Reason 1,937 why I want nothing to do with Christianity: Pat Robertson on Haiti's Disaster

I'll just link to what Bruce over at Restless Wanderings said.

13 comments:

busterggi said...

Of course those Haitians were evil what with wanting not to be slaves as the bible commanded them to be.

What a dick.

Ryan Peter said...

Check out the Naked Pastor's apt response to this...

http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/4500

Brad Haggard said...

Ugh, I can't argue with you here, only point to more thoughtful Christians who have looked at the evidence.

http://www.blackandchristian.com/articles/academy/gelin-10-05.shtml

Mark Plus said...

Contrast Haiti with nearby Cuba, which has an atheistic communist government. Cuba leaves a lot to desire, but Castro's government values the lives of its mostly poor citizens, making an effort to provide them with food and health care even after the fall of the Soviet Union cut off a major source of income and supplies. The Cuban government even tries to move people out of harm's way during hurricanes, a task the Bush Administration didn't want to bother with for poor American citizens in New Orleans before hurricane Katrina.

Cuba also has a considerably higher per capita GDP than Haiti. So I have to ask: Why has god punished the satanic Haitians while leaving a nearby country run by atheists in relatively better shape?

Double A said...

Pat's basic point is that the Haitian people need to turn to God. Pat believes in God, so why wouldn't he say that? I don't think he would tell you that, had the Haitian people turned to God prior to the quake, that the quake would not have happened. I do acknowledge Pat is using this tragedy to speak to the need for God in people's lives. But you guys put a magnifying glass on that and act like he's some sort of freak. Did you notice he was raising funds to help the Haitians ..errr ...???

Greg said...

Whatever Pat's basic point might have been, he used sub-slumber party witch tales to make it, and used his fat well-fed and pancake-make-uped scamster face to condemn a population that are wading in death right this moment.

So Christlike.

And I would image there were significantly more sincerely religious people in Haiti who died suffering viciously than there were in the 700 Club studio.

intropy said...

Oh, how I love Pat Robertson. He brings to the forefront beliefs which modern Christianity would prefer to sweep under the rug.

Witness how Robertson is a pariah even in Christian circles; they are falling over themselves to denounce his statement. Putting aside any argument about the historical accuracy of this supposed 'pact with the devil', I find it interesting that the vast majority of Christians I speak with seem so ready to dismiss Robertson's claim outright.

After all, Christians of the Bible-believing ilk accept that God punished Sodom & Gomorrah, Midian, etc. Therefore, if there is any truth to this 'pact', it seems quite possible that, from a Christian standpoint, Haiti's plight could in fact be the result of God's punishment.

To me, this is a good example of the cognitive dissonance plaguing modern Christians. Old-school, Bible-believing, (mostly-)theologically-consistent Christianity is dead, at least in the minds of most adherents. And rightly so, since if it is not dead yet, it will be defeated by superior skeptical arguments.

Glenn said...

ssume, John, that given your theological education you will be keen to correct the lickes of intropy. We couldn't have dishonesty in the rnaks, after all. ;)

intropy said...

Don't expect John to fight your battles for you. By all means, "correct" me. You may find I'm more well-versed in Christian theology than you expect.

Glenn said...

as a rule (time is precious after all), I only go out of my way to correct someobne if they have tried to defend a claim first. Merely making comments about what Christinity teaches but which modern Christians want to hide / sweep under the carpet doesn't really count.

You're an example of someone who prompts the comment to John: Atheists, police your own.

intropy said...

So if I have made no claims, exactly what were you hoping to correct? You imply that I have misrepresented Christian theology and yet after two replies you have yet to state any objections.

Glenn said...

Intropy, not all silly statements deserve careful corrections.

Yous aid that all that Pat did was to present the aspects of Christian theology thatthe rest of us like to sweep under the carpet. You made absolutely no effort to defend this, you just put it out there and expected people to take it seriously. It's moments like this when I expect John looks at the comments section and goes "oh crap, now Ive got fellow skeptics making US look like cranks when I was trying to make THEM look like cranks!"

You can imagine that your claims are well enough constructed to warrant a careful dismantling effort. My approach is just to laugh at them. Honestly, they're not important enough for anything more.

intropy said...

Did you expect a dissertation? This is the comment section of an atheist blog. I don't believe that my claims warrant a careful treatment, but they certainly warrant more respect than you have shown. At least after three replies you have finally managed to address what I wrote, rather than just condescend and make vague accusations.

To state my point more clearly: I observe, of mainstream Christians in America, a lack of theological consistency. There is a disconnect between their dogmatic beliefs and their willingness to apply those beliefs to current events. What brought this to my attention was the rapid dismissal of Robertson's comments. This is merely an observation and does not need any particular defense.

However, I believe this is indicative of a larger, progressive trend in Christianity. Difficult beliefs are being marginalized while Christianity absorbs more modern sentiments. The irony of this transition is that while it makes Christianity more palatable, it undermines the theological basis. Taken to the extreme, Universalism and annihilationism are a good example; they are, in my opinion, much less defensible assuming Biblical inerrancy, but more amenable to modern tastes.

This is quite a strong claim and certainly requiring defense, but surely you do not expect for me to go to great lengths here.