Robertson backs Giuliani

ll Minneapolis, MN — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:47:42 GMT

Ahhhhh, yes, Pat Robertson, sells his soul to try to make himself relevant. Sorry, Pat, no one is interested in what you think.

Robertson backs Giuliani

class Warrior, D.C. — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:50:18 GMT

National Embarassment and all around nutjob Robertson overlooks Julie's stance on issues important to the ayatollas of the teocratic right and endorses Rudy G. It may actually work for him if Robertson can keep his crazy mouth shut from here on out.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:50:21 GMT

Pat Robertson is the biggest nut in the bunch. Even McCain called him an agent of intolerance. This guy has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the neo-con agenda. I'd love to see that passage in the bible where Jesus says that judgment and killing one's enemies are part of his belief system. Oh wait that's right Jesus actually says the exact opposite. You are supposed to LOVE YOUR ENEMIES and NOT JUDGE.
Here is the exact quote from Matthew 5:43
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.'
44But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you,
45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The idiotic Chrisitians in this country are manipulated and abused by this man (which enables him to propagandize the whole lot into voting for the least Christian men on the planet George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani). An entire generation of what would be thoughtful citizens has been turned into fearful, judmental, and generally worthless human beings whom the rest of us will be paying for for ages to come.

Pat Roberston is so antithetical to the teachings of Jesus I wonder if he is anti-christ. It is obvious though that he manipulates people in a rather Machiavellian style, and is a war mongering SOB.

Robertson backs Giuliani

VL North Carolina — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:56:55 GMT

So the most "holier than thou" (Roberson) will sell his soul for a win..... this is what is wrong with the Social Conservatives {integrity}.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Marsha Tucker, Mt Vernon, MO — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:01:10 GMT

Pat Robertson! WHAT in the world are you thinking??? Born-again believers will NOT support the likes of Rudy who is pro-choice, pro-homosexual!!!

You are wrong! Better back up!

Robertson backs Giuliani

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:06:14 GMT

Well, that makes it official. The right wing is indeed selling out for perceived electibility.

Rudy as a social conservative? Has Robertson done any research at all on Giuliani? He favors gay rights, he is pro-choice - and let's not forget his marital woes and extra-marital affairs. But I guess the fact that he appears to stand in direct opposition with what the Christian Coalition believes can be overlooked if they think he can win.

So much for principles.

Robertson backs Giuliani

New American Fascist — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:06:26 GMT

9/11 is the flag and Pat Robertson, Moral majority etc., are the Bible.

All Hail the American Fascist Party's candidate.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:15:10 GMT

Post my comment

Robertson backs Giuliani

James Gormley, NY, NY — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:19:09 GMT

So basically, only DEMOCRATS are required to be social conservatives.

Is there ANY group more hypocritical than modern Republicans? I mean, in the whole world?

Robertson backs Giuliani

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:20:26 GMT

Robertson is now your typical christain consersatives who bascially talk out of both sides of their mouths. They are vehemently pro life but support an administration who lies about war which has led to slaughter of innocent lives, no problem with capital punishment, pushing theocracy down people's throats;ignoring seperation of church and state; and now supporting a so called moderate Giuliani who is supposedly pro-choice and equality for all. Call them snake oil salesmen, opportunist, sell-outs, hyprocrits, and claim they are moral/conservatives as they laugh all the way to the bank. Thanks to the ignorant sheep that flock to them resulting in the rest of us having to endure their delusions and hate speech.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Dot, Illinois — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:27:45 GMT

Strange bedfellows! Ah, Politics!

Robertson backs Giuliani

Amazed, Atlanta — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:30:54 GMT

Republicans, such hypocrits. Proving, they'll put their "religion" aside to retain political and by proxy FINANCIAL control. That's what this is about, people. MONEY. Good old fashioned hard cash. How can any republican claim to stand for "values" now. They are so dead in 2008.

Robertson backs Giuliani

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:31:20 GMT

Anybody The Ayatollah Robertson backs is DEFINITELY unfit to serve as President.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Casey — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:34:24 GMT

This coming from a guy who said 9/11 was caused because, "Americans had insulted God and lost the protection of heaven by allowing abortion and ``rampant Internet pornography.''"*

What a hypocrite.

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7057724,00.html

Robertson backs Giuliani

TEC-Spring-Tx — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:35:23 GMT

First read states "Robertson has made controversial statements in recent years about Muslims, as well as suggesting in 2006 that then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke as retribution from God for granting land to the Palestinians." Which is the least bazaar of his statements in recent years. Since Paul Weyrich backed Romney, there is truly a split amoung the Christians as to whom to support. Robertson truly represents the far out wing of the republican party and one should wonder what pay offs he expects in return for his support. The last thing we need is for a president to give Robertson his Armageddon.

Robertson backs Giuliani

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:39:49 GMT

As Pat Robertson is an apostate of the Bible so Gudy Riuliani is an apostate of the Constitution. Both of these birds prey on ignorant people. There is absolutely no news here. Ron Paul preys on no one. Vote Ron Paul for President.

Robertson backs Giuliani

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:46:42 GMT

Hey Desperate, GREAT COMMENTS, good observations about this group will get you no where though, they are an orthodoxy unto themselves. They are not a sect but a heresy. Money is king and electability now is the reason to endorse.
Do we need any other example that these people are worse than Nativists?

Robertson backs Giuliani

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:48:03 GMT

How do the cheerleaders like the ones on this blog sleaze their way out of this one?

Robertson backs Giuliani

--NSMSNBC — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:48:26 GMT

A VOTE FOR RUDY G. IS A VOTE FOR A TERRORIST!!!

It’s really not so outlandish if you think about it. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked the WTC buildings on 9/11 for the express purpose of striking fear and terror into the hearts of American ‘scum.’ R. Giuliani, through his campaign, seeks to scare the public about another terrorist attack enough to vote for him. A scared and fearful American public under Giuliani means the terrorists have won.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:03:51 GMT

To all the frequent posters out there note the absence of jerry. This kind of article is great for mainstream America because all of the repub nutjobs like jerry have a hard time defending one of their own when they are on the record as being insane.

People like Robertson are embarrassing when they get talked about. We need to mention them all the time. The semi-religious in this country who go to church as a social function and don't believe all this nonsense need to have pictures of Ayatollah Robertson (nice phrase J Merle) in their faces constantly. They will realize that he does not speak for them and then all that will be left in the republican party are the 20% legally insane Christian fundamentalists, and the 10% greedy corporate CEOs that currently make up the marriage of convenience which is the Republican voter block. A match made in heaven, the sheep and the dictatorial authoritarians.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Amy, Seattle — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:05:55 GMT

The way Rudy is promoting this is really tearing his meager credibility to shreds. I'm so much closer to committing to the "Rudy knew about 9/11 in advance" POV.

Robertson backs Giuliani

R.Merrell — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:08:30 GMT

The only reason Robertson backs Rudy G. and Conservatives are willing to hold their noses and support either one of them is because they have an "R" by their name, as in Republican. The Religious "Right" is all about politics and nothing about the "values" they supposedly hold so near and dear. Robertson and Rudy, a marriage of convenience and hypocrisy.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Cedric Tillman, Charlotte, NC — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:37:22 GMT

First the politics:

This is a fairly surprising, and nearly shocking endorsement, and emblematic of how willing some evangelicals are to sell themselves to Giuliani out of Hillary Hate. Your candidate, a truly compassionate conservative, should be Huckabee. But I guess because he dared suggest that some of this anti-immigration fervor had some elements of racism and because he's moderate enough to get 48% of the BLACK vote in Arkansas, something must be wrong with him. He's the minister in the race, remember! Look, I know there are more issues than gay marriage and abortion, and I think Christians should concern themselves like racial equality, the environment, and other clearly Christian ideals that conservatives seem to be unable to embrace. But when there's an alternative like Huckabee or even McCain and Robertson does this, it indicates that he's putting a Republican win ahead of principle, when his principles are much more Huckabee's than Giuliani's. Huckabee could win if evangelicals get on his bandwagon they got on Bush's. If the only reason you're voting for Giuliani is because you think Hill will be weak on nat'l defense, look at her recent Iran vote and her husband's track record. No, I don't agree w/ them on the controversial social issues, but I feel as safe w/ Hill, a closet Republican on Nat'l Defense, as I do w/ Giuliani. Basically I believe Hill and Giuliani are the same candidate on the social issues; their biggest difference seems to be on health care. Since I'm indifferent about socialized medicine, I may as well vote for the first woman if it comes down to these two.

and now for a brief treatise on Biblical theology:

I get soooo tired of seeing people take the little parts of the Bible that they feel excuse their sins and foibles and cite that as the whole picture. Read the whole Bible. Christ constantly talked about the validity of "the Law," i.e. the Old Testament, and condemned the Jews for not being able to abide by this part of the Bible where disobedience to parents, homosexuality, and premarital sex was all punishable by death. Remember "vengence is mine, I will repay" (Deut. 32:35, Romans 12:19) and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) Christ came so that we are no longer killed for such sins, but we are still to recognize their sinfulness. The "judge not, that ye be not judge" verse is the most abused verse in the Bible, and a limp-wristed interpretation of it has infected Christianity and helped lead to something called "liberal" churches. Read the verse in context, and read the following verse (Matt 7:1, 2) The verse simply means to say "don't call someone else out without acknowledging your own imperfections." Since nobody's perfect, this doesn't mean that nobody can say another person's wrong- only that that person should acknowledge that they have shortcomings too. The way people interpret this verse, you could never correct your kids and raise them properly, because you'd be "judging" them. Stop trying to make Christianity nice! It's not for everybody- some people can accept its restrictions, others can't- it's ok. Christ expected this. He knew that this religion would cause trouble: "Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law... And a man's foes shall be they of his own household (Matt. 10:34-35) So stop trying to make Christianity cool or palatable for those who hate it. We can proselytize in a nice way, but Jesus commanded the disciples to "shake the dust off your feet" (luke 9:5) of the towns where rejected his message, all of his message, and to not "cast your pearls before swine" (Matt. 7:6). Jesus ain't always nice! He has requirements for us, contrary to the natural bent of our hedonistic spirits.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Derek, San Francisco — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:40:46 GMT

It's amazing that Rudy is not insulted when Pat says 9/11 was caused by abortion and rampant internet pornography, but threw a hissy-fit when Ron Paul said it was caused by the foreign policy of this country. It's amazing sometimes how blind this country is. I suppose it's much more satisfying to lead a proto-fascist foreign policy built on a campaign of racism than to have a serious reevaluation of our nation's place in the world.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Dave, Tn — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:41:48 GMT

Pat Robertson is to Christian conservatives what Al Sharpton is to blacks. Both are TV personalities that don't really matter. Lesson of the story is nothing worth while comes out of New York. Not the media, Rudy or Hitlerly.

Robertson backs Giuliani

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:42:18 GMT

Hey Desperate,
The repubs are already there, the other 10% are the truly uneducated!

Robertson backs Giuliani

Jerry Stand-In — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:46:14 GMT

Hillary is a slut and Ted Kennedy was in a fatal car wreck 40 years ago.

Robertson backs Giuliani

God wants you to vote for Rudy — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:48:34 GMT

"I suppose it's much more satisfying to lead a proto-fascist foreign policy built on a campaign of racism than to have a serious reevaluation of our nation's place in the world."

Sounds like something an Islamo-fascist would say! STONE HIM!

Robertson backs Giuliani

Mike T., Detroit, MI — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:51:14 GMT

There is a minor factual error in the article. In 1988, Pat Robertson finished second in Iowa behind Bob Dole. George H.W. Bush came in third in Iowa that year.

Robertson backs Giuliani

clear-eyed athiest — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:54:22 GMT

I too noticed the deafening silence from Jerry. Since it appears more and more likely Rudy will be the republican's 'savior', how can they POSSIBLY attack Hillary - or any democrat who's running - about ANY issues of flip flopping, hypocracy, etc. in view of this?
For the record, while Guiliani DID bring down the crime rate in NYC, that's about the only thing he did for the city and that was due more to his police commissioner and not him anyway.
All of the vast improvements in our school system - and there have been many over the last few years - and, yes, even the lower taxes - have come ONLY under the administration of Michael Bloomberg. I rev'd property tax rebates each year for the last 5 and I've been a NY property owner for 16 years. How can Rudy run on a lower tax platform w/ that record?
Simple: He says it - He's god - You follow like sheep and believe
Wish Bloomberg would run against both Hillary and Rudy

Robertson backs Giuliani

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:07:08 GMT

Cedric Tillman, your opinions of the bible despite being laughable carry with them no logical conclusions (none of your defenses match your conclusions). Jesus teachings have been hijacked time and again throughout history by the same authoritarian nutbags for the same purpose (control). However, if you look at Jesus' actual quotes from the bible you'll find that Jesus was the most liberal person on the planet.

You say that liberal churches don't make sense. I say you are a fool or a Pharisee (you pick). Your whole interpretation of Christ is completely distorted. Jesus spoke out numerous times as to what you call the old law, which in reality refers to Leviticus (which is where the idiotic Christians take there marching orders on homosexuality and the eating of shellfish (oh by the way if you eat shrimp your going to hell)). Jesus refers to the old law with spite, and referred to the Jewish leaders as Pharisees on numerous occasions, this is why they crucified him.

For whatever nonsense you want to drudge up from the old testament to claim a vengeful Christ I point you to the central and overriding tenets of his teachings (THIS WAS SAID BY HIM AND IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION).
Mark 12:28-31
28One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?”
29Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;
30you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
31The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Eat it Cedric. As a Christian you have to believe that these are the literal words of GOD and Jesus Christ. And Jesus says that these two commandments are greater than all others. ‘LOVE THY NEIGHBORS,’ HOWS THAT FOR LIMPWRISTED.

Your welcome for the free lesson. Question, Why is it that non-believers always know more about Christ than Christians. Non-believers read the Bible and don't just accept foolish nonsense they hear from the likes of Pat Robertson, The Pope, or any other fake holy man anointed to do your thinking for you.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Class Warrior, D.C. — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:15:04 GMT

Desparate; did Jesus really say all those things? If so, "Ayatolla" Robertson would want to "take him out" Oh, wait..forget it...
clear-eyed atheist; although I disagree with much of what you say, you're right in saying Julie-G has no room to gas on about flip-flopping or hypocrisy now.

Robertson backs Giuliani

David M, Nashville TN — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:23:13 GMT

After voting 50 years as a Republican, I voted Democratic in the last election because I knew we couldn't stand four more years of war, but we are unfortunately. Now I see the best qualified candidate with the best plans to return America to its greatness with all the virtues Christians could ever hope for, and even Democrats would rather have than what we do now. I speak of RON PAUL, but who does Robertson decide on - the one that breaks all the rules that Robertson should care about. WOW! This is one time we should run the other way from his choices.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:27:52 GMT

Pat Robertson is so full of hate for Hillary Clinton, that he sells out Mike Huckabee, arguably the logical choice for evangelicals, and chooses a man with the morals of a junkyard dog, a flip flopper, on his third marriage (one of those to a cousin), and a host of characteristics not thought of as representing the morals of the "family values" voters. Well there is no surprise here, as John McCain so clearly called him, the 'Agent of Intolerance' Robertson...long ago chose gold over God. The endorsement of the totally flawed and failed Guiliani is 100% to be expected from a man equally flawed and failed.

Robertson backs Giuliani

MK,MO — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:34:38 GMT

false prophets endorsing the anti-christ (rudy),
doesn't this mean 'end of days' ?

Robertson backs Giuliani

bb — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:37:25 GMT

There is quiet from Jerry because he is currently making up his new anti-Clilnton, hate spewing nonsense. Or then again, maybe he's getting a colonoscopy.

Robertson backs Giuliani

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:49:31 GMT

bb-thanks for the laugh!

Robertson backs Giuliani

Rick, WS, NC — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:04:56 GMT

Pat Robertson and the 700 person club...christian crackheads

Robertson backs Giuliani

William D Berg, Rockport, Tenn — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:29:45 GMT

Woo hoo!!!

Go Rudy!!!

Check him out here:
http://www.joinrudy20008.com

Chat about him here:
http://www.rudygiulianiforum.com

Robertson backs Giuliani

Zayas, NJ — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:30:18 GMT

Well... It doesn't mattter who will be in office in 08, because that person will find that the US dollar is still dropping in value, we will still be losing our fighting men and women in Iraq, which Bush cannot fix and, believe, Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office--expect gas prices to go through the roof! So, you see, Pat Robertson doesn't need to support Rudy, he has his man already in the white house.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:43:02 GMT

Hillary is a slut and Ted Kennedy was in a fatal car wreck 40 years ago.
Jerry Stand-In (Sent Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:46 PM)

Out of curiosity, how exactly is this "appropriate" language? I'm shaking my head here because, to me, it is completely uncalled for to refer to a former First Lady and U.S. Senator as a slut. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:55:43 GMT

Hillary is a slut and Ted Kennedy was in a fatal car wreck 40 years ago.
Jerry Stand-In (Sent Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:46 PM)

Carrie, Jerry Stand in was joking, making fun of the regular jerry who usually posts on the first read blogs, but has refrained from posting on this blog because he is afraid of defending his boy Pat Robertson. No one thinks Hillary is a slut, besides of course jerry who is a completely vile Repub who lacks common sense and is generally a wingnut blinded by his fear of what he doesn't know (which you could fill a small galaxy with what he doesn't know). He's a troll and a puppet and frequently posts under differnt names to agree with himself. He's a dork.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Gary, Franklin, WI — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:11:51 GMT

Concerning the Pat Robertson endorsement, Guiliana commented:

“Having him aboard gives us a great deal of confidence,” Giuliani said. “He has tremendous insights into what the main issues are and how they can be dealt with, his advice is invaluable and his friendship even more invaluable.”

Sounds a lot like the Bush/Cheney relationship . . .

Time to book your November 2008 airline tickets out of the U.S., just in case!

Were Giuliani to win with Robertson at his side only jerry corpus christi texas, Dick Cheney, a handful of right-wing idiots, al-Qaeda sleeper cells, and illegal immigrants would likely remain in the U.S.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Lee Holmes — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:17:24 GMT

This is of no more import than are the American Nazis[literally,Nazis. They are National Socialists], who are backing Ron Paul.[David Duke is falling in behind Paul on his website]. I do not see Rons supporters getting worked up over this odd development.

Also see:

www.stormfront.org [White supremacist website advocating Pauls election].

Robertson backs Giuliani

zayas, nj — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:40:22 GMT

Lee Holmes--it's not working.

Robertson backs Giuliani

MK,MO — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:07:57 GMT

Lee Holmes / 'This is of no more import than are the American Nazis[literally,Nazis. They are National Socialists], who are backing Ron Paul.[David Duke is falling in behind Paul on his website]. I do not see Rons supporters getting worked up over this odd development.'

I don't believe mr. paul either condones or requested that particular endorsement, that being said it is hardly comparable, all the candidates have some rather un-savory backers that they would rather not have

Robertson backs Giuliani

Cedric Tillman, Charlotte, NC — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:25:12 GMT

To all:

Forgive me for interjecting a Bible discussion into this message board. By doing so, I got myself into an argument I did not want to get into- it's just I'm so tired of seeing the same viewpoints here on religious topics without an average, orthodox view being interjected. I know this thing is supposed to be about Robertson and Giuliani only, and I will try to govern myself better going forward. I only hope that others, esp. those who post outrageous or uninformed opinions, will pay us all that same courtesy.

Having said all that, Wow- "desperate" sounds pretty well, desperate. He does not address the quotations I cite, spoken by Christ, which don't fit his "nice Jesus" theory. Why can't you agree to disagree w/ Christ? The Bible, and Christ, are very detailed, complex entities. I certainly do not disagree at all with what Christ says in these verses- I only mean to say that ALL of what He says is as valid as what you cite. The verses you cite are 100 percent right, and I agree with ever word of them- kudos to you for citing them. Christ is love, but love is not turning your eye away from wrong. The Bible says, for instance, that a parent who doesn't discipline his child "hates his son." The Apostle Paul writes that a Christian who does not go to his Christian brother and point out an error is doing that person a grave disservice. God is not love alone. He is judgement, and vengeance, and love and generosity and patience. Complex- not just the way you'd like him to be.

Just because someone doesn't like the point you make doesn't make it invalid. I have tried to be specific about a couple of places where Christ talked "tough," and I think those areas should be addressed in a response, rather than making a general, blanket condemnation which makes no argumentative point. Christ condemned the Pharisees and most of the Jews as a whole because the "the law and the prophets" predicted his coming, and how he would come, and they ignored all the signs. Christ came and died for all sin because God in his mercy knew how difficult the law was to live by. But because the "wages of sin is death," someone holy had to die, in the example of all the animals Jews had to sacrifice according the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus when they sinned. Just because the OT seems harsh to us doesn't mean God didn't punish the Jews when they didn't obey it (see all the times in the OT the Jews get overrun by foreign invaders because of turning away from God.) The Bible also says "The Lord chaseneth those he loveth." Judging others, in a fair and responsible way, is actually part of loving someone. Just be willing to judge yourself. I by no means am perfect, God (and loved ones and friends) know this, but I do believe that the Bible is a guide, and with it I can decide to be as perfect or imperfect as I choose to be. By the way, read Christ's words at Matt 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill." So certainly Christ never condemns all that harsh OT stuff, after all his Father had dictated it all to Moses- but Christ's coming was simply the dawn of an age of grace, where you didn't have to do all of that sacrificing and stuff or get killed for sinning. And he came to "fulfill the law," that is, the OT, by coming and making truth of all of the OT prophecies.

I hate when people call something that's clearly espoused by the Bible "conservative" or "liberal." How about just "right," or "moral?" (this is for people who use the Bible as a moral compass, if you don't that's fine, i'm speaking of Christians here) God is not left or right- men have just assigned certain issues to certain sides. I think "liberal" issues like the environment and global warming ought to be part of the "Christian" platform just like the controversial stuff. Right and good, as best as we can decipher it, should be the Christian platform- not what one should be able to get away with under our Constitution, which is to me what liberals constantly fight for.

As for misuse of Bible verses, Afr. Amers. like myself know that verses have been misused for evil purposes and for the convenience of oppressors. I don't believe and I hope others, esp. those brave enough to espouse controversial views and still use their own names on message boards, will agree that I've not twisted anything for my own purposes. I only make the point that there's stuff in the Bible that doesn't fit a simpleminded, non-controversial view of what Christianity is. I embrace it for all it is- its judgement and laws, its love and goodness, its harshness and chance for redemption.

One that "desperate" said is somewhat true: Christians are too ignorant of their holy book. We need to know it better. I thank God I've read the Bible so much in my life that I don't need to have any "holy man" interpret it for me, as was suggested. I often turn to my wife in church having heard a preacher twist a verse into something its not and tell her that's not what it says. But "desperate" is desperate and simply cherry picking. It's clear to me in his/her opinions that a holistic understading of the entire Bible, not just the stuff he/she finds agreeable, is severely lacking.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Cedric Tillman, NC — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:27:05 GMT

I agree w/ Coy above... my point exactly.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Wilson, Seattle — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:29:45 GMT

A "hopeful vision for America"????
Will someone explain how "vote for me because I'll bomb anyone with shifty eyes" is hopeful? Rudy's campaign is based on fear, everyone knows it. Wow.

Robertson backs Giuliani

nuanced — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:44:44 GMT

Pat Robertson is angling to be head of the faith based initiative so he can funnel more money to his Operation Blessing. Bush gave him a windfall of millions of dollars when he prominently listed Operation Blessing on the Katrina relief website and excluded traditional secular relief organizations.

Here is a report on past dealings.
"Far from the media's gaze, Robertson has used the tax-exempt, nonprofit Operation Blessing as a front for his shadowy financial schemes, while exerting his influence within the GOP to cover his tracks. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing's planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire's then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko."

Robertson also liked another murderous dictator:

"In 1999 he signed an $8 million agreement with Liberian tyrant Charles Taylor that guaranteed Robertson's Freedom Gold Ltd.--an offshore company registered to the same address as his Christian Broadcasting Network--mining rights in Liberia, and gave Taylor a 10 percent stake in the company. When the United States intervened in Liberia in 2003, forcing Taylor and the Al Qaeda operatives he was harboring to flee, Robertson accused President Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country."

Supporting another tyrant for money?

"one month before midterm elections--Robertson pocketed $500,000 in government grants to Operation Blessing. Since then, with the sole exception of his criticism of the US intervention in Liberia, Robertson has served as a willing surrogate for the Administration."

Robertson backs Giuliani

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:58:53 GMT

I often turn to my wife in church having heard a preacher twist a verse into something its not and tell her that's not what it says.
Cedric Tillman, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:25 PM)

The Bible, like any other piece of literature, is subject to interpretation. What you perceive as it being "twisted" by your preacher may be the preacher's honest reading of that passage.

I was fortunate enough to take many religion classes taught by a rabbi who was beyond familiar with the Old Testament. When he quoted passages, he did so from his Hebrew copy, and always pointed out the differences in the translations. For example, what we have come to accept in the English translation as the first few words of Genesis (In the beginning) are actually not the first few words in the Hebrew version, which is "With the first principle..." Does it mean the same thing? My professor thought not. I'm sure there are many who would think he has "twisted" the meaning of the verse.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Jeremy Montoya — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:10:31 GMT

A vote for the far right is a vote and a victory for the terrorists.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:40:31 GMT

Cedric, great post. You are certainly not one of the ignorant Christians and your knowledge of the bible seems sound. I'm not a Christian, I just like to use the fact that I've read the bible and know Christ's actual words to point out all the hypocrisy among the religious right.
I don't need to cherry pick the bible because I think it is a bunch of garbage, and I'm not trying to prove it to be true.
I try and keep the character of Jesus untarnished from a book which includes some of the worst concepts ever (old testament) and the other book which has been edited so many times it begins to lose meaning or value (new testament).
I like people who speak about big ideas, for that reason I think Martin Luther King Jr. was a far more enlightened moral philosopher than Jesus. Read some King and listen to his discourses on Agape to hear the actual words of a great man (which were inspired from an understanding of Christ's message which is identical to mine).
Far from complex, the Bible and religion are worthless, contradictory entities that keep their followers from real moral development and enlightenment. All religion does this to an extent, but nowhere has it become so apparent as in the brainwashing of the religious right.
As for a holistic understanding of the bible, again I don't care to have one (though I have read it front to back). It is a terrible book, which has historically accounted for more bloodshed than any other ideology (though the Koran is gaining in bodycount).
If the bible were useful it would have a holistic message, or at least one that was consistent and not so contradictory. Since it isn't intended to be helpful and is simply a method of control (as is the Koran) it is quite nice to find other literature which does help one in their moral and spiritual understanding.
Why would you spend time at a church where you don't agree with the preacher and can obviously see him twisting what you believe to be the word of God? My father marched us out of church in the middle of service for doing the same thing as well as for making my sister cry. The truth is that the bible is a story written by people to control other people. God exists everywhere except in churches and the hearts of religious men.
Of course I am only replying to your post, but in reference to this thread Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and all of the other religious quackery in the United States have cast God out of their religions and churches, and that’s why Jesus’ words should be used against them.

As for your continual insistance that I am desperate or in a bad state of mind. Don't worry, I'm engaged, finished a graduate degree, have a job, and a home. To the contrary, the thing I am desperate about is not personal, but refers to a general belief that "good men" have done little to stop the rise of the radical right, and thusly, our country and the society I will raise my children in has suffered.

Robertson backs Giuliani

John S. Alexander,Edinboro, PA — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:59:21 GMT

Who is that Jerry stand in, he made me bust a gut.
If you want to see the real Jerry he is in the last thread about illegal immigration.
Wow, good debate about religion, I took a religion class, loved the buddist and zen stuff, I learned a lot. Perhaps we should look for those candidates who are interested in all the religions, they preach the same thing in the end, love thy fellow man and help them, no need for a reward, it is just the best thing to do in the end.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:04:09 GMT

Cedric, I do want to stress that I think I initially misjudged you and that you are not the ignorant Christian I thought you to be, but in reference to your last post you cite Matthew 5:17. This is an obvious reference to the fortelling of the messiah.

You need look no further than a few lines down to Matthew 5:21 to know what Jesus thought of Leviticus. He was prefacing what he though of Leviticus with what you said and then says what he feels a few lines down. If you are unaware "you have heard it was said to people long ago" is direct reference to Leviticus. Leviticus argues that eye for an eye is a just law (Christ was against this) and also Leviticus advocates in the same scripture the philosophy of 'love thy neighbor'. Christ split these two completely different laws apart and was outward and obvious about which one he professed.
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

In this one scripture the love thy neighbor philosophy truly grows by Jesus' definition. Not only can you not kill your neighbor, you can't bomb him, hit him, or even dislike him. This is the Agape that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote volumes about. What Christ did in explaining what he meant served as a direct refutation of the pharisees who practiced and preached the Jewish dogma found in Leviticus. Dogma and all religious rules have nothing to do with following Christ, and are only a distraction from the actual good tenets that he popularized.

Robertson backs Giuliani

Nick L, Elizabethtown,KY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:11:29 GMT

Oh well, you just lost my potential vote Giuliani!! Having support from Religious psychopaths like Robertson will hurt not help? Pat Robertson is a self righteous hating dinosaur and no one has any respect for a man that said 9/11 was our fault. It's ironic and telling that Rudy would seek out this endorsment in the first place??

Robertson backs Giuliani

Cedric, Charlotte NC — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:23:56 GMT

Carrie:

You make a very valid point. Obviously translation can be difficult, and it's generally accepted that there are some NT verses translated from the Greek that didn't get the full sense of words in Greek at times, and this is the case w/ the Hebrew of the OT in some spots, including some passages in Kings (or Chronicles perhaps?) where the size of armies seem to be impossibly large. We Christians do place a lot of trust in the folks that translated the Bible. I happen to believe that their mistakes were just honest mistakes, and not motivated by ulterior, doctrinal motives. When I read the Bible (obviously i'm biased,) but I never get the sense that these dudes who took on a labor of love by candlelight were trying to trick me into believing certain things, or that they were smart enough to project down the road and interpret things incorrectly for their own impure designs. But I can't know for sure- just a belief. What you cite is interesting, and it'd be interesting to research how & why that Hebrew became our "in the beginning...".

@ Desperate:

I appreciate your comments. Obviously I cannot say I agree with many of them, but I'm used to this- fortunately I work with a atheist I used to argue everyday until we were both reprimanded, and I went to grad school in DC, for creative writing no less, so you can imagine that crowd (I love ya'll, if ya'll ever read this.) Point being I've been where you and I are with many others: an impasse.

Just to address a couple things: I have attended churches where I may disagree with the interpretation of a verse, but honestly it's rare that this ever happens. I could never attend a church where a pastor regularly changed the literal meaning of verses to fit a point he/she was trying to make. As Carrie points out, interpretations can lead to different conclusions sometimes. But my opinion is that the Bible is very plainly written and I just find myself confused as to how some Christians come to certain conclusions about certain verses. With the exception of the Book of Revelations, which clearly uses figurative language to presage future literal events, I think the Bible should always, always be taken literally and plainly. When it isn't taken that way, you get what has weakened the church in my view= seemingly hundreds of denominations. I give you one example- Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions because of a verse in Leviticus (I believe its Leviticus) where the Law stipulates that one may not "take in" or consume blood (basically that all meats must be thoroughly cooked.) Somehow, this became an idea that we can't have blood transfusions. If I sound intolerant of nonliteral interpretations, its because I am. Believers can't decide on their own that something must mean something else simply because it sounds unpleasant to them. I just think you believe in your religion or you don't, but don't change the words of your Holy book to fit your purposes.

Which brings me to the next point- I'm glad you clarified where you stand on the Bible. I was under the impression that I was arguing with a Christian, having a "intrafaith" dispute with a fellow believer. My beef is really not with atheists, or agnostics, but with Christians, because I believe the increasing infatuation with liberalizing Christianity waters down the faith. I think today's Christians are tired of being unpopular, of being unliked, and they want to be accepted, so they compromise their beliefs. They want their pews to be filled on Sunday, so they preach an overconciliatory "Gospel" which does not show all sides of the Biblical God or Christ. But I think you might agree w/ me that this is not a fight that's fruitful to have with someone who largely discredits the text I cite as evidence for my argument (though like you, I mostly use Christ's own words.)

There is no doubt that the tone of the NT is much less harsh than that of the OT, but I think for Christians the OT is illustrative of how demanding the God is that we believe in. It makes us appreciate Christ that much more, that all those laws are no longer so gravely punishable, and that Christ came as an ultimate sacrifice. And in a sense, it shows God's love for us, that he basically seems to have reconsidered the system he'd laid out for being obedient because of how hard it was to follow, completely abolished it, and sent Jesus to die instead of the animal sacrifices. This whole idea, that God changes his mind, and did so several times in the OT, is rather fascinating to me. I don't pretend to have everything figured out, but there are many things I'm pretty sure about. In short, for me the NT w/o the OT, and vice versa, is out of proper context. I accept it all for what it is.

Finally, I think what has caused so much death is not religion, but the erroneous interpretation of religious texts. Even the Koran, which I read in a Islam class as an undergrad, is not anything like some who haven't read it would imagine. It's just that adherents take stuff to an nutty extreme. (btw, I also took Hinduism in undergrad, and that's one religion one could never get aggression out of...the Bhagavad(sp) Gita is completely unoffensive, and the Sutras are, well, awesome) For instance, the Koran commands Muslims to let Jews live among them in peace; Muhammad calls Jews "people of the Book," meaning the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible, which Muslims consider to be their second holiest collection of scripture. Do Middle Eastern Muslims heed these words? And the Catholics with their Inquisition and persecution of Protestants & Jews-this is all indefensible radicalism and cruelty, which gives religion a bad name, and understandably so. But I would encourage those on the fence about such issues to delve into these religions themselves, and not to let the most radical folk turn them off of something that so many millions of people take comfort in and has bettered the lives of many more millions, I would argue, than it's cost in blood and war. No real God would never want people converted at the point of a sword. We have free will, we are not automatons, and we are free to not do what Christians believe God would have us do. I simply argue, as Christ does in our very same Matt 5 (verses 29-30), that there are consequences for our decisions, from the Christian point of view:

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.

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.

Ugh! After all this arguing I think I shall using my right hand to pour a bit of the Ketel One under my sink into a cup, and mix it w/ a bit of Cranberry Juice. After all, Jesus drank wine- all things in moderation you know. Now, if I were to get behind the wheel of a car after having too much to drink and hurt or kill someone, I might consider severing that hand, lest I be tempted to lift another bottle and commit that sin again. But it's late and I gotta go to work-the wife and I have read the little one a bedtime story, so I 'spect no one's in danger, and it'll just help me sleep well.

Yours truly, until the next argument-

Cedric

Robertson backs Giuliani

Lee Holmes — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:10:45 GMT

MK: Nor does Guiliani condone the draconianism of the fundementalist wing of the ''moral majority''. The mans pro-choice and pro-gay positions are more impeccable than any of those coming from Robertson.[who becomes a useful foil,to be disgarded,like African Americans with Democrats,after the election].

nuanced: You will be reminded that the chief backers of Sese Seko and Taylor were Democrats,to a man-woman,all from the Black Congressional Caucus and pushed for funding of the two brutal regimes from 1994-present.

Also see:

The Black Agenda Report: ''A Tale Of Two Genocides: Sudan and Congo'' www.blackagendareport.com

Robertson backs Giuliani

Cameron, Atlanta, GA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:02:41 GMT

It amazes me. These hate filled blogs. You seem to scream at how morally bankrupt Rudy and/or Republicans are and site the bible to back the vitreal up. Who is filled with hate then? As a conservative myself, who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, not a CEO (nor even rich), who does not need the Bible to know that Robertson is a nut, I have to say that pragmatism occurs in all facets of life. Some battles need to be fought...and others don't. So Pat, the nutjob, backs Rudy. He (as do I) have serious doubts about any one else beating Hillary. So he makes a pragmatic choice for wanting a Republican to win. Don't we all want our favorite candidate or party to win? Don't you all want Hillary to win? or Obama? If some nut job who politically worked in their favor backed them...wouldn't ya'll just chalk it all to politics and understand this? The answer is yes. Does Hillary scare the bejesus out of me? Absolutely. And it's my right to feel that way...but it certainly doesn't mean I hate all Dems. Most of my friends fall into that camp. But all of you writing here today just seem to writhe in agony at the idea that some of us out here still consider themselves Republican, even though we're not thrilled with our current leader. We want change too. And for many of us...Rudy seems a viable choice given what we have. Actually I really like Huckabee. I also think he would be shredded alive by Hillary. I'm crossing my fingers he'll be a VP though. So see, it IS possible to post an opinion without belittling the oppositions view and mischaracterizing the whole lot.

Robertson backs Giuliani

nuanced — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:28:54 GMT

nuanced: You will be reminded that the chief backers of Sese Seko and Taylor were Democrats,to a man-woman,all from the Black Congressional Caucus and pushed for funding of the two brutal regimes from 1994-present. -Lee Holmes

-- thanks Lee, I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me. I am not a fan of that caucus. Many of their positions have been narrowly focused on special interests instead of the good of the country.