christians?
Which ones in specific?
30%er,
Do you believe that the founding fathers were Christians?
“Baptist domination is well known, I once spent a summer with a Baptist family and had, in the course of one summer, enough religion to last for 50 years. I still have a few years before I need to start attending church again.”
Lol, yea but if you’re a kid they do give candy at evening services.
Right before they start hollering at you.
Bdaman:
Baptist domination is well known, I once spent a summer with a Baptist family and had, in the course of one summer, enough religion to last for 50 years. I still have a few years before I need to start attending church again.
Just curious, I grew up Catholic, alter boy for many years but I was what I like to call a church goer and not a church doer.
Then there was a time where I drifted from the church and now my wife and I attend a Presbyterian church that meets at the local high school cafeteria.
I really never studied scripture but over the last two years I’ve read more and god has personally answered a prayer when I thought there wasn’t any hope. People can say what they want but there is no other explanation to how everything came together to answer my prayer. All I can tell you is that I offered it to him by saying, Lord you said in your word to cast all of my troubles on to you and you shall handle them. I told him about a paticular problem I was having and gave it up to him, told him that I expect it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ. I had never done that before and I was desperate for a solution to my problem.
Over the course of about thirty days many things came together and my problem was solved thru no real effort of my own.
It was a combination of things happening thru a few friends whom I had not seen in years who I reconnected with, I say by chance but it had to be god. It just doesn’t work the way it did naturally.
Anyways thats my story and I love to share it. I sometimes get the, well how come he doesn’t answer all your prayers then. I explain that he is the father and just like your father here on earth, did he give you everything every time you asked for it.