We'll Trade You Pat Robertson for the Journalist

Well, it's been a long time since I've posted. I'm sorry if anyone was reading and was disappointed that I haven't continued. I had all of my wisdom teeth extracted and didn't feel like writing. So I'm kicking off the New Year a little late with another post on Pat Robertson.

In his statements on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson alludes to Ariel Sharon's stroke as being "divine punishment" from God for splitting up the holy land.

“The prophet Joel clearly says that there is enmity for those who –and I quote: “divide my country”. God feels this is His land. Read the Bible, where he says : “It is my land”. And regarding any Israeli Prime Minister who decides to divide it and give it away, God says : “No. It is mine”. Ariel Sharon was a very nice man, a person whose company was wonderful…I prayed with him in private. And now he is about to die. He was dividing God’s land and I would say: poor any Prime Minister who takes the same path to relieve the European Union, the United Nations and the United States of America. God said: “This land belongs to me. Leave it alone!”-The 700 Club, Pat Robertson.

I restate what I've said before, is there no better way to use network airtime than allow Pat on to damage foreign relations?

On another note, Jill Carroll, a 28 year-old freelance reporter for the Christian Science Monitor was captured by an Islamic terrorist group who threatens to execute her if the U.S. does not release all Iraqi female prisoners. Hopefully, an American Muslim advocacy group traveling to Iraq can secure her release. We wish them the best of luck.

A Response to The Don

Before I get into the philosophical discussion here let me tell you a little about how I stand as far as theology goes. I am NOT an atheist. I wish to clarify that since Don's chosen opposing viewpoint to his argument is atheism. I am not really an agnostic either though I generally claim to be whenever I am asked. My basic viewpoint is Not that God does not exist or that no one can know. I believe that God does exist. I just happen to believe He is not like what many people believe Him to be. More specifically I am against taking the Bible as absolute truth. This is where I pick up with disagreeing on the foundations of The Don's argument.

The Don's examples of negatives to the position q are as quoted:

"Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i.e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment."

Part one is incorrectly conceived since moral relativism is not the belief that right and wrong are indeterminate. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective morality. Therefore the only determinable right and wrong that exist to moral relativists is subjective. It does however make one blanket law: Any system of ethics, which claims to be absolute truth, is incorrect. For a moral relativist there is no absolute truth. They follow moral rules simply because they have chosen those as the ones they value. They can still view other systems as evil or opposed to their system especially the ones who believe there is an absolute truth. Also it does not follow that a person who is an atheist is a moral relativist. Atheists can believe that there is an objective morality even if they don't believe in God. For instance if an atheist believed it was always wrong to cause others who have not attacked him physical pain. Pain is an objective stimulus that one can observe. If this statement did not have the always in it then it might be made by a moral relativist but it does and it is based on objectivity and the reason that one should adhere to it to create a stable society of people who don't hurt each other. Believing in an objective without action is good and evil is against everything a Moral Relativist stands for.

It is incorrect to think that atheists do not have a higher purpose. They may not believe in God but they can believe in higher values (i.e. courage, honor, justice etc.) whether or not those values coincide with the morality of the Bible. In essence they can choose or create their purpose. I am a firm believer in creating one's own purpose in life even though I do not believe in atheism. In order to keep this point one would have to objectively prove that God's values are the highest values regardless of God's existence and only by following them can a person live a fulfilling life.

It is wrong to suppose that atheists lack hope. Just because one lacks faith in God does not mean one lacks faith in other things. I would think a person could have faith in their fellow human beings since not all are evil. Humanity having been around a long time should continue to exist for quite some time to come this could be a comforting thought. In order for it not to be one would have be a pessimist and think of humanity as mostly evil. Coping with death without God or by that means an afterlife is not a problem for the atheist since if you cease to exist at your death you have no need for benefits afterward. Also a person would need to fear nothing afterward since one will feel nothing. With this outlook the only thing that matters is what one does in life. I shall write more on the idea of humanity as good or evil later.

Part four the Pascallian wager is wonderful in demonstrating the benefits of believing in God. However, it does not tell us what sort of God we should believe in other than one should believe in a God who provides infinite benefits in the afterlife. There are many Christian denominations with variations in their beliefs. Which version of worshiping the one deity that can provide these great benefits is correct? It cannot answer that for us.

The Don goes on to attempt to establish that the one true morality is that which is found in the Bible. He does so in three ways the first he maintains that the Bible is logically consistent and contains no contradictions. I disagree with this completely since the Bible does indeed have contradictions. One of which is the following:

"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." 2 Sam 10:18

"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
1 Chron 19:18

This contradiction can of course be explained as an ERROR in transcription. There are other errors of this nature in the Bible. Although it may not be possible that God can make mistakes humans certainly can. The Bible carries the transcribed word of God not the uncorrupted word written down by His own hand. Now that I have shown that the Bible does indeed contain errors I will continue to attempt to show that it contains ones, which make it questionable as an only unquestionable source of truth.

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Isa 14:21

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16

This contradiction refers to the idea that children bear responsibility for the sins of their fathers. This causes a problem for the idea of original sin since if the second line is true then no one bears responsibility for the first sin of Adam but Adam himself. But if the first line is true then the second line false since something cannot be both true and false at the same time according to the law of noncontradiction. Another problem with the idea of original sin is that it relies on value being intrinsic. The idea that man is evil not by his acts but of his existence itself is unreasonable. Original sin proposes that evil can exist as a characteristic of something without a standard of value to judge it by. Therefore, it does not have a reason for why something is evil. According to original sin humanity just is evil.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephesians 2:8,9

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 2:24

This is a very obvious contradiction. One line rejects the idea of works as being a way to salvation the other does not. I believe these examples to be sufficient to show major philosophical and theological contradictions. If not I do have more examples that I will gladly provide.

The second argument given is that the empirical evidence supporting the argument is overwhelming. I would have liked Don to go into further detail explaining the cosmological and microbiological evidence. However, I will make do with the mere mention of them. I disagree with this argument since the fossil record gives a great deal of evidence to support that the Bible is incorrect about the time man has spent here on earth. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps are not any greater than the contradictions and errors I have shown to be in the Bible. It follows that it would be illogical to trust either the Bible or the fossil record as being unquestionable truth. Scientists are still questioning the fossil record today. New methods of DNA testing have shown that species thought to have once been related are not as close as appear and are in fact related to creatures of different sorts. Given its logical fallacies it would be logical read the Bible as valuable document of learning but not to view it as unquestionable infallible truth.

Continuing on this brings me to Don's third point that the Bible has experiential relevance. At the end of my last paragraph I do not completely disagree with this statement but continue that from the problems with the first two points it would be wise not to view its relevance as complete, unquestionable, or infallible.

I believe this satisfies the argument that Christianity cannot be seen as logically sustainable while viewing the Bible as the completely infallible truth. I hope my argument did not confuse anyone. If you have questions or comments please make them as I will be happy to answer.

Does the Antichrist Pay for Broadcast Time?

After publishing the post on Pat Robertson's comment a week or two ago I decided to look up some quotes of other things he has said. At this time I would like to retract what I said in my previous post and state that the 700 Club should be boycotted as long as he still appears on it. I consider him to be a very dangerous person to America if anyone watching his show starts believing in what he says. Below are some quotes I find particularly enlightening.

"We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over." - Pat Robertson a speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally

That’s right he wants to take over the country.

"We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA." - Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991

He is creating an army and infiltrating the political system. Before anyone calls me paranoid let me point out that these are actual things he has written or said. My personal estimate of this is his grasp is greater than his reach.

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." - Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993.

Pat is, in fact, correct. There is no mention of the words separation, church, and state in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. However, he most likely failed government in high school because it does state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This clearly means the government isn't supposed to make rules and laws which help establish or favor a particular religion.

"Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985

Didn't he at least forget Hindus and Buddhists? I'm not keen on having Islamic clerics in power myself but that’s because I'm not sure they'd uphold the Constitution any better than Pat.

"I never said that in my life ... I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that."
- Pat Robertson, Time magazine

Either he is a hypocrite or has a very poor memory, or maybe both.

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."" - Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 218

And here I thought America was supposed to be governed by the people in general when all along it was really Christian and Jewish people only.

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

That’s right according to Pat love isn't the same thing as being nice to people. So much for Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists in Pat's new government. I wonder who the Methodists think is the Antichrist?

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

There really isn't much I can say to this. I think the parts about "kill their children" and "destroy capitalism" speak for themselves.

"[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism -- everything that the Bible condemns." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, April 9, 1991

Wow. Not only do they teach about STDs and how to use a condom. According to Pat you can take classes on how to have sex with animals too.

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992

This is probably why Pat Robertson lost his campaign for the presidency. Half of America read this and didn't vote for him.

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993

I have it on good authority that the Nazis were equally ruthless in killing homosexuals and Jews.

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 1998

Way to state the obvious Pat. But I don't think not waving a flag is going to keep hurricanes from hitting Florida.

"I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it." - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, October 29, 1982

Well I guess I know whom to blame for canceling Halloween at my elementary school. Dear Trick-or-Treaters please send Pat's family all the candy you can afford to part with. I have a feeling his children need it badly.

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." - Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.

There are quite a few more quotes from Pat I could add but I'll spare the readers. This is too long already anyway. I think I'll call it a night and go round up some Christians for our local concentration camps and maybe test out my homemade gas chamber.

No Candy For You!

Several years ago I learned of a horrific event. The elementary school that I had attended and loved no longer allows the children to celebrate Halloween. On that day, the children are not allowed to wear their costumes to school and no party is held in celebration. The reason given for this is that a celebration takes up valuable time for teaching and preparing for SOLs. The other reason is that the school administration only allows three parties per school year and it had to choose when to celebrate. The current "holidays" are celebrated: Winter, Valentines Day, and Spring. I believe my recollection of that list is correct but the school may use different names for the same times of the year. It is worth noting that the celebration on Halloween was cancelled a few years before the limit on parties allowed per year was imposed. I have it on good authority that a large part of the reason for its cancellation was that a minority of parents felt that the holiday was promoting the practice of witchcraft and/or other satanic practices. The administration obviously did not feel that it was worthwhile to stand up for the majority of parents and students that felt differently. I am aware that when Halloween originated it did involve practices of the occult but since those two thousand years ago it has evolved into a much more fun and friendly holiday. The children in the schools do not care about Halloween's origins. They only care that it is a day on which they get to dress up, receive candy, and have fun. I know because I was one of them and the people who ended this celebration should have thought back to when they were children and asked one simple question. Which did I care more about then, witchcraft or candy? I realize that I am posting this far in advance of Halloween but with the approach of Easter or "Spring" holiday I find the need to comment on it. For the sake of political correctness and deference to those of other religions the Easter celebration and the one near Christmas were renamed even before the Halloween celebration was cancelled. I have no problem with this because we had plenty of paper cutout menorahs to go with the paper Christmas trees. I do believe that this is a bad sign that these celebrations could fall victim to attacks from individuals who believe that they are representative of religion in our public schools. I have no desire to see school children loose more of their few chances for parties. The school's claim that the five or six parties we had before these policies existed take valuable time away from teaching and SOL preparation is ridiculous. The teachers found it impossible to teach us on Halloween because our minds were occupied with what we would fill our bags with after class not because we were celebrating in class. As for the SOLs, I did fine without them and so did most of my elementary school class. For proof of this I have my diploma from high school and in two more years the one from my chosen University. Children have the right to have fun and I think these policies are snuffing it out bit by bit. My message goes to both the people who want to remove celebrations in schools because they promote the occult and the people who want remove them because they are associated with holidays they do not believe in. Leave our candy alone!

The Gospel of Thomas

I have taken an interest in these sayings since I watched the movie Stigmata. The Catholic church rejects many of these sayings which many scholars believe to be the written words of Jesus of Nazareth. http://www.gospelthomas.com/