Worthy News: Religious Broadcaster Pat Robertson Predicts Horrific Ter

[forrestkc]

To the issue of ministers like Pat Roberson living in wealth, as long as they got the money legally, I have no problem with them. There is nothing in the Bible saying it is sinful to have money. As to who supports them, if it is poor people, they do so of their own free will. There is nothing wrong with having investments, in gold mines or whatever. You have no proof that the only reason Roberson supported Taylor was because of personal gain. That is mere speculation.

As far as his so-called hatemongering, I don't see it that way. I see him standing up against sin, and I am in full agreement with him in those areas. I support organizations like the Christian Coalition, and groups like the Moral Majority. Frankly, I don't care what the world thinks of me or these Christian leaders for standing up for what is right. We were warned to be more concerned when the world loves us rather than hates us. The world will love messengers that give them ear-tickling messages about the love of Jesus, and how that everyone will be welcomed into heaven if they will only believe, even if they are living in an immoral lifestyle. The most liberal people love Billy Graham, because he presents a gospel message that requires nothing but believe. Never mind that the devils also believe and tremble, yet they are not going to be saved. His son Franklin is not as popular because at least he says that Jesus is the only way, and stands against cult religions.

In reality, I don't watch any of the tv evangelists today or send money to them. The reason is because there is none that I agree with their doctrine enough to support. During the 80s I used to support Jimmy Swaggart, and still would if his message were the same as it was back then, but his sins have effected him, and his doctrine has changed. I don't condone the things he did, but God's forgiveness is there for everyone, and I could get past that, but not at the expense of doctrinal truth.

Unlike you, I am far more concerned with ministers standing up against sin, and preaching the truth, than I am how much the church grows in numbers. Getting people on a church roll won't save their souls. If we preach a watered down gospel where we accept everyone, no matter how vile their lifestyle is, we are doing them no favors, because they will simply feel good about themselves as they continue down the broad road to eternal damnation. No, I refuse to attack Pat Roberson or any other minister for what you call hatemongering.

There is nothing wrong with wealth and prospertity. Look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, two of the richest men the world has ever known, and both of them are giving billions to fight aids in africa and help the poor.

My point was not to attact being wealthy. My point was that what is wrong is using Christianity to build personal wealth and prospertity. It's fine to get rich off of investments, but its another thing entirely to get rich of off the tithing of others. Which is exactly what guys like Robertson have done.

[forrestkc]

I don't think some of you guys get it. You say, "look at how many people guys like Pat Robertson have lead to God". What you don't get though is how many people they turn away from God. Most agnostics are not agnostic because of culture, many are agnostic because they are good and conscionable people, and they face the see of Christianity is guys like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other living the life of luxury powrer hungry televangelists.

These people see guys like Pat Robertson and they think that if Christianity means living a palatial luxury the backs of donations sent in by the poor and elderly, supporting African Dictators simply because you have millions invested with them, using religion as tool to gain political power, hatemongering, and war mongering, then they don't want any part of it.

The fact is, there is a direct correlation between the rise of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their associated political groups, and the decline and stagnation of Church Membership in America. They have unfortunately become the face of Christianity to many people, and because of that they have painted Christianity as something as vile to many decent and conscionable people.

Its a huge problem for us as Christians. Do you not realize that the only really growing Churches in America today are the ones that have zero affiliation with these types of guys, specifically, the Catholics and the groups like the Unitarians (and the Unitarians are note even Christian). You would think that would be a wake up call. There is nothing Christian at all about their version of Christianity. Where in the Gospels of Christ does one find justification for living a palatial life of luxury off of selling religion? That is exactly what they do. They live like royalty off of the contributions of the poor and elderly and then for the show of it, they occasionally throw a few dollars at some tax shelter aid program they set up. That is not Christian. It isn't even conscionable. Where in the Gospels of Christ does one find justification for using Christianity as a tool for political gain and gaining power and influence? That is exactly what they do. For them, Christanity is nothing but a tool to divide and cconquer To find their culture war whipping post of the day, what ever brings in the contributions. That is not Christian. It isn't even conscionable and until as Christians we solidly rebuke their greedy and divisive version of Christianity, we will continue to see them drive more and more good and decent people away from God. They don't represent the teachings of Christ, so why are we not standing up and telling the world that we are Christian and people like Pat Robertson do not represent us or our faith.

The moral majority rose as a response to secular humanisms invasion of Government. The moral majority (and like groups) are not the cause of it.

The road to hell was paved with good intentions. You let men use religion to gain money and power, and they will use religion to gain money and power. We have seen it happen for 2000 years now. You talk to a few agnostics, and just about every one will tell you they are not Christian for the exact reasons I gave. If you honestly think that church membership is declining because of things like the Ten Commandments not being in court rooms, then you don't have a clue. Our problem is not our faith, it is those who claim to represent it.

Many times I have talked to my agnostic friends about my faith, and every time I end up spending most of my time explaining to them that guys like Falwell and Robertson do not represent the beliefs and conscience of the vast majority of Christians. Thats the problem though, they see all Christians as being greedy, power hungry, and hatemongering men like Falwell and Robertson and they don't want any part of a faith that is like that. The thing is, its not, how could anyone read the Gospels and not see that those are the types of men that Jesus himself constantly chastized. Jesus was not a warmonger, he was not a hatemonger, he did not use religion for financial gain there is nothing even remotely similar between the lifestyles and rants of guys like Falwell and Robertson, and the life and teachings of Jesus. If as Christians we strive to live the life that Jesus called us to live in the Gospels, then we will never have to worry about declining church membership and growing agnosticism.

[Ovedya]

I don't think some of you guys get it. You say, "look at how many people guys like Pat Robertson have lead to God". What you don't get though is how many people they turn away from God. Most agnostics are not agnostic because of culture, many are agnostic because they are good and conscionable people, and they face the see of Christianity is guys like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other living the life of luxury powrer hungry televangelists.

These people see guys like Pat Robertson and they think that if Christianity means living a palatial luxury the backs of donations sent in by the poor and elderly, supporting African Dictators simply because you have millions invested with them, using religion as tool to gain political power, hatemongering, and war mongering, then they don't want any part of it.

The fact is, there is a direct correlation between the rise of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their associated political groups, and the decline and stagnation of Church Membership in America. They have unfortunately become the face of Christianity to many people, and because of that they have painted Christianity as something as vile to many decent and conscionable people.

Its a huge problem for us as Christians. Do you not realize that the only really growing Churches in America today are the ones that have zero affiliation with these types of guys, specifically, the Catholics and the groups like the Unitarians (and the Unitarians are note even Christian). You would think that would be a wake up call. There is nothing Christian at all about their version of Christianity. Where in the Gospels of Christ does one find justification for living a palatial life of luxury off of selling religion? That is exactly what they do. They live like royalty off of the contributions of the poor and elderly and then for the show of it, they occasionally throw a few dollars at some tax shelter aid program they set up. That is not Christian. It isn't even conscionable. Where in the Gospels of Christ does one find justification for using Christianity as a tool for political gain and gaining power and influence? That is exactly what they do. For them, Christanity is nothing but a tool to divide and cconquer To find their culture war whipping post of the day, what ever brings in the contributions. That is not Christian. It isn't even conscionable and until as Christians we solidly rebuke their greedy and divisive version of Christianity, we will continue to see them drive more and more good and decent people away from God. They don't represent the teachings of Christ, so why are we not standing up and telling the world that we are Christian and people like Pat Robertson do not represent us or our faith.

The moral majority rose as a response to secular humanisms invasion of Government. The moral majority (and like groups) are not the cause of it.

The road to hell was paved with good intentions. You let men use religion to gain money and power, and they will use religion to gain money and power. We have seen it happen for 2000 years now. You talk to a few agnostics, and just about every one will tell you they are not Christian for the exact reasons I gave. If you honestly think that church membership is declining because of things like the Ten Commandments not being in court rooms, then you don't have a clue. Our problem is not our faith, it is those who claim to represent it.

Many times I have talked to my agnostic friends about my faith, and every time I end up spending most of my time explaining to them that guys like Falwell and Robertson do not represent the beliefs and conscience of the vast majority of Christians. Thats the problem though, they see all Christians as being greedy, power hungry, and hatemongering men like Falwell and Robertson and they don't want any part of a faith that is like that. The thing is, its not, how could anyone read the Gospels and not see that those are the types of men that Jesus himself constantly chastized. Jesus was not a warmonger, he was not a hatemonger, he did not use religion for financial gain there is nothing even remotely similar between the lifestyles and rants of guys like Falwell and Robertson, and the life and teachings of Jesus. If as Christians we strive to live the life that Jesus called us to live in the Gospels, then we will never have to worry about declining church membership and growing agnosticism.

Whew! Can't say I disagree with you there. The biggest danger in the church is believers' denial that there's anything wrong.

[forrestkc]

War monger? Defending our Counrty makes us a war monger. Should we fight any war, or just roll over and be conquered again and again? Wealth? There is nothing wrong with Christians being wealthy. I would be willing to guarantee you that Pat Robertson takes a drastically smaller cut of CBN's gross than you preacher takes of your churches Gross. It is established time and time again in scripture that God looks at percentages, not dollar amounts. Our small minds look at dollar amounts. Percentages is what God always dealt with. So, it is kind of weird that "rich Pat" takes less out of CBN than your pastor takes from his church. The average pastor of a small church takes 60%+ of church income. Large Church typically 20%.

Thats is just ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. However, its just plane blasphemy to someone claim that there is nothing wrong with becoming rich off of selling Christianity. If you want to live like a king, then you should seek out another profession other than being a pastor. Someone dies of starvation in this world every 2 seconds. Every million that Pat Robertson pockets out of the 700 Club is enough to prevent tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children from starving to death that otherwise would. God did not institute tithing to make pastors rich. That money is to help the less fortunate and spread the Good News.

I don't know what parish you go to, but the parish I go to is a very wealthy one. It is a medium size church that brings in well over 2 million a year. The majority of that money goes to various anti-poverty, community, and mission programs. Despite the huge amount of money our church brings in, our senior rector gets a middle class salary. That is the way it should be. Jesus did not suffer and die on the cross to create a get rich scheme for smooth talking pastors.

[David H.]

Have you ever prayed for someone and got an image or a word or a Scripture and shared it with the person? How do youknow that's the Lord speaking to you for the person or something that just popped into your head?

If you don't know as an absolute fact that it is from the Lord, then you shouldn't puff yourself up and say that it is. You should merely say this thought or flash came to you and do what you feel is best regarding it. Let others decide if it was from the Lord.

As for the story about Abraham pleading with God to change the destruction of Soddom, my point was that it didn't change the destruction of Soddom at all. The only thing in the Bible that has ever changed the outcome of God's predicted destruction or calamity is when the people who were going to be affected repented. Soddom didn't repent, so God saved the one righteous man (and his family) out of it and then destroyed it. He probably did it more as an act of Grace to Abraham than because of Lot's righteousness, but the point stands that there is not a single incident in the Bible where the destruction God predicted was turned away by someone praying against it -- only by those who were going to be affected repenting.

--David

[David H.]

These people see guys like Pat Robertson and they think that if Christianity means living a palatial luxury the backs of donations sent in by the poor and elderly, supporting African Dictators simply because you have millions invested with them, using religion as tool to gain political power, hatemongering, and war mongering, then they don't want any part of it.

It is people like that in Ghandi's life that kept him from becoming a Christian. He liked the truth he heard in Jesus, hated the way he saw it play out in supposedly Christian cultures.

The fact is, there is a direct correlation between the rise of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their associated political groups, and the decline and stagnation of Church Membership in America.

I think that would be hard to prove or justify as a statement, since their own churches are anything but stagnant, but I know what you are getting at, even if overreaching. They cause a backlash by their absurd behavior that definitely and needlessly stiffens the spine of many against Christianity. So, while they are bringing many into the faith by their strong evangelistic efforts, they are also turning many away from the faith by their needless and senseless bad behavior. The bad side of their behavior is very damaging to the faith. So, the church isn't stagnant in its growth, especially around them because of their very strong evangelistic effort, yet countless others come to DESPISE Christianity precisely because of these evangelist's greed for money, phoniness of predictions, etc.

Its a huge problem for us as Christians. Do you not realize that the only really growing Churches in America today are the ones that have zero affiliation with these types of guys

You don't help your cause by making statements that are untrue. The fastest growing churches in America are the Pentecostal churches, particulary Assemblies of God. They far outstrip the growth of Catholics. That doesn't make them right. Many things grow in America that are not right. Popularity is not a reliable gauge of truth. After all, Mormonism has probably grown faster than the AG church.

The point is that the notoriously bad behavior of these T.V. evangelists puts many people off, and the bad behavior will continue so long as it is rewarded, justified or excused. And it's not a little-bit bad. It's glaringly bad, turning off as many thousands as they bring in. The bringing in is good. The turning off is completely unnecessary.

Where in the Gospels of Christ does one find justification for using Christianity as a tool for political gain and gaining power and influence?

"Men of corrupt FLESH who preach godliness as a means to financial gain." For some that means preaching it for their own financial gain. For others it means preaching that, if you are godly, God will bless you financially. Both are equally "CORRUPT." The worldly smart ones combine both messages, flashing their Rolex watches so you can see how God has blessed them and will want to be blessed like that, too, by giving some of your money to their glorious work. Very, very, very sick. We are warned against it, not asked to MAKE EXCUSES for it or to JUSTIFY it on the grounds that they are bringing lots of people to God. Nor are we EVER asked to make excuses for their false prophecies.

--David

[forrestkc]

You don't help your cause by making statements that are untrue. The fastest growing churches in America are the Pentecostal churches, particulary Assemblies of God. They far outstrip the growth of Catholics. That doesn't make them right. Many things grow in America that are not right. Popularity is not a reliable gauge of truth. After all, Mormonism has probably grown faster than the AG church.

You are right, I forgot all about the Pentecostals. Charismatics are growing. However, by and large they are growing at the expense of other evangelical churches, not so much actually converting non-believers in the U.S. For example, evangelicals have been about 7% of the population since such studies have been conducted. Obviously, if Pentecostals were adding significant numbers of non-evangelicals or non-believers, this number would be growing as a percentage of the population. The number of protestants in general is in decline and will soon for the first time in our nation's history drop below 50% of the population. From 1990 to 2001, the number of Americans who identified themselves as Christian declined from 86% to 77%.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

[David H.]

Frankly, I don't care what the world thinks of me or these Christian leaders for standing up for what is right. We were warned to be more concerned when the world loves us rather than hates us.

This is the excuse Christians commonly use when they engender hatred because of their own bad behavior, rather than because of Christ.

The most liberal people love Billy Graham, because he presents a gospel message that requires nothing but believe. Never mind that the devils also believe and tremble, yet they are not going to be saved. His son Franklin is not as popular because at least he says that Jesus is the only way, and stands against cult religions.

Billy shows wisdom and humility; his son Franklin shows arrogance. Jesus never judged other religions. He never once criticized Rome for its idols. Neither did Paul, though the idols bothered him. In the end, all idols and false beliefs will be torn down; but you didn't see Paul tearing any other religions down. He tears down false ideas that are growing WITHIN the Church, but never outside of the Church. When God asks his OWN people to tear down idols, that is entirely different. The Father disciplines the son he delights in. He is working with his own. If Franklin had the guts you say he has, he would be tearing down the idols of greed among television evangelists, rather than raling against other religions. That would cost him something because many of his own people would turn against him. It's easy to stand inside the camp and yell "dirty dogs" at the people on the other side of the wall. Let's see him stand in the middle of Saudi Arabia and proclaim the same message.

Hats off to Billy for keeping himself from overindulging in the wanton corruption of televangelists with their extravogant wealth, their frequently false prophecies IN GOD'S NAME, and their self-righteous grandstanding against the morals of people who are not even inside the fold. (You don't see Jesus or Paul doing that either, and there was plenty of wanton immorality in Rome, enough to make your ear hairs curl, worse than in the U.S.) They kept their message on curbing the immorality OF THEIR OWN FOLLOWERS.

As hr. jr. has said,

God appointed the Christian to be the judge of his own life.

We are not to judge people outside of the fold. Paul, on the other hand, had no problem holding people accountable for the blatant evils inside the fold. The members of the church do have a responsibility to make sure that things like the sexual sins of the Catholic priests don't happen -- the the extent that they are aware of them. Had those who knew what was happening been stronger in standing against it, it may never have gotten to the extremely damaging level it did. There is nothing wrong with holding very public people accountable to practising what they preach. We cannot judge the heart or guess at someone's deeper motives, but there are some evils that are blatant -- that require no judgment of the heart, for they are overtly wrong and done in people's faces in the name of God. We're not asked to tolerate that. Those same leaders in the Church have no problem standing inside the fold and preaching against the immorality of the masses outside of the fold, so they should have no problem with their own immorality being attacked. If they're throwing stones at other people's glass houses, I'm not going to feel too sorry for them if someone throws a stone at theirs.

Judge who you listen to and what you do. Church leadership and Church leadership alone was given the discipline of ministers job, not the body.

That, of course, is exactly the thinking that got the Catholic Church into its jam in America. The only ones with power to correct the wrongs were those inside the power circle that needed correction. External criticism is perfectly appropriate and beneficial.

Let us take Swaggart again. Even after he began to live in secret adultery, did he lead souls to God? The answer is a resounding YES.

There you go. So long as you're leading souls to God, your sins should be ignored by anyone who is aware of them.

I guess those people should burn in hell because Swaggarts life was not right.

A stupid response. Burning in hell is exactly what might happen to them if no one holds them accountable and they keep spinning further and further into their own corruption. The idea of accountability can be abused and ferquently is by those who want to control others, but that doesn't mean it has no right place. The people who give to a charity (INCLUDING A MINISTRY) have every right to hold that charity accountable and its leadership accountable for their behavior. The ministry gets no special indulgences that would not be allowed to the Red Cross. When charities misbehave badly enough, they get publicly THUMPED. Those who give money are the stockholders, and they should hold their boards and presidents of those organizations accountable. The people you are talking about are the leaders of charitable non-profit organizations and they have no special dispensation for their behavior over the leaders of for-profit corporations. The stockholdhers must hold them to a standard of respectable behavior. If the board president of General Motors started doing a lot of public horing around and engaging in behavior that was bringing ridicule to GM, he'd be canned by his own board, and if that didn't happen, he'd get canned at the next shareholder's meeting. (With a non-profit the donors are the shareholders who have a right to safeguard their investment in the cause.)

--David

[Floatingaxe]

To the issue of ministers like Pat Roberson living in wealth, as long as they got the money legally, I have no problem with them. There is nothing in the Bible saying it is sinful to have money. As to who supports them, if it is poor people, they do so of their own free will. There is nothing wrong with having investments, in gold mines or whatever. You have no proof that the only reason Roberson supported Taylor was because of personal gain. That is mere speculation.

As far as his so-called hatemongering, I don't see it that way. I see him standing up against sin, and I am in full agreement with him in those areas. I support organizations like the Christian Coalition, and groups like the Moral Majority. Frankly, I don't care what the world thinks of me or these Christian leaders for standing up for what is right. We were warned to be more concerned when the world loves us rather than hates us. The world will love messengers that give them ear-tickling messages about the love of Jesus, and how that everyone will be welcomed into heaven if they will only believe, even if they are living in an immoral lifestyle. The most liberal people love Billy Graham, because he presents a gospel message that requires nothing but believe. Never mind that the devils also believe and tremble, yet they are not going to be saved. His son Franklin is not as popular because at least he says that Jesus is the only way, and stands against cult religions.

In reality, I don't watch any of the tv evangelists today or send money to them. The reason is because there is none that I agree with their doctrine enough to support. During the 80s I used to support Jimmy Swaggart, and still would if his message were the same as it was back then, but his sins have effected him, and his doctrine has changed. I don't condone the things he did, but God's forgiveness is there for everyone, and I could get past that, but not at the expense of doctrinal truth.

Unlike you, I am far more concerned with ministers standing up against sin, and preaching the truth, than I am how much the church grows in numbers. Getting people on a church roll won't save their souls. If we preach a watered down gospel where we accept everyone, no matter how vile their lifestyle is, we are doing them no favors, because they will simply feel good about themselves as they continue down the broad road to eternal damnation. No, I refuse to attack Pat Roberson or any other minister for what you call hatemongering.

There is nothing wrong with wealth and prospertity. Look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, two of the richest men the world has ever known, and both of them are giving billions to fight aids in africa and help the poor.

My point was not to attact being wealthy. My point was that what is wrong is using Christianity to build personal wealth and prospertity. It's fine to get rich off of investments, but its another thing entirely to get rich of off the tithing of others. Which is exactly what guys like Robertson have done.

What sin is that called? I fail to see how it is a sin for a spiritual leader to be a rich man if God is blessing him! If people actually tithe to his ministry, then good for him. Obviously there are vast numbers--should he tell them to not obey what they believe God is telling them? Can he help it if innumerable people send money to bless CBN or Regent University or Operation Blessing, etc?

God is in the blessing business. He blesses who he will. When you judge and curse His anointed, you receive zip! Obviously God is checking out hearts as he promises, and obedient ones get His gift of prosperity.

How do you know that Pat Robertson doesn't tithe or multiple-tithe himself, or give to the poor etc?! What foolish talk I am witnessing here.

[David H.]

You don't help your cause by making statements that are untrue. The fastest growing churches in America are the Pentecostal churches, particulary Assemblies of God. They far outstrip the growth of Catholics. That doesn't make them right. Many things grow in America that are not right. Popularity is not a reliable gauge of truth. After all, Mormonism has probably grown faster than the AG church.

You are right, I forgot all about the Pentecostals. Charismatics are growing. However, by and large they are growing at the expense of other evangelical churches, not so much actually converting non-believers in the U.S. For example, evangelicals have been about 7% of the population since such studies have been conducted. Obviously, if Pentecostals were adding significant numbers of non-evangelicals or non-believers, this number would be growing as a percentage of the population. The number of protestants in general is in decline and will soon for the first time in our nation's history drop below 50% of the population. From 1990 to 2001, the number of Americans who identified themselves as Christian declined from 86% to 77%.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Other than that, good posts, Forrest. Hold their feet to the fire. The roasting corns are good for them. The leaders of non-profit charities that are Christian have just as much need to be held accountable as the leaders of any other charity. Money is not ever given to charities to make their leaders rich, and percentages have nothing to do with it. Obviously, the smaller the organization, the greater the impact of the leader's salary. If you're too small you cannot even afford a leader with 100% of your donations and must operate only with volunteers. That doesn't have anything to do with the right of the public to hold non-profit organizations to high standards, ESPECIALLY IN THEIR LEADERSHIP, be they Christian organizations or not.