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.
Byron,
If only there was some earlier example of that happening, you know like a famous philosopher or something.
Also, I’m with AY.
Duh,
You and Bdaman are sure good friends. I suppose you and he can be as “one”.
I meant to say; sick to death above, but now that Ive seen the video and subsequent ones; I’m just speechless at someone him.
I wonder if Pat said anything like that to R. Gulliani after 9/11 when Pat endorsed his for President. Of course now Rudy is claiming 9/11 happened under Obama’s watch. It appears they really think Obama is the Anti Christ who made a pack with Haitians. Never mind; scratch that; men like them are unable to think.
Peace out
bdaman,
Did you know that Clapton was refered to as “god” among classic rock-and-rollers during the late 70s?
Duane and Greg Allman (of Allman Brothers Band fame) owned, at least partially, a bar in Daytona Beach named “The Wreck”. When Clapton was in town, he would frequent the bar. Clapton had a house in north Daytona (maybe Ormond Beach). I was there earlier on the night that Clapton’s bedroom caught fire.
Ahh, the good ol’ days before paparazzi.
Bryon,
You sure know how to stir up the stink pot with this one.
lol
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?
Gyges I immediately thought this when I read this.
I’ll be on my way. I think it’s very fitting for the discussion at hand.
Look as much as I’d like to keep responding to these questions I need to step into a meeting here shortly. I’ll try to log on later this evening and follow up with any further questions, however I will leave this thought for the blogger Mespo.
I spent a great deal of time last evening responding to your barrage of questions. In fact I spent several hours reviewing and answering them to the best of my ability. I anticipated either for you to address those responses but instead you simply and quite arbitrarily I might add, dismissed them with one sweeping paragraph condemning people of faith as effectively ‘duped’ and labeling me in a negative light.
I find this unusual given the fact that the first two of the scriptures you presented me with you misquoted. In fact the one, where you quote Jesus you actually cut the sentence in half.
You presented it as ““Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB) – Mespo”
However the actual verse is much different.
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
I cannot see how you could have done this as you literally had to dissect the sentence in order to present it as you did. It seems you purposely removed the portion that makes it clear Jesus was not presenting this as a commandment, but merely quoting from the Law of Moses. Of course I’m not saying you did, maybe it was a mistake. But I’m having a hard time understanding how you could have made such a mistake, given you appear to be fairly intelligent and well read thus I don’t see how one could look at a sentence and grab it, and leave out the beginning of it.
You present it as a commandment of Jesus, then insist I refute it. Yet it wasn’t a commandment, you edited it to make it appear to be one, and yet you label me the “bobber and weaver”.
It seems that if you’re going to misquote scripture to shore up your arguments that you might want to at least acknowledge it when someone calls you on it. Rather than simply arbitrarily dismiss their responses as “bobbing and weaving”.
Enough said. I’ll be back later this evening and I’ll try to answer whatever question anyone poses to me but please try to not barrage me with them and please, when you quote a scripture don’t edit it to make it appear to support your position and if you get caught doing so please at least acknowledge it rather than dismissing my responses. It took a lot of time to respond to you last night and I did so because I thought you were serious. Your response this morning was disheartening to say the least.
It is my understanding is that none of the reading of what is in the gospels or new testament for that matter were in existent at the time of Christs birth, death or even resurrection. -Anonymously Yours
Well think about what you’re saying. If someone writes your life story, do they follow you around with a notebook for 30 years jotting down every thing you do and say?
Or do they compile it at the end of your life from their experiences with you, or those who knew you and the things they heard you say?
Of course it wasn’t written during his life. That would make no sense.
30%er,
The word “Christian” is under 500 years old according to every dictionary I’ve checked. The Greek and Latin words are certainly older, and you won’t find me saying that they aren’t. Since this is a discussion about the meaning of the English Word Christian, I would think it’d be pretty clear that I was speaking of the approximate time the word Christian appeared in the English language.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
BTW I never said we should judge all Christians by the actions of Pat Robertson, I said you don’t get to exclude him because you don’t like him. Nice red-herring though.
Since you’re still stuck in “True Scotsman,” mode and much more interested in theology than the discussion I’d like to have, I’ll be on my way.
It is my understanding is that none of the reading of what is in the gospels or new testament for that matter were in existent at the time of Christs birth, death or even resurrection.
Also, less that 2% of the population could read. And less than .05% could write at that time. But then again those statistics are as good as the translation at the time.
A lot of the writing were still done in codes and hieroglyphs.
What is interesting to me is from the age of 12/13 to 25 where did this Jesus go? It is believe that he may have gone to India. Which was a real possibility at the time as they taught a hierarchical metaphysics, which was incomparable at the time.
Now the word Christ. Greek Khristos
The word is often misunderstood to be the surname of Jesus due to the numerous mentions of Jesus Christ in the Christian Bible. The word is in fact used as a title, hence its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning The Anointed One, Jesus. Followers of Jesus became known as Christians because they believed that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah, prophesied about in the Tanakh (which Christians term the Old Testament). The majority of Jews reject this claim and are still waiting for Christ to come (see Jewish Messiah). Most Christians now wait for the Second Coming of Christ when they believe he will fulfill the rest of the Messianic prophecy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ
Also Mike S., has very salient points.
Mike Spindell 1, January 15, 2010 at 10:02 am
“30%’er,
I’ve followed your counter punching through the entire thread with fascination. To me you win with a TKO. I’m especially impressed by your sourcing of the Gospels as the word of Jesus. Many don’t get that distinction. Also your continuing point throughout your writing that just because bad people call themselves Christian, doesn’t mean that they are really following Jesus teachings, is well taken. The problem with people like Bill Maher and Dawkins is they conflate much of their criticism and thereby show a lack real knowledge of what is actually written. I agree with you that Robertson doesn’t represent Christianity and is a con man because you would presume he really has the knowledge of the Gospels.
There is another explanation for his decidely un-Christian attitude and that is that like many Christian Preachers today he diminishes the Gospels by casting Jesus as the avenger from The Book of Revelations, which is probably the most suspect part of the Christian canon. As an outsider it who has nevertheless read the Christian Scriptures I find
this a confounding trend, whose explanation is this is how the State has used Christianity to justify its’ excesses. The short form of this is that Robertson may be quite familiar with scripture, but reads it in light of his own prejudice and personal greed.”
Thank you Mike. I appreciate your comments.
Your possible explanation is well taken, however there’s one error with it that I can see and that is the core of course of my position, i.e. that Jesus’ words appear in the 4 Gospels and not in any other portion of the canonized Bible. Thus what John The Revelator said is not particularly binding in any way as far as being a Christian.
A lot of the arguments have centered around other books in the New Testament and I think its important to point out at this point that when the Gospel’s were written there was no “Bible”. These passages that some people turn to to insist that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (not you mind you) omits the simple fact that when they were written, there was no Bible.
Hence they could not be endorsing the remainder of a book that didn’t yet exist and that they had no knowledge of.
The original definition of Christian was “follower of Christ”. In order to follow Christ one needs to first know what Christ’s instructions are. And the only place those instructions can be found is in the Gospel’s of Matthew, Mark Luke and John.
The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars ‘Q’ (from German: Quelle, meaning “source”). This view is known as the “Two-Source Hypothesis”. [11].John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.
* Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
I guess they must have been divinely inspired.
Sorry Mike S. but I see 30%’er as the classic bobber and weaver not a TKO specialist. The Bible is either the unerring word of the Creator or it’s not. If it is, it expressly sanctions slavery, sexual slavery, child killing, misogyny, and all manner of religious retribution. 30%’er promulgates the myth that words don’t mean what they say and context can make a word means its opposite. Sorry no sale here. Religionists all have the same flaw and the same burden: they allow that no evidence can falsity their beliefs. When one refuses to accept or even acknowledge contray evidence, their views should be weighed accordingly – Mespo
So now I’m a “bobber and weaver”?
It really seems like you and Gyges have a more personal stake here than a philosophical one. Your comments are more geared towards attacking the individual rather than addressing their words. Which is evident by the fact that this comment does not address any specifics I spelled out for you last night but instead labels me. Not my words.
Nothing I said did you address. Instead you simply label me with a negative connotation and summarize with a general vague assertion that people of faith are essentially fools and charlatans. At least that’s what we’d have to be in order to meet your definition of us. Perhaps if you tried addressing the myriad of facts I so carefully provided to your barrage of questions last night and stowed the generalizations and blanket dismissal of a few billion people, you might better understand whatever it is you’re trying to understand.
I answered your questions as carefully and honestly as I could.
Blanket generalizations and what appears to be prejudice against people of faith is not the response I anticipated.
“Unfortunately, nowhere in the definition of Christian do the words “in a manner approved by 30%er” or even “in a manner consistent with their original intent.” -Gyges
Well I never suggested such things. I’m providing you with the actual scriptures that define what it means to be Christian. Christ was the only one authorized to teach what a Christian ought to do or not do. And he spelled it out in the 4 Gospels (which are the most accurate of the scriptures we have since they reinforce each other) in no uncertain terms.
And he warned us that in the last days there would be many “wolves in sheeps clothing” that would pretend to follow him but for their own nefarious purposes.
And its clear to me that thats what Pat Robertson is. Not a true Christian. Not a true believer. A man who knows the scriptures, yet teaches something completely different.
By the way, a cornerstone of part of your argument was that the word “Christian” was only 500 years old. Were you planning on retracting that fallacy?
I corrected it last night but did not see a retraction.
“We all have to face the fact that as much as we want to define a group we belong to in a away that excludes people who we don’t want to be associated with, we generally don’t get to do that.” – Gyges
Really? So all black people are the same? They’re defined by the actions of the most vocal or visible among them?
You can’t lump all Christians under your umbrella no more than you can lump all Muslims under the terrorist umbrella.
“30%er,
That’s not me being hostile, that’s me being terse.
Just so we’re clear, I happen to agree with you about Pat and his ilk getting some of the message wrong. I just don’t think you get to distance yourself from them by declaring that they’re not Christians.” -Gyges
Well that’s some pretty disrespectful “terse”. There’s a pretty apparent interrogative almost mocking sort of bellicosity in your tone. When you present questions like “So, let me ask you: Do you hate your Mother?”, its difficult to see your questions as simply “terse”. However I shall do my best to answer them.
As to your claim that I am attempting to distance myself from Robertson by claiming he’s not a true Christian, I don’t need that to distance myself from him. I don’t mock dying people in Haiti by claiming they are dying because of some deal their ancestors made with the devil.
I think that’s sufficient to “distance” myself from him.
eniobob,
Point. Match Set Scored.
Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read
So how do you let your opponent win your argument for you? Let Rush open his mouth.
Edit, that should read: Unfortunately, nowhere in the definition of Christian do the words “in a manner approved by 30%er” or even “in a manner consistent with their original intent” come after the words “a follower of the teachings of Christ.”
30%er,
That’s not me being hostile, that’s me being terse.
Just so we’re clear, I happen to agree with you about Pat and his ilk getting some of the message wrong. I just don’t think you get to distance yourself from them by declaring that they’re not Christians. That’s just as much a fallacy as an atheist saying that Communist Russia wasn’t an atheist state because they worshiped the state in place of a god.
We all have to face the fact that as much as we want to define a group we belong to in a away that excludes people who we don’t want to be associated with, we generally don’t get to do that. That’s the whole basis of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The exception to which is if the group in question is by definition made up of individuals without whatever trait we’re seeking to exclude (No True Vegetarian Eats Meat). Unfortunately, nowhere in the definition of Christian do the words “in a manner approved by 30%er” or even “in a manner consistent with their original intent.” This is a linguistic discussion not a theological one.